If it's designed to work like the sportshift in the TL, then there is virtually no way you could screw up and blow the tranny. If you try to downshift when the revs are too high, it won't respond to your command until the revs have dropped sufficiently.
My dealer has about 7-8 on the lot, but all non-tech package. My salesman said the tech model has a waiting list. I can't get a carbon gray model until mid-october.
The paddle shifters respond very quickly. I found them a little distracting on a test drive, but there's so much else going on in the cabin, it's not suprising They would be fun once you got used to them!
I'll be the first to write about the RDX being short on utility, but I didn't think the seat fold design was a big issue. Tilting the seat cushion up may reduce the cargo depth a bit, but it gets the cushion completely out of the way of the seat back. That allows it to lay completely flat compared with the cargo floor.
I compared the X3 and CX-7 with the RDX and found that the RDX was the flattest of the three.
I haven't compared it directly with the Highlander or RX, but even in photos it looks like the RDX is the most level of the three cargo floors.
Here's my benchmark -- 05 Subaru Outback (my current vehicle):
(image from cars101.com)
Hit the button on each seat back and it folds totally flat in one step, and preserves the rear footwells too. No need to remove the headrests. It makes for one large platform.
Does anybody know if the rear headrests need to be removed when folding the rear seat in the RDX? I made a bunch of measurements when I went on a test drive, but the sales guy actually folded the seats while I was looking under the hood, so I missed that part. Don't recall seeing any decapitated headrests floating around anywhere though...
The newest Subaru's setup looks closest to ideal. Extra points for (like RDX) less intrusion from suspension struts from the sides, and a flat floor till you reach the end top of the back seat.
Fitting lots of flat stuff, (or to sleep in) and for lack of stereo blocking by the cushion, I'll take the Subie or Lexus/Toyota layout. Of course, there are other considerations about the benefits of each vehicle. I have wishful thinking there is room for improvement in the design of the Acura and CX7...
Perhaps in the future they too could get a split back seat that hinges into the floor above that SH-AWD. I think Subaru and Lexus/Toyota recognize that designing a car people really like isn't always about marketing all-out performance against a single direct competitor, but in the many details making the car really likable on a daily basis. Acura is usually fairly good at it, but being a new vehicle, in this case perhaps they were really focused on "beating" the X3 design initially.
Here's a better shot of my own Outback, with a board for reference:
You can see a very slight angle to the folded seatback, which goes away when it's loaded and the seat cushions compress a little (as it did when I carried several boxes of hardwood flooring a couple weeks ago).
I wouldn't normally harp on one feature, but I think this is the way it should have been done on the RDX. The CR-V's setup makes sense for that vehicle and the way the seats are laid out and offer recline. On the RDX, they should have gone with a one step fold-flat design like Subaru. The two-step fold is a bit clumsy and eats up usable space.
My Outback folds flatter with the rear seat bottom flipped up. :-) But I usually don't use it like that, and the seats don't compress much if I leave the bottom unflipped.
Either way, you have the "tender" seat back sticking up there ready to grab ski or snowboard edges. If your 2x4 slides forward, it's going to ding the fabric or leather. Which takes us right back to the RDX - it looks amenable to a piece of carpet or something rigid to keep the projectiles from sliding to the dash or seat backs:
You know, if they just left a gap between the rear seats and the floor, we could get the long slidy things in without worrying about how well the seats fold.
I'm not seeing this flatness. That first Outback is no more flat than the MDX I'm driving now or the 1999 CR-V I had before it.
I agree that the folding mechanism is more simple. And the dimension labeled "H" in C-Hunter's image (link below) is greater. I actually compared the RDX, X3, and CX-7 with a tape measure and despite all of them using essentially the same method, the RDX was the shortest. On the other hand, the RDX has the flattest cargo floor (barely any incline).
I just tried to take some photos of my Outback in various configurations; turns out that it's quite difficult to photograph the flatness or slope in the back. You did well Craig!
