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
Anyway, to each his own. Personally, I think not being able to get DVD-Audio without all the other useless (to me) Tech Package frills is the lamest thing I've ever heard of. I could care less if my car can understand my speech - or remember how my wife likes the seat the two days a year she might drive my car.
I am sure most of the added cost is due to beefier engine. I just find it amusing when people expect forced induction to be "free".
I definitely think I'd try to stretch to afford ths bigger brother if I were buying an Acura SUV, it's very nice inside, reminds me a lot of the Tribeca, which I also like (especially inside).
The grille looks better in person, it's a bit overpowering and looks tacked on, but some how it just works. The headlights remind me of the Suzuki XL7 but the details look better.
It doesn't look that big, either. Not sure if it's bigger than the old model or not.
Any how, it seems to be right-sized, while I found the RDX a bit small, at least for this stage of my life.
-juice
On the second issue, I do not agree. If things like memory seats, voice-recognition, and other luxury features don't float your boat, you're barking up the wrong tree.
If you want to roll up the windows on your own, don't shop for luxury cars. Buy a Mazda or something.
The RDX is meant to be a luxury vehicle. Well, "near luxury" or "entry-level luxury" might be better terms, but the vehicle is supposed to be well-equipped.
Imagine holding a wedding where you spend the entire budget on the cake and have to hire uncle Ed's oom-pah band for entertainment.
The RDX doesn't need a stereo that can rival the best from a $60K Lexus. They probably could have gotten away without offering a back-up camera given that this is compact SUV. The MIDI is a nice touch, but not something people would have missed.
Instead less expensive systems could have been used and more obvious things like the power passenger seat, rain-sensing wipers, and other features could have been included in the budget.
Too much sport. Not enough utility.
Too much technology. Not enough pampering.
It's great at being what they designed it to be. However, the design ideals are a bit misguided for our market. I think it would actually be terrific in Japan. But for us, it's just not a balanced package.
-juice
She didn't like how the rear seats folded down and you lose the floor storage, the lack of memory seat for the driver, since I always readjust the seat/mirror on weekends, etc.
What did I win?
Either the suspension is tuned poorly, or the VSC is just too aggressive. 2" lower should mean it should be significantly quicker.
I guess in the big picture the measure wasn't bad.
-juice
By what measure, how...?
Can VSC really be tuned to be pre-emptive?
On the other hand the VSC "setup", firmware programming, will have significant differences between the RDX (FWD) and the X3 (RWD).
But I would be willing to bet that those electro-mechanical rear clutches that are used to engage the rear wheel drive cannot react fast enough for a sudden QUICK avoidance maneuver and therefore the RDX is left with the standard FWD "plowing" characteristic.
The BMW is RWD torque biased, and also likely has a bit of european "sport" spirit embedded in the VSC firmware. additionally RWD and rear torque biased AWD's can safely allow the tail to wag out a bit.
The bottom line is that the BMW already has a bit of over-stearing "cranked in" to the design, but the RDX must use an artificial means, a relatively s.l..o...w electro-mechanical means, overdriving the outside rear wheel, to achieve the same end.
Their test measures how quickly you can maneuver through a series of turns, and a lower vehicle should do better, sure.
Imagine you lifted a Jeep 2". It would have to negotiate that course more slowly, else it would roll.
VSC probably can be pre-emptive, i.e. yaw sensors can predict when a slide might occure potentially before it does, but usually the systems are simply more intrusive and slow you down more than necessary.
Good point about the FWD and reaction time for SH-AWD. I'm sure it is a sudden maneuver.
-juice
Is this your guess, or something factual? I am asking because virtually all road going BMWs have some understeer built in (the safer bet on road cars). The difference would be in how you can use the throttle around a corner in a FWD vehicle compared to RWD. Coincidentally, SH-AWD is designed around the premise to perform like RWD vehicle around a corner. Although, if you don't use it, you would never know (a reason most people won't be able to appreciate the capabilities of SH-AWD).
I guess they could optimize it for CR's manuever, but that wouldn't appeal to the enthusiast they're trying to draw in with the RDX.
-juice
No they don't. In fact, virtually every car has some understeer dialed in since it is considered safer not just on road, but also in some race cars. Also remember, a car's tendency to understeer or oversteer can be (and IS) dialed in via camber adjustments.
And we're talking about situations that includes not just one scenario but several, including braking around a corner (do you really want a car to oversteer?), accelerating around a corner or simply cruising along a corner.
You're assuming that the vehicle with a lower ground clearance has a lower center of gravity. In my experience that is not a safe assumption. Furthermore, the width of the vehicle's track is just as important as the center of gravity.
The NHTSA does a static roll-over test which incorporates both. The RDX scores a 1.26 - about mid pack. The X3 has not yet been rated.
The AWD CX-7, which has more clearance than the RDX, is rated at 1.28. Which, IMO, is a negligible difference. This gives us one example of where clearance alone is not enough information to make assumptions about CoG.
We're talking about a whopping 2" difference here.
-juice
I'm saying that ground clearance doesn't correlate with CoG. Even if it did, you're still missing the equally important variable of the vehicle's track.
That Mazda example I gave has a ground clearance of 8.1", which happens to be about the same as that BMW. Yet it isn't any more top heavy than the RDX.
My MDX scores a tidy 1.27 with 8.0" under the diff.
The 2006 Subaru Forester scores 1.25 with 8.1 inches of clearance.
Lemme see... what else we got... Chevy Equinox! 1.25 with another 8 inches.
Ooh! Can't forget the RAV4... 1.22 with 7.5".
Maybe if we drop down a little lower, the roll factor with lower? CR-V with 7.3" equals 1.22. Nope, no difference at all.
Okay this is interesting. The Ford Escape scores a handy 1.21 with I believe 8.4" down under. The most clearance thus far and yet it's the most stable. At least as far as static measurements are concerned. (However, when you get into dynamic testing, the Escape is the only one listed here that lifts two wheels during testing.)
Juice, the measure of ground clearance is simply the distance from the earth to the bottom of the rear differential (usually!). Some manufacturers don't even measure it the same way.
For example, Acura officially lists the RDX's GC as 5.12" which is for a fully laden vehicle. I've never seen another company publish this measure with the vehicle laden. Even other Honda and Acura vehicles don't specify a loaded vehicle. :confuse: I don't understand that, either.
As near as I can tell, you have just as much chance of correlating the clearance to the muffler with center of gravity as you do with the differential housing. It's simply a bad assumption.
I see what you mean about the track, but these are similar vehicles and one would expect for these measures to be similar. Don't have my CR in front of me but I bet they're close (X3 and RDX).
You brought up good examples but all of them are right around 8" GC, a tiny bit less here, a tiny bit more there. Only the RDX is significantly lower.
CR doesn't use manufacturer's number, they actually measure using their own process to measure it. So by their presumably comparable measures the X3 clears an extra 2".
-juice
Front: 60.0
Rear: 60.7
Clearance: 8.0
From Acura
Front: 61.9
Rear: 62.6
Clearance: 6.3 (listed prior to moving to the laden weight)
It's been a while, but I believe CR lists the lowest point that isn't the tire. Usually this means the suspension knuckle. They used to come up with figures like 4.3" for compact SUVs because most all have an indy suspension. They may have changed that practice, though.
Let's just say given the rather incomplete data, I would have expected the Acura to beat the Bimmer easily in that test. Oh well.
-juice
Fair enough, though. This whole line of thought is all academic.
Just for kicks, I reversed the NHTSA formula for the static roll-over test and calculated some data for the RDX and CX-7 (since we have data for those two).
The formula is SSF = Track/2*CoG
Since we know the SSF and the Track (I averaged front and rear), all we need to do is solve for CoG. Assuming I correctly recall my high school algebra, we get...
CX-7 CoG = 24.84"
RDX CoG = 24.70"
So, despite any differences in exterior measurements, the center of gravity for one is very close to the other. This would, of course, be more poignant if we had full data for the X3.
I think we simply have to take the CR test for what it is - one data point. Trying to explain whether the difference is the result of suspension, tires, center of gravity, road conditions, or something else requires more information than we have. This in no way invalidates what they've printed. It just means we don't have the tools to add more to their conclusion.
Let's see how Road & Track's slalom tests go.
Also, tire choices are another big factor.
-juice
I like the RDX a lot, but it is definitely short on utility in a number of ways.
First, Honda is notoriously stingy with their capacity ratings. They rate things low so they cannot be sued when people get silly piling stuff into the vehicles. Besides, when it comes to small SUVs, they know that most owners will never tow anything. So rating the vehicle low will only hurt sales from a very small percentage of buyers.
Second, Honda sometimes uses different measurements when they publish figures like capacity.
For example, with the original MDX and Pilot, they published the numbers 3,500 max for campers, but 4,500 for boats. As far as I know, no other manufacturer rates different trailers with different ratings.
On the other hand, Honda's rating assumed you had 4 passengers and 200 lbs of gear in the vehicle. All others assume 1 occupant and zero gear. In fact, if you add something like side steps to a Chevy SUV, you are supposed to subtract the weight of those steps from your total capacity.
With the Ridgeline and new MDX, Honda drops the boat vs camper differences, but also changes the rating to reflect only 2 occupants with 200 lbs of gear.
However, despite all this specific mumbo-jumbo about weight capacities for the MDX, Pilot, and Ridgeline, Honda only gives us one single number for the CR-V, Element, and RDX. No details whatsoever.
Third, you're looking at the peak torque figure. Near idle, prior to boost onset, the RDX's turbo-powered engine is just a naturally aspirated 2.3L four banger. So, doing something like pulling a boat up a ramp is going to be a challenge. Once an RDX gets underway it should have no trouble. But getting up to speed is also required.
Having written all that, I'd guess you're probably fine with up to 2,000 lbs. (The similar CX-7 is rated for 2,000 even though it has more lag than the RDX.) But towing above the manufacturer's recommend limits is always done at your own risk.
And when is that going to happen?
As for going a tad over the RDX's published rating, you stand to lose a lot of legal stroke if something "bad" should happen, i.e. a tranny burn up or frame get bent, or heaven forbid, a crash. The RDX "might" handle it fine, but you go over the manufacturer's tow rating at your own risk. Way too much risk for me.
I don't think we ought to spend a lot of time discussing towing in the context of the RDX -- it's clearly not a tow vehicle. It's actually less capable than many cars in this area. But I don't see that as a real flaw -- the RDX's strengths lie in other areas.
If the vehicle is towing something heavy enough to cause issues with weight being transferred from the nose to the tail, chances are the driver is going to need more than a gentle blip of the throttle to get it moving. In which case, SH-AWD would route power to the rear.
I don't think we ought to spend a lot of time discussing AWD-bias in the context of the RDX - it's clearly not an issue.
Seriously... The Ford Escape can be rated to tow 3,500 lbs with a purely reactive system (100% FWD until slippage). The CX-7 is rated for 2,000 lbs with a very similar, purely reactive system. I don't see why a permanent split AWD with a superior reaction design would have trouble.
It's not the AWD, people.
As you wrote, that's going to be true of any vehicle.
Though, both the MDX and new X5 have added new features to their stability control programs. The changes are designed to alter how the brakes will be engaged or torque will be distributed when the vehicle is towing. The RDX doesn't have that feature.
*Any* vehicle will see the rear end dip when a trailer is attached (or, for the matter, the cargo area is loaded). Depending on the chassis setup, some will do more than others. Having taken acceleration traction out of the equation (since VTM-4 and SH-AWD are pro-active systems that engage anytime throttle is, but that is not true in case of basic "reactive-type" AWD system as found in Mazda CX-7 or Ford Escape or Honda CR-V or Toyota Rav4 or any of GM's Versatrek equipped vehicles).
The "front lift" will affect steering in *any* vehicle. In fact, why worry about AWD vehicles and their towing capacity, it should be an issue with virtually all RWD vehicles unless they have some kind of front spoiler to prevent lift at higher speeds.
As for braking, the weight shifts forward, including that contributed by the trailer. So, I don't see that as being an issue at all.
