- #2658 of 2722
-
Re: downshifts [hdogdad]
by wwest
-
May 31, 2008 (9:21 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: hdogdad (Feb 18, 2008 12:22 pm)
Unlike most FWD and F/AWD the RDX's SH-AWD system can safely support engine compression braking so the transaxle can be allowed to downshift as you slow, coastdown, just as it would with the much safer (compared with "other" FWD and F/AWD models) RWD & R/AWD models.
Drive a "true" AWD system, R/AWD system, such as the BMW X3/5 and you will notice an even more pronounced level of engine compression braking and downshifts on coastdown.
Neat feature of SH-AWD.
|
- #2659 of 2722
-
Re: downshifts [wwest]
by lynn3808
-
Jun 16, 2008 (5:27 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: wwest (May 31, 2008 9:21 am)
watch out for the turbo; my 07 rdx started this way with no other indicators and the turbo blew out and took the engine with in. Acura can't tell me or the other 54 07 drivers that I have found why these turbos are going out without warning; John at Acura corporate told me 54 out of all the rdx's sold was bad. Of course this happens to those of us at 50,000+ miles; I just wonder how many 07 RDX's are out there with 50,000+ miles. When I bought Acura I didn't think it meant throw away car.
|
- #2663 of 2722
-
Re: downshifts [lynn3808]
by bodble2
-
Jun 16, 2008 (11:41 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: lynn3808 (Jun 16, 2008 5:27 am)
I can't imagine there are that many 1+ year old cars with over 50,000 miles on the odo. Perhaps the turbo failures had to do with heavy usage?
|
- #2664 of 2722
-
Re: downshifts [bodble2]
by wwest
-
Jun 16, 2008 (12:18 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: bodble2 (Jun 16, 2008 11:41 am)
Actually 50,000 miles in one year implies primarily hwy miles, cruising miles, and therefore relatively LOW useage of the turbo.
Wastegate failure due to poor design would be my guess.
|
- #2665 of 2722
-
87 Octane Acceptable?
by mfeirman
-
Jun 17, 2008 (6:24 am)
-
|
Looking into leasing 2008 RDX. Wil the turbo engine accept 87 octane gas? Or do I really need to feed it 91?
Considering Infiniti FX35 as alternative.
|
- #2666 of 2722
-
Re: 87 Octane Acceptable? [mfeirman]
by ptd1
-
Jun 17, 2008 (6:45 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: mfeirman (Jun 17, 2008 6:24 am)
I've been using it w/ no prob., but I live near Denver at 6500 ft. where the octane is not so important. Also, I get this downshift thing for no known reason. I read one article that the low octane could affect the grade logic system, and cause inapproprriate downshifts.
I like the vehice though.
|
- #2667 of 2722
-
Re: 87 Octane Acceptable? [mfeirman]
by wwest
-
Jun 17, 2008 (8:58 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: mfeirman (Jun 17, 2008 6:24 am)
Almost any high compression modern day engine will "willingly" accept regular fuel. With the advent of EFI and now more sensitive non-resonant knock/ping sensors the only result might be a bit lower FE.
Apparently even in Denver where the air is so much thinner and therefore the use of premium fuel is more important for keeping the engine HP/torque up to "snuff". If the ECU cannot abate knock/ping via increasing the A/F ratio it will command a downshift more often.
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
SUVs 
