RSX- how does it carry the integra name

just wondering with all you integra and RSX fans are happy about the route that acura took with creating the RSX from the integra. Is it more than u expected or a bit disappointing?

i'm not a honda guy but i think the integra's were 100% better than the rsx's. i think they're hideous. they look good with about $3000 worth of body kit and rims. but they're still slow. i raced a type-r and it was a close race and my friend had a 98 gsr and it was a quick lil car. but, i blew the doors off an rsx type s and i had 4 people in my car with the windows down. very, very disappointed.

hmm, im not crazy about the looks stock, but i have heard stories of the type s being a little speed demon. I think a type r is going to go into production later in time. With body kits, they can look really great, but i am a bit more of a integra fan overall.

i heard they're gonna be making civic type-r's instead.

i don't think of my car as all that fast(it's out, but it's not superfast) and i smoked an rsx. maybe i just ran into a shitty driver, but i was totally unimpressed. there wasn't one point in the race where i felt challenged.

I could believe that, Maximas are pretty fast cars, good power with a pretty lightweight chassy. I would not like a civic type r, that would be a big mistake by honda. They have to realize that not everyone who looks to by a civic is a young teenage ricer who wants speed. Mostly women look to buy them. Civic type r... ha

yeah, my car only weighs 2895 lbs at it's stock weight. which is only a couple hundred lbs. more than a newer gsr.

these honda's boast prety good horsepower but their torque is too low.

Originally posted by Paonessa
yeah, my car only weighs 2895 lbs at it's stock weight. which is only a couple hundred lbs. more than a newer gsr.

these honda's boast prety good horsepower but their torque is too low.

Exactly, alot of it comes down to torque. Have to give it to nissan though, they are one import company that has mastered both hp and torque. And for 2895lbs. 256hp or something is some mad good power to weight ratio. Altimas another good one, 240 and pretty light too. What do you think of the new 350z, im not too crazy about it's new look, im an old fashion 300zx fan, i almost got one of them, but the new one could definatly stack up undoubtably. 287hp from a v6, phew... NSX only managed to get 3 more hp out of theirs.

i think the 350z's are pretty nice but i really like the Infiniti G35 sport coupe. it's the same engine, and pretty much the same car, 6 speed manual but it's a 2+2. it's .3 seconds slower 0-60 but i think it looks a lot nicer, it kinda looks like a lexus SC430 from the front. i think it sucks that none of the new nissans come with optional forced induction, except the frontier pickup truck. a supercharged or turbo 350z or maxima would be insane.

Originally posted by Paonessa

these honda's boast prety good horsepower but their torque is too low.
what kind of torque numbers did you expect from such little displacement?

honda is more interested in fuel economy...performance is just a bonus of their well balanced engines (higher redline=higher hp #'s)

Originally posted by GSR

what kind of torque numbers did you expect from such little displacement?

honda is more interested in fuel economy...performance is just a bonus of their well balanced engines (higher redline=higher hp #'s)

If you could get good horsepower out of little displacement, you could also get good torque number out of it too. S2000, 4 banger gets 260hp, with not that great torque, with a few changeups from honda, they could get some of their line higher torque, believe me were at the age were displacement doesn't mean as much. my engine is a 3.8 with 200 hp and the 350z's got like around a 3.2 or maybe 3.5 and puts out 287.

Paonessa, i agree alot about the infinity, i like it's looks a bit more too. And it's still a nissan product, do you know if it comes in a convertable? Cause even though i just got mine 3 months ago, im still looking for my future car and was looking at the SC430 convertable, but they will be hard to find used and cheap, and im not big on V8's. I like the fact that it is rare though and a 2+2

I was in the Nissan 350Z with my older brother... takin it for a test drive.

Its a rough rough rough ride. amazingly stiff. BUT VERY VERY QUICk.
o man...

and there's no back seat. lol. poor salesman riding with us.

Originally posted by pontiactrac


If you could get good horsepower out of little displacement, you could also get good torque number out of it too. S2000, 4 banger gets 260hp, with not that great torque, with a few changeups from honda, they could get some of their line higher torque, believe me were at the age were displacement doesn't mean as much. my engine is a 3.8 with 200 hp and the 350z's got like around a 3.2 or maybe 3.5 and puts out 287.

Paonessa, i agree alot about the infinity, i like it's looks a bit more too. And it's still a nissan product, do you know if it comes in a convertable? Cause even though i just got mine 3 months ago, im still looking for my future car and was looking at the SC430 convertable, but they will be hard to find used and cheap, and im not big on V8's. I like the fact that it is rare though and a 2+2

well...compare a 3.8L to a 1.8L. of course the honda's lil 1.8 isn't going to put down much torque. instead, they rev forever, an rely on a long stroke an VTEC to make any power. i mean...u ride in a DOHC VTEC car, its dead until u hit that engagement point...

i'm not against a bigger displacement at all, i truly believe that honda's are gettin a lil played out an its annoying having the torque of a geo metro (exaggeration). i still got mad love for the high rev'n motors, an the sweet styling, but...after this teg, i'll go euro all the way or get a lil subby wrx...

