Are you a current Michigan-based car shopper? A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/2 for details.
You honestly should not be surprised that people come to forums like Edmunds, TOV, etc, to discuss cars. That's the whole point of the forums. In fact, some people don't even own the particular vehicles of interest but come here to learn more, debate the vehicle, compare, and so on. It's a place to come when we're not driving our vehicles. Some people actually like talking about cars! I think the forums would screech to a halt if everybody shut up....
And the other thing I have noticed is that you repeat this "praise the RDX / damn the dissenters / throw a tantrum" pattern on every RDX forum. Either you feel the need to defend the RDX to no end, or you have some sort of buyer's remorse and only want to hear validation/assurance. Either way, this is an internet car forum, and if you want to toss out a strong opinion, you should be prepared for discussion and alternate opinions. Not everyone is here to agree with you 100%.
would NEVER have allowed the statement in the owners manual that tire chains should only be used on the front wheels, typo (as I suspect) or otherwise.
And I'll chime in here..
1. Less clutter on/at the dash. 2. A manual tranmission. 3. Less agressive, "later", (more turbo lag {??})turbo boost onset, FE mode selectable, okay. 4. Use the planetary gearset in line with the rear drive so rear overdrive can be selectable based on actual speed and roadbed conditions. 5. Correct the "front tire chains only" typo or fix whatever resulted in that statement. 6. Disable ABS except when VSC indicates a need. 7. Abandon the Denso climate control design in favor of Bosch.
Ferrari engineers don't seem to like 50-50 weight split either, a reason they emphasized obtaining a rear weight bias in their FR Ferrari Scag, yet magazines can't stop drooling over the idea of a 50-50 weight balance.
a screaming lease deal on the horizon? i went by a local dealer and they have a lot full. last time i saw that many of 1 model (mdx), a great lease deal followed soon after. jmo.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Wow...nice interior and solid built...I test drove a RDX with the Tech package.
Ride: Good acceleration and passing speed on the highway...but the start from stop was bumppy and there was a werid HISS sound everytime I stepped on the gas. The dealer said it was the TURBO but it was so annoying...
But I really liked the interior...Navigation with voice control was amazing...fun and very interesting...leather was nice and the back seat had quite a leg room. However, the trunk was really heaviy and my wife had a hard time reaching it and closing it...it was one heavy gate...We also tried the new MDX which was much more easier to open and close.
The dealer in Austin (Sterling ACURA) was nice and didn't push too hard for a sell...Pricewise, they were pretty firm...MSRP...maybe a couple of hundred dollars of MSRP...
Overall...it is quite a nice car but the HISS sound (I guess turbo kicking in)and jumppy start cuts some of my points...However the interior and overall design was pleasing...
I'm planning to test drive the BMW X3...which I heard has better handling and MPG...
But for $37,500 plus tax makes it $40,000...would I buy it...NOOOOOOOO, but for a couple of Ks down...maybe...
They actually sell a cooler bag that fits in the RDX center console. Good for taking snacks/beverages on a trip (just make sure the beer is for later!).
I have read all the comments, looked at, read about and drove the RDX. I pick up my Tech package, Carbon/Bronze pearl this afternoon. The dealer dropped $2500 off MSRP, threw in wheel locks and 3 oil changes with some decent finance terms (4.9% for 60 months). We'll see if I'm still excited in 6 months!
Unless you lease.... Pretty comparable price, then.... and once you factor in the included maintenance, the BMW will probably be cheaper..
That's an interesting observation.
Considering that an X3 prices out about 20% higher than an RDX (after typicals discounts from MSRP) and considering that an X3 does NOT have a significantly better predicted residual value, that means that BMW is THROWING money at its lease customers while SQUEEZING its purchase customers.
Anyone have any theories on why BMW pushes leases so hard and provides such big subsidies?
On the flip side, anyone have any theories on why Acura DOESN'T do the same?
I'm not sure why, but it seems to be working for them...
Selling someone a new car every three years might have something to do with it, but I don't pretend to know their business model.
