RSX- how does it carry the integra name

[integra818]

Originally posted by GSR
srt-4, still a neon

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?

[Paonessa]

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/acu...denav..7.Acura*
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.

[integra818]

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.

[sak]

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/acu...denav..7.Acura*
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.

[Paonessa]

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.

[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, 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.

[sak]

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. Notice the what the top cars are. These are cars that run in the NA class.

[quote]Originally posted by pontiactrac
[b]

Originally posted by sak


"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.

[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.

[sak]

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.

[pontiactrac]

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?

[GSR]

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

[pontiactrac]

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.

[Paonessa]

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

[sak]

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.

[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