Congrats Jonny, just wonder if you get to order the 19" Alloy wheels for your RDX?
Can anyone comment on the pros and cons of having that feature and what seems to be the life-time mileage one can from a set of performance tires like that? :confuse:
In general, you'll trade off a bit of ride harshness for a slight improvement in handling and more direct steering feel.
Replacement tires also cost more. I just bought two sets of the same type of tires, and mine were $13 per tire ($52 total) more because the rims were an inch bigger than my wife's. Width and profile were similar.
With a $34k SUV I don't think a few bucks more for tires should be a deciding factor. When they arrive, ask to drive both and choose the one you prefer. You may prefer the softer ride, or the improved handling.
RDX's standard wheels look very "plain" to me and I'll be tempted to go for the 19" optional wheels when I buy the RDX; but one member has commented it would be hard to find 19" regular tires except high-priced performance tires which normally won't last beyond 20,000 clicks.
For those of you purchasing the RDX or any other Acura for that matter, ask to have the Protection Package (trunk trey, all weather floor mats, wheel locks etc...) for free. Especially if you are paying MSRP for the SUV off the bat, or if you are buying one of the older models, most dealers will give it for FREE! I bought a 2004 TL in 2004, and got that package, along with free oil changes and state inspections for life thrown in. Typically, Acura Dealers don't say no to these! Lexus dealers on the other hand are a pain in the a**.
I felt comfortable buying the RDX unseen for the following reasons:
1. The RDX is for my wife and she currently has a 2004 Honda Pilot. She thinks it is way too big and wants a smaller SUV. She had the older model CR-V prior to that and she didn't like the newer version currently for sale. Options were of course the Rav4 and Mazda and BMW X3. Being a BMW fan, I would go for the X3 but think they look dumb and are too pricey. After all things read, the RDX should perform extremely well over the other vehicles and it was already set in her head to have a new ride.
2. Wife loves Honda or Acura and the car comes with a warranty so not worried about it having problems. It is an Acura so it should be solid out the gate.
3. I drive a 2005 BMW X5 4.4 and see the value in having a performance handling SUV. I can stop on a dime, avoid any obstacles quickly and ALWAYS be in full control of the auto. Outside the BMW this looks like the only other small SUV that can do that. I know Toyota and Mazda don't handle as well based on ratings.
4. I expected to pay MSRP and didn't want to wait a year or so to get a few thousand off. We needed to get the new auto sooner rather than later.
Regarding the 19" wheels, she doesn't need them. Yes it will handle better (and look cooler) but my X5 has 19's and Perelli is the only manufacturer that makes that size for snow and they are PRICEY. I doubt the stock 19" tires on the RDX are all season tires and we want the flexibility of an all season tire on the 18's. The ride will also be more choppy on the 19's and I am sure the suspension will already be tight based on the performance handling and the 19's will make it that much choppier over pot holes, bumps, etc.
As an Acura fan and long time owner, I have been closely following the RDX development and recent appraisals of those who have driven and seen it. My brief assessment is that Acura has missed the mark with this one. Why? Acura tried to do too much with overall disappointing results in terms of: ride, comparative size, MPG, premium fuel, carrying capacity, towing capacity, price, etc., compared to the competition. I hope I am wrong but so far the reports have not been encouraging other than it is a fun car to drive and its appointments are attractive.
"Acura tried to do too much with overall disappointing results..."
Not to be blunt, but I don't understand what you expect of a luxury car maker. I mean, I have great expectations for Acura, and think that RDX could be more sporty looking like the Mazda CX-7, but other than that, the car is by far better than anything you could buy from any other company for the same price. I keep hearing people complain about the MPG and premium fuel, but to be honest, it's a luxury car. If those are things that are important to you, you should be looking at the CR-V, not a car with a turbo, which is meant to be a sporty-suv. Somebody who is spending 35K on a car usually doesn't care if they get 19/25 mpg, compared to 22/28mpg, those differences usually don't touch their pocket book. I think sometimes Acura fans forget, this is a luxury car company, premium is the name of the game!
Acura new motto should be: "Maintaining the Perfect Balance" And underneath, it should have: Luxury, Performance, Value, Innovation.
