I purchased a new RDX. So far like the car a lot, Some really annoying things like no power folding mirrors, infotainment, mpg, ugly wheels, but the basic package is pretty good. I have a few questions about break-in.

Does Acura limit the performance during break-in like some other manufacturers? I was reading some of the road tests and this is supposed to be anywhere from a high 5 second to low 6 second 0-60 ride. We did a little impromptu drag and he pulled and best 0-60 I've even seen for that scooter is high 6 second range. Based on our little run my RDX is likely in the mid 7's. I drove a new honda passport and pilot and they both seemed quicker than my RDX but all testing puts them much slower.

I have about 400 miles on. I hope Acura is limiting something because if they aren't I have one slow turd of a vehicle. Anyone else have any experience with their RDX? When I get some more miles on it I will slap on the gauges and accurately measure it. Right now off the line it seems pretty quick to about 30 and then just seems to fall on its face. I was in sport + mode and S for the gear selector. I would guess 0-30 is in the low 2's which should setup a lot 6 second to high 5 second 0-60. I am running 93 octane in it so I know it isn't the fuel. I am also at sea level and without AC on and the temps were mid 80's F.

 

Some magazines predicted a sub-6 second 0-60 but none of them have been able to actually do it in real life. Car and Driver and Motor Trend are the only magazines I know of that actually did a real run and they got 6.6 and 6.5s respectively. Keep in mind that they do a brake torqued launch which is the most brutal method of launching an automatic transmission car - you'd never do that to your car in real life. The rolling 5-60s test that Car and Driver does is the most realistic test and they got 7s with that test. 7 seconds is basically the same number that the X3, GLC and Q5 get as well on that test so it seems like those cars have more margin for brake torquing than Acura so it looks nice on the test sheet but isn't reflective of reality.

Mid-7s is probably about right for an amateur tester like yourself as C/D does it at 7s flat.

 

The RDX really isn't a 0-60 kinda vehicle. Getting a 2.0T 2 ton SUV with sh-awd moving takes a lot. The advantages with the RDX is the mid range TQ and handling. Hilly terrain, curvy roads, quick passing speed, and driving in higher elevations in all 4 seasons is where the RDX sh-awd will rise to the top of other SUVs/CUVs around the same size, hp/tq, and weight.

 

you can always but the ktunner and get more power and torque

 

Alex on Autos tested the 0-60 at 5.7 seconds.

 

The Aspec puts a bit more rubber on the road, so traction should be better, which sometimes can show up in times. Environmental factors, like temperature, altitude, etc. can play a part, as does weight in the car. A full tank of gas can weigh 90 pounds more than a nearly empty one, and the Aspec does not have a spare.

Too, in my experience, an engine needs several thousand miles to really work in.

 

What elevation do you live at and what gas are you running, 2 things that will significantly affect your 0-60 speed. Also are you in the car alone when you do this or do you have other people?

also it’s really not recommended at the low mileage of the car your at to be going into full boost and high RPM until about 600-1000 miles

 

Thanks for the replies so far. As mentioned, I am at sea level. I had 93 octane from a top tier station. It is actually fairly quick off the line. It is clearly not traction limited. I've probably run cars, trucks and motorcycles well over thousand runs at the truck and a lot of road racing and auto-x experience in cars. I'll give it some more time to see if it loosens up but I can't see it going from 7 seconds to high 5's. Density altitude was about 2129' above sea level at the time I ran. Even that can't account for difference.

I wish it had a real boost gauge so I could get more info. I switched to iPhone lately and none of my bluetooth adapters will work with my new phone for OBD2 monitoring. I'll be close to 1k miles by the end of this weekend and I'll load up dragy and give it a run or two. Then I'll have more data points and very accurate data.

So far nobody has any insight if Acura restricts the performance during break in. Does anyone know if they limit the transmission logic at all? I thought I red somewhere in a road test that even in sport + mode and trans in S it still shifted well before redline.

