Yes, I agree. I don't care how many Acura sells. Actually, it is even better if they have lower sales. I don't want to see RDX as many as the CRV in town !

MPG: Once you get on the RDX, forget about your TSX/Accord/Camry. How can people compare the MPG of a AWD Turbo SUV to a FWD sedan ?

If you want to compare the MPG, compare the RDX's with other compatible SUV, like FX35, RX350, etc. , and you will find the RDX's MPG isn't that bad.

 

First off, about the price, I think it is more than fair. What they did that angers me is skimped on little things like the passenger seat as we have discussed before, but nothing that makes the price unfair.

Our dealership, Acura of Boston, said they are moving 5 a week.

Mike

 

Yes, one dealer in Toronto sold 8 in a weekend.

 

I'd like to see them move more units purely for the fact that aftermarket accessories, performance or appearance, will be driven by sales numbers.

But of course at the same time, I don't want to see ANY out on the road, except mine......is that too much to ask?

 

my dealer sold "4" right before I came in, so they were so "hot" there was no "discount off msrp"...then i showed up a few weeks later and the exact cars were still on the lot. Id enver believe a thing they tell you unless you know that dealer personally.

 

How do you know that was the exact same car ? Would it be another shipment ?

 

My dealer played the same "hot vehicle" game, but their inventory of RDXs has grown to over 30. Based on the stock numbers, they have only sold about 8-10 since the introduction 2.5 months ago. They are getting some new inventory, but they have a lot of vehicles sitting on the lot since August. The sales manager tried to tell me they had a lot of RDXs because they were selling so many, and I had to call BS on that -- they list their inventory online, with stock numbers and VIN numbers, and I have been visiting weekly to see what colors are available. They are not selling more than 1-2 a week, if that.

 

BTW, here are some other numbers I compiled on a different forum:

August (partial, sales started 8/10) 1361 units
September 1704 units
October 1701 units
----------------------
4766 units to date

Note that at the targeted rate of 40K units per year, they should be selling 3333 per month and would have acheived numbers around 8900 units to date. So the vehicle is selling about 46% below expectations.

 

I'm sure sales will pickup over the next few months. They may slow down production though as the dealers are getting overloaded with them. My dealer has 65 of them in stock, but they are "the world's largest acura dealership" according to them....

I don't think that 40k units per year was a realistic number for it's first model year, but more of a marketing hype number. Barring any serious problems with its first turbo engine, next year's sales will be stronger.

By the way, you could have found all those sales number in this thread...

 

I haven't seen a MY total thus far, or comparison with projections, which is why I brought the combined analysis over here. I am expecting sales to flatten or go down slightly, as all the loyalists and early adopters have come out of the woodwork and only a few more (like me) are dragging their feet. From here on out the vehicle is on the open market, primarily competing with other makes for the same buyers. Since prices are starting to loosen up at the dealer level, it will help maintain sales beyond the initial rush, but I will be surprised if they go up much. If prices didn't loosen up, I think sales would go down for sure.

Personally, I don't understand why the vehicle is not more popular. I have a few very specific issues with the vehicle that won't matter to most other shoppers (and even I am willing to overlook the issues because I like everything else about the RDX). When I put myself in the shoes of the typical car shopper, the RDX seems like a no-brainer, especially with some discount off MSRP. I don't get it. I expected demand to be high myself.

 

The high price theory is a little surprising, for the technology (performance, handleling) you are really getting a lot for $33 - $38K. If you look at other vehicles in this segment, both the Murano at $40K and the BMW X3 @ $45K with similar options.

The engine is a 4cyl yes, but it is able to pump out a good deal of HP and Torque with the Turbo. The major hurdle for all vehicles in this segment is the gas milage. Once spring comes around and hopefully gas prices remain stable, the RDX will be fine as people will start to see the real value of this car, compared to competitors offerings.

JD

 

Where I start to see some overpricing is when comparing it to the TSX within Acura's own lineup. Add some $$ for SH-AWD and the turbo, then subtract some $$ for the features present on the TSX but not the RDX, and the RDX starts to seem expensive to me. And I don't think it can be compared to some other CUVs/SUVs, because they offer more cargo space and towing capacity, and other "utility" features lacking on the RDX. I really feel like the RDX is a luxo/sport hatchback rather than a utility vehicle.

For my own purposes, I would need to add over $1K of accesories to the RDX to approach the std equipment that came on my Outback -- roof rack, flaps, winter mats, bodyside molding, auto-dim mirror, etc. When I do a fair comparison to comparably equipped vehicles, I feel like the RDX needs about $2-3K discount to be competitive. And now that I am seeing that level of discount at dealers, it makes the vehicle much more compelling to me. At $33,665 it's a bit too much, but at $31K I like it a lot. Similarly, I felt my $32K MSRP Outback XT was way overpriced, but at the $29K street price it was a deal.

 

Apple and oranges....in both comparisons...

 

Well, I won't engage you on that point, because I think you can compare features/content without respect of the type of fruit (and the fruit aspect of it is highly subjective -- some people compare Acura to BMW, others to Honda). Whether I want a $25K Honda or a $35K Acura or a $45K BMW, I can still expect certain features on all of them. The fact that the RDX lacks some convenience features you can get on the TSX or a Subaru is a hard fact, regardless of how you want to classify the vehicle in your head. But I don't think that should be the case. As far as I am concerned, the RDX should have at least as many features as the less expensive TSX, considering it costs $6K more.

 

I agree - the exterior is just too plain Jane. I don't see anything exciting about it. The new MDX draws a lot of attention. The new CR-V - well, frankly it looks very unique and in some ways more stylish. Although most of the time you sit inside, but the exterior is the key for sales.

For those who don't care about RDX sales - well, if the trend continues, it'll be another RL, or worse another CL. You might want to be unique on the road, but it won't be good if in the near future you can't find parts for it.

For the RDX design team at Acura, those guys must be taking a lot of heat right now. I think a bolder exterior design will increase sales at least 50%. People who pay $35K want their car to make a loud statement on the road.

If you want to be a true luxury brand, Acura, stop being timid.

 

You can draw comparisons to anything you want, but the fact remains that all three of those vehicles are targeted at totally different demographics. Even the differences you state between the RDX and TSX don't compare. Turbocharger and SH-AWD with memory seats or remote windows? The turbocharger alone is a $4k part. I'm sure the AWD system is close to that as well. That doesn't even include integrating those systems into the vehicle and the computers to control them. Not to mention the ELS surround sound system and acuralink which aren't available on the TSX. Am I missing any features that you are comparing? I know you're not saying that difference are equal, but you did say after comparing those features, the RDX seem overpriced. The point being that both vehicles are appropriately priced for the features they have and if the RDX costs $6k more than the TSX, then you are getting $6k more vehicle.

 

Sorry, but the market has spoken. Sales are poor. What is truly amazing is how off or on the mark Acura is with their product.

RL - off by a country mile
TL - hit the mark dead on
TSX - hit the mark dead on
MDX - hit the mark dead on
CL - missed
RDX - missed?
RSX - a hit

 

A complicated AWD system is generally worth about $2K in the marketplace on other vehicles (say ones that offer both 2WD and AWD models). SH-AWD replaces mechanical components with computer smarts, so it's probably simpler and less expensive than the complex fully hydraulic/mechanical systems. One could argue that the "SH" capability is there to counteract the basic understeer tendencies of the vehicle, so I wouldn't put a lot of extra monetary value on that by itself (say compared to the X3 that doesn't need SH AWD to have great handling). The basic AWD capability is worth about $2K.

Aftermarket turbos are in the $2-3K range, but for a production vehicle would be considerably less -- probably under $1K for the turbo and all the associated plumbing. It would have to be for the motor to be a compelling alternative to a V6. The real value is really hard to peg because nobody forced Acura to use a turbo motor, and most consumers don't "want" a turbo to the extent that they would pay extra for it. I think the turbo is a wash -- the turbo motor would have to cost a lot more than a comparable V6 and have a corresponding significant advantage to customers in order to command a price premium in my mind.

Relative to lesser vehicles, I think the RDX should have these standard features: power passenger seat, driver's seat memory, power-window control from the keyless remote, and the auto-dim mirror. This is probably less than $500 in MSRP dollars.

Then there are accesories that are usually standard on other vehicles, and would be important to me: roof rack, body side moulding, mud flaps, winter mats, cargo mat. The rack is $350 for a DIY install, or about $600 dealer installed. The other stuff is in the $450 range, all DIY installed.

I can compare it to my Subaru, with a street price if $29K. The *base* RDX has better styling, a nicer interior, roomier passenger space, much better handling, and a more upscale image. Gas mileage is the same. Both have a fairly potent turbo-4, 5-spd auto, and advanced AWD so it's an easier comparison in some ways. The RDX is slightly slower, but not by much. Other differences here are cargo space, utility, and the roof rack, both which favor the Outback. With that comparison, is the RDX worth $6700 more? (I added $1K for the accesories needed on the RDX for feature parity). Not so sure. But if I could get the RDX for invoice as I negotiated last week, the difference is only $2700 and then I think the RDX is a pretty good deal.

 

Where did I say that sales weren't poor? Who are you responding to?

 

The Acura AWD system is one of the most sophisticated AWD systems on the market today...

The figure I quoted on the turbocharger is the actual cost of the Acura Turbocharger in the RDX....

Why would you compare a street price of 29k for your subaru with the MSRP of the RDX when you yourself got the offer of invoice cost on the RDX? So suddenly it went from overpriced to a pretty good deal?

 

I think the MDX looks a lot like the RDX, only bigger (and more $$).

 

I really don't believe the turbo is $4K -- that would be insane. I just looked in the parts manual for my Outback XT, and that turbo is $687 as a replacement part. The IC is $390, the BOV is $90, and there is another couple hundred in plumbing. As an OEM part, everything would be at least 40% less, so under $800. There is not much different about the RDX turbo that would bump it's price significantly higher -- the variable geometry valve is fairly simple.

Regarding the AWD system, it's good, but it's not among the best. As I mentioned, it's already handicapped by the FWD tranverse layout and is a step below some of the best "true" AWD systems out there. In fact, one could argue that the SH capability is self serving in the sense that it would not even be needed on traditional AWD systems with a neutral or RWD bias. One thing in the RDX system's favor is that it is proactive instead of reactive, so it is a step up from most AWD systems on the market. But it's not the best.

Let me be clearer -- at MSRP, the RDX is overpriced to me. At $31700 street price (invoice plus the accessories I want) it's $2700 more than my Outback XT cost and I think it's a fair deal. For the $2700 I can appreciate what the RDX gives. When it was $6700 more I didn't really dig it.

 

Amazing all of these car designers, sales, marketing experts. You should be working for Acura then we would have everything we need and want for peanuts. I had two TSX's 6 spd and auto the price difference for the RDX at list is still much more of a vehicle than the TSX imo.
All of these other vehicle prices, Murano, Outback what have you are vehicles that have been out for how long? Hmmm, might have something to do with being able to dicker on the prices more.
The doom and gloom from some of you is just the same as all of the experts on the digitial SLR forums. It should have this, it should have that, this doesn't work good enough, it costs too much, Canon is better, no Nikon is better, no Olympus is better. 8mp is better than 10mp, too much noise, images not sharp enough, over exposes, under exposes.

In case you can't remember a lot of these things were said about the RSX when it first came out and even moreso about the TSX. Now they throw them back up as if they were just pouring off the lots when they first came out. I had an RSX type S, the CL type S as well as the above mentioned TSX and none of them flew out the door for a time.

The progression of changes with Acura has always been this way. There were no powered passenger seats in either RSX or TSX when they first came out as a matter of fact no power drivers seat in the RSX when it first came out and no auto dimming mirror and on and on.

Yes there are many comparable vehicles from many manufacturers, they are not apples to oranges but neither are they apples to apples. There are pluses and minuses to everyone of them out there and a big dollar difference in some cases but obviusly this is an RDX forum for a reason. If the RDX doesn't work for you then why not participate in a forum where your input maybe of some value instead of telling us all how Acura does not know how to build and sell cars.

 

Shoot, the TSX was a runaway success from day one and hasn't really slowed down. In the first year, they ended up increasing production by about 30% to meet the demand. I was one of the buyers in 2004.

I don't think the time on the market matters if people are getting discounts on the RDX of $2000-4000 after just 2.5 months. Some brands may be more apt to be sold at discount than others. Subarus, for example, are known to be that way because there is a lot of profit padded in the MSRP. I think we're seeing prices for the RDX soften up because supply is exceeding demand by almost a factor of two compared to projections. It's a market adjustment. It may level out in a couple more months. But right now looks like a great time to buy.

