Next gen RDX spied?
08-05-2008, 11:50 AM
#1
Racer
Thread Starter
Next gen RDX spied?
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/08/05/s...-cover-of-nig/
The posters there seem to think this is some new Acura model, but it looks to me like it might be the new RDX, especially if the camo is introducing a fake line off the C pillar.
The posters there seem to think this is some new Acura model, but it looks to me like it might be the new RDX, especially if the camo is introducing a fake line off the C pillar.
08-05-2008, 12:44 PM
#2
I posted on here quite a while ago about a new Acura crossover to compete with the likes of new models coming from Benz, BMW, and Caddilac.
A close friend of mine went to a secret shopping/review session of cloaked new vehicles. This shot is of the upscale new cross from Acura to compete with upper scale german cars specifically. The price bracket he mentioned of closer mid 40's into 50's.
He could make out the distinctions between models (caddy, benz, acura) quite easily even though there was no badging. This Acura, at the time, had a 3rd row, which he said was extremely small, prob good enough for small kids. He said he preferred the interior of the Acura, said the caddy was junk, and the benz was a benz lol
A close friend of mine went to a secret shopping/review session of cloaked new vehicles. This shot is of the upscale new cross from Acura to compete with upper scale german cars specifically. The price bracket he mentioned of closer mid 40's into 50's.
He could make out the distinctions between models (caddy, benz, acura) quite easily even though there was no badging. This Acura, at the time, had a 3rd row, which he said was extremely small, prob good enough for small kids. He said he preferred the interior of the Acura, said the caddy was junk, and the benz was a benz lol
08-05-2008, 02:18 PM
#3
Burning Brakes
Looks like Stitch. Maybe those guys were going to some kind of masquerade party. I just hope there is a 2nd Gen RDX, but for now I will be satisfied with a MMC for the '10.
08-05-2008, 08:05 PM
#6
Racer
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by kabota
Just because some think its an Acura does not make it one. The Honda Latitude is rumored to be coming to America within the next year.
08-05-2008, 08:40 PM
#7
I kAnt Spel guD
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Posts: 1,319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How does mid-40's verging into 50's not describe the current MDX to a T?
It's definately too big for an RDX else I might have guess the new Element which is to debut this fall as it has yet to jump to the new RDX/CR-V platform.
But yet another Pilot/MDX/ODY van platform CUV, seems odd. How is yet another high priced semi-usable 3rd row SUV needed?
It's definately too big for an RDX else I might have guess the new Element which is to debut this fall as it has yet to jump to the new RDX/CR-V platform.
But yet another Pilot/MDX/ODY van platform CUV, seems odd. How is yet another high priced semi-usable 3rd row SUV needed?
Trending Topics
08-05-2008, 09:15 PM
#8
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Indiana
Age: 37
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by oasis3582
True, but the shield and rims are pure Acura.
08-05-2008, 09:19 PM
#9
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Indiana
Age: 37
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08-05-2008, 09:52 PM
#10
Racer
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by kabota
Could be an Acura variant, because the tails are different.
God help Honda if they bring it over here, not learning a single thing from the Merc R-class and the Mazda5.
08-06-2008, 08:23 AM
#11
Its not an RDX replacement. If anything were to happen to the RDX, it'd be scrapped for a variant in the same PRICE bracket of the Acura line up.
This vehicle has been rumored to be in production from the ground up, as a new entry, for both Acura and HONDA. Its pricing will be similar to the MDX but the vehicle itself will have an entirely different goal and mission. I like it. I think it fills a gap; RDX to cheapo for you? MDX to much of a regular SUV, not enough flash? How about: THIS! basically along the lines of the X6 falling somewhere between a buyer who thinks the X3 is too little and the X5 isnt flashy enough and sporting enough.
if one thing is for sure, with the new NSX on the horizon, Acura seems to be taking things alot more seriously.
This vehicle has been rumored to be in production from the ground up, as a new entry, for both Acura and HONDA. Its pricing will be similar to the MDX but the vehicle itself will have an entirely different goal and mission. I like it. I think it fills a gap; RDX to cheapo for you? MDX to much of a regular SUV, not enough flash? How about: THIS! basically along the lines of the X6 falling somewhere between a buyer who thinks the X3 is too little and the X5 isnt flashy enough and sporting enough.
if one thing is for sure, with the new NSX on the horizon, Acura seems to be taking things alot more seriously.
