Acura RDX

dewey · January 2005

"Actually, the RL is based on the same mid-size global car platform that is used for the Accord and TL"

Thanks for the correction, it certainly had me fooled.

dewey · January 2005

" don't think there is anything wrong with platform-sharing."

All depends on execution! Ford Mondeo's platform sharing with Jaguar's x-type has been a disaster! VW's platform sharing in Europe with Skodas and Seats has hurt the more expensive VW models. And based on the lack of stellar results of the Saab9-2x, it looks like Subaru's platform sharing may not be successful in the upcoming 9-7x(shared platform with SUbaru B9 Tribeca).

So it does appear Honda,Toyota and Nissan are among the best in platform sharing. Although IMO I would never spend the extra bucks for a RX/MDX when I can get similar power from a Highlander and Pilot.

kyfdx · January 2005

Yeah.. but a lot of people wouldn't be seen in a Highlander or Pilot, but will jump all over the Lexus/Acura...

But, those are virtual twins... that really isn't platform sharing.. that is badge engineering... Same with I35/Maxima and Camry/ES300..

The Mondeo/X-type was a good example of platform sharing.. Accord/TL is another one..

rihoops · January 2005

Can we get back to talking about the RDX? Try and answer these questions for me people!

1. Engine?

2. Price?

3. On sale when?

varmint · January 2005

If features were the only thing that separated the Accord, TSX, TL, and RL, that might make sense. But there's a whole lot more than new sheetmetal and fancy gizmos. The unibodies are different, the subframes are different, the crush zones are different, etc.

Being built on the same "platform" simply means that they can be assembled using pretty much the same kinds of machines on a line about the same size.

varmint · January 2005

What we KNOW about the RDX. Read this.

http://hondanews.com/CatID3000?mid=2005010956031&mime=asc

Everything else is speculation.

Engine = 200+ hp

Price = Estimated between $30-36K

On sales = sometime in 2006

rihoops · January 2005

I already read that, but thanks. I thought it might be 28-32K in price.

raychuang00 · January 2005

Engine = 200+ hp

I think Honda is still trying to decide what engine they will put in the RDX.

I would have loved to see them combine an updated version of the K24 engine using technology from the K20B engine used on the Japanese-market Honda Stream (e.g., direct fuel injection and possible stratified combustion) in an IMA hybrid drivetrain, but Honda could still consider using a small-displacement version of the 3.5-liter V-6 used on the Honda Odyssey minivan, including the use of VCM partial cylinder shutdown to reduce fuel consumption in low-load conditions.

steveaccord · January 2005

Hi,

I actually feel that your estimated price is in the right range.

At the very least I expect it will start where the new CR-V will stop and probably bridge up to where the MDX starts.

Following hystoric trends we could expect that a CR-V based on a new platfrom would go up 2-3 k top (i.e. from 23-24k for top trim to 26-27K). So I would imagine that if Acura would place staggered trims the base one (nicely equipped anyhow) would start exactly at 28-29K.

No science involved here but I think the prediction is reasonable based on the Honda/Acura pricing practices and the indication that the R-DX would start below MDX and target younger people that do not want to shell the 37K for the larger sibling (for sure I would not get excited if the R-DX to MDX pricing difference were to shrink to a mere 4k!).

Truly,

Steve

P.S. although early in the game I'ld like to get started on a wish list for this vehicle. If I remember correctly some of our poster in the RL thread were finally contacted by the Acura people in regard to this area.

So I'll contribute the first item in the accessory list.

1) full integration with iPod (it seems everybody is getting on that wagon but the Honda/Acura names have been not seen in that context in so far! sigh).

I am sure the sound system will be top nothc but I do not care much to listen to satellite or other music I want to listen to mine...period (since I took the time to digitalize my CD collection I will not settle for anything else... so if R-DX does not come out with it I can flatly tell you guys I'll buy an X3).

