markAZ

We're looking at upgrading from our 2014 RDX to a 2021. One of my concerns is how the I4/turbo compares to the V6 in the Gen 2. I like the smoothness and quiet of the V6 but the world seems to be going to the I4/turbo. We've driven the 2021 and it seems to move OK but I've never lived with a turbo engine.

Anyone who has owned both care to comment? Likes/dislikes?

Any input will be appreciated.

Squanto

I've only really driven V6's in recent years but here's a pretty good article on the comparison between N/A V6s and Turbocharged I4s. https://www.autobytel.com/car-owners...s-best-133466/

The abridged version is that it depends. Comparing the same car with different engines, then a V6 is better for towing. The V6 is still better if you're comparing cars from the same lineup (the V6 Camaro is 22% more powerful than it's turbocharged i4). But if you're more concerned about fuel economy than they say this is one area turbocharged i4 really shines.

DaddyCool

I too had the same reservations, however the 4 is quite adequate - even fun to drive with the 10 speed transmission. The V6 is still king and gets better gas mileage.
Taken as a whole you will not regret the new RDX, especially their top version with the e-suspension.
I'll bet they bring in the V6T at the end of the cycle to boost sales..........
You could consider the X3 V6 but prepare to anti-up!
Robert

markAZ

Thanks guys. That's helpful.

We'd be looking at a 2021 RDX but haven't decided on Technology vs Advanced, mostly depends on what's available. Either would probably be acceptable altho the Advanced seems to have a lot of doo-dads that really aren't all that important to us.

We're also looking at the Lexus RX350 that has a V6 and is a bit bigger but is otherwise seems pretty similar to the Advanced...lots of doo-dads too. The RX350 is a bit pricier but not by a lot.

I've eyeballed the X3 but they get pretty pricey pretty fast.

The local dealer has an AWD Advanced in the colors we want so we're going to try to take a look at it tomorrow or the next day. We'll see...

Jerzy

New RDX has 2.6% less power than the old one (2019 vs 2018), but 11.1% more torque. In addition new RDX has max torque at 1600rpm (amazing), while the old on has it at 4900rpm. At 2000rpm new RDX has 40% more of available torque. In my opinion not only acceleration is fantastic in new RDX, but also goes uphill easily without changing gear (effect of max torque at 1600rpm). I was afraid that 4 cylinder engine (had two Avalons and Accord V6 before) vibrates more and is not as quiet. I have to say it is very quiet and I cannot feel engine vibrations at all. Acceleration is a little slower on paper, but it probably includes fraction of a second turbo lag from stand still, that I cannot feel anyway (and don't care). New RDX is slightly larger and heavier, so this can also make small difference in acceleration.

WunderWagen

Turbo torque curve is a winner, especially in street driving. Many manufacturers are going this route because it makes sense.

The old issues of turbo motors don't really apply anymore with current turbocharger technology.

spoiler900

4 turbo will be more torque. It will drive more "zippy and peppy" compared to your V6 RDX. Yes, it will also be louder too. V6 will feel more refined, and sound better. Try out a MDX if your ok with the size, nice step up from the RDX

NooYawkuh

I owned one 4-cylindar car in my life and swore I'd never own one again. Aside from my '82 Subaru DL hatchback, I've only owned V-6s and V-8s. I also thought I'd never buy a turbo. My thinking was very "20-years-ago". Turbochargers and 4-cylindar engines have come a long way.

Have you test-driven the RDX? No one can answer your question other than you, but for me, the overall feel of the engine is smooth, powerful and with plenty of torque. As much as any V-6 I've owned. And a little bit better mileage. Not a lot better but better.

Madd Dog

The only place this car gets good gas mileage is in a steady speed state between 45-65 mph. In that range, I have been able to get a bit over 25. In daily suburban driving, I get 22. For a comparo, my turbo six BMW got 29 at 75, and 25 around town. To replace what I had in my 535, however, would have cost almost $70K. To set up an X3 the way I wanted it would have been 60K.

To me, the RDX is not far behind that X3 in some ways, and more utilitarian.

4th Acura

The first generation RDX was also turbocharged. It was the first ever turbocharged car produced by Honda/Acura. My 2008 model was superbly reliable. Over time the turbo charger was prone to failure, throwing up error codes and costing approx. 5K to fix. My 2008 never developed the P2263 turbo problem but many did. I believe the current model is the 2nd turbocharged model by Honda/Acura. I hope the current turbocharger proves to be more robust.

