210 HP but only 143 Torque???

[93-240SX-COUPE]

I was thinking about getting a Type S cuz the HP looks good but is the acceleration pretty slow? I saw in a previous thread that it kinda sucks in the 3000-4500 range and that really sucks from my perspective cuz thats where Im used to getting power from as I have a 240 with a KA. Not trying to bash on the RSX but does the lack of Torque really take away from it or is it not even that noticeable?

[gsxeclipse97]

Don't let the lack of torque fool you. I raced my friends prelude when my car was stock. and he had h/i/e pullys and carbon fiber hood. He handed my ass to me twice. it also has more hp>tq.

[mason_RsX]

Did you really expect tons of torque from a 2.0L NA engine? If you keep it above 5500 when racing you will not be bogged down with poor acceleration

honestly, the lack to bottom-end torque is noticable, but so is the fact that I could go on forever on a tank of gas...Premium gas but still..

[paulkramer]

Might be a good idea to test drive one before you commit. The lack of torque is still disconcerting to me. I used to drive a V6 Oldsmobile and it's a very different experience with the RSX.

It is mostly a problem while using the A/C. Damn thing feels like it will die if I don't rev it just right from either a stop or between gears. And if I rev it too much, it lights up the tires.

Mine's a base, the situation with a Type-S might be better since it has more power. I don't know how much difference there is in torque between the two.

[Dr.Gonzo]

Is someone missing the picture here? The lack of torque in a 2.0? 143lbs. of tq for a N/A I4 car that has only 2.0 liters of displacement isn't bad at all. The shorter gearing helps with lack of tq in the TypeS. There are a lot of torque less wonders out there that get around town just fine. I figure you will have to learn how to drive the TypeS. In race situations TQ is kind of decieving just think about it when you launch you might notice a difference but the rest of the shifting in the race will land you in the prime highend hp spot especially with TypeS's and most Hondas.

[crazy_canuck]

The 2005 also has better gearing, improving acceleration. Its honestly hard to say if hyou haven't test driven it, but I don't really notice it in my 02 Type S. When I do need power (usually for overtaking) its there because i'm at least at 3500 RPMs.

[sivic02]

Go test drive one, its the best 143tq ive ever felt

[pik_d]

yea, i cant think of any 2.0L I4's, (and no turbocharger) that give as much torque...

closest thing is the 2.2L S2000 with 162 lb-ft, and back when it was 2.0L, it had 153 lb-ft, so really, a small I4 is not built for torque, unless you give it a turbo. in which case you can do things like the evolution VIII, 276 lb-ft out of four half-liter cylinders...

[crazy_canuck]

In more cases, a supercharger would be better for torque....

[pik_d]

from my basic understanding, a supercharger is better for the low end then a turbocharger is, because it doesnt have to spool up.

so i would say (from what i know), that the supercharger is better for the power and torque curve. may be able to create more torque per HP, but i'm not sure if thats what you mean?

[crazy_canuck]

Not neccesarily tq per hp, but just tq overall. As you said SC is for low-end and turbo is for top-end. Most stage 1 or 2 turbo RSXs have less tq than the supecharged ones, but the turbos have more hp.

[pik_d]

well, i dont know much about RSX's, considering i have a neon r/t... and i'm just starting to really learn about cars, and what you can do to them...

i just hear the import vs. domestic wars... and i'm trying to figure out the virtues of both...

the RSX is the only honda/acura that even would appeal to me, except for its torque rating being at 7000rpm's... but i've never driven a car with a vtec engine... so i'm not so quick to write it off, if it can GET to 7000rpm's quickly...

the car i really wanted to get was the VW gti 1.8t... which has its max torque from 1950rpm's all the way to around 5000 rpm's... (even if the thing is 3000lbs) i would only assume you wouldnt notice turbo lag at all... but again, i havnt driven one.

not too sure what any of that has to do with the RSX having only 143lb-ft of torque... but thats what turbo's and superchargers are for.

[mason_RsX]

Well if it isn't crazy canuck back from the dead...then again Clay's been missing for a few months (or mabe hes just not popular nemore); did you have anything to do with that canuck??

an s/c will give you more torque, especially down low, but how much torque do you really want from a fwd car?? it gets kinda pointless after a while...plus turbos are so much fun!!

as for import vs domestic cars are designed in country A, parts are assembled in country B,C,D,E and its finally put together in country F...so where exactly is it from??

[pik_d]

i'd say wherever the R&D engineers are, so country A in your example. unless you're talking about "i buy a domestic to support the economy", then its country F.

either that or i dont much like the letters B, C, D, or E.

but i'm just saying, that even though i have a neon, i'm trying to figure out why people like each "division" of cars... and no, i'm not trying to start a import vs. domestic war in this thread. i was just giving an explanation of why i'm in a car forum that i dont own, and am not looking to own the car it's representing.

[crazy_canuck]

Well look at Toyota...you could almost consider it a domestic.....

And i'm not back from the dead the forum was just dead period. And Clay is probably resting is vocal chords. He deserves it.



Back on topic (or less off topic, actually) I wouldn't go near a 1.8T. Good motors and trannies, completely worthless everything else - ugly, extremely hit or miss on reliability, and ugly.