finishline

What do y'all think?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...7-27-rdx_x.htm

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

Pretty fair article overall. He does a pretty good job to point out that the RDX is for those looking for something sportier than those who would look at the RAV4 Limited, which is a pretty important distinction.

dom

This true? I know we'll likely never see a V6 in there anywhere. But its disconcerning to me that they continue to put a limit on driverain choices.

mrdeeno

I think it's a valid reason (in that it's true), but i don't think is the REAL reason. Honda probably never intended the CR-V/RDX to have a v6, so they didn't design the platform to accomodate a v6...so of course it wouldn't fit. If they DID intend to put a v6 in there, then the design and engineering would be different. I think the REAL answer should be "We never intended to put a V6 into the RDX."

toyota probably intended to put a v6 into the rav4 since conception of the current gen design, so they designed the thing to accomodate a v6.

dom

Well ya, I'm sure they didn't try to stick a V6 in there once the design was done.

I just wonder why they choose to limit themseleves like this. They did the same thing with the TSX, although it hasn't backfired. In a time where some manufactueres can put anything from 4's to 8's in their car's, Honda's lack of engine choices bothers me.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

Considering that the ACE body structure has already required a pretty substantial increase in weight, they probably just didn't want to deal with the added weight of creating a body and frame wide enough to support the transversely mounted J-series motor.

Besides, considering how heavy the RDX is already, if they had needed another 100 pounds or so to make the body and frame wide enough for the J-series motor, I can't imagine the bitching about gas mileage then...

I will say that Honda needs to start looking at longitudinal mountings again for its engines since it seems the limitations of the transverse mounting method have been reached.

hondamore

Just as the TSX is designed to be a 4 cylinder car, so too is the RDX. If TSX buyers want a V6, they can upgrade to the TL. If RDX buyers want a V6, or want more towing capacity, they can upgrade to an MDX. . By coming out and making this statement now, any potential buyers of the RDX who figured that they would "wait for the V6 model", now know that a V6 will never be offered and so will either buy the RDX or start looking at the new MDX.
Other than the Accord and the different Civic models (which sell large enough volumes to make multiple engine choices economically feasible), Honda models have always been "one engine choice only" and the company's amazing growth should be a testament to the wisdom of this marketing style.

wolfeman314

So another article, another mention of turbo lag. Acura has hyped this variable impeller so much, but few who have driven the car deem power delivery to be remotely linear.

I suspect there are two reasons for this: (1) This is all marketing hype and while Acura might have improved upon the design of a turbo, lag is still evident. Or (2) As Colin proposed, just like with most Honda motors, power doesn't come on strong until the higher RPM's and uninformed test drivers are attributing this lack of low end power to turbo lag.

Any thoughts?

mrdeeno

I don't think they limited themselves with the TSX, which is built on a platform that CAN accomodate a V6. But then again, for a small and peppy car, a V6 isn't a big deal. the same can't be said for an AWD SUV, no matter how "compact" it is.

Who knows why Honda limits themselves like this...blame it on ass-imo.

phile

Anybody catch the one part where he calls it the RDS? He makes a pretty valid point about the RAV4/CX-7.

Jeff over at TOV made a comment about the turbo lag as well.

mrdeeno

I think that's their problem. considering the MDX is supposed to be moving further upmarket (near $50k), this would be like a TSX driver wanting a V6 and having to upgrade to an RL.

I think TSX buyers that want a V6 will upgrade to a TL...but RDX buyers who want a V6 will "downgrade" to a Rav4.

phile

Well if Lexus sees that the RDX is a seller, I've no doubt that Lexus can easily whip up an entry level SUV from the RAV4 and easily steal sales from the RDX. I don't know why some people consider the RDX to be RX330's competitor, or even the Infiniti FX35...those are MDX competitors.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

You left out the potential for DBW lag contributing to it as well.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

The only players in this "market" right now are the X3 and the now defunct Freelander, both of which have their flaws.

finishline

He's another reviewer that makes mention of the EPA estimated and real world gas mileage. I know there has been a lot of discussion on here already about it, but do you think a lot of people who would otherwise seriously shop the RDX are turned off by the numbers?

Me? I am. It's not because of the money I'll spend on gas. I'm single and make plenty, but BECAUSE I'm single, I've decided that it's not very responsible for me to buy this vehicle when I can get something that gets twice the mileage. OK, so I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" the other week. Sue me. I LOVE everything else about this car and I'm convinced it'll be a hot seller. Just not for me. I was just hoping it would do as well as my TL, and from listening to you guys, I'm finding that wasn't really a realistic expectation, even with the V4.

wolfeman314

DBW stands for?

otk

I am a new member though I feel like a veteran because I have read post on the sidelines for close to a year. Now that the RDX is almost out, I feel like I am ready to jump into the fray.

I have waited close to two years for the RDX to come out and I feel like Honda has let me down. Honda touted a small 4-cylinder enngine for the RDX because of gas milage. RDX comes out and it has 19/23. Everything else is fine by me. Lexus RX350 2007 (link below) is coming with a bigger engine (3.5), is far heavier and gets better gas milage, better 0 to 60. That bothers me. Ofcourse it also costs a ton more.

I am now waiting to see the RDX in person and unless something, I mean something about it holds my attention, I will most likely get another ride.

http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...xus-rx350.html

Neorick

Correction on the Freelander it is not defunct ..it is revised as LR2 just like the Discovery is now LR3


See link:

http://www.landrover.com/us/en/Vehic...2/overview.htm

hondamore

Observed fuel economy by Car and Driver:
RDX: 16 MPG
RX 350: 15 MPG

Price:
RDX: 33 - 38K
RX350: 40 - 50K

I believe that the price difference makes comparing these two a moot point. The Lexus will give you snob appeal, the RDX will be the more fun to drive. The mileage difference between the two is small with the edge appearing to go to the fuel efficient turbo 4.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

Well, it is being replaced by the LR2, but the Freelander, as it currently stands, is defunct. Plus, the switch of the name technically ends the Freelander name. I know, it's a technicality, but for the sake of this discussion, since the LR2 isn't on the market yet, we'll work with it.

dipkat

Competitive pressures in the CUV segment of the market will very likely up the ante for the leaders Acura and BMW. Already we can seen this happening with the BMW X3. The new 2007 X3, coming out later this year, is more refined and powerful (3.0 V6, 6A). It will have approx 260 HP and 225 ft. lbs. of torque (205 improvement over the current) and 10% improved fuel economy (unsubstantiated claims) without a bump in the current price. It will also clock at 6.9 seconds from 0-60 mph (unsubstantiated). Most if not all manufacturers are gearing up for entry into this new market segment. Right now X3 pretty much sits at the top end of the price range, Acura RDX in the middle and Mazda CX-7 at the bottom. Its very likely that the RDX will face the maximum heat from the competition being perched pretty much in the middle. Here's the list to justify the competition.


Available:

BMW X3
Mazda CX-7

Coming soon:

Acura RDX
Land Rover LR2
Infiniti CX-35 and CX-25
Cadillac BRX
VW Merrakesh
Ford Edge
Audi QX-5
2008 Toyota Highlander
Buick Enclave
Lincoln MKX
Saab 9-4X

Rumored;

Mercedes-Benz X-Class
Lexus smaller RX
Nissan QashQai

otk

Actually I was not comparing the RX350 to the RDX. I was pointing out the main flaw in the claims made by Acura that they are using a Turbo 4 because of the better gas milage. The RX350 weighs about 300 pounds more, get better EPA mileage (the EPA test is a standardized test compared to C&D test), and also better 0-60.

Personally, I would have preferred a small V6 like 3.2 or even 3.0 litres (I don't think Honda has a 3.0 engine in its part bin). Or the 2.4 in the current CRV boosted to 200HP.

mrdeeno

uh, the accord is 3.0l.

otk

You are absolutely right. The Accord has both the
166-hp, 2.4-liter I-4
244-hp, 3.0-liter V-6

kbecker

"Drive By Wire" - you mash down the accelerator and the computer figures out what to do to make the car go faster.

I, too, am thinking that some of this "lag" is drive by wire combined with an automatic transmission.

kb.

wolfeman314

Oh okay, thanks for explaining. That indeed seems like a reasonable explanation.

POAS

I wonder if the aftermarket can somehow tune the turbo engine in the RDX so the turbo lag goes away and still allow the vehicle to pass emissions?

finishline

So we know this platform excludes a V6 in the future. What about a hybrid version of this car? Sorry if that's a dumb question.

unlemming

I think Honda has pretty much said no Truck/SUV/CUV hybrids because IMA doesn't do well with them..too heavy. That said, they could still come out with something in the distant future. I would expect diesel a lot sooner though.

CL6

The computer doesn't want to dump all the torque on the transmission at once. That'll make for a shorter life. I'd suggest not mashing the pedal so hard and seeing what that does for you. Unless you race 1/4 miles I don't see it as a problem, many other makes do the same thing.

kbecker

AWD complicates this, too. In a FWD or RWD system you could just dump the power to one set of wheels and spin them. That's much harder to do with all four wheels at once, so the transmission bears more of the brunt. With a manual transmission you can play a bit with the clutch and throttle to get a better launch when needed.

Does this all add up for a bit of a schizophrenic car? It has a sporty engine with non-linear power delivery and a slick AWD system, but no manual transmission and 4000 lbs to drag around. That kind of limits the performance/sporty side of things. At the same time, it has a great interior and tons of features for luxury shoppers, but the drive train seems less refined than what they might be expecting. That leaves "value" shoppers looking to save money from an RX or X3...but Mazda and Toyota have offerings that might be more attactive for that buyer profile...I have a nagging feeling there will be some great deals on the RDX by spring.

Just my 2 cents, though. It doesn't mean it's not a great vehicle, just maybe not targetted well at any particular market segment.

kb.

hondamore

I agree with CL6. My guess is that, if you accelerate smoothly and briskly without "immediately flooring it", you'll launch the RDX a lot quicker. The other factor in "flooring it" is the VSA/traction control which tends to choke things off when it senses enough throttle off the line to start the wheels spinning. While this all happens in a split second, it is enough to explain the slight hesitation being discussed.
Also, keep in mind that the initial launch is being judged in relation to the very strong pull of the engine once it gets up on cam.

MR1

I have been stopping by from time to time. Couple of random thoughts: My 02 MDX cost me about $35,000 full sticker for the base model. It has the 240 HP V6 and gets about the same gas mileage as the RDX.

I was waiting for the RDX but the specs and price are a complete turnoff. I was also waiting for the new improved MDX. At nearly $50,000 that will also be out of the question. Hum RL, RDX and MDX all targeted for mini-markets; it doesn't look so hot right now to me. I'm glad I got my TL when I did. There might be a RAV-4 or RX-350 in my future. I think you can pick up a loaded 2006 MDX w/Navi for about $39,000 right now.

wolfeman314

Mmm, nothing like 7 year old technology on the cheap to whet your appetite.

hondamore

I don't believe the pricing for the new MDX has been released yet, so the nearly $50,000 price is only rumoured for the Ultra loaded version of the new MDX. Other rumours have the base version of the MDX coming in at, or below the same $39,000 you mentioned for the 2006 model. The MDX is intended to be Honda's LUXURY SUV and is not intended for everyone - they make the CR-V and the Pilot for those interested in something less expensive. By the way, if cost is a major issue, the RX-350 you mentioned will cost even more than the new MDX once you add the ridiculous option packages.
Regarding fuel economy comparisons between the V6 and the turbo 4, remember the RDX is intended for young URBAN professionals. Which engine will suck more gas barely above idle when creeping along in rush hour or on the slow drive home from work. Real-world numbers will favour the turbo 4 except for the most heavy-footed of drivers and such drivers have nobody but themselves to blame for their poor mileage. Even the precious RAV4 you mention is getting 16 - 18 mpg in real world city numbers according to some of the members in the RAV4 forums (V6 AWD model). Car and Driver achieved the same 16 mpg in its test of the RAV4, so don't always believe EPA numbers from the Toyota Motor Company will be anything like real-world numbers.

MR1

1. Right, prices are only speculation for 07 MDX but do the math and we will see. I was offered a 2006 RW350 loaded for $500 over invoice just a few weeks ago, I don't really want one though. I'm a big time Honda fan/supporter from all the way back to 1978. But I try to stay real in my opinions and comparisons.

2. An overworked 4 cyl. dragging around 4K pounds is not going to do much if any better than a 6 cyl. lopping along with the same weight. I get real world 16-17 mpg in my MDX over the last 4 years in town, not based on EPA.

My opinions are just that, just like yours. The RDX will do what it does as far as sales, the market will speak soon.

FWIW and a bit O/T. Honda/Acura does make mistakes. Here is big one by my standards: The 2006 Civic has a better voice activated Navi than a 2006 TL, this is a stupid, tragic error and should NEVER happen. The turbo 4 cyl might be the same kind of error. Again, just my

MR1

You totally missed the point. The easy thing to do is just agree with you and wish you luck.

wolfeman314

Oh don't get too upset. . . I saw your point quite well. Sarcasm never does come across well online. . .

BobSakamono

It's alright MR1. Wolfeman314 smells.

BobSakamono

Although I do concur with him, smelly as he may be.