Acura RSX, ILX and Honda EP3 Forum banner

2013 Si vs 06 RSX

Tags
2013 rsx
16K views 7 replies 6 participants last post by  juicyjoint316 
#1 · (Edited)
About 2 months ago I bought a 2013 Si, and after about 2 months the car's well broken in and I'm well adjusted to it so I figured I'd write a brief review comparing it to my old RSX. The RSX was a base so it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison, but I'll do my best.

Engine & Power

I know a lot of Honda enthusiasts were put off by the K24z7, the redline is only 7k now and it doesn't have vtec on the exhaust cam. But I'd implore anyone who is skeptical for those reasons to take a test drive because it's a hugely impressive engine. The car feels much quicker than it should be, and the mid range is great which can't be said about many Honda motors. between 3.5k and 5.5k rpm the engine is very urgent and erupts in a throaty growl uncharacteristic of a Honda 4 cylinder. This car feels like its alot more powerful than the RX-8, even though the rx8 has 20-30 more hp than it, because the power is there in any gear where as the RX-8 like the k20z1/z3/a2 only has power way at the top. I know comparing a k24z7 to a k20a3 is an unfair comparison so I won't spend too much time comparing them, the k24 is obviously much quicker, it's got a deep throaty sound where the A3 sounded like an enervated, asthmatic fat kid struggling to keep up his friends.

I know some people will always be loyal to a high revving screamer, and its true the k24 doesn't rev as high or have a wail quite like a k20 on its high cam profile, but having the power there immediately without having to downshift to 2nd every time you want to go anywhere is nice.

Transmission

If you've been wondering what Honda's been up to for the last 10 years with one of the biggest developmental teams of any car company and they're still stuck at 200bhp, this is where you start realizing what theyve been doing. While it's true Honda's hp numbers havent grown in the 00s and 10's like they did in the 90s refinement has come a long way. The transmission in the 9th gen Si is almost impossible to hate, the gears glide smoothly, effortlessly and precisely into place, missshifting in this car could only be accomplished by the most inexperienced of teenagers. Honda almost always makes great manual gear boxes and the RSX's was a good one but, the gear box is objectively better than the RSX's. Shifting is a ton of fun too, the gears are incredibly short, keeping it in the power band easily; 2nd gear tops out at 52 mph in this car! Not everyone will love the clutch quite as much as the gearbox though, the clutch is light, REALLY light. There's about as much effort involved in pressing the clutch as there is in pressing the throttle, and not everyone likes that. It's not that the clutch is vague, you get a very clear sense of where it's engaging and it's very forgiving. But a sporty car like this should have a bit of a firmer clutch.


Braking and Suspension


Up until now I haven't really told you anything you couldn't read in Car and Driver but here's where I can get more in depth with comparing the two cars. Brakes were always the RSX's weakest point, especially in the base. Braking in the RSX had to be premeditated, Someone pulls a right on red infront of you right as youre coming by? You better go around them, cause you're not stopping. The brake pedal also felt like you were pressing your foot into mud, it was mushy. The Si's brakes in comparison feel very grippy and convey a much more lively feel through the pedal.

Up until here it may sound like I've just been saying everything about my new car is better than the old one, but the suspension in the RSX is a cause for nostalgia. First, measurable differences. The Si will handle better than the RSX. My Si is on the stock MXM4's and it still handles significantly better than the RSX did on Pilot A/S Sport Plus's. That being said it's not all about numbers. The RSX's suspension from a pure performance perspective was awful, there was too much suspension travel with too much rebound stiffness the result was a suspension constantly moving and doing so very harshly; which made for a very uncomfortable ride and mediocre handling especially over bumpy roads common where I live. But that godawful suspension was part of the RSX's charm; it gave the car a special raw feeling that conducted every bump through the rock hard seats, it put you in contact with the road in ways that the Si simply doesn't and I miss that rawness. That being said the Si is a lot more comfortable, bumps that used to shatter your spine in the RSX are little more than slight disturbances now, this car rides very comfortably for a car with a suspension set up for sportiness.

Steering and Handling

The RSX I believe was the last of Honda's performance cars to use hydraulic steering and it's probably the thing I miss most from the RSX. Steering in the Civic Si is ALOT lighter than the RSX, it's too light infact. That's not to say the steering is vague or sloppy, it's very precise it's actually more precise than the RSX's, as soon as you move the wheel in the Si the wheels begin to turn, where the RSX had more slack before the wheels began to move. However the steering feel of the RSX is simply much more fun. The way every imperfection on the road was transmitted threw the steering wheel is gone in the Si, the drive-by wire set up allows for almost no feel to be conveyed threw the wheel.

Like i said in the previous paragraph the Si does handle significantly better than the RSX despite it's more relaxed feel. A lot of reviewers said the new Si had too much body roll, I think they might be referring to the 2012 because honda revised the suspension and beefed up roll bars in 2013 and I haven't noticed much roll at all, certainly less than the RSX had. The RSX would be at it's limits relatively quickly, the Si corners flatter and has a lot more adhesion around corners even on stock tires. The one area of handling the RSX has a small advantage in is turn in, the Si seems to resist turn in just a tad more which may be a result of its slightly longer wheelbase.

Interior


The interior is actually surprisingly nice, the 2012 model came with lower quality materials and Honda really stepped it up in 2013 the interior is looks like it belongs in a much more expensive sports car, it's more than a simple evolution in interior quality this is a huge step up from the RSX, and really from any car in this class. the plastics are all soft touch, there's tasteful red stitching in the armrests to match the seats and shift knob, and faux carbon fiber that actually looks good. The steering wheel is a good size, its small and thick it has a decent 9 and 3 position, but with the steering wheel mounted controls they take up some space and make the 9 and 3 a little less natural than in the RSX. The seats are much more comfortable than the RSX, they are nicely bolstered but the fact that this civic is specifically for North America is evident, for someone who's 140 pounds like me, the seats may feel a bit wide but it's not like youre sliding around or anything. All the center console controls feel very high quality while maintaining the simplicity that was great to have in the RSX. Standard back up cam is very useful when maneuvering. and the back seats have a lot more room than the RSX, you can fit 2 girls in the back seats without giving them concussions from their heads hitting the roof every bump. The only complaint I have about the interior is that the A pillar is really long and can block your vision when going around left turns.


Short Story short the K24z7 is a great engine that is very potent in the midrange, making it much quicker on the streets than a high revving k20. Mated to a super slick and precise, close ratiod 6 speed the car is a ton of fun to drive spiritedly. Though despite this the Si has lost the rawness that made previous honda performance cars so special. It no longer feels like youre driving a gokart, but a more refined and civilized car, which is fine but with all these new technologies road feel has diminished. If you made it this far you're a trooper, hope I helped anyone considering this car and if you have an questions about it let me know
 
See less See more
#2 ·
drive a type s with a k24a2 and only then make a comparison. You can't compare the P.O.S. k20a3 to the a2/z1 or a k24a2. Also, don't know much about that engine, but I'd look into getting a vtec head. 7k redline sounds pretty gay. Awesome looking car though.
 
#3 ·
Right, I admitted in the first line that a k20a3 isn't a comparable engine to the k24z7, that's why i brought up the RX-8's rotary a bit since it has a similarly distributed powerband as the k20a2/z1. I didn't mean for this to be a Performance comparison between the base rsx and the new Si, but more just for anyone who might have an aging base like I did and was curious about how the new Si is compared to their car.
 
#7 ·
No it really doesn't, my co-worker has a 2014 accord sport with the K24 earth dreams motor and 6spd tranny. It only has 189HP I believe, and my 2013 Si walks him every time, its close but I still beat him. Same goes with 8th gen Si's. Both 8th and 9th gen has same HP but 9th has more torque. I do miss my RSX, but don't regret selling it for my 2013 Si.
 
#8 ·
Bench racing doesn't count as which motor is better.. It has been proven on dyno's at Church's dyno which does read high but is consistent. The earth dreams motor made wayy more TQ over the K24Z7 at a lower RPM and Same HP. Shawn Church said the K24W3 which is the Accord Sport rated at 190HP/185TQ is most likely underrated from the Factory. It's probably making 205hp since it put down the same hp as the k24z7 that they tested..

You got to remember, the Accord is MUCH more heavier than the Si so of course it will lose in a straight line.. plus i don't see Honda advertising the Accord the Same HP as the Si for marketing reason of they want the Si to be their "Sport Car".
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top