XLR8R

We know the Infinity EX will have the 3.5 V-6 with about 300 hp. In response, BMW is expected to rob the 3.0 turbo I-6 from the 335i, to boost the X-3 to the magic 300 hp figure.

Other premium compact X-overs are on the way, and in terms of hp, 300 is the new 250...all with V-6s of course.

So what's Acura to do? I predict the RDX will never have a V-6. It won't fit and would throw off the polar moment by an unacceptable amount.

I think we'll see a twin-scroll design of the present variable inlet turbo, or two, high/low staged turbo-chargers boosting torque to a class leading 320 lb/ft. Refining I-VTEC will increase redline above 7000 rpm, yielding 300 hp. This engine will be mated to a 6-speed automatic trans, for an EPA economy of 18 and 24. Towing ability will increase to 2500 lbs.

They designate it the Type S. The original version will have a softer suspension, but get the 6-speed auto as well, with an economy of 19 and 25.

ACURascal

XLR8... i love the way you think.

OK.. I'll run this through a serious contemplation.. then clean off my specs and let you know.. but.. you did it first, and I'll always remember that.

-AR

cwepruk

They just put the 260 hp engine into the X3, so I would think it will be the next gen that would get the Turbo engine. But the X3 is to pricey to consider for me.

I would think the next step for Acura would be direct injection on this engine, but they could likely bump the hp by 20 without much work and that might be enough on the interim.

It would have been a decent idea to use the TL's V6 in this car. 258 hp, good throttle response and it's a proven engine. I'm not sure what type of saving in terms of dollars or weight you get (if any) by bolting a turbo, intercooler to a 4 cyl.

MMike1981

Some insider news here: one of my friends got a call from a Chicago based research company, he was hired to goto a screening of 5 new vehicles. It was a "cross-over/sport luxury" titled thing. Entries were there from Caddy, Lincoln, BMW, Acura, and Merc. Each vehicle had to be close to the 60k level (this is from the forms he had). The badges were covered up when he had to evaluate the cars, he said that certain cues obv gave the brands away, and this is what he said.

The Acura was very nice, he said somewhat similar to the MDX/RDX however the 3rd row seat was almost impassable (head had to be tilted to the side, hes about 6'1) Im going to assume this is Acura's "FX-Killer" that has been metioned on TOVTEC their higher model upscale crossover due out possibly in 09/10.

The MERC stole the show, he said was super-luxo, and a new vehicle design

The Caddy was a derivative of the SRX or whatever that wagon thing they make is

The lincoln he said was a major PIECE, was NOT similar to the MKX and was a totally new vehicle.

He didnt give me to many details about the BMW, might have been the one most heavily disguised.

thats all i got for u folks!!

this eval was strictly on appearance, materials, looks, paint, both objective qualities and subjective qualites (ie: which rims appear better compared to others (each car had a #), which lights appear better etc etc)

no stats were given, at all, about drivetrains, and mechanical stuff...

darth62

The savings is all to Acura/Honda. Honda had a basic platform, the CRV, that was never designed for a six. Rather than going through the expense of desigining a V6 mini-SUV from ground up, they altered the CRV with a more sophisticated suspension, new features, a far more sophisticated AWD system, and turbo charged engine. The benifit to the consumer is that the lower cost of development might be passed on in the form of a lower MSRP. But, personally, I am skeptical.

Why should the owner of a $27,000 USDM V6 Accord have a more sophisticated engine than the driver of a $37,000 Acura?

MMike1981

yea, id be pissed if i just bought a TL and then the 08 Accord came out with that rated power. the Accord V6 is a serious powerplant for that price poiint.

MMike1981

I have a feeling that judging by the vehicle my good friend saw last week from Acura (the upscale crossover, that the Honda sibling will fit nicely inbetween the Pilot and CRV with a solid V6 and good AWD on a different platform than the smaller CRV.

cwepruk

I wouldn't be surprised if a 6 cyl CRV-4 pops up if the Rav4 steals too many sales.

It would surprise me if Honda allowed or at least put some retrofit ability for a potential V6 in the future.

loulinjai

I don't think we'll see two motor choices for the RDX. Acura developed this motor specific to the RDX (and possible future applications). Their goal was 40k units/year I believe. Obviously they were way off. If you factor in the planned vs. actual development cost per unit, it costs Honda/Acura more than planned. Facing this situation, I don't think they'll risk even more losses with developing another powerplant for the RDX.
I have a TSX and I test driven the RDX. The RDX is impressive in many ways, but I was kinda disappointed by the motor and from-a-stand-still-turbo-lag. The tester I had was an 07, and I heard some owners said the later 07's and 08's were improved. 13.5psi of max boost with quite significant. However, 8.8:1 CR is quite low. So at lower rpm's when not much boost is present, the lag is quite....annoying.
I think BMW's approach to turbocharging (two small turbos with 3L of displacement) is much better. (3L @8psi peak > 2.3L at 13.5psi peak, especially for a 4000lb car)

BleuM&M

They did it with the Civic and it bombed, some said because it didn't look goofy enough, I mean ahh, distinct like the Prius. They did it with the Accord and dropped it because I'm still trying to figure. It was the hottest Accord in the lineup but without the marketing support. Or that goofy, I'm sorry, distinct styling.

