FWD or front torque biased AWD vehicles with manual transaxles are becoming as rare as the Dodo bird. Too many dumbed down US drivers, apparently, that don't know to not downshift for engine braking on the slippery stuff.
Huh? There are some front drivers that are available with ONLY manual transmission (Civic Si). The choice to offer manual has to do with market demand. Go to Europe, and you're not going to find a Honda Accord Diesel with anything but a 6-speed manual transmission.
If you want to discuss the mechanics, why don't we just stick to the thread you started?
There's a big difference between market demand and insurance company mandates. I'd like to see some proof of all this suicidal cold-weather downshift behavior and the industry ramifications.
Otherwise, I'm going to assume that while American drivers may be "dumbed-down," it's more a case of lack of American interest that is killing the manual in anything but the pure sports cars and "sports" variants of others.
It'd be interesting to know if the new automated manuals (SMG, DSG, etc.) change anything about the way they downshift based on ambient temperature. My guess is "no."
Just about every review of the RDX and CRV indicates that the CR-V is more "family friendly". Other than price and the premium fuel requirement, what makes an RDX less "family friendly" than a CR-V?
I have a 1 year old and a 2.5 year old. My other car is an Odyssey. The CR-V or RDX would replace an Accord Hybrid.
i'm not sure what other folks are going to say but the thing that springs to mind is that there is no way to pop the rear hatch from inside the car or from the key fob... only way to do it is to grab for the latch yourself...
strange that we have become such creatures of comfort... the complaints i hear mostly (from reviewers not necessarily owners) are the lack of power passenger seat, no "remote" release of rear hatch, auto-dim mirror is not standard and no keyless access, no start button...
Oh..no..I was just expanding on sbpvjm's comments on our increasing dependence on creature comfort features. (You're correct that neither model has those features)
Given the RDX is selling at invoice and the CR-V at little below MSRP, there really isn't much of a price difference. If you factor in the financing specials Acura currently has on the RDX, this narrows the gap even more. I ended up leasing an RDX (base) for $10 more a month than a CR-V EX-L. For me this made the decision easy, especially after test driving both.
The Ford patent which most directly addresses the issue of the hazards of inadvertent engine braking, regenerative braking, during COLD weather, is of fairly recent occurance.
But I would certainly expect as time wears on that other FWD vehicle manufacturers will be licensing this patent.
"...(SMG, DSG, etc.)..."
Still too early, but I really don't expect to see automatics of this level of sophistication to be used, ever, in FWD or front torque biased AWD vehicles.
Will the downshift schedule for these transmissions be affected by OAT?
You bet, absolutely, engine braking at the rear, inadvertently engine braking, can be just as deadly or hazardous as at the front. The only major difference is that engine braking at the front is much more likely to result in loss of directional control, "Look Ma, it doesn't respond to the stearing wheel...". But the likely more serious issue is the possibility of engine braking eliminating the functionality of ABS on those front, "stearing wheels" should the roadbed be slippery.
"Still too early, but I really don't expect to see automatics of this level of sophistication to be used, ever, in FWD or front torque biased AWD vehicles."
You mean, like FWD VWs? They're already here with DSG. Audi's A3, at least, is also offered in FWD with their version of the DSG dual-clutch "automated manual" transmission.
You've posted the link to the patent before; I still don't see that as the smoking gun that would necessarily prove this is a widespread issue. You expect that others will license this patent, but I'm less convinced. I guess we'll have to watch this in the future.
As for ABS functionality being eliminated, perhaps it is just semantics, but ABS functionality is never eliminated as far as I understand. Engine compression braking could pile on another cause for loss of friction, but if the brake pedal's depressed, the ABS should still cycle based on slippage, regardless of how many things are causing the slippage.
Yes - I seriously am cross shopping a CR-V and an RDX.
But I am also considering a Civic Si Sedan, an Acura TL, a Nissan Murano or a G35 Sedan.
They are all 5 passenger vehicles from manufacturers with a good reliability reputation that range from $25k - 38k that all appeal to me for some reason or other. They range from kid-compatible to kid-friendly but they would all work. They all fit me as I am a bit tall.
My current 2005 Accord sedan admitedly meets the need quite well so unless something really grabs me, offers me something special or is just a great deal, I will probably stand pat till the Accord is 5 years old. But I do like to cogitate on these things and probably would be happy with any of the above listed choices.
