Had a good look and test drive of the RDX today. They had three preped for test drives: a black and silver with the tech package and a red without. Drove the black one with the tech package. Bottom line - I like this car and will get one soon, but not at this mark up.

Pros: Very good handling, impressive cornering particularly under acceleration, good high end acceleration, very cool sound system, back seat larger than it appears in pics, well engineered and good overall lines.

Cons: Up paddle shifter didn't work, lacks some power at the low end (compared to '05 TL), brakes are a bit spongy (compared to '05 TL), Music Link not worth since it already has an Aux input jack (neither one lets you see the MP3 player on the display but Music Link allows you to control tracks).

See the following link for some pics: In the window sticker photo, note the $1000 dealer mark up and added accessories bringing the total price to $37,165 before tax and license.
RDX Photos

See the following link for some video of the interior, exterior and test drive.
RDX Video

 

thanks for sharing!!

 

I think they're setting their expectations a little too high if they think people are going to pay $1,000 mark up. I don't blame you for not paying it.

Great pix and video.

 

GREAT post rdxsteverino!! Best set of pictures and video to date.

the black one that you were looking at is exactly what i want(color, tech package, sport running boards, and possibly the music link). Do you remember how much that one was with the accessories?

thanks again, and i really appreciate the post!

 

Your welcome. The options and price for the black and silver were identical. Here's a summary of the pricing for both:

Accessories
Wheel Locks: $79
Sport Running Boards: $609
Roof Rack: $534
IPod Music Link: $289 (I doubt they asked for Apple's permission on this one)
DEALER MARK UP!!!: $999

Total: $37,165 (without tax, license and the other adders)

I don't need the car for a couple months so I'll be shopping around - certainly not paying $1000 over MSRP. I'm guessing there are several dealers out there not charging this mark up.

 

I was at Keyes Acura, picking up my TL from service and was able to drive a non-tech RDX the other day (Silver/Ebony). According to my friend/service rep., they had 4 come in, 2 were sold, 1 (w/ tech pkg.) was being prepped and the 1 was the demo.

If I remember correctly, it had the roof rack, running boards and was stickered at just over $37k $37k and no navi, RTT, BT or AcuraLink?!?!

Exterior/Interior impressions:
I'm not totally crazy about the look of the RDX.... IMHO, the rear is too blunt when compared to the front.... Especially since it sits so upright. The proportions are MDX like, but not as sleek. Again, just MHO. Kinda reminds me of the new RAV4.
The interior is classic Honda/Acura. I agree with one of the other posters here that the steering wheel look/is like the one in the new Civic, but it is comfortable and in a good driving position. The non-navi version's dash still seems cluttered to me (a la Infiniti M45). Have only seen pics of the navi version, so I can't comment on how that might clean up/clutter the dash layout. The IP is, again, classic Honda/Acura. Dials are big ehough and easy to read.
The seats are comfortable and bolstered like the TSX. The leather doesn't seem as soft and supple as in my TL but IMHO, is nicer than the leather in the TSX, and I think it may wear better than the TL in the long run.
Rear seat room is similar to the TSX and the seats sit slightly higher than the front.
Cargo area is clean and uncluttered (subwoofer is located in right rear pannel, out of the way). Space seems great and the tailgate lifts high and out of the way.

Driving impressions:
The turbo is fun. The torque (260lb. ft.) is enough to motivate the RDX quickly... I kept thinking about how fun my TL would be with this kind of motivation behind it . Steering is good, with decent feedback. Navigating thru traffic was a breeze and the RDX seems smaller than it's dimensions would have you believe. Brakes are good and grab pretty quickly.

While the RDX is fun, I think there are better choices out there for the near $40k sticker they are looking to get.

This is just my opinion, so your results may vary.

 

Thanks for the pics, man.

I look forward to driving it sometime this week and providing a detailed review.

 

As much as I hate to say it, a test drive of the new RDX didn't warm me up to this vehicle. I think it's okay looking, but certainly not sleek or edgy. The interior is pretty autere, especially in black.

