 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Acura Cars / June 2006No more RSX?
I read on one of my lists that Acura is dropping the RSX after this year to 'move the line upscale'. They said a memo had gone out to the dealers with that information. Can anyone confirm/deny it? yup, thats old news >I read on one of my lists that Acura is dropping the RSX after this year to >'move the line upscale'. They said a memo had gone out to the dealers with >that information. Can anyone confirm/deny it? > yup, thats old news > >>I read on one of my lists that Acura is dropping the RSX after this >>year to 'move the line upscale'. They said a memo had gone out to the >>dealers with that information. Can anyone confirm/deny it? Too bad Honda doesn't have anything remotely similar,they need to bring back the Prelude and the Integra,even if under the Honda brand.  SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net How about the Honda Civic SI, its got the same engine is the Type S RSX...I'd say its very simular >> yup, thats old news >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Too bad Honda doesn't have anything remotely similar,they need to bring > back the Prelude and the Integra,even if under the Honda brand. > How about the Honda Civic SI, its got the same engine is the Type S > RSX...I'd say its very simular Not a hatchback;they are very useful. Is there a hatchback version that is as sporty as the Integra? (IMO,the RSX is uglier than the Integra) IIRC,Honda's Civic HB is a tiny boxy stationwagon,and dog-ugly. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net No way is the RSX is uglier than the Integra! I've had both and the RSX drives better too!! SignatureGod bless! > >> How about the Honda Civic SI, its got the same engine is the Type S [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (IMO,the RSX is uglier than the Integra) > IIRC,Honda's Civic HB is a tiny boxy stationwagon,and dog-ugly. > No way is the RSX is uglier than the Integra! I've had both and the RSX > drives better too!! Sure it's uglier;it;s got a higher beltline,looks inflated and more egg- shaped compared to the last model Integra. Then it's got that ugly snout,too. I don't need to own an RSX to see that it's ugly. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >> No way is the RSX is uglier than the Integra! I've had both and the >> RSX drives better too!! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I don't need to own an RSX to see that it's ugly. Arguing about taste in cars is pointless. The rsx isn't ugly, you just don't like it. Or it's uglier than snot. Either statement can be correct. JY's main input to this group is to slam the rsx repeatedly, so if you don't like his opinion, you can ignore it or kf him. Personally I don't mind his opinions. I like them both the rsx and the newer integras. Almost bought several integras, and actually did buy an rsx. Personally I don't mind that acura is dumping the rsx. It's been due for an update for a while. It occupies such a small niche market that it's not worth the bother of updating, apparently. I wish they'd bring back something like the nsx, actually. That was an excellent car. >>> No way is the RSX is uglier than the Integra! I've had both and the >>> RSX drives better too!! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > don't like it. Or it's uglier than snot. Either statement can be > correct. If you like egg-shaped cars,sure the RSX fits the bill.RSX reminds me of those "futuristic cars" seen in movies,all egg-shaped.YUK. It seems like most of the newer cars coming out all look similar;high and narrow,like they were inflated with a compressor. The Integras were distinct,sleek,low to the ground,which is what many car modders do;lower the thing. > JY's main input to this group is to slam the rsx repeatedly, > so if you don't like his opinion, you can ignore it or kf him. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Personally I don't mind that acura is dumping the rsx. It's been due > for an update for a while. It's only been out for a few years. The last model Integra ran from 94- 2001. > It occupies such a small niche market that > it's not worth the bother of updating, apparently. I wish they'd bring > back something like the nsx, actually. That was an excellent car. Acura's big bucks exoticar. Hardly an affordable sporty car. I did like it's design,like the the low,sleek nose and the copy of the Porsche 959's integrated spoiler. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>> No way is the RSX is uglier than the Integra! I've had both and the >>>> RSX drives better too!! [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > I did like it's design,like the the low,sleek nose and the copy of the > Porsche 959's integrated spoiler. Nsx's - I still like them! I've been of the impression that they stopped making them some years ago - but I got curious last night and looked for a used one locally, and turned up one at a reputable used car dealer that's listed as a 2005 - so do they still make them? > How about the Honda Civic SI, its got the same engine is the Type S > RSX...I'd say its very simular I'll bet the Si is cannibalizing sales from the RSX. Just look at that price difference. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ Yes in Canada after taxes and everything its $37 000 for a RSX Type S (convert that to US and see how much acura rips us off in canada) and the SI is $28 000....its hard to justify an extra 9 grand just for the RSX... But I agree, the SI is ugly as sin... >> How about the Honda Civic SI, its got the same engine is the Type S >> RSX...I'd say its very simular > > I'll bet the Si is cannibalizing sales from the RSX. Just look at that > price difference. Disagree. Civic SI is far, far better looking than the "prow-shaped" RSX. A bit lighter and faster as well. The Civic SI was the basis for the fabulously successful '90-'93 Acura Integra line. Acura should take a hint and go back to its Civic SI chassis roots. Big, fat, $$ cars (no matter how good) aren't automatically the most desireable, particularly with $gas$ becoming more and more of a worry. - Bill > Yes in Canada after taxes and everything its $37 000 for a RSX Type S > (convert that to US and see how much acura rips us off in canada) and the SI [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ > > www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > Disagree. Civic SI is far, far better looking than the > "prow-shaped" [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> is $28 000....its hard to justify an extra 9 grand just for the >> RSX... But I agree, the SI is ugly as sin... The RSX is ugly. I haven't yet seen a Civic SI to judge them. But Acura is departing the low-end market. Honda needs to make something like the 2001 Integra 3-dr(light weight,low,sporty,yet practical),a Prelude(a great driver),and a CRX(good low-end auto). I suppose if they made the Civic SI coupe into a 3-dr hatchback -with the same profile-,it would be OK. Instead they gave us the Fit.... SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > > Disagree. Civic SI is far, far better looking than the > > "prow-shaped" [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > The RSX is ugly. I haven't yet seen a Civic SI to judge them. > But Acura is departing the low-end market. Always had that feeling -- that the RSX was an orphan at Acura dealers. > Honda needs to make something like the 2001 Integra 3-dr(light > weight,low,sporty,yet practical),a Prelude(a great driver),and a CRX(good [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Instead they gave us the Fit.... >>> is $28 000....its hard to justify an extra 9 grand just for the >>> RSX... But I agree, the SI is ugly as sin... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Instead they gave us the Fit.... The Fit is fine for what it is. Honda wants to expand its offerings so there should be room for a car like my '94 GS-R. The new Civic Si looks pretty close but maybe not as much improvement as there should have been in twelve years. A new Integra GS-R or R based on this car could have real potential. Me and my 1990 Integra RS totally agree. Acura did something "really right" which is where they should have stood. - Bill > >>> is $28 000....its hard to justify an extra 9 grand just for the > >>> RSX... But I agree, the SI is ugly as sin... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > have been in twelve years. A new Integra GS-R or R based on this car > could have real potential. > Me and my 1990 Integra RS totally agree. Acura did something > "really right" which is where they should have stood. - Bill I was going to buy a 93 Integra,except I despised the automatic seat belts. So,I waited for the 94 model to come out. At that time,I had a 90 Prelude(hail-damaged,only 20 K miles!),but the 93 'Lude was yucky too(hated the rear end and dash);if they had the last version (2001?)of the Prelude,I would have stayed with that product,although I really like having a hatchback. I just don't want one that looks like a mini-station wagon or a 2dr sedan,even if it is a "SI".(what a joke!) Has Honda forgotten what "sporty" looks like? They need to go and STARE at the last Prelude for a week or two. Or maybe be locked into one for a week. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >> >>> is $28 000....its hard to justify an extra 9 grand just for the >> >>> RSX... But I agree, the SI is ugly as sin... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> have been in twelve years. A new Integra GS-R or R based on this car >> could have real potential. > snip > > Has Honda forgotten what "sporty" looks like? Don't forget the Civic platform now uses a front strut suspension. The suspension fixes hard points in the car's design - strut towers must be accommodated. Sit behind the wheel of a new Civic and see how far out in front of the car you can see the road. Now try this in a 10 year old Civic. Call that progress? Quite right. The "old" independent suspension was pure racing car. You could align each wheel individually .. . making it somewhat of "bear" for the unredy wheel aligner. However, we're not talking pure racing cars (on US highways?!?) but space-saving for engine modifications and a taller hood height. Soichiro Honda advocated a low center of gravity, wide stance (remember Pontiac adopting this?), a low belt line and racing suspension. Times have changed. Hybrids, diesels and "mpg" are the rule. Progress is a state of mind concurrent with popular demands and needs taking precendence. Bill > > snip > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in front of the car you can see the road. Now try this in a 10 year old > Civic. Call that progress? > Quite right. The "old" independent suspension was pure racing > car. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > diesels and "mpg" are the rule. Progress is a state of mind > concurrent with popular demands and needs taking precendence. Bill These days,low,wide cars from the factory are no more;the beltlines have risen for safety reasons(side-impact protection,SUVs...) and cars made narrower for low drag. Tall,narrow and egg-shaped are the cars of today.(YUK!) Just compare an Integra with an RSX,and you can see it! The RSX is more egg-shaped,higher,like they put an airhose to the car and inflated it. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >These days,low,wide cars from the factory are no more;the beltlines have >risen for safety reasons(side-impact protection,SUVs...) and cars made >narrower for low drag. > >Tall,narrow and egg-shaped are the cars of today.(YUK!) That's why the 01 TL is so much prettier than the new one. Signature"I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer." - Douglas Adams > These days,low,wide cars from the factory are no more;the beltlines have > risen for safety reasons(side-impact protection,SUVs...) and cars made > narrower for low drag. I sure have noticed the same thing. Beltlines are way up in most classes of cars. Passive safety is unfortunately taking precendence over visibility. We have a '93 Volvo 240 for our daughter. Not a pretty car, but every time I drive it I am amazed at the outstanding visibility the driver has in all directions. When I get in our Accord or TSX I feel like I can't see a darn thing by comparison. High beltlines, massive pillars and egg shape design all take away from the driver's visibility. I guess that with most drivers spending so little time actually looking at what is going on outside of their heads it might be the right trade off :(. John thank God for that thank god |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.