'iPod uber alles!!!'

jjman · January 2005

I am pretty sure the RDX will have ipod integration since the Ridgeline already has it. Heck by the time it comes out the RDX will probably have the top of the top of the line stereo system that acura can deliver. Maybe 12 disc in-dash super surround sound with 12inch screen! and 13inch subwoofer!! ;-)

dewey · January 2005

"Maybe 12 disc in-dash super surround sound with 12inch screen! and 13inch subwoofer!! ;-) "

And dont forget the buttered popcorn!!

varmint · January 2005

"Following hystoric trends we could expect that a CR-V based on a new platfrom would go up 2-3 k top (i.e. from 23-24k for top trim to 26-27K). So I would imagine that if Acura would place staggered trims the base one (nicely equipped anyhow) would start exactly at 28-29K."

That makes sense assuming Honda/Acura cares about having one vehicle's pricing begin where the other leaves off. But I don't think that's a given.

For example, the Accord stops around 30K with the new hybrid, but the TL starts north of 33K.

Another way to look at it would be to see where the MDX starts and assume the RDX will "leave off" there. It's very likely that the next MDX will start around 37 or 38K.

If we assume the RDX will have the same level of equipment as a TSX with the addition of SH-AWD ($2,000), then MSRP will probably be at least 29K. That's using today's pricing. You can probably assume the TSX is going to get more pricey with inflation and additional equipment. All cars do.

You might be right. But I think there are equally valid reasons why you might be wrong.

tsx24 · January 2005

You are making alot of assumptions. And by the way, the Accord pricing tops out at $32,505, and TL starts at $33,470. So the idea that one car picks up in pricing where the other left off is very real in the Honda/Acura lineup. CRV tops out at $25,565 and MDX starts at $37,270. With that assumption the RDX could go anywhere from $27,500 (like the TSX) to $35,000. If you consider TSX equipment plus SH-AWD then we can shorten the curve to $29,500 to $35,000.

varmint · January 2005

"And by the way, the Accord pricing tops out at $32,505, and TL starts at $33,470."

The only way to push an Accord that high is to go for the hybrid with NAV. The hybrid is a niche vehicle, not a mainstream offering. Without the hybrid, the Accord stops around $29K (even with NAV).

If the line meets line pricing is so very real, how do you explain that the Civic and Accord overlap by about $5K? Or the Element and CR-V which overlap about $2K? Or the $2K gap between the CR-V and Pilot? Better yet, how about the $13K difference between a TL and the new RL?

"If you consider TSX equipment plus SH-AWD then we can shorten the curve to $29,500 to $35,000."

You're right. That's radically different than the $30-36K range I listed.

varmint, "Acura RDX" #157, 22 Jan 2005 11:36 am

There is simply no way that the RDX will be priced the same as a TSX if it includes SH-AWD and similar levels of content. SUVs and cross-overs are always more expensive than the 2wd sedan offerings with similar levels of content and refinement. If the RDX starts at 27K it will do so with an RSX interior, not something like the TSX.

tsx24 · January 2005

Hybrid is not a niche vehicle buddy, it is mainstream. The Accord Hybrid is not only their most luxurious accord, but their best performing, and most economical. Of course it resides at the top of the chain. And when comparing prices of cars, not everything is going to fit perfect. What about the 90k NSX? I mean c'mon, don't be so anal retentive. Check the pricing scales, and see there is a vehicle in each category for each budget. Does it look like a pattern or not?

sport

Civic 13k to 21k

RSX 21k to 24k

TSX 27k to 29k

S2000 33k

NSX 90k

suv

Elemen 17k to 21k

CRV 20k to 25k

Pilot 27k to 34k

MDX 37k to 44k

sedan

Accord 16k to 32k

TL 33k to 35k

RL 49k

ateixeira · January 2005

Acura reps are probably reading this thread and trying to determine where prices should be. ;-)

Saw the RD-X in Detroit and really liked it. Looks smaller than the CR-V, perhaps it's just the way it's styled, but the package looks compact and sporty.

Subtract a few of the gee-whiz features, but I bet the production model looks a lot like this concept.

-juice

robertsmx · January 2005

If Acura offers two models with Nav being the only options like MDX, the base price would be $29K while topping out at $33K for touring model w/NAV. That would make it a parallel model to Pilot, and one up on CR-V (which may top out at $27K w/V6 if offered).

kyfdx · January 2005

you can quote prices of other Honda/Acura models until the cows come home.. Who says that is the way Honda prices it's vehicles?

I think (like it matters) that Honda prices vehicles to a) make money.. b) in response to competitive pressures.

So, the only thing I've heard so far that is directly relevant... is that it will cost substantially more than a CR-V, assuming that it is indeed based on that..

I'm not sure how the price relationship between the Accord and the TL is relevant..

And... I don't think much of the "pattern" argument... It seems you have grouped in such a way to "prove" your theory..

Manufacturers may be cognizant of not cannibalizing their own sales.. but, I think they look more to make each vehicle independently successful.. The development costs are too high for a new vehicle to do otherwise..

regards,

kyfdx

ateixeira · January 2005

http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2132269877&amp- ;idx=57

Lemme know if that works, it's the 57th photos in the album and may require registration.

Here's another:

http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2132269877&amp- ;idx=61

That's pic 61.

I think the rear styling looks best, hopefully they keep the shape of those taillights.

The front looks more like a concept part that won't make production, but hopefully they keep it unique looking.

I also like how it leans forward and doesn't look too big, even though it's not small in dimensions.

-juice

kyfdx · January 2005

I have my own opinion on what the price will be.. I just don't think you can intuit it, by comparing all of the other Honda/Acura prices in the universe...

I think it is driven much more by the competition...

regards,

kyfdx

robertsmx · January 2005

Speculation is all that is there for now. But speaking of substantial price increase over CR-V, it really depends on trims/equipment. CR-V SE is already at $25K, throw in V6, and the price tag would jump to $27K. And I don't expect RT4WD to continue, but VTM-4, which may add another grand. And then some for little extras would logically put RDX at about $29-30K.

Acura TSX could be considered substantially more expensive than Accord EX-L , perhaps the same will be true between these two.

ateixeira · January 2005

Prices will shadow the BMW X3 2.5 yet it'll offer an engine that competes with the X3 3.0 model.

We might, just maybe, see one model peek under $30k, is my guess. They have to leave room for the CR-V to move slightly upmarket.

-juice

kyfdx · January 2005

X3 2.5 runs about $38K equipped like a TSX (assuming RDX will have that level of equipment).. I really doubt the RDX will have BMW-like pricing.. No one else does, other than Mercedes..

The X3 3.0 has 225 hp now, but is slated to get a new engine in '06 that will have 255 hp..

I wouldn't be surprised to see the RDX come in just one variant (ala the TSX), and I predict $31,900 with NAV being the only option ($2K).

If they build it with options available, then I see the base one being $29,900.

regards,

kyfdx

(bad guesser)

bodble2 · January 2005

At this point in time, the Hybrid Accord is a niche vehicle. It will sell in very small numbers, because, mumber-wise, it don't make sense to buy one. You have to drive a gazillion miles to recoup the cost! But it exist for the same reason that the NSX exists -- as a technological show-piece for Honda.

bodble2 · January 2005

Yup, I too think the RDX will undercut the X3 2.5, mainly because once you buy even the most basic of options, the 2.5 becomes very pricey.

varmint · January 2005

"I wouldn't be surprised to see the RDX come in just one variant (ala the TSX), and I predict $31,900 with NAV being the only option ($2K)."

That's pretty much the same idea I'm working with. I don't know where the starting price price will be (exactly), but probably the low 30's. They might offer an RDX and also an RDX Touring, with NAV being an option on either one.

Kinda hoping they offer a 6MT option, but I doubt it.

TSX24 - I like how the Civic and TSX are filed under "sport". Meanwhile the Accord, TL, and RL are "sedans". Coulda sworn there were four doors on the last TSX I saw.

varmint · January 2005

If you compare the TSX and the 3 Series, you'll find that the TSX is short on performance, but right in the thick of things when it comes to content. To make up for the lack of class-leading performance, the TSX is also easy on the wallet.

That's how I expect the RDX and X3 will stack up.

The RDX probably will not match a $36K X3 in at-the-limits performance. But it will match the content, with a price tag several grand lower.

tsx24 · January 2005

TSX24 - I like how the Civic and TSX are filed under "sport". Meanwhile the Accord, TL, and RL are "sedans". Coulda sworn there were four doors on the last TSX I saw.

If you want to separate out the civic sedan/coupe/SI, and put both sedans in the other category it still works out.

bodble2 · January 2005

I expect the RDX to at least match the 2.5 in performance, but likely not the 3.0.

varmint · January 2005

Oh, I've got a feeling that no matter how well the RDX handles and accelerates, reviewers will still complain that it lacks that magical "BMWishness".

jkgreer2 · January 2005

Let's give the engineers at Acura/Honda a "wish list" for the production vehicle. I look forward to purchasing a RDX with:

- at least a 2.4 liter 6 cylinder engine providing at least 240 HP;

- full length sunroof with front portion tilting;

- roof cross-member extending the width of ceiling for structural rigidity;

- SH-AWD standard;

- Options to purchase with or without Nav, but with Bluetooth and 10 speaker DVD-audio system;

- 255 sized tires, Michelin or comparable quality;

- Color choices of Ice/sky blue, dark metallic blue (like TL, not RL), Redondo red, metallic silver, charcoal and black;

- At least a 4 yr warranty on every part, and preferably a 5 yr warranty on SH-AWD; and

- Rear folding "flat" seats to allow disassembled bikes to be carried inside.

Do your best Acura/Honda, if listening.

alsana1 · January 2005

I would be happy if the rd-x handles similar to my '03 Forester XS, while offering the upscale panache and content that is typical of 'acura'. It should, I would hope, be a vast improvement over the 'minivan-like' handling of the present-generation cr-v. If the RD-X is as fun-to-drive as my Subaru, I would be interested. I do not think that the next generation Forester, and I very much look forward to seeing this model come out, will be as 'upscale' as the Acura.

bodble2 · January 2005

"-full length sunroof with front portion tilting;

- roof cross-member extending the width of ceiling for structural rigidity;"

Can you have both? Personally, I can do without the sunroof. Of any description.

255 sized tires would mean an awfully big (diameter) tire/wheel combo unless they go super low-profile. And I always find super low-profile tires on an SUV, or even SAV, kind of...well, silly.

kyfdx · January 2005

Not bad... I think 215-225hp should do it, though..

I'll take a standard sunroof... the big ones are creaky, and make it harder to keep the car cool.

SH-AWD.. a must...

I like the TSX way.. only option is NAV.

Acura already has 4yr warranty, so no problems there...

17" wheels.. with SUV height tires.. similar to the standard tires/wheels on an X3.

Weight.. keep it down.. less than 3800 lbs.. No 4200 lb porkers... I don't want to need 250hp to get the thing moving, then only get 17 MPG.

Oh... I want it to be BMWish.. lol

varmint · January 2005

The current MDX wears a 235/65R17 tread & wheel combo. If you think of the RDX in terms of it being a CR-V cousin, then you should know the CR-V wears 215/65R16's. You'd need a serious engine to get 255's rolling. Not to mention they'd make for a lot of unsprung weight.

I don't blame anyone for wishing about bigger tires, but Acura doesn't follow the bling-bling fashions of today. That's Infiniti's bag.

kyfdx · January 2005

BMW X3 uses 235/55-17 for their standard tire.. that is with 184 hp..

I think that would be a good size for the RD-X..

Still tall enough to look like an SUV, but sporty also..

BTW, that is really close to the same overall height of the new CR-V tires..

steveaccord · January 2005

steveaccord · January 2005

Allright!

It looks like the discussion has taken off!

Going back to the price guessing game.

My stating the 28-29K range (for entry model price) is mostly based on the idea that this will be, in Acura people minds, a brisk seller!

