No more RSX?

"James" wrote in

> yup, thats old news
>
> "BK" wrote in message
>
>>I read on one of my lists that Acura is dropping the RSX after this
>>year to 'move the line upscale'. They said a memo had gone out to the
>>dealers with that information. Can anyone confirm/deny it?
>>
>
>
>

Too bad Honda doesn't have anything remotely similar,they need to bring
back the Prelude and the Integra,even if under the Honda brand.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
 >> Stay informed about: No more RSX? 

How about the Honda Civic SI, its got the same engine is the Type S
RSX...I'd say its very simular

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message

> "James" wrote in
>
>> yup, thats old news
>>
>> "BK" wrote in message
>>
>>>I read on one of my lists that Acura is dropping the RSX after this
>>>year to 'move the line upscale'. They said a memo had gone out to the
>>>dealers with that information. Can anyone confirm/deny it?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Too bad Honda doesn't have anything remotely similar,they need to bring
> back the Prelude and the Integra,even if under the Honda brand.
>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik
> at
> kua.net
 >> Stay informed about: No more RSX? 

"James" wrote in

> How about the Honda Civic SI, its got the same engine is the Type S
> RSX...I'd say its very simular

Not a hatchback;they are very useful.
Is there a hatchback version that is as sporty as the Integra?
(IMO,the RSX is uglier than the Integra)
IIRC,Honda's Civic HB is a tiny boxy stationwagon,and dog-ugly.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
 >> Stay informed about: No more RSX? 

"James" wrote in

> How about the Honda Civic SI, its got the same engine is the Type S
> RSX...I'd say its very simular



I'll bet the Si is cannibalizing sales from the RSX. Just look at that
price difference.


--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
 >> Stay informed about: No more RSX? 

Yes in Canada after taxes and everything its $37 000 for a RSX Type S
(convert that to US and see how much acura rips us off in canada) and the SI
is $28 000....its hard to justify an extra 9 grand just for the RSX...
But I agree, the SI is ugly as sin...

"TeGGeR®" wrote in message

> "James" wrote in
>
>> How about the Honda Civic SI, its got the same engine is the Type S
>> RSX...I'd say its very simular
>
>
>
> I'll bet the Si is cannibalizing sales from the RSX. Just look at that
> price difference.
>
>
> --
> TeGGeR®
>
> The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
> www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
 >> Stay informed about: No more RSX? 

Disagree. Civic SI is far, far better looking than the "prow-shaped"
RSX. A bit lighter and faster as well. The Civic SI was the basis for the
fabulously successful '90-'93 Acura Integra line. Acura should take a hint
and go back to its Civic SI chassis roots. Big, fat, $$ cars (no matter how
good) aren't automatically the most desireable, particularly with $gas$
becoming more and more of a worry. - Bill

"James" wrote in message

> Yes in Canada after taxes and everything its $37 000 for a RSX Type S
> (convert that to US and see how much acura rips us off in canada) and the
SI
> is $28 000....its hard to justify an extra 9 grand just for the RSX...
> But I agree, the SI is ugly as sin...
>
> "TeGGeR®" wrote in message
>
> > "James" wrote in
> >
> >> How about the Honda Civic SI, its got the same engine is the Type S
> >> RSX...I'd say its very simular
> >
> >
> >
> > I'll bet the Si is cannibalizing sales from the RSX. Just look at that
> > price difference.
> >
> >
> > --
> > TeGGeR®
> >
> > The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
> > www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: No more RSX? 

"Bill Freeman" wrote in


> Disagree. Civic SI is far, far better looking than the
> "prow-shaped"
> RSX. A bit lighter and faster as well. The Civic SI was the basis
> for the fabulously successful '90-'93 Acura Integra line. Acura
> should take a hint and go back to its Civic SI chassis roots. Big,
> fat, $$ cars (no matter how good) aren't automatically the most
> desireable, particularly with $gas$ becoming more and more of a worry.
> - Bill
>
> "James" wrote in message
>
>> Yes in Canada after taxes and everything its $37 000 for a RSX Type S
>> (convert that to US and see how much acura rips us off in canada) and
>> the
> SI
>> is $28 000....its hard to justify an extra 9 grand just for the
>> RSX... But I agree, the SI is ugly as sin...



The RSX is ugly. I haven't yet seen a Civic SI to judge them.
But Acura is departing the low-end market.

Honda needs to make something like the 2001 Integra 3-dr(light
weight,low,sporty,yet practical),a Prelude(a great driver),and a CRX(good
low-end auto).
I suppose if they made the Civic SI coupe into a 3-dr hatchback -with the
same profile-,it would be OK.

Instead they gave us the Fit....

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
 >> Stay informed about: No more RSX? 

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message

> "Bill Freeman" wrote in
>
>
> > Disagree. Civic SI is far, far better looking than the
> > "prow-shaped"
> > RSX. A bit lighter and faster as well. The Civic SI was the basis
> > for the fabulously successful '90-'93 Acura Integra line. Acura
> > should take a hint and go back to its Civic SI chassis roots. Big,
> > fat, $$ cars (no matter how good) aren't automatically the most
> > desireable, particularly with $gas$ becoming more and more of a worry.
> > - Bill
> >
> > "James" wrote in message
> >
> >> Yes in Canada after taxes and everything its $37 000 for a RSX Type S
> >> (convert that to US and see how much acura rips us off in canada) and
> >> the
> > SI
> >> is $28 000....its hard to justify an extra 9 grand just for the
> >> RSX... But I agree, the SI is ugly as sin...
>
>
>
> The RSX is ugly. I haven't yet seen a Civic SI to judge them.
> But Acura is departing the low-end market.

Always had that feeling -- that the RSX was an orphan at Acura dealers.

>
> Honda needs to make something like the 2001 Integra 3-dr(light
> weight,low,sporty,yet practical),a Prelude(a great driver),and a CRX(good
> low-end auto).
> I suppose if they made the Civic SI coupe into a 3-dr hatchback -with the
> same profile-,it would be OK.
>
> Instead they gave us the Fit....
>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik
> at
> kua.net
 >> Stay informed about: No more RSX? 

On 18 May 2006 18:59:11 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

>>> is $28 000....its hard to justify an extra 9 grand just for the
>>> RSX... But I agree, the SI is ugly as sin...
>
>
>
>The RSX is ugly. I haven't yet seen a Civic SI to judge them.
>But Acura is departing the low-end market.
>
>Honda needs to make something like the 2001 Integra 3-dr(light
>weight,low,sporty,yet practical),a Prelude(a great driver),and a CRX(good
>low-end auto).
>I suppose if they made the Civic SI coupe into a 3-dr hatchback -with the
>same profile-,it would be OK.
>
>Instead they gave us the Fit....

The Fit is fine for what it is. Honda wants to expand its offerings
so there should be room for a car like my '94 GS-R. The new Civic Si
looks pretty close but maybe not as much improvement as there should
have been in twelve years. A new Integra GS-R or R based on this car
could have real potential.
 >> Stay informed about: No more RSX? 

Me and my 1990 Integra RS totally agree. Acura did something
"really right" which is where they should have stood. - Bill

"Gordon McGrew" wrote in message

> On 18 May 2006 18:59:11 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:
>
> >>> is $28 000....its hard to justify an extra 9 grand just for the
> >>> RSX... But I agree, the SI is ugly as sin...
> >
> >
> >
> >The RSX is ugly. I haven't yet seen a Civic SI to judge them.
> >But Acura is departing the low-end market.
> >
> >Honda needs to make something like the 2001 Integra 3-dr(light
> >weight,low,sporty,yet practical),a Prelude(a great driver),and a CRX(good
> >low-end auto).
> >I suppose if they made the Civic SI coupe into a 3-dr hatchback -with the
> >same profile-,it would be OK.
> >
> >Instead they gave us the Fit....
>
> The Fit is fine for what it is. Honda wants to expand its offerings
> so there should be room for a car like my '94 GS-R. The new Civic Si
> looks pretty close but maybe not as much improvement as there should
> have been in twelve years. A new Integra GS-R or R based on this car
> could have real potential.
>
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: No more RSX? 

"Bill Freeman" wrote in


> Me and my 1990 Integra RS totally agree. Acura did something
> "really right" which is where they should have stood. - Bill

I was going to buy a 93 Integra,except I despised the automatic seat belts.
So,I waited for the 94 model to come out. At that time,I had a 90
Prelude(hail-damaged,only 20 K miles!),but the 93 'Lude was yucky too(hated
the rear end and dash);if they had the last version (2001?)of the Prelude,I
would have stayed with that product,although I really like having a
hatchback. I just don't want one that looks like a mini-station wagon or a
2dr sedan,even if it is a "SI".(what a joke!)


Has Honda forgotten what "sporty" looks like?
They need to go and STARE at the last Prelude for a week or two.
Or maybe be locked into one for a week.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

>
> "Gordon McGrew" wrote in message
>
>> On 18 May 2006 18:59:11 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:
>>
>> >>> is $28 000....its hard to justify an extra 9 grand just for the
>> >>> RSX... But I agree, the SI is ugly as sin...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >The RSX is ugly. I haven't yet seen a Civic SI to judge them.
>> >But Acura is departing the low-end market.
>> >
>> >Honda needs to make something like the 2001 Integra 3-dr(light
>> >weight,low,sporty,yet practical),a Prelude(a great driver),and a
>> >CRX(good low-end auto).
>> >I suppose if they made the Civic SI coupe into a 3-dr hatchback
>> >-with the same profile-,it would be OK.
>> >
>> >Instead they gave us the Fit....
>>
>> The Fit is fine for what it is. Honda wants to expand its offerings
>> so there should be room for a car like my '94 GS-R. The new Civic Si
>> looks pretty close but maybe not as much improvement as there should
>> have been in twelve years. A new Integra GS-R or R based on this car
>> could have real potential.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: No more RSX? 

Jim Yanik wrote:
> snip
>
> Has Honda forgotten what "sporty" looks like?
>
Don't forget the Civic platform now uses a front strut suspension. The
suspension fixes hard points in the car's design - strut towers must be
accommodated. Sit behind the wheel of a new Civic and see how far out
in front of the car you can see the road. Now try this in a 10 year old
Civic. Call that progress?
 >> Stay informed about: No more RSX? 

Quite right. The "old" independent suspension was pure racing car.
You could align each wheel individually .. . making it somewhat of "bear"
for the unredy wheel aligner. However, we're not talking pure racing cars
(on US highways?!?) but space-saving for engine modifications and a taller
hood height. Soichiro Honda advocated a low center of gravity, wide stance
(remember Pontiac adopting this?), a low belt line and racing suspension.
Times have changed. Hybrids, diesels and "mpg" are the rule. Progress is a
state of mind concurrent with popular demands and needs taking precendence.
Bill

wrote in message

> Jim Yanik wrote:
> > snip
> >
> > Has Honda forgotten what "sporty" looks like?
> >
> Don't forget the Civic platform now uses a front strut suspension. The
> suspension fixes hard points in the car's design - strut towers must be
> accommodated. Sit behind the wheel of a new Civic and see how far out
> in front of the car you can see the road. Now try this in a 10 year old
> Civic. Call that progress?
>
 >> Stay informed about: No more RSX?