as for the RSX-S, they are NOT slow. run one of them on the freeway. they have an AWESOME mid-range, an they pull up top like crazy. we've got one at the races i goto, an i can BARELY beat him, but i can walk on the Type R (yea...he's a bad driver). really w/ all the cars around high 14's-low 15's, it really all comes down to driver. but on the freeway guys...u wouldn't be callin the rsx slow at all...from 40, it'll stomp me by 1 1/2-2 cars...easy.

i raced it in a straight line until about 100 mph. i progressively pulled further and further

ah...nice...not taking anything away from ur car at all...they are quick. 'm jus sayin u can't say the rsx is SLOW. because on the freeway, it gets up an GOES.

i shouldn't say it's slow from one occasion, you're right. i wanna find one with someone i know is a capable driver. i just don't think the car lives up to the hype. and i still think it's funny looking stock

and i never called it slow i just said i beat one. i was just comparing my 200 hp car(est.) to this 200 hp car.

you do agree that torque directly proportional to displacement...bigger displacement=more tq, correct?

what about hp; how would you define horsepower

the reason honda squeezed high hp #'s (240 not 260) from that little 2.0l engine is because they have found a way to keep that torque up all the way through redline. I cant remember the exact redline at this time but for conversation's sake we'll say 9000rpm.

lets say it makes peak torque, ill take a stab and say 150lb/ft at 4000rpm. that only equals out to 114.24hp. not too impressive, but if it keeps it up to about 140 all the way to redline, that hp # goes up to 239.91.

do you see now how hp can be raised through a better designed, better breathing, higher revving engine while torque is solely dependant on displcement?

btw i posted this in another topic but in case you didnt get a chance to read it: tq*rpm/5252=hp. this is aways true. makes sense how hp and tq always cross at 5252rpm on a dyno plot, huh?

Originally posted by KrNxRaCer00


well...compare a 3.8L to a 1.8L. of course the honda's lil 1.8 isn't going to put down much torque. instead, they rev forever, an rely on a long stroke an VTEC to make any power. i mean...u ride in a DOHC VTEC car, its dead until u hit that engagement point...

i'm not against a bigger displacement at all, i truly believe that honda's are gettin a lil played out an its annoying having the torque of a geo metro (exaggeration). i still got mad love for the high rev'n motors, an the sweet styling, but...after this teg, i'll go euro all the way or get a lil subby wrx...

as for the RSX-S, they are NOT slow. run one of them on the freeway. they have an AWESOME mid-range, an they pull up top like crazy. we've got one at the races i goto, an i can BARELY beat him, but i can walk on the Type R (yea...he's a bad driver). really w/ all the cars around high 14's-low 15's, it really all comes down to driver. but on the freeway guys...u wouldn't be callin the rsx slow at all...from 40, it'll stomp me by 1 1/2-2 cars...easy.

Who in gods name said the RSX type S was slow, were they smoking crack?

Originally posted by GSR
you do agree that torque directly proportional to displacement...bigger displacement=more tq, correct?

what about hp; how would you define horsepower

the reason honda squeezed high hp #'s (240 not 260) from that little 2.0l engine is because they have found a way to keep that torque up all the way through redline. I cant remember the exact redline at this time but for conversation's sake we'll say 9000rpm.

lets say it makes peak torque, ill take a stab and say 150lb/ft at 4000rpm. that only equals out to 114.24hp. not too impressive, but if it keeps it up to about 140 all the way to redline, that hp # goes up to 239.91.

do you see now how hp can be raised through a better designed, better breathing, higher revving engine while torque is solely dependant on displcement?

btw i posted this in another topic but in case you didnt get a chance to read it: tq*rpm/5252=hp. this is aways true. makes sense how hp and tq always cross at 5252rpm on a dyno plot, huh?

there are cars with lesser engines than me that have both higher torque numbers and hp, although you don't see alot of them as hondas, some nissans like the maxima and altima though.

the new v6 accord makes 57 more hp than my car out of the same displacement.

and no one said the rsx was slow. i just said i beat one and was relatively unimpressed at how it kept up

Originally posted by Paonessa
the new v6 accord makes 57 more hp than my car out of the same displacement.

and no one said the rsx was slow. i just said i beat one and was relatively unimpressed at how it kept up

exactly, and u didn't say it was slow. The new accord, now aside from it's horspower, that is relatively unimpressive. only runs around the 15.6-15.7 range, i would expect more from 240 in ponies.

