Ask the Car People.SM


160hp RSX vs 115hp BMW 316ti - READ ONLY

26 messages,  Last post on Jul 15, 2002 at 1:29 PM

You are in the Hatchbacks - Archived Discussions Forum.

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, BMW 3 Series, Hatchback

Messages Page 3 of 3

#17 of 26 vero talking about Ferraris, etc? by rk922

May 28, 2002 (1:52 am)

In the New Territories...HK does have highways you know! Anyways, just as in any other region/country, people buy exotic cars partly to show off and not just purely to race.

#18 of 26 IMO get the RSX by joe249

May 29, 2002 (7:20 pm)

RK, I'd get the RSX for your needs. I too think in the states the 318ti was your 316ti pretty weak.In fact it looked like they circumcised the rear.
   RSX is practical and when you venture onto the highways you'll enjoy the extra ponies. Good luck.

#19 of 26 joe249 by rk922

May 29, 2002 (8:45 pm)

Totally agree and will probably get the RSX. I think that the 318ti was a 4 cyl 2.0L (143hp?) while the 316ti was a 4 cyl 1.8L (115hp)...anyways, both are anemic, but I was impressed for a while due to the brand's quality and luxury features like the dual dentist seats.
 
Btw, do you have leather seats in your RSX, and if so, does it grip well or do you slide around when driving?

#20 of 26 RK 922 Seating by joe249

May 30, 2002 (3:29 pm)

The seating is perfect as they are sport seats, and kidney shaped with lumbar support. I have leather as I bought the Type S(not heated as the Canadians get)
    However, this is my third Acura and before on my GS and GSR the driver's side inserts I replaced after 3yrs. On both cars.My jeans or belt would crack the corner of the seat. It's a tight but,a secure fit.

#21 of 26 316ti vs. RSX by akhbhaat

Jun 11, 2002 (11:41 pm)

Knowing what I know, I would choose the RSX for certain, for a number of reasons:
 
1.) The compact version of 3-series BMW is quite ugly, in my opinion. Here in the USA they do not sell a compact BMW anymore (remember, this is the land of SUVs), probably due to poor sales of the line. However, they were available prior to the introduction of the E46 body style on the 3-series for the 1999 and 2000 model year, and I have seen a few of them in person (one of my friends owns one, in fact). The older ones were similar to the full size cars in most respects, except the tail end appears "chopped off." I have not personally seen an example of the newer body style compact, as they are not sold here, but I have seen pictures of them, and while some of the lines of the full size car (which is very nice to look at) have been retained, the headlight and tail design are considerably different and only detract from the car's appearance.
 
2.) In the USA, BMW currently only offers the 2.5L and 3.0L I6 examples of the 3-series, where it seems in other countries they offer a 2.0L and 1.8L I4 in both compact and full size cars. The 318ti of old is greatly underpowered (at least, when compared to other BMWs, particularly the full size 6 cylinder 3-series coupes it bears the most resemblence to), even on paper, and yet still boasts 138hp...23 more hp than what seems to be offered in the 316ti. After riding in my friend's 318ti and equipped with the knowledge, I can only guess that the 316ti is extremely anemic in performance and not suited for driving outside of the stop-and-go city traffic. The RSX, on the other hand, certainly has enough power to perform when needed.
 
3.) I have never seen the interior of a 316ti such as that you have described, but cloth seats seem awfully spartan for a $34k car. While the BMW does offer the power seats, assuming you are the sole driver of this car, that means little when you will probably adjust the seat once and leave it in the same position for several days or weeks at a time.
 
My primary gripes with the Acura are mainly limited towards just a few main areas. For one, the back seats are somewhat cramped, even when compared to a compact BMW. You might want to consider this if it's extremely important to have usable backseats, no matter what else I or anyone else says about either car. Second, the RSX has pretty styling overall, but it seems a bit bland or "average"...very similar to the last generation Civic. However, I don't know if Civics are as common on the HK streets as they are here, so that gripe may be invalid to you. Finally, the RSX has front wheel drive, which I dislike for a number of reasons...primarily because it is cheaper to build than RWD and yields a penalty in performance and handling, so it's obviously a cost-cutting measure made by the car company.
 
This comparison may seem awfully biased towards Acura, but I'm really trying to compare these cars for what they are. I am a huge BMW fan, and if the comparison were between the RSX and, say, a 325Ci, I would recommend the 325Ci hands down. In this case, however, I feel the RSX is the better car by far, especially when considering the price.

#22 of 26 by verozahl

Jun 15, 2002 (7:38 pm)

How are the highways in the New Territories?
 
Is the Benz C230 sold in Hong Kong? That's another car, that, like the small BMW, tries to take on the Integra/RSX and fails miserably in both value and handling.

#23 of 26 verozahl by ccotenj

Jun 17, 2002 (7:02 am)

handling?
 
whatever your opinion on "value" might be, i don't think you want to open the handling issue...
 
-Chris

#24 of 26 verozahl by rk922

Jun 17, 2002 (11:33 pm)

I haven't driven in HK yet, but some parts of New Territories have nice, new highways that are good for speed.
 
MB 230 is too expensive in HK compared to the 316ti or RSX. Can't remember exactly, but around over US$10k more.

#25 of 26 Wow those prices are pretty crazy looking to by rjg96

Jul 12, 2002 (8:54 pm)

my US eyes. 34K for a 316ti! In Germany they cost about 18-20k and if they sold them in the US , they'd probably be about the same. 34k here buys you a nicely optioned 325i or a base 330i. Although, I know in South America, a 3 series can actually cost 50-60k (maybe even more)!
 I really don't think its worth it for you to spend nearly 10k more over an RSX to get less power and probably less reliability. The materials are very nice on the new compact-- they have hte same materials as the rest of the E46 line. I guess. That's the advantage of buying the lowest model of a higher priced line rather than a higher model of a lower priced car. Nonetheless, the RSX also has a pretty nice, solid interior -- especially for the price. And, I can tell you as a BMW owner, the RSX will probably rattle less- so it will actually seem like an even higher quality interior.
On the plus side for the BMW-- the engine is brand new design using a new technology called "valvetronic". Basically, instead of a traditional throttle, the car's enigne computer adjusted the valve lift in response to accelerator pedal inputs. It makes the engine more fuel efficient, gives it better power, smoother running, lower emissions-- overall a very cool engineering idea.

#26 of 26 by fast_n_furious

Jul 15, 2002 (1:29 pm)

i dont think a 316ti would be worth 34k seeing the numbers. my brother has a RSX-S and it is very reliable but not so comfortable on long rides for the front or back, otherwise the RSX is the best pick between the 2, have you heard of the new nissan though? I would like to get that

Messages Page 3 of 3

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement