Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

2013 Acura RDX

2456

Comments

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    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 Member Posts: 3,181
    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.
  • quakerwildcatquakerwildcat Member Posts: 39
    CX-9? Sorry, I can't bring myself to consider a car that gets worse mileage than my 1999 minivan.
  • wwestwwest Member 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.
  • quakerwildcatquakerwildcat Member Posts: 39
    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"
  • quakerwildcatquakerwildcat Member Posts: 39
    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 Member Posts: 3,181
    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 Member Posts: 3,181
    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 Member 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,
    Xavier
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    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.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited May 2012
    That used to be common advice back in the day. Nowadays engines and other parts are engineered to close enough tolerances that it doesn't matter and many cars don't even have any kind of break-in period. Check your owner's manual to see what Acura says.

    About all you need to do with most cars now is just go easy on the brakes at first.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Am just beginning my car replacement search so haven't test driven the RDX yet but probably will soon. However, I did spend a lot of time this weekend sitting in one and getting aquainted with it. Overall very impressed with the price, economy, level of quality in the interior appointments, size and interior roominess. The back seat had what I feel to be unbelievable leg/knee room even with the front driver seat pushed way back there was plenty of room for me to sit very comforatably with my knees not touching the back of the front seat.

    I currently drive an Infiniti QX4 which is pretty close in size on the exterior but the RDX has a lot more room devoted to passengers and a little less to cargo. A good trade off IMO as my current suv has more than enough cargo room but could actually use some more passenger room. So I was very pleased that the RDX provided that. I've seen a few people complain about the lack of roof racks. I've had my QX4 for almost 10 years and have never once placed anything on the roof racks so I guess you could say I can do without. ;)

    I also really liked the 3 different views from the rear view camera. The thickness of the door panel could be wider to rest your elbow if one drives like that(which I do) but isn't so narrow that it would be uncomfortable. I wish there was some provision for a rear net to hold plastic grocery bags from shifting around but I think there may be a way to make up for that but I'm not sure.

    I've never found any vehicle to be perfect but this seems to fit most of needs very well. I know the Acura doesn't have quite the panache of the Lexus and doesn't have as much cargo capacity, but option for option it's about $8-$10k cheaper, weighs 500lbs less, has about the same exact hp/tq and gets significantly better MPG. Like I said....pretty impressive.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    edited May 2012
    Be careful out there...

    QX4 is a RWD based vehicle, if you haven't driven a F/awd vehicle very much in wintertime, adverse roadbed conditions, you may be in for a BIG surprise when you least need one. The older RDX's used the SH-AWD system, the best of the best (short list) of the sideways engine mounted base FWD F/awd vehicles.

    The new RDX F/awd system is a LOT LESS functional insofar as the need, requirement, for true AWD is concerned.

    Suggest you consider the VW version, R/awd, of the Porsche Cayenne.

    Oh, IMMHO the QX4 was an unusually poor design insofar as the 2nd row seating.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    It's only a poor design if a lot of room in the back seat is that important to you. For us it has been a fantastic vehicle for ten years. I only used the back seat for the grandkids once in awhile so the legroom in the back seat wasn't ever a factor. The vehicle has been flawless for 10 years and has only had one actual repair. I wouldn't even consider a VW or a Porsche because of long term ownership expense. I have a nephew that is a VW tech and he verifies that repairs and the associated cost of same would be substantial. Not that I can't afford it but just don't want the hassle of spending that much time getting repairs but thanks for the suggestion.

    I have two other vehicles, one a FWD and one a RWD only with a V8, so I know all about the intracacies of driving in the snow with all types of powertrain combos. Have driven for years with just FWD or RWD vehicles in the snows of Michigan, Il and Wisc. so feel I have a pretty good handle on it.

    The SH-AWD, from what I have gathered, is not so much that much better than the Honda AWD system in the snow, but is really better for handling in the twisties and maybe in slightly slippery situations. I don't carve corners so I believe the AWD system they offer would be fine.

