The RDX would be a no-brainer for me if:
08-29-2007, 12:44 PM
#1
VSA Rocks
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RDX would be a no-brainer for me if:
Hello all! I just wanted to stop by from the TSX/RL forums and share my experience with an RDX loaner last weekend. My "new" CPO RL was at the dealer to have the A-spec kit installed and they gave me an RDX loaner while it was being worked on.
Almost a year ago, I had a very dissapointing test drive of the RDX. I thought the lack of rear vents, rear legroom, and most of all, the lack of low-end punch left me with the impression that the RDX was the latest of Acura flops like the Vigor and CL. Keep in mind that I owned a TSX back then.
However, my latest experience with an RDX that had 10k+ on the odometer was very pleasing. The turbo spooled almost a boost of power in 1st gear while the handling was the best I've expienced in an SUV. Perhaps the RDX that I initially test drove had a less-aggressive ECU learn? Who knows.
Anyway, the test drive left an impression where my wife and I are considering it as her replacement to her aging '04 Pilot. Prior to the loaner, we only had the MDX and Lexus RX350 as possibilities. Initially, we had the MDX as a no-brainer until I saw how much it would cost when we loaded up stuff that should've been standard: running boards, top rails, etc.
We also want the tech package. By the time you add all of that up, we have a pricetag that I'm not willing to pay for a family hauler.
Recently, I realized that a 3rd row seat would not be usable if we decided to have another child in the family. If you have two car seats in the the 2nd row, it would be a major inconvenience to access the 3rd row. Hence, the Lexus RX and RDX are now possibilities.
There are still a few flaws that are stopping the RDX from being a no-brainer:
1. Gas mileage - even with 10k on the odometer, the SH-AWD system and the turbo gulped gas worse than my wife's 3.2 Pilot.
2. No rear vents - even with a compact interior, the rear passenger should be treated with some luxury amenities. Afterall, this is an Acura, right?
3. Transmission - I still scratch my head on why Honda hasn't developed an auto tranny with 6 gears in their performance cars. The RDX, TSX, TL, and TL-S powerplants are severely mismatched with their respective 5AT trannies and it takes the fun away.
I really think if Acura offered a FWD trim level with the same 2.3T powerplant the RDX would have improved sales from a lower pricetag and more power being delivered to the wheels. I know I would buy that one in a heartbeat.
Almost a year ago, I had a very dissapointing test drive of the RDX. I thought the lack of rear vents, rear legroom, and most of all, the lack of low-end punch left me with the impression that the RDX was the latest of Acura flops like the Vigor and CL. Keep in mind that I owned a TSX back then.
However, my latest experience with an RDX that had 10k+ on the odometer was very pleasing. The turbo spooled almost a boost of power in 1st gear while the handling was the best I've expienced in an SUV. Perhaps the RDX that I initially test drove had a less-aggressive ECU learn? Who knows.
Anyway, the test drive left an impression where my wife and I are considering it as her replacement to her aging '04 Pilot. Prior to the loaner, we only had the MDX and Lexus RX350 as possibilities. Initially, we had the MDX as a no-brainer until I saw how much it would cost when we loaded up stuff that should've been standard: running boards, top rails, etc.
We also want the tech package. By the time you add all of that up, we have a pricetag that I'm not willing to pay for a family hauler. Recently, I realized that a 3rd row seat would not be usable if we decided to have another child in the family. If you have two car seats in the the 2nd row, it would be a major inconvenience to access the 3rd row. Hence, the Lexus RX and RDX are now possibilities.
There are still a few flaws that are stopping the RDX from being a no-brainer:
1. Gas mileage - even with 10k on the odometer, the SH-AWD system and the turbo gulped gas worse than my wife's 3.2 Pilot.
2. No rear vents - even with a compact interior, the rear passenger should be treated with some luxury amenities. Afterall, this is an Acura, right?
3. Transmission - I still scratch my head on why Honda hasn't developed an auto tranny with 6 gears in their performance cars. The RDX, TSX, TL, and TL-S powerplants are severely mismatched with their respective 5AT trannies and it takes the fun away.
I really think if Acura offered a FWD trim level with the same 2.3T powerplant the RDX would have improved sales from a lower pricetag and more power being delivered to the wheels. I know I would buy that one in a heartbeat.
08-29-2007, 01:04 PM
#2
Instructor
Join Date: Mar 2007
Age: 37
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also came from a 3.5 Pilot and the Rdx gets slightly better mileage despite the turbo and fulltime awd. Having rear vents would be nice but that doesn't really bother me as does your issue with the tranny.
