Acura RDX

sockpuppet1969 · September 2005

I realize that this is not a RAV4 forum but here goes anyway...

Why in the world do we need a 268hp RAV4? It goes against the vehicle's original philosophy of an economical MINI-SUV. It will certainly get relatively poor mileage with this engine option.

Why do I care if they make this engine available? I'll tell you why... Although a more economical 4 cyl will also be available it will most likely not be available in the top trim level with all the goodies. I am sick and tired of car manufacturers making me buy and overpowered vehicle just so I can get all the luxury and safety features I want (and they can take as much of my money as possible).

Kirstie_H · September 2005

Folks, let's stick to discussion about the Acura RDX. We have a topic dedicated to the 2006 Toyota Rav4, so please use that topic to talk about the Rav4.

belias · September 2005

I'm pretty sure the RDX will sell well regardless of engine size because there are a lot of people, myself included, who, when buying a luxury-sport vehicle expect to get most everything included as "standard". As much as I love BMW and Lexus, it drives me nuts that you have to option it out like you're buying a Pontiac. About the only thing that should be "optional" are engine and wheel sizes. Going through a laundry list of bizarre option combinations just turns me off completely. It also adds significantly to the manufacturing cost, which in turn adds to the price you pay. At the time I bought my CL-S, the equivalent 330 with a pathetic BMW Nav system (CD-based at the time) was almost $12K more with a significantly lower-powered engine as well (212 compared to 260 on the CL-S). Never mind the hassle of trying to find the right exterior/interior colors with what you want. Too many variables in a luxury segment just doesn't make sense to me. Lexus and Infinity do the same thing. Good cars in the G350 and M35, but options add as much as $10K to $15K on an already $40K price. The whole point of these vehicles is to offer the best that they can. If not, go for a Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc. where numbers are higher and production costs are lower. For BMW, they don't have an "entry" brand of vehicles so, they may be spared some of this argument, but they are still considered a bench-mark for performance in most every class of vehicle that they compete in.
I do hope the RDX comes with a 6cylinder engine. My guess is that they get the MDX's current V6 and the new MDX will get a souped up RL-type V6 or maybe even a V8 finally (if Honda ever decides to do one... don't hold your breath).

ateixeira · September 2005

Actually, I like Acura's packaging as well. Even the TSX comes loaded. Pick NAV or no NAV, then pick the tranny. Sign and drive off. Voila.

Very simple. Maybe they'll do the RDX the same way.

-juice

varmint · September 2005

Acura does offer some options, but not nearly as many as the others. For example, there's two trims for the MDX. There was a Type S and base model both the CL and TL. There still is for the RSX. And while it's not a factory trim, Acura offers the dealer installed A-Spec performance packages, which are not completely dissimilar to the sport packages offered by the others.

I suspect we'll see something similar to the MDX, when the RDX bows. A base model plus a touring trim. Then options for both NAV and RES.

varmint · September 2005

For those who haven't kept up on the rumor mill...

Honda developed a turbo 4 cylinder engine for the RDX a while back. However, they couldn't find a supplier who would build the turbo unit to their standards for durability and reliability. (I'm sure there are plenty out there who could do it, but it would cost an arm and a leg.)

So Honda switched to a V6 powerplant. Apparently, they worked out that design and were just about ready to finalize things when...

Somebody figured out a way to get the turbo 4 back into the picture. Now that is back to being the powerplant at the top of the list. Or so the rumor-mongers say...

ateixeira · September 2005

But even those haven't made VWs very reliable.

Looking forward to sampling a turbo Honda of any sort.

-juice

kyfdx · September 2005

Yeah.. the 2.0T that they use in the A3 would do the trick... Maybe in a 2.4 litre version... making around 230 hp...

Oh yeah... with Honda reliability, please..

bodble2 · October 2005

What? You mean to say Audis aren't reliable?! :surprise: :P

steveaccord · October 2005

I have been away for a few month and it is nice to see the same crowd still hangs around the post.
I cannot say that I am similarly impressed with the usual secrecy shrouding the RDX.
I guess by now we have grown accustomed to 'not knowing' what we will see once the car is finally released. I still hope some of you may finally find out some more details soon..
Kudos to all of you...

ateixeira · October 2005

Take the 2.4l in the TSX and add light-pressure turbo charging.

-juice

jrynn · October 2005

1 - It has memory seats;
2 - It has at least as much cargo room as an X3;
3 - Its engine slots between the X3 2.5 (now discontinued) and X3 3.0;
4 - It gets at least 27 (EPA) mpg on the highway.

