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.
Sure I can. If you're saying Honda is lowering its rating for the US only because its not a big marketing factor, I disagree. Rather, it may be that the USA does stupider things in their cars than in Japan. Or maybe, combined with that, it's because we are more litigous. Is it the climate? Driving habits? Speed limits and a society's attitude? I don't know. But as I've said before, anyone who loads up their American-market CR-V, RDX (or Civic for that matter), with more than what Honda NA tells them to, just because they saw it done on another continent in the "almost same" car, is asking for trouble.
Can you explain why you think the clutch packs in the RDX are going to need a cooling system? I mean, the clutch packs in every other AWD don't. For that matter, why don't viscous couplings or torsen diffs require coolers?
"regardless of how weight shifts in a set up (between acceleration and braking, the impact will be exactly the opposite), the theory applies to *any* vehicle."
Well, no.
Assuming a proper, correct, hitch/tow setup and a solid tongue, the inertial effects from braking the towing vehicle will result in a weight shift to the hitch/tongue of the trailer in tow, tending to drive the rear of the towing vehicle downward.
With a TOAD 4-down and the hitch "level" the front of the TOAD will dive during braking thereby, in this case, forcing the rear of the towing vehicle upward.
Just as the front of the braking vehicle "dives" during severe braking, so will the "front" of the "tow".
Upon/with acceleration, again assuming a proper hitch/tow setup, the effects of the towed vehicle should be very close to neutral insofar as upward or downward hitch/tongue "moment" is concerned.
Okay, if we're talking about extending the RDX's tow capacity beyond 1,500 lbs, we're talking about a trailer with it's own brakes.
Regardless, when a tow vehicle brakes, weight pitches forward and down (nose dive). As a result, the rear end goes forward and up. Ergo, at the time of braking the inertia of the trailer is moving forward and up.
The goal of having the trailer tongue pointed downward and having a respectable amount of weight balanced on the tongue is to mitigate that upward motion. However, it can only mitigate. It cannot eliminate.
I'm actually saying there may be a low towing weight limit for the RDX so that no extra cooling is required. Besides which if you have a look at the PTO case of an RX300, where the VC is located, you will note that it is convered with cooling fins/vanes.
How many times have you read the caution that O/D should not be used during towing or a long uphill pull with a heavy load? Put in a heavier lock up clutch and add more ATF cooling and the caution note would be redundent. But then 98% of folks would have a more robust and expensive drive line than they need.
I think it is well "set" that the heavier the towing rating is, the "beefier" the drive line components must be, torsen diffs, etc.
The low tow rating of the RDX might actually be the result of the smallish clutches that must be used in the transaxle and lockup clutch in order for it to fit within the sideways space allotted.
First, look at the dynamics of the "towing" vehicle absent the tow.
At 60 MPH drive the brake pedal to the floor. The front of the vehicle will "dive", effectively adding weight to the front increasing your braking effects.
Now do the same thing with a non-braking loaded trailer in tow. During severe braking the towed "weight" will shift to the front of the trailer thereby forcing the rear of the towing vehicle downward.
So yes, the front of the towing vehicle will still "dive", but not as much as it would absent the downward force of the trailer at the rear.
I also had an RDX for a loaner and I got to drive it for a week. I probably put about 300 miles on it during that time and I have a few observations. One, you are right that it handles very well. However, that is about the only good thing I have to say about it. I can't believe anyone would spend $35,000 for this car. It has a terrible ride (it reminds me of the original integra where you felt every bump on the road). It's noisy and it's not comfortable. I have had 2 TLs (2001 and 2004) and two MDXs (2003 and 2005). My suggestion for anyone considering buying this car is to look for a 2006 MDX and get a better car for a better deal. Just my 2 cents.
Of course you can. Everybody is entitled to his/her opinion but that doesn't change the fact that Honda isn't rating its vehicle as high in North America as it does in some other markets (and I already gave you examples to prove my point).
I didn't think so. Its ride was as I expected to be, not as "soft" (if I can call it that) as TL's, but certainly sporty. As far as noise goes, unfortunately, the day I had it, rain prevailed, so it was hard to see if it was noisy or not (based on my experience, I didn't think it was, but then, noise level can vary immensely on road surface).
