Rep Power: 0

And is now visiting Joe in his home

 
Rep Power: 0

Im gunna get master splinter to kick your *** for that.

 
Rep Power: 0

Well, seeing that we are on a honda civic site, I think it goes w/o saying that performance isn't really what honda drivers are after. Reliability and resale are what comes to most peoples' minds when you say "honda". VW is known for and is very poor in both of those areas. I don't care what you can do oh so easily to a vw engine, you just made the reliability take a nose dive from the medicore stock level. Given that and the ****** image that the brand has taken on, I'll keep driving my hondas and keep smiling. [IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/IMG]

 
Rep Power: 0

You mention that the GTI is priced lower, yet you fail to notice that the RSX comes with leather seats, a bose sound system and a moonroof. A similarly equipped GTI retails for $22080, which is quite close to the $23770 RSX.

 
Rep Power: 0

"VW is known for and is very poor in both of those areas. "

prove that statement without bringing up anything before 1990.

 
Rep Power: 0

Prove something to the all mighty Joe? [IMG]i/expressions/laugh2.gif[/IMG]

How about you go compare the resale values of ANY honda/acura aganst a VW, excluding the passat, and go check out the CR's reliability ratings on the VWs. Yeah, yeah, rant all you want about CR but they ARE the AUTHORITY for comparing car's aganst one another on an objective basis.

 
Rep Power: 0

i suppose this means i have to go find a CR magazine (or subscribe to their online service) which has these 2 cars (or 2 different mags as the case may be)?

 
Rep Power: 0

Well, I have a sub to CR online but honestly haven't checked the ratings lately...You could buy one of the books with the ratings for everything but I feel like you don't like CR for some reason...LOL Or you can do what I do a lot, go into to a mag/bookstore and read, then put back...

The almighty edit:

I think CR does recommend the golf as good buy but only in gl trim..can't remember..

 
Rep Power: 0

look, all I originally meant to say was for the price of the RSX-S, pop the hood and look how the fenders are bolted on, better yet, my kid brother can take off the bumper with his fisher price tool set...I felt like crying when I say my friends RSX-S like this. Just one example of how its still a "honda" at heart. **** just recently acura started putting the "A" on their engine valve covers. And for the price, yes 200hp sounds VEERRYY nice, but at 7400rpm??? with only 142lb ft. of torque??? come on guys, stop defending Honda's/Acura's to this point. I know it goes back to personal preference, but ****, that dont sound like a performance car to me, or worth it at all for that matter. But once again, Just My Opinion.

 
Rep Power: 0

The RSX Type S looses 30 hp when measuring at the wheels compared to the factory rating of the engine? Didn't think it was that much (another case of the Spec-V virus?!). Where did you get that number from?

(He mentioned this in the first post)

 
Rep Power: 0

This is where GEAR RATIO's come into play... 142 ft.lbs of torque with aggressive gear ratio's and a high redline is alot of power to the ground...

Okay say at 6800rpms; a figurative example..the RSX made the same HP as the GTI turbo does at 5500rpm. To run the same speed in the same gear the RSX would have to have a shorter gear ratio. This means that it's taking more advantage of gear ratio's aka torque multiplication...

If the GTI and RSX had equal gearing...the RSX would be by far the faster car...it would take advanatge of torque multiplication for a longer time before needing to shift gears...

The GTI has a much broader powerband though.but after first gear in a drag race it means squat because the RSX-S will never drop down to 4500rpms again..both being FWD cars their launch is limited more to tire traction than engine power anyhow....

Low torque and high rpms with short gears equates to a crap load of torque at the wheels due to torque mulitplication..

 
Rep Power: 0

I would pick an Acura over a 1.8T. Since I'm fairly young, I prefer the styling and the feel of a Japanese car. Perhaps when I'm older, and in my 30's, an European car would be more suitable. Some people prefer the easier steering, light clutch, etc. feel of a Jap car while others prefer the stiffer suspension, steering, clutch, brakes of a German car.

