Hey,

I was at an Acura dealership some time back and was 'toying' with the idea
of trading in my 2000 Civic for a 2004 Acura RSX. I had also looked at
the Honda Accord Coupe (Honda Factory Performance Edition) at the Honda
dealership right across the street. So the salesman gave me some reasons
why I should choose the RSX over the Accord Coupe:

1) RSX has the sporty look/feel I was looking but at a cheaper price than
the Accord Coupe.
2) Acura engines have the latest Honda technology whereas the Honda
engines have the older Acura technology. Make sense? LOL...
3) But most importantly (he somewhat stressed), the Honda's for sale were
manufactured in Ohio whereas the Acura's where still manufactured in Japan
(at least the RSX was). Thus, the Acura has a better build.

I'm no auto manufacturing expert, but i'm under the assumption that a
large portion of the cars built today are done by machines. So would
there be any real difference between the Acura & Honda in quality terms
given one is built in Ohio and the other Japan? Isn't engineering and
quality of parts used more important than "where" the car was built? My
apologizes if the question sounds ridiculous.

-AGS

 

AGS <ags0082@no.spam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<opscangrg8fjf5yv@dream-machine.belkin>...
> Hey,
>
> I was at an Acura dealership some time back and was 'toying' with the idea
> of trading in my 2000 Civic for a 2004 Acura RSX. I had also looked at
> the Honda Accord Coupe (Honda Factory Performance Edition) at the Honda
> dealership right across the street. So the salesman gave me some reasons
> why I should choose the RSX over the Accord Coupe:

How does he know what are your likes/needs/wants? If he was any kind
of person, he'd give you the advantages of each one and let you
decide. Obviously the Acura will make him more commission.

>
> 1) RSX has the sporty look/feel I was looking but at a cheaper price than
> the Accord Coupe.

It's also a smaller car with no V6 option, although the RSX is pretty
damn fast. I liken them to a fancy Civic.

> 2) Acura engines have the latest Honda technology whereas the Honda
> engines have the older Acura technology. Make sense? LOL...

NO. I'd slap anyone who said a new automotive Honda engine was
low-tech. Besides, how can I put this into words....who cares? The
"Honda" version is very good, and if there's any truth in what he's
saying, the "Honda" version is more mature and has bugs worked out.


> 3) But most importantly (he somewhat stressed), the Honda's for sale were
> manufactured in Ohio whereas the Acura's where still manufactured in Japan
> (at least the RSX was). Thus, the Acura has a better build.

There's been much discussion on this. I would not let this influence
your decision. The Accord and RSX are too different to let this be a
factor in your decision.

>
> I'm no auto manufacturing expert, but i'm under the assumption that a
> large portion of the cars built today are done by machines. So would
> there be any real difference between the Acura & Honda in quality terms
> given one is built in Ohio and the other Japan? Isn't engineering and
> quality of parts used more important than "where" the car was built? My
> apologizes if the question sounds ridiculous.
>
> -AGS

The Acura's parts probably have a different source (Japan vs. USA)

Listen, they're both Honda's (there is no Acura outside of N. America
anyways), drive each one, make a decision, and don't listen to the
sales-scum. Many couldn't even tell you how an engine works. They're
just a necessary evil if you're going to buy a car.

 

AGS <ags0082@no.spam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<opscangrg8fjf5yv@dream-machine.belkin>...
> Hey,
>
> I was at an Acura dealership some time back and was 'toying' with the idea
> of trading in my 2000 Civic for a 2004 Acura RSX. I had also looked at
> the Honda Accord Coupe (Honda Factory Performance Edition) at the Honda
> dealership right across the street. So the salesman gave me some reasons
> why I should choose the RSX over the Accord Coupe:

How does he know what are your likes/needs/wants? If he was any kind
of person, he'd give you the advantages of each one and let you
decide. Obviously the Acura will make him more commission.

>
> 1) RSX has the sporty look/feel I was looking but at a cheaper price than
> the Accord Coupe.

It's also a smaller car with no V6 option, although the RSX is pretty
damn fast. I liken them to a fancy Civic.

> 2) Acura engines have the latest Honda technology whereas the Honda
> engines have the older Acura technology. Make sense? LOL...

NO. I'd slap anyone who said a new automotive Honda engine was
low-tech. Besides, how can I put this into words....who cares? The
"Honda" version is very good, and if there's any truth in what he's
saying, the "Honda" version is more mature and has bugs worked out.


> 3) But most importantly (he somewhat stressed), the Honda's for sale were
> manufactured in Ohio whereas the Acura's where still manufactured in Japan
> (at least the RSX was). Thus, the Acura has a better build.

There's been much discussion on this. I would not let this influence
your decision. The Accord and RSX are too different to let this be a
factor in your decision.

>
> I'm no auto manufacturing expert, but i'm under the assumption that a
> large portion of the cars built today are done by machines. So would
> there be any real difference between the Acura & Honda in quality terms
> given one is built in Ohio and the other Japan? Isn't engineering and
> quality of parts used more important than "where" the car was built? My
> apologizes if the question sounds ridiculous.
>
> -AGS

The Acura's parts probably have a different source (Japan vs. USA)

Listen, they're both Honda's (there is no Acura outside of N. America
anyways), drive each one, make a decision, and don't listen to the
sales-scum. Many couldn't even tell you how an engine works. They're
just a necessary evil if you're going to buy a car.

 

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 23:44:41 -0500, AGS <ags0082@no.spam.yahoo.com> sayeth:

>I was at an Acura dealership some time back and was 'toying' with the idea
>of trading in my 2000 Civic for a 2004 Acura RSX. I had also looked at
>the Honda Accord Coupe (Honda Factory Performance Edition) at the Honda
>dealership right across the street. So the salesman gave me some reasons
>why I should choose the RSX over the Accord Coupe:

My wife owns a 2003 Acura RSX (5 speed, but not the S model). It's a
nice car, but it's small. The Honda Accord Coupe is much bigger
(inside and out). If you are looking at 4-cylinder Accord versus the
RSX, the RSX is pretty nice if the smaller interior doesn't bother you.

The V6 Accord Coupe would have more power though, despite what the
dealer may tell you.

The interior finish in the RSX isn't as nice as the Accord EX series,
which is odd for an Acura, but from my understanding the RSX is based
on the Civic, this may not be a surprise.

You can't go wrong with either choice, but the main issues are size
power and interior finish.

--
Chris B.
furrier@iglou.com

 

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 23:44:41 -0500, AGS <ags0082@no.spam.yahoo.com> sayeth:

>I was at an Acura dealership some time back and was 'toying' with the idea
>of trading in my 2000 Civic for a 2004 Acura RSX. I had also looked at
>the Honda Accord Coupe (Honda Factory Performance Edition) at the Honda
>dealership right across the street. So the salesman gave me some reasons
>why I should choose the RSX over the Accord Coupe:

My wife owns a 2003 Acura RSX (5 speed, but not the S model). It's a
nice car, but it's small. The Honda Accord Coupe is much bigger
(inside and out). If you are looking at 4-cylinder Accord versus the
RSX, the RSX is pretty nice if the smaller interior doesn't bother you.

The V6 Accord Coupe would have more power though, despite what the
dealer may tell you.

The interior finish in the RSX isn't as nice as the Accord EX series,
which is odd for an Acura, but from my understanding the RSX is based
on the Civic, this may not be a surprise.

You can't go wrong with either choice, but the main issues are size
power and interior finish.

--
Chris B.
furrier@iglou.com

 

On 6 Aug 2004 06:14:10 -0700, Im anonymous <acctforjunk@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The Acura's parts probably have a different source (Japan vs. USA)
>
> Listen, they're both Honda's (there is no Acura outside of N. America
> anyways), drive each one, make a decision, and don't listen to the
> sales-scum. Many couldn't even tell you how an engine works. They're
> just a necessary evil if you're going to buy a car.

Thanks for the feedback. I now know a new way to refer to sales people.


-AGS

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

 

On 6 Aug 2004 06:14:10 -0700, Im anonymous <acctforjunk@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The Acura's parts probably have a different source (Japan vs. USA)
>
> Listen, they're both Honda's (there is no Acura outside of N. America
> anyways), drive each one, make a decision, and don't listen to the
> sales-scum. Many couldn't even tell you how an engine works. They're
> just a necessary evil if you're going to buy a car.

Thanks for the feedback. I now know a new way to refer to sales people.


-AGS

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

 

On 6 Aug 2004 10:03:44 -0400, Chris Bradley <furrier@iglou.com> wrote:

> My wife owns a 2003 Acura RSX (5 speed, but not the S model). It's a
> nice car, but it's small. The Honda Accord Coupe is much bigger
> (inside and out). If you are looking at 4-cylinder Accord versus the
> RSX, the RSX is pretty nice if the smaller interior doesn't bother you.
>
> The V6 Accord Coupe would have more power though, despite what the
> dealer may tell you.
>
> The interior finish in the RSX isn't as nice as the Accord EX series,
> which is odd for an Acura, but from my understanding the RSX is based
> on the Civic, this may not be a surprise.
>
> You can't go wrong with either choice, but the main issues are size
> power and interior finish.

Thanks for the feedback. In interior of the RSX, in terms of space, was a
concern. I sat in the back while my wife drove and I almost, literally,
broke my neck as she went over a small bump on the road, LOL. I'm just
under 6ft. My Civic is the same way...but not as bad as the RSX.

Oh well...gonna keep the Civic till it hits 180,000mi (approx 4 more yrs)
and then i'll take a look at what Honda has got to offer then.

-AGS

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

 

On 6 Aug 2004 10:03:44 -0400, Chris Bradley <furrier@iglou.com> wrote:

> My wife owns a 2003 Acura RSX (5 speed, but not the S model). It's a
> nice car, but it's small. The Honda Accord Coupe is much bigger
> (inside and out). If you are looking at 4-cylinder Accord versus the
> RSX, the RSX is pretty nice if the smaller interior doesn't bother you.
>
> The V6 Accord Coupe would have more power though, despite what the
> dealer may tell you.
>
> The interior finish in the RSX isn't as nice as the Accord EX series,
> which is odd for an Acura, but from my understanding the RSX is based
> on the Civic, this may not be a surprise.
>
> You can't go wrong with either choice, but the main issues are size
> power and interior finish.

Thanks for the feedback. In interior of the RSX, in terms of space, was a
concern. I sat in the back while my wife drove and I almost, literally,
broke my neck as she went over a small bump on the road, LOL. I'm just
under 6ft. My Civic is the same way...but not as bad as the RSX.

Oh well...gonna keep the Civic till it hits 180,000mi (approx 4 more yrs)
and then i'll take a look at what Honda has got to offer then.

-AGS

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/