Why doesn't Acura do it? Another guess... Maybe at the lower price point, cash/finance purchase customers are easier to come by, and leasing incentives aren't needed?
I don't mind leasing, if that is necessary to get the best deal.. But, it must be frustrating to the cash buyer to not have the same incentives.
Leasing is a gamble because they set the residual values. They can set them artificially high, but then they have to eat the loss when they can't get that much for the used or CPO model.
I'm usually against leasing but there are times when the manufacturer takes a big hit to offer a lease that is actually financially advantageous to the buyers. Jaguar and Saab are two good examples of that.
Agree with your points, juice. The question is "why?".
"Why" do BMW, Jaguar, Saab (and others) choose to subsidize their lease customers with aggressive programs when they don't extend the comparable financial incentives to purchasers.
I would guess that those automakers assume: - People that have money to actually afford to "purchase" those couldn't care less. - People that can't afford to purchase, but still want to drive those vehicles. They won't if lease deals followed the purchase deals. Perhaps more sales compensates for lower profit margin via lease.
One of the reasons that Acura / Honda doesn't subsidize it's leases as much as we would like is because as always they are really focusing on the future values of the vehicles as well. There is a stat that I really don't know exactly, but every $1,000 the manufac puts towards the vehicle in an incentive (Subsidize lease, APR, Dealer Cash, Cust cash, etc...) It makes the value of that vehicle a certain amount less in the future. I believe it's like $700-$900 less in 3 years. I know it might not sound like a lot but maybe your TSX in 3 years is worth $18,000 instead of $17,200. Plus they are thinking on a huge scale. It keeps their residuals really real high (Not subsidized high) It's a really tough balance I'm sure.. debating do you sell more now or keep up the value later. In Honda/Acura's case (as well as Toyota/Lexus) They are so flexible in the factories that they will adjust production to make less of a vehicles and keep supply low and demand up. As long as all their factories are running at 100% they will be OK. If there are to many Accords and not enough TLs they can make that switch fast. It's much better for the consumer with higher resale values. Still getting great value vehicles for the cost. Don't get me wrong they will still subsidize the cars too. They just really need to find that balance.
Today I read in the newspaper that BMW is actually spending more than just about anybody promoting certain models - strictly through subsidized leases. North of $4,000 PER VEHICLE. That includes the X3, X5, 7 series, one or two others. And that's why Acura is loathe to compete with this. It's the $$$$ required. That 2.9-4.9% financing isn't costing Honda much. And the $2500 discount is coming out of the dealer's hide - as it typically does with most manufacturers.
There is no greater evidence that the car was overpriced by $3000 than that discounting 90 days after launch. Even still, the car struck me as a sufficient value to overpay (and I knew full well I was overpaying when I bought the car with 8 on my dealer's lot for only $500 off list price) to get an RDX when I needed it (my wife's car was wrecked, we were renting by the week at the time).
Do I resent this? Not at all. The market determines pricing, I was in no position to wait any longer, the dealer made a couple of thousand bucks, I'm driving the car I'm happy with - ultimately everybody wins (I was also the beneficiary of an overly generous insurance settlement on our totaled '98 Volvo, another big reason for my 'whatever' attitude on the pricing issue).
Loving the RDX after two months/2700 miles. Great vehicle. And not really a gas guzzler considering the type of car it is (high performance SUV, I'm averaging 19mpg in mixed driving, upwards of 22mpg on longer highway trips with a roof rack). And as I've said before, a total blast to drive. The only downside? A bit stiff riding. But the handling you get back is well worth it for this owner.
I drove my old car tonight- which is now my wife's - the 2004 TL with Nav. The two Acuras we own are both such great values. I'm trying to imagine simlar value from another car, but I can't really think of anything. Perhaps the Infiniti G35 - but I did shop that car pretty hard when I bought the TL and preferred the Acura's interior and ergonomics enough to overcome my lukewarm feeling about the FWD on the TL. But the TL has proven to be a GREAT sedan - and with FWD, traction control and four winter tires, the car is phenomenal in the snow. Where we live that is important. Looking foward to cutting loose a bit with the RDX on the snowy roads around here...