The first thing I did after getting in the vehicle, since fuel economy has been raised as an issue more often than not, was to reset one of the trip computers while leaving the other (trip
The reading on "trip B" before I rolled the vehicle off the lot was 344 miles averaging 20.3 mpg. By the end of the day, with about 60% of the distance covered in city roads (35-40 mph speed limit) and my lead footed driving, primarily to feel the engine, the trip computer showed that I averaged 18.1 mpg. Half way down to the entire experience, the mileage had once dropped down to 15.x mpg (plenty of stop and go). For the mileage calculation, I had to rely on trip computer.
I think RDX does a decent job on mileage for the vehicle it is. Personally, I prefer 24 mpg that my TL has returned under similar conditions over 19K miles (50-60% city driving). Tall wagons/SUVs aren't my thing anyway.
Speaking of tall wagon/SUVs, RDX primary strength was indeed in its handling. It is one of the extremely rare breed of tall wagons/SUVs that feels sure footed and returns just the right amount of feedback. Push it around corners, and it responds with poise. There were occasions when it felt more planted than my TL (I ended up taking a 20 mph circular ramp at about twice the speed, and faster than I normally do in my TL).
Interior is quite good, but being used to TL's, I see some room for improvements. Sometimes I just don't understand why Acura changes things too much. Shifter, for example, should have been lifted straight off TSX or TL. Some trim pieces have different texture which is completely unnecessary. But these complaints are minor.
If there is something I can complain about in the RDX, it is the choice to go with turbo-4. Actually, I didn't experience turbo lag as much as I thought I would (having read so much about it), and on the highway, that thing can fly, but it is just the overall smoothness that lacks compared to Honda's V6 engines (which, IMO, are among the best there are).
Unless the low tow rating is to keep the wear rate and duty cycle heating of the rear halfshaft clutches within reason....
I personally suspect that's why the rear driveshaft "overdrive" clutch/planetary system was dropped for the SUV version of SH-AWD, it couldn't take the "heat".
Except that the trailer weight, inertia, shifts forward...RIGHT ONTO THE REAR HITCH, raising the front of the tow vehicle inordinately. More trailer weight, more front "lift".
There is a constant 1.7% slip built into the function of the system. Wear and heat are always being generated.
Also, the clutch packs are "self-healing". If the surface area becomes worn down, sensors record it, and the ECU compensates by tightening up the operating parameters. In short, the clutches reacts sooner.
Furthermore, tow ratings for Honda's are conservative even when the vehicles don't have SH-AWD, VTM-4, or even RT4WD. The RDX is consistent with that "philosophy". Meanwhile, other companies using clutch packs don't seem to have the same concerns.
There's an expression I think is sorta appropriate here. When you've got a hammer in your hand, everything starts to look like a nail. Well, we've got a group of people with gobs of knowledge about AWD. That doesn't mean AWD is the cure-all or cause-all for every issue related to the vehicle.
I'm not so sure. It would be interesting to test that out.
I've watched footage of vehicles crashing while towing and my recollection is that the tail of the vehicle actually jumps upward when the weight of the trailer pushes forward. It *seems* to me that the weight shifts forward more than down.
Regardless, the issue would be present for any vehicle. As interesting as it may be, it has nothing to do with the RDX, specifically.
My point was only that there are other factors involved besides AWD (in any flavor), and engine power, that govern this... Honda's reported convervatism aside.
Therefore it makes sense that in the RDX the rear halfshaft clutches, as an integral part of the drive train, would also be expected to endure a higher level of wear and heating when towing. Yes, the rear clutches have an automatic adaptive adjustment as they wear but it is still a good idea for them to last the owner for something north of 100,000 miles.
It is also entirely possible for the rear of a towing vehicle to move upward (inordinately so) with severe braking. But this, as a rule, is a result of poor, VERY poor, hitch setup. The horizontal "line" of a towed vehicle/trailer, should always be tilted slightly downward toward the tow vehicle when attached, or level as an absolute minimum.
An upward tilt would indicate, generally, a lack of proper towed vehicle tongue weight resting on the towing vehicle.
It seems to me Honda doesn't consider towing capacity in its vehicles as a selling point in North America. Believe me, I see more trailer hitches being used in cars than I do in small or even larger SUVs.