provench

So what do you think? This was a pretty big bomb for Acura to drop.

From a handling prowess ... where is this thing gonna fit in the RSX, TL, CL, RL, MDX lineup?

Here's me guess from best to worst.

1) NSX (hehe)
2) RDX
3) TSX
4) RL
5) TL

Am I nuts? I am thinking much lighter than RL ... SH-AWD ... hmmmm

dom

NSX
TSX
RSX
RL
TL
RDX
MDX

in that order

Provench no way an SUV handles better than a sedan.

provench

oops ... forgot the RSX which of course slots above everything but NSX (it's dying anyway isn't it )

I dunno man ... I am gonna do some homework ... but here is a start:

http://motortrend.com/roadtests/suv/...rm/index9.html

So far it looks like is more right on here ..

From what I can find on the slalom speed

NSX - 65 -66
RSX-S - 64-64.5
TSX - 62.5-64
TL - 62.5-63
MDX - 58-59
RL - Can't seem to find any

So I dunno ... seeing the X5 which is much heavier and probably higher off the ground than the RDX post 62-62.5 slalom numbers w/o a more sophisticated SH-AWD ... I think we all might be in for a good surprise on this front

Junkster

I thought it was clear that the NSX is a loss at the end of next year?

Junkster, who is trying to get used to the new layout

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

I think it'll be a hard call on the RDX handling. With the SH-AWD, it should perform admirably, but due to the higher ride height and higher center of gravity, it may be a wash. I would expect it to be close to the TSX. Makes me wonder what a TSX with SH-AWD would perform like?

Junkster

I don't know... it didn't seem that high off the ground. And people I've talked to say the BMW X3 handles pretty well, considering how high off the ground it is.

Junkster, who can't get into off-topic... oh, the irony

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

It's still got a higher center of gravity, regardless of the ride height, just due to the taller body. While the X3 may handle well, it still wouldn't handle as well as its sedan brethren. I think it's just a matter of how much the SH-AWD is able to conpensate. Guess we won't know until there are some official test numbers.

provench

To me if the RDX can break even on the handling side, deliver more power and be quicked than the TSX, plus have its additional benefits in snow, more storage, and maybe more leg room ... then it's a good step up from the TSX for me. I have a feeling I will be disappointed on at least a couple of those

Junkster

How does the current CRV add up in terms of rear leg room compared to the TSX?

CG is right, of course, still an soft SUV, which would mean I would teh stay away from it... I like my SUV to be somewhat capable of taking me to some remote fishing spots.

Junkster, who always wonders when the SUV craze will end

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

I wish they would cut the crap and just give us the TSX Tourer. I'd be more than willing to get one of those. The RDX seems like a compromise between an actual SUV like the MDX and a wagon, which is what the engineers really wanted, but the marketers couldn't find a business case for.

I'll just wait for the real production car and check it out when it becomes available.

Zapata

What's going to get SHAWD next?

TSX or TL?

DEI99662

I hope the TSX gets the SH-AWD before the RDX. Why not give the RDX just AWD?

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

I wouldn't be surprised if all future Acura AWD offerings were with the SH-AWD while the VTM-4 becomes the AWD system for the Honda offerings.

Zapata

because it's not sporty. Small SUVs aren't going to go into the mud bogs. They are driven on the road....hence sportyy image to compete with X3 and the rest. It's an excellent move by Acura especially if they market it right. Nobody else has it.

Junkster

That's what I'm talkin' bout!!! A tourer!!! If Acura is truly set on going after the likes of Audi and Volvo in terms of target market segment, then they need a tourer in the line up... and the TSX tourer already exists!!!

Damn you Acura!!! Damn you to hell!!!

Not really.

Junkster, who is in love with wagons now

Zapata

Wagons? Are you people nuts. Yes they make sense but in terms of the market demand a sporty mini-SUV are definitely the rage. I for one am very happy with the RDX. A wagon only fist one type of buyer. Family. If i'm single or don't have kids i'm not going to purchase a wagon. RDX is perfect. It fits so many molds.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

SUVs are just too tall. I would much prefer the wagon layout since it provides most of the utility of the SUV without the height, which should mean crisper handling. Plus, the cargo capacity of a wagon makes it particularly appealing. Also, SUVs have become so associated with bad connotations that I'd rather not own one if I can avoid it.

Zapata

Agreed from a pure performance standpoint I agree. I prefer things closer to the ground.

DEI99662

Not all SUVs are too tall. If you are talking about a Tahoe or Escalade then yes it is too tall and big. A Honda CR-V is perfect height and size.

IMO, Subaru makes the best wagon.

