RX8 comparison to RSX type-S
 

Hey everybody, this is my first post but I've been viewing this forum for quite sometime now so I hope I'm not posting anything redundant.
Anyhow, I've seen people making comparisons of the RX8 to the Honda S2000 and the Nissan Z but not the the Acura RSX type-S. I know when it comes down to my final decision in purchasing a car, my choice is going to be between those two because I believe they have more in common than any other cars in the market (minus the rear seats). Has anyone else thought of the the RSX as a competitor for their purchase?

They are similar, except the RSX (obviously) uses front wheel drive. That rules it out in my book, but other people may be cross-shopping FWD and RWD vehicles.

I have not. The performance potential of a FWD is fairly limited and the RSX-S is pretty close to the maximum envelope of performance.

Th RX-8 will also have quite a bit more power than the RSX and should be $5000 more when equiped with options.

The closer you look, the less similarities there are.

Personally, the RSX has never entered my scope for a car purchase. There are alot of 5 and even 10 year old used cars that I would purchase first.

But that's me...

---jps

In terms of handling and performance: I would think the 2003 Acura RSX Type-S Factory Performance coming out soon is an easy competitor to the Rx8 - probably the best one out there.

Although it does not have added power - it does have extra quirks.

actually, the first thread i started on this forum (very very old now...) was "Real Competitors for the RX-8", where i too picked the RSX Type-S as a competitor, and then as fuz has done, blew it out of the water in comparison... ;)

but you're right, 'cause they're very similar in many respects... size especially!! i was really shocked, after looking at an RSX to imagine the size of the 8, it's really only INCHES bigger in SOME directions!! i think overall length may be shorter... it's an OLD thread!! :D check it out...
btw, the 350Z and S2000 are WAAAAAAAAAAY more different from the 8 than the RSX Type-S in my opinion... not that it means anything anyhoo... ;)

I don't think people looking at an RSX-S will consider an RX-8 and vice versa. The fwd/rwd difference is a substantial one imo.

i really don't think most potential buyers (who'd use either of these cars just for regular, sometimes over-the-speed-limit-on-the-highway driving) would really care, and let's not forget that FWD cars can be very sporty too (as i'm sure YOU'd know ;))

just for example, look at the reason MOST people get a miata; "It's cool/cute/convertable/small/"sporty"/it makes me seem cool", not because it's a real sports car, and they want to do real sport driving...

To us, FWD/RWD is important. To the average Joe, it isn't. He/she will see two similar in size cars, with 4 seats. They probably won't even know what a rotary is...

edit: post with regard to what quick_lude said

well i dont know about that...

I am an individual who is considering either the RX8 or the RSX Type S.

Get the Honda, please! It outperforms the RX-8 in all arenas, acceleration, skidpad, braking, etc. And it has V-TEC! You can't go wrong with that dependable choice! It's a no-brainer.. *evil grin*

thanks
 

I didn't even think about RWD vs. FWD...duh! I've driven both front and rear wheel drive cars, and though I noticed a difference between the two, I couldn't tell you exactly what. I learned on a front wheel drive car and that's all I've ever really driven for the past 6 years. I truthfully don't know the benefits of a RWD over a FWD both in terms of regular every day driving or performance driving.

Re: thanks
 

Hmmm... In every day driving I went a different route in the rain because my FWD accord could simply not get itself out of a junction which was a steep uphill onto a T junction..... at least not unless you went streight and looked like an idiot on the wrong side of the road... with the wheels spinning... it could break the front wheels away at idle on that junction.

In my RWD Triumph, you just pulled away gently... unless you wanted a bit of tail out satisfaction on the apex.... Never again.... I'll just drive everywhere backwards if they stop making RWD cars.

So for guys with fwd, you've never experienced torque steer or started spinning front tires while applying throttle mid corner?
My Prelude is a very good car to drive, auto-x and track but ultimately you want the front wheels to steer only, not steer and apply power. Your tires have 100% available traction. If you use 30% of it for acceleration, you only have 70% braking and lateral traction.

ya, that's true, but again, averge-joe-know-nothing doesn't care, and she/he won't consider that when cross shopping these cars, as they will.

I really abhor understeer, it's just no fun at all when you push the car, and it feels so capable through the turn, then when you apply the throttle, it starts pulling away from your intended direction.

However, the RSX-S is quite a capable car and runs very well despite the drivetrain. With an LSD, it coud run better than many cars, but will eventually be limited by the power it can put down. It's a case of high potential, but high resistance to using it all.

Now if the RSX-S was FR and at the same price, I'd consider it a competitor. A lightweight car with a powerful (ok, a strech) high reving engine... sound similar? At $23k fully loaded, it'd be hard to beat. But alas it is not the case.

