well, if it sold as Performance SUV, then it matters that it can be spanked by 10k cheaper Rav4, doesnt it?
You would have to invest serious money to take out that V6 and weight advantage that Rav4 has. But then you will tell me it doesnt matter since people are buying RDX for luxury :-).

Problem is not in 4cly Turbo. Problem is that it is sold in heavy SUV (yes, 4000 lbs is HEAVY), that will cost in middle 30's.

I HAVE 2 4cly turbo's - one in my MR-S and one completly different in my new rav4. I know how 4cly turbo engines drive. And for the same price, I would take V6 any time. Heck, I would take V6 and pay 3k-4k extra for it.

 

I am still curious about how spwolf knows so much about the RDX's performance or lack thereof while there's little spec info and almost no test drive report so far.

I will take an 4 cylinder A4 2.0T over the 6 cylinder 3.2 anyday.

 

I don't think RDX will be 10k more than v6 Rav4. You should go check toyota website on Rav4, it's in the 30k's.

 

30k for completly done Rav4 Limited... RDX will not be fully optioned car from starts. For 30k, Rav4 has 4x4, 17" wheels, privacy glass, all leather interior, power seat and lumbar, JBL sounds system w/ 9 speakers, 6 cd's in dash, mp3, line in, tilt/telescopics steering wheel, power seat and lumbar, optitron intsrumentation, dual digital air, steering wheel mounted audio controls, 8 airbags and power moonroof. Or Sports model with 18" wheels, with everything mentioned above sans leather for 28k total.

And an V6 engine.

As to the performance - I already told you, you have the weight - too heavy at 4000lbs. And we have MPG - 4-5 mpg less than V6 in Rav4. Pigs dont fly.

p.s. Specs for CX-7 have been released - about the same kind of car as RDX, turbo 4cly, about the same equipment packages, sizes, etc. Only complaint Edmunds had about it - engine not suited to SUV and feeling too slow.

 

Like I said, the Audi A4T can be spanked by the V6 Audi A4, but people buy the weaker engine I4 turbo engine because of the performance potential. Nobody buys the V6 Audi A4 if they are into peformance.

Correct. The RDX may attract two differenent types of buyers. One buyer is those that like small luxury SUVs like the X3. The X3 sells well and is a piece of junk too me compared to the 4.8L X5, but a lot of people like those little cute luxury SUVs. Remember, we are talking about Americn buyers here not Europeans. The other buyer is the one that has been waiting for a factory turbocharged Honda motor for a long time. Now, they don't need to bother spending $8K on a rebuilt decked motor and turbo kit as they already have it from the factory. A simple BPU and they will be making well into the 300+ HP range for cheap. That is what tuners do. The aftermarket will go crazy over a foctory Honda turbo motor.

You are right. That could be a problem. But let's wait and see what the actual performance really is. The RX330 used to weigh in at close to 4000 lbs, and only put out 230 HP (Pre SAE NET specs) and less torque than then this I4 turbo, and most didn't think it was underpowered at all. Although I did want more power myself so the I4 in stock form probably wouldn't be enough for me. The good thing is I could make easy HP out of it where I'm having a hard time finding any engine performance upgrades for the V6 Lexus motor. Just a note, I'm not really interested in buying the RDX myeslf, I'm just judging the car with the information we have.

So even if the turbo version is a potential 12 second car with simple cheap upgrades you'd still pay the extra money for a 14 second V6?

You don't keep them stock though right:? That is the whole point. Buy the turbo for the cheap easy upgrades. I've been in the Mach 2 Turbo T, Celica All Trac, and various turbocharged Civics. All I know they are fast as heck, pull hard, throw you back into your seat, and has more of that "Pin you into your seat" torque than most V8 cas I've driven. What is wrong with the drivability of an I4 turbo car? Granted, all those were modified, but again, that is my point. Who keeps them stock when you are into performance? You have two mindset of potential buyers. Those that just want the luxury and buy cars like the IS250, X3, BMW 323/325, Mercedes C230, GS300 and such. Then you have those that like performance and have been waiting for a turbocharged car from Honda forever. You know, none of my friends with tucocharged Audis seem to complain that there car only has a 4 cylinder when they can spank my V6 NA NSX. Nothing wrong with tubocharged cars as long as it makes the power. I really don't think the wheels care how it is being spun, just as long as it gets done.

You do remember that Honda almost had to give in and used the 3.5L J35 engine in the RDX right? That engine would have been nearly the same as the one in the MDX. Nobody would have been complaining about the use of that engine, but Honda wanted to make the RDX an I4 turbo for specific reasons. Honda believed using the J35 V6 was a downgrade, so I figure the performance of the I4 turbo has to at least be equal or better than if they went the cheap and easy way and used the J35 V6. Why would they go though all the trouble to build the turbo motor in house if that were not the case?

One thing I will agree though. If the performance specs turns out to be anything naer 8 seconds to 60 I'd be disapointed even with the aftermarket potential. It needs to be no slower than 7.5 seconds to 60 in stock form. But that is just me. 7.5- 60 for me is the magic adequate number. So in a way I'm kind of agreeing with you if the RDX does turn out to be slow. I'd still like to see the real performance specs though sinve I can't seem to find any hint about it anywhere.

 

Finally I was able to find some more offical specs. It looks like the RDX will probaly be between a 7.5-8 second 0-60 car. So you are right spwolf it will be significanty slower than a V6 RAV4. That does have me a little worried about sales comparisons between the two cars, but not too worried since even at that speced range it is faster than the 6 cylinder X3, and pretty much all the competition exept for the V6 RAV4 which should clearly be faster in stock form. That is a plus for the Toyota. Other than that though it still appears the I4 turbo is matching or beating the other competitions V6 omdels. That just shows how good the new V6 in DI and non DI the 3.5L Toyota engine is. I've always said i was a fan of that engine. I still stand my ground and say the I4 Turbo seems to be doing a more than adequate and quite good job infact given that the MAzda CX7 performs better than the 3.5V6 Murano.

 

thats the whole thing. Problem is NOT 4cly turbo, it is that it is in 4,000 lbs SUV. Which makes it completly different ball game. And the fact that car will cost 35k, it means that it will get different kind of buyers than RSX

So for luxury buyers, they will be comparing it with X3 (which barely gets sales) and base RX probably. For typical luxury buyer, 4cly engine is definetly an detterent, especially if there are no visible gains (like mpg for example).

And for performance buyers - most of them will not be happy about 33-35k price to start with. Which definetly rules out students and typical RSX, tC, WRX buyers. Engine does have low compression, however keep in mind that it also has to have pretty nice turbo to get to that factory hp. With that compression, how much can 2.3 w/o turbo produce? 140hp maybe? So turbo isnt boosted low thats for sure. And then you have 4,000 lbs weight which really is too heavy.

Then again, who know how many sales is Acura thinking about? Now, imagine this thing with Saturn Vue's Honda V6, it gets better mpg than RDX and is ULEV-II rated (CX-7 is ULEV).........


Now, if it ends up costing 28k, then I am dead wrong and ACURA is doing it right. A lot of my thoughts come from the discussed price of 33k-35k for "base"

 

That I will agree. I did not know the full weight of the RDX until I reserched it now, but at 4000 lbs I'm very disapointed. That is no lighter than the MDX. I just don't uderstand why they made the car that heavy. Now, it turned this SUV into an average on par SUV being that it still performs similar or better against the competition (Excluding V6 RAV4 ), but if they had keept the weight down to 3600 lbs it would have been in low 7 or high 6 second range. That would have been impressive. Now it appears mearly adequate.

 

Actually I think you win on that one. Everyhwere I've head including my so called Aucura sources said it will be mid $30K range. It is not that bad though since it will come loaded with XM radio, real time traffic navigation, SH-AWD. I'm not sure if it will go the RL route and include navigation, or go the TL route and leave navigation as an option. If NAV is an option it should be a tad less.

 

nav and few other goodies are part of the optional package. I guess we will see about the price. It will probably determine how well it sells.

And, if Lexus comes out later on with baby RX, I can almost guarantee you that everyone will think "what were they thinking" about RDX powertrain.

More I look at it, I see certain high tech goodies missing from US Rav4. For example, I see nothing about IADS, which is basically something like VDIM, featured in Rav. It controlls torque split, vsc AND power steering. It will do minor adjustments for you (like VDIM? I see it mentioned in LS press release), and it will also suggest correct steering manuvers by making it harder/easier to steer wrong/correctly in the serious loss of grip occurs.

Maybe they are setting the stage for slightly smaller baby RX and slightly bigger RX?

 

I guess at around 30k RDX only comes w/ 4 wheels and a frame . oh yea, and all 4 doors. Have you see TSX or TL or RL only options are Navi and 18" wheels? This RDX is going to be pretty much the same as other acura sedans with a lot standard features.

 

[QUOTE=spwolf]Problem is NOT 4cly turbo, it is that it is in 4,000 lbs SUV. [ /QUOTE]

So in another word, the RDX lacks power and torque for the weight it carries on its back, not because of the turbo 4 under the hood.... why didn't you say that sooner so that I didn't have to write anything? IF (that's a big IF) with some simple mods and it was up to ~ 280hp/300tq, would that be enough win your vote?

Acura base price usually comes loaded with pretty much everything and the navigation is the only option except for the RL which as a few more other options.

it's a good price if base is $33K and $35 w/Nav. If it cost alot more than $35K, then I think it's too much.. Lets wait and see.

 

[QUOTE=newr]
apparantly not because 4 cyl is so unluxurious. Lexus did it right with their V6 IS250 with a whoopin' 185hp. Now that's luxury

[/sarcasm]

 

[QUOTE=newr] yeah, but again, application of the engine is all that matters. - its like having 2zz engine in IS. It is great in Elise, fine in Celica, ok in Corolla and bad in IS.

Problem with quick ecu change to 280whp would still not make it faster because it has 4,000 lbs.

 

except that it will be 33k-34k according to all reports. About the same equipment, but slower, less mpg and worse emissions possibly, for 4k more, at least. You will probably say why not pay extra 3k-4k for Acura, even if it is slower and has 4cly... Well, then you can pay another 4k and get nicely equipped RX, which is still faster, still gets more mpg, and is far more luxurious. :-).

All they had to do is put Honda V6 in it... but nooooo, we are honda, we are special.