BMW seems to get away with it, because their residuals are actually quite good, in general.
They seem to have enough repeat buyers that will just lease a new BMW every 2-3 years. Perhaps they had to add the incentives because their prices have crept up to scary levels. I remember when the X3 was launched it started under $30k, now it's suddenly $38k. That's a huge jump.
But go shop for a used Saab. They're virtually given away. Same for a Jag. A used S-Type is dirt cheap.
It allows them to target corporations and business executives. Corporations rarely buy cars. They will lease them or give an exec an "allowance" of sorts, which they can use to lease a vehicle. I've seen a few variations.
Given that BMW is targeting the upper crust, they use incentives which appeal to those types of buyers.
Frankly, I dunno why Acura doesn't get with the program and do the same. However, execs from the company have stated in flat defiance that they build cars people want to own, not rent. Seems like a useless exercise in semantics to me.
Yeah, I just got that too! So now I am getting spam from auto dealers, hooray.
Pohanka does not include destination in their quotes, so their actual price is $30894 for a base model; ie, $120 over invoice. I have seen better deals in this area, by $100-500 or so.
"There is no greater evidence that the car was overpriced by $3000 than that discounting 90 days after launch."
I disagree. The vehicle is priced right in line with what you get. You get a monster stereo, a very capable drivetrain, a balanced chassis, top notch electronics, and a fair amount of flash.
Is $37K too much to pay for a loaded RDX? Absolutely. But how many other cars sell for MSRP? NOBODY starts off with an asking price that is actually in line with the true value of the vehicle. They always aim higher and discount by $2-3K.
The classic question: If Acura priced the RDX at $31-35K and held firm to that, would you consider it overpriced?
I think the problem is a combination of poor market conditions (the niche hasn't developed yet) and also poor product planning. By "poor product planning", I mean the engineers spent their entire budget on several key features and then cut too many corners in other areas. It is not a balanced product.
"However, execs from the company have stated in flat defiance that they build cars people want to own, not rent. Seems like a useless exercise in semantics to me."
Couldn't agree more. I actually think they're dissing a lot of leasers with a statement like that.
Whether or not the RDX is overpriced is a function of whether dealers can HOLD GROSS PROFIT on the car. If they can, the car is priced right. If they are compelled to sell the car at, near or below their dealer cost, it's too pricey. Period.
Look, I AGREE that the RDX represents a good value, or I wouldn't have plunked down $33k for a base car, knowing I was overpaying at the time (like everything else, timing is everything in life). But the marketplace clearly does not. Argue with the market. Oh wait, you can't. Never mind.
Two other points:
• That Acura suit statement about bulding cars 'people want to own not rent' is the most arrogant and delusional comment I can remember coming from an auto exec's mouth (hard to believe somebody said that).
• Those prices above probably do not include the $600 destination charge. If they do the dealer is going through most of the holdback @ those numbers. I don't think that's likely. I wonder what those unexplained asterisks after those prices mean. Maybe that's it.
The prices do not in fact include destination. But if they did, that would only be $550 under invoice, which is not unheard of at all. That still leaves another $500 or so profit for the dealer. The asterisks refer to particular stock numbers (which I believe is required for any dealer ad -- they have to tie a price to a vehicle they actually have).
I realize this is essentially a debate over semantics, but I do see a difference here.
When you write, "The RDX is over-priced," it suggests a problem with pricing. That is not correct. The pricing is perfectly in line with what you get.
It would be more accurate to write, "The RDX targets too small a niche." If there were 10,000 buyers each month shopping for this type of vehicle, the RDX might be selling at MSRP. In which case, the pricing might be too low!
Again, this is semantics... But it seems more appropriate to critique the decision to market this vehicle today, rather than the price.
In the end, the market adjusts the pricing. Consumers decide with their pocket books.
When the TSX first came out, Acura had actually underpriced it a bit. It sold at MSRP for years.
Some were wondering if the RDX would start under $30k, so when prices were announced it was higher than most people expected, at least a little bit. Not surprisingly, Acura dealers could not demand MSRP for long. Few sold so dealers had to drop prices pretty quickly.
