I just read Edmund's review of the updated 05 Acura RSX. Here is the last paragraph:

Should you buy an RSX, you can rest easy knowing you've made a good decision. You'll enjoy sprightly performance, composed handling and a comfortable ride, and should have trouble-free motoring for many miles. But with Scion's athletic and well-equipped tC starting at under $17,000 with a moonroof, sport suspension with 17-inch wheels and similar luxury features to the RSX, the Acura salesmen are going to have their work cut out if someone comes into the showroom cross-shopping those two cars.

Roy

 

perhaps you could link us to the article? :?:

 

Does it say anything about performance between the 2?

 

Here is the link:

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/roadt...irstdrive.1g.*

 

But there's no doubt that the RSX will handle better, have a stiffer suspension, have better build quality, better breaking performance, more precise steering, and a transmission/shifter/clutch combo that is the epitome of the automotive industry. Being a Luxury brand car, and costing more definitly has it's perks if I don't say so myself.

 

Now, don't get me wrong, I REALLY am just curious, as I don't know. . . or ignorant if you want to call it that :oops:

But is Acura really luxury? In particular, the RSX. . . I always thought of it as a fancy Civic and no better. I mean, I could undestand looking at one from a sporty kind of view, but isn't it really still in the same class of cars as civics, corollas, and the like? I mean, I'm sure it may be a super nice car to Honda folk, but what do you guys think the general public feels about the RSX? Is it a premium car? Maybe it's just because I'm in California and these things are everywhere. . .

Remember, I'm not trying to contradict what anyone said, but this is a sort of random off topic question. . .

 

in my opinion, having worked at an acura dealer for a year or so, the rsx really is basically a glorified civic si hatch the newer ones...the cars don't handle all that well, in fact i've spun them so many times, not even meaning to, the braking kind of sucks and for a six speed on the s type, it could have better ratios. the 5speed standard rsx is a dog and if it doesn't have leather it is uncomfortable as hell...the tC has everything the rsx wishes it had minus a TRUE leather option from the dealer....

Jeff

 

Since the RSX was on my very short list of sporty two door coupes, I feel that I can speak on this subject. I drove the RSX with auto and the S with the manual tranny. The S did feel a little better set up than the tC but I came to the conclusion that it is not worth a full 25% more than the tC. On top of that, I decided to go with an automatic this time around and the base RSX with auto was a whole different animal. It felt like I was driving a Civic 2DR LX. Toyota and Acura have similar value retention too, I am hoping Toyota will "control" production of the tC so that we don't end up with them being as common as Camry's and Corolla's. That will have a huge effect on their resale value.

 

It is a no brainer. Go with the tC and save a bunch of money. Put the extra money into a Roth IRA, wait 30-40 years and have a nice retirement nest egg waiting for you.

Kevin

 

Dude, it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about - any true enthusiast will tell you that the RSX is one of the best handling FWD vehicles produced. "Spun them" - what does that mean? You lost traction? What? Also, the 6-speed is supposed to have close ratios, the sixth gear is not meant for cruising, all of the gears are there to keep the vehicle in it's optimum power band.

As for comfort and styling - both are subjective - the hard facts tell the real truth. Look up some track results on the car, no BS.

 

I woned a RSX Type S for a year and traded it in for a Tc. The RSX-S is by no means a luxury car, not even close. Frankly the suspension is far too harsh for the handling you get in return. I clenched my teeth every time I went over railroad tracks. Also, just about everything in the interior rattles which combined with the suspension makes the car sound like it is going to fall apart. The transmissions are nice, but many people had problems with 2nd gear. Personally I had 3rd gear problems. They were there when I bought it. I just thought it was my own fault on the test drive. Yes you do get leather, but if you go on a 2+ hour drive I guarantee you'll have a back ache. They are pretty fast but you won't recreate the magazine 0-60 numbers without a big time burnout. The problem with spinning the tires hard is that the car has terrible wheel hop. The one nice thing about the car is that if you don't drive it really hard you'll get 32-34 mpg, but it needs premium gas which negates that somewhat.

From what I've read about the 2005 specs it sounds as though they have just taken the bad parts of the car and magnified them. Anyway I'd choose the Tc any day over the RSX-S. Plus with the Supercharger the Tc will still be 3k cheaper.

