When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Has anyone compared the acceleration performance between this 3G RDX and the previous 2G?
I have no doubt the handling is better with the 3G, but what about off the line acceleration and straight line passing?
From videos I can see that real people were getting 0-60 in 6.2 sec or less with the 2G. It seems as though people are getting almost a second slower with the 3G!! Is that right? That would be a deal killer for me.
Is it true that a new Audi Q5 or even the new Subaru Outback XT is faster off the line and passing than this 3G RDX?
My wife's 2014 MDX has the same drivetrain as 2nd-gen RDX, and she gets pretty smug if I try to drag race her. ( She's gonna drive that thing until the wheels fall off ). It takes a lot more work to get 3rd-gen RDX to launch swiftly, and even then it's a bit hit or miss in my experience.
But then she sees my ear-to-ear grin on twisty back roads.
Straight-line passing is a mixed bag. Sometimes it gets caught flat, but once it gets going it's a bat out of hell. Overall, less drama with the 6-speed and NA V6. I didn't compare to other turbo drivetrains like Q5 or Subaru.
My wife's 2014 MDX has the same drivetrain as 2nd-gen RDX, and she gets pretty smug if I try to drag race her. ( She's gonna drive that thing until the wheels fall off ). It takes a lot more work to get 3rd-gen RDX to launch swiftly, and even then it's a bit hit or miss in my experience.
But then she sees my ear-to-ear grin on twisty back roads.
Straight-line passing is a mixed bag. Sometimes it gets caught flat, but once it gets going it's a bat out of hell. Overall, less drama with the 6-speed and NA V6. I didn't compare to other turbo drivetrains like Q5 or Subaru.
You're basically confirming that the 3G is slower than the 2G. That is extremely disappointing. I live in a flat low lying coastal area with lots of highways where there are no windy backroads for hundreds of miles. Being able to launch and pass quickly is critical.
If this is worse than 2G I will need to look elsewhere.
Last edited by AcuraGuy2016; Jan 31, 2020 at 12:10 PM.
I find the 3G acceleration is more than adequate for freeway merges and two lane country road passing. Sport + mode gives you a little extra if you need it in a situation. Of course my days of having a Pontiac GTO up against a Dodge Hemi are far behind me too.
Unless you're considering a 2G RDX, or already have one, the better comparison is to other competitive vehicles produced at this time. I think they probably have some of the same quirks. But drive them and see.
It's been said that the 3G RDX has worse acceleration numbers because of torque management to protect the driveline. If you're looking for straight line speed, I don't think any of the base compact SUVs are going to tickle your fancy; you're going to have to step up to the GLC43/X3 M40i/SQ5 for some get up and go.
You're basically confirming that the 3G is slower than the 2G. That is extremely disappointing. I live in a flat low lying coastal area with lots of highways where there are no windy backroads for hundreds of miles. Being able to launch and pass quickly is critical.
If this is worse than 2G I will need to look elsewhere.
It is fast enough but it is not especially fast. Few SUVs are. The 2wd Accord with the same drivetrain is a second faster to 60.
How much more are you willing to spend for a measurably speedier comparable SUV?15-20K? Look at the BMW X3 M40i.
It is fast enough but it is not especially fast. Few SUVs are. The 2wd Accord with the same drivetrain is a second faster to 60.
How much more are you willing to spend for a measurably speedier comparable SUV?15-20K? Look at the BMW X3 M40i.
I'm just looking for straight line and highway passing acceleration at least as good and certainly no worse than the 2G RDX. To have to pay $20k more just to get that with considerably worse fuel economy IMHO is ridiculous!! So I'm better off looking for a CPO 2018 RDX?? Wow. Sad.
I'm just looking for straight line and highway passing acceleration at least as good and certainly no worse than the 2G RDX. To have to pay $20k more just to get that with considerably worse fuel economy IMHO is ridiculous!! So I'm better off looking for a CPO 2018 RDX?? Wow. Sad.
The V6 is about a good half second faster to 60, at WOT.
If that means enough to you, go get that one while you can.
"Considerably worse" fuel economy than 2nd gen RDX? Dunno about that. Maybe not significantly better, depending on how the vehicles are driven.
Granted, my wife gets slightly better mileage in her MDX, but her right foot is less hyperactive than mine. I get 23-24mpg in mixed suburban and highway driving.
Don't judge 3rd-gen RDX by reports of initial mileage. It tends to loosen up after a few thousand miles. My initial mileage was much lower.
Yes, the numbers show that it's definitely not as quick as the prior generation work the V6, but it's still fast enough for any street driving maneuvers. And besides, a simple tune will be all you need to make a new RDX quicker than any of those V6 cars, if that's important to you.
What vehicle has acceleration times at least as good as previous 2G RDX, in price range maybe no more than $55k? Where I live, it is important for the vehicle to do the following:
*Quickly accelerate from a standing stop to 50mph when exiting shopping center parking lots to get on feeder highways.
Go from 50-70 mph when entering highways from feeders.
Quickly accelerate from 0-65 when standing at a red light to get on a highway.
Quickly accelerate from 0-50 to get around a bunch of slow moving vehicles.
Go from 40-65 mph passing
*For this requirement, which I do several times a day, it is critical that the car responds quickly and doesn't hesitate. If it does, it could easily cause an accident.
The terrain is super flat - mostly highways or highway feeders parallel to highways. Need at least a small SUV due to potholes, persistent rain, and visibility since most other vehicles are trucks or SUVs. The new sedans ride even lower, making them so much worse for the driving conditions in my area than previous sedans.
Are all new SUVs that bad for my situation? They are so expensive, you'd think they'd perform. What about the Audi Q5?
Some vehicles I was looking at were:
2020 Acura RDX
2020 Subaru Outback XT Touring
2020 Honda Passport Elite
2020 Audi Q5
2020 Mercedes GLC
2020 Mazda CX-5 2.5T
2018 CPO Acura RDX
Should I consider others and cross any off the list?
In an ideal world, if I could design my own vehicle, I'd take something the size of the current RDX, with the ride NVH and trim level of the current MDX, infotainment of the newest Hondas, and make it a type S sport hybrid.
Last edited by AcuraGuy2016; Jan 31, 2020 at 07:07 PM.
In an ideal world, if I could design my own vehicle, I'd take something the size of the current RDX, with the ride NVH and trim level of the current MDX, infotainment of the newest Hondas, and make it a type S sport hybrid.
Considering that kind of car would cost at least $60K, just go ahead and get an X3 M40i or GLC43 AMG. You won't be disappointed in the tech, performance, or build quality.
0-60 number is pretty much useless in everyday live unless you are doing a race from a stop. Cars with lower 0-60 might perform faster for your typical driving
Thanks for the link. Disappointed in the new RDX. So sad. The Audi Q5 looks promising. What are surprisingly good performers are the current Honda Passport and Acura MDX.
Thanks for the link. Disappointed in the new RDX. So sad. The Audi Q5 looks promising. What are surprisingly good performers are the current Honda Passport and Acura MDX.
Thanks for the link. Disappointed in the new RDX. So sad. The Audi Q5 looks promising. What are surprisingly good performers are the current Honda Passport and Acura MDX.
You are out of your mind if you think there's a certain requirement for a vehicle to run a certain 0-60 time to meet the objectives you laid out. Fact of the matter is that we've had our RDX, which is the slowest vehicle in our household, and it easily does everything you mentioned without ever pressing the gas pedal to the floor. The way you make it seem, half the vehicles on the roads are unsafe because they are too slow. That's ridiculous. I think you're trolling....
... Being able to launch and pass quickly is critical.
...
Critical for what?
Everyone wants more acceleration than they need but what situation on any public highway would make it "critical" to have more of a reserve than the RDX?
The greatest demand I encounter is getting on the local parkways. They were designed and built in the 1930s and they were never intended to carry the kind of traffic they do today. Onramps and acceleration lanes are extremely short and in some instances, non-existent. I have about 100 feet to go from about 30 to 60 mph and merge in front of some asshole who doesn't like anybody getting in front of him. That's assuming the asshole who tried to merge before me didn't run out of on-ramp and stopped at the end. He's fucked. Either way, the RDX is enough for anything.
Thanks for the link. Disappointed in the new RDX. So sad. The Audi Q5 looks promising. What are surprisingly good performers are the current Honda Passport and Acura MDX.
The ZF 9-speed transmission in Passport and current ( 2016+ ) MDX has some quirks, which may or may not have been tamed with software tuning since my 2016 Pilot Touring, which drove me up a friggin tree ( figuratively speaking... ). Otherwise a good vehicle, and surprisingly quick off the line. Passport is just a shortened Pilot. But these things are wallowing whales compared to 3rd-gen RDX. Which isn't necessarily bad if it's a family hauler ( as my Pilot was ), but ya gotta decide what you value in a vehicle.
Gonna have to be really stingy on options to get a Q5 anywhere near the same price class.
I came from a car that did mid 5s. This car is not as fast at WOT, true, but I never felt it was limited in any driving situation I encountered. I didn’t drive that one with my foot to the floor, and I don’t drive this one that way either.
I think it’s worth noting that while the RDX may be a little slower 0 to 60*, it’s because it has a turbo 4 instead of a NA 6. The turbo does take a tick to kick in, but when it does the torque is pretty impressive at low rpm. So starting from zero it might be slower but the rolling power is very good. I would not be surprised if it was quicker in highway merging/passing situations than the 2G.
* by “a little slower” I mean 0.2-0.4 seconds. The 2018 has been clocked at 6.2-6.5 and the 2019 at 6.4-6.6. Of course many factors affect that, from temperature/altitude to the tires. Either way, seems sufficiently fast to me, though if I had a different lifestyle I’d probably be driving a Macan.
Last edited by Waetherman; Feb 1, 2020 at 09:16 AM.
I think it’s worth noting that while the RDX may be a little slower 0 to 60*, it’s because it has a turbo 4 instead of a NA 6. The turbo does take a tick to kick in, but when it does the torque is pretty impressive at low rpm. So starting from zero it might be slower but the rolling power is very good. I would not be surprised if it was quicker in highway merging/passing situations than the 2G.
* by “a little slower” I mean 0.2-0.4 seconds. The 2018 has been clocked at 6.2-6.5 and the 2019 at 6.4-6.6. Of course many factors affect that, from temperature/altitude to the tires. Either way, seems sufficiently fast to me, though if I had a different lifestyle I’d probably be driving a Macan.
Unfortunately, with a rolling start it's still slower. It's likely that the engine is capable of producing all the advertised torque, but it's being held back at lower gears to protect the drivetrain (btw this has also reportedly been confirmed by Acura engineers). Unlike most other turbo competitors where the peak torque is actually achieved over a pretty broad range of the revband, you can see from the Hondata dyno that the torque curve is quite peaky. Practically speaking it's putting down less power than you would expect.
Originally Posted by russianDude
What about 280lb-ft torque, I will take higher torque over tinny difference in 0-60
See the above dyno. You're not actually getting 280lb-ft of torque through much of the powerband.
Unfortunately, with a rolling start it's still slower. It's likely that the engine is capable of producing all the advertised torque, but it's being held back at lower gears to protect the drivetrain (btw this has also reportedly been confirmed by Acura engineers). Unlike most other turbo competitors where the peak torque is actually achieved over a pretty broad range of the revband, you can see from the Hondata dyno that the torque curve is quite peaky. Practically speaking it's putting down less power than you would expect.
See the above dyno. You're not actually getting 280lb-ft of torque through much of the powerband.
I don't know if anyone bothered to put a 2G RDX on a dyno, but in every other application of the same J35 engine, the dyno looks exactly how you would expect a normally aspirated V6 dyno to look. No surprises, and it performs how you would expect it to perform based on the advertised numbers. In comparison, the 3G RDX dyno looks unlike what you would expect a modern 4cyl turbo dyno to look, and as such the real world performance doesn't live up to the advertised numbers. You'd expect it to have a nice fat and flat torque curve like you see here on the same K20C engine in an Accord 2.0T. See the difference there?
Need to see the same graph from Hondata/ktuner, otherwise its apples and oranges. Turbo has higher torque at lower rpms, this aspect of turbo is what I like.
Need to see the same graph from Hondata/ktuner, otherwise its apples and oranges. Turbo has higher torque at lower rpms, this aspect of turbo is what I like.
You can’t compare numbers between dynos, but you can certainly compare the shape of the curve. Regardless, the Hondata graph very clearly illustrates that the torque curve for the RDX is non-ideal. Unless you are blind you should be able to clearly see that it is not making more torque at lower RPMs; there’s very clearly a big drop off, so even if it’s making 280lb-ft at 1800rpms as claimed, it definitely is not maintaining that from 2500rpms onward.
That’s how 4 cylinder turbo normally work, choppy power. So what? It has initial big kick, and then it’s choppy.
Most modern 4-cylinder turbo engines make a very flat torque curve, with peak torque at very low rpm (around 1200 to 1500) and staying flat until around 5000 rpm. That's what gives these small turbo engines such amazing torque from a dead stop.
Most modern 4-cylinder turbo engines make a very flat torque curve, with peak torque at very low rpm (around 1200 to 1500) and staying flat until around 5000 rpm. That's what gives these small turbo engines such amazing torque from a dead stop.
Exactly, and as we can see from the dyno charts that isn’t what this engine does. Not sure why russiandude can’t seem to get that through his head.
The curves show that HP ramps up quick at lower rpms and than flatness out. V6 power is more linear from the start, as to why some think v6 is more smooth. Torque also pretty high up to 4000 RPM (250 LB-FT from Hondata). Power is important to me at lower RPM range.
No data was provided for 2nd gen RDX power at the same range, likely its smaller given its not turbo.
Last edited by russianDude; Feb 1, 2020 at 05:55 PM.
The curves show that torque ramps up quick at lower rpms and than flatness out. V6 power is more linear from the start, as to why some think v6 is more smooth.
Please point to where it "ramps up quick at lower rpms". All I see is a huge drop starting at 2000 RPMS that stays flat until 4000RPMs, and then a sharp increase.
Please point to where it "ramps up quick at lower rpms". All I see is a huge drop starting at 2000 RPMS that stays flat until 4000RPMs, and then a sharp increase.
I said HP ramps up quick, and starts with high torque.
( She's gonna drive that thing until the wheels fall off ). It takes a lot more work to get 3rd-gen RDX to launch swiftly, and even then it's a bit hit or miss in my experience.
