I have no complaints on my srt, shoulda have been the top dog in this. Now if it was a sti then yes that would out perform the Srt in certain areas. I still think the Srt is better all around though. Cheap platform to start with and really not that expensive to upgrade.
@FranksTube86 Don't talk shit, Go out and drive one and you'll see why its on top. I love American cars (I Lied, just Chevys), but I know when to tip my hat.
are you kidding me the srt4 is the cheapest fastest car out of all. for 20k you can run 14 sec 1/4 miles all day long. they are actually not loud factory. and if your looking for a fast car but u hate loud exhaust notes go back to your fucking pruis.
my srt4 was an obnoxiously loud money pit. Piece of crap rattled constantly finally traded it straight out for a the wrx. Fun car but just as much a money pit and shit fuel economy and bland interior. Only thing I loved about that car was was boxer engines note yum. Sold that thing after the cv joints went out now its the type s which kicks all of these cars asses in overall experience. Haven't had a problem yet on the beast and get 33 highway. Not enough torque but so much fun past 6k
Lol at the defense of the SRT-4, which is, basically, a Dodge Neon. It looks god awful, is made with the world's cheapest plastics, is unrefined, and gets shitty mileage. It might be fast with a nice engine, but you can put diamonds on shit, and well, it's still shit.
@TruWarriorRon shitty gas mileage? i get 24 mpg consistently on my srt4. none of the cars in this test do much better. not even the rsx which gets about 25 mpg. and like RedStarMonster said the plastics in basically any brand new car look much worse than the interior of the srt4.
@Bamavol89 i definitely dont believe that you get 32 mpg out of a type s seeing as the EPA rated it at 23 city/31highway. 99.9% of the time the EPA estimates are pretty optimistic. so its very hard to believe that during normal everyday driving your car is getting better mileage than the EPA highway rating. the EPA rating on the srt4 is 22 city/30 highway and i average 24 mpg with mine.
@TurboNeon185 I aint lyin dude.one time i filled up i got 34mpg. but i think that was the pump that time. but most the time i drive it easy. I average 28-32mpg it depends on what mood im in. I was surprised to get that myserf to be honest
@Bamavol89 28 i might believe but i would expect that to be the best an rsx-s could average consistently. i actually got 26 the last 2 times i filled up but most of the time i get 24.
@Bamavol89 well if you are telling the truth i assume you must keep the tach below 3 grand all the time. but im willing to bet if you drove your car exactly like i drive mine you wouldnt be getting any better than 27-28.
the seats cut off circulation? I've driven mine on fairly long trips, and drive it daily with no complaints in that regard at all.....I'm 6' 225lbs as well...
Car and driver shouldn't test cars and rate them anymore. The fuckin sry-4 is clearly the best car in here, next after the srt should be the cobalt, fuck the gay ass type s over priced piece of shit and the slowbaru!!
@enox801 after had a "sport" exhaust on a car. It's cool. Especially if you're just driving to drive. But when you have to drive in all order of practicality, the sound is so annoying, especially if sound proofing is sort of on the cheap side.
Honda is best, and just check there winning f1 engine. Car and driver look at the Honda accord is the only car in the best 10 for over 20+ years. The best na engine with the most hp per liter. S2000, integra b18c, the b16 with almost 200 hp na on a 1.6 , so tell me what's the best or anything that comes close a vw gti with 2.0 t with 200hp when a k20 which is a 2.0 na has 220 hp with no turbo. Everyone please hondas are the best jdm car and the best bang for the buck period.
@manny9800 best bang for the buck? srt4 hands down. $21k new...the same price as the civic si. 230hp/250ft/lbs stock compared to 197hp/139ft/lbs for the si. huge performance gains for just a grand in mods. a full second faster in the quarter mile than an si stock vs stock. comparable gas mileage. it sounds better than a honda. i think the only thing thats better on the si is the smooth shifting tranny.
I agree with most of you saying that the rsx should not have been the top pick. This is supposed to be for cheap speed so my order would go according to price/speed ratio (and looks to decide between the ion and cobalt). My order would go as follows:
1) Cobalt (Good style, good price, good performance)
2) Redline (dirt cheap for 205hp with plenty of room for upgrade although its not pretty)
3) SRT-4 (more expensive but tons of power and potential)
DAMN, thats a lot of shit talking on the Cobalt, what weird ecotec noises were they talking about? Blower whine sounds good to me. And dont get me started on the winner. Guys watching this are looking for the best performance car, WE DONT GIVE A SHIIIIIIIIIIT about how grown up it feels or how its refined. And dumbass who cares about 8100 rpm when its only 120 lb ft?? Please figure out what ur readers want
Whoever wrote the commentary for this is a tool who never drove these cars. The Type-S HAS to run premium fuel. The SS, Redline and SRT could run 87 and they have forced induction. Hunduh had to make the K series 11:1+ just to create any usable torque under 5000 rpm. This video is biased heavily. I dislike all of these cars, and I own an SS SC.
Nobody should buy new cars. Wait a year and buy a used mazdaspeed3 or 6, S2000, bmw roadster, Evo etc and get the warranty for less.
your a tool for making none sense comments. If the car is recommended to run premium you should to get the full potential of the car and motor. Like all the cars here. I have a an srt4 and it say premium gas only, But you can run lower. Is not gonna hurt the motor, It will just retard timing to calculate for the lower grade gas.
Normally I don't acknowledge comments by people like you, but you really need this!
I commute 110 miles for work so I don't need to squeeze out 4whp using 93 octane to use cruise control at 70mph. It would be an extra 400 per year to run 93. I don't beat on my car trying to impress anyone like SOME. But alas, I'm not you!! You know what I said was accurate so why drop names like "tool"? Realize people do things for THEIR reasons, not yours. Think first, speak later!
Atleast our cars sound good all Honda products sound like a struggling weed wacker have yet to here a good sounding honda only good Honda Is a lawn mower even then there are better
@TurboNeon185 i dont see y you keep running your mouth the Rsx-S was never intended to be a drag car. No front wheel drive car was really. And besides drag racing is for people who dont know how to take corners. If u actually read the Car and Driver article the Rsx had the best skidpad by far. And that the acura is better built. You can "brag" all you want about owning a dogde car, but it makes you look foolish.
@Jdren4585 actually it didnt have the best skid pad by far. c/d has the rsx-s doing .86gs compared to the srt4s .84. not much difference. oh and btw the srt4 stops 16ft shorter from 70. that should be considered. build quality yea the interior may be nicer. but as far as reliability, my car has 108k and has never been in the shop for ANYTHING. not saying a honda wont last longer but id say 5 years and over 100k miles aint bad. and id much rather have ALOT more torque than leather seats anyway.
@Jdren4585 oh and another thing...didnt u notice that the srt4 had the fastest autocross lap and the rsx had the slowest? so where did that extra .02 on the skid pad get it? it was last in absolutely every performance aspect.
wow you guys know nothing about cars. nor does this video. the rsx is not the nicest or best built engine and the srt4 is nowhere near the fastest. my friend drives a cobaltsssc and i drive a cobaltsstc and before modding none of the cars in this video kept up. the rsx is embarrassingly slow the srt4 was in my rearview before third (against multiple srt4s) and the ecotec may make funny sounds but it is the only block that can support 1200hp before collapsing. not to mention the features.research
@seanpreil the cobalt in this test was the s/c version which couldnt touch an srt4. so yes the srt4 is by far the fastest in this video. your t/c version would be a close race so saying that an srt4 wouldnt keep up is a bit of an overstatement. i ran a 13.9@102 in my srt4 stock which is exactly what the t/c cobalt is said to run. and i dont know for sure but i highly doubt that that stock 2 liter block will handle 1200hp.
wow you guys know nothing about cars. nor does this video. the rsx is not the nicest or best built engine and the srt4 is nowhere near the fastest. my friend drives a cobaltsssc and i drive a cobaltsstc and before modding none of the cars in this video kept up. the rsx is embarrassingly slow the srt4 was in my rearview before third (against multiple srt4s) and the ecotec may make funny sounds but it is the only block that can support 1200hp before collapsing. not to mention the features.research
wow you guys need to do more research on cars before you brag. first off this video knows absolutely nothing about these cars.
if you sit in the rsx youll notice that the center cluster is tacky and cheap looking.
second the srt4 neon is nowhere near the fastes
my friend drives a 2005 cobalt ss sc and i drive a 2009 cobalt ss tc and ill tell you right now that before we started modding our cars that none of the cars in this video could stay anywhere near us.
i have yet to have a honda challange my srt4 as soon as they here that burbble they cower away i will say this though honda does make good lawn mowers
Seriously the only 2 cars worth a crap were the srt4 and the subie. They are the only ones there with a low 0-60 being around 5.4 seconds and a 14.00 1/4 mile, I had plenty of cars and the srt4 is my favorite one for sure.
@Srt4boom agreed!! dude i went to a dealer the other day just to look around and the salesman was like are you gonna trade that car in?? Ummmm I dont think so!!! that sucker had his greedy eyes on it
Is that why the srt won every race in 1st? In fact, he said it would "beat the piss out of everyone there". I like the rsx, don't get me wrong, but fan boys are annoying for anything. The sound is debatable. The quality of the srt is where it counts, the suspension, engine, and tranny. I do apologize for the gay srt fan boys though. In fact, I'd rather have a rex or a prelude than a rsx.
The quality of the rsx is so out of all of these cars league its not even funny. The motor is by far the most technically advanced motor in the bunch with the best sound. Plus it looks a hell of a lot better than anything seen in this comparison. The gear box is also praised as THE BEST of any FWD out there, thats why, in the end, Honda wins.
@97preludeshvtec dude i know this comment is old as all hell but i had to say something...u say the motor in the rsx is "by far the most technically advanced motor in the bunch". now im not disagreeing with that...however i do think its funny that the 'cavemen' over at dodge could slap a turbo on a motor thats been around since the mid 80s and make more hp and a SIGNIFICANT amount of extra torque then a honda motor that was designed in the last few years.
Key phrase being "slap a turbo on". It's much much easier to extract power out of a forced induction engine. You've just proved my point, you can make any motor fast by slapping a turbo on it, now making a car that makes good power and maintains unsurpassed reliability while staying N/A.... That's innovation. Honda FTMFW
@97preludeshvtec the key phrase is actually that.."you can make any motor fast by slapping on a turbo." so y dosent honda put turbos on their cars????? anyway...let me know when a stock honda can outperfrom a stock srtr4. thats innovation? haha,,it seens more like a joke. isnt innovation supposed to be an upgrade of what is currently avalible?
SRT-4 quickest but its still a neon. WRX all the way. Reliable easily moded to get big power and all-wheel drive. I live in the snow belt so I tend to favor that option. Why you guys are gettign your panties ina bunch over a car review is funny as hell. Thats their opinion and to each their own. The guy sounds like hes tryign not to laugh at this whoel thing on the vid the whole time. Why not toss in a lotus elise you can get one used for $25k.
"Here we go again. That same old comparo conundrum. Our underdog victor offers the worst 0-60 time (6.4 seconds), the slowest quarter mile (14.9), the skimpiest back seat, and the most lackluster autocross lap.
Go ahead and write letters. We're used to it."
how exactly does the car that is the slowest in every test and the most expensive win the CHEAP SPEED comparo? i believe that is the definition of bullshit. hence the uproar.
This article was when I cancelled my Car and Driver subscription, the article went even further with their stupidity than the video did.
Car and Driver actually admitted that this comparison got more complaints than any other comparison they have ever done, due to the fact that the RSX should have finished at best 4th behind the SRT-4, WRX, and Cobalt SS.
How sad for the RSX fags, when Acura cut the RSX because, and i quote "The RSX does not meet the upscale image of the Acura company"
fallout.. y would we want to get rid of our forced induction to see how much power it would make? who said honda cant make their cars turbo? nobody. thats their choice. but guess what, once u buy it ur gonna need to put FI on it to play with all the other cars in this test. and another thing, 146ft/lbs@7000rpms isnt as nice as 250ft/lbs@2200rpms. we dont have to downshift 3 times to make a pass. they made these hondas shift so nice cuz honda knew u would be doing a whole lot of it.
who needs torque when you have a top end monster? if i turbo my dc5 with only 8 psi ill be making 253 whp which is more than i can say for a neon making 230 horsepower only to the crank
who needs torque? anybody that wants to drive their car on the street everyday. it makes a huge difference in daily driving. btw the rsx is 2 grand more. than u spend antoher 4grand on a turbo and supporting mods. so ur up to 6grand more for 253hp. i can spend 3grand in mods(which means i spent 3 grand less) and be over 300hp and around 300ft/lbs of torque. thats more than i can say for ur rsx that will still be under 200ft/lbs even with a turbo kit.
srt 4's are gay and no one like them only dodge fanboy's, they break down easily and are unreliable, plus there are fwd and turbo wow major fail, they stopped making them after like 2 years cause they suck and a bolted type-s beats a srt4 go look it up
unreliable my ass ive had my stage3 srt4 brand new since 04 and have 60k+ miles on it and it is still as solid as the day i took it off of the showroom floor the only thing is general wear n tear break's oil changes shocks tires and i dont exactly baby the thing either. i had a type-s a while back took it on a few tracks days and every time somthing broke after a lap an a half at local track i had no brakes and clutch was gone. the srt4 takes the same thrashing and i can still drive it home
@FalloutProductions1 103k miles on my srt4..and its never been in the shop for anything but oil changes. bolt on type-s beat stock srt4s. thats nice. bolt on srt4s beat built turbo rsx-s's.
@FalloutProductions1 well stock turbo srt4s will run low 12s. that much i do know. and big turbos on an otherwise stock motor the srt4s can run low 11s. just to let u know the FASTEST BUILT rsxs are only running low 11s. while the fastest built srt4s are running high 9s with 5 sp trannys and they are running even faster with 3sp autos.
@TurboNeon185 bwahahahaha nigga are you fucking trippin?!! 12's? dawg they run like low 14's stock, a bolted kpro rsx runds like 13.9 and if it had turbo then its no competition
@FalloutProductions1 are u retarded? i didnt mean the car runs 12s stock. i meant that the car can run low 12s with the STOCK TURBO. thats y i said stock turbo srt4s can run low 12s. and my srt4 ran a 13.9 STOCK. so exactly how impressive do u think it is to say that a bolted kpro rsx runs 13.9s. so a bolted kpro rsx can keep up with a stock srt4. and an rsx was already 2grand more to begin with. thats nice. haha
@FalloutProductions1 hey whatever u want to do. and how exactly is it a pos? cuz it doesnt come with leather. ill trade the leather for a turbo anyday. saying u have a non turbo motor with 200hp is nice on paper. but dont forget that u only have 139ft/lbs of torque while the srt4 has 250hp. u honda guys never talk about that part. its nice not having to be in the right gear at all times.
@TurboNeon185 because i can rape my type-s all day everday to 8000 rpms and there wont be a single problem, just do regular maintenance like oil change and stuff, and even though the torque is non existance, it makes up for it with the 200 horsepower and high rev limit, and turbo on fwd cars is pretty much useless
@FalloutProductions1 actually this comparo proved that turbo on a fwd is far from useless. it was fastest to 60, fastest in the quartermile, and had the fastest autocross lap. looks like that turbo was put to good use if u ask me. and where did the high reving 200hp n/a motor in the lightest car get u? ahh..last place in all 3 of those tests. and im up to 103k miles without a problem other than a slipping clutch. i guess thats where having no torque would be better huh?
So I guess that's why they have less recalls, higher reliability ratings from Consumer Reports, and a higher resale value compared to ALL the 2004 / 2005s listed in this comparo, today.
I own an SRT-4 ACR and the guy saying the seats cut off your circulation is a sissy. The ACR is meant for a completely different thing than the other cars on the list. It was built to be taken to a track and to me it is not uncomfortable. I would have taken either the WRX or SRT-4 to win this. And the exhaust note is one of the best things about it if they cant handle it too bad for them.
I guess the american car lovers are too stupid to realize that the title cheap speed doesnt necessarily mean the fastest cheapest car will/should win..If numbers were all that mattered then domestic cars would be winning most of the comparos. They don't.
And thats why the SRT-4 needs a bigger engine and forced induction to beat an RSX Type S.... Yeah they are slow... lol Don't hate em because they are better ;) Just buy one and be happy you own a top car
i think that car and driver are biased towards imports for some reason. rsx was slowest and most expensive, srt4 was definitely the fastest, and i think the cobalt ss looked the best out of all of them. the last one is just my opinion though
i have to disagree. i have drivin all at racing speeds and i must say for purpose built track, the wrx is the fastest. for acceleration, the srt4 whoops all of them. for balance, the rsx has the edge. the cobolt is nicer then the ion, but the overall performance is really nothing to brag about. im not biased, just my well informed opinion on the subject of cars.
my bad, you responded to my previous comment by mistake i guess. but i do disagree that the rsx was the slowest car in the test. not slower then cobalt ss or the ion redline overall for track driving the type s is a great car. definately superior to the ss and redline.
the RSX looks the best in YOUR opinion. and i would say it prolly has one of the worst top ends. so what that it can rev higher. the SRT-4 and the Cobalt SS would both SMOKE the shit out of the RSX from say a good high end run like a 100 mph pull.
