How do you feel about a v6 engine with the 6 speed transmission?

Would a turbo 4 and 8 speed be better?

 

Nope- The only thing I can say might be better is the 9sp from the MDX. That would help economy too.

 

It is a love hate affair for me. I think the engine is plenty powerful enough for the RDX, the transmission on the other hand is a major power sucker. If the rdx was going just the right speed and in the right gear, it was like a rocket. But if I caught it on the wrong gear or speed, it would bog down and slowly accelerate like a cvt.

My vote is to keep the engine (but tune it for 300hp please, I NEVER say no to more power!) but to swap out the transmission for the 8 speed dual clutch or the new 8 speed under development. The 9 speed in the mdx and tlx is a POS. Hesitant upshfits, hesitant and laggy downshifts, and it made the paddles essentially useless because it was like 10 seconds to downshift to a suitable gear. Another thing is that the driveline is too busy with 9 gears imho and I have heard from a mechanic friend who works at the jeep dealer to stay FAR AWAY from the jeep cherokee with this very same 9 speed.

 

Agreed on power- should be easy enough since they get 310 out of it in the RLX. I had a bad opinion of the MDX's transmission until I drove it for a longer period. Once I put it in sport mode, it was a nice ride. Smoother than the RDX and cruises at a lower RPM at highway speeds.

 

Exactly! Didn't the 2005 RL have a port injected 3.5l that made 295hp? If they give it direct injection and with already using premium, they can easily up the compression and get 300hp. I mean Kia and Hyundai have a direct injected 3.3l V6 making 290hp on regular.

As a highway cruising vehicle, the 9 speed is a really good fit. But in day to day city driving it got annoying really fast. No need to be in 5/6th gear at 50km/h. Really good for fuel economy, but bad for acceleration. In sport mode I think it locks out the top gears and keeps the transmission in the lower gears as much as possible.

 

I would agree with RDX10 about I-4 Turbo with any AT would be a step backward in the 3rd Gen RDX. Its just the I-4 just doesn't make enough TQ before the turbo starts to kick-in at a stop for a 2 ton vehicle. It is fine once you get the rpms up above 2000-2500; but, it feels like you are pulling a 2000lbs trailer until it does. I would be fine with an I-4 turbo in the ILX or TLX as the base engine because the I-4 has to push less weight before the turbo starts to spool.

I would really, really, REALLY love for Acura to offer the 3.5L V-6 as the base engine (upgrade to DI, add a few more HP, it can be same 6AT or 9AT, CRV-awd system or Honda Pilot awd system w/o the "sh" programming). Then offer an optional 3.0L S/C V-6 for tech/Adv models with 7DCT or develop an 8DCT, add sport+ and add sh-awd. I just don't like you don't get an upgrade or choice of engine power for tech/Adv version compared to the base version for the +$8000 difference in price. I don't think the current 2nd Gen RDX tech/Adv tech is worth that kind of $$$ over the plain Jane base model with only one engine/AT/awd choice.

 

To me,the powertrain is the best thing about the RDX and really the main reason why I have one.

 

?
all of acura's line up uses the same powertrain.
3.5l v6

so, most likely NOT the main reason why you have one.

 

Wat? Why not...the v6 offering in its class is also the only reason I am driving the rdx

 

^ahh, "in its class"

I was just giving the poster above me a hard time, as all of the acura's come with the same engine.

 

There's only one small SUV in the Acura lineup.
No 6 cyl and I wouldn't be in the RDX.
I'd be in a Q5 and I'm actually sorry I'm not in one now.

 

^just giving you a hard time. i caught the tail end of the convo and was picking on you for not giving context. lol

 

 

I'd actually like a V12, SH-AWD with a matching 12 speed tranny with teleporter capability.

 

Now you're talking...

 

I would wait until the 3rd Gen RDX MMC for the teleport feature because the pre-MMC will still use Acura navigational HD based maps to teleport you to your destination. Plus the quantum matrix requires 91 octane to recharge the singularity generator for you to transverse the micro wormhole (less power and limited range if you 87-88 Octane).

 

and because they will still be using the Acura maps you really have no idea where you'll end up...

 

So now not only are you asking Acura to keep up with the times, you are also asking a "tech forward" brand to be ahead of the times? What's wrong with you?

Even if they did manage a teleporter, we would still be using the same low res shitty head unit as in 2005.

 

Yeah, you're right. What AM I thinking?

 

 

Wait to see what technology Honda is offering in the accord and civic then wait 5 years or so and it will make it to the RDX.

 

The I4 vs the V6 is the reason I an driving an RDX and not a CRV.

 

Well said and totally true. What a backwards brand.

 

Totally agree with this statement. Me too.

 

That is so funny but true.

 

Honda J series is one of the best 6 cyl out there imho.. they can go a very long time with just oil and t-belt changes.. the 6spd auto is a nice improvement over the 5AT that it replaces.. the big advantage of the V6 is quiet smooth operation while giving you decent power delivery...

 

IDK about the 6 cyl Honda being one of the best out there. We had a 6 cyl Toyota venza and it was a FAR smoother engine and drivetrain and had a chain instead of a belt. We always feel the VCM kicking in/out while driving around town (38 mph is not a good speed as the engine seems confused as to how many cylinders it should activate). You may want to google the Honda 6 cyl engines for oil burning. It seems that issue hasn't been resolved. IDK why, but it seems the plugs keep getting soaked with oil and that has resulted in a class action suit - not a solution, but a lawsuit. The engine has plenty of pep, but IMO is not even in the class of a Toyota 6 cyl.

My daughter-in-law had a 2010 6 cyl accord that was a nightmare. She had the steering column replaced twice, original plus two sets of brake pads on the back wheels (less than 50k miles) - I know this isn't engine related - and her spark plugs kept getting soaked in oil (#2 cylinder seemed to drink oil).

 

Funny, I had a debate with another member on this very same subject in the mdx section. I also think toyota makes better engines than Honda in general. JMHO.

 

I don't think it's just the engines, but the entire drivetrain. The 6 cyl venza had incredibly smooth shifting and quiet operation. Aside from the "seamless" VCM not being very seamless, the car shifts much harder than the venza and I hear clunking sounds and feel the clunk in the gas pedal from the transaxle when coming to a stop - even with the radio on. When I park in the garage or hangar and put the car in park I always get a loud clunk. I never heard any of these things in the venza. The RDX is an okay car and the Honda 6 cyl is an okay engine (not as good as their 4 cyl engines), but they certainly are not in the same class as Toyota. Hondas retain their value in large part because they don't overproduce and they don't do fleet sales in large quantities.

 

I personally think the drivetrain is excellent, smooth and powerful. I think Acura makes a great V6.

 

There must be a lot of variability from one RDX to another. Ours is very smooth and quiet. No clunking that I can hear.

Gregg

 

Snorf: based upon the number and seriousness of the complaints you've made here over the past several months, why don't you sell your RDX and buy something that makes you happy?

 

Without a doubt.
The Toyota 3.5L has been around since '06 and in many Toyota and Lexus models. .
Both direct injection and non direct injection.
Great engines.

 

My comments are honest, realistic and sincere. The RDX is not a car I would have considered, but was what my wife wanted for her 60th birthday. I don't hate the RDX, but I am certainly not impressed by it. It is very easy for me to see why acura is ranked #18 or #19 of 30 manufacturers. I think they are living on a reputation and have lost their way.

 

I read once that Honda had to redesign the way their automatics worked due to some patent stuff. That is why the early automatics from the mid 1990's to 2000's were glass and garbage.

Some people cannot afford to sell and lose the money. Other times we exaggerate how we feel or in reality the things we don't like don't effect us enough to sell.



It is also a much more frugal engine. DOHC vs SOHC and low vs high torque curve.

 

From another first gen RDX owner in reply to RDX10 and mrgold35, here's my take on it...

I think that on the first gen RDX (07-12), it was programmed to substitute a kickdown for just boosting the engine instead...

The RDX needs Hondata bad!!!

I do 0-60s often, and I have to say the RDX is like a V6, but not at first...

This is what happens, brake torque to 2,250 RPM, take off, the small flap opens, allowing to turbo to spoil to full boost, I take off, it ok, at about 7-10 MPH,if not sooner, it kind of stops accelerating, the boost gauge falls, then, after a second of two, it goes up again, at about 15 MPH, it takes off, and roars to life, just like a J30A5 Accord, or J32 TL!!!

It's got decent 50-70 power, and vtec can kick at 4,000 RPM at part throttle, which is nice...

That being said, the RDX feels slow...

Even when going fast, it's slow...

It just doesn't have a good "Butt Dyno" feel to it...

I perfer the 5.3 Yukon I drove last week... I like its power band more... Just kind of slow after 50 or so...

My complaint with the RDX is thet it doesn't lean back, a squeeze me into the seat at 5,000 RPM until it shifts like most drivetrains do...

 

With all due respect. The 1G is far removed from the 2G and can't "really" factor into the discussion. 4 banger turbo vs V6 and 5 speed auto vs 6 speed auto and lastly SH-AWD vs SH-ITTY-AWD.

But in a sense I guess the turbo 4 is half the subject of this thread so in a sense we can compare the old turbo 4 to the V6. A.K.A smooth steady power vs somewhat off-on but more on power. The 1G even had a variable geometry turbo, so it was as lag free as it could get. So I think they should keep the V6 but the 6 speed should go and an 8 speed or 7 speed dual clutch (like available on a tucson) should take its' place. Which with your statement "like a V6, but not at first" would imply you agree with me on keeping the V6.

 

I don't see much of a point in a turbo, unless they want to remove understeer by having a closer 50/50 weight distribution...

I keep my trunk full, and with a full tank of gas, I had the rear come around last week, no throttling involved...

 

 

Both types of engines have their advantages and disadvantages. While the NA engine provides a linear power delivery, the turbo has the advantage of more power once the turbo is spooled up and is far better at higher altitudes.

The solution is simple - throw a turbo on the 6.