Howdy, Stranger!

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





Acura RDX

1246791

Comments

  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    Robert, note where the quote ends.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 31,124
    The reporter kind of added the context...

    MODERATOR
    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    I still question throwing in "April" into the mix though. Where would the reporter get an idea to be as specific as that? And then, while quote ends earlier, it doesn't show all that he really said. But, we shall see.
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    I'm just suggesting that the conversation could have been much broader, and the context not specific to Fukui's hybrid SUV statement.

     

    Interviewer: How are Honda's plans shaping up?

     

    Fukui: We have a 3 year plan starting in April with several exciting product launches and technology initiatives.

     

    Interviewer: Such as?

     

    Fukui: Much of that will be announced later, at the auto show. But, of course, we do have the launch of the Ridgeline coming, Azimov will serve cocktails on our new jets, we expect to expand sales in the US, develop a hub for diesel engines in the UK, and promote our hybrid line.

     

    Interviewer: What about a hybrid SUV?

     

    Fukui: We have no plans for a hybrid SUV.

     

    The conversation *could* have easily gone something like that. And it would be fair to assume that Fukui was speaking in reference to their 3 year plan. But it's not like he was being coy about phrasing his words. It's very probable that the interviewer just summarized a series of questions into one condensed sentence.

     

    So, yeah, I don't think we can derive anything important by picking apart his words. As you say, it doesn't show what he really said.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 31,124
    "Will you buy this car today IF I can give it to you for $XXX.."

     

    My favorite use of semantics...

    MODERATOR
    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    I don't care if the RDX gets IMA, or diesel, or any other ground-breaking technology. I, personally, would be very interested in this vehicle. If it turns out anyway close to the rumours and other reports, then it will fill a niche currently unoccupied -- namely an affordable, roomy, reliable, compact-sized, upscale SUV/cross-over with sporty performance and handling, and with all the safety and luxury amenities most anyone in this segment would want. This is a segment that has been deserted by the likes of the MDX, Pilot, 4Runner, Pathfinder, Highlander, as they move up in cost and size. Even if cost is not an issue, those models are simply too big, and thirsty for a lot of people. And who wants a third-row seat when 90% of the time it'd be folded down to carry cargo.

     

    Nissan probably had the right idea with the Murano, but got carried away. The vehicle is just too radical to be accepted mainstream. The new Xterra looks promising but I think Nissan is targeting more of a hardcore off-road crowd with it.

     

    The RDX appears to be the recipe that I've been looking for -- CR-V roominess and reliability, but enhanced with a real AWD system, some muscle under the hood, and TSX-level luxury and safety.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 31,124
    I was just thinking about this... The vehicle that occupies that niche now.. though a little overpriced.. is the Land Rover Freelander..

     

    I guess you could add the Tribute and the Escape in their highest dollar configurations, but you are missing the "luxury" nameplate..

     

    Not that I would recommend the Freelander ($33K loaded up, I think), but it seems like it would be really similar to the RDX in mission and design, if not execution..

     

    regards,

    kyfdx

    MODERATOR
    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    It's not the Escape/Tribute, that would be the Mercury Mariner. The Forester XT and Redline VUE, both have the power and decent handling. But not the luxury and prestige.

     

    The Freelander is a good comparison in price, prestige, and luxury gizmos, but it's not very sporty, at all. The engine is rough and not very powerful. And the handling is sloppy. What it does have is great off-roading capability. It's a Rover, after all.

     

    The BMW X3 is really the closest competitor. While the price climbs to $36,000 when equipped with even modest levels of luxury, that's kinda typical of BMWs. The market expects a premium for BMW.

     

    The next-best competitor would probably be the FX35. It's more vehicle than RDX and X3, but Infiniti has them priced well enough to compete.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 31,124
    I kind of left out the BMW, because typically, or comparably equipped, it hits about $40K, or more if you get the 3.0 litre engine.. But, as you say.. that is always the case with BMW..

     

    I agree with your assessment of the Freelander, but most people buy these cars after a five-minute test drive.. An "on-paper" comparison would put the RDX and the Freelander in direct competition, except for horsepower.. The fact that the Freelander is severly lacking in a real-world comparison is another matter..

     

    I don't think most people consider the Forester an SUV (I don't, but I could be wrong)...Of course, I feel the same way about the Outback.

     

    I mentioned the Tribute/Escape mostly because of the Mazda connection, and that import buyers might consider it.. Mercury Mariner? How will they ever hear about that car? How many people even know what a Mercury Mountaineer really is?

     

    FX35 is a good example...but, the styling severely limits their market..

     

    regards,

    kyfdx

    MODERATOR
    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    I would pretty well echo what varmint and kyfdx said. I think the RDX appears to cover the spread which no other one single vehicle has done, which gives it the monopoly in that niche. I priced out an X3 2.5 with just a "moderate" amount of options and came out at about $50K CAD. That's MDX prices, so for sure I think the RDX will undercut that. I sat in (didn't drive) the FX models, even though their mission in life seems similar to the RDX's, those vehicles have huge exterior dimensions relative to their interior capacity. The view over the hood is particularly daunting. It's like looking down a runway! I just think that the potential buyer attracted to the RDX is likely one who would be turned off by that kind of bulk and inefficiency.

     

    The Tribute twins, Forester XT and Redline are all competent vehicles in their own rights (especially the Subie) but I think they compete with the CR-V, especially the '05 CR-V with its significant upgrades.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    I just think that the potential buyer attracted to the RDX is likely one who would be turned off by that kind of bulk and inefficiency.

     

     
    Yep.
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    Anybody know how many X3s are sold with the 2.5L?

     

    I did a loose comparison a while back and came up with $36,000 for an X3 with the smaller engine and decent level of content. I suspect that many looking at these two vehicles will be willing to pay a few extra grand for the BMW badge and mini X5 styling.

     

    "even though their [FXs] mission in life seems similar to the RDX's, those vehicles have huge exterior dimensions relative to their interior capacity."

     

    Ditto that. When the FX was first introduced, I pegged it as the sport hatchback of the luxury SUV world.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 31,124
    For CY 2004, the 2.5 outsold the 3.0

    19,450 vs. 15,154

     

    However, starting with MY 2005, the 3.0 model has automatic and moonroof standard.. which is $2500 in options, without a corresponding increase in price.. this is reflected in CY '04 December only numbers...

    610 vs. 1513

     

    So, assuming a decent level of equipment, the 2.5 and the 3.0 are only about $2500 apart now..

     

    If you equip an X3 2.5 with the same level of equipment as a TSX (assuming RDX will be similar), you will definitely be in the $39K-$40K range.. The good news, the 3.0 is only another $2500 over that..

     

    If the RDX is $33K, I think a comparably equipped X3 2.5 will be closer to $6K more.. Of course, there will always be those buyers that are willing to forego options to get into the BMW.. In that case, the difference may be as little as $3K.

     

    More news... new engines coming out soon.. (not sure when they get into the X3 models)... Base engine is 218 HP, and the 3.0 is 255 HP..

     

    regards,

    kyfdx

    MODERATOR
    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • deweydewey Posts: 5,243
    I drove the BMW x3 3.0 and never went to my dealer since! Great disappointment--and I love BMWs. Another disappointment I heard was that the next version of the x5 will only be in automatic. I cannot imagine driving any BMW without a stick shift!

     

    I was considering an RDX--but I had inflated expectations about it being hybrid.

     

    Right now I am leaning more towards the new BMW 3 series(e90) Touring with xdrive. I can assure you, performance/handling should be better with a wagon than a x3 and most likely the new RDX!
  • tsx24tsx24 Posts: 85
    I agree, wagons offer much better handling than the suv, so what's the big craze for SUVs? I guess it's the off road capability, but I would gladly take on-road handling vs off-road capability. That's why I don't understand why there aren't more wagons out now. They are exactly the same as suv's with the one tradeoff I mentioned.
  • tsx24tsx24 Posts: 85
    I agree, wagons offer much better handling than the suv, so what's the big craze for SUVs? I guess it's the off road capability, but I would gladly take on-road handling vs off-road capability. That's why I don't understand why there aren't more wagons out now. They are exactly the same as suv's with the one tradeoff I mentioned, along with better gas mileage.
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    I think the appeal is also image, and the confidence-inspiring high driving position. Also wagons have only recently started to overcome their dorky reputation with more attractive-looking wagon models coming out. And let's face it, the majority of the drivers don't even make use of the handling capability of the SUV, never mind a wagon, so to them, the superior handling of a wagon is a moot point. (There are actually some pretty sharp-handling SUVs out there too -- FX, Murano, X5, X3, Cayenne, Tourag, even MDX to a certain degree)
  • igibanigiban Posts: 530
    Fashion and image (they kind of go hand in hand), more than its advertised capability, is the biggest reason why 5-seater SUV are favored over wagons, and for that matter, any other type of cars sometime. And let's face it, SUV do often look more exciting than wagons.

     

    I thought this luxo crossover segment's top dog is Lexus RX, and they does sell better than any others. How's RDX gonna differentiate from RX? I guess price would be lower, but still with similar utilities and luxury?
  • deweydewey Posts: 5,243
    For me the utility of an SUV is not worth the extra gas mileage( RDX with IMA would have been a solution). Living in the city I have no practical use of off- road features! Only time I drove off road was in a ditch during an accident.

     

    Image/fashion was never a consideration for me!
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    Kyfdx - Thanks for the report on the X3.

     

    Tsx24 - Compare sales of the Lexus Sportcross with the RX300. That's what happened to wagons. :(

     

    I'm one of the few idiots who does take their crossover SUV into the woods. But I freely admit this activity is neither recommended, nor common for owners. I just don't let common sense get in the way of having some fun. ;-)

     

    I suspect the RDX will offer a nicer blend of performance and luxury than the X3, but I don't expect it will match it stat for stat. I'm expecting it to compete with the 2.5L version with an equipment list that will make people think twice about sacrificing creature comforts for the 3.0L.
  • tsx24tsx24 Posts: 85
    why can't it offer both 2.4 and 3.0 w/ SH-AWD? I know Acura is not usually one to offer multiple engine choices, but with this vehicle meeting different customers needs, it would be advisable.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 31,124
    if it offers 220HP+ and weighs 3600 LBs. or less, then they can use hamsters in treadmills, and I'll be happy.. I don't care if it is a 4,5,or six cylinder..

    MODERATOR
    Prices Paid, Lease Questions, SUVs

  • tsx24tsx24 Posts: 85
    or if they're really ready to step up their game, they can offer a 3.0 and 3.5 or a 2.4 + IMA and 3.5
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    "why can't it offer both 2.4 and 3.0 w/ SH-AWD?"

     

    Good question. Acura does offer engine options (e: RSX-S, old TL-S, and CL-S). But those are the same block in different tune. And they seem to be moving away from that.

     

    Another is the possibility that Honda will offer a CR-V based on the same platform. If so, it will probably be given the 2.4L as its base engine. Acura will want to differentiate themselves from that model.
  • tsx24tsx24 Posts: 85
    The only vehicles Honda/Acura offers different engines for are:

     

    Civic 1.6 & 2.0 SI

    Accord 2.4 & 3.0 V6

    RSX 2.0 & 2.0 Type-S

     

    and the RSX doesn't even really count as different engines, just as it was mentioned above! But if Honda wants to compete, it has to offer one standard engine that meets/beats the class standard, or offer multiple choices.

     

    IMO the Civic should be offered in 2.0 and 2.4 form, the CRV in 2.4 and 3.0 form, as well as the TSX 2.4 and 3.0. They would be smart to begin doing this. The other option is to put IMAs on all their 4 cylinder cars to bump their torque ratings (which are generally low).
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Acura offered multiple engines with 1996-1998 TL (2.5/I-5 and 3.2/V6). And yes, the grand old NSX is still offered with 3.0 (automatic transmission) and 3.2 (manual transmission).

     

    Depending on volume and market placement, Acura could offer more than one engine on RDX. But, I doubt 2.4 is going to be especially with SH-AWD.
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    I would probably rate the All-Road, XC70, A4 Avant, and V50 to be as sexy as any SUV.

     

    The RX somehow doesn't do much for me. To me, it has always looked kind of like an egg on wheels. And I think it still appeals to women more.
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    Ok, so dewey would be the one climbing out of the ditch wearing his plaid shirt with pocket protector, and checkered flood pants. :)
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    If we're going to add Honda, you missed the hybrids and natural gas options.

     

    I guess the question to ask is how many buyers would Acura get by offering two engines? If something like the MDX were offered with the 3.5L and the Accord's 3.0L, how many of those 3.0s would sell? Probably not many. They might as well stick with only the 3.5L and save themselves the costs of offering the option.

     

    If the CR-V ends up being based on the same platform, it will probably start with the 2.4L as the base engine and have the V6 as an option. Acura won't want much cross-shopping with the Honda line, so I expect the V6 would be the sole motivator in the RDX.
  • deweydewey Posts: 5,243
    "I would probably rate the All-Road, XC70, A4 Avant, and V50 to be as sexy as any SUV."

     

    Likewise, even a guy in plaid finds the above vehicles sexy! I know Honda/Toyota have good looking wagons in Europe/Asia---it would be nice if they offered high performance versions in N. America. Highly unlikely though, the Lexus IS Crossover(one of my favorite vehicles) has been a flop in N. America!!
Sign In or Register to comment.