08-06-2008, 08:57 AM
#12
Not to mention....if anything, it may be acura's spin on the actual honda model...its been rumored for quite some time in Honda world that a truck would come to fit inbetween the buyers of the CRV and Pilot. This obviously would leave the door wide open for it to come to Acura, and receive the typical and customary Acura treatment.
08-06-2008, 08:05 PM
#13
Racer
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I worry that the "next gen" RDX will be either non-existent, or will have an NA engine - and I'll be stuck with a fairly unique dinosaur with pretty crappy resale.
It sure doesn't look like Honda's in any rush to put the K23 in any other application. It makes you wonder if they aren't exactly thrilled with the engine.
BTW - for test mules, etc. the best bet is vtec.net.
It sure doesn't look like Honda's in any rush to put the K23 in any other application. It makes you wonder if they aren't exactly thrilled with the engine.
BTW - for test mules, etc. the best bet is vtec.net.
08-06-2008, 08:23 PM
#14
Race Director
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Charlotte(home) /Raleigh (school), NC
Age: 35
Posts: 11,395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a thread about that car in the off topic section. Everyones theory is that its going to go up against the X6. So I dont think it replaces the RDX.
08-07-2008, 08:38 AM
#15
...its just the subject heading of the thread which makes people assume......
if worst came to worst and the RDX was gone after 2012 (prob the year it would have to be redesigned after its MMC) id be one person MORE than happy to have this truck in my garage (as im sure some of you may as well). I love the turbo......the way some of u guys talk about its motor you talk like its stats flat out SUCK or that its driveability is awful.
What would RDX numbers look like if it did in fact have a V6....how much faster could it be, its already been clocked with a 6.5 flash from 0-60...what could a V6 do? 6.2? lets be realistic, although it may not be some of the consumers personal PREFERENCE.....its performance is still at the top of the bracket....and look at the EX35...an NA V6 which is just a few TENTHS quicker with a much more potent V6.
im totally happy with the turbo application of the RDX and would be glad to hold onto it. If its just the response you are searching for (more linear and more direct response from a gas pedal) than a turbo vehicle in basically almost every circumstance is not going to foot the bill.
this truck is not an RDX replacement and is an upper scale cross. anyone thinking its an RDX replacement or that their wet dreams of a a V6 (omg!) RDX is coming.....id keep having that dream.
if worst came to worst and the RDX was gone after 2012 (prob the year it would have to be redesigned after its MMC) id be one person MORE than happy to have this truck in my garage (as im sure some of you may as well). I love the turbo......the way some of u guys talk about its motor you talk like its stats flat out SUCK or that its driveability is awful.
What would RDX numbers look like if it did in fact have a V6....how much faster could it be, its already been clocked with a 6.5 flash from 0-60...what could a V6 do? 6.2? lets be realistic, although it may not be some of the consumers personal PREFERENCE.....its performance is still at the top of the bracket....and look at the EX35...an NA V6 which is just a few TENTHS quicker with a much more potent V6.
im totally happy with the turbo application of the RDX and would be glad to hold onto it. If its just the response you are searching for (more linear and more direct response from a gas pedal) than a turbo vehicle in basically almost every circumstance is not going to foot the bill.
this truck is not an RDX replacement and is an upper scale cross. anyone thinking its an RDX replacement or that their wet dreams of a a V6 (omg!) RDX is coming.....id keep having that dream.
08-11-2008, 04:07 PM
#16
Burning Brakes
The RDX is the first turbo engined vehicle I have owned. After 1,300 miles on the ody I must agree with its critics that it is not refined and up to Acura standards. It would be great option in the CR-V, but not in the RDX. Honda could have come up with a smooth and quiet V6 with plenty of oomph as there is room in the engine bay. The turbo was a gamble and a gimmick since it really does not improve gas mileage, which a lot of vehicle buyers are looking for even with regular gas prices at $3.72 today. I am willing to bet the '10 MMC RDX, if there is one, will not have a turbo. Nice try though, Honda.
08-11-2008, 04:34 PM
#17
Pro
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Age: 45
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
The point of the turbo engine does seem odd to me since a V6 can make the same power and have the same or better mileage. The AWD Pilot is heavier and gets 16/22 to our 17/22.
I don't mind the engine and I think Honda wanted to play the techno aspect of the car, but the throttle response and off the line grunt of a V6 is more driveable.
That being said, I don't really have any beefs with the turbo engine.
I don't mind the engine and I think Honda wanted to play the techno aspect of the car, but the throttle response and off the line grunt of a V6 is more driveable.