Why would upon acceleration the difference be not exactly opposite of braking? The pitching of any vehicle isn't going to change depending on acceleration or braking but for the direction.
That said, you must also consider chassis set up. A softly suspended vehicle will behave differently than a stiffly suspended vehicle would (just load the same amount of stuff in Camry's trunk and in Accord's, and see the difference).
Do you think CR-V's tow set up is different in UK than it is in USA that it is rated differently? We're perhaps making too much assumptions, aren't we?
Uh, yeah. You gave examples (which I thought were irrelevant), and you tried to validate a generic blanket statement that "Honda is conservative here because they can be." I'm telling you that a "low" tow rating may be based on Honda "conservatism," but there are reasons behind it which aren't just because "Americans don't care about tow ratings in a CUV."
And I really don't care how many econoboxes you've seen pulling trailers as opposed to AWD vehicles - until we've both worked at Honda here and abroad, your marketing theory is just as much opinion and speculation as my hypotheses about litigiousness, etc. For the record, I'd bet that all the small sedans you've seen doing the work of the CUVs and SUVs we Americans love - well, they weren't rated for towing, anyway. Just another reason for Honda to rate their vehicles low, knowing rednecks will pile on 1,000 lbs over the rating anyway... Nevertheless, pile it on at your own risk.
What evidence do you have to support your theory about the clutch packs in the RDX's SH-AWD being weaker than the ones used in other systems (including the SH-AWD unit in the MDX)?
I understand the theory. Towing requires beefier components. Got it. What makes you think the clutch packs in the RDX's SH-AWD unit are not beefy enough?
Well, don't get me wrong, they were fine examples... I just don't think they do anything to explain the theory about towing ratings not being marketable in the U.S. I mean, is there that much demand in the UK for a Jazz that can tow? I'd agree that a US-market Fit has almost no added benefit by claiming a tow rating. But I'm still baffled as to why Honda would purposely under-rate a CUV like the RDX (or CR-V for that matter) without good reasons that weren't market-driven.
If anything, I would think that in the U.S., where people seem to want their _UVs to NOT be wagons and to NOT be minivans, a towing rating would seem to be quite important for marketing, however misguided it might be. Perhaps it's a bit like a brush guard on a $60,000 ML500... I bet at least Mercedes sells those kinds of funny accessories in other markets.
The only downward weight put on the tow vehicle is tongue weight. With the RDX we're talking 150 lbs. That like me carrying home a couple bags of dog food. So, I've already experienced this less effective braking in a Honda rated for only 1,000 lbs.
It's not so bad.
The rear axle only become a pivot point when the suspension is near bottoming out.
"My suggestion for anyone considering buying this car is to look for a 2006 MDX and get a better car for a better deal. Just my 2 cents."
I think many have been doing exactly what you suggest! That's one reason why sales are so low. The MDX was selling for cheap and dealers were trying to push the RDX at MSRP.
For the enthusiast (myself included), the ride is acceptable. Yes, the driver feels every irregularity in the road, but for someone who likes to carve a corner, they need to feel what's going on underneath. I found the ride very firm, but not harsh. Any more firm and it would have put me off. Of course, I drove one with the optional 19" rim & tire package, so it was probably a bit stiffer than the standard vehicle.
However, I think many people go in expecting a nicely tarted up small crossover and end up disapointed. The RDX is more focused on entertaining the driver than pampering them.
I honestly think the RDX is too sporty and could benefit from a little more interior capacity. It's not a balanced package. But when driven as a sporty vehicle, dang, it hits the mark.
Honda rates their vehicles low because A) they don't want to be sued, and they don't think the market in the US really cares.
When it comes to vehicles like the Ridgeline, the US buyer cares. The market is male dominated and boys want their toys built tougher than the other guys'.
However, when it comes to vehicles like the Pilot or CR-V, buyers define utility with a cupholder count. Soccer moms value stain-free fabrics more than towing capacity.
