Unfortunately did not review highway performance. His drive was at < 40 mph.

Disappointed that they didn't put SH-AWD on this.

 

The best they can do is add the CR-V "slip-&-grip" awd system to the 1.5T engine. I think there might be a hp/tq limit for mechanical sh-awd because of drivetrain loss? I don't think Acura (or Honda) use mechanical sh-awd with any engine below 250tq?

The ADX would be perfect with previous gen Sport Hybrid rear 36+36hp/54+54tq Twin Motor Unit and Honda CR-V powertrain with 2.0L 204hp/247tq hybrid system for the front wheels? You will still get the sh-awd with regen braking, tq vectoring, and recharging the battery pack when braking. Probably see +45mpg and you can set it run on 87 Octane. It was only $1500 for the Acura MDX Sport Hybrid powertrain (7DCT+electric motor/generator, 3.0L V-6, Twin motor unit rear diff, DC inverter, smaller gas tank, electronic dampers, Sport+ IDS mode). It should be waaay less to just add the twin motor unit to the existing CR-V hybrid system.

 

The Acura you have been waiting for? // 2025 Acura ADX Review

Watch this amazing review to learn about ADX!

 

Car and Driver

Motor1

The Drive

Motor Trend

 

Unfortunately sounded a bit messy going up the hills:

0-60 MPH was 8.9 seconds and sounds messy here too and a $46,800 list price for this one, yikes:


So another typical modern Acura to me: looks great, slower than it should be, arguably overpriced for what you are getting and some head scratching omissions.

 

It shouldn’t be a surprise that CVTs are slow off the line; it’s just the way they are due to their limitations. Once you’re already moving, though, they’re faster than those numbers would suggest. For instance, a WRX with a CVT is a full second slower to even 30mph because of the painfully slow takeoff, but the 5-60 time is nearly identical to that of the manual. Realistically nobody is launching the car during a test drive, so this kind of stuff isn’t something most buyers will be considering.

 

This car is made for entry level premium/luxury buyers. Actually Acura did an amazing job in design, material and pricing departments. Whoever wants to move from a Honda, Nissan, VW, Toyota and etc for a small, good looking and premium vehicle, this car will meet all their criteria. I highly doubt anyone buys this car or an X1 for speed.

 

I just wish Acura had two powertrains for ADX. Standard and Hybrid. That said, as we all know Acura is weird....Hybrid will be part of their MMC Ops!

 

From Alex on Autos. He thinks it will be a strong seller.

 

The HRV's R18 engine gets it a 9.6 second 0-60... at least that's 0.7 seconds better, but still nothing to write home about.

 

“Precision Crafted Performance “ hehe

 

When they prioritize metal shift paddles over a seat height adjustment for the passenger in car that does 0-60 in 9 sec and has a CVT...

OK, I think I'll just hold back my true feelings.

This car is high on bling and low on substance.

 

Seems more like a sporty looking HR-V upper trim option like the Integra. Honda would probably sell 10X more putting a "H" emblem and sell at Honda dealerships.

 

But what happens when a small family packs it up for vacation and with the AC on the car barely moves when it needs to? These vehicles aren't meant to be racecars but I think that aspect can get overlooked and why power/drivetrain is important.

You had me at the first two but lost me at pricing, as the Base model is useless in today's world and in this category and there are going to be better options.

Agreed.


Outside of maybe the something new factor out of the gate I don't think this car is going to be very popular long-term unless they add a hybrid, then I think it will do well. And speaking of curious to see what the real world MPG numbers will be.

 

A CR-V hybrid would be a much better buy for the price. With the current performance, only those who fall for bling will buy this. The more I think about it, the more I can't make sense of this car. What they are missing in the line up is a hybrid. A cheap luxury car isn't appealing at all. It's not like the UX and X1 are flying off dealer lots.

 

The same thing that would happen to a family in a Crosstrek, or Forester, or HRV, or UX, or any number of other cars on the market. The vast majority of people never even rev their engines beyond 4000RPMs, so for them they'd never know if a car can do 0-60 in 5 seconds or 10 seconds.

The powertrain is only important to enthusiasts. To everyone else, it's a nice to have, but fuel economy is even more important. My dad always bought the smallest displacement version of any car that he owned. To him, paying more for worse fuel economy is stupid, and a faster car isn't going to get you to your destination any faster.

 

You're looking at this car through the eyes of a car enthusiast, so of course it doesn't make sense. This car wasn't built for people like you or me. It's built for people who do want the features and doodads, but couldn't care less about the powertrain. It's for someone who wants something a bit nicer and bigger and more stylish than an HRV, Crosstrek, Kona, Corolla Cross, etc. Similarly, the vast majority of people wouldn't understand how the TLX makes any sense. It's heavy and big, but interior space is small. It gets poor fuel efficiency. So of course they would ask: why get a car like that instead of a Lexus ES, which is more comfortable, has more space, better efficiency, and a more prestigious badge? And the answer is because their priorities are very different from an enthusiast's priorities.

