"There are plenty of people with wealth who are not luxury buyers. Last I heard, Chris Rock was driving an Altima."
And Jake Plummer got a little press recently here in Denver for a road-rage type incident. He apparently got out of his Honda Element to confront someone who rear-ended him.
Gotta have some respect for driving such an inexpensive car on an NFL starting QB salary, but really, an Element? :P
The "secret", or magic, of the RDX AWD system is the fact that it DYNAMICALLY allocates engine drive torque or engine compression braking as a function of operational conditions.
It is completely appropriate to have 90% of the engine drive torque allocated to the front wheels when cruising along straight ahead. But unlike more conventional front biased AWD systems the RDX can instantly allocate the resulting engine compression braking to the rear the moment you lift the accelerator pedal.
Or even more importantly the RDX can remove 70% of engine drive or braking effects from the front so as to dedicate the majority of the front tires' roadbed adhesion to lateral control should the need arise.
"I think I will like some of the luxury features of the RDX but the OB XT has much better towing and snow capability(?)."
The OB certainly wins in the towing department and cargo space, too. Dunno about snow capability. Mechanically speaking, I see no significant advantage for the Soob on that front. Passenger space would be another consideration if I were comparing the two.
Right now, I'm certain Soob dealers are dealing. Acura dealers probably won't. Not for a while. So the GT with the goodies might be well within reach.
6.3" of clearance? In deep snow, that thing's gonna high-center pretty easily. That'll be the limitation, much more so than the AWD system.
That's measured to the diff. A diff can part snow. The problem one encounters in deep snow is when the snow reaches the floor pan and causes drag on the full length of the vehicle. When I measured the distance from the convention center floor to the sill of the vehicle, the RDX had about 2" more clearance than the X3 and CX-7.
That was true up until '04 for the Outack and up until '06 for the Forester. The Forester is now 8.1" for the non-turbos and 7.9" for the turbos. The Outbacks very, but I think it's 8.1-8.4" or so.
Forester has better angles of approach and departure, and crossover angle.
Most cars are 4-6", so any of the vehicles mentioned above will be far better than average.
But then Subaru keeps on bragging about having "symetrical" AWD...!!??
WHY..??
I'd much rather have the RDX AWD system wherein almost NONE of the engine drive/braking effects will interfere with directional control at times of dire need. Actually I'd much perfer 100% of the engine effects happen at the rear rather than the front even if it means chosing RWD over AWD.
But the RDX's 70% rear effects is a whole lot better than the Subaru's 50%.
And unless you're talking about clearing boulders or something of decent substance ground clearance is really a non-issue. Back in my MT days I have driven vehicles mile after mile with RWD and chains or in 4X4 mode with the snow level well above the bumper level. It's the traction level at the bottom of the tires that really count in deep snow.
Which Subaru system are you talking about? There are sevearl and they vary greatly.
I think you'd love VTD, though. It's rear-biased yet also full-time. Plus it has the capability of sending 100% of power to either axle. On top of that it's proactive.
Why do they say symmetrical?
Well, keep in mind they're talking about side-to-side. The engine is mounted longitudinally and each side mirrors the other. The position of the cylinders, the heads, the camshafts, the equal length half shafts, everything is a mirror image of what's on the other side when it comes to the core powertrain.
Pop the hod on a tranverse V6, like my old 626, and you'll see the engine leans to one side, the front differential on the other, the half shafts are of different length and cut right through the front differential, it's a mess under there. You wonder how the axle manages to distribute power to both sides, and that's FWD, one single axle!
I was floored at the job titles, VP of this, CEO of that, unbelievable. My guess it half the members in the Subaru Crew make six figures. Made me feel poor!
Funny you say that, my soon to be father-in-law is director for flight opperations where he is based for United Airlines, making well over 6 figures, and all he drives is Subaru's.
Just read the review in the R&T magazine. They said that the RDX is designed by Honda's first female lead engineer. Sounds like she knows what she is doing, leading the review, R&T liked it. They said in their test drives "only in real tight corners did the RDX "push" the laws of physics." The only other complaint that they had was the wheel mounted automatic transmission controls, when downshifting, "it does not rev-match on downshifts to aid smoothness." They felt that it held tight and that it had very little, if any understeer. The AWD system and the suspension sound like this car will be a great small SUV. I know I keep checking everyday for when they will be in my local dealership.
...motor trend they said august too long to wait, personally
Same for me...just bought a CX-7. The latest review of the RDX (in Autoweek) was what convinced me to go with the CX-7. (They said they prefer the X3 in the twisties to the RDX and that the RDX compares more with the CX-7 than the X3...and of course the CX-7 is several thousands less and could be had now.)
Not R&T. Autoweek, June 5, 06 issue. They also estimate pricing between 30k and 37k and a 0-60mph of 7.4s (mfr.)
"But we prefer the X3 by a fair margin over twisty two-lanes, despite Acura's claim the RDX's use of high-strength steel makes it torsionally stiffer than the X3."
"While Acura compares the RDX to the X3, which is several thousand dollars higher in sticker, the RDX's powertrain, suspension and the segment in which it sits more closely mimics the CX-7, which is several thousand dollars less."
Even though it's probably not the best choice for my next car (space & utility), I probably will test drive one. I'm really curious to test that variable turbocharger. Haven't driven a CX7 yet so maybe I'll do those back-to-back.
Hmm, there's a Mazda/Nissan/Acura dealer in Gaithersburg at the same place. Bob - wanna go? Same place where we drove the Armada and Quest.
ateixeira - Anyone who has not read "The Millionaire Next Door" is missing out on a fun book to read and plenty of useful information. It would be no surprise if current data shows that more millionaires drive Fords than any other brand. I have read that Waren Buffet drives a Lincoln Town Car. The key distinction is between show-offs with lots of debt and low net worth, whatever their income, and millioniares who don't pay enormous amounts just for the name badge on the vehicle.
The CX-7 came out almost identical to the RAV4 V6 Limited 4WD in the Car & Driver testing, except that it was significantly slower and the fuel cost will be far higher due to poorer mileage and the requirement for premium fuel. Let's hope that the RDX does better than the CX-7.
RAV4 V6 Limited 4WD: 0-60 6.3; 70 to 0 180'; 300' skid pad 0.83g, noise at 70MPH 68 dBA, EPA 18 city, 24 highway (premium required).
CX-7 Sport 4WD: 0-60 7.9; 70 to 0 179'; 300' skid pad 0.84g, noise at 70MPH 67 dBA EPA 21 city and 28 highway (regular OK).
Also, don't forget that the 2006 RAV4 sold outside of North America has more features (e.g navigation, turn signal repeaters in the mirror housings, and rain sensing wipers). I strongly suspect that Toyota will offer those features on the 2007 RAV4, especially given the competition from the Mazda CX-7, RDX, and Ford Edge / Lincoln MKX.
Both the RDX and the RAV4 have the much cooler in summer perforated leather seats, while the CX-7 has solid leather. The CX-7 also lacks dual zone climate control.
I drive 35,000 miles plus anually all over southern CA for business. The XM navigation system with XM nav-traffic gives the RDX is a significant advantage over the other vehicles I am considering. I suspect that it will be a key feature for other consultants, real estate agents, sales people, Etc. The comfortable and supportive looking seats, if actually comfortable and supportive, will also be a significant advantage. While I would prefer rear wheel drive or rear-biased all wheel drive, the system in the RDX seems like an excellent and close second choice.
"I have read that Waren Buffet drives a Lincoln Town Car."
While I don't have the stats, but I'm sure a high percentage of people, if not the majority, who buy/lease expensive cars do so simply because they feel the need to announce themselves to the world. Some may actually have the bucks to justify it, but many are just wannabes.
If you put just this one priority into the mix: HID xenon headlights, then the RDX is the only choice. I was disappointed to find out that the Lincoln MKX will not offer this feature. Oh, the Pacifica offers it as a stand-alone option. Around here, where deer are suicidal, the better headlights are an advantage.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the Rav4, Tribeca, CX-7/9 don't offer HID headlights, I believe.
I think you mixed some numbers. You listed the correct performance figures for each car, but swapped the mileage and fuel requirement.
CX7's leather has this strange alligator stripe in the center. I guess it's unique, at least.
To HID or not to HID, that is the question. To me I don't care what they are as long as the lighting is good. I saw one test where a cheap halogen performed best (Corolla IIRC) and the Audi TT's HIDs performed the absolute worst.
I have to try them to judge. I think my Forester provides excellent lighting with plain old halogens. Others are almost like driving in the dark. It's all about the shape of the reflectors.
On my Miata, I went from sealed beams (i.e. darkness) to E-codes with halogen inserts, and it's so much better now.
