rsx2rdx

I was testing out the Sport mode on the RDX, pushing it on some short spurts and I was blown away. The power delivery, particularly from about 20-70 is just awesome. Acura should nickname it RDX beast-mode. I'm not sure what people are missing from the Turbo-4, but it was plenty of power for me...o.k. a little addicting and perhaps a bit unhealthy.

Has anybody else driven there new RDX is Sport mode and how does it compare to the Turbo 4 in the older model?

Joe Las Vegas

Do you have an old RDX now?
Turbo 4 is a beast once lag is gone, more powerful midrange than the V6, I test drove both 2013 and 2011 models recently and the turbo 4 amazed me.
I drove the 2013 in sport mode but did not go to the RPM limit, I went WOT, but did not notice any difference as opposed to D.

terdonal

I have to agree with you the turbo 4 was amazing and the shawd was great.

boogerdood

The turbo was fun but unrefined. People spoke with their wallet and the turbo was not worth keeping. The 13 is proving to be plenty quick...saw a low 6 sec review recently. That's quick for cuv of this size.

musty hustla

I still don't understand why Acura didn't put the turbo in the TSX or ILX.

rsx2rdx

I've never driven the old RDX so I don't have a comparison point, but S mode in the 2013 is definite difference from D. Even a small application of gas on the pedal and you're off. Halfway down and you're strapped to the seat. D is great for everyday driving and definitely has adequate passing pwer. S is a treat though...if you can find an open road, try gas it once and you'll be pleasantly surprised.

I believe S mode holds it in 5 and keeps it there unless you use the sport-shift..the 6-speed is actually one of the differences on the '13.

Anyway, I don't have any complaints performance wise so far and have been quite pleased.

AmberB

Yesterday I was travelling at 15 mph in traffic. A hole opened up and I decided to gun it and move for it. The engine wound up and the transmission caught up a fraction of a second later...front wheel spin resulted and was announced with a loud screech reported from the tires...on an awd vehicle. This little cuv launched from that roll in a way I've never experienced in similar type vehicles. It was nearly as fast as my G35 moving into that gap. Color me impressed.

DavidHuet

I traded my 2006 TL for the 2013 RDX. The TL had impressive acceleration in most situations and I beat the pants out of my friends 2007 BMW 330xi a couple of times. I must say, that now that I have had my RDX for a month and have adjusted to the higher center of gravity (and driven it like an old lady for the first 600 miles), I am very impressed with the RDX and cannot find much difference in it's performance compared to the TL. This is impressive since the RDX has only ten horses more than the TL. It is actually faster off the line, and in regular drive it accelerates up ramps or highway passing just like the TL. Even the handling on tight curves is equivalent in roll and feel. I am very happy because I wanted a CUV that would perform like the TL and I got it.

robuckj

Concerning Sport Mode: I didn't really try using the 2013's Sport mode for the first few months but am glad I finally did. I really have fun with it now, and tend to use it whenever I think it will fit in with the flow of traffic or the situation I'm in.

One thing I remember reading in early reviews on the new RDX was this:

"Acura gives the cabin a few touches to emphasize the "sport" in SUV, such as the red engine-start button and the paddle shifters on the steering wheel. These paddles are really unnecessary, as the 6-speed automatic transmission that comes with the car doesn't have any sporting chops. THERE IS A SPORT MODE, WHICH KEEPS THE REVS JUST A LITTLE HIGHER THAN NORMAL, but each shift, whether manually selected or automatic, comes about with the usual lag of a torque converter-based transmission." [emphasis added]. (CNET review, "2013 Acura RDX," posted by TSX69 on 06-13-2012 in the Thread "2nd Generation RDX Reviews" [currently on p. 2 of that thread]).

The way the reviewer phrased it, saying Sport mode "keeps the revs just a little higher than normal," struck me as somehow unfair or incomplete criticism because it's mixed in with negative comments about the paddle shifters and transmission. I thought they were accusing Acura of misleading us in some way about Sport mode; but what did CNET expect "keeping the revs up" would do? To me, it makes the car a lot more responsive at lower speeds, and a lot more fun to drive--you know, kind of "sporty."

I'm not a gear-head so I have not detected the "usual lag of a torque converter-based transmission" while in Sport mode, although that criticism may have been directed more at the paddle shifters. And I still haven't been in a situation to use the paddles to any advantage, although for the first 20 years I only used manual transmissions. Guess I've gotten a little lazy; I need to find an empty back road and learn to run the gears without a clutch and using paddles instead of a stick.

JohnIsaac

I drove the 2013 in sport mode but did not go to the RPM limit, I went WOT, but did not notice any difference as opposed to D.