With the RDX, Acura was going for sport more than utility. They don't think the majority of sporting enthusiast cares any more about towing than the soccer mom. So, when the marketing folks asked the bean counters, "How many customers will we lose if we rate this thing at a lawyer-proof 1,500 lbs rather than 2,000 lbs?" they probably got a very small number for their answer.
"..What makes you think the clutch packs in the RDX's SH-AWD unit are not beefy enough?..."
Not exactly what I said nor the way I said it. My implication was that to have a greater tow rating the RDX would probably need beefier rear halfshaft clutches. Since ~98% of RDX owners never tow, and the other 2% probably only tow occasionally, there was no good or substantive reason to provide ALL RDXes with a higher tow rating.
And remember that those rear halfshaft clutches are not your simple engaged or disengaged type of clutch. They will likely NEVER be fully engaged/meshed and if so only rarely.
So the rear halfshaft clutches, like the clutches used in some limited slip diff'ls, must endure a fairly high wear rate, along with the HEATING therefrom, due to continuous slippage of the two opposing frictional surfaces when the rear wheels are being "driven".
Anyone know what the expected/predicted average lifetime of those rear halfshaft clutch frictional surfaces is??
"My implication was that to have a greater tow rating the RDX would probably need beefier rear halfshaft clutches."
Why does the RDX need them?
The MDX tows 5,000 lbs with SH-AWD.
Several Haldex units are good for 3,500 lbs or more.
VTM-4 is good for as much as 5,000 lbs.
RT4WD is good for well over 2,000 lbs (in other markets).
The CX-7 is good for 2,000 lbs.
The Ford Escape is good for 3,500 lbs.
All of those use clutch-based AWD systems and are capable of towing more than 1,500 lbs (without extra coolers). What makes you think the unit in the RDX is any different? For all I know, the SH-AWD unit in the RDX has exactly the same clutch packs as the unit found in the MDX.
And so have I. You've focused on something as trivial as clutch packs yet nothing about chassis set up which will in fact have the largest impact on (handling) dynamics of vehicle during towing.
Sorry, I've stood on my soap box and proclaimed the SH-AWD system as being the absolute best AWD implementation on a FWD "base" in the marketplace today.
I thought you were talking handling dynamics all along. How does clutch packs figure in? How did you figure out the tow rating in RDX is limited because of the clutch packs?
Perhaps, we should figure out whether you want to discuss chassis dynamics upon towing, or impact of clutch packs.
Do you suppose it might be, the low tow limit that is, because a heavier tow rating would put the engine more in the range of continuous turbo use?
Or is the overall issue more a matter of market demographics and therefore Acura decided that the lighter weight RDX simply would have little appeal for folks interested in heavy tows.
Once that decision is made a lot of cost-saving design approaches, entire drive train, suspension, etc, are open to Acura.
So forget what I proposed and concentrate on the overall product as a reason for limiting the tow capability.
"Do you suppose it might be, the low tow limit that is, because a heavier tow rating would put the engine more in the range of continuous turbo use?"
Interesting theory, but I doubt it. It would certainly depend on transmission gearing and driving habits, but I'd bet that day-to-day, most people are "out of the boost" a lot more than they are "in it." That being said, dragging a ton behind an RDX would put a load on so many other parts of the driveline, the turbo and its effects are probably a minor issue.
"Once that decision is made a lot of cost-saving design approaches, entire drive train, suspension, etc, are open to Acura."
True. But the real question raised a while back is "Does Acura purposely rate the RDX's towing capacity lower than what it can handle, and why?" So, the dilemma is not "Does Acura engineer the RDX with a minimal capacity because there is no market demand," but rather "Does Acura report all the capacity that it engineered into the RDX?"
I received a phone call from my local Acura dealer recently, two days before Christmas. He told me that there was some sort of contest going on and that if I wanted a sweet deal I would have to come down right away :confuse: . I assume it was the end of year push to get inventory off the lot. I told him that the kind of deal that I was looking for was something a little above the invoice price. After an extremely long pause :surprise: he told me that he could not come that close to the invoice price but could offer some deep discounts. What does every make of this? Did others get a similar phone call? What is the best price for an RDX with the tech package? I read that some people were able to get just $1,000 knocked off the MSRP but I wasn't sure if that had something to do with their trade in.