I believe the DC5 has a lot of potential. Just check out DC5 Master's car on Clubrsx. It pushes 310 WHP, I forgot how much PSI he's running though.



Mmmm..



Here's the dyno:

 
Rep Power: 0

and how long to you expect that engine to last? ive yet to see or hear about (either in real life, or on the RSX forums) and DC5 thats boosting more then 10 Psi without blowing something up. That engine way harder to turbocharge reliably then any B series ever made.

 
Rep Power: 0

case in point

 
Rep Power: 0

I never thought I would ever say this....but that BOV sounds annoying as hell...

Its either the BOV or the noise of him hitting the Rev Limiter [IMG]i/expressions/laugh2.gif[/IMG]

 
Rep Power: 0

the BOV is making that noise (repeatedly) BECAUSE he was hitting the rev limiter. yet another way to prolong the life of your turbo K20.

 
Rep Power: 0

First of all.... the 1.8T is not a gay engine. So the rainbow thing is uncalled for. The bottom line is that the 1.8T is one of the most tunable engines out there. Getting a chip alone will take your turbo from 7 psi to around 14-18psi (depending on engine code). It is a great engine. It is very reliable... except for coilpack failures. The RSX is a great car.... I like the looks of it stock more than the stock gti. I think the RSX and the 1.8T are in similar rankings. They are both sporty cars with some power. The 1.8t has a lot of suspension upgrades needed. And for all you flamers out there here is a little link for ya..... and also one for you folks who say the that VW's can't make 1000 hp.... close 900whp with the vr6.

anyways ...... check it out.

900hp Golf


For the vw haters

 
Rep Power: 0

that 900 hp GTi does not have a 1.8lt engine, it has a highly modified 2.7lt inline5 by audi, but still i think this generation GTi really disapointed it's customers, the MK3's are so much fun to drive...

 
Rep Power: 0

i like the gti...

 
Rep Power: 399

The 1.8T is a great engine for tuning. But I thing it's going to come down to personal choice. I've met some wicked fast 1.8T's before, as some have seen in my street racing videos, but someone's personal preference may lead them to the acura.

As for making power at high rpms, I suppose you'll say that my S2000 sucks since it's max hp and torque come near the 8000rpm area. If you know how to drive and launch your car, the high rpm peak can easily be overcome, and you are in your powerband putting down some decent times.

 
Rep Power: 0

yea, but it sucks *** hole for point and squirt daily driving.

 
Rep Power: 399

It doesn't suck for daily driving, unless you're used to F-body type grunt down low.

An S2k or Type S will have plenty of useable torque down low to easily accelerate quicker than many other daily drivers out there. Do they have a lot of low torque? No, but they have more than enough. Do they have as much torque down low as other sports or sport compacts? Probably not, but gearing makes up for it, and gives them enough pep for daily driving.

 
Rep Power: 0

Hey what's up dude, thanx for linking to my post.

Not that I disagree with anything RSX-S related, because I don't even see what the point of the whole thread is here. Honda spends $$$ to make their cars high compression hp/L monsters, while Audi/VW spent a lot of $$ to make the 1.8T low compression engine, with some forged internals to withstand a lot of boost. Both companies are doing the same, just with different methods. Like this car for example:

http://www.goapr.com/VW/products/images/Dragstrip.wmv

and all this is done with 300whp/290lbs-ft@wheels on stock internals, which will last for a while.

and now, for my dyno:



note the dip at 5500rpm? That's a compressor surge, which is eliminated now. All this with just a chip ($500), intake ($250), ECS n75($89), better BOV (known as DV in VWland, $100).
And for VW reliability. I've been chipped 10,000mi and have 24,000 on my car now. Been to the tracks every Friday last year. And still have my original tires on. Never had ANY issues with my car. Not even a busted Window regulator, nor a coilpack failure. And on top of that, I'm pushing 17WOT psi, and spiking 22psi.

It's a 2002 GTI 1.8T 5sp. which I paid $21,300 FULLY LOADED. Among with many other mods...





And having the privilege of driving the RSX-S prior to my GTI, I can say, that if it wasn't for the higher price, I would have gotten it.

 
Rep Power: 0

Thanks for pointing that out, even the B series didnt make their peak power until high in the powerband

 
Rep Power: 0

To answer your question JoeB16, here's the info from Consumer Reports as I have a subscription:

The Golf is a well-designed small car that we can't recommend for now because its reliability has fallen off. The Golf handles nimbly and has a supple, quiet ride. The interior has a high-quality feel unusual in this price class. The seats are firm and supportive, but the rear is a bit cramped. The standard 2.0-liter four-cylinder engine is responsive but noisy and relatively thirsty. The sporty GTI model's two engine choices received a significant horsepower boost last year. One of our mileage champs is the turbodiesel Golf TDI with a manual transmission: It averaged 41 mpg overall in our tests. However, diesels may not meet stringent new air-pollution requirements for California and New York. Crash-test results are impressive. The convertible (Cabrio) is gone.

Problem areas in the 00 model year:
Engine, Fuel, Electirical, Brakes, Power Equipment, Body Integrity, Body Hardware.

Up to '03, they all have problems along those lines...

And now for the RSX:

The RSX replaced the long-running Integra. Unlike its predecessor, which came as both a coupe and a four-door sedan, the RSX is available for now only as a two-door coupe. Base models feature a 2.0-liter, 160-hp four-cylinder engine and can be had with either a manual or an automatic transmission. The sportier Type-S variant comes with a 200-horsepower version that feels invigorating when revved to its 8,000-rpm redline. The Type-S is available only with a six-speed manual, which shifts very crisply. Handling is capable but not outstanding. A stiff, choppy ride and constant road noise make the RSX tiring on long drives. The hatchback and a split fold-down rear seat add versatility, but rear- seat room is very tight.

It ranks as a Consumer Reports Recommended Buy.

There are no middle to bad ratings on any of the components.

And just to compare, here's the 7thgen:

Good performance, fuel economy, and interior space help make the Civic a top pick. The standard engine is a sprightly 1.7-liter, 115-hp Four, while the EX has a 127-hp version, and the HX coupe gets a fuel-efficient 117-hp lean-burn engine. The automatic transmission works very well. Handling is fairly nimble though not quite as agile as that of the Ford Focus. The ride is less supple than in the previous model, and road noise is pronounced. The control layout is a model of clarity, with excellent fit and finish. Good crash-test results are another plus. The high-revving Si drives similarly despite its 160-hp engine. The gasoline/electric Civic Hybrid also performs a lot like a regular Civic though slightly slower and averaged 36 mpg in CR tests with a CVT.

Also a Consumer Reports Recommended Buy, it hasn't ranked poorly since 1995.

T-X

 
Rep Power: 0

Nice ride golfzilla. The point of this thread? Its for people who have the opinion that the Type S is inferior to the GTi to to futilely convert people.

I don't see why ppl have to talk trash about a car that's very nice. It doesn't go on Car and Driver's 10 best, get good reviews from Consumer Reports for no reason. Yes its not the rice racer's car of dreams, but they didn't intend it to be that way. If you like the VW more, then that's your can of worms. No reason to trash a nice car.

And saying that the peak horsepower being at real high RPM makes it impractical is ridiculous. Everyday driving you don't need to push the petal to the metal, even with my 110hp civic. You get sufficient HP at the low end to get by. Unless you're those ppl who have nothing better to do than to swerve in and out of rush hour traffic.

-Aki

 
Rep Power: 0

Not saying that's untrue, but our 82 Golf Diesel lasted until 99 before we sold it still running.

 
Rep Power: 0

I heard that the stock turbo in the 1.8t is crap lots of problems with it anyone here of this my 2 friends have been having some problems with them one has a 2001 and the other has 2002 both 1.8t.

 
Rep Power: 0

I can believe that without a doubt. I have read numerous times the diesel golfs are bullet-proof. There are many with the same story as yours. They get like 40-50 mpg or something high like that don't they?

 
Rep Power: 0

I personally do not like the 1.8T so I would rather have the Rsx-s anyway.