 

I may be quoting SCC "8 great rides under $30k" here and there, but my girlfriend has a 2004 RSX type-S and I have to say that it really is a nice car. The interior seems solidly designed and built. I'm not a huge fan of the cable shifter but the gearing in that car is setup perfectly (keeping it on the good cam). The suspension does seem sloppy to me but at the same time every time I threw the tC I was test driving into a turn, it felt just as sloppy (And HEAVY!). I think the major differing factors are brand loyalty and the huge potential of the K20 motor. The 2.4 in the tC hasn't had ample time in the lime-light yet. I think we're dealing with two different monsters that can't be fully compared until TRD or some other company lets us play with some boost.

 

isn't the rsx pretty high on the lemon list this year? :? build quality indeed

http://www.lemonlaw.com/lemonlist.html

i think its number 6

 

for the money... tC is hella of a buy ... especially over the RSX. the Type S is only rated at 6.7 sec (0-60)...where a bone stock tC (with 50 less HP) is rated @ 7.4 sec. So let me get this straight ... why would one be willing to pay $5,000 more for mere 0.7 sec?

Also... the 2005 RSX now has 210HP (10HP gain over previous year), so when the S/C tC comes out ... it should be still cheaper than the RSX type S and equally if not faster than the RSX? what am i missing here?

Who cares about the leather.. big whoopy doo... it's just damn leather seats. I can get that for $700 with better quality at custom upholstery shop.

IMO... tC is a way better car for the money .

And by those who are sucked into believnig RSX is a luxury car... wake up. It is not a luxury car..it's just a civic on steroid.

 

I smile when I see people in RSXs. I got a comparably equipped car for way less money. Woot!

 

Why compare the Acura RSX to a Scion TC? I own a Scion TC but would have purchased a Acura RSX if they were the same price, but they are not.

 

The base 2005 Acura RSX retail price is $20,750 with destination. That is more than $4,000 more.

 

Because they are bother moderately priced two door coupes. I could've gotten an RSX Type-S over the tC, but chose to go with the tC instead for numerous reasons. The only important one being that for now, I see no tC's on the road, in comparison to many many rsx's.

 

I owned an '02 RSX. I was one of the unfortunate ones who had a problem with 2nd gear grinding, that issue has since been fixed. Other than that, it was my second favorite car (out of 13, #1 being my current car :D) that I've owned. It was incredibly solid, I never heard a single rattle. I'm seriously considering getting an '05.

The tC is a better buy, but the RSX is a better car, inside and out. The driver positioning and steering feel has not been equaled in any car that I've driven, which is most sub-$50k sport coupes. The quality of materials in the interior is far superior to the tC. Don't take my word for this stuff, compare the two!

Worth $2k (the actual difference between what you can buy a Type-S for, $22k, and the no-haggle tC w/SC at about $20k)? Definitely. The ONLY reason I'm looking at the tC is because of the factory boost and torque potential. The Acura wins every other category, which is worth $2k to me.

Comparing the RSX to the Civic is like comparing an M3 to a 325ci. They share many components and even look alike, but they're two different cars.

Something else to consider is that because of its great value, the tC will take away a lot of Civic sales, so we should be seeing a lot more tC's than RSX's in the next 2 years

Comparing the highest 0-60 time we've ever seen for a Type-S with the ONLY 0-60 time for a tC that we've ever seen isn't really fair. With a good launch (no extreme tire smoking necessary - you just have to know what you're doing), you can do it in 6.1. The '05 will likely do it faster. The numbers say the Type-S (especially the '05) will easily beat the SC'd tC in the 1/4.

If the choice was a tC or base RSX, the tC takes it hands down. But the Type-S just creams both of them.

Unfortunately the pull of the boost gods is strong...

 

I honestly don't think the RSX will be beating the SC'ed Tc in the quarter. I'm having trouble seeing how the 05 will be any faster. They only added 10 HP and they did that by moving the power peak even higher then it currently is. Also, they added more weight which basically negates that 10 HP.

The RSX will beat the SC'ed Tc to 60 only because the Tc requires an extra shift, but I don't think it will have anything for it in the quarter. In everyday the driving the RSX won't even be close to a SC'd Tc.