1 - Lack of memory seats in my TSX is a HUGE irritant in a car I wind up sharing with another driver.
2 - I've got dogs -- if this is an SUV/station wagon substitute, I'd better be able to haul them around. (Otherwise, the full-size SUV we already have will keep dog-hauling duty and we'll look for another sedan.)
3 - Acura was very smart to put an engine in the TSX that outperformed the 3 Series 2.5, esp. at a cheaper price.
4 - Gas costs too much for me to buy an SUV that offers pretty minimal "U." And if Lexus can almost squeeze that kind of mileage out of the RX330 with much bigger horsepower/torque numbers than I expect to see in the RDX, it ought to be a pretty easy bar to reach. Otherwise, we may remain a full-size SUV/sedan family rather than become a 2-SUV family.

[Of course, the BIG reasons I'm willing to wait and see what the RDX looks like rather than run out and pick up an X3 tomorrow result from a very positive experience with the TSX. Great quality & reliability. And a much better price/value prop. than BMW offers.]

What factors are going to drive other's decisions to buy (or not buy) the RDX? I'm sure there are some "must haves" and "must avoids."

ateixeira · October 2005

Nice list, but if it meets all those criteria it might end up costing $35 grand. Would you be willing to pay that much?

That would still undercut an X3 that was well equipped, by the way.

-juice

jrynn · October 2005

I wouldn't expect it to be listed much cheaper.

(Judging by the # of other mini-sport-SUV's that seem to be in the pipeline, it won't be the new kid on the block for long, and we should start to see discounts off MSRP fairly quickly.)

2moreyears · October 2005

Why on earth would Acura price the RDX at 35K. If it has an I-4 with a turbo, is 8 inches (or so) shorter than an MDX, and plans to undercut the X3 in price (which Acura usually does), then it would be financial suicide to have a base model start at 35K. Would you pay for an RDX when you can get a TL with a thriller V-6 for the same price? Would you pay 35K for an RDX when for about 2K more you can get an MDX? Or would you pay 35K for an RDX when you can negotiate an X3 down to the same price? If Acura want to keep up its phenomenal job as an automotive company, it would be best that they price starting at 30K- just about 3K more than a TSX with a similar engine.

nowakj66 · October 2005

ateixeira · October 2005

Keep in mind the base price of the X3 is close to $38 grand. Toureg is up there also. The dollar ain't what it used to be.

X3 and X5 are actually pretty close in price, more so now that the 2.5 model is dropped.

-juice

jrynn · October 2005

2moreyears: Perhaps you're right about the engine the RDX will get. Perhaps you're not. Let's say you are. ...

ABSOLUTELY, I would take a $35K RDX over a TL. Gotta have room for 2 adults, 2 kids, and 2 dogs. ABSOLUTELY, I would take a $35K RDX over an MDX for $2K more. We already have one battleship SUV that's a pain to parallel park on urban streets; we don't need a second. MAYBE, I would take a $35K RDX (at list) over a $35K X3 (discounted). But I sincerely expect that after the "first RDX on the block" purchases have been made, Acura will wind up discounting the RDX relative to the X3. (See my post above.) And, ABSOLUTELY, I would take an RDX with a discount similar to that the TSX enjoys relative to the 3-Series over an X3. ...

... provided, of course, that the RDX handles as well as the X3 and not like the TL/MDX. I attended the BMW X3 Ultimate Driving Event last summer, and was VERY impressed by how hard that SAV could be driven without coming unglued from the road. BAD handling in the RDX, not a $35K price tag, would be the deal-breaker.

ateixeira · October 2005

I went to the same event in DC. Walked away with that little orange cone for best performance, too. :-)

X3 rides stiff as a brick, though, and that wasn't even with the sport package. It's hard to get an SUV to handle well but I'd give up just a tad to have a decent ride.

-juice

jchan2 · October 2005

A 4 cylinder will sell better than the V6 because of the higher gas prices.

Just my two cents.

2moreyears · October 2005

jchan2's right. And with a turbo (similar to the ones in Saabs), it would feel like a V6 with 4 cyl economy.

phastphil1 · October 2005

The 2006 TSX will have memory seats, blue tooth phone link, foglites, and updated nav with the zagat survey and faster processor. So it will be interesting to see what the equipment list for the RDX will be.

dewey · October 2005

Add to the list a likely VW compact SUV and a Lexus IS based SUV!

jchan2 · October 2005

you have a totally new segment.

My favorite? The RDX probably.

lucky5 · October 2005

The problem with adding a turbo to a 4 cyl. engine...fuel economy goes down. Compare the gas mileage numbers on the Audi Turbo..the Subaru 2.5 turbo, etc. Very close to their 6cyl counterparts. Turbo has more moving parts...more engine heat.

