The only thing Acura has said about the powertrain is that it will be 200+ hp. That could easily be an I4. i-VTEC plus direct injection could easily get them to 215/175 as someone else estimated. If that's true, it would make sense that they wouldn't want to divulge that information too early.
Of course, with that kind of powerplant, they'd have to keep weight and price down.
You can have your V6, your TSX-like interior, or your sub $30K sticker. Pick any two, but only two...
I don't think Acura would skimp on the interior based on some impressive interiors which have been showing up on the TSX/TL/RL. So I think it will be a given the same treatment. Looking forward to the results! Between the other two, I think I'd rather pay more to get the V6. I'd be willing to pay 32 - 33k at the top end for a 3.0/3.2 V6 with NAV.
"You can have your V6, your TSX-like interior, or your sub $30K sticker. Pick any two, but only two..."
Exactly... skimping is not the Acura way.. I see a sticker price of $31K-$33K..
And, the more I consider it.. The 2.4 I-4 is not going to cut it.. It will have to be an engine with more torque.. but, not a hybrid.. If they still had an inline 5-cyl, then maybe that, but I'm guessing a small V-6.
Use a small V6 (220-240 hp) for both the RDX and TSX would cut costs. I've always thought the TSX is a V6 short of being a home run. Come to think of it, they can use it in the RSX too, and scrap the base versions of the RSX. An all-V6 line-up would boost Acura's image as a premium brand. Leave the 4-banger rockets to Honda.
I'm torn on the notion of a new engine for this vehicle.
A new 2.6L V6 (or I5) seems like a good idea for both the RDX and TSX. It might even be a good powerplant for the JDM Ody and a few other vehicles. Power should be very smooth, with decent torque, and yet Acura could tune it to maintain the high-revving personality so many people have come to appreciate. With a brand new block, they could improve on what they've already done with the J series and K series engines. The J is getting a little long in the tooth (by Honda standards).
On the other hand, the gap between the K24 and J30 is pretty narrow. Adding a whole new engine would add significant cost. And, in a few years, the K24 could become just as powerful through the use of improved technology, rather than increased displacement. For example, consider what a hybrid K24 could do. Would a V6 of this type just be a (expensive) temporary bandaid.
Transverse. The short answer is... because it fits with what they already have in the parts bin.
The SH-AWD diffy doesn't really make a difference. The prop-shaft just needs to be connected to the transmission. It doesn't care which way the engine is pointed. It might make a difference in how long the shaft is, but that's no biggie.
I say transverse because of what happens with the front wheels. Without power going to the front wheels, SH-AWD is not AWD at all. It's just a fancy RWD platform that shifts power from side to side, but not front to back (not a bad idea for the NSX). Using a longitudinal layout with AWD is very possible, but not with the type of designs Honda has been using.
Transverse will allow them to keep their interior packaging notions intact. The cabin can take up more of the wheelbase and yet they maintain the same kind of crush zones they have become so adept at designing.
Pick two? I'd say V6 and price, but then again that might end up being a loaded CR-V.
It would make more sense for Acura to pick the V6 and the luxurious interior. Which is why I'm predicting a price starting at $30k at least.
Engine layout? Longitudinal all the way. Remember the in-line 5 from the Vigor? That ran length-wise. They can achieve symmetry, equal length half shafts, and more direct power application.
VW has a new 2.5l I-5, maybe they'll make a come back. Doesn't Volvo also do those?
I'm not really up on the RL.. Is it transverse? I just assumed it was longitudinal.. My Legend is north-south, and it has FWD... the Vigor was also, wasn't it... had one.. don't remember..
"They can achieve symmetry, equal length half shafts, and more direct power application." - Juice
But it also means more of the car's length is taken up by the engine and transmission. That leaves less room for the passengers and cargo. If this rig is going to share its basic design with the CR-V, interior space is going to be a priority.
I'm not sure why the length of the half-shafts would matter (torque steer?). Under hard acceleration, SH-AWD would route power to the rear.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe a longitudinal FWD design would mean the weight of the engine is pushed farther forward (especially with an I5). While a transverse mounting means the engine can be almost on top of the front axle.
Yes.. equal length half-shafts negate torque-steer.. If you ever pull up the info on the Legend, they did a lot of work on that...
I think with a V-6, engine length is not that big of a deal, and you can sit it farther back in the engine bay.. It still takes up more space than transverse, but not as much as if it were an I4.