Visualize the RDX with a sandwich electro unit that provides the roll-off juice plus low-end nudge to complement the same or maybe reflashed motor in now - minimal weight gain, max performance. Enter R2D2-X! Similar to the Toyota Highlander/Lexus RX hybrid, but with performance-purpose.

That being said, I'm not a fan of hybrids or the E85 hype. I'm leaning toward the XLR8R scenario, maybe not so exotic, but with more ECU refinement that could net 15+% mpg gains. This is a fantastic platform with lots of potential. Honda can bring it.

XLR8R

Here's a few specs from 2006, the Accord Hybrid's last year:

Accord LX_______$19775_____166 hp____EPA 24/34

Accord EX V6____$26850_____244 hp____EPA 21/30

Accord Hybrid____$30140_____253 hp____EPA 30/37

I think they over-estimated the size of the Green-Hotrod demographic. The Hybrid buyer forked over a $3290 premium to dust gas V6s and get a mere 7 to 8 mpg over the EX. Worse yet, Leo DiCaprio wasn't waving to them, not with more than one finger anyway.

The performance buyer was probably satisfied with the EX, and the Green/economy buyer couldn't see $10365 for 3 to 5 mpg, and may have been offended by the horsepower. Both buyers expect their gas Hondas to go 250k miles, and hybrid tech is still in question after 100k.

The Prius crowd, and their cloud of Smug, may have done the technology a disservice by defining the vehicles politically. But hybrid acceptance should increase dramatically in the next ten years. I agree, the instant torque of electric motors should have wide appeal in performance applications. Your RDX concept has merit.

I shopped the Prius for my In-Laws. It is a well designed, very useful and practical family run-about with excellent reliability. Minus the "image", and forgiving the poor rear visibility, it's a competitive choice for Buick people. Long term costs may null the EPA advantage though. (They got another Buick.)

I'm with you on the E85. It's GM's desperate grab for some of Toyota's Green credibility. Speaking of, is the media aware Toyota makes the Sequoia, Land Cruiser and LX 470???

XLR8R

One electric motor for each rear wheel would help with the weight distribution, and imagine how well digital control could operate them independantly for SH-AWD.

Perhaps electric only at the rear for performance, and gas FWD for highway economy. No rear propshaft = more battery room.

sasair

Yes, Honda built the Accord for the wrong reasons. They added the electric component to the car not for better gas mileage, but for better performance. The slightly better gas mileage was just an added bonus. But as you said, green happy buyers aren't generally performance nuts. They'd all rather go to the Camry hybrid (38/40mpg 2007 EPA).

MMike1981

One thing you need to remember: Acura's turbo in the RDX is a faster (even if its in small margins) engine than the X3's V6. So, in essence, their first turbo motor, however it may work, has already trumped its competition.

darth62

I might be harder than you think, because Honda doesn't current have a V6 that would fit under the hood of the CRV, and the CRV is selling like hotcakes right now in any case.

MMike1981

and they are planning a model higher up than the crv...people who buy crv's their #1 concern is not the powerplant

black label

This is missed by a lot of people who claim to be "buying green." Toyota needs the hybrid to equal out the low mileage of it's V8 powered vehicles. I hear a lot of questions about why Acura doesn't have a hybrid and when will they have a hybrid.

For every Tundra that goes on the road, they need a prius to average the gas mileage out. Acura doesn't make a vehicle that burns as much gas as the Tundra so their average fuel economy remains at an acceptable level without making a hybrid.

sasair

Do any consumers really care about a car manufacturer's average fuel economy across all their lineup? If I'm buying a Tundra then I would expect Tundra mileage, and if I'm getting a Prius I'd expect Prius mileage. I could care less if the Tundra and Prius average out to be a normal figure.

XLR8R

The EPA's Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard for automakers is 27.5 mpg across their product range. There is presently a light truck exception; SUVs and trucks with a GVWR of 8500 lbs or less have a CAFE of 22.2 mpg. The light truck exception was 15.8 in 1979, and the automakers used it to create a new segment -- by putting family friendly seats and a roof on pick-ups -- the SUV was born.

The light truck exception thwarted environmentalist goals, and is the source of the irrational hatred for SUVs in certain circles. In the looking glass world -- when an Echo fails to protect it's occupants from an Explorer -- it's the Explorer that is dangerous.

