Acura RDX

robertsmx

I just think that the potential buyer attracted to the RDX is likely one who would be turned off by that kind of bulk and inefficiency.

 

 
Yep.

varmint

Anybody know how many X3s are sold with the 2.5L?

 

I did a loose comparison a while back and came up with $36,000 for an X3 with the smaller engine and decent level of content. I suspect that many looking at these two vehicles will be willing to pay a few extra grand for the BMW badge and mini X5 styling.

 

"even though their [FXs] mission in life seems similar to the RDX's, those vehicles have huge exterior dimensions relative to their interior capacity."

 

Ditto that. When the FX was first introduced, I pegged it as the sport hatchback of the luxury SUV world.

kyfdx

For CY 2004, the 2.5 outsold the 3.0

19,450 vs. 15,154

 

However, starting with MY 2005, the 3.0 model has automatic and moonroof standard.. which is $2500 in options, without a corresponding increase in price.. this is reflected in CY '04 December only numbers...

610 vs. 1513

 

So, assuming a decent level of equipment, the 2.5 and the 3.0 are only about $2500 apart now..

 

If you equip an X3 2.5 with the same level of equipment as a TSX (assuming RDX will be similar), you will definitely be in the $39K-$40K range.. The good news, the 3.0 is only another $2500 over that..

 

If the RDX is $33K, I think a comparably equipped X3 2.5 will be closer to $6K more.. Of course, there will always be those buyers that are willing to forego options to get into the BMW.. In that case, the difference may be as little as $3K.

 

More news... new engines coming out soon.. (not sure when they get into the X3 models)... Base engine is 218 HP, and the 3.0 is 255 HP..

 

regards,

kyfdx

dewey

I drove the BMW x3 3.0 and never went to my dealer since! Great disappointment--and I love BMWs. Another disappointment I heard was that the next version of the x5 will only be in automatic. I cannot imagine driving any BMW without a stick shift!

 

I was considering an RDX--but I had inflated expectations about it being hybrid.

 

Right now I am leaning more towards the new BMW 3 series(e90) Touring with xdrive. I can assure you, performance/handling should be better with a wagon than a x3 and most likely the new RDX!

tsx24

I agree, wagons offer much better handling than the suv, so what's the big craze for SUVs? I guess it's the off road capability, but I would gladly take on-road handling vs off-road capability. That's why I don't understand why there aren't more wagons out now. They are exactly the same as suv's with the one tradeoff I mentioned.

tsx24

I agree, wagons offer much better handling than the suv, so what's the big craze for SUVs? I guess it's the off road capability, but I would gladly take on-road handling vs off-road capability. That's why I don't understand why there aren't more wagons out now. They are exactly the same as suv's with the one tradeoff I mentioned, along with better gas mileage.

bodble2

I think the appeal is also image, and the confidence-inspiring high driving position. Also wagons have only recently started to overcome their dorky reputation with more attractive-looking wagon models coming out. And let's face it, the majority of the drivers don't even make use of the handling capability of the SUV, never mind a wagon, so to them, the superior handling of a wagon is a moot point. (There are actually some pretty sharp-handling SUVs out there too -- FX, Murano, X5, X3, Cayenne, Tourag, even MDX to a certain degree)

igiban

Fashion and image (they kind of go hand in hand), more than its advertised capability, is the biggest reason why 5-seater SUV are favored over wagons, and for that matter, any other type of cars sometime. And let's face it, SUV do often look more exciting than wagons.

 

I thought this luxo crossover segment's top dog is Lexus RX, and they does sell better than any others. How's RDX gonna differentiate from RX? I guess price would be lower, but still with similar utilities and luxury?

dewey

For me the utility of an SUV is not worth the extra gas mileage( RDX with IMA would have been a solution). Living in the city I have no practical use of off- road features! Only time I drove off road was in a ditch during an accident.

 

Image/fashion was never a consideration for me!

varmint

Kyfdx - Thanks for the report on the X3.

 

Tsx24 - Compare sales of the Lexus Sportcross with the RX300. That's what happened to wagons.

 

I'm one of the few idiots who does take their crossover SUV into the woods. But I freely admit this activity is neither recommended, nor common for owners. I just don't let common sense get in the way of having some fun. ;-)

 

I suspect the RDX will offer a nicer blend of performance and luxury than the X3, but I don't expect it will match it stat for stat. I'm expecting it to compete with the 2.5L version with an equipment list that will make people think twice about sacrificing creature comforts for the 3.0L.

tsx24

why can't it offer both 2.4 and 3.0 w/ SH-AWD? I know Acura is not usually one to offer multiple engine choices, but with this vehicle meeting different customers needs, it would be advisable.

kyfdx

if it offers 220HP+ and weighs 3600 LBs. or less, then they can use hamsters in treadmills, and I'll be happy.. I don't care if it is a 4,5,or six cylinder..

tsx24

or if they're really ready to step up their game, they can offer a 3.0 and 3.5 or a 2.4 + IMA and 3.5

varmint

"why can't it offer both 2.4 and 3.0 w/ SH-AWD?"

 

Good question. Acura does offer engine options (e: RSX-S, old TL-S, and CL-S). But those are the same block in different tune. And they seem to be moving away from that.

 

Another is the possibility that Honda will offer a CR-V based on the same platform. If so, it will probably be given the 2.4L as its base engine. Acura will want to differentiate themselves from that model.

tsx24

The only vehicles Honda/Acura offers different engines for are:

 

Civic 1.6 & 2.0 SI

Accord 2.4 & 3.0 V6

RSX 2.0 & 2.0 Type-S

 

and the RSX doesn't even really count as different engines, just as it was mentioned above! But if Honda wants to compete, it has to offer one standard engine that meets/beats the class standard, or offer multiple choices.

 

IMO the Civic should be offered in 2.0 and 2.4 form, the CRV in 2.4 and 3.0 form, as well as the TSX 2.4 and 3.0. They would be smart to begin doing this. The other option is to put IMAs on all their 4 cylinder cars to bump their torque ratings (which are generally low).

robertsmx

Acura offered multiple engines with 1996-1998 TL (2.5/I-5 and 3.2/V6). And yes, the grand old NSX is still offered with 3.0 (automatic transmission) and 3.2 (manual transmission).

 

Depending on volume and market placement, Acura could offer more than one engine on RDX. But, I doubt 2.4 is going to be especially with SH-AWD.

bodble2

I would probably rate the All-Road, XC70, A4 Avant, and V50 to be as sexy as any SUV.

 

The RX somehow doesn't do much for me. To me, it has always looked kind of like an egg on wheels. And I think it still appeals to women more.

bodble2

Ok, so dewey would be the one climbing out of the ditch wearing his plaid shirt with pocket protector, and checkered flood pants.

varmint

If we're going to add Honda, you missed the hybrids and natural gas options.

 

I guess the question to ask is how many buyers would Acura get by offering two engines? If something like the MDX were offered with the 3.5L and the Accord's 3.0L, how many of those 3.0s would sell? Probably not many. They might as well stick with only the 3.5L and save themselves the costs of offering the option.

 

If the CR-V ends up being based on the same platform, it will probably start with the 2.4L as the base engine and have the V6 as an option. Acura won't want much cross-shopping with the Honda line, so I expect the V6 would be the sole motivator in the RDX.

dewey

"I would probably rate the All-Road, XC70, A4 Avant, and V50 to be as sexy as any SUV."

 

Likewise, even a guy in plaid finds the above vehicles sexy! I know Honda/Toyota have good looking wagons in Europe/Asia---it would be nice if they offered high performance versions in N. America. Highly unlikely though, the Lexus IS Crossover(one of my favorite vehicles) has been a flop in N. America!!

davebee1

I'm trying to decide between purchasing a 2006 RDX or Audi A4 2.0t 2006 avant. Anybody care to discuss this dilemma with me? Thanks.

bodble2

It's a little early for that discussion, don't you think?

varmint

I think that would be an interesting comparison. But Bodble is probably right. We don't know enough about the RDX, yet. About the only thing we could compare is SH-AWD vs Quattro. And I wouldn't complain about having either!

igiban

The fact that RX sells so well in US tells me it appeals to more than women. But I agree RX is a bit too refined/curvy for SUV sake.

 

Maybe RDX can find a space between RX and FX: more manly than RX, but not overdone like FX. And when they have to be priced in low 30's rather high 30's to be apart from MDX, they can grab some shares from the other two. But something got to give when the price point is that much lower than RX/FX. What'd that be?

davebee1

Size. The RDX, if you look in the numerous autoshow galleries, is pretty small. It's not that tall, seems to be around the height of a forester, and the length 181.5, is a couple inches shorter than a TSX. And the trunk? It's... small too.

bodble2

"But something got to give when the price point is that much lower than RX/FX. What'd that be?"

 

I don't think it would have RX-level luxury and gizmo (ie. air suspension, adaptive headlights, etc.)

 

Regarding FX, when you think about it, aside from the way-out-there styling, what does the FX has to distinquish itself? You could say the FX45 has the big V8 and Cayenne-like performance. But how about the FX35. Take away the styling, and what have you got? A big and heavy SUV with a small interior. Above-average performance but not eye-popping.

varmint

181" is the same as the current generation CR-V. It also matches the Saturn VUE. The Mercury Mariner is 174". The Highlander is 184". But I agree the height doesn't seem like much.

 

I doubt the cargo area will be the same in the production model. Half of it was taken up with over-sized stereo speakers.

robertsmx

Lexus RX isn't cheap. It competes with MDX (and goes beyond it) when equipped. Infiniti FX35 isn't cheap either. With AWD and leather as the options, the price quickly jumps to $40K.

 

I expect RDX to be close to $30-32K.

igiban

So what'd be the closest alternative/competing crossover to RDX, at least on the luxo brand side? Is there one that costs only $32K now.

kyfdx

Land Rover Freelander.. About $33K, loaded up.. Starts around $27K

bodble2

If the Freelander is the closest competitor, then Acura has got nothing to worry about!

dewey

"So what'd be the closest alternative/competing crossover to RDX, at least on the luxo brand side? Is there one that costs only $32K now. "

 

There are not many competitors in this segment because the North American demand for such vehicles are not so high.

 

X3 sales has compensated BMW for lost sales of its 3 and 5 series during 04. Despite this, it appears the x3 demand is not as stellar as BMW had expected. I have a friend who got a fantastic deal on an x3 during August(a few months after intro)! That is not a promising sign.

tsx24

I think the closest competitors are

 

BMW X3

Nissan Murano

Subaru Outback

Infiniti FX35

Lexus RX330

 

I don't think you can really pin it down between luxury and non-luxury brands. It fits in with the high end of the non-luxo, and the bottom end of the luxo brands.

bodble2

Then the RDX still would have no direct competitor:

 

BMW X3: too pricey

Nissan Murano: too wacky; styling won't stand the test of time.

Subaru Outback: at least a notch down on the prestige scale, and maybe 2 notches down in terms of luxury and amenities.

Infiniti FX35: too inefficient. Same comment on styling as Murano

Lexus RX330: too pricey

bodble2

What isn't this topic under its own category, rather than under "Acura Related"?

Kirstie_H

Fixed. At the time this topic was created, we didn't have the model listed. Members jump on the news faster than we can update the site!

tsx24

The bottom line is the customer shopping for a small crossover SUV is going to check out those cars. They may have a budget of 30-40 and the lexus/Bmw may not be too pricey. They may not require prestige and therefore go for the Outback...by the way Acura is a notch down on the prestige scale too when compared to Lexus/Infiniti. So again, these are the RDX competition.

varmint

"by the way Acura is a notch down on the prestige scale too when compared to Lexus/Infiniti. So again, these are the RDX competition."

 

Lexus? Sure.

 

Infiniti? Not that I've noticed.

tsx24

Have you noticed that All Acura cars are just different versions of the Honda Accord. The RSX is just another version of the Civic. The MDX is a pilot with wood trim. Their only real car is the NSX which is 15 years old. Acura needs more diferentiation between their Honda brand. Look at Infiniti vs Nissan and you'll see what I mean.

dewey

But the new RL?

 

Quite impressive and is not based on an Accord.

varmint

Have you noticed that the RX330 is just a Highlander? The ES330 is just a Camry? The LX470 is just a Landcruiser? The GX is just a 4Runner?

 

What about the old Infiniti I30 (I mean Maxima)? Or the QX45 (Pathfinder)? Or the G35 coupe (350Z)? Or the new what-ever-it's-called SUV (Armada)? And the FX35 (Murano)?

 

I agree that there are degrees or level of difference between these models. Lexus probably does it the best. But until they brought the G35 sedan, Infiniti was the one that got bashed for not going far enough.

 

No, I think Acura is at least as good as Infiniti. Frankly, Acura may be better. They don't use the same 3.5L engine in every single vehicle in both lines.

varmint

Actually, the RL is based on the same mid-size global car platform that is used for the Accord and TL. Never know it to sit in or drive them though.

bodble2

I don't think there is anything wrong with platform-sharing. If it's a good platform, then why not, if if means savings in R & D and ultimately, lower cost to the consumer?

 

And as varmint pointed out, it's such a wide-spread practice nowadays. And to Honda's credit, I think there are substantial differentiations between the Acura/Honda cousins. And BTW, actually, the Pilot is a de-contented MDX.

robertsmx

Platform exists to be shared. It is a part of smart business practice.

tsx24

Honda could make 1 sporty car, and offer all equipment optional, and 1 touring car with all equipment optional.

They could have just the Accord, with all the RL stuff as options

Then they could have the TSX with all the TL/RL stuff as options...no need for 4 cars Honda.

varmint

"They could have just the Accord, with all the RL stuff as options

Then they could have the TSX with all the TL/RL stuff as options...no need for 4 cars Honda."

 

Ummm... maybe I'm being thick today. What exactly are you proposing?

bodble2

"no need for 4 cars"

 

But there is a need. And for more than just 4. It's called marketing. That's why not only are there variations off of the same platform, there are variations off of the same model. ie. Accord sedan, coupe, LX, EX, etc, etc. People want choices, so if you want to sell cars, or anything else, you have to give them choices. Why do you think there are a gazillion different dress shirts, socks, shoes, etc. in a department stores?

tsx24

you're exactly right, so if you give them all the choices of the options that the RL comes with standard...then they could buy the accord with RL options rather than the RL.

bodble2

you mean stack the Accord with RL features and sell them at Accord prices? Sure, I'll buy one. But I don't think it would get past the bean-counters at Honda.

steveaccord

Hi Var & Robertsmx, Kristie and all others,

 

I was checking out to find this thread for days since the appearance of the RDX concept! As always I am anticipating (and eagerly waiting) this will be the place to visit to get the best insigths into the actual vehicle will see in 2006.

As to tsx24 post IMO I believe his phylosphy was one that a single model, availing the various trim levels equivalent to marketed different models, should be offered instead of a plethora of different models out of a single platform.

If that is the case, and my interpretation correct, I would suggest that there is a misunderstanding on what 'common platform' means. To exemplify the concept I would borrow the Civic and the CRV as 2 cars sharing a common platform. It does not matter how much you tweak a Civic or trim it up it will never be a CRV.

 

Beside such example I was also pondering on recent data on brand loyalty released by RL Polk that I think have relevance to this discussion. I was somewhat surprised that the loyalty top ranks were filled by the Detroit carmakers. Even in the vehicle breakdown the presence of american brands exceded that of imports.

Two considerations I made were that such data may possibly reflect the way brands/nameplates were orginized/grouped. More importantly (and I believe I may have read some comments in this regard), the preeminence of GM and Ford in brand and nameplate loyalty, respectively, may have a direct relationship to the abundance of models this two carmakers offer.

 

I can relate somewhat to this aspects of brand loyalty relationship to number of models offered (and by the way keep in mind that such brand loyalty bear not much weight in term of sales and market share overall given that GM and Ford lost again market share to brand like Honda that was not in the top ranking positions). In fact, as an Honda repeated buyer I cannot grow beyond the Accord (stage I am at) and if I want to get something better I'll have to be 'disloyal' to Honda and buy myself an Acura (different brand so my purchase would not be tabbed as a loyalist purchase for Honda).

 

I think that is the marketing engine behind having sometime a 'proliferation' of different models that may have many shared components. To exemplify again my point of view, if Honda offered its version fo the Avalon then I may have one more shot to continue to be a "loyal Honda buyer". Now you can think of many example where, given each one individual needs and preferences, that desire for a better more comfortable vehicle than the last you were driving, you may be forced into a different brand altogether.

 

So ultimately there is need for 'numerous' models from a marketing standpoint. As to us consumers there is the benefit that if our evolving needs can be met within the brand we have come to appreciate we would be spared a lot of stress.

 

Finally I come to the specific of this thread, the RDX, and as always in presence of our luminaries I would humbly ask them to share as much as they know on the technical specification of this vehicle. I have no specific request because I have not scrolled through the previous pages but I would love your thoughts on the following aspects of the press release:

 

SH-AWD, this vehicle supposedly will be equipped with it. What do you thinks will be the phylosophy of deploying it across other models in the Acura vs. Honda lineups?

 

200 hp engine. What powertrain is likely to be used?

 

I'll be following this thread often as I intend to replace my wife 2002 CRV with the RDX (Yes I will not be loyal to Honda, LOL). Therefore let me thank you from the start for all the interesting and useful information I am sure everyone will contribute.

Truly,

 

Steveaccord