newteez

Throwing out a idea here. I have been extremely happy with the Turbocharged 4, but was wondering if it would make a difference in performance and fuel efficency if we had either the RL or MDX V6 inside.

I personally think off-the-line performance would be compromized, but you would have more top-end speed and passing power. The torque generated is very similar between the different engines so the actual performance numbers would be negligable. If you compare the current RDX to the RL there acceleration numbers are very similar (both vehicles are basically the same weight)

The idea that a Turbo-Charged 4cyl will use less gas than the V6 is also a little suspect. If you dont use the turbo maybe, (Imagine barely pressing the gas at stoplights), but under normal driving conditions both the RL and the RDX have similar MPG results.


Options:

A) Turbocharged I4

B) MDX V6

C) RL V6

D) Turbocharged V6

I would choose D.
The ultimate marriage for me would be a turbocharged V6 engine with 350-60 HP and 350 LB/FT of torque. (We can all dream). But with this engine you would be looking at around 15mpg city and 20 hwy so it probably won't happen.


JD

buckeye#1

The MDX engine of course,but I seriously doubt
that will happen

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

From my test drive, I felt the turbo I-4 was more than sufficient for this particular application. However, if Honda had a light-weight 2.5L to <3.0L V6 or I6 motor that they could turbocharge, I'd be more inclined to pick D.

My biggest concern with using a larger V6 like the J35 is that it adds a fairly substantial amount of weight to the front end of the car, throwing off the handling balance. A lighter 6-cylinder with turbos (much like the motor available in the Saab 9-3 Aero) can produce more than ample power and should still retain relatively light weight compared to a larger displacement 6-cylinder.

SolidState

While you at it, add manual to that V6. The arument that a I4 Turbo saves gas is BS to me. I hate to say it but the RDX burns more gas than my 96' V6 Isuzo Rodeo for city driving. On the Highway, the RDX MGP is great. I think the BAD MPG for the RDX may have something to do with the weight, AWD and Automatic trans..

seevemonka

Would it be more money to have the rl/mdx/tltype s 3.5 ltr engine vs turbo 4. I would think it would be a few thousand dollars? I aslo agree about the front end weight. The rdx is the most balanced car for Acura.

c_hunter

It needs a somewhat unique V6. I doubt they would step on the toes of the MDX with the same engine (in fact many feel that was the reasoning behind the turbo-4 to begin with). I would say a 3.3-3.5L V6 is appropriate for the RDX. There is no doubt in my mind that a normally aspirated V6 will be less expensive than the turbo-4. Weight should not be too much of an issue either, and performance will probably be better with better MPG too. This is one particular vehicle where the turbo-4 has few, if any, advantages over a regular old V6.

Fibonacci

None of the above - like I said before, Acura should have utilized the J30 engine from the Accord and tweaked it for more torque.

It would have been a much more usefull application in the RDX platform. Yes, I know it is slightly heavier, but the refinement and linearity would have been worth it in my opinion.

I turbo four banger isn't refined enough for Acura to attach a premium price in this category - as shown by the weak sales numbers so far.

Don't get me wrong - I like the RDX, I just don't love it.

Pacer

Fibonacci has good points. And I also agree that a manual tranny in RDX would be quite appreciated by the many enthusiasts -- let's face it, if you're buying this vehicle you like spirited driving -- of us who shop/buy the RDX...as well as giving it better mpg.

Saab 9-3 Aero has a Holden/Caddy engine (well, really Holden -- GM's Aussie branch) V6 twin turbo @ 250 or 260hp that gets on the order of 18/28 mpg and still has terrific power and good torque from something like 2200-5500 rpm. Did you see that mileage: 18 city, 28 highway!!! Now there's something to think about. Its Achilles' Heel is no AWD...but it's also about 700 lbs lighter than RDX with more cargo space and comparable front seat space.

I am casually shopping the 9-3 SportCombi (wagon) Aero as I shop the RDX. RDX has it beat on implementation of its goodies, but 4500 cash back on an '06 Saab is tempting as a loaded nav model can be had for 31k or so. And if you wait a few more months, the '07 models will likely have the cash back as well...along with a 100k mile GM warranty.

But I've never owned a Saab.

seevemonka

[QUOTE=Pacer]Fibonacci has good points. And I also agree that a manual tranny in RDX would be quite appreciated by the many enthusiasts -- let's face it, if you're buying this vehicle you like spirited driving -- of us who shop/buy the RDX...as well as giving it better mpg.

Saab 9-3 Aero has a Holden/Caddy engine (well, really Holden -- GM's Aussie branch) V6 twin turbo @ 250 or 260hp that gets on the order of 18/28 mpg and still has terrific power and good torque from something like 2200-5500 rpm. Did you see that mileage: 18 city, 28 highway!!! Now there's something to think about. Its Achilles' Heel is no AWD...but it's also about 700 lbs lighter than RDX with more cargo space and comparable front seat space.

I am casually shopping the 9-3 SportCombi (wagon) Aero as I shop the RDX. RDX has it beat on implementation of its goodies, but 4500 cash back on an '06 Saab is tempting as a loaded nav model can be had for 31k or so. And if you wait a few more months, the '07 models will likely have the cash back as well...along with a 100k mile GM warranty.


Drive a saab. You will see why they are discounted. Saab hasn't upgraded this chasis in a long time.Saabs don't even come close to any luxury brand out there.

jimmyR

Think what a rocket the RDX system would be in the Civic! No more aftermarket stuff needed.

newteez

The idea is to get more performance out of the car and offer a premier sports car CUV at affordable pricing ($40 - $45K with Turbo 6).

Because the RDX has excellent balance and a great platform on which to build a sports car, I think more performance with a upgradable engine package and a 6 speed manual it would be able to attractive to a larger segment. (The larger engine would only add 100 or so pounds to the overall curb wieght, and could be offset by adding a couple of kids to the back seats.)

Despite what has been said on other threads the CUV and Acura's version of it is here to stay. With every major auto manufacturer introducing multiple versions in 2007 and 2008.

I think Honda would like to introduce a new version of a sports car. The NSX is no longer available and S2K is already 7 years old. One of the reasons why I bought the RDX was the sports car like drive with actual usable passenger and cargo space. With more power the car would be that much more appealing.

JD

pandaboi

how bout a more powerful turbo i4 =)

RDXer

TT i4? =)

Pacer

Stay tuned. New NSX is set to debut I believe in '09 and it will share much with a new S2K also out at that time. It will be very exciting, you can count on that!

The reason you bought the RDX are exactly what appeals to me about it. I am still thinking on it, though. Hopefully my local dealers will make it a no-brainer for me and meet my Tech offer of $34,200 out the door with all-season mats, wheel locks and mudflaps. Entirely reasonable if you ask me considering that RDX is overpriced and not exactly flying off the lot.