I think it all boils down to how much apart the prices and brands are. When Subaru wanted to go "updscale" they put BMW in their marketing aim for their Legacy. It failed miserably, as even if Legacy is faster and arguably better handling (at least in certain road conditions) than 325/330, it clearly was not cross-shopped and it's far from there.
RDX vs. CX-7 cross-shopping may or may not happen. We're still talking virtual here. Let them figure pricing and packaging first and then we may start real comparisons. It's not enough to have similar specs to be cross-shopped.
What special "Niche" does the Mazda6 have over the competition.
Cheap performance. (Zoom X 3, and all that.) You can't beat Toyota on the steady-as-she-goes branding of the Camry and Honda's slightly sporty variant of the same, so Mazda needs to offer something a bit different. Those Mazdaspeed models are meant to be halo cars to pull up the rest of the line.
Add availability of rare configurations, like manual transmission with 6-cylinder engine, wagon, hatchback, all with manual. These are places that other big volume sellers would not dare to go. Combined with real or just marketed sporting image (not really sports car, but something "spirited"), that's enough for a niche in my opinion.
4-door, 350 hp. VTEC engine that will rev past 8500 rpm's, 6-speed manuel, All the latest Gadgets, 30+ mpg, SH-AWD.
Cars like the RL and TL are arguably the best cars for the money. Perhaps someday we will see a car like I described from Acura at a Acura value type price.
4-door, 350 hp. VTEC engine that will rev past 8500 rpm's, 6-speed manuel, All the latest Gadgets, 30+ mpg, SH-AWD.
Cars like the RL and TL are arguably the best cars for the money. Perhaps someday we will see a car like I described from Acura at a Acura value type price.
There is speculation amongst the Mazdaspeed6 community that the ECU was dumbing down the tested 'Speed6 cars because it seems to need 93 octane pretty badly. That's a bad design decision with respect to the American market and one that has resulted in some ECU updates already, but hardly a sweeping brand generalization like the one made above. I have a friend that owns a Speed6, and he chose it over all the competetors in those particular magazine comparisons...and in his opinion it out accelerates and outhandles all of those cars. It does suffer in 0-60 measurements by hitting the 2nd gear rev limiter, which might be poor planning as well. It hasn't sold well -- the dealer I spoke with felt like only having stick shifts to sell was part of the problem....
I believe that Mazda sells more manual transmissions on a percentage basis than any other brand, and each of their cars is at the very top of their respective classes in terms of the handling and driving dynamics. It is very true that using the Ford-sourced 3.0L V6 is a big disappointment -- I'd love to see Mazda design cars with Honda engines, especially since Honda seems to have become fairly conservative and mainstream with their designs. The Miata is an international icon, the RX8 has tons of character (if it gets done in by fuel economy limitations of the Renesis engine), the Mazda3 is considered the best small car sold in America by most and is selling in very similar form to an international audience, and while the Mazda6 misses on the V6 and the too-small-for-America sizing, its chassis is essentially responsible for the Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, Lincoln Zephyr, Mazda CX-7 and CX-9, and Ford Edge, which are all generally praised for their driving dynamics. Pushing the Mazda5 to the North American market is also courageous and the mini-minivan has been a sales success given very modest expectations.
The point I am making is that, regardless of whether their cars fit your personal needs, Mazda is the sort of "different" car maker that helps keep a wider range of options available. Like I mentioned earlier, I think a lot of Honda fans would admit that Honda can't really be Honda like it used to be because of the size of its current markets. Mazda is doing very well on a financial basis despite some really big holes in its lineup.
My wife and I are replacing a rather fuel-inefficient SUV with an I4 Mazda6 5-door. Its nice to have the choice of a midsize hatch, even if we are in a very, very, small minority in the US (we considered the other one, the Malibu Maxx, as well, and props to GM for trying something different too.) I'm not really interested in bashing any brand (well, maybe Nissan, heh), and I think the current competetive climate produces better cars for all of us...
For whatever it is worth, I find it interesting that Honda doesn't choose to sell cars that appeal to me through its mass market brand, but the TSX 6MT is one of my favorite vehicles. Of course, when I test drove it this week I had to debate the salesman about whether the 6MT existed and he didn't even know it was on the backlot -- he'd worked there for three months and hadn't ever seen one.
6-speed to be pretty rare in the TSX. Especially when you add NAV to the mix.
Really? More so than a 6-speed TL? In the past 2-3 weeks I've talked to two people (both parents of my daughters classmates in their 40's) and they were pleasantly surprised to learn that the TL comes in a 6-speed. :surprise:
The wife of one of the guys shopped several dealers before finding one to test drive. She used to drive a BMW 535i 5-speed that she reluctantly gave up when their second child was born 11+ years ago. She insists that her next car is going to be a stick. She liked the TL 6-speed, but is also considering the BMW 530i or 550i 6-speed. This, by the way, is a petite mother who put 140,000 miles on the 535i 5-speed in Washington DC on the original clutch. No wimpy "I can't handle a stick in traffic" attitude there.
"Sorry, I wasn't clear. Yes, the 6 does outsell the TSX. My point was that people expected the TSX to fail because of the Mazda6. The 6 represented a very similar package in terms of performance, style, and passenger utility. Yet, it did all that at a lower price point... therefore the TSX should fail."
"That most certainly did not happen. TSX sales keep going higher and higher. The apparent reason being that people do value the luxury touches or image (dare I say prestige?) provided by the TSX."
I get your point about the 6S vs TSx sales. As both a Honda/Acura and Mazda fan I don;t care for the TSX because the interior feels tight on on the inside to me and you can't get a 6 cyl engine in the TSX for the price its going for which I think you should. I like the interior plastics and exterior styling(although its sort of bland)of the TSX but just not the engine and interior room equation of it.
"When you compare the CX-7 and the RDX, you have a (potentially) similar situation. The CX-7 is very close to the RDX in many, many ways. The Mazda represents a downmarket, or "value" alternative to the more expensive, tarted up RDX."
I agree with what you are saying in that paragraph about the RDX and CX-7 being close in many many ways.
"I agree with what you are saying in that paragraph about the RDX and CX-7 being close in many many ways."
What you're missing is the part about them being very different, as well. While on paper, they appear very similar, they are each targeted at a different audience. As illustrated by the TSX vs. Mazda6 comparison... that makes a difference in this market.
It will also make a difference in how each vehicle is reviewed. (Which was the original point.) The RDX is held to a higher standard than the CX-7. Thus the language in any review will be different. What is "fantastic" at $25K may only be "capable" at $32K even though performance is more or less the same.
is speculating that with the demise of the RSX later this year, Honda might finally bring the Civic type-R (220 hp, more serious suspension mods than the SI) to the U.S.
I have to admit, if it were to do so, I would have to eat a few of my words about Honda being in a rush to the middle market and less willing to take chances these days.
I am curious to see how well the Civic SI sedans sell later this year. To me, this is a no-brainer. I don't know why they didn't do it with the last gen. I bet the SI sedan will be an impossible car to get a hold of.
And I wonder if the type-R will make it across the ocean...
The Fit could use sporty variants too - hopefully for the next gen in two years, I guess.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Thanx for the compliments. I tell it the way I see it. I have to root for some company outside of GM. I will always love GM, but they still refuse to build cars like the Velite, CTS-Super V, RWD Impala, etc etc etc. They are building much better cars, but lack the high technology of both Honda and Toyota.
Where did you see it? Did you drive it? How does the the engine sound. Tell me how it drives in rain? How do seats feel. What's the visibility from driver's seat? Is the cabin quiet at 75 mph? Has your family had a chance to sit inside?
Wow - you really have some amazing superpowers to see benchmarks before they even arrive :surprise:
Ther is a difference between rooting (as hoping they do best) and wishful thinking. One may stay a fan, but there is a need for a reality check for something we didn't even see in its final shape.
Almost any new product is a "major breakthrough", "new quality" etc. in its corporate press release. If one is not on their payroll they should not say anything that finite with a straight face before they have a chance to really see the product. Call it "interesting", "highly anticipated", "possibly major contender", whatever, but leave "benchmark" to things that are already here.
I wasn't talking about the RDX per say, but Honda/Acura as a whole.
However speaking on the RDX, you obviously you haven't seen all the road tests that have been done already on the RDX. Honda baught a X3 and the engineers were told to exceeded it in every category even if it meant slightly.
