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
Seriously, I hear ya. I just doubt that every buyer on the market is as focused on the performance aspects as we tend to be.
If a buyer's priorities are comfort and smooth sailing, then the RX is a very nice choice. Just like a Lincoln Continental suits my father better than a 3 series.
But compared to the RDX, my TL seems almost Buick-like. I said almost!
You should do another test drive before you ditch your TL for an RDX.
Base Model - $399 per month and $1495 down
Tech pack - $499 per month and $1495 down
Do the expect people to lease RDX with those prices? this is just crazy.
I think this is because banks do not want to buy cars for sticker price. but it is been 2 month now.
--
Input Data
MSRP 33665.00
Negotiated Price 30205.46
Acq Fee 596.00
Deposit 3651.00
Residual Value 21208.95
Term 36
Monthly Payment 399.00
Tax Rate % 0.000
Output Calculations
Selling Price (cap cost) 30801.46
Net cap cost 27150.46
Residual % 63.00
Monthly Depreciation Fee 165.04
Monthly Finance Fee 233.96
Money Factor 0.00483790
Effective APR 11.61
Total Monthly Payments 14364.00
Taxes 0.00
Cost at signing 4449.00
Effective Lease Cost 18015.00
Effective Own Cost 39223.95
--
This spreadsheet was set up for a Honda lease (and confirmed), but the Acura terms are not exactly the same regarding what is included in the cost at signing. So these numbers are probably not perfect, but would be close.
You'd have to weigh that against other available options to see if the lease is a good deal for you. The money factor looks kind of high to me -- certainly much higher than equivalent APR rates I am seeing in this area.
Craig
RDX has 2 size options, right? Try both if one bothers you.
-juice
We also looked at the new CRV, and we both really liked the styling, rear lift gate instead of a back wards swinging door, and no exposed spare. The problem, at least for us, was no V6 was available. When I asked about a V6, the salesman said that Honda wanted to concentrate on gas mileage, and the CRV got 22 MPG in the city. I mentioned that we just looked at the Toyota RAV4 (which was about 50 feet away across the aisle), and their V6 had about 100 HP more than the CRV and also got 22 MPG in the city. He said he had a cell phone call and excused himself.
I hope Honda re-examines their product planning and the needs of the US market.
In fact the RDX to me is a nicer car with more "sport" to it. Once I hit the turbo in a turn, you here the tires squeal, and look out. I've had much more fun in the RDX than I ever did in the FX.
Honda makes great engines. Of course this engine is new as is the turbo but I'm sure they put out a good motor with the RDX.
Fear is not the right word. I agree with jimc16. I drove the RDX. IMO, the turbo is noisy and coarse. There wasn't a whole lot of turbo lag, but the power delivery still wasn't as linear as that of a V6. I own a '04 TL, and I really noticed the difference stepping from the RDX back into the TL. I just think the turbo is an inferior alternative for the RDX. Technology for technology sake. Honda makes some of the smoothest V6s around. Why not just stick in a smaller-displacement V6?
That said, I'm actually pleasantly surprised with fuel economy in my 2006 TL (EPA rated 20/29). After about 1500 miles, I am averaging a shade over 24 mpg (50% city). Under same conditions, my 1998 Accords delivered 2-3 mpg better (EPA rated 23/30). I was expecting TL to be closer to 21 mpg than 24.
So, V6 isn't necessarily a gas guzzler. But, packaging it in a vehicle without making it larger can be a challenge. As would be to keep the curb weight relatively low, due to necessary chassis tweaks. Besides, Honda would have been forced to use VTM-4 to handle the power. All of this would be a recipe for a $31-32K CR-V at the top end. And step on Pilot's toes (like RAV4 does on Highlander).
While providing a V6 trim is desirable, it is not necessary. I think there is a large enough market for the I-4 for Honda to move 150-160K units of CR-V each year.
Now, in RDX, I think unless Honda has plans to use the turbo motor in more vehicles, 3.5/V6 would have been a better choice. But, thats just my opinion.
I did some reading on this and found that you should not switch off a turbo car immediately after running it with load and high speed. You should let the car run idle for some time. Does the RDX owners guide talk about this?..Pls provide your inputs.
That is outdated info -- most modern turbos have water cooled bearings and do not need special care. In fact, it's been like this since at least the early 90s!
Many car companies will charge more money for extended wrranties on their turbo models than normally aspirated models. That suggests they anticipate less reliability long term. I cannot say if that's true or not, but my experience with turbo motors has been good.
The only downside to turbo motors in my experience is that they can be gas guzzlers if driven moderately hard, which erases any efficiency advantage they may have over larger displacement engines.
That said, turbo motors earned a poor reputation during the 80's and early 90's for good reason. It simply remains to be seen if this Acura turbo is significantly better.
(generally 100-200 lbs lighter), the engineers can acheive a much better weight balance front and rear (more performance/balance), and also less wear on front suspension parts, more driver control over gas milage than a V6, also more room in the engine compartment(less service time).Ofcourse the reliabilty now on turbos is much better than it used to be. That's my take.
I have no worries with respect to the turbo in the RDX.
Of course, a V6 has its advantages, too. Personally, I'd rather have my powerplant naturally aspirated.
But I think the design team may have specifically targeted other reasons in addition to the size/weight advantages.
In an interview, one member of the RDX team mentioned that using a turbo 4 differentiated the RDX from the MDX. They did not want to repeat the mistake BMW made with the X3 and X5. (The X3 stole many X5 sales.)
Another possible reason is that some buyers think turbos are cool. With the popularity of the WRX, Evo, and tuner cars, turbo-power is not a thing to be afraid of... It's something to be celebrated within that market niche. Given that the RDX is supposed to target a younger segment than the MDX, going this route seems plausible.
I agree with previous posts suggesting the turbo 4 may have been offered in the RDX to enhance the "sport/performance" theme.
I am kind of surprised -- maybe they are being pricks on price or something. They did quote me MSRP + $500 back in August, but I didn't play hardball at that point. Maybe I'll wait for the end of the month and lowball them to see if they bite.
1. constant steering wheel vibration especially at idle
2. turbo whine during stop and go traffic
3. dealers demanding MSRP
4. low gas milage.
5. leather that wear out extremely fast
The Good:
1. modern style
2. great GPS system
3. very comfortable/roomy second row seat
4. excellent all around visibility
I for one would be tempted to completely open the turbos' exhaust gas bypass valve just to see if I could live with the reduced level of HP/Torque and the resulting absolutely STELLAR improvement in FE.
Btw..one of the advantage of Tubro is in Hilly regions. At a higher altitude the air is less dense and hence engine can not produce same power as at a lower heights. But the tubro compresses the air and makes it more dense before sending it in engine. So bottomline is Turbo will have less power loss as compared to normal engine..
thanks
Only if, at sea level, the turbo would overboost if not bypassed.
But after a few months, they will have no choice but the let the dealers start dealing. I agree with C_Hunter on the price issue. The RDX is a good vehicle. It's just not a soopah-doopah-OMG-gotta-have-it vehicle. There's not enough demand for small, luxury CUVs to maintain MSRP, no matter how good it is. This segment is expected to grow, but it aint there, yet.
Not by next month.
No skin off my consumer nose really. My wife totaled the Volvo and the insurance settlement check was at least $3500 more than I would have been able to sell that old Volvo for privately. And we needed a car NOW. So it's in the garage : ).
In the meantime we're driving, and @ $33,500 this car feels like a deal/helluva value. At $31,000 or so it would be a steal. Feels/looks/drives like a $50K car. Seriously. After 10 days couldn't be happier with a new car purchase. LOVING THE RDX IN EVERY WAY!
Good luck.
I hear the same from a few owners over on the CX7 boards, and others who think if folks don't like the poor fuel economy, they should go buy a diesel... Now that's faulty logic if I ever heard it. I think the designers targeted more performance and less fuel economy with this model, however that doesn't mean future enhancements can't target both.
I think you're describing the VCM V6... which would be a perfect idea if Honda could get it to run on 4 or 6 cylinders rather than the current 3 & 6 modes. With a heavy vehicle like the RDX, it would almost never run on 3 cyls alone. But 4 cyls might be enough for 'round town driving.
I read rumors that Honda is working on such an engine, but those are just rumors at this point. Of course, there's no way to know if they'd use it in the RDX.
They priced the new MDX spot on. $39,995+ delivery for the base MDX. Very compelling package at that price.
Should have made the RDX $29,995+ delivery. At $31k with a few accessories, you'd have a homerun. Acuras have traditionally been known for a good combination of sport and luxury at a good value. Up the value quotient up a bit, and you'd have a winner. At $34k to start, you've got the RAV-4 V-6 and CX-7 below and BMW's X-3 just above. I've seen several Mazda CX-7's on the road. Not one RDX. Of course, I do live nearer the Mazda dealer.....
Oh yeah, the test drive. Very nice overall. I thought the turbo was non-intrusive. Ride was firm but not uncomfortable over bumps. I love the look from the back, decent from the side and a little busy from the front. Interior was right for a $35k vehicle with very comfortable seats. Ingress/egress to the back seat was a definite headnocker for this 6'+ person (I'm used to my slab-sided, overally tall, boxy Trooper).
-juice
One of my suggestions for Acura is to take the ELS stereo out of the Tech Package and make it part of the base vehicle's equipment. The jump from base to Tech is a little too much. Plus the stereo should help justify the price of the base models.
Right now I think a new MDX (outgoing model) is cheaper than a base RDX. Someone said $32.5k was the price they saw for those.
-juice
http://www.safercar.gov/NCAP/Cars/4111.html
Having a V6 in RDX may have been a good idea, but I don't think 3.0/V6 would have done it any good. We're talking 260 lb-ft of torque from the turbo engine to propel the 2 lb behemoth as opposed to 215-220 lb-ft that might come from a 3.0/V6. At least 3.5/V6 would had been needed. That, while considering that the engine would fit without having to increase the dimensions of the vehicle.
IMO, RDX is priced perfectly. The only thing is it could have used couple of minor things as standard items that it doesn't, including the ELS audio system. And no mass produced vehicle will always sell at MSRP. With $33K price tag, I bet the invoice on RDX is about $30K. Thats would be a steal!
I think the car is unfortunately completely mis-conceived. A BMW X3 buyer is not going to trade down to a turbo 4, plus the car has a few odd shortcomings for a luxury buyer. On the other hand, your more economy minded small SUV buyer is not going to trade up. I think they should have gone for more of an X3 knock off at a reasonable price (at least then I would be a buyer)
One meter was reset once on the highway, and the vehicle was getting 26-28 mpg during 65 mph cruise. After exiting and re-entering the highway, with some acceleration it was in the 25 mpg range. By the time I got back to the dealer with some city driving in between, it settled to around 24 mpg.
The other meter had been reset at the dealership and was running the whole test drive. It read about 14mpg at first, and gradually creeped into the 16-18mpg range for city driving. After the highway trip, and returning back to the dealer, it had an average of 23 mpg, very close to the 24 mpg average that was biased to highway driving.
So on the RDX I drove at least, the gas mileage seemed fine and totally in line with the EPA ratings. Of course, I only drove about 12 miles, so it's not a lot of data, just a couple point measurements.
While looking under the hood, I noticed something new. The upper grille opening on the RDX is not really a traditional grille opening -- it feeds the top mounted intercooler through a duct. This is more analagous to the hood scoop on many turbo cars with top mounted intercoolers, but Acura disguised it to look like a grille. This is a somewhat clever way to package a top mounted intercooler, but one wonders why they didn't just go with a front-mounted intercooler for its potential advantages.
I also saw the new MDX (very nice) and the TL-S (awesome). Both just arrived at the dealership today. The TL-S looks like a real serious hot rod.