stoxxsp500

mike, what led you to pull the trigger and try Q5 reliability for yourself? lots of people are flocking to this class and yet there's not a real host of choices that are luxury - Q5, GLK, X3 (2011 MY). no offense but Tiguan/Outlander/Subaru are prolly not even in RDX class IMHO.

brizey

Mitsu's reliability had never really been on par with the other Japanese manufacturers. They always sort of rode on the coattails. Which is why I always try to get as much objective data as I can and not rely on anecdotes ("well, my TR7 never leaked oil") or popular perception ("my Mercedes ML is built like a tank"). But, for the record, CR has the Outlander as above average in reliability. And Mitsu as a whole was ranked sixth (just behind Acura), with a very tight spread across its models. Among the Japanese brands, it is Nissan that has really fallen (now 17th just behind Ford) as the worst ranked Japanese brand. Must be the Renault cooties. Infiniti is 4th, ahead of Acura, so it may be a country of origin issue.

Audi is ranked 24th, with a relatively tight spread from worse than average to average.

Edit: One more thing. CR ranks based on the mean--so if the spread is large, a particular model can be way off the brand's overall ranking.

MMike1981

imo, i think country of origin has the most impact in terms of build quality. What I wrote had to do more with fit and finish and not with things regarding reliability, i could have been more specific. I do not know any reliability of Mitsu's, what i do know is that i would never buy one as ive always thought of the brand to hang in limbo, never knowing what model they will cancel, what will change, what direction it will take, its just always been an outlier to me.

Q5 is the benchmark right now in the segment, whatever everyones thoughts and experiences are regarding reliability. Ive come to find out through 15+ yrs of ownership that the car you get is a roll of the dice - its either going to hold up great or have problems, ive had lemons ALL from Jap builders, including but not exclusive of Acura and Mazda (those are the most recent) Ive owned a few american cars and experienced less problems. So my overall feeling about reliability is just probability of getting a better car vs another - so these days, i get what i want. Maybe i give alot less weight to reliability given my experiences, but we are built by our experiences and frankly now, i pick what i want. There are owners who buy high risk vehicles that turn out to be rocks over time, then there are disaster stories. Ive lived those with low risk most reliable rated brands. its a toss up...so why not buy the best and figure it out later. Who knows, that new model from a german maker may turn out to be their most reliable model over time, and in the reverse, what we may be driving now may turn into the most unreliable model the manf has ever built -

Samdog-1

Before we bought the RDX we drove both the Grand Cherokee SRT8 and the ChevyTrailblazer SS. Both of these vehicles are built around Detriot's oldest formula: stuff a whompin' big engine into a common drone and don't account for the need to stop or steer the monster you've created.These beasts were remarkable only for acceleration and fell short in many other areas. Then I lurked their respective owner forums for a while -- it's stunning what people will put up with and rationalize -- and ran screaming to Acura.Regarding quality; I'm not so sure that quality is a crapshoot. With super-tight and ultra precise assembly line processes, it's very likely that the same fault will be occur in every unit that has that part or went through that process.

brizey

My personal experience has tracked very well with CR. I had a 1994 Camaro that was reliable. The only problem I has was a broken tailgate latch. Guess what? CR showed it as an anomaly--the 1994 was more reliable than pretty much every other year. Our Subaru Forester has been perfect--we have only recently replaced some hoses, normal for a 7 year old car. Both of my Acuras have been reliable. A few rattles, but only one mechanical problem in 7 years of ownership (bad brake light switch). My 1997 Cobra was a mess--5 repairs under warranty in 20 months, which correlated pretty well to CR's black dot. My wife's old 1996 Integra LS was perfect--no mechanical failures at all in 7 years of ownership. My WRX was too modified to be used as an example--I had engine issues but was making about 50% more hp than stock, but everything else was great. Really, it tracks very well--bad for the Mustang, perfect for the Forester and Integra, and nearly perfect for the RDX and TL (only rattles) and nearly perfect for the Camaro.

Anyone that had owned my Cobra would take reliability seriously. (Broken power seat, replaced front brake rotors for cracks x 2, premature seat wear, broken AC in first 20 months. Traded at 22 months). If you own the vehicle for four or five or six years, the statistics eventually get you.

stoxxsp500

good points for both mike and brizey. on reliability, for whatever its worth, spoke with honda's investor relations today -- honda prides itself with "production and operating efficiency" -- i guess that meant "standardized factories" and then some. honda claims they can produce 7 different models (eg. their entire line up i presume) in one line in their factories in japan. that's also the reason why they dont go to the truck (eg long beds) market as these are not "one piece monocoque bodies" (dunno what that meant).

at any rate, as for acura, he did say lots of changes for 2012/2013 - no specific mention on what models but did admit that they're going to dedicate separate people just for acura (eg. rather than using honda people to do acura stuff). body language indicates though that rdx may survive -- they've "started" making cars "different" from honda accdg to them: starting with MDX, then now the TL. tsx will change too and will not be a rebadged euro accord from 2012/2013. again, dunno if that's BS or will happen. ill try to shoot the guy an email and see if i can get some info on the 2012 rdx, if any

MMike1981

in my disfavor, quality really wasnt an issue - the problems were more or less major mechanical failures (which i guess you could still label as quality; when i think of quality i think of things like panel fitment, rattles, materials holding up over time etc) or structural. my 07 RDX issue was the ceiling/welding. I also had an issue lasting 4 service visits to ALIGN the passenger door correctly. Theres always a bad egg in every batch, and yes, things like Consumer Reports obviously help you to avoid the bad egg, but there are those of us, like myself, that even sticking with ratings as a guide get that bad egg. That has changed my perspective on things. I dont 'abandon' reliability ratings, but they just dont play the dominant role like they used to.

MMike1981

if anything that Stoxx said is accurate, its a step in the right direction to getting a true premium unfiltered product.

brizey

Quality is defined about a million ways. I usually use the "free of perceived defects" type of definition--so it includes things like build (up to a point) and also lack of mechanical failures. The way I use it, there is a limit--a "nicer" car is not necessarily of higher quality to me. I am about to become a PMP, and this is basically how PMI defines quality--and I like it. In other words, a car can be completely devoid of features, but if everything works as expected and is put together well, it would still be of high quality in my eyes. But again, everyone uses the term differently.

stoxxsp500

ok guys, as promised, honda investor relations has replied: here's a gist of what they said on "RDX". nothing unexpected based on everyone's logic here --
a) they do not set exactly when next model change is coming - just roughly 5-6 years depending on "mkt situation" and "R&D resource allocation" (nothing surprising here for us right?)
b) more interesting -- there will be a 5 passenger CUV offering for acura - just not saying if it will be named RDX or "other naming".

this is the gist of what he said. my own take is that RDX as a "name" is dead. but they will definitely be offering a new CUV as a smaller brother to MDX prolly by 2012 since i think they prolly do not allocate as much R&D to this "sub"segment (luxury CUV). Remember, honda is predominantly mass market company. and if what they say is true, then Acura will be starting from the ground up again (eg. no more rebadging starting with MDX, TL, etc). that's my own read... you guys know how to decipher info better than me in the car world --

stoxxsp500

i hope the turbo gauge is not removed in the next model -- i love that gauge LOL... it's one of the reasons why i have an RDX now

brizey

I wonder if they are going to base it on shortened version of the MDX platform. The CRV already does huge volume--the RDX is only about 10% IIRC. Subaru did this a few years back--there is no more separate Impreza (WRX, Forester, Outback Sport) and Legacy (Legacy, Tribeca, Outback) platforms. All are based off of the Legacy platform and all are built in their Indiana factory.

MMike1981

of course, i def do not think quality has anything to do with being of a higher value or 'nicer'. I too think of it as more of an overall build integrity.

MMike1981

i would think that Acura is starting to distance themselves from Honda, which is great. Whether its a tweak on an existing platform and rolls of a new one...anything is a plus. I would think they would have to retain the RDX name, or some sort of a letter orientation because the entire brand is built on letters and not names. If a name change is coming, then maybe the whole lineup is do for a mini revamp, starting w/an RDX do-over including name change.

If been blabbing on this board for quite some time that the RDX should be a smaller MDX, and if Acura goes in that direction, id love to stick with them. Ive said it many times - i have no problem setting down around 40k for an RDX product that delivers at an MDX level treatment in a smaller package.

stoxxsp500

well, it certainly feels that way based on my conversation with them (eg. acura and honda being differentiated). it's prolly still letter based, but not "R" "D" "X" - as to why they change it, that i wouldnt know. and yes, good point brize, as mentioned earlier, they pride themselves on operational efficiency and these things about platforms and lines etc. so your thinking about a shorter MDX makes sense.

Samdog-1

Quality: (1) superiority of kind, (2) level of excellence
Reliability: (1) worthy of trust, (2) capable of being depended upon
It would seem that a car can have quality without reliability; Cadillac, German brands, and reliability without quality; Toyota, Honda, Hyundai.
That is if superiority and excellence are viewed as elevating oneself above his peers. The Mercedes driver in his silent cabin with soft-touch materials, feels superior to the Hyundai driver, (at last until he's stranded and needs a lift from the Hyundai driver).I'll take Acura reliability with some road noise and hard plastics over this perception of quality anyday.

corduroygt

As far as power, I can safely say that you're mistaken. The throttle response of a V8 is unmatched by a turbo 4. It's the only area where I find my RDX lacking the most.

LuvMyTSX

The bolded part is exactly what I want, as well. This is why I'm hedging so much on the decision for my next vehicle.

XIS

Had a 2001 MDX for 6 yrs, got a 2008 MDX and had it for about 16 months... It was nice and IF we NEEDED 7 seats still, we probably would still have it. Not as much kid-cartin' going on so the wife wanted something smaller and got the "perfect" girl car - the Lexus RX!
Never once thought about getting rid of my RDX. Just so much more fun to drive.

I am not sure what a smaller MDX would mean? A slightly larger RDX, a third row or an RDX with a 6 speed and a 6 cyl? (or all of the above)?

corduroygt

Car and Driver has a write up on the new X3, getting the 3 liter turbo engine as well. It's all camo'd up, but they say it looks a lot like the x5 now, which is a good thing. That would probably warrant the extra cost over the RDX for me, while the Q5 doesn't.

MMike1981

The current X3 price gets insanely over priced. I'd expect the same for the new X3 and expect nothing less from BMW. I love that you can get anything and everything you want in basically any model they offer - but it turns many of their vehicles into over priced cachet machines and the value diminishes big time. After reading C/D's quick test - the X3 may be the one to beat regardless of price. The model that does the whooping i would expect to clock in well over 50k (w/adj drive settings etc). Unless this thing smokes the audi, or even an RDX, id still be happy with a Q5...i dont care much for BMW's truck designs, especially the X3, looks like a retarded wagon.

MMike1981

5 seats, possible V6 - and all the lux treatment that the MDX packs, both exterior and interior and options (like adj drive settings), cooled seats etc. highly doubt theyd stuff a 3rd row into an entry level cuv, that would make no sense at all, and drive sales away from a higher priced model

XIS

I wonder if that happened to Toyota with the Rav 4, highlander, 4 runner, etc..... Not sure if the entry level rav4 with the 3rd row has hurt the sales on their higher priced models..

MMike1981

one is a premium market, the other is not. Acura wont give away the farm at the low end, that is overly apparent in how they strucutre their rides, at least now, where you just dont get certain equipement in a TSX or RDX, likewise MDX to ZDX. so in theory if you really want it, you need to move up. Maybe that would change, but i doubt it.

stoxxsp500

im quite sure it's a 5 seater. 99% sure just cant pinpoint exact year. btw, honda said that the turbo engine is quite expensive (i wonder if profit margins are thinner then because of this - obviously, this isnt disclosed). apparently the engineer for the turbo engine was a woman researching turbo for a long time and tried to come up with a smooth engine. (got it from honda itself). i dunno but i prefer smaller engines myself (4 vs 6). for the Q5 id rather 2.0T vs 3.2 6. for the RDX, personally another 4 Turbo over a 6 for the new CUV by 2012/2013.

dewey22

I'm with MMike1981 on this--if they shrink an MDX, i.e. keep the upgraded interior and other amenities, that would be a positive move. I just don't need a third row or a bigger car. Of course I'd like the tighter drive of the RDX with it but smaller makes that more likely in any case. I've really enjoyed/valued the exchanges on this thread. It's interesting--I don't believe anyone mentioned the ZDX as their aspiration. It wouldn't be for me either but it leads me to wonder if that will be a success for Acura.

MMike1981

Acura is all over the map - first they want to move upscale to directly compete w/top lux brands, so they start re-doing all their dealerships/sellers, roll out the TL, then they stomp the brakes and pull back, cancel plans for any V8, cancel the NSX, and hault plans for new machines. Then the ZDX is released because it was already in development and is a limited production vehicle. Now, if Acura is gearing up again, who knows what the hell they plan on doing. Seems like their focus is not to innovate but to just make constant 'improvements' to existing models. Whether that be 6sp trans, restyling, better/improved features etc...

imo, the ZDX should be the benchmark that Acura uses when making any of their cars. Unfortunately, they are still in the business of re-tuning Hondas. Nothing wrong with that, but nothing great either. I think targeting the ZDX is a long shot for all acura models, but would be welcomed by me. Leather dash, yes please, upgraded leather seating sure, panoramic roof, yep.

R*D*X*

If they would add the acura magnetic suspension to RDX this will solve the most common complain in RDX. With this magnetic suspension driver have an option to adjust the suspension setting; comfort and sport mode...

brizey

Throttle response is throttle response, not power. The two are very close in terms of actual measurable performance. I don't race--I just enjoy acceleration. The RDX motor delivers acceleration just as well as that V8. I'd take the STI motor over either of them any day of the week.

brizey still does not understand people's obsession with cylinder count. Results are what matter.

stoxxsp500

guys, am thinking about what the honda IR (investor relations) said and this might give some clue as to what they do with the new 5 passenger cuv lined with with mdx in the future. my question is: "would a 6 cyl engine that's adequate for an "rdx" like vehicle be more expensive to build than the current 4 turbo that the rdx has?"

why am i asking? well, they did say that the rdx is "value for money to the consumer esp if we had any idea of how much expensive the turbo engine is!!" (double exclamation at that).

if a 6 cyl will be cheaper than the 4 turbo, then you might have the answer. (eg. there might be a 4 and 6 cyl variety and yes, no more turbo ) with that analogy. im not in the business of pricing individual engines so i dont really know the answer. i try to find intrinsic values in stocks and financial instruments but no way does that translate to engine knowledge LOL.

MMike1981

cylinders dont matter - performance does. if the turbo delivers both adequate performance as well as MPG and drivability (yea thats asking alot buts its obviously possible) then i for one dont care what is under the hood. Cylinder count doesnt mean anything is better or worse - but i do think the 4 C crushes the towing capacity thus cancels out a lot of shoppers in the segment who need to tow shit

corduroygt

I still say Accord V6 hybrid engine for the best of both worlds...and it would also help Acura's "Efficient, Environmentally Friendly Luxury" image. That engine hauls ass, had good low-end torque, and would get 25+ mpg on the RDX easy since it got 30+ in the accord.

brizey

That is why I brought up the STI engine. I would take the 2004 STI motor over any motor Honda makes for 2010. If Subaru made a Forester STI I would still be over at NASIOC.

I am not sure towing is much of a concern for a people in this segment. I don't see many X3's with towing packages...but I live in pickup country...and in an area where people have more money to spend on vehicles (like an old pickup to tow) because housing is relatively cheap.

brizey

I like this idea...but I think that engine/motor is dead going forward.

I am still waiting for a combo like the S2000's engine with an electric motor to fill in the low end torque and extend the top end hp to more like 300.

MMike1981

well...i think many people over time on this board came to it seeking towing advice and/or the RDX limits. 1500 is low. Im not saying the car should be able to tow a house, but 1500 is pretty limiting, and i think its one of those stats that doesnt jump out at you until you actually need it. You think you have a truck, go buy that certain thing and think hey no problem, then bam wtf

corduroygt

Yeah, except it won't be S2000's engine, it'll be the K24 engine plus a electric motor, similar to the CR-Z hybrid system.
K24 can be easily tuned from the factory with 220 hp and they can add an electric motor to claim ~240 hp.
The resulting RDX would match CR-V's highway mileage and beat its city mileage. It would have less top end power and mid-end torque than the current RDX, but no turbo lag and good off-the-line grunt, which matches the consumer demographics quite nicely.
We can all hope it'll match the ZDX, or at least MDX in interior quality.

Ah...they might make the RDX a great car and it won't matter a bit once they stick that fugly power plenum grille on it.

MMike1981

my main concern, after seeing the 'refreshed' accord is pure design now. Honda and Acura are coming out with products that look like they belong on a different planet. What is their focus group? who does their R&D? where the fuck are they coming up with this garbage? better yet, who approves it? They pay people to do research all they have to do is hop on the net and read any msg board, forum, mag, whatever...they are a lost company.

best example is the redesigned Odyssey..it hurts to look at it, its like they welded 2 different vehicles together. they are moving further n further away from what made them the best, top engineering, functional conventional designs. The accord 4 dr looks like a transformer and they threw the garbage 2010 RDX rims on it (more or less).

Out of allllllll the models Acura & honda have - they have about 2 maybe 3 designs that dont make you want to fight someone immediately, the 2 dr Accord, MDX, ZDX. Right now, i wouldnt purchase anything from either brand if its not those models.

guytdt

Sticker vs sticker ... should get CRV. Saving 10K over RDX and have almost everything from RDX.

007Acura

I love acura but after diving the audi q5 3.2 for a day I have to admit that it was more refined and had a much higher build quality than the last rdx I drove. It also got pretty decent MPG too.