Acura RDX

ateixeira

The 2005 Forester XT made 210hp, but they've already announced that the 2006 gets a bump up to 230hp.

The Accord's V6 would give it a little more HP but a bit less torque.

-juice

kyfdx

Isn't this coming out next year, as an '07 model? I doubt they would still be using the Accord V-6 then... I'd look for a new V-6, or some version of the current TSX 4-cylinder...

ateixeira

They debuted it at NY, it should actually be in dealers soon. Subaru rolls the models out relatively early (often in May), as opposed to Honda, who rolls out the Element's new model year each December.

So the 230hp Forester will arrive well before the RD-X hits the road.

Not that it matters, dyno runs show the Forester XT already makes 240-250hp at the crank. They just downrated it to not trample the WRX. But in mags the XT has been quicker despite weighing more.

-juice

kyfdx

Okay.. but that model in NY was definitely not ready for roll-out.. Not one thing was disclosed about drivetrain, etc... I don't know what you consider "soon", but I'm pretty sure that would be at least October, in this case...

rihoops

I have heard that it will have a 255 HP V6. Same engine as the ridgeline with some tweaks to it. Can anyone confirm this?

ateixeira

I should know, I was there for the debut.

Base engine 173hp, turbo 230hp due to a boost in compression ratio and revised intake. Conversely, they relaxed the gearing a bit, from 4.4:1 to 4.1:1, so the taller gearing might offset the extra power, though at least we should see improved gas mileage.

Subaru is busy with the Tribeca launch, but that SUV is built in the USA at SIA, while the Forester is made in Gunma, Japan. So I don't even think that will delay the Forester's arrival. I'd bet we'll see it in June.

So far the only small SUVs that are truly fun include the Forester XT, the X3 3.0, and the Saturn Vue Redline, and the Saturn doesn't really come close to the other two (numb steering, horrible seats spoil the great engine). So it'll be nice to see another choice in something both small and sporty.

-juice

kyfdx

So, you have all this info on the RDX, and you didn't post it here? I think you are falling down on the job...

Seriously... did they say if it was a four or six cylinder? With those numbers, I would assume a four...

regards,
kyfdx

EDIT: I still think the RDX debuts next year as an '07 model... not this year..

ateixeira

Sorry, I thought you meant for the Forester XT. That was the launch I was talking about (NY Auto Show this year).

RD-X only debuted as a concept, in Detroit. Acura displayed it yet again at the NY show, but it was still roped off, so I had no access, even on the Industry Preview Days (before the show opens to the public).

I managed to get a press kit but info was scarce, for instance it did not even list the overall width.

The production RD-X is still anyone's guess. The Element came out a lot like the Model X, so I hope Acura stays close to the concept, at least outside.

-juice

kyfdx

Yeah.. what was I thinking? This being the RDX forum and all... :surprise:

regards,
kyfdx

ateixeira

It was just the sequence of our conversation. My bad.

-juice

anythngbutgm

So the motor week writeup about the use of a Turbo-4 for the RDX was a farse? The V6 from the Accord would be perfect for the application IMO, The 3.5 from the TL would be rockin!

toast

My understanding is that the RDX will have the same 4 wheel drive system as the RL. If Acura can mate this system with a TL engine and price the vehicle in the $32-$33K range they will have a winner. I have been tempted by the Honda Pilot, Honda CRV and the Acura MDX. The RDX appears to blend the best of each into one sweet package. An October release would be great if they can pull it off; however a mid 2006 release date is much more likely.

Dealers I have talked to won't even take a deposit yet because so much is still unknown. We'll just have to keep speculating.

nippononly

If they intro the RDX in the $33K range, not only will it steal sales from MDX and vice versa, but it will be very expensive for a car that is smaller than the MDX, and sales will suffer consequently.

They should aim for the high $20s instead, and use the Accord's V-6. But I do like the sound of it having SH-AWD. That is a very good idea. And they should figure out how to get this on the TL too, and sub it in on the MDX instead of the VTM-4 it uses now.

Honda-branded vehicles should become the sole domain of VTM-4.

ateixeira

It might not even be finalized yet. Acura might in fact spread rumors to test the waters, i.e. measure reaction to certain engine types (V6, turbo, hybrid, etc).

TL engine plus SH-AWD for less than the cost of a TL? Not likely.

That would put the price closer to $40k, to compete with a loaded up X3 3.0l.

In fact it would have more HP than the current MDX.

-juice

anythngbutgm

The 3.0 from the Accord would be a perfect match for the RDX to keep it in play with the X3 3.0. Maybe offer a 2.4 for the lower end models to match X3 2.5 (which is getting phased out last I heard).

But, on the other hand, if the 3.5 from the TL is supposed to get SH-AWD, Honda has done most of the engineering to incorpoate that combo for the RDX. hmmm...

varmint

Drivetrain

SH-AWD is as definite as can be reasonably expected. That part of the drivetrain has been announced. And.. FWIW... I expect that all AWD Acuras will get SH-AWD, while Hondas get VTM-4.

Two enthusiast magazines have published rumors regarding the engine. One predicted V6, while the other wrote I4. So much for the magazines. :lemon:

A person with supposed contacts within Honda/Acura posted this meaningless tidbit. Of course, there is no way to verify the credibility of this story, but... The RDX concept car was powered by an I4 mated to a manu-matic transmission. The rumor-monger responsible for leaking that fact stated that the engine in the concept could have nothing to do with the production version. For all we know that engine was installed because they got tired of pushing the thing from truck to podium.

Styling and Design

The overall design of the RDX is another given. Like the example mentioned above (Model X to Element), the design will change a bit. But the overall look and feel of the vehicle should be pretty close to what we saw at the auto shows.

Cost

Typically, an SUV will run at least $3,000 more than a similarly-equipped sedan... if not more. Compare the price of a Pilot with a similar V6 Accord. Compare an MDX with the TL. Compare a CR-V with a Civic.

If we are expecting TSX levels of equipment, you can bet the price is going to be well north of $30K even with a 4 cyl engine. With a V6, expect to pay about $33-36K.

Cannibalization

Will an RDX with a price tag of $35K cut into MDX sales? Not really. I mean, it would if you expect the MDX to stay in the $35-40K range. But that's not a realistic expectation. The next MDX ought to be landing in Acura dealers shortly before or after the RDX. And the next MDX will likely be priced north of $40K.

The RDX might fill the $32-36K slot while the MDX is one notch higher at $38-45K.

nippononly

the X3 does use the smallest BMW engine in the States, the 2.5. It does step up to 200+ in output this year, but still, MAYBE Acura could get away with the TSX engine in the RDX for a while. If I were them I would be aiming to have some real-world RDXs available at that magical $30K mark. Seeing as it is pretty small.

I know MDX can get up there in price, but it starts around $35K doesn't it?

ateixeira

Even though Freelander gets a V6, it makes do with a lot less HP than the TSX. Then again it sells very poorly.

But the catch is you have a moving target. If Acura comes out with "enough" power today, in a 5 year product life cycle it may seem underpowered compared to its rivals later on.

-juice

nippononly

of moving targets, I can't see the TSX staying at its power level for much longer. The market is already beginning to gradually pass it by. If it moves up, that might allow the RDX to be higher-powered without stepping on TSX toes. I don't see why they couldn't do a nice SH-AWD RDX with the 240 hp Accord 3.0 for around $30K. OK, maybe $32K. But it is going to be one small puppy. Acura wouldn't be wise to price it too high given the size. Either way, it is going to be up against the new 230 hp Forester XT (high $20Ks), not to mention the X3 2.5 ($30Kish), and I hear the '07 Freelander is supposed to be a humdinger too, although I suppose the price for that one will be higher.

varmint

"I can't see the TSX staying at its power level for much longer. The market is already beginning to gradually pass it by."

You should probably tell that to the market. TSX sales are up 35%.

I think if we see a four cylinder in the RDX, it will use forced induction. Or, at the least, a forced induction model will be added a few years after introduction. That said, I still think a J series engine is very possible. I just consider $32K to be the low price point for such a vehicle.

As for competition, I don't think Acura is too concerned about the Forester XT. The BMW X3 and even FX35 are more likely for cross-shopping than the Subaru. Mind you, it's not because the Forester lacks performance or utility. I'll wager the Soob will be faster than the RDX even if we see a V6 under the hood. But Acura has a better brand name, style, and buyers of near luxury cars want some luxury. Even though Acura doesn't have the snob appeal of BMW, it's well beyond the name Subaru.

It's not that different from the success of the TSX. That sedan doesn't sell on its 0-60 numbers. It sells on style, a strong content to value ratio, and a wee bit of fun. I expect the RDX will do the same. Performance is not all that matters.

ateixeira

Right now gas prices have probably peaked, in fact I think they've come down slightly since that peak. That probably helps the TSX since it's fuel efficient for its class.

I think today it would be at least adequate for the 200hp 2.4l to power the RDX, but in 2-3 years it will seem underpowered.

-juice

anythngbutgm

The current IS definitely has that "boy racer" appeal. I am still crossing my fingers that the next gen IS for 06' will be more mature (which from the looks of the concept it will be). However even being into its second year on the market, it's nice to see the TL still maintains a considerable amount of respect and can hold its own against the newer competition. :shades:

anythngbutgm

I think it would be perfectly adequate for Acura to drop the TSX plant into the RDX, but they will need to revise here and there to keep up with the competion over its lifespan. That's where a hybrid powertrain may come in, instead of a V6. But I am crossing my fingers for an optional V6 at launch. And a manual be be that much sweeter!

nippononly

the RDX is bound to come in several hundred pounds heavier than the TSX, and have a higher (more wind-resisting) profile too. If it uses the TSX engine as is, it will need much shorter gearing, I think, and then there goes your fuel efficiency. Of course, there are no mpg champs in this segment anyway.

varmint: my remark was not meant to denigrate the TSX in any way. A car is a package, not just an engine. And the TSX is a very nice package - I took one out for a drive just the other day. Plus it has a sweet spot in the price spectrum. But it is true that other cars near its size, mission, and price are passing it by in the power department (9-3 and S40 turbos come to minds for starters). So using that engine for a brand new model that is higher and heavier might not be such a great idea.

Besides, if the "official" speculation is either forced-induction four or V-6, then it is a moot point right? The TSX 4-cyl is neither.

ateixeira

Let's see a hybrid with the 2.4l as a starting point.

The point is, give us something different to choose from. You can already find a small turbo (Forester XT) and plenty of V6s in the market. Give us something different.

Hey, how 'bout a diesel+eletric hybrid? Honda's new euro diesels are excellent, use the one from the euro Accord.

-juice

varmint

I agree that performance is a moving target. How many times has the MDX been given a small bump in power? I think three times in four years. The TL Type S effectively did the same thing. With Infiniti constantly tinkering with their VQ engines, Acura will likely have to respond every once and a while.

I think its very likely that the RDX will weigh in around 3,600 or 3,800 lbs. All the extra hardware for a luxury vehicle adds weight. So the current TSX engine would be merely adequate and would not stand the test of time. Not with the current hp wars raging.

But I just don't think that has to be the #1 priority for the vehicle. Decent power with a good blend of the other stuff will sell. I think the TSX proves that point. Acua doesn't need to match or better everbody else with the engine if everything else is up to par.

Nippon - Sorry, I didn't think you were degrading the TSX (note the winky car). That just seemed like the quickest way to make the point.

nippononly

Winky car duly noted! Note the smiley car... :-)

elmo

Hello All: I am new to this, please bare with me:

I have a 2005 Acura MDX, that isnt even a month old yet. In the past two weeks, the TPMS light (tire pressure monitoring system) has gone on and off spuratically. I have taken it to the dealer twice, of course the light was off at the time, and they cant seem to find a problem. The car has barely 600 miles on. What should I do, has anybody heard of this problem

HELP !!!! PLEASE !!!!!

ateixeira

Would be to post that question in the MDX thread, instead of the RDX thread. Most of us don't own MDXs.

-juice

jrynn

The closest competition for the RDX will be the X3. And while it does seem a bit of a stretch to just move the current TSX engine into the RDX, Acura could do that and "place" the RDX is the same spot relative to the X3 than the TSX is in relative to the 3 series (i.e., where it beats the BMW 2.5 version on both price and performance and beats the BMW 3.0 version on price by a huge margin but lags slightly in performance.)

Will the performance take a hit compared to the sedans? Absolutely, because of weight and profile. But the desire to buy a "performance" SUV seems kind of crazy anyway.

As a happy TSX owner who recently started shopping for small & midsize SUVs to haul around the new little family member but who doesn't want to drive a battleship like the MDX, I will be VERY eager to see what Acura produces with the RDX, esp. after it moves out of the "concept" stage with the crazy seats and other "designer" touches and into the pre-production phase.

nippononly

besides, have you seen performance numbers on the X3 2.5? It is pretty slow for something with the BMW propeller on the front.

steveaccord

Hi guys,

It has been a while from my last visit (about 150 posts ago), and I see a lot of discussion still centers on what features will be defining this new vehicle and most importantly at what price the package will hit the market. I see often the 30-32K figure to be 'guessed' as the proper range but as in the past I do not fully agree with such forecast. Sure it will reach 'up to' that figure but by the introduction given a few months ago I expect that it should start in the 28K (-5K TO THE MDX that was the reference given in regard to the 'affordability' the RDX should offer compared to its larger sibling). Could I ask the 'Illuminati" is such a 'low' pricing option has to be completely discarded?
Truly,

Steveaccord

twain

If they intro the RDX in the $33K range, not only will it steal sales from MDX and vice versa, but it will be very expensive for a car that is smaller than the MDX, and sales will suffer consequently.

They should aim for the high $20s instead, and use the Accord's V-6.

...I'd love to see the base price come in under 30k. That would separate it from the MDX.

I've read it's going to have a turbo 4. My only concern there is premium gas. The Accord's V6 would put it over 30k and narrow the gap with the MDX.

I can see the RDX as a great step up for CRV owners. And it looks like it won't have the rear mounted spare and side swinging door...two features I don't like on the CRV.

kyfdx

Assuming they still have an X3 2.5 model in '06, it will the same 3.0 litre engine as the new 325i... Which bumps the horsepower from 184 to 215...

irnmdn

besides, have you seen performance numbers on the X3 2.5? It is pretty slow for something with the BMW propeller on the front

X3 gets smoked by minivans from Honda and Toyota.

ateixeira

desire to buy a "performance" SUV seems kind of crazy anyway

Hey, I resemble that remark!

twain: now you're talking, give it a proper lift gate for rain shelter while you load.

kyfdx: that's the moving target phenomenon I was talking about...

-juice

varmint

"The closest competition for the RDX will be the X3. And while it does seem a bit of a stretch to just move the current TSX engine into the RDX, Acura could do that and "place" the RDX is the same spot relative to the X3 than the TSX is in relative to the 3 series..."

I agree, this is possible. But I'm not sure it's likely.

Motortrend's often useless, but sometimes interesting crystal ball is predicting a smaller 3.5L SUV from Infiniti. Knowing them, it will have a bazillion horsepower and a relatively low price. I find that rumor interesting because it makes sense from Infiniti's point of view. The current FX35 is something of a sport hatchback in the land of luxury SUVs. As sporty as it is, it's too small inside. BMW can get away with that. Others can't. With a smaller model on the lot, the FX could get larger and pricier to compete directly with the MDX.

It would be tough for the RDX to compete on price (as the TSX does) with an Infiniti like that on the market.

A $30-35K price tag makes a whole lot of sense when you consider that the next MDX will likely be priced around $39-45K. Since they are due to hit our market within months of each other, there will be little cannibalization.

If the RDX starts at $28K, it will likely be a FWD model.

ateixeira

That would break a trend. I don't think any of the vehicles with VTM-4 or SH-AWD have ever been offered without that option. Is that right?

-juice

anythngbutgm

Supposedly the Pilot will be expanding its lineup by offering a front drive version, but up until now, there has not been a model that offers a VTM-4 or SH-AWD delete option. What I'm curious about is that if the next gen CRV is supposed to share underpinnings with the RDX, will RT4WD no longer exist? And if so, what about the Element (also RT4WD)?

I see MT has once again pinned the RDX having a Turbo 4 under the hood... I think it's going to turn off a few mainstream buyers with that configuration. A vehicle of this size needs the 6-cyl for effortless off the line grunt.

ateixeira

How many CR-Vs are sold with FWD? I guess in Texas and Florida most consumers would opt for that to save money.

Might make sense for the Pilot, but I'm not sure Acura should do it. FWD carries a non-luxury stigma.

Turbo vs. 6? I actually like turbos, because off boost they can be tuned to save gas. Use a modern ball bearing turbo and lag is minimal, too.

-juice

anythngbutgm

In something like a Forester X/T the Turbo 4 works, and works well. But doesn't even Subies own Tribeca go with the 3.0 H6? That would be something that the RDX compares with IMO.

