acura RDX 4 cyl w/ turbo

[Liquid_Turbo]

RDX is a very brisk car. I think it's intent it to have the power of a V6 available, but most of the time, be on 'economy' mode when the car is driven normally.

The old CRVs were so [censored] with their 2.0L engine.. not gutsy at all. I love the newer models with the 2.4L.. all in all.. great cars.

I recall some good 10k mi UOAs with CRVs..

 

[artificialist]

Originally Posted By: Liquid_Turbo
RDX is a very brisk car. I think it's intent it to have the power of a V6 available, but most of the time, be on 'economy' mode when the car is driven normally.

The old CRVs were so [censored] with their 2.0L engine.. not gutsy at all. I love the newer models with the 2.4L.. all in all.. great cars.

I recall some good 10k mi UOAs with CRVs..

1997-1998 had one version of the B-series 2.0L Redline was set at 6300 RPM.

1999-2001 had an improved version of the B-series 2.0L that was more powerful. Redline was set at 6800 RPM. That is what my mom had.

2002 and afterwards, it was the 2.4L K-series engine.

 

[BrianWC]

Yes, I am referring to my 2002 in my posts. It has the 2.4l which was rated (at the time) at 165 hp but was revised down to 156 hp and 162 lb ft of torque. Carrying 3350 lbs, that's not much power. Granted my 3530 lb 9-5 is only rated at 185 hp but it's broad, flat 211 lb ft of torque make up for it.

I believe the newest V is rated at 166 hp. The 2.4l is not a snail, but I don't go looking for stoplight races unless it's pouring down rain and can use the RT4WD

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: BrianWC
Yes, I am referring to my 2002 in my posts. It has the 2.4l which was rated (at the time) at 165 hp but was revised down to 156 hp and 162 lb ft of torque. Carrying 3350 lbs, that's not much power. Granted my 3530 lb 9-5 is only rated at 185 hp but it's broad, flat 211 lb ft of torque make up for it.

I believe the newest V is rated at 166 hp. The 2.4l is not a snail, but I don't go looking for stoplight races unless it's pouring down rain and can use the RT4WD

Well, my '87 GT was only rated at 225HP. But 300lb-ft. Remember, torque is HP at RPM

If you've got something that needs to wind to make power, it better be geared out the wazoo or it will feel like an absolute turd.

 

[digitalSniperX1]

Buster, I'll be doing a UOA soon. Just changed it, has 11,000 miles on it, and will have 5k miles on it in about 3 months. Stay tuned.

It does feel maybe a little smoother, not really sure since I changed to PP when it had about 5,000 miles on it and still breaking in so to speak.

 

[digitalSniperX1]

The RDX performance is pretty good. 0-60 in Car and Driver were about 6.5 seconds IIRC. It feels very strong to 80. After 80, it seems that drag starts really affecting it and performance moves from quick to mediocre. Haven't been much past 80 with it.

I think it weighs about 3900 lbs. The 240hp it's rated at seems low given its 0-60 performance at that weight.

It has very good torque also. Much more than typical 4 cylinder engines. Turbo lag is there, but it's only at a nuisance level when your cruising a fairly low speed and need acceleration to build quickly. In other words, you can really feel turbo lag when at a steady 20mph and you punch it.

At 40+mph, virtually no sense of turbo spool up time.

 

[Mau]

From what I gathered from others (this is my first turbo vehicle) the RDX's lag is next to nothing compared to the audi's

Also would like to mention the RDX has K23 (2.3L) turbo so it doesn't even share the same engine as the CRV lol. Maybe similarities but not the exact same engine.

 

[Audi Junkie]

With a turbo, you want to lower compression, so you reduce displacement by shortening the rods. Same engine otherwise.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
With a turbo, you want to lower compression, so you reduce displacement by shortening the rods. Same engine otherwise.


This is also easily accomplished with dished pistons, therefore not affecting displacement.....

 

[Gary Allan]

Rods won't change displacement. You're effectively increasing the combustion chamber volume by either dished pistons or shorter rods. Shorter rods produce slightly less torque (FWIW). One of the overclocking your 8088 processor techniques in 4 banger jeep engines is to use Chevy 305 rods and pistons. You get a few more ft/lbs of torque (all for about $200-$250/ft/lb by the time you're done).

 

[BrianWC]

Originally Posted By: Mau
From what I gathered from others (this is my first turbo vehicle) the RDX's lag is next to nothing compared to the audi's

Also would like to mention the RDX has K23 (2.3L) turbo so it doesn't even share the same engine as the CRV lol. Maybe similarities but not the exact same engine.



As I've said twice now, I am not specifically saying its just an Acura badge on a CR-V. But it is the same platform and same essentials in a slightly nicer "wrapper."

 

[slipperysam]

Ok how about this, does it require a higher octane fuel? I get the feeling that we won't be at 2 dollar gas for a real long time.

balbrec2 aka; SS

 

[digitalSniperX1]

Yes, it requires premium fuel. You "can" put 87 in it, but I'm sure it'll detune and it's only recommended when you cannot find 91+.

 

[webfors]

My 06 crv was hard on gas. Compared to my 08 forester, I get approximately 2 litres/100km better. And with the Forester, I get sh-awd included at a fraction of the price. Now if they could just quiet the road noise down a little

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Rods won't change displacement. You're effectively increasing the combustion chamber volume by either dished pistons or shorter rods. Shorter rods produce slightly less torque (FWIW). One of the overclocking your 8088 processor techniques in 4 banger jeep engines is to use Chevy 305 rods and pistons. You get a few more ft/lbs of torque (all for about $200-$250/ft/lb by the time you're done).


Sorry Gary, I mistook what he said as decreasing STROKE to reduce compression; having a moment. Which of course WOULD affect displacement.

 

[BrianWC]

Originally Posted By: digitalSniperX1
Yes, it requires premium fuel. You "can" put 87 in it, but I'm sure it'll detune and it's only recommended when you cannot find 91+.


That's the way my SAAB is. Sure you can run regular, but the car turns into a dog and increases fuel consumption to boot.

 

[BrianWC]

Originally Posted By: webfors
My 06 crv was hard on gas. Compared to my 08 forester, I get approximately 2 litres/100km better. And with the Forester, I get sh-awd included at a fraction of the price. Now if they could just quiet the road noise down a little

Wow, I find it hard to believe the Forester is better on gas than the V. But that's great if it is! A Forester was my first choice back in 02. That was when they were just coming out w/ the new 03 restyled models. But the nearest dealer was about 1.5 hrs away and the salesman was an A$$ and didn't even want to discuss pricing over the phone with me. So I went to my two second choices, the V and the Vue. The wife thought the Vue looked like it was made out of Lego blocks so we went with a V with just about every dealer option added on.

 

[webfors]

Originally Posted By: BrianWC
Originally Posted By: webfors
My 06 crv was hard on gas. Compared to my 08 forester, I get approximately 2 litres/100km better. And with the Forester, I get sh-awd included at a fraction of the price. Now if they could just quiet the road noise down a little

Wow, I find it hard to believe the Forester is better on gas than the V. But that's great if it is! A Forester was my first choice back in 02. That was when they were just coming out w/ the new 03 restyled models. But the nearest dealer was about 1.5 hrs away and the salesman was an A$$ and didn't even want to discuss pricing over the phone with me. So I went to my two second choices, the V and the Vue. The wife thought the view looked like it was made out of Lego blocks so we went with a V with just about every dealer option added on.

I really liked the crv. Was looking at the forester in 06, but they weren't dealing and the rates were no good. This time around, I wasn't even in the market for a new car.. One day I was browsing the cars at the subie dealer. Salesmen approached me, asked if I was interested. I said not unless he was ready to give me the deal of a lifetime.. which he did. I got the car for approximately 5k under msrp and it was the anniversary edition with moonroof, heated seats, alloy wheels, etc, etc. Transferred the v to my sister in law and the rest is history.

We got over 2 feet of snow in the last 3 days... so the forester has been a real treat

And yes, the forester is much better on gas. Especially with spirited driving. When I drove the V in fun mode, it ate gas like crazy.

 

[gogozy]

Originally Posted By: digitalSniperX1

I think it weighs about 3900 lbs. The 240hp it's rated at seems low given its 0-60 performance at that weight.

at the time of launch, the # K23T was tuned by Honda (reduced boost) not to upset MDX, TL and RL owners. i am sure it has more potentials.

 

[blueiedgod]

Originally Posted By: BrianWC
But the one thing I would change about my V would be (besides the obvious lack of power)


Driving the girly version with the slushbox, eh?

Drive one with a manual and you will not be complaining about the power. If anyting, you will be looking for tires with better grip.

0-60 in 8 seconds for a 7 year old design (designed in 2001) in a 4 cylinder SUV is pretty impressive in my book. If I am not careful, I chip the tires in 1-2 shifts. Plenty of power to keep up with more powerful and much more expensive SUV's.