Acura RDX

bbydad

Is it really true that this turbo v4 gets better city mileage? Overall, I thought the mileage was comparable to an MDX or larger SUV.

I'm not really seeing the issue people are having with the nose. Maybe I'm just not that perceptive.

c_hunter

Well, the MDX is rated 17/23. The RDX is rated 19/23. How these compare in the real world is a big "?", but I would wager the MDX has a better chance at good highway mileage at higher speeds -- big V6 motors can relax on the highway. Turbo fours never seem to do well above 65mph unless they have a super tall top gear. If the gearing is such that the RPMs get up in the 3000-4000 range at highway cruise, the turbo will almost certainly be boosting which drinks more gas. Torquey V6 engines pretty much loaf at the same speeds.

I bet if they put the V6 in the RDX, it would probably do as good or better than the four at MPG. Heck, they could probably detune the V6 a bit for better MPG and still have plenty of power for the RDX. There must be another reason they went with the turbo four -- perhaps to enhance the sporty image (the engine cover does have a pretty lame "turbo" graphic).

wwest

Actually the closer a gas engine operates to its maximum the more efficient it becomes. With the throttle only slightly open or even moderately so the pumping losses are enormous.

gspringer

Wife and I went to Santa Monica Acura here in SoCal. They have 2 RDX's with Tech Package and both have a $5000 dealer markup over MSRP. Salesman also said that they have 148 people on the waiting list (really finding that hard to believe).

We were also looking at an X3 and after driving both my wife decided that she would be more excited to drive the X3 everyday (she has an 05 TL coming off lease in 2 months). Lease rates and sales price make getting the X3 a no brainer especially with dealers asking $5K over sticker on the RDX.

bodble2

I assume your wife will wait for the '07 X3, which has more power and other enhancements.

troyy2k

:mad:
If one is in the market to lease a crossover/suv right now, you will find:

the acura RDX (acura dealers do not seem mto be dealing) will have similar lease payments when compared to the rx350 from lexus, and the fx35 from infiniti. Most shoppers looking to lease in this class would most likely choose one of the above.
:sick:
the rdx is very much a niche product. It is also overpriced compared with similar vehicles. I feel that, unless they cut the price, it will meet the same fate as the acura rl.

varmint

I'm with you on a number of those points. When it was announced that Acura would be building a smaller CUV for their line-up, I assumed they would offer something with a good blend of utility and performance.

It seems like they focused too intensely on performance and failed to deliver on the utility side of the equation.

That said, when you look at it from the perspective of those buyers who are sport-oriented, it's a pretty good rig.

varmint

"the rdx is very much a niche product."

Very true.

"It is also overpriced compared with similar vehicles. I feel that, unless they cut the price, it will meet the same fate as the acura rl."

There's only one other vehicle in it's class and that one costs $5-10K more. How can it be over-priced?

c_hunter

Actually the closer a gas engine operates to its maximum the more efficient it becomes. With the throttle only slightly open or even moderately so the pumping losses are enormous.

Unfortunately, absolute fuel consumption doesn't correlate directly to engine efficiency -- an engine running at it's peak (say 6500rpm) will likely still consume more fuel than when running off peak at a lower rpm (say 2000rpm). Even if the engine technically produces more power per gallon of gas per rpm at the peak, the overall fuel consumption will likely still be higher than a less efficient operating point at much lower rpm. I think it's a reality of having a single engine that can cover a range of RPMs and provide adequate performance in different gears -- the peak efficiency point is there for acceleration, but it's not where you want to be for cruising when all you need to do is produce just enough power to balance out road/wind drag.

bbydad

I would agree with you -- I think in terms of value, you might be able to get a better deal with the RX350 and the FX35. However, I would still consider those "midsize" SUVs rather than compact SUVs, so they are not directly comparable. I think most people who are looking at buying an RDX have already considered the RX350 and FX35 and are looking for something with an even more compact/car-like package. I think the only comparable luxury vehicle is still the BMW X3 which is very much overpriced and not as loaded --

wwest

I disagree...I think.

The RX350 cruises along at 65 MPH with the engine at ~2200 RPM. If one had a second engine for cruising and it was "small" enough that it just barely produced cruise HP/Torque at say 80% of top RPM it would undoubtedly burn a lot less fuel than that 3.5L V6 at 2200 RPM.

