Howdy, Stranger!

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





2013 Acura RDX

1235710

Comments

  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,998
    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: 14,458
    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 (daughter stole that one), and 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again)

  • jg88jg88 Posts: 59
    edited July 2012
    Am not entirely sold on the reliability of the Jeep as well, hence the interest in an extended warranty. Our '04 Ford expy has been rock solid for repairs, with very few, inexpensive repairs needed.

    Should have also mentioned the acura seems expensive to add a roof rack and a towing receiver. The ford and jeep come with them. The jeep adds a 2" reciever std and while I don't tow anything, I do use a mtn bike rack that is mounted in ours. Is it only me that I find an suv without a roof rack to be ill-equipped? Both the jeep and ford also have air vents in the back which are almost mandatory in warm climates.

    Sitting in the jeep and acura, I didn't really sense a big difference in size. The escape felt smaller than both but still had room for 4 and storage wasn't terrible.
  • jg88jg88 Posts: 59
    "You might be good with say an Outback for the light off-roading (or more accurately, back roading?)"

    Good one! I like this term since it's more like what we do. AWD seems OK for this but not ideal. 4wd with low range is often overkill until you really need it to get down a hill on a snowy loggging road. In TX, have only used it once to cross a shallow stream bed that had flooded over a back road. Up north or in the rockies, it's been a used more often.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,998
    edited July 2012
    Is it only me that I find an suv without a roof rack to be ill-equipped?

    Probably not only you but certainly doesn't include me. I have an Infiniti QX4 that has a roof rack and also has AWD, 4wd and 4wdLo. I haven't once put something on the roof or had the vehicle in 4wdLo. And the only reason I put it in 4wd(once) was just to try it. That is in almost 10 years of ownership. I guess someone might ask why I bought all that capability but that is just the way it was equipped and we got a huge, end-of-year deal on it. It's been a great vehicle even if I'm hauling around some weight and wind resistance I really don't need. That's one thing I like about the RDX...no roof racks unless you really want them. The RDX is also the same exact length as my QX4 and only a couple of inches wider. A size that I've become accustomed to and like.

    The Jeep is about a foot longer and several inches wider than the RDX but the interior is closer in size. Like I said, a lot heavier vehichle. The Outback would be a good choice if you don't really do any rock climbing at all. Good ground clearance. It would be much cheaper too for a loaded Limited V6 model which would compare pretty favorably with these others you're looking at.
  • steverstever Ex Yooper, just arrived in New MexicoPosts: 40,550
    edited July 2012
    Lots of people who use racks would rather use their own aftermarket Yakima or Thule or Sportrack instead of a factory one anyway. The factory racks on my van mostly just get in the way.

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    edited July 2012
    An older RDX with the SH-AWD system?

    4Runner..?

    Or the the "base" Porsche Cayenne or even the VW "knockoff..?

    And you will ot find me adding weight to the top of an already rollover prone SUV.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 14,458
    the only time I ever use my bag is on a trip to the beach for a week. And it was on top of a minivan (yes, that is embarrassing when you only have 4 people in it!)

    But, I only use it for the light but bulky stuff that is hard to stuff in the car. Beach chairs, the beach buggy, mesh bag of beach toys, etc.

    But, I also have an eye level rule. Nothing allowed above the level of the top of the rear seat, or above the bottom of the rear window. I like to be able to see out the back!

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (daughter stole that one), and 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again)

  • jg88jg88 Posts: 59
    Am considering the 4-runner, it's a nice suv and as capable off the beaten path as the Jeep is. Doesn't get as good mileage rating on the highway but similar around town. The toyota guys don't often deal very well on price and tend to load up the trucks with dealer options. I've tried to buy a toyota suv in the past and could not order exactly what I wanted. The Cayenne is a big YES but even used is out of the price range. I'd sacrifice off-road travel for one.
    ------------------------------------------------------
    As far as rollover prone have to respectfully disagree that adding less than 200 lbs on a top carrier affects a multi-ton vehicles handling. That said, I have noticed a little drop in highway mileage with the canoe or yakima 20 cu ft cargo carrier.

    Which brings me to roof racks on SUVs. SUV stands for Sports Utility Vehicle and to me, a roof rack is de riguer. Where does one put their kayak, canoe or ski rack without one? (Our bikes are on the 2" hitch mount with the boats or cargo carrier on top.) If one is not engaging in sports, why drive and suv. If not going off road, what's the point of awd/4wd unless you live in a wintry climate? You can still get awd and if don't need the ground clearance, get a station wagon. I beleive an entire class of drivers has fallen victim to some pretty slick marketing-ese and image manipulation. I drive one because I use it as one. On the road I'd much prefer a car-like set-up for daily use but in order to get the gear on it and in it, the family, the dog and the baggage, then get away from the real world, it's a good choice for us.

    I'd love to have another acura. The ones I've bought have been simply great cars - a '96 rl, an '02 rsx/s, an '07 tsx. The MDX is more than I need now and the rdx just seems too pricey for what you get. I sadly believe they missed with this one.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,998
    I sadly believe they missed with this one.

    Actually, they are selling very, very briskly, way better than before, and all indications are that it is going to be a very good seller going forward. There are different sports for different folks and many that don't require carrying large items on top of your vehicle. I hunt, fish, play basketball, tennis and softball, none of which require large pieces of equipment to be carried outside of the vehilce. And how many true station wagons are even available anyway?
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 14,458
    you answered your own question. "station wagon" is a dirty word. A lot of people (not just women) won't be caught dead in one. But, raise it up a little, slap some plastic on the side, call it an SUV and they sell like hotcakes!

    and the RDX class (CUVs, soft roaders, whatever you want to call them) are really just glorified tall wagons (and in some cases, large hatchbacks). And the AWD is more for bad weather getting around (or just "because") for most people.

    in my case, we are looking to replace my wife's odyssey. She has been driving a van for 17 years, and now that the kids are leaving the nest (the one left is about to get her license), we don't need such a boat, and she wants something different along with smaller.

    but, we still need the utility and reasonable cargo hauling ability. So yes, a wagon would be fine (we don't off road, tow, or tote lots of toys!). But SWMBO is clear, she doesn't want a wagon! The RDX qualifies as stylish enough and certainly not a wagon.

    we are also looking at the outback, but I have to convince her it really isn't a wagon. i would be very happy with a better handling Legacy wagon, for a couple grand less, but that would never fly (if they even made one)

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (daughter stole that one), and 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again)

  • stickguystickguy Posts: 14,458
    the new model is basically a slightly smaller 2 row 5 seat MDX now, for about 8K less (model to equivilant model). So if you don't ned the 3rd row (and I rode in one recently, it was painful!) and can live with a little less cargo area, it is a bargain. Plus quite a bit lighter, and more nimble (and better MPG).

    quite likely it is going to cannibalize sales from it's big brother.

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (daughter stole that one), and 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again)

  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,998
    I've driven one twice now and what you say is correct. I see a ton of MDX's sitting on the lot so don't know if the RDX will be a win-win for Acura or not.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 14,458
    don't discount the importance of the price differential either. There are people that can stretch to the low-mid 30s for an RDX that aren't able to jump into the low-mid 40s for an MDX

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (daughter stole that one), and 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again)

  • jg88jg88 Posts: 59
    edited June 2012
    My bad, should have written they missed me with this one, not that they missed.

    Also, I do smile when people won't buy in to the concept that most car based suvs are actually jacked up wagons -- my wife is included in that list. There will be no wagons or mini vans with her behind the wheel. Just not happening.

    BTW, I didn't add that I do a bit of bird hunting in far away mountainous areas and there is where where real 4wd systems really come into play for me. If I didn't hunt, no need for serious off-roading capability. Have had more than a few times where low range/high ground clearance got me home from where I would have been stuck otherwise.

    As it stands from my perspective, if I did go with a car-based suv in this price range, believe I'd lean toward the escape titanium or maybe a used x5 diesel - vents in the back, a useful roof rack, rear tow hitch and decent mileage upgrade from the expy. Right now though, that jeep keeps looking better and better at a lower price than the rdx.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Yes, but....

    The clear and certain majority of buyers have not a clue that an AWD label, especially F/awd, often means no AWD functionality, or so little functionality, as to be useless for wintertime use.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,998
    edited July 2012
    I guess you've spent some time driving these systems or is it just you surmise this to be the case? From what I've read of your previous posts I would guess that you wouldn't be caught dead in one of these vehicles.

    I've driven a CR-V in deep snow and it performed very good. Granted, not as good as true 4wd capability might have but a marked improvement over just FWD. People that buy these vehicles are not looking to go rock climbing or expect them to handle a foot of snow...just a little added traction. The RDX system is the same or very similar to the CR-V so I guess you would have to argue with the millions of CR-V AWD owners whether or not the AWD capability they purchased was worth it or not.
  • alkdhslhfalkdhslhf Posts: 1
    edited July 2012
    Trying to get a hitch for 2013 RDX. Don't want to spend big bucks from dealer. Local trailer shops say none is available for a 2013 RDX. All I need it for is a bike rack. Any other experiences?
  • chucko6chucko6 Posts: 81
    Is the new RDX still requiring PREMIUM Fuel ?
    What a shame that they insist on the high compression --- it would really compliment the CRV and I feel a real seller.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,998
    edited July 2012
    Is it required? Short answer.....no, it isn't. Long answer....it is recommended for best performance but regular runs in it just fine. Many people can't tell the difference in performance anyway.
  • rlemayrlemay Posts: 3
    edited July 2012
    Where I live (SoCal) premium is only .02 more per gallon.
    Small price to pay for added performance.
  • ...and it's mid-grade 91 Octane that's recommended.

    Around here, it's about a 5% boost in fuel efficiency for a 2% increase in fuel cost, plus performance is supposedly better.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,998
    edited July 2012
    In the midwest midgrade(89 octane) is about .15 more than reg(87 octane) and prem(I believe is 93 octane around here) is about .15 more than midgrade. That is about 9% more for actual premium versus reg. From what I've read the performance is a little better with premium and is probably a wash on mpg cost so why not get the little extra performance I guess.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    You really only "need" premium fuel when the effective compression ratio is close to or equal to the mechanical compression ratio.

    Bottom line....how often is that the case, how often do you use WOT...???
  • dmclone1dmclone1 Posts: 7
    You're spending $40K on a vehicle and are worried about the $60 a year you'll spend more in premium fuel(15K miles/year at .10/gallon). In addition, our cheaper option here contains ethanol, which gets worse fuel mileage so it's probably a wash.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I don't fuel with premium, just that it's a CHOICE, no a requirement.
  • tpillotpillo Posts: 4
    Currently have about 5,000 miles on on my RDX, at approx. 4,200 miles started hearing a high pitch whining sound when accelerating at low and high speeds. Acura service rep agreed the noise was excessive and sounded like it was coming from the drive train. After 6 days in the service department was informed this noise is a characteristic of the 2013 RDX model.
    Has anyone experienced this issue? Thanks
  • That sounds ridiculous to me. What dealership was that?
  • I suggest switching dealerships and contacting a district manager. Also contact JD Power. They are currently surveying 2013 RDX owners.
  • tpillotpillo Posts: 4
    Clarification: Dealer service rep has indicated a call was placed to the Acura Tech Line and it was this rep that said the noise was a characteristic of the 2013 RDX. Was informed today that other 2013 RDX's have come in with the same complaint. A manufacturing service rep was at the dealer and drove my RDX and others, heard the whining sound and is taking information back for investigation. Was told vehicle is okay to drive while waiting for feedback from manufacturing rep.
Sign In or Register to comment.