my brother in laws rsx type s! [Archive]

dmitrik4

08-22-2002, 05:43 PM

another pic. by the way, the wheels and tires are for sale:

17X7 Konig Tantrum
5x114.3, 40S

215/50ZR17 Nitto NT450

the two on the left hand side have about 9,000 miles on them, the RHS tires/wheels are BRAND NEW, as the car hit a curb (hard :( ) and ins paid for new wheels/tires on that side. the RHS set has about 7 or 8 miles on them (from the shop to my apt), the tires still have green lines on the treads from the mfr. the left front wheel has slight curb rash (damn nasty Philly curbs), i can send you more detailed pics if you're interested...let me know and i'll break out the camera.

i'll sell together or seperately -- they aren't on my Protege b/c the 215/50/17 is too tall to fit the 195/50/16 on the stock setup, but the wheels should fit perfectly. the set new cost $1300, (tires new are about $100 a piece), so i'll ask for $500/neg for the wheels, $200/neg for the tires.

GLENN

08-22-2002, 07:06 PM

my other toy

LinuxRacr

09-05-2002, 05:23 AM

Another RSX...:rolleyes:

MP5s Make Ready

09-05-2002, 08:18 AM

FUGLY.....P5 is so much better looking and ALOT cheaper it's ridiculous!!! Sooner or later they'll be more of these things rollin around and they'll be just like a civic.......a joke on four wheels......(Not trying to start anything, just my .02)

dmitrik4

09-09-2002, 02:28 PM

except that that joke will be rapidly receding in the distance ahead. i like P5's, i love my ES, but you can't really compare the two to a Type-S. soo much quicker, smoother, well-put together. but that's what you get for 8 grand more.

tritonheat1

09-20-2002, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by dmitrik4
except that that joke will be rapidly receding in the distance ahead. i like P5's, i love my ES, but you can't really compare the two to a Type-S. soo much quicker, smoother, well-put together. but that's what you get for 8 grand more.

Well the MS-P sure can for a fact and it's alot less than a Type-S with all the goodies;) :D lol....

dmitrik4

09-20-2002, 10:25 AM

well, i was talking about the P5.:)

mmmm, MS-P.:D i want one. it's definitely closer competition. be nice to see some more power out of the stock turbo'd engine though.

Kooldino

09-20-2002, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by dmitrik4
:cool:

Jersey boy, eh? where in NJ?

Kooldino

09-20-2002, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by dmitrik4
well, i was talking about the P5.:)

mmmm, MS-P.:D i want one. it's definitely closer competition. be nice to see some more power out of the stock turbo'd engine though.

MSP and the Type S both run a 14.9 stock in the 1/4. The RSX is a very nice car, but I'll stick with my mp3. :-)

BigBlue

09-22-2002, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by dmitrik4
well, i was talking about the P5.:)

mmmm, MS-P.:D i want one. it's definitely closer competition. be nice to see some more power out of the stock turbo'd engine though.

Hehe, I'd have to say in my opinion the MSP is superior, not just "closer competition" for the Type S. :D :p

OurP5

09-23-2002, 09:03 PM

Honda is Acura and Acura is Honda.

I agree with the comment that there will be just as many RSX's running around as Hondas. I hope that is not the case though, since Acura is the "luxury" division of Honda.

And I would hate to see them running around with 4" exhaust tips, Boeing 747 wings, etc.

A friend of mine has a RSX-Type S.

It drives very nice, and is pretty quick.

I have said it before and I will say again.

"There is something about just about every car on the market that I like and something I don't"

Zoom-Zoom :D

dmitrik4

09-26-2002, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Kooldino

MSP and the Type S both run a 14.9 stock in the 1/4. The RSX is a very nice car, but I'll stick with my mp3. :-)

i'm in voorhees.

i haven't seen a 14.9 quoted for an MSP yet...i know C&D had it at a 15.4 and the RSX at a 14.8 (seems reasonable given the HP difference)...the MSP seemed to handle better though. i guess it goes back to "whatever you prefer." i'm a fan of hatchbacks. buttery-smooth 8000rpm doesn't hurt either!(laugh)

i'll tell you what, though. i like paying $290/mo for my ES better than $490/mo for the RSX. i would've bought an MP3 instead of either if it had ABS. you should come out to autoX at Camden if you're south jersey -- i was the only Pro there this past weekend.:(

tritonheat1

09-27-2002, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by dmitrik4

i'm in voorhees.

i haven't seen a 14.9 quoted for an MSP yet...i know C&D had it at a 15.4 and the RSX at a 14.8 (seems reasonable given the HP difference)...the MSP seemed to handle better though. i guess it goes back to "whatever you prefer." i'm a fan of hatchbacks. buttery-smooth 8000rpm doesn't hurt either!(laugh)

i'll tell you what, though. i like paying $290/mo for my ES better than $490/mo for the RSX. i would've bought an MP3 instead of either if it had ABS. you should come out to autoX at Camden if you're south jersey -- i was the only Pro there this past weekend.:(

Well Open yours eyes wide and read this:eek: lol enjoy;)
Http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=reviews&loc_code=index&content_code=00066877

dmitrik4

09-30-2002, 11:39 AM

In straight-line performance, Hiraishi said Mazda got a 15.3-second quarter mile at 90 miles an hour and that independent tests have returned quarter miles of 14.9 at 93.18 and 0-to-60 times from 6.6 to 7.0 seconds.

good article. looks like it's pretty consistent...153, 15.4, etc.:)

"independent tests"? quoted by a Mazda engineer in whose interest it is that the car perform well? i'm sure he's entirely unbiased and would never fudge unofficial numbers...;)

hopefully i can get a test drive, but i'm afraid that might make me make some unwise financial decisions... :cool:

(hey, i know it's the "cool thing" to poop on honda products, and especially the RSX-S. i just don't get why people always feel the need to do that to make themselves feel better... :confused: )

tritonheat1

10-04-2002, 03:20 AM

Originally posted by dmitrik4

good article. looks like it's pretty consistent...153, 15.4, etc.:)

"independent tests"? quoted by a Mazda engineer in whose interest it is that the car perform well? i'm sure he's entirely unbiased and would never fudge unofficial numbers...;)

hopefully i can get a test drive, but i'm afraid that might make me make some unwise financial decisions... :cool:

(hey, i know it's the "cool thing" to poop on honda products, and especially the RSX-S. i just don't get why people always feel the need to do that to make themselves feel better... :confused: )

Hey man they both are quick and fast but i had to post that article for the #'s that the MS-P is boosting, that's a pretty darn impressive number.

