Acura RDX

ksoman

motors are cheap, batteries are not

 

Edit Note: Sorry, robertsmx already said this...

dewey

The diesel Honda CRV sold currently in the UK would make more sense than a diesel RDX!

robertsmx

IMO, ideally...

Element: 2.4/I-4 gasoline, 2.2/I-4 diesel

CRV: 2.4/I-4 gasoline, 2.4/I-4/IMA

RDX: 3.0 (or 3.2 or 3.5) V6 gasoline

 

Something for everybody.

ateixeira

Turbo article:

 

http://thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=8082&sid=173&am- p;n=156

 

For the TSX first, most likely, but if its in the Acura lineup, that should be easy.

 

I doubt it would be any cheaper to build than a V6, though.

 

But a 2.4T could have a lot of applications. CR-V, Accord, Civic Si (go EVO/STi hunting), etc.

 

-juice

kyfdx

They can keep it.. Not sure why they need a turbo, when they can get 200 hp out of an NA 2.0 litre now.... I'm betting they can get 225 hp out of the 2.4 they have, also..

 

Isn't turbocharging for wimpy Subaru boxer engines? ;-)

ateixeira

Torque, is why.

 

The TSX falls short in that one regard, it's otherwise an excellent car. Most of its peers are quicker plus they can better handle a heavy load. Put 5 adults in a TSX and freeway merging becomes a little more exciting than you'd want it to be.

 

HP sells cars, but torque does all the real work.

 

Look at it this way - the one trade-off modern quick-spool turbos have is that they require premium fuel. But the TSX requires premium already. So you're not even making that sacrifice!

 

Honda is talking about low boost, 240hp, so it should spool up quickly.

 

-juice

robertsmx

Normally aspirated small displacement motors will have limited torque. For example, it is hard to get more than 150 lb.-ft from a 2.0-liter engine. In order to get more horsepower, this requires the engine to rev high (about 7500 rpm for a Honda engine for 100 HP/liter).

 

Offering automatic transmission becomes a challenge to utilize power available at high rpm. Not much of an issue with manual transmissions (although, with gearing limitations as they exist, short gearing ends up delivering short final drive and that can affect cruising fuel economy… non-issue in sports/performance cars but will be in a regular sedan/coupe/SUV.

 

With these compromises, it makes sense to consider alternative ways to enhance torque output to have greater (or same) power output at lower rpm. Hybridization is one, and turbo would be another.

 

Honda has proven ability with turbo charging as well. The following article demonstrates Honda’s efforts in the 1980s:

 
Honda Revives Turbo

 

Instead of having a normally aspirated 2.4-liter I-4 deliver 240 HP at 7500 rpm, a relatively low pressure turbo could get the same power output around 6000 rpm.

 

While I would prefer Honda use 3.0/V6 instead for same power output, they may not offer it if the chassis doesn’t have sufficient room while continuing to abide by Honda’s specifications.

kyfdx

Aw, heck.. I posted the whole message just to get a dig in about Subaru...

ateixeira

I know. ;-)

 

-juice

ateixeira

Cool turbo article.

 

I was a huge Ayrton Senna fan (we share the same first name and country of origin). He was unbeatable with that Honda 1.5l turbo engine in F1. Some said they made over 1000hp, imagine, 667 hp per liter specific output!

 

And it was reliable and fuel efficient.

 

I didn't understand why they never built turbos for their street cars.

 

-juice

robertsmx

They did, and do, just not a common occurrence. I remember reading about Honda Dunk Turbo, a mini for the Japanese market. Apparently, there were Legend Turbo around too!

ateixeira

Yeah, we can't forget the JDM.

 

I think they had a turbo motorcycle in the US once, is that right?

 

-juice

varmint

Honda's diesel 2.2 is the most recent use of turbo power for their auto line. But (according to industry spies) they also used a variable-vane turbo to power the HSC concept car for some track testing in Germany. Honda considered a turbo engine during the design process of the S2000, but rejected it because the turbo lag put an unwanted hiccup in the driving experience.

 

So, despite the outcry from many of the NA purists, Honda does use, or at least considers using, turbos. They are an engine company. They use whatever technology best fits the application.

 

For my part, I think a turbo is more likely than a hybrid. But that's not saying much since Fukui has already rejected the possibility of a hybrid.

jrynn

Is there a projected release date for the RDX yet?

dewey

Unfortunately their is no mention about SUVs. Only cars!!!

 

http://wardsauto.com/ar/auto_acura_hybrid_definitely/index.htm

varmint

"it’s not in the short-term plan" - Tom Elliot

 

Why do I always have to be the wet blanket on these hybrid rumors?

kyfdx

It is just your nature... lol

ksoman

Why do you call the spade a spade? LOL

ksoman

That article is all over the place. I think Tom reads these acura forums on Edmunds and is just sowing seeds all over the place for us to keep talking and talking and speculating and speculating. He talks performance, and future and maybe 4wheel and god knows what else... so it could very well be on the RDX or the RL, cuz there are currently no other performance 4wd machines.. i don't quantify the MDX as perf...

 

ksso

dewey

Oh yes, the ommission of a fact does not deny the truth about that fact.

 

So the fact that an SUV is not mentioned does not mean a Honda hybrid SUV will not be introduced!

 

Your logic may be correct--but I am not willing to wait for a hybrid Honda SUV without any confirmation from Honda itself (my wait may be as long as those two characters in Waitng for Godot). ;(

pavlik

anyone else here with potentially serious interest in the RDX but only if it is available with a stick?

 

I am starting to hear rumors of a six banger with auto only, but am naive enough to hope that a show of determination on that front could sway things.

 

If the RDX does come out only as an automatic, I do not care what the number of cylinders may be, and it's Subaruland for me, wimpy engines with turbos (as one of you joked earlier) or not.

ateixeira

Forester XT has a 5 speed manual, but the X3 has a 6 speed and that's likely closer in price.

 

I wonder if the small volume could justify production, though.

 

-juice

dewey

Yes I agree manuals are improtant for performance cars. The Subaru WRX sti does not remind me of a wimp---more like a adolescent going through hormonal changes or a midlife crisis on steroids(or should I say Viagra).

 

The new and upcoming X5 3.0 will no longer be availabe in manual---sounds like BMW is beginning to neglect its core market

ateixeira

BMW is losing focus, SMG is another mistake IMO.

 

I guess they figure the MDX and other competitors don't offer a manual, either.

 

To be honest I don't expect the RDX will. Watch, they'll have some hyper cool Type R model in Japan with a 6 speed manual and a bunch more power and then won't bring it here.

 

-juice

nippononly

They made the TL available in a manual, and that surprised me. This will be a cheaper model with a smaller engine, so yes, it is possible they could make a manual (hopefully six speeds) available. This IS Honda we are talking about here...

nippononly

but the CRV has an available manual, and the Element on the same platform sells a healthy portion of manuals. The RDX will be similar in size to those two. Of course, those are both 4-cylinder. But again, the TL is a big powerful six, and that gets a manual.

 

Hoping, hoping...

ateixeira

Good point, and if it shares a powertrain with the CR-V in any way I bet you're right. The 2.4l is torquey but I dunno about carrying the extra weight in a higher price class.

 

-juice

rsholland

Acura hasn't yet released any info on the RDX's engine? I bet they have something special up their sleeve.

 

Honda did something very similar last year with the Ridgeline. The concept version did not have the 2-way tailgate or in-bed truck. Those two items were real surprises on the production version. I would not be at all surprised if the production RDX ends up with a real powerplant surprise of some sort. Accord V6 Hybrid anyone?

 

Bob

varmint

I have now read several articles stating that Acura is considering hybrids for the distant future, and one stating that SUV hybrids are not among their plans.

 

I have seen Honda bring things to market without mentioning them. I have never seen them publicly mislead people about their future products. If they had said nothing about hybrids, I would consider them a possibility. But they have said something. That something was "no".

varmint

As much as Acura is billing this as a sporty vehicle, they know the target market is 50% soccer mom. Even the freakin' NSX comes with an automatic.

 

That said, I think some kind of manual will be offered. Honda recently dropped the 5MT from the CR-V LX. However, they kept it for the EX. So, they apparently see some kind of value in having it. As mentioned above, a 6MT is available in several other Acuras (even the CR-V in Europe). The TSX is a low-volume vehicle with a 6MT, so the low-volume concern may not be significant.

robertsmx

Japan isn’t a market Honda shows interest with offering 6-speed manual transmission either. Acura TSX is basically luxuriously equipped “Accord 24S” in Japanese market with different interior, with same engine tuning, yet American market gets a choice of the 6MT with the 5AT, Japanese market gets it in auto flavor only. European market, however, gets 6MT (but there is no sport version of the European Accord there). In Japanese market, the Accord with 6MT is the Euro-R (drive train shared with Integra Type-R).

 

Although Honda has 6MT out there mated with J-series V6 (3.0 in Accord or 3.2 in TL) as well as the K-series I-4 (2.4), Acura RDX is unlikely to get 6MT IMO.

varmint

Robert, bear with me a sec, I'm trying to make sense of something here. You wrote...

 

"American market gets a choice of the 6MT with the 5AT, Japanese market gets it in auto flavor only."

 

And then one sentence later...

 

"In Japanese market, the Accord with 6MT is the Euro-R (drive train shared with Integra Type-R)."

 

Essentially, meaning that only the sport model gets a manual transmission while the luxury model goes automatic. Is that what you mean?

 

Given that Acura's stated goal is to become a performance brand within the luxury pantheon, wouldn't that suggest that Acura should offer both transmissions?

 

For my part, I mentioned the TL and TSX (RSX also) to show that Acura does have a history of offering manual transmissions for performance applications in a luxury brand. About the only engine offered in the US without a manual option is the J35. Everything else has one. So it's not like Honda's parts bin lacks the hardware.

 

I think an automatic is a given. But I'm not about to write off a manual option.

 

JM2C

robertsmx

Euro-R is an all-out performer with a screaming engine (8400 rpm redline). With that kind of redline, automatic transmission wouldn't be possible unless taking the route of an advanced clutchless manual.

 

However, the mainstream flavors of "upper trim" Japanese Accord includes:

24T: "Touring" model

24TL: "Touring Luxury" model

24S: "Sport" model

 

Accord 24S is the sport trim of Japanese Accord with 200 HP 2.4/I-4. And although Honda has 6MT mated to this engine (we get it here in Acura TSX), Honda does not offer the choice in Japanese market. That was my point.

 

Acura/Honda will offer 6MT only if it helps them make a marketing statement from performance point of view. Although 6MT used in Acura TL should be directly compatible to the 3.5/V6 used in MDX and in RL, Acura isn't adding it as an option.

 

With the same reasoning I believe Acura RDX wouldn't be a candidate for 6MT, especially if it comes with V6.

nippononly

not to mention lower-priced than either of those two you mentioned! Well, I will keep hopes high...Honda is one of the last bastions of the manual transmission in an increasingly automated world...

varmint

"Accord 24S is the sport trim of Japanese Accord with 200 HP 2.4/I-4. And although Honda has 6MT mated to this engine (we get it here in Acura TSX), Honda does not offer the choice in Japanese market. That was my point."

 

Do you think that was a marketing choice, or an engineering decision?

 

If it was a marketing choice, do you think the same marketing principles are applied here under the Acura brand name?

 

"Although 6MT used in Acura TL should be directly compatible to the 3.5/V6 used in MDX and in RL, Acura isn't adding it as an option."

 

For my part, I don't see why the MDX and the RL are a better indicator for what Acura will do than the TL, RSX, and TSX.

pavlik

I give you that soccer moms won't even notice the possible lack of MT, but do they really need a six? Why not just underpower and overequip it TSX-style if this is their target segment! So it will be a bit sluggish--who cares as long as more groceries fit in there to ride near luxuriously, no?

robertsmx

Do you think that was a marketing choice, or an engineering decision?

 

Marketing choice (obviously since I mentioned TSX has 6MT here in America). The point of my argument was that Honda isn't big on manual transmission in Japanese market either. It is strange to see them offering 6MT on 200 HP K24A in TSX here but not with the same engine in Japanese Accord.