08-29-2007, 02:58 PM
#4
Burning Brakes
Originally Posted by Black_6spd
Hello all! I just wanted to stop by from the TSX/RL forums and share my experience with an RDX loaner last weekend. My "new" CPO RL was at the dealer to have the A-spec kit installed and they gave me an RDX loaner while it was being worked on.
Almost a year ago, I had a very dissapointing test drive of the RDX. I thought the lack of rear vents, rear legroom, and most of all, the lack of low-end punch left me with the impression that the RDX was the latest of Acura flops like the Vigor and CL. Keep in mind that I owned a TSX back then.
However, my latest experience with an RDX that had 10k+ on the odometer was very pleasing. The turbo spooled almost a boost of power in 1st gear while the handling was the best I've expienced in an SUV. Perhaps the RDX that I initially test drove had a less-aggressive ECU learn? Who knows.
Anyway, the test drive left an impression where my wife and I are considering it as her replacement to her aging '04 Pilot. Prior to the loaner, we only had the MDX and Lexus RX350 as possibilities. Initially, we had the MDX as a no-brainer until I saw how much it would cost when we loaded up stuff that should've been standard: running boards, top rails, etc. We also want the tech package. By the time you add all of that up, we have a pricetag that I'm not willing to pay for a family hauler.
Recently, I realized that a 3rd row seat would not be usable if we decided to have another child in the family. If you have two car seats in the the 2nd row, it would be a major inconvenience to access the 3rd row. Hence, the Lexus RX and RDX are now possibilities.
There are still a few flaws that are stopping the RDX from being a no-brainer:
1. Gas mileage - even with 10k on the odometer, the SH-AWD system and the turbo gulped gas worse than my wife's 3.2 Pilot.
2. No rear vents - even with a compact interior, the rear passenger should be treated with some luxury amenities. Afterall, this is an Acura, right?
3. Transmission - I still scratch my head on why Honda hasn't developed an auto tranny with 6 gears in their performance cars. The RDX, TSX, TL, and TL-S powerplants are severely mismatched with their respective 5AT trannies and it takes the fun away.
I really think if Acura offered a FWD trim level with the same 2.3T powerplant the RDX would have improved sales from a lower pricetag and more power being delivered to the wheels. I know I would buy that one in a heartbeat.
Almost a year ago, I had a very dissapointing test drive of the RDX. I thought the lack of rear vents, rear legroom, and most of all, the lack of low-end punch left me with the impression that the RDX was the latest of Acura flops like the Vigor and CL. Keep in mind that I owned a TSX back then.
However, my latest experience with an RDX that had 10k+ on the odometer was very pleasing. The turbo spooled almost a boost of power in 1st gear while the handling was the best I've expienced in an SUV. Perhaps the RDX that I initially test drove had a less-aggressive ECU learn? Who knows.
Anyway, the test drive left an impression where my wife and I are considering it as her replacement to her aging '04 Pilot. Prior to the loaner, we only had the MDX and Lexus RX350 as possibilities. Initially, we had the MDX as a no-brainer until I saw how much it would cost when we loaded up stuff that should've been standard: running boards, top rails, etc.
We also want the tech package. By the time you add all of that up, we have a pricetag that I'm not willing to pay for a family hauler. Recently, I realized that a 3rd row seat would not be usable if we decided to have another child in the family. If you have two car seats in the the 2nd row, it would be a major inconvenience to access the 3rd row. Hence, the Lexus RX and RDX are now possibilities.
There are still a few flaws that are stopping the RDX from being a no-brainer:
1. Gas mileage - even with 10k on the odometer, the SH-AWD system and the turbo gulped gas worse than my wife's 3.2 Pilot.
2. No rear vents - even with a compact interior, the rear passenger should be treated with some luxury amenities. Afterall, this is an Acura, right?
3. Transmission - I still scratch my head on why Honda hasn't developed an auto tranny with 6 gears in their performance cars. The RDX, TSX, TL, and TL-S powerplants are severely mismatched with their respective 5AT trannies and it takes the fun away.
I really think if Acura offered a FWD trim level with the same 2.3T powerplant the RDX would have improved sales from a lower pricetag and more power being delivered to the wheels. I know I would buy that one in a heartbeat.
I would agree with most of your "personal" opinions about the shortcomings of the RDX, in particular the lack of rear vents, six-speed automatic. But in regards to the gas mileage, although it is definitely not class-leading, it is not bad. I am getting about 12L per 100 km or 19.6 mpg, 90% city driving.