So the car that is the slowest and most expensive of the bunch gets first place. LOL. How does this make sense in a "cheap speed" contest. Again, more blatent bias for honda. Nevermind the fact that the SRT4 and the SS actually beat the piss out of an RSX and a WRX in performance numbers and on the tract. Go fuck yourself C&D. More bias opinions from close minded morons.
oh jesus your fucking kidding me. the rsx won?? are you fucking me?? its supposed to be cheap SPEED not cheap "whos engine can rev the highest" ppfffttt GTFO. pussy RSX.. its the slowest one in the group!!
lmfao... Its the fastest if you add any of the turbo or s/c set ups.... its 200hp without either... the cobalt and redline are 205 SUPERCHARGED lmfao... I love the srt4 but its engine is still ass without the turbo ;) dont hate
Doesn't matter, the car HAS a turbo. You can say woulda, coulda, shoulda, all you want, but the fact remains: The RSX is the slowest, most expensive POS in this test, and does not deserve the title of first place in any article titled Cheap Speed. Bottom line. Quit making stupid statements, stick to the facts.
not so sure. the exit speed of the wrx out of corners is superior to that of the srt4. its simply to to the fact that the srt is fwd. a better tire would only make the advantage grow. however, adding to your conclusion i love the responsiveness of the srts turbo even though its bigger on a bigger engine. the wrx is tuned for down low fuel economy, which hurts performance in stock trim. but to each his own, they are both good cars. flip a coin, and that would be my track car. but day to day,WRX
magazine comparos would be totally unnecessary if the only judging criteria were cost and performance numbers. the srt4 is faster than a mercedes 300 sl gullwing. which would you rather have?
Are you retarded? Say it with me... "CHEAP SPEED", do you know what either word means? The gullwing is going to cost one hell of a lot more than the SRT-4, so the comparison is moot.
did you forget your geritol this morning? i'll slow it down for you, dear. the title "cheap speed" refers to the cars in the comparison, which are both comparably inexpensive and fast. the title however does not indicate that cost and performance are the only criteria by which the cars in the comparison are judged, because, in that case, testing the cars at all would be totally moot. but you're forgiven for being overly literal and obtuse. btw, i can get you a real nice deal on a crown vic.
Here is the deal: If you title an article CHEAP SPEED, then the main criteria by which you designate a winner need to be price and performance, hands down. The RSX is the slowest, most expensive car in the comparison, therefore it in no way should have won. Your take on this is utterly ignorant and stupid, the criteria are set in the title, even Car And Driver admitted they fucked it up. It is called "Advertising Dollars", not 'unbiased comparo'. By the way, Mercedes sucks balls, SRT4 for me
you do realize that the reason the srt-4 is a turd with out the turbo is because it is build with dish piston that are designed to support more boost pressure . it does hurt the motor if it doesn't have a turbo but the car is specifically designed to have one where as the acura has domed pistons. which are designed to compress air pressure within the cylinder an create more combustion
That's because your biased and your pretty much doing it because of what you like..... Id do RSX Srt-4 WRx CObalt ion... But i own a RSX so im biased also... plus the SRT-4 molest all those cars...
please read again, i have drivin all of them. im not biased, im giving you my honest assesment. in standard trim a srt-4 could beat a wrx on a track, but put 1/2 decent tires on the wrx and its game over. sure the srt4 has the responsive turbo, but it cant handle like a wrx unless the suspension is reworked.
Not exactly true, the ACR SRT-4 will terrorize the WRX on the track. While I agree with your comment about the WRX tires (stupid that they put those shitty comfy all weather tires on for stock) even with performance tires the ACR with the extra power will clean house on the track. You have to have a VERY curvy track with next to no straight aways to for the WRX to come close.
well in some parts you r rite but the regular srt4 its no the same as an ACR pkg. the ACR comes with better suspension, G-force series tires, has better sway bars than the regular srt, and other stuff.../ so as in handling on autocross the ACR feels like on rails has a very good handling.
good video! my names Kaitlyn, kinda feelin bored if any1 wants to join me on cam or wana chat i will be signed on at __ FriendlyFlirts(.COM) __ my user ID there is Kaitlyn_exkcpqoejqe chat soon xx its FR33 to j0in! mwah
Also, as far as trade in values are concerned... I have this to say: Anyone who buys a car with the idea that it is something more than a commodity is a fool. Cars depreciate. It's as simple as that. I personally feel that people choose SRTs and SS's b/c they're less expensive and FASTER than their foreign counterparts. Sure sacrifices have to me made to save on cost (the interior). Furthermore, if you really want a good interior, then you shouldn't be looking at sport compacts.
less expensive to purchase, less expensive to modify, nearly impossible to steal due to the SKIM key (can't hotwire the SRT4). I don't give a shit about resale value because I plan on keeping this car forever. I will trade in our quad cab pickup, the SRT4 is the fun toy, and oh damn it's so fun to put BUS lengths on crap hondas and rsx's.
I love how these idiots with Hondas act like the engines inside them are somehow super advanced technology that the Big3 cannot reproduce. LMAO. Stop living in a fantasy world. Vtec is variable valve timing.... a concept that is actually quite old. Do some reading if you dont believe me. SS's and SRTs engines were designed for FI. Unlike hondas they don't need to be at 6K RPM or higher to actually make some real power. Hence why both cars pound on Si's and RSXs.
@mdb25 I love how idiots like you that don't know much about cars, bash on what you don't know. Honda designed their cars around their engines. If you look at blueprints of all the Engine's in this video, you willsee that hondas are extremely well built engines built precise to the T
Im a 13yr honda/toyota/chevrolet technician, and I can tell you right now you are speaking off of your Opinion and Miss-Information. I can garuntee that
As usual, Car & Driver sucks the nuts of Honda/Acura. My ACR has never cut off my circulation, the seats are the best I have ever had in a car. And I am a big guy. The RSX's braking, acceleration, and handling are so inferior its a laugh. Yea, its a nice car for a broad to commute to work to her receptionist job, but goddamn, what a disappointment of a car, especially after the Integra GS-R and Type-R. On the autocross course, my SRT-4 obliterates Hondas cushy second rate integra.
Tell me how that makes ANY sense. This is the stupidest title that Car and Driver ever gave an article, and it's why I no longer have a subscription to that joke of a magazine.
If you are going to have an article titled CHEAP SPEED, you give the award to the...
Exactly. The RSX is a decent car, but should not have been even in the top 3 of that comparison.
Hell, even now, it would still not qualify top 3 with the current line up. I would say the top 3, in no particular order currently would be the Mazdaspeed3, the Caliber SRT4, and the up and coming Cobalt SS Turbo (which just ran a 14.0 at 99 mph in one review).
All three of those cars are far and away better than anything acura or honda has for under 25,000
They wernt jus lookin at speed if you guys were paying attention. Overall the Type S has a more advance engine. Better Fit and finish and interior. All around its the best bang for your buck.
Once again, what is the name of the article? CHEAP SPEED. Cheap meaning PRICE of the car, SPEED meaning performance. If Car And Driver wants to run a comparison like this and give it to the most expensive, slowest pile of crap in the comparison, they should name the article EXPENSIVE SLOTH next time, to more accurately depict how they are going to vote. The Type S motor is weak, WEAK SAUCE!! No torque, can't mod beyond a certain hp. SRT4 motor blows it away, 500 hp stock internals!!
the piece of shit neon has a bigger engine and turbocharging lol. the rsx with a smaller engine and no turbocharging makes more than the neon would without either. it also has a smoother transmission with 6 gears instead of 5 and a shift knob that's made of better material than soda bottles. jap cars are such piles of crap with their leather, fit and finish, and higher resale values. fuck it, when i need a used car i always consider a cavalier over a civic because the civic is a pile of crap!
Ah, once again, a honda lover has to resort to 'resale value' and the old shit argument about 'if your car had no turbo' wah wah wah! Cry some more why don't you? And your RSX is little better than a rebadged civic, douchebag. Also, six speeds just means more shifting, not that you would win a quarter mile against the srt4, or ANY race for that matter, except maybe a race to starbucks. Does your RSX have hard wood floors too, you homo?
once again you have to ignore all the pitfalls with your crappy domestic. the RSX is made in japan and the civic is made in ohio of entirely different parts. the powertrain, suspension, and interior are nothing alike. the only similarities are in the body architecture and the fact they both have 2 doors. your POS NEEDS turbocharing in order to keep up with imports that dont use them haha...and fyi i'm a girl you bucktoothed redneck.
Ah, you are a girl, that explains how you know absolutely NOTHING about cars. Get your fat ass into the kitchen where you belong, you pimply faced bitch.
no wonder you talk and treat women like that, you REALLY ARE a redneck. you probably couldn't get one with that attitude. I bet you think domestics are just as good as imports. good luck with your shitty cars.
Let's not forget who brought stupid stereotypes into this conversation you ignorant blabbing windbag. Your response to my comment is quite funny considering that. I merely stated what I did because I knew you would act like this. It really is no surprise that you drive an RSX, it's a slow girl's car.
So is a WRX SRT-4 and CObalt without the fucking Turbo and S/c..... Engine alone??? The K20a2 would molest all the others... seeing as how they are only about 160hp without the fucking Turbo and s/c.... automotive genius my left nut.. mother fucker
I can't even understand what you just posted, but I hope it's not the old naturally aspirated versus turbo argument again, that is the stupidest argument ever. If that were true, why does it cost MORE to get a naturally aspirated car than to get the better turbo or supercharged cars? None of you Honda nuthuggers can respond to the FACT that it's moronic to name an article "Cheap Speed" and give the title to a piece of slow shit most expensive car in the bunch.
