I saw that backup camera unit in Canadian Tire a couple months ago too (I also saw it on ebay). But the Can Tire guy there told me it is not wireless.

Anyway, you got it now, can you confirm if it is wireless ? and how it works ? Thanks

 

And how can you non-tech drivers live without being able to ask your car "What time is it?"???

 

I gave the tech a passing consideration, but could not get real excited about the features. Other than BlueTooth, none were real compelling to me. I also had a couple Nav demos that actually turned me off -- I felt the user interface was cumbersome and not real attractive. I guess it would have been different if I really wanted or needed Nav. But I'm still an old fashioned "maps" person, and tend to commit a route to memory before a trip.

 

I didn't test the voice activated Navi feature as I wasn't planning to get the tech. But I am really interested to know the honest answer on how accurate/easy to use with the voice activated Navi.

I have been using the voice activated phone for a while with one of the best voice recognition software - vsuite from voicesignal. It works pretty ok when I use it with the bluetooth headset or calling by numbers. But it has hard time picking up correct names or numbers while I am driving in the car with road/wind noise. So, I am curious to know how good the voice activated navi work with definitely more wordy commands than voice dialing. (I am guess it would be faster and more efficient to do the touch screen, right ? That's why lot of members here said they miss the touch screen navi from their previous TL) I would like to hear some honest feedback/ comment please

 

I found the voice activation having a difficult time decifering my commands. Like letters and numbers. The book says saying a word (instead) helps to recognize the letter. I haven't tried that yet, so I get frustated and prefer punching in my destination manually on the side of the road. The bluetooth works very well, and for me, It's a huge plus. Being in NY where U risk a ticket, I always felt headsets and earbuds were more combersome and dangerous then just picking up the phone. I purchased several different bluetooth headsets and returned each one (except the last). Now my spouse has my motorolla bluetooth (good riddens).
Craig,
In answer to your question earlier, the radio volume cuts down automaticly everytime a nav. command is voiced (wether by me or the car). I don't have to manually do it. However, this is irritating as I like to hear the radio without intteruption. I can turn her off if I want.

All in all, I use it infrequently, but when I need it, I'm glad I have it, cause it sure is sweet when I'm out and about in new territory.

Yea, I had to struggle with paying $4000 for nav and blue tooth. But with the upgraded stereo playing DVD-A, I'm sold!

Oh, One thing I like on the non-tech package is "auto select" mode. When you're out somewhere foreign, the radio with select preset dials for you that have strong frequency. then a touch of the button will return to your old presets

Tech package has speed sensitive volume compensation (if you want). The faster you go, the louder the radio...and why?

 

Thanks your feedback. By the way, the base model also has the speed sensitive volume compensation. I guess they assume the faster you drive, the louder the wind noise. That's why we will need louder stereo.

 

How good is the voice activated dialing ? Is it better than the voice activated navi ? Does the HFL pick up your command (numbers/names) without problem ?

 

To Acurardx
http://www.alibaba.com/manufacturer/...amera_Kit.html
this shows you the back up camera but not from canadian tire..i cant find it but its exactly the same.

 

well in the canadian model they have the navigation screen but no navigation..so in the screen it says the time..

 

Another vote for the tech package. The Acura is meant to be sort of a baby luxo CUV, so why cut corners? If you're looking to save a few bucks pick up the Honda. Otherwise get the RDX fully loaded, you'll appreciate and enjoy it more.

Good luck with your purchase.

-N

 

I know I have seen the product in person at Canadian Tire. But the Can Tire guy there said it is not wireless. That's why I am curious how it works since you have bought it. I have installed the backup sensor on my RDX and it works fine (if not better than the camera), so I guess I am not installing the backup camera. Buy the way, if you see another thread. I have posted a product sold on ebay, the backup screen actually can show on the backup mirror. (search backup camera on ebay, you will see it there). But I think that one needs wireless installation.

 

Which Honda model is compatible with RDX ? Please don't tell me CRV !!

We are not talking about MDX and Pilot here. Same engine but one loaded with premium stuff.

