acura RDX 4 cyl w/ turbo

[slipperysam]

Does any one have any experience with these engines? Do they
require special attention as far as oil changes. My wife has her eye on one of these babies.

balbrec2 aka; SS

 

[rg200amp]

I would use a quality synthetic oil in it and keep the change interval close to the Makers recommendation.

Check out Pennzoil Platnium. It is a highly liked oil here and it can be found for a reasonable price.

 

[Bulli]

your wife doesn't need a turbo : P

 

[Audi Junkie]

HT-06 spec. PP or M1 5w-30 meets it. Mobil 1 0w-40 or Syntec 0w-30 might be best. It's an AWESOME vehicle. I had a few as loaner and it's my absolute favourite vehicle to own if I had to drive it every day.

 

[Quest]

+1 to Audie Junkie's remarks.

Regardless of what you going for, always look for HTO-06 spec for this is what your turbo'ed Honda requires.

Q.

 

[ryan2022]

We're looking at one for my wife as well, as long as the price comes down on the used ones!!! We test drove one in T.O. GREAT machine.

 

[buster]

Just make sure you use an oil meeting the HTO-06 spec. As AJ said, PP/M1 both do.

 

[BrianWC]

Just keep in mind, you're basically getting a primped up CR-V. Not that that's a bad thing, but I sure hope they added some sound insulation to the high dollar version.

 

[Audi Junkie]

Brian, if you ever get a chance to drive one, do so.

 

[BrianWC]

Oh don't get me wrong, it looks great and I bet it's a great car. But the one thing I would change about my V would be (besides the obvious lack of power) the lack of sound insulation. Road noise is a tad too much sometimes and the doors have a bit of a tinny feel.

I'm seeing more and more of them so it seems maybe some of the crowd that intended to upgrade to bigger SUVs might have found a good alternative.

 

[Audi Junkie]

It's expensive, but maybe one vehicle that I can live with a used example. It sucks gas too, btw.

Funny standard I use to discuss theoretical cars that I "like". Noone really apply an objective standard for that. I say that if I won it in a raffle, would I keep it? That opens the door to a lot of vehicles that I would not pay for with my own money, but would keep it rather than trade if I won it. The connection being that very few SUVs would I keep if I won it, mostly because of being cumbersome to drive and operating costs. The RDX is expensive, but easy to own. (repairs, maintenance, ease of driving, performance) The ONLY downside is price. Hello CRV.

 

[Mau]

Ive got an RDX (2007 tech package) great truck, I use PP 5w30 in it as it meets the HTO-06 specs (honda created this spec for this motor specifically) and I feel it made the motor quieter and smooth.

I have done the oil changes (very easy to do btw), air filter, cabin filter changes soo far with 40K km its doing quite well.

Cabin noise is definitely less then our old CRV but not up to standards for an "upscale" vehicle.

It is stinking fast off the line thoe for such a heavy vehicle. HP and torque ratings were under rated from the factory, also with a simple ecu swap one can get an additional 10-20hp and 33lb/ft of torque (http://www.hondata.com/reflash_rdx.html)

Just keep in mind, if you beat on it, you will get worse mpg then you would with some v6 motors.

 

[Liquid_Turbo]

LOL @ the comment that RDX is a pimped out CRV. It's completely different in every way. Test drive one?

One obvious difference is that the CRV doesn't require HTO-06 Spec ..

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Liquid_Turbo
LOL @ the comment that RDX is a pimped out CRV. It's completely different in every way. Test drive one?

One obvious difference is that the CRV doesn't require HTO-06 Spec ..


That would be because the CR-V doesn't have a Turbo........

 

[BrianWC]

Look, I know it's not badge engineering but they share a great deal. Honda's too cheap to do otherwise. Difference is they have much better luck in pulling it off than GM ever has. Look, you all are getting me wrong. I like the RDX AND the CR-V. But having been a CR-V owner since 2002, though, and seeing how nice the new V is, I don't know what incentive there would be for me to pick an RDX over a CR-V other than the turbo. Now, having a turbo in my other car, I know it COULD just be incentive enough...

 

[slipperysam]

thanks for the input people. just as I suspected, syn oil for the turbo, gas hog if you keep your foot down but otherwise an
excellent vehicle. This is just one of many we are looking at.


balbrec2 aka; SS

 

[BrianWC]

Hey, the CR-V is a gas hog with your foot down, too. At least with the RDX, if the penalty is more powerful acceleration, I'd take it.

 

[digitalSniperX1]

There are no CR-V's with turobcharged engines.
None have Acura's SH-AWD either. They handle like a sports sedan.

I've driven both vehicles and it's not just a primped up CR-V.

No comparison between the two honestly.

On fuel economy, the Acura as was said is a pig if you're into boost.

If you drive it sanely in mixed driving, about 20mpg.

If you drive it steadily at 55mph, about 30.5 mpg.
If you drive it steadily at 65mph, about 26.5 mpg.
If you drive it steadily at 80mph, about 22 mpg.

 

[buster]

How is PP holding up in the RDX motors? I haven't seen many UOA's.

 

[artificialist]

I'm not sure you could ever get great MPG with a Honda CRV type vehicle. My mom had a 1999 CRV, and in the best of conditions, it would get 25 MPG.

That on mind, Honda took great lengths to make the thing very aerodynamic, so much so, that my mom wouldn't buy one. Mom only likes square looking SUVs.