Options

Acura RDX

1202123252655

Comments

  • autoboy16autoboy16 Member Posts: 992
    true about the s2000* but will it remain after a redesign?? Push button start is very popular and should be on other honda/acura vehicles: TL, RL, Accord*, Insight*, Pilot*, Mdx*, tsx* and rsx*. But you would think that since a civic would have a nav system it would be in a Cr-v and s2000 :confuse:

    *These vehicles are due and overdue for a redesign.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    I'm thinking it would apply to only those vehicles which are intended to be sport-oriented. So, no need to put it in the Ody, Pilot, Accord, or regular Civic.

    However, for the vehicles which are supposed to fill the sport-niches in the line-up, I think it would be a good idea. Now, I know the RDX isn't going to be sporty in comparison with say... the G35 coupe. But it is supposed to be sporty within the cross-over market. So give it some sporty details in the cockpit. Something more than bling, bling rims and chrome exhaust tips.
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    You know, I actually don't care much for the push-button start systems. The conventional key-ignition is basically foolproof. You can't remove the key until you've completely turned the engine off. And you need your key in order to lock the car. And in automatics you also need to have it in Park. Even Car & Driver complained that in their long-term RL, they drained the battery a couple of times when they didn't completely turn off the switch attached to the ignition. And potentially, for the truly absent-minded, they can park and walk away without turning off the ignition in a push-button system. :blush:
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Now how is a push-button ignition better than a good old-fashioned key? I see this as nothing more than technology for the sake of technology. It does not improve the car in any way, other than make it different.

    I forget who it was, but some auto journalist from a major car publication not too long ago stated that push button ignitions are cool for about a week. I agree.

    Bob
  • rdxsteverdxsteve Member Posts: 17
  • rdxsteverdxsteve Member Posts: 17
    here's a quantitative comparison of some of the small SUV specs relative to the RDX

    image
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    Wow! You've been busy. I'm not sure I would include the Murano, and FX in there though. Those models are "small" only in terms of interior space. The exterior dimensions are pretty bulky, especially the FX. I think those 2 should be lumped in with the Pathfinders and 4Runners of the world.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    My case for the button is not a matter of it being a better design or a more practical way to start a car. My point is that it's a gimmick which would give Honda/Acura cars a link the racing bred S2000. Given that the RDX is meant to be a performance cross-over, I think it could use a few details from racing culture.
  • guyfguyf Member Posts: 456
    Ground clearance 6.25"? That takes it out of my short list....
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    I'd rather see them put that time, energy and money into offering something useful—like a 6-speed manual. Push-button starting is nothing more than a "trendy" gimmick, and surely to be giggled at by one's spouse/significant other. No thanks.

    Bob
  • dexterhavendexterhaven Member Posts: 9
    I agree, you have been busy. Your data display is impressive and very clear...thank you!! I disagree with a previous comment (i.e., that the Murano shouldn't be included). Currently for me it is a toss up between the Murano and the new RDX [the X3 is not even a consideration (it is too tight behind the wheel for me)]. Based upon my research (which is currently lacking a test drive of the RDX), the RDX price needs to come close to or below the Murano and the X3. Thanks again for your data rdxsteve.
  • seifseif Member Posts: 48
    Hey guys...I was reading the discussion board to get some info on the RDX (dealers did not seem to have much) and then it hit me - why not hop in a cab and go see it at the car show!

    It is pretty sweet. Here are a couple of opinions/things I found out (FYI: my perspective is a guy looking to have a wife in front and 2 child seats in the back with enough cargo room to go on long weekend trips):

    It is set to be at dealers "on July 27 to be exact" - this is what the Acura woman told me

    The engine is 240hp

    It should price $30k-31k base to $35k with the tech/nav package

    The driver's seat is like a cockpit. I felt like you really are cupped in there - not sure if that is a good or bad thing yet. I will have to figure that out once I take it for a drive

    The passenger seat is a little more spacious but a 6-footer got in while I was in there and he was definitely a little too snug, he said

    The back seat is a pretty good size but not huge - I was trying to get a grasp on whether it really was more spacious than the Forester we have now (obviously it is a step up aesthetically)

    The storage under center front armrest is huge (very deep)

    Can't remember much else. Kept thinking that it will come down to the test drive.

    If anyone knows anything else or can suggest some cars I might try that would meet my needs, I would love to hear it. Thanks!
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    "If anyone knows anything else or can suggest some cars I might try that would meet my needs, I would love to hear it. Thanks!"

    Rav4 Limited?
  • karlzunikarlzuni Member Posts: 20
    Hope you are right about the price of 30-31k. A fully loaded Rav4 is above 30k.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,017
    The totally redesigned Trailblazer and Envoy will be out this fall. I've read the Envoy Denali is going to be very nice and the good thing is you will beable to get a V-8 with DOD that shuts off half the cylinders and it can run on Ethanol. ;)

    Rocky
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    But they're still American. I have zero faith in anything coming out of the Big Three that can compete with the likes of the RDX.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Push button start? I'd say not unless it includes Keyless go, so you just press that one single button. Make it functional too.

    I was trying to get a grasp on whether it really was more spacious than the Forester we have now

    It's about 5" longer on a 5" longer wheelbase, so I have to agree there, it should feel roomier, but instead it feels roughly the same, maybe just a tad wider. I think it's the Forester's big green house and tall ceiling that makes it feel bigger than it is.

    Edmunds' RAV4 was $33.7k. Their CX7 just barely broke $30k. The Saturn Vue Redline (Honda V6 in there) and the Forester XT cost less if you want a lot of bang for the buck.

    -juice
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Oh I think has more rear legroom than the Forester.

    Bob
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    I forget who it was, but some auto journalist from a major car publication not too long ago stated that push button ignitions are cool for about a week. I agree.

    I remember people calling S2000's "Start" button a gimmick and something that would be obsolete soon. Viper (I believe) was next to get it. And at the last autoshow, I notice it has become a "fashion statement". Even BMWs and Lexuses have it. I would say, it is "catching up".

    Those naysayers at the time S2000 was launched, probably didn't look far enough into the future.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Again I ask, how is this better than a simple key?

    It's nothing more than a marketing a gimmick, pure and simple. If "catching up" some how justifies this silly idea, please clue me in. Sorry, I don't buy "because the public demands it" line of thinking. The public demanded fins back in the 1950s too.

    Bob
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    I wasn't suggesting it is better, but that it is something that has gained popularity. It does add a coolness factor to it... pretty much like most stuff that gets tagged onto cars, above and beyond the most basics.
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    I think the first part of keyless go -- being able to unlock the door without taking out the fob from your pocket -- has some real advantage. So I guess the natural progression would be to not have to take the key out after you've gotten in, even though the second part of keyless go -- pushing a button rather than turning a key -- has no real redeemable merit in and by itself.
  • seifseif Member Posts: 48
    I saw the RAV-4 at the show as well. it now has the extra seats in the back and was definitely much bigger than the one in past but it was soooo crappy looking on the interior. it is not even a comparison to the acura.

    i have heard the envoy will be nice, but the current one (most american cars) is also blaaaah on the interior. it is like every single american car ever inside...can't they change those friggin' radio and heating/AC dials already????

    plus, you just can't count on them for the reliability of the acura's.

    as far as the price - they did give me a "to be exact" on the arrival date but not on the price. that was more a "i'm pretty sure..."
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    I brought my tape measure to NY and, to be brief, the RDX lost the battle for cargo space.

    I compared the RDX, X3, and CX-7. The RDX does well in terms of height and the width between the wheel arches, but loses in total cargo depth, total width, and depth to the second row seats. The RDX also had the most flat cargo floor once the seats are folded, but it's not like the incline on the other two was problematic. The X3 is the best. The RDX and CX-7 are close, but I give the CX-7 a small advantage.

    The CX-7 was the big loser in terms of front seat comfort. My cohort on this trip greatly preferred the seats in the Mazda5 over the CX-7. Adequate legroom in all three of the SUVs, though.

    The RDX's second row seat definitely has more legroom than a Forester. It's maybe a tad less than the CX-7, but the CX-7 has you sitting lower in the vehicle. To add to the Mazda's woes, the beltline is approximately 2" higher than both the RDX and X3. I think the X3 wins for comfort and space.

    I measured clearance from the floor to the door sill on each vehicle. Surprisingly, the RDX won with 12", which is 2-3" more than the others. Big caveat, though. I was rushed in making this measure and it may be the least accurate of all the measures I took.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    Again, my suggestion regarding the start button has nothing to do with function. This is a luxury car. Even in entry level cars, luxury buyers want gizmos and cool features. As Robertsmx wrote, the push button start adds to the coolness factor.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    Oh, yeah. One last random thought on comparisons. The CX-7 (with moonroof) was the only one where my hair (all 3 of them) brushed the headliner.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    May be it is time to rid of those three as well. :D
  • armandarmand Member Posts: 178
    Would you believe that my father's 1937 Packard had a push button starter - with a key turn needed before. Thought it was stupid then and still do.
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    My main gripe with push button start is that it may lead to user-error. They need to make it more fool-proof. Why can't they program it so that once the driver (with fob in pocket) leaves the vehicle, and goes beyond a certain distance, the car shuts down automatically (engine, accessories , everything)?
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    I have no idea.

    If I had to guess, I'd say it's because the keyless entry is tied into the same transmitter. For whatever reason, people like to unlock their cars from 3 blocks away. Can't tell you how many times I've read threads about people wanting to extend the range of their remotes.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    That is contrary to (Honda's) belief that if one is too far, and takes too much time to get into the vehicle, it would be safer to lock the doors again.

    In my 1998 Accord, the doors lock again if at least one of them isn't opened within 15 seconds or so. I was told this is to ensure that you're close enough to your car when you unlock the doors and gives little opportunity for someone else to secretely get into the car.
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    "That is contrary to (Honda's) belief that if one is too far, and takes too much time to get into the vehicle, it would be safer to lock the doors again."

    I've always thought that was to safeguard against one accidentally unlocking the car, so they program it to re-arm and relock itself without too much time lapsing. My guess is they figure 15 seconds (I actually thought it was 30) would be plenty time for someone who genuinely wanted to return to his car. On the TL (and probably for other newer Hondas) if you didn't like this relock feature, or wanted a longer time before relocking, you can change the setting to suit your preference.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Just rode in one at lunch, ran out with a co-worker to get supplies for "Bring your Daughters and Sons to Work Day".

    She had the 6 speed, 3.0 model. Huge moonroof reminds me of the one in the Forester. Loved that.

    Interior not very appealing, I think the RDX would win there. A bit plasticky and not nearly enough storage nooks (her sunglasses were in the back seat, her purse too). Just not very family friendly.

    Her cup holder had already broken and been fixed, but no other problems. No visible wear, and she has an '04, so that was a good sign.

    Handled well, though ride was stiff. You hear and feel every bump, like the tires are rock hard.

    -juice
  • tncarbufftncarbuff Member Posts: 10
    Hello from a new member - very curious about the RDX as a future vehicle, also having been at the NYC Auto Show last weekend.

    There are many folks who comment on the X3 as being an alternative to the RDX. However, I can't really build one that seems to be to my liking without getting to an unattractive price point. I've read good things about it, but...

    Those who find the X3 a possible alternative - is price not that important, or are you willing to go with less equipment/features?

    Perhaps that's why I'm leaning towards Acura - fewer choices, lots of standard equipment, less chance of building a ridiculuously priced configuration.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Unless you need towing, or want a manual tranny, or prefer the BMW's styling, I would go with the RDX. Chances are it will be more trouble-free to boot.

    Bob
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    The X3 is, as BMW has always been, RWD torque biased. That results in more traditional handling dynamics and is also therefore much more beniegn insofar as your human instincts, natural reactions are concerned in an untoward event.

    For instance get into an X3, accelerate quickly to highway speed and then just as quickly lift your foot from the accelerator pedal.

    Feel that strong engine compression braking...??

    No FWD or front biased AWD will/can do that. The manufacturer cannot know, forecast, what the roadbed surface will/might be like when you try to use engine compression braking in a FWD car so the design is always such as to mostly or completely eliminate engine compression braking at the front.

    On a RWD, or rear biased AWD, vehicle should the surface be extremely slippery and the rear wheels lose traction due to engine compression braking you can still maintain directional control.

    On a FWD loss of traction at the front will oftentimes result in complete and total loss of control.

    Like the Volvo XC-90 and Lexus AWD GS, with SH-AWD Acura has the ability to meet, dynamically, the adverse roadbed performance of a FWD and a RWD when circumstance dictate one over the other.

    I sincerely hope that's what they have done but the odds are against it since Honda/Acura has been such a strong advocate of FWD in the past.

    Were it not for the "business" of the dash in the RDX it would be at the top of my list above the 2007 RX400h.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Anybody after RWD biased AWD should instead just get RWD. IMO, "bias" associated with AWD is simply a misnomer. AWD should be AWD... set to optimize traction, not biases.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    The RDX has the SH-AWD, like that found on the RL luxury sedan, The default power split is 30% front and 70% rear, and is therefore RWD-biased. There is always some power going to both the front and rear axles. It also has the capability of sending all the power that goes to the rear axles to the outside rear wheel during cornering.

    Bob
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    Not really sure just what you're saying but....

    Your overall traction level is "set" primarily by the vehicle weight and coefficient of adhesion of the four tire contact patches with the roadbed.

    And your statement..."AWD should be AWD...set to optimize traction, not biases." is almost correct. If I may take the liberty of rewording it ever so slightly....?

    AWD should be AWD...... set to optimize the use of the available traction, not biases.

    To that end the Volvo XC-90 will dynamically bias the engine torque to the rear as you enter a turn, and then as you reach the apex of the turn it will bias the torque to the front.

    The way I read the SH-AWD material it will work much the same way, but proof will be in the pudding...

    It is ALWAYS more desireable to maintain directional control over your vehicle versus accelerating more rapidly or driving fast, faster, around a corner. That's what makes RWD or rear biased AWD vehicles so much safer than FWD or front biased AWD vehicles, the front wheels are ALWAYS dedicated to maintaining directional control.

    That's why traction control is implemented somewhat differently on FWD vehicles vs RWD vehicles. On a FWD (or...) with traction control the very instant wheelspin/slip is detected the brakes will be applied and the engine dethrottled simultaneously.

    On most RWD (or..) vehicles with traction control the brakes will still be instantly applied but a delay of a few hundred milliseconds will elapse before the engine is dethrottled to give the driver time to react and feather the throttle accordingly with the level of traction available.

    Wheelspin/slip due to engine torque, leading or lagging, on a FWD means you are in danger, under threat, of losing complete control of the vehicle. On a RWD in the same circumstance there is no indication or threat of loss of directional control provided the driver reacts correctly with that few hundred millisecond window.

    And therein also lies the base design mistake regarding modern day implementations of ABS. Which is more important, locking the tires and thereby stopping more quickly, or allowing some tire "slip" during severe braking so directional control can be more easily maintained?

    If the VSC system were "hooked" into the ABS such that ABS do not activate unless VSC indicated that loss of directional was impending that would make ABS much more sensible IMMHO.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    The way I read the material and the RL video the engine torque is biased toward the front during cruise, constant speed driving or moderate acceleration. Only under heavy or hard acceleration or accelerating into a turn is the majority, up to 70%, of the engine torque likely to be routed to the rear.

    That's as it should be IMMHO.

    Now if we could just get Lexus to adopt SH-AWD for the RX350 and RX400h series, or even the AWD system from the Lexus GS series, I would be extremely pleased.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    The way I read the SH-AWD material it will work much the same way, but proof will be in the pudding...

    It works that way... only during cruising does it split power 70-30. During acceleration (no need for "slippage detection") more power shifts to the rear. During aggressive cornering, upto 70% of torque is sent to the rear set... and possibly all of it to just the outside wheel (infinitely variable distribution... front to rear and side to side). Besides, the outside wheel is also accelerated by upto 5%.

    Thats optimization at work... based on need. No need for preset "bias".

    Your overall traction level is "set" primarily by the vehicle weight and coefficient of adhesion of the four tire contact patches with the roadbed.

    And what do you think that will be determined by? How is automatic rear bias better?
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    Is there an ECHO in here....??
  • seifseif Member Posts: 48
    Please explain what you mean by:

    "the 'business' of the dash"
  • khoakhoa Member Posts: 64
    "the 'business' of the dash"

    Busyness is probably what he meant.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    The dash is not "clean", too many knobs, etc.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    You must like i-Drive. With as many features the cars are getting, they are bound to be controlled somehow. At least the layout follows symmetry and logic. But I don't know if i-Drive style (one knob for everything) would be optimal.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Isn't is 70/30 default, and not 30/70? I'm sure the front will be carrying more weight, at least.

    Ideal would probably be whereever the weight was at the time. BMW has 50/50 so it's not nose-heavy like most cars are.

    Since the subject came up, I did still find the X3 a bit cramped, note it actually has less total legroom than the Forester does:

    Front Rear Vehicle
    43.6 33.7 Forester
    40.2 35.8 X3
    41.3 39.4 CR-V

    I tossed in CR-V for reference since RDX will be related.

    -juice
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    I have no idea about I-drive except for all the negative posts I have seen. The RX300 is currently my idea of a "clean" dash except it would be nice if the shifter/"urinal" went away in favor of only shift toggles on the stearing wheel.

    The shifter isn't connected to anything but a bunch of electrical switches as it is.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    Yes, 30% to the front and 70% to the rear, that's the default setting.

    Bob
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Ideally, split would be a compromise between "dynamic" weight distribution, drag/lift and optimal fuel economy. I just disagree with preconceived notion that rear bias is somehow the optimal set up.
Sign In or Register to comment.