I think the target market for Acura is for customers who look for reliable and premium cars yet worth every buck they pay premium. For those who look for purely luxury and prestige status, they would probably go for Mercedes or a Lexus (if they want reliability as well)

Anyway, the only selling point that Tech package drew my attention a bit in the beginning was the voice activated gadgets. But since I don't need a navi and I wasn't sure how good the voice activated commands work, I didn't think it was a smart choice for me personally to pay CAD4,000 + taxes for the tech (especially we, canadians already got ripped off by paying 30%+ more than US folks on the car itself --> didn't feel good about being further ripped off --> 1. USD3K vs CAD4K, 2. no XM raido 3. no real time traffic 4. lack of details on built-in Canadian map in general ).

By the way, for those who are planning to buy the base but want only the bluetooth connection for their phones from the tech, you can search "Bluetooth car kit from ebay", lot of products you can choose from (with installation or without installation).

 

This is the one I mentioned on the other thread if you are really interested in the backup camera (comes with night vision too) USD169 + installation

Click here to see details on ebay http://cgi.ebay.com/7-LCD-REARVIEW-R...QQcmdZViewItem

 

I assume the US base model has the same screen showing the time too, right ?

 

IMO I think the key to best operation of the voice activated systems in this car is silence. If you have the air on (or heat where i'm from) full blast, or your passenger mentions one peep, then it will likely screw up the commands. If you're careful, I think it does a fine job. Yes, The bluetooth has misinterpreted commands, but I think I had the air on front and center. Is it better then the nav with voice command? Darn the nav system has more to decifer! No, I think that would take a full throttle scientific test.

Okay, cut to the chase, it ain't the easiest thing to use, but I think it may be partly my fault, or partly my expectations of technology.

 

Thanks for the truthful and unbiased feedback.

 

The thing that makes the RDX so unique is all the technology goodies. If you don't want them, than save your cash and look at a cheaper CUV. The Honda and other assorted sub-$30K CUVs are excellent modes of transportation, and there is nothing wrong with them. Nor is there anything wrong with somebody saying they just want a basic mode of transportation. The RDX is more then something to get you from point A to point B. If the technology package is not worth it to you, then why bother with a 30K car? You can get something that provides the same features for less $$. If you get the RDX, get it with everything. That's the best package imho.

-N

 

I guess you didn't read my other posts from this thread or other threads. The price differences are totally different in Canada than in US. Depends on the exchange rate the manufacturers want to approach the Canadian markets and how they want to position their vehicles here.

Sub-30K SUV/CUV. We wish. We are paying CAD41K for the Base and CAD45K Tech + 14% taxes on a RDX. Any fully loaded V6 Rav4 is close to CAD40K as well. A FX35 is close CAD50K. That's why compatible cars for our choices for the any particular price range is not the same as you guys in US.

Bottomline is that if there is no market for a particular model, they would not even making it in the beginning at all.

e.g. why don't Acura put navi on all MDX as a standard equipment, and tell the market like you said, those who do not want the Navi should get the Pilot or something else instead.

By the way, RDX is not unique, MDX has all RDX's gadgets if not more. It is just Acura wants to position this Acura entry-level CUV (RDX) in the market as the most technologically advance. That's why they have been marketing it that way. But they also know there is a market for mid-size premium CUV/SUV which looks for premium quality without all tech gadgets. That's why they make the base as well.

 

I think you're really missing the point of the RDX. You can get all of those tech features in lesser cars; while they add to the RDX experience, they are by no means core defining aspects of the vehicle. From my standpoint, the core features are the sport-sedan class handling, the SH-AWD, the turbo powertrain, the excellent interior, and the exterior styling. The combination of those features makes the RDX unique, and you get that on the base and Tech models.

The tech package certainly adds value to the RDX, and no doubt makes it a better vehicle, but it doesn't do it in a unique way. Nowadays, those tech features are becoming quite common across all vehicle classes -- almost always as an options package. It's really no different in the case of the RDX. I think offering them as an upgrade package makes perfect sense.

Now, if you told me that you bought the RDX for the tech package, then I would counter by asking how much you would like the vehicle if it had regular CUV handling, FWD, a basic 4 cylinder, and mediocre interior/exterior handling. Would the tech package make that vehicle as compelling as the RDX? I really doubt it. If it did, you could just buy a Honda CR-V EX-L 2WD with Nav and not even bother with the RDX.

I have no problem with the Tech package adding value to the RDX, making an already great vehicle even better. For many it's the icing on the cake. But it's certainly not a make or break aspect of the vehicle.

 

oooo yea sorry i was confused with the 2007 CR-V :S

 

yea i was looking at the site on Ebay and ill see...maybe the one that i got now im gonna put it on my Benz and MAYBE im gonna buy yours and oput it on The Rdx..But Wait..Wtf is the LCD..is that the BAckup Camera or its a screen like that?to watch movies?