Since Honda's heaviest "truck" is the Ridgeline, they have a high CAFE number and trumpet this in Green-ish media, with flowery, pastel ads. (Canceled in April.)

More importantly for other automakers, the light truck exception is set to expire in 2009, blending truck figures into the mix. Presently, some auto makers simply choose to pay a CAFE penalty, rather than meet the standard, but the steady drumbeat of negative publicity is thinning the profit in this.

RDX Phat

Well, I've followed these threads for months, always chafing at the statements about how a V6 won't fit in the RDX/CRV. I didn't realize that darth62 and XLR8R were on the original Honda/Acura design team for the CR-V and the RDX; you should have identified yourselves!

Seriously, while I wasn't on the original design team, I doubt that Honda/Acura would do a major design that wouldn't accommodate both the I-4 and V6 engines in their lineups. Reading several statements by Honda/Acura reps about how they will need to apply the new ACE body structures to their other lines that do not do well in safety tests, one realizes how important the new ACE structure is to the whole Honda/Acura line.

Further, I doubt that a V6 would take up much more, if as much, room as the I-4 turbo. Looking at the pictures of the turbo engine, it looks as long and wide as a V6. The backside shows about 10-12 inches of turbo, controller valves, and plumbing that fits under the windshield in the engine bay. In addition, a V6 should not be any longer, if as long, as an I-4. The V6 cylinders are staggered so the block should be about 3 1/2 cylinders long compared to the I-4's 4 cylinders. This is all approximate, but I don't see a physical reason, and certainly not a design or corporate reason not to have designed the CR-V or RDX to handle the full range of corporate powerplants.

I also would expect that the weight difference would not be a big factor. While the weight from the I-4's turbo engine, oil and water plumbing, control valves, intercooler and hood baffle might not add up to the weight of a light alloy V6, I would expect it to be close. Most turbochargers are cast iron, at least on the hot side, and the bearings are water and air cooled on the better designs.

Finally, there was a web interview with an Acura executive who said they were considering a V6 for the RDX (I don't recall the link, but perhaps someone on this site recalls). If anyone reading this actually KNOWS that a V6 will not fit (Knows in a real engineering/scientific sense, or works in the Honda engineering lab) then please say so. Otherwise, if it is only your speculation it would be good to identify it as such.

This is not to say that the RDX is not a great car as it is, and the future will be interesting as Acura revises the turbo or includes a V6 option.

Regards to all, Bob

BleuM&M

INTERESTING! I immediately thought of that wild Tesla roadster. I would be concerned about unsprung weight if the motors were in the wheels. The motor for the Tesla drives both rears from inboard and weighs only 70 lbs. Of course we're talking a stratospheric price point for that tech.

XLR8R

How about twin motors in place of the SH-AWD diff, independently driving both rears through halfshafts with CV joints. Basically the same unsprung weight done with (mostly) existing Honda tech.

XLR8R

Well, darth was in charge and he took away my Exec washroom key and CAD password after he found out I had worked on the Pontiac Aztec and Isuzu Vehicross! So I sat in the can at the shipping dock with my slide rule, designing a 3.5 liter aluminum V-10 for the RDX. The pistons look like pill bottle caps, but I estimate 450 hp at 14000 rpm!

Now if I can just get them to listen to me, I'll take a shower this time...

darth62

LOL. Well played.....!

darth62

Bob - You are right that neither of us actually work for Acura, but we can read. And, that is something you might try doing yourself before you resort to sarcasm.


From EDMUNDS.Com: "What makes the RDX different is that it uses a turbocharged four-cylinder engine to make its hearty 240 horsepower, rather than Honda's smooth V6. Because the RDX is built on the small Honda CR-V platform, there wasn't room under its hood for the V6."

Thats just one source. I saw similar comments in other places, and you might try a little google action ot track down some of those reports.


In the meantime, I appreciate your logical reasoning about why a V6 would certainly fit. However, have you ever wondered why Honda, building the CRV and RDX in the states, where several V6 engines are being built, choose not to offer those engines in their mini-SUVs? Did you ever wonder why Honda went through the time and expense of their first North American turbo engine?

The current CRV/RDX platform was not designed from scratch. It acutally has much in common with the previous generation CRV, which was developed before V6 engines were widely available in vehicles of this type. Honda would have had to invest considerable re-engineering to alter that platform so that it would be suitable for a V6. And, yes, fit into the engine bay was part of the problem. So, they opted not spend the $, believing that the typical CRV buyer would be more concerned about MPG than power.

You'll see IMA or some kind of clean diesel engine in the RDX before you'll see a V6.

BleuM&M

OMG. Look at the bright side - surely DaVinci had his boneheaded moments. Nice attempt to redeem yourself with that V-10. It'll be great in the NSX!