Mr Marco

Why did you buy a boring car???
Bottom line, the RDX is a heavy box of steel to haul around. If this motor is that hot, why isnt Honda using the turbo on the Civic Si??? The competition is kicking Honda's ass off the playground.

Mr Marco

Funny, I was reading C&D last night on the toilet and noticed that the competition (who's name has three letters) is putting out more hp and the same 0-60 times as the RDX. Who is it? BMW? No, KIA. The Sportage is rated at 260hp. It looks like a cross between an RDX and a Subaru Tribeca and runs $32k as tested. I'll bet it gets better mpg's too.
Too bad the k23 uses substantially different engine mounts than does the k24 or k20. If the civic incorporated that different style torque-absorbing "dog-bone" type mount on the passenger side, we might see kids stuffing a salvage one into a civic.

brizey

It is not all that surprising to me. The RDX motor is five years old with no revisions. If they make no changes, the 2012 will be the sixth model year with exactly the same engine. I follow the car market pretty well, and I cannot, off the top of my head, think of another model that went six model years with exactly one engine (no optional engine, either--every single RDX ever produced has exactly the same engine).

pickler

you guys will regret calling for a new engine :wink:

as i said before most likey they are going to throw in the 201hp K24 engine. and a v6 for version for more money, similar to the TSX. however with the tsunami disaster many projects have been delayed so far.

MMike1981

well, congrats to KIA, they managed to hit numbers that the RDX put up in 2006 as a 2007 model, and the RDX had probably been in development from 2004 or so. A little late to the party, and this only shows how well Acuras powerplant is, and how not far KIA came. At a minimum it should get at least better mpgs, lol. if it didnt, what a waste. The RDX engine is a dinosaur and still kills that heap of trash, especially inside. they are dreaming @ 32k, hell you can buy THE RDX BASE. good try, no thanks.

wrestrepo

Yes, congratulations....credit should be given where credit is due, and Kia (Hyundai) has been doing a great job at building cars. Comparing the Kia to the Acura is not fair, but if you put it side by side with the "real" competition from the Honda brand (CR-V), there is no contest.
The Kia turbo does get better MPGs than the RDX.
Kia and Hyundai still have ways to go with their quality, fit and finish, but they are quickly getting there.

MMike1981

yea, they are definitely getting there, but they need more time to come up with that special blend of in and out goodness. I make sure that i drive their new models, just so i can remain unbiased from the cool-aid spilling magazine articles about their new models. They just aren't there yet, but they for sure are making better products. Would i buy one over tried, tested, true of Honda, Toyota, Nissan or acura or infiniti, def not, not yet. They are still a bit harsh, materials are both really good and bad, and reliability comes down the road. They are pumping so many new products and powerplants out that are "new" that you still dont know what you are getting. At least with the germans, you buy knowing what ya know. I've heard product integrity stories about "new" hyundais that are very shocking (as in the subframes rusting out in a couple years). Somewhere down the line, someone or something is taking a hit; you cant keep discounting prices forever, they got into the market at entry pricing, but now, I really dont even see nor experience any sort of discount as compared to the competition. In fact, my last round of testing Hyundais at various dealers in a few states...some dealers were MARKING UP the sticker due to "current" sales and "current" value. Still a no thank you.

brizey

The RDX motor was not the best 4 cylinder turbo on the market when it came out, either. The mitsu 2.0 and the subaru 2.5 were/are both better, the STI motor by a large margin.

MMike1981

not by any means saying it was the best motor, but it certainly motivated the RDX in a way that beat the competition, doing so with less cylinders. To this day, there is not much that beats the RDX in the performance category, even given the more potent 6's out there, inlcuding the Q5, GLK, X3 etc.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ura_rdx_page_2

...C&D '07 Comparo

Mr Marco

^I think the point has been well made hear by all that have contributed, by intention or not. Bash whatever automotive magazine you want, the truth really is that the technology in this motor has been pushed to the limit. Sure you can squeeze another 20-50hp out of it, but the competition, yes, wake the fuck up, KIA is the competition, is taking market share away from Honda because they offer a product that is:
Just as good,
10yr/100k Warranty,
Better mpg's,
More hp's,
6 speed tranny,
NOT a base fwd!

The time has come and gone for Acura to step it up. If a Hybrid or something just as innovative doesn't roll off the line with a shield grille with an RDX/MDX /?DX model badge on the back, consumers will take their hard earned money elsewhere.

merlot

It's all relative to what you want from you engine. The STI engine has no low end, though gearing helped make up for it a bit. The RDX is faster off the line with just a regular start. The STI needs to be revved to get the most out of it. In regular, everyday drivability, the RDX is better.

FYI - I had an STI and recently traded it in for the new Volvo S60 T5 - another turbo engine with great drivability.

As far as the better base for a tuner engine, I've always read the Mitsubishi was better.

BigHatch

I miss my STi... traded an 06 for the 07 RDX...

Still, it was a good trade without selling my soul.

What Honda needs to do is put the K23T in a new SH-AWD prelude.

Hell, i had an '88 prelude with 4 wheel steering years ago...that might be an interesting addition, but maybe to a longer wheelbase car.

pickler

i think people are forgetting that a car with a little more horsepower is NOT necessary faster than a car with less and same curbweight. It's all about powerband, transmission gearing and drive-train efficiency. kia probably starts generating max torque at 4500rpm while rdx generates 95% torque at 3000. this is also true of bmw 135/335 series, they feel more powerful than bmw v8s and are as fast if not faster in straight lines. even though they have nearly 100 less horses.

MMike1981

...not to mention, the Kia is pulling less weight (about 350ish less lbs) with more power. The RDX is right there @ 4k lbs with less rated power.

pickler

not quite, lets compare apples with apples:

kia sorento v6 FWD : 3900 lbs
acura rdx FWD : 3750 lbs

so the sorento is actually heavier. plus the sorento v6 achieves 0-60 in 7.4s vs RDX 6.5s. with the hondata flash i get flat 6 seconds but not everyone wants to mod their car. the j35 in the rdx will probably improve this number due to its more linear torque curve, but i like mid range power for passing and the turbo rush is really fun.

sources:
http://www.insideline.com/kia/sorent...full-test.html
http://www.acura.com/dimensionscapac...aspx?model=rdx

wrestrepo

wrong Kia. I think the discussion is about the sportage

MMike1981

wtf is the sorento? only dealing with the sportage

Mr Marco

Although it is true that the K23A1 feels strong underfoot, I really doubt your comp between the 300hp 135 and an E90's engine. I have only driven a couple BMW coupes, a 318ti, and on the other end of the spectrum, a E46 GTR (road). After I figured out how to not stall the prototype V8, I needed some fresh underware. There is no doubt that the BMW V8 is screaming fast. Don't kid yourself.

MMike1981

and the sorento looks like a backhanded evil stepchild, god that thing is gross. hi interior from the 90s, nice to meet you.

man this hyundai, kia stuff is so ugh. They basically copy or clone elements from multiple manufactures, blend it all together and spit it out. right down to their model badging "EX V6" lol. god i hate these things.

Philbert

Another from the Honda Motor Company - the S2000. The 2.2L stroked engine was introduced for the 2004 model year and remained until the car was discontinued after the 2009 model year.

brizey

I never thought the STI felt weak at all in terms of low end. Most stock plots I saw have it making 200+ lbft at 3000 to about 6500 rpm--its that sort of ratio that matters, not the actual rpm number which is irrelevant once the transmission is hooked up. The RDX motor may come on at lower rpm, but it dies off at lower rpm, too. I have never seen a dyno plot of an RDX go below 3000 rpm, so I really don't know how low it goes. My impression is that their torque curves are of similar breadth, but the STI makes more power.

BTW, our other car is a 2004 Forester XT. It's off the line responsiveness blows the RDX away, but it, too dies off at the top end.

"Driveability" is subjective. For me, not pulling hard to redline reduces the driveability of the RDX. And really, a stock STI lacks in that department a bit as well, but not as bad. Also, I kind of doubt the RDX would be slower with the STI motor.

pickler

sti engine is short stroke, rdx' is long stroke. long stroke provides more low end torque and short stroke more high end. it is natural that the rdx will develope most of its torque bellow 5k rpm while sti can keep going but lacks low end.

corduroygt

If next RDX doesn't have Turbo, I'm going with the X3 xdrive28i when they replace the NA 3.0 with the turbo 2 liter engine, or the GLK with 2.2 Turbodiesel. Had a 2009 TL as a loaner during service and I didn't like how you had to rev it up to get it going. I don't like revving my engines because I'm conditioned now to feel bad since I'm burning more fuel. Low end torque is king baby and I love diesels.

My mom lives in europe and just has a Toyota Yaris, but that little 2400 lb thing with a 92hp 1.4 diesel (and manual transmission of course!) absolutely does not disappoint me in performance when I drive it. In fact I go 100mph+ in it (I can't lose my license there!) passing everyone and still get 40 mpg during. OTOH, I drove a coworkers Prius, and it's the worst car I have ever driven.

Just improve the engine, add Direct Injection, and the 6 speed auto, it should be enough. They should try to save some weight as well.

MMike1981

something to seriously consider, look past the new-car reviews. because that is all they are, people driving a brand new car and throwing up all over it.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...oad_test_intro

FAIL.

I drove this thing so many times last summer and never understood what people were gaga over, i never felt the quality even after my very first test drive. maybe there is some vindication in my feelings.

pickler

man that's exactly how i feel about the sonata turbo and i drove the elantra as well. both cars are complete fails in my opinion. in terms of steering/handling, acceleration, fuel economy and build quality. according to my dynolicios app the sonata turbo i had could only do 0-60 in 7.7s seconds. im sorry but that's so not v6 territory these days. and even worst it was displaying fuel mileage at 10.6 L/100km. that's same as my 3.2 tl.

wrestrepo

I guess that I am a "fan boy" of Hyundai. There is no real good reason I am, because the fact to the matter is that I have not driven them recently.
I still look at it in context, Hyundai is not competing in the luxury market, the direct competition to the Sonata is Camry, Accord, Altima, Passat?, Fusion, Malibu, etc. Although the Sonata (and in general the Hyundai lineup) is still "not there", when you compare it to the direct competition it still does pretty well in my opinion.

pickler

i was talking about the sonata and the elantra only. i have a lot of respect for the santa fe, its a well built suv and offers tons for the money. specially the v6 version.

as for the sonata and elantra, i would seriously take a camry or '12 focus over either. the v6 camry has ok steering and powerful engine and its also very efficient too. good suspension upgrade will turn the camry into a beast.

ressling

Easy there tiger... The 6MT in the TSX is a rare gem even though it lags in power and handling. I agree with you that the SH-AWD would spice it up, but the 2.4 I4 gives it plenty of pep and 6MT gives new meaning to driving in the city.

It's a smooth clutch that's very easy to work with, and the car can be easily tossed around; it's nimble and perfect for those that live in areas with hills and curves.

Great gas mileage too.

People buy different cars for different reasons.

ressling

The Genesis coupe is a direct competitor to the 370Z.

Hyundai is moving cars at a far faster rate than most auto companies right now...

Jerrydav

I've got a 2008 RDX and a 2011 128i. Small world.

4dr4bangrAccord

It also needs a power tailgate.

XLR8R

from Insideline.com:

from AutoNews.com:

from WhizBanger-Wheels.com

OK, it's possible that I may have been making that last one up.

pickler

either way im happy with keeping mine, 230hp & 270 ft-lb to the wheels. i don't think any future rdx unless with a J37 engine can beat it.

Mr Marco

Sure the Murano has one, but how much more weight should we add to this little ride. The current Accord weights 550lbs more than the one I used to drive. My RDX weights over 4,000lbs.
Jenny Craig?

aimtimes100

has anyone seen the rdx since its been released? came out very nice in my opinion.I'd easily take it over an X3

Sly Raskal

iTrader: (1)

Moved thread to the new 2nd gen RDX forum.