That being said, I don't really have any beefs with the turbo engine.
08-11-2008, 06:32 PM
#18
Racer
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by cwepruk
The point of the turbo engine does seem odd to me since a V6 can make the same power and have the same or better mileage. The AWD Pilot is heavier and gets 16/22 to our 17/22.
I don't mind the engine and I think Honda wanted to play the techno aspect of the car, but the throttle response and off the line grunt of a V6 is more driveable.
That being said, I don't really have any beefs with the turbo engine.
I don't mind the engine and I think Honda wanted to play the techno aspect of the car, but the throttle response and off the line grunt of a V6 is more driveable.
That being said, I don't really have any beefs with the turbo engine.
08-11-2008, 10:51 PM
#19
Pro
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Age: 45
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Nothing wrong with that. Most V6 CUV's, even without cylinder deactivation are very similar in mileage.
Ford Edge is 15/22 and is 700 pounds heavier and runs on regular.
Sante Fe is 17/24
Veracruz is 15/22
X3 is 17/24
Just examples. I don't want to get into the argument as to why Acura picked a turbo 4 over a V6, but I would like to see the 3.2 from the TL myself.
Ford Edge is 15/22 and is 700 pounds heavier and runs on regular.
Sante Fe is 17/24
Veracruz is 15/22
X3 is 17/24
Just examples. I don't want to get into the argument as to why Acura picked a turbo 4 over a V6, but I would like to see the 3.2 from the TL myself.
08-12-2008, 12:05 AM
#20
Racer
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by cwepruk
Nothing wrong with that. Most V6 CUV's, even without cylinder deactivation are very similar in mileage.
Ford Edge is 15/22 and is 700 pounds heavier and runs on regular.
Sante Fe is 17/24
Veracruz is 15/22
X3 is 17/24
Just examples. I don't want to get into the argument as to why Acura picked a turbo 4 over a V6, but I would like to see the 3.2 from the TL myself.
Ford Edge is 15/22 and is 700 pounds heavier and runs on regular.
Sante Fe is 17/24
Veracruz is 15/22
X3 is 17/24
Just examples. I don't want to get into the argument as to why Acura picked a turbo 4 over a V6, but I would like to see the 3.2 from the TL myself.
I still think it comes down to differentiation from the MDX, identifying it as the "little brother." I love the turbo myself, but there is really no benefit.
08-12-2008, 09:00 AM
#21
Instructor
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NYC~Brooklyn
Age: 39
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i'm with oasis on this one. If the rdx had a v6, it'll need to have at least 286 HP to create the same torque (think TL-s engine which creates only 256 torque). Now with that said.. who would really buy the MDX which is over 10k more (base pricing, TECH and other options would further increase the difference) and only have 14 more HP than the smaller RDX (if it had the 3.5L v6) ?
Honda did this k23 turbo application for the RDX because it did not want it to eat sales from the TL as well as MDX.
Why do I say TL-S? well.. given the price (very similar), if the RDX had the same engine, people would rather buy the RDX because of the SH-AWD and increased cabin space.
see what I'm getting at guys?
Honda did this k23 turbo application for the RDX because it did not want it to eat sales from the TL as well as MDX.
Why do I say TL-S? well.. given the price (very similar), if the RDX had the same engine, people would rather buy the RDX because of the SH-AWD and increased cabin space.
see what I'm getting at guys?
08-12-2008, 09:13 AM
#22
yea....and CWE...
other than the X3....the 3 other trucks achieve that mileage while offering the performance of exactly that...an suv with 700 more pounds than an RDX. the RDX dusts off the Ford & Hyundais while achieving same MPG. The trade off is performance, not poor gas mileage.
I dont think everyone quite understands the performance Honda achieved through this engine and its turbo app. Maybe everyone does....but in terms of relativity......The V6 they would of had to put under the hood to get the numbers they are getting with the TURBO would be something along the lines of what is in the Infiniti EX or almost the identical engine in the MDX; Thats just not gonna happen with the MDX in the lineup already getting 300 hp. A V6 putting up numbers that the V4 does now would get almost identical mileage.
The gripe here is a preference of application and driveability, a V6 would do nothing but MAYBE get close to an MPG more....big deal.
other than the X3....the 3 other trucks achieve that mileage while offering the performance of exactly that...an suv with 700 more pounds than an RDX. the RDX dusts off the Ford & Hyundais while achieving same MPG. The trade off is performance, not poor gas mileage.