---------------------------
Follow Your Heart on Chuck Season 5 DVD, Pursue Fantastic Space for TV Shows

rsx2rdx

I found this PR with some details on the RDX sport mode:

http://www.honda.com/newsandviews/ar...spx?id=6556-en

Automatic Modes
The Sequential SportShift 6-speed transmission can be operated in two different fully automatic modes via the console-mounted straight-gate shifter. The D (or "Drive") mode is ideal for most driving situations, and combines fuel efficiency with smooth operation and responsive power when needed. The S (or "Sport") mode is for more performance-oriented driving, and features more aggressive shift mapping to keep engine rpm higher for greater acceleration and response.
do.

flyv65

I just test drove a 2013RDX (because Acura was giving older RDX owners a fee oil change if they did). Slightly more shoulder room in the 2013, cleaner cabin, better rear view tech, nice having the push button for the hatchback, much quieter than my 2011. Less cornering ability, less drive out of corners, less power over all (bear in mind I live in Denver: the altitude is good for about 20% less power here-nevermind in the hills). All in all, a very competent CUV with some nice touches. In my opinion? A much more affordable Lexus with the fun toned down. A very marketable ride, but not the pocket rocket the SHAWD, suspension, and turbo made it...

Colorado Guy AF Ret.

The numbers have "been in" for some time. In a drag race the '13 will beat the turbo 4. Not by much, but, it does. Now, I would say that the turbo 4 is no longer a "pocket rocket." That engine was not linear and no fun to drive around town.

Yes, if you wanted to drive a road course or a slalom the shAwd had something to offer. Overall, the '13 has out done the old model. I know those that own the Gen 1's will argue the point..at least some of them will....so, I'll race you stoplight to stoplight for $500. Now let's see....what could I spend that money on?? LOL!!!

Your assessment of 20% less power is off I would say. I'm in the Springs. The altitude here is almost 6,200 ft. More than Denver. My '13 goes like hell. I've smoked a lot of unsuspecting vehicles. The computer compensates so you are not losing 20%. Put it on the dyno....then report back to us. You'll see how the computer handles the situation....as long as you use premium fuel. Best performance then.

Colorado Guy AF Ret.

I guess some of you are "tentative" when it comes to using the Sport mode. I had the same engine and Sport mode in my '12 Accord Cpe V6.

The RDX is a little different. Start out in Sport mode and the trans will automatically shift into 2nd without you doing a thing. My Accord didn't do that. You could control each gear. It was a 5 speed. But, from then on let her rip. Just watch your engine red line. If you hit it...just over....the fuel will cut out to save the engine..so you can't blow it up. Hopefully!!

But, using Sport mode is not wise when just driving around town with some traffic. It's not that fun then. You really have to use it alot and get really proficient to paddle shift your way through traffic, stop lights, etc. Much more fun on open roads, etc.

Sport shift is good for snowy conditions. Did you know you can put it in 2nd while stopped and take off in that gear....thus making it easier to take off on slippery roads?? Read the manual. It's all there.

kingkong222

This is all subjective POV. I'd like to see 2013 goes head to head with a Hondata and non Hondata on MY2007-2012. Until then, 2013 owners can gloat all they want about how fast their RDX is vs. other..blah..blah...blah....

Colorado Guy AF Ret.

It's not a subjective pov about comparing the speed times of a '12 RDX and a '13 RDX. The testing numbers are out there. That is called "objective" and it's fact. So the turbo 4 folks might be crying in their beer and crying foul...but, accept it...the numbers don't lie.

2005 Silver Bullet

V6 RDX's power is indeed impressive, but Hondata on a 1st gen easily evens the score. Much more torque and it lays down the power much better with SH-AWD. Add in a K&N air filter and full spool is near instant.

The V6 is the smoother every day driver, but make no doubt, the 1st gen RDX is the back road burner of the two.

Hondata V6 anyone?

blSwagger

If everything you said is true, why is the v-6 faster from 0-60 than the turbo 4?

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

He's talking aboutRDX Turbo with Hondata tune. In other words, he's saying a mildly modded first gen RDX turbo can keep up with the new RDX V6.

XIS

The turbo 4 with the hondata re-flash and a K&N and the SHAWD... I hope it makes a return to another vehicle. It was fun as hell.

BigHatch

...only willing to lose $500 eh?

Colorado Guy AF Ret.

The "speed" comparison...and my bet, is factory turbo 4 against the '13 factory RDX. No power add ons. What's the point then?? I could put a turbo on my V6 and smoke most cars on the road.

