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
*These vehicles are due and overdue for a redesign.
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.
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
Bob
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!
Rav4 Limited?
Rocky
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
Bob
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.
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
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..."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Bob
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.
Bob
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.
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.
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?
"the 'business' of the dash"
Busyness is probably what he meant.
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
The shifter isn't connected to anything but a bunch of electrical switches as it is.
Bob