Acura RDX

johnny98

Considered a flop by who? How are sales doing for other luxury SUVs (in all size ranges)? With the sluggish economy and soaring gasoline prices, few new models are meeting their sales goals this year.

c_hunter

The "RXD" is definitely a flop. The RDX, on the other hand, is selling about 1/2 of projections -- I think the sport/lux CUV market is just not blossoming like expected (the real growth is to come in future years). I am sure they will tweak it for 08 or 09 for sure. Most Acuras get tweaks two years after intro.

bodble2

A V6, a few more luxury amenities, and a softer ride. That's what the RDX needs.

johnny98

If you want a V6, more luxury, and a softer ride, you should get a Lexus RX. Acuras are targeted at people who want a little more sport and a little lower price.

bodble2

Acura must be right on target then....since the RDX is selling so well. :surprise:

(By the way, I said a softer ride, not a soft ride. And adding a couple of useful features -- such as memory seat, power passenger seat, and auto light control -- won't exactly make it an RX-fighter)

ateixeira

The whole market is soft. April was a really bad month for nearly everyone.

Toyota seems to be the sole exception, and even they have a gloomy forecast for the year to come. :sick:

That could mean better deals for buyers, though. :shades:

c_hunter

I wouldn't change the ride/handling at all, I think it's just about an ideal balance as-is. Slightly softer than BMW, but still firm enough to stay composed and handle well.

They could improve the seat bolstering though -- I could use more lateral support in corners.

wwest

But then the RX doesn't have an adequate AWD system. Certainly NOTHING even close to the RDX.

ateixeira

The RX' success is a bit of a mystery to me...it doesn't drive particularly well, and utility is limited by its relatively small size.

I guess a lot people just want to be pampered in luxury and aren't really driving enthusiasts, and it hit a sweet spot for them.

I don't see Acura chasing that kind of target at all. Buick seems most likely, and even Hyundai with the Veracruz (even though both are bigger).

Acura has the "Precision Crafted Performance" heritage. I don't see them suddenly going soft.

bodble2

"I guess a lot people just want to be pampered in luxury and aren't really driving enthusiasts, and it hit a sweet spot for them."

There are a lot of driving enthusiasts, but most of those, I suspect, do not look to an SUV to feed their enthusiasm. If utility is a requirement, most of those enthusiasts would probably consider a sports wagon first. That's why I think the RDX would appeal to a broader audience if Acura would just soften it up a touch.

Despite their "Precision Crafted Performance" slogan, I never found Acura to follow a hardcore performance philosophy. The S2000 and NSX notwithstanding, I don't think they can claim to be a "performance" brand with the absence of RWD and V8 in their lineup. Nothing wrong with that -- they are just following Honda's corporate mandate of appealing to the greatest common denominator.

johnny98

I think Acura is targeting younger buyers than Lexus. Lexus is making plusher, more expensive vehicles with more bland styling. Acuras give you more technology and performance for your money. Around here, only the smallest Lexus (IS model) has any popularity with younger buyers and that one is designed more like an Acura. The Lexus RX is more popular with upscale suburban moms and grandparents who need use the space to haul kids/grandkids toys around and super-sized groceries home from Costco.

Personally, I strongly prefer the sporty handling of the RDX. I even jacked up my tire pressure a few PSI (at the recommendation of the Acura salesman). I want a car that can hold its line on twisty mountain roads.

Sure, the RDX is not designed for everyone. They probably thought about that when they chose the edgy styling. I don't care if they don't sell 100,000 units/year. I only want to buy 1.

If you want something a little softer and don't want a Lexus, check out the Acura MDX or Honda CRV.

ateixeira

Yep, I think they would direct that buyer towards an MDX.

fredact

Any golfers out there?

Can you fit 2 sets of clubs in the back with the back seat still up?

Can you also include 2 pull carts?

Can you fit 3 or 4 sets in there, without the pull carts, with the back seat up?

bodble2

"If you want something a little softer and don't want a Lexus, check out the Acura MDX or Honda CRV."

The former is too big, and the latter is too plain and underpowered.

