Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

2013 Acura RDX



  • rphwackrphwack Posts: 21
    I was looking through the website and didn't see Back-up Sensors being offered like the 2012 RDX had. The product specialist at the NY Autoshow said that the dealer would be able to install it but I'm not so sure. i know that the 2013 RDX comes with a back-up camera but i like the sensors also. Anybody know about this?
  • wasfanwasfan Posts: 15
    I know it's early but I'd like to know what the 2013 AWD is like compared to the CRV version, since the SH-AWD will no longer be available. I like most of what I'm seeing and hearing about the 2013 RDX. I would hope it handles better than the CRV. Since I've only driven first generation CRV's, did that AWD system ever get better in the latter generations of CRV's? I wasn't a big fan of it, I didn't think it did that much- our little, older Civic was better in the snow. I like the 6 cylinder and would just wish for manual transmission availability.
  • cpapongcpapong Posts: 2
    Went with wife to see RDX on lot Saturday after NW PA dealer was closed and then called them Monday. Only willing to come $400 off price even though my wife bought her 2003 CL-S from them. Parents just bought 2012 CR-V EXL AWD without navigation for $27,125 and it is a nice vehicle (back up camera is very nice!). However, my wife has waited ten years for a new car and will test drive the RDX when we get back from vacation. She is not happy that the Base RDX AWD does not have Zenon lights and a few other items that her 2003 CL-S has. I think the base TSX even has Zenon lights. Her major complaint though is the bundling of navigation with features she wants such as the Zenon lights and the power lift gate. Feels ACURA ripping her off by having to pay extra for the nav to get what she wants. I had warned her before she started looking that she will probably have to spend at least $40,000 to get all the features she wants no matter what car company she buys from. I may be wrong, but a 2012 MDX AWD without the tech package might only be 2k more than the RDX with the tech packge and the MDX has the Zenon lights.

    I wish they kept the 2012 Super handling and had dual chrome exhauts for the rear. Cargo space of 8 more cubic feet to 35 or so would be nice also. The CV-R, which is about $10,000 cheaper has about 37! Of course vehicle stying has a lot to due with this. I will try to post what she eventually does.
  • mcgoatmcgoat Posts: 1
    We test drove a CRV and while it looks good on paper, I felt that honda crammed too much into the vehicle at the expense of cutting corners in some critical areas, in effect cheapening the overall ride and appearance. For example, The right side passenger seat seemed short and was very uncomfortable. It appeared to me that they had shortened the seat to save weight. I can't imagine sitting in it for long trips. I also found the buttons surrounding the navi system were very small and confusing. Just several little things like that. I know the CRV has a strong track record, but we were concerned we would quickly have buyers remorse. We looked at least ten different vehicles before settling on the RDX. Granted it is 10k more expensive than the CRV, but it felt it. Solid, comfortable, quiet, functional.........we pick ours up this evening!
  • markt5markt5 Posts: 3
    Hi, I just bought the RDX 2013 with Tech package without AWD for $500 below MSRP (after getting one price quote at MSRP and a third one at $500 below). I think your wife may like the other things included in the tech package -- upgraded stereo, nav, and storage of CDs on the car's hard drive.

    At any rate, we love pretty much everything about the car. The sense of spaciousness is great as is the ride and the interior quietness. Braking feels secure and assured. Acceleration is smooth.
  • mobil930mobil930 Posts: 7
  • markt5markt5 Posts: 3
    It was $38,415 in CA.
  • qman168qman168 Posts: 4
    May I know if this out the door price or not?
  • markt5markt5 Posts: 3
    Before taxes, etc. It is the MSRP minus $500 for the 2 WD with tech package.
  • rlemayrlemay Posts: 3
    One of the reviews I saw said it had a full size spare tire but I haven't found it listed in the Acura literature. Does anyone know if the RDX has a real spare tire?
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    edited May 2012
    lol, we say it has:

    Alloy wheels
    18 x 7.5 in. wheels
    Steel spare wheel
    P235/60R18 102V tires
    All season tires
    Inside mounted spare tire
    Temporary spare tire

    Talk about covering the bases. Guess that means it depends on the style of RDX you get or the option package.

    2013 Acura RDX Features & Specs

  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,175
    edited May 2012
    Don't see the confusion. It's a temporary tire mounted on a steel rim and stored inside the vehicle. The rest of the tires are mounted on alloys in the size and type indicated. Why would it be different per style or option pkg?
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    So they can charge more money?

    Your explanation makes sense, thanks.

    Can't say I've ever heard of a temporary spare being mounted on an alloy rim though or anything else other than steel.

    At least is doesn't have runflats eh?
  • rlemayrlemay Posts: 3
    Yes, not having runflats is a good thing.

    Thanks. I'll try to find the review I watched on YouTube that said it had a "full-size" spare tire. Or I could drive to the Acura dealer. ;)
  • dmclone1dmclone1 Posts: 17
    Wife traded in a 2008 Nissan Rogue about 3 weeks ago. Got an AWD non-tech and couldn't be happier with it. We looked at some others like the BMW X3, Audi Q5, Honda CRV, etc. It really came down to the RDX and the Q5. I preferred the look and interior of the Q5. I preferred the engine and price of the RDX. I didn't think the Q5 was worth the asking price but it was very nice. I also still have questions about VW/Audi reliability even though I had previously owned a GTI and had zero problems. The wife has put about 1,000 miles on it so far and she's getting about 24mpg.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Could be a difference between F/awd or not....
  • Test drove the 2013 RDX at Radley Acura in Virginia and the salesman said one of the benefits of this model is that it takes regular gas.

    I pointed out that the literature all says premium required, and he said not at all. In fact, he argued I'd get better mileage with mid-grade gas, which is what he says he uses in his TL.

    Is this guy smoking something?
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    edited May 2012
    Hm, I wonder if he's confused since the new RDX is getting a new engine and will be using the same AWD drivetrain as the CR-V?

    We also say the 2013 RDX requires premium unleaded.

    The last word though would be what the gas cap or flap says.

    btw, what were your other impressions from the test drive?
  • vinnieg1vinnieg1 Posts: 53
    I tried this with my 2011 RDX. On premium I averaged 21 mpg on midgrade I averaged 21mpg on regular I averaged 18MPG. I guess I will stick with Premium.
  • My impressions from the test drive were mostly Wow this is not like the old RDX! It's only an inch bigger but it feels much bigger to me. The fun-to-drive quotient is down. It feels much more to me like an SUV -- like I'm sitting behind the wheel of a truck. I wasn't nuts either about the electronic steering -- felt more numb to me than the reviews I've seen made it out to be. All in all, it's clear they are targeting squarely against the Lexus.

    I was also disappointed with some of the interior features that seem to have been overlooked. No rear vents. No 12V outlet in the back. No grocery bag hooks. And the rear seats don't fold all the way flat like they do in the CR-V. You're left with a pretty big hump when you put the seats down. Disappointing. Then there's that premium gas.

    On the plus side, the fit and finish is outstanding. The seats, the drivers position, and the redesigned interior are definitely a class above the previous model. The engine isn't what I'd call exciting but it's responsive, smooth and refined, and the mileage is best in class if it delivers as advertised. The car appears to be quieter than previous models as well, which is important to me. And the standard features, like always, are impossible to beat.

    So all my disappointments considered, I still may be buying one. I don't need 4WD but I want a car that seats 4 tall people comfortably, can handle a load when needed, is uber-reliable, gets respectable mileage, and would be comfortable on very long road trips. Cars like the CR-V fail on the last point (comfort and road noise), "near-luxury" cars don't have the space I need, and SUVs generally get horrible mileage. Crossovers like the Volvo and Audi cost even more and aren't more reliable, practical, or efficient.

    The killer is I need to buy a car within the next few weeks, which means I'd be paying a silly premium for this car. Bad timing for me.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    edited May 2012
    the mileage is best in class if it delivers as advertised.

    Honda has had some lousy PR in that regard lately. But I don't think anyone is claiming 20 city like Acura does for the 2013 RDX. I don't like the idea of paying for premium either, but a ten or fifteen cent differential isn't bad when gas is $4 a gallon for regular. It used to be that much back of a difference when gas was $2 a gallon but the percentage difference is less now.

    CX-9 maybe?
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,175
    Edmunds full test ended up with a 22mpg avg for the AWD. I believe that is right on the estimated EPA avg for the AWD(23mpg for the FWD). I haven't seen too many Edmunds full test where the observed MPG was exactly the EPA combined mpg estimate. Usually it is way lower. To me that is a promising sign for this vehicle.
  • CX-9? Sorry, I can't bring myself to consider a car that gets worse mileage than my 1999 minivan.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    edited May 2012
    Since the advent of EFI manfacturers have had the ability to have the engine ECU modify the A/F mixture DYNAMICALLY, "on-the-fly". Regulate the mixture emissions-wise during idle and cruise and then switch to a power mixture, ~12:1, when you put your foot in it.

    Then in about 2000 a new wideband, non-resonant, knock/ping sensor was developed and begin to be adopted throughout the industry. The advantage of this new sensor is that it could not only be used to sense knock/ping but also the initiation of the flamefront due to the actual spark.

    Should detonation, dieseling, be detected the initial response will be to slightly enrich the mixture. Net result is that you can now fuel these high compression engines with regular with no detrimental effects other than loss of few HP.
  • OK I went back for another test drive and got the skinny on the gas.

    On the car it's printed "Premium Fuel (89 Octane) Recommended"

    So it's mid-grade, and it's recommended -- not required.

    Somebody should tell all these reviewers who are saying "requires premium gas"
  • I realized on my second test drive why it feels more like a truck than the old RDX.

    The hood on the old RDX was like the hood of a car -- lower and flatter. The view from the cockpit is very car-like.

    The hood on the new RDX is really tall, and the dash is more substantial as well. In other words, the view from the cockpit is more truck-like.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,175
    I guess I'm not so concerned about the slightly different feel of the view. I'm more interested in the quality of the ride.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,175
    Thanks for taking the time for clearing this up. You're right, I wish when all these professional auto journalist review cars they would take the time to research(doesn't take a whole lot of time as you proved) and tell people about the type of gas the vehicle takes. In these times when people are concerned about MPG and gas prices, even people that buy Acura, Lexus, BMW etc etc want to know.
  • xphoustonxphouston Posts: 1
    Hi I purchased an RDX 2013 last month and I heard that in order to increase the life of your engine is better to do the first 2 or 3 oil changes early.

    The first one before the first 1000 miles and at least another one before the 3000 miles before going to regular intervals.

    Does anybody know for sure about this?

    Thanks in advace,
  • m6userm6user Posts: 3,175
    Better check with your manual and/or your dealer. I have read many times that Honda/Acura uses a special break in oil and have a very specific requirement on when you change it for the first time. I believe it is much longer than 1,000 miles. It's supposed to be some kind of "conditioning" oil if IRC.

    It's been common for years for people to do a quick oil change on a brand new car to supposedly "rinse out" any leftover metal filings, etc from the manufacturing process. Probably didn't hurt and is kind of cheap insurance but I really don't know if it's all that necessary with todays engines and processes.
Sign In or Register to comment.