Civic is not made in ohio. It's assembled there. No matter how you slice it, the cars are MADE IN JAPAN. Just because honda sets up a handful of plants here in the US in order to slap on fenders and doors, doesn't qualify them as being american. Secondly, I wouldn't be calling the SS and SRT "crappy domestics". Both cars have trounced the RSX-S and civic Si in nearly every course and/or type of race. A fact that has been PROVEN by nearly every single reputable automotive source out there
And one more thing... if you really think that american cars need FI to have powerful engines, then you clearly have no sort of grasp on engine technology. Don't make statements like this unless you know what you are talking about. SS and SRTs are designed to be FI. Do you have any clue what compression ratio is? Clearly not. If so, then you'd know that the Si and RSX-s run under high compression. This enables them to have high hp, but very difficult to place under FI. Idiot.
The thing with the SRT-4 is that Dodge spent most of it's money under the hood. and built a basic interior. Honda doesn't really have much under the hood so they balance out. And remember, Dodge had a small budget for the SRT-4.
so on this review the gm cars are cheap that's bs and the dodge can beat the crap out of all of them then i know for fact that it will. they put acura as number 1 hell what kind of review is this the slowest car is number 1 now if i find a acura to race on the street against a srt4 the acura will not even try because it's like taking a knife to a gun fight .. screw car and driver
these damn reviews and opinion are b.s. Just the tone and attitude toward the redline and cobalt ss are demeaning. what makes the redline cheap "OH IT FEELS LIKE IT" i'm tellin u these reviews are dumb. lets all buy over priced luxury jap cars and compair them to budget sport comp. cars made in the States. Stupid.
No, NYC is right, and guess what you Acura tards, the PT Cruiser with the turbo is faster than your RSX, oh sucks to be you! There goes grandma in her Turbo PT, beating your asses hahaha. Oh, but you have that leather interior, well, that will look good at Starbucks, enjoy your crapaccino
that's cause the only way that piece of shit can be fast is with turbocharging. a non-turbo PT loser has a bigger engine than the RSX and is way slower. not to mention the car is hideous whereas the RSX is fucking hot.
that's cause the only way that piece of shit can be fast is with turbocharging. a non-turbo PT loser has a bigger engine than the RSX and is way slower. not to mention the car is hideous whereas the RSX is fucking hot.
"Talk about technology"? Do you have any idea of how engines and FI work? LOL. Furthermore, what "slight mods" are you gonna put on an RSX that are going to help it kill an SS?? Humor me with your acumen. Personally, I think you know nothing. Let me educate you a bit. Ever hear of compression ratio? That 2.0 ecotec in the SS was designed from the ground up to be FI. Try doing FI on a RSX. It's cost you SEVERAL THOUSAND dollars and wont net you much gain.
i love ma srt 4 n it should have gotten 1st
angelitomigi69 1 week ago
I have no complaints on my srt, shoulda have been the top dog in this. Now if it was a sti then yes that would out perform the Srt in certain areas. I still think the Srt is better all around though. Cheap platform to start with and really not that expensive to upgrade.
boostedmopar111 1 week ago
i wonder how much honda paid them to place the RSX on top?
FranksTube86 5 months ago
@FranksTube86 0 dollars
TomasPerez15 4 months ago in playlist TomasPerez15's Favorited Videos
@FranksTube86 for real the rsx type s is a slow ass pos, the ones local to me run freakin 11s in the 1/8th mile thats just sad! my srt4 runs 8.7s!
stairmaster3001 1 month ago
@FranksTube86 Don't talk shit, Go out and drive one and you'll see why its on top. I love American cars (I Lied, just Chevys), but I know when to tip my hat.
koalatoday 4 weeks ago
are you kidding me the srt4 is the cheapest fastest car out of all. for 20k you can run 14 sec 1/4 miles all day long. they are actually not loud factory. and if your looking for a fast car but u hate loud exhaust notes go back to your fucking pruis.
stairmaster3001 6 months ago
my srt4 was an obnoxiously loud money pit. Piece of crap rattled constantly finally traded it straight out for a the wrx. Fun car but just as much a money pit and shit fuel economy and bland interior. Only thing I loved about that car was was boxer engines note yum. Sold that thing after the cv joints went out now its the type s which kicks all of these cars asses in overall experience. Haven't had a problem yet on the beast and get 33 highway. Not enough torque but so much fun past 6k
naireland 7 months ago 3
I'll have a WRX. I know a guy woth a neon and it's lost way more power than it should have in 5 years
158158cow 7 months ago
Lol at the defense of the SRT-4, which is, basically, a Dodge Neon. It looks god awful, is made with the world's cheapest plastics, is unrefined, and gets shitty mileage. It might be fast with a nice engine, but you can put diamonds on shit, and well, it's still shit.
TruWarriorRon 9 months ago
@TruWarriorRon shitty gas mileage? i get 24 mpg consistently on my srt4. none of the cars in this test do much better. not even the rsx which gets about 25 mpg. and like RedStarMonster said the plastics in basically any brand new car look much worse than the interior of the srt4.
TurboNeon185 8 months ago
@TurboNeon185 my rsx type s gets bout 32mpg so i dont know what your talkin bout
Bamavol89 8 months ago
@Bamavol89 i definitely dont believe that you get 32 mpg out of a type s seeing as the EPA rated it at 23 city/31highway. 99.9% of the time the EPA estimates are pretty optimistic. so its very hard to believe that during normal everyday driving your car is getting better mileage than the EPA highway rating. the EPA rating on the srt4 is 22 city/30 highway and i average 24 mpg with mine.
TurboNeon185 8 months ago
@TurboNeon185 I aint lyin dude.one time i filled up i got 34mpg. but i think that was the pump that time. but most the time i drive it easy. I average 28-32mpg it depends on what mood im in. I was surprised to get that myserf to be honest
Bamavol89 8 months ago
@Bamavol89 28 i might believe but i would expect that to be the best an rsx-s could average consistently. i actually got 26 the last 2 times i filled up but most of the time i get 24.
TurboNeon185 8 months ago
@TurboNeon185 well whether you believe me or not doesnt make it false.i average 30 or so everytime
Bamavol89 8 months ago
@Bamavol89 well if you are telling the truth i assume you must keep the tach below 3 grand all the time. but im willing to bet if you drove your car exactly like i drive mine you wouldnt be getting any better than 27-28.
TurboNeon185 8 months ago
@TurboNeon185 i told you i drive it easy most the time...
Bamavol89 8 months ago
the seats cut off circulation? I've driven mine on fairly long trips, and drive it daily with no complaints in that regard at all.....I'm 6' 225lbs as well...
White05Turbo 9 months ago
Nice vid
Ge0vone 10 months ago
Car and driver shouldn't test cars and rate them anymore. The fuckin sry-4 is clearly the best car in here, next after the srt should be the cobalt, fuck the gay ass type s over priced piece of shit and the slowbaru!!
m69ortiz 11 months ago
wtf thats the best part the sound on the srt-4
enox801 11 months ago
@enox801 after had a "sport" exhaust on a car. It's cool. Especially if you're just driving to drive. But when you have to drive in all order of practicality, the sound is so annoying, especially if sound proofing is sort of on the cheap side.
eskimo810 11 months ago
Honda is best, and just check there winning f1 engine. Car and driver look at the Honda accord is the only car in the best 10 for over 20+ years. The best na engine with the most hp per liter. S2000, integra b18c, the b16 with almost 200 hp na on a 1.6 , so tell me what's the best or anything that comes close a vw gti with 2.0 t with 200hp when a k20 which is a 2.0 na has 220 hp with no turbo. Everyone please hondas are the best jdm car and the best bang for the buck period.
manny9800 1 year ago
@manny9800 honestly, i'd rather have a fiesta.
eskimo810 11 months ago
@manny9800 lol
White05Turbo 9 months ago
@manny9800 best bang for the buck? srt4 hands down. $21k new...the same price as the civic si. 230hp/250ft/lbs stock compared to 197hp/139ft/lbs for the si. huge performance gains for just a grand in mods. a full second faster in the quarter mile than an si stock vs stock. comparable gas mileage. it sounds better than a honda. i think the only thing thats better on the si is the smooth shifting tranny.
TurboNeon185 8 months ago
I agree with most of you saying that the rsx should not have been the top pick. This is supposed to be for cheap speed so my order would go according to price/speed ratio (and looks to decide between the ion and cobalt). My order would go as follows:
1) Cobalt (Good style, good price, good performance)
2) Redline (dirt cheap for 205hp with plenty of room for upgrade although its not pretty)
3) SRT-4 (more expensive but tons of power and potential)
4)Subaru (too expensive not enough zoom)
5)RSX
ruben172 1 year ago
DAMN, thats a lot of shit talking on the Cobalt, what weird ecotec noises were they talking about? Blower whine sounds good to me. And dont get me started on the winner. Guys watching this are looking for the best performance car, WE DONT GIVE A SHIIIIIIIIIIT about how grown up it feels or how its refined. And dumbass who cares about 8100 rpm when its only 120 lb ft?? Please figure out what ur readers want
Heebda 1 year ago
I've got an 04' redline bought it new and it's magical. Wasted plenty of mustangs and the like! Oh well, haters gotta hate! =)
monkeyRL 1 year ago
Whoever wrote the commentary for this is a tool who never drove these cars. The Type-S HAS to run premium fuel. The SS, Redline and SRT could run 87 and they have forced induction. Hunduh had to make the K series 11:1+ just to create any usable torque under 5000 rpm. This video is biased heavily. I dislike all of these cars, and I own an SS SC.
Nobody should buy new cars. Wait a year and buy a used mazdaspeed3 or 6, S2000, bmw roadster, Evo etc and get the warranty for less.
brown55061 1 year ago
@brown55061
your a tool for making none sense comments. If the car is recommended to run premium you should to get the full potential of the car and motor. Like all the cars here. I have a an srt4 and it say premium gas only, But you can run lower. Is not gonna hurt the motor, It will just retard timing to calculate for the lower grade gas.
niz55 1 year ago
@niz55
Normally I don't acknowledge comments by people like you, but you really need this!
I commute 110 miles for work so I don't need to squeeze out 4whp using 93 octane to use cruise control at 70mph. It would be an extra 400 per year to run 93. I don't beat on my car trying to impress anyone like SOME. But alas, I'm not you!! You know what I said was accurate so why drop names like "tool"? Realize people do things for THEIR reasons, not yours. Think first, speak later!
brown55061 1 year ago
when that K20 valve lifts, you'll know what's up haha
SANTANA1deep 1 year ago
fuck's w/ the Type-S tho!
SANTANA1deep 1 year ago
Atleast our cars sound good all Honda products sound like a struggling weed wacker have yet to here a good sounding honda only good Honda Is a lawn mower even then there are better
srt4crazy289 1 year ago
I agree, the title was stupid. Should have read "Nicest sport compact we'd buy".
MrStclairm 1 year ago
@TurboNeon185 i dont see y you keep running your mouth the Rsx-S was never intended to be a drag car. No front wheel drive car was really. And besides drag racing is for people who dont know how to take corners. If u actually read the Car and Driver article the Rsx had the best skidpad by far. And that the acura is better built. You can "brag" all you want about owning a dogde car, but it makes you look foolish.
Jdren4585 1 year ago
@Jdren4585 actually it didnt have the best skid pad by far. c/d has the rsx-s doing .86gs compared to the srt4s .84. not much difference. oh and btw the srt4 stops 16ft shorter from 70. that should be considered. build quality yea the interior may be nicer. but as far as reliability, my car has 108k and has never been in the shop for ANYTHING. not saying a honda wont last longer but id say 5 years and over 100k miles aint bad. and id much rather have ALOT more torque than leather seats anyway.
TurboNeon185 1 year ago
@Jdren4585 oh and another thing...didnt u notice that the srt4 had the fastest autocross lap and the rsx had the slowest? so where did that extra .02 on the skid pad get it? it was last in absolutely every performance aspect.
TurboNeon185 1 year ago
wow you guys know nothing about cars. nor does this video. the rsx is not the nicest or best built engine and the srt4 is nowhere near the fastest. my friend drives a cobaltsssc and i drive a cobaltsstc and before modding none of the cars in this video kept up. the rsx is embarrassingly slow the srt4 was in my rearview before third (against multiple srt4s) and the ecotec may make funny sounds but it is the only block that can support 1200hp before collapsing. not to mention the features.research
seanpreil 1 year ago
@seanpreil the cobalt in this test was the s/c version which couldnt touch an srt4. so yes the srt4 is by far the fastest in this video. your t/c version would be a close race so saying that an srt4 wouldnt keep up is a bit of an overstatement. i ran a 13.9@102 in my srt4 stock which is exactly what the t/c cobalt is said to run. and i dont know for sure but i highly doubt that that stock 2 liter block will handle 1200hp.
TurboNeon185 8 months ago
wow you guys know nothing about cars. nor does this video. the rsx is not the nicest or best built engine and the srt4 is nowhere near the fastest. my friend drives a cobaltsssc and i drive a cobaltsstc and before modding none of the cars in this video kept up. the rsx is embarrassingly slow the srt4 was in my rearview before third (against multiple srt4s) and the ecotec may make funny sounds but it is the only block that can support 1200hp before collapsing. not to mention the features.research
seanpreil 1 year ago
wow you guys need to do more research on cars before you brag. first off this video knows absolutely nothing about these cars.
if you sit in the rsx youll notice that the center cluster is tacky and cheap looking.
second the srt4 neon is nowhere near the fastes
my friend drives a 2005 cobalt ss sc and i drive a 2009 cobalt ss tc and ill tell you right now that before we started modding our cars that none of the cars in this video could stay anywhere near us.
seanpreil 1 year ago
They shouldn't have called it cheap speed but best all around car that is good at almost anything and bad at nothing
MaddDogg81 1 year ago
I have a turbo RSX-S. Even on about 6.5psi my car still feels damn fast
MaddDogg81 1 year ago
this test was done by over weight 90 year olds
ONE32CLONE 1 year ago
Cheap Speed... and they pick the most expensive and slowest car.
Morons.
toasteroven2001 2 years ago
i have yet to have a honda challange my srt4 as soon as they here that burbble they cower away i will say this though honda does make good lawn mowers
srt4crazy289 2 years ago
i see grandmothers driving the outdated rsx
YoDooDSup 2 years ago
hell yea...can't beat that gearbox...
xacefacex 2 years ago
Seriously the only 2 cars worth a crap were the srt4 and the subie. They are the only ones there with a low 0-60 being around 5.4 seconds and a 14.00 1/4 mile, I had plenty of cars and the srt4 is my favorite one for sure.
Srt4boom 2 years ago 6
@Srt4boom agreed!! dude i went to a dealer the other day just to look around and the salesman was like are you gonna trade that car in?? Ummmm I dont think so!!! that sucker had his greedy eyes on it
pmurcyard 1 year ago
@Srt4boom stock cobalt ss/sc ran a 14.1 1/4mile
atcomx26 1 year ago
Is that why the srt won every race in 1st? In fact, he said it would "beat the piss out of everyone there". I like the rsx, don't get me wrong, but fan boys are annoying for anything. The sound is debatable. The quality of the srt is where it counts, the suspension, engine, and tranny. I do apologize for the gay srt fan boys though. In fact, I'd rather have a rex or a prelude than a rsx.
scyrusb 2 years ago
The quality of the rsx is so out of all of these cars league its not even funny. The motor is by far the most technically advanced motor in the bunch with the best sound. Plus it looks a hell of a lot better than anything seen in this comparison. The gear box is also praised as THE BEST of any FWD out there, thats why, in the end, Honda wins.
97preludeshvtec 2 years ago
@97preludeshvtec dude i know this comment is old as all hell but i had to say something...u say the motor in the rsx is "by far the most technically advanced motor in the bunch". now im not disagreeing with that...however i do think its funny that the 'cavemen' over at dodge could slap a turbo on a motor thats been around since the mid 80s and make more hp and a SIGNIFICANT amount of extra torque then a honda motor that was designed in the last few years.
TurboNeon185 1 year ago
@TurboNeon185
Key phrase being "slap a turbo on". It's much much easier to extract power out of a forced induction engine. You've just proved my point, you can make any motor fast by slapping a turbo on it, now making a car that makes good power and maintains unsurpassed reliability while staying N/A.... That's innovation. Honda FTMFW
97preludeshvtec 1 year ago
@97preludeshvtec the key phrase is actually that.."you can make any motor fast by slapping on a turbo." so y dosent honda put turbos on their cars????? anyway...let me know when a stock honda can outperfrom a stock srtr4. thats innovation? haha,,it seens more like a joke. isnt innovation supposed to be an upgrade of what is currently avalible?
TurboNeon185 1 year ago
Its all about the dc5
Afternoondelight7 2 years ago
SRT-4 quickest but its still a neon. WRX all the way. Reliable easily moded to get big power and all-wheel drive. I live in the snow belt so I tend to favor that option. Why you guys are gettign your panties ina bunch over a car review is funny as hell. Thats their opinion and to each their own. The guy sounds like hes tryign not to laugh at this whoel thing on the vid the whole time. Why not toss in a lotus elise you can get one used for $25k.
guano23 2 years ago
heres a quote from the actual article...
"Here we go again. That same old comparo conundrum. Our underdog victor offers the worst 0-60 time (6.4 seconds), the slowest quarter mile (14.9), the skimpiest back seat, and the most lackluster autocross lap.
Go ahead and write letters. We're used to it."
how exactly does the car that is the slowest in every test and the most expensive win the CHEAP SPEED comparo? i believe that is the definition of bullshit. hence the uproar.
TurboNeon185 2 years ago
This article was when I cancelled my Car and Driver subscription, the article went even further with their stupidity than the video did.
Car and Driver actually admitted that this comparison got more complaints than any other comparison they have ever done, due to the fact that the RSX should have finished at best 4th behind the SRT-4, WRX, and Cobalt SS.
How sad for the RSX fags, when Acura cut the RSX because, and i quote "The RSX does not meet the upscale image of the Acura company"
automotivegenius 2 years ago
they were suposed to have a gli jetta in this comparo. the rsx isnt a racer its just a small gental crusier than any thing else
srt4crazy289 2 years ago
stock for stock srt4 any day
rsx slow over priced honda
wzx expensive heavy massive turbo lag
srt4 its quick, simple, dosent sound like ass
cobaltss its ok drove it, it just feels heavy
ion red line is ok
srt4crazy289 2 years ago
I love my DC5
06blackRSXtypeS 2 years ago
I love my DC5.
rayisdashit 2 years ago
all you noobs are hella dumb...search "stock srt4 vs acura rsx type-s with mods(kpro)"
the DC5 spanks that gay neon all with just i/h/e and a chip
the DC5 is the nicest looking out of the group and makes 210HP N/A lets see your gay domestics make that with out your Fi
FalloutProductions1 2 years ago
fallout.. y would we want to get rid of our forced induction to see how much power it would make? who said honda cant make their cars turbo? nobody. thats their choice. but guess what, once u buy it ur gonna need to put FI on it to play with all the other cars in this test. and another thing, 146ft/lbs@7000rpms isnt as nice as 250ft/lbs@2200rpms. we dont have to downshift 3 times to make a pass. they made these hondas shift so nice cuz honda knew u would be doing a whole lot of it.
TurboNeon185 2 years ago
who needs torque when you have a top end monster? if i turbo my dc5 with only 8 psi ill be making 253 whp which is more than i can say for a neon making 230 horsepower only to the crank
FalloutProductions1 2 years ago
who needs torque? anybody that wants to drive their car on the street everyday. it makes a huge difference in daily driving. btw the rsx is 2 grand more. than u spend antoher 4grand on a turbo and supporting mods. so ur up to 6grand more for 253hp. i can spend 3grand in mods(which means i spent 3 grand less) and be over 300hp and around 300ft/lbs of torque. thats more than i can say for ur rsx that will still be under 200ft/lbs even with a turbo kit.
TurboNeon185 2 years ago
SRTs make around 230 to the wheels. And they make peak torque from 2200 RPM to near redline.
Which is better than the rechargable screwdriver under your hood can do.
toasteroven2001 2 years ago
srt 4's are gay and no one like them only dodge fanboy's, they break down easily and are unreliable, plus there are fwd and turbo wow major fail, they stopped making them after like 2 years cause they suck and a bolted type-s beats a srt4 go look it up
FalloutProductions1 2 years ago
unreliable my ass ive had my stage3 srt4 brand new since 04 and have 60k+ miles on it and it is still as solid as the day i took it off of the showroom floor the only thing is general wear n tear break's oil changes shocks tires and i dont exactly baby the thing either. i had a type-s a while back took it on a few tracks days and every time somthing broke after a lap an a half at local track i had no brakes and clutch was gone. the srt4 takes the same thrashing and i can still drive it home
srt4crazy289 1 year ago
@FalloutProductions1 103k miles on my srt4..and its never been in the shop for anything but oil changes. bolt on type-s beat stock srt4s. thats nice. bolt on srt4s beat built turbo rsx-s's.
TurboNeon185 1 year ago
@TurboNeon185 ha i highly doubt bolt on srt-4a beat turbo rsx's
FalloutProductions1 1 year ago
@FalloutProductions1 well stock turbo srt4s will run low 12s. that much i do know. and big turbos on an otherwise stock motor the srt4s can run low 11s. just to let u know the FASTEST BUILT rsxs are only running low 11s. while the fastest built srt4s are running high 9s with 5 sp trannys and they are running even faster with 3sp autos.
TurboNeon185 1 year ago
@TurboNeon185 bwahahahaha nigga are you fucking trippin?!! 12's? dawg they run like low 14's stock, a bolted kpro rsx runds like 13.9 and if it had turbo then its no competition
FalloutProductions1 1 year ago
@FalloutProductions1 are u retarded? i didnt mean the car runs 12s stock. i meant that the car can run low 12s with the STOCK TURBO. thats y i said stock turbo srt4s can run low 12s. and my srt4 ran a 13.9 STOCK. so exactly how impressive do u think it is to say that a bolted kpro rsx runs 13.9s. so a bolted kpro rsx can keep up with a stock srt4. and an rsx was already 2grand more to begin with. thats nice. haha
TurboNeon185 1 year ago
@TurboNeon185 yea rsx is NA non turbo and i would much rather roll my DC5 than roll a POS srt4
FalloutProductions1 1 year ago
@FalloutProductions1 hey whatever u want to do. and how exactly is it a pos? cuz it doesnt come with leather. ill trade the leather for a turbo anyday. saying u have a non turbo motor with 200hp is nice on paper. but dont forget that u only have 139ft/lbs of torque while the srt4 has 250hp. u honda guys never talk about that part. its nice not having to be in the right gear at all times.
TurboNeon185 1 year ago
@FalloutProductions1 250lb/ft*
TurboNeon185 1 year ago
@TurboNeon185 because i can rape my type-s all day everday to 8000 rpms and there wont be a single problem, just do regular maintenance like oil change and stuff, and even though the torque is non existance, it makes up for it with the 200 horsepower and high rev limit, and turbo on fwd cars is pretty much useless
FalloutProductions1 1 year ago
@FalloutProductions1 actually this comparo proved that turbo on a fwd is far from useless. it was fastest to 60, fastest in the quartermile, and had the fastest autocross lap. looks like that turbo was put to good use if u ask me. and where did the high reving 200hp n/a motor in the lightest car get u? ahh..last place in all 3 of those tests. and im up to 103k miles without a problem other than a slipping clutch. i guess thats where having no torque would be better huh?
TurboNeon185 1 year ago
srt is a shitty car with poor reliability and just like any other dumbestic, has poor resale value
jf1gd2 2 years ago
So I guess that's why they have less recalls, higher reliability ratings from Consumer Reports, and a higher resale value compared to ALL the 2004 / 2005s listed in this comparo, today.
You fail at the internet.
toasteroven2001 2 years ago
I own an SRT-4 ACR and the guy saying the seats cut off your circulation is a sissy. The ACR is meant for a completely different thing than the other cars on the list. It was built to be taken to a track and to me it is not uncomfortable. I would have taken either the WRX or SRT-4 to win this. And the exhaust note is one of the best things about it if they cant handle it too bad for them.
Trox3985 2 years ago
i think the dumbestic owners thought that cheaply-made cars should win
jf1gd2 2 years ago
Honda Civic is built in Canada. Does that count as an import? Same with the Corolla...
toasteroven2001 2 years ago
The Si Civic is made in Canada, not the regular trims which are made in Ohio. And the Corolla is made in Fremont, CA so you're wrong there too.
jf1gd2 2 years ago
Civics (and their engines) are built in Alliston, ON for the Canadian market. Previous gen Si was imported.
Corollas are built at Cambridge since 1988. Vehicles made at this plant include the Corolla, Matrix and Lexus RX 350.
Besides, US-built still means that they're dumbestics, dumbass. So thanks for supporting my argument against yourself.
toasteroven2001 2 years ago
maybe the canadian market ones are built there, but the US ones are made in Marysville, OH.
corollas are built in Fremont, CA according to a GM-Toyota contract since the early 90's so thanks for supporting your wrongness you faggot.
jf1gd2 2 years ago
I guess the american car lovers are too stupid to realize that the title cheap speed doesnt necessarily mean the fastest cheapest car will/should win..If numbers were all that mattered then domestic cars would be winning most of the comparos. They don't.
kichy1998 2 years ago
If test was about speed (which it should be, why is it called cheap speed???) the SRT would have spanked it.
We at Car and Driver are a bunch of gay fags though, that's why we choose the expensive and slow as fuck Acura... awesome *lol*
TmPgamefreak 3 years ago
And thats why the SRT-4 needs a bigger engine and forced induction to beat an RSX Type S.... Yeah they are slow... lol Don't hate em because they are better ;) Just buy one and be happy you own a top car
zacren 2 years ago
the rsx ftw
1995boy 3 years ago
Rsx for me too!
03Gs430 3 years ago
i think that car and driver are biased towards imports for some reason. rsx was slowest and most expensive, srt4 was definitely the fastest, and i think the cobalt ss looked the best out of all of them. the last one is just my opinion though
muscletruckdude 3 years ago
are you fucking retarted? your biased dumbass, the cobalt looks like complete shit, the rsx looks way cleaner and nicer
FalloutProductions1 2 years ago
thats your opinion dumbass. no need to get mad lol
muscletruckdude 2 years ago
my bad forgot to leave a couple out because so would the WRX and the ION RL
diggitty801 3 years ago
i have to disagree. i have drivin all at racing speeds and i must say for purpose built track, the wrx is the fastest. for acceleration, the srt4 whoops all of them. for balance, the rsx has the edge. the cobolt is nicer then the ion, but the overall performance is really nothing to brag about. im not biased, just my well informed opinion on the subject of cars.
nJDMmaster 3 years ago
how are you disagreeing with me?? all i said was that all of the other cars in the test are faster than the ACURA RSX. So why did it win.
diggitty801 3 years ago
my bad, you responded to my previous comment by mistake i guess. but i do disagree that the rsx was the slowest car in the test. not slower then cobalt ss or the ion redline overall for track driving the type s is a great car. definately superior to the ss and redline.
nJDMmaster 3 years ago 2
agreed
rmnovak86 3 years ago
the RSX looks the best in YOUR opinion. and i would say it prolly has one of the worst top ends. so what that it can rev higher. the SRT-4 and the Cobalt SS would both SMOKE the shit out of the RSX from say a good high end run like a 100 mph pull.
diggitty801 3 years ago
theres so much more than drag racing my friend
viktord1 3 years ago 2
So the car that is the slowest and most expensive of the bunch gets first place. LOL. How does this make sense in a "cheap speed" contest. Again, more blatent bias for honda. Nevermind the fact that the SRT4 and the SS actually beat the piss out of an RSX and a WRX in performance numbers and on the tract. Go fuck yourself C&D. More bias opinions from close minded morons.
mdb25 3 years ago 3
oh jesus your fucking kidding me. the rsx won?? are you fucking me?? its supposed to be cheap SPEED not cheap "whos engine can rev the highest" ppfffttt GTFO. pussy RSX.. its the slowest one in the group!!
diggitty801 3 years ago
yeah but its also n/a unlike the rest, and it looks the best lol, also better high end :D
ttownsthug209 3 years ago
lmfao... Its the fastest if you add any of the turbo or s/c set ups.... its 200hp without either... the cobalt and redline are 205 SUPERCHARGED lmfao... I love the srt4 but its engine is still ass without the turbo ;) dont hate
rmnovak86 3 years ago
Doesn't matter, the car HAS a turbo. You can say woulda, coulda, shoulda, all you want, but the fact remains: The RSX is the slowest, most expensive POS in this test, and does not deserve the title of first place in any article titled Cheap Speed. Bottom line. Quit making stupid statements, stick to the facts.
al2683 3 years ago
not so sure. the exit speed of the wrx out of corners is superior to that of the srt4. its simply to to the fact that the srt is fwd. a better tire would only make the advantage grow. however, adding to your conclusion i love the responsiveness of the srts turbo even though its bigger on a bigger engine. the wrx is tuned for down low fuel economy, which hurts performance in stock trim. but to each his own, they are both good cars. flip a coin, and that would be my track car. but day to day,WRX
nJDMmaster 3 years ago
except i own a type s and know why it does place first... and obviously you dont cause you are basing your response on this video only. ]
speed1205 3 years ago
Title Of Comparison: Cheap Speed
Cheap (cost of car) SRT4 is cheaper than the RSX
Speed (performance) SRT4 is faster in EVERY category than the RSX.
Tell me where I've missed something here, you asshat.
al2683 3 years ago
SRT4 ACR... You've missed something there, asshat.
senser1080 3 years ago
Who is this a reply to? A STOCK non ACR srt4 is faster than the RSX in every possible category of performance. You don't even need the ACR upgrade.
al2683 3 years ago 2
Performance wise, yes, comfort, not at all, wait a sec, what the hell am I talking about?. Ignore me.
senser1080 3 years ago
magazine comparos would be totally unnecessary if the only judging criteria were cost and performance numbers. the srt4 is faster than a mercedes 300 sl gullwing. which would you rather have?
ulcerprone 3 years ago
Are you retarded? Say it with me... "CHEAP SPEED", do you know what either word means? The gullwing is going to cost one hell of a lot more than the SRT-4, so the comparison is moot.
al2683 3 years ago
did you forget your geritol this morning? i'll slow it down for you, dear. the title "cheap speed" refers to the cars in the comparison, which are both comparably inexpensive and fast. the title however does not indicate that cost and performance are the only criteria by which the cars in the comparison are judged, because, in that case, testing the cars at all would be totally moot. but you're forgiven for being overly literal and obtuse. btw, i can get you a real nice deal on a crown vic.
ulcerprone 3 years ago
Here is the deal: If you title an article CHEAP SPEED, then the main criteria by which you designate a winner need to be price and performance, hands down. The RSX is the slowest, most expensive car in the comparison, therefore it in no way should have won. Your take on this is utterly ignorant and stupid, the criteria are set in the title, even Car And Driver admitted they fucked it up. It is called "Advertising Dollars", not 'unbiased comparo'. By the way, Mercedes sucks balls, SRT4 for me
al2683 3 years ago 7
you do realize that the reason the srt-4 is a turd with out the turbo is because it is build with dish piston that are designed to support more boost pressure . it does hurt the motor if it doesn't have a turbo but the car is specifically designed to have one where as the acura has domed pistons. which are designed to compress air pressure within the cylinder an create more combustion
ONE32CLONE 1 year ago
i would have ranked them wrx, srt4, rsx, cobalt, then ion. maybe preferanec but i have drivin all of them.
nJDMmaster 3 years ago
That's because your biased and your pretty much doing it because of what you like..... Id do RSX Srt-4 WRx CObalt ion... But i own a RSX so im biased also... plus the SRT-4 molest all those cars...
rmnovak86 3 years ago
please read again, i have drivin all of them. im not biased, im giving you my honest assesment. in standard trim a srt-4 could beat a wrx on a track, but put 1/2 decent tires on the wrx and its game over. sure the srt4 has the responsive turbo, but it cant handle like a wrx unless the suspension is reworked.
nJDMmaster 3 years ago
Not exactly true, the ACR SRT-4 will terrorize the WRX on the track. While I agree with your comment about the WRX tires (stupid that they put those shitty comfy all weather tires on for stock) even with performance tires the ACR with the extra power will clean house on the track. You have to have a VERY curvy track with next to no straight aways to for the WRX to come close.
al2683 3 years ago
well in some parts you r rite but the regular srt4 its no the same as an ACR pkg. the ACR comes with better suspension, G-force series tires, has better sway bars than the regular srt, and other stuff.../ so as in handling on autocross the ACR feels like on rails has a very good handling.
gearxultra 3 years ago
good video! my names Kaitlyn, kinda feelin bored if any1 wants to join me on cam or wana chat i will be signed on at __ FriendlyFlirts(.COM) __ my user ID there is Kaitlyn_exkcpqoejqe chat soon xx its FR33 to j0in! mwah
govnukon 3 years ago
slut
rmnovak86 3 years ago
Also, as far as trade in values are concerned... I have this to say: Anyone who buys a car with the idea that it is something more than a commodity is a fool. Cars depreciate. It's as simple as that. I personally feel that people choose SRTs and SS's b/c they're less expensive and FASTER than their foreign counterparts. Sure sacrifices have to me made to save on cost (the interior). Furthermore, if you really want a good interior, then you shouldn't be looking at sport compacts.
mdb25 3 years ago 2
less expensive to purchase, less expensive to modify, nearly impossible to steal due to the SKIM key (can't hotwire the SRT4). I don't give a shit about resale value because I plan on keeping this car forever. I will trade in our quad cab pickup, the SRT4 is the fun toy, and oh damn it's so fun to put BUS lengths on crap hondas and rsx's.
automotivegenius 3 years ago
I love how these idiots with Hondas act like the engines inside them are somehow super advanced technology that the Big3 cannot reproduce. LMAO. Stop living in a fantasy world. Vtec is variable valve timing.... a concept that is actually quite old. Do some reading if you dont believe me. SS's and SRTs engines were designed for FI. Unlike hondas they don't need to be at 6K RPM or higher to actually make some real power. Hence why both cars pound on Si's and RSXs.
mdb25 3 years ago 3
Torque FTW!
TmPgamefreak 3 years ago
@mdb25 I love how idiots like you that don't know much about cars, bash on what you don't know. Honda designed their cars around their engines. If you look at blueprints of all the Engine's in this video, you willsee that hondas are extremely well built engines built precise to the T
Im a 13yr honda/toyota/chevrolet technician, and I can tell you right now you are speaking off of your Opinion and Miss-Information. I can garuntee that
jdmcivic91 1 year ago
08 cobalt ss is my new car
wellshii 3 years ago
As usual, Car & Driver sucks the nuts of Honda/Acura. My ACR has never cut off my circulation, the seats are the best I have ever had in a car. And I am a big guy. The RSX's braking, acceleration, and handling are so inferior its a laugh. Yea, its a nice car for a broad to commute to work to her receptionist job, but goddamn, what a disappointment of a car, especially after the Integra GS-R and Type-R. On the autocross course, my SRT-4 obliterates Hondas cushy second rate integra.
VVT4ME 3 years ago 4
damn that saturn is fugly.
gonnaragonu 3 years ago
Title of Comparison = Cheap Speed
Winner = Acura RSX??
RSX = most expensive, SLOWEST car in the test.
Tell me how that makes ANY sense. This is the stupidest title that Car and Driver ever gave an article, and it's why I no longer have a subscription to that joke of a magazine.
If you are going to have an article titled CHEAP SPEED, you give the award to the...
FASTEST = SRT4
CHEAPEST = SRT4
Car and Driver is dillusional
automotivegenius 3 years ago
very well put.... agree all the way. the regular srt-4 (not acr) would of been cheaper, and still faster than its competition.
frankmopar98 3 years ago
Exactly. The RSX is a decent car, but should not have been even in the top 3 of that comparison.
Hell, even now, it would still not qualify top 3 with the current line up. I would say the top 3, in no particular order currently would be the Mazdaspeed3, the Caliber SRT4, and the up and coming Cobalt SS Turbo (which just ran a 14.0 at 99 mph in one review).
All three of those cars are far and away better than anything acura or honda has for under 25,000
automotivegenius 3 years ago
the RSX is the only car that won't leave you stranded on the side of the road on the way to Vegas. dumbasses.
jf1gd2 3 years ago
They wernt jus lookin at speed if you guys were paying attention. Overall the Type S has a more advance engine. Better Fit and finish and interior. All around its the best bang for your buck.
jtlovett27 3 years ago
Once again, what is the name of the article? CHEAP SPEED. Cheap meaning PRICE of the car, SPEED meaning performance. If Car And Driver wants to run a comparison like this and give it to the most expensive, slowest pile of crap in the comparison, they should name the article EXPENSIVE SLOTH next time, to more accurately depict how they are going to vote. The Type S motor is weak, WEAK SAUCE!! No torque, can't mod beyond a certain hp. SRT4 motor blows it away, 500 hp stock internals!!
automotivegenius 3 years ago
the piece of shit neon has a bigger engine and turbocharging lol. the rsx with a smaller engine and no turbocharging makes more than the neon would without either. it also has a smoother transmission with 6 gears instead of 5 and a shift knob that's made of better material than soda bottles. jap cars are such piles of crap with their leather, fit and finish, and higher resale values. fuck it, when i need a used car i always consider a cavalier over a civic because the civic is a pile of crap!
jf1gd2 3 years ago
You'd lose all your money in vegas just like you'd lose all your money if you bet it on an RSX vs an SRT4
automotivegenius 3 years ago 2
you'd lose all your money in vegas like you'd lose all your money on a trade-in of a dumbestic POS like a neon or cobalt.
jf1gd2 3 years ago
Ah, once again, a honda lover has to resort to 'resale value' and the old shit argument about 'if your car had no turbo' wah wah wah! Cry some more why don't you? And your RSX is little better than a rebadged civic, douchebag. Also, six speeds just means more shifting, not that you would win a quarter mile against the srt4, or ANY race for that matter, except maybe a race to starbucks. Does your RSX have hard wood floors too, you homo?
automotivegenius 3 years ago 2
once again you have to ignore all the pitfalls with your crappy domestic. the RSX is made in japan and the civic is made in ohio of entirely different parts. the powertrain, suspension, and interior are nothing alike. the only similarities are in the body architecture and the fact they both have 2 doors. your POS NEEDS turbocharing in order to keep up with imports that dont use them haha...and fyi i'm a girl you bucktoothed redneck.
jf1gd2 3 years ago
Ah, you are a girl, that explains how you know absolutely NOTHING about cars. Get your fat ass into the kitchen where you belong, you pimply faced bitch.
automotivegenius 3 years ago
no wonder you talk and treat women like that, you REALLY ARE a redneck. you probably couldn't get one with that attitude. I bet you think domestics are just as good as imports. good luck with your shitty cars.
jf1gd2 3 years ago
Let's not forget who brought stupid stereotypes into this conversation you ignorant blabbing windbag. Your response to my comment is quite funny considering that. I merely stated what I did because I knew you would act like this. It really is no surprise that you drive an RSX, it's a slow girl's car.
automotivegenius 3 years ago
So is a WRX SRT-4 and CObalt without the fucking Turbo and S/c..... Engine alone??? The K20a2 would molest all the others... seeing as how they are only about 160hp without the fucking Turbo and s/c.... automotive genius my left nut.. mother fucker
rmnovak86 3 years ago
I can't even understand what you just posted, but I hope it's not the old naturally aspirated versus turbo argument again, that is the stupidest argument ever. If that were true, why does it cost MORE to get a naturally aspirated car than to get the better turbo or supercharged cars? None of you Honda nuthuggers can respond to the FACT that it's moronic to name an article "Cheap Speed" and give the title to a piece of slow shit most expensive car in the bunch.
automotivegenius 3 years ago 2
Civic is not made in ohio. It's assembled there. No matter how you slice it, the cars are MADE IN JAPAN. Just because honda sets up a handful of plants here in the US in order to slap on fenders and doors, doesn't qualify them as being american. Secondly, I wouldn't be calling the SS and SRT "crappy domestics". Both cars have trounced the RSX-S and civic Si in nearly every course and/or type of race. A fact that has been PROVEN by nearly every single reputable automotive source out there
mdb25 3 years ago 2
And one more thing... if you really think that american cars need FI to have powerful engines, then you clearly have no sort of grasp on engine technology. Don't make statements like this unless you know what you are talking about. SS and SRTs are designed to be FI. Do you have any clue what compression ratio is? Clearly not. If so, then you'd know that the Si and RSX-s run under high compression. This enables them to have high hp, but very difficult to place under FI. Idiot.
mdb25 3 years ago
id still take the ion: i love it
br17457 4 years ago
The thing with the SRT-4 is that Dodge spent most of it's money under the hood. and built a basic interior. Honda doesn't really have much under the hood so they balance out. And remember, Dodge had a small budget for the SRT-4.
Boosted24liter 4 years ago 3
so on this review the gm cars are cheap that's bs and the dodge can beat the crap out of all of them then i know for fact that it will. they put acura as number 1 hell what kind of review is this the slowest car is number 1 now if i find a acura to race on the street against a srt4 the acura will not even try because it's like taking a knife to a gun fight .. screw car and driver
richsara987 4 years ago
God why da hell did they uglify the subie
san770 4 years ago
these damn reviews and opinion are b.s. Just the tone and attitude toward the redline and cobalt ss are demeaning. what makes the redline cheap "OH IT FEELS LIKE IT" i'm tellin u these reviews are dumb. lets all buy over priced luxury jap cars and compair them to budget sport comp. cars made in the States. Stupid.
revhrd4 4 years ago
If the RSX had a turbo then you couldn't say the american cars should have won, seriously
MaddDogg69 4 years ago
But they don't have turbos so we can say it.
NYCSRT4 4 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
SRT-4 HAS A PT CRUISER engine with a turbo! ROFL LMAO!!!!
xxtrustxx 4 years ago
Yup, and isn't it sad that with it's PT Cruiser engine it's faster than most sports cars! Probably faster than your car too!
NYCSRT4 4 years ago 4
nyc ur a dick
96mx6 4 years ago
No, NYC is right, and guess what you Acura tards, the PT Cruiser with the turbo is faster than your RSX, oh sucks to be you! There goes grandma in her Turbo PT, beating your asses hahaha. Oh, but you have that leather interior, well, that will look good at Starbucks, enjoy your crapaccino
automotivegenius 3 years ago
that's cause the only way that piece of shit can be fast is with turbocharging. a non-turbo PT loser has a bigger engine than the RSX and is way slower. not to mention the car is hideous whereas the RSX is fucking hot.
jf1gd2 3 years ago
that's cause the only way that piece of shit can be fast is with turbocharging. a non-turbo PT loser has a bigger engine than the RSX and is way slower. not to mention the car is hideous whereas the RSX is fucking hot.
jf1gd2 3 years ago
The PT Crusier and The RSX-S Shold not even be in the same conversation
jtlovett27 3 years ago
its turbo charged, any one can turbo charge a car. It all about N/A, The RSX has over 100 HP per liter that is amazing! Talk about technology.
xxtrustxx 3 years ago
Speed is more important to me than technology. For the same price of a RSX, I got a 1/4 mile in 13.8 and 0-60 in 5.3 stock. SRT-4 ftw!
NYCSRT4 3 years ago 2
"Talk about technology"? Do you have any idea of how engines and FI work? LOL. Furthermore, what "slight mods" are you gonna put on an RSX that are going to help it kill an SS?? Humor me with your acumen. Personally, I think you know nothing. Let me educate you a bit. Ever hear of compression ratio? That 2.0 ecotec in the SS was designed from the ground up to be FI. Try doing FI on a RSX. It's cost you SEVERAL THOUSAND dollars and wont net you much gain.
mdb25 3 years ago