Which Acura RSX Version Should You Buy?
The Acura RSX catalogue covers one generation of Coupe produced from July 2001 through June 2006, including its September 2004 restyling. Every version uses a naturally aspirated 1,998 cc Gasoline engine with 4 Inline cylinders, front-transverse installation, multi-point distributed injection and FWD.
The Acura RSX catalogue covers one generation of Coupe produced from July 2001 through June 2006, including its September 2004 restyling. Every version uses a naturally aspirated 1,998 cc Gasoline engine with 4 Inline cylinders, front-transverse installation, multi-point distributed injection and FWD. The central choice is between the 2.0 AT and the several 2.0 MT specifications: outputs range from 160 hp to 212 hp, while acceleration from 0–100 km/h ranges from 11 seconds to 6.2 seconds. The best choice therefore depends on whether the priority is an Automatic gearbox, the lighter 5-speed Manual specification, or one of the substantially quicker 6-speed Manual versions.
Acura RSX generations and versions
The pre-restyling first-generation Acura RSX was produced from July 2001 through August 2004 as a Coupe with 4 versions. Its 2.0 AT makes 160 hp and uses a 5-speed Automatic gearbox. The three versions named 2.0 MT must be distinguished by output: the 160 hp car has a 5-speed Manual gearbox, while the 203 hp and 212 hp cars have 6-speed Manual gearboxes.
The restyled first-generation Acura RSX was produced from September 2004 through June 2006, retaining the Coupe body and offering 4 versions. The 5-speed 2.0 AT and 5-speed 2.0 MT increased from 160 hp to 162 hp. The 6-speed 2.0 MT with 203 hp retained that output, and the other 6-speed 2.0 MT retained its 212 hp output. All four continued with FWD.
Acura RSX engine specs compared
All versions share a 1,998 cc displacement, 4 Inline cylinders, 4 valves per cylinder, no boost and a front-transverse engine layout. They also use multi-point distributed injection. The key distinctions are output, torque, gearbox and required fuel grade.
| Production period and exact version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders and layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| July 2001–August 2004 — 2.0 AT | 160 hp (118 kW) at 6,500 rpm | 191 Nm at 4,000 rpm | 1,998 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Automatic | FWD |
| July 2001–August 2004 — 2.0 MT, 160 hp | 160 hp (118 kW) at 6,500 rpm | 191 Nm at 4,000 rpm | 1,998 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| July 2001–August 2004 — 2.0 MT, 203 hp | 203 hp (149 kW) at 7,400 rpm | 193 Nm at 6,000 rpm | 1,998 cc | Gasoline, 95 | 4, Inline | No | 6-speed Manual | FWD |
| July 2001–August 2004 — 2.0 MT, 212 hp | 212 hp (156 kW) at 7,800 rpm | 194 Nm at 7,000 rpm | 1,998 cc | Gasoline, 95 | 4, Inline | No | 6-speed Manual | FWD |
| September 2004–June 2006 — 2.0 AT | 162 hp (119 kW) at 6,500 rpm | 191 Nm at 4,000 rpm | 1,998 cc | Gasoline, 95 | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Automatic | FWD |
| September 2004–June 2006 — 2.0 MT, 162 hp | 162 hp (119 kW) at 6,500 rpm | 191 Nm at 4,000 rpm | 1,998 cc | Gasoline, 95 | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| September 2004–June 2006 — 2.0 MT, 203 hp | 203 hp (149 kW) at 7,400 rpm | 192 Nm at 6,000 rpm | 1,998 cc | Gasoline, 95 | 4, Inline | No | 6-speed Manual | FWD |
| September 2004–June 2006 — 2.0 MT, 212 hp | 212 hp (156 kW) at 7,800 rpm | 194 Nm at 7,000 rpm | 1,998 cc | Gasoline, 95 | 4, Inline | No | 6-speed Manual | FWD |
The approximate specific outputs calculated from the listed displacement are 80.1 hp per litre for 160 hp, 81.1 hp per litre for 162 hp, 101.6 hp per litre for 203 hp and 106.1 hp per litre for 212 hp. The 212 hp 2.0 MT therefore provides the highest output per litre, while the 160 hp and 162 hp versions develop their peak torque at 4,000 rpm rather than the 6,000–7,000 rpm shown for the more powerful specifications.
Acura RSX performance and fuel economy
| Production period and exact version | 0–100 km/h | Top speed | City consumption | Highway consumption | Combined consumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| July 2001–August 2004 — 2.0 AT | 11 s | 190 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| July 2001–August 2004 — 2.0 MT, 160 hp | 9.2 s | 214 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| July 2001–August 2004 — 2.0 MT, 203 hp | 6.7 s | 232 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| July 2001–August 2004 — 2.0 MT, 212 hp | 6.2 s | 214 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| September 2004–June 2006 — 2.0 AT | 11 s | 190 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| September 2004–June 2006 — 2.0 MT, 162 hp | 11 s | 190 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| September 2004–June 2006 — 2.0 MT, 203 hp | 6.7 s | 214 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| September 2004–June 2006 — 2.0 MT, 212 hp | 6.2 s | 218 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
For acceleration, the 212 hp 2.0 MT is the clear numerical choice in both periods: its 6.2-second result is 4.8 seconds quicker than the 11-second 2.0 AT. The 203 hp 2.0 MT takes 6.7 seconds, only 0.5 second behind the 212 hp specification.