I'm in my mid-40's. Now, I have no idea if I'm part of the demographic that Acura is targeting with the RDX. But for me, the vehicle that the RDX is pushing me towards is the X3. My younger brother test drove the RDX last year. While he didn't complained about the ride, he crossed it off his list because, in his view, it just didn't have the luxury features and amenities to justify the price. (He had no complaints about the hi-tech features). I just think Acura would do better if they broadened the appeal of the RDX. And so far, the sales numbers seem to bear out my opinion on that.

wwest

" I guess a lot (of) people just want to be pampered in luxury and aren't really driving enthusiasts......."

Or:

By the time you can afford to buy a Lexus you can park a well used Sunbeam Alpine, Mazda Miata or maybe even a 2001 Porsche 911/996 C4 alongside it in the garage to satisfy your driving enthusiast's "side".

Most of us are quite happy to spend maybe a few minutes a month (on the average) as "driving enthusiasts" and an SUV, ANY SUV, will NEVER fit that need.

c_hunter

The ride of the X3 is quite similar to the RDX, in fact the sport package on the X3 rides stiffer. I wouldn't get pushed to the X3 for the ride if you think the RDX is firm! I briefly looked at the X3 because it's acknowledged to be the target of the RDX, but the BMW was a horrible value -- it would cost at least $10K more to be comparable in features. I didn't see any redeeming aspect of the X3 that justified the extra $10K, not even close. And considering that the RDX sells for invoice now, the difference is even more considerable. In terms of overall value, the X3 stinks in my opinion. You have to want a BMW to make it worth the trouble.

As far as price goes, the RDX MSRP was less than my previous car and it is better equipped. Knock off $3K to get to invoice pricing, and the RDX ends up being a bargain to me.

johnny98

Some people are willing to pay a big premium for the BMW name and hype. If you're the practical type, Consumer Reports does not recommend BMW because of their reliability.

bodble2

I wouldn't get the sport package on the X3. BMW seems to have mastered the ride/handling compromise better than anyone else. While I agree that the RDX is "better value", you do get features on the X3 that's not available at any price on the RDX -- memory driver seat, power passenger seat, adaptive headlights, automatic light control, 6-speed auto or manual, V6, better leather, real wood, more color choices, etc. -- so it's not like you're spending extra cash just for the BMW name. Styling is always subjective, but, IMO, the X3 has a clean, uncluttered, lithe look to it, whereas the RDX looks chunky and heavy, and somewhat overstyled (ie. front end). And if you lease, the cost differential narrows significantly too.

kyfdx

V6?

Inline-6..

mjo1

I'm picking up my RDX tomorrow in NYC and driving it back home to PA. What's the break in period for the RDX? I have about a 135 mile ride home.

BTW, Before I made the committment, I priced a fully loaded Honda CRV (which I did NOT like!). It would have cost me more to lease that then it is costing me to lease the RDX. Same terms - no money down, pay only first payment and registration fees. Also, for those of you bashing the RDX, this is my first "luxury" car. It is leagues above anything else I've ever driven in every respect.

c_hunter

600 miles break-in. For your ride home, make an effort to vary speed a bit (which should not be a problem on that route with all the traffic!). One thing to avoid during break-in is traveling a long distance at a fixed speed/rpm.

Congrats!

bodble2

Yeah, thanks. That's what I meant.

mjo1

Great! Thank you!! I'm looking forward to it.

varmint

"BMW seems to have mastered the ride/handling compromise better than anyone else."

If we were talking about one of their sedans or coupes, I'd agree. But there's nothing special about the X3 (or X5 for that matter) when it comes to the balance of ride and handling.

I do agree that the nose on the RDX is too fussy. The concept had a nice solid look. The production model looks like a kid tacked on an after market body kit. It's still a nice vehicle from all other angles. Even the nose isn't truly bad. It just doesn't compare with the concept.

The X3, on the other hand, looks dated and confused. I say dated, because it looks so much like the X5 we've had on the road for the past 7 years. It's also a big pile of confused shapes and lines. Again, the sheet metal isn't offensive. It's just odd.

ateixeira

I agree - the X5 rides very stiffly. Early X3 models did, too, though people keep telling me they softened them up. You used to hear every single expansion joint, and feel them, too, in the first-year X3. Even without the sport package.

So they handled well, sure, but they did not ride well IMO.

bodble2

"The X3, on the other hand, looks dated and confused. I say dated, because it looks so much like the X5 we've had on the road for the past 7 years. It's also a big pile of confused shapes and lines. Again, the sheet metal isn't offensive. It's just odd."

I would have to respectfully disagree with that. I used to think the X3's styling was nothing special, but with the '07 tweaks, and the new X5 more or less using the X3 theme, I now find the X3 to have a very clean and streamlined shape. It, and the new X5, make the old X5 looks dated and bulbous (which, I suppose, is to be expected). The RDX, on the other hand, looks good from the rear. But from most angles, it looks quite bulky and heavy and squat, making it look like it sits too low. It doesn't have an athletic look to it. The front end, as you pointed out, is too busy.

stathis

My RDX has 4.3K and the oil change light came on, with 15% of oil life remaining. I checked the oil and I realized it was a bit black, so it is indeed due for change at 4K. Perhaps because it is the first oil service(?)
The max/min levels are not clearly marked on the dipstick. How can you tell where they are?

bodble2

I'm not sure the color of the oil correlate to the life of the oil. On my TL, I have found that the color almost never changes, even right before I go for a change.

The Max/Min levels should be clearly indicated on the dipstick. Usually the whole range between max and min is indicated by a different pattern etched into the stick. Did you look on both sides of the stick blade?

c_hunter

The oil that comes from the factory has molybdenum added, which makes it darker than normal (even when new).

I don't remember how the dipstick was marked, but it was pretty obvious last time I checked.

I'm at 10% at 6700 miles, on target for the first oil change at 7300-7500 miles.

stathis

Wow! That's a huge difference! 6,700 vs 4,400 Miles. I guess it's the stop n'go traffic (and lower MPG) that necesitates the earlier oil change(?)

The dipstick has no "max-min" marked, but I guess it's those two kinks on the lower part of it that are the bounds?? I also checked the manual and there is no info there as well. It seems they do not want you to change it yourself?

ychen

My RDX had 4.5K when the oil change light came on, with 15% of oil life remaining. Then 5% at 5.1K. I called the service and was told to have the oil change between 5 - 15%. I got it done last Sunday at the dealer.
The first one is free.

Yes, you can change the oil yourself. The manual tells you how to reset the light.

extech2

I'm asking you because you seem to have the most knowledge about the RDX. Can you please look in the owners' manual and tell us what are the service intervals for valve adjustment? Another thing, are they the screw type adjusters or shims like most motorcycles?

c_hunter

This is all I can tell you -- from the maintenance minder notes:

"Adjust the valves during services A, B, 1, 2, or 3 only if they are noisy."

All of the Hondas I have owned have had screw-type valve lash adjusters.

extech2

"If they are noisy..."
If the valve clearance is too much they might make a noise, but it all depends on who does the listening. In a loud garage the tech probably won't hear it anyway. On the other hand, if the clearance is too tight, there won't be any noise, only a burned exhaust valve and an upcoming valve job. Very interesting, indeed. Thanks for the reply.

dexterhaven

I have been to three Acura dealerships in the northeast within the last month. Each of the salesmen have told me that the SUV/CUV is selling well. I politely tell them not to urinate on my boots and tell me that it is raining. Since I am looking to make a RDX purchase I look to see if there are any RDXs on the road. On average I see a one RDX per month (that is a very liberal estimate) and I do a lot of highway driving between two states. I tell these salesmen that I see plenty of Muranos, RAV4s the NEW CRVs as well as the Toyota FJ7s on the road. They respond that these SUVs are in a different price category. I then ask them to explain about all the other small high end SUVs from: BMWs, Lexus and Mercedes...there are plenty of those on the road as well. They only thing left that the salesmen have to say (probably from their Acura/RDX play book) is that they are steadily growing the market. Didn't BMW do that already? Does anyone perceive that the RDX is selling well?

british_rover

I see a couple of them a day and not always the same ones either. The RDX has been on the market less then a year so they haven't had a chance to sell too many yet.

The acura dealer nearby my dealership has been doing pretty well with them. A buddy of mine works there and they have been meeting or exceeding their objectives almost every month.

johnny98

BusinessWeek magazine expects the RDX to outsell the BMW X3 this year:
http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/may2007/bw20070522_043879.htm

rbleland

In Canada, for the Jan to April 07 sales period, the RDX outsold the X3 by a substantial margin (over 50% more).

c_hunter

The RDX is selling at about 50-60% of Acura's projection thus far. That will still amount to 20-23,000 for the 07 model run, which is not bad. Just not the 40,000 they projected. For what it's worth, the entire sport and sport/lux CUV market has yet to really explode. Even the RDX's competitors are lukewarm right now. Time will tell if the market takes off like projected.