I hope I am not sounding all doom and gloom -- my main point is that the vehicle is a lot better value to me with a discount. If other people felt OK paying MSRP, that's fine too. I am just glad I waited a while before diving in.

 

The TSX sold just fine when it came out. I can recall about 2K in its first month which was on pace with the estimated 20K per year. Not sure where your getting that from?

Having said that the TSX has a much lower MSRP so it really is apples and oranges.

And 4K for the Turbo? Where did that number come from? If it is 4K, which I seriously doubt, then Acura appears to have bigger problems on their hands.

 

Wow. There are so many diff. opinions here. I had to say my worth!
I think the RDX is very aggressive looking for Honda / Acura. Except for the front end, it has lots of the looks of the MDX. It will take some time to find it's nitch & settle out to a "good deal" pricing for the masses. I personally don't want to see tons of RDX's on the road at the same time. God, all you see here is TONS of MDX's & I for one am glad I don't have one anymore. That's just me.

It will be better for everyone eventually that they sell good. Resale value, after market parts, etc. Acura will keep doing updates for future years. But lets give it some time before we say, "there won't be any parts for it!" Please..........

As far as looks, I think it's stunning!
As far as value, I thought the "tech Package" was too much at 4K!, so I didn't get it. $33,665 for the base, good value for the price (just the auto dimming mirror is missing!) The rest, it's perfect. Gas mileage? Please. It's a turbo pushing an almost 4k lbs. vehicle. It does quite good. My 400 lb. less G35x AWD got less mpg in town!

Sorry, but the CX-7 Mazda isn't in the same class as an RDX, so it costs less. The RDX may not be in the class as the X-3, but costs 6-8k less also. I think the base price is right in line for the product.

This thing handles almost like a sports car, room to haul things, decent mpg, and looks great. What more could you people want? I know, memory seats, power pass. seat, etc., etc., etc.! This also raises the price folks! I remember that same discussions on the MDX boards when they were new & now here comes 50k prices!! Be careful what you ask for.

Sorry for the long post, but you get the point!

 

Sorry but I have been following these forums since 2003 as well and many of these same things were said about the TSX when it first came out and yes the sales proved that many were wrong. I do not recall it going flying out the door the first month or two. People were saying back in 2004 that Acura had over predicted their sales which I remember being around 25-30 thousand maybe higher and that it didn't have driver seat memory, power passenger seat, not enough power, etc.

I had the first CL type S in BC, one of the first RSX type S, one of the first TSX/6 spd when they came out. People have short memories as the same things were bantered about then.

We are talking an over glutted market of choices now a days, vehicle sales starting to slow rising gas prices etc. If you check the TSX sales for OCT over the RDX sales for the same month the difference is about 500 vehicles. Hardly a significant difference for a well established vehicle vs a brand new niche model for Acura and it usually takes a few months before a vehicle starts to settle in. Not always but quite frequently especially in a so called upscale model.

We all want more bang for the buck but it doesn't always come the first time around exactly as I stated about the original TSX and RSX. They make changes over the following model years. You may not like it but then of course you don't have to buy it.

Of course we can all wait for the prices to go down, better deals, more std features, etc, etc, etc. but in the meantime I plan on enjoying mine now not later.

Just my opinion as your opinion is yours.

 

That's what people talk about in forums. What else are you gonna talk about? weather?

Because some of us want Acura to succeed, that's why we want to comment on things. My biggest complain with the RDX is the front exterior. And to a lot of people, the front design is a big part of the purchase decision. TSX, TL, and MDX are all excellent with the front styling - aggressive and slightly conservative. The RL front design isn't that great. (and same for the current accord)

I test drove the RDX on some winding road and it was surely a blast to drive. Price wise, it's hard for me to make a judgement, but the fact that Acura groups everything into a tech package is annoying. Being a luxury car, it should offer more variations and options. Enough of this one size fits all non sense.

No matter what some of the people think, the success of a vehicle is largely based on its sales (without steep discounts or incentives). The old Lexus IS300 vs. the new IS250/350 is a good example. Strong sales increase the value of the brand. Yeah you see tons of BMW 3 series, it's a great car nevertheless.

 

That comes from the parts list prices for the RDX from Acura. And that $4k only includes the actual turbocharger itself. Does not include any of the integration into the vehicle, boost gauge, computer control, etc. You could also add close to $1k for the intercooler, also not included in the above pricing.

I'm not saying it should cost this much, but it does.

 

Sorry but imo there is a difference between talking, discussing asking questions looking for information than as some do in continually complaining and saying vehicle X is much better bang for the buck. If it is go buy it.

I have had 10 Acura's so yes I want them to continue successfully as well. Don't think there is any doubt they will. For me the RDX is a success whether the market will think so only time will tell.

Yes it is a blast to drive and that is the key. Options are just that and don't affect the way the vehicle drives or handles. Yes ones life might be easier but it doesn't change the power or the handling. I too would like to have seen some extra's included but they don't affect my overall driving experience one iota. The toys that are on all vehicles now adays are amazing for the price no matter what you look at from a Kia to a Jaguar. I couldn't even fathom the things that are on vehicles now a days and the power and handling going back over the years but then that is true for all types of technology.


Of course sales matter but all most are talking about is wanting steep discounts or a lower MSRP, or vehichle X has this and is cheaper, what have you so what's the difference pretty much shoots your statement down? Acura have set the MSRP at what they figure they should get and or what they can use to negotiate around. If the market is tight as in my area they will get close to what they want if there is a glut in some areas then it is better for the buyer.

It is no different with any new vehicle, camera, tv, appliances what have you. As time goes on and new models approach or stiffer competion pricing may change. If you want the product now you go with the best deal and get it. If you want to wait for the pricing to drop then you wait. Your choice or mine. I made mine.

 

Personally, I can really care less about how well the RDX sells. Again, a lot of people are comparing this car all over the place with other vehicles, but Acura is marketing this car against entry level luxury CUVs which the only one on the market is the X3 right now. The sales are comparable so far. More will come later from other car makers, but I am sure that the going price then for the RDX will be the value leader versus content. If Acura had projected 20,000 per year sales right now for the RDX, everyone would be praising them, right?

As for power passenger seats, keyless starts, and blah blah blah... Acura HAS always done this for their cars. First year model has slightly less features, and suceeding models has more convenience features at slightly higher prices. What is so new about this??? Do I like the fact that I can't even order the car with thes e missing options, of course not, but that is just how Honda is. They offer a couple of trims with no options, and you either buy this or that... take it or leave it.

My 2003 RSX-S has no power driver seat, no HIDs, less HP, smaller standard rims than succeeding years, but I also paid 100 under invoice which I couldn't have done on succeeding year models.

Also, RSX sales were never that high and TSX sales were lower than expected at the beginning because people couldn't figure out why they should pay more for a smaller, slower, Honda Accord. Once people drove the TSX, they realize that there are other factors in a car (handling and fun!). Sales picked up thusly.

 

Not true. TSX exceeded the expected number of sales from day 1. They only expected to sell 16000 per year in year 1 and they blew that away in about 8 months. Sales went up more and more as they added content. RDX may do ok, but it will require discounts, and, in year 2, adding more toys.

 

People say the sales numbers are comparable to the X3, if so that is a big slap against it. It should be outselling the X3 by a lot as it is priced a LOT lower. At this point is seems like the initial rush of early adopters has died off in my area and I wouldn't doubt if sales drop off some rather than build steadily.

Even my salesman commented there were willing to negotiate on the RDX. Not a good sign this early on. I counted about 20 sitting on the lot. While I was there today (a busy Saturday) they sold 4 MDX's and only 1 RDX. The MDX numbers are for the new body style. They sold several leftover of the old body style while there. I hate to say it but it is looking more like the RL every day. Nice car but who really wants to buy it. I shopped the RL and ended up with my TL instead. Now with the RDX I feel almost the same way I did when I drove the RL, nice car but...

I want something this year, not next year when they go with the changes that they should have included for this year.

 

I am still casually looking for my next car, but although I really wanted the RDX to be my next, it doesn't feel like a clear winner. My hesitations are similiar to many other people's (the 4 cyl turbo, no memory seat, and at par gas mileage). I love the way the RDX looks and when I test drove it, I did like the RDX and it was above my expectations.

When I crossed the street to the Infiniti dealer, the new 2007 G35 feels like a winner. For the price, the G35 feels like you are getting a lot. Features like the hard drive for music and keyless push start impressed me. This may be my next car if the RDX doesn't come with some improvements or better value in the near future.

I am not surprised the RDX is not selling well. Acura has already announced the sales numbers and you can go to any dealer and see the same cars on the lot. Personally, I think the RDX price is almost right (of course I prefer lower). If the RDX had a V6, a lot of hesitation would be removed.

 

Hmmm, maybe I do have a bad memory but I can't ever recall a thread discussing poor TSX sales similar to this one?

You are right about complaints of lack of memory seating, pwr pass seat etc but again, the sales target was 20K per year and it didn't seem in jeopardy of missing those targets after two months of sales.

In its first month of sales, April 03, 1,835 TSX's were sold. In May, an additional 2,275. On pace for 24K per year.

I'm not trying to say the RDX is doomed after a slow start. Maybe Acura was a tad optimistic with their sales targets. I'm confident sales will pick up but I still don't think this 1st gen RDX will ever be a tremendous success either. I honestly hope I'm wrong.

 

I think you can view Acura's pricing position this way. It was going to be a virtually new genre (aside from the X#) so there were not a lot of precedents for them to price against. If the X# really was their target, then they did a good job. The fact the Mazda came on the scene a couple of months earlier and can be loaded up with goodies for a lot less is, well, to be expected. If not Mazda, then someone else would have. They can save this vehicle if they cut the dealers some incentives and if the dealers get off their MSRP high horse (seems more are doing this now). I think it call could have been avoided had they loaded the base model up wit the things people have described as 'year 2 likely add-ons' and limited the price of the tech package to 2k. Also, trepidition about rising gas prices may be holding some people back.

 

Not to be pessimistic, but if Acura can't move the RDX here in Minnesota where AWD and 4WD vehciles abound, then they have issues. Almost every local Acura dealer I have been too have lots of RDX's sitting on the lots. We are just around the corner from winter and they should be flying off the lots.

The MDX's are sellilng but the RDX's are not. This is not a good sign especially since our area is such a huge consumer of AWD vehicles and they account for a huge portion of all vehicle sales in our area. X3 and 5's fly out the doors compared to the RDX. It is not new RDX's being delivered either to replace stock on hand. I have literally seen the exact same RDX's languishing on the lots. Same lot dust on them from the last time I was there. Even the fugly Subaru Tribeca is probably outselling the RDX at a local Subie Acura combo dealer. I don't know that to be true but I did see sold stickers on the Tribecas that were there.

 

I think some points are right on target here. In the fast moving marketplace, you can't wait for year two add-ons unless they are major changes. Your competitor will still your sales. Obviously Mazda didn't develop the CX7 overnight and it was in the works for a while.

I personally feel the RDX is priced too high for what you get. It doesn't have that sweet motor of the X3. Because of that most people will likely compare it to the CX7. While at the Mazda dealer they said a lot of people have been cross shopping the RDX against the CX7. While I was there there were several CX7's delivered in the 2 hours I was there.

The poor mileage of the RDX is getting pretty wide play. It seems to be a big turn off for a lot of people especially since Hondas and Acuras are known to be pretty fuel efficient. Why have a mini SUV with not a lot of room that has a maxi thirst for mileage? Each time I drive it, I am amazed they made such a faux pas with the drivetrain. It is not the fastest in its class yet it is likely the thirstiest. Maybe the H3 sucks more fuel but that is it.

Anyway this forum has been a big help. It definitely helped me realize that the RDX has too many minuses at this price point for me to seriously consider. As much as I love my TL and Acuras in general, I think Acura blew with the RDX like the did with the RL. The turbo motor has too much lag, is thirsty, unrefined and has no real top-end pull to make it enjoyable. So while the chassis is pretty good the total fun to drive factor is killed by the motor and tranny. If it was priced at $33k with the Tech package, I'd probably buy one but not at $37k. Like many of you, I think they could have been more agressive with the styling too. It really is sort of bland in the Accord sense of the word. They TL looked awesome and was immediately recognizable on the road. The RDX sort of has too much of a blend-in look about it.

 

rdx actually has a lot less lag thn the Mazda. Also rides much better, but obviously people like the Mazda judging by sales numbers.

 

Obviously people like the Mazda's price... Do you see more Miatas or S2Ks?

Mike