End of the line for Honda Integra/Acura RSX

[IMADreamer]

Well, the Mustang GT is a lot faster, and doesn't suffer as much understeer, but the RSX has a really nice interior and uh...it's better on gas?

Pricewise they are very close.

I'd like to see Honda do something awesome, like...make a hardtop RWD sports coupe with that 3.0 V-6, or better yet the Hybrid DOD V-6.

Would it happen? No, they are making an SH-AWD Accord coupe apparently, which should be neat, but it won't please RWD purists like me.

A new Beat would be nice, especially if they actually sold it over here.

I'm sorry but I just had to chuckle at this. I remember when those cars first came out there was a guy in my apartment complex that had one. He raced one of my good friends who had a blown camaro (I don't think I need to tell you the result) and after the RSX lost he whined like a little baby and then said "well atleast I have a nice interior." I will never forget that as long as I live.

 

[McLaren]

First NSX (replacement on the way though), then RSX... Honda seems to be leaning towards Toyota attitude: No sport, no fun.

Well, the NSX had good reason, and still tells one of the most amazing automotive stories ever.

 

[Onikaze]

You make it sound like the 'stang handles better... which it doesn't.

Hmmm...FWD, with well tuned Honda handling, RWD with enough grunt to rotate the ass at will.

True, the RSX SHOULD pip the Mustang in the slalom, but between being able to get the power down cleanly, make use of that RWD nature, and have a whole hell of a lot of fun doing so...

I can't say I'd prefer an RSX for what would really be marginal differences in handling, this isn't like I'm saying NSX or S2000 versus the Mustang here, and this isn't the old Fox based "brick on a string" Mustang. They can turn well now, left and right!

 

[GT4_Rule]

I've never loved the RSX/Integra but for some reason I'm sad to see it go. It's what definied Acura/Honda as a sporty company and became a tuner favorite. Honda made a wrong decision in my opinion. And it just had the mid-cycle refreshing!

 

[Keef]

Honda and Acura must have something waiting in the pipeline. They always have a multitude of sporty cars in their lineups. Just because the Si can keep up with an RSX doesn't mean Acura doesn't get a sporty coupe. They might be looking at something the compete with the G35 from Infiniti. Acura doesn't have a competitor for that.

 

[GT4_Rule]

I thought the TL was a competitor for G35.

 

[a6m5]

I thought the TL was a competitor for G35.

He probably means the coupe version of G35.

 

[niky]

Hmmm...FWD, with well tuned Honda handling, RWD with enough grunt to rotate the ass at will.

True, the RSX SHOULD pip the Mustang in the slalom, but between being able to get the power down cleanly, make use of that RWD nature, and have a whole hell of a lot of fun doing so...

I can't say I'd prefer an RSX for what would really be marginal differences in handling, this isn't like I'm saying NSX or S2000 versus the Mustang here, and this isn't the old Fox based "brick on a string" Mustang. They can turn well now, left and right!

👍 I like the RSX, but the Mustang, based on the LS and S-Type platform, should be a very decent handling car.

@keef: I was one of those comparing the RSX and Civic. Consider... the Integra was originally budded off the Civic... but now, the Civic is a completely re-engineered platform and matches the Integra in size, power and equipment... why do they still need it?

Admittedly, I do like the RSX much better, but a newer model, budded off the current Civic (hopefully with a good cosmetic package) would be much better... if they decide to do it at all.

 

[Danoff]

Hmmm...FWD, with well tuned Honda handling, RWD with enough grunt to rotate the ass at will.

True, the RSX SHOULD pip the Mustang in the slalom, but between being able to get the power down cleanly, make use of that RWD nature, and have a whole hell of a lot of fun doing so...

I can't say I'd prefer an RSX for what would really be marginal differences in handling, this isn't like I'm saying NSX or S2000 versus the Mustang here, and this isn't the old Fox based "brick on a string" Mustang. They can turn well now, left and right!

It's all about preference. I prefer a car I can toss around, you prefer a car that can jump off the line. But don't try to claim that the pony car can out maneuver the RSX because it simply isn't so. Oversteer or RWD does not = good handling.

I'll take my car over a mustang any day.

I'm sorry but I just had to chuckle at this. I remember when those cars first came out there was a guy in my apartment complex that had one. He raced one of my good friends who had a blown camaro (I don't think I need to tell you the result) and after the RSX lost he whined like a little baby and then said "well atleast I have a nice interior." I will never forget that as long as I live.

The RSX could have taken the camaro on the right course. But it would need to be a super tight course, nothing where the camaro could stretch its legs.

 

[Onikaze]

New Mustangs =/= Old Mustangs.

The new ones actually turn and are very tossable.

I prefer cars that I can toss around too, but I believe anything but RWD is a waste, and I'd never buy a new FWD car.

 

[YSSMAN]

...I really don't think youre giving the Mustang enough credit. The car handels exceptionally well for having a live rear axle, and being as light as it is, it makes good use of it's 300 BHP. I'm not going to deny that the RSX presumably handels better on more technical courses, but the lack of horsepower and that "fun to drive" factors are going to be killers in many people's opinions.

 

[Onikaze]

^ Not to mention the whole "it's got power going to the wrong wheels" thing.

That ruins the car for me, utterly.

 

[niky]

Power to the wheels only relates to which gets you to the next corner faster... cornering itself and the fun in performing the cornering maneuver are more a function of the inherent balance and tuning of the car and its suspension. Don't discount an FF car just because it's rubbish in the 1320.

That said, again, both are good cars, and inherently good handling cars, from both reviews and track tests. Given the suspension and chassis pedigree of both cars, I'd say they both perform fairly well compared to their competition.

But let's not start or continue that debate in this thread. Both nice cars, period. The Mustang lives, long live the Mustang! The RSX is going to that great big garage in the sky. And that's what this thread's all about.

 

[Danoff]

...I really don't think youre giving the Mustang enough credit. The car handels exceptionally well for having a live rear axle, and being as light as it is, it makes good use of it's 300 BHP. I'm not going to deny that the RSX presumably handels better on more technical courses, but the lack of horsepower and that "fun to drive" factors are going to be killers in many people's opinions.

Better handling = more fun to drive for some people.

I prefer cars that I can toss around too, but I believe anything but RWD is a waste, and I'd never buy a new FWD car.

Yes well those of us that aren't so hung up on that are obviously idiots.

 

[Onikaze]

No, you're just more forgiving than I am.

I, personally, will never forgive the French for cursing us with the realization that mass market FWD cars are cheaper to build.

DAMN YOU CITROEN! DAMN YOU TO HELL!

 

[Danoff]

No, you're just more forgiving than I am.

Not exactly. It's not like FWD cars are simply flawed and I'm willing to overlook that. It's more like my personal perferences and priorities don't line up with yours.

 

[Onikaze]

FWD cars are flawed though, it's the worst possible drivetrain layout.

"Wow, MR cars handle great, lets try this with the engine up front, maybe even hanging in front of the axle! Oh crap, nevermind, steering and accelerating are probably best left to different ends of the car."

You don't see FWD cars competing against other cars without the caveat "if it wasn't FWD, if would have done better" or whatnot.

They are economical, cheap to build, cheap to buy, and when done right, will give the best gas mileage most of the time.

That is it, while I agree that it is more fun driving a slow car fast than a fast car slow, if I want a slow, 4 banger powered, japanese car, I'll look for a Miata, or a KA24 S13.

 

[Danoff]

FWD cars are flawed though, it's the worst possible drivetrain layout.

Not necessarily, even from a strictly performance point of view.

You don't see FWD cars competing against other cars without the caveat "if it wasn't FWD, if would have done better" or whatnot.

I watched a couple of tuned RSXs put down some tuned RX8s, a few tuned BMWs a couple of weekends back. Cant' remember the name of the race but it turned up on Speed.

They are economical, cheap to build, cheap to buy, and when done right, will give the best gas mileage most of the time.

When they're balanced properly they handle perfectly. Plenty of RWD cars have understeer.

 

[Poverty]

FWD cars are not flawed at all. For a small hatchback nothing does it better

 

[IMADreamer]

I watched a couple of tuned RSXs put down some tuned RX8s, a few tuned BMWs a couple of weekends back. Cant' remember the name of the race but it turned up on Speed.

.

I don't care to get in on your little FWD vs RWD pissing match but that statement proves nothing and is seriously flawed. So the RSXs do well in a certain motorsports league. Does that mean FWD is the superior platform for racing. NO!

It's like saying one black guy is a murderer so they all must be. It's wrong and it's a generalize assumption based on one specimen about the entire group.

FWD certainly has it's place in the world, some prefer FWD, some don't. Either way if you like or drive one or the other don't assume it's superior to everyone elses choice. It's your choice, leave it that way.

Didn't you make a thread about tolerance in another section?

 

[Poverty]

If you dont like FWD cars your not a real car enthiusiast. FWD is where it starts for most people.

 

[Danoff]

I don't care to get in on your little FWD vs RWD pissing match but that statement proves nothing and is seriously flawed. So the RSXs do well in a certain motorsports league. Does that mean FWD is the superior platform for racing. NO!

It's like saying one black guy is a murderer so they all must be. It's wrong and it's a generalize assumption based on one specimen about the entire group.

FWD certainly has it's place in the world, some prefer FWD, some don't. Either way if you like or drive one or the other don't assume it's superior to everyone elses choice. It's your choice, leave it that way.

Didn't you make a thread about tolerance in another section?

Yup, and this is exactly my point. I like the way you put it.

FWD certainly has it's place in the world, some prefer FWD, some don't. Either way if you like or drive one or the other don't assume it's superior to everyone elses choice. It's your choice, leave it that way.

Very nice. Tell that to Onikaze.

 

[IMADreamer]

If you dont like FWD cars your not a real car enthiusiast. FWD is where it starts for most people.

I agree most people do start with FWD and it's a great starter platform. It's very easy to drive, good in inclimate weather, and inexpensive. Honestly most people should start out with FWD to learn the basics of driving.

 

[Onikaze]

If you dont like FWD cars you're not a real car enthiusiast.(opinion) FWD is where it starts for most people.(fact)

Way to make an opinion sound like a fact.

I am a real car enthusiast(fact), I think FWD cars are an unfortunate waste of technology(opinion), FWD cars are cheap to manufacture because you can drop the engine and transmission into the car in one step(fact), FWD cars suck because there is too much crap in one place(opinion).

See what I did there?

I fondly recall the days of my youth, before I had started driving, or having to take care of myself financially, back when I had no idea that people actually made FWD cars.

You can't declare someone is or isn't a car enthusiast because they don't like FWD, wouldn't that be as silly as me saying you aren't an enthusiast because you don't see the flaws in FWD cars?

 

[a6m5]

Basically, I agree with what danoff and IMAD were saying.

RWD to me is very fun to drive. I also think this is the ideal layout. But having said that, for most drivers, I think they are dangerous on wet(I live near Portland, Or. Rain, rain, rain). Also, many Japanese FWD cars I've driven are just as fun to drive for me.

 

[Poverty]

FWD cars are more compact, they offer extra passenger room etc etc.

And FWD cars are so much fun in the form of hot hatches, light powerful, chean and yet still rather economical they are great, unlike a certain 130i.

 

[Onikaze]

Gimme a 230Ci any day.

I don't buy a fun car because it has room for two golf clubs.

 

[niky]

And I asked (without success) that we knock it off? This isn't an FWD vs RWD thread... it's just a lamentation for one of the best FWD sports cars ever.

Drivetrain Preference has nothing to do with it. The RSX is dead.

The Mustang has nothing to do with it. The Celica was pulled before the Mustang started making much of an impact. The RSX's downward spiral began before then.

And yes, RWD is king, all hail RWD... oh... I forgot... RWDs are inherently more expensive to make (the cheapest RWD I know has 0.3 liters less than other cars in the price range, an anorexic engine... no ABS, no airbags, and is on a ladder frame... oh, and it isn't even a car.) which means, of course, that most people just learning to drive and learning to drive hard are learning on FWD, whether we like it or not.

And it's a good way to learn. FWDs as stock, "push" harder than RWDs, forcing you to back off the throttle early and guide the car into the turn. On no-throttle or trailing brake, an FWD car will behave much like any RWD car. Go in too fast and you understeer, give it too much brake or brake too abruptly and it'll oversteer, get it right and you get through the corner fast and with less drama.