The bottom line is the RDX, handles better, quicker, has a sophisticated AWD system, gets better mpg, $10K cheaper, and blows the X3 away in Gadgetology. I feel I can safely call the RDX "the benchmark" of the subcompact SUV market. :P
All the car mags trumpeted Honda's press release as to why they chose a turbo instead of a V-6: "we wanted the power of a V-6 with the fuel economy of a four"..
Well, heck, 19/24 aint nuttin' to brag about. There are existing V-6s making BETTER mpgs than that. As to the power issue, there are also V-6s making better mpgs while making MORE POWER at the same time.
Honda should have just dumped the MDX's 6-cyl in the RDX, and then developed a more powerful engine for the next-gen MDX which is due out pretty soon, isn't it? The MDX's engine develops the same power with the same fuel economy, and presumably the RDX could do a LITTLE better on the mpgs since it is smaller and lighter.
varmint: good point about SH-AWD being proactive when launching from a stop, by shifting 70% of the power to the rear. This does do the CX-7 one better, what with the Mazda's 100% front driving characteristics unless slippage occurs. In fact, offhand I would say all the little non-premium SUVs except Subaru do the same, don't they?
Me, I would STILL rather have a rear driver, but hey, let's not beat THAT dead horse in this thread! :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I may get interested in RDX (even though I was never too warm to anything taller than a passenger car, but what the heck - I might try once) the moment they offer me a stick shift with it. But that ain't gonna happen, is it?
Honda should have just dumped the MDX's 6-cyl in the RDX, and then developed a more powerful engine for the next-gen MDX which is due out pretty soon, isn't it? The MDX's engine develops the same power with the same fuel economy, and presumably the RDX could do a LITTLE better on the mpgs since it is smaller and lighter.
They may have had an eye on the European market, where engine displacement taxes give a 2.3L turbo 4 a much lighter ding than a 3.5L V6.
I think Honda's claim of better fuel economy and similar power is based on something like a 1 mpg advantage for the turbo.
Still, the BMW with a V6 and automatic gets 16/23 mpg. While both the RDX and CX-7 do better. These are the three most comparable vehicles and the turbos do better than the V6.
I think the bigger reason was weight and balance. Going with the V6 under the hood might've resulted in a nose-heavy vehicle.
"good point about SH-AWD being proactive when launching from a stop, by shifting 70% of the power to the rear. This does do the CX-7 one better, what with the Mazda's 100% front driving characteristics unless slippage occurs."
It's more than just launching off the line. Give the engine half a gas pedal during a turn and it sends torque to the rear to help balance out the vehicle.
I was very interested in the RDX when the concept appeared but for some reason it left me cold in the flesh (NYIAS) Interior was attrative, well laid out and high quality but the exterior just reminded me of an egg. And with such a low ground clearance I almost wonder why Acura would market this as an SUV rather than make it a sport wagon like a Volvo V50 or V70. Don't get me wrong, I still love my MDX and it has been perfect for us but I don't think the RDX would make it to the top of the list if we were shopping today (we actually have been). I think I would rather give up a few of the amenities and luxury touches for a V6 RAV4 which gets much better mileage and similar performance.
BTW, the Mazda CX-7 left the same impression as the RDX but at least the price was reasonable for what you get.
Yes, but isn't this supposed to be an entry LUX car? Meaning well-to-do buyers, who will pay the extra cost to have the better powertrain?
With DI, the turbo is supposed to be as quick to spool up as VW's 2.0T, so maybe it is just a case of six of one, half a dozen of another. The turbo probably makes more torque at lower rpm, and if you are the type of driver to just lay off and drive slowly, you will probably get better mpg from the turbo.
Still, I wonder why Honda went to all the trouble. It seems the only answer can be that they are planning on putting turbos in a whole lot of models in the next few years. I am assuming the TSX would be first in line. And rightfully so.
And I bet half the reason for the turbo is marketing: advertising a turbo sounds so much more SPORTY than a V-6. :-P
It is to Honda's shame that a manual isn't offered, if in fact that is true. Honda, the king of manuals, not offering a manual in a model being sold on its sporty characteristics? Tut tut
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Not sure what you mean by the first paragraph; an automatic surely isn't "better" in the eyes of an enthusiast.
If nothing else, a turbo is different than the MDX' powertrain. There will be few if any cannibalized sales. V6 shoppers really want six cylinders, a turbo 4 won't do it for them.
Acura wants incremental sales, new buyers that would not buy a CR-V or an MDX. So the RDX seems well positioned, in that case.
The RDX also is very well priced for what you get. Go down the option list of the RDX, and you will have one box to check a Technology Package that gives the customer enough gadgets to entertain when he/she isn't zooming by a CX-7 or X3 :P
OTOH-I also agree the 6-Speed manuel should of been used. I probably would seriously consider it.
Oh well the Type-S TL will be cool from what some posters are getting from dealer leaks. the 09' TL will be redesigned and I would expect the RL to be recieving a major overhual soon to boost sales. We might see deal od the decades on the RL and will be something folks that like the car should be watching. A good enough deal might put me in one if GM doesn't quit canceling cars I was interested in. :mad:
I should also mention that a lack of a stick like the BMW X3 is a sticking point for me as well. If Acura is truely looking to pin this against the X3 then they should include one of the key items that makes the Bimmer so desirable. :mad:
But I would agree with what Varmint said about the RDX taking the FX35 approach which IMO takes its worst attribute (less utility) and then removes the "upper crust" aspect by powering it with a turbo 4 instead of a nice smooth 6 like the FX
I'll still check one out but it's already got a couple of strikes against it.
Perhaps SH-AWD is to blame - I don't know, just guess here why "no stick for you"! By the way, autos for turbos have MUST be ratioed well, otherwise you get WRX auto - fat free margarine... :sick:
One of the forums I was in on another site said the 6-speed was available in other markets. Whether that is true or not ? SH-AWD shouldn't have anything to do with the tranny getting the manuel option. I personally think Honda was trying to streamline the vehicle to keep it at it's price point, but then again I could be wrong. Oh Well the TL Type-S atleast will have a stick with a rumor of 310 hp.
"How can you mention Acura and Mazda in the same breath is beyond me."
Maybe in your dream world Acura cannot be mentioned in the same breath as Mazda, but Honda is concerned of the competition between the Mazda CX-7 and the Acura RDX enough that when you Google Mazda CX-7, Honda has purchased space to list the RDX as a sponsored link. That should tell you something
The RDX also is very well priced for what you get.
Prices have not been announced yet, how can you say that? See what I mean about the Kool-Aid?
dino: agreed, but the 2.5T engine is mu-uuuuuuch better than the 2.0T as far as turbo lag goes. 25% more displacment, plus it has variable valve timing and the 2.0T did not. An engine that makes more torque sooner mates up much better with a slushbox.
Similarly, Acura's turbo has variable vane geometry and that should help it spool up sooner, at least somewhat compensating for the lag that comes with a turbo+automatic. The problem? Weight.
I stopped by an Acura dealer about a week ago, hoping to test drive a TSX 6-speed. It had been a while since I had tested a 6-speed, and wanted to re-visit that experience.
Guess what? There were none to be had at that dealer! The sales guy said most TSX customers prefered the automatic. He did say there was one 6-speed being delivered in about a week or so... That surprised me, as I always thought he TSX to be the sportiest sedan in the Acura stable.
My wife and I have recently test driven the TSX auto and manual and the Jetta 2.0T DSG and manual. We emphatically prefered the 2.0T DSG of the four, and it wasn't even close (even considering that we both like stick shifts and were originally leaning that way). The torque difference is amazing, and the turbo'ed engine even gets better mpg.
With the leather/power seats level of equipment, there was about a $2k difference between the Jetta and a current good deal on a TSX without navi. Luxury might be a bit better in the Acura but it is really close.
We bought the Jetta -- The TSX really needs that 2.3T, and if Mazda moves the 6 upmarket a bit in its 2008 model, things could get crowded in the near luxury sports sedan market...
It doesn't seem to say anywhere exactly what the decontenting will consist of - I am most curious. The new base price for the VE will be in the low $17Ks - same price as Civic LX? The Jetta should be competitive there, I think, depending on what they strip out to achieve that price. If today's VE, exquipped exactly as it is, were priced at $17K, it would be selling much better, I think. It is a pretty nice ride at that price.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"Similarly, Acura's turbo has variable vane geometry and that should help it spool up sooner, at least somewhat compensating for the lag that comes with a turbo+automatic. The problem? Weight."