Even with AWD, some of the power goes up front.. Any car that powers the front wheels can experience torque steer...
And, I'm assuming a new platform for the RD-X, with the "new" CR-V being based off that? If so, they could re-package things.. Granted, if going off the current platform, transverse is probably the only way to go...
Nice pic. Funny, the RL engine isn't even centered! Maybe that position allows for equal-length half shafts after all. They just offset the engine so they can accomodate those?
And yes, torque steer was my concern. The new 2.4l CR-V does have a bit of torque steer even with RT4WD, but I guess if SH-AWD is more pro-active and can send power to the rear axle when the throttle position is way down, then it should be fine.
Transverse has packaging trade-offs, too - for instance you need a taller hood, which ends up creating a taller cowl (less visibility) and a higher center of gravity.
"Any car that powers the front wheels can experience torque steer..."
Agreed. But torque steer only becomes a problem when it is excessive. I'm sure if you flog a Civic hard enough, a very sensitive driver would detect some torque steer. But it's not enough to cause problems.
You need torque to have torque steer.
An RDX with an Accord's V6 would be sending 70% of the power to the more balanced rear drive. Even with full throttle at peak rpm, only about 63 ft-lb would be allocated to the front axle.
FWIW, I suspect that Honda allowed the TL's considerable torque steer because they knew the addition of SH-AWD wold eventually correct it.
"Transverse has packaging trade-offs, too - for instance you need a taller hood, which ends up creating a taller cowl (less visibility) and a higher center of gravity."
Yeah, there's always a trade-off. But I think the S2000 is about the only recent vehicle that did not go with a transverse layout. It would appear Honda is comfortable with that trade.
Unfortunately the torque steer, even with the automatic, is quite noticebably on the TL. What I've come to realize is that the TL is fantastic when the road surface is smooth. But with the recent cold and snow causing all kinds of cracks and potholes on the streets, the TL goes thru a Jekyl and Hyde. The ride is quite jarring, first of all, on the broken road surfaces. And on top of that, the torque steer seems to get accentuated, plus the steering gets darty as the fat tires tend to follow the cracks and grooves.
Thank you again for the detailed pound by pound break down comparing CR-V and R-DX. Indeed it is likely that the latter will pick up a few extra pounds for all the reasons you indicate.
On the other hand I am not sure that our discussion on probable pricing will reach a common conclusion. Obviously we are all second guessing what will happen more than a year down the road, and if things will work the way they did for the RL you may be right on the mark!
Yet my hope/expectation, as previously stated, is that this vehicle will be the Acura entry level on the SUV side and that marketing wise it should become a 'volume seller'.
Clearly the Honda strategy of lately reflects a shift aimed to support the fast growth of the light trucks segment (as the Ridgeline exemplify with the addition of a pickup that the company has denied as being part of their interests for the longest of time).
In this context, my perception is that the vehicle has to pick up in a cost territory that would ensure a brisk selling pace.
Indirectly, having developed a dedicated platform for CR-V and R-DX (not barring that more models may be added on it in the future) makes the case that the company expect to recapture costs by having strong sales numbers. The CR-V is OK on that front but I doubt that would break even on its own, so once again the conclusion would be that the R-DX is as strategic in achieving volume of sales as the CR-V is.
Hence my disposition, at present, is to predict that the entry level trim of the R-DX will indeed stay at least shy of the 30K.
Once again upward pricing is very possible for upscale trims so I would not be surprised to see top of the line trim close the gap with the MDX, but nonetheless I expect that the market movers will be the bottom 2 trims, hovering around the 29-32K (and 28K would make it the fastest moving Acura vehicle).
Potentially to improve weight balance (side to side). Honda usually places engines slightly to the passenger side. I don't know this for sure but based on observation.
Yep. It is the same way in my Accord (I-4) too, as it is in S2000. In case of S2000, Honda claims 50-50 front to rear split as well as 50-50 side to side split, but with an average driver in place and engine placement may be a part of it.
I can't fault your logic, Steve. It could very well be that the RDX is intended to sell on volume. But I believe that if the MSRP drops significantly below 30K, it will not be the V6 people are hoping for.
If Acura wants the RDX to succeed as a SUV with sports sedan power and handling, I'm expecting sub 7 0-60 times and under 15 in the quarter mile. If they can deliver this, I'll be sold if they go for under $34k with navi.
I doubt that will happen... What other SUV has even sub 8 0-60 times? Expect Highlander-like acceleration.. which is pretty decent actually.. 230 HP.. Especially considering that probably 95% will be automatic (and maybe even all of them)...
I think Honda is keeping quiet on the engine to see the "market response" to toyota's hybrid RX & highlander. If toyota gets a load of good exposure out of them, I'm betting the RDX will come out day 1 with not just SH-AWD but complete with a 2.4 with IMA or the hybrid in the accord (if they think they desperately need the V6). Again I think Honda's letting Toyota's vehicles do the market test and will jump as required.
When the SH-AWD technology was announced, the test mule in all the videos was a Honda Accord, not the RL. It makes me think that the RDX may actually be fashioned after a combination of the accord's IMA-V6 and SH-AWD.
"I do think this is going to be the basis for the new CR-V, rather than the other way around.."
I agree.
I wonder, in the Acura model (upscaleness) hierarchy, where the RDX will slot? Definitely it would be below the MDX. But between TSX and TL, or above TL, on a par with TL?
It will be very interesting to see how manufacturers sort out AWD coupled to a hybrid drivetrain.
Toyota will actually use the FWD Highlander and RX300 as a base, then offer front axle electric assist (FWD) or front and rear axle electric assist (AWD). No engine power goes to the rear axle.
So I dunno if they'll couple SH-AWD to a hybrid, that would be technically challenging to say the least.
yes, but based on the animated diagram showing how the SHAWD works, it seemed like there was a place where they could put two independent IMA DC motors in the two rear wheels, ala dual tone..
i should stop wondering and get back to my life. for the record, i loved the RL's SH- AWD handling, it was AMAZING, but the car's accordness and lack of personality turned me completely off at 50K price point even though the interior is excellent...
It will be very interesting to see how manufacturers sort out AWD coupled to a hybrid drivetrain
One possibility depicted right here:
That’s 2001 Honda Dual Note (Prototype). And notice that the arrows accompanying the front wheels are differently sized (less power on the inside front wheel). This hybrid AWD design utilized the concepts we see in SH-AWD (a reason I believe SH-AWD may be compatible with a hybrid set up around the planetary gearbox that sits on the rear axle of RL, and potentially on the front axle in the mid-engine Dual Note). ATTS was used in Dual Note to apportion power distribution at the front axle (at rear axle in RL).
Dual Note used three electric motors, two mounted in-wheel up front, and one mounted in the typical IMA fashion (with the 3.5/V6).
2002 Acura RDX concept did not have as elaborate set up as Dual Note. I don’t recall reading about it using ATTS, but it used two in-wheel electric motors (30 HP each) to power the rear wheels. The front wheels were powered by a 190 HP 2.4-liter I-4.
PS. Noticed ksoman already brought up the Dual Note configuration before I did.
I believe the major price issue is primarily with the battery pack (ultra-capacitor pack was used in Dual Note), not necessarily with the electric motor. In any case, the third motor isn’t needed since it assists the already powerful gasoline motor (300 HP 3.5/V6 in Dual Note) so two could do it.
A more simplistic setup like the RDX concept from 2002 NAIAS could eliminate the need for much of the standard AWD system (and replace with electrical system powering the right wheels). If possible, it will help to not only cut down the cost but also have the weight of hybridization be compensated by removal of mechanical/electro-mechanical AWD system (which can add 250-300 lb).
I would assume Honda has its own set of patents when it comes to hybrid technology. Honda already has its own variation of series/parallel hybrid technology (in a scooter though).
If not a hybrid, maybe Honda can start using turbos for the RDX. I read in another forum that Honda is developing a 2.4L turbo (not based on the current K24) for the US.
Not plenty, just enough power. For RDX however, the engine not only will have to have plenty of power (200+ was suggested officially), but refined (diesels are not as refined as gasoline counterparts).
Comments
When I said prices would start near BMW X3 prices, I meant for the V6 model.
TSX has a 4 banger, while the 325i has an in-line 6. It's different to compare those two.
-juice
Of course, with that kind of powerplant, they'd have to keep weight and price down.
You can have your V6, your TSX-like interior, or your sub $30K sticker. Pick any two, but only two...
Exactly... skimping is not the Acura way.. I see a sticker price of $31K-$33K..
And, the more I consider it.. The 2.4 I-4 is not going to cut it.. It will have to be an engine with more torque.. but, not a hybrid.. If they still had an inline 5-cyl, then maybe that, but I'm guessing a small V-6.
write it down..lol
kyfdx
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
A new 2.6L V6 (or I5) seems like a good idea for both the RDX and TSX. It might even be a good powerplant for the JDM Ody and a few other vehicles. Power should be very smooth, with decent torque, and yet Acura could tune it to maintain the high-revving personality so many people have come to appreciate. With a brand new block, they could improve on what they've already done with the J series and K series engines. The J is getting a little long in the tooth (by Honda standards).
On the other hand, the gap between the K24 and J30 is pretty narrow. Adding a whole new engine would add significant cost. And, in a few years, the K24 could become just as powerful through the use of improved technology, rather than increased displacement. For example, consider what a hybrid K24 could do. Would a V6 of this type just be a (expensive) temporary bandaid.
The SH-AWD diffy doesn't really make a difference. The prop-shaft just needs to be connected to the transmission. It doesn't care which way the engine is pointed. It might make a difference in how long the shaft is, but that's no biggie.
I say transverse because of what happens with the front wheels. Without power going to the front wheels, SH-AWD is not AWD at all. It's just a fancy RWD platform that shifts power from side to side, but not front to back (not a bad idea for the NSX). Using a longitudinal layout with AWD is very possible, but not with the type of designs Honda has been using.
Transverse will allow them to keep their interior packaging notions intact. The cabin can take up more of the wheelbase and yet they maintain the same kind of crush zones they have become so adept at designing.
It would make more sense for Acura to pick the V6 and the luxurious interior. Which is why I'm predicting a price starting at $30k at least.
Engine layout? Longitudinal all the way. Remember the in-line 5 from the Vigor? That ran length-wise. They can achieve symmetry, equal length half shafts, and more direct power application.
VW has a new 2.5l I-5, maybe they'll make a come back. Doesn't Volvo also do those?
-juice
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
"They can achieve symmetry, equal length half shafts, and more direct power application." - Juice
But it also means more of the car's length is taken up by the engine and transmission. That leaves less room for the passengers and cargo. If this rig is going to share its basic design with the CR-V, interior space is going to be a priority.
I'm not sure why the length of the half-shafts would matter (torque steer?). Under hard acceleration, SH-AWD would route power to the rear.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe a longitudinal FWD design would mean the weight of the engine is pushed farther forward (especially with an I5). While a transverse mounting means the engine can be almost on top of the front axle.
I think with a V-6, engine length is not that big of a deal, and you can sit it farther back in the engine bay.. It still takes up more space than transverse, but not as much as if it were an I4.
Even with AWD, some of the power goes up front.. Any car that powers the front wheels can experience torque steer...
And, I'm assuming a new platform for the RD-X, with the "new" CR-V being based off that? If so, they could re-package things.. Granted, if going off the current platform, transverse is probably the only way to go...
regards,
kyfdx
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
And yes, torque steer was my concern. The new 2.4l CR-V does have a bit of torque steer even with RT4WD, but I guess if SH-AWD is more pro-active and can send power to the rear axle when the throttle position is way down, then it should be fine.
Transverse has packaging trade-offs, too - for instance you need a taller hood, which ends up creating a taller cowl (less visibility) and a higher center of gravity.
But overall length can be tidier, absolutely.
-juice
Agreed. But torque steer only becomes a problem when it is excessive. I'm sure if you flog a Civic hard enough, a very sensitive driver would detect some torque steer. But it's not enough to cause problems.
You need torque to have torque steer.
An RDX with an Accord's V6 would be sending 70% of the power to the more balanced rear drive. Even with full throttle at peak rpm, only about 63 ft-lb would be allocated to the front axle.
FWIW, I suspect that Honda allowed the TL's considerable torque steer because they knew the addition of SH-AWD wold eventually correct it.
"Transverse has packaging trade-offs, too - for instance you need a taller hood, which ends up creating a taller cowl (less visibility) and a higher center of gravity."
Yeah, there's always a trade-off. But I think the S2000 is about the only recent vehicle that did not go with a transverse layout. It would appear Honda is comfortable with that trade.
I agree... if the RL is transverse, they surely aren't going to go with longitudinal for the RDX...
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
That's when you look longingly at a BMW 5-series
S2000's packaging is very clever. They moved the front wheels way forward to keep the engine front-midship for balance. Sweet.
I drove a TL at the Lexus event where you could compare cars, but they asked me to slow down.
Too bad, I couldn't get much of a feel for it.
-juice
Thank you again for the detailed pound by pound break down comparing CR-V and R-DX. Indeed it is likely that the latter will pick up a few extra pounds for all the reasons you indicate.
On the other hand I am not sure that our discussion on probable pricing will reach a common conclusion. Obviously we are all second guessing what will happen more than a year down the road, and if things will work the way they did for the RL you may be right on the mark!
Yet my hope/expectation, as previously stated, is that this vehicle will be the Acura entry level on the SUV side and that marketing wise it should become a 'volume seller'.
Clearly the Honda strategy of lately reflects a shift aimed to support the fast growth of the light trucks segment (as the Ridgeline exemplify with the addition of a pickup that the company has denied as being part of their interests for the longest of time).
In this context, my perception is that the vehicle has to pick up in a cost territory that would ensure a brisk selling pace.
Indirectly, having developed a dedicated platform for CR-V and R-DX (not barring that more models may be added on it in the future) makes the case that the company expect to recapture costs by having strong sales numbers. The CR-V is OK on that front but I doubt that would break even on its own, so once again the conclusion would be that the R-DX is as strategic in achieving volume of sales as the CR-V is.
Hence my disposition, at present, is to predict that the entry level trim of the R-DX will indeed stay at least shy of the 30K.
Once again upward pricing is very possible for upscale trims so I would not be surprised to see top of the line trim close the gap with the MDX, but nonetheless I expect that the market movers will be the bottom 2 trims, hovering around the 29-32K (and 28K would make it the fastest moving Acura vehicle).
Truly,
Steve
Potentially to improve weight balance (side to side). Honda usually places engines slightly to the passenger side. I don't know this for sure but based on observation.
K
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
That's why I say go with the V6 standard, even if it's a small one, and even if the price starts over $30k.
-juice
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
-juice
Yes, the 240HP from the Accord V-6 would be all they would need..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I do think this is going to be the basis for the new CR-V, rather than the other way around..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
When the SH-AWD technology was announced, the test mule in all the videos was a Honda Accord, not the RL. It makes me think that the RDX may actually be fashioned after a combination of the accord's IMA-V6 and SH-AWD.
it'll be ages before we know though.. damn honda.
ksso
I agree.
I wonder, in the Acura model (upscaleness) hierarchy, where the RDX will slot? Definitely it would be below the MDX. But between TSX and TL, or above TL, on a par with TL?
Toyota will actually use the FWD Highlander and RX300 as a base, then offer front axle electric assist (FWD) or front and rear axle electric assist (AWD). No engine power goes to the rear axle.
So I dunno if they'll couple SH-AWD to a hybrid, that would be technically challenging to say the least.
-juice
i should stop wondering and get back to my life. for the record, i loved the RL's SH- AWD handling, it was AMAZING, but the car's accordness and lack of personality turned me completely off at 50K price point even though the interior is excellent...
ksso
One possibility depicted right here:
That’s 2001 Honda Dual Note (Prototype). And notice that the arrows accompanying the front wheels are differently sized (less power on the inside front wheel). This hybrid AWD design utilized the concepts we see in SH-AWD (a reason I believe SH-AWD may be compatible with a hybrid set up around the planetary gearbox that sits on the rear axle of RL, and potentially on the front axle in the mid-engine Dual Note). ATTS was used in Dual Note to apportion power distribution at the front axle (at rear axle in RL).
Dual Note used three electric motors, two mounted in-wheel up front, and one mounted in the typical IMA fashion (with the 3.5/V6).
2002 Acura RDX concept did not have as elaborate set up as Dual Note. I don’t recall reading about it using ATTS, but it used two in-wheel electric motors (30 HP each) to power the rear wheels. The front wheels were powered by a 190 HP 2.4-liter I-4.
PS. Noticed ksoman already brought up the Dual Note configuration before I did.
That requires 3 electric motors, which can get pricey. But the control you'd have over the power split has great potential.
-juice
A more simplistic setup like the RDX concept from 2002 NAIAS could eliminate the need for much of the standard AWD system (and replace with electrical system powering the right wheels). If possible, it will help to not only cut down the cost but also have the weight of hybridization be compensated by removal of mechanical/electro-mechanical AWD system (which can add 250-300 lb).
This would be a way for Honda to get around Toyota's patents for the parallel hybrid system.
-juice
Call me a traditionalist..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I give hybrid possibility a 50% chance (if you consider two options: Yes or No). :-)
I say 33%
Yes
No
Heck, no
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Plenty of power, torque and good mpg..
Except I ended calling it duat tone..