Now comes the tug-of-war between dealers that want further incentives to help sell more volume against Acura itself, who wants to keep residuals high and would probably rather not have to do that.
Not that I think we'll see rebates, not in the first model year anyway.
Ultimately I do wonder if the car would be a big seller @ any realistic price for Acura. It does make you wonder if the car won't sell @ $33K-$37K, will it sell for $3,000 less? I really have to wonder about that. And all this is all the more puzzling since it really is a wonderful car. Hell, I LOVE the friggin car : ).
So I'm more concerned with long term reliablity than resale value at this point. It's a keeper for me.
When the TSX first came out, Acura had actually underpriced it a bit. It sold at MSRP for years.
Depends on what you mean "it sold at MSRP for years." Perhaps a handful of buyers paid that much after the TSX's first few months on the market. But I'd be VERY surprised if many did. Just check out the TSX boards.
The car was introduced in 2003. Less than a year later, when I was buying in February 2004, EVERY dealership I contacted was quoting prices below MSRP, with some already discounting over $1500.
The RDX -- out for an even shorter period -- is already selling below MSRP.
TSX actually (still) does hold its price close to MSRP well, a reason I went with '06 TL over '06 TSX. The best I could get on a TSX was $500 off MSRP at about $29.5K, and TL (which was my second choice) was available for a shade under $32K (w/NAV). But thats a rarity. I have never paid MSRP for any of my cars (usually about 8-9% below MSRP which tends to be close to listed invoice for most vehicles), I don't see why RDX would be an exception.
And TSX was actually perceived to be overpriced initially by a lot of people, since its MSRP is about the same as the much more powerful and almost as well equipped Accord EXV6.
Other than couple of minor things that Acura left out, I never considered RDX as overpriced. I see it as a tall TSX wagon, which would cost about the same if TSX had SH-AWD and a turbo-charged motor. In fact, if we do see a high performance (implying turbo charged/SH-AWD) TSX sedan with the redesign, it will be priced about the same, if not more, than RDX.
Something Acura should have done with RDX, however, is offer two packages (about $2-2.5K apart) instead of one that adds about $4.5K. This, in addition to memory seats and powered passenger seat, both I suspect, were left out deliberately for a “refresh” which is a poor marketing exercise on AHM’s part IMO. Making “visible” cost cutting as a part of marketing exercise is never a good idea even in near luxury segment.
Realistically speaking, I won’t either. And although I do use memory settings in my TL (well, by default it is tied to the key fob I use), power seat on the passenger side hasn’t been used in three months of ownership. BUT, perception is a part of marketing with a premium badge. Acura needs to learn. AHM uses the same formula to market Acura as it does Honda, and that has resulted in people expecting “more value” out of Acura vehicles instead of willingness to overpay as some brands enjoy (BMW, Mercedes Benz and Lexus).
I know what you mean. I kinda like Acura's way of packaging equipment, even the base cars tend to be well equipped for the price.
BMW charges extra for even little stuff. I think cruise control was an extra-cost option on the 3 series a couple of years ago (they finally changed that).
"Something Acura should have done with RDX, however, is offer two packages (about $2-2.5K apart) instead of one that adds about $4.5K."
I'll 3rd that.
Originally, I was thinking they should have made the ELS standard and maybe bumped the base price up a couple hundred. I'm no longer sure that would be a good idea. As marvelous as the ELS is (well worth the price) many buyers just don't care. Acura is getting a whole lotta attention from the cheapskates with the RDX.
So instead I think they need a genuine stripped model to get the focus away from the price.
This, in addition to memory seats and powered passenger seat, both I suspect, were left out deliberately for a “refresh” which is a poor marketing exercise on AHM’s part IMO.
My recollection is that the TSX launched in early 2003 (as an early '04 model) without memory seats and a power passenger seat, and both were added in the following ('05) model year. Acura probably didn't call that a "refresh."
