Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
With 2-3 kids, maybe a dog or two, the MDX makes a lot more sense, you'll be more comfortable and it's arguably a better value if you can make use of the extra space.
-juice
The other is sportier, pretty even on the luxury front, and far less utilitarian. But it's new and likely a lot more fun to drive. (If you drive that way.) No, I don't believe it has separate controls for A/C in the rear.
Without more info on what you're looking for, it's kinda hard to recommend one or the other.
I drove the base non-tech car and was very comfortable even without all the toys. Comfortable front and rear seats and my 11 year old loved the xm sat radio. The car handled highway lane changes with ease and had quite a bit of torque. I really liked how the car accelerated. It felt very strong and powerful.
Lots of storage and looks well built.
Once back in my BMW, I realized that I really liked sitting up higher in the RDX.
Whether an RDX ends up in my driveway depends on the numbers. Being self-employeed, leasing has worked for me, so we shall see how the lease numbers look. I am told that they will be released on Thursday.
Also, I will have a 2001 BMW 330i for sale soon if anyone is interested.
Rick
How was the steering? Good feel or numb? Soft like a lot of Honda/Acuras?
No turbo lag?
Was the auto responsive? Quick shifts? Intuitive?
-juice
Did any of you see the 2007 BMW X5 was unveiled today? Seems like a nice car too but again probably too big. We thought about the X3 too, but I think the redesign is in a couple of years, and, as you can tell with my hesitation about the MDX, don't like being at the end of a model cycle.
There have been a couple of times where we took the grandparents to the apple orchard and had to squeeze in or even take 2 cars, but we're talking once or twice in 9 years of ownership, and you can always rent a Minivan for a week in those cases.
The 2mpg you save in city driving all the time would probably more than offset the rental fee.
-juice
Or use the roof rack! :P :P
Also the front-to-rear power default power split is clearly biased towards FWD, as during normal cruising 90% of the power is sent to the front. Under max acceleration 45% of the power is sent to the rear wheels. So, it's not the same RWD-biased SH-AWD that is seen on the RL.
Oh, the dealer just got 3 RDXs in earlier in the day. I didn't get a chance to drive one, as they weren't PDIed yet.
Bob
What's important to be is that the "biasing" changes dynamically, up to 30/70 F/R, as the need for use of the front tires' contact patch for directional control rises.
And I am willing to bet that with SH-AWD there will be very little, if any, braking at the front due to engine compression.
I'm fine with FWD as long as it isn't detrimental to directional control as are all modern day non-SH-AWD FWD and front biased AWD vehicles. And I NEVER want to experience engine compression braking at the front on a seriously slippery surface.
BTW, in the RDX brochure, nowhere is the term SUV mentioned. Nowhere.
Bob
Both systems send more power up front during cruising. The RDX sends 90%. The RL sends 70%.
Both systems retain their FWD bias under heavy throttle *straight line* acceleration. The RDX sends 45% to the rear. The RL sends 40%.
When accelerating through a corner, both the RDX and RL send as much a 70% to the rear and 100% of that can go to the outside wheel.
The major difference in how these systems work is the "Acceleration Device". This device is only found on the RL. It varies the amount of overdrive to the rear diff by as much as 5.7 percent. The RDX does not have an acceleration device. Instead, the speed variance for the rear axle is fixed at 1.7 percent.
Acura claims the RDX simply did not require as large a variance as the RL. I have my own theories (wheelbase, weight distribution, etc.), but they claim to have achieved their performance targets without the need for the acceleration device.
-juice
-juice
Of course Toyota/Lexus was trying to make it work with a totally open center differential and differential brake application when that failed, as it ALWAYS did.
The earlier RX300 used about half of the RX330's F/R variance but also had a VC, Viscous Clutch/coupling, mounted between the front and rear output shafts of an otherwise open center differential.
I see the new RX350 has gone back to the VC and the RX300 F/R ratios.
Strange.
I mean... what factors create resistance to turning? Wheelbase? Track? Total weight? Weight distribution? Tires?
Things like the difference in wheel speeds between the left and right front wheels would be needed to determine if 1.7% is even considered overdriven (it is). And then there's how the system makes use of that variance.
Did any of you see the 2007 BMW X5 was unveiled today? Seems like a nice car too but again probably too big. We thought about the X3 too, but I think the redesign is in a couple of years, and, as you can tell with my hesitation about the MDX, don't like being at the end of a model cycle."
We have two kids... I can't say for sure as I haven't seen the RDX yet, but I think it would have been more than big enough for two kids. We went for the MDX because of the boat towing ability and the price/value, but in your circumstances the RDX seems a better fit (if you don't mind paying full sticker).
Make sure you test drive the X3 and X5 in the city. The turning radius is lousy and it is a very heavy car. Great on the highway, but not a great city car (imo).
I didn't play much with the paddles but I did leave in sports automatic for most of the time.
Rick
As for sitting higher, it doesn't feel like the center of gravity is so high that you are going to roll with every turn. The suspension was tight and I felt in very good control.
Rick
As a proclaimed leasing expert, it is better to lease a car with a higher MSRP and get a discount then to lease a car at MSRP even if the actually selling price of both vehicles is the same. Keep in mind that the residual is set off of MSRP. So if both cars have a 60% residual, you will probably find the X3 lease cheaper than RDX.
Rick
Thanks for the info. I've never leased, but am considering now that I do some self-employed work. Would love to pick your brain as a leasing expert:
1) I've heard different things - is it true that you can only deduct a portion of your leasing costs? and can you only deduct the monthly payment? how about the money down?
2) based on your last paragraph - as far as I understand it, it is better to have a high residual at the end of the lease so that the amount you are paying for (depreciation) is less, right? how do they come up with a residual for a car that is brand new (i.e. rdx?)
3) when u say BMW is "subsidizing lease rates" are you referring to the specific offers (i.e $399 for a 325xi lease) that I see advertised? are the advertised deals generally good? and if so, do they generally bait and switch you into a more expensive lease because of availability, etc...?
Thanks, and let me know what u hear about the acura lease --
Does your experience vary from this? I certainly agree the case you proposed would make sense, just don't know if it will actually happen. Tim
What exactly does that mean?
Better however to talk about this in a leasing forum....
http://hondanews.com/CatID3088
We really are all unique individuals as is our driving style, geographical area of travel, climatic conditions, daily distance travelled, travel conditions, etc, etc, etc, ETC!
Each of us has our own UNIQUE set of real world fuel economy numbers...!
Why spend so much time and effort looking for something that doesn't exist, will NEVER exist..!
1) It's a really small vehicle inside, with compromises in first row seating, second row seating, and cargo area space. One complaint about my Outback is that it's tight inside for passengers, and the RDX is as bad or worse in this regard, with the added "minus" of also having a small cargo area (about 30% less deep than the cargo area in my Outback). While I can just barely squeeze four people and a weekend's worth of ski gear in the Outback, I could tell it wouldn't even be possible in the RDX -- basically I would need to choose between passengers or cargo, but not be able to accommodate both. For two people, it would be fine with the back seats folded down, though I would want to get an honest measurement to ensure my skis could fit behind the front seats (they just barely fit in the Outback).
I felt like the RDX cockpit was kind of cramped for my 6-1 200lb frame, mostly owing to the wide center console and deep dashboard/seating "well" for the driver. Honestly, I got back into my S2000 afterwards, and realized the RDX wasn't a whole lot roomier! I would say the RDX is a little tighter feeling than my Outback for the driver.
Like the Mazda CX-7, I felt the RDX lacked utility in the packaging. A large portion of the vehicle's overall length (perhaps as much as 35-40%) up front is allocated to packaging the engine and accommodating a pointy nose, a raked windshield, and/or a deep dashboard. Great for styling, but when it compromises the seating and cargo space, you have to wonder. It reminds me somewhat of those big honking full size pickup trucks with a short bed -- you start to wonder what the point is. Overall, the RDX is laid out like a large-ish four-door hatchback car. It's not quite as long as a wagon or traditional SUV, proportionally.
2) Like the MDX, the factory roof rack options are lousy. A Thule/Yakima rack would be needed for any sort of utility, but unfortunately the door configuration of the RDX (and MDX) means mounting will be compromised and limit the rack's span and capacity.
3) Looks: overall, I think it's a great looking vehicle inside and out except for the hood when viewed from the side (interestingly, there are no side views in the brochure). Possibly to satisfy pedestrian impact safety regulations, the hood is very high, almost to the point where it's out of whack with the chiseled nose and raked windshield. In person, the hood almost looks horizontal from the side, and it seems out of place with the general swoopy wedge styling of the greenhouse area. The underside of the nose has a very noticeable angle to the overhang, which ends up emphasizing the top of the hood too much in my opinion (ostensibly, this angled underside would improve the approach angle, but looking at the cluttered underbody and low ground clearance, I concluded this was not the purpose).
4) at 19/23mpg EPA, the real world gas mileage is almost surely going to be in the 18-20mpg range for mixed driving, based on my past and current (OB XT) experience with powerful 2+ litre turbo four cylinders. In the case of the RDX, it's hauling around a fairly heavy two-ton vehicle with a lot of frontal area, so I would expect the high-speed highway mpg to definitely suffer. I would love to see some real world mpg numbers for the RDX, since all I can do is hypothesize at this point. Let's just say that I would want my next vehicle to do better than the normal 20-23mpg I get in the Outback XT, and I am not confident that the RDX could do that -- it's probably going to be a little worse, unfortunately (let's hope the new Honda CR-V will go in the other direction....).
5) the driving/handling experience is excellent for an SUV, but not even close to a sports sedan (despite what the marketing hype would lead you to believe). I can see how traditional SUV drivers or MDX owners would like the driving experience, since the RDX is nimble, fast, and corners quite well. It handles slightly better than my Outback XT, but both vehicles are a world apart from a good sports sedan (like our TSX, which has extremely light, surgically precise handling despite being FWD).
6) it was no surprise to me, but potential shoppers/buyers should be aware that the RDX has zero off-road capability. I would even hesitate to drive this vehicle on a ski trip into the mountains with significant snowfall. The ground clearance is a lousy 6.3", 2.4" less than my Outback XT, and the underside of the RDX is cluttered (here's where the FWD-based transverse engine platform really shows a limitation). The RDX is pretty much a car in terms of off-road aspirations, as are most of the crossover SUVs.
So, my overall thought is that the RDX would be a great sporty hatchback vehicle for everyday driving on paved roads, and would be a fun commuter vehicle. But I fail to see any area where it strongly appeals. If you value handling/driving experience, a sports sedan would be a better choice. If you value utility and layout, a wagon would be a better choice (or a traditional SUV for some). If you value gas mileage look elsewhere. About the only reason I would consider an RDX is if I just had to have an Acura crossover and couldn't bring myself to drive a sedan, wagon, or traditional SUV. It will be interesting to see how many customers fall into this category.
I wouldn't cross the RDX off my shopping list were I to look for an Outback XT replacement, but I would have to cross overall utility off my list of requirements to make the RDX a compelling choice. For $33-37K, it's emphasizing "sport-luxury" a bit too much in my opinion and lacking on utility.
Craig
Did you notice whether it had memory seats? I think some earlier posts commented that it did not. However, the latest issue of "Expression" (Acura's in-house magazine) states that it does.
I will say this... it is easy to get caught up in all of the amenities such as electronics , space, etc. which I know are important, but I think what people will eventually conclude is that the drivability and handling is what the RDX is about. So far I am very impressed with the handling (coming from a 18 year dedicated BMW driver). Keep in mind they have to hold back on the extras so they can raise the price year after year.
I have not spent enough time behind the wheel to give a full review but will shortly (wife's car). I also want to get past the break in period before flooring it.
We can all make allowances for style, conditions, distance, etc. That would be part of the report.
In my experience, it is possible a vehicle with a high torque motor and the right gearing under a light load (after break-in) may be able to meet or exceed EPA estimates, however as you mentioned there are many other factors at work here (driving style and conditions among them). We will have to wait and see what happens in real usage under load.
Hey, where you been hidin'? Haven't seen you in a while over on the Subie forums.
Bob
Jonnyinsac - i assume you preordered? Did you pay MSRP? Anyone know what the demand is like out there? At the dealer I went to, it seemed that they were offering the two versions - basic and tech, but each had all these extra dealer installed options - all season mats, cargo tray, splash guards, body side molding, skid plate, etc which jacked up the price to 34909 for non-tech and 38409 for the tech package. They claim that they are all coming with these options and they don't have any scaled back cars --
anyone else have shopping experience with these?
Craig
Craig
Craig
I really have no interest in this car at all other than the turbo engine. As this engine will most likely be used in the next TSX, I would be interested in any additional comments on the turbo.
Oh well, even though I am disappointed, we will still buy it if that's what the wife wants. (I think the RX350 is a better value, more luxurious, with a less desirable exterior).