I dont think everyone quite understands the performance Honda achieved through this engine and its turbo app. Maybe everyone does....but in terms of relativity......The V6 they would of had to put under the hood to get the numbers they are getting with the TURBO would be something along the lines of what is in the Infiniti EX or almost the identical engine in the MDX; Thats just not gonna happen with the MDX in the lineup already getting 300 hp. A V6 putting up numbers that the V4 does now would get almost identical mileage.
The gripe here is a preference of application and driveability, a V6 would do nothing but MAYBE get close to an MPG more....big deal.
08-12-2008, 11:25 AM
#23
Pro
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Age: 45
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
The V6 would have better throttle response, less NVH and no lag and could likely have better mileage (and maybe even regular gas). The turbo 4 is underated by a few ponies, which is why the performance is overacheiving the published horsepower numbers.
They could put a 260 hp V6 and likely get the exact same performance. The EX is significantly faster with it's 290+hp and less torque than the RDX. The AWD version is the same weight as our cars (sad considering how small it is).
I understand why Acura likely went the turbo 4 route, but I doubt it would offer any performance advantge over a similarly powered V6. It's likely just based on cost and market differentiation.
They could put a 260 hp V6 and likely get the exact same performance. The EX is significantly faster with it's 290+hp and less torque than the RDX. The AWD version is the same weight as our cars (sad considering how small it is).
I understand why Acura likely went the turbo 4 route, but I doubt it would offer any performance advantge over a similarly powered V6. It's likely just based on cost and market differentiation.
08-12-2008, 12:14 PM
#24
Racer
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by MMike1981
yea....and CWE...
other than the X3....the 3 other trucks achieve that mileage while offering the performance of exactly that...an suv with 700 more pounds than an RDX. the RDX dusts off the Ford & Hyundais while achieving same MPG. The trade off is performance, not poor gas mileage.
I dont think everyone quite understands the performance Honda achieved through this engine and its turbo app. Maybe everyone does....but in terms of relativity......The V6 they would of had to put under the hood to get the numbers they are getting with the TURBO would be something along the lines of what is in the Infiniti EX or almost the identical engine in the MDX; Thats just not gonna happen with the MDX in the lineup already getting 300 hp. A V6 putting up numbers that the V4 does now would get almost identical mileage.
The gripe here is a preference of application and driveability, a V6 would do nothing but MAYBE get close to an MPG more....big deal.
other than the X3....the 3 other trucks achieve that mileage while offering the performance of exactly that...an suv with 700 more pounds than an RDX. the RDX dusts off the Ford & Hyundais while achieving same MPG. The trade off is performance, not poor gas mileage.
I dont think everyone quite understands the performance Honda achieved through this engine and its turbo app. Maybe everyone does....but in terms of relativity......The V6 they would of had to put under the hood to get the numbers they are getting with the TURBO would be something along the lines of what is in the Infiniti EX or almost the identical engine in the MDX; Thats just not gonna happen with the MDX in the lineup already getting 300 hp. A V6 putting up numbers that the V4 does now would get almost identical mileage.
The gripe here is a preference of application and driveability, a V6 would do nothing but MAYBE get close to an MPG more....big deal.
08-12-2008, 12:27 PM
#25
Racer
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by cwepruk
The V6 would have better throttle response, less NVH and no lag and could likely have better mileage (and maybe even regular gas). The turbo 4 is underated by a few ponies, which is why the performance is overacheiving the published horsepower numbers.
They could put a 260 hp V6 and likely get the exact same performance. The EX is significantly faster with it's 290+hp and less torque than the RDX. The AWD version is the same weight as our cars (sad considering how small it is).
I understand why Acura likely went the turbo 4 route, but I doubt it would offer any performance advantge over a similarly powered V6. It's likely just based on cost and market differentiation.
They could put a 260 hp V6 and likely get the exact same performance. The EX is significantly faster with it's 290+hp and less torque than the RDX. The AWD version is the same weight as our cars (sad considering how small it is).
I understand why Acura likely went the turbo 4 route, but I doubt it would offer any performance advantge over a similarly powered V6. It's likely just based on cost and market differentiation.
Acura RDX
240 hp/260 lb-ft torque
3933 lbs
0-60 in 6.4 seconds
17/22 mpg
Infiniti EX35 AWD
297 hp/253 lb-ft torque
3915 lbs
0-60 in 6.3 seconds
16/23 mpg
08-12-2008, 12:42 PM
#26
Instructor
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NYC~Brooklyn
Age: 39
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by oasis3582
Don't forget about the RAV4, which gets better mileage and is quicker to 60.