So I do not automatically consider HIDs better. If you disagree go drive a used Audi TT at CarMax.
HIDs are not the kind of thing that are offered as a running change. If they ever come, it will happen for the mid-model change (refresh).
Manufacturers think in terms like, "How many sales am I missing because feature X is missing?" In the case of the RAV4, Toyota is not missing many sales. If they add HIDs it will raise the price both for them and the consumer. That could actually cost them sales.
I wouldn't rely on specs alone. Here's an example of why...
For about $6 less, you can get a CR-V EX with a 5MT and the 2.4L K series engine. It has been clocked several times at 8.1 seconds from 0-60. That's a fraction of a second slower than the times posted by the X3 and what we expect for the CX-7 and RDX. On a skid pad, this monster performance machine will pull .78 - .80g thanks in part to a curb weight under 3,500 lbs. Generally speaking, manual transmissions are considered sportier than automatics, which are the only option with the CX-7 and RDX. And the CR-V gets an EPA 21-25 mpg on regular gas.
No, as much as I'm a CR-V fanboy, I'm not serious about this. In a spec race, the CR-V looks competitive. Reality is another story. There's a big difference between pulling Gs on a skidpad comfortably, and having a vehicle hang on for dear life. These numbers don't tell us anything about how communicative the steering is, or how well the throttle is tuned, or how well balanced the chassis feels. A sporty vehicle isn't one that is capable of heroic feats. It is a vehicle that inspires the driver to attempt heroic feats. Specs don't tell us that.
I don't think you got the skid pad number right for the RAV4...I saw 0.79 vs 0.84 for the CX-7. Huge difference. I prefer a lot having better handling than better 0-60mph. Only teenagers care about 0-60. What is way more important is handling and fun-to-drive in general. The CX-7 is miles ahead the RAV in that area.
It all depends on what kind of car that you are driving. For compact suv, I would not care that much in this case since you are supposed to drive slow. If you just want a car that has good handling then get a Honda Fit, which has better handling, is cheaper, and consumes far less gas than either of cars. Even what you say is true in terms of the number, I do not think 0.79 vs 0.84 is that much difference. Just keep in mind, those numbers are at limit, and unless your driving style is out of control all the time, you will never see any difference at all.
The RAV4 tested had 17" rims IIRC, but they also offer 16" and 18". So that number could go up or down.
The CX7 is offered with two kinds of tires, so their skidpad numbers might change as well.
Finally, C&D previewed the RDX in the same issue, and estimated 0-60 at 7.5s, so it splits the difference. On premium fuel, like the CX7.
RAV4 will do a lot more volume, of course, it's intended to. Toyota probably wants 120k sales/year, while Acura would probably be happy with 1/3rd of that. Mazda will probably be in between, but closer to Acura, is my guess.
One of the two numbers is a typical C&D "typo." As bodble2 indicated, the full test of the RAV4 showed 0.83g. The RAV4 they tested was the Limited V6 with 4WD, while the CX-7 they tested was the Sport. They RAV4 sport might have done a little better.
By the way, the LA Times reviewer complained that the CX-7's rear suspension was compromised to fit into a smallaer space, likening the front and rear suspensions to two men in a horse suit, while Motorweek says that the RAV4 rough very rough on all but smooth pavement. Of course, car dealers tend to be in places surounded by smooth pavement, so the trick is make sure the test drive includes other areas.
I sure wish Edmunds would publish all of the same types of actual test data Popular Science published in the 1970s and C&D now publishes, not just manufacturer's advertising data - acceleration, braking, skid pad, slalom, accident avoidance, and interior sound levels, plus a better selection of photos they took, not just the publicity photos.
Toyota probably wants 120k sales/year, while Acura would probably be happy with 1/3rd of that. Mazda will probably be in between, but closer to Acura, is my guess.
Surprisingly, Mazda expects to sell 60K units/year. I think that number is obtainable. Maybe not right away, but, I think they can there. They sunk a ton of money into the CX-7, so, I guess they need to sell that many.
A key part in reaching that number will be an aggressive lease. Right now, the intro lease stinks.
To expect sales of the RDX and CX-7 to be similar is a fair statement. Time will tell.
Only 60K in the forecast? I think the CX-7 will meet that number easily. When you consider Mazda is offering the vehicle in several trim levels, with and without AWD, and at a lower price point, it should sell like a volume player.
The RDX is forecast at 40K units. Because they only offer it loaded, at a higher price point, it targets a much smaller audience. The profit per vehicle ratio is going to be higher, but the number of sales will be low.
I anticipate the RDX will meet that forecast, but not exceed it by very much. It's a good vehicle. But it's not going to be a runaway hit like the TSX or the MDX back in its day.
Tribute...do people still buy those things? I thought it's fallen off most SUV buyers' radar screen. Look at all the new models now (or soon to be) available --- RAV4, CR-V, RDX, Grand Vitara, CX7, Santa Fe, Edge, Xterra,... plus the miscelleous domestic offerings.
I'm curious to see if Mazda keeps 'em both around. Remember, the base models sell at $16k or so, well below the price of a CX7.
Ford's gotta keep the Escape, it sells too well to drop it. I suspect they'll keep it and also sell the Edge.
The crossover segment is getting crowded. I think a good thing for Acura is that they did manage to make the RDX unique, with the high levels of equipment and the turbo engine. That part of the segment is a lot less crowded.
Automotive News states that there will not be a 2007 Mazda Tribute. There will be a new version in 2008 ( probably as the CX-5 with a four cylinder engine and an optional V6).
Comments
And Jake Plummer got a little press recently here in Denver for a road-rage type incident. He apparently got out of his Honda Element to confront someone who rear-ended him.
Gotta have some respect for driving such an inexpensive car on an NFL starting QB salary, but really, an Element? :P
2024 Audi Q8 e-tron - 2017 911 C4S - 2023 A6 Allroad - 2024 Genesis GV60 - 2019 Cayman
Speaking of the Mazda, it has a direct injection engine. Does the RDX?
Give me rear biased AWD or RWD, NEVER FWD or front biased AWD.
Looks to me as if Acura has figured out the magic formula.
They liked it but commented on the fact that it's short on utility. Instead of being an "SUV," perhaps it should be called an "SuV."
Bob
"In normal operation, 90 percent of the power goes to the front wheels, but this can vary up to 70 percent to the rear"
That sure sounds like front biased AWD to me...
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
It is completely appropriate to have 90% of the engine drive torque allocated to the front wheels when cruising along straight ahead. But unlike more conventional front biased AWD systems the RDX can instantly allocate the resulting engine compression braking to the rear the moment you lift the accelerator pedal.
Or even more importantly the RDX can remove 70% of engine drive or braking effects from the front so as to dedicate the majority of the front tires' roadbed adhesion to lateral control should the need arise.
For reference, the current CR-V has 8.1" or more, since they just put on bigger tires for '06.
2skipowder: pick the Outback over the Legacy if you ski a lot, for the same reason - lots more clearance, more than 8" depending upon the model.
Back to the RDX, an 8" NAV screen sounds schwee-eeeet!
-juice
The OB certainly wins in the towing department and cargo space, too. Dunno about snow capability. Mechanically speaking, I see no significant advantage for the Soob on that front. Passenger space would be another consideration if I were comparing the two.
Right now, I'm certain Soob dealers are dealing. Acura dealers probably won't. Not for a while. So the GT with the goodies might be well within reach.
That's measured to the diff. A diff can part snow. The problem one encounters in deep snow is when the snow reaches the floor pan and causes drag on the full length of the vehicle. When I measured the distance from the convention center floor to the sill of the vehicle, the RDX had about 2" more clearance than the X3 and CX-7.
The rear diff usually sits higher, at least on Subies. A good couple of inches.
Outbacks vary, depends on the engine, but they're all over 8" IIRC.
-juice
Forester has better angles of approach and departure, and crossover angle.
Most cars are 4-6", so any of the vehicles mentioned above will be far better than average.
-juice
WHY..??
I'd much rather have the RDX AWD system wherein almost NONE of the engine drive/braking effects will interfere with directional control at times of dire need. Actually I'd much perfer 100% of the engine effects happen at the rear rather than the front even if it means chosing RWD over AWD.
But the RDX's 70% rear effects is a whole lot better than the Subaru's 50%.
And unless you're talking about clearing boulders or something of decent substance ground clearance is really a non-issue. Back in my MT days I have driven vehicles mile after mile with RWD and chains or in 4X4 mode with the snow level well above the bumper level. It's the traction level at the bottom of the tires that really count in deep snow.
I think you'd love VTD, though. It's rear-biased yet also full-time. Plus it has the capability of sending 100% of power to either axle. On top of that it's proactive.
Why do they say symmetrical?
Well, keep in mind they're talking about side-to-side. The engine is mounted longitudinally and each side mirrors the other. The position of the cylinders, the heads, the camshafts, the equal length half shafts, everything is a mirror image of what's on the other side when it comes to the core powertrain.
Pop the hod on a tranverse V6, like my old 626, and you'll see the engine leans to one side, the front differential on the other, the half shafts are of different length and cut right through the front differential, it's a mess under there. You wonder how the axle manages to distribute power to both sides, and that's FWD, one single axle!
The symmetrical claim is entirely valid IMO.
-juice
TechnoRide
Funny you say that, my soon to be father-in-law is director for flight opperations where he is based for United Airlines, making well over 6 figures, and all he drives is Subaru's.
Same for me...just bought a CX-7. The latest review of the RDX (in Autoweek) was what convinced me to go with the CX-7. (They said they prefer the X3 in the twisties to the RDX and that the RDX compares more with the CX-7 than the X3...and of course the CX-7 is several thousands less and could be had now.)
"But we prefer the X3 by a fair margin over twisty two-lanes, despite Acura's claim the RDX's use of high-strength steel makes it torsionally stiffer than the X3."
"While Acura compares the RDX to the X3, which is several thousand dollars higher in sticker, the RDX's powertrain, suspension and the segment in which it sits more closely mimics the CX-7, which is several thousand dollars less."
Hmm, there's a Mazda/Nissan/Acura dealer in Gaithersburg at the same place. Bob - wanna go? Same place where we drove the Armada and Quest.
-juice
Bob
The CX-7 came out almost identical to the RAV4 V6 Limited 4WD in the Car & Driver testing, except that it was significantly slower and the fuel cost will be far higher due to poorer mileage and the requirement for premium fuel. Let's hope that the RDX does better than the CX-7.
RAV4 V6 Limited 4WD: 0-60 6.3; 70 to 0 180'; 300' skid pad 0.83g, noise at 70MPH 68 dBA, EPA 18 city, 24 highway (premium required).
CX-7 Sport 4WD: 0-60 7.9; 70 to 0 179'; 300' skid pad 0.84g, noise at 70MPH 67 dBA EPA 21 city and 28 highway (regular OK).
Also, don't forget that the 2006 RAV4 sold outside of North America has more features (e.g navigation, turn signal repeaters in the mirror housings, and rain sensing wipers). I strongly suspect that Toyota will offer those features on the 2007 RAV4, especially given the competition from the Mazda CX-7, RDX, and Ford Edge / Lincoln MKX.
Both the RDX and the RAV4 have the much cooler in summer perforated leather seats, while the CX-7 has solid leather. The CX-7 also lacks dual zone climate control.
I drive 35,000 miles plus anually all over southern CA for business. The XM navigation system with XM nav-traffic gives the RDX is a significant advantage over the other vehicles I am considering. I suspect that it will be a key feature for other consultants, real estate agents, sales people, Etc. The comfortable and supportive looking seats, if actually comfortable and supportive, will also be a significant advantage. While I would prefer rear wheel drive or rear-biased all wheel drive, the system in the RDX seems like an excellent and close second choice.
While I don't have the stats, but I'm sure a high percentage of people, if not the majority, who buy/lease expensive cars do so simply because they feel the need to announce themselves to the world. Some may actually have the bucks to justify it, but many are just wannabes.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the Rav4, Tribeca, CX-7/9 don't offer HID headlights, I believe.
Jay
CX7's leather has this strange alligator stripe in the center. I guess it's unique, at least.
To HID or not to HID, that is the question. To me I don't care what they are as long as the lighting is good. I saw one test where a cheap halogen performed best (Corolla IIRC) and the Audi TT's HIDs performed the absolute worst.
I have to try them to judge. I think my Forester provides excellent lighting with plain old halogens. Others are almost like driving in the dark. It's all about the shape of the reflectors.
On my Miata, I went from sealed beams (i.e. darkness) to E-codes with halogen inserts, and it's so much better now.
So I do not automatically consider HIDs better. If you disagree go drive a used Audi TT at CarMax.
-juice
Manufacturers think in terms like, "How many sales am I missing because feature X is missing?" In the case of the RAV4, Toyota is not missing many sales. If they add HIDs it will raise the price both for them and the consumer. That could actually cost them sales.
