stlgrym3

iTrader: (4)

we had our sight on the new '13 RDX ever since i saw the car for the first time on Autoblog.com. but i just realized it uses the same VCM equipped i-VTEC engine Pilot and Odyssey uses, rather than the true VTEC unmolested 3.5L V6 Acura TL uses. what a dissapointment, but i wasn't surprised a bit, they have to save the good stuff for the MDX. oh by the way, the new RDX won't have the SH-AWD either, it'll use the same AWD system as the new CRV.

Joeb427

iTrader: (1)

I would have bought a '11 RDX if it had the 3.5L vs the 17/22 MPG premium fuel 2.3L turbo.
The CR-V AWD set up works well in the snow.

stlgrym3

iTrader: (4)

i'm sure it does. but the only thing Acura has going for them nowadays is the famed SH-AWD, without it, it's just another Honda with an Acura badge.

Joeb427

iTrader: (1)

I still would buy the RDX with the 3.5L and CR-V AWD.

stlgrym3

iTrader: (4)

well, AWD is not important to me, i'm in socal. my biggest problem is the iVTEC 3.5L V6, this is not the same true VTEC 3.5 they use on the TLs. this iVTEC version uses the dreaded VCM (engine cylinder deactivation) technology which are used on the V6 Accord, Pilot and Odyssey. just google iVTEC VCM you see why it's so unpopular.

Joeb427

iTrader: (1)

I wasn't aware of the engine cylinder deactivation engine version in the RDX.I don't blame you.

MI350_55

I don't see the big deal with Honda's VCM. You can't tell the difference when it's activated or deactivated. The ECO light on the instrument cluster seems to bother some people but you should be paying more attention to the road in front of you at all times anyway. I'm glad our Pilot has this feature as the price of gas will keep increasing.

Blackraven

Hang on a sec, i-VTEC is always better than regular VTEC (for example, i-VTEC has variable valve timing; regular VTEC does not have such a feature).

Not sure why you'd prefer vtec over i-vtec. I think it's a no-brainer........

stlgrym3

iTrader: (4)

i-VTEC's gas saving advantage over the true VTEC is minimal at the best, my mom's Pilot gets only 18mpg with mix driving. but with the i-VTEC you also have to deal with the jerky acceleration and other negative of the VCM.

just go check it out how disappointed Honda/Acura fanboys are with the i-VTEC on the new RDX:

http://vtec.net/forums/one-message?m...tem_id=1042689

GSteg

iTrader: (15)

Honda is weird with their names. iVTEC in the J-series V6 is different than iVTEC in their K-series.

In the case of V6, iVTEC has Variable Cylinder Management. In the 4 cylinder, there is Variable Cam Timing. I will take VCT over VCM any day of the week, but the J-series doesn't have DOHC to allow that, otherwise Honda could be making much more power without the expense of fuel.

BoDarville

if it makes you feel any better, the acura tl with VTEC also has jerky acceleration, but that has more to do with the fact that the auto tranny's #1 priority is to be in sixth gear at the lowest speeds possible

Blackraven

Hmm....I see.

The downside with J series is that it is single overhead cam. If they used DOHC, then yeah maybe performance attributes will be better.

However, I'd still take newer J series i-VTEC engines over that weak**** and archaic K24 engine.

LexFather

Pricing was announced at it starts at 34k. It based of the CR-V, its built here, it uses an old engine, it loses SH-AWD and the price goes up? Now understand most SUVs sell and this looking like a Sorento or something will sell better than the last model. However its now just a wanna be RX in a class below the RX. I assume its for people that will "think" its a RX competitor and is priced below the RX.

stlgrym3

iTrader: (4)

that i agree, my wife's '09 TL does that off the line very noticeable. but after the car gets up to speed you hardly notice anything if you want to accelerate more.

nvslm

Why not a Lexus RX350? I would take that over a RDX. A little bit more but well worth the money in my opinion.