Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
2006 BMW X3 vs Acura RDX
This discussion has been closed.
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
(Of course, no one has as much spare time as mark in cinci) :P
Good question, how do you guys find the time to write these articles?
Have we got a final answer yet about the RWD/FWD bias?
I've been away for a few weeks!
And I still say the RDX would be better off with one grill instead of two - completely different ones by the way, which don't match. (looks like an Acura smashed into a Cayanne).
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
What, exactly, is the question?
My contention, regardless of any arguments about efficacy, is that the "press" writes RWD bias is "better."
Were is "free" to do so, one would imagine just to prevent an objection, a car company would just go ahead and succumb to the RWD bias is best crowd and be done with it.
Those are my thoughts. I have no proof, that is.
We may debate the practical merits separately as far as I am concerned.
I have driven the RDX and I really pushed it in the test drive -- I would find it quite forgiving and very capable despite the "fact" that it is a front wheel drive car with AWD/RWD capabilities, despite the fact that it is (according to the car mags) a FWD vehicle in its demeanor.
My question, my ONLY question is "why" is it thus, for the reasons stated above. I'd make it 40 60 in a heartbeat were it free to do so just to shut the naysayers up.
Note, of course, that BMW touts its near perfect balance and rear wheel drive bias.
Of course, now, Audi, is moving to RWD bias after years of being 50 50 biased. Audi is also adding "a 100% power can be shifted feature" to the torsen equipped quattros perhaps to further differentiate.
And, that, ain't cheap to do with the torsen system.
Audi, too, is moving their engines back 4 inches to strive for, dare we say, BMW - like balance.
If you can't fight 'em, lick 'em -- or something like that.
:shades:
The rear biased AWD Lexus GS series likely is the perfect solution, with the RDX coming in second, in the AWD "only" class, for vehicles doing this dynamically.
If you leave the "solid" coupling to the front in place you cannot have a substantial level of engine torque proportioned to the rear for long periods on high traction surfaces. Short "bursts" of rear biasing can be provided by putting some "slip" device in the driveline.
For the RX350 that is a VC, for the RDX it appears to be the rear left and right clutch packs. The functional nature of the VC will NOT support/allow continuous rear biasing, and the wear rate of the RDX clutches would likely be extreme were they asked to continuously "absorb" the required driveline "slip".
Honestly, I haven't read as many of those comments as you have. I know the press has a big time love afair with RWD. I just haven't seen much about AWD being biased one way or another.
Regardless, we all know how Honda/Acura likes to do whatever the press says. I mean, look at how fast they developed that V8 the press has been calling for.
Note, of course, that BMW touts its near perfect balance and rear wheel drive bias.
I'm on the same page with you about perception being reality, but (again) Acura doesn't do things based on perception. They engineer things more than they market them (for good or bad).
And it's not like Acura doesn't do any of their own touting. Here are a few snippets from their press packet on this topic. Of course, I'm not suggesting that these quotes are anything but PR. They just show that there is a case to made against any AWD sytem which is retricted to sending power only fore and aft. Clearly they feel the unique ability to route power left and right trumps other AWD systems regardless of bias.
"When tested on the skid pad, Acura internal measurements show the RDX achieves a maximum cornering force of 0.85g. This exceeds the cornering performance of the BMW X3 in the same test conditions."
"In conventional vehicles, cornering is created almost entirely by the steering angle of the front tires. But in the RDX, additional cornering force is created by the steering angle of front tires combined with the extra drive torque supplied by the outside rear tire."
"To deal with high power output, conventional front- or rear-drive systems generally use some type of limited-slip device to maintain traction under power. However, the linking effect of the inside and outside drive wheels in these systems resists turning, or creates understeer. This is a factor that works against the front tires as they attempt to turn the car. Conventional AWD systems have a similar linking effect between the inboard and outboard tires and front and rear axles, causing a similar resistance to turning. By using drive torque to actually help turn the vehicle, the RDX can be more responsive, neutral and predictable, while simultaneously offering all of the usual benefits of all-wheel drive."
Based on my own experience, I can see why a reviewer might feel that the RDX suffers from FWD characteristics. I over-cooked the entrance to a corner and my desire to survive the test drive got the better of me. I lifted my foot from the throttle near the apex of an off-ramp. To its credit, the RDX did not understeer... until I also tapped the brakes. If you drive it improperly, it will behave improperly. Slow in/fast out is the way to go... much like a well-respected Porsche with a rear-biased AWD system.
Having scrubbed enough speed, I got back on the boost and SH-AWD whipped me right around the ramp in a manner than FWD would probably not allow.
In fact, the officer who pulled me over moments later claimed to have nearly flipped his RWD cruiser trying to catch up with me.
I've been staying out of this particular thread for a while (since I haven't had a good test drive in the X3). So, it's me that is the problem, not your question. I haven't been following things here quite long enough.
To answer the question, I think a rear-biased system is better than a front-biased system (as far as handling is concerned). I would, however, debate against SH-AWD being a front-biased system.
SH-AWD is the same as rear-biased AWD during cornering (so long as you have your foot on the pedal).
It is better than rear-biased during "hard" cornering as it routes power to the outside wheel and "steers" the vehicle from the rear.
When accelerating from a stop, I have doubts that bias matters. My guess be that the perfect bias would be the same split as the weight distribution. If the car is nose heavy, then front-bias is better. If the car is tail-heavy, then rear-bias is better.
When cruising, I'm certain that bias doesn't matter at all.
When braking, both Acura and Subaru seem to think that front-bias is better. I'm not so sure the advantage is significant if there is one.
As a consumer, I think the whole package is far more important than which way the power goes. I know of several FWD cars which will tear apart RWD models on the track. There are other factors (weight distribution, tires, suspension, etc.) which may trump the drive wheels. So, I'd buy based on how well the whole package works. All this stuff here is purely academic.
What, exactly, is the question?
Sorry, for the confusion. The question is which method is superior? Seems that it has been answered quite well, unless there are more comments.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
Me neither. I think that, with a reasonably intelligent AWD system, the distinction between front and rear bias is an order of magnitude smaller than the one between FWD and RWD.
I have, on a closed track, both on dry pavement and on ice, had the experience (in performance driving classes) to attest that there ARE differences that can be detected with respect to bias.
On the REAL ROADS most of us drive, most of the time, most of us probably cannot "appreciate" let alone use the additional performance that perfectly balanced and perfectly or ideally biased vehicles can offer.
None of this suggests that we should not strive for better (ideal) balance and bias.
It is merely noting that this may be somewhat of "much ado."
I have tended to look at this more and more from a marketing standpoint since I am engaged, daily, in selling situations and overcoming objections is key to closing deals.
If 80% of the potential customer base doesn't know or care that your car is nose heavy and FWD biased (even if it is AWD), well then, you would be making whatever changes you make in an attemtp to court the other 20%.
Since I am NOT aware of the numbers, and therefore unaware of the actual percentages, it may well be that the market doesn't give a flip or that the cost of courting that extra market share is too high for too little anticipated revenue.
I would think, however, that were I to have a magic wand, I would wave it over my vehicles and make them better balanced (regardless of drive type) and if they are AWD, I would make them at least moderately RWD biased to offset an objection that might come from a growing portion of my target market.
I don't know if anyone really cares that FOR YEARS, there were real advantages to a Torsen AWD set up -- advantages in performance, but disadvantages in weight and cost.
Volvo could throw on a rear diff, a Haldex set up and the car would essentially be 95% FWD 5% RWD, but what the heck it could be advertised as AWD which was becoming expected.
Now, I suspect the consumer will be educated, slowly and perhaps at a superficial level, to ask "is the F/R torque split 40/60 50/50 or 90/10, etc?" And is this car nose heavy?
ETC? :shades:
Just as the vehicle's weight "shifts" forward during braking, moreso the heavier the braking effort, that weight also "shifts" toward the rear when accelerating from a stop, the heavier your foot is....
"...When braking, both Acura and Subaru seem to think that front bias is better...."
Engine compression braking on the front can be extremely hazardous on adverse, low traction, roadbed conditions. Your Anti-lock brake system is designed to prevent lockup at the front so that you can maintain directional control of the vehicle. Engine compression braking alone can result in enough braking at the front to threaten loss of directional control let alone the fact that it can interfere with the anti-lock system's ability to keep the front wheels rolling during actual braking on a slippery roadbed surface.
Many FWD and front biased AWD owners are currently complaining because lots of newer modern day transaxles are automatically upshifting as you coast down below ~10 MPH to reduce the potential for loss of control from engine compression braking should the roadbed be slippery. Apparently these new transaxles only shift down into first once the vehicle has come to a complete stop.
