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
MDX $39,995
MDX with Technology Package $43,495
MDX with Technology and Entertainment Packages $45,695
MDX with Sport Package (includes Technology Package features) $45,595
MDX with Sport and Entertainment Packages $47,795
Destination and handling charge $670
Most were predicting $42k starting prices.
IMHO the MDX is a better value than the RDX, for not a lot more you get a lot more interior room, a nicer interior, and 300hp with no lag.
Even though I tend to prefer small cars, I'd be really tempted to step up to an MDX if I were RDX shopping.
-juice
I think you've hit it on the head there. I don't like the "teeth" in the opening, either, but I can't argue that they don't give it character.
A bit off-topic, but I think there musta been something funny in the Acura/Honda water when these SUV-types were designed. The CR-V is WAY out in left-field with its nose and curved c-pillar glass, and then the MDX's funky pentagonal opening seems like it's trying too hard to be "butch."
The first car I ever bought was a Honda and I loved its simplicity, but lately with the Civic's dash and these latest SUVs, I've lost faith and interest, styling-wise.
Even at the NYC car show I was a bit disappointed in the look . The Murano and various models of the Rav4 have significantly more style. As for the BMW X3, it has the look without a doubt."
None of them work for me. Rav4 is okay, it isn't exciting to look at. X3 is hardly a looker. And I actually detest Murano.
Holy smokes, dude. We actually AGREE on something... Late-model Nissans, the Murano in particular, just irritate me to no end.
You know, I think the RDX could be a lot better, but I'd take one over a 350Z any day :surprise: , just because I hate the recent Nissan design themes. As for the Murano, I don't even like the font of the "Murano" badge on the back. The front grille makes me gag. But to paraphrase The Big Lebowski, "Well, that's just like, my OPINION, man..."
Could RDX have been styled better? It already was in concept form. Acura managed to make the front a little too busier in production, but the rest of the execution is very good (and with Honda/Acura, strengths are usually in details). It looks hunkered down and ready to go.
As for your comment on minivan, a reason soccer moms (and dads) look at alternative to minivan is appearance. So, it is only a benefit that RDX looks similar to MDX.
Take the Infiniti FX for example. That thing has the WOW factor because it looks so cartoonish!
Since the RDX takes 91 Octane, would it be acceptable to blend 89 and 91 Octane in my tank to get 91 Octane? I would save $0.05/gallon if this could be done. I guess the real question is will the fuels really blend in the tank. If I elected to do this, it would be best to put in 93 Octane first, followed by 87. Any thoughts? Thanks.
Todd
In theory I guess you could do it, but it's worth $0.75 to me not to have to spend the time on the octane cocktail you describe. In most places I fuel up, to get two grades of gas takes TWO transactions, and many times two hoses. If you save $.05 times 15 gallons and fill up every week, you're only saving $40 a year. If you fill up more than once a week, then you REALLY gotta consider the PITA factor. Makes sense technically, but "no thanks."
"Just my $.02"
link
I viewed the RDX in person last week. As a Honda fan, overall I liked it, but the proportions are a bit off for height vs. length. It looks like it could have been a couple of inches longer or lower. Plus, the front end has that bulbous look. Isn't that hood design made to protect pedestrians in a collision? The Camry has the same look with the center nose sticking out. Not a fan of it, but I have the feeling that this "look" is going to become more prevalent, if indeed, this is a response to the European pedestrian collision regulations. Of course, the dealership had one in the showroom with the roof rails and running boards. Really hurt the look (and entry/exit) Guess I would go with an aftermarket Thule rack for occasional use.
The interior was nice for the segment and the seats were great.
Personally, I think Honda should have done a sport wagon version of the TSX. Maybe raise the roof an inch or two.
Craig
Wasn't it a wagon in the Cog ad? Best car commercial ever.
I guess I'm in the minority but I like the Murano. Very swoopy, ready to pounce. The FX I did not like at first, but it's grown on me to a point where I don't dislike it.
I like D-pillars like that: Murano, Mazda3, Tribeca, RAV4. The feature makes the vehicle appear to lean forward. Though it's a styling function that does sacrifice visibility
Drooping D-pillars looks saggy and tired (FX, CR-V). Problem is they don't look good and don't serve much styling function either, so give me a boxy window if it's not upswept.
Just IMHO. I have a friend who swears that he thinks Pamela Anderson is the ugliest woman on earth, and I personally think Denise McCluggage is hot. :shades:
-juice
The RDX doesn't have the same "wow" appeal. But it doesn't earn the same "good god" reaction, either.
-juice
I'm sorry... this is just so wrong.. :surprise:
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Let's see, in recent years:
Honda Accord wagon -- sales DISCONTINUED in the US
MB C-class wagon -- sales DISCONTINUED in the US
Lexus IS300 wagon -- sales DISCONTINUED WORLDWIDE
Why on earth would Honda/Acura introduce a TSX wagon here? There's very limited demand in the US.
The market for sport wagons has been very limited in the US in recent years.
I suggested looking at an older CR-V and she about bit my ear off since she's not going to get an SUV. :shades:
There's a good article in today's WSJ (paid link, unfortunately) comparing Ford and Toyota's responses to market failures. The upshot was that Toyota uses the "if we build it, they will come" approach while Ford abandons markets (minivans, Taurus were examples).
Honda/Acura may not be big enough to risk getting back into the wagons market right now. Maybe Toyota will expand beyond the Matrix?
You plug the big holes before the little ones.
Lexus (i.e. Toyota) built the IS300 sportwagon, and people most definitely did NOT come. Even Toyota learns from it's mistakes. That's why they yanked it.
btw -- the East Coast subscription editon of the Wall Street Journal does NOT reference any Toyota articles in the "Index to Businesses" and the lone Ford article has to do with Bill Ford's promise to juice up Ford's ads in Gina Chon & Suzanne Vranica's "Advertising" piece in the Marketplace section.
Very small. Out of more than 130,000 3 Series CARS sold by BMW USA in 2005, fewer than 1,500 were sports wagons, and that was down from 2,850 in 2004.
In contrast, BMW sold more than 65,000 X3 SAVs over the same 2-year period in the US.
You guys know I'm partial to wagons since I drive an Outback and I had a couple of Datsun wagons back in the 70's and early 80's. The RDX also appeals to me since it could be viewed as a tall wagon. It even has a decent D pillar.
I suppose the automakers are loathe to call them wagons though.
Well... you know what they say about statistics..
The problem is that the wagon was only offered in one iteration.. 2.5 litre engine with AWD.. While the sedans were offered with 3.0 and 2.5 litre engines... AWD or RWD, plus coupes offered with either engine... in RWD, and convertibles offered with either engine in RWD.
Offer a 330iT, 325iT, and 330XiT, and you'd see a heck of a lot more sold. It really isn't that hard.. they already make them... and sell them in Europe.
The "we can't sell wagons", or the "no one wants manual transmissions" are self-fulfilling prophecies.. You can't sell what you don't offer.
Okay.. rant over...
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Click the link for info about the cargo floor.
As for the RDX, I drove by the same dealership (First Acura in Seekonk, MA) I visited a couple of weeks ago, and 3 of the 4 RDXs are sitting out front. The salesman mentioned not hesitate, that a waiting list would grow in the very near future. Unless people don't like white or silver, I'm not so sure about that waiting list. Have other people heard of waiting lists for RDXs?
I thought it looked a little cheap and flimsy that (like BMW and others) you have to tilt the bottom seat cushion forward, and lose valuable space forward of the bottom seat and cargo floor length.
Also, the finish in the back seat area, especially the carpet materials and plastics, were not close to Lexus-like standards. It seemed like I was looking at an unfinished model, but the models the dealer had were loaded with tacky added-on plastics, so without the unnecessary dealer stick-ons, it wouldn't have been any better finished.
Acura could easily revisit the back seat fold design, and the plastic and carpet finish for a much more useful and sharper impression.
And as for the popularity of wagons, especially sport wagons instead of "CUVs", I think many more would be sold (the ultimate measure of popularity for the manufacturer) if there were more popular choices, rather than exclusive and expensive ones. There are so many more choices and price ranges of "CUVs" available than sport wagons, it's no wonder so many more are sold.
I'm with you 100% on that one. Along with a couple other gripes, it's why I think the RDX skimps on "utility".
The pics were nice too.
Jrynn, looked for a free version of that WSJ article but found nothing (but my post yesteday was the second hit in my Google search :shades: ).
I never really minded the old way on my previous Outbacks, but the arrangement of the 05+ models is much better. That's why the setup in the RDX seems so clunky to me...
The RDX does have a split rear seat so that's a big plus.
Also, the load floor becomes significantly shorter than if it went from the tailgate all the way to the front passenger compartment unhindered by the folded back seat.
Thirdly, the RDX is equipped with that awesome sound system... Too bad when the back seats are folded, much of the sound space of the rear foot well is blocked up by the sound-absorbing seat cushions.
I'm not even getting into that obsolete issue of removing headrests, that should have gone away a long time ago, if the vehicle has enough room in the back seat area. (Steve, Sorry your passengers get shortchanged on that one, if the headrests are in the garage) :sick:
I happen to like leaving the seats folded in my RX most of the time, 2+2 style, because it's so easy to unfold them when I'm ready for passengers. Much of the time, my back seat passenger is my dog, and I prefer her on a blanket on the folded seatback. This configuration leaves the rear foot well and cargo bay open for hidden storage as well as great "stereo" sound.
Not that the '99 RX is a dynamic driving car, but Acura could look at the way the rear seats fold, move, and tilt as a model of simplicity, utility, comfort, finish, efficient use of space, and design in an old or new Toyota/Lexus Highlander/RX.
Instead, I think Acura concentated too much on the X3 and it's design.
Maybe Acura ran into the space issue with the AWD system underneath and didn't want to go flip and fold for that reason?
I think Acura's implementation caught my attention because of the Commander's setup that was posted last June in a Long-Term Road Test blog. Note the awkward liftover hump; not sure it the RDX's is as pronounced from looking at the pics:
Looks like the rubber and plastic will get ruined fast, or your back from lifting so far.
A sport wagon like the TSX wagon (if they made it) would likely be a car per CAFE and not help Honda at all.
Enthusiasts here buy more wagons than the general public does, probably because they realize they handle better than trucks do.
-juice