The whole issue, I thought, was what the "factory" off the showroom turbo 4 RDX could do against the '13 RDX. Well, that's already been tested. The '13 won and wins. And, if $500 is not enough for you to lose then make it whatever amount.....but, the bet is against a "FACTORY" off the showroom equipped turbo 4 RDX.

With a turbo, tuning and exhaust I'll make the same bet against your present RDX with my TSX. Man, where will I spend all the money???? LOL!!

Having fun here...it's all good.

BigHatch

same here ...but for the sake of argument, putting a turbo on something like that would be a monumental undertaking.. $2XX for the Hondata is easy and effortless and real and available... THAT is the major thing a 2013 RDX is missing by not having a turbo.

Had they sold your exact same car, with lets say a simmilar to yours v6 (so you gen 2 guys stay happy) with a turbo or twin turbo set up on it...and otherwise identical to what you have now.. they'd still have sold every one of you. ...but you'd have very easy power within reach...and for those sales #'s that are supposed to be going up, there'd be plenty of market for tuners to chase.

anywhoo...I see them as two completely different cars that have absolutely nothing in common.

they should have named gen 2 something else.

XIS

Amen to that!

flyv65

Hmm, I could put that $500 towards new tires for the RDX! Is it Wednesday or Thursday that Bandimere Speedway has a "run what you brung" night? Seriously, if you want to try a head to head it would be interesting to see how they match up, but the laws of physics are going to play merry hob with the power output of a normally aspirated 6cyl running against a turbo 4 cyl at elevation.

In Denver, (5,280 feet) there is 17% less oxygen than sea level due to the lower air pressure. Your onboard computer adjust the fuel for the amount of O2 present so your mileage might bet better, but you're getting about 83% of the power available to the car at sea level. That's why turbos are so popular out here.

I promise you: my 2011 was faster than the 2013 I drove.

Bryan...that doesn't mean it's not a nice CUV...

musty hustla

The 4cyl turbo easily has more potential with relatively simple mods.
The only concern would be reliability with mods (so far, so good) and going broke trying to buy the latest and greatest...LOL

The shawd helps in the corners and laying the power down, but I was a little surprised that it didn't show up in a major way in vehicle testing. They are both SUVs after all.

mrgold35

2013 RDX 3700-3850 lbs + 6AT + Less drive train complexity + v-6 engine will be as fast or faster off the line compared to the 07-12 RDX + 4000lbs + sh-awd + 5AT + 2.3L I-4 before the turbo kicks in at +2000rpms.

Trying to figure out which CUV is better really depends on the individual driver and their daily needs. Because of the way I drive, 07-12 RDX with Hondata + Eibach fits my lifestyle the best. I love the mid-range punch of the turbo, the sh-awd on the curves, and plenty of power when passing on mountain passes at +8000 feet at 70-90 mph. When I drive in the curvy mountain roads, only coupes and sedans are in the “wolf pack” as we speed pass all the trucks, mini-vans and other SUVs.

I think the 07-12 RDX will be the “One that got away” when folks look back in a few years on what this CUV could do for the $$$.

AmberB

The boy racer crowd already thinks that. Problem is, the boy racer crowd isn't large enough to meet monthly sales numbers at this price point. CUV shoppers want something practical with decent gas mileage, if it ends up being fun to drive in corners great, but it's hardly the reason why this shopping demographic lays down their cash. To the general population, the 07-12 isn't the one that got away, but the one that we passed over due to bad gas mileage and peaky output with major turbo lag. Modifying the vehicle to remedy this doesn't even enter the equation when buying new. The fact is, Acura built a niche vehicle that didn't sell well enough to continue to build. Those who wanted one, bought one. When sales tapered off Acura knew it was time to start over with something that has greater appeal to more people.

mrgold35

That is the definition of the one that got away, a rare unique quality overlooked by most but not by all who see a diamond in the ruff years down the road. Along with the bad gas mileage, peaky output and turbo lag you got the same mpgs or better that every other SUV with similar power output, strong mid-range punch, excellent handling with the sh-awd, and a strong turbo from 2000rpm to redline (stronger and sooner with $300 hondata).

No one will ever think a Honda Accord, Ford Explorer, or Volkswagen Jetta as the “One that got away” years from now because they are just a normal everyday transportation based on what people need instead of what you want to get you from A to B. The 07-12 RDX is not a popular car with the masses; but, it is a popular car for the performance junkies looking for certain automotive characteristics to fit their lifestyle, personality and budget.

The ZDX and RL will also see a long life in the used car markets despite low sales volumes because of their value, unique styling, reliability, performance and affordability.

boogerdood

Perfectly stated Amber.

boogerdood

Look at zdx and RL prices on the used market, they stink, so I'm not sure where you're drawing this statement on.

