MMike1981

and my questions wasnt real world power....it was why he thinks a 1/4 is more important than 0-60 IN AN S U V.

cwepruk

Because time to distance tells you who crosses the finish line first. Time to speed does not. Also, when you have a ton of vehicles within 0.2 of each other 0-60 and different traps speeds, you can tell which vehicle will be faster in any race. When you have such a little variance in times, the difference is meaningless in the real world and when you are trying to compare times from one mag to another and one car in one test to another, a few tenths is nothing more than basic variability.

Something like an STi and a C5 Corvette will both run 0-60 in the 4.9 range, but any speed above 5 mph, the C5 will rape the STi so comparing number that are extremely close and concluding who is faster isn't really accurate. You don't need to run the full 1/4 mile to find that out.

Also, just because this is an SUV, does not mean we measure speed differently.

MMike1981

i dunno where this convo has gone...but im not talking about comparing an EX to the RDX, or trying to argue tenths of seconds here.

you listed fuel econ in a Ford and Hyundais. I compared the like performance of those to the RDX while the RDX maintains the same MPG if not better.

im not talking .2 seconds difference here, why would i waste my time on that. I was comparing big differneces like between the Ford, Hyundais and the CX-7. All i said about the EX was that it has 307 HP and is ONLY a few tenths quicker. Thats the only point i made regarding the similarity.

If you are in effect thinking im trying to make an argument over differences of .2 seconds, i dont know where you got that info from. In terms of the X3, i was saying that the RDX is faster all around, but loses to 100. thats it.

you are introducing sports cars into an SUV related topic. of course a vette will blow off an sti after 0-60....this is apples to oranges. im not making any claims about sports car acceleration and their 1/4 runs. Im not even arguing that fact with you.

im purley comparing RDX 0-60's (due to the fact that people are pissed over a turbo and lack of V6) to its competition that has V6's. Somewhere along the way, you interject with 1/4 mile. Thats fine, but that wasnt the point. The point was was that if turbo lag and the lack of a V6 is such an issue to SOME PEOPLE, the RDX numbers would tend to disagree with those opinions.

Now, if you want to start comparing 1/4 mile times to the rest of the competition, thats a totally different ball game, and as such, the RDX still does well. But a 1/4 was never my point of contention.

cwepruk

I simply posted fuel economy to show that heavier cars with more powerful V6 engines can get similar fuel economy. If the Edge can make 265+ hp, run on regular, weigh 600+ pounds more, a V6 in the RDX would likely benefit fuel economy and not hurt it.

As for comparing speed, it doesn't matter what type of car you are comparing. Trap speeds give you an indication of which car is faster, SUV, sports car, motorcyle, you don't have to run the entire 1/4 mile to know that.

This started when someone said the EX35 was barely faster than the RDX based on 0-60's, but the EX35 would literally leave carlengths on our cars at any speed, in any race, even though the 0-60's posted are close hence my point that comparing 0-60's (and cherry picking "best" numbers is not an accurate comparison of speed either). Published 0-60's can vary by as much as 0.5-0.8 seconds.

MMike1981

lol and im simply posted that they may get similar MPG,, but far worse performance.

MMike1981

o man

i was saying how I VALUE 0-60 MORE SO in an SUV. done. i didnt introduce this argument of faster and qtr mile...and frankly i could care less if the RDX or like vehicle is faster slower the same to a 1/4 mile. i care about 0-60, ok ?

again...i want the truck that is quicker to 0-60. why cant you understand that logic lol.....im not debating or disagreeing with this 1/4 mile bs. 1/4 may say which one is faster! thats great! I DONT CARE! lol i want 0-60 in my SUV!!!!!! Reason why the EX is car lengths ahead, it has 307 HP!!!! But with the RDX powerplant, its not too far off that monster V6's beaten path! thats all im tryin to say! hahhahaha

jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus

cwepruk

Fine, just don't pretend that because someone cherry picked one 0-60 number that 0.1 higher than the EX, that it's neck and neck in a race. It's not.

Rexorg

Just read about the '09 TL on www.hondanews.com. Hopefully, the changes to the interior will make there way to the RDX in the MMC '10. I am willing to pay the extra freight for these features.

MMike1981

and, whala...
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...er_coupe_spied