I believe that your Pilot is only VTM drive system, and thus not full-time. I can't imagine the weight difference between the two vehicles is significant.
A full-time AWD system really does take a toll on fuel consumption. Full-time AWD systems have their advantages and disadvantages.
If you wanted a FWD small CUV, why not get the CRV?
08-29-2007, 05:06 PM
#5
Instructor
Join Date: Nov 2006
Age: 47
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mav238
I would agree with most of your "personal" opinions about the shortcomings of the RDX, in particular the lack of rear vents, six-speed automatic. But in regards to the gas mileage, although it is definitely not class-leading, it is not bad. I am getting about 12L per 100 km or 19.6 mpg, 90% city driving.
I believe that your Pilot is only VTM drive system, and thus not full-time. I can't imagine the weight difference between the two vehicles is significant.
A full-time AWD system really does take a toll on fuel consumption. Full-time AWD systems have their advantages and disadvantages.
If you wanted a FWD small CUV, why not get the CRV?
I believe that your Pilot is only VTM drive system, and thus not full-time. I can't imagine the weight difference between the two vehicles is significant.
A full-time AWD system really does take a toll on fuel consumption. Full-time AWD systems have their advantages and disadvantages.
If you wanted a FWD small CUV, why not get the CRV?
In fact, the best mileage I've ever seen was on a 60km back and forth highway trip. There was barely any traffic, we were probably going about 110 the entire way, easy on the turbo, and I think my mileage was in the mid 12s/100km. Decent, but makes me really wonder why I can't get what others get driving in the city.
Oh, and the Acura people said there were no problems at the A1 service when I asked them to look into this.
Am I saying you would get my crappy milegae? Well, no, you probably won't, that's my own personal misfortune. But I think you need to at least be prepared for it or something approaching it just in case. Better to expect it and be pleasantly surprised if you get better than expect better and end up worse.
08-29-2007, 05:54 PM
#6
VSA Rocks
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your replies. Just to clarify, I don't think the gas mileage is horrible -- I just think it's bad for a 2.3 I-4. After owning Honda's almost my whole life, it's something that I've taken for granted. I personally believe their calling card is incredible value, reliability, and in this case, efficiency. In the RDX's case, I believe that the much of the lower gas mileagle comes from drivetrain losses in the SH-AWD and the turbo having to overcome the long gears.
As an entire package, I happen to like the car alot and will continue to compare it with the Lexus RX350. Right now, my personal bias toward Acura and the unwanted image associated with a Lexus has the RDX as the front runner. Besides, the RDX is definately more rare and has a more aggressive look.
As an entire package, I happen to like the car alot and will continue to compare it with the Lexus RX350. Right now, my personal bias toward Acura and the unwanted image associated with a Lexus has the RDX as the front runner. Besides, the RDX is definately more rare and has a more aggressive look.
08-29-2007, 08:49 PM
#7
Sporty X type
Originally Posted by Black_6spd
Thanks for your replies. Just to clarify, I don't think the gas mileage is horrible -- I just think it's bad for a 2.3 I-4. After owning Honda's almost my whole life, it's something that I've taken for granted. I personally believe their calling card is incredible value, reliability, and in this case, efficiency. In the RDX's case, I believe that the much of the lower gas mileagle comes from drivetrain losses in the SH-AWD and the turbo having to overcome the long gears.
As an entire package, I happen to like the car alot and will continue to compare it with the Lexus RX350. Right now, my personal bias toward Acura and the unwanted image associated with a Lexus has the RDX as the front runner. Besides, the RDX is definately more rare and has a more aggressive look.
As an entire package, I happen to like the car alot and will continue to compare it with the Lexus RX350. Right now, my personal bias toward Acura and the unwanted image associated with a Lexus has the RDX as the front runner. Besides, the RDX is definately more rare and has a more aggressive look.
It is a BLAST to drive though. As for EVERYONE saying no rear vents, they are UNDER the seats. No, not adjustable, but it does blow air back to the rear area's some! Good luck on your choice!
Trending Topics
08-29-2007, 09:26 PM
#8
Black RDX in N. VA.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Age: 68
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I came from a TSX - nice, but somehow uninspiring. I'm totally in love with my RDX, with about 7k miles on it so far:
-I'm getting about 21-22 mpg overall...not as good as the TSX, but not bad in return for the extra cargo room.
