Topic: CD Article: 2007 Acura RDX Technology

[Mitlov]

"In theory, a turbocharged four should offer better fuel economy than a V6 if it's not being driven too hard, but this doesn't seem to be the case with the RDX or the CX-7. "
It might be because of the weight and winter tires.

At least according to the EPA, the RDX only gets 1mpg better than the MDX.

[Julie]

Interestingly, the salesguy who I have known for some time, mentioned in chatting with me that he loses a number of sales every month to BMW X3s over the RDX, even with the comparably equipped X3 being about $10K over the RDX price. The pull of the blue & white propellor is very strong.

Yes, this just reinforces my belief that most people who have credit capacity are just interested in projecting an image. Then you have my wife who can drive an $80k SUV if she desires drives a Subaru 2.5i Wagon.

Yeah, I'm not too excited about this moving upscale strategy personally.

I bought the TSX for the fun to drive factor. I also wanted to a little lux for the first time in my life.

But I realize the lux features don't really do much for me. Don't get me wrong, I definitely enjoy them  , but it's much more the driving dynamics that keep me thinking of Acura for future purchases (e.g. MDX). I also want reliability, which is what is making me lean more towards Acura than BMW.

I don't wanna pay $60 for a SUV (MDX), but I don't think I'm gonna find a SUV with top driving dynamics in many other places...  EDIT: But I don't think that's necessarily most people's top priority. I think most people who buy vehicles in that price range want the "prestige". And Acura is not up there in prestige with BMW/Lexus/MB.

[coldcase]

Interestingly, the salesguy who I have known for some time, mentioned in chatting with me that he loses a number of sales every month to BMW X3s over the RDX, even with the comparably equipped X3 being about $10K over the RDX price. The pull of the blue & white propellor is very strong.

He would lose less if Acura had aggressive lease rates like BMW.  Most people that go to BMW lease.   X3 lease rate is 4.9% and a higher end lease residual and a 6 cylinder.  Acura?  Lower residual and a whopping 7.4% lease rate.  So no wonder that when you compare lease quotes, you go BMW.  Also you pay nothing for maintenance on the BMW.

Of course this is different if you buy.

[Julie]

Interestingly, the salesguy who I have known for some time, mentioned in chatting with me that he loses a number of sales every month to BMW X3s over the RDX, even with the comparably equipped X3 being about $10K over the RDX price. The pull of the blue & white propellor is very strong.

He would lose less if Acura had aggressive lease rates like BMW.  Most people that go to BMW lease.   X3 lease rate is 4.9% and a higher end lease residual and a 6 cylinder.  Acura?  Lower residual and a whopping 7.4% lease rate.  So no wonder that when you compare lease quotes, you go BMW.  Also you pay nothing for maintenance on the BMW.

Of course this is different is you buy.

Hmm.... good point.

[mdxtasy]

Interestingly, the salesguy who I have known for some time, mentioned in chatting with me that he loses a number of sales every month to BMW X3s over the RDX, even with the comparably equipped X3 being about $10K over the RDX price. The pull of the blue & white propellor is very strong.

Yes, this just reinforces my belief that most people who have credit capacity are just interested in projecting an image. Then you have my wife who can drive an $80k SUV if she desires drives a Subaru 2.5i Wagon.

Not all buy on credit.  But the badge does mean some things to some people.  Everybody has a fancy for something....everybody.

[ovr50]

I can say this with all honesty - in the years I owned BMWs between 1970 and 1986, I never bought one of them for the badge. I loved them for the feel of them and how they drove. It wasn't about power itself, it was about handling and "feel". The crisp steering, the smooth gearbox, the "balance" of the entire car. It's too bad the marque is now associated with snobbery because they are (used to be at least) excellant "driver's cars". I would like to have one more, but don't know if that will happen or not.

[ovr50]

Interestingly, the salesguy who I have known for some time, mentioned in chatting with me that he loses a number of sales every month to BMW X3s over the RDX, even with the comparably equipped X3 being about $10K over the RDX price. The pull of the blue & white propellor is very strong.

He would lose less if Acura had aggressive lease rates like BMW.  Most people that go to BMW lease.   X3 lease rate is 4.9% and a higher end lease residual and a 6 cylinder.  Acura?  Lower residual and a whopping 7.4% lease rate.  So no wonder that when you compare lease quotes, you go BMW.  Also you pay nothing for maintenance on the BMW.

Of course this is different is you buy.

Yes, good point, although lease rates for 36 months are 5.9%, but 7.4% over 36. BMW lease rates are better, no doubt.

[ovr50]

"In theory, a turbocharged four should offer better fuel economy than a V6 if it's not being driven too hard, but this doesn't seem to be the case with the RDX or the CX-7. "
It might be because of the weight and winter tires.

At least according to the EPA, the RDX only gets 1mpg better than the MDX.

Based on my sampling, I would defy anyone who likes to drive to get good mileage out of an RDX. The temptation is much too great to hammer that sucker and run the boost. It's a thrill !! Mileage will suffer, no doubt.

[Julie]

...I would like to have one more, but don't know if that will happen or not.

Any that are catching your eye at this moment?

[ovr50]

...I would like to have one more, but don't know if that will happen or not.

Any that are catching your eye at this moment?

Not specifically. From a practical POV, if I sold both my Highlander and my Mustang, I could get close to the price of a X5 (which I still need as a 4 person hauler, and large dog carrier). Later on, maybe a 3 Coupe would be nice if I didn't have the dog. I don't know - may never happen with the price of them today. I had all mine before they got nutso on price (although they were always more expensive than many other cars). I paid $14xxx for my 1974 3.0CS new and thought that was a hell of a lot of money then. Wish I had that car now.

[Julie]

...I would like to have one more, but don't know if that will happen or not.

Any that are catching your eye at this moment?

Not specifically. From a practical POV, if I sold both my Highlander and my Mustang, I could get close to the price of a X5 (which I still need as a 4 person hauler, and large dog carrier). Later on, maybe a 3 Coupe would be nice if I didn't have the dog. I don't know - may never happen with the price of them today. I had all mine before they got nutso on price (although they were always more expensive than many other cars). I paid $14xxx for my 1974 3.0CS new and thought that was a hell of a lot of money then. Wish I had that car now.

Yeah, I see why one wouldn't "fit" in the picture now...

[airbalancer]

Interestingly, the salesguy who I have known for some time, mentioned in chatting with me that he loses a number of sales every month to BMW X3s over the RDX, even with the comparably equipped X3 being about $10K over the RDX price. The pull of the blue & white propellor is very strong.

Yes, this just reinforces my belief that most people who have credit capacity are just interested in projecting an image. Then you have my wife who can drive an $80k SUV if she desires drives a Subaru 2.5i Wagon.

It is also look of the vehicle, we were in the BMW dealer, I like the 3 series wagon, but the wife hates wagons( could it have to do with the wagons we had when the kids were young) but she likes X3 and X5 .
She really wants the Z4 I think.
I think the lines of the X3 are nicer then RDX, but I have not been in one and so much depands on how you feel behind the wheel

[Snowman]

I can say this with all honesty - in the years I owned BMWs between 1970 and 1986, I never bought one of them for the badge. I loved them for the feel of them and how they drove. It wasn't about power itself, it was about handling and "feel". The crisp steering, the smooth gearbox, the "balance" of the entire car. It's too bad the marque is now associated with snobbery because they are (used to be at least) excellant "driver's cars". I would like to have one more, but don't know if that will happen or not.

The new 3 series is drop dead gorgeous and would have no problem buying one but I have no interest in being forced fed all the unnecessary luxury appointments. I want a drivers car and would be happy to with a mid 40’s MSRP if I could get a +/-250 HP driveline with some sport package goodness.

But I am part of the minority and not BMW’s target market. There are too many people buying BMW’s for the wrong reason which leaves us enthusiast out in the cold.

[mdxtasy]

I can say this with all honesty - in the years I owned BMWs between 1970 and 1986, I never bought one of them for the badge. I loved them for the feel of them and how they drove. It wasn't about power itself, it was about handling and "feel". The crisp steering, the smooth gearbox, the "balance" of the entire car. It's too bad the marque is now associated with snobbery because they are (used to be at least) excellant "driver's cars". I would like to have one more, but don't know if that will happen or not.

The new 3 series is drop dead gorgeous and would have no problem buying one but I have no interest in being forced fed all the unnecessary luxury appointments. I want a drivers car and would be happy to with a mid 40’s MSRP if I could get a +/-250 HP driveline with some sport package goodness.

But I am part of the minority and not BMW’s target market. There are too many people buying BMW’s for the wrong reason which leaves us enthusiast out in the cold.

M3 CSL.  The minority isn't going to make the company profit...so the car you speak of (which I would like too), is not going to happen.  A stripper 335 coupe would be great....

[airbalancer]

I can say this with all honesty - in the years I owned BMWs between 1970 and 1986, I never bought one of them for the badge. I loved them for the feel of them and how they drove. It wasn't about power itself, it was about handling and "feel". The crisp steering, the smooth gearbox, the "balance" of the entire car. It's too bad the marque is now associated with snobbery because they are (used to be at least) excellant "driver's cars". I would like to have one more, but don't know if that will happen or not.

The new 3 series is drop dead gorgeous and would have no problem buying one but I have no interest in being forced fed all the unnecessary luxury appointments. I want a drivers car and would be happy to with a mid 40’s MSRP if I could get a +/-250 HP driveline with some sport package goodness.

But I am part of the minority and not BMW’s target market. There are too many people buying BMW’s for the wrong reason which leaves us enthusiast out in the cold.

I wonder if the 3 series was made in NA would we have more car  option instead of have to get packages with stuff you do not want

[G35X]

Statement like “Acura's move to turbocharging is certainly logical: it allows the RDX to deliver the power (240 horses) and torque (260 lb-ft, the most of any Acura ever offered) of a larger six-cylinder engine along with the fuel economy of a four-cylinder. Laurance Yap, LuxuryCarCanada” is misleading and wrong. Because…

1.   The very purpose of turbocharging is to burn more gas.  Torque and power is the function of how much fuel is burnt in the combustion chamber. You cannot get something out of nothing.
2.   Turbocharging in effect makes engine’s compression ratio higher than its geometrical compression ratio. Simply put, a 10:1 ratio engine becomes 20:1 ratio engine when the boost is 1 bar.  This is way too high for a gas engine and causes detonation if no measure is taken to prevent knocking.
3.   To avoid detonation usually a turbochaged gas engine has lower geometrical compression ratio, fed with high-octane gas, a spark timing retarding system and, in some cases, over-rich fuel/air mixture so that unburnable gas evaporates in the combustion chamber to cool it.
4.   Most turbochargers are in idling mode when cruising making the car burning high-octane gas in a low-compression ratio engine.
5.   When the boost becomes too much for the engine to handle, the exhaust gas is bypassed around the turbine wasting the energy-rich hot gas.
6.   The exhaust channel flow is somewhat restricted because of the turbocharger.

All in all, real fuel consumption of a turbocharged gas engine has been disappointing to users.  The only positive aspect of the turbochaging in place of more displacement is lower engine weight and lower friction inside the engine.

I do not know if RDX’s engine has a direct cylinder fuel injection such as Mazda CX-7, BMW 335i and VW Golf TSI, but its geometrical compression ratio is 9.2:1 which is higher than older turbocharged engines in general.  The new generation turbocharged engines such as those from Mazda, BMW and VW all have direct cylinder fuel injection, which allows much better temperature control inside the combustion chamber by squirting cold gas directly at the hot spot to let it evaporate.  Actually you can squirt the gas more than once in one combusting cycle to take a good control of temperature and combustion.   This is the reason why the compression ratios of these cars are 9.5:1, 10.7:1 and 9.7:1 respectively. This allows the engine always on boost making the throttle response immediate, at the same time cruising more efficient.

[Snowman]

The reasoning behind the recent move to turbocharged engines in new models these days is to deliver higher HP in a smaller package by the most economical method possible.

People who desire the more premium models have very little concern for the fuel consumption to begin with so I doubt it will be a deterrent. Anybody who acquires a vehicle with a turbocharged engine with fuel economy as a concern should rearrange their priorities.

[ovr50]

The reasoning behind the recent move to turbocharged engines in new models these days is to deliver higher HP in a smaller package by the most economical method possible.

People who desire the more premium models have very little concern for the fuel consumption to begin with so I doubt it will be a deterrent. Anybody who acquires a vehicle with a turbocharged engine with fuel economy as a concern should rearrange their priorities.

I agree with Snowy's comments above - when I looked at the RDX recently, having to burn premium and more of it on account of a heavy foot, was of no concern to me. I loved the thrust and the sounds with the turbo engaged. No doubt what G35X posted is accurate, but of little concern to buyers of an RDX.

[G35X]

Yeah, if you get satisfaction in getting better performance in return for higher gas cost, that’s OK.  My point was…
1.   Laurance Yap was wrong and misleading.
2.   You have to burn more gas to get more torque and power.
3.   The latest blown gas engines with direct-to-cylinder fuel injection and higher geometrical compression ratio are more efficient.

Take a look at the new VW Golf TSI. You will see the direction the industry is headed.
I think soon you will see more of this new generation blown gas engines.  Toyota, which started putting direct-to-cylinder injection gas engines in many of newer models, must be busy working on their version of blown engines to give consumers the choice of green turbo (hybrid) and fun-to-drive turbo.

[ovr50]

I would certainly concur with #2 and 3 above. Performance comes at a price, but there are more efficient fuel systems being developed today. As to LY, well, ??.