ThePlainsman

Now that I have about 720 miles on the machine, here's what I don't like about it:

Gas mileage is horrendous, but I'm hoping it will improve after I've put more miles on the odometer. I knew it mpg would not be great but I didn't think it would be this bad. My 8-passenger Saturn Outlook, which is almost 1,000 pounds heavier and has a 275HP V6 engine gets better mileage. My 2002 Altima V6, which is just as fast gets way better mileage (mid to high 20s; low 30s in long-distance highway driving). Frankly, that's shocking.

The 2008 RDX seems to have daytime running lights, which I'm not a fan of. I can turn them off on my Saturn Outlook. I can't turn them off on the RDX.

I can't figure out how to program in a set of "favorites" with the XM. It is unbelievably simple to do in the Outlook. You have up to six "favorites" and each favorite has up to six channels. With no category restrictions, I can't instantly insert whatever XM channels I want into each of the six favorites. That gives me instant access to my 36 favorite channels sorted into 6 favorites. I could be missing something, but the RDX doesn't seem to have that capability.

The backup camera is practically useless. Why? Because the image you see on the screen does not give an accurate read on the distance between the rear of your vehicle and objects behind it. Where's the readout/signal/line indicators on the screen to tell you the distance? There is nothing!

batman

I use my rearview camera all the time. It's not the best but I use the bumper as a guide.

cwepruk

My Nissan will let you pick any channal for favorites as well. You can mix AM and FM in the "Preset 1". I like that myself.

I wish the RDX had auto lights and the seat height is just a tad bit high since when I get out, I'm fairly hard on the seat edge. I can see that having some issues in a few years. I'm 5'10" FWIW.

ThePlainsman

Oh yeah, I forgot about the lack of auto headlights. Add that one to my list. I hate to think GM knows how to do it better, but maybe they do. With this experience with the RDX, I'm glad I passed on the MDX in Februrary when I bought my Outlook XR.

If I could only turn off those gosh darn daytime running lights!

silver08rdx

Plainsman,
DRL are for daytime driving safety, keep telling yourself that, you'll get used to them. Just observe how easy it is to spot a car with DRL in the rearview mirrors, especially close to the blindspot. They're on all the time for a good reason

I'm totally with you on the auto lights.

ThePlainsman

DRL just feel kind of dorky. That's the problem I have with them. Sometimes I leave them on in my Outlook but most of the time I turn them off. Frankly, I never notice them in my rearview mirror or sideview mirrors. In broad daylight they don't make a dimes worth of difference, in my opinion.

I think they're dorky cause boring, mainstream American brand cars have them standard. What MB or BMW models do you see with DRLs? What about Lexus, Infiniti? Classy cars don't have them, or if they do you can turn 'em off so you don't look dorky. I'll never buy another car with DRLs I can't turn off at my whim.

mau108

DRL's are a safety feature not something cosmetic. There are people in this world that would forget to turn their headlights on when its very foggy and such and this is when DRL's really do show a real need.

Up north we get some heavy fog sometimes and its a necessity, heck canada has made it their law if the car does not have a functioning DRL (there are exceptions, cars prior to the 80's didn't have them they have been grandfathered :P) you can receive a ticket.

Safety first, which is what the RDX is about. In canada, Acura RDX got the highest safety rating in its class.

Haven't realy sat in an Outlook nor drove it, seems like a nice truck but a buddy of mine did drive it and he felt mechanically it was crap. Tranny was always looking for the proper gears and yadda yadda yadda. Not gonna bash on it, I really do like the looks and all the features the outlook, acadia and enclave provide and its a big step up for GM.

MMike1981

seatbelts, at one point, were considered "dorky" too...

if DRL's are potentially what causes an oncoming driving to "see" me vs blindsiding me or something, then hey, its one thing thats gonna give me an advantage of not being hit by someone whose at less than full attention playing with their ipod or texting from the steering wheel

ill take them, i dont care what they "look" like or what car companies have them.........if they are that big of a problem pull the bulbs out.

cwepruk

DRL's are very useful. Makes spotting a vehicle (or more than one) a lot easier in most conditions. It definitely helps in the rain, fog, twilight hours as well.

Plus, having DRL's that you turn off would just be called headlights.

LukeaTron

I really don't understand resistance to driving with your headlights on or DRL if you're vehicle is so equipped. What possible negative effect could have on you inside the car? One situation where it makes a huge difference is in city driving where there are lots of parked cars around. When you see a car with headlights on your brain is almost subconsciously categorizing it as a moving target and something that needs tracked with higher priority than the other 50 parked cars floating in your peripheral vision.

Here in PA they're slowly moving the law to where you will be required to drive with headlights on at all times. It started with requiring headlights in work zones a few years ago. This year they added a law that says if your wipers are on you need to have your headlights on as well. This is a huge move in the right direction. I can't tell you how many road colored cars have suddenly just appeared around me out from the grey misty crap.

I understand people are highly concerned with the look of their vehicle, hell, I'm one of em. But when it comes to issues of safety, it's a foregone conclusion.

Boon

Man I'm totally with you on the seat height. I'm 5'9" and I have to drag across the driver's seat to get out of the car. You can see the strain on the black leather already. I can't imagine how bad it would've looked like if I had the taupe leather.

creativeguy

The reason that a Saturn (or any other GM/Ford/Chrysler) has auto headlights, auto wipers, cooled seats, Onstar, coffee maker, laser lights, etc. is because those are cheap and easy add-ons that dazzle the customer and take attention away from the shortcuts they took on the design and engineering.

When was the last time you saw an American car commercial that told you to buy this car because it was the fastest, best handling, best engineered car you can buy? Most of the GM and Ford commercials I see these days tell me to buy the car because it has a cellphone built in (onstar) or a Microsoft (dear god!) created stereo system because they don't want to tell you that the car still has a solid rear axle and drum brakes.

I'd much rather give up superfluous accessories for a well designed/engineered/assembled car that will last 20 years if I want to keep it that long. I can guarantee that you won't have your Saturn in 20 years.... or even 10.

silver08rdx

Test have proven that DRLs make it easier to notice a car and to judge its speed, that true on a bright clear sunny day too. The color of the DRL is intentionally made yellowish to distinguish it from white sunlight. I know Lexus has DRLs on all the time, so its not that 'nicer' cars dont have DRLs.

If you think about it a lot of people dint like the center brake lamp when it was first introduced. Now, its the norm and nobody takes a special issue with it, DRLs will go the same route.

ThePlainsman

Wait a minute. You telling me Mercedes Benz aren't safe? Please. If there are people who don't turn on their lights in a fog, well they're idiots! That's like pinning your mittens to your coat so you don't forget them. That's what they did with kids who rode the "special" bus, when I was a kid. So Acura presumes RDX buyers are likely to be idiots who need their mittens pinned to their coats? We can't remember to turn on our headlights when appropriate? No offense to Canada (Toronto is my favorite city in North America) but this is the U.S. of A. There are no tickets given out for not having DRLs. It's almost insulting. What would be so difficult about letting us twist a knob to turn them off at our option?


As far as the Outlook goes, I now have 17,500 miles on mine and it is one of the best vehicles I've ever owned. The "tranny problem" your friend referred to was fixed easily within minutes by a software update. And that was only an issue with 2007s. The 2008s come from the factory with the software update done at the factory. The Lambda platform vehicles are more comfortable and quieter than Acuras. You can get em with tons of tech toys, dual moonroofs, HIDs, etc. Some (Acadia) even come with Heads-Up Displays that project on the windshields as an option. And the Enclave is quieter inside the cabin than the most expensive Lexus SUV. Very cool. And you can get 'em configured for either 7 or 8 ADULT-sized passengers. The second row even slides backwards and forwards, not to allow third row access but just to give more or less legroom.

This is the platform that will save GM.

ThePlainsman

I bet they have an option to turn 'em off. That's all I want.

ThePlainsman

Where do you live? On the moon? I watch hours of TV every day, especially sports programming where car and truck commercials proliferate because of the male audience. All I see are American brands bragging about power, speed, design and handling. The most ubiquitous car commercial on TV right now is about the Cadillac CTS: "The real test is, when you turn your car on does it return the favor?" It's all about blazing speed, technology, etc., the exact opposite of what you just wrote.

