Wow, good job going back and editing your post when someone points out that you're wrong.

 

My 2020 RDX is doing something similar, but its obviously more refined. Yes, there is that initial kick of power in both of them. Turbos have that initial power and torque that some people like, and other hate. I am sure in initial stages there is more power produced by 3rd gen than 2nd gen RDX

 

You just looking for confrontation, aren't you?

 

Nobody says it doesn't make more power at lower RPMs, but it clearly does not make as much as you would think it does based on the numbers. If you don't agree with that after seeing the dyno charts, then I'm not sure what else can be said because it's clear as day.

You're just looking to be a contrarian Acura-fanboy, aren't you? I provided facts and figures, and all you have to go off of is generalized claims based on your experience with a 15 year old engine.

 

Hondata claims stock 3rd gen RDX never makes 280 LB-FT Acura advertised number. Thats what they say, I can't necessarily agree or disagree with them. But what would be useful, if the same company provided the graph for 2nd gen RDX so we can can compare them side by side before someone makes a claim that 2nd gen RDX produces more power at lower RPMs.
Other than Hondata/Ktuner graphs for 3rd gen, I am not sure what other information you provided to claim that 2nd gen produces more power at lower RPMs

 

the details of numbers are always at how the measurement was taken, here is a little disclaimer from Hondata:

"The dyno figures are lower than the Accord turbo due to our four wheel dyno reading 10% lower than our 2 wheel dyno, and the AWD drivetrain absorbing more power. This leads to about a 20% torque and power difference from the 18 Accord. The midrange percentage improvements (15%-19%) are similar. "

 

You guys do realize Hondata is trying to sell something, right?

And yes, I realize Acura is also trying to sell something, but there is more than one source for objective data on their product.

FWIW, I've been driving Honda/Acura vehicles for a few decades, starting by rowing the gears manually with itty bitty engines that didn't do a damn thing until they "came onto the cam" at about 4500 rpm. My butt dyno says 3rd-gen RDX is capable of pulling strong from 1500 rpm. But the same dyno says sometimes it chooses not to do so. And that's damn annoying.

Thanks to the variable induction system and variable valve timing, the NA V6 isn't especially weak at low rpm, and its power delivery is very smooth overall, but I would take some convincing that its real-world output at low rpm is greater than the turbo 4. Besides, with these computerized drivetrains, it's the whole engine-transmission-software package that matters. I think the V6-6AT combination is/was a very mature, well refined drivetrain. In comparison, the I4T-10AT combo is a rowdy little punk. It needs some schooling.

 

well, there are different kinds of v6 engines, but back to the topic of this thread, there is no evidence that 2nd gen RDX produces more power at lower RPM range. If I read Hondata disclaimer correctly, they are saying that all of their measurements are 10% off given AWD. Its possible that if you add 10% back, 3rd gen RDX indeed hits 280 LB-FT at lower RPMs. Acura specs for 2nd gen RDX have 252LB-FT and 279HP. So it clearly has noticably lower torque, and only 7 extra HP. I dont know how someone can claim that 2nd gen RDX has more power at lower RPMS.
I do agree that v6 power is very smooth.
My previous car was 1st gen RDX turbo, yes, very different from 3rd gen turbo, but I still feel like they are both turbo. The biggest difference is 3rd gen has more refined power over 1st gen, and also it has more power overall. But its still basically the same idea of turbo, you get initial big kick of power. I find lower RPM power very useful/fun in everyday driving.

 

Regarding the initial question, my unscientific 2 cents is this: I owned a 2016 RDX and now have a 2019 RDX. I found the 6 cylinder 2016 had more muscle than the 3G and seemingly less effort to achieve that level. That's not to say that the 3G doesn't have more than adequate power, because it certainly does. Not only that but I find the 2G gave me better gas mileage than the 3G by at least 2 mpg. That surprised me going from 6 cyl to 4 cyl. Regardless, I enjoy driving the 3G.

 

True that, and the multi-port injected J35A3 V6 - 5AT combo in my "well-loved beater" 2005 MDX isn't as lively as the direct injected V6 - 6AT version in the 2014 MDX. Especially at lower rpm. The older V6 is peakier, and with fewer gears to work with it sometimes takes longer to get into its power band.

Also, digging a little deeper, I now see that 3rd-gen MDX has the direct injected J35Y5 3.5L V6, while the 2nd-gen RDX has the multi-port injected J35Z2 3.5L V6, which is rated for bit less power and torque. But RDX is also a couple hundred pounds lighter.

But I still think the major issue with the drivetrain in 3rd-gen RDX comes down to software. Which doesn't necessarily help us as current owners, because I have little faith in Acura to update the software until the mid-cycle refresh, and I doubt that will be retroactive to previous vehicles. But I would be happy to be wrong.

There is also the possibility that torque capacity of the 10AT transmission is an issue, and there is NO hope that will change for existing vehicles.

 

Goodness gracious, NOBODY said anything about the 2G RDX making more torque or power at lower RPMs than the 3G RDX. If you can find where I said that, I promise I'll delete my account. What I did say is that the 3G RDX does NOT make the full 280 lb-ft of torque as advertised throughout the lower RPMs like you would expect from a modern small-turbo engine, which would explain why it accelerates slower than its competitors that on paper have lower peak torque and horsepower numbers. We all know the 3G RDX makes less horsepower than the 2G RDX, and while it's fair to think that the extra torque off the line could help the 3G keep up, it's been shown that there may not be as much extra torque as you would think. You still have not addressed the big ol' dip in torque from the Hondata graph; there is no way you can claim that the car is making 280 ft-lb of torque during that dip for the sole reason that it is a dip, not a peak.

 

One thing that needs to be brought up; the 10G Accord with the same 2.0T as the 3G RDX is faster than the 9G Accord that has the same V6 as the 2G RDX. Why? One reason could be that if you look at their dyno graph, there's no dip in torque, so the full 273 lb-ft of torque it's advertised as making is actually what you're getting for a good chunk of the rev range. It's not a far-stretch to conclude that the 3G RDX is being held back by software for driveline longevity purposes. Clearly the new 3G should be faster than the 2G because the hardware improvements are analogous to that of the 10G and 9G Accord, but it's objectively not. I'm not saying that the 3G RDX isn't making 279 lb-ft of torque at some point, but it's definitely getting pulled back pretty substantially as soon as it peaks. If anyone has any other theories as to why, I'd love to hear it.

 

Hondata states that their AWD numbers are 10% smaller for everything given how they measure AWD. I dont think they can accurately measure power for AWD, so there is no proof that Acura lied about 280 LB-FT

 

I never said they lied about the PEAK number, but even if everything is reduced by 10%, that doesn't explain the dip. I don't give a rats ass about the absolute numbers being measured, but the SHAPE of the graph is what tells the tale. How driveline losses are being estimated in the graph doesn't make a difference because it's applied to every single point on that curve.

Frankly you don't seem to understand power delivery, dyno graphs, torque curves, and small-displacement turbos, so honestly I'm not even sure why I bother. But for the sake of answering the OP's original question: do you think the 3G RDX is slower than the 2G RDX from 0-60? If you don't, then I'm afraid we're at an impasse because objectively it is slower. And if you do agree with that, I have yet to hear a theory from you on why it is slower despite the fact that on paper it should be faster.

 

I see a lot of yapping from some people, but 3rd gen produces a lot of power at lower RPM (more than 2nd gen), which is definitely a plus for me. And I did drive 2nd gen to compare, it did not have that initial kick of power which is important to me.

 

Does the 3G have all the power I need for what I do with an SUV? Yes.

This is an SUV, not a hot hatch, not a roadster, not a sport sedan. I took my sport sedan on the autobahn and hit the 130MPH limiter. If I had an RDX, it would never be taken in the left lane at 100+.


I have a very nice uphill sweeper onto the highway near my house. The RDX takes it as well, under power, as my 535 did. Do I need a stop watch to see if the bimmer was a bit faster? No. After nailing it on that sweeper I am already going as fast as I should, faster than the traffic in both cars, and in both cars have to back off the throttle while still going uphill. Did it happen sooner in the bimmer? Probably, by a few tenths. Does it happen soon enough in the RDX? Definitely.

What more can you ask of an SUV?

 

There are constantly debates turbo 4 vs v6 naturally aspired engine. It all comes down to your preferences of how you like power distributed and etc. I've been enjoying turbos more, but its just me.

 

I prefer the V6 power delivery. Bigger torquey feeling engine. I got called out by lots of people saying the 3G is better and reading through this discussion now its not.

I thought the trade off with a i4 turbo gives better gas mileage. I'm getting 15mpg city driving so clearly once again i dont see the benefit with an i4 turbo.

Dont get me wrong i still love the car and it has more than power for a family suv but not much progress has been made from the 2g to 3g engine wise and fuel wise.

 

The bimmer was a turbo I6.

 

now, turbo 6 RDX is something I would really like!

 

But what transmission would be paired with it?

Anyway, something may be coming soon, but it might have an "M" in place of an "R" on the name plate.

 

I dont know if 10sp can handle it, but RLX has 310 HP with same transmission. Maybe they will reinforce the transmission, we will see if Type S TLX uses 10sp. From what it sounds, Honda is not planning to abandon 10sp just yet

 

Interesting, but that engine has peak torque of 272 lb-ft at 4500 rpm.

 

There was a rumor that Acura might make some tweaks to 10sp to handle more torque for Type S, but all of it is unconfirmed. If Acura ever puts turbo 6 in its SUVs, I was thinking that RDX would be first on the list, and not the MDX. But really its all guessing, they might never do turbo 6 other than TLX.

 

I still don't understand this race to more gears. Who needs 10 speeds? The added complexity, lost time between shifts, senseless gear hunting.... I just don't get it. Maybe in a race car it makes sense, but a daily driver? I've driven many, many cars in my lifetime, both stick and auto, turbo and non-turbo, and honestly don't see a need beyond 6, maybe 7 gears. As demonstrated in the 3G RDX, the combination of a tiny turbo engine and more gears doesn't produce better acceleration or better MPG, so what is the point?

 

I think lexus has 8, most car makers going with more gears now.

This 10sp transmission uses orbital gears design, and has less weight and occupies less space than ZF 9sp. How do you know that its not helping RDX produce better acceleration and better MPG vs them using prior design transmission?

does q5 Audi have better acceleration and MPG?

 

stats on paper aren't everything.
drive the car...if it's fun to drive and "feels" fast then great. If not, try something else.
I had a "V" wagon that did 60 substantially faster but it wasn't as good at other things (especially mpg )
Be realistic with your must have checklist and go find the car that checks off most of them.

I think I had the 3G RDX as a loaner and didn't feel like it was slow...it felt nimble and peppy...
I was disappointed that I averaged 18mpg during that stint although I have a heavy foot.

 

I've owned the 2G and now own the 3G. My experience indicates that the 3G does not produce better acceleration and I definitely get worse mpg with the 3G as I stated in a previous post. That does not lessen the enjoyment from driving the 3G, but in my opinion Acura went from 6 cyl to 4 cyl to reduce cost.

 

Who expects good MPG from Turbo CUV? And second, did you read the sticker with MPG and test drive the car? I get what sticker says for MPG, if you dont like the MPG numbers, dont buy it.

 

You asked a question how do you know the transmission isn't helping provide better acceleration and MPG compared to prior model. All I'm saying is that my experience having owned both vehicles shows it's not. Nothing to do with enjoyment and satisfaction of the 3G.

 

egos per mile, baby.

 

different engine and different transmission setup, yoy cant really compare different transmissions paired with different engines.

for 3rd gen RDX engine, its possible to 10sp orbital provides some benefit you would not get with classical clutchpack transmission. Less weight is one of the benefits

 

Just because everyone is doing it, doesn't necessarily make it better, only makes it a fad or "trendy". There are many threads on this forum, as well as reviews elsewhere on the web (Car & Driver, Fuelly, etc) that support the fact that 3G RDX is not measurably faster or more fuel efficient than the 2G.

Over-engineering something just for the sake of over-engineering it without any real life benefits does not actually improve anything.

 

but orbital gears do not necessarily make design more complicated. Its completely different way of how typical transmission works. if you read about orbital gears, its actually a simplification in a way and has less energy transfer loss, hence help with MPG.

 

Brief historical interlude ( within the constraints of my patchy knowledge of the subject ):

Planetary gear automatic transmission is the "typical" design, at least in the USA. It was introduced by Borg-Warner long ago ( 1950s ). Honda went their own way in the 1970s partly to avoid paying royalties to Borg-Warner. They also had unique requirements for the tiny high-revving engines in their motorcycles.

American vehicles went to automatics rather than manuals with the rise of the mighty V8, partly because a manual clutch that can handle the torque of a big V8 is a major pain to operate.

Japanese and European markets favored manuals, but engine emissions are an issue. I believe Dual-Clutch Transmissions ( DCTs, essentially robotized manuals ) became popular in Europe because they preserve the "manual feel" and are highly efficient, but they are too jerky for American tastes. That can be somewhat resolved by adding a torque converter, but then you lose much of the efficiency benefit. Hondamatics are another type of robotized manual, with an independent clutch pack for each gear, but they have always had a torque converter.

Continuously Variable Transmissions ( CVTs ) are another option, but many drivers don't like the disengaged feel or the "drone" of the engine operating within a narrow rpm band. And their torque capacity is limited, although that continues to improve.

Honda and Borg-Warner ( now BorgWarner ) made nice for co-development of Honda's AWD systems, VTM-4 and SH-AWD.

As I now understand it, size and weight are the big issues that killed further development of the "Hondamatic", especially with the push for more gear ratios. Apparently, Honda currently has an 11-speed planetary gear AT in development, for better or worse.

Pretty much all recent AT designs have provisions for incorporation of an electric motor. Before too long hybrids will probably become the rule, not the exception, for ICE drivetrains.

Corrections and clarifications welcome.

 

The question I have is why they went from their V6/AT combo in gen 2 and many other Honda/Acuras to this, since there is really no perceived benefit, other than that the competitors they prefer also use 2.0T engines.

And I am one who has no problem with this drivetrain at all.

 

One benefit is improved handling because of lighter weight at the front, and lower center of gravity enabled by the compact packaging.

But it really is surprising, and disappointing, that neither fuel economy nor performance seem to benefit, when Acura claimed there would be improvements in both.

 

You knew all this off the top of your head?

 

On paper, the fuel efficiency numbers are better for the 2.0T. And it is achievable in the real world... but only if you drive like a grandma and accelerate so slowly that you never get into boost. That said, in the real world as soon as the turbos spool up the engine guzzles fuel like there's no tomorrow. For instance, on my 500 Abarth I can average 26mpg in the city if I drive with a light foot and never get into boost. However, if I drive like a normal person and the engine is in boost, I average 18mpg (granted, there are a ton of hills here). All this from a 2500lb car with a 1.4L engine. Think about that.

I've never been able to hit the advertised MPG numbers for a turbo-4 ever when driving normally. I have with a turbo-6, but that's because the motor makes enough torque to not need to dip into boost to get moving under normal situations.

 

Not mention with no boost you need to give it throttle to get any sizeable vehicle going...
so the only efficiency gained is once cruising because it's only 2.0 L of displacement...
Heavy footed on a 2.0T can get you easily the same gas mileage as light throttle 5.3L Chevy motor