There’s nothing too distinct or flashy or outstanding looking about it, it’s just basic and plain and nicely done! The interior, at least when colored black could look a little too back-to-the-futureish, but it’s still not bad either.

I don’t fit in these cars at all and certainly could not drive one, but if I was a bit shorter I would definitly consider one of these. Acura had the right idea back then — small cars that get good gas mileage with sporty handling. It was unique in the luxury car market — most small cars that get good gas mileage are piles of junk that are ready for the crusher when you drive them off the lot, which I hope I am never forced to drive.

Now they are trying to compete with the larger, heavier cars with larger engines and worse gas mileage such as Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Cadillac, Lincoln, Jaguar, etc.

People should not be allowed to buy Hondas if their definition of modification is 20 inch chrome wheels and huge, drag-inducing body kits.

Respect the H!

Problems/shortcomings common to both: Road noise, wind noise, lack of torque, crappy headlights, tires, distortion in rearview mirror, gear grinding, wheel hop, crap stereos, no sat rad, no LSD.

All I wanted was a sound, simple, ergonomically simple commuter/2nd car that offered some fun and light luxury, and I pretty much got it with the RSX.

If Acura ever builds a rwd TSX coupe with the turbocharged 4 they have in the RDX, I might come back – they have to price it high enough to weed out the morons though. Let those guys stick with Honda.

Consider this:

- All Acuras today are low on power AND relatively poor in fuel economy compared to the primary competition.

- All Acuras today are either fwd or awd. There is no rwd in the lineup

- All Acuras today are either sedans or tall fat wagons (call them SUVs if you must).

- Acura, though having a strong “family styling” presence, has not had a single home-run styling hit in over a decade. Nobody even sees them on the road, let alone at the auto shows. The most excitement that was generated this year was the pent-up demand for a new NSX. When the thing was revealed, all I saw was people walking away shaking their heads in disbelief. How could a car like the NSX be “replaced” by something so uninspiring?

I really want to see Acura do well. But in order to do that, they need to inject some originality and passion into their products. Acura must regularly renew the successes they did have. The NSX wilted on the vine. The Integra/RSX wilted on the vine. Nobody really cares about the RL or TL because only the occasional accountant might drive one. Acura’s foray into the world of fat tall 4wds has been met with a collective shrug.

I say it’s overdue for Acura to bring out something hot, new, and fresh. Something innovative that doesn’t compete in an overcrowded segment. How about this: a mid-sized rwd hybrid hatchback. Think RSX performance, a touch more space inside for passengers and luggage, and a state-of-the-art running gear. Pit it against the BMW 1-series and Acura might just steal Munich’s thunder.

Continue building Japanese Buicks — beautifully engineered cars for people who don’t have much automotive passion — and Acura will continue to lose market share to Lexus and the Euro makers who are now coming out with some exciting, innovative hardware.

Brian E: I don’t think the RSX lacked brand identity; on the contrary, I think it (and the Integra before it) defined Acura for a generation.

That is the problem. Acura wants to be defined as an up-market luxury manufacturer, not the purveyor of fancy Civics. Apparently, they determined that they needed to kill the Integra (in more than name only) to be taken seriously as a prestige brand.

Acura has pissed away brand identity by removing the
luxury Legend name, then the street cred Integra name.

In Canada, they sell (sold ?) a Civic four door sedan, but
the top trip level (like EX in the US) is badged as an Acura
1.6.

In most markets, there is demand for a premium small car,
with better design and quality. In the US, premium or luxury have too meant more gadgets or bigger, but
rarely better design, better quality or refinement.

I hope Acura returns to the fold, and continues to
offer a step up from the cost engineered Civics.
And bring back camber friendly wishbone suspensions, too.

ps Toyota-Yamaha Celica, RIP.

I owned one for 8 months; a Type S version. It was a good car in many ways: smooth, zingy engine that felt more torquey than the numbers appear on paper, throughtfully laid out interior, long list of standard features and obviously better than average reliability.

But it had deficits that in the long run outshone the positives. The stereo sounded abysmal, the stock tires were horrible for a supposedly sporty car, the leather wore more noticeably in those 8 months than my Mini’s has in almost two years, and the shape of the car didn’t have any real hidden depths to it. You thought, “oh that’s nice”, but never anything stronger.

Worst, it was tedious to drive. I made the mistake of buying the car the same day I test drove it (mea maxima culpa) on a fairly undemanding stretch that didn’t ask the car to go beyond 6/10. When asked to perform on a ragged surface with odd camber, or traverse potholes, or even do more than one thing at a time, the chassis just falls apart. It didn’t inspire confidence, much less passion.

Granted, I had a 2002 model (I’m told the 2005 upgrade sorted out a lot of the handling shortcomings), but by that point I’d long since moved on to a superior driving experience.

Its a damn shame.

I do agree that it’s a shame they won’t continue to fill the niche catered to by the RSX – i.e. relatively upscale, high value for the money, reasonably practical coupe.

wstansfi

Frankly, I can’t explain it too well. Some cars just fit like a glove.

Continuing the “I can’t explain it too well” theme: The Boxster is easy to drive, if you want it to be. It’s comfortable.

I didn’t want a comfortable, easy-to-drive car. I wanted something razor-sharp, something that would punish even the small(est) mistakes, somthing that would keep me awake and focused. I plan on following up this purchase with an Elise.

It actually does make sense, I promise, but it would take a fairly long conversation to convey the reasoning behind that statement.

Hmm, we didn’t even get those here in Canada, plus I read this little blurb about them from Wikipedia:

“It also has a surprisingly high resale and used-car value; the Kelley Blue Book used car retail price (the price an individual might expect to pay for one from a dealer) for a model in excellent condition with low mileage actually exceeds the original retail price of the car in many cases, making it one of a few recent cars that have actually approached an increase in value over time.”

When I was checking the MSRP’s here in Canada (when I heard it was cancelled), the new Si listed at $26,080, and the RSX Type-S listed at $34,680, a difference of a whopping $8600.

However, I still maintain that if Acura put out a new K20-powered ‘Integra’, based on the new Civic platform, it would sell well. A great entry-level option into the Acura brand, plus the ability to be price competitive since it’s built on the same chassis. As noted from the press release annoucing the cancellation:

“The RSX is the successor to the Integra, an Acura mainstay in the past. In 1995, for instance, the Integra posted U.S. sales of 61,316.

The Integra outsold the Acura Legend by more than 3-to-1 and accounted for 63.1 percent of Acura sales.”

Good god, that wouldn’t sell well at all would it.

IMO the reason Acura kill RSX is not only because it is watering down Acura’s brand, but they are also not competing well in performance/handling against the new coming like WRX and Evo, or in terms of look like Z4, or price like tC, Civic, etc. Many also dislike the change from double wishbone front to McPherson), the car got heavier, and it looks bloated.

IMO it is still the best bang for quality/handling buck, but instead of killing it, they should move it back to Honda and brand it as Integra (rather than Civic Si).