Should we be disappointed?
01-24-2006, 12:51 PM
#41
Originally Posted by SebringSilver
I'm curious though, as to how you can claim that those are examples of "what Honda does best".
You've heard of Penis Envy haven't you? I believe this is called JDM Envy..... 
01-24-2006, 11:44 PM
#42
My bolonga has a 1st name
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
Age: 39
Posts: 2,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by 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.
01-25-2006, 01:06 AM
#43
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Actuary
can anyone educate me?
what's better? Turbochraged 4-cyl or Natural 6-cyl?
Cost?
Fuel consumption?
Durability?
what's better? Turbochraged 4-cyl or Natural 6-cyl?
Cost?
Fuel consumption?
Durability?
Durability...
That is the key for me with this vehicle, the RDX had been on my radar to replace my travel car since the concept was displayed. However, I need some basic feeling that my travel car will go 300-400K without major drivetrain problems, almost every other HMC product currently for sale gives me this peace of mind, a first year FI engined car, even if Lexus made it, does not. However, I have no such concern for the first 100K miles on the RDX's "planned" engine and for most people this would be more than adequate, in fact if it were to be filling any other slot in my stable I wouldn't give it a second thought.
As for costs this FI 4 probably costs about the same as a 3.5l NA DOHC engine though there would be less R&D costs to recoup using the Pilot/MDX engine and HMC could probably hit a lower price point using the legacy engine.
Fuel consumption will probably be about the same with a 3.5L NA engine, case in point the new Rav4 with their corporate 3.5l, the EPA numbers are very close to the estimates for the RDX.
For me FI is a deal breaker but that has more to do with my need for extreme durability than anything else. Were this going to be a 15K a year commuter for me I wouldn't think twice about FI in the RDX.
01-25-2006, 09:56 AM
#44
Three Wheelin'
Originally Posted by ilitig8
Durability...
That is the key for me with this vehicle, the RDX had been on my radar to replace my travel car since the concept was displayed. However, I need some basic feeling that my travel car will go 300-400K without major drivetrain problems, almost every other HMC product currently for sale gives me this peace of mind, a first year FI engined car, even if Lexus made it, does not. However, I have no such concern for the first 100K miles on the RDX's "planned" engine and for most people this would be more than adequate, in fact if it were to be filling any other slot in my stable I wouldn't give it a second thought.
As for costs this FI 4 probably costs about the same as a 3.5l NA DOHC engine though there would be less R&D costs to recoup using the Pilot/MDX engine and HMC could probably hit a lower price point using the legacy engine.
Fuel consumption will probably be about the same with a 3.5L NA engine, case in point the new Rav4 with their corporate 3.5l, the EPA numbers are very close to the estimates for the RDX.
For me FI is a deal breaker but that has more to do with my need for extreme durability than anything else. Were this going to be a 15K a year commuter for me I wouldn't think twice about FI in the RDX.
That is the key for me with this vehicle, the RDX had been on my radar to replace my travel car since the concept was displayed. However, I need some basic feeling that my travel car will go 300-400K without major drivetrain problems, almost every other HMC product currently for sale gives me this peace of mind, a first year FI engined car, even if Lexus made it, does not. However, I have no such concern for the first 100K miles on the RDX's "planned" engine and for most people this would be more than adequate, in fact if it were to be filling any other slot in my stable I wouldn't give it a second thought.
As for costs this FI 4 probably costs about the same as a 3.5l NA DOHC engine though there would be less R&D costs to recoup using the Pilot/MDX engine and HMC could probably hit a lower price point using the legacy engine.
Fuel consumption will probably be about the same with a 3.5L NA engine, case in point the new Rav4 with their corporate 3.5l, the EPA numbers are very close to the estimates for the RDX.
For me FI is a deal breaker but that has more to do with my need for extreme durability than anything else. Were this going to be a 15K a year commuter for me I wouldn't think twice about FI in the RDX.
Also, I don't think we should be making any mileage comparisons to the RAV4 until the RDX's EPA numbers come out. The "estimates" that you speak of are out of the blue guesses at this time.
01-25-2006, 08:47 PM
#45
I feel the need...
Originally Posted by SteVTEC
Acura has to beat 21/28 which is what a RAV4 V6 AWD is rated for.
If they pull off that feat, I will be modestly surprised and impressed.
Teh wifey's '05 CRV barely improves on those numbers.
01-25-2006, 08:51 PM
#46
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hondamore
I don't think that we can lump the RDX's turbo set up in with all other turbo's just as we cannot equate other AWD systems with the wonderful SH-AWD system. I believe one of the major advantages of the variable flow design will be to vastly improve mileage by "turning off" the turbo during normal sedate driving or highway cruising while still being able to "turn on" the turbo for maximum power whenever it is needed. It should be like VCM but with significantly more torque.
Also, I don't think we should be making any mileage comparisons to the RAV4 until the RDX's EPA numbers come out. The "estimates" that you speak of are out of the blue guesses at this time.
Also, I don't think we should be making any mileage comparisons to the RAV4 until the RDX's EPA numbers come out. The "estimates" that you speak of are out of the blue guesses at this time.
I can't disagree about the guesses but I would be stunned of the RDX is over 30 mpg highway, that would get it in the TSX range with more horsepower, more weight and AWD. My guess at best it will be spot on the RAV4 but time will tell. If the MPG numbers equate I would personally rather have the 6, the torque curve will likely be more friendly.
01-25-2006, 09:24 PM
#48
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by PistonFan
My first choice would be the 3.0 V6 too, but I'll withhold judgement until I get a chance to drive one. Summer will be here before you know it.
Hmmm....
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
SinCityTLX
5G TLX Audio, Bluetooth, Electronics & Navigation
20
10-19-2015 11:23 AM
HOWELLiNC
3G TL (2004-2008)
30
09-18-2015 11:12 PM