type R vs. rsx type s

anybody know who would win the 1/4?

Well they are almost both exactly the same car.

Certianly the Type R sold in Asia Pasfic region and in Europe has exactly the same spec level and performance as the RSX Type S.
The Japanese Type R is similar, but has another 20hp.


Or are you refering to the previous model Integra Type R, and have just learned that a: 97% of the worlds population dont live in America, and b: it pays to be a little more spefic when asking a question.

I'd take the ITR over the RSX Type S anyday...

Well they are almost both exactly the same car.

Certianly the Type R sold in Asia Pasfic region and in Europe has exactly the same spec level and performance as the RSX Type S.
The Japanese Type R is similar, but has another 20hp.


Or are you refering to the previous model Integra Type R, and have just learned that a: 97% of the worlds population dont live in America, and b: it pays to be a little more spefic when asking a question.

My bad, i meant usdm (b18c5)
so same hp&tq? what about gear ratio and weight?

that would be a fun race to watch! i didnt vote cause i have know facts to back me up, but just the fact that ive raced a type-s i would hope the b18c5 is quicker.

alright i found some facts to back me up. First off the usdm type-R
has 195hp@8000 130@7500 0-60 6.5 0-100 17.6 1/4 15.24@93.7
5 speed manual redline@8400 top speed 135... the rsx type-S has 200hp@7400 142@6000 0-60 6.5 0-100 17.4 1/4 15.29@93.6
6 speed manual redline@7900 top speed 145...
so ya like i said before, that would be a good race.

who every drove that type R can't drive. the type R can run a 14.7 average. which is a good amount faster then a 15.2

who every drove that type R can't drive. the type R can run a 14.7 average. which is a good amount faster then a 15.2

actually those are pretty accurate average 1/4 times, you know you could also say the same to the rsx, cause the fastest time that Car and Driver got for the rsx type s was 14.8, and they never got a faster time for the type r.

in that case, then you've only seen a 14.8 in a rsx type S done only once and hasn't been able to back that time up yet. don't you find htat odd? yet witht he type R, many publications were able to "repeatedly" get a 14.6 and a 14.7 out of them? that 15.2 is actually the slowest time that i've seen for a type R to run. and i've only seen it once. so it was a mistaken on that one report.i'll go on and list some of hte other publishers who was able to "repeatedly get a 14.6-14.7", sport compact car, best motoring, i'm sure the old road and track had it as well, when they tested the RSX-type S they would not get it in the 14's, they weren't even close. that car averages 15.5-15.2 at best, and they have been testing that car every year in the 8 great rides since it first came out. you gotta look at a certain year. the older DC2 type R's were not as fast as they were in the last 2 years of production. bottom line, a DC2 type R is faster then a DC5 RSX type S. now if your goin to compare a DC5 type R to the DC2, then the DC5 will be faster.

in that case, then you've only seen a 14.8 in a rsx type S done only once and hasn't been able to back that time up yet. don't you find htat odd? yet witht he type R, many publications were able to "repeatedly" get a 14.6 and a 14.7 out of them? that 15.2 is actually the slowest time that i've seen for a type R to run. and i've only seen it once. so it was a mistaken on that one report.i'll go on and list some of hte other publishers who was able to "repeatedly get a 14.6-14.7", sport compact car, best motoring, i'm sure the old road and track had it as well, when they tested the RSX-type S they would not get it in the 14's, they weren't even close. that car averages 15.5-15.2 at best, and they have been testing that car every year in the 8 great rides since it first came out. you gotta look at a certain year. the older DC2 type R's were not as fast as they were in the last 2 years of production. bottom line, a DC2 type R is faster then a DC5 RSX type S. now if your goin to compare a DC5 type R to the DC2, then the DC5 will be faster.

but then again the type r's been out longer, so of course you ll see more publicstions for it. 14.6 for a type r? are you kidding me, that is no where near average, ive never seen full proof of that anywhere. but ive seen best motoring, and they barely got 14.9 for the type r, they kept getting 15.0-15.1 most of the time. it could be the years right? well if so, then compare the 01 rsx to the fastest version of the type r, and you ll get same times. bottom line, if you compare fastest proven time of each, they re almost exactly the same.

but then again the type r's been out longer, so of course you ll see more publicstions for it. 14.6 for a type r? are you kidding me, that is no where near average, ive never seen full proof of that anywhere. but ive seen best motoring, and they barely got 14.9 for the type r, they kept getting 15.0-15.1 most of the time. it could be the years right? well if so, then compare the 01 rsx to the fastest version of the type r, and you ll get same times. bottom line, if you compare fastest proven time of each, they re almost exactly the same.
when i had my 4th gen maxima i raced a type-r and beat it and i know the kid to be a capable driver. there's no way that my old max ran mid 14's. that's way above average for a type-r. not saying it isn't possible but it's certainly not average

i guess i'll have to do some old magazine scans and show you guys. i'll try to find as much as i can. and the RSX was released just as long as the type R was. the type R was only out for like 3-4 years. the RSX has been out just as long. i'll try to look for the articles. and i'll show you.

its almost impossible to find them in the websites anymore, so i'll have to go to car stats and supercars.net

http://www.car-stats.com/stats/showstats/showstatsgivenid.aspx

this is from a 2000 model. this is taken from the may issue of motor trend. it ran a 14.8 on the 1/4

heres another one of a 2000 model.

http://www.supercars.net/cars/2000@$Acura@$Integra%20Type-Rg.html

this one ran a 14.9 on the 1/4 mile the source on htis one is kinda iffy.

i'll scan in the page of sportcompactcar. where it ran a 14.7 on the 1/4 mile stock

also look at this video from temple of v-tec. go to kazaa and download the video of a type R vs. a silvia S14. as much as i hate to admit it, but that type R kicked the turbo silvia's ass. and it ran a 14.7 as well. stock.

you go find me all as much sources as i mentioned of a RSX type S runnin that fast, and maybe i'l believe you that its that quick. but i've personally raced a type R with my car, and i'll tell you this, i barely won. (beat him by only 3 cars) but this was before my car was tuned so i was making around 30 less whp and my friends S2000 barely won as well. the type R was definitly gave me a harder time then a WRX did.

first of all that integra they tested in that vid is a japanese version type r, which has about 200hp 5 more hp than the us spec, and it had the same wheels as the us spec, so dont complain about the wheel size. i dont remember what times they got so im not gonna say you re wrong, but still thats not the us spec type r, i have to say that 15.0-15.1 is a good average for a type r with a good driver. car and driver got 15.2 with the last type r they tested, thats the top car magazine here right now, and they average all their times out pretty accurately. they gather all their best runs, and average them out.

type r's been out longer total 6-7 yrs, for how long it was out when it was still being produced, about 4 yrs, while the rsx has been around 2.5 yrs, it came out around august of 01.

well for a guy with the name nismo you sure know alot about hondas. anyways, i will not finish this thread anymore cusae i refuse to believe a type S is faster, csue i clearly remembered the RSX being slower then the type R is many ocassions. i have actually never seen a RSX run under a 15 flat. and the teg that you were talkin about, yes that number that you posted i have seen them. they were from the 98 models. but anyways from personally experience, type R's are quick little cars. and RSX type S's are not exactly slow, but they're about the same as a v-tec prelude. and from racing both, the type R stood a much better chance. but hey what do i know? you seem to be the honda expert here. i'm just judging htis from personal real life experience, your basing it on mags.

for the rsx getting 14.8 in the quarter, i saw it in car and driver august 2001 issue, page 65. maybe they got really lucky with temp and all that, or the 2001 model yr is just faster, i really dont know, but thats the time they said they got.

well i wasnt looking up rsx's or integra type r's, but just happened to come accros this site with type r magazine articles. looks like they did at some point even got the type r as fast as 14.5 for the quarter in SCC, but i think they got really lucky, and did it only once though. anyways i can believe 14.8 for the type r, i can trust the the time 14.8 motor trend got, but im not sure about the 14.5-14.7 sports compact car got, i just dont know how they do their tests, but you can believe what you want, the times are really close. seems like the 2000-2001 models were the faster yrs, while the 97 got 15.2-15.3, but not sure about 99 or 98. anyways take a look at the site.

click the second one below.

http://69.53.28.141/reviews.html] (http:// http://69.53.28.141/reviews.html[/url]

well the fact taht i was arguing is that you were giving me the impression that you think the type R can't run a 14.7-14.8 and the way sport compact car does they're test is that they don't use correction factor. where most major magazines do. so i guess its all cool now then. but usually people in sport compact car runs slower times, csue they run them in the desert. like how they were tryin soo hard to get project silvia to run 12's. they could not get them to run 12's at all, they're personal best was 13.05 and when they called motortrend to do a correction factor for them, ( cause dave colemans job was on the line. he had to run a 12 or he'll get fired, and he got desperate) so motortrend gave them the correction factor adn it turns out they ran a 12.4

this is where i got my info! www.engine-power.com the reason the type-r ran a 15.2 is most likely because of high elavation.