Pardon me while I cut & Paste from another post...
According to the rumor mill... during development of the RDX they started with a turbo design, but couldn't find a supplier. So they shifted to a V6 design. Then, when they found a supplier for the turbo parts, they shifted back to the turbo design.
The point being... at one point in time, they shoe-horned a V6 into the chassis.
So, I don't think fitting the block inside was the biggest hurdle. Fuel economy, emissions, weight distribution, or something else took priority.
I guess they could have shoe-horned one in there, especially a transverse mounted small displacement unit. Not sure about the outer dimensions of the 3.5l.
Hey guys, just saw a couple of pics of the RDX on the Acura website and it looks promising. Does anyone know the dimensions at this time? I am currently in the market for an crossover vehicle (started with the Pilot, now waiting for a Rav4 Limited v6). My question is, if anyone has seen it at the auto show or know of any specs, how does the vehicle compare in size to the new Rav4. From the pics I've seen, the RDX seems a little smaller? Cargo space with the rear seats folded would be the issue for me. Since the Rav4 will be in the 30k, if the car is comparable in size, might just wait for an RDX, but I think size wise the Rav4 is the smallest I would go. Gotta be able to load it up for ski trips.
As varmit said, there is a back seat photo on vtec.net in their auto show set of pics. It looks a bit small for the 2 car seats I'd like to put back there. But I will test the genuine article when available.
The last generation RL had a 3.5L which was based on a very old racing design. It was not related to the V6 engines they use now.
All of Honda's current V6 engines are J series blocks. The 3.0, 3.2, and 3.5 are all bored and stroked versions of the same block. When the 3.0L for the Accord was released, it was praised for being a compact design.
However, as the engineers enlarged it, they also needed to enlarge the radiator, air intakes, exhaust, etc. So, I expect that if Honda got a V6 under the hood, it was the J30 or J32.
As Varmint said, I believe the three displacements of the J-series V6 (3.0, 3.2 and 3.5) share the block. In fact, Honda claims that the new J-series (that would be 2003+ version since J-series first arrived in 1996 with CL) is a tad more compact than the old 2.5/V6 (also a J-series but used only in Japanese market, and now retired... it had replaced the 2.5/I-5 used in Vigor/2.5TL). Here is a comparative picture of the 1998-2002 J25A and 2003+ J30A.
The old 2.7 V6 was actually larger (a C-series V6, originally launched in 1985 with the Legend). It displaced 2.7 (used in 1980s Legend, and first V6 used in Accord), 3.2 (used in 3.2TL before 1999 redesign and Legend prior to that) and 3.5 liters (Powered the RL until the 2005 redesign).
Does anyone have any idea what to expect of the new MDX? Pricing, improvements? Release date? Will Acura debut the car on the show circuit?
My whole dilemma originally stems from XC90(v8) v. MDX (2006), but we decided to wait to see the new MDX. Now having seen the RDX, that may make more sense for everyday running around (not to mention more fun), but I'm still curious about peoples thoughts on the new MDX and on the MDX v. xc90 debate. (By the way, i was quoted 36,900 for an mdx w/ touring and dvd- hard to pass that up, but I really want to see what the next generation holds).
Remember the RD-X does not have the spare hanging off the back, so the length is all body, not augmented by a tire hanging off the back. So it could have as much or more space as the RAV4, though Toyota packaged that interior wisely IMO.
MDX prices have finally come down, remember they were at MSRP for a long time...the market is tougher now than it was a couple of years ago.
MDX is running in its sixth year of design, so the new version is expected later this year. I would expect it to have a few more features, perhaps a bump in power and adoption of SH-AWD (replacing VTM-4).
We have nothing at all on the MDX. Nothing reliable anyway. I don't think we will see anythingabout the MDX until the RDX is actually being shipped to dealers.
Not really. The spare tire only pokes out 1-2" from the bumper. And, since this is an "all new platform", we really don't know how much of the body was used for the engine vs. passenger space. Add to that the sloping roof line and we're probably talking about a moderate sized vehicle.
Think something like the 1st gen CR-V which was larger than the old RAV4, but not quite as roomy as the current CR-V. FWIW, someone who sat in the concept compared the back seat to the TSX.
Anybody notice the pentagonal styling cues? Watching it turn on the stage like that highlights the theme. The area surrounding the license plate is shaped like an Acura grill. And the whole tail light, license plate, and hatch handle section are also shaped like a wider version of the same shape.
This one wasn't styled by committee.
Now all they need to do is get rid of the bling bling wheels and remove the surface garnish.
However, my observation about Honda styling themes has been that the front and rear have matching elements going back at least fifteen years (note that the shape of the headlamp lens and the shape of the tail lamp lens received similar tweaks when Accord was redesigned for MY1991). 1992-1995 Civic had slim head lamps to go with slim tail lamps. 1996-2000 Civic had them enlarged at both ends.
Even as the 2003 tail lamp treatment in the Accord disliked, it actually reflected the shape of the grill. The coupe had the triangular tail lamp to match the triangular head lamp (now the sedan matches too).
2004+ TL’s license plate area is also derived form the front (same in RDX) and the tail lamps flows into the shape.
I believe the reason why Honda had so many slim head and tail lights on earlier cars was because the entire front end was wide and short. A taller light assembly simply would not have fit without resorting to pop-ups.
I'll have to look at some pics of the 2003 Accord. Interesting. I never noticed a resemblance between the grill and shape of the tail end.
I think the Element is the most theme-styled vehicle. The square with a corner cut off it is repeated all over the place on that rig. Conversely, I think the current CR-V is the least theme-styled.
If you want an example of head and tail lights matching up, look to the RSX before it was restyled for the MMC. I don't see the same with the triangular shape to the Accord's lights. It's a completely different sort of triangle.
I believe that's just a highly-glossed finish and studio lighting. There are some pics at hondanews.com which almost look like photo-chops because of the faux background and lighting.
With the slopping roofline it looks as like a roof top carrier might be tough. I've yet to see an RDX with roof rails like the x3 has. Any thoughts?
Overall I think it is going to be a big hit, and if the price it right, the waitlist will be long. I was only hopping for a little more distinct styling (as I mentioned- looks a little too much like the Matrix), but overall, I think Acura did a good job- I hope it handles like the TL and then it will be a job well done.
Like what I'm seeing so far. However, am afraid that real life dimensions and the relationship and availability of a bigger, "badder" brother (MDX) may make the RDX too X3ish and consequently just have mostly women driving this beauty.
Well, I suppose that's possible. But as a guy driving an MDX I have to say that many of the other MDXs, RX300s, and Touaregs I see are driven by women. Dropping my daughter off at day care I watched five luxury SUVs from the MDX's class pull in or leave. Each was driven by a mom.
So if the RDX ends up a chick car, I doubt it'll be the result of it being shown up by the MDX.
Don't they go together anyway? All, except one, of my guy friends drive cars. And all but two of my female friends drive SUVs. And that is quite a few people.
Well, I suppose that's possible. But as a guy driving an MDX I have to say that many of the other MDXs, RX300s, and Touaregs I see are driven by women. Dropping my daughter off at day care I watched five luxury SUVs from the MDX's class pull in or leave. Each was driven by a mom.
So if the RDX ends up a chick car, I doubt it'll be the result of it being shown up by the MDX.
Consider, for a second, where you were -- a day care parking lot. I'll bet a majority of CARS had female drivers, too!
Sit in a parking lot outside a football stadium, and I'd guess most SUV's (and cars) arrive with guys behind the wheel.
I'm not going to argue -- one way or the other -- about whether the RDX is going to be a guy's car or a girl's car. But I don't think you can draw conclusions based on what you see outside a daycare center.
I was reading in another forum engine specs on the RDX are as follows: turbocharged-intercooled 2.3L i-VTEC that makes 240 HP and 260 ft-lbs of torque. I'm still searching to see if these are going to be the production numbers. Anyone see these as well? If they are accurate, they look very similar to the numbers in the 2007 Mazda CX-7. They might be a competitor!
That's an astute point. If I were parked outside a strip bar, I'd bet even the mother of all chick cars, VW Beetle (or the Cabriolet for that matter) would be driven by some beer-bellied guy! :P But then again, RX330 and MDX are essentially made for women.
Most SUV's I see are driven by women, no matter how big, or small, they are. From a Kia Sportage, to a Ford Expedition. I live in New England, so maybe it's a safety thing because of the weather we get. Who know's!
If they are accurate, they look very similar to the numbers in the 2007 Mazda CX-7. They might be a competitor! I think A3 would be its competitor. I don't think Mazda can compete with Acura.
Everything looks great so far except that a 6-speed manual transmission is missing. I think what is missing is not a manual, but DSG from Audi or 8-speed trany from Lexus :P
I too would prefer to drive a stick. But even though this is a sporty SUV, it's still an SUV. When Acura offers an MT, they do it as a performance option. The RDX isn't that kind of performance vehicle. It is just as much a luxury and utility vehicle.
I think A3 would be its competitor. I don't think Mazda can compete with Acura.
What is your defentiton of compete? If it's interior refinement, then yes, you are probabaly correct. In terms of performance numbers, the Mazda has similar engine specs, 244hp, 258lb of torque. Also, fully loaded the Mazda costs under $35K Mazda also has rearview camera, voice DVD Nav, Bose Surround sound, leather, heated seats, climate control, and much more. Acura is definatly a more prestigious name, but, that does not mean people wont shop the two, that's all I was trying to say.
Depends, I was very anti-auto until I drove my buddy's Boxster, that thing shifts far better than I usually do.
They're not all built the same, it would blip the throttle to match down shifts perfectly every time and even hold a gear in a turn.
If Acura can program and tune it right, quick shifts, hold a gear, match revs, then an auto might be fine for what will still be an SUV and not a light one at that.
Forester XT offers a manual if you insist on one. It does seem to mate up better to the turbo engine, but Subaru uses only 4 geards on the auto and there's no manual controls.
Drive by wire. I believe Honda has programmed the throttle blip into other vehicles already. I've seen it mentioned in reviews. Can't recall which ones, though.
Porsche Tiptronic is entertaining, and keep in mind all the cars in our fleet are manuals.
At the Zoom Zoom Live event, people were autocrossing the new Miata and guess what? The 6 speed tap-shift autos were doing quicker laps than the manuals! So you know they tuned it right.
The old 4 speed autos were hideous, people were embarassed to admit they had them, and some people went as far as swapping transmissions to a manual!
That's why I have to wait and see, drive one. Turbo engines thrive when you pick the right gear and when shifts happen quickly. This vehicle will thrive or struggle based on the performance of the transmission, I'm guessing.
Drive by wire refers to gas pedal linkage to engine; not transmission. Audi/VW has DSG transmission (Jetta 2.0t, A3, & TT), BMW has SMG, Ferrari & Porsche each have something similar. Honda/Acura does not have a transmission that blips the throttle while shifting, and I can't imagine their first effort would be on an SUV, be it the RDX or MDX. Maybe on the TL in a year or two. My wife's 05 MDX has a very slow shifting tranny.
Comments
According to the rumor mill... during development of the RDX they started with a turbo design, but couldn't find a supplier. So they shifted to a V6 design. Then, when they found a supplier for the turbo parts, they shifted back to the turbo design.
The point being... at one point in time, they shoe-horned a V6 into the chassis.
So, I don't think fitting the block inside was the biggest hurdle. Fuel economy, emissions, weight distribution, or something else took priority.
-juice
I don't think the 3.5l is related to the old 2.7l originally in the Legend. It's gotta be bigger than that (outer dimensions).
-juice
All of Honda's current V6 engines are J series blocks. The 3.0, 3.2, and 3.5 are all bored and stroked versions of the same block. When the 3.0L for the Accord was released, it was praised for being a compact design.
However, as the engineers enlarged it, they also needed to enlarge the radiator, air intakes, exhaust, etc. So, I expect that if Honda got a V6 under the hood, it was the J30 or J32.
The old 2.7 V6 was actually larger (a C-series V6, originally launched in 1985 with the Legend). It displaced 2.7 (used in 1980s Legend, and first V6 used in Accord), 3.2 (used in 3.2TL before 1999 redesign and Legend prior to that) and 3.5 liters (Powered the RL until the 2005 redesign).
My whole dilemma originally stems from XC90(v8) v. MDX (2006), but we decided to wait to see the new MDX. Now having seen the RDX, that may make more sense for everyday running around (not to mention more fun), but I'm still curious about peoples thoughts on the new MDX and on the MDX v. xc90 debate. (By the way, i was quoted 36,900 for an mdx w/ touring and dvd- hard to pass that up, but I really want to see what the next generation holds).
MDX prices have finally come down, remember they were at MSRP for a long time...the market is tougher now than it was a couple of years ago.
-juice
Think something like the 1st gen CR-V which was larger than the old RAV4, but not quite as roomy as the current CR-V. FWIW, someone who sat in the concept compared the back seat to the TSX.
It was fenced off even for the press at NAIAS '05. I even asked if I could get in, but nope.
-juice
http://www.cartv.com/content/research/channels/index.cfm/channel/cartv_video/act- - ion/showvideo/vid/e_0224/vcat/Event/MAKE_VCH/Acura/MODEL_VCH/RDX/?s_prefs=h&vid=- - e_0224&vcat=Event :shades:
Nice laptop storage compartment!
* wide NAV screen
* integrated rear spoiler
* turn signals in the upper part of the lights
Dislikes:
* profile looks stubby from some angles
* wheels still look "dirty"
* maybe too much shape to front/rear lights
-juice
This one wasn't styled by committee.
Now all they need to do is get rid of the bling bling wheels and remove the surface garnish.
However, my observation about Honda styling themes has been that the front and rear have matching elements going back at least fifteen years (note that the shape of the headlamp lens and the shape of the tail lamp lens received similar tweaks when Accord was redesigned for MY1991). 1992-1995 Civic had slim head lamps to go with slim tail lamps. 1996-2000 Civic had them enlarged at both ends.
Even as the 2003 tail lamp treatment in the Accord disliked, it actually reflected the shape of the grill. The coupe had the triangular tail lamp to match the triangular head lamp (now the sedan matches too).
2004+ TL’s license plate area is also derived form the front (same in RDX) and the tail lamps flows into the shape.
The symmetry stands out.
-juice
I'll have to look at some pics of the 2003 Accord. Interesting. I never noticed a resemblance between the grill and shape of the tail end.
I think the Element is the most theme-styled vehicle. The square with a corner cut off it is repeated all over the place on that rig. Conversely, I think the current CR-V is the least theme-styled.
If you want an example of head and tail lights matching up, look to the RSX before it was restyled for the MMC. I don't see the same with the triangular shape to the Accord's lights. It's a completely different sort of triangle.
Overall I think it is going to be a big hit, and if the price it right, the waitlist will be long. I was only hopping for a little more distinct styling (as I mentioned- looks a little too much like the Matrix), but overall, I think Acura did a good job- I hope it handles like the TL and then it will be a job well done.
So if the RDX ends up a chick car, I doubt it'll be the result of it being shown up by the MDX.
So if the RDX ends up a chick car, I doubt it'll be the result of it being shown up by the MDX.
Consider, for a second, where you were -- a day care parking lot. I'll bet a majority of CARS had female drivers, too!
Sit in a parking lot outside a football stadium, and I'd guess most SUV's (and cars) arrive with guys behind the wheel.
I'm not going to argue -- one way or the other -- about whether the RDX is going to be a guy's car or a girl's car. But I don't think you can draw conclusions based on what you see outside a daycare center.
If they are accurate, they look very similar to the numbers in the 2007 Mazda CX-7. They might be a competitor!
I live in New England, so maybe it's a safety thing because of the weather we get. Who know's!
I think A3 would be its competitor. I don't think Mazda can compete with Acura.
I think what is missing is not a manual, but DSG from Audi or 8-speed trany from Lexus :P
Compromises must be made.
The interior looks fine -- very much like an updated TSX.
Just MO, but I think the exterior is a step backwards from the prototype Acura was showing at the 2005 autoshows.
What is your defentiton of compete? If it's interior refinement, then yes, you are probabaly correct. In terms of performance numbers, the Mazda has similar engine specs, 244hp, 258lb of torque. Also, fully loaded the Mazda costs under $35K
Mazda also has rearview camera, voice DVD Nav, Bose Surround sound, leather, heated seats, climate control, and much more.
Acura is definatly a more prestigious name, but, that does not mean people wont shop the two, that's all I was trying to say.
They're not all built the same, it would blip the throttle to match down shifts perfectly every time and even hold a gear in a turn.
If Acura can program and tune it right, quick shifts, hold a gear, match revs, then an auto might be fine for what will still be an SUV and not a light one at that.
Forester XT offers a manual if you insist on one. It does seem to mate up better to the turbo engine, but Subaru uses only 4 geards on the auto and there's no manual controls.
-juice
Not every tranny can match Porsche's, but I'd like to see if Acura can come close.
-juice
At the Zoom Zoom Live event, people were autocrossing the new Miata and guess what? The 6 speed tap-shift autos were doing quicker laps than the manuals! So you know they tuned it right.
The old 4 speed autos were hideous, people were embarassed to admit they had them, and some people went as far as swapping transmissions to a manual!
That's why I have to wait and see, drive one. Turbo engines thrive when you pick the right gear and when shifts happen quickly. This vehicle will thrive or struggle based on the performance of the transmission, I'm guessing.
-juice