Hopefully someone will find some more RDX interior shots to look at.
My RX folds pretty darn flat, regardless of how it appears in the photos. No "slope" to it at all; perhaps mine's more "broken in". When the rear seatback folds, the bottom cushion pivots down. Perhaps it's the angle the photos were taken that makes it appear there is a slope.
The thick top edge of the back of the seat effectively keeps flat things from sliding too far; you don't need a folded bottom seat cushion there. If I need more, then I put something there, and use the tie downs I keep in the hidden storage, and/or towels or pillows or moving blankets.
Yeah, photographs are often deceptive. As someone mentioned above, the trick is to look at the surrounding objects. I'm pretty good at "reading" photos, but that's only because I've studied photography and rendering. Craig's shot with the plank does a good job of illustrating how much of a rise there is for the seatback.
I don't necessarily think that flatness is the most important quality a cargo area can have, but, based on what I'm seeing in these pics and first-hand at the auto show, the RDX has it all over these others.
Either way, you have the "tender" seat back sticking up there ready to grab ski or snowboard edges.
Actually, the backs of the Outback front seats are hard plastic now so they are pretty tough. And it even looks good too! I think I see a similar design on the back of the RDX seats.
To be fair, I went back and physically inspected; when I removed the blanket and towels I keep to protect the carpet on the folded seatbacks and cargo area, I realized I keep one of the towels over a depression under the carpet where the seats hinge, so the RX isn't really flat there. Likely most cars have something like this; usually it's even more pronounced in most other models with folding seats.
What I was getting at is, if it's flat enough to comfortably sleep on (with some padding) or fit lumber or skis and like items, flatness just isn't the most useful measure of utility. My point was regarding folding seatbacks in relation to the load floor, it might be more useful to gauge dimensions, finish, durability, ease of use, and versatility (and if the folded seats block storage and muffle the speakers).
I do think some of the photos are potentially misleading -- for instance, you can see a slight angle in mine, but I had it loaded up with flooring a couple weeks ago and it laid totally flat. When transporting $1K of hardwood, I was pretty damn careful about the whole setup, so I appreciated the flat platform and it stuck in my head. (of course now the hardwood is stacked up in our foyer waiting for me to install!)
Speaking of which, I can confirm Varmint's note about the RDX's load floor length being shorter. It's about 7" shorter than my Outback, which would be an issue for skis -- I like taking 2-3 pair of skis with me to the hill in the car, and the wet ones come back on the roof rack. In the Outback they can stretch front to back no problem. I would have to put the skis diagonally across the back of the RDX, which of course will hamper other cargo capacity. In this aspect, the extra cargo platform in the CR-V looks like it would be really useful as long as I can still sit on the back of the car to put on ski pants and ski boots. I am toying with the idea of building a similar platform for the Outback now...
Good to hear about the hard plastic seat backs and the RDX ones look tough enough in the photos. My wife skis ~170s and those wind up on the diagonal in my wagon. That saves my tender seat backs, but I have a ding or two in the vinyl on the rear door from the tips - snowboards fit so much better. :shades: I did 2600 miles driving to the ski hill last winter so I don't like sticking our skis/boards up top exposed to the grit.
Glad to hear I'm not the only one racking up the ski miles. I think I did about 5200 miles last year for about 22-24 ski days. I'm shooting for 30 days this year. Sadly, with gas prices the way they are, gas will be the biggest expense by far.
If your'e lucky, snow is what you find in the mountains to snowboard upon ... if you're not so lucky, it finds you when you have no chains, no gloves and are driving on a set of bald tires. :shades:
Snow is to us from LA, something to put the skis or snowboards in the car and go visit in the mountains. Hopefully, they measure it in feet, but other communities across the country come to a stop that measure it in inches. Some people blame their car accidents on it, then it just disappears. Sounds enigmatic, doesn't it?
Then, we go back home to the dry deserts of LA. Hey, that was kinda nice, wasn't it?
I just saw this week's MotorWeek on PBS, and they had a segment on the RDX. It's worth watching if you get a chance; while I don't usually go for their narrative style, there is a lot of good video (including a shot showing the rear seats being folded, which answers my questions about the headrests -- they stay attached). They got 21mpg overall on the road (not including track time).
Is this the Acura NAV system? I suspect it's just an aftermarket NAV (without the real-time traffic and other features). Better check on that if you're serious about buying.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if dealers were starting to cut below MSRP. The RDX is a good vehicle, but it's not the sort of car that can command full sticker.
We got a $1000 off sticker, but had no trade-in. A fully loaded CX-7 would have run about the same price. For what its worth, we think the RDX is head-and-shoulders above the CX-7.
Well I guess in my opinion, when spending over $30K for a vehicle, 10-11% difference ($3K) is "about the same" . I realize to some people that might be a big difference. After driving Mazdas since 1996 (note my user name), we were ready to make a switch. Only time will tell if the extra $3K for the luxury and quality was worth it.
It seems you are enjoying your CX-7. I hope you are not beset with some of the initial problems that some of the other owners are experiencing. Mazda is a great brand. Both my 626 and Millenia have and continue to serve us well.
For all the gadgets the RDX have, does it have auto tilt-down mirrors for reversing and keyless start system? I know the CX-7 has the keyless start system.
If you complain about price, make sure it includes everything that constitutes the price. Would you make a point about how eating at McDonalds is better than a fine dining restaurant because it is so much cheaper (and ignore every other bit of info). I hope not.
Again, you are missing the point and mistakenly transferring opinions I made known earlier into a new unrelated discussion. If you are going to put words into my mouth (complaint, etc.) I will gladly return the rudeness in kind.
Speaking of rudeness, you are articulate enough to know that using "McDonald's" and "fine dining" as a metaphor is incendiary at best. It's also quite an exaggeration.
I specifically excluded (not ignored) the quality issues because the conversation was about the magnitude of the price difference and not the reasons behind it. Unless you dispute that there is an 11% cost difference between the two cars, you are coloring outside the lines here.
Frankly, the stance that we can compare Acuras to higher-end vehicles but no lower-end vehicles may ever be compared to an Acura is getting tiring and comes off as arrogant. When Lexus, Infiniti, and Acura all came out, they were gunning for the Germans, but came in at a lower price point. These days, it's perfectly okay to say "the IS350 is just as good as a 330i, but for $3000 less." The distinctions between the Lexus and BMW in this case are the same kinds of differences between the Mazda and the Acura, yet my experience with the Lexus owners makes them seem secure enough with their brand to not interject every single time someone compares them to something else. What's puzzling to me is that why you, someone who doesn't appear to work for Acura and who has admitted they're not even in the market for this class of vehicle, is so insecure about it.
A smooth, quiet ride is important to me - a ride in which every lump and dip in the pavement is not translated into jouncing under my behind. In comparing the RDX and the base Infiniti FX35, which do you feel has the smoother ride? By smoother ride, I mean less rigid and stiff; less likely to produce jouncing and hammering while driving over uneven pavement. Any owners own both of these vehicles care to chime in, or people who are cross-shopping both?
I've test driven both, the FX three years ago and the RDX just recently. With that in mind the RDX, I felt, was a smoother ride. I bet the FX's huge low profile tires has something to do with the difference.
More often than not, I'm seeing RDX compared to lesser models (excuse another "metaphor" you may not like) than models at the other side. But that isn't an issue, people should do what they feel like.
That said, continuing to talk about premium without considering WHY a car might carry a premium is not logical at all, simply trying to make a point that doesn't exist.
During my brief test drive of the RDX, I found it had a rather rigid and stiff ride. So much so that I would be a tad concern if I had to drive on broken road surface for any length of time. I've never driven a FX35 so I can't offer a comparison there. However, compared to the RDX, my TL, which is not exactly known for a plush ride, seems cushy!
