Last post on Sep 03, 2008 at 12:04 PM
You are in the Acura RSX
What is this discussion about?
Acura RSX, Coupe, Hatchback
#366 of 2585 Well I give up.
Aug 14, 2001 (6:59 pm)
I've owned a 2000 Celica GT-S since its release, and have had a great time with the car. When my wife bought her new 2002 Acura RSX type-S (Blue) shortly after the release date I went on edmunds and furiously tried to defend my Celica on town hall.
Stating the fact that I own both cars and did not feel that the Acura was any better than the Celica. Well, my wife is now getting fairly upset with me because I am always trying to drive her car. The Acura is a wonderful day to day hatchback with an incredible ride, much nicer interior, and lots of power in the lower RPM. I love the car! Any suggestions on how to get my wife to trade cars with me?
#367 of 2585 Hide the keys
Aug 14, 2001 (7:38 pm)
Aug 14, 2001 (7:39 pm)
The Celica can play her music a bit louder... One passed me today, as I was parking, with the stereo real loud. Plus people might notice her a little easier since it is more eye catching. So just tell her:
"But, you look so good in it!"
"Not only that, NSYNC sounds so much better in the Celica, you're missing out!"
Aug 15, 2001 (6:09 am)
I saw five RXSs sitting at a dealer and that was about two weeks ago. I'm surprised they hadn't been sold.
Aug 15, 2001 (7:22 am)
I really like the Acura RSX, but.. the regular coupe only has 160 HP. I think that is just a little under powered. The S-type is great, with 200 HP, making it one of the best engines for its market segement, but its offered exclusevly in manual. I tried driving manual a couple of times, and I just can't get a hang of it. Because of this I will most likely have to get the RSX.
Also, getting the RSX w/ leather and w/ auto, makes its price go up to almost as high as the RSX S-type (which already has leather, etc..). So with the price differnce of around $1,000, I would really want the extra 40HP the s-type has to offer.
Does anyone have any ideas if there is an auto option planned for the RSX for '03? Or any comments about driving manual?
Aug 15, 2001 (8:51 am)
They were probably already sold and just waiting to be picked up :f
dealers actually do that. I remember I went looking at the Honda Odyssey and the salesman told me that the ones on the lot were already sold, *but* he could arrange for me to have it if I could put more $$$ down...
#372 of 2585 Re: hmm... (about driving manual)
Aug 15, 2001 (9:43 am)
My last car was an automatic, and I had limited experience with a manual. I wanted to test-drive the Type S, so the sales rep drove it to a large, empty parking lot so I could try it in a no-stress situation. Then I took it out on the highway. It was much easier to shift than the WRX! I think it's a great car to learn manual on. I've had my car nearly 3 weeks, and drive it to work in stop-and-go commuter traffic. There's a stoplight on a large hill on my way home, and for the first 2 weeks I detoured around it, but now I can do it. If I can learn it, you can, too!
#373 of 2585 thanks for the reply..
Aug 15, 2001 (11:21 am)
Cool.. How long did it take you to get used to manual? Also, now that you got used to it, would you say its better than auto?
It would be good if Acura would at least offer auto as an option for the S-type.. Because the RSX (not s-type) is clearly underpowered compared to some of its other competitors..
#374 of 2585 Comments about Manual transmissions
Aug 15, 2001 (11:48 am)
The RSX is one of the easiest manuals to drive, try it and see. I tried teaching my girlfriend how to drive my eclipse turbo, and she had a really tough time. After she understood the concept of how it all works (in the eclipse), her gripes were that it was hard to push the clutch in and pushing the shifter in the different gates (the slots that the shifter has to slide into to get a gear) was difficult, time consuming, and a hassle. Then, once she got the hang of it (sort of), she drove the type-s and thought it was a world of difference. Her gripes no longer held true, she though the clutch was easy to press (not push), the shifter practically falls into the gates instead of having to push, and she really enjoyed it rather than being passive about what the car is doing. Some people on clubrsx.com have even complained that selecting 6th gear and reverse is a bit challenging because you actually have to put a little pressure on these to get them in. Most people on this board would laugh at that (most people on that board are less car enthusiasts, and more just looking for some answers to the new car experience).
Here's some more pros of driving a manual, over an automatic:
1. Better gas mileage from being a more efficient transmission.
2. Easier passing, since you don't have to wait for the transmission to engage more power (you select it as you need it by selecting a lower gear).
3. Less maintenance. You almost never have to change the transmission fluid or filter (most manuals go for 100k miles without the need, some indefinitely).
4. Less reliability issues. Transmission problems rarely plague manuals (unlike the automatics).
5. Less risk of costly repairs due to abuse. If you abuse the transmission you only need to replace the clutch, which is like a brake job. Unlike the automatics, which, if abused, need a total replacement.
6. Less weight. Which translates to more power, better handling, better weight balance front and rear, more load capacity, better braking, better acceleration, and of course better fuel economy due to better efficiency(already stated).
7. Once you get the hang of it, it feels more responsive, better feeling of what is going on underneath, better control of "aggressive driving"/"low fuel economy"(high rev shifting) VS. "passive driving"/"best fuel economy"(low rev shifting), and of course it just feels more sports car like (you'll understand when you get the hang of it, my girlfriend now can't get enough like most people).
8. It makes more sense in today's economy to drive a vehicle that is more efficient.
9. The Europeans make due with over 90% of all vehicle being manual transmission vehicles. You want to be more European like?.. then do what they do.
10. Finally, the Type-S can only be had with a manual, so manuals can't be all bad if the Type-S is promoting them.
#375 of 2585 Type S and auto
Aug 15, 2001 (5:52 pm)
Those extra 40HP come on well into the revs on the Type S. Autos usually shift sooner than that and therefore would seriously hurt performance. I'd be willing to bet that a manual 160HP RSX would be faster than an auto 200HP Type S. You are not getting a bigger engine (same 2.0L in both) with the Type S, therefore, unless you are willing to rev to the redline in the Type S, the difference in power between the two engines is insignificant.
It's highly unlikely that an auto will be offered in the Type S anyway.