"Might make sense for the Pilot, but I'm not sure Acura should do it. FWD carries a non-luxury stigma." Absolutely, although I do believe you can get an RX330 with front drive (very rare though).

It's very difficult to find a Front drive CRV here in N.E. but I know they do exist. They're mainly for the warmer states you mentioned and I believe it's something like 5% of CRV sales.

ateixeira

RDX would fall between the two, it's a little bit bigger than the Forester (although the RD-X concept looks smaller than the CR-V), but ought to be more refined and most likely equipped like the bigger Tribeca.

Tribeca is about MDX sized. And yes it gets the 250hp H6.

The Subies would be lighter in both cases. Tribeca is ~275 lbs lighter than the MDX and I'd guess that the RDX will weigh about that much more than a Forester.

That's OK, though, RDX might be lighter than the BMW X3.

-juice

varmint

That kinda what I mean. If Acura offers a bargain model, it will likely be crippled without the SH-AWD. Those units cannot be cheap. I think it would end up being something like the stripped BMWs that you can get, but have to special order.

MT is insisting that their information is rock solid, but I have significant doubts about them having real information. I believe that they heard what they wrote, but I'm not so certain they were told the truth.

Although I think a turbo four would work in the RDX, I'd prefer a V6 myself.

anythngbutgm

A Turbo 4 would work well with the RDX if it was a manual. With an Auto, not so much IMO... Plus down the road, I think Acura would be critisized for building a vehicle that should have been a Honda in the first place, like the RSX faces.

kyfdx

Some have suggested that the current TSX engine would be adequate for an RDX..

If you make that assumption, then if they turboed that engine, it should be more than enough power...

However, I would rather see a small V-6, as well...

I don't think you'll see a de-contented FWD version of the RDX.. They have Honda to cover that market...

regards,
kyfdx

ateixeira

Maybe. Consider that they would have to lower compression significantly, so it would make less power/torque than the normally aspirated version of the 2.4l off boost.

Honda's i-VTEC with a quick-boost ball bearing turbo could compensate, but if the RDX is heavy people will complain about turbo lag. Especially if it only comes with an auto tranny. With the TSX' 6 speed manual, well, that would just be a hoot!

Turbos tend to work better if the vehicle is lighter and/or equipped with a manual tranny. In heavy SUVs like the XC90 and Audi allroad quattro, they didn't perform so well.

I'd say a turbo-4 is a definite maybe.

-juice

anythngbutgm

But, as a luxury nameplate a la MB, BMW, Lexus, Infiniti, I just don't think Acura can start foisting Turbos into the ring and expect the same respect. Unless maybe they're targeting buyers of Volvos and Saabs? I would much rather see Honda drop an already proven 3.0l or 3.2l V6 into the RDX, than take the time and resources developing Turbocharged 4's (With Vtec to begin with :confuse: ). Save the Spunky turboed motors for "Spunky brand" Honda. :P

Or if they must go with a 4-cyl for weight or balance, go with IMA...

ateixeira

I'll set an arbitrary weight limit. If they can keep it under 3300 lbs, make it a turbo 4. Otherwise V6 or hybrid.

-juice

kyfdx

Acura doesn't really sell to MB and BMW buyers... Most Lexus/Infiniti buyers are not as savvy as you imply when it comes to drivetrains, I don't think....

Basically, Acura sells to Honda/Toyota/Nissan buyers who are looking to move up.. I don't think they need any kind of "heritage" to sell turbos... They are the "value" luxury brand.. (my take on it)

That said, give me the V-6... as juice states, turbo 4s really aren't great for heavier vehicles... Just slap the V-6 from the Pilot/Odyssey in there... that works for me.. No hybrids, please..

regards,
kyfdx

varmint

The 2.4L engine in NA form would be adequate if the RDX weighs around 3,600 lbs and costs about $28K. I have significant doubts about both of those possibilities.

If Honda built an FI version of the 2.4 (the rumor is actually a 2.2L), it would probably be a variable vane turbo. Depending on which VTEC is used, Honda could tune the engine for a high torque peak in the low end. There are a few 2.4s on the market with very low peaks. Since the turbo is going to spool up as the rpms rise, Honda doesn't need to pay as much attention to the high rpm operation of VTEC.