A transmission is not responsible for throttle control.
"Blipping the throttle" is the act of giving the car a little gas during shifting to match engine revs with the rotation of the (temporarily freewheeling) transmission. The transmission is simply shifting gears. The throttle "blip" is performed by the throttle. The throttle is now in part controlled by a computer. That computer can be programmed to blip under certain conditions (like downshifting).
You may be right about Honda not currently offering a car with the blip built in. It's something I recall from memory, but cannot place specifically. So I could be wrong. But you don't need a special transmission to accomplish the act. People have been doing it with their feet for decades.
I have an '04 MDX and do not find the transmission particularly slow to shift. I do find the DBW has a slight lag to it. That lag makes things like blipping the throttle a little more challenging. (I've never been especially good at it and diving an automatic makes it nearly impossible.)
I thought I heard the NBC voiceover say the pricing for the RDX would begin in the upper $20 thousand range and top out in the lower $30 thousand range. Can anyone else confirm this pricing scenario?
The 6 speed tap-shift autos were doing quicker laps than the manuals! So you know they tuned it right.
A lot of people that drag race also use auto transmissions. My buddy drags a 1967 Nova, and an 1985 Camaro IROC, both 3 speed auto. It gives him quicker 1/4 mile times.
IMO, with today's ultra high-tech automatics, the performance difference between auto and manual is negligible. In some instances, you can also argue that the fun factor also is a non-issue.
Call me lazy , but I don't find manuals to be that much fun anymore.
Well, I guess, in the right car, and favourable circumstances (ie. on a weekend joyride, rather than trying to beat rush-hour traffic to get the kids to school on time), a manual is a blast to drive. :shades: (Just don't ask me to do it everyday :P )
I have a manual trans. in my car, and I tell you what...the ONE place I hate to drive in, and I go there very often, is NYC. My leg gets pretty fatigued in Manhattan traffic, or driving on the many surrounding highways that are cluttered with traffic all day long.
Hi folks, Posts containing e-mail addresses have been removed. Posting your address on a public message board risks your personal security. Additionally, we don't have a way to verify that the address posted belongs to the member who posted it. Thanks!
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
has updated its Acura site with more specific info on the RDX. A couple of notable items -- the i-vtec turbo 4 will have 240hp and 260 lb/ft of torque; and it will have 19" wheels. But they are still calling it a prototype, so maybe the production version will be different.
The more I see it, the more I would liken it to the new RAV4 in terms of styling -- not ugly, but definitely not a looker. (Neither one, IMO, looks as good as the X3) Somewhat awkward-looking from certain angles. Has more of a tall-wagon stance than an SUV. Interior looks more upscale than the RAV though (as expected).
Any idea when 07 mdx will be in showrooms? I am in the market for a new SUV and have looked at 06 mdx. Detroit area Acura dealers won't tell me when 07s will arrive.
The RDX dissapoints me a little on styling. But I think the current MDX is one of the most beautiful cars I've ever seen, so I'm keeping my options open. Does anybody know when dealers will begin the purge the currents body style MDXs (2006?). I'm looking for a deal, and now that MDXs have FINALLY stopped selling at MSRP, it looks like it'll happen. Sorry RDX, but your dash is, as another poster mentiond "too flat and oldschoolish"
Just see many other cars on street have a similar look to the RDX prototype...such as...small version of...Nissan Murano esp...the back looks! and some other American Boxes... :mad:
FWIW, there is a rumor from a decent source on an MDX site that 2007 will see a substantially redesigned MDX offered in sport and hybrid versions with power liftgate (rear) and several other options. :shades: No idea on size or price though.
True, I think just about all the competitors will take premium. Even on the lower end of the sporty compact SUV segment, the Forester XT takes premium. CX7 probably will.
The Saturn Vue Redline may not, I think regular fuel is OK. But while the engine fits the bill, the suspension and steering are not very sporty at all IMO.
My dealer here in St. Louis allows customers to place an order with no money down and get in line to buy. I am #7 on the list now. I am anxious to see the exterior/interior color choices. I am told that May/June for delivery! I have a Honda Accord and want a SUV again but didnt want the CR-V (had 2). I like the size and power offered...cant wait to see it in person.
Assuming that a person uses 550 gallons of fuel in a year, at current prices (in my area) of $2.20/gallon (87-grade) versus $2.40/gallon (93-grade), the difference per month will be less than $10.
This should be a non-issue for a person who can afford a $30-35K vehicle.
You'd get along just fine with Colin Locke, he points out the same thing when people whine about it in the Subaru threads.
I think the concern may be that some people here are already stretching a bit to afford an RD-X. It can capture people that might otherwise have bought a $22k SUV, since Acura residuals are high and that makes lease payments reasonably affordable.
For those people already stretching, every little bit counts.
1. Wholesale price difference from regular to premium amounts to 3 cents (check the WSJ). Gas stations charge 20 cents more around here. So 85% of the difference that you pay is profit to someone.
2. We owned a car that required premium, and the fuel system on it got clogged up (lost a lot of power) and needed a throttle-body service. Ironically, I owned a cheaper car during the same period that ran on the cheapest fuel I could find, and it went twice as many miles without a problem.
I probably just got a bad batch of gas, but I was peeved about paying more only to have fuel system issues with the "premium" stuff.
It's just an instinctive reaction some folks have. Premium sounds expensive. I sometimes think that if we called the fuel "Knock resistant" instead of "Premium" this wouldn't be an issue.
And yet I have seen people go for premium when their car doesn't need it.
Couple of years ago when gas prices hit $1.75/gallon in my area, I saw people getting interviewed by TV news crew for having driven about 20-25 miles to find cheaper gas (by $0.15 or so). Things like this just don't make any sense to me. They weren't driving Insights either, mostly trucks (the Texas way).
I remember when I went to the Lexus dealer for a test drive the saleswoman told me (in times of rising gas prices- Feb 2005) that all Lexus cars and SUVs could run on 87 octane gas.
Same with my current car. It takes regular 87 but you see a decrease in performance and MPG.
Relax. Premium fuel gives you higher octane but doesn't guarantee that it's cleaner. Fuel injected throttle body gets dirty due to dirty air (ie. air filter), not the gas.
Most modern cars doesn't require premium. I'm sure they'll run fine at 87 octane with timing retarded to avoid knocking. Even my 85 Toyota have a knock sensor and can retard timing to match. And that's a 20 year old car!
It's very likely the Turbo will have a wastegate that can be blocked open thereby reducing the effective compression and allowing the use of regular, low octane.
>>Assuming that a person uses 550 gallons of fuel in a year, at current prices (in >>my area) of $2.20/gallon (87-grade) versus $2.40/gallon (93-grade), the >>difference per month will be less than $10.
>>This should be a non-issue for a person who can afford a $30-35K vehicle.
With all due respect, who are you to tell other people what should or should not be an issue to them. If you decide that money, even $10, is not important to you, then that is your right. However, a person's net worth does not necessarily affect the value they place on their money. I'll spare you the personal anecdotes about rich people who clip coupons and shop at Target. Suffice it to say, what a person does or does not do with his or her money is their choice. I don't want to get into personal attacks, but I find it offensive when someone tries to tell me what should or should not be important to me. I imagine you might feel the same way should someone criticize you for your personal decisions. Just something to think about next time you sit down to type out a perfectly useless message.
I don't get it. When you decide to buy an Acura, or any other high compression engine, don't you also decide to buy premium gas? It's just part of the whole financial decision, like insurance, or options. Why is this issue revisted so often? It's like buying sat radio and then complaining about the monthly fee. And if you can't afford premium, you can't afford an Acura.
If they want to buy an Acura and fill it with regular, they are welcome to the consequences. Probably only reduced performance. In which case, they've spent money on horsepower they ain't getting. In trade they get slightly less expensive fuel. Their money. They can spend it on whatever.
Due respect? C'mon, you are probably the only one here who has taken offense to my post. There was no need to take anything personally... it was about simple math! Take it for what it is.
If you have issues with anything like that, my advise would be to take it to the moderators and let them handle it. Don't make an attempt to handle it yourself.
If paying for premium gas isn't your thing, then RDX isn't a vehicle for you. Things can't get any simpler than that.
I have no problem with you doing the math and saying that it is not a big deal for you. You are right, it is simple math. Therefore, I believe most people on this forum could figure that out. Thus, if they still have a problem with having to use premium fuel perhaps they have other reasons, or it is an issue to them. Yet you seem to think that you are the only one who could arrive at this revelation. Your post was analagous to a child raising his hand in class to answer a rhetorical question posed by the teacher just to show how smart he is. The tone of your post was condescending and insulting.
My problem comes when you tell others what should be a big deal for them. I never stated my personal views about premium gas, I merely said you should avoid criticizing others' decisions based solely on your criteria. If you want to make an argument about why premium fuel is required that is great, and potentially beneficial to others on this forum. However, if you are going to make blanket statements they shoud be fact based and not opinion based, otherwise who is to say whose opinion is more valid.
I didn't go to the moderators because I did not think you were being malicious, just arrogant. Besides, am I not allowed to voice my opinion on another's post? You seemed to have no problem giving your opinion where it was not asked for, why is mine any less valid?
The forums are, and should be, a place where people can discuss issues about cars without being told, implied or outright, that they are cheap, or worse, too stupid to do simple math.
Bottom line, if someone believes that a car needn't be designed to run strictly on premium fuel they are entitled to make that argument. For you to say that they should not feel that way is overly presumptuous.
As I said, you should give your posts a little more thought before dashing them off. That way you could acurately assess whether you are truly providing a benefit to people or just spouting an opinion that serves no purpose other than to subtly demean their cognitive abilities.
"And if you can't afford premium, you can't afford an Acura."
That is utter nonsense. Who ever said anything about not being able to afford premium. This whole thing started with a statement about not WANTING to have to pay more for gas.
The first part of your post was perfectly reasonable. It is true, that if you decide to purchase a car that requires premium fuel you should realize what you are getting yourself into.
As far as I know, no one here has bought an RDX, mostly because they are not even out yet, and then said "Wow, I'm not paying for premium, I just can't afford it." As far as you know, the person you are complaining about could be able to buy and sell you ten times over.
Just try and keep things civil around here, and avoid using inflammatory statements such as that one. We'll all be a lot better off that way.
When I picked up my 300HP Porsche in Germany I was told that during my travels there I would not always be able to buy premium fuel and that would be fine, the ignition timing would be automatically adjusted to whatever octane I could purchase throughout europe.
And remember that HP only suffers from low octane if/when you go WOT, and just how often do most of us SUV owners do that? Additionally even at WOT with the advent of the use of DBW, e-throttles, the engine ECU can reduce the actual "charge" going into each cylinder and thereby prevent pre-ignition due to dieseling.
True, you wouldn't get MAX HP but you also wouldn't inadvertently damage your engine.
The only other time low octane would make a difference is if you were to "lug" the engine and the combination of knock sensors as an ECU input and an ECU controlled automatic transmission will prevent that.
Comments
"Blipping the throttle" is the act of giving the car a little gas during shifting to match engine revs with the rotation of the (temporarily freewheeling) transmission. The transmission is simply shifting gears. The throttle "blip" is performed by the throttle. The throttle is now in part controlled by a computer. That computer can be programmed to blip under certain conditions (like downshifting).
You may be right about Honda not currently offering a car with the blip built in. It's something I recall from memory, but cannot place specifically. So I could be wrong. But you don't need a special transmission to accomplish the act. People have been doing it with their feet for decades.
I have an '04 MDX and do not find the transmission particularly slow to shift. I do find the DBW has a slight lag to it. That lag makes things like blipping the throttle a little more challenging. (I've never been especially good at it and diving an automatic makes it nearly impossible.)
-juice
A lot of people that drag race also use auto transmissions. My buddy drags a 1967 Nova, and an 1985 Camaro IROC, both 3 speed auto. It gives him quicker 1/4 mile times.
And next MDX later this year... $39K+ (currently starts at about $38K)
-juice
Well, I guess, in the right car, and favourable circumstances (ie. on a weekend joyride, rather than trying to beat rush-hour traffic to get the kids to school on time), a manual is a blast to drive. :shades: (Just don't ask me to do it everyday :P )
Posts containing e-mail addresses have been removed. Posting your address on a public message board risks your personal security. Additionally, we don't have a way to verify that the address posted belongs to the member who posted it. Thanks!
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
The more I see it, the more I would liken it to the new RAV4 in terms of styling -- not ugly, but definitely not a looker. (Neither one, IMO, looks as good as the X3)
Somewhat awkward-looking from certain angles. Has more of a tall-wagon stance than an SUV. Interior looks more upscale than the RAV though (as expected).
-juice
Let's face it, most of the time, if you go off road, it's on some sort of dare, or just to brag that you did it. Noone "needs" to go off road.
So sure, who cares, the RDX will handle better with a squat stance and should be a hoot to drive.
-juice
I want hot fire red!! or like a milano red is OK :shades: Anyone knows inside?
They're going after a different customer here, younger, smaller family, looking for something a little nimbler and more fun.
On paper, an MDX with a discounted price is an easy choice, so the RDX will have to win you over during the test drive.
-juice
I think a better plan (for the RDX and CX7) would have been to have a conventional 4cyl with a turbo option or just have a V6.
Then again, maybe those who buy Acuras aren't too concerned about gas prices.
Just about every luxury or entry-luxury nameplate car takes premium... I don't think that is going to change any time soon..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
The Saturn Vue Redline may not, I think regular fuel is OK. But while the engine fits the bill, the suspension and steering are not very sporty at all IMO.
-juice
This should be a non-issue for a person who can afford a $30-35K vehicle.
I think the concern may be that some people here are already stretching a bit to afford an RD-X. It can capture people that might otherwise have bought a $22k SUV, since Acura residuals are high and that makes lease payments reasonably affordable.
For those people already stretching, every little bit counts.
-juice
It is a real hot-button with some people.. I don't think it is income specific.. it seems to be an emotional reaction, rather than fiscal.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
1. Wholesale price difference from regular to premium amounts to 3 cents (check the WSJ). Gas stations charge 20 cents more around here. So 85% of the difference that you pay is profit to someone.
2. We owned a car that required premium, and the fuel system on it got clogged up (lost a lot of power) and needed a throttle-body service. Ironically, I owned a cheaper car during the same period that ran on the cheapest fuel I could find, and it went twice as many miles without a problem.
I probably just got a bad batch of gas, but I was peeved about paying more only to have fuel system issues with the "premium" stuff.
-juice
Couple of years ago when gas prices hit $1.75/gallon in my area, I saw people getting interviewed by TV news crew for having driven about 20-25 miles to find cheaper gas (by $0.15 or so). Things like this just don't make any sense to me. They weren't driving Insights either, mostly trucks (the Texas way).
Granted, $300 isn't much relative to a 30k plus vehicle but it's the principle of the thing.
Same with my current car. It takes regular 87 but you see a decrease in performance and MPG.
Most modern cars doesn't require premium. I'm sure they'll run fine at 87 octane with timing retarded to avoid knocking. Even my 85 Toyota have a knock sensor and can retard timing to match. And that's a 20 year old car!
>>This should be a non-issue for a person who can afford a $30-35K vehicle.
With all due respect, who are you to tell other people what should or should not be an issue to them. If you decide that money, even $10, is not important to you, then that is your right. However, a person's net worth does not necessarily affect the value they place on their money. I'll spare you the personal anecdotes about rich people who clip coupons and shop at Target. Suffice it to say, what a person does or does not do with his or her money is their choice. I don't want to get into personal attacks, but I find it offensive when someone tries to tell me what should or should not be important to me. I imagine you might feel the same way should someone criticize you for your personal decisions. Just something to think about next time you sit down to type out a perfectly useless message.
No sense blaming Acura.
If you have issues with anything like that, my advise would be to take it to the moderators and let them handle it. Don't make an attempt to handle it yourself.
If paying for premium gas isn't your thing, then RDX isn't a vehicle for you. Things can't get any simpler than that.
My problem comes when you tell others what should be a big deal for them. I never stated my personal views about premium gas, I merely said you should avoid criticizing others' decisions based solely on your criteria. If you want to make an argument about why premium fuel is required that is great, and potentially beneficial to others on this forum. However, if you are going to make blanket statements they shoud be fact based and not opinion based, otherwise who is to say whose opinion is more valid.
I didn't go to the moderators because I did not think you were being malicious, just arrogant. Besides, am I not allowed to voice my opinion on another's post? You seemed to have no problem giving your opinion where it was not asked for, why is mine any less valid?
The forums are, and should be, a place where people can discuss issues about cars without being told, implied or outright, that they are cheap, or worse, too stupid to do simple math.
Bottom line, if someone believes that a car needn't be designed to run strictly on premium fuel they are entitled to make that argument. For you to say that they should not feel that way is overly presumptuous.
As I said, you should give your posts a little more thought before dashing them off. That way you could acurately assess whether you are truly providing a benefit to people or just spouting an opinion that serves no purpose other than to subtly demean their cognitive abilities.
That is utter nonsense. Who ever said anything about not being able to afford premium. This whole thing started with a statement about not WANTING to have to pay more for gas.
The first part of your post was perfectly reasonable. It is true, that if you decide to purchase a car that requires premium fuel you should realize what you are getting yourself into.
As far as I know, no one here has bought an RDX, mostly because they are not even out yet, and then said "Wow, I'm not paying for premium, I just can't afford it." As far as you know, the person you are complaining about could be able to buy and sell you ten times over.
Just try and keep things civil around here, and avoid using inflammatory statements such as that one. We'll all be a lot better off that way.
And remember that HP only suffers from low octane if/when you go WOT, and just how often do most of us SUV owners do that? Additionally even at WOT with the advent of the use of DBW, e-throttles, the engine ECU can reduce the actual "charge" going into each cylinder and thereby prevent pre-ignition due to dieseling.
True, you wouldn't get MAX HP but you also wouldn't inadvertently damage your engine.
The only other time low octane would make a difference is if you were to "lug" the engine and the combination of knock sensors as an ECU input and an ECU controlled automatic transmission will prevent that.