Used Car of the Day: 2002 Acura RSX Type-S

by Tim Healey

Published: September 1st, 2023

used car of the day 2002 acura rsx type s

Today's UCOTD speaks to my personal biases -- I have a weird thing for the Acura RSX. Even this beat-up 2002 Acura RSX Type-S catches my eye.

The car has been in storage for three years, so it will need some work to get running. But it does have the six-speed manual transmission and just 78,000 miles. The seller says it runs well, or at least did, but obviously, the battery is dead after three years of storage.

There are cosmetic issues -- faded paint, a crack in the rear bumper, and door dings. But otherwise the car appears to be in good shape and is stock, save for a car alarm.

The seller is based in San Francisco and asks $7,000.

Click here to check it out.

[Images: Seller]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

#UCOTD #UsedCaroftheDay #Acura #AcuraRsx #AcuraRSXTypeS #2002AcuraRSXTypeS #2002AcuraRSX

Tim Healey

Tim Healey grew up around the auto-parts business and has always had a love for cars — his parents joke his first word was “‘Vette”. Despite this, he wanted to pursue a career in sports writing but he ended up falling semi-accidentally into the automotive-journalism industry, first at Consumer Guide Automotive and later at Web2Carz.com. He also worked as an industry analyst at Mintel Group and freelanced for About.com, CarFax, Vehix.com, High Gear Media, Torque News, FutureCar.com, Cars.com, among others, and of course Vertical Scope sites such as AutoGuide.com, Off-Road.com, and HybridCars.com. He’s an urbanite and as such, doesn’t need a daily driver, but if he had one, it would be compact, sporty, and have a manual transmission.

More by Tim Healey

Comments

Join the conversation

5 of 18 comments

Tassos on Sep 02, 2023

Different day, same sheet.
Obsolete, Overpriced, and Uninteresting to collect.
Unsafe at any speed to drive (little PASSIVE safety, poor active safety).

Another gem found, just for youuuuu, by 0.000 Tim.

Like Reply
- See 1 previous
- El scotto on Sep 04, 2023
  
  Glad to see you're hitting your daily quota; keep toiling on the troll farm. We had actual RSX owners comment and this is the best you can do? Tim keeps us amused; you keep us dismayed. I humbly suggest you accelerate your downward spiral.
  
  3
- Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh on Sep 05, 2023
  
  your underwear LOL ...
  
  1
Jeff on Sep 05, 2023

I have a stock 02 type-S in my garage that is way nicer albeit with more mileage. I still drive it a few times a week and it still makes me smile. I was recently offered $10K but there isn't anything as fun you could daily for that money.

2 Reply
- Theflyersfan on Sep 05, 2023
  
  That's awesome that you still have and drive yours. Keep the miles down and the condition good and that $10K offer will likely go way up in a few years. The only thing that I saw wear badly was the leather on the seats. Everything else held up great. Same experience? Even the original stock tires lasted a lot longer than they should, and the paint - sometimes a Honda issue with the darker colors? No problems. That, and the S2000, makes me wish that Honda didn't have to turbocharge everything because the thrill of the high redline and the scream of the engine combined with the vibrations in your feet...it's missed in a lot of today's cars that tend to feel more clinical...more sterile, perhaps. I can compare driving the NA Miata vs. the current ND MX-5. Sure I have more power, more safety gear, and even a little more room (but still no real interior storage), but I don't have the surgeon's feel steering of the NA and NB. And I can take an educated guess and say the same thing between the missed RSX Type-S and the current Integra. I've driven an Integra Type-R and the S2000 - the word "savage" comes to mind when it comes to how they like to be driven and what they give back, and how I wish Honda would give us one more car like that again.
  
  Like

Recent Comments

Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
FreedMike If Dodge were smart - and I don't think they are - they'd spend their money refreshing and reworking the Durango (which I think is entering model year 3,221), versus going down the same "stuff 'em full of motor and give 'em cool new paint options" path. That's the approach they used with the Charger and Challenger, and both those models are dead. The Durango is still a strong product in a strong market; why not keep it fresher?