0-60times in 6.6-7.0sec
1/4mile 14.9@93.18mph
that's impressive:eek: (boobs)

spoolinmp3

10-04-2002, 04:33 AM

rsx's are nice but for that money why not buy a turbocharged all wheel drive wrx? It kills rsx's and for just a little bit more (downpipe, exhaust and filter and some boost you have 300+ hp for under a grand and high 12 sec to low 13 sec 1/4 miles. Try spending that same bread on an rsx and you would be lucky to get 10 hp:eek: (laugh) (rofl)

dmitrik4

10-07-2002, 11:18 AM

i actually was down to those very cars when i was looking. a few things:

1. couldn't find a WRX for under $25,500, and even then, it wasn't equipped as well. i got my acura for $23,650 incl delivery.

2. the subaru guy was a jerk, the acura guy treated me like gold.

3. the WRX felt like a Dodge Neon inside, more like a $15k car than a $25k car.

IMO, the RSX is just a nicer car, not quite as quick, but in reality, my ES is about as quick as a street car needs to be. RSX-S/WRX type speed is a waste unless you go to a track -- i went through a 55 mph speed trap in my Acura at 125, pretty much by accident. well, kind of.;)

i spend a lot of time on i-club, and i can say that i would NEVER mod a WRX under warranty. SOA reps have been refusing to honor warranties just b/c the owner autoXed the car, even though the WRX comes with a free SCCA membership. i could point out close to a dozen WRX owners who have needed new transmissions b/c the stock ones are made of glass. a cat-back system or an intake voids your engine warranty at a lot of dealers. i just sold my old Protege to a guy who is suing Subaru under NJ's lemon law. SOA flat refuses to fix his car. i'll probably buy a used WRX some day, but that's it. i've driven both, one of my good friends has a Rex, and give me the Acura any day. the WRX is like a hot date -- fun for a while, but you probably don't want to marry her.

saided18

10-07-2002, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by dmitrik4
well, i was talking about the P5.:)

mmmm, MS-P.:D i want one. it's definitely closer competition. be nice to see some more power out of the stock turbo'd engine though.

closer??? WTF i think the MPS will smoke that RSX. well that what i think.

dmitrik4

10-08-2002, 02:51 PM

well, that settles it then. :rolleyes: great.

:)

brain

10-08-2002, 04:03 PM

We (wife & I) just bought a RSX for a second vehicle. Even though it is just the Premium (160hp) the engine is soooooooo smooth, we paid 26K cdn loaded. Leather heated seats feel nice on the bum too!

I know there is a lot of Honda haters in here, but I like Honda product and personnaly I think there engines cant be beat.

I still drive my P5 when I have the chioce.

tritonheat1

10-10-2002, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by brain
We (wife & I) just bought a RSX for a second vehicle. Even though it is just the Premium (160hp) the engine is soooooooo smooth, we paid 26K cdn loaded. Leather heated seats feel nice on the bum too!

I know there is a lot of Honda haters in here, but I like Honda product and personnaly I think there engines cant be beat.

I still drive my P5 when I have the chioce.

Nawww mannn(no) (no)......if there were honda hater's in here we would be dissing honda's and Sh** like that and giving the sign that we don't F**king like Honda's(piss) (flame2). I honestly like honda's, but i just think there's too many of them. Fortunately i'm a mazda guy, but if a nice honda was given to me i'd take it in a heart beat. Honda's are great cars, alot of my friends own honda's and acura's. But between the Mazdaspeed and the RSX-TypeS. I rather chose the MS-P Reason's are:

1. It's a Family Sport Sedan
2. It's bigger.
3. Features a nice Kenwood Deck Stereo System
4. Has sparco interior and Exterior racing hart rims with nice body styling.
5. Turbocharged with LSD
6. It's Quicker than an RSX- TypeS
7. it's Cheaper than an RSX-TypeS
8. It's Limited Edition

That's Just my opinion though, everybody has a right to there opinion. Some may say the same and some may say not.

;)

dmitrik4

10-10-2002, 05:21 PM

good reasons all except for #6...;)

and i don't have a family.;)

i have to say, that i am extremely happy with my ES and don't regret buying it at all, esp for $210/mo less than the Acura was. but i guess i get less car too, which is expected.

there are things my mazda does as well/better:

--hold more people going to lunch (but that means i have to drive all the time now)
--uses regular gas (as opposed to premium, although my mileage isn't any better than the Acura)
--stops as well stock as the Acura did
--easier to drive while autoXing
--lower insurance
--looks just as good, IMO
--less noticeable by john q. law in traffic
--comes with really good stock tires

things my acura did better:

--better build quality (just being honest here -- no weird door/headliner rattles, less wind noise, no sloppy-feeling shifter, no wobbly gas pedal)
--faster (and NO, the MSP is NOT quicker in a straight line. if you feel otherwise, show proof, but the laws of physics back me up)
--handled better than the ES does in autoX (less understeer, less body roll)
--6-speed (easily the best shifter/gearbox i have ever used)
--MUCH smoother engine (again, you get what you pay for)
--quieter on the highway
--held more cargo (hatchback vs. sedan -- no contest)

so there ya go. if i was offered both for free, i'd take the acura. but since i have to pay for it, i'll take the mazda. you may feel differently, and that's OK.:)

saided18

10-10-2002, 10:00 PM

dmitrik4

No offence but there is no way in hell you can compare your protege ES with a MS protege (the one with the turbo). B/c the MS-P will blow the RSX away!!!!!!!! hands down!!!!
1 it cost less at 20,500
2 is one of TOP 3 handling car out on the road
3 look better then a RSX type-s
4 is faster
5 has more stuff in it. ie sparko interior and kenwood system
...ect

so please don't give me a bull on how the RSX is better the
MS-P. BUT i will conceede that hondas are great cars. Had a Ledgen and all i had to say is it looked nice, had speed and the engine was going strong with 150K. So i don't have any thing agianst hondas. but the fact of the matter is MS-P is better then the RSX type-s

tritonheat1

10-11-2002, 04:06 PM

Dmitrik4 I like the RSX Type-S and all but not to get a little off topic but the RSX isn't faster than an Integra Type-R, so how is the RSX-S faster than the MS-P. Please tell me where it beats the MSP in straight line performance, Which the MS-P has taken over the Type-R FWD fastest stock car from the factory. SCC has stated that the MS-P is the fastest FWD from the factory which when they were going uphill the MS-P didn't have any turbo lag going uphill and it beat the Type-R. The RSX-S is a Bad A** car i would take one if it was given to me, but i don't think it's better than the MS-P which also to bring that the MS-P is alot cheaper 2.

MS-P's Specs are:

0-60....6.5sec
1/4mile 14.9@93.18mph hmmm(scratch) (thought) i think that's quicker than the RSX'S 0-60.....6.7sec 1/4mile 15.2sec@n/a mph.

tritonheat1

10-11-2002, 04:32 PM

Here's the RSX-S Performance data YOU LIKE:

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2002/acura/rsx/types2drhatchback20146m/specs.html?id=lin0018

http://www.modernracer.com/acurarsxtypes.html

0-60 in............6.7sec
1/4mile 15.2sec@92.7mph. thank u much(wiggle) (flash)

tritonheat1

10-11-2002, 04:37 PM

oops here ya go:

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2002/acura/rsx/types2drhatchback20l4cyl6m/specs.html?id=lin0018

tritonheat1

10-11-2002, 04:50 PM

And another from (Motortrend):

0-60.........7.2sec
1/4mile....15.16sec@93.24mph

http://www.motortrend.com/june01/acurarsx/rsx_f.html then scroll down and go to page 2.;)

enry

10-11-2002, 06:34 PM

the MSP is rated at 170hp... but the type S is rated 200hp. perhaps the turbo kicks in at lower RPM than the type s thus giving it the advantage?`

tritonheat1

10-11-2002, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by enry
the MSP is rated at 170hp... but the type S is rated 200hp. perhaps the turbo kicks in at lower RPM than the type s thus giving it the advantage?`

Yes, suposely the Turbo give's us the advantage and the Turbo kicks in at 25-2600rpms and pulls all the way to redline with no turbo lag or down hills in the rpm range.

dmitrik4

10-13-2002, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by tritonheat1
Here's the RSX-S Performance data YOU LIKE:

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2002/acura/rsx/types2drhatchback20146m/specs.html?id=lin0018

http://www.modernracer.com/acurarsxtypes.html

0-60 in............6.7sec
1/4mile 15.2sec@92.7mph. thank u much(wiggle) (flash)

Keep in Mind YOU posted these links:

edmunds link: 6.7sec (RSX-S)

no numbers on the MSP.

modernracer.com(???) Acura (http://www.modernracer.com/acurarsxtypes.html): 6.7, 15.2@92.7mph
MSP (http://www.modernracer.com/mazdaspeedprotege.html): 6.9, 15.4@91mph

looks like modernracer.com doesn't agree with you.

Motor Trend

Acura (http://www.motortrend.com/june01/acurarsx/rsx_f.html) : 7.2, 15.1@93.2mph

MSP:

In front of me, i have the May '02 issue of Car and Driver.

Acura RSX-S: 6.1, 14.8@N/A mph

Also, the September '02 Car and Driver:

MSP: 6.9, 15.4@91 mph

I'm going to assume that a faster 0-60 and a lower ET would infer a higher trap speed.

so only Motor Trend was unable to get a Type-S under 7 seconds 0-60. i don't know where you go your previously
quoted "specs" on the MSP of 6.5, 14.3@93.18mph, but EVERY resource i have seen (even the ones YOU supplied) have recorded the Type-S as being quicker.

you can't take a performance number for the Acura from one place and compare it to a number for the MSP from another source.
it's shaky enough magazine racing like this, even if your source is the same.

the facts are these:

1. the RSX Type-S has a better power-to-weight ratio:

MSP...2844 lbs, 170 HP = 16.73 lbs/hp
RSX-S...2766 lbs, 200HP = 13.83 lbs/hp

2. the RSX-S has better (shorter) gearing in every gear except 1st:

Acura MSP
1st: 3.267 3.31
2nd: 2.130 1.84
3rd: 1.517 1.31
4th: 1.147 0.97
5th: 0.921 0.76
6th: 0.738 N/A

Final: 4.389 4.11

the only thing that might give the MSP an advantage off the line is the LSD.

but you can't defy Physics. shorter gearing and 17.33% less weight per HP equals a faster car, EVERY TIME.

dmitrik4

10-13-2002, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by enry
the MSP is rated at 170hp... but the type S is rated 200hp. perhaps the turbo kicks in at lower RPM than the type s thus giving it the advantage?`

enry-

yes, the MSP reaches its peak power at a lower RPM than the Type-S. but that doesn't matter except for around-town driving and that's not what we're discussing here.

(and just for kicks...not that it's by any means a scientific test, but i DID beat a Type-R Integra from 70-125 mph last fall.do not attempt! keep it on the track. we went thru a speed trap and the Type-R got pulled over doing 65-70mph over the 55 mph limit. :( i was lucky enough not to get pulled and avoided going to jail. :( :eek: :D)

if the MSP was available or even confirmed for production when I bought my Acura last July, i probably would have bought the Mazda. i would have traded off a little straight-line speed for sharper hadling and a $3000 price difference.

sorry to go into so much detail with the numbers, but facts are facts and it bugs me to hear people proclaiming as truth things that clearly aren't. i understand the enthusiasm for the MSP (again, i wish i could get one), but it's not the greatest car ever, just as the RSX-S is not. or the WRX, regardless of what some of the folks on i-club seem to think.:) if tritonhheat had claimed better handling numbers for the MSP, i would hhave agreed wholeheartedly -- Honda fell down with the handling of the RSX-S, especialy with the HORRIBLE tires they fitted to it. Mazda seems to do a better job of not cutting corners that way.

tritonheat1

10-18-2002, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by dmitrik4

Keep in Mind YOU posted these links:

edmunds link: 6.7sec (RSX-S)

no numbers on the MSP.

modernracer.com(???) Acura (http://www.modernracer.com/acurarsxtypes.html): 6.7, 15.2@92.7mph
MSP (http://www.modernracer.com/mazdaspeedprotege.html): 6.9, 15.4@91mph

looks like modernracer.com doesn't agree with you.

Motor Trend

Acura (http://www.motortrend.com/june01/acurarsx/rsx_f.html) : 7.2, 15.1@93.2mph

:

In front of me, i have the May '02 issue of Car and Driver.

