SebringSilver

I don't know about you guys, but one of the great things about Honda (and Acura) has always been its reluctance to take the easy way out (in matters related to horsepower) by simply slapping on a turbocharger. Nope, Honda has a glorious history of doing things the hard way, and doing it very well. Now, with the soon to be released RDX, it seems likely that it'll come with a blower.

Maybe I haven't figured out all the new innovations they've done to turbocharging (if that is in fact the case), but somehow, I feel let down by this news that Honda, of all companies, has finally given in to turbocharging.

hondamore

Times change and Honda has to change with the times. I honestly believe that the RDX was designed with a V6 in mind BUT the current energy prices and hp wars have caused them to proceed with the turbo 4 instead. Also, current automotive power levels must not only be adequate, they must be percieved to be more than adequate. The current horsepower war that is raging has caused the public to percieve that 200+ horsepower in a compact SUV is underpowered.

SebringSilver

You do have a point there, about how times do change, even for a stalwart anti-establishment company like Honda.

I'll probably come to grips with it after most people though...when I'm done sulking.

I had always admired Honda's engineering prowess and staunch resistance to doing what other companies do. Oh well, no point living in the past, I guess.

Colin

It's funny, in the interview with TOV, the project manager said, "the 3.5 liter V-6 is available to us, but that would have been the 'easy' way"

SebringSilver

Well, there you have it: proof that Honda still likes to do things the hard way.

Colin

Is the glass half empty or half full....

SebringSilver

Y'know, after looking through some of the info and photos available on other threads here, I'm kind of tempted to look more closely at this RDX, turbo or no turbo.

Can't wait to see it when it reaches the showroom.

Tintin

same!

blnemec

What do you think about the diesel prospects for Mercedes (MB) and Honda?

I understand that MB will be soon be putting a diesel in their ML350 that should help their current 20 mpg quite a lot. Does that seem reasonable & any reason diesels would not be cost effective / efficient in the smaller utiity vehicles - including Honda / Acura?

[one more plug for adequate RDX headroom or Acura could drive certain customers to the diesel competitors]

SteVTEC

Comments like this only show how arrogant Honda can be as a company. In another interview someone from Honda said that they could have used a 3.5L V6 but that they preferred the "more intelligent performance of the i-VTEC turbocharged 4-cylinder". That is what you call tooting your own horn, and self-glorification, and I despise it. All companies do that to a certain extent, but Honda is in a whole different league.

A turbocharged 4-cylinder is not necessarily going to be any more efficient than a 3.5L V6 of comparable power also. And due to the added weight of the turbo and plumbing, the overall powertrain might not be any lighter than a V-6 either. Turbocharged engines have to run much lower static compression ratios than naturally aspirated engines for internal pressure reasons, but that same drop in CR also contributes to much lower thermal efficiency at part-load operation where the turbo is not really providing much if any boost and the engine is esentially running in naturally aspirated mode. The Variable Turbine Geometry is nice and will definitely help with lag, but I've not seen any mention of Direct Injection for this engine which would be the biggest help of all.

I don't believe the RDX is running a turbo-4 because a 3.5 V6 would have been "easy" or because the turbo-4 provides "more intelligent" performance at all. I think it's for market distinction and nothing else. Nissan has a 3.5L, Toyota has a 3.5L, Benz has a 3.5L, everybody has 3.5L's. Honda wants to be different and stand out, so they're doing something different, in this case a turbo-4 instead of a V6 like everybody else.

Toyota is claiming 21/28 mpg on their V6/AWD RAV4 and that is some seriously good efficiency. I'm extremely interested to see if this Honda turbo engine will in fact be more efficient. I've seen lots of turbo people talking all about how turbo-4's "can be" more efficient, but I have yet to see that actually pan out in the market place when comparing a turbo-4 to a similarly powered naturally aspirated V6.


As for Honda's marketing PR spinsters (and not the engineers, or the cars) In the past they've dissed turbos saying that's the "easy" way to get more power, and now here they are dissing V6's saying that's the "easy" way. Two-faced liars and nothing but BS and spin. I guess they're hoping that their customers have pretty short memories, but not me, and I find that to be pretty funny.

Colin

I agree with most of what you said, it is a spin. BUT this is what they have to do, right? Every company has to spin news in a manner that puts them in the best light.

However I diagree with the assesment above. IMO the decision has nothing to do with the competition, but everything to do with the MDX stablemate. There needs to be separaton between the RDX and MDX just as there needs to be separation between the TSX and TL for both products to flourish. (on a side note, there is inadequate separation between the TL and RL to justify the cost......this creates problems for the RL)

SebringSilver

Actually, from a marketing standpoint, one of the best powertrains out there has got to be the Audi A3's. With a turbocharged 2.0 litre 4-cylinder utilizing direct injection, front-wheel drive (the AWD is only available with the V6), and a DSG sequential shift gearbox, the marketing guys (and showroom salespeople too) have a field day with virtually every potential customer, whether their primary concern is performance, efficiency, safety, or technology. The fact that all that is put into a tidy little package like the A3 is no bad thing either.

I'm surprised Honda didn't come up with that first.

Actuary

can anyone educate me?

what's better? Turbochraged 4-cyl or Natural 6-cyl?

Cost?
Fuel consumption?
Durability?

Colin

Yeah, that may be correct, but Audis will suffer from reliability issues, and that things a damn station wagon


Wow, could you ask a more open ended question....

Personally, I lke oranges because sometimes with apples, the skin gets in my teeth....

SteVTEC

The best example of engine marketing success is easily the Chrysler Hemi. Tons of power and with MDS they get 17/25 mpg which is darn good considering the 340hp/390tq, and that they're only sold in heavy 4000 lb brick shaped cars with horrible aerodynamics. And then there's the 6.1L rev-up version with 425hp. The 300C and Magnum are runaway successes for DCX and the HEMI alone is keeping the entire company in the black (Mercedes lost money last year IIRC).


As for which is better a turbo-4 or an NA V6, who knows.

Cost may be up in the air. A mass-produced global V-6 can actually be pretty cheap. 4-cylinders are cheaper, but after you throw in the turbo hardware and other enhancements it might work out about the same. Durability I would say goes to naturally aspirated engines, although modern turbo engines are always getting better. It may be a toss up and really depends on the quality of the design and how well the owners care for it. A naturally aspirated engine will handle neglect better than a turbo though.

Fuel consumption.

"In theory" a downsized boosted engine has an efficiency advantage over a larger V6 with the same power. BUT... in reality turbo-4's historically lack low-end so they have to be geared shorter which is an efficiency hit, and then they run lower static compression ratios than NA which is another efficiency hit, and then they have to run less advanced ignition timing which can be another efficiency hit and they end up being less efficient. But with variable turbine geometry and if this engine has direct injection (unknown at this point) a lot of those issues may be taken care of and it "could be" just as if not more efficient than an NA V6. We will see. Acura has to beat 21/28 which is what a RAV4 V6 AWD is rated for.

SebringSilver

I see nothing wrong with "station wagons". The Audi A3 is one of the best car designs I've seen in a long time.

Tintin

What is so nice about the A3!?

expensive for no reason!

SebringSilver

Expensive? The A3? Are we talking about the same car?

Okay, assuming we are, please take one out for a test drive, preferably one with the DSG gearbox. It's such a zippy little car in a tidy package with an excellent interior, loads of technology, and terrific utility thrown in together.

98AccordEx

Terrific utility??? That backseat is for young kids only. If you're going to get a station wagon get one that will actually hold all your stuff. HMC should bring back the Accord Wagon with a V6 this time!!!

lamster

That A3 is way overpriced. It is a nice little wagon, but not nice enough for that kind of price. I never owned an Audi vehicle and have always been afraid of getting one because of all these reliabilty issues. Are them for real?

Honestly, I like the last generation of the Audi A4 very much.

SebringSilver

Looks like I've managed to derail my own thread. *LOL*

Anyway, the thing is....my kids are young (4 and 2), and I guess I'm not really looking for the A3 (if I do indeed buy one, that is) to hold all my stuff because it'd basically be just a commuter for my wife to drive. I've held off on buying it now because I'm intrigued by the RDX (whew, finally back on-topic ). I think my wife would probably like either car, but I can't ask her directly because it's meant to be a surprise.

SebringSilver

I had an A6 back in the late 90's and we've had other Audis for company cars too. I was lucky (I guess) in that my Audi wasn't as problematic as those reported by many users, but the company drivers did say that the Audis in the company fleet (we had two A8s at different times) were relatively prone to visits to the dealership. I really don't know enough Audi owners or former owners to offer any real comments as to their reliability except to say that the one I had was pretty good. The trade-in value was laughable though.

By the way, how much is an A3 in Canada?

Infamous425

if you havent already, go test drive audi/vw's new 2.0T engine. it is an awesome engine that makes a nice amount of torque and hp without any of that turbo lag.

SebringSilver

I have, and you're right, it's very impressive.

vrflyer

Sounds like you've missed out on what Honda really does best, no?

Honda has & sells turbocharged vehicles that are fun & economic to drive, just NOT in the U.S.

Tintin

A3 in canada starts at $33,650 for the 2.0T and the 3.2 starts at $45,690
Note that the 33,650 is the 6speed, the auto is more expensive, no leather, no sunroof, no bluetooth, no 6cd changer, no bi-xenon, no side airbag, no homelink, trip computer, auto-dimming interior, etc.
When you equip this car up, it will hit 50k canadian!
50k cad = 43k usd!

is it worth it for an A3!?

Infamous425

i wonder if we'll be able to chip it and boost the hp/tq to 300/320

SebringSilver

Okay, I found the Canadian Audi website and the price came to CAD$43,050 when I did a build out with the following:

Audi A3 2.0T
DSG Gearbox
Sport Package (17" 16-spoke bi-colour alloy wheels w/ performance tires, Leather seats, Multifunction leather steering wheel w/ alloy shift paddles, Aluminum belt line trim, Fog lights, Sport seats, Sport suspension, Alloy radio buttons, Roof spoiler)
Cold weather Package (Heated front seats, Ski sack, Heated windshield washer nozzles, Heated exterior mirrors)
Sound Package (Bose premium sound system, 6-disc CD changer in dash)
Convenience Package (Homelink, Storage package, Trip computer, Auto-dimming rearview mirror, Rain/Light sensor)
Bluetooth phone interface w/ voice control
Open Sky system (moonroof)

I think Bi-Xenon HIDs are included in there somewhere.

I don't think that's too bad.

The important question now is will the RDX be similarly priced when similarly equipped?

SebringSilver

Hmmm...not sure about that. I've had two NSXs so I don't think I've missed out on what Honda does best.

And which turbocharged Honda models are you referring to?

Colin

Why, it's the Turbo City...... the car that strikes fear in to the hearts of NSX owners everywhere!

SebringSilver

*LOL*

CarlsbadCA

My new wife loves the A3. I never really liked the looks or size. However, after a test drive with the 6 cyl. I was very impressed with the 6cyl much less with the turbo. The 6 cyl. was very quick and stuck to the pavement around tight corners like it was on rails. The interior is nice but small. Also think overpriced.

Really wouuld like to test drive the RDX but not sure I can wait for one, as a baby is on the way. Curious about price and concerned about turbo lag. Disappointed they are going with only a 4cyl. But given some of the specs I've seen it may turn out OK. When does anyone think the the test drive reviews on the RDX will out?? APR/MAY??

SebringSilver

Wow, we're in pretty much the same boat.

As for your question, word is the RDX is due to hit showrooms around June, so I guess the magazines will probably have "first drives" and other preview-type write-ups by around May (but those articles won't hit the news stands until June anyway, I guess). I'm really impressed by what everyone's been saying about the RDX, but I'm a little bit afraid that it's going to sell like hotcakes (like the MDX) and they'll end up being everywhere. The A3 is an interesting alternative (for me, anyway).

Kighter

Took delivery of an A3 2.0T DSG on Dec 31st. It is a really nice car. I would say my TSX is a better value than the Mrs.' Audi but I enjoy it alot. It's quite quick and feels really nimble especially for the weight. It's smaller than the TSX but the low low seats make leg room a non-issue and the hatch adds that extra practicality that the TSX lacks. We got every option pretty much so it wasn't cheap.

We shopped midsize wagons and small sportutes. The RDX was basically at the top of our list but alas the babies' due date is before the RDX's...

We'll see how it works out with baby seats and the like in the A3. If we have to go up to something bigger the RDX will be first choice. As it is we drove but didn't buy the X3 because we knew the RDX was coming and it just pales in comparison (it's nice but so expensive.) We also considered A4 Avants (too dull), a 3 series Tourer (can't find 'em anywhere - I think that would've been my choice) and Volvo wagons. She eliminated the Volvos early on, the V50 which I liked has that godawful center console so she nixed that ASAP. V70s and Passat Wagons are huge and CRX/RAV4 is too down-class for her. So that left us with the A3 or waiting for the RDX when we weren't sure what it was going to be. Who knows? We might end up with both anyway...

vicpai

....you probably need to be concerned more about NVH (Smoothness/Quietness/Refinement) characteristics. Honda seems to have come through on the performance side of the equation (260lb.ft of torque), but just like yourself, I'm waiting for it come out so that I can test drive it to see how REFINED it is.....and a refined, smooth powerplant translates to the feeling of "effortless" power!!

I recently test drove a 2006 VW Passat 2.0T to get a perspective on what to expect for the upcoming RDX. I was very impressed by the performance (very quick off the line, and ready power at all RPMs), but REFINEMENT was a whole different story. It's nowhere near as smooth/quiet as a V6!!.....The typically THRASHY, "TINNY" 4-banger sound was there, giving it a CHEAP, "REVVY" feel to it, as opposed to the refined, "substantial" and MUTED sound of a V6. It was very well insulated when cruising, but dip into the gas pedal and you can't hide what's underneath!!

The RDX will have to meet a very very high bar, NVH-wise, for me to consider it, but I'm willing to give Honda a chance. I will reserve final judgement until after test driving it, and see what magic the Honda engineers can come up with!!

SebringSilver

This is one of those happy problems: A3, RDX, A3, RDX, decisions decisions.

Tintin

That is the advantage of the A3, they are really rare (well atleast here).
I have seen maybe three on the streets compared to 1000 of everything else.

i think the RDX is out of my (financial) league. As a 24 year old, i should be saving my money rather than spending them on something that will depreciate.

vrflyer

Well all varieties as a matter of fact, unless you been living under a shell.

Just a few: F1, Jet skies, Motorcycles, Fit, City I&II, CR-V, Turbo Z, Accord...

Shall we put the NSX against an F1 car to prove a point?

98AccordEx

Fair enough HMC is an engine company and they make more than just cars. With this being an ACURA Forum we typically keep our conversations based on production cars and trucks. Also since Sebring and most of the forum participants are North American based (as is Acura) we were not including turbo diesels which are not available here.

SebringSilver

Thanks for the great info. I guess I must have been living under a shell not to have known about all those turbocharged Hondas (I did come across a turbocharged Honda motorcycle once before, come to think of it).

I'm curious though, as to how you can claim that those are examples of "what Honda does best". Surely Honda would have exported more cars with turbocharging if it was indeed something they did so well (as compared to having done it out of necessity in certain drivetrains). I guess Honda must have been thinking, "hmmm....this turbocharging thing is just too good. Let's keep it for the domestic market only and not use it for cars sold in the rest of the world. We wouldn't want to sell too many cars now would we."

And I'm particularly uncertain as to what point could be proved by pitting an NSX against an F1 car. The two are built for completely different purposes. Anyway, thanks for your input...I think.