But I agree with you more broadyly: if Acura deliberately de-contents vehicles simply to justify raising the price by pointing to "added features" in subsequent years, then, yes, it's poor "marketing exercise."
Re seat memory and power passenger seats, I'm not so sure it is "visible cost cutting" any more than the absence of a V-6. The class of people who buy Acuras (and even lower-cost cars) usually have two vehicles or more per multi-person household, meaning that the RDX is primarily a one-driver car. I've seen a few people clamoring for memory seats, but above $30,000, if you're swapping cars that much, maybe it's better to buy TWO Kias.
As far as the power passenger seat, that has always seemed ostentatious to me, even at $50K. As I have a four-door, I drive a gang from work to lunch a lot, and no one has ever jacked with the passenger seat, nor has my wife when she's ridden somewhere. For the few times you really need to adjust the passenger seat, a manual adjustment mechanism doesn't seem so plebian to me as much as just efficient. Can't fault Honda for that.
I'm not so sure it is "visible cost cutting" any more than the absence of a V-6 I am not sure how turbo charged I-4 can be considered cheaper than a V6. If anything, it seems to be a more expensive proposition. As it is, the chassis reinforcements and transmission are designed to handle more power and torque which would be true with V6 too.
As for the engine itself, look at Accord. EXV6 is about $2,200 more than EX-L (virtually identical equipment, although V6 does add VSA, powered passenger seat and homelink included in that price). Perhaps we can be generous and conclude that V6 adds about $2K to the price and this includes beefed up transmission (and chassis).
How about turbo charging (or forced induction in general)? It isn't free! Turbo charged K23 used in RDX isn't going to cost as much as normally aspirated K24 used in Accord! This while knowing that fact that turbo K23 comes with beefed up transmission (and chassis) already.
To put this in perspective, Mini Cooper S (supercharged) costs $3400 more than Mini Cooper, of course with a few feature differences. Mazda3 Sport costs $5-6K less than MazdaSpeed3 and a major part of the added cost is the engine which isn't V6!
The bottomline is, V6 would have cost about the same, if not less, as the turbo I-4 does. I don't see that choice as cost cutting, more of a packaging issue (or perhaps to instill a different flavor in the vehicle).
On both the Honda Accord and Mazda3, you are assuming that the manufacturer's profit margin is the same between the vehicles' trim levels. I wouldn't stick my neck out to far trying to support that. Your premise is noted, but point is, if an EXV6 is $2,200 more than an EX-L, none of us really know what that $2,200 is for.
Anyway, the whole engine comment was a red herring and not the point. I didn't think the lack of power/memory seats was "visible cost-cutting" in the $30K class, Acura or not.
if an EXV6 is $2,200 more than an EX-L, none of us really know what that $2,200 is for We don't have a complete breakdown, but I did mention the extras offered besides a move from I-4 to V6: - VSA - Beefier Transmission (to handle greater power/torque) - Beefier Chassis Tuning (to handle greater power/torque) - Homelink Transmitter - Power Passenger Seat
I would say that using V6 over I-4 is no more expensive, if at all, than using turbo I-4 over normally aspirated I-4. Omitting features like memory seats, powered passenger seats, however, seems lame to me even though they aren't necessities.
Comments
And the other thing I have noticed is that you repeat this "praise the RDX / damn the dissenters / throw a tantrum" pattern on every RDX forum. Either you feel the need to defend the RDX to no end, or you have some sort of buyer's remorse and only want to hear validation/assurance. Either way, this is an internet car forum, and if you want to toss out a strong opinion, you should be prepared for discussion and alternate opinions. Not everyone is here to agree with you 100%.
And I'll chime in here..
1. Less clutter on/at the dash.
2. A manual tranmission.
3. Less agressive, "later", (more turbo lag {??})turbo boost onset, FE mode selectable, okay.
4. Use the planetary gearset in line with the rear drive so rear overdrive can be selectable based on actual speed and roadbed conditions.
5. Correct the "front tire chains only" typo or fix whatever resulted in that statement.
6. Disable ABS except when VSC indicates a need.
7. Abandon the Denso climate control design in favor of Bosch.
Why not? Ah, go buy a Subaru.
-juice
tidester, host
tidester, host
Ride: Good acceleration and passing speed on the highway...but the start from stop was bumppy and there was a werid HISS sound everytime I stepped on the gas. The dealer said it was the TURBO but it was so annoying...
But I really liked the interior...Navigation with voice control was amazing...fun and very interesting...leather was nice and the back seat had quite a leg room. However, the trunk was really heaviy and my wife had a hard time reaching it and closing it...it was one heavy gate...We also tried the new MDX which was much more easier to open and close.
The dealer in Austin (Sterling ACURA) was nice and didn't push too hard for a sell...Pricewise, they were pretty firm...MSRP...maybe a couple of hundred dollars of MSRP...
Overall...it is quite a nice car but the HISS sound (I guess turbo kicking in)and jumppy start cuts some of my points...However the interior and overall design was pleasing...
I'm planning to test drive the BMW X3...which I heard has better handling and MPG...
But for $37,500 plus tax makes it $40,000...would I buy it...NOOOOOOOO, but for a couple of Ks down...maybe...
At least you get 4 years' of free service.
-juice
Have you seen the console compartment on the RDX? you could fit a 12-pack in there, and have room to spare!!
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx
Oddly, they list it as a mid-sizer? :confuse:
Is that how the EPA classifies it?
Any how, 3 Hondas and 3 Subarus made the list. All 13 are imports, too.
-juice
-juice
That's an interesting observation.
Considering that an X3 prices out about 20% higher than an RDX (after typicals discounts from MSRP) and considering that an X3 does NOT have a significantly better predicted residual value, that means that BMW is THROWING money at its lease customers while SQUEEZING its purchase customers.
Anyone have any theories on why BMW pushes leases so hard and provides such big subsidies?
On the flip side, anyone have any theories on why Acura DOESN'T do the same?
Selling someone a new car every three years might have something to do with it, but I don't pretend to know their business model.
Why doesn't Acura do it? Another guess... Maybe at the lower price point, cash/finance purchase customers are easier to come by, and leasing incentives aren't needed?
I don't mind leasing, if that is necessary to get the best deal.. But, it must be frustrating to the cash buyer to not have the same incentives.
regards,
kyfdx
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I'm usually against leasing but there are times when the manufacturer takes a big hit to offer a lease that is actually financially advantageous to the buyers. Jaguar and Saab are two good examples of that.
-juice
"Why" do BMW, Jaguar, Saab (and others) choose to subsidize their lease customers with aggressive programs when they don't extend the comparable financial incentives to purchasers.
- People that have money to actually afford to "purchase" those couldn't care less.
- People that can't afford to purchase, but still want to drive those vehicles. They won't if lease deals followed the purchase deals. Perhaps more sales compensates for lower profit margin via lease.
There is no greater evidence that the car was overpriced by $3000 than that discounting 90 days after launch. Even still, the car struck me as a sufficient value to overpay (and I knew full well I was overpaying when I bought the car with 8 on my dealer's lot for only $500 off list price) to get an RDX when I needed it (my wife's car was wrecked, we were renting by the week at the time).
Do I resent this? Not at all. The market determines pricing, I was in no position to wait any longer, the dealer made a couple of thousand bucks, I'm driving the car I'm happy with - ultimately everybody wins (I was also the beneficiary of an overly generous insurance settlement on our totaled '98 Volvo, another big reason for my 'whatever' attitude on the pricing issue).
Loving the RDX after two months/2700 miles. Great vehicle. And not really a gas guzzler considering the type of car it is (high performance SUV, I'm averaging 19mpg in mixed driving, upwards of 22mpg on longer highway trips with a roof rack). And as I've said before, a total blast to drive. The only downside? A bit stiff riding. But the handling you get back is well worth it for this owner.