Tipping over 30K opens the game for alternatives on the market, keeping it below makes it a 'quick seller'. My opinion of course, and you can interpret it as "my wife will have it if I can buy the full safety features on the basic model below 30K otherwise she will have the updated CR-V top of the model like she does now! LOL.

Now the tough part 1, 2 or more models?

Well if staggering of prices is going to be in effect for this model than mostly will be the plus/minus NAV. Other arrea for otpions:

engines. So I lean toward multiple offerings.

Now I like a nice car but I Have become a bit of a safety freak!

Let me blame it on my little girl! Anyhow the R-DX should be a 2007 model on sale in 2006.

Given the above, I would definitely expect to avail some of the new AAA (active accident avoidance) systems Honda has already deployed in the Japanese market.

So please add those to my wish list as well as related gadgetry (tire pressure gauge etc).

Well OK may be I am asking too much (for the money)! But let's hope market competition will break it our way!!

Truly,

Steve

bodble2 · January 2005

Tire pressure monitor would be a very likely possibility. Do away with the cumbersome spare, go with run-flats. All cars should be so equipped (and likely will be within the next 5 years).

kyfdx · January 2005

Yuk... Have you ever driven on runflats? Good in theory... crappy in reality..

On my wife's 3-series, the spare is under a panel in the bottom of the trunk.. It is full-size and you wouldn't even know it was there..

And, cumbersome doesn't bother me.. If I get a flat, I'm calling AAA... (call me lazy).

Seriously.. I like the idea of runflats.. but, the ones I have tried.. shewwwwww.

bodble2 · January 2005

"the spare is under a panel in the bottom of the trunk.. It is full-size and you wouldn't even know it was there.."

Still reduces trunk space though.

veryrudedude · January 2005

Here's how Acura should market the RDX:

Release in Spring 2006 as 2007 model.

Acura RDX Base

MSRP: $28,990

w/Navi: $30,790

Engine: K24 2.4L I4 215hp 175ft-lb.

Transmission: 5AT w/sportshift or 6MT

Weight: 3,600lbs.

Acura RDX Type-S

MSRP: $31,990

w/Navi: $33,790

Engine 1: J32 3.2L V6 260hp 245ft-lb.

or

Engine 2: IMA hybrid K24 I4 250hp 225ft-lb.

Transmission: 5AT w/sportshift or 6MT

Weight: 3,800lbs.

kyfdx · January 2005

True.. but, my point is.. with proper packaging it can be done well.. The 3-series is a pretty small car, and yet the trunk is well-shaped and useable.. I don't really see a need to eliminate the spare.. I'd take a doughnut over runflats.

Not like my mother's old Lincoln, that just had the spare flopped up there behind the back seats.. Of course, you could still sneak 4 people into the drive-in back there..

regards,

kyfdx

kyfdx · January 2005

Interesting.. and not directly relevant... but.

Not sure how they could give TSX-like equipment and SH-AWD, and only be $1500 over the TSX... Just from a manufacturer's cost standpoint..

I see something inbetween those two, actually.. The HP number is okay on the first one, but they'll need something with a little more torque to get that weight moving.. And probably the price of your "S" model..

Since it will have SH-AWD, does anyone think the engine will be longitudinal rather than transverse? And, maybe something similar to the V-6 in the current Accord?

regards,

kyfdx

robertsmx · January 2005

Another possibility is 3.2-liter V6, 240 HP @ 5500 rpm / 235 lb.-ft @ 4500 rpm with SH-AWD. VSA, side curtain airbags etc and all the typical Acura frills will be standard. If Acura takes this route, the starting price tag could be about $32K with NAV as the only option. MDX currently covers a price range of $37K to $44K, and that is likely to continue (with a 1-2% increase).

CR-V currently covers a price range of $20-25K. If Honda chooses to add 3.0/V6 and VTM-4, it could top out at $28K (with NAV being an option).