What I couldn't accept was the significant turbo pause from a stand-still. Yes, it does take off nicely after the pause, but argh, what a pause. Had the new turbo engine delivered superior gas mileage, pehaps it would be justifed. But, as others have said here, a more efficient six might have been the way to go.

Lastly, the price. I think it's pushing it, while other Acura's are such great values.

After the test drive I got back into my TL and drove away happy. What a great car!

 

Why is it that everyone expects a 4000-lb SUV with AWD to get the same gas mileage as a 3500-lb sedan with FWD? Can someone please help explain that to me?

 

Havent looked at the numbers, but how does the turbo 4 compare to similar models equipped with a 6? If the gas mileage is the same, the compliants here by some are valid. The reason for a smaller engine is to save gas milegae, but if it doesnt what is the point? Having read a few reviews there seem to be turbo lag, so that is really a big turn off.

 

.....its because of the same reason a 600lb heavier AWD SUV with a 3.5 liter V6 engine, (LET ME REPEAT THAT, A 3.5L V6, NOT A PATHTETIC 4-BANGER), with technology from the year 2000, called the MDX (heard of it??) manages to get the same 23mpg .....make any sense???... ....didn't think so

 

.....for bringing some sanity into this insane world. Restores my faith that there are still people alive in this world who can understand simply logic and common sense, which seems to be lacking in some of these arguments

 

hmmm... Let's run the numbers:

RDX
- 23xx cc 2.3 liters Turbocharged Inline 4 Cyl front engine
- Horsepower: 240 HP SAE @6000 rpm; 260 ft-lbs @ 4500 rpm
- Fuel economy EPA highway (mpg): 23 and EPA city (mpg): 19
- Premium unleaded fuel 91
- 18.0 gallon main premium unleaded fuel tank

MDX:
- 3,471 cc 3.5 liters V 6 front engine
- Horsepower: 253 HP SAE @ 5,800 rpm; 250 ft-lbs
- Fuel economy EPA highway (mpg): 23 and EPA city (mpg): 17
- Premium unleaded fuel 91
- 20.3 gallon main premium unleaded fuel tank

That's 100 HP/Liter on the RDX vs ~73HP/Liter for the MDX

Your squeezing more power into a smaller engine while achieving the same amount of HP and torque.

I don't see how you can say the 4-banger is "pathetic". Please do enlighten me.

 

*correction: for the squggly line in front of ~100HP

 

*correction: for the squiggly line in front of ~100HP

 

Let me enlighten you and clue you in on what I mean by a "pathetic 4 banger"........for starters, let me name just a few disadvantages: You have a lack of "low end grunt", You have all the noise, vibration and harshness negatives that are inherent traits of a 4 banger, and as far as the turbocharger goes, you've got turbo lag (however small it may be), and then you've got to contend with the turbo-whine to add even more, to the already melodic soundtrack ....all of the above negatives have been mentioned in review after review, and I experienced them during my own test drive. A V6 would've eliminated all of the above, including the "norelco vacuum cleaner sounding" raspy noise during acceleration and idle that I experienced during my test drive, that is so charactersitic of a 4 cylinder engine (including highly refined ones) ......... And to conclude, when you have an OVERWORKED, STRESSED OUT engine pushing a 4000lb SUV it shows in the pathetic tow rating of 1500lbs (Did someone mention this was an ESS-YOU-VEE??...strange )

.....Just to be CRYSTAL CLEAR, understand that I'm not against 4 cylinder engines in general. Just on the appropriateness of their application. Like everything in life, they have THEIR TIME AND PLACE. One has to have the brains and common sense to understand WHICH APPLICATIONS a 4-banger is suited for. In a lighter, aerodynamic 3000lb car like the TSX or a similar weighing S2000, it makes sense

.....Not in a friggin 4000lb SUV with AWD puching a huge hole through the atmosphere . When people try and get too smart for their guns and try these things "just to be different" then you get the complete opposite of the desired effect!! Things like the pathetic 19city/23hwy gas mileage figures caused by the heavily stressed out, overworked 4 banger revving itself to death, pushing this heavy beast.

 

Thank you for your enlightment.