I would be a tad more careful in recommending the Lexus RX series. Not only does the Lexus automatic climate control have a seriously flawed design but the AWD RX series remains primarily FWD. In the instant case it uses brake application to re-apportion torque to the rear wheels and uses a VC to apportion torque, 25% max., to the rear for extended periods of front wheel slippage.
I have a 2001 AWD RX300 which has 1.5" wheel spacers all around so snow chains can be fitted to the rear should I get "caught out" in adverse roadbed conditions.
Our 1994 AWD Ford Aerostar remains my favored transport for "intentionally" driving into an area of adverse roadbed conditions, snow skiing.
Comments
I compared the X3 and CX-7 with the RDX and found that the RDX was the flattest of the three.
I haven't compared it directly with the Highlander or RX, but even in photos it looks like the RDX is the most level of the three cargo floors.
Highlander
RX350
RDX
-juice
(image from cars101.com)
Hit the button on each seat back and it folds totally flat in one step, and preserves the rear footwells too. No need to remove the headrests. It makes for one large platform.
Does anybody know if the rear headrests need to be removed when folding the rear seat in the RDX? I made a bunch of measurements when I went on a test drive, but the sales guy actually folded the seats while I was looking under the hood, so I missed that part. Don't recall seeing any decapitated headrests floating around anywhere though...
I think there's a lip on the top edge of the seat that makes the angle look different.
-juice
Fitting lots of flat stuff, (or to sleep in) and for lack of stereo blocking by the cushion, I'll take the Subie or Lexus/Toyota layout. Of course, there are other considerations about the benefits of each vehicle. I have wishful thinking there is room for improvement in the design of the Acura and CX7...
Perhaps in the future they too could get a split back seat that hinges into the floor above that SH-AWD. I think Subaru and Lexus/Toyota recognize that designing a car people really like isn't always about marketing all-out performance against a single direct competitor, but in the many details making the car really likable on a daily basis. Acura is usually fairly good at it, but being a new vehicle, in this case perhaps they were really focused on "beating" the X3 design initially.
You can see a very slight angle to the folded seatback, which goes away when it's loaded and the seat cushions compress a little (as it did when I carried several boxes of hardwood flooring a couple weeks ago).
I wouldn't normally harp on one feature, but I think this is the way it should have been done on the RDX. The CR-V's setup makes sense for that vehicle and the way the seats are laid out and offer recline. On the RDX, they should have gone with a one step fold-flat design like Subaru. The two-step fold is a bit clumsy and eats up usable space.
Either way, you have the "tender" seat back sticking up there ready to grab ski or snowboard edges. If your 2x4 slides forward, it's going to ding the fabric or leather. Which takes us right back to the RDX - it looks amenable to a piece of carpet or something rigid to keep the projectiles from sliding to the dash or seat backs:
You know, if they just left a gap between the rear seats and the floor, we could get the long slidy things in without worrying about how well the seats fold.
Good question. I just used Google images to find what I was looking for. Didn't pay attention to article where it was used.
That said, the RX pictured below it is not a hybrid and has pretty much the same degree of tilt.
I agree that the folding mechanism is more simple. And the dimension labeled "H" in C-Hunter's image (link below) is greater. I actually compared the RDX, X3, and CX-7 with a tape measure and despite all of them using essentially the same method, the RDX was the shortest. On the other hand, the RDX has the flattest cargo floor (barely any incline).
c_hunter, "Acura RDX" #2021, 21 Sep 2006 12:19 pm
But the method with the seat cushion lifted up appears much flatter in both the RDX and the 2nd Outback (Steve's).
Hopefully someone will find some more RDX interior shots to look at.
The thick top edge of the back of the seat effectively keeps flat things from sliding too far; you don't need a folded bottom seat cushion there. If I need more, then I put something there, and use the tie downs I keep in the hidden storage, and/or towels or pillows or moving blankets.
I don't necessarily think that flatness is the most important quality a cargo area can have, but, based on what I'm seeing in these pics and first-hand at the auto show, the RDX has it all over these others.
Actually, the backs of the Outback front seats are hard plastic now so they are pretty tough. And it even looks good too! I think I see a similar design on the back of the RDX seats.
What I was getting at is, if it's flat enough to comfortably sleep on (with some padding) or fit lumber or skis and like items, flatness just isn't the most useful measure of utility. My point was regarding folding seatbacks in relation to the load floor, it might be more useful to gauge dimensions, finish, durability, ease of use, and versatility (and if the folded seats block storage and muffle the speakers).
Speaking of which, I can confirm Varmint's note about the RDX's load floor length being shorter. It's about 7" shorter than my Outback, which would be an issue for skis -- I like taking 2-3 pair of skis with me to the hill in the car, and the wet ones come back on the roof rack. In the Outback they can stretch front to back no problem. I would have to put the skis diagonally across the back of the RDX, which of course will hamper other cargo capacity. In this aspect, the extra cargo platform in the CR-V looks like it would be really useful as long as I can still sit on the back of the car to put on ski pants and ski boots. I am toying with the idea of building a similar platform for the Outback now...
Then, we go back home to the dry deserts of LA. Hey, that was kinda nice, wasn't it?
Craig
-juice
I am living in Fairfax, virginia. I just got a quote from an Acura dealer.
The Navigation is installed by dealer.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if dealers were starting to cut below MSRP. The RDX is a good vehicle, but it's not the sort of car that can command full sticker.
2021 Toyota Venza Limited Hybrid, 2022 Ram 2500 Laramie 6.4 Hemi, 2007 Mazda MX-5 Miata PRHT
RDX with NAV is $37165.
CX-7 GT AWD with Tech Package (with NAV) and a few options to add some Acura-esque content is $33450.
Quality, luxury, and market arguments aside, there is about an 11% difference there.
It seems you are enjoying your CX-7. I hope you are not beset with some of the initial problems that some of the other owners are experiencing. Mazda is a great brand. Both my 626 and Millenia have and continue to serve us well.
No keyless start.
But that 11% difference, and then some, actually goes in the areas you chose to ignore.
Speaking of rudeness, you are articulate enough to know that using "McDonald's" and "fine dining" as a metaphor is incendiary at best. It's also quite an exaggeration.
I specifically excluded (not ignored) the quality issues because the conversation was about the magnitude of the price difference and not the reasons behind it. Unless you dispute that there is an 11% cost difference between the two cars, you are coloring outside the lines here.
Frankly, the stance that we can compare Acuras to higher-end vehicles but no lower-end vehicles may ever be compared to an Acura is getting tiring and comes off as arrogant. When Lexus, Infiniti, and Acura all came out, they were gunning for the Germans, but came in at a lower price point. These days, it's perfectly okay to say "the IS350 is just as good as a 330i, but for $3000 less." The distinctions between the Lexus and BMW in this case are the same kinds of differences between the Mazda and the Acura, yet my experience with the Lexus owners makes them seem secure enough with their brand to not interject every single time someone compares them to something else. What's puzzling to me is that why you, someone who doesn't appear to work for Acura and who has admitted they're not even in the market for this class of vehicle, is so insecure about it.
That said, continuing to talk about premium without considering WHY a car might carry a premium is not logical at all, simply trying to make a point that doesn't exist.
Something like a base RX350 would be a better option for you - very comfortable, smooth, etc.
primarily FWD. In the instant case it uses brake application to re-apportion torque to the rear wheels and uses a VC to apportion torque, 25% max., to the rear for extended periods of front wheel slippage.
I have a 2001 AWD RX300 which has 1.5" wheel spacers all around so snow chains can be fitted to the rear should I get "caught out" in adverse roadbed conditions.
Our 1994 AWD Ford Aerostar remains my favored transport for
"intentionally" driving into an area of adverse roadbed conditions, snow skiing.