I drove my old car tonight- which is now my wife's - the 2004 TL with Nav. The two Acuras we own are both such great values. I'm trying to imagine simlar value from another car, but I can't really think of anything. Perhaps the Infiniti G35 - but I did shop that car pretty hard when I bought the TL and preferred the Acura's interior and ergonomics enough to overcome my lukewarm feeling about the FWD on the TL. But the TL has proven to be a GREAT sedan - and with FWD, traction control and four winter tires, the car is phenomenal in the snow. Where we live that is important. Looking foward to cutting loose a bit with the RDX on the snowy roads around here...
They seem to have enough repeat buyers that will just lease a new BMW every 2-3 years. Perhaps they had to add the incentives because their prices have crept up to scary levels. I remember when the X3 was launched it started under $30k, now it's suddenly $38k. That's a huge jump.
But go shop for a used Saab. They're virtually given away. Same for a Jag. A used S-Type is dirt cheap.
-juice
Given that BMW is targeting the upper crust, they use incentives which appeal to those types of buyers.
Frankly, I dunno why Acura doesn't get with the program and do the same. However, execs from the company have stated in flat defiance that they build cars people want to own, not rent. Seems like a useless exercise in semantics to me.
END OF FALL SPECIALS-
PRICES OF THE SUMMER END AT THE END OF FALL AT POHANKA ACURA
The following are just of few examples of why Pohanka is the World's Largest Acura Dealership:
07 RDX with the Technology Package - $33,551*
07 RDX W/O Technology Package - $30,224**
Pohanka does not include destination in their quotes, so their actual price is $30894 for a base model; ie, $120 over invoice. I have seen better deals in this area, by $100-500 or so.
I disagree. The vehicle is priced right in line with what you get. You get a monster stereo, a very capable drivetrain, a balanced chassis, top notch electronics, and a fair amount of flash.
Is $37K too much to pay for a loaded RDX? Absolutely. But how many other cars sell for MSRP? NOBODY starts off with an asking price that is actually in line with the true value of the vehicle. They always aim higher and discount by $2-3K.
The classic question: If Acura priced the RDX at $31-35K and held firm to that, would you consider it overpriced?
I think the problem is a combination of poor market conditions (the niche hasn't developed yet) and also poor product planning. By "poor product planning", I mean the engineers spent their entire budget on several key features and then cut too many corners in other areas. It is not a balanced product.
Unless it's a special car with limited production and high demand.
-juice
Couldn't agree more. I actually think they're dissing a lot of leasers with a statement like that.
Look, I AGREE that the RDX represents a good value, or I wouldn't have plunked down $33k for a base car, knowing I was overpaying at the time (like everything else, timing is everything in life). But the marketplace clearly does not. Argue with the market. Oh wait, you can't. Never mind.
Two other points:
• That Acura suit statement about bulding cars 'people want to own not rent' is the most arrogant and delusional comment I can remember coming from an auto exec's mouth (hard to believe somebody said that).
• Those prices above probably do not include the $600 destination charge. If they do the dealer is going through most of the holdback @ those numbers. I don't think that's likely. I wonder what those unexplained asterisks after those prices mean. Maybe that's it.
When you write, "The RDX is over-priced," it suggests a problem with pricing. That is not correct. The pricing is perfectly in line with what you get.
It would be more accurate to write, "The RDX targets too small a niche." If there were 10,000 buyers each month shopping for this type of vehicle, the RDX might be selling at MSRP. In which case, the pricing might be too low!
Again, this is semantics... But it seems more appropriate to critique the decision to market this vehicle today, rather than the price.
When the TSX first came out, Acura had actually underpriced it a bit. It sold at MSRP for years.
Some were wondering if the RDX would start under $30k, so when prices were announced it was higher than most people expected, at least a little bit. Not surprisingly, Acura dealers could not demand MSRP for long. Few sold so dealers had to drop prices pretty quickly.
Now comes the tug-of-war between dealers that want further incentives to help sell more volume against Acura itself, who wants to keep residuals high and would probably rather not have to do that.
Not that I think we'll see rebates, not in the first model year anyway.
-juice
So I'm more concerned with long term reliablity than resale value at this point. It's a keeper for me.
Depends on what you mean "it sold at MSRP for years." Perhaps a handful of buyers paid that much after the TSX's first few months on the market. But I'd be VERY surprised if many did. Just check out the TSX boards.
The car was introduced in 2003. Less than a year later, when I was buying in February 2004, EVERY dealership I contacted was quoting prices below MSRP, with some already discounting over $1500.
The RDX -- out for an even shorter period -- is already selling below MSRP.
-juice
And TSX was actually perceived to be overpriced initially by a lot of people, since its MSRP is about the same as the much more powerful and almost as well equipped Accord EXV6.
Yikes, that's high. I realize it's well equipped but that makes the RDX seem like a better value now.
-juice
Something Acura should have done with RDX, however, is offer two packages (about $2-2.5K apart) instead of one that adds about $4.5K. This, in addition to memory seats and powered passenger seat, both I suspect, were left out deliberately for a “refresh” which is a poor marketing exercise on AHM’s part IMO. Making “visible” cost cutting as a part of marketing exercise is never a good idea even in near luxury segment.
-juice
BMW charges extra for even little stuff. I think cruise control was an extra-cost option on the 3 series a couple of years ago (they finally changed that).
-juice
it would be nice if they have HD radio.
I'll 3rd that.
Originally, I was thinking they should have made the ELS standard and maybe bumped the base price up a couple hundred. I'm no longer sure that would be a good idea. As marvelous as the ELS is (well worth the price) many buyers just don't care. Acura is getting a whole lotta attention from the cheapskates with the RDX.
So instead I think they need a genuine stripped model to get the focus away from the price.
My recollection is that the TSX launched in early 2003 (as an early '04 model) without memory seats and a power passenger seat, and both were added in the following ('05) model year. Acura probably didn't call that a "refresh."
But I agree with you more broadyly: if Acura deliberately de-contents vehicles simply to justify raising the price by pointing to "added features" in subsequent years, then, yes, it's poor "marketing exercise."
As far as the power passenger seat, that has always seemed ostentatious to me, even at $50K. As I have a four-door, I drive a gang from work to lunch a lot, and no one has ever jacked with the passenger seat, nor has my wife when she's ridden somewhere. For the few times you really need to adjust the passenger seat, a manual adjustment mechanism doesn't seem so plebian to me as much as just efficient. Can't fault Honda for that.
I am not sure how turbo charged I-4 can be considered cheaper than a V6. If anything, it seems to be a more expensive proposition. As it is, the chassis reinforcements and transmission are designed to handle more power and torque which would be true with V6 too.
As for the engine itself, look at Accord. EXV6 is about $2,200 more than EX-L (virtually identical equipment, although V6 does add VSA, powered passenger seat and homelink included in that price). Perhaps we can be generous and conclude that V6 adds about $2K to the price and this includes beefed up transmission (and chassis).
How about turbo charging (or forced induction in general)? It isn't free! Turbo charged K23 used in RDX isn't going to cost as much as normally aspirated K24 used in Accord! This while knowing that fact that turbo K23 comes with beefed up transmission (and chassis) already.
To put this in perspective, Mini Cooper S (supercharged) costs $3400 more than Mini Cooper, of course with a few feature differences. Mazda3 Sport costs $5-6K less than MazdaSpeed3 and a major part of the added cost is the engine which isn't V6!
The bottomline is, V6 would have cost about the same, if not less, as the turbo I-4 does. I don't see that choice as cost cutting, more of a packaging issue (or perhaps to instill a different flavor in the vehicle).
Anyway, the whole engine comment was a red herring and not the point. I didn't think the lack of power/memory seats was "visible cost-cutting" in the $30K class, Acura or not.
We don't have a complete breakdown, but I did mention the extras offered besides a move from I-4 to V6:
- VSA
- Beefier Transmission (to handle greater power/torque)
- Beefier Chassis Tuning (to handle greater power/torque)
- Homelink Transmitter
- Power Passenger Seat
I would say that using V6 over I-4 is no more expensive, if at all, than using turbo I-4 over normally aspirated I-4. Omitting features like memory seats, powered passenger seats, however, seems lame to me even though they aren't necessities.