Well, you guys and gals have educated me about the cross-shopping, I guess.
I can understand cross shopping different vehicle types, but I was unaware people were looking at both the "base" vehicles (Honda) and the near-luxury versions of same (Acura).
All told, I ended up buying a CX-7, but could have just as easily moved a few thou up to an RDX, or even better, my old dream car - a used M5...
It's been a while since I was in an RDX, but in general I would say most of the posts about the RDX being faster, interior having what appears to be higher quality materials, etc. are true. The gap was not enough to sway me, and the Mazda's styling ended up floating my boat a lot more that the RDX, even though I'd been waiting for the RDX to come out ever since I first saw the concept.
Cannot for the life of me remember how the noise compared, but as someone who likes to call himself a "freelance urban stunt driver" :shades: the Mazda's got plenty of snort and sinew in the suspenders. Think Mazdaspeed 6 with a lift kit, and you've got it. Whether one would rather have an MS6 than a TL is more a question of preferences and priorities than money in the end, I guess.
"automated manual" is not exactly the same as an actual manual transmission. With "automation" in this case you get a "nanny" that prevents you from doing something stupid like a severe downshift that would/might result in so much engine braking that you lose directional control.
And yes, ABS would remain operational but not functional. If there is enough engine braking available then ABS's release of brake pressure will still not prevent the wheel from coming to a full stop before the vehicle does.
On "thin" ice engine braking can be just as effective as the brake pads themselves at locking the wheels.
And yes, again, you're correct, some patents are not worthy of licensing, only time will tell for this Ford one. But watch the FWD hybrids with regenerative braking, those will be first if any.
I recently drove both the RDX and the CX-7 on a day apart timing. I much preferred the RDX - better interior, better materials inside, less rough engine, feels less "plasticy" to me, less noisy and I thought the RDX rode better - all IMO of course. The price difference is not enough to make me pick the Mazda over the RDX if I were seriously looking to buy.
Thanks for the review. Up here, the price difference between the 2, both fully loaded, is about $6K, which is no small sum. But of course, content-wise, it's not quite apples to apples. Now, mind you, the Mazda has a couple of features that I wish the RDX had -- a smart key ignition, and full auto on/off headlights.
Yes, we are both in BC I see, and I still say, even at $5 or $6K, I would take the RDX (which is easy for me to say as I am not looking to buy right now). I liked driving the RDX that much better. Of course, comparing an Acura to a Mazda, one would expect the Acura to be more appealing. I may not be a truly representative sample, tho, as I am older and prefer some creature comforts and a decent "ride" feel. I am presently driving an '05 Highlander, and have a new Mustang GT/CS convertible as well. I can get my "jollies" from the Stang, I want the daily driver not to be too intrusive.
Hello, fellow BC'er! I'm not a young whipper snapper myself, and I found the RDX's ride to be too stiff. :sick: Even more so than my TL, which is already not exactly a pillowy ride.
I guess to wrap it tight, I should say that neither the CX-7 nor the RDX got my money and the ride issue is one of the reasons that I still have my Highlander..!!
Lot's of time to see what's coming down the pike..the RDX is a new model for Acura so let's let it sort out a bit. The new HL is coming this summer to a dealer near you so that may be an interest also (although I'd say, without seeing it in the "real' yet, I don't like the added size).
A reporter aims to talk with a current Honda or Acura owner who is looking to change ownership to another brand. Please respond to ctalati@edmunds.com no later than February 28, 2007 with your daytime contact information.
The RDX was the clear winner during my test driving. I tested the Murano, the Highlander, the RX330, the Forester,... But,the RDX is the only one with sporty performance, standard AWD and stability control, good handling, and cornering, and superior safety. The RDX was the only one that did 0-60 in 6.8 sec. All other mid-size SUVs did 7.5 to 8.5 sec.
I believe this is true for the XT manual transmission, 0-60 in less than 6 sec. There's an optional auto transmission for the XT but it is 4-speed. So my search parameters were, mid-size, sporty performance, true stability control, auto, and high reliability. I had also tested the RAV-4, but its stability control was disappointing.
I just got the new Consumer Reports 2007 car issue. Acura is again among the top automakers. The RDX got a CR recommendation and a very good review. Overall MPG is 18. So everything was as expected.
What is the RDX recommended oil change interval? I see my 1st one is scheduled at 3,750 or so. Are the ones after that every 7,000 miles or every 3,700 miles? With synthetic oil, I would think that even 7,500 Mi is too often. BMW's synthetic oil change interval is 15,000 Mi.
That is a good question. I don't know the answer, but we have about 3100 miles and the maintainance minder states 50% oil life. So I'm guessing it is about 6-7K miles.
I get oil change #1 Tuesday (7400 miles). Yes, that IS too often for synthetic motor oil. Perhaps they fear their new turbo toy will somehow break down the oil sooner? :confuse:
There are no "scheduled" oil changes for the RDX. Use the oil life indicator (in the multi-information display in the dash). When it gets down around 0-5%, schedule an appointment.
If the dealer suggests otherwise, then they are trying to perform un-needed service and raid your wallet. Stick with the maintenance description in the owner's manual and use the MID oil life indicator. If the RDX really needs a change at 3750 miles, the indicator will tell you.
Typically, people are seeing the oil life hit 0% at between 5000-9000 miles, depending on their driving style and driving conditions. I am on track for a first oil change at 8000-9000 miles if I extrapolate from the current oil life remaining.
I just got my 1st change done on Saturday at 6100 miles. Oil Life indicated 20% left. I likely could have waited longer but it was the first change (and free) so I had it done. The dealer tried to get me to schedule next service at 7500 miles! I declined.
You could have held out to about 7600-8000 miles if we extrapolate 20% at 6100 miles (and that assumes your driving habits don't change). Did the MID call out for the "A1" service?
I'm considering buying an Acura RDX. The main reason I want a SUV instead of a sedan is the larger cargo space. In particular I want to carry 2 mountain bikes inside. Not interested in external bike racks for the RDX; I could just put those on a sedan.
Are any of you carrying 2 bicycles inside the RDX? Do they fit without having to pile the bikes on top of each other? Removing the front wheel is OK. I was thinking of mounting them like this (photo of an MDX): http://www.oaklandacura.com/images/mdx/MDX_InsideBikeForkAtch.jpg
In order to fit a bicycle in this way, the cargo area needs to be at least 34" tall and 58" long. What is the size of the RDX cargo area? Thanks.
RDX rear cargo measurements: 61 inches to the rear seat bottom with the rear seat folded down 68 inches to the back of front seats 42 inches wide (narrowest dimension) 34 inches high I'd recommend taking your bikes to the dealership to verify. I always love to see people bring golf bags or car seats to dealerships to see if they fit. Why not bikes? :shades:
Those figures match up pretty closely with the numbers I got when I took a tape measure to the NY Auto Show.
For general use, my measurements for the X3 came out better than those for the RDX and CX-7. But when it comes to something specific, like mountain bikes, not all measurements should be weighed equally.
In the RDX's favor, it has the most flat load floor of the three. Which means the height of the ceiling is more consistent once you get in past the hatch opening (32" according to my measures). As seen in that photo with that MDX, the second row does not fold completely flat and raises the seat of the bike up near the roof.
The hurdle for the RDX, when hauling bikes, is going to be the depth of the cargo area.
I agree with both of you. And, in fact, I've used a hitch-mounted cargo platform for both my CR-V and MDX. But the original poster specifically stated; "Not interested in external bike racks for the RDX; I could just put those on a sedan."
FWIW, I have an X3, and wanted to carry our two hybrid bikes in the cargo area. I bought two BMW mounting kits, installed the hardware in the cargo area (very similar to the MDX mounting in the picture), and found they did not fit. The main problem was the bikes were too long and I could not close the rear hatch.
I mention this because my subjective impression from sitting in an RDX at the Auto Show is that the cargo area is slightly smaller than the X3, so you may have the same problem I did.
I tried the adjustments suggested in the mounting instructions, mostly trying to place the bikes at more of a diagonal, but nothing I tried worked. It may have been possible to get them to fit by removing the handle bars, but I wanted something more convenient. I returned those racks to the dealer and bought a pair of bike holders that mount on the X3's roof rack.
Honestly, I think it's a romantic notion, I can fit 2 filthy/dirty mountain bikes in the cargo area, but do you really want to do that?
You'll get oily stains on the carpeting from the chains, dirt from the tires (even if you remove them), and very likely scratches from mounting the forks on the plastics and carpeting.
Basically the wear and tear on the interior will surely "cost" you more than a hitch.
I was at Dick's Sporting Goods yesterday, they had racks from $100-200. The pricier ones were excellent - tilt out of the way, hold 4 bikes securely without even coming close to touching the vehicle.
You do need a hitch, but again, $200 max from U-Haul, less if you do it yourself. I bet it would be $120.
How much would it cost to reupholster the cargo area? More, I'd guess.
Even a cargo cover will cost you $80, may as well invest that in a rack.
Comments
Insurance companies made it a no-no.
If you want to discuss the mechanics, why don't we just stick to the thread you started?
"...dumbed down US drivers..."
Or did you not notice..?
"..has to do with market demand.."
And with every FWD sold with a manual transmission north of the snow line the market dimmishes even more as the days drift by.
Otherwise, I'm going to assume that while American drivers may be "dumbed-down," it's more a case of lack of American interest that is killing the manual in anything but the pure sports cars and "sports" variants of others.
It'd be interesting to know if the new automated manuals (SMG, DSG, etc.) change anything about the way they downshift based on ambient temperature. My guess is "no."
I have a 1 year old and a 2.5 year old. My other car is an Odyssey. The CR-V or RDX would replace an Accord Hybrid.
strange that we have become such creatures of comfort... the complaints i hear mostly (from reviewers not necessarily owners) are the lack of power passenger seat, no "remote" release of rear hatch, auto-dim mirror is not standard and no keyless access, no start button...
But I would certainly expect as time wears on that other FWD vehicle manufacturers will be licensing this patent.
"...(SMG, DSG, etc.)..."
Still too early, but I really don't expect to see automatics of this level of sophistication to be used, ever, in FWD or front torque biased AWD vehicles.
Will the downshift schedule for these transmissions be affected by OAT?
You bet, absolutely, engine braking at the rear, inadvertently engine braking, can be just as deadly or hazardous as at the front. The only major difference is that engine braking at the front is much more likely to result in loss of directional control, "Look Ma, it doesn't respond to the stearing wheel...". But the likely more serious issue is the possibility of engine braking eliminating the functionality of ABS on those front, "stearing wheels" should the roadbed be slippery.
You mean, like FWD VWs?
You've posted the link to the patent before; I still don't see that as the smoking gun that would necessarily prove this is a widespread issue. You expect that others will license this patent, but I'm less convinced. I guess we'll have to watch this in the future.
As for ABS functionality being eliminated, perhaps it is just semantics, but ABS functionality is never eliminated as far as I understand. Engine compression braking could pile on another cause for loss of friction, but if the brake pedal's depressed, the ABS should still cycle based on slippage, regardless of how many things are causing the slippage.
But I am also considering a Civic Si Sedan, an Acura TL, a Nissan Murano or a G35 Sedan.
They are all 5 passenger vehicles from manufacturers with a good reliability reputation that range from $25k - 38k that all appeal to me for some reason or other. They range from kid-compatible to kid-friendly but they would all work. They all fit me as I am a bit tall.
My current 2005 Accord sedan admitedly meets the need quite well so unless something really grabs me, offers me something special or is just a great deal, I will probably stand pat till the Accord is 5 years old. But I do like to cogitate on these things and probably would be happy with any of the above listed choices.
I can understand cross shopping different vehicle types, but I was unaware people were looking at both the "base" vehicles (Honda) and the near-luxury versions of same (Acura).
All told, I ended up buying a CX-7, but could have just as easily moved a few thou up to an RDX, or even better, my old dream car - a used M5...
Cannot for the life of me remember how the noise compared, but as someone who likes to call himself a "freelance urban stunt driver" :shades: the Mazda's got plenty of snort and sinew in the suspenders. Think Mazdaspeed 6 with a lift kit, and you've got it. Whether one would rather have an MS6 than a TL is more a question of preferences and priorities than money in the end, I guess.
And yes, ABS would remain operational but not functional. If there is enough engine braking available then ABS's release of brake pressure will still not prevent the wheel from coming to a full stop before the vehicle does.
On "thin" ice engine braking can be just as effective as the brake pads themselves at locking the wheels.
And yes, again, you're correct, some patents are not worthy of licensing, only time will tell for this Ford one. But watch the FWD hybrids with regenerative braking, those will be first if any.
Though they would replace different vehicles - I have a Miata and a Forester, so one convertible, one utility/family car.
Also compared a PT Cruiser convertible with a Sienna minivan.
Or how 'bout a Hyundai Entourage van with a Mini Cooper convertible, back to back at the auto show?
Beat that.
-juice
I tried a CX7 and while it was not bad, I felt it made way too many compromises for me. It's tiny inside, for starters.
I may look at a CX9, still.
-juice
Lot's of time to see what's coming down the pike..the RDX is a new model for Acura so let's let it sort out a bit. The new HL is coming this summer to a dealer near you so that may be an interest also (although I'd say, without seeing it in the "real' yet, I don't like the added size).
The RDX was the only one that did 0-60 in 6.8 sec. All other mid-size SUVs did 7.5 to 8.5 sec.
So my search parameters were, mid-size, sporty performance, true stability control, auto, and high reliability.
I had also tested the RAV-4, but its stability control was disappointing.
The manuals are in the 5s.
The XT Cross Sports model has VDC, which is true stability control.
Any how, it's not nearly as luxurious as the RD-X, so never mind, congrats and enjoy your new Acura! :shades:
-juice
Feel free to add your own to the growing list.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Are the ones after that every 7,000 miles or every 3,700 miles?
With synthetic oil, I would think that even 7,500 Mi is too often. BMW's synthetic oil change interval is 15,000 Mi.
If the dealer suggests otherwise, then they are trying to perform un-needed service and raid your wallet. Stick with the maintenance description in the owner's manual and use the MID oil life indicator. If the RDX really needs a change at 3750 miles, the indicator will tell you.
Typically, people are seeing the oil life hit 0% at between 5000-9000 miles, depending on their driving style and driving conditions. I am on track for a first oil change at 8000-9000 miles if I extrapolate from the current oil life remaining.
-juice
Are any of you carrying 2 bicycles inside the RDX? Do they fit without having to pile the bikes on top of each other? Removing the front wheel is OK. I was thinking of mounting them like this (photo of an MDX): http://www.oaklandacura.com/images/mdx/MDX_InsideBikeForkAtch.jpg
In order to fit a bicycle in this way, the cargo area needs to be at least 34" tall and 58" long. What is the size of the RDX cargo area? Thanks.
61 inches to the rear seat bottom with the rear seat folded down
68 inches to the back of front seats
42 inches wide (narrowest dimension)
34 inches high
I'd recommend taking your bikes to the dealership to verify. I always love to see people bring golf bags or car seats to dealerships to see if they fit. Why not bikes? :shades:
For general use, my measurements for the X3 came out better than those for the RDX and CX-7. But when it comes to something specific, like mountain bikes, not all measurements should be weighed equally.
In the RDX's favor, it has the most flat load floor of the three. Which means the height of the ceiling is more consistent once you get in past the hatch opening (32" according to my measures). As seen in that photo with that MDX, the second row does not fold completely flat and raises the seat of the bike up near the roof.
The hurdle for the RDX, when hauling bikes, is going to be the depth of the cargo area.
-juice
Imagine how delighted the salesman would be if you hauled a couple of those to the showroom to check if they would fit inside! :P
FWIW, I have an X3, and wanted to carry our two hybrid bikes in the cargo area. I bought two BMW mounting kits, installed the hardware in the cargo area (very similar to the MDX mounting in the picture), and found they did not fit. The main problem was the bikes were too long and I could not close the rear hatch.
I mention this because my subjective impression from sitting in an RDX at the Auto Show is that the cargo area is slightly smaller than the X3, so you may have the same problem I did.
I tried the adjustments suggested in the mounting instructions, mostly trying to place the bikes at more of a diagonal, but nothing I tried worked. It may have been possible to get them to fit by removing the handle bars, but I wanted something more convenient. I returned those racks to the dealer and bought a pair of bike holders that mount on the X3's roof rack.
Bruce
You'll get oily stains on the carpeting from the chains, dirt from the tires (even if you remove them), and very likely scratches from mounting the forks on the plastics and carpeting.
Basically the wear and tear on the interior will surely "cost" you more than a hitch.
I was at Dick's Sporting Goods yesterday, they had racks from $100-200. The pricier ones were excellent - tilt out of the way, hold 4 bikes securely without even coming close to touching the vehicle.
You do need a hitch, but again, $200 max from U-Haul, less if you do it yourself. I bet it would be $120.
How much would it cost to reupholster the cargo area? More, I'd guess.
Even a cargo cover will cost you $80, may as well invest that in a rack.
Pics for emphasis.