As an example, the HR-V isn't a car I would ever buy, and I'd much rather have a used CR-V over an HR-V. But, over 150K people last year liked it enough to buy one, despite the fact that it's one of the slowest cars in production today. And yet, Honda sold more of those alone than Acura sold all of their cars combined. So clearly the general car buying public has a much different mindset about cars than myself.

I'v said it before, but Honda (and Acura's) bread and butter is at making excellent cars for the general buyer. That's great for Honda, but Acura is trying to position itself as a performance brand aimed more at enthusiasts, and frankly they just aren't very good at doing that. There's a reason why a site like AZ has so much more negativity than Honda sites like hrvforum, civicxi, piloteers, driveaccord, etc. It's because when Honda makes a car for normal people, it's usually just what they want. Cars like the 1G TLX sold well because it wasn't an enthusiasts car; it was a car for normal people. Cars like the 2G TLX was aimed more at enthusiasts, and the sales figures speak for themselves. Like the 1G TLX the ADX is built with Honda DNA, and as such it's not going to be appealing to enthusiasts, but because of that they're going to move a ton of units.

 

This just reinforces my point, though, and who wants a normal car from a premium brand for a premium price? The RDX and MDX are Honda+ but this ADX is more Honda adjacent like the Integra and Civic*, I just don't see the allure.

*And the Civic hybrid is arguably the better car now and the Integra sales have already started to fall off a cliff so it will be interesting to see what the changes are going to be for it.

 

Plenty of people will be buying this, so you'll have to either accept that all those people do want what you consider to be a normal car for a premium price, or that there's something else about the whole package that you are missing.

 

I hope they sell a lot but to me this car only has good looks and everything else is subpar especially the price. So many better options for the money including Honda’s own CRV.

 

I don't know if I buy that certain models sell better because they're more "normal". The 2G TL was vastly more pedestrian and Honda-like than the 3G, yet the 3G (which was way sportier, edgier, and more unique) trounced it in sales. The same goes for the latest Accord, which was geared more towards the general buyer by dropping the 2.0T and manual in favor of more hybrids but sold nearly 100k fewer units than its predecessor in their first year on the market. As such I believe the 2G TLX fared worse due to competition being even fiercer than before, and existing in a market which favored SUV's more than ever.

Most likely the ADX will sell well its first year or so due to its pricing and being the new kid on the block. But like the ILX / CLA / A-class / 318ti / 2-series GC, and many others which represented a flashy and cheap ticket into the entry lux class when they first debuted, my guess is that the ADX's shortcomings will become more evident as time passes and its rivals begin offering even more compelling packages for the price.

On a slightly unrelated note, was there ever an official explanation for why the ADX lost 8 hp and 17 lb/ft vs. the base Integra, despite all the marketing effort to associate them? It seems completely ass backwards given that it's heavier, esp in AWD trim.

 

We'll see. As of now Acura still doesn't have this car on the site with the others (Vehicles section) so even they don't seem to be too excited about it.

 

If I were a betting man, my money would be on Acura trying to create more separation between the RDX and ADX to minimize cannibalization. After all, Honda does have a tendency to gimp the lower trims/models to the protect the higher ones.

Alternatively, it could be that they were concerned about the longevity of the CVT given the heavier weight and AWD drivetrain. According to Acura they increased the compression ratio for this engine; presumably that also means they reduced boost accordingly, and thus you see a sizable drop in peak low end torque.

 

Completely agree. With the size of the ADX being mostly comparable now to the NX, I suspect Acura will enlarge the RDX and MDX in their next generations to compete more in size to the RX and TX respectively. TX has a big size difference to the MDX. We were so close to getting an MDX but the lack of interior space and having 4 kids made us have to settle on a Pilot. Don't get me wrong, we love our Pilot, outside of the fuel economy, but it's no Acura. Hoping the next gen MDX gets bigger and they store the second row middle seat like the Pilot is capable of doing. Just silly that the Honda has a feature the luxury vehicle does not.

 

Acura really screwed the pooch, again, on not keeping and refining the Sport Hybrid they had in the late 2010's. The market is not ready for full EVs. Hybrids are the current and near future of the improved fuel economy landscape and Acura abandoned that. They could have had sport hybrid options on all their models by now and would have competed much better against the likes of Lexus but no, they doubled down on full EV lineup which is not where the market is right now. Maybe in 20 years but not right now.

Even Honda is late to the game on hybrids, but at least they are making inroads on a lot of their models with offering hybrid options. Acura is not doing any of that.

 

Well said. Acura has once again a great opportunity on the table and hope they don't mess it up.

1. Make MDX the same size of TX
2. Make RDX the same size of RX
3. ADX is perfect size, just make it more refined and give consumers Hybrid version as well as TYPE S
4. Integra will get all the goodies in MMC
5. TLX?
6. RSX will be a good addition to the lineup
7. ZDX?

If Acura acts quick and fixes these issues. The future will be bright for them

 

I don’t think size matters that much. I have not seen any complaints about the RDX being too tight. The MDX 3rd row is tight. In any case, all these cars are way bigger than most would need. The thing hurting Acura most is lack of hybrid.

 

Absolutely this. If anyone is wondering why the ADX isn't getting the superior hybrid powertrain, the most likely explanation is because the RDX doesn't have a hybrid option. It'd be a bad look if the lower model got the better tech than the more higher model. Same reason why the Integra doesn't get the e:HEV powertrain (yet) even though the Civic does. Gimp the lower models to protect the higher ones.

 

Direct competition has hybrids and the RDX is long in the tooth at this point and with the upcoming RSX it is going to be fairly simple to update or replace it (part of me thinks this is why they are bringing back the RSX name). I think some of these moves are as simple as keeping costs as low as possible right now while they figure out what Acura is going to be, as it is lacking a bit of an identity and the whole, "All EV! No wait a minute maybe not now," pivot is the right move but isn't helping with the identity aspect for the time being.

 

Definitely agree about the lack of hybrid hurting Acura the most but when you got 3-4 kids, size is everything. MDX is fine in width, but needs to gain about 4-5 inches in length and 2-3 inches in height and it will be perfect.

 

This is again where Acura trying to be more "stylish" than Honda rears its ugly head. The MDX and Pilot are virtually the same size, but the Pilot has over 2" more legroom in the 2nd row and over 3" more in the 3rd row, and about 2" more in headroom. Sounds like all they needed to do was not restyle the Acura for aesthetic purposes and it would have checked off a lot of those boxes.

We all know that Honda is a master at packaging and thoughtful design. They really do maximize the utility and practicality out of their cars. Unfortunately, that means any change Acura makes can only make those aspects worse, and we do see that play out in every car they've built. I'm not sure if there's a single Acura right now that has more space than its Honda counterpart.

 

Back in 1998, I was cross shopping a Civic EX sedan with an Integra and went with the Civic. It was cheaper and more modern in every way and the clutch and shifter in the Civic were buttery smooth compared to the somewhat notchy shifter in the Integra. Those were the days when Honda seats were comfy. When buying the 2023 RDX, I stopped by the Honda dealer and sat in a CR-V Touring. Those seats felt like a wooden bench covered by leather. I see the main draw for Acura as seat comfort and SH-AWD. Take away those and I don't need an Acura.

 

Since when has Honda gave a shit about looking bad? They give all their new and superior technology to the lesser Honda models before they give them to Acura all the time.

 

We all know Honda doesn’t give a shit about Acura. That’s why they give all the good stuff to Honda first. I’m talking about within the Acura brand itself.

 

I read your username as Bicurious boy and thought that was interesting haha.

But on topic, I fully agree that the MDX would benefit from a few more inches (couldn't we all), even the 2G I remember official Acura press releases stating "4+3 seating" which I always though was really funny that they seemed proud of how cramped it was for a vehicle its' size.

 

Even then, the 3G RDX debut a whole bunch of new technology and features not seen on any other Acura model before it whereas EVERY other manufacturer puts the latest and greatest tech on their flagship models first. So the tech and features should have been on the MDX long before ever getting to the RDX IMO for example.

 

I miss the "good ol' dayz" of the flagship gets the top tech, performance, and luxury features and that would trickle down to lesser models in following model years. I really don't know if MDX Type-S or the ZDX Type-S is the flagship for Acura? Acura seems to have everything out of order and models like the 4th Gen RDX will have the latest/greatest upgrades in 2025/2026 and the 5th Gen MDX following 2-3 years later. It really suck when the only difference between the Acura/Honda models is body style, a different interior, or suspension setting for $10,000-$20,000 cheaper for the Honda.

I picked my 08 RDX over the 08 CR-V was because of 2.3L turbo, sh-awd, HIDs, and ELS stereo (PLUS, aftermarket upgrades to +300 hp/tq). Now, it would hard to pick the ADX over the CR-V hybrid?

 

No better example of this then the feature of the store and go middle seat in the second row. It's a great feature, having the versatility of having a bench or captain chairs in the second row of the vehicle. Honda designed the Pilot to be able to store that seat in the rear cargo area of the vehicle. Acura? No go. Have to take that seat and throw it in the corner of the garage if you want to store it. Absolutely ridiculous on a $60k+ vehicle. Perfect example of a Honda having a feature the Acura doesn't have. Acura needs to fix that in the next generation.

 

 

Sounds like a honest review

https://www.thedrive.com/car-reviews...s-movie-before