Originally posted by pontiactrac


exactly, and u didn't say it was slow. The new accord, now aside from it's horspower, that is relatively unimpressive. only runs around the 15.6-15.7 range, i would expect more from 240 in ponies.
yeah that's where the lack of torque with the heavier body bites ya in the ass. at only 212 lbs of torque and an extra 250 lbs body weight, that extra hp doesn't help much

Originally posted by Paonessa

yeah that's where the lack of torque with the heavier body bites ya in the ass. at only 212 lbs of torque and an extra 250 lbs body weight, that extra hp doesn't help much

Yep, and compare that to the new Altima which is almost the same hp but with definatly faster runs. Torque is an important component, that many people often overlook. Although light bodied cars like the RSX need less torque to pull itself, the best combination is light+horsepower+torque. That is the ideal car. I would almost even add economy to that list although it has nothing to do with performance, but im kinda cheap when it comes to gas.:)

I.M.O the rsx is uglier, heavier, slower, and more expensive than an integra gsr/type R, I don't see how they made it better. They have the same power as a integra type R but they are alos about 170lbs heavier which is alot. The rsx enigne is supposedly better than a b18c, and from what I've been seeing, it IS, but I still rather have an interga than an rsx. If I had the money to buy an rsx, I'd get the neon srt-4 instead, or maybe a use wrx, but not a mid 15 rsx :)

Originally posted by pontiactrac


exactly, and u didn't say it was slow. The new accord, now aside from it's horspower, that is relatively unimpressive. only runs around the 15.6-15.7 range, i would expect more from 240 in ponies.

Wow... and a minute there you guys were saying that the 350Z and G35 was pretty fast. With all those numbers from the engines outpt, it still can't beat the NSX's lower powerd engine in the 1/4 mile.

Do you guys always relate power with straigt line performance?

The Integra's and the RSX are not straight line performance cars. No matter how much people here argues with you fella's, lets face it, Honda didn't design it for drag racing.

Rather Honda designed it for track racing. And the point that someone made earlier about Honda having a pretty flat torque curve plays a very important role. Althouhg it doesn't have the huge torque numbers, its torque curve is not overly (should I say) messed up.

Take a good look at this graph here:
http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0205scc_coblot03_zoom.jpg
Taken from SCC article (http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/features/0205scc_coblot/index.html)


The thin green line is the B18C's (Integra VTEC engine) trque curve. As you can see, exceot for some spots on the graph, its pretty flat when compared to the Mustangs (thin red line BTW).

From around 3250rpm-5500rpm is the Mustangs strong points. And even there its wobbly up and down like its surging wth power.

If you look at the light green graph, besides the VTEC x-over point at 5000rpm, the torque curve is pretty linear. Meaning its slowly climbing at a rate and its not obnoxious like the Mustangs that goes all over the place.

Also notice that once you shift gears, the power of the B18C will not fall below the 500rpm point because the car will stay in VTEC if you shift at the redline. So as yo ucan see, the thin gren line is pretty consistant. Unlike the Mustangs thin red line that suddenly drops drastically after about 5500rpm.

With that said, the B18C engine is consistant and thats how it was built. Althogh it doesn't have lots of torque, its has very good usuable torque for the engine.

As for the RSX-S, its a whole lot more powerful than the previous Integra Type-R which also packs a whole lot of new technoligy too.

regardless, it'll get beaten by a car with higher torque and at a comparable weight, straight line or at a track. if you are racing striaght line, it'll fall too far behind by the time it reaches optimal power . and on a race track you're not going to be shifting at redline and maintaining peak power while coming in and out of turns. in a 1700 lb lotus elise body the overall lack of torque is more than compensated for. but the type r weighs an extra half ton

Well if you read the article on those two cars, the Mustang gets beat really bad in both the drag racing and track racing. Of course the Lotus is soo light that the power is not important, but can you explain to me why the Realtime Integra Type R's are beating BMW and all the rest of the makes that they race with?

Plus you still haven't ecplain to me why the 350Z is still not camparable to the NSX in the speed department when it has the larger displacement engine as well as the better power figures.

A H2 Hummer has gobbs of power and torque, dos it go fast? Its all about how the motor was built to fo fast, not just the figures it puts out. hence my explaination of the usable power from the B18C engine compared to most other production engines.

gotta put gear ratios in as a factor also. flatter torque curves help...hp/weight ratio...those are jus a few...

Originally posted by pontiactrac


there are cars with lesser engines than me that have both higher torque numbers and hp, although you don't see alot of them as hondas, some nissans like the maxima and altima though.
examples...

Originally posted by Paonessa
the new v6 accord makes 57 more hp than my car out of the same displacement.

and no one said the rsx was slow. i just said i beat one and was relatively unimpressed at how it kept up
did you not understand my previous post?
most likely the car with bigger displacement will have a higher peak torque, but not necssarily horsepower. the engine that can keep the torque up longer (rpm) will have a higher peak hp. horsepower is number derived drectly from torque+rpm. if you change torque you will change horsepowe automatically. vtec/vvti/ztec all help in making more torque at higher rpms which turns out in higher hp.

srt-4, still a neon :flipa:
wrx, way over-rated
lancer evo, :smoka: i wonder if theyll keep 300tq/300hp here in the states

yes power is related to straight line performance, your sentence should have read "do you guys always relate performance to straight line speed? in that case, no

the itr is a track car. lap times are up there with vipers and many other +50K sports cars. power means little on a road course. handling is what really matters and the type r handles like a dream. it WILL beat most american made production muscle cars (camaros, mustangs, trans ams, vettes, etc.)

"regardless, it'll get beaten by a car with higher torque and at a comparable weight, straight line or at a track. if you are racing striaght line, it'll fall too far behind by the time it reaches optimal power . and on a race track you're not going to be shifting at redline and maintaining peak power while coming in and out of turns. in a 1700 lb lotus elise body the overall lack of torque is more than compensated for. but the type r weighs an extra half ton"
i can see you've never been to an auto-x event. btw a ton i close to 1000lbs..an itr doesnt weigh 2700lbs

an h2 has lots of low end torque but it falls off very quick (low redline/low hp). it ill pull a tree off the ground but not exactly what you need in a race

Originally posted by GSR
srt-4, still a neon :flipa:



It may be stil a neon, but forget the name for a second and think about how fast this damn thing is. I did'nt like it at first either, but after reading about it, checkin it out and stuff, I realized this car is a great car, regardles of the name.

BTW, what does your gsr run?

Originally posted by sak
Well if you read the article on those two cars, the Mustang gets beat really bad in both the drag racing and track racing. Of course the Lotus is soo light that the power is not important, but can you explain to me why the Realtime Integra Type R's are beating BMW and all the rest of the makes that they race with?

Plus you still haven't ecplain to me why the 350Z is still not camparable to the NSX in the speed department when it has the larger displacement engine as well as the better power figures.

\
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2001/acura/integra/100000493/specs.html?tid=edmunds.u.prices.leftsidenav..7.Acu ra*
they say the type r weighs 2639. 60 lbs won't make a world of difference
well what kind of business man is gonna buy a type-r. this car was developed for kids, or someone who wants to travel quickly, cheaply. can you fit 2 people in the front seat of your car and still have room for rear passengers to sit comfortably. bimmer's aren't meant to be raced. they're status symbols, not much more, unlesss it's an M series. good luck beating one of them. i've beaten a type-r before and i was VERY intimidated by the way it kept up. i won't lie it damn near beat me. with a different driver it probably would have. but i killed the rsx.

and last i checked the nsx cost $78,000(used) and was considered a supercar and it's only 300cc smaller that the vq35 engine in the 350z which only costs $34,000 for the highest model. the nsx goes 0-60 in about 4.6 seconds. the 350z does it in 5.4 can you honestly justify spending the extra $40,000 for .8 seconds? that's 5 grand for every .1 seconds. it's insane. i know it'll out handle a z, but it's not worth the money IMO.

Originally posted by Paonessa
\
[url]
well what kind of business man is gonna buy a type-r.

My dad drives my GSR to and from work, he wants an S2000, but he'd gladleydrive a type-r to work. He's a traffic school instructor, sounds oike a dumb job, but it's good money, makes enough money to build 2 road race civics... crx, an 96 coupe w/ b18c5.

Originally posted by GSR
... and on a race track you're not going to be shifting at redline and maintaining peak power while coming in and out of turns.

Yes you don't redline each gear, but understanding powerband by what I explained earlier on how flat the B18C's torque curve is just means that you will always be in its most peaky part.

You don't have to redline the B18C to always get power out of it. Just keep it in the upper rpms where the motor shines most and you should be fine in any occasion.

Originally posted by GSR
an h2 has lots of low end torque but it falls off very quick (low redline/low hp). it ill pull a tree off the ground but not exactly what you need in a race

My point exactly on why engine power output means squat.

Originally posted by Paonessa
\
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2001/acura/integra/100000493/specs.html?tid=edmunds.u.prices.leftsidenav..7.Acu ra*
they say the type r weighs 2639. 60 lbs won't make a world of difference
well what kind of business man is gonna buy a type-r. this car was developed for kids, or someone who wants to travel quickly, cheaply. can you fit 2 people in the front seat of your car and still have room for rear passengers to sit comfortably.

And how do you explain the 350Z? Is it not suppost to be for a business man? If you were Bill Gates, I'm sure you wouldn't mind driving a Ferrari or anything else of the sort.

Originally posted by Paonessa
... bimmer's aren't meant to be raced. they're status symbols, not much more, unlesss it's an M series. good luck beating one of them. i've beaten a type-r before and i was VERY intimidated by the way it kept up. i won't lie it damn near beat me. with a different driver it probably would have. but i killed the rsx.

Well if you read my last post correctly, I was talking about Realtime's Racing Integra Type R's. They are actually de-tuned to that the BMW's and Saturns can compete with them. And they still beat the competition. In case you don't know, those Realtime guys race their ITR's with M3's (which is not a status symbol car.

Originally posted by Paonessa
... and last i checked the nsx cost $78,000(used) and was considered a supercar and it's only 300cc smaller that the vq35 engine in the 350z which only costs $34,000 for the highest model. the nsx goes 0-60 in about 4.6 seconds. the 350z does it in 5.4 can you honestly justify spending the extra $40,000 for .8 seconds? that's 5 grand for every .1 seconds. it's insane. i know it'll out handle a z, but it's not worth the money IMO.

Well we were never talking about price now were we? We are talking about the size of engines and how fast it can go with its power outputs. And you just proved that even though with a larger and more powerful engine (according to the specs of the HP and Torque figures) the 350Z is stil not able to beat the NSX in the performance sector.

And if a smaller engine package can outperform a larger one, the extra $40,000 bragging rights are deserved don't you think.

Originally posted by sak

And if a smaller engine package can outperform a larger one, the extra $40,000 bragging rights are deserved don't you think.
Would you be bragging if your $80,000 car only beat a 350z by .8 seconds or so? i wouldn't.


and i'm not familiar with realtime. by real time integra i thought you meant a usdm type r integra as opposed to the lotus elise with the type r engine.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sak
[B]

"Wow... and a minute there you guys were saying that the 350Z and G35 was pretty fast. With all those numbers from the engines outpt, it still can't beat the NSX's lower powerd engine in the 1/4 mile."

"Do you guys always relate power with straigt line performance?"

"The Integra's and the RSX are not straight line performance cars. No matter how much people here argues with you fella's, lets face it, Honda didn't design it for drag racing." [sak]

Ha, did he actually try to make a point the the 88thousand dollar NSX could beat the 28thousand dollar 350z in the 1/4? Ya think... Weight, prob has more torque anyways, gearing, and most of all, more horsespower. Is it supposed to suprise to us or somethin. Nobody is dissing hondas, so you don't have to come here all defensive about what could beat what and what nissan cant hold up to this honda. I DONT CARE. This was originally about the RSX, and then the topic of torque came up, i was willing to flow with that, so im wondering where in the heck an NSX came in to play, id like to know one person here who could even afford that car. And back to torque, just face the facts, the RSX is a great car, quick as anything i could throw at it, but as for room for improvement... it could have better torque numbers, even though its lightweight needs less torque. Larger engines just put out more torque simple as that. But there's always room for improvement no matter what kind of engine is in your car so in the end it's anyones call.

Originally posted by Paonessa

Would you be bragging if your $80,000 car only beat a 350z by .8 seconds or so? i wouldn't.

When did we start the debate on cost?

Originally posted by Paonessa
... and i'm not familiar with realtime. by real time integra i thought you meant a usdm type r integra as opposed to the lotus elise with the type r engine.

Here are the current standings on the race cars. (http://www.speedvisionwc.com/2002/standings-tc.html) Notice the what the top cars are. These are cars that run in the NA class.

Originally posted by pontiactrac
[QUOTE]Originally posted by sak
[B]

"Wow... and a minute there you guys were saying that the 350Z and G35 was pretty fast. With all those numbers from the engines outpt, it still can't beat the NSX's lower powerd engine in the 1/4 mile."

"Do you guys always relate power with straigt line performance?"

"The Integra's and the RSX are not straight line performance cars. No matter how much people here argues with you fella's, lets face it, Honda didn't design it for drag racing." [sak]

Ha, did he actually try to make a point the the 88thousand dollar NSX could beat the 28thousand dollar 350z in the 1/4? Ya think... Weight, prob has more torque anyways, gearing, and most of all, more horsespower. Is it supposed to suprise to us or somethin. Nobody is dissing hondas, so you don't have to come here all defensive about what could beat what and what nissan cant hold up to this honda. I DONT CARE. This was originally about the RSX, and then the topic of torque came up, i was willing to flow with that, so im wondering where in the heck an NSX came in to play...

If you don't see the point I'm making with the NSX and the 350Z, then you don't see the point at all.

Smaller engine beating larger more powerful engine. And as I mentioned earlier, I wasn't the one who brought up the 350Z and NSX, it was you making the comparison...

Originally posted by pontiactrac
Exactly, alot of it comes down to torque. Have to give it to nissan though, they are one import company that has mastered both hp and torque. And for 2895lbs. 256hp or something is some mad good power to weight ratio. Altimas another good one, 240 and pretty light too. What do you think of the new 350z, im not too crazy about it's new look, im an old fashion 300zx fan, i almost got one of them, but the new one could definatly stack up undoubtably. 287hp from a v6, phew... NSX only managed to get 3 more hp out of theirs.

Again, yes the NSX cost more, but it still owns a 350Z, which is the what we are debating, not how much the car cost.

Originally posted by pontiactrac
...And back to torque, just face the facts, the RSX is a great car, quick as anything i could throw at it, but as for room for improvement... it could have better torque numbers, even though its lightweight needs less torque. Larger engines just put out more torque simple as that. But there's always room for improvement no matter what kind of engine is in your car so in the end it's anyones call.

And back to my original argument that you the RSX as well as the Integra that it replaced are not meant to drag race as you all might think. Please keep in mind track car. You don't need gobbs of torque for that, just a good tuned engine to match the chassis and suspension.

If you want more torque, buy another car. Its not that hard to figure out. Want a nice performaning track car, an RSX is a nice one thats affordable.

BTW, I've put all the information out there as to why Honda engines specifically the B18C is quite a formidable competitor in track racing. Take it for what its worth.

that car's cost is a direct reflection of its performance. and vice versa. name a car of comparable cost and you'll have a much more convincing argument. the fact that you need to compare such an expensive car to make a point doesn't help your argument, it hurts it.

Originally posted by Paonessa
that car's cost is a direct reflection of its performance. and vice versa. name a car of comparable cost and you'll have a much more convincing argument. the fact that you need to compare such an expensive car to make a point doesn't help your argument, it hurts it.

Like I said, that was not my choice of cars to compare in the first place. But hopefully you can see where I'm going with the Real Time Integra's beating the BMW's in full competition.

BTW, the Lotus and the Mustang are equally matched in their price and guess what? It beat the Mustang in both the drag and auto-x test.

Originally posted by sak


Like I said, that was not my choice of cars to compare in the first place. But hopefully you can see where I'm going with the Real Time Integra's beating the BMW's in full competition.

BTW, the Lotus and the Mustang are equally matched in their price and guess what? It beat the Mustang in both the drag and auto-x test.

Sak, i think you are missing the point that you can compare cars in a price range that is somewhat different, but a diff of 50thousand is ridiculous, why did you bring up the NSX it has no reason to be here, and it is way too expensive to compare with the 350z which is a much better bang for your buck anyway. They can't be compared, end of story. This isn't about cost, but when you are comparing cars with that extremeties in price that is giving nissan an unfair disadvantage. Even if you used the Skyline, it still isn't close to the price of a NSX. And what was the point of bringing up that lotus could beat mustang with the same price value... wow, what does that prove, one can be a better value, did you expect them to do neck and neck because they are the same price, they are two different cars. And that had nothing to do with torque or the RSX so why did you bring that comparison up anyway?

them little neons will be fast , i know but they still have dodges pooly designed interior, truck-like handling, and neon badging ;). for the price, its a quick straigh-line sport compact.

I havent ran my car yet. just purchased the ems yesterday but im estimating a high 12 on 11psi, dot approved tires

edmunds also claims a 130ft/lbs peak torque at 7500rpm...makes you wonder how accurate their info is...
where did you price the nsx, I've seen 95's for $30,000, same engine. well anyways like said before, those are supercars, theyre selling more than the engine.

name a vehicle in the itr's price range that will beat it on a road curse.

i'm liking my honda even more now with these close to $2/gal gasoline prices. even turboed i get 25/gal city and 32/gal hwy. fuck torque/displacement :cool:

i am pretty sure there is a great number of people who would agree that the integra is a much cooler looking car than the RSX. One guy said it best from another thread "the RSX looks like a cartoon version of the integra." It could look sweet with some side skirts and dif rims though. The one thing that i do like better on the RSX is the tail lights, but only when lit up. I like integra tail lights too, but when the RSX's tail lights are on they look like 4 red circles, almost resembles a corvette or something.

Originally posted by GSR

where did you price the nsx, I've seen 95's for $30,000, same engine.

i priced a 2003 nsx and it was acutally $89,000, and a 350z was $34,500 but i was generous and said $70,000 for the nsx. i figured it was only fair to compare both prices as brand new, considering the 350Z just came out

Originally posted by pontiactrac


Sak, i think you are missing the point that you can compare cars in a price range that is somewhat different, but a diff of 50thousand is ridiculous, why did you bring up the NSX it has no reason to be here, and it is way too expensive to compare with the 350z which is a much better bang for your buck anyway. They can't be compared, end of story. This isn't about cost, but when you are comparing cars with that extremeties in price that is giving nissan an unfair disadvantage. Even if you used the Skyline, it still isn't close to the price of a NSX.

Wow, do I have to bring up the qoute I did before when you introduced the 350Z against the NSX?

Originally posted by pontiactrac
Exactly, alot of it comes down to torque. Have to give it to nissan though, they are one import company that has mastered both hp and torque. And for 2895lbs. 256hp or something is some mad good power to weight ratio. Altimas another good one, 240 and pretty light too. What do you think of the new 350z, im not too crazy about it's new look, im an old fashion 300zx fan, i almost got one of them, but the new one could definatly stack up undoubtably. 287hp from a v6, phew... NSX only managed to get 3 more hp out of theirs.

Did you not compare the NSX to the 350Z here (engine output wise)? I'm just pointing out that the smaller engine with smaller power outputs can actually be more useful if it works well as an overall package.

Originally posted by pontiactrac
And what was the point of bringing up that lotus could beat mustang with the same price value... wow, what does that prove?

Re-read what I posted because I hate repeating myself. The Lotus vs Mustang proves that a smaller displacement engine putting out less power can beat a larger displacement engine putting out more power.

Originally posted by pontiactrac
... did you expect them to do neck and neck because they are the same price?

So what do you want me to compare? two similarly priced cars and their performance (Lotus vs Mustang) or two different pricced cars and their performance (NSX vs 350Z)? When I compare the NSX with the 350Z you say its not fair because the NSX is twice as much car as the 350Z is. When I finally compair two equally priced cars (Lotus vs Mustang) you say its not valid either? Then what are you arguing here?

So to answer your question no. I actually expected the Mustang to when when looking at the power graphs I originally posted. Who would have thought that a 4 cylinder 1.8L 195HP and 132lbs-ft of torque would be able to beat a 5.4L V8 with 385HP and 385lbs-ft of torque? I mean seriously, on paper and without testing it, everyone would beat that the Mustang would ave won 100% of all the tests.

Originally posted by pontiactrac
... they are two different cars. And that had nothing to do with torque or the RSX so why did you bring that comparison up anyway?

Of course they are two different cars? Thats why we are comparing them. Whats the usse of comparing two same cars? RSX vs RSX?

What does the Lotus have to do with the RSX? It has the engine that the previous top-of-the-line Integra had. It has everything to do with the RSX as their engines powerband are very similar.

Let me remind you that we are comparing engines power outputs here to be specific are we not? Did one of you not mention that the Integra's and RSX's has very little torque and thats what they need?

All I'm trying to prove that althought hey do not have large quantities of torque, the torque curve is actually tuned to match the engine very well to keep it within its most usaeable powerband, which you and the others don't seem to understand.

Please keep your arguments valid and back them up with facts if you are gonna argue anything at all.

he compared the cars where they are comparable. hp output. that's it he never said they were as fast as each other. and when he says the mustang and the lotus are 2 different cars he means one's an american muscle car and the other is a super light weight sports car.

all in all both of your comparisons proved 1)less power in a light weight body is as good as or better than more power and more weight and2) an 89,000 sports car can beat a $35,000 one. neither one reflects teh topic of this thread

Originally posted by Paonessa
he compared the cars where they are comparable. hp output. that's it he never said they were as fast as each other. and when he says the mustang and the lotus are 2 different cars he means one's an american muscle car and the other is a super light weight sports car.

all in all both of your comparisons proved 1)less power in a light weight body is as good as or better than more power and more weight and2) an 89,000 sports car can beat a $35,000 one. neither one reflects teh topic of this thread

Wow? Then what are you asking for?

Originally posted by pontiactrac
Exactly, alot of it comes down to torque.

My arguments were based towards this comment. If you read my first post is was to prove that the Mustangs 385lb-ft of torque does nothing when it gets owned by an engine with 135lb-ft of torque.

I was also pointing out that these cars (RSX's and Integra's) are really meant to be track raced, not drag race. So regardless of their low torque figures, it finer, better torque curve is what helps them achieve what tey have ben doing for years (ie Realtime Racing's Integra's).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pontiactrac
Exactly, alot of it comes down to torque.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

he said this cuz i compared my car to the acura. both are rated at 200 hp and the Acura only weighs 150 lbs less than my car but i beat the rsx type S. and he said it was probably cuz i have an extra 63 lbs/ft torque.

i still don't understand why you brought the type R in here either. the RSX engine isn't even a b18

to prove the argument "a lot of it comes down to torque" wrong...

sak, are you sure that was an 03 cobra? (btw they're underated, i've seen them dyno 385+ to the wheels)
you are ignorant to believe a itr will "own" a new cobra at the strip...type r's dont run 12's

anyways, no the rsx is nothing special, neither is the new SI. honda is too busy with the hybrids' development (fuel economy) to worry about performance. honda is out while the others jump in. mazda, dodge, mitsubishi, subaru.

fi is where its at...honda needs to realize that.

As far as the Mustang vs lotus comparisment you said before, the lotus i guess you mean the elise. Paonessa is right, they are different catagories of cars. Not only is the mustang a muscle v8 and the lotus is a super light made british car but one reason the lotus is sooo lightweight is the fact that it is a two seat roadster while the mustang is a four seater. And of course you are going to find an example of how a torque driven car could be beaten by a heavy car, there are always examples of anything. Heres an example that will show you the opposite of what you said about light weight. That mustang you mentioned before, did you know that a ford 150, that's right, a pickup, could beat a mustang gt? Why, it's heavier... but it's got more torque thats why. Now i know these are two different vehicles, but im just saying this because the lotus/mustang comparison was unequal too.

dang i still dont get wat u guys are arguing about hahah. The integra guy said the rsx or integra was not built for drag racing its built for track and i certainly agree. Integras and RSX's have mad handles in the slaloms. Paonessa is saying that it is unfair to compare a 350z to a nsx because the nsx is way more expensive I have to agree with him tho that the 350z is a better bang for buck by far.

how do those two subjects relate to each other?

Originally posted by Paonessa
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pontiactrac
Exactly, alot of it comes down to torque.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

he said this cuz i compared my car to the acura. both are rated at 200 hp and the Acura only weighs 150 lbs less than my car but i beat the rsx type S. and he said it was probably cuz i have an extra 63 lbs/ft torque.

i still don't understand why you brought the type R in here either. the RSX engine isn't even a b18

Its all driver in that race as in any race. I know you mentioned it before that you could have been beaten if it were another driver. But basing the race on torque is useless.

Originally posted by GSR
to prove the argument "a lot of it comes down to torque" wrong...

sak, are you sure that was an 03 cobra? (btw they're underated, i've seen them dyno 385+ to the wheels)
you are ignorant to believe a itr will "own" a new cobra at the strip...type r's dont run 12's

anyways, no the rsx is nothing special, neither is the new SI. honda is too busy with the hybrids' development (fuel economy) to worry about performance. honda is out while the others jump in. mazda, dodge, mitsubishi, subaru.

fi is where its at...honda needs to realize that.

I posted link to the SCC comparison article. Look there to find which Mustang it is.

As for the ITR running 12's. I never said it did. Just that particular Lotus setup. Plus I never said that the Integra's and RSX's were drag cars. As a matter of fact I said they were track cars. And with that said, the Integra would still kill the Mustang at the tracks even if it had less HP and Torque.

RSX and SI are not special because Honda refuses to send US the type R versions which of course would kill the competition. Sad but true.

Originally posted by pontiactrac
As far as the Mustang vs lotus comparisment you said before, the lotus i guess you mean the elise.

I guess you haven't been keeping up with the debate even though you have been posting.

Originally posted by pontiactrac
Paonessa is right, they are different catagories of cars. Not only is the mustang a muscle v8 and the lotus is a super light made british car but one reason the lotus is sooo lightweight is the fact that it is a two seat roadster while the mustang is a four seater. And of course you are going to find an example of how a torque driven car could be beaten by a heavy car, there are always examples of anything. Heres an example that will show you the opposite of what you said about light weight. That mustang you mentioned before, did you know that a ford 150, that's right, a pickup, could beat a mustang gt? Why, it's heavier... but it's got more torque thats why. Now i know these are two different vehicles, but im just saying this because the lotus/mustang comparison was unequal too.

Whats the point then to say that torque causes a car to win or lose? The point was brought up, so it was argued. Whether it be a more expensive car or a differnt class car. You people are just trying to dismiss facts that you do not want to see. Sad but true.

Ford F150 beating the Mustang? If you are refurring to the Ford F150 Lightning, then you should at least compare it to the SC Mustang. A car with FI is not easily comparable to a NA car. But please bring facts to back up you say as I have with the graphs, articles, and the currect race standings of the Integra's posted above.

Originally posted by 99maximagxe
dang i still dont get wat u guys are arguing about hahah. The integra guy said the rsx or integra was not built for drag racing its built for track and i certainly agree. Integras and RSX's have mad handles in the slaloms. Paonessa is saying that it is unfair to compare a 350z to a nsx because the nsx is way more expensive I have to agree with him tho that the 350z is a better bang for buck by far.

Exactly. No one is not disagreeing with you.

looks good

Originally posted by GSR


fi is where its at...honda needs to realize that.

it's funny you say that. there is a big thing going on in the nissan forum about trying to get nissan to either get some of their japanese vehicles to the states or to make us a Fi, prefereably AWD, sport compact. while i like all the new nissan cars. i'd like them all a lot better turbo especially the Z and the Maxima.

i'm bored with everything else in the thread. he thinks he's right i think me and pontiac are right. it doesn't really matter. shit went way off topic anyway. lotus's, type-R's and Stangs, oh my

Has anyone had trouble getting accustomed to the 6speed trans of the
s-type, i know that the old GSRs were 5's. i guess the there is less time between gears in the 6speed than the 5, meaning more shifts. I never actually driven a 6 speed before, i think my mom's Acura 3.2 TL is only a 5.

sak,

thanks for editing your post to make me look dumb asshole :mad:

earlier you mentioned how a mustang with 385/385 (that would be an 03' Cobra) got owned by the type r in both road course and straight line. False statement. an itr can only beat pre 99 gt's stock for stock. far from 385hp/385tq

a new coba runs 12's, thats where that came up with "itr's dont run 12's"
a type r or even gsr/type s would own even a cobra on a track but never on the 1/4

Originally posted by GSR
sak,

thanks for editing your post to make me look dumb asshole :mad:

earlier you mentioned how a mustang with 385/385 (that would be an 03' Cobra) got owned by the type r in both road course and straight line. False statement. an itr can only beat pre 99 gt's stock for stock. far from 385hp/385tq

a new coba runs 12's, thats where that came up with "itr's dont run 12's"
a type r or even gsr/type s would own even a cobra on a track but never on the 1/4

Haha, be careful who your friends are... nah im just kidding, well anyways, back to my question about the gearing, is it hard to get used to? when you are used to the 5 speeds?

Originally posted by GSR
sak,

thanks for editing your post to make me look dumb asshole :mad:

earlier you mentioned how a mustang with 385/385 (that would be an 03' Cobra) got owned by the type r in both road course and straight line. False statement. an itr can only beat pre 99 gt's stock for stock. far from 385hp/385tq

a new coba runs 12's, thats where that came up with "itr's dont run 12's"
a type r or even gsr/type s would own even a cobra on a track but never on the 1/4

???

Pontiac- the S 6-speed transmission is easy to adapt to. The only problem I ran into was the tendency toward easy misshifts. You'll only do it once, shit your pants and never do it again :eek: . I'm used to a Mustang GT 5-speed, too, so the drive home from the dealership was interesting. After the first day, unless you are inept, it feels comfortable.
:2cents:

ok so anyway back to the question at hand...

most specs I have read on the rs-x don't beat an ITR they are more even with my car, but they may not be the S i'm not sure. either way I still like the teg better. I like the 2nd gens the best unless the 3rd gen has a jdm conversin front end. I really dislike the two round light thing.

performance wise I like 2nd gen gs-r or a type R.

to be quite honest when the rs-x debuted I was not a honda guy and I had no idea it was replacing the integra. I liked them as their own car, but as a replacement for an integra.... no way. give me the teg any day.

looks wise I prefer low and wide... seems like all the new japanese cars are getting narrower and taller...


p.s. a girl i was with about 2 years ago drove a rsx and to me it seems as if the interior is alot cheaper than that in my gs-r, and my car is almost 11 years old.