I don't get it. What offends you so much about the interior?

The seats in the top trim are sooooo good and the stereo is a solid step better than the HK option available in lower-tier BMWs like the X3 (you have to upgrade to X5 to have access to the $5k Burmester audio system). I can see someone having an issue with the design, but "pile of shit" doesn't exactly give us any hints about why you're comparing this to a crap truck from the 90s... ?

 

IIRC his car has a shitton of rattles, creaks, and NVH. I don't think it's a matter of material choices or features or anything like that; I think it's an inconsistent build quality or poor QC issue. Some people have interiors that are tight and solid, some have shit quality. If you're lucky, an Acura is pretty great. If you're not...it's pretty shit and the dealerships seemingly don't care about making it right.

 

So you speak negatively about a vehicle and brand, but when someone does the same to your beloved vehicle of choice, based on their own personal ownership of the same vehicle, suddenly you whine about the negativity. Comedy.

We have a winner! Yes, it wasn't a knock on the material choice, but the build quality. I've seen similar complaints pop up here and Reddit. The best part is, many of the ones who get so defensive over the build quality being top notch also speak, in the same breath, about how amazing the stereo system is. Yea, the ELS does a fantastic job of masking most of the rattles. I drove down to NJ this weekend with music and podcasts playing and almost forgot what a pail the interior actually is ... almost made the rattles inaudible. But unless I'm driving protracted periods on long, straight, boring roads, I prefer to drive in silence nowadays. And the particular rattles emanating from interior are like nails on a chalkboard to me. The seats squeak, the steering wheel ticks and I'll get cracks from the rear cargo every so often and the brakes squeal every time you pull the car out of the garage cold ... doesn't bother me ... the rattles drive me f-ing insane though.

 

Perhaps the rattles in your head are not coming from vehicle. Wouldn't it be easier to just get rid of it instead of all the wasted effort complaining about it. Drive it off a cliff and be done with.

 

I hear that's not so great for resale value.

 

So you get offended over negative talk about a car brand, but resort to personal attacks because you can dish it out, but you can't take it. Got it.

And the topic was brought up because you derided a company for having crappy seats: "The seats and the leather in the X3 are garbage for a so called luxury car." I checked you by responding with the fact that Acura isn't all peaches and cream either. So opinions of personal experience with the brand can't be shared unless it makes you feel better about yourself because you attach your personal worth and well-being to the car that you own. Cool.

 

He paid good money for his rattle trap and has every right to vent about it on this forum. If you dont want to read his comments add him to your igore list. I no longer own an Acura, I'm just here for the comedy. Feel free to add me to your ignore list also.

 

Not at all!! I'm out there sampling as many vehicles as I can (before I can no more) It's a bucket list thing for me. I've purchased 10 new vehicles since 2019. They all had there positives and negatives.
I never said Acura was all peaches and cream. I'm just 3 weeks into the vehicle and forming my positive and negatives.
Leon.....you come across as an angry man. Do you come home from a bad day at work and kick the dog?

 

How did topic of Acceleration 2nd gen vs 3rd gen got into build quality ? Build quality deserves its own thread
As far acceleration, 3rd gen is much more fun for me, its a much more refined 1st gen RDX.... I feel like Acura took a wrong turn with v6 in RDX after turbo.

 

Gotcha. Rattles are in fact annoying. I have a sunroof on "national backorder" whatever that means. It has made a loud creak every time I back down my driveway since day 1. The HUD rattles, too, and the dealership "couldn't replicate it" which is funny because it happens almost all the time.

I'm in the "ELS is fantastic" camp, though. Also, mine is a lease or I'd be a lot more upset. But with the stereo on the interior is so damn comfortable, practical, just a great place to spend time. So... meh.

 

I agree. Back to the topic.......

I can't speak to anything but the 3week old 2021 RDX I just purchased. I know it doesn't have sterling 0-60 numbers but it is pretty darn quick out of the hole. The V6 in my Passport has the same V6
(I think) as was in the older RDX. The Passport with no low end torque is really rather bland until it rev's up. Was the V6 in the RDX the same way?