You don't buy an Acura to get a custom car, you buy an acura to get the perfect package. That's why it offers one engine, very little trim levels. It goal is to create a perfect package. As an owner of a 2004 TL, I love the balance. People are always complaining about it not being at par with the "ultimate driving machine," well, last time I checked, I'm not a race car driver, but sure do enjoy my ELS surround sound system, bluetooth and other tidbits for $10 to 12k less than the "ultimate overpriced driving machine."
The RDX will exude this same balance. You won't get everything you want, but what you do get will leave you more than satisfied, that is Acura!
Your comments are totally correct and accurate on the RDX. One complaint that I see mentioned about the RDX is the low towing capacity of the RDX. I haven't seen anyone towing anything with any RAV4, BMW X3 or any other compact crossover SUV. It's a complaint that really has no validity. I would like to see the slight turbo lag go away, and that is about it.
18" wheels are really pretty big for a vehicle of that size & weight, & I'm sure the vehicle would have been fine with 17" wheels or possibly even 16" (except for looks).
If you do buy the 19" wheels, what do they cost? And do you get a $$ credit for the 18" wheels that you didn't get?
When I saw RDX on NYC Auto Show I fail in love with this car. But now I'm looking on pictures and it is UGLY. It can be 2 reasons.
1. It was different car on Autoshow 2. It is not comming up on pictures very good.
Doesn't it look very small on pictures? And I saw the video and did not like it as well. I'm only hoping when I will see it again on Aug.10 it will be what I saw at Autoshow.
What do you guys think? Doesn't it look different?
Ride? Really? The bulk of the comments about ride have been something along the lines of "firm, but acceptable". Some reviewers have been negative about it, but others have been positive.
Comparative size? It's pretty much exactly the same size as the X3. I mean, down to the inch.
MPG? Yeah, I'm a little disappointed with that, too. The RDX matches the competition, but I was expecting them to better the others. Bettering BMW is no problem. US spec Bimmers are never good on fuel. But I think what they've accomplished is not truly significant.
Premium fuel? Name an Acura that doesn't use premium fuel. No wait. Name any sport/luxury car which doesn't use premium fuel.
Carrying capacity? Depends on what you mean. It seats five, so I can't see how that's a problem. If you mean cargo capacity, then, yeah, it's little lacking. I was hoping to see a more balanced vehicle. Something with a good dose of utility and sport - like the MDX. What we got is more sport and less utility.
Towing capacity? The number of people who tow using a compact CUV is so small it's not a market worth targeting. Personally, I think they should raise their limit to 2,000 lbs, but only for marketing reasons. Everybody else publishes a number which is the max towing rating with only a driver on board. When you add passengers or gear to those vehicles, the tow rating drops. Honda/Acura publishes numbers with 2-4 people and gear already included.
Price? All I can say is, you want the goods... you pay for the goods. Nobody else sells a high tech, loaded up vehicle for less. Sure, you can get less expensive vehicles, but you also get "cheaper" content when you do it.
I did write "sport/luxury" and I'd hardly call the GX sporty. But a quick google search suggests you are mistaken.
"For 2005, the V8 gets the company's VVT-i (variable-valve timing with intelligence) for improved efficiency and response at all engine speeds. VVT-i also helps the GX 470 run cleaner, earning the government's more stringent ULEV-II (Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle) rating for 2005. The GX 470 requires 91 octane (or higher) gasoline and rates an EPA-estimated City/Highway 15/19 mpg."
I can't claim absolute certainty, but I found two other sites listing the same premium fuel requirement.
Regardless, premium fuel is the standard for luxury vehicles. While I can certainly understand someone not wanting to pay extra for fuel, I cannot see this being a fault for the RDX when it's no different for the rest of the industry.
Well now... that's like comparing a Mustang with a 3 series. Saturn just put a Honda engine designed for minivans and mid-size SUVs into a small vehicle.
I read something in a recent car mag, and I think the vehicle looks nice, if you like the whole square body LR3 look. Also, lots of nice options and such.
I view it as a competitor since it is a smaller SUV as compared to the LR3 - But I wonder how big and heavy (and gas consuming) it will be?
To me, one of the attractions of the RDX is that it apparently handles so car-like.
"Ratings achieved using the required premium unleaded gasoline with an octane rating of 91 or higher. If premium fuel is not used, performance will decrease."
Maybe they want to have their cake and eat it too?
I realize that's a stretch, but that was my intention - to show that there really isn't anything competing directly with the RDX that runs on regular fuel.
The Vue Redline is compact and moderately sporty, but the RDX should deliver more sport and a lot more luxury.
Mazda CX7 requires premium. Forester XT requires premium. BMW X3 does, of course. There really aren't many choices out there. The LR3 just made a top 10 list of unreliable luxury cars, so I'd be afraid of the LR2 as well.
The LR2 has the style, features, and brand name image needed to the a player. Of course, it's not nearly sporty enough to be considered a direct competitor. Instead, it'll be more focused on off-road capability.
I figure it'll compete in much the same way that some buyers will compare a Lexus IS350 with an ES350.
This is an interesting thing, because some people simply refuse to buy a car or truck they like because of this alone. And it boils down to just $150 per year or so, which is really an insignificant portion of your total outlay for a $34,000 (more with tax) SUV. Not even a blip on the charts.
Yet ... it's true. A lot of people think about "moving up" from a non-luxury brand to these and this is a hurdle for them. They just can't get over it. It's not even rational when you do the math.
I can't lease this $600 per month SUV because the premium gas will cost an extra TWELVE DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS per month.
As if $600 is totally affordable yet $612.50 is ridiculous and breaks the bank.
Yet it happens all the time. Rather funny.
If the $150 per year extra hurts you at all, in any tiny way, then you simply cannot afford a vehicle over $20k. Perhaps not even any new vehicle at all. Shop used.
"To celebrate Acura’s first-ever turbo engine, and to experience the 10-speaker Surround Sound System and Navigation System with Real-Time Traffic, you’re invited to attend the RDX TurboBash on August 21-25."
So is this timed to coincide with the RDX rollout at dealerships?
"And it boils down to just $150 per year or so..."
Actually, the way I figure it, it's LESS than that.
First, from what I can tell all these vehicles require 91 octane. That's a midgrade in my book and is only a 10 cent/gal bump over regular. I interpret premium as 93 octane.
If one drives 15k miles/year and gets 25mpg, they consumed 600 gallons of fuel. At a 10 cents/gallon increase (for 91 octane), I see only an additional $60/year.
But that's picking nits. You're right though, the whole concept of not considering a $34k vehicle because they don't want to spend the additional $50-150 bucks a year is cutting their car budget WAAAAAY too tight.
20%-35% rise in fuel mileage by changing your driving habits around town? Very, very doubtful... I've tried doing a full-tank test.. I got about a 9% rise... 22 mpg to 24 mpg..
I really had to concentrate to do that... made driving more like work...
I will say... my highway speed immediately went back up to where it used to be... but, the stop-and-go city/suburban driving habits that I used then, sort of stuck.... I'm averaging about 5% better than I used to.. Probably extending my brake pad life, as well....
Bellorusha, I agree with you, although the word UGLY maybe a strong word. "Disappointed" may be a better one. I have been waiting for this car to come on the market since last year when an Acura salesman was trying to sell me an Acura MDX.
Even at the NYC car show I was a bit disappointed in the look :confuse: . The Murano and various models of the Rav4 have significantly more style. As for the BMW X3, it has the look without a doubt.
This car had better drive like a dream or it's "Hello Murano"
Do I think the pictures look different than the auto show? No.
A couple of articles in today's Automotive News about the RDX. In one headline they said that production started a couple of weeks ago, so they should arrive in dealers very soon.
Is Acura really releasing another the RDX without memory seats or even a power passenger seat? Acura finally gets both those problems fixed in the TSX, which is a cheaper vehicle, and they launch the RDX without either?
I live in the Chgo. area near the dist. yard for many autos. I was on the road today, stopped at a light and a hauler loaded with Acura's pulled up next to me. There were two RDX's on the trailer. Obviously they are on the way to the dealers.
I'm in SoCal and went to the dealer for service on my wife's TSX. They got 1 on Friday, but guess can't do anything until the official release later this week.
Hey all Seems as if the pricing on the RDX makes it pretty comparable to 2006 MDX with all of the dealer incentives. Anyone else in a dilemma? Go for the new, untested, kid on the block vs. the old tried and true. I prefer the size of the RDX and probably gets better mileage (I would assume). But it seems like a leap to go after a car when it just comes out. Can anyone tell me what they think about the pros/cons of RDX vs. old MDX? Is the turbo engine a big plus? The SH-AWD? And is the RDX still going to eat gas like crazy? And just a little pet peeve - anyone know if the rear seats have HVAC? thanks
Given the size difference, I would think it would be easy to rule out one, or the other, depending on your needs. For me, unless they're practically giving them away, I wouldn't even consider the MDX due to its bulk, width and minivanesque shape and life-mission.
I was in the same position and ended up opting for the MDX (which was really bigger than I wanted), but it has so much else going for it (price, versatility, boat towing ability (which allows us to get rid of our BMW X5 if we want), third row of seats) that for us it made sense. I can't wait to see what the RDX looks like, I am very intrigued.
I made my decision after much thought. I think there is a bit of a revolution about to occur in car designs... I think the RDX is the first (or second) of a new breed. In a few years when we are looking for another car, there will be a lot more choice of these feature laden, but smaller SUVs to choose from and not at a premium price like they are if you buy when they are first introduced.
I have enough confidence in Acura that there won't be major problems with the car, I just don't like paying full retail - I think it also hurts you down the road on trade in.
just my opinion. also, we are very happy with the MDX, but it is definitely not a nimble car.
Comments
CR-V currently comes with two tires, Duelers and BFGs, and it's not even according to model. We may have to wait to find out.
-juice
Can anyone comment on the pros and cons of having that feature and what seems to be the life-time mileage one can from a set of performance tires like that? :confuse:
Replacement tires also cost more. I just bought two sets of the same type of tires, and mine were $13 per tire ($52 total) more because the rims were an inch bigger than my wife's. Width and profile were similar.
With a $34k SUV I don't think a few bucks more for tires should be a deciding factor. When they arrive, ask to drive both and choose the one you prefer. You may prefer the softer ride, or the improved handling.
-juice
HAPPY SHOPPING!
1. The RDX is for my wife and she currently has a 2004 Honda Pilot. She thinks it is way too big and wants a smaller SUV. She had the older model CR-V prior to that and she didn't like the newer version currently for sale. Options were of course the Rav4 and Mazda and BMW X3. Being a BMW fan, I would go for the X3 but think they look dumb and are too pricey. After all things read, the RDX should perform extremely well over the other vehicles and it was already set in her head to have a new ride.
2. Wife loves Honda or Acura and the car comes with a warranty so not worried about it having problems. It is an Acura so it should be solid out the gate.
3. I drive a 2005 BMW X5 4.4 and see the value in having a performance handling SUV. I can stop on a dime, avoid any obstacles quickly and ALWAYS be in full control of the auto. Outside the BMW this looks like the only other small SUV that can do that. I know Toyota and Mazda don't handle as well based on ratings.
4. I expected to pay MSRP and didn't want to wait a year or so to get a few thousand off. We needed to get the new auto sooner rather than later.
Regarding the 19" wheels, she doesn't need them. Yes it will handle better (and look cooler) but my X5 has 19's and Perelli is the only manufacturer that makes that size for snow and they are PRICEY. I doubt the stock 19" tires on the RDX are all season tires and we want the flexibility of an all season tire on the 18's. The ride will also be more choppy on the 19's and I am sure the suspension will already be tight based on the performance handling and the 19's will make it that much choppier over pot holes, bumps, etc.
He got a glimpse.... It is the new Acura RDX...
Breaking news at CarSpace.com....
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Not to be blunt, but I don't understand what you expect of a luxury car maker. I mean, I have great expectations for Acura, and think that RDX could be more sporty looking like the Mazda CX-7, but other than that, the car is by far better than anything you could buy from any other company for the same price. I keep hearing people complain about the MPG and premium fuel, but to be honest, it's a luxury car. If those are things that are important to you, you should be looking at the CR-V, not a car with a turbo, which is meant to be a sporty-suv. Somebody who is spending 35K on a car usually doesn't care if they get 19/25 mpg, compared to 22/28mpg, those differences usually don't touch their pocket book. I think sometimes Acura fans forget, this is a luxury car company, premium is the name of the game!
Except for the dash clutter I think Acura has hit the "mark" EXACTLY, the Lexus RX series engineers should take lessons.
I would say that that is 90% of a premium car buyer's decision criteria.
And underneath, it should have: Luxury, Performance, Value, Innovation.
You don't buy an Acura to get a custom car, you buy an acura to get the perfect package. That's why it offers one engine, very little trim levels. It goal is to create a perfect package. As an owner of a 2004 TL, I love the balance. People are always complaining about it not being at par with the "ultimate driving machine," well, last time I checked, I'm not a race car driver, but sure do enjoy my ELS surround sound system, bluetooth and other tidbits for $10 to 12k less than the "ultimate overpriced driving machine."
The RDX will exude this same balance. You won't get everything you want, but what you do get will leave you more than satisfied, that is Acura!
But look at sales. They do a lot better packaging a lot of value and content for the price, in any given segment.
Fun to drive, attractive appointments probably would sell better than more mileage and towing capacity.
-juice
If you do buy the 19" wheels, what do they cost? And do you get a $$ credit for the 18" wheels that you didn't get?
1. It was different car on Autoshow
2. It is not comming up on pictures very good.
Doesn't it look very small on pictures? And I saw the video and did not like it as well. I'm only hoping when I will see it again on Aug.10 it will be what I saw at Autoshow.
What do you guys think? Doesn't it look different?
"...ride, comparative size, MPG, premium fuel, carrying capacity, towing capacity, price, etc"
Ride? Really? The bulk of the comments about ride have been something along the lines of "firm, but acceptable". Some reviewers have been negative about it, but others have been positive.
Comparative size? It's pretty much exactly the same size as the X3. I mean, down to the inch.
MPG? Yeah, I'm a little disappointed with that, too. The RDX matches the competition, but I was expecting them to better the others. Bettering BMW is no problem. US spec Bimmers are never good on fuel. But I think what they've accomplished is not truly significant.
Premium fuel? Name an Acura that doesn't use premium fuel. No wait. Name any sport/luxury car which doesn't use premium fuel.
Carrying capacity? Depends on what you mean. It seats five, so I can't see how that's a problem. If you mean cargo capacity, then, yeah, it's little lacking. I was hoping to see a more balanced vehicle. Something with a good dose of utility and sport - like the MDX. What we got is more sport and less utility.
Towing capacity? The number of people who tow using a compact CUV is so small it's not a market worth targeting. Personally, I think they should raise their limit to 2,000 lbs, but only for marketing reasons. Everybody else publishes a number which is the max towing rating with only a driver on board. When you add passengers or gear to those vehicles, the tow rating drops. Honda/Acura publishes numbers with 2-4 people and gear already included.
Price? All I can say is, you want the goods... you pay for the goods. Nobody else sells a high tech, loaded up vehicle for less. Sure, you can get less expensive vehicles, but you also get "cheaper" content when you do it.
Lexus GX470.
-juice
I did write "sport/luxury" and I'd hardly call the GX sporty. But a quick google search suggests you are mistaken.
"For 2005, the V8 gets the company's VVT-i (variable-valve timing with intelligence) for improved efficiency and response at all engine speeds. VVT-i also helps the GX 470 run cleaner, earning the government's more stringent ULEV-II (Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle) rating for 2005. The GX 470 requires 91 octane (or higher) gasoline and rates an EPA-estimated City/Highway 15/19 mpg."
http://www.internetautoguide.com/reviews/45-int/sport-utility-vehicles/lexus/gx4- 70/2005/index.html
I can't claim absolute certainty, but I found two other sites listing the same premium fuel requirement.
Regardless, premium fuel is the standard for luxury vehicles. While I can certainly understand someone not wanting to pay extra for fuel, I cannot see this being a fault for the RDX when it's no different for the rest of the industry.
-juice
http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/05/24/2007-land-rover-lr2-freelander-2-revealed- - /
I read something in a recent car mag, and I think the vehicle looks nice, if you like the whole square body LR3 look. Also, lots of nice options and such.
I view it as a competitor since it is a smaller SUV as compared to the LR3 - But I wonder how big and heavy (and gas consuming) it will be?
To me, one of the attractions of the RDX is that it apparently handles so car-like.
Thoughts?
http://www.lexus.com/models/comparison/gx.html
Do a comparison and look under performance.
My friend owns one. And I was surprised when he told me it takes regular.
http://www.lexus.com/models/gx/470_specifications.html
"Ratings achieved using the required premium unleaded gasoline with an octane rating of 91 or higher. If premium fuel is not used, performance will decrease."
Maybe they want to have their cake and eat it too?
The Vue Redline is compact and moderately sporty, but the RDX should deliver more sport and a lot more luxury.
Mazda CX7 requires premium. Forester XT requires premium. BMW X3 does, of course. There really aren't many choices out there. The LR3 just made a top 10 list of unreliable luxury cars, so I'd be afraid of the LR2 as well.
-juice
The LR2 has the style, features, and brand name image needed to the a player. Of course, it's not nearly sporty enough to be considered a direct competitor. Instead, it'll be more focused on off-road capability.
I figure it'll compete in much the same way that some buyers will compare a Lexus IS350 with an ES350.
Yet ... it's true. A lot of people think about "moving up" from a non-luxury brand to these and this is a hurdle for them. They just can't get over it. It's not even rational when you do the math.
I can't lease this $600 per month SUV because the premium gas will cost an extra TWELVE DOLLARS AND FIFTY CENTS per month.
As if $600 is totally affordable yet $612.50 is ridiculous and breaks the bank.
Yet it happens all the time. Rather funny.
If the $150 per year extra hurts you at all, in any tiny way, then you simply cannot afford a vehicle over $20k. Perhaps not even any new vehicle at all. Shop used.
-juice
So is this timed to coincide with the RDX rollout at dealerships?
That would be Maria Sharapova.
Actually, the way I figure it, it's LESS than that.
First, from what I can tell all these vehicles require 91 octane. That's a midgrade in my book and is only a 10 cent/gal bump over regular. I interpret premium as 93 octane.
If one drives 15k miles/year and gets 25mpg, they consumed 600 gallons of fuel. At a 10 cents/gallon increase (for 91 octane), I see only an additional $60/year.
But that's picking nits. You're right though, the whole concept of not considering a $34k vehicle because they don't want to spend the additional $50-150 bucks a year is cutting their car budget WAAAAAY too tight.
http://biz.yahoo.com/fool/060803/115461365704.html?.v=1
I really had to concentrate to do that... made driving more like work...
I will say... my highway speed immediately went back up to where it used to be... but, the stop-and-go city/suburban driving habits that I used then, sort of stuck.... I'm averaging about 5% better than I used to.. Probably extending my brake pad life, as well....
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Even at the NYC car show I was a bit disappointed in the look :confuse: . The Murano and various models of the Rav4 have significantly more style. As for the BMW X3, it has the look without a doubt.
This car had better drive like a dream or it's "Hello Murano"
Do I think the pictures look different than the auto show? No.
-juice
What's up with that?
Silver/Black RDX
Black/Black Tech
Grey/Black Tech
Seems as if the pricing on the RDX makes it pretty comparable to 2006 MDX with all of the dealer incentives. Anyone else in a dilemma? Go for the new, untested, kid on the block vs. the old tried and true. I prefer the size of the RDX and probably gets better mileage (I would assume). But it seems like a leap to go after a car when it just comes out. Can anyone tell me what they think about the pros/cons of RDX vs. old MDX? Is the turbo engine a big plus? The SH-AWD? And is the RDX still going to eat gas like crazy? And just a little pet peeve - anyone know if the rear seats have HVAC?
thanks
I made my decision after much thought. I think there is a bit of a revolution about to occur in car designs... I think the RDX is the first (or second) of a new breed. In a few years when we are looking for another car, there will be a lot more choice of these feature laden, but smaller SUVs to choose from and not at a premium price like they are if you buy when they are first introduced.
I have enough confidence in Acura that there won't be major problems with the car, I just don't like paying full retail - I think it also hurts you down the road on trade in.
just my opinion. also, we are very happy with the MDX, but it is definitely not a nimble car.
RDX 19/23
MDX 17/23