    The QX4 has an AWD mode in additional it's 4wd HI and LO modes. I have never even used either of the 4wd modes and very, very seldom even use AWD mode even in the Chicago area during winter. Grew up in Michigan with just RWD with no ABS, traction control etc so I guess the snow just doesn't scare me that much. In fact, I am even considering just the FWD version of the RDX versus the AWD version because I feel the "need" for AWD or 4WD is overblown even in my neck of the woods. It's nice to have but not necessary to have and I would just as soon have less weight and better mpg. About the only real plus AWD gives me is higher resale which is still a consideration.l
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    I haven't test driven a QX4 for many years but my remembrance is that the seats directly behind the driver/front passenger were awkward for my 6'2" frame. It also seems to me that I remember that some of the awkwardness was due to the feeling of that second row seat being somewhat elevated above the front row seats.

    Insofar as third row issues I never even consider them there, if they were.

    "..."need" for AWD or 4WD is overblown..."

    If your choice is RWD to begin with then I totally agree, one set of wheels/tires for "drive" and a different set for lateral/directional control. But when it comes to a FWD the choice of FWD only or even the weakest F/awd can never be overblown.

    The SH-AWD system has the ability to bias the engine torque primarily to the rear should the need arise, leaving the majority of front tire traction to lateral control/assertion. The best that any of the other systems, F/awd systems, can do is 50/50.

    I can't speak for VW but I have owned 4 air-cooled Porsche 911's, still have a '78 Targa and an '88 Carrera, and none of those have been problematic insofar as mechanical problems are concerned. Our '01 Porsche C4, purchased new, has NEVER seen the inside of a shop. Change the oil every year, DIY, and that's been it.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    "..nephew...verifies that repairs and the associated cost of same would be substantial..."

    Your nephew is absolutely correct, on the money.

    But that statement will apply to ANY upscale luxury class vehicle, Lexus, Porsche, etc. The more important point is that these vehicles are so well designed and reliable that the liklihood of needing shop time is almost not worthy of consideration.

    When I purchased my first LS400, a '92, I also purchased the extended warranty, NEVER again. Over the years I have purchased another 3 LS400's, and 2 RX300s, none of these have EVER been in the shop due to mechanical failure.

    Shop time has consisted of a rebuild of the '92 after it was totalled, and an instance wherein an employee inadvertently scheduled a timing belt (and water pump!!) replacement.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    No, the QX4's rear sit does not sit higher nor does it have a third row. The last year they were made was 2003 so I can see where it has been a few years since your last test drive and the memory may not be exact. The only problem with the second row is legroom and like I said it really hasn't been a problem at all.

    I believe in different strokes for different folks. I've had probably twenty or more front wheel drive only vehicles and just don't have a problem getting around in the snow as do millions of other people in the Chicago area. Never been stuck or slid in the ditch. That's why I'm saying the actual need for AWD/4WD is overblown in the vast majority of situations. It's rare to read a prof. review without the author saying "but if you live in the snow belt you will want the AWD/4WD option, blah, blah". It's nice, gives a little more peace of mind in taking off from a stop and such but it is not a necessity whether it's SH-AWD or not. BTW, I'm very familiar with the Acura system and hnow it works.

    If I lived out in the sticks and had tons of snow it would make sense but it really isn't that big of deal in major metropolitan area.

    It's obvious, by your choice of vehicles, that you like to drive and possibly drive at the limits when appropriate. In your situation it may be very useful to have SH-AWD or something similar. But for the average driver of these small CUVs, FWD is adequate and cost less up front, to maintain and you get better mpg by carrying less weight around.

    I have a neighbor(who admittedly is the area car nut) who has a Q5, MDX, A4 and a X5. Two are being driven by the kids. He loves them all but admits that service and warranty work has been a lot heavier on the German brands and nonexistent on the Acura. He doesn't mind the time in the shop as he just appreciates the drive. I personally don't really care about the drive as much as he does and place more emphasis on the overall experience, ie. handles & rides good, reasonable service costs and few break downs. I tend to keep cars 7-10 years and it seems the Germans are pretty good during warranty and then have many, expensive problems. It may make a difference if a car is a plaything versus a workthing in how repair free it remains. My vehicles tend to be more on the workthing side.
  • quakerwildcatquakerwildcat Member Posts: 39
    Agreed completely. For my purposes, one of the benefits of the RDX is that it comes in a 2WD version with traction control, which handles all the snow I'd ever want to drive in. Lower cost, lighter weight, better mileage, and less to break. I have had front wheel drive cars and trucks with traction control for 10 years and never had a problem in snow, and I have to get up a very steep driveway that ices up to get out onto curvy, hilly old farm roads. Acura traction control on my TL works wonders. Of course, when it's 6+ inches deep and falling, the upscale area I live in is usually littered with 4x4s stuck on the side of the road. You have to use your head.

    As for the rear, I agree the RDX could use some grocery bag hooks or something. The net is pretty useless. I'm thinking I'll just buy something like this and keep it in the back: http://www.everythingsuv.com/creekside_cargo-esuv.asp
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    As a result of TC, "after the fact" activation, having now proved to be a less than an adequate solution, most new designs include a TC "OFF" capability.

    TC is now reduced to being only a method of advising of slippery roadbed conditions of which the driver may not have otherwise been aware.
  • quakerwildcatquakerwildcat Member Posts: 39
    That's absurd. Traction Control "OFF" buttons have been around since the very first implementations of the technology, because sometimes people want to do wheelies.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    edited May 2012
    "...have been around..."

    Yes, but only on RWD cars, you know, the ones that can most easily do "wheelies".. and with directional control remaining FULLY assertable to boot.

    Loss of driven wheel traction on a FWD or F/awd vehicle is so fraught with peril that TC became an absolute MUST as a safety matter once technology permitted. It was only after so much public outcry, owner outcry, that manufacturers came to realize the need for "off" functionality. Leave it to the driver for adequately "feathering" the throttle "just so", or using wheelspin, whatever the case might be.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    "..I have a nephew.."

    Who only gets exposed, primarily, to "broken" vehicles...

    Not exactly a good source for information involving purchasing a new vehicle.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    edited May 2012
    Nor is someone who thinks FWD is "inherently unsafe". :shades:

    Anyone else tire-kicking a 2013 RDX?
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    edited May 2012
    Not exactly a good source for information involving purchasing a new vehicle.

    I believe he is in a much better position to advise than you are based on your, what, vast exposure to a few high performance vehicles. I'm going to believe a nephew over some internet stranger for one thing and also someone that is intimately involved with hundreds of vehicles every year both for service and repair in addition to being exsposed to tech schools and the chit-chat of other technicians.

    You obviously, have an agenda and wish to "persuade" others to your point of view. You don't like FWD...that's fine. I didn't come into this forum to discuss the pros and cons of FWD vs. RWD but to discuss the 2013 Acura RDX.

    I must be a very good driver to have driven FWD vehicles in the Chicago area for 30 years with not one accident that in any way was attributable to FWD.
  • mgoldsteinmgoldstein Member Posts: 58
    edited May 2012
    I am interested in the 2013 RDX. Admittedly, I like the look of a wood trim, but I hate the 3rd party aftermarket peel-and-stick-on appliques. Does anyone know if the Acura Wood Interior Trim accessory is a stick-on applique or if it is a product that requires some 'installation' giving it a flush, factory installed look?

    Thanks.
  • richardycrichardyc Member Posts: 7
    there are some pics in this thread...http://rdx.acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=856060

    the door ones look like 'installed', the dash could be peel and stick like first generation.
  • htxrdxhtxrdx Member Posts: 2
    I just purchased the RDX 2013 model and have had it for about two weeks. I absolutely loved it the first week but now it seems to do some things that make the dirve choppy and uncontrolled feeling. When I take my foot off the gas to just coast for a bit before I apply the brakes, often times I can feel a noticable drag like someone is applying the brakes but I'm not. I'm wondering if that has to do with the variable cylinder management and if anyone esle has experienced this and how apparent it is for them. Most of my driving is neighborhood driving which is where I notice this.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    Coastdown FULL fuel cut effect.
  • quakerwildcatquakerwildcat Member Posts: 39
    I'm not sure what "Coastdown FULL fuel cut effect" means, but THANK YOU for pointing this out. I am experiencing the same thing with my brand new RDX.

    :confuse: Is this normal? :confuse:

    When I take my foot off the accelerator, such as when I'm approaching a red light, I expect to coast to the light. That doesn't always work with the 2013 RDX. Taking my foot off the accelerator seems to have the same effect as downshifting.

    When I'm going downhill, and I take my foot off the accelerator, I expect to see my speed actually continue to increase. Not so on the RDX. Even if I'm going downhill, the car slows down considerably. In other words, it doesn't coast -- at least not like any other car I've driven.

    Is this normal? I can't imagine how this is helping fuel economy.
  • quakerwildcatquakerwildcat Member Posts: 39
    The push button ignition on the RDX has caused a problem I don't know how to solve.

    I park in my garage, and I always back in. I am often making phone calls from the car on my drive home, so that when I pull into the garage, I'm often in the middle of a conversation.

    In my old TL, I would turn the key just one click to cut off the engine but not the Bluetooth, so that I could continue the conversation.

    You see where I'm going. In the new RDX, if I push the engine button, everything shuts off, including the Bluetooth. I can't leave the engine running inside the garage, for obvious reasons. Is there any way to cut off the engine but not the electronics? (I know you can start that way by pushing the button without a foot on the brake, but I need to go in the other direction)
  • mrso1mrso1 Member Posts: 4
    I'm assuming this is normal I get the same effect as described by you on my 2013 AWD RDX. And by what's it saying word by word, I'm assuming it's just cutting off the fuel when you are coasting just enough to keep the engine on. But this is just my assumption, and i'm assuming combined with the variable cylinder it makes it more noticeable for those who have driven cars that doesn't have this. It's after all to save on the gas mileage, I guess it's just something we have to get use to. Anyways, I went and did a little research and found this on the camry forum from edmunds who was experiencing similar effects, hope it is helpful:

    "#93 of 293 Re: 2011 transmission etc [puru] by wwest
    Jan 20, 2011 (11:23 am)
    Replying to: puru (Jan 19, 2011 8:43 pm)
    It used to be, with automatic transmissions, that when you lifted your foot from the gas pedal and the car was still in motion, "coastdown" mode, the engine was prevented from stalling via, primarily, feeding it just enough gas to keep it running well into the idle range. The early torque converter's often did not provide enough "back-torque", compression braking, to keep the engine turning fast enough not to stall out.

    That has now changed with the advent of more "robust", heavier duty, torque converter lockup clutches. Nowadays the engine/transaxle controlling ECU can engage the lockup clutch, eliminating the torque converter "slippage", and then sequentually downshift the transaxle as roadspeed declines. That serves to keep the engine turning over at or above idle. So when fuel feed is restored the engine simply "restarts". Once roadspeed declines enough, too much, the lockup clutch is disengaged, fuel feed is restored, and in some instances the transaxle is even upshifted. That's most typically when you get that forward "lurch" seat of the pants feeling.

    So yes, you now have more effective engine compression braking during coastdown periods. But for FWD vehicles not so much as to really threaten directional control loss due to tire slip/skid in most instances. For FWD and F/awd vehicles the coastdown fuel cut technique shift pattern, "downshift" pattern, becomes a bit more aggressive if the driver applies the brakes during the coastdown fuel cut technique period of use.

    The driver's use of the brakes "implies" knowledge that the roadbed traction is sufficient to support the more aggressive engine braking downshift pattern.

    With all these variables it's easy to see why one only notices the effect 6 out of ten times.

