Why did Honda kill its best performance engine?

When the 2013 Acura RDX launches this spring, Honda will quietly close down a spur line of its Anna, OH, plant. Since 2006, it had been building the 2.3-liter four-cylinder engine used in the first-generation RDX there. These engines were unique, the company's first to be fitted with a turbocharger from the factory. But the redesigned 2013 RDX will be available only with a V6, and with no other application for the turbo four, Honda's most impressive performance engine will die an ignoble death.

The 2.3-liter turbo was a variation of the 2.4-liter four used in the Honda Accord and the Acura TSX. Rated at 240 horsepower, it was the 260 lb-ft of torque that made things special. Honda's traditional approach to engine design had favored high-revving, small displacement engines that made generous power thanks to variable valve timing technologies – but at the expense of torque output. So when Honda announced that it would be producing a turbocharged engine for the first time, it seemed to herald the next wave of Honda performance. Finally, some torque to match the howling VTEC power. But sadly, it was the performance profile of the turbo four that may have doomed it to being merely a footnote in Honda's illustrious history.

The RDX, one of the first compact luxury crossovers, was envisioned as a sporty model that would attract the sorts of drivers that might wish they owned a Porsche, but wouldn't find a true sports car practical. Alas, those buyers never materialized – the RDX sold just over 15,000 units in 2011.

"The buyers of two-row crossovers are not quite what they appeared to be," said Honda spokesman Chris Naughton.

Naughton told us that the knife-edged nature of the turbocharged engine, with its narrower powerband compared to the smooth V6, wasn't embraced by crossover buyers. The other factor that likely kept the RDX from being parked in more driveways was its fuel economy – only 19 miles per gallon combined – and a penchant for premium fuel. The RDX was initially offered with a five-speed automatic with paddle-shifters that Acura called "Sequential SportShift," as well as Acura's "Super Handling" all-wheel-drive system. The redesigned model has a six-speed automatic and a simpler, lighter-weight all-wheel-drive system like the one found on the Honda CR-V.

With the 2.3-liter turbo going out of production, hopes that the power-dense four-cylinder might find its way into other Honda products has also been dashed. Honda uses a similar 2.4-liter four, though naturally aspirated, in other models, including the forthcoming Acura ILX. We imagine the turbo four might have served as a decent base for building a performance version of the Accord or a lighter but still powerful TSX. Even a turbo-four-powered CR-V is something we could embrace, giving some character to that ubiquitous people mover.

Applications in even smaller Honda vehicles – yes, we're stupidly imagining Civics and Fits with grapefruit shooter exhausts – might be a stretch, but we wonder if Honda's first attempt at turbocharging ending this way won't have bad implications for the future? Just as seemingly every manufacturer on earth is offering turbocharged engines, even in entry-level cars like the Chevrolet Sonic, Honda has prematurely abandoned them. Then again, as Honda's Naughton said, "We now have that expertise."

Here's hoping Honda uses it, once again.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/02/09/w...rmance-engine/

 

I called this from the start, more fail. The most curious decision made it a top mount intercooler which meant no fitting in anything else. from a company that is Honda plus and shares everything. The RDX was never very fast and then it got poor MPG, the worst of both worlds on top of other issues (ugly, small, no power liftgate, part of a struggling brand, etc). In comparison the competition's turbos are much better giving more power and more performance most times. It should have been a sign that **** was ****ed up there when the SUV gains a turbo and SH-AWD before the cars do/did. It was really odd for a company that shares everything to make a turbo engine they could not share? The designer of the engine was a woman and it almost feels like sabotage.Was it a sign of bad things there b/c Honda usually hits home runs with powerplants? Between this odd turbo and their hybrids that are not really hybrids then with them using engines older than Michael Douglas I'm really confused how an "engineering company" doesn't really engineer engines.

When Acura debuted the FWD model, sales helped the RDX. Now the vehicle drops SH-AWD and gains the same V-6 as everything else and becomes just another SUV in hopes sales improve.

The 2.4 from my understanding is also a step back from previous 4-cylindrs without some of their trick timing/whatever and with a lower RPM for more torque which it still lacks. Lets hope "EarthDreams", the new engines are substantially better.

 

The engine is great...except they put it in the wrong vehicle. The engine would do much better in a Civic Si.

Mike, the K24 is worlds better than the F23 it replaced. It's just an all-around better engine, but it's long in the tooth just like its J-series brother.

 

Unfortunately, that K24 they put in that ILX is GARBAGE

It's so bad that a BMW 3 series with a six-cylinder engine has more power and even better fuel economy than the ILX 2.4.

In fact, over at Temple of VTEC (vtec.net), even some Honda/Acura owners are dumbfounded that it gets worse FC than a TSX 2.4. They were suspecting that poor gear ratios could be a culprit.

Anyways: What's the opinion regarding the RDX engine and what would you prefer:
K23A1 2.3 liter I-VTEC Turbo or the 3.7 liter V6 in the new RDX?

A turbo 4 or a natural aspirated 6 cylinder?

 

I brought this topic up a few weeks ago when the new RDX first appeared. While everyone is going to smaller turbo engines, Acura does the opposite and throws in a big V6. Isn't it easier squeezing out better mpg and hp numbers from a turbo four than from a big V6? Not to mention the four's usually weigh less right?. BMW, Audi, Mercedes, Hyundai, Ford, and many others have already figured out how to make this happen. Honda/Acura is on a consistant downward spiral.

 

well, their V6 spent less fuel and is faster than their turbo engine.... so It is good decision for them :-)

 

Seriously? I was pretty upset when they got rid of the S2K, now they stopped producing their best motor too?! =/

I was hoping they would develop turbo 4 cylinder turbo applications for cars like the Civic Si in the future...but maybe not!

 

I didn't buy a RDX because of that engine.
Premium fuel and lousy MPGs (17/22) in the '11 model.
If it had the V6 in '11,I'd probably have one in the driveway.

 

If only they added direct injection for more power and greater FE.

 

We bought our dad a 2008. I THINK it is a nice engine but lousy fuel economy. He can hardly get 17 mpg in town, prob. 15 mpg or so. It got punches, feel nice at low speed. Interior quality is crappy though and I can swallow the exterior neither.

Dad wanted it because it is a Honda and Turbo. He owned 4 Preludes before that so that explains it. if that engine is 30% more fuel efficient then they may sell it more.

 

I have taken an RDX loaner car ( for wife's old Acura TL) out at night while she was asleep just to beat the **** of it. I was blown away about the power it had once the turbo started to produce some boost and the AWD made it feel like half soccer mom cruiser and half EVO. The grip was amazing. Even when I would try to get the thing to slide it would break away neutrally with almost a little all wheel drift. I think they should have put this engine in a lot of Hondas vehicles

 

"Fast", though, in this case, Mike, may be a relative term. Compared to the wimpy low-RPM torque of most N/A Honda fours (especially the VTEC fours), the RDX's turbo made it seem like a rocket in comparison. The RDX was arguably the only Honda/Acura four I've driven that didn't require excessive RPMs to get max-power.

I have to agree. This would probably have been the perfect Si engine........if the Si's clutch and manual-transmission could handle the torque. Si drivers often tend to be aggressive, and put a lot of stress on their drivetrains.

 

Because Subaru



Because Mazda



Because racecar hah jk

 

I have a '10 RDX that is a great car. The mileage is crappy, but the car is fun to drive. It is finicky when it wants to be "fast", but when it wakes up, its nice and surprises other drivers. Fast is also comical when you are talking about the cute-utes.

Last 3 cute SUV's - 05 RX330, 08 x3 3.0 (sport model), and '10 RDX. The x3 was most fun to drive, rx was most comfortable, but so far the rdx was been the best car overall to me.

 

Let's see, a 4 cylinder in a compact SUV that gets roughly the same mileage as the V8 in a typical full-size SUV.....nope, can't think of any reason they'd discontinue it....