May Car and Driver

[acilecdps6]

FYI - if you look at the specs for the RSX-S and the Celica GT-S in the May Car and Driver there are some discrepancies.

1. C&D lists the RSX curb weight as 2780lbs, but the Acura web page lists it as 2767 lbs.

2. C&D lists the GT-S curb weight as 2580. Toyota lists the GT-S 6 speed at 2500 (the automatic is 2580).

3. C&D lists the HP/Weight ratio for the RSX at 13.9 lbs per HP and the GTS at 14.3, but if you use each cars PUBLISHED specs the ratio is IDENTICAL at 13.8 lbs per HP.

The amount of torque/lbs is 19.4 lbs per lb ft torque for the RSX, but the GT-S is 19.2 lbs per lb ft torque. I realize the RSX develops it's torque 800 rpms before the GT-S, but the way both engines rev, I think it hardly matters.

A race between the two (pure stock) would/should be a drivers race. I realize the RSX has a lower first and second gear, but the GT-S has a lower final drive, so that pretty much evens things out as well. Too bad C&D's GT-S had rev-limiter problems, because I would have loved to see real acceleration times for the GT-S. It's also too bad the C&D test scores included 'COMFORT' and 'EASE of ENTRY' - which are SUBJECTIVE and best be left for luxury cars, not SPORT COUPES.

[racinjason]

Its another dopey mag test. ~Yawn~

[gts24]

Well did you see the "fun to drive" category??? ? WTF......

[scapamouche]

That rev limit issue really is BIG! The Celica has too narrow a power band even with the 8200 rev limit, when you consider the gearing. I'm not surprised they couldn't get a good time out of it. Even SCC, which apparently everyone hates (hah) could get a 14.9 out of a 2001, but was only getting 15.7 (slower than C&D?) with a 2002.

AS for the figures you listed, so what. If you're buying your car based purely on power to weight ratings, and not on the whole package, then you are welcome to whatever you end up with.

Even with the limitations the Celica has, there's only one car anywhere near its class that I would trade it in for, even with all the nice cars coming out over the last year. Only the WRX. A car that has won universal acclaim from EVERY media review.

[acilecdps6]

Yeah another mag test, so what, but if they are wrong on printing PUBLISHED specs, is it possible they could be wrong on other specs as well. The article was certainly slanted - the Hundai with it's "...junky slamming doors" was only 1 point behind the GT-S in fit and finish. The RSX was scored a '9' on handling and brakes even with the GT-S, but the GT-S out handled and out breaked the RSX. I didn't buy my 2000 GT-S because of a magazine, I bought it because of it's perfomance, and it was/is visually and ergonomically appealing to me, exactly why I would never own a WRX - yeah it's fast, but the rest of the car does nothing for me.

[t2000gts]

2767-2780? yikes, that's a handful of lbs off the curb weight for a Matrix XRS 6-speed!

and the GT-S is most likely closer to 2500 than 2580. a few guys here have weighed their cars and can vouch for that. explains a few of the super-low 14 second runs.