    So go ahead and save gas by fully lifting the pressure on the gas pedal and trust that the computer will prevent the engine from fully stalling....it will. "
  • mrso1mrso1 Member Posts: 4
    edited June 2012
    I love the rdx but the mpg varies wildly from what acura has stated. On local city roads i get an avg about 15 mpg and on the highway with enough consistency and being conservative at around 80 mph i can get a little above 30 mpg. Unfortunately I live in NYC and well i should've thought about leaning more towards the city mpg. But honestly this car is a gas killer in the city imho. Anyone have the same impressions as i do, or is it just me? I do use 93 octane gas on my car.
  • dibbyddibbyd Member Posts: 10
    I don't have an RDX so I can't test this, but I read on another Acura forum that in the TL if you push the ignition button while you are stopped and the car is not in Park (not sure if it needs to be in Neutral), it will leave the electronics on, but turn off the engine. Give it a try and let us know if that works.
  • quakerwildcatquakerwildcat Member Posts: 39
    @dibbyd That worked!

    I put the car in Neutral and pushed the ignition button and the car switched off but accessory mode stayed on. Awesome. I can't thank you enough. Maybe I will keep this car ;-)
  • htxrdxhtxrdx Member Posts: 2
    I've noticed the same. I'm only on my second tank of gas but first tank was about 17mpg - mainly city driving and also a lot of sitting in the car with it turned on, not moving while I play with all the features and get stuff set up.
  • quakerwildcatquakerwildcat Member Posts: 39
    Similar experience here. Too early to draw conclusions.

    First tank city driving averaged 15mph and 14.5 mpg.

    Second tank mostly city driving so far averaging 20mph and 20.3 mpg.

    I'm also going to do the math myself rather than trust the computer.
  • quakerwildcatquakerwildcat Member Posts: 39
    "Entertaining" is not one of the first words I'd use to describe the new RDX.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    How about "spammy"?

    Guess you would have had to have seen the post Kyfdx removed. :shades:
  • kyfdxkyfdx Moderator Posts: 236,681
    Quick on the draw... ;)

    Edmunds Price Checker
    Edmunds Lease Calculator
    Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!

    Edmunds Moderator

  • dibbyddibbyd Member Posts: 10
    Glad to help! I actually brought a TL SH-AWD Tech home tonight for an extended test drive and was able to verify the advice. I'm taking it back tomorrow after work and *hoping* to pick up an RDX Tech for another extended test drive. Unfortunately, my salesman told me when I picked up the TL that he didn't think they'd let me take an RDX overnight as they don't have many Tech's and they are selling them so quickly. Oh well, if that doesn't work out he said I could take one for half a day to drive around.
  • pdlpsherpdlpsher Member Posts: 4
    Could the coasting be caused by a on-demand AC and/or alternator? The 2013 BMW has this feature to save gas.
  • quakerwildcatquakerwildcat Member Posts: 39
    I'm no engineer. I'm just having trouble understanding how this saves gas. Playing around with it, there are occasions when I'm coasting downhill and by either switching into neutral or using the paddle shifters to upshift, the RPMs drop, the car speeds up, and the real-time MPG meter shoots up dramatically.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    edited June 2012
    During coast down periods with the DBW accelerator pedal fully released the fuel flow to the engine is COMPLETELY shut off, NO voltage to the fuel injectors. To keep the engine turning over such that it doesn't stall until/once fuel flow is restored the transmission is downshifted, sequentially downshifted, as road speed declines.

    Once the roadspeed is too low, <10MPH, to sustain a non-stall engine RPM the transmission is upshifted (feel that "lurch", surge, forward?) and now will not downshift into 1st until/unless the vehicle comes to a full and complete stop.

    As a result of FWD and F/awd vehicle's patently unsafe nature in wintertime adverse roadbed conditions the effect might be reduced or even disabled with OAT near or below freezing. Basically the same as the FWD hybrids like the Prius, INSTANT disabling of front wheel driven regenerative braking once even the slightest level of wheelskid/slip is detected.

    If the alternator, for "regen" purposes, is added to the coastdown load all the better.
  • quakerwildcatquakerwildcat Member Posts: 39
    I appreciate that you're trying to explain what happens when I lift my foot from the accelerator, but I still fail to understand why it's more fuel efficient to slow the car down.
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    Given that YOUR input (or lack of, actually) is that you wish to coastdown to a lower speed, which would conserve the most fuel..?

    1.) A long coastdown distance with the engine fueled at idle the full time.

    or:

    2.) A (slightly) shorter coastdown distance with ZERO fuel consumed...?
  • quakerwildcatquakerwildcat Member Posts: 39
    OK I guess I get it. I look at RPMs, but I guess that isn't a proxy for fuel consumed.
  • twwilliamtwwilliam Member Posts: 17
    edited June 2012
    I love this 2013 RDX Tech, especially compared to the 2009 RDX Tech I traded in. To some the new ride is boring, not me. It is a by far smoother and quieter and with better gas mileage (up to 6 mpg thus far on both local & highway).
    I have been driving 4WD & AWD vehicles for 50 years and very much like everything about the 2013 RDX Tech, EXCEPT for the awful new hard drive phone system, especially when compared to the 2009 RDX or my wife's 2012 MDX. The new phone system only allows 20 voice tag numbers, compared to 50 for the other Auras we have owned. I feel sorry for traveling salesmen who need to access their clients phone numbers. Then to boot, one cannot enter the main phonebook once the car is moving. The same holds true for the navigation system. My wife cannot change the system when she is the passenger with me. One has to find a safe place to pull off the road to properly access the phone or navigation system. This could cause more dangerous situations than the so called safety features to protect the public.

    Also no remote start is available from ACURA, which may be a blessing in disguise as the "factory system" in our 2912 MDX is the worst I've used in over 20 years of using after market systems in our vehicles. The after market system in our previous Acuras and a friends 2005 RL are far superior.

    Perhaps the solution for those considering the new 2013 is to not purchase the Tech package. One could save a lot of money, even after installing after market Bluetooth & remote start systems.
  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 50,507
    as to bluetooth, the base car still has that, right? might be a different set up not having the hard drive set up, but it still has it standard.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.

  • stickguystickguy Member Posts: 50,507
    for a new car for my wife. After almost 17 years in a minivan, she is ready to downsize. We still need something with reasonable utility for hauling stuff around (vacations, and occasional bulky object). So, a small SUV/CUV was a natural fit.

    looked at most of the usual suspects (MX5/CRV/new focus/Santa Fe/Subaru outback). All had their plusses and minuses, and any would likely do the job, but nothing that really "wowed" her. CRV she liked the first time we saw/drove, largely because it was very similar to her Odyssey. I was indifferent to it.

    Of that bunch, the Outback actually came out on top. I really liked it, but she felt it looked like a (dirty word coming!) "wagon". we stopped to look again and she got over that. Can also get for a very good price.

    But, after a few looks, she still is fixated on the RDX. She just really likes it, and was pleased after driving on roads today. So, of course she picked the most expensive option (well, the BMW X3 was the most expensive, but we eliminated that!).

    It certainly is a nice car. And very quick with this engine. Steering to me was overly light, but I'm sure could get used to it.

    so, it will come down to price vs. cache. She just seems to want something fancy/cool/upscale for a change (things the Subaru doesn't really have).

    The outback actually has every feature the RDX has, other than push button start (which I don't really like) and is roomier inside. And of course, cheaper, with a much better AWD system.

    Actually, I am debating still just getting a FWD model to save money. We never really needed AWD with the van, and I don't expect that to change. Pretty much would only be for resale, but we anticipate keeping whatever we get for a long, long time, so not really and issue.

    2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.

  • carteachcarteach Member Posts: 179
    I test drove the new RDX, after that the CR-V and after that the Outback. All I can say is I wish I could afford the RDX. Coming from a 2006 TL I loved its power, weight and steering. Instead I'll be deciding between the CR-V and the Outback.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles