http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t_drive_review

basically the same numbers as the RDX (240hp/270 tq) rated at 21/30 mpg. weight of 4050lb's. Acura should not be abandoning this turbo motor. improve it.

 

like it or not japanese auto makers toyota, nissan and honda are hitting the self destruct button. nissan with their cvt, toyota with their new ugly vehicles (2012 camry, 2011 corolla, ct200h) and honda with movement towards economical cars rather than sporty. i don't think acura will keep the turbo.

 

FWD only...bahhhh.

Very true, earlier success has killed innovation with Japanese imports.

 

still a bigger car with many many many more mpgs than the RDX.

 

The 2-ton 240hp/270tq Ford SUV 0-60 times are around 7.4 seconds compared to the Acura's 6.2-6.5 sec 0-60 times with the 5AT. Sounds like the Ford has some pretty tall gearing on the tranny for the slow 7.4 0-60 and 30 mpgs on the hwy. Once you add a family of 4 with weekend gear, I could see the 2.0L Turbo working pretty hard. I would be interested in the real world combined mpgs when this engine hits the road.

 

7.4 secs is not bad at all for an SUV, much less for one that is that heavy with a 4 cyl engine.

 

i think this car is made to compete with the vw tourg 2.0t and audi q5 directly. RDX was made to compete with the X3. although all are crossovers x3/rdx are sporty the other more luxury/comfort oriented.

 

The Edge is way above the Tiguan (not Touareg) in size and power, and is also not meant to compete against the Luxo Audi.

 

whatever the edge competes with....7.4 seconds ballpark with that motor and the size of that vehicle is an achievement w/that MPG. Yes the RDX is quicker, but not exactly the point of the post.

im really unsure how an NA 4 cyclinder in the new RDX will motivate the truck, whether its only offered as FWD or in AWD form. Looks like an imposed upsell to me (to the higher-output engine, whatever style it may be).

Anyone see the "new" TSX special edition...seems like it could be true they are killing it off.

ahhh acura. lol

 

Maybe the all new RDX will be a rebadged 2012 Honda CR-V? A 2.5L NA I4 would be more than enough for a CR-V based cute ute. Add in the Hybrid power train to improve acceleration by .5 seconds and then you have Acura's version of a 2013 RDX Type-S. I would have been fine with the 3.5L V-6 + 6AT in the 2013 RDX.

If Acura just re-engineered the exhaust system and added the 6AT; the current 2.3L turbo would be about 20-21 in the city and around 26-28 on the hwy (depends on fwd or sh-awd). Make the 2.3L direct injection with regular fuel and the mpg number might come close to breaking 30 mpg on the hwy.

The EX35, X3 and Q5 are starting to look really good right now.

 

If I read the article correctly about the TSX the only thing "special" about it is some unique spoiler/ground effects, colors, stitching and that's it. Only comes in 4cyl too, without any increase in power....why bother?
This car just reminds me of all those Accords you see on the road with a "special edition" badge in the trunk and you have to look really hard to see what's special about it.

 

nothing special about it. Seems like a quick way to bang out some sales before its gone.

the Q5/X3/EX are great vehicles. The Q5 has owned the segment since it came out. Acura basically had 5 years to watch and learn. My guess is that the new RDX will not be meant or cant possibly be expected to compete in this segment anymore. Not with the rumored low-output base models. Unless they up the luxury to something like a ZDX/MDX and make styling a selling point where it actually looks good, not sure how it will fare against the competition. And if that is the case, where does the new RDX fall? It was hard to understand the market for the current generation RDX, it took a while and the Q5 basically defined/benchmarked the segment with its success and achievements. The X3 has always been around, but the RDX remains in no-mans land.

I mentioned it before somewhere, maybe this thread, but i find Acura/RDX more like Nissan and less like an infiniti (upscale) model. People who buy a tricked out nissan or an acura are not really or never were a serious upscale buyer. Something will always bring them back to what is perceived to be just about the "same" thing or maybe better because its cheaper with the same "stuff". Acura buyers remain value/resale/reliability oriented, value a good deal, and for the wealth of reasons that are out there - cant justify spending those few extra dollars on something else.

after this rambling - what is my general point? just about EVERYONE, from Ford to Hyundai, is getting it done. Acura has digressed so much that when i look at their current cars it makes you wonder if you even know them anymore. Type S? RSX? NSX? Legend? Legend COUPE? jesus those were the days. what exactly is "acura" today? lost.

 

Although I agree that the Q5 is probably the best in the segment (pre New Gen X3), I think that the segment is "owned" by the Lexus RX
And this is not a scientific observation, but I see far more GLKs than Q5s on the road....

 

did not think the RX competes necessarily in whatever niche the RDX, Q5 etc occupy. When i think RX, i think MDX/ML/X5 etc, would not cross my mind, ever, to cross shop the lex with any of the vehicles in the RDX category. way different territory. that said, off the top i would say the RX has to be one of the highest sellers in the mid range SUV size.

 

This concept vehicle might be an Aussie 2013 or 2014 Lexus CUV right below the RX. It might make it to the North America and it might have an "F" version down the road. More than likely it will have an I4 standard and hybrid option like the future RDX.





http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...2578620016D2DA

 

It's a matter of perception, but I think that the Q5 and X3 are the direct competitors of the RX.

 

Typical end of the road model wise for Honda/Acura to squeeze a model year out, since the Accord/CRV and TSX (I think) are do for a complete redo in 2012/13. We have a 2011 CRV SE adds nicer wheels, premium sound pak and wheel mounted controls. Adds a little more bang for the buck, other wise the same auto.

 

The turbo-four is FWD only, so the fuel economy cannot be compared except to the FWD RDX.

Like most manufacturers, Ford is going to direct injection for better economy. Honda has resisted this, as DI is fouling valves and the repairs cost far more than any fuel savings. Try searching VAG's DI valve problems, then see if you still want a Q5.

Please Honda, NO direct injection! But it's about time for a 6 or 7 speed tranny, for better highway numbers.