2002-2006 Acura RSX (Base or Type-S)

[theholycow]

Also, one must remember that 700 lbs is the maximum reccomended weight that you should carry, so even just you driving it is over half of that limit.

Damn man, I'm no featherweight and I think this car is a bit snug. But 1/2 of 700 is 350 lbs, don't know if someone of that stature can get in the car....

Just giving you a hard time for some math that took a wrong turn somewhere...

The only math I see having made a wrong turn is the Honda engineers who didn't account for the size of Americans when they designed the car...and that's actually ok because Americans rarely have more than two people in the car.

Don't forget this post:

It also felt kind of small to me and not comfortable (keep in mind I'm 6 foot and around 400 pounds)

. I see too many chicks driving RSXes around here. So maybe it's a 5?

You mean like, if you're driving it you're a chick and therefore you can get laid really easily?

I would disagree about all of the above. The turning circle is very large for the size of the vehicle. Fuel economy is rather average and the tank rather small, so range is limited. Cargo capacity is also kinda tiny for a hatch, excluding Golfs/Rabbits.

I just need to put a major AHEM* to the fuel economy statement. Please explain to me how the fuel econ is bad if I can still get 32 with multiple full throttle runs, and having the a/c on for 3/4 of a tank in traffic. It pulls 40 with no problem without the a/c as well. I say that is pretty freaking good!

I also thought that with the back seats down that cargo room was plentiful. Maybe that is just me...but I feel like I cannot fit anything in trunks....hatches are the way to go.

I think he was speaking relatively; the fuel economy is bad relative to what one might expect of Honda, and the cargo room is lame relative to other hatchbacks.

32-40 is not bad, but you're beating the EPA a lot. You could also beat the EPA in a VW Rabbit, and you might do a little better since the Rabbit is rated 2MPG more city than the RSX. The RSX is rated 20/28 which is really lame by Honda's standards, is it not?

[fa22raptorf22]

32-40 is not bad, but you're beating the EPA a lot. You could also beat the EPA in a VW Rabbit, and you might do a little better since the Rabbit is rated 2MPG more city than the RSX. The RSX is rated 20/28 which is really lame by Honda's standards, is it not?

Firstly, all good points

But secondly, from the Acura site:

FUEL ECONOMY:

RSX
EPA Fuel Mileage-City / Highway
M/T 27 / 34
A/T 25/34

RSX TYPE-S
M/T 23 / 31

They actually rate the car higher now since the epa recalculated its values awhile back.

[FDSpirit]

@ cowman: . No. I mean I see a lot of women driving them, so maybe they dig the ride? Giving up some buns to get behind the wheel of said car might work .

[theholycow]

But secondly, from the Acura site:
{...}
They actually rate the car higher now since the epa recalculated its values awhile back.

I don't know where Honda's getting those numbers but the 2002 and 2006 RSX aren't rated that way on the EPA's fueleconomy.gov site.

Also, the recalculated values result in lower ratings; consumers were demanding more realistic numbers that they could actually achieve. If Honda is using the higher old EPA numbers that's fine for comparing among Hondas but deceptive for comparing to other manufacturers.

[fa22raptorf22]

They are all cars popular with girls. civic, tc, rsx.

Dude, nothing against you...tC's are great...but we have like 20 of them at my school...and well, each and every one of them is driven by a chick.

Also, my favorite that parks next to me is a white tC that says on the window, "I drive like a Cullen.."

Yeah, girls + tC's + twilight....oh the drama.

[FDSpirit]

A lot of Civics are driven by retards. We all don't fit into the "normal" category . And by normal I mean the majority of what everybody else most likely sees.