Acura RSX-S: 6.1, 14.8@N/A mph

Also, the September '02 Car and Driver:

MSP: 6.9, 15.4@91 mph

I'm going to assume that a faster 0-60 and a lower ET would infer a higher trap speed.

so only Motor Trend was unable to get a Type-S under 7 seconds 0-60. i don't know where you go your previously
quoted "specs" on the MSP of 6.5, 14.3@93.18mph, but EVERY resource i have seen (even the ones YOU supplied) have recorded the Type-S as being quicker.

you can't take a performance number for the Acura from one place and compare it to a number for the MSP from another source.
it's shaky enough magazine racing like this, even if your source is the same.

the facts are these:

1. the RSX Type-S has a better power-to-weight ratio:

MSP...2844 lbs, 170 HP = 16.73 lbs/hp
RSX-S...2766 lbs, 200HP = 13.83 lbs/hp

2. the RSX-S has better (shorter) gearing in every gear except 1st:

Acura MSP
1st: 3.267 3.31
2nd: 2.130 1.84
3rd: 1.517 1.31
4th: 1.147 0.97
5th: 0.921 0.76
6th: 0.738 N/A

Final: 4.389 4.11

the only thing that might give the MSP an advantage off the line is the LSD.

but you can't defy Physics. shorter gearing and 17.33% less weight per HP equals a faster car, EVERY TIME.

Man No doubt the RSX-S is a Bad a** car but it's not faster than the MS-P. Yeah the RSX has more HP and it has a 6-speed tranny But the MSP has the advantage on Torque with (LSD) and Turbo. If the MSP loses to a 142lb-fts@6000rpms and redlines to 7800rpms, which i-Vtec doesn't kick in till 7400rpms, and the MS-P which has 160lb-fts@25-2600rpms till 6600rpms then There's something wrong with the (LSD) and not to mention, Turbo is boosting already at low rpm with no turbo lag at all, all the way to redline. I must hardly say with the MS-P's advantage if it's not faster than the RSX-S to 60mph and 1/4mile then there's something really wrong here. not just (Motortrend) got good number's but Autoweek got good number's too. [url]Http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?port_code=&cat_code=reviews&loc_code=index&content-code=00066877 (]MSP[/URL)

And not to mention i Burn My friend's 02 SE-R SpecV
also he has: Injen CAI, Spintech Exhaust, and eibach 2''springs.

SpecV: 175HP- 180lb-fts torque with (Helical LSD)

i own a 91 MX-6 GT 2.2l Turbocharged and intercooled Stock with 139,945 miles on it and burn him by 2 1/2 car lenghs even with mine and my father's bowling balls in the trunk.

MX-6 GT: 145hp- 190lb-fts torque.

so i know for a fact that the MS-P is quicker even though the HP and power to weight ratio goes to the RSX-S.

SpecV curb weight: 2743lbs has 30 more horses with mods and 10lb-fts of torque less than the MX-6, and also is 12 pounds lighter.

RSX-S curb weight: 2767lbs has 30 more horses and 18lb-fts pounds of torque less than the MS-P, and also is 76 pounds lighter.

(scratch) (thought) (scratch) (thought) (scratch)

tritonheat1

10-18-2002, 02:15 AM

oops, http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=reviews&loc_code=index&content_code=00066877

Plus they said Hiraishi said mazda got a 15.3sec quarter mile at 90 miles and hour and independent test have returned 1/4mile times of 14.9sec@ 93.18mph and 0-60times of 6.6-7.0sec, so it is as fast as it felt.

0-60mph....6.6-7sec
1/4mile 14.9sec@93.18mph Are you happy now you saw the 14.9 hehe lol

dmitrik4

10-18-2002, 11:43 AM

did you even read what i wrote? your response is "well, the MSP has a turbo and LSD"? THAT'S your argument? :rolleyes:

1. you didn't address ANYTHING i said. i showed you HARD, VERIFIED facts. where are these "independent tests"? SHOW them to me, don't quote a MAZDA engineer who may or may not be exaggerating.

2. what does your "friend's SE-R" or your MX-6 have to do with ANYTHING? we're not talking about either of those cars. maybe your friend is a crappy driver. who knows? it's irrelevant.

3. torque DOESN'T MATTER. the MSP and SE-R may be easier to drive around town and may FEEL faster, but in the end, horsepower is what counts.

(i have a degree in Mechanical Engineering, trust me, i'm not making this up.) read this:

Torque and Horsepower (http://www.vettenet.org/torquehp.html)

that lays everything out in clear, indisputable, SCIENTIFIC FACT. complete with equations to prove it.

4. the K20A engine in the RSX-S switches cames at 5600rpm, NOT 7400. peak power is made at 7400RPM, but the cam switchover is MUCH earlier than that. and if you look at a dyno curve, the power delivery is pretty linear, unlike the old VTEC engines, which jumped once the second cam took over. so if you're making an argument, please have your facts straight.

5. YES, THE MSP ENGINE HAS MORE TORQUE AT THE FLYWHEEL. but as anyone with any technical knowledge knows, the purpose of the gearbox is to multiply that torque. the multiplied torque AT THE WHEELS is what starts the car moving. that's how the RSX makes up for its "torque disadvantage."

torque at the wheels for each car at the torque peak:

1st gear

RSX: 142*3.267*4.389 = 2,036.12 ft-lbs
MSP: 160*3.31*4.11 = 2,176.656 ft-lbs

2nd gear

RSX: 142*2.130*4.389 = 1,327.50 ft-lbs
MSP: 160*1.84*4.11 = 1,209.98 ft-lbs

3rd gear

RSX: 142*1.157*4.389 = 721.09 ft-lbs
MSP: 160*1.31*4.11 = 861.46 ft-lbs

4th gear

RSX: 142*1.147*4.389 = 714.85 ft-lbs
MSP: 160*0.97*4.11 = 637.87 ft-lbs

5th gear

RSX: 142*0.921*4.389 = 574.00 ft-lbs
MSP: 160*0.76*4.11 = 499.78 ft-lbs

so in first gear, the MSP's "torque advantage" is actually about half (6.5% @the wheels) of what you think (11.25% @the engine). in 2nd, the RSX puts 9% more torque to the ground. in 3rd, the MSP has a 16% advantage @the wheels. in 4th, the RSX has a 13% advantage @the wheels.

but again, TORQUE IS IRRELEVANT. POWER is what matters.

************************************************** **

the bottom line is, if the two were raced by comparable, good drivers (which was the point of my magazine quotes), the MSP would have the advantage off the line (probably to about 25 mph), then the RSX would start to pull ahead and would stay there. once you're rolling, the LSD and stickier tires don't help. it doesn't matter HOW power is made (turbo vs. N/A), it just matters that it IS made.

the RSX makes more than the MSP and it has less weight to carry around. period.

ok, this is the last post i'm going to make here. if you can't listen to logic, there's no point in discussing this any further. you seem like a good guy (a little young, but that's ok :) ), just not as knowledgeable about physics and maybe a little overenthusiastic about the MSP.
;)

saided18

10-18-2002, 06:44 PM

dmitrik4 why can't you give it up. The MSP is faster and BETTER over all as a car. if you dont' like it to bad. plain and simple. Oh yeah your ME degree. did you graduate and from which school or are your a freshman that goes around telling every one that "I AM A M.E.!" LOL. oh yeah by the way i go to NJIT. and i do know a thing about torque and HP. torgue is what gets you going. the higher the torque the faster of a start you are going to get. low torque means slower start from a full stop. PLUS
V-TECs are know for have most the HP at higher RMPS.

tritonheat1

10-18-2002, 06:46 PM

Good point, But i'm not overenthusiastic about the MS-P i don't know much about numbers on car's and Stuff like that. But when it comes down to who has the advantage on things like the MS-P has it goes to the MS-P. I'm not trying to have a bebate or anything, but just face it we are not running the vehicle with a calculator with &$(%. MS-P might have less HP and weigh alittle more but that's not the point here. Yes the gear ratios, 6speed tranny, and weight will go to the RSX-S, but when i-Vtec kicks in at 5600rpms, guess what there's no way it'll run past a turbo that relieves it power at 2600rpms.

and to my post about the MX-6 and SE-R specV, yes it has to do the same about the RSX-S and MS-P.

since the SPECV has more HP and CVTC it should run faster on topend like you said above. How come after 80mph i leave him like a turtle crawling.

Plus he is a damm improved good driver 2.

SE-R SspecV:
175hp vs. 145hp 6-speed tranny vs. 5-speed tranny
180lb-fts vs. 190lb-fts

but i still manage to beat him from 0-through whatever.

MS-P should be no different from the RSX-S either.

SpecV gets more HP less weight 6-speed tranny and CVTC.

RSX_S gets more HP less weight 6-speed tranny and i-Vtec.
hmmmmmm......... i think they have something in common over the 2 mazda's but still i can't figure out where the ass kicken is given at.

MS-P might be alittle underrated or there bSingggg about the HP that's advertised.

and the FACT is i smoked my friend's SpecV so get used to it. He's not a crappy driver anymore. Face it, i know there's really nothing new about the specs and numbers on the MS-P but there will be and just because the power etc... is outcomed by the RSX-S, i still think that the ms-p WILL be quicker. for example that's why i posted about the SE-R specV and MX-6.;)

saided18

10-18-2002, 06:50 PM

look. i saw we suspend this debate till the MP-S comes out and it ripps the RSX-S part and then when can come back to this debate. sounds good?

rsx

10-19-2002, 02:21 AM

We can settle this on the track right now !

oh wait, my bad, the MSP is still not available, I'll wait for you at the start line, wake me up when you get there.

(Just joking, please don't get mad :), I couldn't resist )

dmitrik4

10-21-2002, 12:10 PM

saided-

actually, i do have my degree. i graduated from Rowan with a 3.5. :) and if you're an Engin. major, then you understand everything i've said, right? what you said is correct, and i'm sure the MS-P might rip the S a new one up to about 25 mph, just as the wheel torque and HP numbers indicate.

but as the RECORDED TESTING indicates, after that it goes the other way. hopefully by the time you complete your education, you will be able to accept facts when you see them, even if they contradict your previously-held opinions or theories.

triton, you raise a good point about a theoretically faster car getting beat in the real world. and i'm sure that happens, but as you can see by the tests i've posted, that is not the case with these two. if you and your friend were racing an RSX-S vs. an MS-P, the results might carry some weight. as it is though, it's an interesting side discussion but in the end carries no significance here.

the MS-P is certainly a better value, and given the choice, i'd choose to buy it over the Acura. but that's not what is being argued here. what is being argued is straight-line speed, and neither you nor triton has produced any relevant facts supporting your side.

;) i'm sure the head-to-head comparision will happen eventually.

ok, i'm done on this thread. there are no more points for me to make. take care guys.:)

saided18

10-21-2002, 01:39 PM

yeah but i don't remeber Rowan having a good M.E. program.

Why not go to NJIT or SIT??

dmitrik4

10-21-2002, 01:55 PM

:rolleyes:

the grads working for Northrop Grumman, Sikorsky, Lockheed Martin, Sony and NASA or the ones studying at Stanford, Penn State, Georgia Tech, Princeton or Michigan might disagree. maybe i'll shoot you an email from law school next fall.

and in any case, it sounds like you don't have your degree yet, since that comment was decidedly juvenile. not to mention irrelevant.

EDIT:

:mad:

EDIT 2: deleted b/c tritonheat actually made a good point.;)

brain

10-21-2002, 02:39 PM

Im impressed that Honda is making 200HP sans turbo. I know comparing the plain RSX to P5 (we own both) the RSX bends the P5 over and crams it in hard!

saided18

10-21-2002, 03:50 PM

well shows how ignorant you and and how much you really do know.

#1. I know people that have gone to Rowan and from their accounts and alot more people Rowan is a big party school.

#2 NJIT is one of top research Univ in NJ. People like DoD, Lockhead Martain, Exxon Mobile, ATT, NASA, Rathan, Verison are conducting research at my school.

#2 was the CIA or FBI at your school recruiting students at your school this every year??

#3 Did you have profs that work at places White Sand New Mexico on the Nuclear bomb project or that worked for the DoD during the Vietnam war doing staticial analysis on weapons systems in use or one of the leader in the industry on speech recognition for computer programs or a teach working on A.I. for NASA on it's little robot cars that go to mars or work for LockHead Martian???? The list goes on.

#4 I bet you never heard of SIT. but then again i bet you never heard of places like John Jay college or Fordum (sp?) or Pace. Just b/s you never heard of a place doesn't mean any thing. just tells me how much you don't know. Please know what your talking about before you speak.
This conversation is over
thank you

dmitrik4

10-21-2002, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by saided18
well shows how ignorant you and and how much you really do know.

