RSX-S and Celica GT-S

[Celica-Zen]

If the RSX has a nemesis, it's the Celica. Each makes 100 hp per liter from its advanced engine, and each has a six-speed. The RSX does have an advantage of 20 more horsepower and 16 more lb-ft of torque, but it's also about 200 pounds heavier.

Given the nearly equal power-to-weight ratios, the cars should have had nearly equal acceleration times. A likely explanation for the RSX's quicker times is the difference in shifter quality. The RSX's shifter throws are short and precise, allowing faster shifts. One item in our 20-point evaluation category rates transmission performance. The Acura earned the highest score; the Toyota earned the lowest.

The RSX's advantages end with acceleration, however. Sixty-to-0 mph braking takes 128 feet, a figure the RSX must unceremoniously share with the Eclipse as the longest distance in the test. Slalom testing is equally unimpressive; the Celica, Eclipse and GTI bettered the Acura's 64.9 mph speed. This is partially due to the RSX's average-sized 205/55R16 tires.

At the racetrack, the RSX manages to compose itself and put together lap times that are faster than most of the group's. Its horsepower and easy-to-drive nature allow drivers to string together quick lap sessions. The thick steering wheel rim has a small diameter, allowing for quick driver inputs. The flat surfaces of a racetrack are also kind to the Acura's suspension, and the car feels controlled and balanced as it carves through corners.

This is not necessarily the case on canyon roads, as the car's new compact double wishbone rear suspension has a difficult time absorbing bumps. This can cause an unsettling feeling for the driver when bumps are encountered mid-corner. We have noticed this problem on the Honda Civic, a car with which the RSX shares its basic suspension design. Driven over the same pavement, the older Prelude, thanks to its full double wishbone suspensions front and rear, manages to feel more secure and under control. (From Edmunds.com sport coupe reviews)

[Celica-Zen]

If action is what you want, you needn't look any further than the Celica. In the performance category of this test, the Celica earned an outstanding 95.8 percent score. Even the editors' evaluations of individual performance attributes read like a Hollywood awards show. Best suspension? Toyota Celica. Best Steering? Toyota Celica. Best brakes? (Dramatic pause) Toyota Celica. Would the lead engineer of the Celica's underpinnings please take a bow?

So armed, the Celica feels like the Jackie Chan of the group, going off mad-crazy kung-fu-style on the dim-witted Eclipse and Cougar. On canyon roads, this 2,500-pound welterweight tightly arcs through corners with minimal body roll. The steering is very quick and precise without being twitchy, and the thick three-spoke steering wheel rim fits naturally in your hands. Reducing speed is a simple matter of squeezing the powerful brakes; 60-to-0 stops take a mere 116 feet.

The Celica is at its best when being used (and abused) near its maximum limits. It thrives on being wrung out. This, oh so conveniently, is exactly the type of driving required for a racetrack. Powering out of turns, the Celica's Yokohama 205/50VR16 tires provide excellent grip. Of the six cars, the Celica feels most like a race car, and the lap times prove it. Its fastest lap was a 1:25.2, the only front-drive car to manage a sub-1:26 time. Its average lap time was also the fastest of the group. If this car had a limited-slip front differential (like the old Acura Integra Type R had), it would be nearly unstoppable (Edmunds.com sport coupe reviews).

[Celica-Zen]

Performance Vehicle Zero-to-60-mph acceleration, sec. Quarter-mile acceleration, sec. Quarter-mile speed, mph 60-to-0-mph braking, feet 600-ft slalom, mph Fastest Lap Average Lap

Acura RSX Type-S 6.7 15.2 92.7 128.0 64.9 01:26.2 01:26.8

Honda Prelude SH 7.2 15.6 90.1 122.0 64.9 01:26.0 01:26.9

Mercury Cougar Zn 7.9 16.0 85.9 125.0 64.9 01:29.0 01:30.0

Mitsubishi Eclipse GT 7.2 15.7 89.2 128.0 66.0 01:27.2 01:28.5

Toyota Celica GT-S 6.9 15.4 91.6 116.0 67.1 01:25.2 01:26.5

VW GTI GLS 1.8T 8.5 16.5 84.3 122.0 66.0 01:26.9 01:27.5

[Dahmin8]

Sounds like you like the Celica. But I could be wrong. What are you really trying to say?

