dc5

considering acuras are high reving cars tq isnt that much of a factor. sure off the line we'll get smoked but when you have an 8,100 fuel cutoff (or higher with ecu) then whats tq when you have the hp to keep you going. my redline is 8,600 and that gearing allows me to have an advantage over similar powered cars.

i have 210whp and tq is nowhere near matching that. however, my car is a real good match for a z28 and tq is nowhere near that of a z28. with a lighter car, there is less of a need to have tq to get the car going.

once again, i must mention that creators of the rsx werent focusing on straight line performance (when it in fact already performs close to the cobalt ss) but dc5 holds its own on any auto x course. in japan, (obviously where the rsx is from) dc5 enthusiasts dont even bother with straightline performance so its kind of hard to compare since the car wasnt intended for anything besides handling

i do agree with you though, i'd much rather have a lower redline with the same power figure. but you have to remember the rsx is an economy car also, having a high redline allows you to stay in low rpms for daily driving (much more comfortable than a car with a lower yet beefed up powerband) but we have the power available in the high rpms.

wesmanw02

That is a completely baseless statement. Just because an engine is N/A does not automatically mean that its more reliable or will outlast an F/I motor. Forced induction may put more strain on the internal components of an engine, but as long as the engine was originally designed for boost (like the 2.0 S/C is, with forged internals) its not an issue. High RPM's can put just as much strain on an engine, so theres really no benefit to that over a Supercharged engine with a lower redline.

There is also no benefit to fuel economy with the RSX-S. Its rated at 23 City, same as the Cobalt SS. But unlike the RSX-S, the Cobalt makes low-end torque and actually has power at the lower RPM's. Seeing as how much you have to wind out the Acura just to get into the powerband, chances are fuel economy will be worse, especially when driven aggressively.

Actually torque is a very big factor in any race, whether it is from a roll or a stop. Torque is basically low-end power, and when you lack that in the lower RPM's, theres not much grunt to get you going. The RSX-S has no ***** whatsoever, so they try to make up for it with close gear ratios - therefore constant shifting is required, or it will fall out of the powerband.


Unless you have some serious mods, theres no way that an RSX-S will put down 210HP at the wheels. And unless you are running low 5's 0-60 and mid 13's in the 1/4 mile, your car is no match for a Z28 either - you would get smoked, plain and simple.

Theres also no doubt that the Cobalt SS S/C is a faster car than the RSX Type-S. Cobalts have been consistantly putting down 210HP at the wheels, while the RSX-S is rated at 210 at the crank. Thats a big difference, and combined with the fact that the Cobalt has a 60ft/lb torque advantage , it is obviously the faster of the two, not to mention it handles just as well or better, and costs between $1,000 and $2,000 less than a comparable equipped RSX Type-S.

dc5

how often does a chevy outlast an acura? im not saying its not possible, just not likely. it goes vice versa. you even said yourself the car has more strain with F/I. if you're saying f/i reliability is equal to a n/a motor then you must be new to the automotive scene. the rsx is also built for high reving. hondata, a honda/acura focused company, has done tons of research and safely states that the stock valve springs and what not can safely handle far beyond the stock redline. they're reflash allows 8,600 redline. this mod is the most popular mod and best bang for the buck and i've yet to hear of any problems with any rsx for reving that high.

whats the rating for the cobalt for highway driving? is the cobalt a 6spd? if its not, then the rsx would benefit even more on the highway. if you want to talk about aggressive driving, you only need to know the basics that the cobalt will perform worse in regards to fuel economy. its a f/i car. more air requires the increase of fuel for the proper a/f ratio.


i agree, tq is a big factor. but once you get going, hp takes over. "the rsx-s has no ***** whatsoever" uhhhhhh even people on the site already know its a good match up between the two otherwise this thread would not have been started. so what exactly are you trying to say about the cobalt? (i'm not saying they're equal, just the rsx isnt that far behind). you talk as if the closer gear ratios are bad, in any case it would increase acceleration.



its hard to take you serious now. you're a stubborn fanboy newb. you must know NOTHING ABOUT THE RSX WHATSOEVER if you think an rsx-s will never put down 210whp. i didnt even say i'll beat the z28, i said it would be a good match. from tons of TRACK EXPERIENCE i've noticed the average z28 runs low 14's. if you were wondering i have i/race header(replaces the cat)/exhaust/ECU. seriously, you're uninformed. if you're judging 210whp off the history of honda/acura/bseries motors well then i can understand your mistake. but if you havent noticed the hype over the kseries, well you need to get out more. the k-series are dyno proven to provide better gains than its older brother the b-series. just do me a favor and search around www.clubrsx.com. if you comment before you do so, then you are a fanboy plain and simple.

i already mentioned the cobalts faster. yes the cobalt makes 210hp at the wheels but that is F/I hp. i'd take an n/a 210whp over 210F/I whp anyday. you cant just compare the two. you are giving me incompetent comparisons. once again do i have to point out that the 210hp crank rating is underrated.

dont forget how i mentioned resale, that alone could make up the difference considering acura holds some of the highest percentage resale values. not to mention how ALL imports (simply because the fact that they are imported) hold higher value

in regards to handling, the rsx is lighter, is n/a, sports steering wheel, shifts are considerably short for stock, i hate to doubt the cobalt but i'll believe its handles are just as good once i see it on a course performing just as good.

i dont get why everyone seems to give off the vibe that i'm saying the cobalt is slower. somebody asked about the rsx, i'm here simply to provide PROPER information on the rsx. if you guys seriously want to know how the car competes PLEASE stop making immature and knowledgeless comments. i dont bother dealing with idiots. i mean really, have i made any immature comments? have i not supported the cobalt? how are you going to tell me how my car performs when you have no experience with it?

osmose

Just a note about engine wear; the higher the number of Revs the more engine wear you will have, and the sooner your head gaskets etc and engine will need to be rebuilt. A FI engine will put more stress on rods, but if the engine components are forged it will help the durability of the block, (for a FI engine that doesn't need to rev as high) relative to a higher reving na engine.

