thought u guys might interested.

they bascially said that in a straight line the RSX-S is faster but in the twisties they thought the GT-S had the edge, but I'm sure a few mods will fix that. I think they had a 0-60 time of something like 7.03 for RSX-S and 7.2 somethin or another for the GT-S. Can't remember the exact #s.

 

Although I loathe and distrust Motor Trend, it doesn't surprise me in the least that the GT-S would be more capable in the twisties. It's 300 lbs lighter, and the type-S doen't have the edge of a superb double wishbone front suspension like the Integra does.

I hate to say it, but if I were looking into buying one of those cars right now I'd get the GT-S.

 

i dont know, Ive driven both the GT-S and a new RSX-S.. and I have to say I think the RSX-S is tighter. Course its been a few months since I drove the Celica. What were the numbers of the lateral G of these 2 cars from this motor trend article?

Notice I didnt even comment on the new Eclipse GT. POS

 

In the 11/01 issue of Road & Track there is a test featuring both cars.

Celica GT-S: 0.79g

RSX Type-S: 0.82g

The Type-S also has a higher slalom speed.

I must admit that I have spent a lot more time behind the wheel of a GT-S than a Type-S, but to me the Celica feels more like an Integra than the RSX does. I prefer the Celica's quicker responses, and I don't like that the RSX is so large.

 

The Integra really isnt a fair comparison.. because everyting below the ITR really had horrible tires.. My GSR is a whole new car now... tires make a huge difference in personality

Both the celica and RSX have decent tires
i am happy to see the RSX was able to get higher Gs
i bet you my GSR can get higher than that with my LSD and new tires.. i should borrow the gTECH again heh

 

I'd still prefer a GT-S since it seemed a funner car to drive.

 

I don't have the motortrend here at work, but in it the GTS won both the slalom and the lateral grip competition by a fair margin (about 3 mph in the slalom).

I've always thought it would be much more useful if the auto mags would just put the same brand tire on each car. Even if they were crap tires, you would have an accurate comparison of things.

If you get 30,000 miles out of the stock GTS tires consider yourself lucky (I got that many), it isn't unreasonable to think that folks might actually upgrade the tires (especially if they were Michelin XGT's).

One thing of concern for the RSX-S is that motortrend complained of brake fade on the road course after a few laps. Hard to say if stickier tires would help with that or not (shorter braking time, more heat build up in less time, but more time for them to cool between turns).

Scott
'00 Celica GTS (mostly stock)
'73 Celica ST 18RG (mostly not stock)

 

I test drove the RSX-S and did 1 autox run in a GTS. My impressions was that while the 'S was more composed in transitions, the GTS was substantially quicker in them. More body roll, but it whipped back and forth more quickly. I couldn't get much of an idea on how well the RSX-S rotates, but with what little experience I had with both cars, it seemed that the Celica was more responsive to lift-throttle. The RSX brake pedal does feel pretty good but those Celica brakes are to die for. RSX seemed a good bit torquier off the high-cam, but... that lack of LSD is pretty painful. Celicas seem to bust the inside tires loose when they hit the changeover in a corner, but I see the RSX behaving similarly at slightly lower rpms. I think I'd personally get the Toyota.

 

Personally, I think Acura should have put better tires on the RSX-S. It would handle much better. IMO of course....

 

Gt-S,A $23k car that has unequal length axles