For about $6 less, you can get a CR-V EX with a 5MT and the 2.4L K series engine. It has been clocked several times at 8.1 seconds from 0-60. That's a fraction of a second slower than the times posted by the X3 and what we expect for the CX-7 and RDX. On a skid pad, this monster performance machine will pull .78 - .80g thanks in part to a curb weight under 3,500 lbs. Generally speaking, manual transmissions are considered sportier than automatics, which are the only option with the CX-7 and RDX. And the CR-V gets an EPA 21-25 mpg on regular gas.
No, as much as I'm a CR-V fanboy, I'm not serious about this. In a spec race, the CR-V looks competitive. Reality is another story. There's a big difference between pulling Gs on a skidpad comfortably, and having a vehicle hang on for dear life. These numbers don't tell us anything about how communicative the steering is, or how well the throttle is tuned, or how well balanced the chassis feels. A sporty vehicle isn't one that is capable of heroic feats. It is a vehicle that inspires the driver to attempt heroic feats. Specs don't tell us that.
It's a good thing I wasn't drinking any soda when I read that.
-juice
RAV4 V6 Limited 4WD: 0-60 6.3; 70 to 0 180'; 300' skid pad 0.83g, noise at 70MPH 68 dBA EPA 21 city and 28 highway (regular OK).
CX-7 Sport 4WD: 0-60 7.9; 70 to 0 179'; 300' skid pad 0.84g, noise at 70MPH 67 dBA , EPA 18 city, 24 highway (premium required).
Only teenagers care about 0-60. What is way more important is handling and fun-to-drive in general. The CX-7 is miles ahead the RAV in that area.
Wrong. Car & Driver. January, 2006. RAV4 Limited V6 was tested at 0.83. The RAV4 Sport would likely even top that figure.
Even what you say is true in terms of the number, I do not think 0.79 vs 0.84 is that much difference. Just keep in mind, those numbers are at limit, and unless your driving style is out of control all the time, you will never see any difference at all.
The CX7 is offered with two kinds of tires, so their skidpad numbers might change as well.
Finally, C&D previewed the RDX in the same issue, and estimated 0-60 at 7.5s, so it splits the difference. On premium fuel, like the CX7.
RAV4 will do a lot more volume, of course, it's intended to. Toyota probably wants 120k sales/year, while Acura would probably be happy with 1/3rd of that. Mazda will probably be in between, but closer to Acura, is my guess.
-juice
By the way, the LA Times reviewer complained that the CX-7's rear suspension was compromised to fit into a smallaer space, likening the front and rear suspensions to two men in a horse suit, while Motorweek says that the RAV4 rough very rough on all but smooth pavement. Of course, car dealers tend to be in places surounded by smooth pavement, so the trick is make sure the test drive includes other areas.
I sure wish Edmunds would publish all of the same types of actual test data Popular Science published in the 1970s and C&D now publishes, not just manufacturer's advertising data - acceleration, braking, skid pad, slalom, accident avoidance, and interior sound levels, plus a better selection of photos they took, not just the publicity photos.
Surprisingly, Mazda expects to sell 60K units/year. I think that number is obtainable. Maybe not right away, but, I think they can there. They sunk a ton of money into the CX-7, so, I guess they need to sell that many.
A key part in reaching that number will be an aggressive lease. Right now, the intro lease stinks.
To expect sales of the RDX and CX-7 to be similar is a fair statement. Time will tell.
The RDX is forecast at 40K units. Because they only offer it loaded, at a higher price point, it targets a much smaller audience. The profit per vehicle ratio is going to be higher, but the number of sales will be low.
I anticipate the RDX will meet that forecast, but not exceed it by very much. It's a good vehicle. But it's not going to be a runaway hit like the TSX or the MDX back in its day.
While they have FWD models, that almost overlaps too much with the Mazda5. People cross-shop the 5 with all kinds of weird stuff, usually not vans.
Acura should meet its modest targets.
-juice
I suspect it will be a bigger hit in Canada then it will be in the US.
Ford's gotta keep the Escape, it sells too well to drop it. I suspect they'll keep it and also sell the Edge.
The crossover segment is getting crowded. I think a good thing for Acura is that they did manage to make the RDX unique, with the high levels of equipment and the turbo engine. That part of the segment is a lot less crowded.
-juice
Bob