Questions about '89 Acura Integra vs. '90 model (new shape)
Dhruv Devichand
and was wondering whether it is worth looking at the newer design which
came out in 1990.
I understand there is a difference in power... the 1989 has the 1.8litre DOHC
producing 118bhp while the newer model has an output of 130bhp.
Is this difference tremendous? Also would anyone know whether Acura are using
the same engine modified in some way?
Are there any other technical changes between the two?
My choice is between the 1989 with 65000km, loaded with pw,pl, air, cruise..4dr
sedan or for another $2000 for the 1990 model 3dr coupe, with cruise and
electric sunroof and the 130bhp engine (about 70000km). Is the difference
in price worth it for the newer model?
Dhruv
Dwight Joe
Dhruv Devichand <dev...@newton.ccs.tuns.ca> wrote:
>I am looking at a 1989 Acura Integra, the design with the pop-up head lights,
>and was wondering whether it is worth looking at the newer design which
>came out in 1990.
Save the money and get a brand new Honda Civic Coupe. It is closer in
performance to the original Acura Integra.
The 1994 Integra seems closer to a real sports car--with the accompanying
high insurance rate. Not worth it. The car's pretty ugly too.
Thomas D. Halter
In a previous article, dev...@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Dhruv Devichand) says:
>I am looking at a 1989 Acura Integra, the design with the pop-up head lights,
>and was wondering whether it is worth looking at the newer design which
>came out in 1990.
>I understand there is a difference in power... the 1989 has the 1.8litre DOHC
>producing 118bhp while the newer model has an output of 130bhp.
>Is this difference tremendous? Also would anyone know whether Acura are using
>the same engine modified in some way?
Horespower output of 2nd Gen. Integra is 135, not 130. Despite the
power difference, 1st generation Integras are actually a few ticks
faster than 2nd generation Integras. This is due mostly to the slightly
smaller size and lower weight of the original car. The second
generation car is much more rigid and structurally sound than the first
gen car, so the extra weight at least seems to be well used. 2nd gen
car is generally quieter and more civilized than the 1986-1989 Integras.
>Are there any other technical changes between the two?
>My choice is between the 1989 with 65000km, loaded with pw,pl, air, cruise..4dr
>sedan or for another $2000 for the 1990 model 3dr coupe, with cruise and
>electric sunroof and the 130bhp engine (about 70000km). Is the difference
>in price worth it for the newer model?
>
Both cars are fine cars. As I recall, 1st gen. 5dr. Integras have
longer wheelbase than 3dr, so this may eat up most of the performance
difference between 1989 5dr. and 1990 3dr. I'm partial to the 3 door
models myself, but but it would be hard to justify the extra 2 large for
the 1990 model.
Tom
--
"The reason that God was able to create the world in seven days is that
he didn't have to worry about the existing configuration"
-- Enzo Torresi
James R Lendino
Thomas D. Halter <t...@po.CWRU.Edu> wrote:
>
>In a previous article, dev...@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Dhruv Devichand) says:
>
>>I am looking at a 1989 Acura Integra, the design with the pop-up head lights,
>>and was wondering whether it is worth looking at the newer design which
>>came out in 1990.
>>I understand there is a difference in power... the 1989 has the 1.8litre DOHC
>>producing 118bhp while the newer model has an output of 130bhp.
>>Is this difference tremendous? Also would anyone know whether Acura are using
>>the same engine modified in some way?
>
>Horespower output of 2nd Gen. Integra is 135, not 130. Despite the
>power difference, 1st generation Integras are actually a few ticks
>faster than 2nd generation Integras. This is due mostly to the slightly
>smaller size and lower weight of the original car. The second
>generation car is much more rigid and structurally sound than the first
>gen car, so the extra weight at least seems to be well used. 2nd gen
>car is generally quieter and more civilized than the 1986-1989 Integras.
Output of my old 1990 Acura Integra: 130 hp, 121 lb.ft of torque.
They upgraded the hp to 140 in '92.
And every acceleration test I've seen for the car placed it either
even or ahead of the 1st generation car. Both of them are worthy
of consideration, though you might want to consider something sportier.
Both Integras are a compromise between a sports coupe and a normal
sedan, though closer to the first... Neither one is quite there.
Instead, may I suggest looking at a '90 Eclipse GSX or Talon? The
extra speed and 4-wheel drive will blow you away. Don't ask me
about used car prices, it's just a suggestion...
