VVTL-i or V-Tec

I'm looking into to getting an RSX or an MR2. I'm posting this because I would love to get feedback from the wealth of knowledge that is automotive forums. Which one has the most potential to be screaming fast, but still a daily driver. We are talking about brand new cars here. If there is one year of either car that performed better in your opinions, please say so. Any intelligent input would be greatly appreciated.

First of all, you are comparing a mid engine 1.8 Liter four with rear wheel drive to a front engine front wheel drive 2.0 liter four. Are you debating the base RSX and MR2 or the Type S and MR2? overall, id get the RSX Type S, then Base RSX, then MR2. I dont like drifting at all, and i say this with the experience of 4 RX-7's ive had (3 first gen's and 1 third gen). Front wheel drive is more practical for everyday driving, plus either one has a major HP advantage, 18 in the case of the Base RSX (160HP/141TQ) and 58 HP in the Type S vs MR2 (200HP/142TQ). The Acura's have more standard features and a stronger power curve courtesy of the larger displacement. BTW, its i-VTEC DOHC for the RSX's (or VTEC in older integras and civics). The K series 2 liter engine already has massive aftermarket support and the engine itself has enourmous potential with just bolt on mods like cold air intake, header, and exhaust. The toyota roadster is a convertible though, but doesnt have nearly the aftermarket support or the 4 year warranty. I test drove an MR2 a few times and was not that impressed, plus its only a 5 speed. my RSX is a six speed manual. Overall, as a daily driver FWD is better to begin with. Maybe you should look into comparing a Celica and RSX, that would be a better matchup. the MR2 is moreso the competition of Mazda's MX-5 (Miata) RWD convertible. Personally i chose the Acura over the Celica, MR2, WRX, and Miata simply because i felt it has the best potential, so my recomendation is for the RSX (Type S preferably, base model has less aftermarket support)

i-VTEC > VVTL-i > VTEC > Every other knockoff

I'm not sure why i-VTEC is better than VVTL-i, but i've heard it in magazines, forums, etc.

Get the RSX. The new MR2 sucks compared to the RSX.

TakimotoRacing - You're on ClubRSX, right?

The MR2 spyder has an optional 6 speed transmission. I have heard a lot more about handling for the MR2. And why would Lotus choose the VVTL-i for its Lotus Elise coming to the states? I guess I was already leaning towards the MR2, but everyone says go with the RSX Type S. I dont know why, its heavier which causes worse handling and braking. Its just hard picking between the two. Handling vs more power I guess?

Well its not like the RSX is a bad handling car....keep in mind that the MR2 Spyder is a convertible so that loses structural rigidity....

And about the Lotus, A K20A (A better version of the engine in the type s - it is used in the japan/australia only type r version) was dropped into one (stock - 220hp) and it was out accelerating and out handling brand new ferraris....

i say get the MR2... it will have better handling due to its weight distribution...
the MR2 also looks nicer than the RSX, did you try asking the same question in the MR2 forum? if not, try, and see what kind of responses you'll get

hmm, ok, i just looked, you posted in the MR2 forum about this already...

IMO the new MR2 is ugly, except for the Veilside and Kaminari ones.

This is a bit of a ridiculous comparison. The RSX, base or Type S has more hp, better tourque, equal/better fuel economy, larger displacement...
Also, if I remember correctly, the MR2 Spyder has an MSRP of around 24-25K???! And as far as being heavier is concerned (when it comes to the RSX and its performance)- you obviously have not driven one. The Type-S suspension/braking system is as tight as it gets- great control and feel. Performance stats aside, I personally find the RSX to be far more aesthetically pleasing. If you like the MR2, get one-but it really can't hold a candle to the RSX-S.

Yeah, what RSX-S777 said. Plus the RSX has a better aftermarket.

true, i haven't driven either car, i just thought that a car with a mr layout would handle better than a car with an ff layout...
however imo the RSX is quite ugly like most new honda cars

true, i haven't driven either car, i just thought that a car with a mr layout would handle better than a car with an ff layout...
however imo the RSX is quite ugly like most new honda cars

I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder...but an MR2 better looking than an RSX??? My chest hurts... :iceslolan

:) everyone has their own opinion about how new cars look

If you'd like to compare a Honda vehicle to the MR2, I'd suggest the S2000. Both convertibles, both RWD. MR2 does what, 220hp, S2000 does somewhere around 240. Of course, isn't the starting price for an S2000 around $30,000?

If the MR2 has 220 hp I will eat my own foot...more like 138. And comparing an MR2 to a $32,800 S2000 powerplant is even more pointless than comparing it to the Acura RSX.

Yeah, the MR2 is 138 hp and 125 tq. My lawnmower puts out more power, even though its a manually operated one :D

Hence the "does what, 220" that was to signify my lack of confidence in the number.

I was saying he should compare the MR2 and S2000 because of their similarities as far as body go (as well as the fact they are both RWD). I never said the power plant should be his deciding factor.

Ok, I misunderstood. You realize that after you said that, somewhere out there, some poor S2000 owner probably jumped in front of a bus. (Or tried to jump in front of Canuck's lawn mower... :iceslolan )

The difference in horsepower really doesn't make that much of a difference, I don't know how much an S2000 weighs, but isn't the MR2 lighter? I know the handling kills it also. When you think about how awesome a car is, you gotta look at the whole picture. The S2000 starts at like 32,000. The MR2 is 26,000. The RSX is (for what I priced it at) $24,163. THe MR2 is lighter than the others, plus it is mid-engine. The weight distribution is a lot different. I also need the car for a daily driver. Handling + Acceleration + Top Speed + Reliability all need to play a factor in this decision. That isn't even close to how whole the picture could be.