 

This is really a great one (I really didn't thought about this question).

 

One thing about the aftermarket cameras, if you can mount them higher - maybe under the spoiler - they might be less prone to getting obscured during heavy rain or snowy conditions - a common complaint about the tech camera...

 

Remember I'm coming from Acura's flagship: an RL. I find that the Radio/Traffic/Nav/Back-up Camera/Etc is **FAR** superior then my 05 RL. Of course, my 05 RL was **FAR** superior to my 03 Accord V6 EX w/ Nav. My point is that Acura and Honda have constantly refined the nav package, and I feel the current offering is the best to date. And I do think that one of the largest appeals of Acura as a whole is the intergrated technology packages they offer (available in slightly different flavors) in all of it's lines. As such, I would argue, that regardless of model, if you buy an Acura you are missing something by not getting the tech package.

At the end of the day we all vote with our money, so you have to do what you're comfortable with. Personally, I could never live without the nav -- and I hate Garmin or other portable GPS devices (I like something that looks factory). But if you are planning to do a full stereo upgrade, then getting the tech is silly. However, Acura really got this stuff right, and you won't be sorry you did get the tech package. Afterall, how many people who have tech regret it? Now compare that number to those who passed on it. You'll find far more people with the base wish they had tech then the other way around.

-N

 

We are all entitled to our own opinion for sure but the tech package had nothing to do with why I was interested in the RDX. I had it in my TSX, less the camera and DVA of course and I decided to pass on it this time, just not worth $4,000.00 to me.

Why even get the RDX if the only reason is for the tech package. You can get similar on other vehicles that imo just don't compare to the ride, handling, utility and power of the RDX, but that is just my opinion.

 

I agree. My choice for looking at and eventually getting the RDX was the CUV performance and handling. Obviously from being with Acura for my last car I knew about all the little gadgets and upgrades available, but that was not why I went back. And, when you think about it, most other car companies' base models are WAY below what their fully equipped ones are, with tons of upgrades and $$ before you get that "fully loaded" level. The RDX base comes with most upgrades that other companies charge for in some fashion - heated seats, 18" wheels, power driver seat, dual climate control, etc. While I would have had fun with the backup camera and the NAV, I didn't see spending an extra $4,000 either, but that's my opinion.

 

Agree. I like the Acura approach. They in general give you all the essential upgrade you need in the base model. Not like other brands (e.g. MB or even Lexus). They could start off with $5,000-10,000 cheaper on the "real base model" but the fully loaded version with necessities (not toys) will end up costing you $5,000-$10,000 above the Acura compatible. Look at the MB B-class Turbo, if fully loaded with leather seats, sun roof, etc (which are standard to Acura) could be above the RDX price which I don't think it worths that much at all for the tiny wagon. Not even have to mention the reliability issue of MB.

For the RDX, the price you pay for the base already get your all the essential stuff you need and the selling feature - SH-AWD.

Personally, I think Acura gets us the best for the bucks. We pay for the premium/upgraded items at a reasonable price if we want something nicer than Honda.

 

For me it was a a necessary (not sufficient) condition for purchase. That is, had the RDX not had the Tech amenities available, I would not have purchased it. Strong integrated NAV, Bluetooth, and Audio functionality was imperative and was the reason I dismissed many vehicles I otherwise liked. Indeed, it was the prime reason for rejecting the CR-7. In the end, among well-handling CUV'ish vehicles with the "gadgets" I demanded, it came down to the X3 and the RDX, for which the latter clearly has a superior NAV system IMO. By the time I "clicked" my way through the BMW configurator and "Acura'ized" the X3, I was at $48,000 so I took the $8k and put it towards my remodeling project which even now torments me as I write

 

While the drive/ride of the RDX was what brought me to the table, my alternative was the X3 which also has those values in a different ratio (slightly better handling, but a worse ride).

My secondary consideration is that I wanted all of the typical toys on my next vehicle and both had them, but not only was the RDX tech package a little better integrated than the X3 toys (save for the beautiful panoramic moonroof in the X3), but it priced out to about $14K less for the RDX Tech considering the huge discounts they are offering. For my purposes, the BMW Nav was good enough and the panoramic moonroof was almost more of a consideration than the quality of the nav, but it was mostly a wash for me between the two in terms of techiness.

I do have the $14K to spend if I really needed to, but that's an insane amount of money to throw at the X3 (not to mention higher maintenance costs) when the RDX Tech does everything either almost as good or noticeably better than the X3. If the RDX Tech had been over $40K I would have had a hard decision to make, but probably would have gone with Acura anyway.

As far as "would I have gotten the RDX if it was only offered in base?" Only if the X3 also did not offer the tech goodies (or I might have upgraded to MDX to get them). The X3 was the only other CUV on the table and the MDX was in the wings, but I wanted something smaller if I could get it.

The handling and ride qualities of the base RDX were certainly what allowed it onto my rather sparsely populated decision table, but they weren't "everything I needed in a car".

 

Yes, like what we discussed before. If you need the navi very much, by all mean get the tech. I think what c-hunter and other base RDX's owners are trying to say is that those tech gadgets are not the must for owning the RDX nor the key features for RDX to make it unique. They are more like accessories upgraded to the vehicle for individual needs.

Regarding CX-7, I am not sure the price in US, but in Canada, a fully loaded CX-7 GT AWD (without Navi) is only CAD4K cheaper as comparing to the base RDX. But. the difference are:

Acura (a premium Honda brand) vs Madza (a Ford related brand)

Better exterior from RDX

Premium interior design and quality from RDX

SH-AWD on RDX

Bigger turbo in CX-7

Reliability ???


For that price, I would pick 07 Rav4 V6 instead if RDX is not available

 

I have a base RDX and love it!I really didnt
need the Tech package,although I would have gone
for the upgraded stereo if it had been a stand alone option

 

Yes, I agree with you, Hunter, et all, on this issue. For me it was a necessary condition but certainly not a sufficient one. The Tech package was not enough in and of itself for me to buy.

My primary values (in order)

1. Sporty -- "Sports Car Look and Feel".
   My threshold was a minimum of 220hp and torque. Anything less regardless of other utilities would be a deal-killer. To be honest, the turbo worried me as I originally wanted a 6-cyl but Acura's reputation of reliability discounted this particular concern. For instance, the Mitsubishi Outlander which is very impressive within its category barely passed in this column with 225. However, its transmission was weak and its handling did not compare with the RDX (it did compare with, for instance, the RAV-4's). Handling on the wide expanse of DFW highways is critical for me and is in fact a safety feature here
   
2. Safety -- "Well Made with Good Survivability Metrics"
   Rollover, front/side crash, fire, safety recall history, etc.
   
3. Luxury -- "Lush Interior with Fun and Useful Gadgets of Utility"
   Quality materials -- good plastic vs bad plastic
   GREAT sound system, MP3 disks, the RDX Tech wins huge here, as I'll say it again, I just love the sound system which tends to be on around level 30 in my car. Amazing, just amazing.
   Nav is mandatory (w/ Navtec spatial data) and usable UI (CR-7 is horrible).
   Integrated BlueTooth mandatory (kills the CR-7 again!)
   Intelligent spaced "cubby holes" for convenient storage. The center console seemed absurdly large before buying but now as an owner, it is amazing how much stuff I keep stored down there and how much room I still have. Last night I went through the drive through, and put the bag of burgers in the console
   
4. Reliability -- "Statistical probability in my favor"
   Beyond warranty issues, I wanted a car with a level of reliability with me driving it, not being repaired in a shop. The X3 failed in this regard. BMW reliability numbers move like a roller coaster (although customer satisfaction remains high) with the X3 now rated as average. I used Consumer Reports prime source of data. I was actually set to buy the X3, then the Acura dealer (Goodson) offered to sell at Invoice+500 and they would pay $1600 to Mazda (however I bought a LOT of accessories so they did make significant $)..... hence, I re-drove both vehicles one last time and decided to save $8k (actually $6 I guess as BMW includes maintenance?) and buy the RDX. I really love the car. I do sometimes miss my RX-8 but only because I oddly became emotionally attached to it. I'm really glad I chose the RDX as it is truly a great car worth every penny of the $40k I paid.
5. 

 

get the tech.

get the tech.... I like the nav i like the hands free and all that crap.. it kicks butt. I would not have bought it without it.

 

People with tech who regret it -- 0
People with base who wish they had tech - 2

Again, to answer the main question: nobody with tech wishes they had base, but people in the base do wish they had tech. That should tell you something.

-N