Top speed produces a different comparison. Before the restyling, the 203 hp 2.0 MT has the highest listed figure at 232 km/h, exceeding the 212 hp 2.0 MT by 18 km/h. After the restyling, the 212 hp 2.0 MT reaches 218 km/h, 4 km/h above the 203 hp version. Fuel consumption is not measured for any version, so the data cannot support an economy ranking or an mpg comparison.
Acura RSX dimensions, weight and capacity
Exterior dimensions, wheel sizes and weight distribution are not measured for any listed RSX version. The available comparison covers kerb weight, gross weight, ground clearance and fuel-tank capacity.
| Production period and exact version | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Ground clearance | Fuel tank | Wheel sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| July 2001–August 2004 — 2.0 AT | not measured | not measured | 152 mm | 50 L | not measured |
| July 2001–August 2004 — 2.0 MT, 160 hp | 1,245 kg | 1,800 kg | 152 mm | 50 L | not measured |
| July 2001–August 2004 — 2.0 MT, 203 hp | 1,280 kg | not measured | 152 mm | 50 L | not measured |
| July 2001–August 2004 — 2.0 MT, 212 hp | 1,310 kg | not measured | 152 mm | 50 L | not measured |
| September 2004–June 2006 — 2.0 AT | 1,280 kg | 1,800 kg | not measured | 50 L | not measured |
| September 2004–June 2006 — 2.0 MT, 162 hp | 1,245 kg | 1,800 kg | not measured | 50 L | not measured |
| September 2004–June 2006 — 2.0 MT, 203 hp | 1,280 kg | 1,850 kg | not measured | 50 L | not measured |
| September 2004–June 2006 — 2.0 MT, 212 hp | 1,310 kg | 1,850 kg | not measured | 50 L | not measured |
Among versions with measured kerb weight, the 1,245 kg 2.0 MT is the lightest. It is 35 kg lighter than the 203 hp 2.0 MT and 65 kg lighter than the 212 hp 2.0 MT. Approximate weight-to-power figures are 7.8 kg/hp for the pre-restyling 160 hp 2.0 MT, 7.7 kg/hp for the restyled 162 hp 2.0 MT, 6.3 kg/hp for the 203 hp 2.0 MT and 6.2 kg/hp for the 212 hp 2.0 MT. The 212 hp car has the greatest measured kerb weight, but it also has the best calculated weight-to-power ratio.
Suspension and braking specifications do not separate the versions: every listed RSX has independent spring suspension at the front and rear, ventilated front discs and rear discs.
Which Acura RSX version should you choose?
Choose the 2.0 AT if an Automatic gearbox is essential. Both production periods combine it with 5 speeds, FWD, 191 Nm and an 11-second 0–100 km/h time. The restyled version adds 2 hp, rising from 160 hp to 162 hp, but its acceleration and 190 km/h top speed remain unchanged. Its measured restyled kerb weight is 1,280 kg; pre-restyling kerb weight is not measured.
Choose the pre-restyling 2.0 MT with 160 hp if low measured weight and stronger performance than the contemporary 2.0 AT matter more than maximum output. It weighs 1,245 kg, matches the Automatic’s 160 hp and 191 Nm, yet reaches 100 km/h 1.8 seconds sooner and has a top speed 24 km/h higher. Both use 5-speed gearboxes and Gasoline rated 92.
The restyled 2.0 MT with 162 hp is also the lightest measured version at 1,245 kg, but its listed 11-second acceleration and 190 km/h top speed are identical to the restyled 2.0 AT. Its numerical advantages over that Automatic are a 35 kg lower kerb weight and the Manual gearbox; the engine output and torque are the same.
Choose the 203 hp 2.0 MT for a compromise between weight and acceleration. In either period it weighs 1,280 kg and reaches 100 km/h in 6.7 seconds. Compared with the 212 hp 2.0 MT, it is 30 kg lighter but gives away 9 hp, 1–2 Nm and 0.5 second in acceleration. The pre-restyling 203 hp version also carries the catalogue’s highest top speed at 232 km/h.
Choose the 212 hp 2.0 MT when acceleration and weight-to-power ratio take priority. It reaches 100 km/h in 6.2 seconds in both periods and produces 194 Nm. Its 1,310 kg kerb weight is the highest measured figure, yet approximately 6.2 kg/hp is the strongest calculated result in the range. Between the two periods, the restyled car retains the same power, torque, acceleration and kerb weight while its listed top speed rises from 214 km/h to 218 km/h.
Prices, sale listings, reliability records and problem data are not measured, so they cannot decide this comparison. On the available specifications alone, the 2.0 AT is the gearbox-led choice, the 160 hp or 162 hp 2.0 MT is the low-weight choice, the 203 hp 2.0 MT balances performance with 30 kg less weight than the most powerful car, and the 212 hp 2.0 MT is the acceleration-led choice.