DEI99662

Maybe the RDX should get the CR-V's RT 4WD.

dom

An Acura Wagon will not sell. Honda already tried it with the Accord and failed miserably. A TSX Tourer would be dead in the water.

Zapata

ehm it's ok but not sporty enough. SHAWD

DEI99662

I want to see the SH-AWD in the RDX too, but I just cant see them doing that if they are going to put the 2.4L engine in it.

Teh Jatt

Nsx
Tl
Mdx
Rdx
Tsx
Rsx

Zapata

it'll get the 3.0L. They've already said that SHAWD is really only meant for v6.

provench

How recent was that? I guess maybe they could change their mind?

Junkster

Yea, but wagon sales are pretty high nowadays...

Volvo wagon sales account for more then 60% of their vehicles sold. Saab and Audi also sell quite a bit of wagons. And let's not forget Subaru. Heck, in Europe and Asia, it's all the rage, and it's only a matter of time until people start coming back.

With high fuel costs and people longing for better driving experiences, a wagon would be a nice addition to the lineup. And it's not like it's a huge project for Honda to bring over a small number of wagons to the TSX mix.

Personally, as a wagon owner, I enjoy being able to haul big things (or people sometimes) without having to drive a gas guzzler.

That said, RDX with a V6 and cylinder management, along with SHAWD, would make it pretty unique in the segment.

Junkster, who would like a TSX SHAWD Tourer

Zapata

6months or so? I heard it from another company source as well. Dunno. K24 would be nice but without a turbo I don't see it. I would think you'd want 200ftlbs.

provench

Well the 3L V6 from accord is 240/212 .... so if post from steves in right in the other thread about 240HP+200TQ K24 ... we don't need no stinkin Accord engine

Zapata

Welp then there is a turbo for sure. I really don't see how they are going to add 40HP/ 40FTLBS. UNless the k24 is some sort of freak motor and really has been de-tuned like no other engine before.

provench

Yeah ... I am with you ...

Zapata

ahahah yea....all speculation. Here is another scenerio. RDX does get the j30 and the MDX retains the 3.5L but gets the VCM/IMA/Hybrid treatment with a boost in power. MDX buyers have the income to plunk down another few Gs for the fancy. RDX with 240 and MDX with 280 would be seperation enough? Dunno. Doesn't seem like Honda/Acura style to me.

I think i'm going to settle on my original prediction. A "worked" k24. We saw the dyno's of the k24 block with the k20 head and tunning. Something in the range of 220hp/180ftlbs of trq with the k24 incorporating direct injection. Hopefully, the TSX sees the same engine work. Trq is what the TSX really needs.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

Supposedly there is a lot of room in the fuel mapping to free up quite a bit of power, but we would need a reflash like Hondata to accomplish that. I think that 240hp might be a little optimistic, but there is definitely room in the K24 to free up some power, so I wouldn't be surprised they were able to accomplish it.

SPUDMTN

This is very true. Doesn't BMW market their X3 as a "semi-capable" offroad SUV--err...SAV?

It seems to me like the RDX's sole competitor is the X3...and so far, it looks like they have hit the mark head on. The RD-X concept looks amazing, and we all know how Acura has been staying true to the concept styling. I think the RD-X concept is quite practically in production form (save for the wheels, lack of mirrors, and the interior, etc...)

rets

By SH-AWD system, RL's handling would be better than RDX...


RSX could be on the top of all. IMO.

Fibonacci

Depends on the vehicle - but for some strange reason - women (in general) seem to be programmed to equate high seating position with safety. Was the primary reason we sold my Prelude for a CRV.

Cheque

We have to admit that when driving a mini-van or a tall SUV, women (or drivers, generally speaking) see more of the road and especially when backing out. I know my girlfriend can't see a thing when sitting in my Prelude but in her Accord she sees a whole more. Now imagine if she moves to an SUV, of course she'd see even more and perhaps to her seeing more is equivalent to safer driving?

phile

Another scenario: RDX gets the 3.2L from the TL, more torque than the Accord engine.

Isn't it odd how Honda seems to be sharing the 3.5L engine with everything else, but the 3.2L and the 3.0L V6s are left alone...

phile

I agree about seeing the road, but the backing out part...I think it's a much bigger PITA to back out with a van or an SUV then it is with a sedan.

Cheque

OK, my point was mainly regarding the "seeing more", but you're correct that backing out in a mini-van or SUV is trickier because the vehicle is longer.

Another thing is women probably feel safer when they sit higher up and see more things. Gives them the impression that no other cars can touch or harm them.

I think I might be turning into a woman