4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

hello have you seen the K series engines? The best 4 cylinders in the world. K24 block + K20 head + bolt ons = 230 whp 160-170 wtrq

spwolf

yeah, but it is turbo aided torque. Which means limited power range and limited torque range. This is fine in smaller car, but not in SUV, with more weight and worse Cd.

And it is NOT Honda. It is 33k-40k Acura SUV. We are not talking about 25k Honda at all.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

variable geometry turbo eliminates turbo lag above 2000 rpm, its going to drive like an N/A, but with the power of a turbo, theres esentially no lag. Some of you people are severly underestimating the capabilities of a variable geometry turbo. Turbo lag was the main problem with turbos and its basically gone now. If someone were to drive you you probably couldnt tell its a turbo since the boost is always on and doesnt have to build up

GFerg

I'll add one more pic. These pics were posted with the Press Release. So it will probably look like this.

ST430

you're barking to the wrong guy here (93' + 97' Supra TT owner)...Honda was NEVER known for FI, even declaring it publicly it is not in the interest to stoop to displacement or FI gimmicks and instead relying on engine technologies (e.g. VTEC) instead. When I think of Honda, you think of NA engineering landmarks (NSX, Prelude SI, Civic SI, Integra Type R, S2000). I still relish my ownership in my old original 00' S2000 because I knew they didn't make any shortcuts in their quest for 120hp/liter NA enginer. Don['t get me wrong, I'm still a strong proponent of FI too, but it's the principle that Honduh stood for that the RDX just goes against.

ST430

lol, now u're talking aftermarket? 230whp?Gimme an old B18A LS block with B18C Vtec heads anyday...Even the old H22A had 220hp already in most markets. Anyhow, as I said before, it's not about FI is bad or what not, it's the principles that Honduh stood for that is now being undermined because they have been slacking in the engine development area. Check out the VTEC.net fanbois, it's even well documented there...

ST430

turbo lag has been well taken care of since the old days of smaller ball bearing, higher efficiency turbos. but honestly, you're going to tell me you'd pay $30-$35k for a honda 4 cylinder (even if it has a turbo) over a $25k-30k rav 4 with a v6 that has more hp and torque? wake up and realize that their engineering only shoehorned in the turbo as a stopgap solution for not having an adequate v6. think about it, you have some of the best I4 engineers in the world at Honda (including sportsbikes). Why add a turbo that prohibitvely costs more, requires more maintenance (in the long run), when you could of engineered a better engine from the ground up? this sort of mentality will always hold acura back as a tier 2 luxury brand , regardless of its technology (see Acura RL).

UDel

Yes I would pay more for the RDX if I was into that kind of vehicle over a new RAV4 from just seeing the new RAV4 interior. The RAV4 interior does not look good at all to me nor are the materials all that nice. The new RDX has a very nice interior and looks pretty good from the outside but I will reserve final judgement until I see and sit in one. For small sporty SUVs I would not be looking for drag racers, just decent power for daily driving which is what the RDX will provide. Since a small awd SUV will be somewhat heavy and not very aerodynamic it is going to need something with more torque then a NA 4cylinder no matter how good Honda makes 4 cylinders. They do not want to shoehorn a 6 cylinder in the RDX because they already have a slightly larger suv the MDX having a powerful v-6 as its powerplant. Maybe people should reserve judgement until they drive the cars and read the reviews before making a final decision if the powerplant is going to be failure.

I like Hondas high tech powerful high reving engines too but I don't see anything wrong with them trying and offering a turbo engine in one or a few of their cars. If this engine is used as a option in the next TSX and a TSX sized coupe I think it will be a big hit and address the problem of the TSX needing some more power. If Honda chose to make all their vehicles FI and not focus on high output NA engines anymore then I would be dissapointed but that is not the case. Maybe Honda should just do away with hybrid engine technology since it is not what they were known for in the past but that would be limiting themselves. Honda can still make and inovate new technologies for high performance NA engines yet offer a few FI engines to satisfy many enthusiasts as well as address complaints that their cars don't have enough low down torque which has never bothered me. If Acura turbocharges the RL to give it 350-360hp before the next new model to address the lack of a 300+hp engine I don't think many people will be complaining. I am sure Honda/Acura is not abandoning its high performance NA engine technology, they are just offering more and different powertrains for different applications.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

the price difference covers far more than just an engine, SH-AWD is the best AWD system on the planet, no mechanical based system can achieve what SH-AWD can do. The RDX tranny is going to be better than any Rav4 tranny

maintainence b/t a N/A and a well tuned turbo engine is debateable, an N/A engine can be made crappy and die before a well tuned F/I engine does. Who is anyone to say Honda's philopsophy and principles is no turbos and N/A only thats only what your mind perceives. They turboed F1 machines they have turbo vehicles back in japan. By getting rid of turbo lag the car will drive like a N/A car because there is no lag, boost pressure is always there no matter the rpm.

BMW suddenly turboes the 3 series despite a many years of it being N/A but I dont see anyone complaining about that. This engine is for sure going into the RSX and/or TSX, good for acura, TSX will finally have some power to go with its phenominal handling. Turbo with honda/acura reliability? Sign me up

LexFather

I don't think you guys get it. Its still a I-4. TOYOTA has a damn V-6 Rav-4. This is supposed to be the LUXURY segment.
Engine=HEART of the car. So TOYOTA engine> Acura engine

Now does that sound right to you as a luxury car owner?


THe RD-X would make a GREAT top line CR-V. Not a luxury truck. The engine is ALL WRONG.

Name ONE OTHER SUV with a turbo engine outside the Cayenne Turbo and that is simply the most powerful SUV you can buy and WITHOUT turbo's it has a V-8 making 340hp.

Their stubborness will please the Honda faithful but puzzle the rest. DOn't ya'll think if a turbo I-4 was the best way to go, EVERYONE ELSE would have done it by now?

Nope, it goes to show Acura's stubborness, which Honda fans call uniqueness and why no one takes Acura seriously.

I don't understand why they turbo a SUV that makes almost as much power as their sports car S2000 with more torque. I also don't understand why they turbo a SUV but will the TSX with lethargic power.

Will it sell? Of course, like the TSX, it will be a cheap, luxury badged car with a very nice interior. And I am sure Car and Driver will give it some incredible butt loving like every Honda out.

mhc0725

Is it confirmed that the 2.3L Turbo engine is a Honda engine in the RDX, or is this a 'trade' engine that they got from another manufacturer in exchange? Honda supplies a detuned MDX engine to the Saturn Vue Redline. Where did Honda come up with a turbo charged 2.3L turbo engine? Is it perhaps the Saab 2.3L Turbo, since Saab is owned by GM, which is Saturn.

So, if the swap is in place, then we're going to expect RDX owners to buy an Acura with a Saab engine. Pretty much like the Honda Passport and Acura SLX... sucker vehicles...

I have a '92 Teg GS-R and I can't imagine driving that thing if it were a turbo. I have 203K on it and nothing has broken on it. I can't imagine what would have broken by now had it been turbo charged...

CK6Speed

iTrader: (1)

I can't say that I would pay that amount of money for the I4 turbo RDX if I felt the competition was equal, but after checking out the Rav4 this past weekend when I went car shopping with the inlaws, I have to say I'd pay for the RDX over the V6 Rav4 even if it has an I4 turbo. Final judgement will be made when the RDX actually comes out though. The I4 turbo in the RDX was definately not a stopgap solution because it was build from the ground up with the intention of using the turbo engine. Acura has stated this from day one. In fact, early in its production, according to Acura, they did not have a reliable turbo manufacturer that meet their standards, so as stopgap measure the J30 or J35 V6 was going to be used in the RDX until a turbo solution was worked out. Honda decided to go in house for the turbo and thus the I4 turbo in now back in the RDX.

Och

iTrader: (3)

There's no way in hell Honda would use other manufacturers engine - after all, Honda is an engine company that happens to build cars.

newr

HP is HP and Torque is Torque. Does it really matter whether it comes from an I4, I6, V6, V8, V12, hybrid, turbo, supercharged, diesel, corn oil, hydrogen or even cow dungs?

I really don't see what the big deal is. All these negativities are just the same as saying your car put out 350hp but it's still a push rod.. so what? HP is HP.... and with OEM turbos.... uuuhhh... mod heaven..

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

Honda is the worlds largest engine manafacturer they dont need anyone elses engines. They even refused to let lotus put the RSX-R engine in the production Elise thats why it has a celica engine. Althought people have aftermarket kits to put the K20 in