Originally Posted By: 285south
BMW, MB, LandRover, and Audi all have turbos in their SUVs but not Acura. Any one know why?
You're the person who supposedly owns one and made a conscious decision to buy a 2016... Why not inform us?
I'd suspect that some other makers have a much less efficient fleet, and the small turbo engines is how they improve (and sell vehicles in places where tax is based upon displacement).
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
Originally Posted By: Brybo86
Care to explain your signature? Some kind of inside joke?
Yes I'd like clarification too.
You say 6 things should never go into a vehicle's motor, but only list 5 things
Originally Posted By: KzMitch
Apparently keeping that other turbo off the build sheet makes the car more reliable.
MB, BMW, Audi and Land Rover?
Really?
Um, I'll take "Cars NOT To Own Without a Warranty" for $100 Alex."
I think I read somewhere that Acura's cost of ownership is less than those 4 European makes. No wait, I've read that everywhere.
Seriously, go price out what it would cost to replace the two turbos on an Audi.
I agree.
And we're also starting to see that a smaller engine with a turbo isn't really any more efficient (MPG wise) than a larger engine of the same HP....
I have a '16 RDX and the V6 is a pleasure.Super quick,smooth and MPGs are good.19/28 for the AWD which is not bad at all for a 279 HP V6.
I prefer the V6 over a 4 cyl turbo.
With the CAFE requirements rising,I do think the RDX will have a 4 cyl turbo in the near future.
Originally Posted By: 285south
Originally Posted By: Nick1994
Originally Posted By: Brybo86
Care to explain your signature? Some kind of inside joke?
Yes I'd like clarification too.
You say 6 things should never go into a vehicle's motor, but only list 5 things