We're on the edge of discussing the new hybrid technology here. Our Prius, coupled with a "CVT", its smallish engine can climb to, and remain in, the 80% "high efficiency" level virtually independent of roadspeed. And instead of having the HP/torque range of the 3.5L it has the electrics for "boost" when/if needed.

bodble2

I agree with varmint. Based on feature content, and its current competition, it is definitely not overpriced. In fact, one could argue it is underpriced. However, I think Lexus could conceivably introduce a model slotted under the RX350 in size, luxury and price which would provide very stiff competition for the RDX.

varmint

Right. In a laboratory, efficiency is going to be a measure of work performed (producing power) vs energy consumed (fuel expended). So, an engine will produce more bang for the buck near the peak of the operating range.

But when you're driving down the road, you don't need peak output. A "burn and coast" style of driving might ultimately produce the best results, but it is very hard to accomplish the right balance in traffic. Meanwhile, driving as there were an eggshell between your foot and the accelerator isn't difficult to manage.

varmint

It is rumored that MB and Infiniti will be entering this segment. In the case of Infiniti, I assume the next FX will grow in size (to better match the MDX and RX350) and the new vehicle will slot in underneath.

rsholland

Underpriced? I wouldn't agree with that. There are a number of vehicles in this price range that I would pick over the RDX; vehicles that may or may not compete directly, but are close enough for me to cross-shop.

Bob

bodble2

If Infinite introduces a model under the FX, I don't think it would compete with the RDX on luxury. Infinitis (and Nissan) seem to have problem with "upscaleness" in their models.

bodble2

"...vehicles that may or may not compete directly..."

That's just what I mean though. Anything that matches up, will be more expensive. For example, the RAV4, CX-7, Tribeca, to name a few, may have the advantage on price, but they don't offer close to what the RDX offers in content, technology and luxury.

c_hunter

The RX350 cruises along at 65 MPH with the engine at ~2200 RPM. If one had a second engine for cruising and it was "small" enough that it just barely produced cruise HP/Torque at say 80% of top RPM it would undoubtedly burn a lot less fuel than that 3.5L V6 at 2200 RPM.

I agree completely -- if you had a small engine sized for the needed power to maintain cruise, and it was operating at it's peak efficiency at the rpm corresponding to the cruise road speed, that would optimize both efficiency and fuel consumption. Basically, the closer you get the engine's peak efficiency to the required power needs, the better everything gets. In most cases, however, the peak efficiency is at far higher RPMs and higher HP than needed for (legal) cruise, so you never need to go there.

CVTs open up a lot of possibilities, and make it easy to get peak efficiency in acceleration situations. I am curious, do you know what RPM the Prius turns a) under hard acceleration and b) under highway cruise at say 60mph? I have always thought that the CVT would want to get the engine in the sweet spot for acceleration (when you want more power), but still go back down to lower RPMs at cruise (when you need much less power).

varmint

Yeah, I think "under-priced" is going a little too far.

At MSRP, the RDX is priced okay. But very, very few vehicles sell at MSRP beyond the first few months they're on the lots. With a street price $500-1,000 off MSRP, the RDX is in a nice spot between the expensive X3 and the non-luxury offerings.

varmint

I don't know that Infiniti will match the interior of the RDX in terms of quality materials, fit & finish, and ergonomics, but Infiniti isn't exactly in the same ballpark as Mazda, Hyundai, or Ford, either. Beside, for what they lack in refinement, Infinitis tend to make up for with power.

sluri

i have a newer g35, mdx, and i have been in newer lexus' and bmw's. all i can say is that my g35 interior is quite nice compared to the other 3 brands. i think with 2005 restyling in the infiniti g35 there were huge improvements. on the other hand like bodble2 said mazda, hyundai, for or any other gm/chrysler car does not even compare to the quality. you don't realize it until you get used to the upscale cars and then you step in one of the "other" cars. going back, my g35 is as nice (if not nicer) than my mdx. so i can see how infiniti could out do acura in fit and finish.
sluri

bodble2

"Infinitis tend to make up for with power."

True...to a degree. I wouldn't go so far as to say Nissan inflates their HP ratings, but, shall we say, Nissan horses are "skinnier" than other horses? BMW, at the other end of the scale, seems to raise "beefier" horses. :P

bodble2

There's already been reports of dealer tacking on significant price premiums on the RDX. Usually that takes place when a vehicle is perceived as "value-priced". Of course, you could say anticipated demand will also result in dealer price "adjustments", but demand and price always go hand-in-hand.

varmint

Are those reports of people buying an RDX with the ADM, or just reports of dealers asking for them? When buyers start paying the ADM, like they did with the Ody and MDX, then we can say the RDX is under priced.

I mean, dealers wanted ADMs for the Ridgeline when it was first introduced. But we all know that didn't last.

wwest

I'm by no means the primary driver of the Prius but I would imagine that to achieve the best NVH effects the engine goes back into the lowest possible RPM when cruising along at a constant speed.

I also imagine the host is about to run us off...but:

I've been thinking seriously about adding a small, "ultra" small single swivel wheel trailer onto which would be mounted one of the new inverter style gensets, say of about 5000 watts. Run it on "home brewed" compressed natural gas and thereby continuously charge the Prius' batteries.

That would be about 8HP into the Prius with the genset engine running at most optimal, probably/maybe just enough to move the Prius along smartly at cruise.

To that end I have been keeping my eyes open for the market availability of a water cooled (for NVH) inverter style genset. Modifying the genset intake cam for Atkinson Cycle would likely be a piece of cake.

bbydad

I encountered a dealer that added a lot of "extras" -- e.g. side wall molding, etc... and told me that the car was not available without these extras for several months. I think that is their way of maximizing their profits on the early folks who are eager to buy in the first few weeks. The price will probably drop as well when the new MDX comes out in a few months to compete for (some) of the same buyers.

bellorusha

What are you talking about guys? RDX is waaaay overpriced. Look at the lease offer they have (399$ + 4500$) it is like $525 if no downpayment and this is for base model for 32K. it is just mad crazyyy. you can take Lexus RX 350 for 450$

"Term- 36 months Miles- 12k
Residual-$24,959
Based on Tier 1+ credit approval
Selling Price- $39,723
Cap Cost Reduction - $2,500
Sec. Dep. (Waived) - $0
Acq. Fee - $600
Total Drive Off - $3,549
The above pricing does not include registration, doc fees or taxes.
Lease payment with tax is $479 ($449 without). "

or BMW X5 for 439$ + 2500 down..

and those are much better cars. Stop comparing RDX with cars like RAV4, CVT etc. this is different level. Compare this car with real cars and you will see that RDX is waaaay overpriced.

what Acura is doing right now is CRAAAZy..

They trying to make a better deal then X3 but nobody buys this car, car doesn't have anything except the name.

RDX officially OFF my shopping list.

cohenfive

i just priced the mdx and came up with approx $37.6k with the tech package, mats and a day/night mirror (a $300 option!). seems pretty high to me relative to the competition. i know there's a big difference between acura and say mazda, but the price difference is probably about $10k for their equivalent offering. my guess is there will be significant discounts after 6 months...this feels like a $32-34k vehicle to me.

rsholland

i know there's a big difference between acura and say mazda, but the price difference is probably about $10k for their equivalent offering

If you're comparing the CX7 and the RDX, I don't think there's that much difference, and I clearly prefer the Mazda's styling.

Bob

c_hunter

Well, using lease payments to compare vehicles unnecessarily complicates the argument -- I would stick to street price alone. I would bet that the Rx offer you're showing is for a FWD model. The AWD RX350, decently equipped (but still no NAV), is $43K. That's too far above the RDX to make a comparison, in my opinion.

I do think the RDX would be a better value if it was priced in the $30-34K range. Right now they start at $34K and I don't see any value in that compared to other vehicles in the price range (including the MDX, with street prices that make it LESS than an RDX!).

kyfdx

I agree.. not the best way to assess the car as "overpriced".

TLs and TSXs have had relatively expensive lease deals for the last three years, but it doesn't seem to have hurt them any... At certain times since '03, you could have leased a 3-series for less than either of them...

From a straight MSRP standpoint, I wish the RDX was cheaper, but I think it is slotted right where Honda wants it... If it sells like expected, they won't have to put lease incentives on them...

wwest

Over-priced...

You don't suppose Acura knows EXACTLY what they have on their hands with an AWD system that works, truly, in all foreseeable adverse roadbed conditions/situations/circumstances?

Even if the Lexus RX were priced lower it wouldn't be comparable since its AWD system is in name only. Plus it has become pretty clear the Lexus/Toyota design engineers aren't really sure themselves just what constitutes an adequate AWD system. The RX300 had a VC across the otherwise open center differential. The VC was dropped entirely from the RX330 series but now I see it's back with the RX350.

Confusion reigns supreme over at Toyota/Lexus without even considering all of the seeming random occurances of engine/transaxle delay/hesitation being reported across the entire Toyota/Lexus FWD and front biased AWD product series.

As an additional point lease pricing is likely to be inflated since this is an entirely new model with mostly new drive train design aspects making it harder to predict the residual value.

varmint

The price difference between an RDX and a "similarly equipped" CX-7 is about $4-5K.

Whether the RDX's better radio, better AWD, better NAV, better interior, better brand name, and other features are all worth that money is up to you.

bodble2

Bob, c'mon, styling preference aside (which is always subjective), the CX's interior is economy class vs business class for the RDX's. And then there are the tech toys on the RDX .... :shades:

In fact, I would go so far as to say I prefer the RAV4 to the CX.

varmint

With the MDX, you do get a whole lot more utility. That's why I own one. But the interior is dated, the performance is good, but not great, and the features list is short a few important items.

In comparison, an RDX is short on space and utility, but it's faster, corners better, and has a number of features not available with the MDX.

It's like comparing a Civic Si with an Accord sedan - two very different missions in life.

rsholland

I too prefer the RAV4 to the CX7—and the RDX. Sorry, the "tech toys" don't do that much for me. I flat out don't like the front end styling of the RDX and its near-zero utility (towing and off-road).

Bob

spinz

Personally, I like the CX-7 better than the RAV4. Sure the RAV4 gets better gas mileage and it's even faster but the CX-7 has the ZOOM factor: more fun to drive and handles a lot better. Plus don't forget its tech toys: HID headlights, tire pressure monitor, bose speakers, navigation w/ touch screen & voice command, rear camera, etc.

bbydad

let me throw my 2 cents in -- I think clearly the interior is superior in RDX over either RAV4 or CX7. I actually think RAV4's interior is a real minus -- very uncomfortable seating (especially in the rear) and the cabin is very noisy. the wheel on the back is also very unappealing.

I doubt anyone interested in an RDX is planning on towing anything. clearly, the MDX would be the car for them. For someone looking for a true truck drive, I think Acura is trying to push the MDX. For someone who wants more of a sedan drive with lots of bells and whistles, the RDX.

happyharry

Stopped by the Calgary Acura dealer yesterday and was told road test of the RDX by the end of August can only be possible to those who put down $1000 deposit showing their good faith in buying this vehicle; or just wait till end of September when RDX road-test will be available to the general public. I just wished them a lot of luck in coming up with many desperate RDX buyers, and I am not one of them.

Most high-tech features seemingly interesting on paper but often found to be ordinary once tested out; 90% of features that RDX offers can be found in other vehicles at much lower price especially C$45,000 price range is for a base RDX in Canada (comparing to equivalent of C$37,000 in U.S.). I was totally turned-off by Acura's arogant marketing approach and price rip-off to Canadian buyers.

RDX is off my shopping list. :mad:

rsholland

I doubt anyone interested in an RDX is planning on towing anything

No doubt. Those folks will look at the X3 (a direct competitor to the RDX) that tows 3500 if I'm not mistaken, or the turbo Forester (2400) or the RAV4 V6 (3500), or an Outback H6 (3000) or a Tribeca (3500).

Contrary to what some here may think, those vehicles could well be cross-shopped with the RDX. Only those who value prestige over functional aspects would rule out some of those I mentioned.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the interior of the RDX is nice, but that's only one aspect of the vehicle.

BTW, for those who think people who own sporty cars don't tow... Sunday I saw a guy in Honda S2000 pulling a small trailer. I kid you not...

Bob

bbydad

Wow! That is a turn-off. Do you know if that is all Acura dealers in Canada or just the one that you visited? I had no problem with my test drive -- there was a little bit of a queue, but certainly wasn't bad....

I'm curious - what other cars are you cross-shopping it with? A lot of the individual features are in certain cars (mostly sedans) but I would be interested in a car that has close to all of them.

robertsmx

Stopped by the Calgary Acura dealer yesterday and was told road test of the RDX by the end of August can only be possible to those who put down $1000 deposit showing their good faith in buying this vehicle

I don't know if things are different in Canada, but I've an invitation to test drive RDX on August 24 (RDX Turbo bash). No strings attached.

la4mead

I have to say I agree with the last several posts... I was really looking forward to the RDX based on preliminary press info a while back. Perhaps Acura needs an upscale, sporty 5-door hatch/wagon alternative (like the European Accord wagon) as much as it needs a sporty handling compact upright "SAV".

The RDX came out to be too expensive considering its short in just a few key areas.

And yes, if I'm going to have a vehicle with this much torque that can only manage at the very most 23 MPG highway, I do want it to be capable of towing on occasion. Everyone realizes it's not a heavy-duty ute. However, Acura could have provided a heavy-duty cooling system option, even for folks who never tow providing a bit of extra protection and peace of mind, even if it only bumped the rating to 2500, which puts it in a more adequate category.

Also, although it's available with some neat techy stuff that's innovative, and with less than impressive fuel economy figures, for the prices they are asking, it's missing basic content I've grown accustom to for cars in this price range. I've mentioned before, memory seats, "All Auto" windows (why did they skimp on the rear?), etc.