And Dodge commercials brag about the quality of build through their "best in the car industry" drivetrain warranties.

You must spend all your time watching Ford commercials. I wouldn't piss on a Ford, that's how little regard I have for them. But GM/Dodge/Chrysler commercials are different. You shouldn't lump all the American brands in one bucket and assume they all do the same thing or of the same quality.

XLR8R

Dorky to who? You can't see them and everyone here who shares the road with you, is validating their importance.

They are standard on all General Motors, Lexus, Mercedes Benz, Saab, Subaru, Suzuki, Volkswagen, and Volvo models. Most new BMW and Infinitis will have them as well.

The passive safety benefits are undeniable. They will eventually be mandated.

LukeaTron

Because people are stupid and would always have them off because of some stupid self centered reason. It's a feature that only indirectly effects the safety of the car in question but can directly effect the safety of those who are sharing the road. As is the norm in our hyper me-first society, unless something offers some sort of benefit to a particular individual above and beyond the benefit to all others, it will be avoided.

There is no cost or burden to you as a driver to operating your vehicle with the lights on - bulbs are durable enough today to make that a non-issue. I don't find it all that surprising though that so many feel the tiny ding to their self-image that comes from driving with their headlights on is of more importance than the safety of those around them (and indirectly, they themselves).

Some of the manufacturers are just a little ahead of the curve and have wisely decided that the increased safety margin justifies annoying a few customers. I totally agree with that.

cwepruk

I still fail to see the big deal. It's not like DRL's affect vehicle looks or anything. An option to turn them off and they would just be headlights/parking lights.

wrzt

I agree, and I have disabled my DRLs. It is very simple...just pull the fuse. The DRLs have their own fuse so you won't be disabling any other functions/features of your RDX. I forgot the exact fuse but if you look at the diagram in your owner's manual, you will find it. Let me know if you have trouble

wrzt

Let me add that I live in Arizona where the DRLs are more or less not necessary. In the rare occasion that a dust storm is taking place, i'll simply turn on my headlights. cheers

LukeaTron

My point illustrated perfectly. This guy went out of his way to disable a safety feature because of vanity.

People are stupid.

sasair

DRL's have nothing to do with inclement weather. DRL's are for perfect clear sunny days just as much as any other days. It is proven that a car with its lights on is more visible than a car with it's lights off in the daytime.

Personally I could care less if you disable your DRL's. I could care less if you wear your seltbelts or wear a helmet on a motorcycle either. You should be responsible for your own safety.

I do wish that you could turn them off manually so that I can pull up in a parking space and sit there with my lights off if I am just waiting for someone. Right now, in that situation, I have to turn the car off, set the parking brake and restart the car in order to have my engine running and the DRLs off.

LukeaTron

Now what you're asking for makes sense. I don't understand why once they're on, they're on until you shut off the car. On my dad's Lexus, as long as parking brake is engaged the DRL turn off. I don't understand why Honda would have taken the time to explicitly program in logic to defeat this otherwise very easy to handle situation.

Really though, I can't think of any legitimate reason why you would want the lights off if you driving.

mau108

Push handbrake, start car, light won't come on until you release hand brake (or footbrake in the rdx sense)

Whats the matter? I think all cars do this, heck even my old 92 dodge caravan did that.

LukeaTron

Drive car, park, apply parking brake. Lights stay on. The only way to get them off while the car is running is to shut off the car and restart with the parking brake applied. That's what he was complaining about. It's a legitimate beef, albeit not terribly inconveniencing.

ThePlainsman

Why would you call him stupid? DRLs don't make you safer in a crash. They are not seatbelts or airbags or crumple zones.

Someone here said DRLs are on all Benzs, BMWs, etc., but I beg to differ. I'm on the road every day and I don't see DRLs on any cars except dorky American brand vehicles --and now the RDX.

I agree with WZRT, why do you need them in broad spanking daylight? And I don't believe for one minute they are eventually going to be mandated.

Show me data that proves driving with DRLs reduces the likelihood of getting into an automobile accident and I'll take back everything I've said.

mau108

DRL's aren't necessarily to save you, but to save others lives as well. I would say something here, but it isn't soo politically correct especially with the vast majority of members here being from the US

ThePlainsman

I know that's the theory, I'm just not buying it. There is no data to support the belief that it saves others lives. Assumptions don't cut it. I've never noticed a car behind me or to the side because they had DRLs or not noticed and almost collided with a vehicle because it did not have them. My close calls have all come in the pitch black of night when EVERYBODY had on headlights.

In my opinion people just like to think DRLs save lives. It sounds nice; is almost sounds logical. But I don't believe they make a dimes worth of difference and there is no data to dispute my belief. All I've heard is a different "opinion."

Please read the following brief article. Like most everything else in America, DRLs were a money-saving/money-making scheme by an American corporation sold to the gullible as a "safety feature." But there is no data to support it.

http://www.motorists.org/drl/home/da...nt-save-lives/

Then peruse this article, so we can end this debate:

http://www.nordicgroup.us/drl/

mlb11

When I was in Norway 10 years ago I noticed that all cars were equipped with DRLs. In answer to ThePlainsmans quote:

"Show me data that proves driving with DRLs reduces the likelihood of getting into an automobile accident and I'll take back everything I've said."

Nearly all published reports indicate DRLs reduce multiple-vehicle daytime crashes. Evidence about DRL effects on crashes comes from studies conducted in Scandinavia, Canada, and the United States. A study examining the effect of Norway's DRL law from 1980 to 1990 found a 10 percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes.1 A Danish study reported a 7 percent reduction in DRL-relevant crashes in the first 15 months after DRL use was required and a 37 percent decline in left-turn crashes.2 In a second study covering 2 years and 9 months of Denmark's law, there was a 6 percent reduction in daytime multiple-vehicle crashes and a 34 percent reduction in left-turn crashes.3 A 1994 Transport Canada study comparing 1990 model year vehicles with DRLs to 1989 vehicles without them found that DRLs reduced relevant daytime multiple-vehicle crashes by 11 percent.4

In the United States, a 1985 Institute study determined that commercial fleet passenger vehicles modified to operate with DRLs were involved in 7 percent fewer daytime multiple-vehicle crashes than similar vehicles without DRLs.5 A small-scale fleet study conducted in the 1960s found an 18 percent lower daytime multiple-vehicle crash rate for DRL-equipped vehicles.6 Multiple-vehicle daytime crashes account for about half of all police-reported crashes in the United States. A 2002 Institute study reported a 3 percent decline in daytime multiple-vehicle crash risk in nine US states concurrent with the introduction of DRLs.7 Federal researchers, using data collected nationwide, concluded that there was a 5 percent decline in daytime, two-vehicle, opposite-direction crashes and a 12 percent decline in fatal crashes with pedestrians and bicyclists.8

1Elvik, R. 1993. The effects on accidents of compulsory use of daytime running lights for cars in Norway. Accident Analysis and Prevention 25:383-98.

2Hansen, L.K. 1993. Daytime running lights in Denmark: evaluation of the safety effect. Copenhagen, Denmark: Danish Council of Road Safety Research.

3Hansen, L.K. 1994. Daytime running lights: experience with compulsory use in Denmark. Lille, Denmark: Proceedings of the Fersi Conference.

4Arora, H.; Collard, D.; Robbins, G.; Welbourne, E.R.; and White, J.G. 1994. Effectiveness of daytime running lights in Canada. Report no. TP-12298. Ottawa, Ontario: Transport Canada.

5Stein, H. 1985. Fleet experience with daytime running lights in the United States. SAE Technical Paper Series 851239. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.

6Cantilli, E.J. 1970. Accident experience with parking lights as running lights. Highway Research Record 32. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.

7Farmer, C.M. and Williams, A.F. 2002. Effects of daytime running lights on multiple-vehicle daylight crashes in the United States. Accident Analysis and Prevention 34:197-203.