The Z I would consider a competitor. The only reason I would not is because of the weight of the car. They are otherwise, in the same price range, and the same market segment.

If the RSX Type-S was FR, I would have bought one instead of a Miata, no question.

if you wanna go with the rsx go right ahead, but the main competitor to that car is obviously the celica gt-s. To be honest this is my first post on this forum, dont take my opinion to heart, i havent followed sports cars too much since my parents decided to give me the accord and i realized that i will not have the money to buy a nice sports car till im out of school which is alteast another 3 years. Id like to make some comparisons that others have avoided, the Rx-8 would probably feel similar to a s2000. Both are super high revving, tiny cars, even if one is a roadster and one has 4 seats. The weight and stuff is pretty similar, and power is close if you mod a s2000.

Tiny it is not. It's longer than a current 626, as well as having more rear seat room than the 626 for the two rear passengers.

It just always seems small, because it's almost a coupe :)

Actually, at 4425 mm (174.2 in) long, its much shorter than the 626 (at 4760 mm long). However, like you said, the 8 has more space in the rear than a 626 (leg and knee room at least, not sure about head room). Made possible by Mazda's amazing packaging job and a compact powerplant that allows more interior space.
The RX-8 is almost exactly the same size as an Acura NSX, except taller. Of course, we don't see NSX's every day, so to put the size of the 8 in perspective, it is about the same length as...
Honda Civic (4435 mm)
Mazda Protege (4420 mm)

It really surprised me the first time I checked out the specs too. 250 HP in a car the size of a Protege, but with rear-wheel drive, and 9000 RPM redline... sounds like the perfect recipe for fun (just add driver!) :D

Re: Re: thanks
 

LOL... You kill me!!! :p :p :p

girm youre correct! the wheelbase, track and overall length are almost exactly that of the protoge. when i first saw the specs for the rx8 they were in metric so i converted them inches and then measured some cars here at work and they matched the protoge the closest except heigth. it is shorter(as in, not as tall) than the protoge by a fair amount if i remember correctly. i still find it hard to believe it has the amount of room inside that has been talked about!

Wow the RX-8 is small then! For some reason from the pics I expected it to be larger.. not that I find that a problem.. Anything to keep the weight down and improve the "nimbleness" of it. :D

How wide is it compared to those cars?

---jps

Hi Sputnik,

It is low and wide. :)

Specs for rx-8
(http://www.edmunds.com/future/2003/m...upe/specs.html)
---------------------
Length: 174.3 in.
Width: 69.7 in.
Height: 52.8 in.

Specs for 2002 rsx (http://carpoint.msn.com/vip/specific...=10028&src=vip)
---------------------
Length: 172.2 in.
Width: 67.9 in.
Height: 55.1 in.

Specs for 2002 protege
(http://carpoint.msn.com/vip/specific...=10125&src=vip)
---------------------
Length: 175.3 in.
Width: 67.1 in.
Height: 55.5 in.

Brgds, Brian

My Prelude
L 178"
W 69"
H 52"
Although right now I'm about 2" lower.

Dude, what the hell are you thinking to compare a rsx type-s to a rx-8?

It doesn't accelerate as fast. It doesn't turn as good. It has crap factory brakes. High of the ground.(so it might roll over when turned too fast) Crappy ass interior.(Everything seems like it's made of plastic) The difference in hp is not even a topic to tak about. Not to mention that it's an economy car. Probably crumbles up on a front collision.

Line them up and see how the rsx is going to get smoked. God damnit, at least compare it with a rsx type-r. F**king H Christ~~~

I have a feeling that the RX-8 due to the lightness will have very similar crash tendencies. As most Japanese "smaller" vehicles.

Can I have some of what you're smoking?

It may not accelerate as fast, but its still fast. The handling is very good for a FWD car. I haven't heard of any issues with the brakes. The quality of the interior is one of the best parts about the car, very good materials. It feels more expensive than it is.
High off the ground (????) so it might roll over? You need a lesson in vehicle dynamics. The RSX (and any other non-SUV or truck I can think of) will slide on its tires long before it rolls over. It won't roll over unless it hits an uneven bit of pavement.
I don't even know where you are coming from with that "crumbles up on a front collision" garbage. RSX's are one of the safest small FWD cars in a collision.
No one here is saying the RX-8 won't outperform the RSX Type-S. But it will be significantly more expensive than one. Whether the difference in money is worth it is up to the individual.
And there is no RSX Type-R on this continent, so that would be difficult and pointless to compare the two, wouldn't it? :rolleyes:

Actually, due to the smaller size and location of the rotary in the RX8, it should do much better than other cars in front-on situations. The "tunnel spine" should help with that also.

It won't come out of it w/o a scratch, they aren't meant to. But you should be able to come out of it better.

---jps

From what I've been told, it (RX-8) has already gone through side impact tests, etc., and fared very well, in psite of the suicide doors.:o

Nice Grimace.. way to shut knightrider up.

yes, knightrider, i've seen a few other posts of yours, and just a peice of friendly advice:
take everything here with a grain of salt (or two...)

everyone here is a car guy/gal, and we try to just get along and chat in a friendly environment... disagreement and debate is why we're here, let's just not get upset about it, k?? hope to see a lot more contribution from ya.

-Andrew

Pffff
 

You're the one who's high on smoke, Grimace. You can go around other places, and they can tell you off hand that the factory brake on the RSX is crap.

And which pot are you smoking, talking about the type-r not being out. At least it's out in freaking japan and europe, comparing to the rx-8 which is not even in production yet. We just suck getting good cars.

But in another hand, I know exactly how you feel and why you reacted to my post. You are you like someone I know. A Acura freak!! At least he's can admit that it's crap when it comes to crashes. You're trying to tell me that a body that's somewhat based off of the economy civic doesn't crumble up. Sure, it may have all these life saving design. But it's still gonna crumble up like shit. I didn't say you'll die from it.

:rolleyes:
honestly, i strongly suggest you heed my advice, bud.

i really dont see it...
 

i dont think that the rsx's performance will be all that close to the rx8... its still a 4banger if im correct unless it goes along the same lines as things like civic type-r that are 6? anyways, the rsx was designed as a replacement for the integra, which in itself was just a little more upper-class than the civic if you could even call it that... the rsx really fits into the same category as the civic and its not really in the rx8's category if you ask me... its still just an economy import that pays a little more attention to performance than the civic etc, but its not near as much a performance car as the rx8. i really dont see how the rsx can compete with 50\50 weight distribution and with how solid and stiff the rx8 is when you talk about handling... plus its FWD so it understeers to begin with.

Re: Pffff
 

hmm lets see... knowledgable grimace or idiot knight? not a hard choice...

fyi knight rider, grimace said the rsx type-r isnt even on this continent so why compare them and you flame on him?

last time i checked japan wasnt part of the continental US

Re: i really dont see it...
 

-you write as if you've driven the RX8

My theory - which I think is highly applicable to mostly everyone on this forum: You either hate Honda or you love it.

What was that about the RSX?

Re: Re: i really dont see it...
 

you're the one who said the rsx could hold up to the rx8, so im not writing any differently than you or anyone else will. im going from what ive read in magazines, seen on the net, and common sense. people have given multiple reasons why FWD cars don't handle as well. rx8 is rwd, plus it has the 50\50 weight distribution. im not saying anything that hasnt been said before, merely repeating what people who HAVE driven the rx8 have said.

Re: Pffff
 

1. I never said the Type-R wasn't out. I said it wasn't avaible on this continent. That puts a serious damper on the Type-R making onto my new car purchase short-list (see #2).

2. I'm not moving to another country to buy a car.

3. Have you seen any data on RSX/Civic crash tests? Just because a car is inexpensive doesn't mean it will "crumble up" (whatever that means). If you are referring to the front end crumple zone, then I've got news for you. Every modern car has a crumple zone. Otherwise the entire force of the impact would be transmitted to the driver, and you'd likely find out what it was like to fly out the windshield of your car, or having your ribs crushed by the seatbelt as you do a multiple-G decelleration, likely causing death. But at least your bumper wouldn't be dented. Ever see aftermaths of crashes from cars of several decades ago? Cars look like a million bucks. Owners are as dead as doornails.

4. I'm not an Acura freak. Acura makes good cars, reliable, well built. But not very exciting (save for the NSX). I'm not a fan of front-wheel drive, which is why I won't buy an Acura. If defending the RSX against your (and I'm using this word loosely) opinions makes me a "Acura freak" then so be it. I'd rather be a freak than a brand-basher.

'Nuff said.

Re: i really dont see it...
 

Actually understeer has nothing to do with weight distribution. It's all about suspension design. My Prelude after a stiffer rear antiswaybar does not understeer any more, it's very close to oversteer sometimes.
A rwd car with 50/50 weight distribution can be made to understeer easily. Most manufacturers do that for the safety of the general public. Push the car too hard, what is the "usual" response of Joe Public? Lift off the gas. Understeer problem solved.

Btw, the RX-8 will cost about $10K Cnd more than the RSX-typeS so I hope it is a better car.

Re: Re: i really dont see it...
 

yes i know the weight distribution has nothing to do with the handling... im sorry if it came out that way :/ i was using that as a point in addition to the one about it being rwd, just saying how balanced the car is and whatnot, i didnt mean it as what you thought... my bads :(