thorium

Now that the engine specs are out, could someone throw out a rough estimate of the cars 0-60 mph time with those numbers? I don't know enough about cars but a 0-60mph time makes more sense as a measure to me

loulinjai

try 7-8 seconds

thorium

Thanks. I tried some google searches and found this page:

http://www.cars-cars-cars.org/0-60-Times-Calculator.htm

So I guess the real question is how much does the Acura RDX weigh? I guessed 4,000 lb (1815 kg) and did the calculation, getting about 8-9 seconds. So perhaps we should expand the range to 7-9 seconds? The page applies more to sports cars, but I think the estimate should still be reliable, so I'm gonna go with 8 seconds +/- 1 second.

I'm currently driving a '98 Nissan Frontier I got new when I turned 16 I'm out of college now so I want to get a Acura/Lexus or similar (looking at Lexus IS, etc). I'm leaning towards the Acura RDX because one of my best friends' dad is one of the good sellers at the local Acura deal so I think I'll be able to get a deal (relatively speaking of course, if the RDX comes out in demand as it very well might for the first 6 months). The acceleration will certainly be improved over my truck

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

Too many factors will go into this calculation. With the AWD system, the vehicle weight, gearing, and power to look at, it's hard to say for sure.

But given that the RL with a similar setup does 0-60 in just under 7 secs, I would expect the RDX to be at around the 7.5 to 8.0 sec range.

Count Blah

It's a shame that adding 40hp and nearly 100ft-lb to the TSX would result in a slower vehicle. (I know you're adding weight, different shape, AWD, etc.)

batman

BMW X3 3.0
4023lbs
225hp@5700
214lb/ft@3500
0-60 = 7.99

I believe those numbers are from the manual. The x3 is giving up 15hp and 46lb/ft. So the RDX should be ~7.5ish.

thorium

Nice, that looks like the most realistic comparison I've seen. I guess we need to know the RDX weight to get an accurate estimate though.

batman

I think that the RDX will weigh less than the x3. That 0-60 is the auto. The 6sp is estimated at 7.6sec

dukmahsik

how much does the car weigh? i would think low 7 sec 0-60 and low to mid 15sec qtr mi

ChasZone

I am really hoping it can get under the 7 second mark.... hey, we can all hope for a miracle...

vicpai

.....as per CAR AND DRIVER test figures.

It did Zero to 60 in 6.3 secs!
1/4 in 14.9 secs @ 94mph
Top speed 129mph (drag limited)

Model: Limited V6 4WD
3.5 Liter V6
5-speed automatic
269bhp
246lb.ft.
curb weight 3660 lbs.

link to article below

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=3

....the RDX will likely be around the same weight, and power is almost 30bhp less than the RAV4, but the torque output is 14lb.ft. more (or is it 4lb.ft.??...some places say 250lb.ft. others say 260lb.ft. )....anyways it should end somewhere in the high-6-second to low-7-second range....will be interesting to see!!

Colin

Sounds logical, but I'm not so optimistic for a few reasons.

1st, the CR-V is around 3470 now. The RDX will surely weight more cause of the luxury content and the ACE body structure (it's no lightweight). If they go with aluminum in a few panels, we might see 3500ish, but then at what cost?

2nd, AHM has learned from the TSX that you don't have to have the fastest car in class to have a sales and critical winner and I think they'll go with tall gearing for better fuel economy.

That said, I sure hope you're right!

simplesimon

I'm just curious. Why is 0-60 time so important? Maybe it's just me, but I'm in the market for an SUV type of vehicle because of the practicality of them. I have a fairly large dog that I wouldn't want to put in the back seat of a car, and often need room for groceries etc. I see a lot of people comparing the RAV 4 times with what the RDX may get. What else does the RAV 4 have going for it compared to the RDX? I wouldn't care if the RAV had a 0-60 time of 4 seconds flat, I wouldn't buy one. Why not buy a Corvette or something similar?

Just my opinion, but what do I know?

thorium

The Acura RDX is marketed as a 'sporty' SUV, so engine performance (measured by horse power, torque, 0-60mph times, 1/4mi times, etc) are interesting metrics of this vehicles performance.