-The RDX actually feels sportier, to me, than the TSX. I think perhaps it's the turbocharger combined with the SH-AWD - this vehicle feels "glued to the road" no matter how hard I push it. It's not a cushy cruiser like the Lexus, but I prefer the tight road feel anyway....
-I don't carry kids much, so the rear ventilation isn't a big issue, but it's a small enough vehicle that the entire interior cools fairly quickly.
-How can you NOT like the Tech Package?! The Nav, the Bluetooth, the voice command - I LOVE IT!
Having said all that, I would also compare with the Nissan Murano - an excellent vehicle: a little bigger than the RDX, good power, smoother transmission, etc. Not quite as sporty, but still handles very well for an SUV.
-I'm getting about 21-22 mpg overall...not as good as the TSX, but not bad in return for the extra cargo room.
-The RDX actually feels sportier, to me, than the TSX. I think perhaps it's the turbocharger combined with the SH-AWD - this vehicle feels "glued to the road" no matter how hard I push it. It's not a cushy cruiser like the Lexus, but I prefer the tight road feel anyway....
-I don't carry kids much, so the rear ventilation isn't a big issue, but it's a small enough vehicle that the entire interior cools fairly quickly.
-How can you NOT like the Tech Package?! The Nav, the Bluetooth, the voice command - I LOVE IT!
Having said all that, I would also compare with the Nissan Murano - an excellent vehicle: a little bigger than the RDX, good power, smoother transmission, etc. Not quite as sporty, but still handles very well for an SUV.
08-29-2007, 11:08 PM
#9
Trailingthrottleoversteer
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Black_6spd
I really think if Acura offered a FWD trim level with the same 2.3T powerplant the RDX would have improved sales from a lower pricetag and more power being delivered to the wheels. I know I would buy that one in a heartbeat.
.
08-30-2007, 09:58 AM
#10
Burning Brakes
Originally Posted by FitnessCC
I came from a TSX - nice, but somehow uninspiring. I'm totally in love with my RDX, with about 7k miles on it so far:
-I'm getting about 21-22 mpg overall...not as good as the TSX, but not bad in return for the extra cargo room.
-
-I'm getting about 21-22 mpg overall...not as good as the TSX, but not bad in return for the extra cargo room.
-
08-30-2007, 11:33 AM
#11
Instructor
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: GA
Age: 42
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
only thing that bothers me is the engine and gas milege. It would be a no brainer if it had 3.2-3.5 v6 engine with bit better gas milege. Rear vents wouldn't hurt either.
08-31-2007, 11:33 PM
#12
Cruisin'
Join Date: Aug 2007
Age: 42
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ex2k4
only thing that bothers me is the engine and gas milege. It would be a no brainer if it had 3.2-3.5 v6 engine with bit better gas milege. Rear vents wouldn't hurt either.
09-01-2007, 02:14 AM
#13
Burning Brakes
Originally Posted by ex2k4
only thing that bothers me is the engine and gas milege. It would be a no brainer if it had 3.2-3.5 v6 engine with bit better gas milege. Rear vents wouldn't hurt either.
I am not so sure about better gas mileage, but definitely, you can tune the V6 engine to use regular gas, which could lower fuel costs.
With a turbo, premium gas is almost exclusively required in all cases.
09-01-2007, 02:34 AM
#14
B A N N E D
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calabasas
Posts: 552
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because so many people bitched moaned and complained to Mazda about the CX-7 only using premium, they changed the "requirement" to "recommended", A good move, one that should be done by Acura as well, because all the suburban moms I see driving the RDX, CX-7, they don't need the performance.
09-01-2007, 12:27 PM
#15
Burning Brakes
Originally Posted by AbovePrime.
Because so many people bitched moaned and complained to Mazda about the CX-7 only using premium, they changed the "requirement" to "recommended", A good move, one that should be done by Acura as well, because all the suburban moms I see driving the RDX, CX-7, they don't need the performance.
If you are driving the turbo RDX just only on flat level roads, and on non-aggressive freeway ramps where you don't have to stab that gas pedal to scoot ahead of fast on-coming traffic (is there such a freeway in norht america?), probably get away well with using only 89 octane.
But if you are in an area where driving on high grade inclined roads is a normal, and possibly towing as well, there is no question about using premium for which the turbocharged engine was designed to run on.
Of course, if you drive like a grandmother (~ 30 mph) and stay in the city streets only, hardly hit the freeway ramp and enjoy the turbo rush, then maybe even 87 octane would work for you... but in this case, why did you buy the RDX???
Its like buying the Turbo 911 and asking the salesperson if you could use 87 octane, he/she will probably scratch their head and remind you it is a high performance tuned turbocharged engine... and he/she might suggest you go for the Toyota Yaris...
09-01-2007, 03:13 PM
#16
B A N N E D
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calabasas
Posts: 552
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suburban moms Don't want the 911, they want that Cute Ute acura to match the hubbys TL and family Honda van, so they have the RDX, they still don't want to use 91, regardless of any sort of turbo. Point is people are that ignorant, not much you can do about that.
09-02-2007, 08:28 PM
#17
Burning Brakes
Originally Posted by AbovePrime.
Suburban moms Don't want the 911, they want that Cute Ute acura to match the hubbys TL and family Honda van, so they have the RDX, they still don't want to use 91, regardless of any sort of turbo. Point is people are that ignorant, not much you can do about that.
They insist on the anti-knock system in the RDX, and that because of that, that would be "no problem" using 87 octane... and insist that "there would be NO impact on performance and fuel economy".
If there is really no impact on performance and fuel economy of the RDX with using 87, why on earth would Honda design it to run on premium??!!?? It would be utterly meaningless and stupid of Honda to do that... imagine Honda manual instructions for the RDX "... You can use 87 octane gasoline consistently with absolutely no impact on performance, engine durability and fuel economy, but we recommend that 91 octane be used at all times". If this was really the case, it will confuse the heck out of the end-user...The anti-knock system is there so that, in situations, where one is in an area where 91 octane is not available, or if one accidentally pumps in the wrong octane gas, it will not bring about immediate catastrophic engine break down. The manual did say to fill up completely with 91 octane gas when the opportunity arises. So that one tank of 87 gas will not lead to immediate engine issues.
I too feel the impact of the high gas prices, but the area where I live, includes driving on freeways, on inclined mountain roads... so I adapt by adjusting my driving habits, no jack-rabbit starts at traffic lights, no unnecessary repeat trips to the grocery stores, reduce unnecessary idling in traffic if at all possible (picking better driving times with less traffic)... I am getting about 12L per 100 km with 90% city driving, which I think given what the RDX is, is very reasonable.
09-02-2007, 09:56 PM
#18
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AbovePrime.
Suburban moms Don't want the 911, they want that Cute Ute acura to match the hubbys TL and family Honda van, so they have the RDX, they still don't want to use 91, regardless of any sort of turbo. Point is people are that ignorant, not much you can do about that.
09-04-2007, 09:29 AM
#21
Meat Popsicle
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Chicagoland, Illinois
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AbovePrime.
Suburban moms Don't want the 911, they want that Cute Ute acura to match the hubbys TL and family Honda van, so they have the RDX, they still don't want to use 91, regardless of any sort of turbo. Point is people are that ignorant, not much you can do about that.
09-23-2007, 03:43 PM
#22
Burning Brakes
Interesting points, Black_6spd. I just took delivery of my RDX on Tuesday, so clearly the things that are holding you back weren't deal-breakers to me. There are rear vents under the front seats, so it's not like those in the back just have to wait for cold/hot air to get blown from the front. And I don't see anything wrong with a 5-speed automatic--it wasn't too many years ago that a 4-speed automatic was considered just fine!
I'm more bothered by the manual passenger's seat, non-auto-dimming side mirrors, cheesy switchblade key, and generally plasticky interior... but then again none of these were enough to keep me from getting one!
Two of your other comments interested me--that the CL was a "failure" and that Lexus has an "unwanted image". Keep in mind, I traded in a '98 CL for my RDX and it was the most rock-solid car, build quality and reliability wise, that I've ever owned. And my other car is an '02 GS430 L-Tuned Stage 2 and the only other serious choice other than the RDX was an RX400h, so I neither see the CL as a failure or Lexus as having an unwanted image! I'm just curious what you are thinking of.
I'm more bothered by the manual passenger's seat, non-auto-dimming side mirrors, cheesy switchblade key, and generally plasticky interior... but then again none of these were enough to keep me from getting one!
Two of your other comments interested me--that the CL was a "failure" and that Lexus has an "unwanted image". Keep in mind, I traded in a '98 CL for my RDX and it was the most rock-solid car, build quality and reliability wise, that I've ever owned. And my other car is an '02 GS430 L-Tuned Stage 2 and the only other serious choice other than the RDX was an RX400h, so I neither see the CL as a failure or Lexus as having an unwanted image! I'm just curious what you are thinking of.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