Honestly.. I think a v6 will just increase the weight of the RDX making it even slower...
08-12-2008, 01:57 PM
#27
Racer
Thread Starter
I think a poster here has the best summary of the issues at hand on the RDX with the T4/6 debate.
Statement like “Acura's move to turbocharging is certainly logical: it allows the RDX to deliver the power (240 horses) and torque (260 lb-ft, the most of any Acura ever offered) of a larger six-cylinder engine along with the fuel economy of a four-cylinder. Laurance Yap, LuxuryCarCanada” is misleading and wrong. Because…
1. The very purpose of turbocharging is to burn more gas. Torque and power is the function of how much fuel is burnt in the combustion chamber. You cannot get something out of nothing.
2. Turbocharging in effect makes engine’s compression ratio higher than its geometrical compression ratio. Simply put, a 10:1 ratio engine becomes 20:1 ratio engine when the boost is 1 bar. This is way too high for a gas engine and causes detonation if no measure is taken to prevent knocking.
3. To avoid detonation usually a turbochaged gas engine has lower geometrical compression ratio, fed with high-octane gas, a spark timing retarding system and, in some cases, over-rich fuel/air mixture so that unburnable gas evaporates in the combustion chamber to cool it.
4. Most turbochargers are in idling mode when cruising making the car burning high-octane gas in a low-compression ratio engine.
5. When the boost becomes too much for the engine to handle, the exhaust gas is bypassed around the turbine wasting the energy-rich hot gas.
6. The exhaust channel flow is somewhat restricted because of the turbocharger.
All in all, real fuel consumption of a turbocharged gas engine has been disappointing to users. The only positive aspect of the turbochaging in place of more displacement is lower engine weight and lower friction inside the engine.
I do not know if RDX’s engine has a direct cylinder fuel injection such as Mazda CX-7, BMW 335i and VW Golf TSI, but its geometrical compression ratio is 9.2:1 which is higher than older turbocharged engines in general. The new generation turbocharged engines such as those from Mazda, BMW and VW all have direct cylinder fuel injection, which allows much better temperature control inside the combustion chamber by squirting cold gas directly at the hot spot to let it evaporate. Actually you can squirt the gas more than once in one combusting cycle to take a good control of temperature and combustion. This is the reason why the compression ratios of these cars are 9.5:1, 10.7:1 and 9.7:1 respectively. This allows the engine always on boost making the throttle response immediate, at the same time cruising more efficient.
1. The very purpose of turbocharging is to burn more gas. Torque and power is the function of how much fuel is burnt in the combustion chamber. You cannot get something out of nothing.
2. Turbocharging in effect makes engine’s compression ratio higher than its geometrical compression ratio. Simply put, a 10:1 ratio engine becomes 20:1 ratio engine when the boost is 1 bar. This is way too high for a gas engine and causes detonation if no measure is taken to prevent knocking.
3. To avoid detonation usually a turbochaged gas engine has lower geometrical compression ratio, fed with high-octane gas, a spark timing retarding system and, in some cases, over-rich fuel/air mixture so that unburnable gas evaporates in the combustion chamber to cool it.
4. Most turbochargers are in idling mode when cruising making the car burning high-octane gas in a low-compression ratio engine.
5. When the boost becomes too much for the engine to handle, the exhaust gas is bypassed around the turbine wasting the energy-rich hot gas.
6. The exhaust channel flow is somewhat restricted because of the turbocharger.
All in all, real fuel consumption of a turbocharged gas engine has been disappointing to users. The only positive aspect of the turbochaging in place of more displacement is lower engine weight and lower friction inside the engine.
I do not know if RDX’s engine has a direct cylinder fuel injection such as Mazda CX-7, BMW 335i and VW Golf TSI, but its geometrical compression ratio is 9.2:1 which is higher than older turbocharged engines in general. The new generation turbocharged engines such as those from Mazda, BMW and VW all have direct cylinder fuel injection, which allows much better temperature control inside the combustion chamber by squirting cold gas directly at the hot spot to let it evaporate. Actually you can squirt the gas more than once in one combusting cycle to take a good control of temperature and combustion. This is the reason why the compression ratios of these cars are 9.5:1, 10.7:1 and 9.7:1 respectively. This allows the engine always on boost making the throttle response immediate, at the same time cruising more efficient.