As for a tune, it is my daily driver and I will keep it stock. I don't want to have to deal with any warranty issues down the road. Hondacura can be very hit or miss about warranty claims. I don't want to be on the wrong side of trying to get something covered and have them claim it was due to some tune. I want it to be reliable and not tweak it to within and inch of its life. It was a purpose built race car, I probably would have picked the wrong horse in the first place but I would at least be willing to deal with the risks involved. Not to mention most of the gains seem pretty conservative but I definitely wouldn't mind better throttle response and a more responsive transmission.

 

The A-Spec might actually be the slowest of all the trims because the larger wheels are really heavy and will likely cost it a couple tenths versus the speed up from the wider tires - those tires are notably terrible tires so I doubt they add much. C/D had the A-Spec doing a terrible .8g with the Eagle RS-A which is what a HYUNDAI TUSCON does (https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...y-the-numbers/). Even worse, every mid-size 5000lb luxury SUV clobbers the RDX A-Spec in this test (https://hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/fi...1566354386.pdf). Acura should be embarrassed to be putting such shit tires on their sporty trim.

 

I passed on the A-spec for pretty much the same reasons you cited and more. A 1 mpg hit in fuel economy was a dead giveaway that drag was increased for little benefit. I have to say the wheels look better than the other variants and I do liked the blacked out trim but if I were to do it I'd go with a lighter weight set of wheels with better tires. I am seriously considering seeing if a set of 18's would fit as I wouldn't mind a bit more sidewall for some of the roads I am on. I could slap on stickier tires, save weight, reduce 0-60 times and possibly improve the lateral acceleration numbers.

 

I don't think Acura does anything with engine/transmission controls to limit performance during "break-in", but I have noticed that my Advance SH-AWD has loosened up after about 8k miles. Fuel economy is better, and it feels more willing to accelerate. Dunno if it's transmission, or engine, or both. But low-gear shifts also feel smoother than when it was new.

As for skid-pad, some reviewers have noted that the traction control/stability assist system messes with the test. It may not be limited by the tires, however crappy they may be.


BTW, 18" wheels fit fine. I ran them last winter, but for winter tires, not neck-snapping performance.

 

Thanks Wander - I may look for some 18" wheels then.

A few years ago I did a comparison of 16" wheels (stock size on the car) and 18" (=2) VERY lightweight 18's. It was a high performance turbo diesel VW I built. I know it sounds like an oxymoron, especially when I built the car, but it was a very fun to drive car. Stock from the 1.9l motor it was rated at 90hp and 155 lb/ft tq. I know not really impressive numbers and that was at the crank.

When finished, and running the stock turbo, it was 170 hp and 310 lb/ft of torque at the wheels as measured by a dyno (without propane). In a car that weighed about 2900 pounds it had a very good power to weight ratio. When I ran 0-60 times with 18" wheels vs the 16's, they were at least 1/2 second slower even though they were almost the exact same overall diameter. I ran them about 5 times back to back, as quick as I could swap the wheels. Every time the 18's were slower.

Around a road race track or auto-x the 18's were better but in a straight line dash the 16's smoked them every time. So I kept the 16's on when I wanted to keep the car looking like a sleeper on the street and the bigger wheels on the track (if not drag racing). Anyway I have setup dragy and will run it a few times once the car has closer to 1k miles.

If are a gearhead, and like accurate performance data, Dragy is a great option to measure your acceleration and braking info. It is almost as accurate as a Vbox (pretty much the gold standard) but costs far less. For about $150 you can have a device that is very accurate for timing your runs. For example on one of my bikes at the track, timeslip said 10.51@132mph and Dragy had me at 10.53@131. The slight difference is likely due to the rollout at the track before I trip the lights. Dragy measures as soon as I move. So usually it is just a touch pessimistic.

For $150 it is an absolute bargain if you want to run any tests. It has a good mobile app to track your info. No real logging capability yet but I use and OBD2 monitor for that if I need it. You can check out Dragy here and buy one there or the usual places such a Amazon.

https://dragymotorsports.com/

It is a great product for the money. I am just a happy user of it and have no relationship with the company. You can post your info to a community board if you want. Some people are running this on 6 second cars (in the 1/4 mile).