 

Had a 3.5L, V6-6MT Accord Coupe for many years and also drove a 2016 V6 AWD RX many times. Comparing the V6 RDX to the 2.0T RDX is a give and take. Yes, the V6 felt a little flat below 2,200 rpm compared to how a ripped above 4,000 rpm. However, the low-rpm flatness was much less than being off boost on the RDX. I prefer the V6’s power delivery. When floored, the V6 was a little faster, but not by much, at least below 80 mph. When driving at 50% throttle or less, the 2.0T is less dramatic. You never need high rpm to get the job done.

2016 V6 RDX v 2019 A-Spec

 

It's been confirmed in many publications that the older V6 is quicker, smoother and more efficient than the newer 2.0 turbo 4. The V6 was the only redeeming feature in the otherwise lacklustre gen 2 RDX. What was Honda thinking?

 

confirmed by who?? 0-60 numbers are useless for
daily driving experience. 3rd gen is much more responsive at lower RPM due to Turbo boost.

 

The 0-60 times Baldeagle posted are from Car and Driver. It's is up to you to believe them or not. I do. Why would they lie?
Why do you think 0-60 numbers are useless for daily driving experience?? What other measurement do you have that indicates a vehicles acceleration performance from a stop??
No argument regarding gen 3's turbo boost and response. That is why it seems so much quicker than the Honda V6 even though it is slower from 0-60.

 

I dont doubt that 0-60 numbers are better for 2nd gen. Why are they useless for every day driving? Maybe if your every day driving involves flooring from stop until you hit 60, yes, it will be fraction of a second faster. The specs show 3rd gen can produce bigger torque at lower RPMs.
for real situations, when you are at lower RPMs and need to accelerate quickly, turbo boost will give you quicker acceleration . This is much more practical indicator for daily driving.
2nd gen owners when they got 3rd loaner stated that it “felt” quicker.

 

I agree, 0-60 isn't great and 5-60 numbers are more representative of real world daily driving. Unfortunately, it's even worse for the 3G than the 2G.
5-60: 7.0s vs 6.3s.
Quarter mile:15.2s @ 93mph vs 14.5s @ 96.
60-100: 11.5s vs 10.2s.
30-50: 3.9s vs 3.6s.
50-70: 5.2s vs 4.4s.

With the extra torque the 2.0T might feel faster once the turbos spool up, but the fact is that in every objective measure, the 3G is slower than the 2G in a straight line.

 

What was the drive mode when the tests were done? Was it Comfort, Sport or Sport+? When you select Sport + and then enable sequential shifting it seems to me that it’s really quicker off the line and perhaps a faster 0-60. It would be a interesting side by side real world comparison. On windy roads the 3rd gen ASPEC awd would be the winner for sure and that’s what matters to me.

 

How people “feel” driving a car is probably more important than objective numbers. There is also advantage for lower speed short lived acceleration burst that is useful on busy roads.

 

Over the years I have seen testers get different numbers when testing the same make/model vehicle. Some variations in testing results can happen just as variations in performance from one sample to another. Also weather and altitude can make a difference, etc. I don't put too much faith in 0-60 results as a whole when the variations from one vehicle to another is a very few tenths of a second.

From what I have read from various informed articles written by professionals in the industry the move to turbocharged inline fours over V-6's was due to the ability to flatten the torque curve over a wider range of engine speeds. It was implied that this flatter torque curve allowed the engineers improvements in emissions and response. I was not part of the actual testing so I can't speak directly of this but if you look at the industry as a whole that is a direction many companies took. Over the years we see "trends" as engineers try different approaches to solve various problems. These guys tend to look over their shoulders at their competitors and get ideas so you can see several companies chasing the same dog. Fads come and go as engineers learn more.

Personally I like the smoothness of a well designed V-6 but it appears the engineers were getting better over all results from turbo four cylinders. Next year it might be something else, fads come and go.

 

The Gen 3 RDX is slower than a Ford Edge Escape. Responsive perhaps but not very quick.

 

Some reported 6.2, 6.4s for 0-60. The number depends on a test…. Bottom line they are very close and your typical driver will not know the difference

 

Would you rather own a ford escape or an Acura RDX?

 

Car and Driver clocked a 5.8 0-60 for the Passport V6 which I own but does not not feel nearly as quick as my 2021 Acura from a dead stop. As we discussed earlier, the 2.0L Turbo is delivering
280 Lb-Ft of Torque @ an early 1600 rpm's where as the Honda V6 262 Lb-Ft of Torque doesn't come out until 4700 rpm's. Initial acceleration from the V6 is lethargic until it revs ups.

 

Who cares, Fords suck

 

Ease of power? The turbo has poor instantaneous throttle response because of turbo lag. But once on boost, it provides effortless low rpm power. The problem is that is also when it gobbles fuel. Did anyone notice C&D’s EPA and observed fuel economy numbers. I found them equally as interesting as the acceleration numbers.

 

Not exactly a fair fight since the Passport is bigger and heavier...

Also, as has been discussed ad nauseum, you're not actually getting the full 280 lb-ft of torque in lower gears, as it has been confirmed by multiple automotive journalists and dyno graphs that power is being limited to protect the drivetrain. There's a significant torque dip between 2500 and 3700 RPMs.

 

Neither but the RDX would be #2 on that list.

 

When Motortrend tested the 2016 V6 RDX, it recorded a 0-60 time of 6.2s and a QTR mile time of 14.8s at 93.8 mph. When Motortrend tested the 2021 2.0T RDX, it recorded a 0-60 time of 6.4s and a QTR mile time of 14.9s at 93.3 mph. Much closer numbers. And for those who split hairs and worry about 1/10th of a tick here or there, the A-Spec’s heavy 20” wheels will make it slightly slower than non A-Spec models.
https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2...t-test-review/
https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2...t-test-review/

Also, for those into comparative numbers, When Motortrend tested the 2018 BMW X3, it recorded a 0-60 time of 6.3s and a QTR mile time of 14.8s at 92.6 mph.
https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2...t-test-review/

And to really stir the pot, when Motortrend tested the 2.0T Lincoln Corsair, it recorded a 0-60 time of 7.3s and a QTR mile time of 15.6s at 88.4 mph. And when Motortrend tested the 2.3T Lincoln Corsair, it recorded a 0-60 time of 6.5s and a QTR mile time of 15.0s at 92.9 mph.

https://www.motortrend.com/news/2020...d-cons-review/

And lastly, when Car and Driver tested the Lincoln Corsair, both the 2.0T and 2.3T trapped at 93 mph, the same speed as the 2.0T RDX, despite better 0-60 times.
https://www.caranddriver.com/lincoln/corsair

Take that for whatever it is worth.


To add:
Car and Driver's observed fuel economy for the 2.0T RDX was 20 mpg. For the 2.0T Corsair it was 22 mpg and 20 mpg for the 2.3T.

 

I had one of those edges as rental for a few weeks before I got the rdx. It had a better feel initially off line power wise but that power falls off quick around 4k. The rdx feels smoother overall and handles way better. And pulls well until it shifts. You don't feel the abrupt fall off. I'll take turns at 60 whereas the Ford felt sketchy at 45 on same roads. Even the edge st had the same power fall off with the tt v6. I'd say all around the rdx feels quicker and sportier. But the mpg is awful. The st and even my lifted armored tacoma on big e rated tires got the same mpg as the rdx in comfort mode. Hell my Rubicon kitted out with everything got same mpg. But the rdx is more fun to drive. The rdx also corners pretty flat compared to the others and doesn't give that front end push like those do.

 

I never owned or drove a Gen 2 RDX. When I considered one in 2018, it just seemed overpriced and under equipped compered with the Gen 5 CR-V Touring, (1.5T) which was much less money, so I bought the CR-V Touring...basically a place holder...waiting on the Gen 3 RDX. The CR-V was obviously slower 0-60. (A quick Google search shows the CR-V at 7.5 secs 0-60) BUT, perfectly acceptable to me. It is amazing what that little 1.5T can do! (~92 Cubic Inches!!! If I have this right!) I am not one who cares about fractions of a second 0-60, hardly even a second.

From baldeagle's excellent post above, we can see that the numbers all vary from driver to driver, and per hans471's post we can see that the numbers also vary based on altitude, temperature, etc.

My '19 RDX FWD had all the acceleration I ever needed, the CR-V is more than acceptable, and my Current Corsair 2.0T is close to the Gen 3 RDX. (All seat of the pants) measurements. AND this is all I care about. None of these has ever left me with a concern about passing or not getting to the next stop light in time. Additionally, the magazines mentioned all use a different acceleration testing method...0-60, 5-60, "roll out" etc. All that really matters to me is that I can feel safe passing on a two laner and getting back in my lane in time.

 

This seems to be a common theme in yesterday's comments. No one is doubting that if you point the wheels perfectly straight and pin the throttle the V6 is a bit faster. But the power comes on high in the rev range. Peak torque and hp are both way up near the top of the powerband (4k+ rpm before it feels alive at all). The torque is also a peak - one spot where it maxes out. The secondary problem with this specific to the 2G RDX is that at high revs, the car was pretty terrible at managing itself. Like, hold on tight to the steering wheel because the wheels will want to turn in both directions at once. The FWD model has no LSD and is a torque steering monster and the AWD model had a system like the CRV that just isn't built for handling or performance (only traction). Effectively, you have a car that can only really accelerate well in a straight or almost straight line.

By comparison, the 2.0T makes tons of torque between 2k and 4k rpm, where you will always be during daily driving. So, you can get power without revving, without requiring multiple downshifts, without a ton of noise and drama. SHAWD also lets you put down that easily accessible torque mid-corner, which is HUGE and easily outweighs any difference in 0-60 times.

Unless you are drag racing, comparing these two cars based on their straight line speed is pretty meaningless. The handling difference between the two, especially their ability to put down torque while cornering is just so vast that any other questions of performance are moot.

(That isn't to say that there isn't a market for 2G and it's smooth V6... Lots of drivers like fast cruisers and don't really want to handle turns in a hurry anyway. I know several people who own and very much enjoy their 2G cars and it's hard to argue with that).

 

I agree with this in higher gears, but in lower gears the ECU pulls power to protect the drivetrain. In gears 1 and 2 it doesn't feel all that torquey.

 

Spoken well. Put a BMW B58 and a 8 speed ZF Friedrichshafen in the RDX and Acura would really have something special. Toyota Uses the B58, why can't Acura?

 

It wont fit in a transverse configuration.

 

I know when we bought our 2019 RDX and had driven several cars, the couple that had V6's (Lexus RX and Subaru Outback just 'felt' better on the throttle than the turbo 4's, quicker or not. Of those with the turbo 4's, which have become standard any more, the Acuras was definitely the quickest, most powerful. Our other car is a 2003 Accord with a V6 (and about 80-something thousand miles) and that car is a real pleasure to drive, plenty of power and smooth. It's too bad Acura, and everyone else pretty much, have dumped the V6's in favor of turbos.

 

I know, but wouldn't it be nice?

 

Turbos = instant power. N/A engines not so much.

 

JB speaks wisely. Cars have different personalities so in the end if you aren't looking for that last bit of performance to win a race small differences don't really matter much. I agree, the important thing is you feel safe doing freeway merges and passing. I can assure you I have never felt "under powered" while passing in my RDX. I also had a 1.5 Turbo CR-V and it drove quite nicely also. If you want some fun go look up 0-60 times for those old "muscle cars" from the '70's. Modern run of the mill vehicles will smoke many of those old "power houses". Oh, and new cars will out brake and out handle them. Its all about technical progress.

 

Uh...you have that backwards. NA engines have instant throttle response. Turbos need to take time to spool up.