Acura: RDX News
02-24-2005, 01:43 PM
#401
Originally Posted by gavriil
I just hope 4 cyl. inherent vibration is kept to a minimum so that it is representative of the class/category of this vehicle.
02-24-2005, 03:11 PM
#406
Instructor
Bad news!!
Originally Posted by gavriil
The April Motortrend reporting that the upcoming Acura RDX will be equipped with a 2.2L turbocharged 4cyl engine making 260hp and 260ft-lbs matted to the RL's SW-AWD system.
.....However, I'm still going to assume this is just SPECULATION at this point, because other magazines and websites have said with equal authority that it is going to have a V6.....and one of our well known members "justinjsw" , who I have tremendous confidence in (his previous predictions on other models have come true) has said that it will have a V6 ....so I will hope for the best 
02-24-2005, 03:15 PM
#407
Instructor
AMEN...to that!!!
Originally Posted by ClutchPerformer
I'll believe it when I see it....
My point, exactly!!!!.....
02-24-2005, 03:23 PM
#409
Pro
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: San Francisco
Age: 41
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by vicpai
....You hit the nail right on the head!!!!
02-24-2005, 03:24 PM
#410
Photography Nerd
Originally Posted by Python2121
has honda EVER had a turbo engine? (not desil)
1.2L 165hp
02-24-2005, 03:46 PM
#413
Originally Posted by domn
Why they would even consider this with the 3.0L from the Accord available is beyond me.
But it makes alot of sense in the TSX.
But it makes alot of sense in the TSX.
02-24-2005, 03:53 PM
#414
Cost Drivers!!!!
ima save this thread 
alot of people are gonna end up having egg on their faces. Way too much honda hating going on. :thumbsdn:
honda roaster....one before?
SHAWD.....one before?
aluminium body.....one before?
etc.,
alot of people are gonna end up having egg on their faces. Way too much honda hating going on. :thumbsdn:honda roaster....one before?
SHAWD.....one before?
aluminium body.....one before?
etc.,
02-24-2005, 04:08 PM
#415
Totally surprised. I was so sure the 3.0L would be the engine choice.
02-24-2005, 04:15 PM
#416
Drifting
Join Date: May 2004
Location: D.C. area
Age: 46
Posts: 3,457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by phile
Totally surprised. I was so sure the 3.0L would be the engine choice.
I also thought they might put AWD system similar to Pilot rather than SH-AWD.. Time will tell......
.... so much for the 7-year plan with my TSX if this is true 
02-24-2005, 04:20 PM
#419
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jul 2003
Age: 43
Posts: 5,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Zapata
ima save this thread alot of people are gonna end up having egg on their faces. Way too much honda hating going on. :thumbsdn:
honda roaster....one before?
SHAWD.....one before?
aluminium body.....one before?
etc.,
alot of people are gonna end up having egg on their faces. Way too much honda hating going on. :thumbsdn:honda roaster....one before?
SHAWD.....one before?
aluminium body.....one before?
etc.,
But Honda has never had a POLICY about not having a roadster, AWD, or an aluminum body before. I think this is a much bigger jump.
02-24-2005, 04:41 PM
#420
Instructor
Exactly!!, that's why.....
Originally Posted by domn
Why they would even consider this with the 3.0L from the Accord available is beyond me.
But it makes alot of sense in the TSX.
But it makes alot of sense in the TSX.
.....All they have to do, is tweak it a little for SUV application (maybe something like 225bhp and 240lb.ft. of torque using premium fuel) and they have a WINNER on their hands!!!!.......and yes, I agree with you, that if they wanted to offer the "turbo" in the TSX that would be perfectly fine, as it suits the target audience. But the VERY PURPOSE of THIS vehicle is that it is targeted at people like me, who want a little bit of both worlds (to quote Acura's own words: people who want to venture a little off the beaten path, to pursue their "active lifestyles", to ski destinations, biking, hiking, towing etc., while also having some sportiness, all the while not sacrificing the luxury component!!)