08-12-2008, 01:57 PM
#28
Pro
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Age: 45
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
That 0-60 os 6.4 is an anomaly and almost all tests are in the high 6's for the RDX.
Plus, 0-60 is a lame number anyways. 1/4 miles times and traps are way more indicative of actual straight line performance and the EX will trap 98 mph to Acura's 91. It's not an assumption, it's fact.
Plus, 0-60 is a lame number anyways. 1/4 miles times and traps are way more indicative of actual straight line performance and the EX will trap 98 mph to Acura's 91. It's not an assumption, it's fact.
08-13-2008, 08:57 AM
#29
0-60 is a lame number? ummmmmmm When most people see 0-60 they think everyday driving. Could you explain why you think 0-60 is a lame number, seriously im really interested in that statement..if its so lame why is every single car and its characteristics judged against it?
In a turbo engine, the general concern is TQ and the ability to take off ie 0-60. Top end, not so much because a stock boosted engine psi drops off....TQ is what usually matters to people, especially in trucks. Even with the lag that some of you refer to in the RDX...it STILL gets a 6.5 burst. I fail to see the fault in its operation. It may not be as linear as a V6, it may not have the initial response of a V6...but seriously...there are alot of other trucks out there....that ARE NOT a turbo. But at the same time...which ones have numbers with the RDX? hmmmmmmmmmmm turbo & 32k doesnt seem to bad now does it
If there was an actual problem with this application, trust me, id be totally on the other side of the fence and probably wouldnt have bought it in the first place - as some of the posters on this board should have thought about BEFORE buying..if ya dont like turbo response, why did u buy it!!!
In a turbo engine, the general concern is TQ and the ability to take off ie 0-60. Top end, not so much because a stock boosted engine psi drops off....TQ is what usually matters to people, especially in trucks. Even with the lag that some of you refer to in the RDX...it STILL gets a 6.5 burst. I fail to see the fault in its operation. It may not be as linear as a V6, it may not have the initial response of a V6...but seriously...there are alot of other trucks out there....that ARE NOT a turbo. But at the same time...which ones have numbers with the RDX? hmmmmmmmmmmm turbo & 32k doesnt seem to bad now does it
If there was an actual problem with this application, trust me, id be totally on the other side of the fence and probably wouldnt have bought it in the first place - as some of the posters on this board should have thought about BEFORE buying..if ya dont like turbo response, why did u buy it!!!
08-13-2008, 10:06 AM
#30
Pro
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Age: 45
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Why do you get bent out of shape. I simply said I'd prefer a V6 and there would be no downside to it. The turbo application has a couple minor downsides. Even the reviews I've read have said similar things. I bought the RDX because it is the best in it's class/price range. That doesn't mean it couldn't be better.
0-60's are lame. AWD cars always get better times and 0-60's are quite variable based on surface, tires, launch etc.
Something like 1/4 trap speeds will tell you who is quicker in any race other than from a dig as not every race involves a brake torqued launch. My Maxima blows my RDX away, but probably has a very similar 0-60 time. Quoting a 6.4 time when most mags are in the 6.8 range is cherry picking the numbers. Time to distance gives a much better indicator of who would be ahead in a race and trap speeds are indicative of which vehicle is putting more power down.
There are so many cars with 0-60's within a couple tenths, but the 1/4 trap speeds tell you much more. STi's have killer 0-60's, but they'd have a tough time pulling away from a 350Z (just an example).
0-60's are lame. AWD cars always get better times and 0-60's are quite variable based on surface, tires, launch etc.
Something like 1/4 trap speeds will tell you who is quicker in any race other than from a dig as not every race involves a brake torqued launch. My Maxima blows my RDX away, but probably has a very similar 0-60 time. Quoting a 6.4 time when most mags are in the 6.8 range is cherry picking the numbers. Time to distance gives a much better indicator of who would be ahead in a race and trap speeds are indicative of which vehicle is putting more power down.
There are so many cars with 0-60's within a couple tenths, but the 1/4 trap speeds tell you much more. STi's have killer 0-60's, but they'd have a tough time pulling away from a 350Z (just an example).
08-13-2008, 02:02 PM
#31
they are really within 6.5 but lets not focus on a few tenths.
i wasnt getting bent out of shape i was really just seeing where u were going with why 0-60 doesnt matter.
things come off more harsh over the internet than intended.
A trap will tell u more about top speed...but that doesnt necessarily matter in terms of an SUV.
