gcd

Has anyone heard about the possibility of a hybrid engine with the RDX? I think they would be amiss not to offer one quickly. I saw one online store that alluded to a hybrid but had no specifics...any comments?

AcuraFan

At this point, Honda has said no hybrid of the Acura line. We may see something down the road but nothing in their current plans.

crxb

car and driver tv show today 10-2-05 said 200hp inline 4 w/ ima (hybrid)

2 or 4 wheel drive like the pilot

iNteGraz92

that was an old episode

PROEWildfire

my motor trend for oct/2005 says it will be a L4 Cyl engine with 260 HP

vicpai

.....if they came up with a V6-VCM-hybrid combo....what I mean is, say a 3.0 liter V6 producing somewhere in the 250bhp range (like the V6 Accord hybrid), combined with Variable cylinder management for excellent highway fuel economy and a powerful set of electric motors for some REAL LOW END TORQUE.....Now you're talking!!!

vicpai

......I think all of the publications and other so called "sources" are just speculating and making educated guesses at this point. .....only time will tell what Honda intends to put under that hood!!!.....hopefully it will be a 6 cylinder!!

PROEWildfire

yeah, but does the RDX need a V6?

AcuraFan

I say "no". But I'm going to get A LOT of people disagreeing with me.

PROEWildfire

yeah i think it would do fine with a nicely powered 4 banger, especially if it could push out 260HP i think that hondas new 4cy engine is going to be the one presented in the RDX then carried over into the TSX, and will power the RSX replacement...

98AccordEx

It can be a 4-cyl if it has a turbo attached to it. Otherwise a small V6 would be ideal (3.0L from Accord). The RDX will need some torque to get it moving. If it's going to be an Acura it has to perform!

PROEWildfire

i think the RDX is going to be pretty light for a crossover so i dont think it would need a crazy amount of torque, i really want it to be a 4 banger so that i can say "HA, my my 4 banger puts out what ur V6 does"

98AccordEx

Well in some cases you alredy can. The CRV 4cyl is very close to most V6s offered in competing vehicles. The Grand Vitara, Tucson and Suzuki offered 2.7L V6s with only a few more horses. Those same mini-utes were also coupled with more weight and were thus slower.

As to the RDX's weight, I doubt it will be less than the CRV which currently tops out at 3490. I would assume SH-AWD weighs more than RealTime 4WD which is fairly light. Add in some other luxury goodies plus bigger brakes and tires and were pushing 3800??

IMO that's too much for a NA 4cyl if it's going to be a performer.

I read somwhere BMW has announced they are eliminating the 2.5L X3 for the same reason, too much weight and not enough power to be a BMW.

PROEWildfire

hmm i didnt think of that... turbo 4 sounds good...

livinglegend

I agree that it should get the Accord V6 hybrid set-up!!!!

Precision Crafted

I thought I read somewhere that the engine was a turbo 4. In the same reading or in a different one, the turbo program was off because no turbo met Honda's standards so then the V6 rumor was started. After the rumor that the turbo issues were resolved and that some motors were being sent to Japan for testing then the turbo 4 rumor was started again.

I believe TOV has some info on the subject but it isn't much as Honda/Acura is great at not saying much of anything early on.

PROEWildfire

ill take the turbo 4 with the navi please... oh and the ipod hookup!

d-rock

that actually would be a great idea, to compete with the RX400h

V6 hybrid+ SH-AWD sounds like a winner to me

AcuraFan

That does sound interesting, but I doubt we'd see it right away...maybe down the road a bit...

jaobrien6

Plus I don't think the RDX is supposed to compete with the RX400h, I think it's supposed to slot below it, with the MDX competing with the RX. If the RDX comes out with a price even close to the RX400h, it's off my list so fast.

Precision Crafted

I guessing the price of the RDX will be the upper 20's to mid 30's with a touring package, Navi and In vehicle Entertainment System.