If the RDX has a 4 cyl turbo...it needs to be priced well below the BMW...probably a a thousand or so above the comparable Subaru turbo.

$35k tops for a loaded 6 cyl RDX. $30-32k if it is a turbo 4.

I have a lingering concern about the build quality of the RDX. My experience and friends' experiences with US built Acura's....they rattle. Beemers don't. Subaru's are pretty tightly built too.

belias · October 2005

Given Acura's history in building vehicles, I doubt very much that they will put a turbo in their RDX. Not to say that it absolutely won't happen, but I would say the chances are small. Acura likes to get its power from other systems, not from super-charging or turbo-charging. There is no need for that anyway as they have very strong 4 and 6 cylinder engines for many of their vehicles.
Also, as mentioned before in pricing, I would be very surprised if Acura priced the RDX at $35K, My guess is that they are looking at $32K to $33K and possibly getting up to $35K with the Nav system. Any more and it will compete with its own MDX. Like the TSX and TL, I think they want some "breathing" room between vehicles. Though, it may just be that at a $35K pricing point, the new MDX would get bumped in price to start in the $40K range. I just hope they can keep the prices down so that people can see that they are not just great performing, reliable cars, but that they are a good value as well.

varmint · October 2005

The MDX is equipped like a 99-03 TL with AWD and a few extra electronic bits. I expect the RDX will be equipped much like a TSX with AWD and a few extra bits.

Take the price of a TSX and add $2-3K for the AWD system. Then add an extra $2K for the fact that it's an SUV with wagon utility and because Americans think SUVs are worth more than cars (it's just ingrained in our culture). Then add a few bucks for those extra bits.

I would not be the least bit surprised if the pricing went like this...

$32,500 - Base
$35,000 - Touring
$36,500 - Touring w/RES
$37,000 - Touring w/NAV
$39,500 - Touring with RES and NAV

I know many potential buyers will be thinking, "I can get a TL with a 6 cyl for mid 30's", and you'd be right. But you can get an Accord V6 for the price of a 4 cyl CR-V. That hasn't stopped CR-V sales. People still pay the premium for AWD and SUV utility.

Others may be thinking, "I can buy an MDX for the price of a loaded RDX", and you'd be right about that, too. But by the time the RDX hits the streets, the next generation MDX will be months away. And you can bet the next MDX is going to start at a higher base price than the current model.

varmint · October 2005

Honda/Acura has already developed the turbo engine. They almost had to scrap the design because they couldn't find a supplier who could build them to Honda's high standards for quality and durability (without charging and arm and a leg).

The most recent rumors state that Honda has resolved that issue.

I'd say it's too soon for us to assume the RDX will be turbo-powered. But I wouldn't bet against it.

2moreyears · October 2005

I disagree with what you said about turbos. If you click on my user name, you will see that I own (or more correctly: lease) an Audi A4. An A4 1.8T to be exact. The "T" stands for turbo and in real life driving, I average around 27-28 mpg. Not bad at all, considering that my un-tubocharged 1999 subaru outback 4 cyl averaged 24 mpg. Is it that the germans know how to build a fuel efficient turbo- maybe, but I completely disagreed when you said "The problem with adding a turbo to a 4 cyl. engine...fuel economy goes down." Again, look at a Saab 95 Arc. It's turbo 4 achieves 20/30 mpg. Roughly 25-26 with realistic driving. Now, an Audi A6 3.2 V6 achieves 19/26 and my mother in-law says she only gets 17 on hers. Why would anyone want a gas guzzling V6 when you can get the same power with better response and better fuel economy. So in short, if a I-4 is going in the RDX, then its most likely that the engine will be turbo charged.

I also agree with varmint's pricing for the most part, I think prices could be anywhere from $1000 to $500 lower than (s)he posted, but otherwise your on the ball. As I said i a previous post, a 35K base RDX is economic suicide.

jchan2 · October 2005

$39,500 sounds steep.

I'd say it would topping out at $37,500 and the MDX going on up from there.

varmint · October 2005

I think the best comparison you might hope to get is the Subaru Outback 2.5T versus the 3.0 H6 version of the same car. Both claim 250 hp and get 19-25 mpg. So, on paper, they're pretty much even. Comparing an Audi sedan to an AWD Subaru Wagon brings up all kinds of miss-matched factors which impact fuel economy.

For performance purposes, the turbo model has more torque. However the H6 won't suffer from turbo-lag. Pick your poison.

Most of my experience in turbo-powered cars comes from older models, but I generally prefer naturally aspirated engines. A good 6 cyl tends to get the job done with less drama.

varmint · October 2005

$39,500 is steep. But if you backtrack the hardware from $37,500, you get a base price of about $30,000. This price point is possible, but you can bet the vehicle will not have the same content as the TSX. To cut costs, they'd have to eliminate basic content and cut corners. For example...

Eliminate 2 speakers from the audio set up, or make them cheap paper cone units.
Make that driver's seat 6-way power adjustable instead of 8-way. (The passenger's would be manual.)
Forget about memory seats.
Eliminate the adjustable lumbar support.
Eliminate the telescopic wheel adjustment.
Eliminate SportShift.
Give it an el-cheapo head liner.
Cover the dash in either chintzy faux metal accents or poorly simulated wood.

Stuff like that would probably get the price down to $30,000 for the base model. You'd still have a powerful engine, on a capable chassis, with a very high-tech AWD system. But the total package would be just short of class-leading. Kind of like an Altima.

jchan2 · October 2005

But that would mean the MDX would rise in price

varmint · October 2005

I share your dispair, but that has always been a given. The RL is more expensive than the old 3.5RL. The TL is more expensive than the 3.2TL. The RSX is more expensive than the Integra. Each time a car is redesigned the price jumps a bit. The next generation MDX would probably have cost 2 grand more than the current model even without the RDX coming.

jchan2 · October 2005

Which means for those of us interested, we can swipe a 2006 MDX at the year end closeout for a really good price.

bodble2 · October 2005

Just to wade in on this discussion, I would pick the 6 any day. Smoother, quieter, more low-end grunt, less temperamental, less peaky, better reliability and durabilty.

jchan2 · October 2005

They could offer both engines.

2moreyears · October 2005

I cant remember the last time Acura used 2 DIFFERENT engines for the same model. I capitalized different b/c I know someone out there is dying to correct me by saying that currently there is an RSX and and Type-S version, along with the previous generation TL and CL. Those are different engine setups, I'm saying that it has been a long time (if ever) that Acura has but two different cylindered engines in a car.

ateixeira · October 2005

I didn't say V because Subaru uses an H.

This choice splits even the usually tight-knit Subaru family. There are fans of both camps.

The turbo performs better, especially at altitude. It uses more gas, though, and has slight throttle lag (not much with a 2.5l with variable valve timing). The power is addictive so most people use it, and then pay at the pump.

The H6 is slightly more efficient in real-world driving (forget EPA), and quicker throttle response. It's also smoother. It's not as quick in just about every situation (even low revs, because it's tuned for high revs).

Pick your poison. There are trade-offs for both and no clear "better" engine.

I'd put the H6 in a commuter/luxury car, the turbo in a performance car. So Acura's choice will be interesting, and likely determine the overall character of the RDX. Since luxury intenders would likely go with an MDX anyway, a turbo might be interesting to spice things up.

-juice

varmint · October 2005

Acura used to offer a 2.5TL and a 3.2TL before 1999 (and after they dumped the Vigor name). But, yes, Honda/Acura seldom offers engine options. Right now only the Accord and Civic offer different displacements. Even so, the Civic variants are alternative fuel cars.

The idea of Acura using both a turbo and 6 cyl is kinda warm and fuzzy, but not at all realistic. Right now, the best information points toward a turbo. The only drawback I see to that plan is what they might do with the CR-V, since it will be based on the same platform. A V6 could be tuned for both. Not sure how the mainstream mass market would react to a turbo CR-V.

As for the notion that luxury-buyers are shy of turbos, I'm not so sure. I agree that V6 smoothness would have great appeal. It's not the American or Japanese way to build luxury. So, my first instinct is to agree.

But, OTOH, the European players (Saab, Volvo, Porche, and Audi) have been offering turbo-charged cars for quite some time. Many of those brands have only done so-so with the turbo offerings, but it wouldn't be the first time Honda/Acura pulled off something the others could never accomplish.

jchan2 · October 2005

But Acura isn't really known for turbocharged engines. (Unlike Audi, Volvo, and Saab)

varmint · October 2005

for SUVs prior to the MDX. Nor was Honda known for minivans prior to 1999. They weren't known for cross-overs until the 1997 CR-V. Acura wasn't known for supercars until the NSX. And they weren't known for luxury cars until the Legend.

Wanna talk jet engines?

Anyway, the newness of Acura and turbo-power might cause speculation, but, for whatever reason, Honda/Acura has never had a problem with introducing new things. The effectiveness of the design is far more important than the speculation. If the RDX is good, people will laude over Acura for the turbo.

kyfdx · October 2005

How about an NA engine for the new CR-V, and an upgraded turbo variant for the RDX?

jchan2 · October 2005

Sounds good.

will they build a RDX Type S?

jrynn · October 2005

I'm often amused by some of the posts on these boards. But since I'm sure they're all well-intentioned, if not necessarily well-informed, I'll just point out to other readers that perhaps it's best to take some of what you read here (including what I write) with a grain of salt.

Right now, the best information points toward a turbo.

I'd be curious to know where that "best information" comes from. I'm not aware of any Honda/Acura spokesperson suggesting that a turbo-4 is the direction they're headed with the RDX, and I don't know of any current or planned Honda/Acura offering in the US that uses a turbo-4. It would hardly be surprising if Acura -- like BMW with the X3/X5 or the 330/530-- used it's existing 6-cyl powerplant. (Unless the Acura engine is substantially larger and heavier than the BMW engine, it clearly can be done. And what's going to separate the MDX from the RDX buyer is going to be demand for space (esp. 3rd row seating) rather than engine size.

OTOH, the European players (Saab, Volvo, Porche, and Audi) have been offering turbo-charged cars for quite some time. Many of those brands have only done so-so with the turbo offerings, but it wouldn't be the first time Honda/Acura pulled off something the others could never accomplish.

Say what you want about Saab, but Volvo, Porsche and Audi have hardly had "so-so" levels of success with their turbos. For instance, the best-selling Euro SUV in America is predominantly sold with turbos. Honda/Acura would hardly be leading the way.

Maybe the RDX WILL turn out to be powered by a turbo-4. But I'd at least like to see the information sourced to a RELIABLE company source (if not directly then through a journalist with true industry cred.)

And let's not get carried away with the Honda/Acura love. I think they make great cars. I have one now and I will be taking a close look at the RDX when it launches for all the reasons previously posted. But I don't think Acura is exactly breaking new ground here.

ateixeira · October 2005

If you wait for a reliable company source, the information will come out on the very day of the debut of the RDX at the auto show, and this thread would not even exist.

We hear rumors and share them. A lot of times you see spy shots or hear rumors from people direclty or indirectly involved with the project, hence the discussions.

Plus, keep in mind the "best information" often comes from a secret source, or even a source not mentionable due to Edmunds rules (no links to competing sites).

So while you're being very idealistic, to say the least, the rest of us will continue to enjoy sharing the rumors and discussing the uncomfirmed possibilities and the pros and cons of each.

Have a nice day.

-juice

varmint · October 2005

If you read the entire conversation (lots more posts to amuse you!), you'll see that I have been consistently describing all information on the subject as simply rumors. When I wrote, "the best information", I was referring to rumors from people who actually have a clue and get some insider information from time to time. I make that disctinction because there are gobs of other rumors out there based only on what some people "think" will be coming.

For the source of those rumors, try the articles section at TOV. (I think Edmunds will allow me to say at least that much.) If it makes you feel any better, the concept RD-X shown at the auto show last year was powered by a four banger.

As for the success of Audi, Volvo, and Saab, only Audi has had real success here in the US. And a large number of the cars they sell are naturally aspirated. If you look at sales of thier turbo-powered models alone, the picture does't look so rosey.

Lastly, I don't recall anyone saying that Acura is breaking new ground. Other than to say that the RDX is new ground for the Acura line-up.

2moreyears · October 2005

So I was browsing the web and found this european Honda. Does anyone else see the resemblance? Please post!

I think the FR-V and the RDX might be twins (or based on each other). I also think that the RDX pictured here is almost exactly what you are going to get. Take for example the 2004 TL. The top photo is of the concept car, the bottom is of the production car.

varmint · October 2005

The FR-V (aka Edix) is based on the global small car platform. It replaced the old Stream in the UK and Asian markets. That's the same platform used for the Civic, Element, and CR-V. Being an MPV, the need for interior space is important. So the chassis most closely resembles the Element. It just has more traditional rear doors.

About the closest thing we have here in the US is the Mazda5.

Sorry. For my part, I don't see any physical resemblance. It looks like a combination of the Odyssey and the Civic Si hatchback. I mean, there are a few shared styling cues, but no more than I could count with other Honda models.

ateixeira · October 2005

I see them from different angles.

FR-V is a small platform made roomy, taller especially. Looks very space efficient.

RDX looks wider, more squat and sporty. It's hard to explain but it seems like a smaller vehicle built on a bigger platform.

Vague, I know. Sorry.

-juice

Acura RDX

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles