RX8 comparison to RSX type-S
09-21-2002, 01:40 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: North Central WV
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
09-21-2002, 03:15 PM
#2
Certifiable car nut
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
09-21-2002, 04:15 PM
#3
non sequitr
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
09-21-2002, 06:34 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 2,045
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
But that's me...
---jps
09-21-2002, 08:02 PM
#5
0-('.')-0
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond Hill, Ontario
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Although it does not have added power - it does have extra quirks.
09-21-2002, 08:02 PM
#6
mostly harmless
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Greater Vancouver Area, BC
Posts: 3,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
09-21-2002, 08:23 PM
#8
mostly harmless
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Greater Vancouver Area, BC
Posts: 3,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
)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...
09-21-2002, 08:29 PM
#9
Certifiable car nut
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
09-21-2002, 08:30 PM
#10
0-('.')-0
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond Hill, Ontario
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
well i dont know about that...
I am an individual who is considering either the RX8 or the RSX Type S.
Last edited by Immi; 09-21-2002 at 08:33 PM.
09-21-2002, 09:57 PM
#11
Nomad Mod
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Hilton or Marriott
Posts: 1,520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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*
09-21-2002, 11:40 PM
#12
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: North Central WV
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
09-22-2002, 07:27 AM
#13
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: London (England)
Posts: 813
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: thanks
Originally posted by curtlo707
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.
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.
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.
09-22-2002, 02:23 PM
#14
Love to rev!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mississauga - Ontario
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
09-22-2002, 03:58 PM
#15
mostly harmless
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Greater Vancouver Area, BC
Posts: 3,440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
09-22-2002, 05:04 PM
#16
non sequitr
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
09-23-2002, 05:04 PM
#18
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
09-23-2002, 05:30 PM
#19
Originally posted by irresistibo
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.
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.
It just always seems small, because it's almost a coupe
09-23-2002, 06:41 PM
#20
Certifiable car nut
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Hercules
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
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
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
09-23-2002, 07:20 PM
#21
Drive it like U stole it!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Woodbridge, Ontario
Posts: 859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Re: thanks
Originally posted by BlueAdept
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.
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.
09-23-2002, 08:26 PM
#22
Administrator
Originally posted by Grimace
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)...
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)...
Last edited by zoom44; 09-23-2002 at 08:28 PM.
09-23-2002, 08:43 PM
#23
Love to rev!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mississauga - Ontario
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
09-23-2002, 10:01 PM
#25
RE member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Aurora, CO
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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