He doesn't appear to have any reason for suspecting the clutch packs. Or, more accurately, he doesn't have more reason for suspecting the clutch packs than we might have for suspecting the half-shafts, the tires, the chassis, the lawyers, drunken engineers, the position of the moon, etc.
It's not a bad guess, but it appears to be nothing more than a guess. So, I suggest we take it for what it is and move on.
Sounds like you were dealing with someone who was authorized to push a sales pitch, but not capable of making an actual sale. At least, not over the phone.
C_Hunter is right. It might require a little haggling, but you should be able to get one within a few hundred bucks of invoice.
I can't comment on people buying the '06 MDX over the RDX, but I am definitely seeing more '07 MDX than RDX, and the latter was introduced to market first. I also echo your opinion that the RDX is too sporty. While I wouldn't necessarily classify the ride as "terrible", it definitely was "uncomfortably firm" to the point where it may be a deal-breaker for a vehicle that we would likely drive for hours on end on family trips. I would gladly trade-off some of the sporty handling for a more compliant ride, and a little more interior luxury (ie. better leather, some wood trim to brighten things up, memory driver seat would be nice)
I can't comment on people buying the '06 MDX over the RDX, but I am definitely seeing more '07 MDX than RDX, and the latter was introduced to market first
And you should, for the same reason that there are more TLs on the road than TSX. In fact, TL outsold RSX too by 3:1 or better.
There is no point targeting the same market segment with RDX that MDX already serves. Good to have a sport ute, to go with something more practical with a wider appeal.
I recently test drove the RDX and the sticker price with the Tech Package was close to $37K. Not too bad when you compare it to an X3. Interior looked ok and the NAV was super easy to use. However, the test drive was a different matter. Is it me or is there too much engine noise in the cabin (probably due to the 4 cylinder)? I didn't pop the hood but did Acura skimp on insulation for the engine? The ride was decent even though some people here thought that it was a little too stiff. Brakes and steering feel were average, which to me was a little disappointing. Also, why did Acura not put in a 6-speed auto? Does it cost too much money? For such a new car, I was expecting a little more but came away empty thinking that Acura missed the boat on this one again like the RL.
Coming from the TL, I thought there was a bit too much engine noise in the RDX -- and a bit coarse-sounding too. Even the MDX didn't get the 6-speed auto, so in a way it's "understandable" that the RDX didn't get one.
And you should, for the same reason that there are more TLs on the road than TSX. In fact, TL outsold RSX too by 3:1 or better.
There is no point targeting the same market segment with RDX that MDX already serves. Good to have a sport ute, to go with something more practical with a wider appeal.
If your theory is true then the example below shouldn't have happened.
BMW Example:
3 series 2006 sales 508,498 5 series 2006 sales 232,162 X3 2006 sales 113,997 X5 2006 sales 75,356
There are many reasons for why the MDX sells more copies than the RDX. Chief among them is the size of the market. Some market segments are simply larger than others. Long wheelbase minivans sell more copies than short wheelbase vans. Sedans sell more copies than wagons. Full-size trucks sell faster than compact trucks. In this instance, the mid-size luxury CUV market is larger than the compact lux CUV. Total up all the sales of the compact lux market and you won't come close to the sales of the mid-size market. Even if the RDX met its sales target (40K units), it would be a slower selling vehicle than the MDX (60K, I think).
I also echo your opinion that the RDX is too sporty... I would gladly trade-off some of the sporty handling for a more compliant ride, and a little more interior luxury...
The ride is what you get when you order an SUV that can take corners the way the RDX can. But I think they are going lose sales to the poseurs. The guys and dolls who want something that looks sporty, but really don't have any intention of driving that way. It would not surprise me to find Acura offering a "touring package" with softer suspension, while the current set-up becomes the "Type S" or "sport model".
Go figure. Everyone complains that Acura isn't sporty enough; yet, when they build a vehicle with the right stuff, people complain it isn't soft enough.
As for the interior, I think it's a matter of taste. Acura went for the high-tech look. There's old-world luxury with the plush fabrics, wood trim, analog dials, and soft edges. Then there's the modernistic approach with the brushed metallic accents, carbon fiber, hard creases, and electronic displays. Most car interior blend them in an attempt to reach the most buyers. Acura went high-tech with the RDX and played it more conservative with the MDX.
"There are many reasons for why the MDX sells more copies than the RDX. Chief among them is the size of the market."
I think that is very true in the US. But up here in Canada the compact SUV market is supposed to be the hottest SUV segment. Mind you, my impression was based solely on personal (non-scientific) observation. Perhaps the actual sales numbers would not bear that out.
Well, in the compact luxury SUV market, the X3 and the RX350 are really about the only players (and now the RDX), and I see plenty of those around. Again, this is anecdotal observation.
I know it gets mentioned every now and then, but I really don't see the RX350 being a compact CUV. It's a mid-size that is a little short on cargo space. Technically, that lack of space in the back puts it on the cusp of compact and mid-size according to EPA standard.
That said, the RX350 most directly competes with the Touareg, MDX, M-Class, and XC90. In price, it is a better match for those vehicles. Historically, it has always been compared with those vehicles. The same is true for the BMW X5.
The current list of premium compact SUVs includes the RDX, X3, and Freelander (soon to be LR2). I might be convinced to include the FX35 in that list, but, again, it's more like a mid-size that smoked too much and stunted its growth.
Of them, only the X3 has been a success. And I think a good part of that comes from the fact that the X5 is too small. Buyers can get 90% of what the X5 offers for a significantly lower price. Once the new X5 comes to town, the cannibalization will slow down.
"I really don't see the RX350 being a compact CUV."
Yeah, I guess it's a bit of a tweener, just like the FX and Murano. I thought about the Freelander, but it doesn't seem to register on the radar of most buyers. I guess perhaps everyone is waiting for the LR2. :confuse:
Yeah, even though the Freelander is similar in price, size, and prestige, it's mission and image as an offroad vehicle puts it in yet another subcategory.
Does anyone know what if any cable can connect an Apple iPOD nano to the MP3/auxiliary jack on the dash of the RDX? I've heard that there have been some issues with the Acura MusicLink setup.
You could simply use a 1/8" headphone cable, since both the iPod and the RDX hav the same 1/8" headphone connection.
I am using a special cable that plugs into the iPod dock connector on one end and has a 1/8" headphone connector on the other end, to go into the stereo. If you search around for iPod accessories, you can find dozens of cables like this. The benefit of using the dock connector is that you get a true line-level out, which is cleaner than the headphone out.
I'm deciding between the RDX, Infiniti FX35, and the Mercedes R350. Has anyone tried to put 2 car seats in the RDX? I'm concerned the car just won't be big enough and have enough cargo space. I know the obvious answer is to go with the MDX, but my wife doesn't feel comfortable driving bigger SUVs. She doesn't like being high up.
The RDX is actually fairly wide for a small SUV. Based on the internal measurements, I'd say it's doable. I know it works with the 2007 CR-V and both have about the same hip and shoulder room in the back.
When you get into rear facing seats, you might have trouble with any compact SUV. Fitting one in the middle isn't a big deal because it slots between the two font seatbacks. However, the outboard positions have far less room.
1 front facing, 1 rear facing. I do it now in my Saab 9-3, and its tight but doable. I was hoping to have a little more room. I'm not only concerned about the seats, but about cargo space for strollers, diaper bags, etc (I never thought a sentence like that would ever come out of my mouth). Just curious if there's anyone out there currently doing it and what they think about it.
Comments
Sure I can. If you're saying Honda is lowering its rating for the US only because its not a big marketing factor, I disagree. Rather, it may be that the USA does stupider things in their cars than in Japan. Or maybe, combined with that, it's because we are more litigous. Is it the climate? Driving habits? Speed limits and a society's attitude? I don't know. But as I've said before, anyone who loads up their American-market CR-V, RDX (or Civic for that matter), with more than what Honda NA tells them to, just because they saw it done on another continent in the "almost same" car, is asking for trouble.
Well, no.
Assuming a proper, correct, hitch/tow setup and a solid tongue, the inertial effects from braking the towing vehicle will result in a weight shift to the hitch/tongue of the trailer in tow, tending to drive the rear of the towing vehicle downward.
With a TOAD 4-down and the hitch "level" the front of the TOAD will dive during braking thereby, in this case, forcing the rear of the towing vehicle upward.
Just as the front of the braking vehicle "dives" during severe braking, so will the "front" of the "tow".
Upon/with acceleration, again assuming a proper hitch/tow setup, the effects of the towed vehicle should be very close to neutral insofar as upward or downward hitch/tongue "moment" is concerned.
Just inertial "drag".
Regardless, when a tow vehicle brakes, weight pitches forward and down (nose dive). As a result, the rear end goes forward and up. Ergo, at the time of braking the inertia of the trailer is moving forward and up.
The goal of having the trailer tongue pointed downward and having a respectable amount of weight balanced on the tongue is to mitigate that upward motion. However, it can only mitigate. It cannot eliminate.
How many times have you read the caution that O/D should not be used during towing or a long uphill pull with a heavy load? Put in a heavier lock up clutch and add more ATF cooling and the caution note would be redundent. But then 98% of folks would have a more robust and expensive drive line than they need.
I think it is well "set" that the heavier the towing rating is, the "beefier" the drive line components must be, torsen diffs, etc.
The low tow rating of the RDX might actually be the result of the smallish clutches that must be used in the transaxle and lockup clutch in order for it to fit within the sideways space allotted.
First, look at the dynamics of the "towing" vehicle absent the tow.
At 60 MPH drive the brake pedal to the floor. The front of the vehicle will "dive", effectively adding weight to the front increasing your braking effects.
Now do the same thing with a non-braking loaded trailer in tow. During severe braking the towed "weight" will shift to the front of the trailer thereby forcing the rear of the towing vehicle downward.
So yes, the front of the towing vehicle will still "dive", but not as much as it would absent the downward force of the trailer at the rear.
The result?
Your braking is less effective.
Of course you can. Everybody is entitled to his/her opinion but that doesn't change the fact that Honda isn't rating its vehicle as high in North America as it does in some other markets (and I already gave you examples to prove my point).
I didn't think so. Its ride was as I expected to be, not as "soft" (if I can call it that) as TL's, but certainly sporty. As far as noise goes, unfortunately, the day I had it, rain prevailed, so it was hard to see if it was noisy or not (based on my experience, I didn't think it was, but then, noise level can vary immensely on road surface).
That said, you must also consider chassis set up. A softly suspended vehicle will behave differently than a stiffly suspended vehicle would (just load the same amount of stuff in Camry's trunk and in Accord's, and see the difference).
Do you think CR-V's tow set up is different in UK than it is in USA that it is rated differently? We're perhaps making too much assumptions, aren't we?
And I really don't care how many econoboxes you've seen pulling trailers as opposed to AWD vehicles - until we've both worked at Honda here and abroad, your marketing theory is just as much opinion and speculation as my hypotheses about litigiousness, etc. For the record, I'd bet that all the small sedans you've seen doing the work of the CUVs and SUVs we Americans love - well, they weren't rated for towing, anyway. Just another reason for Honda to rate their vehicles low, knowing rednecks will pile on 1,000 lbs over the rating anyway... Nevertheless, pile it on at your own risk.
Its okay to think that way, but at least tell me how they were irrelevant?
I understand the theory. Towing requires beefier components. Got it. What makes you think the clutch packs in the RDX's SH-AWD unit are not beefy enough?
If anything, I would think that in the U.S., where people seem to want their _UVs to NOT be wagons and to NOT be minivans, a towing rating would seem to be quite important for marketing, however misguided it might be. Perhaps it's a bit like a brush guard on a $60,000 ML500... I bet at least Mercedes sells those kinds of funny accessories in other markets.
It's not so bad.
The rear axle only become a pivot point when the suspension is near bottoming out.
I think many have been doing exactly what you suggest! That's one reason why sales are so low. The MDX was selling for cheap and dealers were trying to push the RDX at MSRP.
For the enthusiast (myself included), the ride is acceptable. Yes, the driver feels every irregularity in the road, but for someone who likes to carve a corner, they need to feel what's going on underneath. I found the ride very firm, but not harsh. Any more firm and it would have put me off. Of course, I drove one with the optional 19" rim & tire package, so it was probably a bit stiffer than the standard vehicle.
However, I think many people go in expecting a nicely tarted up small crossover and end up disapointed. The RDX is more focused on entertaining the driver than pampering them.
I honestly think the RDX is too sporty and could benefit from a little more interior capacity. It's not a balanced package. But when driven as a sporty vehicle, dang, it hits the mark.
Honda rates their vehicles low because A) they don't want to be sued, and
When it comes to vehicles like the Ridgeline, the US buyer cares. The market is male dominated and boys want their toys built tougher than the other guys'.
However, when it comes to vehicles like the Pilot or CR-V, buyers define utility with a cupholder count. Soccer moms value stain-free fabrics more than towing capacity.
With the RDX, Acura was going for sport more than utility. They don't think the majority of sporting enthusiast cares any more about towing than the soccer mom. So, when the marketing folks asked the bean counters, "How many customers will we lose if we rate this thing at a lawyer-proof 1,500 lbs rather than 2,000 lbs?" they probably got a very small number for their answer.
Not exactly what I said nor the way I said it. My implication was that to have a greater tow rating the RDX would probably need beefier rear halfshaft clutches. Since ~98% of RDX owners never tow, and the other 2% probably only tow occasionally, there was no good or substantive reason to provide ALL RDXes with a higher tow rating.
And remember that those rear halfshaft clutches are not your simple engaged or disengaged type of clutch. They will likely NEVER be fully engaged/meshed and if so only rarely.
So the rear halfshaft clutches, like the clutches used in some limited slip diff'ls, must endure a fairly high wear rate, along with the HEATING therefrom, due to continuous slippage of the two opposing frictional surfaces when the rear wheels are being "driven".
Anyone know what the expected/predicted average lifetime of those rear halfshaft clutch frictional surfaces is??
Why does the RDX need them?
The MDX tows 5,000 lbs with SH-AWD.
Several Haldex units are good for 3,500 lbs or more.
VTM-4 is good for as much as 5,000 lbs.
RT4WD is good for well over 2,000 lbs (in other markets).
The CX-7 is good for 2,000 lbs.
The Ford Escape is good for 3,500 lbs.
All of those use clutch-based AWD systems and are capable of towing more than 1,500 lbs (without extra coolers). What makes you think the unit in the RDX is any different? For all I know, the SH-AWD unit in the RDX has exactly the same clutch packs as the unit found in the MDX.
????
Sorry, I've stood on my soap box and proclaimed the SH-AWD system as being the absolute best AWD implementation on a FWD "base" in the marketplace today.
Trivial clutch packs...??
NOT!
Perhaps, we should figure out whether you want to discuss chassis dynamics upon towing, or impact of clutch packs.
Do you suppose it might be, the low tow limit that is, because a heavier tow rating would put the engine more in the range of continuous turbo use?
Or is the overall issue more a matter of market demographics and therefore Acura decided that the lighter weight RDX simply would have little appeal for folks interested in heavy tows.
Once that decision is made a lot of cost-saving design approaches, entire drive train, suspension, etc, are open to Acura.
So forget what I proposed and concentrate on the overall product as a reason for limiting the tow capability.
Interesting theory, but I doubt it. It would certainly depend on transmission gearing and driving habits, but I'd bet that day-to-day, most people are "out of the boost" a lot more than they are "in it." That being said, dragging a ton behind an RDX would put a load on so many other parts of the driveline, the turbo and its effects are probably a minor issue.
"Once that decision is made a lot of cost-saving design approaches, entire drive train, suspension, etc, are open to Acura."
True. But the real question raised a while back is "Does Acura purposely rate the RDX's towing capacity lower than what it can handle, and why?" So, the dilemma is not "Does Acura engineer the RDX with a minimal capacity because there is no market demand," but rather "Does Acura report all the capacity that it engineered into the RDX?"
I received a phone call from my local Acura dealer recently, two days before Christmas. He told me that there was some sort of contest going on and that if I wanted a sweet deal I would have to come down right away :confuse: . I assume it was the end of year push to get inventory off the lot. I told him that the kind of deal that I was looking for was something a little above the invoice price. After an extremely long pause :surprise: he told me that he could not come that close to the invoice price but could offer some deep discounts. What does every make of this? Did others get a similar phone call? What is the best price for an RDX with the tech package? I read that some people were able to get just $1,000 knocked off the MSRP but I wasn't sure if that had something to do with their trade in.
It's not a bad guess, but it appears to be nothing more than a guess. So, I suggest we take it for what it is and move on.
C_Hunter is right. It might require a little haggling, but you should be able to get one within a few hundred bucks of invoice.
And you should, for the same reason that there are more TLs on the road than TSX. In fact, TL outsold RSX too by 3:1 or better.
There is no point targeting the same market segment with RDX that MDX already serves. Good to have a sport ute, to go with something more practical with a wider appeal.
There is no point targeting the same market segment with RDX that MDX already serves. Good to have a sport ute, to go with something more practical with a wider appeal.
If your theory is true then the example below shouldn't have happened.
BMW Example:
3 series 2006 sales 508,498
5 series 2006 sales 232,162
X3 2006 sales 113,997
X5 2006 sales 75,356
I also echo your opinion that the RDX is too sporty... I would gladly trade-off some of the sporty handling for a more compliant ride, and a little more interior luxury...
The ride is what you get when you order an SUV that can take corners the way the RDX can. But I think they are going lose sales to the poseurs. The guys and dolls who want something that looks sporty, but really don't have any intention of driving that way. It would not surprise me to find Acura offering a "touring package" with softer suspension, while the current set-up becomes the "Type S" or "sport model".
Go figure. Everyone complains that Acura isn't sporty enough; yet, when they build a vehicle with the right stuff, people complain it isn't soft enough.
As for the interior, I think it's a matter of taste. Acura went for the high-tech look. There's old-world luxury with the plush fabrics, wood trim, analog dials, and soft edges. Then there's the modernistic approach with the brushed metallic accents, carbon fiber, hard creases, and electronic displays. Most car interior blend them in an attempt to reach the most buyers. Acura went high-tech with the RDX and played it more conservative with the MDX.
I think that is very true in the US. But up here in Canada the compact SUV market is supposed to be the hottest SUV segment. Mind you, my impression was based solely on personal (non-scientific) observation. Perhaps the actual sales numbers would not bear that out.
Though, I think that applies more to the mass-market than the premium market. There just aren't enough of the premium type for sale.
That said, the RX350 most directly competes with the Touareg, MDX, M-Class, and XC90. In price, it is a better match for those vehicles. Historically, it has always been compared with those vehicles. The same is true for the BMW X5.
The current list of premium compact SUVs includes the RDX, X3, and Freelander (soon to be LR2). I might be convinced to include the FX35 in that list, but, again, it's more like a mid-size that smoked too much and stunted its growth.
Of them, only the X3 has been a success. And I think a good part of that comes from the fact that the X5 is too small. Buyers can get 90% of what the X5 offers for a significantly lower price. Once the new X5 comes to town, the cannibalization will slow down.
Yeah, I guess it's a bit of a tweener, just like the FX and Murano. I thought about the Freelander, but it doesn't seem to register on the radar of most buyers. I guess perhaps everyone is waiting for the LR2. :confuse:
It's all part of the law of division.
I am using a special cable that plugs into the iPod dock connector on one end and has a 1/8" headphone connector on the other end, to go into the stereo. If you search around for iPod accessories, you can find dozens of cables like this. The benefit of using the dock connector is that you get a true line-level out, which is cleaner than the headphone out.
The RDX is actually fairly wide for a small SUV. Based on the internal measurements, I'd say it's doable. I know it works with the 2007 CR-V and both have about the same hip and shoulder room in the back.
When you get into rear facing seats, you might have trouble with any compact SUV. Fitting one in the middle isn't a big deal because it slots between the two font seatbacks. However, the outboard positions have far less room.