rsx vs. s2k
 

the rsx puts up some nice specs. 200 vs 240 hp. 8k to 9k rpm. 6 speed. i looks nasty though. for 10k less than an s2k. do you guys think it makes the s2k look expensive?

I think both cars are excellent cars but geared towards different markets.

Totally not. These cars are not made to compete. The RSX would be better compared to the IS300.

Remember the RSX is based on the Civic frame, just like the Intergra's were.

No.
RWD vs. FWD (which immediately excludes it from the list of cars I'd consider buying)
convertible vs. hatchback
double wishbone vs. struts
...and the list goes on and on.

It seems like a nice car for the $, though.

I recently test drove both the RSX-S and the S2K. Significant differences folks. S2k is much more nimble, much faster, shorter shifter, better suspension, stiffer chassis, etc...Different classes. The RSX-S actually felt quite anemic after driving S2k's, but it did have a stiff suspension and decent handling.

-Mark

Those two cars can't be considered direct competitors. The RSX Type S is basically a replacement for the Integra GSR (and no one would consider the GSR and S2K to be in the same class). I believe the RSX Type S is mass produced and not limited production like the S2000. I would say its closest competition is the Celica GTS.

Well like most cars out there, it being a convertible already makes up for the price difference. But I can't see the RSX competing with the S2000 at all.

Zoinks, your avatar is absolutely hilarious :D

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobatimez
[B]the rsx puts up some nice specs.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Type R 1090
[B]Those two cars can't be considered direct competitors.