Acura RDX

[!!!TED!!!]

A few pictures from the Barrie autoshow in Ontario. Taken by polish_kris.

The new Acura RDX. Turbo engine, nice interior. Dunno, not much to say.

Ill let the pics speak for themselves:

[FAPTurbo]

Saw one half an hour ago when driving down the freeway.

Not too bad at all.

[Northstar]

What are those things right to the side of the seat? Are those air vents or something?

[Cory Wolfe]

Love the interior... and that's about it. The rear is growing on me and sides are decent but that front is just hideous is likely to never grow on me.

[bobo]

I hate almost everything about this thing, and I used to be such an Acura fan. For a bright spot, interiors have been a strong suit lately of Acuras, and this is no different. The styling of the rear is ok, but overall it just says overgrown Civic to me. And I would never consider getting this thing because of the turbo 4.

[regfootball]

nice interior. question though, .....did they stash a full 5 gallon tank of gas in the trunk area for when this fuel sucker runs through its main tank in about 100 miles?

Edited September 18, 2006 by regfootball

[Satty]

There was one in the showroom when I was in getting some paperwork for my Solara's GAP coverage and its sticker was like $36k, the MDX in the showroom was almost the same price, so I must ask, whats the point?

[the_yellow_dart]

The rear strikes me as an evolution of the Tribeca that I actually like. The front is still too busy for me.

I've yet to see an Acura SUV I like, concept or otherwise.

[Croc]

What's up with the angled silverish trim in the interior? Dust magnet much?

[regfootball]

There was one in the showroom when I was in getting some paperwork for my Solara's GAP coverage and its sticker was like $36k, the MDX in the showroom was almost the same price, so I must ask, whats the point?

194741[/snapback]

to be more expensive than the Tahoe with half the cylinders and less gas mileage. was that a new MDX or the current model? No way they sell the 07 MDX for less than 40-45k.

Edited September 18, 2006 by regfootball

[Matt276]

nice interior.  question though, .....did they stash a full 5 gallon tank of gas in the trunk area for when this fuel sucker runs through its main tank in about 100 miles?

194724[/snapback]

[Flybrian]

Altima called...wants its gauges back.

Hood prop on a luxury car. :rotflmao:

And this seriously looks like a crossover version of an Acura EL.

[siegen]

There was one in the showroom when I was in getting some paperwork for my Solara's GAP coverage and its sticker was like $36k, the MDX in the showroom was almost the same price, so I must ask, whats the point?

194741[/snapback]

The new MDX starts at 40k and will probably come equipped at most dealers in the mid 40k range. The old MDX is undoubtably selling at MSRP or Invoice, since it is so old, while the new RDX is most likely selling above MSRP as most new cars do when they come out.

Altima called...wants its gauges back.

The 90's called, they want you guys to stop using their phrase. :AH-HA_wink:

[Flybrian]

The 90's called, they want you guys to stop using their phrase.  :AH-HA_wink:

194882[/snapback]

As if...*chhha!*

[regfootball]

Altima called...wants its gauges back.

Hood prop on a luxury car. :rotflmao:

And this seriously looks like a crossover version of an Acura EL.

194846[/snapback]

the Acura EL? oh hey, that's a luxurious sports sedan right?

I'm surprised they didn't introduce the RDX in the sands of Alberta where all the oil is, since its a prime consumer of it.

Edited September 18, 2006 by regfootball

[siegen]

did they stash a full 5 gallon tank of gas in the trunk area for when this fuel sucker runs through its main tank in about 100 miles?

to be more expensive than the Tahoe with half the cylinders and less gas mileage.

I'm surprised they didn't introduce the RDX in the sands of Alberta where all the oil is, since its a prime consumer of it.

No mag has even done a full 10k mile or more test, how can you comment on the mileage yet? Based on one test drive where they beat on it? Give me that Tahoe and I will attempt to drive it hard (without flipping it or getting into a wreck at least) and I'll bet it is capable of mileage in the single digits, while at the same time being much slower (2 seconds slower 0-60) and incapable of turns.

[Drew Dowdell]

No mag has even done a full 10k mile or more test, how can you comment on the mileage yet? Based on one test drive where they beat on it? Give me that Tahoe and I will attempt to drive it hard (without flipping it or getting into a wreck at least) and I'll bet it is capable of mileage in the single digits, while at the same time being much slower (2 seconds slower 0-60) and incapable of turns.

194958[/snapback]

fine, and I'll do the same in an RDX while attempting to tow a 5,000 lbs boat + gear + 3 kids + dog......

in West Virginia....

[Drew Dowdell]

Give me that Tahoe and I will attempt to drive it hard (without flipping it or getting into a wreck at least)

194958[/snapback]

Stabilitrack

StabiliTrak Electronic Stability Control System

The StabiliTrak Electronic Stability Control System improves vehicle stability, particularly during emergency maneuvers. Here's how it works:

    * The StabiliTrak control module compares your steering input with the truck's actual response and then, if necessary, makes small, individual brake applications to enhance control and keep you on track

    * StabiliTrak automatically intervenes when it senses loss of lateral traction (sideslip), understeer (plowing) or oversteer (fishtailing)

    * In these situations, the system applies brake pressure and, if necessary, adjusts engine torque to help the driver get the vehicle back on track

    * Also included is Proactive Roll Avoidance, which reduces the tendency to roll over in an emergency situation

[sciguy_0504]

Love the interior... and that's about it. The rear is growing on me and sides are decent but that front is just hideous is likely to never grow on me.

194686[/snapback]

Me and you think alike, huh? :AH-HA_wink:

[siegen]

fine, and I'll do the same in an RDX while attempting to tow a 5,000 lbs boat + gear + 3 kids + dog......

in West Virginia....

194960[/snapback]

Towing isn't an issue, as that isn't what people are buying the RDX for. How many people do you see towing a boat with their X3, CX-7, or RX for that matter? But that is beside the point.

[Drew Dowdell]

Towing isn't an issue, as that isn't what people are buying the RDX for. How many people do you see towing a boat with their X3, CX-7, or RX for that matter? But that is beside the point.

195031[/snapback]

How many people will trade in their Tahoes for RDXes so they can get better gas mileage?

How many RDX owners, formerly Tahoe owners will fail at their goal?

[Drew Dowdell]

No mag has even done a full 10k mile or more test, how can you comment on the mileage yet? Based on one test drive where they beat on it? Give me that Tahoe and I will attempt to drive it hard (without flipping it or getting into a wreck at least) and I'll bet it is capable of mileage in the single digits, while at the same time being much slower (2 seconds slower 0-60) and incapable of turns.

194958[/snapback]

Don't forget, the Tahoe has AFM and will have a hybrid out soon as well.

[regfootball]

No mag has even done a full 10k mile or more test, how can you comment on the mileage yet? Based on one test drive where they beat on it? Give me that Tahoe and I will attempt to drive it hard (without flipping it or getting into a wreck at least) and I'll bet it is capable of mileage in the single digits, while at the same time being much slower (2 seconds slower 0-60) and incapable of turns.

194958[/snapback]

the tahoe prob gets better mpg with ethanol than the RDX gets with premium. to top it off, i know which one I would rather be in in case of a head on between the two.

[regfootball]

fine, and I'll do the same in an RDX while attempting to tow a 5,000 lbs boat + gear + 3 kids + dog......

in West Virginia....

194960[/snapback]

assuming that the RDX chassis and body doesn't go all 'Ridgeline' on you from trying to tow 'so much'.

[regfootball]

Towing isn't an issue, as that isn't what people are buying the RDX for. How many people do you see towing a boat with their X3, CX-7, or RX for that matter? But that is beside the point.

195031[/snapback]

guess its not an SUV then. its a CCCV.....crossover coffee cruising vessel. the rdx can tow one recently graduated and highly coveted sexy looking young professional female and her starbucks latte in easy fashion.

in the meantime, the tahoe can tow the RDX on a trailer and still get great mpg.

Edited September 18, 2006 by regfootball

[regfootball]

hell, want a performance suv.....SRT8 GC or TB SS. cost you the same.

[siegen]

How many people will trade in their Tahoes for RDXes so they can get better gas mileage?

How many RDX owners, formerly Tahoe owners will fail at their goal?

What is the point of this question? It's still too early to tell. What kind of mileage will the RDX get when it is driven normally, day to day, to and from work, like the majority of buyers will do?

[Drew Dowdell]

What is the point of this question? It's still too early to tell. What kind of mileage will the RDX get when it is driven normally, day to day, to and from work, like the majority of buyers will do?

195074[/snapback]

Because, again, I beat the hell out of my '03 Avalanche and still get between 14 - 15 mpg in city driving. GTM-900 Avalanches get better mileage.

The RDX will still need to be wound up to move. Something like the Tahoe has twice the torque at 1/3 the rpm.

[Cory Wolfe]

I love the Turbo 4 engine. It's worth every penny to me.

[big blue]

I like the RDX, but it doesn't push the envelope of the segment or anything. Unlike some of Honda/Acura's other products, this feels less special to me since its just another entry, nothing to separate it from the crowd of other sport SUVs. It's a brand new product and it doesn't lead the market in many of its aspects whether it be mileage, power, roominess etc. The value of it is good compared to the BMW X3, but then of course there's the Mazda CX-7 which is a value version of the RDX. I just don't see the RDX as being worthy enough of a price premium, at least not yet.

I DO however want to test drive that sucker, just because I know that turbo coupled with the SH-AWD has got to be fun and I want to see how well their first turbo application in the US is. I'm sure its a great handler no doubt, but I think the overall package is somewhat underwhelming.

[mustang84]

Man, there's awkward cut lines everywhere, especially when you look at the rear with the huge cut right down through the bumper. It's like a mis-mash cobbling of pieces.

I'm not really that impressed with the interior either...it kinda looks like something Dodge would do, minus the curves.

The concept looked much cleaner.

Edited September 19, 2006 by mustang84

[siegen]

I like the RDX, but it doesn't push the envelope of the segment or anything. Unlike some of Honda/Acura's other products, this feels less special to me since its just another entry, nothing to separate it from the crowd of other sport SUVs. It's a brand new product and it doesn't lead the market in many of its aspects whether it be mileage, power, roominess etc. The value of it is good compared to the BMW X3, but then of course there's the Mazda CX-7 which is a value version of the RDX. I just don't see the RDX as being worthy enough of a price premium, at least not yet.

I DO however want to test drive that sucker, just because I know that turbo coupled with the SH-AWD has got to be fun and I want to see how well their first turbo application in the US is. I'm sure its a great handler no doubt, but I think the overall package is somewhat underwhelming.

195351[/snapback]

The CX-7 will undoubtably attract a lot of buyers, but the RDX is a better package, unless you're looking for a stripped down FWD version. I was at a Mazda dealer the other day so had a chance to look them over (there was only about 40 on the lot :AH-HA_wink: ), and they are pretty plain.

The funny thing is, despite the AWD CX-7 weighing in the same as the RDX (3900 lbs or so), having a similar engine, and a 6 speed transmission (versus 5 in the RDX), the RDX still outguns it by nearly a second 0-60 and 1/4 (check Edmunds' reviews of both cars).

For those interested, TOV has the first dyno test of the RDX with a video. You can see the power curve of the engine, and how Acura tuned it very mildly (boost drops off significantly in the higher revs). If they put this into a sports car like Mazda did with theirs (although I would rather they stay N/A), they could easily tune it for 280hp or more.

[Northstar]

Comparing the Tahoe's gas mileage to the RDX's is dumb. The Tahoe is a 5500lb full-size SUV, and I'm guessing the RDX weighs no more than 4000lbs.

The RAV4 gets 22/29 MPG with the V6, so I don't see why the RDX shouldn't be able to get similar.

[scotthendersonfan]

I like the RDX, but it doesn't push the envelope of the segment or anything. Unlike some of Honda/Acura's other products, this feels less special to me since its just another entry, nothing to separate it from the crowd of other sport SUVs. It's a brand new product and it doesn't lead the market in many of its aspects whether it be mileage, power, roominess etc. The value of it is good compared to the BMW X3, but then of course there's the Mazda CX-7 which is a value version of the RDX. I just don't see the RDX as being worthy enough of a price premium, at least not yet.

I DO however want to test drive that sucker, just because I know that turbo coupled with the SH-AWD has got to be fun and I want to see how well their first turbo application in the US is. I'm sure its a great handler no doubt, but I think the overall package is somewhat underwhelming.

195351[/snapback]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=67...docidfeed&hl=en

http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-article?article_id=599539

[siegen]

The RAV4 gets 22/29 MPG with the V6, so I don't see why the RDX shouldn't be able to get similar.

21/28 for the AWD model. And the RDX won't reach that because it is a premium vehicle that weighs 500 lbs more, has a lot more electronics and features, and has an aggressive performance oriented AWD system.

[big blue]

I'm actually a member over at TOV(Yes we're a Honda AND GM family) but I didn't check out that dyno vid yet. Interesting results indeed. Maybe I was too quick to judge...course I did say "I just don't see the RDX as being worthy enough of a price premium, at least not yet." :AH-HA_wink:

As for the CX-7, I don't like it too much and I'm still unsure of Mazda's reliability. I have frequented their boards and seen some ugly problems pop up. For most people however, the RDX and CX-7 are similar enough that I see some people picking the CX-7 over the Acura. I personally would pick the RDX as I really do like the thing, but its not giving me the same reaction as seeing the new MDX does. That new MDX looks like a possible segment leader, the RDX seems like it will do good, but...yeah.

For the record, the sound of the RDX revving up was awesome. I always love listening to dyno tests...

Edited September 19, 2006 by big blue

[regfootball]

Comparing the Tahoe's gas mileage to the RDX's is dumb. The Tahoe is a 5500lb full-size SUV, and I'm guessing the RDX weighs no more than 4000lbs.

The RAV4 gets 22/29 MPG with the V6, so I don't see why the RDX shouldn't be able to get similar.

195359[/snapback]

because so far, it hasn't tested out well for mpg.

[regfootball]

so i am re-reading a recent road and track last night. THEIR RDX test, it only got

13.2

mpg. in same issue was a CTSv long term test....that got 15.6 mpg i think.

same weight.......2wice as much usable power. 2wice as many cylinders.

and Honda is so great at mpg?

Edited October 25, 2006 by regfootball

[siegen]

so i am re-reading a recent road and track last night.  THEIR RDX test, it only got

13.2

mpg.  in same issue was a CTSv long term test....that got 15.6 mpg i think.

same weight.......2wice as much usable power.  2wice as many cylinders.

and Honda is so great at mpg?

208741[/snapback]

You are definately the troll king.

[regfootball]

just sayin'........

i just don't get how a CTSv gets better mpg. the RDX had two mag tests with under 14 mpg.

[siegen]

just sayin'........

i just don't get how a CTSv gets better mpg.  the RDX had two mag tests with under 14 mpg.

208825[/snapback]

The RDX is an SUV, and doesn't move as efficiently through the air as a car. I've read a few owners reports who say they get around 17 mpg in the city and 20-22mpg on the highway. That is with normal driving and sounds about right. A magazine that is doing a lot of performance testing and spirited driving will obviously get considerably less. 17/22 isn't too far off of the EPA rated 19/23, specially for a turbocharged vehicle. A V6 would probably do better, but would weigh more and take up more room and it might not have fit anyway.

[Flybrian]

Maybe its just me, but wouldn't you rather have that same blown four and optional AWD in a nimbler and more attractive TSX sedan, wagon, or hatch?

[Intrepidation]

Maybe its just me, but wouldn't you rather have that same blown four and optional AWD in a nimbler and more attractive TSX sedan, wagon, or hatch?

208864[/snapback]

That'll probably happen when the TSX is redesigned.

[Bimmer325]

Wagons typically don't succeed in the entry-level luxury segment, so another TSX variant is likely out of the question. As for the TSX sedan, a turbo 4 and AWD would be quite appealing.

The RDX makes perfect sense in my eyes. It's Acura's entry into an up-and-coming segment that'll be packed with competitors within the next few years. Surprisingly, I've really warmed up to it's styling after seeing several in person.

[siegen]

Maybe its just me, but wouldn't you rather have that same blown four and optional AWD in a nimbler and more attractive TSX sedan, wagon, or hatch?

208864[/snapback]

From what I've heard, Acura will either be putting a small turbo 4cyl like the RDX's, a revised 2.4L or higher displacement N/A 4cyl, or a small V6 in the next TSX. Nothing but rumors at this point though. Also, it's hard to say if they will include SH-AWD on it or not, as it is a big and heavy system, and the TL still doesn't have it. I'm hoping for a setup similar to the RDX's, but keeping the weight of the TSX down to the mid 3000's. It is at 3250-3350 lbs right now and the RDX weighs in at 3900-4000 lbs, so a TSX with the same power train as the RDX but 4-500 lbs lighter would be a screamer. I am partial to the N/A v6 though, so I still think that would be cool, it would just throw the weight distribution off a little more.

[Flybrian]

I just really don't understand the appeal of this entire segement. Why pay $30k+ for such a small and heavy vehicle that will never achieve the same fuel economy or performance as a wagon or hatch or sedan?

[regfootball]

I just really don't understand the appeal of this entire segement. Why pay $30k+ for such a small and heavy vehicle that will never achieve the same fuel economy or performance as a wagon or hatch or sedan?

208876[/snapback]

its a compact SUV...you get the panache of an SUV, cargo/utility but better handling and gas mileage than the true old style SUV's. You get to sit high, have a big rear cargo area to take sh1t home from Pier One and Crate and Barrel or Abercrombie, and 'Jenny' feels so safe driving one!

again, for many folks, sedans are dead. some folks will only buy SUV's now and this is the smallest kind of luxury SUV you can get....even if it does weigh as much as a CTSv but it gets worse mileage with half the hp.

Edited October 26, 2006 by regfootball

[Dragon]

From what I've heard, Acura will either be putting a small turbo 4cyl like the RDX's, a revised 2.4L or higher displacement N/A 4cyl, or a small V6 in the next TSX. Nothing but rumors at this point though. Also, it's hard to say if they will include SH-AWD on it or not, as it is a big and heavy system, and the TL still doesn't have it. I'm hoping for a setup similar to the RDX's, but keeping the weight of the TSX down to the mid 3000's. It is at 3250-3350 lbs right now and the RDX weighs in at 3900-4000 lbs, so a TSX with the same power train as the RDX but 4-500 lbs lighter would be a screamer. I am partial to the N/A v6 though, so I still think that would be cool, it would just throw the weight distribution off a little more.

208874[/snapback]

I hope they put in a better manumatic. The RDX I drove shifting blew. It would shift around its normal shift points, even if I was controlling it. Half the time, I didn’t know what gear I was in…the one I had put it in, or one above/below.

[regfootball]

i looked at an RDX on the lot today and I must say, the exterior is alright. the interior is quite nice (excepting some of the dash plastic which looks a bit cheap). the seats look phenomenal. the seating is very intimate. the console looks cool. That would be a dang nice cabin to spend time in.

still doesn't excuse 13 mpg, but I guess if you're into paying 38 grand for a 4 popper SUV that sucks fuel like its going out of style, and still you need to wind it up to get any sort of power, then you can afford to put in premium gas and get terrible mpg.

Edited October 30, 2006 by regfootball

[Polish_Kris]

i looked at an RDX on the lot today and I must say, the exterior is alright.  the interior is quite nice (excepting some of the dash plastic which looks a bit cheap).  the seats look phenomenal.  the seating is very intimate.  the console looks cool.  That would be a dang nice cabin to spend time in.

still doesn't excuse 13 mpg, but I guess if you're into paying 38 grand for a 4 popper SUV that sucks fuel like its going out of style, and still you need to wind it up to get any sort of power, then you can afford to put in premium gas and get terrible mpg.

210213[/snapback]

I'm impressed, it's the first time I ever seen you say anything good about a Honda, see what a difference it makes to see the product in person as opposed to jumping to conclusions based on internet photos