Car Chat General discussion about Lexus, other auto manufacturers and automotive news.

Why did Honda kill its best performance engine?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-13-12, 08:13 AM
  #16  
Blackraven
Lexus Champion
 
Blackraven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Makati, Philippines
Posts: 3,459
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Hmm.........looks like there is divided opinions and consensus regarding the turbo 4 versus the N/A V6...
Blackraven is offline  
Old 02-13-12, 02:46 PM
  #17  
Fizzboy7
Lexus Test Driver
 
Fizzboy7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: California
Posts: 9,719
Received 167 Likes on 99 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Lexuslvr91
If only they added direct injection for more power and greater FE.
Exactly. This is what I was referring to. While the industry is leaning more toward turbo four cylinders to gain on all ends, Acura is dumping theirs. What needed to be done was refine and improve the current RDX engine. It had all the potential to give good power and efficiency.
Fizzboy7 is offline  
Old 02-14-12, 04:36 PM
  #18  
ecr527
Lexus Champion
 
ecr527's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: South FLA
Posts: 1,762
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Most shoppers of cross overs or SUV's don't usually look for performance. The fact that it got only 20 mpg (or less) was what IMO killed this engine. The whole idea of a turbo 4 over a V6 in an application like this would usually be to get better fuel economy. They didn't deliver.
ecr527 is offline  
Old 02-16-12, 03:28 PM
  #19  
UDel
Lexus Fanatic
 
UDel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ------
Posts: 12,274
Received 296 Likes on 223 Posts
Default

It was not the engine that got bad fuel economy. It was the vehicle it was in. A 4000lb, awd, taller CUV is not going to get good fuel economy no matter what engine you put in it. In a lower more aerodynamic sedan that weighed 500lbs less without awd it will have got decent to good fuel economy and would have been a blast to drive. It is a shame and a real waste they never tried to put it in a coupe or sedan which is the type of vehicle that power plant was most suited for. I test drove one and it is powerful, fun, and holds the road really well. They missed a big opportunity by not putting it in a sedan/coupe.
UDel is offline  
Old 02-16-12, 03:58 PM
  #20  
LexFather
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Originally Posted by UDel
It was not the engine that got bad fuel economy. It was the vehicle it was in. A 4000lb, awd, taller CUV is not going to get good fuel economy no matter what engine you put in it. In a lower more aerodynamic sedan that weighed 500lbs less without awd it will have got decent to good fuel economy and would have been a blast to drive. .

RDX
Curb weight, lb (kg)
FWD 3743 (1698) -
AWD 3942 (1788)

RDX FWD 19 / 24 / 21
RDX SH-AWD17 / 22 / 19

So the FWD model is not 4000 lbs and still gets crap MPG considering its low weight and small size. The AWD model is near 4000 lbs and gets crappier MPG. r.

To compare

Their own MDX gets

Combined-18
16
City
21

A MDX weighs between 4600-4700 lbs. A whopping one less MPG.

So it has nothing to do with weight. Its an engine that just got terrible MPG.

Lets compare some more

An Audi Q7, which is much much larger gets 18 MPG combined, 1 less
A Chevy Tahoe, another much larger vehicle, with a V-8, gets 17 MPG combined, a whopping 2 less than the RDX AWD.
etc etc

So as we can see the RDX gets FE on par with vehicles two sizes up.

A 4500 lbs RX 450h gets 31 MPG average. So much for the weight penalty.
A RX 350 AWD, a vehicle the next class up gets 20 MPG average and the FWD 21 MPG.
A 4500lbs AWD X5 gets 19 MPG, same as the RDX AWD.
etc etc..

Had nothing to do with weight as we can clearly see it just guzzles gas.
 
Old 02-16-12, 04:01 PM
  #21  
Joeb427
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
 
Joeb427's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 11,670
Received 17 Likes on 16 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 1SICKLEX
RDX
Curb weight, lb (kg)
FWD 3743 (1698) -
AWD 3942 (1788)

RDX FWD 19 / 24 / 21
RDX SH-AWD17 / 22 / 19

So the FWD model is not 4000 lbs and still gets crap MPG considering its low weight and small size. The AWD model is near 4000 lbs and gets crappier MPG. r.

To compare

Their own MDX gets

Combined-18
16
City
21

A MDX weighs between 4600-4700 lbs. A whopping one less MPG.

So it has nothing to do with weight. Its an engine that just got terrible MPG.

Lets compare some more

An Audi Q7, which is much much larger gets 18 MPG combined, 1 less
A Chevy Tahoe, another much larger vehicle, with a V-8, gets 17 MPG combined, a whopping 2 less than the RDX AWD.
etc etc

So as we can see the RDX gets FE on par with vehicles two sizes up.

A 4500 lbs RX 450h gets 31 MPG average. So much for the weight penalty.
A RX 350 AWD, a vehicle the next class up gets 20 MPG average and the FWD 21 MPG.
A 4500lbs AWD X5 gets 19 MPG, same as the RDX AWD.
etc etc..

Had nothing to do with weight as we can clearly see it just guzzles gas.

True and Premium gas.
Joeb427 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Hoovey689
Car Chat
5
10-23-13 10:24 AM
Hoovey689
Car Chat
4
09-16-13 04:51 PM
Hoovey689
Car Chat
20
01-01-13 09:59 AM
Hoovey689
Car Chat
10
11-30-11 02:15 PM
Hoovey689
Car Chat
7
11-16-10 02:33 PM



Quick Reply: Why did Honda kill its best performance engine?



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:52 PM.