That's obviously creating a bit of a problem, safety concerns, when conditions change and the driver wishes to accelerate just after the transaxle has started the upshifting sequence. Up to two seconds to complete the pending upshift and then command and complete the required downshift all the while DBW is being used to hold the engine at "bay".
No matter how heavy your foot is you're not going to get 100% of the vehicle's weight on the rear wheels. (Unless we're talking dragsters or motorcycles.) So, there's no real reason to have 100% of the torque sent aft. That would waste available traction.
So, the real question is how much weight can shift?
The folks at Nissan expected a 2% shift when they developed the FM platform. I'm sure that other vehicles will differ and conditions will also differ. But Nissan's example suggests to me we're not dealing with weight shifts of 30-40%. I'd guess no more than 10%.
"Engine compression braking on the front can be extremely hazardous on adverse, low traction, roadbed conditions."
You've got a point there. But I suspect they designed their systems with dry-road performance in mind. As I wrote above, I've never been completely convinced that power-bias during braking (actually prior to braking) would make any kind of difference.
Isn't that what they did? Here's the last-generation Legacy vs. the current-generation XC70:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyLgYskj-oc
For most drivers, engine braking on the rear is more hazardous in low traction conditions than engine braking on the front. If the engine is braking the rear wheels, and they are spinning slower than the fronts, the car will tend to oversteer. Oversteer is much more difficult to control than understeer.
On cars with a stability control system, this is probably a moot point, as the ESC should prevent any engine braking from becoming hazardous no matter which wheels are affected by it.
Nothing against Volvo, btw.
My point is sort of that we are entering an era where AWD will likely be an across the board option. When I ask folks "why SUV?" they usually answer AWD first and then carrying capcity.
And, of course, we all know that there has been both an upsizing and a downsizing of SUV's. BMW, Porsche, Lexus, Jaguar even started adding AWD versions (my first BMW was a 325ix, circa 1988.) Now more and more models are offered with AWD.
Watching this unfold will be quite entertaining and enlightening.
I would think we will see cars striving to be both better balanced and AWD with RWD bias -- if for no other reason than to help them sell more cars. The performance effect just goes along for the ride.
"so, there's no reason to have 100% of the torque sent aft..."
Not unless you're accelerating into a hard/tight turn wherein the front tires' contact patch is best reserved for lateral control.
When a vehicle overstears as a result of the rear wheels having lost (partial, all) traction with the roadbed the front tires' ENTIRE contact patches are available for corrective action.
When a vehicle understears due to the front tires' having lost (partial, all) traction the only surefire recovery I am aware of is a slight application of the e-brake. With FWD or front biased AWD getting off the gas will only exacerbate the problem unless the driver is really good at finding the throttle "sweet spot" wherein the engine is providing neither leading nor lagging torque.
And how would you suggest that ESC (VSC, PSM, etc.) prevent engine braking from becoming hazardous, raise the engine RPM to the "sweet spot", or maybe kick the tranny into neutral?
The latter solution is exactly what the AAA is currently recommending for what owners of FWD vehicles do in these circumstances. Quickly shift the tranny into neutral to prevent loss of control due to engine braking. This previous tactic would also prevent engine compression braking from interfering with ABS functionality.
Do you mean since the RDX is FWD biased why isn't it subject to understearing...?
That's exactly why the RDX is dynamically rear biased, temperarily overdriving the otside rear wheel, when turning, to compensate for the otherwise potential for understearing. When the variable overdrive mechanism is included with SH-AWD the level of overdrive can be proportioned as a function of steepness of the turn.
Yes, that's what I meant. And thank you for your explanation.
That 80% figure is typically applied because most vehicles in our market are something like 60% nose-heavy before you even add the weight shift. And, unless we're talking about track cars, most braking systems will apply far more decceleration force than the engine can provide in terms of acceleration force.
"so, there's no reason to have 100% of the torque sent aft..." - Varmint
Not unless you're accelerating into a hard/tight turn wherein the front tires' contact patch is best reserved for lateral control. - wwest
This line of discussion was started when you commented on my remarks about straight line acceleration. My follow-up remarks held to that line. Obviously cornering is a different scenario, requiring different dynamics and I wrote as much in my original post on the topic.
I suspect he means that stability control can treat the symptoms (straighten the car out), not cure the disease at its source.
With oversteer, you generally have a split second to correct the problem before the car swaps ends and you no longer have any control over it. With understeer, it's more likely that you have a few seconds to correct the problem before you hit anything due to understeering.
If understearing is the case then the ESC, VSC, PSM, etc, will likely apply braking at the rear to slow the vehicle so as to regain some of the lost traction at the front. The VSC system description for my 2001 AWD RX300 indicates that it will apply braking to both rear wheels in this instance. I have no doubt that some systems will selectively brake only one rear wheel depending on the driver "assist" direction required.
If overstearing, most systems will brake the outside front wheel, or in the case of brakes already having being applied "unbrake" the inside wheel, to help prevent the rear from swinging out in the direction outside the desired turn radius. Note that this can only be done momentarily, briefly, should the vehicle "pendulum" continue to swing beyond the centerline of the vehicle's "moment".
I think it's pretty clear that in the case of engine compression braking at the front the more likely scenario is overstearing. In that case the stability system clearly CANNOT unbrake the inside front wheel (absent raising the engine RPM) and additional braking on the outside wheel would only serve to exacerbate the condition.
The obvious solution is for the stability system to provide additional braking at the rear to "balance" the overall braking dynamics. The exact reason drag chains are often required on the rearmost axle for tractor-trailer rigs here in WA when our mountain passes are in wintertime conditions.
The problem with that is that once the stability system activates the rear has already broken traction and has begun to swing around and therefore braking the rear wheel would likely, again, only exacerbate the condition.
With drag chains most truckers prevent this by going to the brakes on those wheels with drag chains first, initially, when they need to apply braking in wintertime conditions.
So the only real answer is the one recommended by the AAA, quickly shift the tranny into neutral unless you have clutch.
Come to think about it the stability control system could be programmed to do that, shift the tranny in neutral, as an automatic response to the circumstance.
In the meantime it appears that Toyota/Lexus is doing everything they can, using ASL, within the firmware controlling their FWD and front biased AWD transaxles to prevent incidents of loss of direction control due to engine compression braking.
I would have guessed understeer for engine braking via the front wheels--at least that's what I've experienced. I would think it would be like having a car without ABS and locking the front wheels up--you can't steer, but the car tends to keep going in a straight line.
But no, that's why rear ABS become available long before full function ABS. Note that with over-stearing your rear wheels always "point" in the direction you wish the vehicle to travel, so if they can be kept rolling....
That's also one of the more serious problems with snow chains on only the front of a FWD vehicle, and level of braking will be "servere" as a result of the inordinate level of traction at the front vs the rear, oftentimes resulting in the relatively "unbraked" rear desiring to lead the way forward.
Even your owners manual will advise you that it is extemely undesireable to have higher traction on the front versus the rear, often resulting in loss of directional control.
That's why you are always advised to install newer, higher traction, tires on the rear, not the front. It's also the reason no tire shop will install studs on only the front tires and not the rear also.
How do you reconcile the GM Versa Trac technology when compared to the SH-AWD and or the VTM-4?
Is there a cross compare type article available somewhere?
SH-AWD is a permanent version of VTM-4 with a few more features. All wheels are powered at all times. So, the vehicle is never FWD (or RWD) only at any time. Like VTM-4, torque transfer between front and rear axles is continuously variable. In addition to that, SH-AWD also incorporates side-to-side torque variance on rear axle depending on situation (cornering). And it is also equipped with an "acceleration device" (as in RL, which can "speed up" the outer wheel during cornering under power by as much as 5% compared to the inside wheel).
GM's Versatrek (I think it is spelled that way) is similar to Honda's Real Time AWD. It is FWD until a slip is detected when the rear wheels are engaged. So, it is a 100% reactive system.
This sounds like a poor design... If the wheels slip, my instincts will cause me to let off the gas anyway, which would put it back into FWD-only mode, since the slipping would cease at that point.
This sounds like something you would have to pore through all of the manufacturers' advertising materials to figure out for each vehicle.
Now it makes more sense to me.
I imagine differential transfer to the front L and or R wheels is already incorporated in all three systems yes no?
Most of the AWD systems used in the cars and SUV's we buy for personal use are reactive systems. Many of them are put on vehicles that were FWD and indeed remain "mostly" FWD until wheel slippage is detected.
These types of systems react very quickly. They react so quickly that the advertising copy is not misrepresenting the situation when the characteristics are said to be "instantaneous."
They are, however, reactive. They are not realtime.
Systems that electronically redirect power (perhaps by applying the brake to a spinning wheel, for instance) are very good, are very fast and are not technically instantaneous. They can't be -- they have to wait for slippage before acting.
Systems that are comprised of gears (e.g., worm gears) "bind" in real time, no wheel slippage is required for their effects (and benefits) to manifest themselves.
In a practical sense is a Haldex system, such as is employed on some Volvo cars, "inferior" or dangerous? The answers are "probably not" and "no." The practical answers are "no" and "no."
Yet, Torque Sensing (TorSen) equipped vehicles -- especially the latest design where the "at rest" torque split has been shifted from 50:50 to 40:60 -- do have some important advantages. They ACT in realtime, they do not react after a wheel has slipped. The argument goes something like this: no matter how rapidly the reaction is, it is still a reaction. Control has to be lost, even if for a nano second, for a non realtime system to "kick in."
Some further argue that the FWD biased reactive AWD systems still "feel" mostly like their FWD only cousins more than true AWD vehicles or RWD (biased) vehicles.
RWD or rear-biased AWD is "the holy grail" don't you know?
For me, I say give me better f/r weight distribution and a 50:50 power split with realtime AWD, a powerful engine and a great 6 or 7 speed transmission (preferably a DSG) and I have found automotive nirvana.
Today, the quest to be able to claim RWD biased AWD seems to have overshadowed f/r weight distribution and realtime AWD's advantages.
I believe the reasons for this are entirely cost based. TorSen differentials are expensive. Making a perfectly fine (but nose heavy) chassis better balanced, likewise, is expensive.
The FWD biased AWD (95 5 in the case of some Haldex equipped vehicles) put in "nose heavy" 60 / 40 f/r weight biased vehicles are quite good from a practical and cost standpoint.
They are not great, however.
Maybe they don't need to be.
The disadvantages to my nirvana, as noted above, CO$T! Big time CO$T and some porkiness. TorSen differentials add a bunch of weight (this has improved somewhat, but such means to an end still weigh more and cost more than many or most of the reactive systems.)
Of the two cars under consideration in this thread, the BMW X3's X-drive (RWD biased and reactive, not realtime) coupled with the BMW's "nearly ideal" weight distribution make this a completely lop-sided contest. The RDX doesn't stand a chance.
Yet, I have driven both vehicles extensively now and the main difference I can see is the stack of 100 $100 dollar bills that the RDX has in its glove box when the two cars are comparably equipped.
Were the RDX to offer both a 6 speed manual and a 6 speed automatic and retain the pricing scheme, the X3, then, doesn't stand a chance.
Are you willing to pay the extra $10K for the X3? It is or at least it can be demonstrated to be "superior" -- technically, logically, mechanically, engineering-wise, empirically, etc. (styling and "option content" is a separate issue, however.)
My wife and I will probably be "serial" X3 owners -- but damn, if that $10K difference doesn't give a person a good reason to pause and ponder (your navel.)
Good is the enemy of great, methinks.
The RDX is good, damn good. The X3 is better -- but I am hard pressed to find it $10,000 better.
We are walking contradictions. Often wrong, but never uncertain. :surprise:
Really.
If I have a "gear" based system and both tires driven by opposite ends of the "gear" based system have equal traction and turn at equal speeds what action does the "gear" based system take? (answer..NONE) On the other hand if one of those tires has less traction and that creates a differential rotational rate between the two then the resulting "gear" windup will bias torque to the non-slipping wheel.
If that isn't reactive then you need to define the terms better.
Wow...Double that, WOW..!
I have NEVER seen a more direct admission of the hazards of engine braking on a FWD or front biased AWD in my life, never really expected too, from FORD yet. Good-o.
You should note that the FEH/MMH regenerative braking is significantly reduced ONLY at, near, or below freezing.
Regenerative braking is instantly reduced to zero if ABS needs to release the brakes to prevent lockup. But what about the ICE itself, does it raise the ICE RPM simultaneously to prevent actual engine braking?
Now I am very sure, certain, sure, I never want to drive a FWD or front torque biased AWD in wintertime conditions.
"An updated xDrive system provides full-time all-wheel-drive with a 60/40 front/rear split."
http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/08/08/2007-bmw-x5-revealed/
If that's not a typo, then I feel for poor Audi. If Mark is correct and they redesigned their AWD system to match the rear-bias of BMW, they must be kicking themselves.
The Haldex equipped quattros: TT and A3, e.g., are FWD biased and until the engineers and accountants figure out how to put out an otherwise neutral or rear biased alternative, I would suspect they will remain that way.
Perhaps there are some very subtle nuances in the definition of realtime that somehow I overlooked or perhaps they escaped me then and now.
Here is an additional explanation:
The mechanical nature of the TorSen-based AWD system (like most quattro cars, but hardly limited to just the Audi brand) helps prevent wheel slippage from occurring by diverting power to the axle that has more grip at the exact moment it is needed, not after a triggering event (i.e., wheel slippage.)
By comparison, viscous coupling and electronically controlled AWD systems that are widely used in many all-wheel drive systems are reactive since they only redirect power after wheel slippage has occurred.
The realtime, TorSen in this instance, advantage is felt under hard acceleration during turning as the power transfer between axles is not sudden, virtually eliminating the chance of spinning.
The TorSen-based AWD system offers another performance advantage that is the opposite function of distributing power to the wheels, i.e., engine-braking. When engine-braking is used to decelerate, the associated loads on both axles are stabilized by the TorSen system just as engine power is diverted -- mechanically. The effect is to spread the engine-braking load among the four wheels and tires.
The TorSen AWD vehicle is able to execute a highly stable high speed turn under such conditions (slowing down) with low risk of spinning due to loss of grip on either end.
Moreover, such a configuration substantially reduces so called torque steer. This is because of the design: equal length drive shafts on the front axle.
All is not automotive nirvana, however, with this system. Audi, perhaps the most prominent (but NOT the only) advocate of this system, uses a longitudnial engine placement. With such placement of the engine/transmission assembly, thus far (changes are a commin' with the B8 generation of the A4, however), the front axle is placed behind the engine. The common criticism of Audi vehicles, of course is that they are nose heavy (ya think?) In other words, the ideal 50/50 weight distribution cherished by many driving enthusiasts has, heretofore, not been possible.
Changes are coming -- and I am suggesting that Acura will need to follow suit, eventually, at least.
Recently the TorSen differential has been adapted to a 40/60 f/r at rest torque split (i.e., when the coefficient of friction is "equal on both front and rear axles"), thus providing more RWD-like driving and handling characteristics.
This 40/60 f/r TorSen system was first introduced in the 2006-model RS4 and shortly thereafter in the Q7 SUV and it is or soon will be implemented across the entire TorSen line. The power split between left and right wheels has progressed in the TorSen system through various combinations of differentials.
A torque sensing mechanical system -- it weighs a lot, it costs a lot: disadvantages.
A torque sensing mechanical system -- it has become, as of now, a rear wheel drive biased realtime AWD system that few companies employ, but it certainly seems to be, if not THE absolute best way to go, closer than most in use today.
Practically speaking, it may not actually make THAT much difference. For, as I noted earlier, good is the enemy of great.
These AWD systems, overall, are all good, that is. :surprise:
Action: "..diverting power..."
"...at the exact moment it is needed..."
When landing an airplane I do my absolute utmost to pull back on the "stick" at the exact moment needed for a "soft" landing. But I have numerous senses that I use to know when the exact moment arrives.
So, can you please explain to me just how the "gear" type torque apportioning device knows just when the exact moment has arrived to "divert" power.
"...slippage..."
"...none is possible in the TorSen...."
Also keep in mind that just as a standard open differential allows for "slippage" when turning, your "gear" type torque apportioning device MUST, at least to some degree, make the same allowance.
It's just the "what if" scenario that gives me a giggle.
Perhaps this is what you are looking for to quench you thirst for information:
TorSen Tech Talk
With the new engine and 6AT, they clocked 0-60 in 7.1 seconds. Certainly more competitive with the RDX than the earlier engines. Overall, his opinion was something like, "More mature driving dynamics that the original," or something like that.
While we were there, our salesperson threw us the keys to a new X3 3.0si -- all options, save nav and a 6 speed AUTO.
We know the routine: go up (and later down) BMW Hill as we call it, go onto I71 and accelerate to a high 2 digit speed or maybe a low 3 digit speed if traffic is light.
We got OUT of a perfectly fine 225HP X3 and IN to an also perfectly fine 260HP X3.