#1. I know people that have gone to Rowan and from their accounts and alot more people Rowan is a big party school.

EDIT: yup.

#2 NJIT is one of top research Univ in NJ. People like DoD, Lockhead Martain, Exxon Mobile, ATT, NASA, Rathan, Verison are conducting research at my school.

do you mean VERIZON, LOCKHEED MARTIN, RAYTHEON and EXXON-MOBIL?

EDIT: yup.

#2 was the CIA or FBI at your school recruiting students at your school this every year??

EDIT: yup.

#3 Did you have profs that work at places White Sand New Mexico on the Nuclear bomb project or that worked for the DoD during the Vietnam war doing staticial analysis on weapons systems in use or one of the leader in the industry on speech recognition for computer programs or a teach working on A.I. for NASA on it's little robot cars that go to mars or work for LockHead Martian???? The list goes on.

no one works for LockHead Martian...

EDIT: yup.

#4 I bet you never heard of SIT. but then again i bet you never heard of places like John Jay college or Fordum (sp?) or Pace. Just b/s you never heard of a place doesn't mean any thing. just tells me how much you don't know. Please know what your talking about before you speak.

Yes, I've heard of Stevens -- it's a good school...I've also heard of John Jay, Pace and FORDHAM.

This conversation is over
thank you

your posts make it sound as if you have a while to go before you graduate. hopefully by then you learn how to form coherent sentences and spell more than half your words correctly.

tritonheat1

10-21-2002, 08:56 PM

Mr Dimitrik since you act like you know it all, you sure act like a little kid, which you might be older than me but always defending things that are out of the subject and ragging about something that is not called for. "Yes good, you got your degree and you sound like a pretty smart good guy. I see that you used to own a RSX-S and i'm pretty damm sure it is quick as heck. Me myself has never driven or rode in one, but i have a friend who owns one with AEM CAI, and exhaust. He has ran'em against Integ' GS-R's with just Intake and VTEC controller, and barely beating them by half car lengh to maybe 1 car lengh. Seeing that the ITR is nearly faster than the GS-R, you quoted that you beat a Integ -R from 70-125mph, which the integ is alot lighter has better gear ratios and longer redline.

Integra Type-R: 195hp 2639lbs which breaks the HP weight ratio to 13.53

RSX Type-S: 200hp 2767lbs which breaks the HP weight ratio to 13.835

hmmmmmmmmmmmm (scratch) (thought) i remember you saying having better gear ratios , and weight ratios is the key to performance. well Sure in the heck it DOESN"T t go to the RSX-S.

Let me break down the FACTTTTTTTTTTTTTT: yes having the number's is being better but that's not the Answer here.

I beat my friends SPECV which is favored to him, But i have tooken him out everytime he tries. What i'm trying to say here is my MX-6 should be no different from the MS-P. The SPECV should be no different from the RSX-S except the #'s. ;)

dmitrik4

10-21-2002, 09:15 PM

EDIT: you're right.

happy?

tritonheat1

11-02-2002, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by dmitrik4
EDIT: you're right.

happy?

You betya i'm darn happy....lol hehe, anyways i have the number's that you've been waiting to see from the new mazdaspeed protege and wow:eek: Just like i said.:

Mazda Mp3....................Mazdaspeed protege

0-60mph 8.9sec............................6.5sec
1/4mile.....16.8@82.3mph.............14.9sec@93.2mph
60-0 brk.......132ft..............................124ft
slalom.............64.8mph........................ .68.3mph

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/112_0210_mazda/index.html

brain

11-05-2002, 05:42 PM

I think your buddy with the spec v is not a good driver. I raced a spec v and got spanked, second race I almost one but only because he spun his tires in second! (wet road)

tritonheat1

11-05-2002, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by brain
I think your buddy with the spec v is not a good driver. I raced a spec v and got spanked, second race I almost one but only because he spun his tires in second! (wet road)

Like i said above before when he used to suck i would blow him out of the water by like 5 car lenghs, couple months later he has improved his skills but still cannot manage to win. I get him by 1 1/2 ta 2 car lenghs as of now, and he takes on 00 Civic Si's and Eclipse GS-T's. i own a 91 MX-6 GT which it performs well, there's no Turbo lag unless if i'm at 30mph in 4th gear which would put me at 1800rpms. but if i was in 3rd gear at 30mph the car would pull strong all the way before 500rpms before redline. Trust me he doest not suck anymore.

145Hp@4300rpms turbocharged MX-6GT
190lb-fts of torque@3500rpms
Redline: 6000rpms

175Hp@6000rpms N/A C-VTC Spec-V
180lb-fts of torque@4000rpms
Redline: 6100rpms

if you kinda see the difference in powerband.;)

brain

11-06-2002, 10:11 AM

Duh, I should have read your sig, thought you had MP3.

Yah, thats believeable!

tritonheat1

11-07-2002, 01:40 AM

I own an MP3 and MX-6 GT 2. MP3 would need a little modification before i hand him a A** whoopin. Maybe a hp header with a full-cat back, plug/wires, and flywheel and clutch. If i add those to the MP3 i definately would have a Match.(drinks)

tenth

01-02-2003, 03:18 AM

Yes I'm bringing this thread up from the dead, but there is so much misinformed and irrelevant information being passed off as fact.

Originally posted by tritonheat1
but when i-Vtec kicks in at 5600rpms, guess what there's no way it'll run past a turbo that relieves it power at 2600rpms.
1. Torque moves the wheels. If I remember correctly the RSX doesn't make less than 90% of peak wheel torque at any point in the rev range. What does this mean, the K20A2 WILL accelerate just as hard at 4000 rpms than at 8100 rpms in the same gear (same multipliers).

2. A turbocharger has very little to do when comparing two cars. You see, the turbos power production is included with the released power specs of the car. The numbers available for the car are including the turbocharger, so there's no need to bring it up.

3. The "i" portion functions completely independent from VTEC. The "i" is just the addition of VTC to VTEC. Oh and VTEC kicks in at 5800 rpms on the Type S and 2200 rpms on the Base.

tenth

01-02-2003, 03:24 AM

bah, for anyone else that cares just read dmitrik's posts. He seems to be one of the few people that actually knows what they're talking about and the Vettenet horsepower vs. torque article he posted is a highly recommended read.

tritonheat1

01-05-2003, 08:56 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tenth
[B]Yes I'm bringing this thread up from the dead, but there is so much misinformed and irrelevant information being passed off as fact.