and FYI as far as NVH of a 4 cylinder goes, I don't care what anyone says. I have driven the TSX SEVERAL times. Granted, it may be smooth and quiet compared to other 4-bangers, but it is still not as "silky" and "refined" as a V6!!.....and Yes, you may not be able to tell the difference in NVH between the TSX motor and a V6 during HIGHWAY CRUISING AND LIGHT THROTTLE STARTS, but mash the gas pedal to the floor, or behave in some moderate to aggressive driving, and your ears and senses will be told exactly what resides underneath that hood!!! (I have driven a Honda Accord V6 and TSX back-to-back)
02-24-2005, 05:20 PM
#424
Cost Drivers!!!!
Originally Posted by ClutchPerformer
True...
But Honda has never had a POLICY about not having a roadster, AWD, or an aluminum body before. I think this is a much bigger jump.
But Honda has never had a POLICY about not having a roadster, AWD, or an aluminum body before. I think this is a much bigger jump.
policy? not sure if it's official, perhaps it is an unsaid policy but they've been able to achieve the power N/A....no need for extra parts like a turbo. I think market demands neccessitate policy. I think a turbo 2.2L is fantastic. Highway fuel economy plus power. Volvo x90 copes well
If honda goes with turbo...i'm sure it'll be fine.
02-24-2005, 05:57 PM
#427
Originally Posted by vicpai
.....I can't imagine why they would go to this extent, to design a complex (read possible reliability issues), and "thrashy" 4-banger, add to it some more noise (whine) from the turbocharger, which, BTW, is all TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE in a LUXURY SUV bearing the Acura name,when they have a fabulous, refined, ultra-smooth 3.0 liter V6 sitting right under their noses in the Accord .....All they have to do, is tweak it a little for SUV application (maybe something like 225bhp and 240lb.ft. of torque using premium fuel) and they have a WINNER on their hands!!!!
.......and yes, I agree with you, that if they wanted to offer the "turbo" in the TSX that would be perfectly fine, as it suits the target audience. But the VERY PURPOSE of THIS vehicle is that it is targeted at people like me, who want a little bit of both worlds (to quote Acura's own words: people who want to venture a little off the beaten path, to pursue their "active lifestyles", to ski destinations, biking, hiking, towing etc., while also having some sportiness, all the while not sacrificing the luxury component!!)
and FYI as far as NVH of a 4 cylinder goes, I don't care what anyone says. I have driven the TSX SEVERAL times. Granted, it may be smooth and quiet compared to other 4-bangers, but it is still not as "silky" and "refined" as a V6!!.....and Yes, you may not be able to tell the difference in NVH between the TSX motor and a V6 during HIGHWAY CRUISING AND LIGHT THROTTLE STARTS, but mash the gas pedal to the floor, or behave in some moderate to aggressive driving, and your ears and senses will be told exactly what resides underneath that hood!!! (I have driven a Honda Accord V6 and TSX back-to-back)
.....All they have to do, is tweak it a little for SUV application (maybe something like 225bhp and 240lb.ft. of torque using premium fuel) and they have a WINNER on their hands!!!!.......and yes, I agree with you, that if they wanted to offer the "turbo" in the TSX that would be perfectly fine, as it suits the target audience. But the VERY PURPOSE of THIS vehicle is that it is targeted at people like me, who want a little bit of both worlds (to quote Acura's own words: people who want to venture a little off the beaten path, to pursue their "active lifestyles", to ski destinations, biking, hiking, towing etc., while also having some sportiness, all the while not sacrificing the luxury component!!)
and FYI as far as NVH of a 4 cylinder goes, I don't care what anyone says. I have driven the TSX SEVERAL times. Granted, it may be smooth and quiet compared to other 4-bangers, but it is still not as "silky" and "refined" as a V6!!.....and Yes, you may not be able to tell the difference in NVH between the TSX motor and a V6 during HIGHWAY CRUISING AND LIGHT THROTTLE STARTS, but mash the gas pedal to the floor, or behave in some moderate to aggressive driving, and your ears and senses will be told exactly what resides underneath that hood!!! (I have driven a Honda Accord V6 and TSX back-to-back)
fanboys .There is no replacement for displacement for heavy SUVs.
And Motor Trend is a horrible source...
02-24-2005, 05:57 PM
#428
Instructor
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Now in Denver
Age: 56
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have serious doubts. First every exec has stated 200-250 hp. Second Honda rarely "over horsepowers" cars. I think the 3.0 will be the engine SH-AWD has been confirmed though.
02-24-2005, 06:00 PM
#429
I'm back, biatch.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Age: 42
Posts: 5,752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think the RDX will have only a 2.2L engine. In order for them to get upto 260hp/260ft-lb, Acura is going to have to add IMA or something similar.
02-24-2005, 06:54 PM
#431
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by vicpai
.....I can't imagine why they would go to this extent, to design a complex (read possible reliability issues), and "thrashy" 4-banger, add to it some more noise (whine) from the turbocharger, which, BTW, is all TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE in a LUXURY SUV bearing the Acura name,when they have a fabulous, refined, ultra-smooth 3.0 liter V6 sitting right under their noses in the Accord .....All they have to do, is tweak it a little for SUV application (maybe something like 225bhp and 240lb.ft. of torque using premium fuel) and they have a WINNER on their hands!!!!
.....All they have to do, is tweak it a little for SUV application (maybe something like 225bhp and 240lb.ft. of torque using premium fuel) and they have a WINNER on their hands!!!!2. Vibration may be a problem but not turbo whine. THey can eliminate that today.
3. I dont think the accord v6 would do for the AWD application of the RDX.
02-24-2005, 06:56 PM
#432
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by vicpai
..and FYI as far as NVH of a 4 cylinder goes, I don't care what anyone says. I have driven the TSX SEVERAL times. Granted, it may be smooth and quiet compared to other 4-bangers, but it is still not as "silky" and "refined" as a V6!!.....and Yes, you may not be able to tell the difference in NVH between the TSX motor and a V6 during HIGHWAY CRUISING AND LIGHT THROTTLE STARTS, but mash the gas pedal to the floor, or behave in some moderate to aggressive driving, and your ears and senses will be told exactly what resides underneath that hood!!! (I have driven a Honda Accord V6 and TSX back-to-back)
02-24-2005, 07:55 PM
#435
Drifting
This is very exciting! If they could get a 4 cylinder engine with turbo to squeeze out so much horsepower and torque, with the same sweetness and smoothness of the TSX engine, then we really don't necessarily have to have a V6.....
02-24-2005, 07:58 PM
#436
Intermediate
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Look's like a mitten....
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if Acura is thinking about putting Subaru back in its place? If the TSX ends up with 260hp + maybe SHawd......we would be talking Legacy GT with more luxury....hmmmmmm.
Th RDX would be very competative with this set up call it a tall TSX wagon.......
02-24-2005, 09:54 PM
#437
101 years of heartache...
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago's North Side/Champaign, IL
Age: 36
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol, Honda+Turbo= deformity. Honda needs to put a nice 240 HP V6 into this thing. My opinion. No need to bring the 90's back.
02-24-2005, 09:57 PM
#438
_____ like a rabbit
Originally Posted by CGTSX2004
2.2L with 260/260 and SH-AWD I see big possibilities for the TSX...
02-24-2005, 10:00 PM
#439
_____ like a rabbit
And why dont people supercharge? Id rather have a supercharged car than a turbo, with all that lag. Isnt it better for the engine anyways?
02-24-2005, 10:09 PM
#440
101 years of heartache...
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chicago's North Side/Champaign, IL
Age: 36
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the TSX had a 6 cyl, SH-AWD would be a great application.
But on a fwd car with a great chassis and good steering feel, do you want to add AWD?
But on a fwd car with a great chassis and good steering feel, do you want to add AWD?