Precision Crafted

No hybrid Honda SUV at for the forseeable future.

vicpai

......but there is not a way in hell this vehicle is going to start in the upper 20's!!! SIMPLY NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!!!! Remember it's an ACURA and even the TSX starts at around 28K!!!.....It will very likely start off in the low to mid 30s (somewhere in the 32k to 34k range or so, for a base model to around the 36 to 38k for a fully loaded version)......otherwise they might have just ONE FULLY LOADED model (like the RL) and sell it for around 35 to 36k, but I doubt it.......Also take into account that the CURRENT MDX starts out at around 37K and goes all the way up to 43.5K ......the REDESIGNED MDX due out next year, will most likely be 2 or 3K more than the current one.....So the RDX in the above mentioned price range will slot neatly below it!!!

Precision Crafted

While you may be right, Acura underprices BMW by a bunch. It is possible for the RDX to be $29.980 plus destination and offer a base model with manually adjusted pass seat, no memory system, no high end sound system, no auto head lights, no auto wipers, no OnStar, bland looking wheels and some other dodads I'm missing. While a Touring model will add 4 way pass seat (pwr), auto wipers/ headlights, memory for seating, mirrors, driver selectable features, luggage rack, better looking wheels and some other dodads I'm missing. The Touring could be priced 2k more.

Add Navi for 2K

Add Rear Passanger DVD for another 2k

Now granted the 2k is rounded off to an even number but if Acura follows suite as it does with the MDX a price difference of 2700 and some will push the RDX's price up. I didn't even include the extra stuff that Acura can offer or some of the new things. I don't see the price of the RDX pushing too high in price and only offering 5 person seating. I do see the MDX being pushed up market but Acura will be careful in doing so. The TL price increase didn't hurt sales at all but he RL's jump in price did. It is possible that the next MDX can push higher but with the "Where's the V8" there may be problems. Yes gas prices are high but the V8 market hasn't cooled yet

jaobrien6

I don't see them offering a base model and a loaded model. On the TSX, TL & RL, Nav is the only option. I can see rear seat DVD also being an option on this, but that's it. Acura could change their mind and start to have trim lines again, but they haven't gone that route on any new car in the last several years.

cmd

I agree with the sub $30k price point. That's a magical number. Offering a "luxury SUV" at $29,900 is great for marketing and puts it in a unique market with the Nissan Murano ("luxury" or not, its impressive). It would also put it with the new Suburu Tribeca -- both start at $27k. Much more than $30k with a $2k NAV you are nearing the RX400, FX35, MDX price and that is a whole new class.

As far as the V6 or not, the Murano and Tribeca have healthy V6s and are priced with options around $32k. Toyota's is coming out with an optional 270hp V6 for their new, similar sized RAV4 and is said to be priced around $27k (maybe a step down, but the redesign looks good so far). I wouldn't be surprised if the RDX was the high output 4, BUT it would make me hessitate a bit on a vehicle of its size.

My hope is for a V6 with sticker of $32k for NAV which mean you can buy one for $29k. If so, in 36 months my TSX may become a RDX. If its higher, or comes only with a lower torque 4, I'll be test driving used RXs, MDXs or a new(er) Murannos.

AcuraFan

The Murano is impressive?

cmd

Sorry to get off topic, but yeah. I was at the dealer, looked at one, drove one, I was impressed, hence "impressive". Pretty darn comfortable leather, nice details, corners tight and with Nissan's bullet proof V6 and a slick CVT it will smoke my TSX beyond the legal limits. I'm just not sure about about the grill work yet. I'm waiting for the next generation.

Oh, but no hybrid yet (there, back to the original theme of this thread).

Precision Crafted

It will be interesting how Honda responds to the RAV4's new V6 for both the CRV and RDX. A turbo 4 would be great but what about low end torque? Would the torque down low be enough to move a rather heavy car? I'm just wondering. And if, IF Acura sticks with their current transmission choices then one would have to wind out the motor in the upper range to "feel" anything. I don't know. I've never owned a turbo anything.