8Tessmer, J.M. 2004. An assessment of the crash-reducing effectiveness of passenger vehicle daytime running lamps (DRLs). Report no. DOT HS-809-760. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

This was taken from the following site: http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/drl.html

wrzt

People are indeed stupid. Take yourself as a prime example, having to flame on a message board rather than attempt to rationalize your opinion. ignorance

scudzuki

Unlike operating a motorcycle without a helmet, or car without a seat belt (I call that natural selection BTW), defeating DRL lights may well endanger the lives of those around you. Funny, I never gave a second thought to DRL on a vehicle I see on the road, instead, I usually think something like

Hey, there's a brand new Lumina, I'm glad I don't have to drive a ponderous, ill handling POS like that

or

Wow, nice M3, I wouldnt' mind taking that for a drive.

Never even noticed which cars have 'em and which don't.

Joe

LukeaTron

Thankfully mlb11 concisely handled the rationalization part for me. He proffers a whole pile of evidence that DRLs are an effective safety measure.

Besides that, their effectiveness is irrelevant to you action. They are a safety feature. That's an indisputable fact. You disabled because you don't like the way they make your car look. Vanity is trumping safety. If you're suggesting that you did so because it's some how safer that way... well, that's an uphill argument.

I stand by what I said.

cwepruk

Nice post. It's not rocket science to figure out that more visibility will reduce collisions. And the other thing to note is that while collisions went down in the time periods of the studies, traffic typically goes up as most countries are still in a state of population growth.

XIS

Some amazingly uneducated comments from some of you brats.....

MMike1981

are blinkers optional?

that could go along the lines of this guys logic, hell i dont like orange blinking lights, but since those are required by law u basically have no choice. letting someone know what direction you are headed or inted to head, as well as lights letting someone know of your presence, is safety. i cant believe this argument is going to this extent because someones cosmetic preferences.

silver08rdx

One more thing I dislike about my RDX is the trunk tray. Those who got this optional peice will understand this better. Why does the trunk tray NOT cover the entire trunk area? Is there a good reason that I'm missing? I felt that it was given those dimensions so that it fits on the cover(when installed), but thats a lousy fit too.

schen72

To address the poster who said that only American cars have DRLs, I see plenty of Lexus and BMWs every day with DRL.

ThePlainsman

Well, I'm about to shatter MLB's so-called evidence. All of the good studies on DRLs were done in countries closer to the Arctic circle. Light conditions there compared to the United States are very different.


The U.S. studies were all fleet studies, comparing fleet safety to fleet safety years ago.

Read on:

"History
In some countries, DRLs have been mandatory or in use since the 1970s, and some have noticed a decrease in only one or maybe two types of motor vehicle crashes. However, under reanalysis, the benefits of DRLs in these countries has been called into serious question. The countries that currently use and have used DRLs for many years are very different from the United States in culture, in government, and, most importantly, in latitude and climate.

Scandinavian countries were the first to impose DRL regulations on manufacturers and on consumers. But Scandinavia, which is located in the far northern latitudes (i.e. North Pole,) has much less ambient lighting than the United States, especially in the winter. Naturally, then, DRLs would have a different impact on motorists and on highway safety. Yet it is to 20 year old studies from these countries that our government and our automobile manufacturers point to in support of DRL regulations.

Sweden enacted mandatory DRL laws in 1977. Norway followed in 1986, Iceland in 1988, Denmark in 1990. Canada has required DRLs on new cars since 1989. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of geography, however, will see the plain and apparent differences between these nations and our own - their distance from the equator!

Initially, NHSTA said safety experiences in northern countries had no direct application to the United States. But, in a strange reversal of tradition, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began embracing DRL regulatory proposals at the request of petitions from General Motors. One need only follow the money trail to see why this has happened. The automobile industry has seen the massive economic potential of marketing their products to your fears, and has convinced the federal government to throw reliable data -- and common sense -- out the window.

Because there is no conclusive evidence that DRLs present any real safety advantages, and because the United States does have more ambient lighting than countries where DRLs have been embraced, DRLs are NOT currently required in America. But if some people -- including the amazing special interest of the automobile industry -- have their way, we'll all soon be paying for their unique but unfounded marketing concept.