Once you've mastered car control and have learned to steer with your car's weight and brakes, go on to cars with the "correct" drivetrain layout, and you add another layer on top of that, learning how to balance the throttle in turns. Many people who start with RWD on track rely too much on the throttle to get them around turns (I've seen this). It's entertaining, but smooth and steady is always fastest, whatever you're driving.

There's a good reason Skip Barber uses Dodge Neons as entry level cars. They're sharp-handling, nimble, and forgiving. Oh, yeah, and they're cheap.

But you'll notice, everything else is RWD.

The point of FWD performance and tuning is not to prove that it's any better, but merely as an exercise in showing that it can be done. Just because it's not the optimum drivetrain layout, doesn't mean that FWD cars can't be fun, or can't perform well... it just means that it takes that little bit more for them to do so. (EDIT: Okay, a LOT more...)

----

C'mon guys... if we really need to argue this point, we can do it (and we have done it) in a zillion other threads.

Now can we all get with it and knock it off... this argument should be budded into another thread. A lot of people will wander in here and see all the hot posts and just wander back out without having their say on the death of the RSX.

 

[YSSMAN]

Okay, if we are going to talk about the death of the RSX...

Quite frankly, I think they could have bailed the car out by offering more "stripper" models with fewer options and a far-lower price. That was the great thing about the origional Integras. They offers copious ammounts of performance at rather low prices, and you could go from your baisic sporty econo-box up to a luxed-out economy car on par with Jetta GLXs, etc.

With the RSX however, it was luxury-only, and it put a lot of perspective buyers out of the market. This was partically because the Civic was indeed steping on it's sibling's toes, especially with models like the Civic Si. I only knew one kid with a RSX, and his was the special eddition A-Spec RSX-S with the body kit and the whatnot. He paid quite a bit of money for it, quite frankly , too much in my opinion.

Simply put, I could not validate the purchase of an RSX for those sums of money. Sure, I know that they are well-built cars with good ammounts of performance on a FWD platform... But there is always the GTI, GLI, A3 2.0T, Mazdaspeed Protoge (Mazdaspeed 3 comming soon), Cobalt SS, etc. But of course, thats just me, and my opinion...

Chances are, the RSX/Integra will only be gone for a year or two. Acura probably wants to have a small coupe once again, and if the rumors are true, it will baisically be a two door version of the TSX/Accord we allready have here.

 

[IMADreamer]

Okay, if we are going to talk about the death of the RSX...

Quite frankly, I think they could have bailed the car out by offering more "stripper" models with fewer options and a far-lower price. That was the great thing about the origional Integras. They offers copious ammounts of performance at rather low prices, and you could go from your baisic sporty econo-box up to a luxed-out economy car on par with Jetta GLXs, etc.

With the RSX however, it was luxury-only, and it put a lot of perspective buyers out of the market. This was partically because the Civic was indeed steping on it's sibling's toes, especially with models like the Civic Si. I only knew one kid with a RSX, and his was the special eddition A-Spec RSX-S with the body kit and the whatnot. He paid quite a bit of money for it, quite frankly , too much in my opinion.

Simply put, I could not validate the purchase of an RSX for those sums of money. Sure, I know that they are well-built cars with good ammounts of performance on a FWD platform... But there is always the GTI, GLI, A3 2.0T, Mazdaspeed Protoge (Mazdaspeed 3 comming soon), Cobalt SS, etc. But of course, thats just me, and my opinion...

Chances are, the RSX/Integra will only be gone for a year or two. Acura probably wants to have a small coupe once again, and if the rumors are true, it will baisically be a two door version of the TSX/Accord we allready have here.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The RSX outpriced itself really. Too much luxary and not enough go for the price. Yes, it was a fun little car but it was kind of between the MS Protege and the RX-8, 350z which if you are a good shopper can be had for 24k. While the Z and 8 are not direct competitors they are in a way. I heard a lot of people mention them all in the same grouping and if your looking at a RSX for 22k and you can land an 8 for 2k more it makes the RSX look a tad overpriced. Especially when you consider insurance rates aren't going to be that far off.

I think a stripped version of the car in and around the 19-20k price range would have sold fantasticly.

Either way, I think the RSX was a good car and Honda will have a replacement for it before long.