Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





2013 Acura RDX

1246710

Comments

  • pdlpsherpdlpsher Posts: 4
    Could the coasting be caused by a on-demand AC and/or alternator? The 2013 BMW has this feature to save gas.
  • I'm no engineer. I'm just having trouble understanding how this saves gas. Playing around with it, there are occasions when I'm coasting downhill and by either switching into neutral or using the paddle shifters to upshift, the RPMs drop, the car speeds up, and the real-time MPG meter shoots up dramatically.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    edited June 2012
    During coast down periods with the DBW accelerator pedal fully released the fuel flow to the engine is COMPLETELY shut off, NO voltage to the fuel injectors. To keep the engine turning over such that it doesn't stall until/once fuel flow is restored the transmission is downshifted, sequentially downshifted, as road speed declines.

    Once the roadspeed is too low, <10MPH, to sustain a non-stall engine RPM the transmission is upshifted (feel that "lurch", surge, forward?) and now will not downshift into 1st until/unless the vehicle comes to a full and complete stop.

    As a result of FWD and F/awd vehicle's patently unsafe nature in wintertime adverse roadbed conditions the effect might be reduced or even disabled with OAT near or below freezing. Basically the same as the FWD hybrids like the Prius, INSTANT disabling of front wheel driven regenerative braking once even the slightest level of wheelskid/slip is detected.

    If the alternator, for "regen" purposes, is added to the coastdown load all the better.
  • I appreciate that you're trying to explain what happens when I lift my foot from the accelerator, but I still fail to understand why it's more fuel efficient to slow the car down.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Given that YOUR input (or lack of, actually) is that you wish to coastdown to a lower speed, which would conserve the most fuel..?

    1.) A long coastdown distance with the engine fueled at idle the full time.

    or:

    2.) A (slightly) shorter coastdown distance with ZERO fuel consumed...?
  • OK I guess I get it. I look at RPMs, but I guess that isn't a proxy for fuel consumed.
  • twwilliamtwwilliam Posts: 17
    edited June 2012
    I love this 2013 RDX Tech, especially compared to the 2009 RDX Tech I traded in. To some the new ride is boring, not me. It is a by far smoother and quieter and with better gas mileage (up to 6 mpg thus far on both local & highway).
    I have been driving 4WD & AWD vehicles for 50 years and very much like everything about the 2013 RDX Tech, EXCEPT for the awful new hard drive phone system, especially when compared to the 2009 RDX or my wife's 2012 MDX. The new phone system only allows 20 voice tag numbers, compared to 50 for the other Auras we have owned. I feel sorry for traveling salesmen who need to access their clients phone numbers. Then to boot, one cannot enter the main phonebook once the car is moving. The same holds true for the navigation system. My wife cannot change the system when she is the passenger with me. One has to find a safe place to pull off the road to properly access the phone or navigation system. This could cause more dangerous situations than the so called safety features to protect the public.

    Also no remote start is available from ACURA, which may be a blessing in disguise as the "factory system" in our 2912 MDX is the worst I've used in over 20 years of using after market systems in our vehicles. The after market system in our previous Acuras and a friends 2005 RL are far superior.

    Perhaps the solution for those considering the new 2013 is to not purchase the Tech package. One could save a lot of money, even after installing after market Bluetooth & remote start systems.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 14,298
    as to bluetooth, the base car still has that, right? might be a different set up not having the hard drive set up, but it still has it standard.

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (when daughter lets me see it), 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again), and new Jetta SE (son's first new car on his own dime!)

  • stickguystickguy Posts: 14,298
    for a new car for my wife. After almost 17 years in a minivan, she is ready to downsize. We still need something with reasonable utility for hauling stuff around (vacations, and occasional bulky object). So, a small SUV/CUV was a natural fit.

    looked at most of the usual suspects (MX5/CRV/new focus/Santa Fe/Subaru outback). All had their plusses and minuses, and any would likely do the job, but nothing that really "wowed" her. CRV she liked the first time we saw/drove, largely because it was very similar to her Odyssey. I was indifferent to it.

    Of that bunch, the Outback actually came out on top. I really liked it, but she felt it looked like a (dirty word coming!) "wagon". we stopped to look again and she got over that. Can also get for a very good price.

    But, after a few looks, she still is fixated on the RDX. She just really likes it, and was pleased after driving on roads today. So, of course she picked the most expensive option (well, the BMW X3 was the most expensive, but we eliminated that!).

    It certainly is a nice car. And very quick with this engine. Steering to me was overly light, but I'm sure could get used to it.

    so, it will come down to price vs. cache. She just seems to want something fancy/cool/upscale for a change (things the Subaru doesn't really have).

    The outback actually has every feature the RDX has, other than push button start (which I don't really like) and is roomier inside. And of course, cheaper, with a much better AWD system.

    Actually, I am debating still just getting a FWD model to save money. We never really needed AWD with the van, and I don't expect that to change. Pretty much would only be for resale, but we anticipate keeping whatever we get for a long, long time, so not really and issue.

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (when daughter lets me see it), 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again), and new Jetta SE (son's first new car on his own dime!)

  • carteachcarteach Posts: 179
    I test drove the new RDX, after that the CR-V and after that the Outback. All I can say is I wish I could afford the RDX. Coming from a 2006 TL I loved its power, weight and steering. Instead I'll be deciding between the CR-V and the Outback.
  • For what it's worth, the Outback also doesn't have memory seats, which I really take advantage of, and the mileage is worse (unless you get the pokey 4cyl engine). You'll also have less of a warranty and less service included (my Acura dealer gives free loaners & oil changes). That being said, the Outback otherwise an outstanding car that you can't go wrong with, and as for cache', it may be a wagon, but tell her that Subarus carry their own kind of rugged chic.

    As for the Acura, if you want an RDX for a lot less money, go with your gut and get the FWD version with no tech package, which is loaded. I've been driving FWD Acuras for 12 years and the traction control gets me through snowy, icy conditions just fine. 4WD is overkill for 98% of the people who buy it. And who needs a nav system when smartphones have superior turn-by-turn navigation built in? You can negotiate a great deal on the base model.
  • kurienptkurienpt Posts: 2
    Quakerwildcat - thanks for your posts. I was also considering same vehicles CR-V and then saw the RDX. How much mileage do you think you get on city driving or combined? (most of my commute is city, sometime rush hour) I was wonder if cyclinder activation works in city traffic. Do you have Acura RDX FWD or AWD? Thanks for help.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 14,298
    you sure the 2013 has memory drivers seat? Just looked in the features section of the brochure, and on Edmunds, and it was not mentioned.

    Not a huge deal to me, but certainly a nice thing to have.

    one thing that to me looks to be an issue is the small gas tank on the RDX> only 16 gallons? You aren't getting much cruising range out of that. Figure you probably get a mixed highway real 25, meaning you will be searching for a gas station every 300 miles (at least if you try an not run below 1/4 tank).

    and forget about around town, where you are probably going to get 17 or so. so every 250 miles?

    even the Subaru 4 cyl, which gets better mileage, has 18.5 gallon tank.

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (when daughter lets me see it), 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again), and new Jetta SE (son's first new car on his own dime!)

  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,966
    Edmunds did a full test of the RDX which involves a lot of 0-60 type runs and fast runs through slaloms etc and still returned 22mpg. Usually their tests result in substantially less than the vehicles EPA city mpg. So you can see that getting 22mpg in this test was commendable as it's right at the EPA combined avg for the RDX.

    If you drive mainly city you should expect no better than the city EPA mpg which I believe is 20mpg. The cylinder deactivation only occurs at steady cruise so I don't think you'll get much of that at all in a city driving environment. I've been looking at the RDX and from what I've been reading and hearing it has pretty much lived up to it's EPA estimates.
  • kurienptkurienpt Posts: 2
    that data helps. thanks m6user!
  • It's the FWD version and I've only driven two tanks on it so it's probably unfair to draw conclusions about mileage. I will say that in 100% city driving with traffic it appears to be pretty low, like 15-18 range. Tomorrow I start a more normal mixed city/highway commute so we'll see what we get over the next tank or two.

    Re the memory seats, my point was that the Subaru doesn't have them.
  • kreozzkreozz Posts: 3
    Hi there,

    I am plannig on purchasing RDX 2013 AWD with tech package soon, and I would like to ask if there is anything that a prospective buyer would benefit from knowing beforehand, such as minor/serious flaws in any equipment making it harder to enjoy otherwise great vehicle. I haven't test driven it yet, so my knowledge is based solely on reviews and comments of others. If there is anything you would like to share with this respect, it would be greatly appreciated, as well as any proposed ways to overcome those problem.

    Thus far, I have read about two things I feel like Acura should have done better in their new RDX:

    (1) navigation that only displays map view: I cannot really believe that nav of such a level cannot simply display any perspective views and does straight top-down view exclusively. Even a $100 navigator from target can show multiple views when it needs to guide you through, say, overlapping roadways. I simply have no idea as to how a driver should use map view in such instances. If anyone has experience using particularly RDX 2013 navigation, please let me know how good/bad it is.

    (2) key fob not having remote start button: this is just ridiculous. Whereas Acura furnished its customers with keyless entry and push button engine start, I still simply cannot start my car remotely - the feature I really need. Does anyone have any experience overcoming this issue by buying 3rd party key fob, and if so, what's the best one in terms of compatibility with original Acura key fob and associated cost? Is it worth ask dealer to install such a feature?

    If there is anything else you would like to add that disappoints you as current or prospective RDX 2013 owner, your comments will be greatly appreciated.

    Thank you.
  • twwilliamtwwilliam Posts: 17
    edited June 2012
    It is a great car, thus far one of the best I've owned. I traded in a 2009 RDX w/Tech Pkg.

    I love the car...far better looking, smoother & a much quieter ride. I find the phone & navigation system to be terrible compared to my previous RDX & my wife's MDX. Due to safety considerations by Acura one cannot change the GPS or access the phonebook while the car is moving. And only being able to vioce tag 20 contacts in the phonebook makes the system practically useless. This compared to 50 voice tags in the previous RDX and the 2012 MDX.
  • If you read earlier posts you'll see some frustration/confusion over the fact that the VCM engine on the RDX doesn't really "coast" like you might expect it to depending on how your previous car behaved. For me, it's counterintuitive and has meant changing the way I drive, i.e., keeping my foot on the accelerator more than I feel I should, because taking my foot off the accelerator feels almost like downshifting, like the car almost lurches. I've had to learn to drive differently to prevent passengers from feeling nauseous.

    I don't know if anybody else has experienced this, but compared to my old TL, the seats on the RDX are a little "flatter" and have proven to be a pretty unreliable place to put anything down. Groceries, papers, whatever... If I just put it on the seat, there's a decent chance it's going to end up on the floor before I get home.

    The other deficiencies vs. the competition are more transparent, and things you would know before buying. Limited speed dials, No rear vents, no rear 12V outlet, no grocery hooks, no reclining rear seats, no fold-flat seats, no really functional cargo compartment or net to hold small things.

    Still a great car and a great value.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    If you happen to be thinking of relying on a decently functional F/awd (SH-AWD) system in the new RDX then you are flat out of luck. The RDX F/awd system has been down-graded to the level of, equal of, the one in the Ford Escape.

    Life is full of trade-offs, more "expensive" motor, cut cost corners elsewhere.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    "...doesn't really coast..."

    Unlike the current crop of hybrids the RDX cannot generate "fuel" during coastdown periods. But what it can do instead via using the new full fuel cut technique is conserve fuel. Take your foot completely off the gas pedal for coastdown and the engine goes into the coastdown full fuel cut mode.

    The car will downshift sequentually as roadspeed declines in order to keep the engine turning over above stall RPM.
  • twwilliamtwwilliam Posts: 17
    Yes, it and a few minor changes are a downgrade, but the improved ride, noise reduction and fuel economy are worth the trade off. To me the new navigation and Bluetooth systems are a real negative and actually do not improve safety in anyway. Having to pull over on an interstate highway to change the GPS or make a phone call is far from being safe. Going from safe to dangerous
  • texan8899texan8899 Posts: 17
    I have a2013RDX . The manual states that using gas with an octane rating lower than 87 can lead to engine damage. Here in Houston, Shell offers three octane levels 87, 89, and 93. Seems to me the regular@87 octane is sufficient. For some reason I have been using the higher grades.

    Comments? Thanks
  • dmclone1dmclone1 Posts: 6
    Use 91. If Acura didn't think the engine needed it they wouldn't recommend it. Your paying nearly $40K for a car there is no use in cheaping out on the gas. In addition, you'll get better gas mileage with the 91 in the RDX
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 14,298
    that really does seem silly. way to nanny state.

    we looked at an Audi today, and I asked about that. The sales guy said as long as you OK the disclaimer, it would let you make changes on the go.

    also, can't you use the navi or phone via the voice commands while moving?

    I think a good solution (well, better than what Acura has now) is to tie it into the passenger airbag sensors. If someone is in that seat, allow changes.

    Not an issue for me, since if we get one, it won't have the tech package anyway!

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (when daughter lets me see it), 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again), and new Jetta SE (son's first new car on his own dime!)

  • dmclone1dmclone1 Posts: 6
    We've had the RDX(awd non-tech) for about 3 months now and have around 3,000 miles. It has averaged 23.2 mpg. Not bad considering the Nissan Rogue we had averaged 1mpg better and had 120 less horsepower, a cvt, and was a lot lighter. The cylinder deactivation works like a charm. You would have no clue that this model even had it if someone didn't tell you. It's like having a super-overdrive but you don't feel anything.

    The only downside that we've experienced so far is that my wife's Iphone sounds like crap when using Bluetooth. I haven't tested my Razr Maxx on it yet. On the plus side, we both have been able to stream pandora via Bluetooth.

    Overall, very happy with the purchase.
  • jimdrewjimdrew Posts: 84
    I am surprised at that....I also have the Razor Maxx on my 2012 Camry SE V6 and to my surprise....the new ICS operation system doesn't miss a beat. Works great. Am looking at the RDC also...so am very interested in how your Maxx works with it. Did you download the new ICS operational system...if not please do it...it works great!!!

    Jimmy Drew
  • I just picked up a brand new '13 RDX FWD Tech. I discovered when I got it home and was looking at it closely that the weatherstripping around the rear hatch was just hanging loose. This is a brand new car, just off the truck. Apparently no one at the factory or the dealership noticed this. I'm curious if anyone else has had a similar experience.
  • jg88jg88 Posts: 59
    Am thinking that this suv has less to offer than a couple of other vehicles:

    Ford Escape Titanium
    Jeep Grand Cherokee Ltd

    If I were to configure an rdx with tech package and awd, it still seems to pale in comparison to what one would get with the ford or jeep. It also will cost more. For the added cost, I could get a very long factory warranty extension such as a 7 year/100k and still come out ahead. The ford will be as good (on paper) with gas mileage and the jeep will allow me to use 87 w/o performance penalty. I live in a hot climate and the jeep has cooled seats to add to it's favor along with a full 4wd system, not just awd.

    Yes, I do go off road, am one of the 3-5% of suv owners who actually drive on logging roads and back country unimproved roads not to mention the occasional winter driving to ski areas.

    What am I missing? I really wanted to like this vehicle as we have 2 acuras and have owned another but it appears to be less of ride at a higher cost.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,966
    edited July 2012
    Think you've answered you're own question. Neither the Escape or the RDX are really meant to do the type of off road driving you're talking about. They could probably handle it 99% of the time but that other 1% would suck.

    Actually, they are very close in price and I don't see a big difference in bells and whistles between the RDX and Cherokee except the 4wd system. The Escape has some "gee, wow" stuff like the footswing to open the tailgate and the such but not much more substantive stuff. The Cherokee weighs 700lbs more than RDX and over 800lbs more than the Escape. It's just a much larger vehicle than the other two and designed to be able to go off road while the other two aren't and you pay at the pump for that priveledge. It's more of a mid to full size SUV versus a compact to midsize CUV. The gas mpg, expectedly, is substantially lower with the Cherokee while the Escape and RDX are very close. From my research, you don't lose much at all, if any, with regular gas in the RDX. After sitting in both the RDX and the Escape, I would say the RDX is still has a more luxury feel to it and is bigger inside as well. I don't care for the exterior or interior overall look of the Escape but that is very subjective. I'm sure others feel the opposite.

    I do like both the exterior and interior of the Cherokee but I'm still not sold on the MPG and the reliability in general of Chrysler and Jeep products. I know they've made inroads and have a different owner now, but it takes time to turn these things around and I'm not that trusting yet.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 14,298
    well, as soon as you mentioned actually taking this off pavement, I would eliminate the RDX. Though I would also eliminate the Ford!

    you will give up some MPG though with the Jeep.

    You might be good with say an Outback for the light off-roading (or more accurately, back roading?) you describe.

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (when daughter lets me see it), 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again), and new Jetta SE (son's first new car on his own dime!)

Sign In or Register to comment.