Strangely, the road toward DRL acceptance by government regulators has been a twisted one. In 1987, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety proposed that NHTSA permit DRLs. NHTSA rejected the idea, but the Insurance Institute proposed the concept again a year later. Still, it was rejected, and NHTSA said that DRLs do not improve highway safety and may, in fact, INCREASE HIGHWAY HAZARDS. Quite simply, if most vehicles have DRLs, it's harder to spot those who do not. NHTSA also said glare from the DRLs of oncoming vehicles could bother some drivers.

But in 1990, General Motors pushed NHTSA again, asking for a national standard permitting an optional DRL system. NHTSA complied two years later, and therein lies the problem. NHTSA regulations take precedence over any and all state laws, so now DRLs are legal in all states, when two-thirds of the states had previously banned DRLs altogether. Even worse, NHTSA permitted DRLs to be implemented on high beam headlamps at up to 7000 candela. This is well above the threshold for discomfort glare. Why? So that GM could make DRLs on the cheap.

GM began installing DRLs immediately on some models in 1993. By 1997, all GM vehicles had installed. GM has kindly offered to SELL you a kit to convert your current vehicle to DRLs. How thoughtful -- and how very profitable.

Finally, in 1998, after receiving several hundred complaints about the excessive glare and the overall effectiveness of DRLs, NHTSA proposed reductions in DRL intensities. The proposed reductions were overly generous to the auto manufacturers by permitting high beam DRLs to be used for another three years. In the end, after 4 years low beam DRLs would be allowed if they were no stronger than 1500cd above the horizontal. Due to vehicles operating at a higher voltage in the real world than in the lab, this figure would approach 2000cd when the car hit the road. In addition, there was no limit placed on the intensity below the horizontal. With such extreme vehicle height differences that we have today, from the Corvette to the 3500 Silverado, glare would continue to be a problem. Why the lax rule? Because NHTSA doesn't want to upset GM and its bottom line.

Unfortunately, NHTSA failed to meet several self imposed deadlines for releasing a final rule. Part of the reason may be that members of LightsOut.ORG wanted proof that DRLs were effective in the US. In 2000, NHTSA released a preliminary assessment, claiming a 5% reduction in some non-fatal collisions and a 28% reduction in pedestrian fatalities. NHTSA's study was, as expected, full of holes. Read about the details on our Studies page. As of December, 2001, we're still waiting for NHTSA's final rule. In the meantime, GM and others are free to inflict high beam DRLs on the motoring public.

On December 20, 2001, GM petitioned NHTSA to mandate DRLs for all new vehicles in the US. We can only guess what GM's motivation is. Perhaps, seeing their marketshare erode, they felt they could level the playing field with other manufacturers. If their competitors were forced to sell vehicles with DRLs, then those of us who refuse to purchase a car with DRLs would have no choice, and their competitors would have to include the cost of the mandatory DRLs in the vehicle's price. Another possibility is that GM has seen a preview of NHTSA's final rule and doesn't like it. By agreeing to respond to GM's petition within 120 days, NHTSA may have to yet again delay implementation of the rule for several more months. We can only hope that NHTSA will do The Right Thing and straighten out the mess that they created."

mlb11

Unfortunately, I do not see any cited studies in your response ThePlainsman? This is just an opinion piece with no evidence.

So your main argument is that because much of the US receives more hours of daylight during the winter it is unnecessary to have DRLs? I don't think this holds much credibility since in the long nights of high latitude winters you would not rely on DRLs anyway, but headlights.

Of course the reverse would be true in the summer when the large amount of daylight in high latitude locations would create conditions where DRLs are used more than lower latitude locations. In addition, lighting conditions in Scandinavian summers are similar to lower latitudes because of a much higher sun angle (when compared to winter sun angles).

Lower sun angles might create a somewhat darker condition in the higher latitude locations in winter; however, this difference would only be experienced over a few months. The studies providing evidence of the safety factor of DRLs were of the entire year.

Finally, in reality, this is a petty discussion over an important safety improvement. I will not respond further unless you can substantiate with statistical, unbiased, scientific evidence your argument about DRLs not leading to improved safety.