I was clicking around on Google cars and what caught my eye was the RDX is rated by the manufacturer below as:

AWD - Manufacturer's 0-60mph acceleration time (seconds): 5.7 s
FWD - Manufacturer's 0-60mph acceleration time (seconds): 6.4 s

I take these numbers with a grain of salt since I think R&T got 6.2s. Not that I plan to take her to the track anytime soon, but this got me thinking that AWD may actually have some peformance benefits besides just working better in the snow. I used to think AWD was just to avoid putting on chains when driving up to Tahoe and in general made the car slower and heavier, but now we see AWD as a performance differentiator and the RDX is no different...maybe we can thank Audi for that.

I think that's what's called a "typo", and it should read 6.7 for the AWD. The FWD will be quicker than the AWD, and low 6's is pretty much what all the testers are getting with the RDX.

I don't disagree with your assessment, but interestingly the CR-V AWD also has a faster rating, so either Google Cars is inaccurate or Honda is providing them with bad data.

AWD CR-V - Manufacturer's 0-60mph acceleration time (seconds): 7.2 s
FWD CR-V - Manufacturer's 0-60mph acceleration time (seconds): 8.7 s

Not saying AWD is superior as I have no doubt it sucks up the gas faster than FWD, but it would be interesting to know if the RDX can actually go sub-6 stock as that puts it in another class of vehicles for people who like to go striaght fast...Maybe in sport mode, shifting manually, at sea-level, with performance rubber and the baby seat taken out from the back???

I dont think 5.7 is the right number however it makes sense for AWD to be quicker. Its all about putting the power into good use without a waste due to wheel spin typical of a FWD

No, the RDX isn't getting into the 5's. It just ain't.

AWD won't get a lower number for the RDX, either - it adds weight, which hurts acceleration times, and there isn't enough wheelspin in the FWD to hurt 0-60 times. As drag racers know, a certain amount of wheelspin is good, as it gets engine revs up faster.

In really powerful cars, AWD CAN help 0-60 times, since it helps get the power to the ground instead of sitting there spinning the rear wheels in a cloud of rubber smoke and losing time. But the RDX's 273hp isn't enough to do that.

The CR-V isn't getting into the 7's, either, not with that wimpy 185hp 4-cyl. It's just another typo.

Reminded me why I should take everything I read on the Internet with a grain of salt. RDX 0-60 has been quoted as 6.2 on Motor Trend to low 8's (wall street journal guy). Anyway the 273 horses is plenty for my normal driving applications so no complaints here.

Depends.. Front drive will spin tires more, far less traction.. Only with a skilled driver (magazine tests)will the FWD be faster. If you drive in rain or snow, AWD is noticeally better in the RDX.

Some magazines have gotten the AWD RDX as fast as 6.2 seconds.

That is incorrect "A certain amount of wheel spin is good" Nope, it isn't. I am a drag racer. You want as little wheel spin as possible. More wheel spin, slower 1/4 mile times.
You want a great launch with as little wheel spin as possible.

Yes, with a good driver and ideal weather conditions the front drive RDX will be faster, agreed. However in real world drive the AWD is better and only 1 mpg penalty.

I think we're getting a little off-topic, but I also did a lot of drag racing in my youth, and I always got better times with a little "controlled" spin at the line ... not wasteful, time-sapping spin, just enough to get a good launch. Maybe "wheel slip" is a better term.

As you undoubtedly know, getting off the line is a delicate balance of power and traction, and if you bog, you lose. A little wheel slip in a vehicle like ours helps get the revs up and the engine out of the bog zone.

The bottom line is still that 5.7 isn't going to happen with the RDX. :wink:

Totally agree. it's all about 60' times now and that means a hard launch without wheel spin.