1. Torque moves the wheels.

K then what are you trying to say, B/C if i remember the specs on the Type-S for torque#'s are 142ft-lbs of torque, and the torque#'s for the MS-P are 160ft-lbs of torque. I think the Type-S puts out 170.8hp@wheels and 128.2ft-lbs of torque@wheels. Even though i am comparing #'s from a different source, this is what the MS-P puts out from SCC 150Hp@wheels and 150ft-lbs of torque@wheels. lets compare #'s.

Acura RSX Type-S..........................Mazdaspeed protege
200hp and 142ft-lbs of torque. 170Hp and 160ft-lbs of torque.

To the Wheels:

170.8hp and 128.2ft-lbs of torque 150Hp and 150ft-lbs of torque

200hp 142ft-lbs 170Hp 160ft-lbs
-170.8hp -128.2ft-lbs -150hp -150ft-lbs
=29.2 hp loss =13.8ft-lbs loss =20hp loss =10ft-lbs loss

overall the MS-P still makes more power through the peak which it doesn't have more Hp but makes more at the end by not losing alot of hp like the Type-S did and the Type-s loss more torque than the MS-P did. SO on #'s to the @wheels i think the MS-P is still faster than the Type-S if i'm wrong, "i'm sooooo soorrryyy, Who knows maybe there both at the same level in performance but when the real #'s show then it's a whole different ball game.

if your wondering where i got the #'s for the type-S here it is. http://www.injen.com/webpages/testing/original/_files/is1475.jp8

tritonheat1

01-05-2003, 08:59 PM

Sorry here ya go http://www.injen.com/webpages/testing/original_files/is1475.jpg

dmitrik4

01-06-2003, 02:59 PM

i can't believe i'm going to post in this thread again...

but you're totally neglecting the gearbox. THAT is what puts the torque to the wheels...it multiplies the torque produced by the engine. THAT'S the torque that turns the wheels. POWER to the wheels is not affected by a gearbox, but TORQUE is (a gearbox is by definition a "torque multiplier"). take a look back at the gear ratio and torque to the wheels calcs i posted earlier. you'll see that the two cars are close in some gears and not close in others.

*********************************
BUT the fact remains that almost EVERY testing party that has run BOTH cars has recorded the RSX-S as being quicker both to 60 and the 1/4 mile. so all these numbers arguments and "other car" comparisons are pointless b/c the test results are right there.
*********************************

(and the MSP does handle MUCH better. just be happy with that.) geez.

i know SOME people will continue to believe (in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence) that the MSP is the fastest car ever made because "it has TURBO", so go ahead and believe that if it makes you happy. but please make sure what you are posting is accurate b/c we don't want to give Protege drivers a bad name. :)

tritonheat1

01-07-2003, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by dmitrik4
i can't believe i'm going to post in this thread again...

but you're totally neglecting the gearbox. THAT is what puts the torque to the wheels...it multiplies the torque produced by the engine. THAT'S the torque that turns the wheels. POWER to the wheels is not affected by a gearbox, but TORQUE is (a gearbox is by definition a "torque multiplier"). take a look back at the gear ratio and torque to the wheels calcs i posted earlier. you'll see that the two cars are close in some gears and not close in others.

*********************************
BUT the fact remains that almost EVERY testing party that has run BOTH cars has recorded the RSX-S as being quicker both to 60 and the 1/4 mile. so all these numbers arguments and "other car" comparisons are pointless b/c the test results are right there.
*********************************

(and the MSP does handle MUCH better. just be happy with that.) geez.

i know SOME people will continue to believe (in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence) that the MSP is the fastest car ever made because "it has TURBO", so go ahead and believe that if it makes you happy. but please make sure what you are posting is accurate b/c we don't want to give Protege drivers a bad name. :)

yeah u know what dmitrik, maybe you used to own a Type-S and know alittle more experience about it than i do, BTW on the Dyno chart it SAYS IT ALL. The Type-S lost more hp and torque than the MS-P did, which the matter of fact the Type-S puts out 30More HP than the MS-P does, and 2 mr.tenth he was stating about Torque #'s nothing about gear ratios or About the (gearbox). And I like how u put word's in other people's mouth, cause i never said the MS-P was the fastest car on the planet just because it has"TURBO". Even though you were being sarcastic, don't hate:mad: . Everybody knows that the MS-P has the advantage over the Type-S so just face it. ;)

dmitrik4

01-08-2003, 01:35 PM

so it "loses more HP"? so? the fact remains that it PUTS MORE POWER TO THE WHEELS. that's all that counts. a Top Fuel dragster loses several hundred HP thru its drivetrain, does that make it slower than an MSP or an Corvette or whatever? of course not, b/c it's power at the wheels that matters.

and engine torque numbers don't really matter either, b/c that torque gets multiplied thru the gearbox before it gets to the wheels to move the car. THAT'S the relevance of the gear ratios.

it's obvious we'll never agree here. i'll do some looking and provide a link to actual RSX-S timeslips. if you can provide consistently faster slips for the MSP, i might change my opinion. but i doubt that will happen.

and yes, i was being sarcastic. but some people seem to think that a turbo'd engine is something special, like the power rating doesn't take the turbo into account or something...
:)

EDIT: RSX 1/4 times (http://forums.clubrsx.com/showthread.php?threadid=47793&highlight=time+slips+OR+timeslips) ...doesn't list mods tho. i'll keep looking for stock timeslips.

EDIT 2: Stock timeslips (http://forums.clubrsx.com/showthread.php?threadid=58250&highlight=time+slips+OR+timeslips) ...looks like 15.0 @93-94 mph is the time most people run stock. see if you can round up some MSP timeslips to compare. :D

tritonheat1

01-08-2003, 03:32 PM

I may not have any timeslips for the MS-P but as i posted below this topic you'll see SE-R vs. Type-S. This was actual a pretty darn close race, but this is all i have to prove that i've seen a Type-S run 'em with my eyes. Http://www.mazdamp3.com/vbb225showthread.php?s=&threadid=11075 And also i have no slips for the SE-R nor Type-S but i'm just comparing these two from a Site, Both Stock.

http://www.car-videos.com/performance/view.asp?idi=5&id2=221

SE-R Mods:
AEM CAI, OBX Exhaust, Eibach springs, Removal of Balance shafts, and Hotshot header.

