njandrewg

probably a repost...but if not ...boo ya

17 inch rims

new headlights/taillights

New front/rear bumper

New colors



Also no pics but new intake/exhaust manifold + exhaust....so the 20hp extra rumour to the type S is believable.

njandrewg

ClubRSX thread
http://forums.clubrsx.com/showthread.php?t=180062

Atlas

thats nice to know. it will still be a K20A2 for the type-s, right?

njandrewg

they might call it k20a4 cuz it supposedly has new intake/exhaust manifold...the cams are still the same # tho

silver comet

wow, soo many new colors.

whiteDCfiver

i see desert silver on there, i thought they were gonna discontinue that color?

DC5.03

its says 2002-2005. That's why DSM might still be there.

DJ_SaNdOz

Now if only you could buy the Type S w/ cloth seats, I'd gladly trade in the 02 for an 05

Civicboy

The headlights look like they are of the 7th gen Civic and the tails look like Prelude tails. Hmm?

03ephatch

great info. thanx for the paint code!

njandrewg

the guy who posted these took a look at mirror colors and the following are probably the colors
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I looked at the side mirrors and these were the 05 colors listed.
Night hawk black pearl
Satin silver
Milano red
Premium white pearl
Taffeta white
Vivid blue pearl
Jade green metallic
Magnesium metallic
Blaze orange metallic</TD></TR></TABLE>

TsunamiZC

17's ........ there better be bigger brakes to back that up ......or else they are just a bunch of ricers

t o m

those tail lights look like some APC stuff there

SwtnShyBoi29

that's a lotta colors

njandrewg

everyone was always bitching why Type S didn't look more different from a base...17' vs 16" rims was one of things ppl were saying they should have done

TsunamiZC

yeah ...for a bunch of ricers i guess

C-Zero

17's carry more speed and fit biggers brakes, not a ricer thing ppl.


Modified by C-Zero at 6:28 AM 7/29/2004

TsunamiZC

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by C-Zero &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">17's carry more speed and fit biggers brakes, not a ricer thing ppl.


Modified by C-Zero at 6:28 AM 7/29/2004</TD></TR></TABLE>

Oh please ....what ricer told you that.



17's add alot more rotational mass, that translates to less power at the wheels, and a more abrupt break away speed...

And you can fit a pretty decent big brake kit under 16x7's or 16x8's.

C-Zero

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tsunami_zc &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Oh please ....what ricer told you that.



17's add alot more rotational mass, that translates to less power at the wheels, and a more abrupt break away speed...

And you can fit a pretty decent big brake kit under 16x7's or 16x8's. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Keep talking someday you will say something intelligent, do some reasearch before calling somthing ''rice'' cause that childish *** word is getting old.

Mugen has aftermarket wheels for the RSX which ARE 17's.

Hasport's Time attack Integra used 17's with 245 to get a time 3 seconds slower than a skyline GTR on the same track.

TsunamiZC

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by C-Zero &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Keep talking someday you will say something intelligent, do some reasearch before calling somthing ''rice'' cause that childish *** word is getting old.

Mugen has aftermarket wheels for the RSX which ARE 17's.

Hasport's Time attack Integra used 17's with 245 to get a time 3 seconds slower than a skyline GTR on the same track.


</TD></TR></TABLE>

How about YOU do your own research. And put your Stupid Street magazine down for a second.

Ok..... i dont know how many times i have had to post this ... but i will post it once again .....

the root of the big wheel/little wheel is not weight.... its rotational inertia (also called moment of inertia)....

the physics equation has 4 constituents

k, m, r, i
where k is some constant......&gt; m is the mass of the wheel....&gt; r is the radius and i is the moment of inertia

the relationship is thus:
i = km(r^2)

what this means is that even though you have a larger wheel that may weigh the same as a smaller wheel the radius is the more important factor...

a 20" wheel that weighs 10 lbs has TWICE the moment of inertia as a 10" wheel that weighs 20 lbs...

moment of inertia is not only related to resistance to rotational acceleration..... but to changes in rotational direction...&gt; in other words the wheel with the smaller moment of inertia will offer better steering response as well as better acceleration.... a few examples i can offer here are thus&gt;

&gt; ever take the front wheel off a bicycle, hold it by either side of the axle, and spin the wheel as fast you can..... and try to change the direction... the wheel resists this

&gt;try the same test with a smaller wheel .....and the resistance is vastly reduced...


the second and more relevant example&gt; polar moment of inertia in a car&gt; the steering response from the moment of inertia of the wheel acts IDENTICALLY to the rotational responsiveness of a mid-engine car..... its because the weight is more centrally located


yes, the tire may be one of the heavier portions of the unsprung mass of the car.... but even moving the sidewall inwards by making it taller... you are putting more "air" at the outside of the equation... effectively reducing the "r" portion for most of the individual portions of mass of the rotating wheel/tire combo.......


nevermind that having a taller sidewall allows more forgiving handling... reducing the breakaway speed and making the car more controllable & predictable at the limit....

Obviously by your post, you really didnt do your own research yourself. Which is fine, we live we learn. But dont believe what every magazine tells you.

C-Zero

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tsunami_zc &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

How about YOU do your own research. And put your Stupid Street magazine down for a second.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

Sorry don't know WTF your talking about I got this from brian G himself.

''bigger wheels are rice'' <FONT COLOR="red">B/S</FONT>

<FONT COLOR="blue">Not how I learned it from doing a chassis engineering chapter. Traction VS Load</FONT>


Modified by C-Zero at 8:40 AM 7/29/2004

TsunamiZC

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by C-Zero &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Sorry don't know WTF your talking about I got this from brian G himself.

''bigger wheels are rice'' <FONT COLOR="red">B/S</FONT>

<FONT COLOR="blue">Not how I learned it from doing a chassis engineering chapter. Traction VS Load</FONT>


Modified by C-Zero at 8:40 AM 7/29/2004</TD></TR></TABLE>

The common trend in race cars, and by race cars i mean, JGTC, CART , Indy, LeMans, and even NHRA drag racing, is to run the smallest wheels your brakes will allow, corrensponding with the amount of power the car has.

C-Zero

JGTC NSX runs 18's.

But I am corresponding to my car.

If 16's are good for you

TsunamiZC

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by C-Zero &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">JGTC NSX runs 18's.

But I am corresponding to my car.

If 16's are good for you </TD></TR></TABLE>

And your point.......

The Arta NSX has brakes that actually require 18's..... not to mention the power to require the brakes of its size .....

That wouldnt mean I need to run 18's on a 200whp car, because a JGTC NSX does ....

C-Zero

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tsunami_zc &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

That wouldnt mean I need to run 18's on a 200whp car, because a JGTC NSX does .... </TD></TR></TABLE>

I did'nt say that.