Whatever the case, you can get a great deal on the RDX right now -- invoice to $500 under invoice typically.

dexterhaven

Dear All: Thanks for all your timely comments and advice. Are selling percentages like 40- 60% common in industry? Let us not forget that when this SUV/CUV first came on the market it only sold at list price and some people actually thought it was selling well(although not many who participate in this forum). This SUV/CUV has been on the market for 8 - 9 months. In order to meet expecations does any one forsee any deep discounts for the RDX, other than the ones at the end of year? I am not aware of any dealership incentives at this point. At one point I was trying to convince myself that I do not see a lot of RDXs because I live 30 minutes from my nearest Acura dealer. However, I see plenty of NEW MDXs (I realize that is a different market of customers). British_rover, I am curious as to how close you live to an Acura dealer? C_hunter people are getting $500 below invoice?

british_rover

I am about 30 minutes from the closest acura dealers as well. My dealership is about 5 minutes away from Acura but I know the differance between a plated vehicle and a dealer vehicle. The dental office a mile from my house has two RDXs in the parking lot.

johnny98

IMHO "expectations" are irrelevant to the consumer. If you like the car and the price, then it is a good choice for you. Who cares what anyone else thinks? Besides, do you really want a cookie cutter car that is exactly the same as what everyone else is driving?

Regarding price, look in the "prices paid" thread to see what people are really paying in various parts of the country. This data looks pretty accurate to me.

wwest

To me, the SH-AWD system seems to be "the answer" insofar as a more than adequate AWD system is concerned, especially starting with a FWD driveline, crosswise engine, base.

But I can't help but wonder if in the marketing of SH-AWD, very well done marketing IMMHO, they haven't inadvertently educated the public at large regarding the short-comings, even wintertime adverse roadbed harzards, of most "pretend" AWD systems currently in the SUV marketplace, most especially those derived from a FWD "base".

But the bad news for Acura is the "good" marketing of SH-AWD has also shown it to be something new and "strange". Strange to a public which in general doesn't know....about AWD.

stathis

I just got a service flyer from the local dealer in Los Angeles. I was shocked!
Examples:
30K service $530 (* RDX higher)
Oil service $90

YIKES!! just as expensive as BMW...AND in shorter intervals!...

kyfdx

YIKES!! just as expensive as BMW...AND in shorter intervals!...

Ummm.. The cost for those services on a BMW is $ZERO.

wwest

An old story.

Every time the machine tool salesman went out into the field he always came home with his hat somehow lost or damaged. So, every expense report included a hat replacement cost.

After a few dozen hats the company accountant issued an edict: "no more personal clothing re-embursements.

When he received the salesman's next expense report it had a note at the bottom...

"find the hat".

bodble2

I don't get it.

stever

Pay in the showroom or pay in the service area.

Either way, you're gonna pay. :shades:

The RDX is typically compared to the X3.

MSRP on the RDX runs from $32,995 - $36,495.

MSRP on the X3 is $38,000.

I didn't drill down to actual True Market Value prices, and the True Cost to Own would be another good benchmark to look at.

british_rover

And a loaded X3 will cost well into the 40k range if you get all the options.

Once you go out of warranty on the BMW the oil changes will be much, much more then 80 bucks a pop. That 6 cylinder in the X3 probably takes a minimum of 7 quarts synthetic oil at 7-8 bucks a quart. So figure 50-60 bucks just for the oil not including labor and the oil filter.

kyfdx

When you pick up your X3 from the service department, they hand you the keys and you go home...

When you pick up your RDX, you get out your wallet.

Everyone tries to make this sound inconsequential, but my wife has been driving BMWs for 3.5 years and the only thing we've paid for are tires.

I'm not trying to compare total costs on any specific models... just pointing out that BMW service costs are a heck of a lot lower than every other vehicle. For most people, they will be ZERO for the first four years.

Even a Honda will set you back around $400/yr.

regards,
kyfdx
(not the host here)