[slowANDfurious]

EVERY ROADTEST EVALUATION I HAVE READ IN MAJOR AUTOMOTIVE MAGAZINES ALL SAY THE SAME THING:if the rsx had better tires, it would post higher numbers in all catagories. put some good rubber on and then check the results

[kale82]

Well, I had "SOME" thoughts about how much better or worse performance wise the RSX Type-S was as apposed to the Celica GT-S until the day before yesterday.. my friend and I went to an Acura dealer and testdrove an RSX Type-S and during the test drive a Celica GT-S rolled up and wanted a piece... now keep in mind this RSX Type-S only had like 350miles on it so it wasn't fully broken in so my friend didn't redline it hardcore or anything crazy.. The Celica was dropped on some nice chrome 17s with a full body kit, exhaust and at least an intake, I couldn't tell anything else but I knew at least had that much.. anyways, we both had a passenger so that was fair as well... but anyways, he was in front of us at a red light, so we rolled about half way through the intersection at green and both punched it and all the way through 1st and 2nd gear we were pulling up on him and ended up passing him.. after that he turned off and we got stuck in traffic.. we were hoping for a rematch but I guess the celica had better places to be.. anyways, that made me a believer.. and my friend, that was driving.. so unless the driver of the celica just didn't know how to drive, HE GOT WHOOPED.
Anyways, that's my RSX vs. GT-S story..

Peace Out,
-Bryan Layne
1995 Honda Civic EX

[Celica-Zen]

Better rubber would help but having driven both cars, the suspension and brakes on the RSX are inferior to the Celica, on the other hand the interior trim is superior on the RSX. The one thing I noiced about the RSX is that it is somewhat floaty over bumps and hard braking.

[markpa]

I test drove both before i bought one, and the celica doesnt compare, its a much smoother ride in the type s, i thought it handled better took turns better and had more pick up, thats why i got an rsx instead of a celica, plus you cant get that many aftermarket parts for the celica as u can for the rsx

[slowANDfurious]

Originally posted by Celica-Zen
Better rubber would help but having driven both cars, the suspension and brakes on the RSX are inferior to the Celica, on the other hand the interior trim is superior on the RSX. The one thing I noiced about the RSX is that it is somewhat floaty over bumps and hard braking.

Ya...we need thr RSX Type r

[nemesls_2000]

Originally posted by kale82
Well, I had "SOME" thoughts about how much better or worse performance wise the RSX Type-S was as apposed to the Celica GT-S until the day before yesterday.. my friend and I went to an Acura dealer and testdrove an RSX Type-S and during the test drive a Celica GT-S rolled up and wanted a piece... now keep in mind this RSX Type-S only had like 350miles on it so it wasn't fully broken in so my friend didn't redline it hardcore or anything crazy.. The Celica was dropped on some nice chrome 17s with a full body kit, exhaust and at least an intake, I couldn't tell anything else but I knew at least had that much.. anyways, we both had a passenger so that was fair as well... but anyways, he was in front of us at a red light, so we rolled about half way through the intersection at green and both punched it and all the way through 1st and 2nd gear we were pulling up on him and ended up passing him.. after that he turned off and we got stuck in traffic.. we were hoping for a rematch but I guess the celica had better places to be.. anyways, that made me a believer.. and my friend, that was driving.. so unless the driver of the celica just didn't know how to drive, HE GOT WHOOPED.
Anyways, that's my RSX vs. GT-S story..
I'm sure those CHROME 17"s made that celica A LOT faster!! How did you know that it was a real GT-S and not just some crappy Celica w/ 160hp w/ a GT-S emblem? Those Celicas suck anyway.

Peace Out,
-Bryan Layne
1995 Honda Civic EX

[rsx_ryder]

i SO wanted a celica. the suspension is better, i like the narrow shift gates, i love the cockpit style interior, i like the storage cubbies, i love the look of the car, steering was good, engine was smooth, transmission was great (i thought so anyways). problem?

sunroof, leather, fog lights, wing, better stereo system - $37,000!!!

rsx had:

no fog lights, no wing
did have heated seats, heated side mirrors, climate control, cd-changer, engine immobilizer w/ security system, slightly faster - $34,500

so... since i WORK for my money (kinda), i bought the cheaper car. ah celi, one day you will be mine!

Toyota has put a rev limiter on the celi, which is why the best acceleration comes from the 2000 model year. other than that, it's really who's the better driver.

[oassaf]

ur type-s didn't come with fog lights or a wing that is standard on them

[qtr_mile_freak]

man, if you gave that much for an rsx s ... you must be in canada???
i gave 22,800 for mine

[crashn_98]

:smoka:

I have an RSX and I would line up next to a GT-S anytime....who wants a knock off, when you can drive the real thing?

But, I also agree it's the driver and not the car, don't matter how much horsepower they got on ya.

[Drifter To Be]

Originally posted by slowANDfurious


Ya...we need thr RSX Type r

Yea we do need the R...
220 horsepower...
Torque? *I forgot... but still we need the R.