My sister owned one of the first generation Integras, a 1989 if memory serves. The reviews were good, but I personally found the car cramped, noisy, and insubstantial feeling. Integras grew more refined over the years, but never seemed suited to a luxury nameplate. Also, I always disliked the four small round lights across the overly plain front fascia of the third-generation cars. Still, the brand name was strong. The Integra had a solid base of fans.

But then the Legend possessed an even stronger name, and that didn’t stop Acura from dropping in favor of “RL.” The RL never did as well as the Legend, but Acura did not learn its lesson. When the Integra was redesigned once more for 2002, the name was dropped in favor of “RSX.” Perhaps because “RSX” sounds a bit better than “RL,” an awful name if ever there was one, the new car hasn’t done badly. But then it could be the car. It took me a while, but I finally got up the nerve to pretend that this father of three might buy such a car and took one for a test drive.

Before the TSX received its own listing I reviewed it below. It is now reviewed here.

Acura RSX Reliability

Want better reliability information? Want to really know what difference it will make if you buy an Acura RSX rather than something else? It's coming in the form of "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats. From these you might learn that your first choice, compared to your second choice, is likely to make 2.7 extra trips to the shop in its first five years. You might decide its advantages compensate for this, or you might not. Either way, you'll be able to make a much better informed decision.

To gain access to this information you have a choice: sign up to help provide the data now or pay $24.95 later. For the details, visit my website, www.truedelta.com.

Styling

The RSX is the best-looking small Acura ever. That’s not saying a whole lot, but it’s worth something. The proportions are perfect, and no line seems forced or out of place. It’s a conservative look for a sporty coupe, but that befits the luxury brand. (Unlike, say, the interior of Lexus’s IS 300. Click on hyperlinks to read my reviews of related vehicles.) In the arched roofline and compact dimensions I see shades of the dear departed CRX. The only problem with this might be that the RSX looks smaller than it is, closer to the 148 inches of that two-seat Honda than the 172 it actually extends. This car might be compact, but it’s not tiny, so those fearful for their safety in a tiny car need not shy away.

Update: Reading the long-term test of the RSX in Automobile (July 2003), I now know why this car looks so familiar. It's not so much the CRX as the late Toyota Paseo. Thankfully the RSX performs and handles far better than that Tercel makeover ever did. The early 1990s Nissan NX also had similar styling. As these were both entry-level cars, it becomes clearer why the RSX doesn't look as upscale and distinctive as it should given the brand and price. The basic styling theme has been seen too many times on low-buck pretenders.

Inside I don’t care for the styling of the new car. The horizontal theme of the instrument panel, increasingly common in sporty cars (Honda S2000, BMW Z4) just doesn’t seem all that sporty to me. It’s certainly not a bad looking interior, I just prefer something more conventionally sporty. On the flip side, the interior styling is unique.

Styling notwithstanding, I was blown away by the quality of the RSX’s interior. I might not be crazy about the overall theme, but the detailing is exquisite and the quality of materials far above what I had expected. Very tasteful. (The small Lexus desperately needs interior materials of this quality.) Even minor controls have a slick, solid, quality feel. The RSX is a bit pricey for this sort of car, but the interior quality pretty much explains why this car is thousands more than many competitors.

Accommodations

Typical of Honda products, the driving position in the RSX is very good. The dash is low, affording an unobstructed view forward. The tail is high, restricting the view rearward, but not dangerously so.

The front seats are well-bolstered for aggressive driving (typical of Honda’s sportier products) yet are also very comfortable around town. The cushions are on the firm side, but I’ve felt firmer. When the shape of the seat is right, this isn’t as much a comfort issue. The horizontal IP styling and low, narrow center console contribute to an airy, open feel in the front seats. This detracts a bit from the car's sporty character, but it does feel roomy up front for a car of this size.

As expected in a small coupe with a steeply raked rear window, the rear seat is cramped. I had to scrunch down to keep my head from hitting the hatch glass. Small kids will be fine, but adults of even medium size will not be happy.

The cargo space is generous, even before folding the rear seats. The area is deeper than most these days owing to the tall tail. The hatch provides excellent access. For someone who does not need a rear seat, this should be a practical car.

On the Road

RSXes come in two forms, base and Type-S. Both have two-liter four-cylinder DOHC engines that produce about 140 ft-lbs. of torque. The difference: the aggressive VTEC cam of the Type-S engine improves high-end breathing, boosting the RPM at which torque peaks from 4000 to 6000. With this peak horsepower goes from 160 at 6500 RPM to 200 at a very high 7400 RPM. To get the engine more readily to such lofty speeds, the Type-S has a close-ratio six-speed with shorter gearing than the base car’s five speed. A five-speed automatic is available only in the base car.

How well does all of this work? I’ve read that Honda’s VTEC engines feel soft before the secondary cam lobes kick in at high RPM. When I drove the most highly tuned of these, the 240-horsepower unit in the Honda S2000, it felt perky enough at moderate RPM. Well, I can’t say the same about the RSX Type-S. Its engine, thoush smooth for a four, did feel weak south of 4000 RPM. Though this is the worst thing I can say about the car, it could well be a deal killer.

At high RPM the engine grows strong. Shifts at the very high redline chirp the tires going into both second and third. Torque steer is minimal (perhaps because torque is also minimal).

People who will rarely if ever take the engine over 6000 RPM will find the base car at least equally peppy. They’ll also save a couple grand. Likely the better bet for most.

Typical of Honda’s performance-car manuals, the RSX’s shifter has a light, easy feel and tight throws. The shifters in the S2000 and CL Type-Ssix speed are nicer yet, with a meatier feel, but this is a very good one.

The steering is precise and perfectly weighted. There is some kickback, but that’s a small price to pay for the amount of feedback through the smallish wheel, which is excellent. The chassis is very balanced. Aside from the peaky engine, the RSX is a very easy car to drive fast along a twisty road.

The Type-S has a firmer suspension than the base RSX, and the ride is certainly firm. That said, compared to other sporty coupes such as Hyundai’s Tiburon it borders on luxurious, as it rarely turns harsh.

Sound levels are low for this sort of car aside from some engine noise on the highway. At 80 in sixth the Type-S’s engine is turning 3500 RPM, an acceptable number. All in all, I was surprised at the level of refinement. The RSX feels very much like a luxury-brand car, decidedly unlike Integras I drove in the past. Firm, yet smooth.

If anything, the RSX is too refined. The relatively smooth and quiet demeanor of the car is at odds with the need to rev the bejesus out of the engine to extract any power from it. The fact that speed builds more quickly than the sensation of speed compounds the feeling that the engine lacks midrange torque. This might be why the engine in the S2000 felt peppy enough to me—it’s mounted in a much louder, rawer car. I recommend that Honda add half a liter. Even if peak power did not increase, the plumper midrange of a 2.5 liter engine would make the RSX virtually faultless.

Pricing

For quick, up-to-date pricing, and especially user-specified price comparisons, check out the website I created: www.truedelta.com. Why yet another vehicle pricing website? Well, I personally lacked the patience to keep using the others. They were too slow and required too much effort, especially when trying to compare prices. So I taught myself some programming and created a site where there is no need to dig through option packages, prerequisites, and the like one by one -- the TrueDelta algorithm figures these out for you in one swift pass.

The very well equipped (power everything, sunroof, CD, automatic climate control, ABS, side airbags, etc.) “base” RSX is just over $20,000. Leather adds a grand. The Type-S, which includes a Bose stereo with CD-changer along with the performance upgrades, adds another $2,200, for a total of $23,770. Edmunds suggests that dealers typically discount this to around $22,400.

A similarly equipped Toyota Celica GT-S is VERY close in price, both list and after discount. The Toyota might cost another hundred or two, but clearly price isn't going to be the deciding factor between these two cars. It’s styling is decidedly more juvenile, but will also attract more attention. It’s engine is even peakier, but it also weighs 300 pounds less. I haven’t driven the Toyota, but from what I’ve read it is not as refined as the Acura. On the flip side, it might feel sportier. The Acura seems the better value, but the Toyota might be a bit more fun to drive.

A MINI Cooper S with broadly similar equipment lists for $23,025, and don’t count on a discount. So the MINI runs a bit over the Acura and Toyota. I found the Acura easier to drive fast, owing largely to its normally aspirated engine, and its interior is higher in quality. The MINI, along with a plumper midrange, has much more distinctive styling in and out and a certain charm. The MINI was more refined than I expected, but not as refined as the Acura. The Acura’s shifter is far superior. Ultimately, these differences don’t matter. The choice comes down largely to the MINI’s aesthetic appeal; it’s either you or it isn’t.

Big money can be saved with Hyundai’s Tiburon. Similarly equipped, the Hyundai lists for $20,872, and costs about $18,200 after the typical dealer discount and a $1,000 rebate. What does saving four grand cost you? The Tiburon, though still fun to drive, is heavier and feels it. It isn’t nearly as nimble as the Acura. The six-cylinder engine produces less peak power and has more weight to push, so at full-throttle the Hyundai is not as fast. That said, the engine feels much stronger around town owing to its beefier midrange. The Hyundai’s ride is rough, and road noise is high. Refinement is much lower than in the Acura, lending the car a more overtly sporty character. The interior is much higher in quality than I’d expect for the price, perhaps equal to the Toyota’s but still well behind the Acura’s. The initial price is lower, but resale value will be lower still. I like the Hyundai better than most reviewers, and feel it is a very good car for the price. The Acura is technically a much better car, but four grand is a lot of money.

Overall, the Acura’s price is fair for what you get.

Last Words

The Acura’s handling, refinement, and quality impress. However, the very peaky engine felt out of character in such a refined car. Easy to drive aggressively, and fun when so drivern, the RSX feels weak and a bit bland around town. Acura needs to either remove some sound insulation or add some displacement. As is, this car comes so close to perfect it is a shame that the engine disappoints.

To learn more about my reliability research and sign up to participate in it, or to perform thorough new car price comparisons, visit www.truedelta.com. A link to this website and alphabetized links to my other vehicle reviews can be found on my profile page.

Amount Paid (US$): 23,770
Model and Options: Type-S