I seriously doubt RDX will carry 2.4/I-4. For a relatively heavy vehicle in Acuras market, using a torquey six cylinder (3.0 or better) with taller gearing would make more sense even if there is similar power at the top end. 2.4, without help from hybrid technology, is not going to get my bet.

bodble2 · January 2005

"I seriously doubt RDX will carry 2.4/I-4. For a relatively heavy vehicle in Acuras market, using a torquey six cylinder (3.0 or better) with taller gearing would make more sense even if there is similar power at the top end. 2.4, without help from hybrid technology, is not going to get my bet."

You may very well be right, but then, that's what they've done with the TSX. Granted, the RDX will be even heavier than the TSX, and also has to power the SH-AWD.

robertsmx · January 2005

3300 lb. of TSX is probably the limit I would like to see with the 2.4. Granted that CRV is even heavier with less torque and power (than TSX version of the 2.4),both vehicles rely on short gearing to maximize performance aspects and as a result, fuel economy isn't as good as it can be.

With either 3.0 or 3.2, Honda may be able to beat the fuel economy while being able to boast about one of the more powerful compact luxury SUVs around.

anythngbutgm · January 2005

Got to compliment you on the lineup. We think alike! Give it the 6-spd. If the X3 can be had with a manual tranny, the Acura should too.

I'll be the first in line if it happens...

veryrudedude · January 2005

I believe the $1500 over the TSX should be justified since by 2007 the TSX will be in its fourth model year and the MDX will be redesigned with increased power. Competition will also have increased power.

Since the RDX will attract the younger crowd, a price tag under $30k for the entry level model is needed to increase sales.

I also don't think Honda should use the 2.4L without the aid of hybrid motors. There is simply not enough torque for such a heavy vehicle. I think a hybrid K24 will be a good compromise between power, torque and fuel economy. But I'd gladly take the J32

varmint · January 2005

Another look at pricing...

A Honda SUV with Accord-like content goes for about $5,000 more. The MDX was released with about the same level of equipment as a 2002 TL. MSRP started about $5,000 more. Now we're looking at an SUV with TSX levels of content, and people are thinking it will only cost $1,500 more?

I think some folks here are going to be in for a rude awakening.

As for the engine, I agree with what has been posted regarding weight as a significant factor. The more weight, the more power required. So let's take a look at weight...

The RDX concept was about 181" long. That's the same as the current CR-V. Though, technically, you could say it's a bit longer as the CR-V's length includes a couple inches of spare tire. Based on pics and reports from the auto show, it seems like the RDX concept was slightly shorter (height, not length) than the CR-V.

A CR-V SE weighs about 3,500 lbs. Even though the RDX may be a wee bit smaller, it is likely to have far more content than the CR-V. Compare a US Accord LX (larger) to a loaded TSX (smaller) and you'll see how content adds to overall weight. Here are a few examples: The NAV option adds about 9 lbs to the MDX. The RES adds another 16. Individually that probably doesn't seem like much, but when you add power seats, a deluxe stereo, fancy climate control, HomeLink...

As many of us already know, the CR-V is not a champ when it comes to isolating road noise. That's a problem not very fitting for an Acura. Fixing it typically means adding sound dampening materials. That'll be at least 50 lbs.

The CR-V's RT4WD system weighs about 110 lbs. I don't know exactly how much SH-AWD weighs, but, given several similarities with VTM-4, most folks are guessing around 220 lbs. Possibly more.

Want larger rims and tires? Add a few pounds.

Now add a V6 under the hood. Don't forget to include beefier parts for the transmission, cooling system, exhaust, etc. For reference, going from an I4 to the V6 in an Accord EX adds 174 lbs.

Now, there are ways that Acura can shave a few pounds. Using the same magnesium transmission case they use for the 6MT TSX could cut 7 lbs. Using an aluminum hood is another weight saver. Of course, both magnesium and aluminum parts are expensive. The more weight they save in this manner, the higher the base price will climb.

And there are a few ways Acura can legitimately cut costs. Simply building the vehicle here in the US helps them avoid import duties. But neither of these factors is going to cut 200 lbs or $2,000.

Anyway, the point is this. The longer the wish list gets, the more the vehicle weighs. That cuts performance. Of course, adding performance back into the picture adds cost.

Acura RDX

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles