2013 Acura RDX

quakerwildcat · June 2012

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.

kurienpt · June 2012

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.

stickguy · June 2012

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.

m6user · June 2012

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.

kurienpt · June 2012

that data helps. thanks m6user!

quakerwildcat · June 2012

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.

kreozz · June 2012

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.

twwilliam · 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.

quakerwildcat · June 2012

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.

wwest · June 2012

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.

wwest · June 2012

"...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.

twwilliam · June 2012

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

texan8899 · June 2012

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

dmclone1 · June 2012

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

stickguy · June 2012

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!

dmclone1 · June 2012

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.

jimdrew · July 2012

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

fireplaceant · July 2012

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.

jg88 · July 2012

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.

m6user · 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.

stickguy · July 2012

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.

jg88 · 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.

jg88 · July 2012

"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.

m6user · 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.

stever · 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.

wwest · 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.

stickguy · July 2012

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!

jg88 · July 2012

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.

m6user · July 2012

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?

stickguy · July 2012

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)

stickguy · July 2012

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.

m6user · July 2012

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.

stickguy · July 2012

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

jg88 · July 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.

wwest · July 2012

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.

m6user · 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.

alkdhslhf · 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?

chucko6 · July 2012

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.

m6user · 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.

rlemay · July 2012

Where I live (SoCal) premium is only .02 more per gallon.
Small price to pay for added performance.

quakerwildcat · July 2012

...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.

m6user · 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.

wwest · July 2012

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...???

dmclone1 · July 2012

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.

wwest · July 2012

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I don't fuel with premium, just that it's a CHOICE, no a requirement.

tpillo · August 2012

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

quakerwildcat · August 2012

That sounds ridiculous to me. What dealership was that?

twwilliam · August 2012

I suggest switching dealerships and contacting a district manager. Also contact JD Power. They are currently surveying 2013 RDX owners.

tpillo · August 2012

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.

wwest · August 2012

Note that as of 2013 the RDX was switched from the absolutely stellar SH-AWD system to the one used in the Ford Escape. Ford only engages the rear drive clutch during low speed acceleration but Acura may do it at even higher speeds.

There is a definite, different, noise level associated with engagement of the rear drive clutch assembly but only during accelerating, or turning tightly. The latter is done in order to give the front tires more authority, lowering the engine drive torque, for maintaining directional control.

2013 Acura RDX

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles