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
The RDX actually reminded me of the Murano I drove a few years back. It's been too long to make a direct comparison, but the Murano's VQ has a raspy and coarse engine note. Under hard acceleration, the RDX's K23 was similar.
If you watch the "underbody analysis" video, there are a lot of neat details -- it's worth a look. The narrator is no engineer though. Almost every time he labels his comments with "we'd like to see", it seemed like he was clueless about real-world engineering design...
They seemed surprised at the minor difference with exhaust removed, but that's not surprising at all for a turbo motor -- the pressure drop across the turbo is significantly more than what you get from exhaust losses. The diminishing boost at higher RPM is also standard practice, in order to improve durability/reliability -- nothing surprising about that either. I suppose these Honda-guys are just not real familiar with turbos or AWD...
How does the driver shoulder/leg/headroom compare to Pilot/MDX?
Is the RDX in a smaller class? :confuse:
I don't know about the 07 CR-V/RDX pair, but in the past generations, the CR-V was based on the Civic platform.
And no, RDX is not to be confused for a sports car, not with those all-season and high profile rubber. The focus was more on handling, and it certainly appears to be quite impressive for the vehicle that it is.
Does the tech package LCD can show something else then GPS? like (what i dream about) Xm radio: Station NAme, Song Title, Singer and etc., mp3 information, AC info? Tech package has a sub display with on line, and all info I describe showing over there, but can it be displayed on main LCD? I just do not need GPS and hate to see GPS all the time.
The engine noise some people are asking about is definitely from the turbo. It's more of a petite "swish" than the "whoosh" I hear in my Outback XT, but it's there. I don't find it annoying at all -- I like the sound, and it's better than the whine you get with many turbo motors.
I feel like the RDX is a bit weak off the line -- the combination of turbo lag and the relatively heavy curb weight work against forward progress at low RPMs. Once going it picks up just fine, but it lacks the low end "lunge "I am used to in my Outback XT.
Handling and ride is very nice -- good balance between the two. I thought the front seats were excellent, but not as good as the ones in the Lexus RX350 I sat in a few minutes earlier (that is quite posh inside).
The taupe interior seems a bit on the "cheap" side to me, but ebony looks fine. I saw a Silver/ebony model and it was real sharp -- exactly what I would choose. The Carbon/taupe model that I test drove just didn't look good. It had the optional 19" wheels, running boards, and the roof rack (the rack lists for $399, but the dealer tacked on $671 for the rack+install, which is obscene). Those options really emphasized the tall/stubby look of the RDX, and the overall effect was not good. About the only thing they could have done worse was tack on a vinyl landau roof!
Craig
RX seems so different to me in its mission, it's more Lexus ES than Lexus IS. Luxury, as opposed to Sport.
X3 is pricey but don't forget the 4 years' free service plus the excellent resale value, in fact that's probably why lease rates are lower even with higher MSRP.
varmint - did you switch VSA off? I think you waited so long for a test drive that you just got a bit too excited.
I like the shaved bumpers and Acura's explanation about the lower plastic part, that makes fender benders less pricey to fix. We'll see if that holds up on the bumper basher tests CR and IIHS conducts.
Dyno results were very good even for FWD. Loss is usually, what, 15-20% or so? So if it put down 215hp at the wheels then it's making at least 247hp. Interesting that on the road he felt it wasn't really pushing hard until 4000 rpm.
I bet a manual trans would fix that plus the complaint about it not going to first above 28mph.
-juice
"This is to acknowledge and thank you for your RSVP to our RDX turbobash party on this Wednesday, August 24. Our party will begin at 5:30 pm. In addition to the introduction of the all new 2007 RDX, you will have a chance to meet the elected officials from the City of Tustin and the State of
California, members of Tustin Chamber of Commerce and enjoy a special performance by Miss Tustin and her court. Hors d'oeuvres will be served and valet parking will be provided.
We look forward to seeing you at this wonderful event."
Gas mileage on my 160 mile trip was 19.3 mpg. It takes about 3.5 hours to travel that distance. To my surprise on the way back (via the same route) I got 23.3 mpg and I wasn't trying to conserve.
Overall the handling of the RDX was great on twisty roads. The car always had enough power no matter what hill I was on. Give it some gas and it would just go. I had my wife, two dogs and the back was full of luggage and two bar stools. I was impressed that it all fit.
I also think the RDX is a blast to drive. I normally drive a 2005 4.4i BMW X5 (Sport Package with 19" rims) and I would prefer to drive the RDX as it feels much lighter on its feet, it is way less bumpy over rough roads and it is super zippy meaning it hauls. It feels like a car. By no means is it a drag racer from zero to 60, but it has plenty of power for around town.
I do wish city gas mileage was better but if that were the case, I am sure it would have much less punch on the accelerator. For around town it is way too easy burn the gas but oh well... that is what makes it fun to drive.
That's a pretty big difference. Perhaps the ECU leaned out the fuel mix once it learned your driving style.
-juice
I was up the road getting my OB XT serviced, and conveniently, there are Acura and Lexus dealers down the block. Nothing new to test drive at the Subaru dealer, so I branched out a bit... I would consider the RDX for my next car, but right now it has a couple "utility" related shortfalls and the gas mileage is a bit low, so it's not a super-compelling vehicle to me. The Lexus RX hybrid, on the other hand, was sweet, but $47K is not realistic if I want to stay married!
Craig
Let us know what you measure at the pump, i.e. miles you travel/gallons used. Usually the trip computer is optimistic, at least from what I've observed.
-juice
NOT...!
Point of shut-off, pump-to-pump, station-to-station, seems totally random to me and accuracy will always be on the high side if human natures serves....
They ALWAYS, within "tolerance", want to charge you for more than you pumped.
The NIST standard (adopted by the Weights & Measures departments of many states) requires that fuel delivery systems' deficiency be LESS than 5 fl.oz. per 10 gallons of fuel pumped. That's less than .0039062 of the total delivered volume/10 gallons.
Despite your dim view of human nature and insinuation that service station owners routinely cheat customers, by manipulating gas pumps to deliver less than the indicated volume, albeit within "tolerances," ...
if the fuel pump was tested and working within required tolerances, then the amount of gas the previous poster who noted an @4 mpg difference between his outbound trip and his return trip COULD NOT be explained by your theory.
1. The customer is getting ~5 fl. oz of FREE gas for every 10 gallons pumped.
2. For every 10 gallons pumped the customer is being shorted ~5 fl.oz.
Which of those two will be more likely to get the station manager's attention?
But I agree that the pump shut-off point would undoubtedly be the major "tolerance" issue.
Sorry for the long email, but I wanted to post my thoughts after seeing and recently driving the new RDX at the RDX Turbobash. I drove the car on Tuesday, August 22nd, at a Dallas dealership.
I am currently in the market for a new, sporty SUV. My wife drives an Acura MDX owner and don't need another mid-size SUV with 3 row seating. 2 rows are fine, but I am looking for something with great performance and handling. My current car is a 2-door Mazda MX-6 with a 5-speed manual, and it is fun to drive. I just need a real backseat and some practicality with a growing family.
The crossover SUV at the top of my list was the Infiniti FX35. Great handling vehicle and I LOVE the styling. However, the amount of features (at the price) left a lot to be desired.
On paper, the RDX looked like a real winner. Even paying MSRP, it was cheaper than the FX (Sport & Touring package). For that price, it also came with a Navigation System, an iPod jack, Paddle Shifters, and a much better Stereo. The RDX looked pretty good, inside & out, from the brochure I had. We were also Acura owners, and had confidence the Acura brand.
Unfortunately, I left the Acura dealership disappointed.
First of all, the exterior look simply didn't do it for me. The "proportions" were off and so was the "stance". Hard to describe, but it just didn't look right to me. My wife didn't like it all.
I was also disappointed with the interior. It looked good in pictures, but when you sit inside it feels a little cheaper than the Infiniti FX. Infiniti uses real aluminum for example. Flipping the 2nd row seats down was not as easy, as you have to first flip the lower half of the seat forward, before you can flip the seat back down. Otherwise, the 2nd row does not fold flat.
The Stereo was great and the Nav with Traffic was cool. But the paddle shifters felt very cheap and plasticky to me -- like they would break easily.
And to top it off, we got a "Brake Malfunction" warning message during the test drive. We were able to clear the message by turning the car on & off, but that was cause for concern. My wife and I are already wary of buying a car, ANY car, in its first year of production.
The RDX is a brand new car from the ground up with a brand new engine, not an update of an existing car. When you check Edmunds, you will see that most cars (including Lexus) have more problems in their first year of production.
But I was willing to take a chance on reliability, for the trade-off in extra features and gadgets. Ultimately, it was the mediocore exterior and interior styling that turned me off.
Obviously, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and styling is very subjective. The dealership said they had sold 10 vehicles and had only delivered 2. Full price, MSRP. Plus a $595 "Protection Package". No room for discounting, and people are putting down deposits sight unseen. So, I have to admit this vehicle is popular out of the gate.
But I can't get over the exterior and interior and am very disappointed. I wanted to like the RDX, but it has been crossed off my list.
Thanks.
Or does it quickly move the bias to the rear and then downshift?
Ho Hum bland styling with inflated prices.
The other problem in my area is that the Acura dealer is 20 miles away, while every other dealer (including Infiniti) is within two miles from my office. Some weird rule about Honda and Acura dealerships being a certain distance apart apparently.
I am neutral on the interior, especially since it functions fine in my experience. The instrument cluster does look a bit cartoonish to me though. I thought the taupe interior looked plasticky, but black was better (perhaps the plasticky materials are less noticeable in black).
Having to tumble the base of the rear seats before folding the seat backs is a hassle. I have had previous vehicles that were like this, and you lose valuable storage space in the rear seat footwells (good places for ski boots, hiking boots, small cooler, laptop case, etc). I never realized how much of a pain this was until my 05 Outback came with rear seatbacks that fold flat in a single step, with the seat base in place. It's a pity Acura couldn't do this on the RDX -- there is no reason not to.
Craig
Regarding the plasticky interior that I mentioned. That was specifically on the Taupe Interior. I normally don't like Black Interiors, but IMHO it looked better in the RDX.
I also completely agree about the Running Boards. The Tech Model I drove was White Exterior\Taupe Interior and had Running Boards. The running boards really ruined the look.
In the showroom they had a Black on Black model, with the 19" wheels that looked better. The black color tends to de-emphasize some of the odd angles and proportions of the car.
But the price for 19" chrome wheels & tires -- $4600. Ouch. I figured about 2 grand for the 19" wheel upgrade, but not $4600!
At this point, it's back to trying to get a good deal on a 2006 FX35, even if I have to wait until 2007 models come out. I will give up the tech features of Acura for the sake of better styling and interior quality with Infiniti. Just my opinion, of course. There is no doubt that many people really like the RDX, judging by initial sales.
Thanks,
Abe
-juice
I was looking forward to the new RAV4 having a stick shift so it could be a TOAD but....Automatics only!
No more CR-V manuals at all.
-juice
You are correct -- I did not comment on the test drive because I did not get enough drive time to write a fair opinion.
On the day of the Turbobash, there were other customers waiting to take test drives. Therefore, we were only allowed to "drive around the block". Seriously, the test drive was 1-2 miles and involved no freeways and no opportunities to accelerate hard.
On top of that, it started to heavily rain as soon as our drive started. When I switched places with the salesperson, we literally had to go under a covered garage or we would have been soaking wet. It was raining HARD.
I thought it would have been a good test, to see the AWD system and how it would respond in the rain. But the salesperson would not allow us to drive very far, as others were waiting. His manager even called during our drive, wondering where the car was.
The ride was pretty smooth, but I thought the brakes were a little "smushy". Maybe because of the rain or the "brake system warning" light that came on during the test drive. I cannot form a fair opinion on acceleration, handling, or even noise -- I couldn't even hear the engine because of the rain hitting the windows so hard.
Thanks,
Abe
A salesman accompanied me on the test drive -- loved the feel of the car but was disappointed by what I perceived as real hesistation from takeoff, particularly when I gunned it. Now I might be a bit biased as my daily driver is a 4.6L V8 Ford Explorer, but I had understood Acura had addressed turbo lag. Guess I need another test drive at some point.
Apart from that, the sound system blew me away, the fit/finish is absolutely top-notch, and....well, it's my top contender for about a year from now when I can negotiate on price.
Neil
Craig
Better than what Cadillac had to do with FWD and their NorthStar engine. Heavy, HEAVY dethrottling at WOT from a standing start to prevent loss of control by a bunch of slow reaction time old codgers, blue hairs.
I don't think an electronic system can hold back on engine torque/HP without either retarding spark or throttle (common methods for rev limiters) and that would definitely put a dent in the RPMs. I didn't detect any of that with the RDX. The RPMs were always going up smoothly, but the engine was noticeably weaker down low. It seems like classic turbo lag. It was normal easy driving, certainly not a situation where I would expect drastic intervention from AWD or stability control!
But I guess whether it's turbo lag or the limitations of a FWD-biased drivetrain, we are noticing that the RDX is a little gutless down low. Surely something Acura could improve on. My wife's TSX is a bit weak down low, but the transition to higher RPMs is not so abrupt, hence you don't perceive an off/on power delivery like a turbo engine.
Craig
I don't think anyone is disputing that. But what firmware designers can not do (and DID not do on the RDX) is completely overcome the physics of a small engine. I own two turbo four-cylinders right now, and have driven countless others in varying states of tune. Unless Acura purposely designed in hesitation from a standstill in the throttle map :confuse: (what the original post referred to), it's turbo lag that the RDX has. Is it a deal-breaker? Probably not - it's still a great CUV. But to pretend Acura got it perfect with the VNT on the first attempt is denial.
-c92
Craig
Not by any means disputing turbo lag as a significant source of the "off the line" torque delay, but can we be sure some level of throttle delay isn't "hidden" in there somewhere?
IMMHO it can be exceedingly dangerous to allow an unwitting owner (certainly enough of those available) to suddenly apply ~240 HP to just the front tires' contact patch when the ability to apportion some of that, a significantly high amount, to the rear tires is possible.
I have a chipped Jetta 1.8T (also DBW, but not with the OEM map anymore, obviously) that is unimpressive off the line, but then at 3000 rpm, it will smoke the tires through the first three gears. It's actually pretty funny, unless you are pulling out in front of a semi.