|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,496
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,496 |
Originally posted by ZetecNinja:
i don't believe an RSX runs under 15 bone stock...no way
I'm thinkin 15.1 RSX and 15.4 SVT
but being that the SVT has the bigger engine I give the race to the SVT
^^^^ I think you hit your head with the numbchucks numbnutz!
Money doesn't always bring happiness. People with ten million dollars are no happier than people with nine million dollars ~ Hobart Brown
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 8,143
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
OP
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 8,143 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 716
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 716 |
Originally posted by Fmr12B:
Originally posted by ZetecNinja:
i don't believe an RSX runs under 15 bone stock...no way
I'm thinkin 15.1 RSX and 15.4 SVT
but being that the SVT has the bigger engine I give the race to the SVT
^^^^ I think you hit your head with the numbchucks numbnutz!
with a 15.1 second quarter, if you do some fancy footwork in the RSX then maybe you can get it under 15...thats wild, i never would have thought.
95 GL MTX Zetec, Carbon Fiber hood:
*neoprene seat covers
*new SVT rear bumper 
*Proud Owner of 1962 Chevy Corvette 427
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 265
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 265 |
this is the way i look at it. these two cars aren't even in the same class. to say that it will be close is a plus side for the SVT. if a four door sedan can keep up with a sporty 2 door coupe, then i say good for the sedan. i personally beleive that the RSX S will beat an SVT, mainly cause i've been witness to it (wasn't me of course  ). both cars are quick for their classes but i'd take the SVT over the RSX any day. mainly cause the RSX is just too girlie for me. i'm not big on 4bangers. i wasn't too keen on gettin a V6 after driving Mustangs my whole life. but once i took the SVT for a spin i was in love. and this was after taking an RSX out for a test drive. just my .02
01 Black Honda S2000
99 svt Tred/tan
#2394 of 2760 on July 29, 1999 *SOLD*
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
Originally posted by SeR Guy1:
(Flame suit on)
Once again the age old question arises. Let me bring up a point, the RSX with minimal mods is running 2.2 and 2.3 60 ft times, So where is your torque advantage? The SVT's torque only increases wheel spin from what I've experianced. I honestly feel, as I am the only person who has owned both, the RSX is faster and from a roll is superior. Now that isn't to say a good driver in an SVT couldn't take it. Anything can happen. But alot of stock guys are putting high 14's stock. And dyno proven in numerous mags the k20a responds huge to intake mods. 19 wheel hp from AEM CAI. Guys with cai, hondata reflashed computer and exhaust are putting down 199 hp to the wheels.
SO mod VS Mod, SVT needs to watch itself, even worse than racing stock for stock. Now with that said, you want a good race. Sentra S-ER Spec V with small amount of mods is sick fast...
There are 3 very un-happy SVT owners in my town that know what an RSX-S can do, who knows though. I am trying to get a track meet together for the Capitol CEG to race.
R
The only relavent power in a race is the power band..about 5K to 7K in CSVT, about 1K higher for RSX. CSVTs band here is a bit more full...area under the curve. That is one torque effect I refer too, the other being around town "daily driving" grunt..where you are not winding it out. SVT more satisfying around town than RSX. Kind of like your Sentra. Sentra's problem is that is giant 4-pot runs out of breath early and also is limited to "tractor-like" 6100 RPM. What on earth do you do to make it "sick fast"??? I am, how shall we say..skeptical.
Most modded RSX-S dynos Ive seen show much less than 199 HP and gains are often while decent somewhat "peaky". SVT mods tend to broaden power band still further, improving all important area under the curve in the power band. So, I would not agree that RSX responds better to mods.
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 8,143
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
OP
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 8,143 |
that under 14.8 must be with slicks
thats a damn good time for a stock car with 200 HP
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,496
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 3,496 |
Originally posted by ZetecNinja:
that under 14.8 must be with slicks
thats a damn good time for a stock car with 200 HP
How much crack did you consume today  to make such a stupid statement, Car and Driver does not run cars on slicks. Car is on skinny 16" wheels with all season 205/55/16 tires. Not Z rated performance tires!
Car is LIGHT! Weighs under 2800lbs, that is how 200HP will make a 14.8s pass!
Money doesn't always bring happiness. People with ten million dollars are no happier than people with nine million dollars ~ Hobart Brown
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 846
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 846 |
Acura RSX Type S Engines: 2.0-liter, DOHC i-VTEC, 16-valve Horsepower: 200 @ 7400 RPM Torque: 142 @ 6000 RPM Transmissions: 6-speed manual transmission Drive Train: Front Wheel Drive Tires: P205/55R16 Fuel Economy(City/Highway): 24/31 miles per gallon(Manual) Range (City/Highway): 315/411 miles with full tank(Manual) Quote:
On the other hand the RSX Type S with a high-output version of the 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine puts out 200 horsepower (at 7,400 rpm) and 142 ft-lbs of torque (at 6,000 rpm) through a close-ratio six-speed manual transmission. Like the new Honda Civic, the RSX gets a MacPherson strut front suspension, which makes a more efficient use of space than the Integra's double wishbone setup, thus allowing for more interior space. Aftermarket enthusiasts, however, will likely bemoan the change, as a MacPherson strut suspension is not as easy to modify as a double wishbone design. In the rear, the RSX gets a new, more compact double wishbone setup. Type S models get firmer springs and dampers, along with a thicker anti-roll bar up front for a more sharply tuned road feel and better cornering ability. All RSX trims get standard four-wheel disc brakes with three-channel ABS, and the Type S uses slightly larger 11.8-inch vented discs up front to compensate for its stronger performance capabilities. Two trims closely resemble one another in appearance; there are a number of obvious differences. The easiest way to tell a Type S from the Premium is by its dark-colored alloy wheels
Base Model:(Non Type S)
Quote:
The base RSX gets a 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine, making 160 horsepower (20 more than the Integra's base 1.8-liter) and 141 foot-pounds of torque (Integra had only 128).
Automotive.com (with Quotes from Acura)
Quote:
The Type-S engine is much more fun, however. It revs to 8000 rpm and it needs to be wound up to extract all of its performance: it ultimately develops 200 horsepower at 7400 rpm and 142 pounds-feet of torque at a heady 6000 rpm. The engine is smooth. It hums. Acceleration is linear, without the surge of the old 1.8-liter VTEC engine in the Integra Type R. Compared with old Integra Type R, the RSX Type-S engine boasts a wider torque band. It's also lighter and more compact. The Type-S engine is fitted with a fixed intake manifold in place of the 160-hp RSX's dual-stage intake manifold, which boosts horsepower at high rpm. Acura says 0-60 mph in about 6.7 seconds for the Type-S.
Don't know where 0-60 in 6.1 came from. C&D only got 6.8 as shown below...Maybe that was a personal test from and owner.
Curb Weight: 2767
From Car and Driver Car and Driver (Specs on Type S as tested)
Quote:
In fact, those aero mods may be worth even more miles per hour at the top end, because at the drag strip, our FP car behaved as though its engine were still a bit green. Despite weighing 98 pounds less than the stock car, it took 6.8 seconds to reach 60 mphâ??half a second longer than the stock car needed. It cleared the quarter in 15.4 seconds at 93 mph, 0.4 second and 1 mph off the pace of our stocker. Clearly, the FP test car's engine was a tad soft.
Acura.com
Quote:
COMPRESSION RATIO >
The Type-S operates at a more fevered pitch than most cars, running a compression ratio of 11:1, which trumps the already potent 9.8:1 ratio of the 160-hp RSX. To deal with the added oomph, the Type-S engine is built extra-tough, with a stiff, cast-aluminum oil pan, and high-strength connecting rods, crankshaft, and cast-aluminum pistons, all designed specifically to hold up to stress and excel at high revs. The smoothing effects of i-VTECâ?¢, with its adaptive VTC, help keep the pressure firm and constant.
Just a lot of FYI for ya'll. I haven't see ANY specs for STOCK that show below 15 seconds in the 1/4 or less than 6.7..0-60.... Though as C&D said, the engine still could have been "green" and some of the specs you all are getting are for a broken in Type S. Either way, I don't believe breaking a car in is going to drop .7 seconds off of a 0-60 time. 
*Invisible Hero*
1999 SVT Contour/Amazon Green
Keep It Real.
Beware the fury of the silent man.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,506
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,506 |
Originally posted by SeR Guy1:
(Flame suit on)
Once again the age old question arises. Let me bring up a point, the RSX with minimal mods is running 2.2 and 2.3 60 ft times, So where is your torque advantage? The SVT's torque only increases wheel spin from what I've experianced. I honestly feel, as I am the only person who has owned both, the RSX is faster and from a roll is superior. Now that isn't to say a good driver in an SVT couldn't take it. Anything can happen. But alot of stock guys are putting high 14's stock. And dyno proven in numerous mags the k20a responds huge to intake mods. 19 wheel hp from AEM CAI. Guys with cai, hondata reflashed computer and exhaust are putting down 199 hp to the wheels.
SO mod VS Mod, SVT needs to watch itself, even worse than racing stock for stock. Now with that said, you want a good race. Sentra S-ER Spec V with small amount of mods is sick fast...
There are 3 very un-happy SVT owners in my town that know what an RSX-S can do, who knows though. I am trying to get a track meet together for the Capitol CEG to race..
Actuall your wrong....the AEM CAI puts 20HP with 4.6 LBS of torque.....Its in Sport Compact Mag.
N-e-way's....I must agree, that the RSX is a formitable foe...it will give us a run for our money stock....ANd it will get into the high 14's stock with a really good driver, not nessicarly a semi-pro driver, but some one who knows his/her car well.
My friend stock was putting an 14.9 ont eh track consistently....I could only put a 15.2.....if our cars were not so prone to wheel hope i would ahve to say it would be a dead even race, but because they are, the rsx has the advantage, Every time i raced my friends car i got 0 wheel hop.....And now he has the AEm CAI with a Magnaflow exahust system.....I must say, from experience, the RSX has the edge.
Roz
3.0 SVT hybrid...all the fixens...Track/Race ready very soon!!!!!! 20,000 + miles
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by Fmr12B:
RSX S destroys a SVT. There 0-60 is 6.1 seconds as measured by Car and Driver.
 Wake up and smell reality.
Bench racing using 0-60 numbers is ridiculous. Our cars take a shift to 3rd to reach 60 so this comparison is always skewed against us.
Both cars are fairly equal in straight line acceleration. It would be a driver's race with a slight advantage to the lighter RSX. However a road race would favor the SVT's much broader powerband.
Handling is pretty even as well. I personally feel the SVT is more stable compared to the "quirkiness" of the RSX. It felt very twitchy driving even near the limit.
I think the RSX is a decent car for a FWD 2-Door. (compared to our 4-Door!)
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