BigHatch

CUV/SUV ....yuck.. it just always sounds so nasty to me

geocord

How many performance junkies are out there that are looking for CUVs to perform their junk in? Obviously, not nearly enough for Acura to make a business case for one. I for one, and I firmly believe many others, had looked at the 1st gen RDX several times wanting to like it as I did not want something as expensive, big and gas hungry as the MDX. The mpg on the RDX was almost the same as the MDX. The 1st gen RDX was right sized but it rode like go cart on a rough track(which admittedly some like), felt cramped, had too much gaudy plastic hanging on it and otherwise just didn't look good to me(totally subjective though).

Along came the 2013 model and I said to myself.....finally! They have been selling like crazy and the RDX is now a major hit for Acura. It's a CUV. Get over it. It's not a WRX hot hatch or something. That may be boring to a very few people that are looking to customize and put big tin cans on the exhuast pipes, but to a very large audience that is looking for normal transportation with some hauling ability, some eveyday economy, a little luxury thrown in and with a smooth, powerful V6, it fits the bill very, very well.

analogkid

I agree. I love my RDX but lets not get carried away and pretend its a sports car. Neither gen 1 or 2 are sports cars. By the way, there is no free lunch with higher elevations turbo or no turbo. You will only boost relative to the atmospheric pressure at the elevation you are driving. Turbos are meant to be kept at the highest efficiency point and boosting higher will get you out of there. You can override the factory boost by restricting the wastegate but remember too much and bang you will see the dealer.

Vividsi

Like ive said before I waited to see what the 13 model had to offer and when it lost current tech for new tech I knew I had to get the first gen right away. Ill take SH-AWD over a new navigation unit. Also I dont see the big deal in MPG, I just got 24.5MPGs, and when it comes to performance the first gen has more support, Im sure the old RDX with the current available mods would best the new model V6 any day.

The majority of people dont care about performance and just want four wheels and leather seats and Acura is in the business to make money so they listened. So I agree with Mr. Gold in saying this is the car that got away for people who care about performance and luxury in the same package.

mrgold35

The 07-12 RDX is not perfect; but, it is perfect for me. Like I said in my original statement, “Trying to figure out which CUV is better really depends on the individual driver and their daily needs.”

I am happy and encourage Acura does listen to the public and gives them what they want. I'm also happy to see Acura test the outer limits to push the market into areas that people never knew they wanted to explore (NSX, ZDX, Vigor, TSX sport wagon, SLX). I'm willing to bet you will see some DNA of previous models in the new Acura line-up down the road with a good balance of performance, luxury, reliability, technology and efficiency. Keep what works and toss what doesn’t.

Audi, BMW, Ford and Hyundai/Kia seem to also push the limits and test the markets like Honda/Acura also compared to other manufactures.

BigHatch

mrgold35

I always figured S/C and Turbo will perform better or closer to the factory HP/TQ at higher elevations compared to NA engines with similar HP/TQ. I may not be making my full HP/TQ at +11,000 ft when I am on I-70 at the Eisenhower Pass because the Turbo/SC will be calibrated for a certain altitude. I will be closer to the factory spec HP/TQ compared to the 3.5L NA in the 2013 RDX at that elevation. When I vacationed in San Diego last summer, I could feel more power from the RDX compared to driving in ABQ at 5000-5400ft. I did not feel that much drop in power in Colorado compared to other naturally aspirated V-6 and I-4 vehicle I've driven over the years on the same route.

AmberB

I can attest to the power loss in a different NA vehicle. I had a Jeep Wrangler that I built up with all the goodies for taking on some moderately challenging off road driving. Between the silly 4cyl engine, mismatched gearing that resulted from adding 32 inch tall tires, and all the extra weight I added in skid plates, and body armor....the Jeep could only go about 25 MPH in 3rd gear w/pedal floored as I entered the mountains on a trip to Vail. This same Jeep was just fine for everyday driving around Chicago.

2005 Silver Bullet

I think this sums it up best. The 1G and 2G RDX are two different beasts.

Right now I have a 3G TL w/ V6, so no need to buy another V6 vehicle for me. I wanted something different. The turbo 4 in the 1G RDX did that for me. It drives like a sporty car with a backpack. That's what I love about it. The Hondata has proven itself as reliable and is so damn easy to do, it's hard to think of getting the turbo 4 w/o it.

In a few years, when it comes time to replace it, I'll probably look at the 2G RDX. By then I'll want something different and the 2G will probably be it.

It's all in what you're looking for. Both are very nice vehicles.