New RSX

['87 Sentra]

I was reading my new SCC and they have a pretty interesting article on the RSX Type-S. It is their first drive and they claim the car has a 0-60mph time of 7.1s which is quite interesting. They did however say that the track was a bit slippery so I would expect a slightly better time in ideal conditions.

This means that even with a 20hp advantage the RSX Type-S will most likely fail to be faster than the SE-R Spec V. I would totally consider this to be a factor of the 146 lb/ft torque of the 2.0L engine.

[Nismo]

I'd be surprised if the lighter (2580 lbs.) more powerful (200 horsepower) Type S ends up being slower than the heavier (27xx lbs.) less powerful (180 horsepower) Spec V. Not only does the Type S have a better power-to-weight ratio, but it's engine--with new infinitely variable timing in addition to the old technology of VTEC cams--supposedly has a flatter torque "curve" than even the GS-R's ultra-flat curve.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the Sentra--it'll be as fast in a straight line as the current model GSR--but to say it will be faster than the Type S is a bit presumptuous.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Where'd you read the Type-S 2580lbs? As far as I've seen, no one has any clue as to the weight. Are you thinking about a Celica GTS?

[Nismo]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Classic SE-R:
Where'd you read the Type-S 2580lbs? As far as I've seen, no one has any clue as to the weight. Are you thinking about a Celica GTS?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>From memory. I think the figure came from a Canadian magazine. If memory serves, I linked to it from VTEC.net (http://www.vtec.net).

[thearabian]

i think it's safe to say that the acceleration and speed of a car depend on the area under the horsepower curve, more specifically, between shift points...

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I wouldn't count on the rsx to be a slow car, even the typeR has higher performance numbers than the car can actually produce. sure if you take it easy on the car u get a 7 outta it, but if you launched the car from a high rpm watch out. same goes for nissans numbers of mid 7's for the specV, thats the time if you take it esy on the car, but if you put the the hlsd to its full use then....

[**DONOTDELETE**]

The only info I've seen on weight is regarding the RSX-R, click here (http://www.drive.com.au/news/default.asp?section=news&page=http://drive.fairfax.com.au/content/20010518/news/news2.html) to see an article regarding it which gives the RSX-R a spec weight of 1,173kg, or 2585lbs.

The RSX-R uses thinner glass, the absence of sound insulation, and no A/C or radio for weight savings. With the North American RSX loaded with luxury features I think I'm safe assuming an additional weight to the tune of about 150lbs. So if I had to make a guess as to the North American RSX's weight, I'd say in the 2,735 lb range.

We should find out for sure just what it comes to as the RSXs go on sale in less then a month.

['87 Sentra]

The magazine (Sport Compact Car) claims that the RSX has a 0-60mph of 7.1sec and a curb weight of 2775lbs.

These are some of the figures they list in the article (July 2001):

Horsepower: 200hp @ 7400 RPM
Torque: 142 lb-ft @ 6000 RPM
0-30mph: 3.1 sec
0-60mph: 7.1 sec

I think that these numbers are pretty accurate, so I don't think that thinking of the possibility of a faster, or just as fast Spec V is presumtuous at all, specially since they will have similar weight, but the Spec V will have the 38 lb-ft torque advantage.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

After doing a lot of reading up on it over at www.clubrsx.com, (http://www.clubrsx.com,) it seems the weak point of the RSX is in its tires. All reviews have been positive on the car, but time and again I read how the tires just aren't up to the level of the new engine and transmission. Traction during hard accelerating and an increase of understeer over the Integra are the main complaints.

Replacing the P205/55R16 Michelin MXM4 all-season tires is easy enough though, so really the only thing concerning people about the RSX is whether or not it'll be a tough car to mod. The motor is 'reversed' in that the intake is on the front of the motor and the exhaust is in the back. With the exhaust right up against the firewall there's major concern about the difficulty to not only add a turbocharger, but even an aftermarket set of headers. This photo is of the Type-S motor:

http://www.clubrsx.com/rsxinfo/pictures/images/production/rsxp7.jpg

Now note how difficult it will be to add a pully for a supercharger, if both forms of forced are seemingly ruled out then lets tak about N/A power. The Type S motor is 2L, giving it arguably much more potential then the previous 1.6L and 1.8L motors. The variable lift VTEC system as always gives a great advantage in getting a large power increase through aftermarket camshafts. Aftermarket pistons/rods won't likley do much as the Type S motor is already using fairly high compression. The addition of variable timing as also found in the Sentra will be better in the long term for getting those few extra horses out of your motor, but in the short term its yet another obsticle. It will take a while longer now for aftermarket companies to crack the ECU codes. Most companies now use variable timing (not to be confused with variable lift) in their cars, hopefully soon we'll see an industry standard set forth for ECUs. All in all, I'd say N/A tuning seems to be the best way to go for the RSX. Which is good, as Honda prides itself as being one of the top N/A engine manufacturers.

I see the Type-S and the Spec V as the beginning of an intense, but healthy rivalry between the two automakers here in the states. Once the Type-S is rid of its crappy all-seasons I think it'll be faster in a straight line then the Sentra, but on an autocross the Spec-V will end up on top.

But for two cars so equaly matched, the question begs to be asked. Why is one $7,000 more then the other? http://66.96.198.147/forum/images/icons/grin.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>I would like Nissan to start dresing up their engines too<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nissan seems to be heading in that direction, as I believe almost all the new Nisans are coming with engine covers as seen in Honda's recent products. An example of this can be seen in Nissan's midsize family car, the 2002 Altima:

http://www.nissannews.com/nissan/pr_events/2001/newyork/altima/photos/600px/10_altima.jpg



[This message has been edited by Classic SE-R (edited 06-12-2001).]

[Nismo]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Classic SE-R:
The only info I've seen on weight is regarding the RSX-R, click here (http://www.drive.com.au/news/default.asp?section=news&page=http://drive.fairfax.com.au/content/20010518/news/news2.html) to see an article regarding it which gives the RSX-R a spec weight of 1,173kg, or 2585lbs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's probably where I got my info from (or another magazine). Anyway, I'm sure you're right, only the Type R will be that light, while the Type S will be a few hundred pounds heavier.

[Nismo]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial[/img]quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Classic SE-R:
For two cars so equaly matched, the question begs to be asked. Why is one $7,000 more then the other?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The Nissan is a top-of-the line economy car, whereas the Acura is a bottom-of-the line luxury car. Those in the market for an entry-level luxury car--complete with leather interior, automatic climate control, and many other features all included in the base price--will consider the RSX. More, uh, value-conscious consumers will look towards the Sentra.

['87 Sentra]

I like the look of the engine bay of the RSX, and most new Hondas for that matter. I would like Nissan to start dresing up their engines too, since opening up the hood of a Sentra SE is not as much of a pretty sight.

I believe that with the right tire combination the RSX might be faster than the Spec V in a straight line, but I still believe that the Spec V will be more rewarding in everyday driving because of the Torque advantage.

I'm still dropping by the Acura dealer to take a look at this baby though, I know it is considerably more expensive (provably about 15K CDN more) but it sure is worth a look.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I have seen two articles that got 0-60mph numbers under 7. I believe it was a 6.8.
I think someone even was bold enuf to say that if they really beat on the tranny, they could get sub-6 sec times! This was written somewhere in a major magazine I think....