1999 Mustang GT or 2002 RSX-S
Thread Starter
Registered!!
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
From: Boonville MO
Rep Power: 0 
1999 Mustang GT or 2002 RSX-S
I'm kinda in a dilemma right now.. I have two cars waiting to be bought! I cant decided on which one is better. your help is needed. 1999 Mustang GT, V8, 5 speed 50,000 miles. Or a 2002 RSX-S 6 speed, 40,000 miles. The rsx is like 2 grand more. Help me deicide fellow 7thgeners
Last time I had this much fun some furniture got broken!
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 8,839
Likes: 2
From: PA
Rep Power: 361 
you are asking this question on a honda forum? what do you expect?
everyone here will tell you get the RSX.
everyone here will tell you get the RSX.
Originally Posted by civic21
I'm kinda in a dilemma right now.. I have two cars waiting to be bought! I cant decided on which one is better. your help is needed. 1999 Mustang GT, V8, 5 speed 50,000 miles. Or a 2002 RSX-S 6 speed, 40,000 miles. The rsx is like 2 grand more. Help me deicide fellow 7thgeners
Registered!!
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,151
Likes: 0
From: El Paso, Tx
Rep Power: 0 These are two very different cars. Sporty, 4 passenger coupes with the Type S being FWD. I bet the mustang feels softer so it will ride more comfortably, and the RSX might be a tad stiffer. They must have drove the hell outta the RSX to get 50k. With less mileage I say go with the mustang. Once you go RWD you'll never want to go back to FWD.
Registered!!
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,597
Likes: 0
From: Edmonton
Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted by Eeeeeeh
These are two very different cars. Sporty, 4 passenger coupes with the Type S being FWD. I bet the mustang feels softer so it will ride more comfortably, and the RSX might be a tad stiffer. They must have drove the hell outta the RSX to get 50k. With less mileage I say go with the mustang. Once you go RWD you'll never want to go back to FWD.
Registered!!
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
From: Pomona Valley, SoCal
Rep Power: 0 
Originally Posted by dre2600
Until it snows...
Anyways, being how sports cars are typically romped on, I say the Ford is more likely to die sooner. That and if it's anything like the earlier 4.6L engines, past 100k or so, it will start feeding itself a steady diet of 10w-30 too.
The RSX, only being a sporty car
, is less likely to kill itself so soon.Mileage is naturally going to be worse, but it also has to do with the engine design and the gearing too. That's why Corvette's can get an honest 28mpg on the highway. Then again, my 2+ ton wagon with a 5.7L V8 and slushbox gets 25mpg on the highway too, so.
-- Kane ... GM pushrods > other OHC V8's.
The RSX is no doubt the better built car.
If you are looking for speed on the side, then the Mustang it is.
If you are going to use it as a daily driver, get the RSX.
With the right preventative maintenance, any car can last a really long time. but in my opinion, having driven both cars, the Mustang is hell of a lot faster but it feels loosely constructed.
The RSX is more refined and feels safer because it feels like it was built with higher tolerances.
If you are looking for speed on the side, then the Mustang it is.
If you are going to use it as a daily driver, get the RSX.
With the right preventative maintenance, any car can last a really long time. but in my opinion, having driven both cars, the Mustang is hell of a lot faster but it feels loosely constructed.
The RSX is more refined and feels safer because it feels like it was built with higher tolerances.
I sure wish my car was newer
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,448
Likes: 1
From: St. Louis, Mo
Rep Power: 365
Originally Posted by dre2600
Until it snows...
Anyway, I'd probably get the RSX simply because of gas prices. I don't give a **** about hp per litre (which is a total bullshit ricer measurement) or some other ricer crap about how bad Ford sucks. With my driving needs, the Mustang would be better. If I had a longer commute, maybe the nicer interior of the RSX would come into play, but on face value, simple mileage drives this decision.
Originally Posted by Narfcake
Meh. Keep some asphault shingles and cat litter in the back, and you'll be fine. RWD with an open diff, even.
Anyways, being how sports cars are typically romped on, I say the Ford is more likely to die sooner. That and if it's anything like the earlier 4.6L engines, past 100k or so, it will start feeding itself a steady diet of 10w-30 too.
The RSX, only being a sporty car , is less likely to kill itself so soon.
Mileage is naturally going to be worse, but it also has to do with the engine design and the gearing too. That's why Corvette's can get an honest 28mpg on the highway. Then again, my 2+ ton wagon with a 5.7L V8 and slushbox gets 25mpg on the highway too, so.