The Acura RDX is a more 'car-like' SUV than larger SUVs. If people are looking for a Suburban, its great at utility but you're not going to care much about acceleration. The Acura RDX you want a little bit of both.

vicpai

.....then I will be really happy!! However, the bar is set very high. Remember even with a 3.5 liter V6 and weighing almost 3700lbs, the 4WD RAV4 gets 21city and 28hwy!....so to justify the "tall gearing" and slower acceleration times, as well as the implementation of a 4-banger, the fuel economy numbers will have to be significantly higher than the above stated RAV4's figures.....I doubt very much they will be able to get there!!....so they're better of just concentrating on "raw performance"

Colin

I'm afraid they won't be making you happy then. I predict 0-60 in 8 seconds, fuel economy at or around TSX levels and a starting price of 35K. AND we'll sell all 30-40,000 they can produce, probably at full MSRP for quite a while. I think there will be enough current Acura owners that will welcome such a vehicle, not to mention "conquest sales" from other brands.

ostrich

I thought that I read somewhere in some Acura press release or something that we should expect 0-60 in about 7 seconds? Obviously you're in the industry, Colin, so you know more than I do, but I really thought that that's what I read before.... or am I just having wishful thinking!? LOL

Colin

Ha ha, I'm prognositicating like everyone else, but if I hear 0-60 in the 7's in a press release, I think 7.9. However, in the end it will come down (to me anyway) as weight vs. price. An AWD CR-V already weighs 3500ish. Consider: The TSX uses steel subframes and weighs 3200ish, the TL uses aluminum in the front and steel in the back and it weighs 3500ish, the RL uses aluminum front and rear ae well as aluminum hood, fenders and trunk lid AND a carbon fiber driveshaft. This weighs 3900ish but look at the cost!

If Honda goes with aluminum for the front frame, and a CF driveshaft, I don't see how it's selling for low 30's. If they go with all steel, I don't see how they'll meet the perfomance goals we see around here (remember these are not necessarily their goals). This is my rational for what I posted. I'd guess there will be some aluminum (raising cost), but still some weight (slowing times).

SteVTEC

I've been doing some simulations in CarTest2000 software based on a best-guess of the final specs. Assuming a curb weight of around 4000 lbs, expect a 0-60 in the low-7s range with a torque brake launch and the turbo pre-spooled (loaded converter). Without that, probably high-7's. Before I thought the weight might be around 3600-3700 lbs which was giving high-6s 0-60 estimates, but that's probably a tad low given the RDX is on the new global light truck platform, or whatever Honda is calling it. So it's not car-based (apparently), and because of that it'll probably weigh a good bit more.

Colin

The Golbal light truck chassis is car based, not body on frame. However, ACE is heavy.

TSXACE

Now remember that all these 0-60 times that are posted in magizines and on websites that we are comparing them to are done w/specific conditons like being at a track, at sea level, not on a hot day, almost no gas in the tank to save weight and usually w/an excellent driver.

Colin

I though they always test with a driver and 200lbs of test equipment to keep things even. naturally they test all year around so weather will vary though.

SteVTEC

no they're not. There are zillions of variables in magazine tests which is why you always see such a huge variance from mag to mag. A lot of the cars they test are often either pre-production or special test fleet cars which may or may not be the same thing as the full production model too. I could go on and on on this. Magazine times are a nice "loose" reference, but not to be taken as the gold standard that a lot of people make them out to be. My $0.02

sdho

I think it should be around 7 to 8 secs, but most ppl who are thinking about buying RDX is not looking at 0-60...

ilitig8

You are correct but they do use standard corrections for altitude and temperature etc. They do vary from mag to mag as different mags push the cars harder, C&D is often the fastest. However, within a magazine I have found them to be pretty useful to compare even over time, look at 40,000 mile retests for long term testers, their times usually drop 1-2 tenths just as one would expect. In the end I wouldn't be surprised if you find a larger standard deviation as a result of the cars themselves than an individual magazines test times.

ilitig8

Actually most people that buy most cars are not looking at 0-60 times. I would even doubt most people that bought C6s in the last year could rattle off 0-60 times! So on that point I think you are spot on!

My WAG is it will clock in the mid-high 6s range by C&D, but most mags will have it right at 7. The more important street start will be in the mid-7s.

thorium

Now that we know the weight, gear ratios, and some other critical specs, can somebody in the know throw the numbers into their software, etc and throw out an updated estimate?

Audinam

Who cares what the 0-60 times are for the RDX...... unless you have a Porche Cayenne Turbo S ....... you shouldn't be racing SUV's anyways

Motohip

You don't have to race it to care how fast it is from 0-60. Would you buy it, or even like driving it if it went from 0-60 in 10 sec? I know I wouldn't.