Can't argue with your dislikes because that's your own opinion. Some people may like the "turbo whine" and some, like yourself, may not. You may equip yourself with added engine kits (scramble boost, wastegate, etc) to offset the lag.

Actually, the TSX (auto w/ Nav) weighs in at 3356 lbs compared to the RDX's 3953 lbs (w/ Tech) curb weight. That is a 597 lbs difference. Not to mention that the TSX's engine is slightly larger (2.4L) rated with 205 HP. An additional "600 lbs" to the RDX will get you into the 3.5L V6 MDX.

I don't know how I can you argue against an "overworked, stressed out engine". A V6 would make total sense if you have collected some data to prove such a case. Or maybe the team of engineers at Honda devised a plan to make us all suffer with a overstressed engine...come back in 4-5 years and you'll see if you're on the money with this one.

As for the tow rating, are you expecting to haul heavy loads? Sounds like you might need a truck or a larger SUV, the RDX is definately not for you.

 

The 4451 lb MDX, weighs 500 lbs more, but has the VTM-4 AWD system that does not always drive all 4 wheels at the same time, which allows it to operate in FWD only mode for the majority of the time, especially at highway speeds. The RDX has true AWD which is putting power to all 4 wheels all the time, regardless of the road conditions. So if you look at it from that perspective, the MDX is technically a 500 lb heavier FWD vehicle with about equal frontal surface area. Considering that AWD can account for a fairly large loss of drivetrain efficiency, the RDX numbers don't look so bad.

But of course, to the average consumer who doesn't bother to research any of this, it all looks the same...

 

I finally did my own test drive today after reading all these posts and watching this vehicle for almost a year. The information from all the posters here has been helpful.

I drove the carbon bronze tech and thought it was great. Now, I'm not as technical as a lot of these other posters measuring turbo lag, getting worked up over the non-memory seat, etc. To be fair, the car I drive now is 10 years old, I bought it when I was in college, and quite frankly, I'm too embarrassed to even say what the make and model is, so it's easy for me to be impressed driving any new car.

However, to be fair, I also drove the RX350 and an FX35 today all within a 3 hour period. (hey, it's been 10 years, I'm due to splurge). I'm really not even considering the X3 because of the reliability factor. I would have to get some new compelling information to think about it. I know these cars probably compare more to the MDX, but I felt I had to check them out. There really aren't many cars in the same class as the RDX, and I think that's the problem with a lot of the agruments made with comparisons. In the next couple of years, I think this segment will be a little more crowded.

I have to say that the choice that has come out on top for me is the RDX. It all comes down to preference and what I'm looking for.

The RX350 was a very luxurious ride, all the bells and whistles you can think of and about 10K more. While I was very comfortable driving it, I felt like I was driving my grandpa's car just a little too smooth and not very tight handling. Even though it has more options, this really isn't what I'm looking for. Also, I can't stand the wood trim, and there is no choice on the Lexus, you get it no matter what unless you get the hybrid, and I'm not willing to pay that premium.

The FX35 was much more spirited, lots of power (with the expected lower gas mileage), also a ton of bells and whistles and 10K more, but I didn't feel comfortable driving it - the visibility out of the back window stinks, and while there's a rear view camera, that does nothing for you while you're driving. I liked it, but I think it is just too big and too much of a gas guzzler.

I felt that the RX and FX are for older drivers (I'm in my 30s - I guess I fit Acura's target). The RDX just fits what I'm looking for better by being more fun to drive, nice technology, MP3 (which the others didn't have), plus a better price tag. If I want to sacrifice all the technology and great handling to get a lower price, then I would consider the RAV or CRV, but I really don't see them comparing - probably the same way the RDX doesn't really compare to the RX or FX.

Now I have to decide when to buy, and whether I want the carbon bronze or carbon grey

By the way, my Acura dealer isn't fooling around with any markups or loading them up with a bunch of options no one wants. They had a carbon bronze, two blacks, a silver and a white. I didn't compare all of them closely enough to know or remember which were tech and which were non-tech. The silver one is a loaner and two of the others were sold. And they're going for MSRP, as were the RX and FX.

