Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
SUVs Crossover SUV Comparison
7126 messages, Last post on Nov 18, 2009 at 1:27 PM
You are in the SUVs Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
I am looking for compact SUV and the target is either RDX or RAV4 V6 (Sport or Limited one). RDX has better outlook and great interior design especially with TECH package, it has everything I want (leather seat, bluetooth, NV) but I am worry about the noisy, gas millage, turbo issue and soft suspension (felt all the bumps) that other people mentioned. I know RAV4 is reliable and fuel economy but it really looks too simple. After check with several dealers, I can get 08 RDX TECH and 09 RAV4 V6 4x4 with very similar pricing (only 2K difference) if add some options on RAV4 such as leather seat, bluetooth, & smartkey. Please let me know which car will be the good choice? At the beginning, I really want to pick RDX since there is only 2K difference between Acura (higher class) & Toyota, but I don't want to have a trouble car after several years. Please let me know your comments. Thanks a lot. BTW, I am surprise that Toyota didn't drop their pricing a lot while the economy is so bad, especially in SF bay area. The 09 RAV4 SE V6 4x4 (w/leather seat, bluetooth, & smartkey) still need $28K + tax & fees.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: 313 (Dec 07, 2008 3:26 am)
|
|
A reporter from a national newspaper would like to speak with consumers who have been frustrated by some manufacturers’ tendency to place safety related vehicle options into expensive packages. Have you ever wanted to equip a vehicle with specific safety features that required the purchase of an entire package? If so, please respond to jwahl edmunds.com with your daytime contact information no later than Friday, December 12.
|
|
|
Replying to: coldcranker (Dec 07, 2008 8:38 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: volkov (Dec 09, 2008 4:57 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: coldcranker (Dec 13, 2008 9:21 pm) I remember a couple decades ago when Turbos became all the rage. You could theoretically get more power from a smaller more efficient engine. But the quoted high power only comes in a narrow range at the highest RPM, so you just just get a tiny kick before shifting down again. The hot compressed air also meant less compression and less efficiency, as mentioned. Add to that the turbo lag in spining up and down, and turbos again became history, as they should have been. Since then, several things have changed. Dual gate turbines allow them to spin up and stay at speed once you get off idle, over 1000 RPM. Better air coolers mean you can keep some of the compression. But these advances still wasn't enough to make them worth considering. But the recent discovery of combining the turbo with the direct fuel injection into the cylinder (not the air stream), made a magic synergy (that Ford calls EcoBoost). First, through direct gas injection, you can boost or cut off the gas and power instantly without waiting for the turbine to change speed, giving fast throttle response. Next, the direct gas injection cools the air mixture as it expands, allowing good compression even with use of standard 87 octane gas. Finally, the torque curve is nearly flat over all RPM, unlike previous turbos that just had the torque spike at high RPM. So this EcoBoost technolgy gives an even FLATTER torque curve than normal gas engines. This means you'll get pushed back into your seat from the instant you hit the pedal. Also, your acceleration times will be better because the power is more even across all RPM as you accelerate. EcoBoost means you can get 3.5 liter V-6 power out of a much smaller I-4 engine, simultaneous with up to 25% or more better fuel economy (like over 30 MPG instead of 24 MPG on my big Taurus X crossover.) Furthermore, EcoBoost will feel even racier with more uniform torque, and be very responsive. It's a fantastic engineering combination that can't get to the market fast enough, IMO. More on EcoBoost here
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: larryqw (Dec 13, 2008 10:07 pm) I think you have to go that direction based on the current evidence we have with the GM and Mazda direct injection turbo 4 cylinders out there now. For example, the Mazda CX-7 has an Ecoboost-style engine right now and doesn't get very good fuel economy at all. In comparison, my 4,000 lb Freestyle with a low-internal-friction small smoothe V6 (10.1:1 compression ratio), making 205 HP gets better fuel economy than the small, lighter Mazda CX-7 with its Ecoboost-like 4-banger engine. The proof is in the pudding. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: larryqw (Dec 13, 2008 10:07 pm) '09 Mazda CX-7 I4, 244 HP, 17city/23hiway MPG, 3700 lbs, 4 cylinder '09 Ford Escape V6, 240 HP, 18city/26hiway MPG, 3600 lbs, V6 '05 Ford Freestyle V6, 205 HP, 18city/25hiway MPG, 3900 lbs, V6 (all front-wheel drive 2WD only here) So where is the big advantage from direct injection combined with a turbo in a smaller 4-cylinder engine, vs. a good solid smoothe V6?
|
|
|
Replying to: coldcranker (Dec 14, 2008 10:08 am) Ford is putting the EcoBoost on the Flex next year, a car similar to my Taurus X and your Freestyle. The Flex, my T-X and your Freestyle get mileage of 17/24, 17/24 and 18/25 respectively. (The T-X has 260 HP versus 205 HP of the Freestyle, but only looses 1 MPG). In practice, I do much better than the standards with my T-X if I do slow starts and stops, and stay below 65 MPH, with Freeway at 26 MPG and combined 22-23 MPG. When the new EcoBoost comes out on the Flex next year. I suspect you'll see amazing numbers like 21/30 MPG for the same power and better performance. This will be a major breakthrough as Ford applies this low cost technology across the line. EcoBoost helps everywhere - Crossovers, economy cars, trucks, and even Hybrids get more than a 20% mileage improvement across the fleet, while keeping the same power and better performance (via a flatter torque curve). It's true that a V-6 is smoother and quieter. There's now an effort to add weights and muffler tuning to make the smaller I-4 (with the power of a V-6 now) feel and sound more like a V-6. We'll see how this works in the next few years. Combining their new EcoBoost with their new totally redesigned modern fleet coming out in the next year or two, Ford could easily start to dominate the market. They're already starting to regain market share with their new improvements that now put Ford at the top of the market in safety, fuel effiency, reliabilty, and use of modern electronics (like SYNC for one).
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: larryqw (Dec 14, 2008 12:04 pm) Bottom line is that Ford's claims are hyper-inflated. Doing clever things in the engine control software to an Ecoboost (DI/turbo) 4-cylinder engine might get you 5 or 10% greater fuel economy at the same power levels as a decent V6 you're replacing, but nobody yet knows how to get a 20% gain. All I've heard about the Flex is that it will eventually go to direct injection on its 3.5L V6, adding a turbo, calling it Ecoboost, and then marketing it as getting better MPG than a 4.6L V8 if it existed in that application. What I'd like to see them do is put a 1.5L 4-cylinder Ecoboost in the Flex and get at least 215 HP out of it, with a fuel economy gain. Granted, 215 HP is not as much as a non-turbo 3.5L V6, but they would at least get a significant fuel economy gain.
|
|
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 GMC Acadia
2010 Mitsubishi Outlander
2010 Subaru Forester
2009 Hyundai Santa Fe
2009 Ford Taurus X
2011 Toyota RAV4
2010 Nissan Rogue
2010 Honda Accord Crosstour
2010 Dodge Journey
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