JB in AZ

Nope. 2017+ Honda CR-V has turbo 1.5L AND that same engine has been in the Civic for (I believe) at least a year before the CR-V. Additionally, the 2.0L used in the RDX is also in the Accord.
Hundreds of thousands already getting high miles in the Civics and CR-Vs with out any reported issues.
Honda CR-V – US – By Year Year sold
2017 378,600
2018 379,021
2019 384,168
2020 193,762

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

Great to see the "n/a v6 is better" mentality changing!!
especially since Honda's Six cylinder makes max torque at such a high, unusable RPM. whereas the Turbo4 makes power where it really counts!

mrgold35

Another 1st Gen RDX owner with an 08 RDX tech with +175,000 miles (handed down to daughter). I really enjoyed the 2.3T (Hondata+ETS intercooler+Progress RSB+Eibach lowering springs) because it was so sporty with tons of low end TQ you couldn't get with any Acura at the time with a few add-ons. The 1st Gen RDX was an one trick pony and drove better the harder you hammered it (main reason why Acura softened up the 2nd Gen RDX). The huge advantage with the turbo engine was way more usable hp/tq living and driving in the west/southwest at +5000 feet with posted speed limits of 75-80 mph (max altitude of +11,000 feet at I-70 Eisenhower pass in CO). The turbo would just adjust for altitude and pour on the power; while, NA V-6/8 were stuck in the slow lane. Downside was always being in boost mode and high teens to extremely low 20s mpgs always (never ever got above 22 mpg with a tank of gas).

The 3rd Gen RDX with 2.0T+10AT does a good job of splitting the difference of the 1st Gen 2.3T and 2nd Gen 3.5L V-6. There will still be some lag in power and slower downshifts compared to the 3.5L+6AT RDX. You just have to adjust your driving to take advantage of the 3rd Gen powertrain different power/performance envelop. I decided against upgrading my 08 RDX to a +19 RDX after a few loaners/test drives because of the smaller 2.0T turbo engine and how hard it will work with similar mpgs. Ended up with a CPO 18 RLX hybrid with 377hp/341tq and haven't seen my combined mpgs below 27 since purchase in Dec/19.

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

right, each car...more specifically the engine and trans combo has a certain characteristic. one needs to learn the characteristics of the car...not the other way around.

supafamous

I was a turbo skeptic as I like the rush of naturally aspirated engines but the RDX turbo has sold me on turbos for daily drivers. The deep well of torque from any revs is SOOOO useful. Do I miss the rush of a NA motor, particularly one with a lot of cylinders? Yeah but I'll just have to get a weekend car for that at some point.

fiatlux

Power figures equal, turbos are great for daily drivers, NA is great for driving on the track. Seeing as how the RDX is a crossover, it makes a lot of sense that most drivers would prefer it on the streets.

Byer2021

All experience gained whether turbocharged or naturally aspirated engines was in Formula 1 for the past 30 years. What more can you ask for than the ultimate.
Chassis - Mclaren
Motor - Honda
Driver - A Sena

Honda definitely has the know-how. Is there something else?....

russianDude

3rd gen will appear faster for your typical street driving than 2nd gen. The 0-60 numbers and 2% horse power difference is not significant for practical purposes. unless you care about 0-60 only.

russianDude

I put 190K mies on my 1st gen RDX, great car, but 3rd gen is better, less turbo lag and more power than 1st gen.
I was thinking of buying 2nd gen, but after number of test drives decided to keep 1st gen, glad I waited for 3rd gen.

4th Acura

I’ve found the 3rd gen has more “Get up and go” than the 1st gen. The 1st gen had significant turbo lag.

Jerzy

Possibly because they used smaller Mitsubishi turbo (made in Georgia) with much less inertia. They lost some power in comparison to Civic R, but reduced turbo lag.

markAZ

Guys...Thanks for all the replies. I didn't expect to generate this much discussion but it's all appreciated.

We drove an Advanced AWD today and liked it well enough that we decided to buy it...picking it up tomorrow...from the same dealer as our 2014 and even the same sales guy.

At first it seemed a bit sluggish compared to our 2014 but when I put it in sport mode it made quite a difference. It will definitely get out of it's own way. I couldn't tell much difference in the suspension modes but really couldn't tell much from the test drive. I imagine it'll be more obvious on a twisty back road.

Anyway, I think it will work out fine for us. I hope it'll be as reliable as our 2014 but with all the doo-dads in the Advanced package, I'd be surprised. The 2014 will be going to our daughter and her spouse who are expecting their first kid (and our first grandchild).

fiatlux

Actually I believe the RDX turbo is made by Isuzu, not Mitsubishi. The CTR gets the larger Mitsubishi TD04.

mrgold35

Congrats on the picking up a new RDX Adv! What color combo did you decide on? Turbo power can be very addictive once you get a taste of it.