The biggest problem about FI engines is not the durability of the block, it is the life of the SC or turbo; Which is very expensive to replace.
On the up side the roots blower is the most reliable FI instrument.
I think this relaibility speculation is pointless since the car isn't out and we won't know how it hold up for years to come.

dc5

i agree that we cant really tell about durability since its not out. but you have to agree that japanese marketed cars tend to outlast most domestic brands. yes the rsx is a high reving car but its already been proven through experience from thousands of people that even reving beyond the stock fuel cut off has yet to provide any durability problems. not to mention that the car has been out since 2001 and some owners have already put the car through quite an amount of abuse considering majority of rsx owners are 18-23 years old.

Tooleman

Forced induction VS NA and reliabilty doesnt mean anything..

Engine damage comes from higher RPMS..

wesmanw02

You obviously didn't read my post carefully. Yes - F/I puts more strain on an engine's internal components - hence the reason the Ecotec 2.0 S/C has forged internals. Its built for boost, so the increased strain is not an issue. As you said, the RSX's engine is built to turn high RPM's, but that doesn't mean that the increased RPM's won't have any effect on engine wear.


The Cobalt SS S/C is rated at 29MPG on the highway, compared to the RSX-S's 31MPG. Not a huge difference. However, the Cobalt doesn't have to turn a ridiculous 3,000 RPM on at 65MPH just to keep the car going at highway speed. The RSX-S has the same 1st and 6th gear ratios for both the 5 and 6 speed, so there is no fuel economy advantage; the extra gear is only useful for keeping the engine on the boil, because everyone knows that once you fall below "VTEC", your all done


I never said that the Cobalt SS S/C and Acura RSX-S weren't a good match - quite the opposite, it would actually be a very close race between the two. The only reason that the close gear ratios are bad is because it requires constant shifting, and the less you have to shift the more time you save - but of course if the extra shifting is offset by better acceleration, its not a big deal. What mean by "No *****" is no low-end torque, its got plenty of power in the top end, but the low-end power is pretty gutless compared to the Cobalt SS

Fanyboy Newb? Sorry, but you are in fact the newbie. I have been a Member here longer than you have, and it also appears that I know more about the Cobalt than you do. I never said that the RSX-S couldn't put down 210WHP, I just said it would never do that stock, which it can't. Even with an Intake, Race Header, Exhaust, and ECU I still doubt that it will put down 210HP at the wheels. I'd say it would put down about 200WHP, unless Honda seriously underrated that engine, which I doubt.

Why can't you compare F/I to N/A? You compared the reliability of the two in your last post, so I don't see why we can't compare the performance. Its just a matter of manufacturer design, GM uses a Supercharger to make the power, while Acura uses high RPM's to make the power. Personally I prefer the low-end grunt and lower power peak of the GM 2.0 S/C to the high-strung high-RPM RSX-S motor.

As for handling and weight - the Cobalt SS S/C is 2991lbs, while the RSX-S is 2848lbs. Not a significant difference. And I hate to break it to you, but the Cobalt SS does handle better than the RSX-S. The Cobalt SS pulled .89g's on the skidpad, while the RSX-S pulled .86g's. I'm sure the RSX's steering and shifter are nice like you mentioned, but the Cobalts steering and shifter (short throw) are also very nice, especially for having electric steering.

It basically comes down to a matter of preference. I prefer the Cobalt SS, and I'm assuming a lot of other people on here do also, seeing as this is CobaltSS.net

Fast Freddy

Im very fortunate I own both. 1) 2003 acura rsx type s and an 2006 cobals ss s/c. My rsx type s is built and very fast. I just modded my ss with a 2.85 pulley, 3" catback system and a intake and now its faster. But still a close race. Hope this helps.

SuperchargedSS

I test drove the snot out of as type-s before settling on the SC. You cant compare the two cars. The Type-S feels soggy when matched up against an SC. Any non FI RSX's are yours for the killing. No contest.

FI RSX... that would be fun, mainly a drivers race in my opinion. For me the SC handles better, but I know I am a rare breed on that one. I just feel the car more in the SC. Damn those Germans can tune suspension.

DC52NV

a turbo'd rsx-s will not be a drivers race against a cobalt ss/sc. it's a drivers race w/ the rsx-s having i/h/e and hondata so i can just imaging the outcome of it w/ the rsx-s having a turbo setup.

ExHondaMan

No way a well done FI RSX would be a drivers race against an SS/SC.... Poor SS would get beat like a red headed step child.

DC52NV

yeah, i shoulda said that too. a well done f/i rsx-s will not be a drivers race. an rsx-s w/ just a turbo slapped on it w/out being tuned will probably be a drivers race against it though. it would have to be a cheap turbo though.

Eddie

lets throw both cars up against an ls1 f-body. lol, just kidding, both cars are great cars both have excellent potential.

phxSS

problem is, once you slap that turbo on, that's about all it can handle without digging into internals. In the long run, the SS has more out of the box tuning capability due to motor being built for FI from the factory. The engineers of the 2.0 say the bottom end can handle 8k rpm all day, but the vlave train needs refined to do it. So the motor is pretty much ready to go from the factory, and would cost less money than rsx to get power.

DC52NV

this is w/ stock internals...

323@11 psi and 360@15psi

DC52NV

this is w/ very minimal internal work...

ExHondaMan

I love Hondas.... They have such a flat torque curve
Those numbers look darn good ! I hope I can get my SS that strong