-- Kane ... GM pushrods > other OHC V8's.
Anyways, being how sports cars are typically romped on, I say the Ford is more likely to die sooner. That and if it's anything like the earlier 4.6L engines, past 100k or so, it will start feeding itself a steady diet of 10w-30 too.
The RSX, only being a sporty car
, is less likely to kill itself so soon.Mileage is naturally going to be worse, but it also has to do with the engine design and the gearing too. That's why Corvette's can get an honest 28mpg on the highway. Then again, my 2+ ton wagon with a 5.7L V8 and slushbox gets 25mpg on the highway too, so.
-- Kane ... GM pushrods > other OHC V8's.
The Corvette is smart because it's basically got five sporty gears and then the cruising gear. Top speed is achieved in 5th.
And yes, pushrods rule the V8 world, but I'd still like to stick a Ford GT engine in one of the new Mustangs.
Last edited by white2K2EX; Mar 22, 2006 at 03:58 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
lmao
my dad had owned a ford pick up before
thing would mess up so much man, ford aint worth a penny
well any american car isnt worth a penny
his gmc has caught on fire on the road, fans have gone out, electrical problems, starter died 40000 times, ignition was fuked up.....never will i buy an american made car
type s is the way to go
can't wait till i get mine
my dad had owned a ford pick up before
thing would mess up so much man, ford aint worth a penny
well any american car isnt worth a penny
his gmc has caught on fire on the road, fans have gone out, electrical problems, starter died 40000 times, ignition was fuked up.....never will i buy an american made car
type s is the way to go
can't wait till i get mine 
Originally Posted by civic21
I'm kinda in a dilemma right now.. I have two cars waiting to be bought! I cant decided on which one is better. your help is needed. 1999 Mustang GT, V8, 5 speed 50,000 miles. Or a 2002 RSX-S 6 speed, 40,000 miles. The rsx is like 2 grand more. Help me deicide fellow 7thgeners
...... AMERICAN CARS IS LIKE PPLE WITH DISEASE , THEY DIE QUICKER
...LIKE JAP CARS, THEY'RE LIKE AN ENERGIZER BUNNY...KEEPS GOING AND GOING AND GOING.... 
..TYPE S ALL THE WAY ..
Registered!!
iTrader: (11)
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,576
Likes: 0
From: Lakewood, 562
Rep Power: 320 Well if you want cheap hp and something to drag then i would go with the mustang. The ancient suspension is has actually helps it during drag situations. The stang is going to respond better to mods just because it has so much more displacement.
if you want something that handles well on a track, gets decent mileage and will keep a lot of its resale value in case you wanna trade it in for a sti or evo later then i would go with rsx.
if you want something that handles well on a track, gets decent mileage and will keep a lot of its resale value in case you wanna trade it in for a sti or evo later then i would go with rsx.
7thGen Blacked Out Crew
iTrader: (1)
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
From: Roanoke Rapids, NC
Rep Power: 0 Why all the Ford bashing? The reason they break down is mainly due to the fact that people neglect their vehicles. I have a 2004 Ford Mustang GT, with 38000 miles on it, and it has never gave me any problems.
I would get the RSX though. The 1999 Mustang GT is the first year for the "edgier" body style, and has completely new heads and intake manifold, although retaining the same displacement as the 96-98. It came with 260hp to the flywheel and 302 ft/lbs of torque. Decent numbers which should push it into a 14.3-13.9 second quarter mile range if you know how to drive it. The problems with this car come mainly due to the weak transmission this year model has. It has a t45 and it can not take alot of abuse. The torque capacity for a T45 is almost used to its fullest potential by this car stock, so if you do happen to buy the stang get a Tremec 3650, or a TKO600 to replace your stock transmission and do it quick. Thats the only reason I would get the RSX.
I would get the RSX though. The 1999 Mustang GT is the first year for the "edgier" body style, and has completely new heads and intake manifold, although retaining the same displacement as the 96-98. It came with 260hp to the flywheel and 302 ft/lbs of torque. Decent numbers which should push it into a 14.3-13.9 second quarter mile range if you know how to drive it. The problems with this car come mainly due to the weak transmission this year model has. It has a t45 and it can not take alot of abuse. The torque capacity for a T45 is almost used to its fullest potential by this car stock, so if you do happen to buy the stang get a Tremec 3650, or a TKO600 to replace your stock transmission and do it quick. Thats the only reason I would get the RSX.
