You are here: Forums Hatchbacks Hatchbacks - Archived Discussions Acura RSX v. Toyota Celica v. Mitsubishi Eclipse 

Acura RSX v. Toyota Celica v. Mitsubishi Eclipse - READ ONLY

73 messages,  Last post on Sep 22, 2003 at 12:20 PM

You are in the Hatchbacks - Archived Discussions Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer

This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the Hatchbacks Host for directions! discussion.

What is this discussion about? Acura RSX, Toyota Celica, Mitsubishi Eclipse, Coupe, Hatchback

Messages Page 4 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#29 of 73 2003 Mitsubishi Eclipse GTS by beowulf7 Apr 23, 2002 (9:10 pm)
I finally test drove it the other day. It was fast! What an enjoyable test drive! The shifter seemed a lot smoother than the 2002 Eclipse GT I drove a couple months ago. However, the car did seem a little heavy when cornering, probably b/c of that heavy engine weight in the front. Very soon I'll drive the RSX-S which should be an interesting comparison.
#30 of 73 "Four Wedges & A Bubble" by beowulf7 May 06, 2002 (10:10 pm)
In the May 2002 issue of Car and Driver, the reviewers ranked these five cars in the following order: 5.) 2002 VW New Beetle Turbo S 4.) 2003 Hyundai Tiburon GT V6 2.) (tie) 2003 Mitsu Eclipse GTS 2.) (tie) 2002 Toyota Celica GTS 1.) 2002 Acura RSX Type S Good reading. The magazine has tables which C&D left out on their Web site: http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/comparisontests/2002/may/200205_comparo_sportcoupes.xml
#31 of 73 I read that review by nippononly May 09, 2002 (1:44 pm)
They basically decided that the RSX edged the celica because of a slightly more useable powerband and a nicer interior. I drove both before buying my celica, and I can say that two of the things that they point out as "lows" for the RSX are very true - that car is very noisy inside, especially if the pavement is bad, and the steering is definitely not as good as the celica's. But the "highs" they list are true too...in my opinion, celica would have come out the winner in this comparo if the price were a couple of thousand $$ lower, and the cam lift changeover point came about 500-1000 rpm below the current 6000 rpm point. This would give it more useable power, and make it a better bargain than the very-conservative RSX. I mean, in the looks department, there is no question which is better. And for regular driving on California's crummy roads, the celica also has a better ride, while still having awesome handling.   I think it is funny that the celica, an everyman's Toyota, is constantly being compared to the RSX, which is supposed to be a luxury brand. Shouldn't the luxury brand have to compete with other luxury brands?
#32 of 73 Forget about the brands by beowulf7 May 09, 2002 (8:36 pm)
nippononly, I think RSX vs. Celica (vs. Eclipse, Tiburon, etc.) are valid b/c they are all in the same price range and share a similar feature set. I agree that a well-equipped Celica GT-S should be at least $1-2 k lower than RSX-S. I couldn't believe that Celicas still come w/ 15" tires/wheels. And only a single CD player? At least they come w/ fog lights, unlike RSXs.   Is your Celica MT or AT? I've only been able to drive the AT for Celica GT-S, although I did get to test drive a manny tranny for the base trim (Celica GT). I like the Celica's low weight, which should make it fun to toss around, even for FWD. And yes, its looks are better than the RSX. But the RSX's interior is so much better and few makes hold their resale value better than Acuras.
#33 of 73 mine is a manual by nippononly May 10, 2002 (12:52 am)
I hate to drive ATs - actually I did test drive one of the ATs at a time last year when there was very limited availability of the manual, and I thought the button shifting of the AT was cool, but ultimately that was one slow car.   The celica's weight is one of the key factors that weighed in my decision to choose it over Acura etc - it is really fun and light to toss around - steering is razor sharp and accurate.   I think the celica is in some ways Toyota's compromise car - some things are $20K+ things, and some are bargain basement stuff off the corolla.   I have seen a lot of complaints about the interior, however, and on this one point I disagree. This is merely a priorities question as far as I am concerned, and if Toyota was cost-cutting to keep the price down on this car, then I think the interior was an acceptable compromise. Yes, there are some hard plastics, including one or two places that can really get marked up, but at the same time it is very stylish, plenty comfortable enough, and has lots of great storage.   I don't know why Toyota does not put in an in-dash changer - other models have them, and as for the 15" wheels, yes, that is also a little puzzling. This is something the new Civic SI is also catching a lot of flack on, and I guess maybe both manufacturers figure people will want to upgrade either way, so why increase cost putting on good rims and tires that are just going to get taken off and replaced? Who knows, this might be the reason. I WILL say that the celica with the 16" rims and the 50 series tires strikes a really good compromise in my book - best stock handling in any car I have ever owned, and still comfortable through the ruts and the potholes.
#34 of 73 REPLY TO: cjmajesty. by sarcasm82 May 12, 2002 (12:27 pm)
I don't think you KNOW your history on the Integra NOR the nissan Z's. First of all, each generation of Z's have ALWAYS been ahead of their time. They have a VERY powerful engine in their car both base and Twin Turbo. Not only are they fast but the cars are also light weight. These cars have been out since 1970. And you were saying that the Integra was waiting for everyone to catch up? Um, the Z has always been ahead, esp the Integra. The Z is like an exotic car. Its not an everyday car like the Integra and the price of it wasn't for young teens looking for the need for speed. I agree that Toyota did over price their Supra. Hell, a 95'supra in the paper costs $25,000 NOW! But that car had personality and style, unlike the Integra. And yeah the new Z is coming out this August and this car is better than ever. Again ahead of its time. The car is topping over 280HP+. The Z is in a different category than the Integra, hands down. Of course theres more Honda Civics, they weren't expensive. Don't say its b/c of the style, its b/c of the price they wanted for those cars. And I find the early style celicas to be nice. I own a 92' and its a sharp looking car, not boxy like the Integra.
#35 of 73 sarcasm82 by verozahl May 12, 2002 (6:23 pm)
Hey, that's supposed to be my username. Punk. (^_^)
#36 of 73 by verozahl May 12, 2002 (6:28 pm)
I like all of the Integra/RSX styling, and all of the Celica styles except for the latest 2000+ model. The 2003 Tiburon laughs at the current Celica generation. The 2000+ Eclipse is also a disappointing porker with a bad interior.   I agree that the Integra and 300ZX are in different classes, but I like both. The RSX and 350Z, I think, is a little closer, but still, different classes.   The RSX vs. Celica matchup does not include the porky 2000+ Eclipse. It's too big and bulky.
#37 of 73 sarcasm82 by beowulf7 May 12, 2002 (7:15 pm)
The Integra was boxy? That's news to me!
#38 of 73 by verozahl May 12, 2002 (7:23 pm)
The 1990-1993 Integra has a nasty interior compared to my model, the 1994-2001 generation, but the exterior is the epitome of wedge-design, as good as the Probe, Prelude, 240SX, and SVX.

Messages Page 4 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Hatchbacks Hatchbacks - Archived Discussions Acura RSX v. Toyota Celica v. Mitsubishi Eclipse