If handling, acceleration, top speed and reliability are your main concerns, the RSX and S2000 still both beat the MR2. If you plan to drive in any inclement weather, the RSX is the best of the three. Don't get hung up on weights of each car in relation to the others. Their individual weights (obviously) are all factored into their engineering/tuning. It's sounds like you really like the MR2. If thats the case you should buy one- it's a nice little car in its own right. But in comparison..well, there is really no comparison.

imho Toyota as a manufacturer is more reliable than Honda... and so the MR2 is more reliable than the RSX or the S2000

imho Toyota as a manufacturer is more reliable than Honda... and so the MR2 is more reliable than the RSX or the S2000

Bullshit. What statistics are you using to back up that statement??? You must be a Toyota owner, right?

You must be a Toyota owner, right?
no.. Honda Accord actually...

Bullshit. What statistics are you using to back up that statement???

I have no statistics to back that up... just my opinion, based only on the fact that while both of these manufacturers are considered to make very reliable cars and Toyota has been making cars longer than Honda. So I believe they had more time to perfect the reliability of their vehicles.

I wanted to see what people will say... so I made this poll:
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=219707

Even if you could possibly determine with certainty that one car manufacturer was more reliable than another (which is subject to interpretation), each car, especially models with newly introduced engineering advances, has to be regarded as a solitary entity. Not to mention factoring in individual driver habits, maintenance schedules etc...

sidrone, I can't disagree with you more. They're both top notch in terms of reliability, and each model has its own pros and cons. Plus, Ford was the first ever car company. Look at what they have! They should be the best vehicles out there. I am sorry, but thats a horrible argument. The poll doesn't solve it either - there could be more Honda or Toyota owners.

And actually, the S2K and RSX have a proven track record. I think the MR2 does too, but I don't really track the MR2 that much.

All signs point to RSX I guess. It is the cheapest out of the three. I guess there is more that could be done to it. I do kind of like the MR2 more for some reason. Maybe its just 'cause I like the Elise so much. I seems to be the most comparable to it and half the price. I have a while to save so we'll see if anything else in this price range has more potential in the near future.

yea, you're right, i'm wrong with comparing honda to toyota in reliability...

and the first car with an internal combustion engine was made by Diamler & Benz therefore Mercedes-Benz is the first car company

Meh, same point. Ford is over 100 years old and look at them. And reliability wise, Ford actually does better than Benz....

you're, right, it is the same point, but i really can't agree with you on Ford being more reliable than Benz... if you can, please proove me wrong...

According to Consumer Reports Ford and GM faired better than BMW and Benz. Here's a slight comparison though, although it has Benz a bit ahead:
http://www.autooninfo.info/RelPerFordCharts.htm
http://www.autooninfo.info/RelPerMerBenzCharts.htm

wow, i never would have thought... thank you for the info

yeah, np

Since you have heard all the pros for an RSX and cons for an MR2, the only thing I can suggest is test driving both, picking the one you like best, and buying that one. They're both good cars and it just matters what you think about them, not what everyone else is telling you. After all, they're not going to dish out the cash for the car, you are. It is good, though, to get opinions, like you have, but not weigh them heavily in your decision making.

I reiterate - test drive both and pick the one YOU :bigthumb: like.

Later!

mmont0 could not have been any more.....






...correct :D

I agree with ya totally.

Except, test drive both pick the one I like, then give it to me :D muhahaha

i-VTEC > VVTL-i > VTEC > Every other knockoff

I'm not sure why i-VTEC is better than VVTL-i, but i've heard it in magazines, forums, etc.



hmm... i heard that VVTL-i was better than i-VTEC...
from where i heard that Toyota incorporates the VVTL-i on both intake and exhaust cams where as Acura only puts the i-VTEC on intake...
can somebody clarify this for i am no sure...??

They are using the the VVTL-i in the federal Lotus Elise . . . apparently it has a higher power to weight ratio. Either way I found out the MR2 does not have the VVTL-i just the VVT-i. I could try and swap it in though . . .

The Ferrari killer Lotus uses a stock K20A:p

Unfortunately, I do not know what a K20A is. :::Bows head in shame:::

Yes I do, duh. The successor to the B18 is the K20. Except it rotates clockwise now right?

hmm... i heard that VVTL-i was better than i-VTEC...
from where i heard that Toyota incorporates the VVTL-i on both intake and exhaust cams where as Acura only puts the i-VTEC on intake...
can somebody clarify this for i am no sure...??
Actually, the i-VTEC on the RSX TypeS (I believe - correct me if I'm wrong here), does work on both intake and exhaust. That's how they get the extra 40hp on the TypeS and the 100hp/liter output. Of course, the 200hp is NOT at the wheels. In reality, only about 170 reach the wheels.

K20A = The Engine in the new overseas only Integra Type R
K20A2 = RSX Type S engine

K20A3 = RSX engine

And yes, it rotates clockwise.

Actually, the i-VTEC on the RSX TypeS (I believe - correct me if I'm wrong here), does work on both intake and exhaust. That's how they get the extra 40hp on the TypeS and the 100hp/liter output. Of course, the 200hp is NOT at the wheels. In reality, only about 170 reach the wheels.

yup.

The type s uses the K20C not the K20A2. Base model uses the K20A