I'm not so impressed with the end product. However, I'm sure Acura knows what they are doing and will still sell their target to other folks. I just don't see that it's as "value packed" as I was expecting from Acura.

skirob

Those tactics may be dealer specific based on demand. I scheduled a test drive in Denver for August 26 and did not have to put any money down or sign anything.

wwest

Canadian drivers/buyers, in general, are likely to be more astute, the farther NORTH you go into Canada the moreso, in their selection of AWD systems. So, given the potential for absolutely STELLAR performance of the SH-AWD system on adverse roadbed conditions (even been to Vavenby BC?) I'm not very surprised that the dealers in Canada see it as a "seller's" market.

skirob

A well equipped RX350 (premium plus, AWD, HID, 18" wheels) MSRPs for just over $41K and can be purcahsed for $37,500 at many dealerships. Right now, it's about a $3500 premium over the RDX. I agree that they are different vehicles (driving dynamics), but the RDX appears to be a better value (equivalent acceleration and better MPG). We are still considering the RDX, but let's be honest, if you want a canyon carving hatchback, don't buy an SAV . . . buy a 3-series, WRX, etc.

dhamilton

got back from test driving [extensively] a brand new RDX with tech package from the very knowledgeable staff at Gillman Acura in Houston. Where to start?
As far as the price argument, leasing is a bad way to compare these two. The lease deals on those BMW's are essentially stripped models compared to the Acura.
STYLING. Not going there, to subjective.
INTERIOR. A step up from the Mazda, and Subaru IMO. Just better quality plastics, much better. Seats are very comfortable, and very supportive. There are a lot of buttons and dials, but the genius of Honda/Acura is in their placement/ease of use. Stereo is the best I've heard this side of the B&O in the new Audi's. Better than the Bose in my wife's Infiniti [and that's pretty good]
Now to the most important part.
DRIVING DYNAMICS. There is good feedback in the steering and descent heft. It's somewhere between Infiniti and the overly boosted steering in my brother-in-laws RL. That said, it lags behind BMW. Hard in to corners it is very nuetral, and not floaty. This is seemingly achieved with the SH-AWD. It's very Audi like in that regard. The AWD and the chasis do the work rather than the steering and the weight distribution in a BMW.
Their is some turbo lag. It seems to hit at about 3500 rpm's. You can just hear the whine but it's not loud at all and you would have to know what to listen for. It is smooth when it comes on, not jerky, but I have little experience with turbo's, so somebody else may have differing opinions on that. [not to mention everything else written here]
UTILITY. I think it has ample room for the size and class. If people want more, their is the MDX and such. I don't see the Mazda C, and Subaru B having that much more room. It maybe more in inches but again, Honda/Acura's genuis is in the way they make space out of no space.
COMPARISON. I think this is a great alternative to the X3 which is where Acura wants to be. I don't think Mazda or Subaru is ready for this tier yet. [imo] It doesn't quite measure up to the bimmer in driving dynamics, but I'm willing to bet it's a more reliable vehicle over time, as well as price. If you put the same options on the X3, the X3 is going to be in the low to mid forties.
I hope this helps. My email is public if anyone needs more details.

robertsmx

A well equipped RX350 (premium plus, AWD, HID, 18" wheels) MSRPs for just over $41K and can be purcahsed for $37,500 at many dealerships. Right now, it's about a $3500 premium over the RDX.
RX350 with Premium Plus package (adds leather interior, moonroof, heated seats) puts the MSRP at $43K. If this model is indeed available at $37.5K, Lexus must be struggling to move these off the lots to agree to a price that is well below listed invoice.

With NAV and all, RX350 hits $46K mark.

bpraxis

I like the styling of the new RDX but would not even consider a four cylinder at this price point no matter how nice the interior is.

I thought the advantage of a four cylinder was better gas milage and the MPG on the RDX stinks. The Murano with a great six cylinder gets better milage and as mentioned before the RAV4 gets 28 on the highway with 268 horsepower.

Lexus and Infiniti both have new small luxury sport utilities due to be released in 2007 as 2008 models. Both vehicles will be close to 180 inches and offer six cylinders.

I would guess that the new Infiniti and Lexus will price about the same as the RDX, maybe lower. So if you have the ability to wait before buying a new vehilcle you may be very pleasantly suprised by some great new competitors.

Sidebar: The new BMW x5 photos are on the internet and it is a stunner in my opinion, of course this is a higher price point. The BMW x3 is very cheap looking to my eye, it looks like you are tying to save money while being expensive starting at $37,000.

bodble2

"The BMW x3 is very cheap looking to my eye..."

The '07 X3 is supposed to have some significant improvements to powertrain as well as exterior/interior decor.