Type-S mods:
AEM CAI, some Exhaust, and Type-R computer.

And the results of a 165hp SE-R modded VS. a 200Hp Type-S modded.

dmitrik4

01-08-2003, 04:19 PM

ok, no more mention of the SE-R. that doesn't get us any farther in this conversation. we're not talking about an SE-R, we're talking about hard, documented times of the RSX-S and the MSP.

of course there aren't any MSP timeslips floating around yet. eventually, there will be, so when there are, post them in here and we can talk more.

ps. your links didn't work.

saided18

01-08-2003, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by dmitrik4
ok, no more mention of the SE-R. that doesn't get us any farther in this conversation. we're not talking about an SE-R, we're talking about hard, documented times of the RSX-S and the MSP.

of course there aren't any MSP timeslips floating around yet. eventually, there will be, so when there are, post them in here and we can talk more.

ps. your links didn't work.

Onbe guy on this board did bring his turbo P5 to the track and ran about a 15.5 @ 4 lbs of boost. i don't know if it helps but the MSP does have run around 6-7 so i would say it would run about low 15's. but then again that is only my opinion.

brennan

01-08-2003, 06:34 PM

I personally hate the rsx type s, I hate the way it looks, I hate the way it feels. I test drove one just to see what it is like and I was very disapointed. I would never buy that car I just don't think it looks all that good IMO, It may be faster than my p5 for now but I would take a msp anyday considering the msp handles better than a wrx just makes it that much better and it looks a HELL of alot better, Honda hasn't been able to produce any good looking cars lately (civic Si, Accord, RSX) Honda is just going downhlll. Just my opinion

dmitrik4

01-09-2003, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by saided18

Onbe guy on this board did bring his turbo P5 to the track and ran about a 15.5 @ 4 lbs of boost. i don't know if it helps but the MSP does have run around 6-7 so i would say it would run about low 15's. but then again that is only my opinion.

sounds reasonable. believe me, if i could trade up to an MSP, i would in a second.(drinks)

honda definitely doesn't make flashy-looking cars. but the one thing that's tru eof honda's designs (IMO) is that they age better than most. an old Accord still looks pretty good, IMO it doesn't really look that dated.

but i think the S2000 is a gorgeous car that will still be gorgeous in 10 years. same for the NSX...that design IS 10 years old and IMO still looks great. the civic is a decent-looking car that will be decent-looking in 10 years. same for the RSX. i always thought of honda as "an engine company that needed somewhere to put their engines, so they made cars".

brennan

01-09-2003, 06:31 PM

I totally agree with you on the s2000, it is one of the most amazing cars I have ever driven absolutly beautiful. I also got to drive a friends 2003 350Z also a very beautiful car

dmitrik4

01-10-2003, 09:39 AM

how was the Z? i've heard a lot of varied opinions. i finally got to see a G35 coupe up close last night...wow wow wow. as far as looks go, i have to say i prefer the G (coupe, anyway!).

brennan

01-10-2003, 06:55 PM

yea the g35 is nice but the interior is amazing in the z, I absolutly love that car. Brembo brake system 18 inch rims my friend got the whole works, 9 speaker bose sound system all I can say is Beeaauutifful!!

GLENN

01-19-2003, 07:56 PM

heres a hot Rsx Type-S from sema 2002. Flat back and grey paint!(wow)

rsxlerate

03-07-2003, 04:43 AM

wow i read this whole thread and im amazed. i guess there are mazda people who hate the rsx. well that's your opinion. but tell me this, what tires do a MSP have and what tires does a rsx-s have? (and no im not gonna do the whole if it had this it would do this) but instead, im going to compare it to a INTEGRA type-R. lightweight wheels, grippy tires, lightweight chassis, factory tuned suspension and engine. sounds a lot like a MSP to me? the ITR supposedly does high 14s to mid 14s stock. the 1/4 numbers on the rsx is with crappy michelin tires, heavier 16" wheels, normal suspension, leather seats, overall more weight, makes you think of the DC5 type-r version doesn't it? so if your gonna compare a souped up version of a mazda mp3, then you should compare it to a souped of version of a rsx type-s which will be the RSX Type-R. just my opinon. and don't get me wrong, i like the MSP a lot and think it's the best 4door for the price. my whole point, is stock to stock, it's a driver's race. and guess what, the rsx is more stock than the MSP will ever be. and if you wanna talk about pricing, then be my guest, compare it to a NEON SRT-4 that will eat the rsx and the MSP on the straight line.:eek:

TwitchFoot

04-18-2003, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by saided18

closer??? WTF i think the MPS will smoke that RSX. well that what i think.

Oh boy. YOu know there is more to a car than to how fast it goes? I mean lets be honest here. Neither the MSP or the RSX-S are super street cars. The new SRT-4's would smoke them both but that doesn't mean it better. The RSX-S has SUCH awesome quality, crisp short shifts, smooth handling, awesome power band, not bad handling, EXTREMELY WELL BUILT INTERIOR. The ergonomics in the RSX-S's interior are imaculate. Not many cars under 50k can surpass the interior of a RSX-S with Ebony Leather.

AndrewF150

04-21-2003, 01:27 PM

I dont want to bag on Mazda, but gees wtf are they thinking? THE MSP is hella nice car, dont get me wrong. But they should have taken the turbo a weee bit further. They should have beefed the engine up enough to turn that freaking thing up to about 9 psi. If they did that than say bye bye to a RSX-S.

Thought I would add this, but yea the SRT-4, its faster, but it isnt nearly as nice. Have any of you REALLY looked at one? Its fat...big ass end, wide hips. Looks like it took a nose dive off a skyscraper. IMO looks and quality are a lot more important than power, cause honestly you can fix the power part of things. Example...you buy an SRT-4, yea lots of power buts its one of the ugliest freaking cars on the road...you cant really fix it no matter how much custome work ya do, well unless you take the whole body off and put a totally new one on...........anywho.

With the MSP it looks hella tight already, one of the VERY few cars that I wouldnt put a body kit on, cause it doesnt need one. The really good upside to the MSP is it does have some power, and you can EASLY make it a lot more.

So looks do matter, I would rather have a really nice looking car than something that looks like crap but can go fast. $hit on Wheels...nah not a good thing.