By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
According to the rumor mill... during development of the RDX they started with a turbo design, but couldn't find a supplier. So they shifted to a V6 design. Then, when they found a supplier for the turbo parts, they shifted back to the turbo design.
The point being... at one point in time, they shoe-horned a V6 into the chassis.
So, I don't think fitting the block inside was the biggest hurdle. Fuel economy, emissions, weight distribution, or something else took priority.
-juice
I don't think the 3.5l is related to the old 2.7l originally in the Legend. It's gotta be bigger than that (outer dimensions).
-juice
All of Honda's current V6 engines are J series blocks. The 3.0, 3.2, and 3.5 are all bored and stroked versions of the same block. When the 3.0L for the Accord was released, it was praised for being a compact design.
However, as the engineers enlarged it, they also needed to enlarge the radiator, air intakes, exhaust, etc. So, I expect that if Honda got a V6 under the hood, it was the J30 or J32.
The old 2.7 V6 was actually larger (a C-series V6, originally launched in 1985 with the Legend). It displaced 2.7 (used in 1980s Legend, and first V6 used in Accord), 3.2 (used in 3.2TL before 1999 redesign and Legend prior to that) and 3.5 liters (Powered the RL until the 2005 redesign).
My whole dilemma originally stems from XC90(v8) v. MDX (2006), but we decided to wait to see the new MDX. Now having seen the RDX, that may make more sense for everyday running around (not to mention more fun), but I'm still curious about peoples thoughts on the new MDX and on the MDX v. xc90 debate. (By the way, i was quoted 36,900 for an mdx w/ touring and dvd- hard to pass that up, but I really want to see what the next generation holds).
MDX prices have finally come down, remember they were at MSRP for a long time...the market is tougher now than it was a couple of years ago.
-juice
Think something like the 1st gen CR-V which was larger than the old RAV4, but not quite as roomy as the current CR-V. FWIW, someone who sat in the concept compared the back seat to the TSX.
It was fenced off even for the press at NAIAS '05. I even asked if I could get in, but nope.
-juice
http://www.cartv.com/content/research/channels/index.cfm/channel/cartv_video/act- - ion/showvideo/vid/e_0224/vcat/Event/MAKE_VCH/Acura/MODEL_VCH/RDX/?s_prefs=h&vid=- - e_0224&vcat=Event :shades:
Nice laptop storage compartment!
* wide NAV screen
* integrated rear spoiler
* turn signals in the upper part of the lights
Dislikes:
* profile looks stubby from some angles
* wheels still look "dirty"
* maybe too much shape to front/rear lights
-juice
This one wasn't styled by committee.
Now all they need to do is get rid of the bling bling wheels and remove the surface garnish.
However, my observation about Honda styling themes has been that the front and rear have matching elements going back at least fifteen years (note that the shape of the headlamp lens and the shape of the tail lamp lens received similar tweaks when Accord was redesigned for MY1991). 1992-1995 Civic had slim head lamps to go with slim tail lamps. 1996-2000 Civic had them enlarged at both ends.
Even as the 2003 tail lamp treatment in the Accord disliked, it actually reflected the shape of the grill. The coupe had the triangular tail lamp to match the triangular head lamp (now the sedan matches too).
2004+ TL’s license plate area is also derived form the front (same in RDX) and the tail lamps flows into the shape.
The symmetry stands out.
-juice
I'll have to look at some pics of the 2003 Accord. Interesting. I never noticed a resemblance between the grill and shape of the tail end.
I think the Element is the most theme-styled vehicle. The square with a corner cut off it is repeated all over the place on that rig. Conversely, I think the current CR-V is the least theme-styled.
If you want an example of head and tail lights matching up, look to the RSX before it was restyled for the MMC. I don't see the same with the triangular shape to the Accord's lights. It's a completely different sort of triangle.
Overall I think it is going to be a big hit, and if the price it right, the waitlist will be long. I was only hopping for a little more distinct styling (as I mentioned- looks a little too much like the Matrix), but overall, I think Acura did a good job- I hope it handles like the TL and then it will be a job well done.
So if the RDX ends up a chick car, I doubt it'll be the result of it being shown up by the MDX.
So if the RDX ends up a chick car, I doubt it'll be the result of it being shown up by the MDX.
Consider, for a second, where you were -- a day care parking lot. I'll bet a majority of CARS had female drivers, too!
Sit in a parking lot outside a football stadium, and I'd guess most SUV's (and cars) arrive with guys behind the wheel.
I'm not going to argue -- one way or the other -- about whether the RDX is going to be a guy's car or a girl's car. But I don't think you can draw conclusions based on what you see outside a daycare center.
If they are accurate, they look very similar to the numbers in the 2007 Mazda CX-7. They might be a competitor!
I live in New England, so maybe it's a safety thing because of the weather we get. Who know's!
I think A3 would be its competitor. I don't think Mazda can compete with Acura.
I think what is missing is not a manual, but DSG from Audi or 8-speed trany from Lexus :P
Compromises must be made.
The interior looks fine -- very much like an updated TSX.
Just MO, but I think the exterior is a step backwards from the prototype Acura was showing at the 2005 autoshows.
What is your defentiton of compete? If it's interior refinement, then yes, you are probabaly correct. In terms of performance numbers, the Mazda has similar engine specs, 244hp, 258lb of torque. Also, fully loaded the Mazda costs under $35K
Mazda also has rearview camera, voice DVD Nav, Bose Surround sound, leather, heated seats, climate control, and much more.
Acura is definatly a more prestigious name, but, that does not mean people wont shop the two, that's all I was trying to say.
They're not all built the same, it would blip the throttle to match down shifts perfectly every time and even hold a gear in a turn.
If Acura can program and tune it right, quick shifts, hold a gear, match revs, then an auto might be fine for what will still be an SUV and not a light one at that.
Forester XT offers a manual if you insist on one. It does seem to mate up better to the turbo engine, but Subaru uses only 4 geards on the auto and there's no manual controls.
-juice
Not every tranny can match Porsche's, but I'd like to see if Acura can come close.
-juice
At the Zoom Zoom Live event, people were autocrossing the new Miata and guess what? The 6 speed tap-shift autos were doing quicker laps than the manuals! So you know they tuned it right.
The old 4 speed autos were hideous, people were embarassed to admit they had them, and some people went as far as swapping transmissions to a manual!
That's why I have to wait and see, drive one. Turbo engines thrive when you pick the right gear and when shifts happen quickly. This vehicle will thrive or struggle based on the performance of the transmission, I'm guessing.
-juice