 

I appreciate your impressions of the FX and RX and can understand your decision. Have fun with your purchase and let us know how it goes.

What dealer are you working with? The one I went to was asking $1000 over.

 

At 56 I guess I don't fit the target market and I'm fine with that. Like Vic, I'm not feeling the turbo four in a heavy boxy vechicle that will get real world mileage similar to my MDX. Guess I have another excuse to hang on to the MDX and it really didn't take much.

The other thing is the pricing formula. They can target the X3 all they want I will not be buying that either. I haven't driven the RDX yet but will soon just out of curiosity. The one that I spied on my dealer lot w/Tech package and 18" rims and tires was about $41,000. That and the turbo would send me right to a loaded CRV which I suspect will be $6-8,00 less I certainly hope.

Actually, I'm really glad that we already have three fine vechicles in great shape; 1993 delSol, 2002 MDX, 2005 TL. Good luck to all with the RDX.

 

I was there on Tuesday (7/15). They still have the same 3 RDX. Did not get a test drive since, I did not have the time for it. Just want to check it out.

1 thing impressed me is the sound of the sound system. Black would be my ideal color, but I would rather have the black interior.

Here are my dissapointments... For $37k, you don't have power passerger seats; you don't have driver side memory seats; you don't have auto dimming rear view mirrors as standard (it is an accessory). A TSX non-nav have all of these as standard.

 

Wow, you must be the first person to comment on this

 

hehehe. probably.... if people are going to spend this much for what people consider an entry level luxury-suv, don't short change us on the basic features. The TSX is the cheapest Acura (I mean cheap as in price) and it has these features as standard. I did not consider the RSX as the cheapest because it will be discontinued for 2007.

 

True, but the TSX didn't start with them, it got them as time went by

 

You're right on that one. I guess for me you build-on on having those features as standard equipment. By not having those as standard in the RDX is a step back.

Another example, the old Lexus IS has standard xenon on all models including the base model. Now the new ones don't have the xenon unless you're getting the IS350. When I checked out the new IS, I was expecting xenon as standard equipment, but it is not.

just my .02 cents

 

Mfgs need to have something to add each year. Each all new car will sell on it's own merits. They can add goodies to capture buyers who want to wait for these things later.

 

I guess, I'll just wait for 2 years to have these features standardized on the RDX then.

 

I'm in Upstate NY and there's only one Acura dealer in my area unless I go about an hour away, so I'm glad they're not being chisellers.

 

Try closer to $13K less for an EX CRV. We just bought one two months ago. I drove a White Tech RDX on Tuesday afternoon. They had a black non-tech in the showroom with 18's and chrome wheels and a pretty silver bow on it. I enjoyed my drive and was happy to find out that the leg room is better on the RDX than that CRV.

 

I'm talking about the new, not yet released 2007 CRV. It will be a closer match and the spare will be inside.

 

I'm not in the market for a new car, but being a fan of Honda/Acura, I'm still somewhat disappointed with the production RDX, especially the exterior. That's subjective, but I'm a pretty average person with average taste. Recent Honda releases haven't done too well with the exterior either, such as the Accord, and the new Civic is strange in my opinion.

Also, I don't think the market for a sporty small luxury SUV is big. For people needing sporty experience, the engine choice is strange. And for people interested in fuel efficiency, Acura is pretty late with hybrid. For people needing more room, well so many other choices... Time will tell. I expect the vehicle to underperform Acura's expectations.

 

At my dealership, the sticker reads 37,165 being the MSRP for the TECH RDX, and 33,665 for the base RDX. dealer markup??

 

Nope. After the first round of RDX's went out, the destination charge went up tp $670. So $32.995 plus $670 is $33,665. Add $3,500 for tech and you're at $37,165.

 

ya thats true about the destination charge, it went up for all vehicles for 2007, from 615 to 670. what im asking about is people seeing dealerships charge "dealer mark up". that 670 has also hit the TLs as well. 33,995-35,995

 

In northern NJ, some dealers are selling at sticker price but some are making better deals. I haven't seen any adding a markup.