Actually, it's not a variable vane design. Acura has messed with such designs in the past, but the RDX isn't one of them.
It's a variable inlet design. So far, the only original thinking I've seen is the fact that Acura has the hinge for the inlet valve mounted in such a way that it's not directly in the path of the hot exhaust gases. This is done to increase the longevity and reliability of the unit.
Of course, there could be more to it, but that's all I've found reading about it.
Comments
RDX vs. CX-7 cross-shopping may or may not happen. We're still talking virtual here. Let them figure pricing and packaging first and then we may start real comparisons. It's not enough to have similar specs to be cross-shopped.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
I can't think of one.
Rocky
Cheap performance. (Zoom X 3, and all that.) You can't beat Toyota on the steady-as-she-goes branding of the Camry and Honda's slightly sporty variant of the same, so Mazda needs to offer something a bit different. Those Mazdaspeed models are meant to be halo cars to pull up the rest of the line.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Cars like the RL and TL are arguably the best cars for the money. Perhaps someday we will see a car like I described from Acura at a Acura value type price.
Rocky
Cars like the RL and TL are arguably the best cars for the money. Perhaps someday we will see a car like I described from Acura at a Acura value type price.
Rocky
I believe that Mazda sells more manual transmissions on a percentage basis than any other brand, and each of their cars is at the very top of their respective classes in terms of the handling and driving dynamics. It is very true that using the Ford-sourced 3.0L V6 is a big disappointment -- I'd love to see Mazda design cars with Honda engines, especially since Honda seems to have become fairly conservative and mainstream with their designs. The Miata is an international icon, the RX8 has tons of character (if it gets done in by fuel economy limitations of the Renesis engine), the Mazda3 is considered the best small car sold in America by most and is selling in very similar form to an international audience, and while the Mazda6 misses on the V6 and the too-small-for-America sizing, its chassis is essentially responsible for the Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan, Lincoln Zephyr, Mazda CX-7 and CX-9, and Ford Edge, which are all generally praised for their driving dynamics. Pushing the Mazda5 to the North American market is also courageous and the mini-minivan has been a sales success given very modest expectations.
The point I am making is that, regardless of whether their cars fit your personal needs, Mazda is the sort of "different" car maker that helps keep a wider range of options available. Like I mentioned earlier, I think a lot of Honda fans would admit that Honda can't really be Honda like it used to be because of the size of its current markets. Mazda is doing very well on a financial basis despite some really big holes in its lineup.
My wife and I are replacing a rather fuel-inefficient SUV with an I4 Mazda6 5-door. Its nice to have the choice of a midsize hatch, even if we are in a very, very, small minority in the US (we considered the other one, the Malibu Maxx, as well, and props to GM for trying something different too.) I'm not really interested in bashing any brand (well, maybe Nissan, heh), and I think the current competetive climate produces better cars for all of us...
Really? More so than a 6-speed TL? In the past 2-3 weeks I've talked to two people (both parents of my daughters classmates in their 40's) and they were pleasantly surprised to learn that the TL comes in a 6-speed. :surprise:
The wife of one of the guys shopped several dealers before finding one to test drive. She used to drive a BMW 535i 5-speed that she reluctantly gave up when their second child was born 11+ years ago. She insists that her next car is going to be a stick. She liked the TL 6-speed, but is also considering the BMW 530i or 550i 6-speed. This, by the way, is a petite mother who put 140,000 miles on the 535i 5-speed in Washington DC on the original clutch. No wimpy "I can't handle a stick in traffic" attitude there.
Rocky
"That most certainly did not happen. TSX sales keep going higher and higher. The apparent reason being that people do value the luxury touches or image (dare I say prestige?) provided by the TSX."
I get your point about the 6S vs TSx sales. As both a Honda/Acura and Mazda fan I don;t care for the TSX because the interior feels tight on on the inside to me and you can't get a 6 cyl engine in the TSX for the price its going for which I think you should. I like the interior plastics and exterior styling(although its sort of bland)of the TSX but just not the engine and interior room equation of it.
"When you compare the CX-7 and the RDX, you have a (potentially) similar situation. The CX-7 is very close to the RDX in many, many ways. The Mazda represents a downmarket, or "value" alternative to the more expensive, tarted up RDX."
I agree with what you are saying in that paragraph about the RDX and CX-7 being close in many many ways.
What you're missing is the part about them being very different, as well. While on paper, they appear very similar, they are each targeted at a different audience. As illustrated by the TSX vs. Mazda6 comparison... that makes a difference in this market.
It will also make a difference in how each vehicle is reviewed. (Which was the original point.) The RDX is held to a higher standard than the CX-7. Thus the language in any review will be different. What is "fantastic" at $25K may only be "capable" at $32K even though performance is more or less the same.
I think I actually enjoyed it more than the TL.
I have to admit, if it were to do so, I would have to eat a few of my words about Honda being in a rush to the middle market and less willing to take chances these days.
I am curious to see how well the Civic SI sedans sell later this year. To me, this is a no-brainer. I don't know why they didn't do it with the last gen. I bet the SI sedan will be an impossible car to get a hold of.
And I wonder if the type-R will make it across the ocean...
The Fit could use sporty variants too - hopefully for the next gen in two years, I guess.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Until the RDX wins a few comparison tests, it's nowhere close to being the benchmark.
-juice
Thanx for the compliments. I tell it the way I see it. I have to root for some company outside of GM. I will always love GM, but they still refuse to build cars like the Velite, CTS-Super V, RWD Impala, etc etc etc. They are building much better cars, but lack the high technology of both Honda and Toyota.
Rocky
Where did you see it? Did you drive it? How does the the engine sound. Tell me how it drives in rain? How do seats feel. What's the visibility from driver's seat? Is the cabin quiet at 75 mph? Has your family had a chance to sit inside?
Wow - you really have some amazing superpowers to see benchmarks before they even arrive :surprise:
Ther is a difference between rooting (as hoping they do best) and wishful thinking. One may stay a fan, but there is a need for a reality check for something we didn't even see in its final shape.
Almost any new product is a "major breakthrough", "new quality" etc. in its corporate press release. If one is not on their payroll they should not say anything that finite with a straight face before they have a chance to really see the product. Call it "interesting", "highly anticipated", "possibly major contender", whatever, but leave "benchmark" to things that are already here.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
However speaking on the RDX, you obviously you haven't seen all the road tests that have been done already on the RDX.
The bottom line is the RDX, handles better, quicker, has a sophisticated AWD system, gets better mpg, $10K cheaper, and blows the X3 away in Gadgetology. I feel I can safely call the RDX "the benchmark" of the subcompact SUV market. :P
Rocky
All the car mags trumpeted Honda's press release as to why they chose a turbo instead of a V-6: "we wanted the power of a V-6 with the fuel economy of a four"..
Well, heck, 19/24 aint nuttin' to brag about. There are existing V-6s making BETTER mpgs than that. As to the power issue, there are also V-6s making better mpgs while making MORE POWER at the same time.
Honda should have just dumped the MDX's 6-cyl in the RDX, and then developed a more powerful engine for the next-gen MDX which is due out pretty soon, isn't it? The MDX's engine develops the same power with the same fuel economy, and presumably the RDX could do a LITTLE better on the mpgs since it is smaller and lighter.
varmint: good point about SH-AWD being proactive when launching from a stop, by shifting 70% of the power to the rear. This does do the CX-7 one better, what with the Mazda's 100% front driving characteristics unless slippage occurs. In fact, offhand I would say all the little non-premium SUVs except Subaru do the same, don't they?
Me, I would STILL rather have a rear driver, but hey, let's not beat THAT dead horse in this thread! :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Rocky
2018 430i Gran Coupe
They may have had an eye on the European market, where engine displacement taxes give a 2.3L turbo 4 a much lighter ding than a 3.5L V6.
Still, the BMW with a V6 and automatic gets 16/23 mpg. While both the RDX and CX-7 do better. These are the three most comparable vehicles and the turbos do better than the V6.
I think the bigger reason was weight and balance. Going with the V6 under the hood might've resulted in a nose-heavy vehicle.
It's more than just launching off the line. Give the engine half a gas pedal during a turn and it sends torque to the rear to help balance out the vehicle.
BTW, the Mazda CX-7 left the same impression as the RDX but at least the price was reasonable for what you get.
I like the balanced approach Acura took with the MDX. It provides some sport, some comfort, and a good dose of practical utility.
The RDX seems to be taking the FX35 approach. Less utility with a greater emphasis on sport.
On the affordable end of the scale, the Forester XT has a manual trans as well, but just 5 ratios.
-juice
With DI, the turbo is supposed to be as quick to spool up as VW's 2.0T, so maybe it is just a case of six of one, half a dozen of another. The turbo probably makes more torque at lower rpm, and if you are the type of driver to just lay off and drive slowly, you will probably get better mpg from the turbo.
Still, I wonder why Honda went to all the trouble. It seems the only answer can be that they are planning on putting turbos in a whole lot of models in the next few years. I am assuming the TSX would be first in line. And rightfully so.
And I bet half the reason for the turbo is marketing: advertising a turbo sounds so much more SPORTY than a V-6. :-P
It is to Honda's shame that a manual isn't offered, if in fact that is true. Honda, the king of manuals, not offering a manual in a model being sold on its sporty characteristics? Tut tut
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If nothing else, a turbo is different than the MDX' powertrain. There will be few if any cannibalized sales. V6 shoppers really want six cylinders, a turbo 4 won't do it for them.
Acura wants incremental sales, new buyers that would not buy a CR-V or an MDX. So the RDX seems well positioned, in that case.
-juice
OTOH-I also agree the 6-Speed manuel should of been used. I probably would seriously consider it.
Oh well the Type-S TL will be cool from what some posters are getting from dealer leaks. the 09' TL will be redesigned and I would expect the RL to be recieving a major overhual soon to boost sales. We might see deal od the decades on the RL and will be something folks that like the car should be watching.
Rocky
But I would agree with what Varmint said about the RDX taking the FX35 approach which IMO takes its worst attribute (less utility) and then removes the "upper crust" aspect by powering it with a turbo 4 instead of a nice smooth 6 like the FX
I'll still check one out but it's already got a couple of strikes against it.
2018 430i Gran Coupe
Rocky
Maybe in your dream world Acura cannot be mentioned in the same breath as Mazda, but Honda is concerned of the competition between the Mazda CX-7 and the Acura RDX enough that when you Google Mazda CX-7, Honda has purchased space to list the RDX as a sponsored link. That should tell you something
Rocky
The RDX also is very well priced for what you get.
Prices have not been announced yet, how can you say that? See what I mean about the Kool-Aid?
dino: agreed, but the 2.5T engine is mu-uuuuuuch better than the 2.0T as far as turbo lag goes. 25% more displacment, plus it has variable valve timing and the 2.0T did not. An engine that makes more torque sooner mates up much better with a slushbox.
Similarly, Acura's turbo has variable vane geometry and that should help it spool up sooner, at least somewhat compensating for the lag that comes with a turbo+automatic. The problem? Weight.
-juice
Guess what? There were none to be had at that dealer! The sales guy said most TSX customers prefered the automatic. He did say there was one 6-speed being delivered in about a week or so... That surprised me, as I always thought he TSX to be the sportiest sedan in the Acura stable.
Bob
With the leather/power seats level of equipment, there was about a $2k difference between the Jetta and a current good deal on a TSX without navi. Luxury might be a bit better in the Acura but it is really close.
We bought the Jetta -- The TSX really needs that 2.3T, and if Mazda moves the 6 upmarket a bit in its 2008 model, things could get crowded in the near luxury sports sedan market...
Did you hear? They're actually going to de-content base Jettas to bring the price down further, there was an article in this week's Automotive News.
-juice
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
-juice
My source is Motor Trend July 2006 issue
Rocky
Actually, it's not a variable vane design. Acura has messed with such designs in the past, but the RDX isn't one of them.
It's a variable inlet design. So far, the only original thinking I've seen is the fact that Acura has the hinge for the inlet valve mounted in such a way that it's not directly in the path of the hot exhaust gases. This is done to increase the longevity and reliability of the unit.
Of course, there could be more to it, but that's all I've found reading about it.