The suspension must be recalibrated for less harshness, similar fimrness, similar sticky-ness and the chassis or the insulation or something has been calibrated to further mute the road, engine and wind noise (which was already pretty low in the 2005.)
The car had 65 miles on it.
It was "wicked quick." Exceeding expectations quick -- and remember we drove in a 6 speed MANUAL X3 with the sport set up, so we had high expectations.
The transmission in first and second gear held well into the power curve of the engine. We tried it in both D and S modes -- hell S mode held the gears on acceleration much longer and downshifted crisply "just about the point" where one more second would have been too long to wait.
This car, like ours, had the Servotronic steering ($250) -- and the beefier "M" steering wheel, yep, slightly thicker and meatier than our 2005 Sport Steering Wheel.
Even at 65 miles on the OD this was one horse that was limber, ready to romp. At full cry, the engine revved to well above 6,000 RPM. At 5000 miles I can only imagine the strong power pull would become a plus size.
The chassis, suspension, engine and transmission are now all on the same team, and all receiving their instructions from the same coach -- simultaneously.
The X3, already car like, is now a car that just happens to have some utility and some off road talent (as witnesses, my wife and me, recent graduates of the two-day BMW X driving school in SC.)
Now, to the interior and a little bit, the exterior.
This was, at $47K minus sat nav, but otherwise, it seemed to have had all the option boxes checked. Who orders such a thing? Were you to deck one of these guys out to $47K would you NOT want navigation? I mean, it is not like you ordered a strippie and put ONLY nav on it -- and, in a odd way, even that seems more like a car that would be easier to sell than a fully loaded one without nav.
Of cours, no one at the dealer responsible for such decisions consulted with me.
Anyway, the new dash, the new materials are now on par with the other BMW's on the show room floor.
Softer plastics, more wood -- every where you look or touch is smoother, more upscale looking, more befitting a nearly $50K BMW.
BMW may not have all the electronic gizmos the RDX has, for instance, but its new underwear and move from the GAP to Ralph Lauren make it competitive in the looks department. And, with respect to the electronics, the only thing missing, oddly, is voice command of the telephone, sound system and navi controls (were the vehicle so equipped, that is.)
Otherwise, the BMW does everything the way you want it once the light turns green.
This new engine, tranmission and new set of clothes goes a long long way to answering the question "where's the additional $10,000?" (which is the difference between the RDX and the X3 similarly equipped.)
Now, if they put the engine from the new 335 coupe/sedan in this guy, well, "sign me up!"
This evolution, er, transformation, is one of the most significant changes I have ever had the pleasure to see (and feel) happen.
You must test drive one of these if an SUV-lite vehicle is anywhere on your radar screen. Somehow, too, this car actually has better rear seat seating than the 3 series (and, btw, the X3 now has heated REAR seats available, too.)
Were out of the market for about 12 or 13 months, but this -- today -- would be a no brainer for my wife and it actually would be a consideration for me, if you asked me the question NOW. We'll see what happens in 12 months.
The cool thing is there is no reason the "35" turbo engine cannot be made for the new X3.
:surprise:
What's not subjective is the price. I paid $33k for a base RDX. Amazing car. A bargain in my view. The X3? A tad more cargo room, but otherwise similar in interior space. Worth an extra $5-$8K? It's your dough. I have two Acura cars and a Honda motorcycle in my garage. Very happy. This from a guy who drove nothing but European cars (BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, Saab, Volvo) for the better part of 20 years.
So spend the extra money. You'll get a BMW, but you won't get Honda reliability.
Why would I ever be on a racetrack? I race bicycles not cars. Though racing cars might be a bit safer : ).
BMW doesn't have to 'consider being afraid' of cars like the RDX. They're BMW already. They sell half their cars on the sheer mojo of the little badge on the hood. Plus they're lovely cars - overpriced or not. And they're not overpriced if car weenies will pay for them.
I personally think the X3 isn't nearly as nice as the RDX - and costs more. But that's quite subjective. And if your X3 makes you happy that's sort of all that matters.
I wasn't trying to imply anything negative about the RDX. It's a nice rig. I don't have one, nor an X3, yet, although I admit I do have a fondness for anything BMW. I currently drive a TL.
Happy motoring with the RDX!
Same thing for cars over $30K for the most part, BMW's and Acuras included.