I want to know how long/fast it will take the truck to GET UP TO SPEED, not how fast it will go in full. Moving 4k lbs from a stop matters...traps and top end not so much. Thats why I find 0-60 clocks for suvs and crosses to have much more significance than cars. Just in comparison...Ford Edge/CX-7 and the RDX. Similar weights, the ford has a V6, the CX-7 almost identical engines. What the edge and 7 tell me off the line is that they have one or 2 problems based on their 0-60's. Weight or just a poor engine in the Ford, and in the 7, its either turbo lag or power is getting lost in translation = sluggish performence. Thats what I infer from 0-60's...any vehicle can gain good speed when you let it rip, but in terms of this application; an suv, especially witha turbo 4...the 0-60 matters even more so. BUt when you let the X3 and RDX run neck n neck in a 1/4 mile they are basically the same. V6 vs V4.
i wasnt getting bent out of shape i was really just seeing where u were going with why 0-60 doesnt matter.
things come off more harsh over the internet than intended.
A trap will tell u more about top speed...but that doesnt necessarily matter in terms of an SUV.
I want to know how long/fast it will take the truck to GET UP TO SPEED, not how fast it will go in full. Moving 4k lbs from a stop matters...traps and top end not so much. Thats why I find 0-60 clocks for suvs and crosses to have much more significance than cars. Just in comparison...Ford Edge/CX-7 and the RDX. Similar weights, the ford has a V6, the CX-7 almost identical engines. What the edge and 7 tell me off the line is that they have one or 2 problems based on their 0-60's. Weight or just a poor engine in the Ford, and in the 7, its either turbo lag or power is getting lost in translation = sluggish performence. Thats what I infer from 0-60's...any vehicle can gain good speed when you let it rip, but in terms of this application; an suv, especially witha turbo 4...the 0-60 matters even more so. BUt when you let the X3 and RDX run neck n neck in a 1/4 mile they are basically the same. V6 vs V4.
08-13-2008, 09:45 PM
#33
Pro
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Age: 45
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Originally Posted by MMike1981
A trap will tell u more about top speed...but that doesnt necessarily matter in terms of an SUV.
Google up 1/4 mile horsepower calculators, they use trap speeds to calculate horsepower and they are pretty accurate.
Ford Edge/CX-7 and the RDX. Similar weights, the ford has a V6, the CX-7 almost identical engines. What the edge and 7 tell me off the line is that they have one or 2 problems based on their 0-60's.
08-14-2008, 09:32 AM
#34
Its assumed the RDX has been underated, but,.....ill restate my reasoning again....0-60 in a truck matters, do i care about how my car is pulling a qtr mile? not so much, because I care how quickly my truck is going to get me thru traffic on an onramp, from 5mph to 50, through the city, etc.
CX-7 has nothing to do with making consistent power....it has everything to do with its poor tuning, rushed engineering, and horrendous turbo lag which coincide with its poor acceleration numbers. It just cant MAKE the power at the low end...even though TQ is supposed to be available at 2500 rpms, its trac control is limits usable power terribly. What you would think would be RDX-like numbers in the 7, its way off. The only thing its consistent with is its routinely high 7 second 0-60 run range. Thats terrible, because on paper, its stats are almost a mirror of the Acura, underated or not. Its 1/4 mile is around 16 flat not cracking over 86 mph. The Mazda is a product of bad engineering, not a lack of power. Thats what 0-60 tells me.
Im not arguing 1/4 mile runs here......im reasoning why you think its more important than a 0-60 time in an suv. Whatever the power ratings are for these suv's, they are.....im stating a 0-60 is MORE IMPORTANT in terms of real world driving, for most people, and 0-60 translates what car/truck is quicker than its counterpart. When you jump from a CX-7 to an RDX, like I did, you will quickly discover that engineering and tuning go just as far as a power rating and application. The RDX is a rocket ship compared to the CX-7. The 7's computer is in an constant fight with the power plant, tranny, and traction, thats where its engine becomes neutralized and sometimes insignificant.
IM NOT saying 1/4 mile runs arent important for discovering other aspects of our cars, certainly people with a Z06, or my good friend with his Gallardo, they are MAJORLY important because they actually really matter. In the case of a supercar, id want the car faster at higher speeds, isnt that what we buy them for? to race them?
So again, its great to know your power/weight ratio...but isnt it better to know how its being applied? The RDX is quicker to 60 than the X3 but found to be slower to 100..which one would you rather hammer away in?
