Since the old thread degenerated into a pissing match, let's keep this one above board shall we ladies and gents?

https://acurazine.com/forums/showthr...p?t=170&page=3


I test drive the CX-7 about a month ago and my takeaway was the following...

Likes:
1. Impressive Torque(generates peak much sooner than RDX)
2. Value Pricing
3. Six-speed auto

Dislikes:
1. Buzzy engine
2. Unrefined interior
3. Subjective exterior styling

Nutshell, very compelling bang for the buck. Continue to be impressed with Mazda's direction. Unlikely to purchase because of lower residual value and just don't care for the exterior styling.


I test drove the RDX today and...
Likes:
1. Stellar interior and ergonomics
2. Handling is tight, tight, tight (for a CUV)
3. All-around dynamics and 'feel'

Dislikes:
1. Where's the value Honda???$$$ Almost $40 grand OTD!
2. Slight, but perceptible turbo lag
3. Smallish, cramped interior
4. Less than impressive fuel economy


In a nutshell, while very impressed. I probably won't be parking one in our garage any time soon. Compared to the wifey's current CRV, one is losing a lot of utility as it pertains to useable interior space.

I'm still scratching my head as to why Honda didn't package the current J30A5 engine from the Accord into this vehicle, especially since they're moving the MDX further uspcale.

I will proably wait a couple of years for mid-cycle upgrade and wait for power passenger's seat/memory seat and get more wiggle room on pricing.

 

I drove both and I pretty much agree with you. It was that tight handling that sold me on the RDX.

 

Don't think the RDX platform was wide enough to support a V6 plus the extra weight of the engine would probably have upset the handling balance they were trying to achieve.

 

I'm betting they'll refine the turbo engine in the next couple years. What probably happened was they always intended this to be a 4 cyl turbo from the beginning to give great mileage and lots of power. What they probably found out is that they weren't able to get the balance right. Remember, this engine has more torque than any other Acura engine. They got the power right but not the mileage. I'm sure that in the next two years as they continue to work on the development they'll be able to solve the problems with mileage and turbo lag.

 

What's the difference in weight, maybe 150lbs? I'm just saying they could have saved a boatload of money in development costs by using a proven off the rack engine which would be sufficient in this type of vehicle. Acura could have used the cost savings to drop the price by a grand.

IMO the value quotient is just not there. If I'm gonna spend almost 40 gizzle of my hard earned money an a CUV, I'd prefer a V6, especially if the fuel economy is the same.

 

Maybe the development costs will benefit other cars too....

 

150lbs can make a pretty big difference in the handling. It's like perpetually have a passenger sitting on the hood of your car.

And I doubt there was that much money spent on the development of the turbo motor. The standard blocks and internals on most Honda cars can handle light boost. Finding a manufacturer to build a turbo to Honda's spec was probably also not a problem. And despite what everyone thinks, Honda does have experience with turbo engines, the motors just never made it out of the Japanese market.

And even if fuel economy were worst, I'm willing to bet that at least a few of the people here would still prefer the V6 because they seem to have some hang-up about driving a car with 4-cylinders.

 

TSX??

 

yeah... they could have used a off the rack v6... but you cant beat the word "turbo" in selling an new and exciting vehicle... launching the rdx with a turbo engine gives acura a really good point of difference and something really memorable to take away from the ads.... but man, that little rdx with acura's 3.2L engine would have kicked some serious ass, well there is always the type-s line for the future.

 

Yeah, but I don't think they could fit a 3.2 v6 in there.
Besides, the v6s don't produce as much torque as the turbo.

 

2.2L turbo diesel, please

 

usually, people looking at $40,000 automobiles aren't too concerned with fuel economy...... it's ridiculous that you people drop all that money and then complain about something like a 3mpg difference between two cars......

i don't drive my TSX like a grandma, because it isn't fun to drive like that. i'd rather drive how i normally do, fill up 40 miles earlier (at like 360 miles instead of 400 on a tank), and be happy and not worry about the $3.50 i could have saved.

 

My complaint isn't so much the overall fuel economy, I can live with that. But relative to the size of the engine it's poor vs what I'd expect -- the reason Honda gave initially to use the 2.3 turbo was fuel economy. Just saying I would have preferred the J30A5 if the fuel efficiency was going to be roughly the same in this class of vehicle.

Don't get me wrong, I really like this car. I'm just not going to rush out and buy one today.

 

Yeah, yeah, we know that's what they've told us, but we also know that's not the whole story. The engine is great for weight, better differentiating the RDX from the V6 MDX, and as some have said, marketing (every single ad makes reference to the turbo. . .) Mileage is what would be expected of an AWD 4000lb SUV, no matter the engine.