2002 Acura RSX vs. 1996 Rover 800
To start off, 2002 Acura RSX is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Rover 800. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Rover 800 would be higher. At 2,497 cc (6 cylinders), 1996 Rover 800 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2002 Acura RSX (223 HP @ 5600 RPM) has 49 more horse power than 1996 Rover 800. (174 HP @ 6500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2002 Acura RSX should accelerate faster than 1996 Rover 800. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1996 Rover 800 weights approximately 205 kg more than 2002 Acura RSX.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear wheel drive vehicles. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 1996 Rover 800 (240 Nm) has 47 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 Acura RSX. (193 Nm). This means 1996 Rover 800 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2002 Acura RSX.
Compare all specifications:
| 2002 Acura RSX | 1996 Rover 800 | |
| Make | Acura | Rover |
| Model | RSX | 800 |
| Year Released | 2002 | 1996 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1999 cc | 2497 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 223 HP | 174 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 6500 RPM |
| Torque | 193 Nm | 240 Nm |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 4 seats |
| Vehicle Weight | 1230 kg | 1435 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4380 mm | 4890 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1730 mm | 1740 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2540 mm | 2780 mm |