 

As for RDX, if I had to bet, it would be that MT will not be offered.

robertsmx

IMO, target segment is a typical buyer who would be willing to visit a dealership with $$$. That said, Honda/Acura should know better than any of us whether MT is needed in the lineup or not.

varmint

Okay, so this busines about the JDM Accords and their transmissions has nothing to do with the RDX specifically. That was just an aside you threw in there having to do with manual transmissions in general. Right?

 

I'm going to assume I've got that right and move on for a moment.

 

Now, regarding the RDX specifically, why do you think it will not have a manual transmission? So far, you've mentioned the fact that the MDX and RL do not offer manuals. But the TL, TSX, and RSX do offer a manual option. Either you have reason to believe the MDX and RL are better indicators for the RDX, or you have something else up your sleeve. What's the story?

 

"Why not just underpower and overequip it TSX-style if this is their target segment!" - Pavlik

 

That may be exactly what they do. A massaged 2.4L engine with 210-220 hp and 174 lb-ft may be what we get. But if that's the case, we can be certain they'll offer a stick. A car doesn't have to be blazingly quick to be fun to drive, but it does have to be interactive (Miata for example).

anythngbutgm

"The new and upcoming X5 3.0 will no longer be availabe in manual---sounds like BMW is beginning to neglect its core market"

 

I'll agree on that one... Here's an oportunity for Acura to one up BMW! and offer a manual in what seems like an X3 fighter. I wouldn't be interested in the RDX if it came with an automanual, it's just not the same as a true stick. And my opinion is based on a TSX loaner I had while my X was in for its 30k service. The Auto really saps the fun out of the TSX

anythngbutgm

Sorry, meant "match BMW with what seems to be an X3 fighter"...

robertsmx

If Acura takes the I-4 route, I would say it has 50% chance of getting MT. With V6, I would lean towards AT only. This has nothing to do with RSX or MDX, just market positioning and what they want to achieve with it. AHM offers 6MT with Accord V6 Coupe, but not in V6 sedan, not even the hybrid!

 

The “*SX” cars are designed for sporting purpose, and RSX and TSX are expected to have 6MT. TL is a filler between TSX and RL. And even with RL, although AHM marketed it as a (relatively speaking) performance model, 6MT wasn’t offered. It could be no different for RDX.

ateixeira

I think soccer moms would lean towards the MDX, with its capacity for kids.

 

RDX buyers will be younger. You might catch newly married folks with 0-1 kids. 2+ would look at the MDX.

 

So I think it can be sportier, sure.

 

-juice

varmint

My guess would be these folks:

1. Folks who aspire to the MDX, RX330, M-Class, X5.... but cannot afford them.
2. TSX fans who want a wagon.
3. Empty nesters who are down-sizing from a larger, more utilitarian SUV.
4. CR-V fans who now have more money.

Along with the folks who want a TSX wagon, there may be a limited amount of cross-shopping with vehicles like the A4 Avant or BMW 3 series wagon.

ateixeira

I think you'll also get Accord fans moving up. Only because there are so many of those.

Pilot may be too big for some of them.

-juice

armand

I was going to buy a CRV until I heard about the RDX. I hope it has more features and more horsepower but is not bigger.

smpool

I think you hit it right on the head. I'm a Sienna owner and am considering buying a RDX, TSX wagon (if it existed), A4 and BMW 3 wagons, and a bigger RAV4 if 2006 redesign will increase its size.

pavlik

Good ideas. Judging by myself, Acura could also grab the attention of those who

want a practical car (wagon, hatch)

for year-round driving in the snow belt

do not want a large SUV

insist on fun from their only ride (stick being non-negotiable)

and cannot afford (OK, or do not like the snob level associated with) the few Germans and Swedes that satisfy all of the above.

Before RDX showed up on the radar, my short list was pretty much just the WRX.

bodble2

but RDX and WRX are totally different animals.

dewey

"OK, or do not like the snob level associated with) the few Germans and Swedes"

Oh common! Exclusive Acura Luxury Dealerships that have a moat around them in order to cut them off from those Honda masses. A non snob would pick a sensible Honda not an Acura. Yes performance may differentiate a Acura from a Honda, but that does not make Acura different from those snobby German-Swede marques that tend to emphasise performance.