Best regards,
-JRL
______
James R. Lendino | |
Computer Science | i486 | Phone: (212)-853-6359
Columbia S.E.A.S. |______| Internet: jr...@columbia.edu
Craig Boyle
>
>In a previous article, dev...@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Dhruv Devichand) says:
>
>>I am looking at a 1989 Acura Integra, the design with the pop-up head lights,
>>and was wondering whether it is worth looking at the newer design which
>>came out in 1990.
>>I understand there is a difference in power... the 1989 has the 1.8litre DOHC
>>producing 118bhp while the newer model has an output of 130bhp.
>>Is this difference tremendous? Also would anyone know whether Acura are using
>>the same engine modified in some way?
>
>Horespower output of 2nd Gen. Integra is 135, not 130. Despite the
>power difference, 1st generation Integras are actually a few ticks
>faster than 2nd generation Integras. This is due mostly to the slightly
I've never seen anything definitive on this. My own experience showed
that a 90 RS would pull away from an 89 LS between 30 and 115 (lapping
session, front straight, Texas World Speedway). The 89 was mildly
modified, the 90 stock. Magazine numbers seemed to call it either way.
In the autocross world, the pre 90's seemed to disappear into obscurity
after the 90's arrived.
Craig
Craig Boyle
>In article <1993Dec31.0...@newton.ccs.tuns.ca>,
>Dhruv Devichand <dev...@newton.ccs.tuns.ca> wrote:
>>I am looking at a 1989 Acura Integra, the design with the pop-up head lights,
>>and was wondering whether it is worth looking at the newer design which
>>came out in 1990.
>
The 90's are considerably more refined and handle about as well. Suspension
and interior changed. No 5 door option after 89.
>Save the money and get a brand new Honda Civic Coupe. It is closer in
>performance to the original Acura Integra.
A new Civic Coupe would be a lot more expensive than an 89/90 Integra -
and slower, noisier, less spacious. Even the EX model has less power
than 90+ Integra's.
>
>The 1994 Integra seems closer to a real sports car--with the accompanying
Unless you are looking at the 94 GSR (a ~20k car), it is much less of
a "sports car" than the 90-93 ever was. The suspension and brakes have
gone to hell in an effort to win the bimbo market away from Celica ST
buyers - and maybe 4 cyl Probe people too.
Airbags, the flavor of the month, are the only advantage a 94 has over a 93
that is tangible, Space is definitely down, I still can't get used to the looks,
and the non GS-R's float like a Cadillac.
Craig
Gail Oxton
>Airbags, the flavor of the month, are the only advantage a 94 has over a 93
>that is tangible, Space is definitely down, I still can't get used to the looks,
>and the non GS-R's float like a Cadillac.
The airbags allowed Acura to drop the motor-mouse seatbelts in the
94 model, and that reason is enough to go to a 94 for many people
(see semi-recent thread on the motor-mouse belts)
---
--Gail
All comments are mine mine mine!! However, they may be borrowed
free-of-charge at your own risk for up to 2 weeks, $0.25/day late fee.
Sam Shim
>Unless you are looking at the 94 GSR (a ~20k car), it is much less of
>a "sports car" than the 90-93 ever was. The suspension and brakes have
>gone to hell in an effort to win the bimbo market away from Celica ST
>buyers - and maybe 4 cyl Probe people too.
>and the non GS-R's float like a Cadillac.
You must be confusing the '94 Integras with some other car. The '94
Integras have excellent brakes with very short stopping distances. In
fact, during my first test drive, the first feature my salesperson
demonstrated was the brakes in a non-ABS Integra. They are impressive,
and even more so on cars equipped with ABS.
The suspension isn't anywhere's as firm as a '94 Ford Probe's, but it is
definitely does not "float like a Cadillac". It's ride is anything but
soft and floaty.
Having driven 6 different '94 Integras (for test drives, rentals, plus my
own '94 LS), I have yet to encounter one with suspension and brakes that
have "gone to hell".
-Sam-
Craig Boyle
[94 Integra discussion deleted]
>The suspension isn't anywhere's as firm as a '94 Ford Probe's, but it is
>definitely does not "float like a Cadillac". It's ride is anything but
>soft and floaty.