CX-7 has nothing to do with making consistent power....it has everything to do with its poor tuning, rushed engineering, and horrendous turbo lag which coincide with its poor acceleration numbers. It just cant MAKE the power at the low end...even though TQ is supposed to be available at 2500 rpms, its trac control is limits usable power terribly. What you would think would be RDX-like numbers in the 7, its way off. The only thing its consistent with is its routinely high 7 second 0-60 run range. Thats terrible, because on paper, its stats are almost a mirror of the Acura, underated or not. Its 1/4 mile is around 16 flat not cracking over 86 mph. The Mazda is a product of bad engineering, not a lack of power. Thats what 0-60 tells me.
Im not arguing 1/4 mile runs here......im reasoning why you think its more important than a 0-60 time in an suv. Whatever the power ratings are for these suv's, they are.....im stating a 0-60 is MORE IMPORTANT in terms of real world driving, for most people, and 0-60 translates what car/truck is quicker than its counterpart. When you jump from a CX-7 to an RDX, like I did, you will quickly discover that engineering and tuning go just as far as a power rating and application. The RDX is a rocket ship compared to the CX-7. The 7's computer is in an constant fight with the power plant, tranny, and traction, thats where its engine becomes neutralized and sometimes insignificant.
IM NOT saying 1/4 mile runs arent important for discovering other aspects of our cars, certainly people with a Z06, or my good friend with his Gallardo, they are MAJORLY important because they actually really matter. In the case of a supercar, id want the car faster at higher speeds, isnt that what we buy them for? to race them?
So again, its great to know your power/weight ratio...but isnt it better to know how its being applied? The RDX is quicker to 60 than the X3 but found to be slower to 100..which one would you rather hammer away in?
08-14-2008, 07:47 PM
#35
Racer
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, at least Cwepruk knows what he's talking about. Trap speed gives a much better indication of real world power than a 0-60 number, which is more a test of traction than anything else. That's why a lot of publications have metrics on a street start, which is slightly better, but still extremely variable, and really more trivia than a representation of a strong or flexible powerplant.
I think the turbo in the RDX isn't a dud, but just isn't suited for a heavy vehicle. It would have made more sense to put it in the TSX, which wouldn't have had all the weight to lug around off boost.
I think the turbo in the RDX isn't a dud, but just isn't suited for a heavy vehicle. It would have made more sense to put it in the TSX, which wouldn't have had all the weight to lug around off boost.
08-14-2008, 08:55 PM
#36
My only car is a Bus
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 3,254
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I never understood why the RDX did not get a 2.5 litre V6. I think the resulting car would have been more exciting to drive and had better fuel economy. It would have weighed more and cost more (maybe) but I think it would have been better. The stats above are interested as to the EX and the RDX but Nissan does not have the same skill level building engines that Acura has, I think.
08-14-2008, 09:01 PM
#37
2016 MDX Adv/SHAWD
part of the reason they went with a 4 was weight distrubution. keeps the car more evenly weighted front to back, while getting same power, just with a different power curve
08-14-2008, 09:19 PM
#38
Pro
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Age: 45
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
I think the main reasons for the turbo 4 were market position, cost, the "technology" front and turbo's are actually fairly marketable to the younger crowds. And let's face it, other than a Forester and tiny EX35, no small sport ute is as quick.
I really like the powertrain, I just think a V6 is better suited for this vehicle. Turn on the AC and plant your foot from a stop, takes a few seconds for spool which can make me a bit nervous sometimes on left turns across 2-3 lanes.
I really like the powertrain, I just think a V6 is better suited for this vehicle. Turn on the AC and plant your foot from a stop, takes a few seconds for spool which can make me a bit nervous sometimes on left turns across 2-3 lanes.
08-14-2008, 09:29 PM
#39
Carbon Bronze Pearl 2008
I've had my new RDX for two months now and love it's turbo! Granted, it does take some getting used to, hence, minor turbo lag from a stand still if you punch it. But, when you begin to "learn" how to drive it you can easily forget it's only a 2.3 ltr 4-cylinder!
Use the "S" mode with paddle shifters and it becomes a whole different animal!
Use the "S" mode with paddle shifters and it becomes a whole different animal!
08-15-2008, 08:43 AM
#40
Originally Posted by Fishbulb
Well, at least Cwepruk knows what he's talking about. Trap speed gives a much better indication of real world power than a 0-60 number, which is more a test of traction than anything else.