I guess we won't know much of anything until next years auto shows in Detroit and New York.

PROEWildfire

turbos are great - but they take time to spool up, for small SUV i think a turbo charger would be more effective, but i am gonna leave the decision to Honda, they know what they are doing.

vicpai

......but have frequently driven a close friend's VW Passat 1.8T turbo, and I have one word for it: HORRENDOUS!!!!

The gas mileage for a 4-banger SUCKS BIG TIME (slightly worse than my 290bhp 8-cylinder LS 400 on the highway, for cryin out loud , and only slightly better than my LS in city driving!!! (I've given a test comparison we did below).

Besides this, the engine was incredibly UNREFINED (you constantly hear the "whine"), and not only is it very sluggish OFF-THE-LINE, but sounds like the engine is beating itself to death when you accelerate hard. Once you pick up speed it's quite peppy...but that does not do anything for me It's also reasonably quiet at freeway speeds while cruising, but this also does not do anything for me, if it is screaming when accelerating .....NOW YOU KNOW WHY I HATE THE IDEA OF A TURBOCHARGED or NA 4-BANGER. A powertrain like that has no place in an UPSCALE VEHICLE, let alone a high-end Acura SUV which is very likely to tip the scales at 3600-3800lbs!!!

On a recent trip to Las Vegas - 100% highway driving at speeds of 85-95mph most of the time, and occasionally 70-75mph due to traffic, here is the gas mileage we got:

LA to Las Vegas:
2000 LS 400 23.21mpg
2005 VW Passat 1.8T Turbo 21.82mpg

Las Vegas to LA:
2000 LS 400 23.64mpg
2005 VW Passat 1.8T Turbo 22.78mpg

City driving in Las Vegas (around 120 miles):
2000 LS 400 16.61mpg
2005 VW Passat 1.8T Turbo 17.43mpg

Both cars were fueled with 91 Octane Chevron gas per their owner's manuals and all calculations were done by hand (fill tank, # of miles divided by total # of gallons consumed). On the highway the VW was contantly downshifting back and forth revving itself to death to keep up the speeds, especially when it hit grades, whereas the LS 400 barely ever went out of the overdrive 5th gear contantly spinning at a leisurely 2500-2800RPM or so.

This proves my point that I have always repeated again and again that a smaller 4 banger is not always more fuel efficient than a larger more powerful engine. In a 2000lb Toyota Echo it may be, but if the 4-banger is going to lug around a heavy 3800lb RDX, then you can bet your bottom dollar it's simply not going to run as efficiently as a high-torque V6 in the same application......ARE YOU LISTENING HONDA????

Like you said in your post, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that they have sensible engineers advising them and will know what's needed in this SUV.

PROEWildfire

when it comes to performance - there is no replacement for displacement. but theres also a formula - with a smaller engine pushing a big car, i consider the passat to be a rather large vehicle for a 4 banger - u consume more gas because the car requires more RPM to move, with a big engine pushing a big car, the formula is more or less balanced, because it is easier for the engine to push the large car - back to the RDX... no news?

cmd

I would agree with you on the VW, but you've never drive a Saab have you? Take out a $43k 9-5 Aero 2.3t with nearly the same amount of torque as a 911. For that matter, try a 911 with a small 3 liter turbo. European cars are taxed on the displacement so you see a lot of smaller but well tuned engines. I've owned 3 turbos -- 1 Mitsubishi and 2 Saabs. My wife's Saab is ultra quiet and has a crazy amount of torque, especially in 3rd gear. 2nd gear redlines at 65 and 3rd is over 100. And I thought my Maxima was quick! Yet her car averages 28 on the interstate and 24 in town -- my best was 32 on a 200 mile trip. However Saab and Porsche (I know, Porsche = VW) have been building their cars with turbos for ever. Personally I would be pretty nervous to buy a first generation turbo. My vote would still be the MDX's 6 ...if I had a vote that is.