Ride preferences vary, to a Probe GT/Corrado/SE-R even driver the Integra
RS/LS would be soft and floaty. Compared to a base Camry, the Integra's
ride is firm. I think Acura believes the Integra is in the former class
and not the latter, hence my comment.
>
>Having driven 6 different '94 Integras (for test drives, rentals, plus my
>own '94 LS), I have yet to encounter one with suspension and brakes that
>have "gone to hell".
You need to drive a 93 Integra to see the difference. The 94 RS/LS are
definitely softer than their predecessors, hence the movement towards
a "bimbo car".The GS-R is notably better.
I have driven the RS/LS/GS-R of the new model - taking advantage of Acura's
free CD for a test drive offer.
I was somewhat impressed by the GS-R and deeply disappointed with the others.
I can't think of any dynamic advantage that the 94 RS/LS have over the 93
RS/LS/GS.
>
Craig
Gail Oxton
>You need to drive a 93 Integra to see the difference. The 94 RS/LS are
>definitely softer than their predecessors, hence the movement towards
>a "bimbo car".The GS-R is notably better.
<flame on>
Thank you so much for that description. I'm sure that everyone who has
purchased a 94 Integra appreciates being called a bimbo!! In fact, I'm
sure that the entire net envies your sophisticated vocabulary. If you
don't like a car, fine, you're entitled to express your own opinion, but
please try to not insult 51% of the population in the process.
<flame off>
Sam Shim
>
>>The suspension isn't anywhere's as firm as a '94 Ford Probe's, but it is
>>definitely does not "float like a Cadillac". It's ride is anything but
>>soft and floaty.
>
>Ride preferences vary, to a Probe GT/Corrado/SE-R even driver the Integra
>RS/LS would be soft and floaty. Compared to a base Camry, the Integra's
>ride is firm. I think Acura believes the Integra is in the former class
>and not the latter, hence my comment.
So what you are saying is that any car that is not as firm as a Probe
GT/Corrado/SE-R "floats like a Cadillac", right? If you think the ride
is too soft, that's fine, but there's no need to exaggerate as it appears
you have pointed out.
>You need to drive a 93 Integra to see the difference. The 94 RS/LS are
>definitely softer than their predecessors, hence the movement towards
>a "bimbo car".The GS-R is notably better.
So what you are saying is that a car is defined as a "bimbo car"
based on the firmness/softness of its suspension? Based on that and
on your previous comments, I guess Cadillacs are the ultimate "bimbo car".
I think you owe an apology to the net readers you have offended with
your "bimbo car" comments.
>I can't think of any dynamic advantage that the 94 RS/LS have over the 93
>RS/LS/GS.
I can. Here's a few.
- Standard dual air bags.
- Projector beam headlights. Lights up the road much better than
standard headlights and practically eliminates glare to oncoming
traffic.
- Ergonomic dashboard. I liked the pre-94 Integra dashes, but they
were quite ungracefully showing their age.
- Short-throw shifter (5-speed).
- Automatic transmission w/ the Grade Logic Control System.
- Increased structural rigidity.
- Improved engines and intake manifolds.
-Sam-
Craig Boyle
>In article 24...@cactus.org, bo...@cactus.org (Craig Boyle) writes:
>
>>You need to drive a 93 Integra to see the difference. The 94 RS/LS are
>>definitely softer than their predecessors, hence the movement towards
>>a "bimbo car".The GS-R is notably better.
>
><flame on>
>Thank you so much for that description. I'm sure that everyone who has
>purchased a 94 Integra appreciates being called a bimbo!! In fact, I'm
What phrase would you like me to use that describes people that buy
cars purely for their looks and perceived status and nothing else?.
Bimbo cars seemed pretty good to me, maybe I should have narrowed it
to California bimbos :-)
Classic "bimbo" cars have included the Celica ST (Secretarial Transport),
4 cyl Probe. I was complaining about Acura's move toward that market by
softening the already not too hard-edged Integra.
The "bimbo car" is one that has the looks of a higher model, but often
80,000 mile tires, 37mpg city, soft suspension and so on. Hmmm, maybe a
4 cyl Mustang is a bimbo car too. Manufacturers have a target market in
mind, but I suppose their too PC to use the word bimbo.
>sure that the entire net envies your sophisticated vocabulary. If you
>don't like a car, fine, you're entitled to express your own opinion, but
>please try to not insult 51% of the population in the process.
Are you saying that this 51% group all fit into the "bimbo" definition -
if so you need to work some on self image. There are some very good
women drivers out there for whom I have utmost respect.
Craig
><flame off>
Craig Boyle
>>Ride preferences vary, to a Probe GT/Corrado/SE-R even driver the Integra
>>RS/LS would be soft and floaty. Compared to a base Camry, the Integra's
>>ride is firm. I think Acura believes the Integra is in the former class
>>and not the latter, hence my comment.
>
> So what you are saying is that any car that is not as firm as a Probe
>GT/Corrado/SE-R "floats like a Cadillac", right? If you think the ride
****** wrong.
The Integra RS/LS has a float problem that I have only previously
experience in a Cadillac DeVille and a rental Caprice. When pushed it
builds up into a pitching motion along one of the cars diagonals, i.e.
front left to rear right. This is unnerving and not what you would
expect in a car with sporting pretensions. This flaw was not present with
the older Integras nor the new GS_R.
Evidently acura believes its customers will no longer notice the difference
as their target market is changing away from the enthusiast. The 93 RS
was a good enthusiasts car, the 94 RS is a sloppy car.
Enthusiasts are now limited to the "pimped out" (apologies to those pimps
and their relatives that I offend :-) ) GS-R. The GS-R suffers from
being unnecesarily overequipped for high performance.
>
>>You need to drive a 93 Integra to see the difference. The 94 RS/LS are
>>definitely softer than their predecessors, hence the movement towards
>>a "bimbo car".The GS-R is notably better.
>
> So what you are saying is that a car is defined as a "bimbo car"
>based on the firmness/softness of its suspension? Based on that and
>on your previous comments, I guess Cadillacs are the ultimate "bimbo car".
No. In another posting I define a "bimbo car" as one that has the looks
but none of the performance attributes of another model in the same range,
paticularly in the case of sport-coupes.
>
> I think you owe an apology to the net readers you have offended with
>your "bimbo car" comments.
And I do apologize without reservation to anyone that I might have offended.
However, appropriate use of such terms very accurately portrays an image
which could not otherwise have been done without a lot more words. How would
you describe underpowered, "pretty", fwd, automatic transmission cars, with
cheap tires, stereos with lots of buttons but no sound quality. Manufacturers
know what "bimbo cars" are, they make them and specificaly direct their
advertising at this group, no doubt about it. Celica ST, Paseo? Probe 4 cyl
and now maybe the Integra RS/LS, Prelude S, 6 cyl Camaro?
>
>>I can't think of any dynamic advantage that the 94 RS/LS have over the 93
>>RS/LS/GS.
>
> I can. Here's a few.
> - Standard dual air bags.
Is this a "dynamic advantage"?
> - Projector beam headlights. Lights up the road much better than
> standard headlights and practically eliminates glare to oncoming
> traffic.
Looks good too :-)
> - Ergonomic dashboard. I liked the pre-94 Integra dashes, but they
> were quite ungracefully showing their age.
So what *ergonomic* advantages does the 94 have over a 93?
Do you know what ergonomic means?
> - Short-throw shifter (5-speed).
Didn't notice the difference, if it is shorter than I grant you this.
> - Automatic transmission w/ the Grade Logic Control System.
I have no interest in the auto, this would be of relevance to those that
do.
> - Improved engines and intake manifolds.
Hey 2hp better, that's a real advance!
>
I think that you have fairly conclusively proved that there are few
dynamic advantages of the 94 over a 93, thankyou.
The disadvantages are:
a) Softer suspension
b) Slower
c) Smaller inside, back seat no longer usable by adults
d) Subjectively ugly from the front
e) Much more expensive (partly offset by higher trim levels,
4 year warranty and airbags).
f) No cheap Integra to race anymore, The new RS is equipped
like the old LS - hence to fat and heavy for autox.
Craig
Thomas D. Halter
In a previous article, ox...@skopen.dseg.ti.com (Gail Oxton) says:
>In article 24...@cactus.org, bo...@cactus.org (Craig Boyle) writes:
>
>>You need to drive a 93 Integra to see the difference. The 94 RS/LS are
>>definitely softer than their predecessors, hence the movement towards
>>a "bimbo car".The GS-R is notably better.
>
Even the base Integras have 142hp 16v engines, more powerful than the
Civic EX and Si, and even the Celica GT. I think true poser cars are
ones that have no substance at all under their style, like the Toyota
Paseo. This is basically a rebodied Tercel, a car so lame that even
Consumer Reports rips on it. They called it a "Sheep in Wolf's
Clothing."
Thomas D. Halter
In a previous article, bo...@cactus.org (Craig Boyle) says:
>
>Enthusiasts are now limited to the "pimped out" (apologies to those pimps
>and their relatives that I offend :-) ) GS-R. The GS-R suffers from
>being unnecesarily overequipped for high performance.
I won't take offense to being called a pimp, but most Probe GTs are more
equipped than my GS-R. Standard or optional are such performance items
as remote keyless entry, power seat, leather, subwoofer, dual
illuminated vanity mirrors.
>
>
>
>And I do apologize without reservation to anyone that I might have offended.
>However, appropriate use of such terms very accurately portrays an image
>which could not otherwise have been done without a lot more words. How would
>you describe underpowered, "pretty", fwd, automatic transmission cars, with
>cheap tires, stereos with lots of buttons but no sound quality. Manufacturers
>know what "bimbo cars" are, they make them and specificaly direct their
>advertising at this group, no doubt about it. Celica ST, Paseo? Probe 4 cyl
>and now maybe the Integra RS/LS, Prelude S, 6 cyl Camaro?
What exactly is your objection to these cars? Many people like the
style of these cars, and don't need all the horsepower. While I exclude
myself from that category, other people can buy these cars if they want.
It's a free country. While we might personally disagree with these
cars, they wouldn't make them if there wasn't a market for them.
>
>>
>>>I can't think of any dynamic advantage that the 94 RS/LS have over the 93
>>>RS/LS/GS.
My previous car was a 91 GS, current car a 94 GS-R. I think I feel
qualified to discuss the differences.
>
>> - Projector beam headlights. Lights up the road much better than
>> standard headlights and practically eliminates glare to oncoming
>> traffic.
>
>Looks good too :-)
Sarcastic or not, I can't argue with the results, regardless of the
appearance. Even though the old car had driving lights and the current
one doesn't, the projector beams blow the old lamps away in terms of
glare and effectiveness.
>
>> - Ergonomic dashboard. I liked the pre-94 Integra dashes, but they
>> were quite ungracefully showing their age.
>
>So what *ergonomic* advantages does the 94 have over a 93?
>Do you know what ergonomic means?
The new dash is a mixed bag. The new climate controls with the sliders
are a definite step back from the rotary knobs on the previous car.
However, the cupholders are a nice addition, and the new gages are much
better at night. Old Integra had gages light up from the front. New
gages are lit up from behind with illuminated needles. Kind of like a
poor man's version of the fluorescent Lexus gages.
>
>
>> - Short-throw shifter (5-speed).
>
>Didn't notice the difference, if it is shorter than I grant you this.
Shifter throw is definitely shorter than old Integra, and just about any
other car on the road as well.
Craig Boyle
>
>In a previous article, bo...@cactus.org (Craig Boyle) says:
>>
>>Enthusiasts are now limited to the "pimped out" (apologies to those pimps
>>and their relatives that I offend :-) ) GS-R. The GS-R suffers from
>>being unnecesarily overequipped for high performance.
>
>I won't take offense to being called a pimp, but most Probe GTs are more
>equipped than my GS-R. Standard or optional are such performance items
Granted, but wouldn't it be nice to have a 94 GS-R with 93 RS trim. The car
would be an SE-R beater, and maybe measure up to the Corrado/Probe GT class.
[Stuff about efficiency of 94 Integra lights deleted]
>>Looks good too :-)
>
>Sarcastic or not, I can't argue with the results, regardless of the
>appearance. Even though the old car had driving lights and the current
**************
They were fog lights, not driving lights. Unfortunately many owners never
figured this out and used them as if they were driving lights. RTFM.
>one doesn't, the projector beams blow the old lamps away in terms of
>glare and effectiveness.
I think the 90-93's lights were particularly bad, probably the weakest
point of the car, other than the gross understeer?
I owned a 90 RS and outgrew this kind of car by the time I came to replace it.
I seriously considered a 94 Integra for a second car. The reason I chose not
to buy were the lack of a usable backseat, the fact that the only "ownable"
Integra is the GS-R - and for the money it costs I'd buy something else. Still
might buy one.....
Craig