I've been following the RDX prices at my locals dealerships. When the vehicle first debuted, some of the more predatory Acura dealers in the Los Angeles area were demanding "Added Dealer Markup." Now, Carsdirect is reporting prices that are quite close to invoice. That tells me that sales have been disappointing. In fact, when I went to visit my local dealer, he had slews of them on the lot and was quite clear about being willing to deal.

I wonder if the upscale market's resistance to four-bangers (even with forced induction) is part of the issue? This, in turn, makes me wonder if we will ever see the Turbo 2.3 in the TSX. That engine just seems like a tough sell.

Of course, a 4-cyl in a $27,000 TSX may be more acceptable than a 4-cyl in a $35,000 RDX.

 

I was talking with the salesman that sold me my tsx last time I had my oil changed. he told me that people like the rdx, but they're having a difficult time selling it due to the gas mileage.

people come in thinking that since it's a 4 cyl, that it will get better gas mileage than the mdx. After seeing the ratings, they just pay the extra to go to the mdx and have more luxury and only slightly less mpg.

I think the same thing happens alot in the tsx vs tl comparison.

 

Personally, I'd be much more willing to accept poor MPG with a V6 than a Turbo 4. The RDX actually gets worse MPG (at least according to CR) than larger and more powerful minivans and SUVs sold by Honda. The ONLY advantages of a turbo 4 ought to relate to efficiency and weight.

 

I like the RDX but you're talking about a fairly pricey entry into a market that is already a little bloated. I couldnt image they thought it would be a huge seller, just a necessary market to cover.

 

Turbo I-4's are wonderful, but they burn gas based on load as much as anything. You could put one in the TSX and it should do much better mileage wise, and the low-end torque would be much different than what you have now.

I came from a Jetta 1.8T that I loved (may it rest in pieces ). The 1.8T pulled very nicely between 1500 and 2000 RPM and actually has about the same torque as the TSX but over a broad low RPM range of 1750-4200 RPM. 5th gear in the Jetta would smoke just about anything else in top-gear vs. top-gear comparison -- I think the 50-70 mph top gear pass was about 7 seconds.

On the flip side, my TSX is getting better mileage than my 1.8T (rated 25/31, pretty much on target), despite having a 33% bigger motor.

Enough soapboxing on that though. (Sorry )

I can see how turbocharging may not work out with Honda and it's characteristic high-rev'ing motors.

For a turbo to provide enough air at high RPM, it has to be large. Large turbo = lag = poor driveability, so maybe folks just don't like the driving character of the RDX. (I haven't driven one though). The 1.8T had a small engine and didn't need a large turbo and had minimal turbo lag in 150 hp form.

Maybe Acura should take a cue from Mercedes. A supercharger might be a better choice in this market, since you don't have the lag issue and it's a simpler system.

 

I, for one, haven't driven an RDX. But Hondas attempt at overcoming this issue was to use a dual geometry turbo which increases speed at which it hits boost during low rpms and them switches to allow more airflow as the revs climb.

 

Ouch - I didn't know they were using a variable geometry turbo. It may (or may not) solve the lag issue, but I don't trust those longevity-wise with the exhaust gas temperatures you see with gasoline engines. They work great for diesels, though.

Still, I think you'll end with a surge in power as the turbo spools, and from what I remember the "slingshot effect" of this is more pronounced in an AT car than with an MT.

Has anyone else here driven an RDS who can comment on the driving character?

 

I test drove one a week ago. I honestly did not notice any turbo lag whatsoever. It felt quite seemless to me. But, there were definitely NVH issues. Even with the salesperson yammering away, I heard the distinct whine of the turbo.

 

A 4 cyl will be viable on the next gen TSX. The TSX has established itself in a class its own, despite being in the same pricing field as higher end family sedans and base model luxury/sport sedans. Nothing has blended the value, features, and image as well as TSX. The primary reason most buy the TSX is the blend of virtues that are considered important to this target demographic (image, performance, value, reliability). Each factor is at least adequately fulfilled, regardless of engine size, type, and configuration.

The reason it doesn't work on the RDX is that it has the utility of a lower priced competitors (CX-7, CRV, Rav4), is priced at the base of other higher priced vehicles (LR3, X3), and yet doesn't have the associated image of the higher priced vehicles. So those people looking to get a bargain status symbol don't believe the RDX does the trick. Those folks looking for a compact SUV for utility instead buy a CX-7, Rav4, or Honda's own CRV (which itself is marketed as upmarket).

Though performance and handling maybe the RDX's strength, these 2 groups that represent the majority compact SUV buyer probably have this as a secondary or tertiary factor in their decision. If a compact SUV is handles decently, its probably good enough, as long it fulfills either image needs or utility needs. And therein lies the problem.

 

The last time I was at my local Acura dealership, I couldn't help but notice how the RDX looked like a small, cheap, plactic toy when parked right next to a brand new MDX. I would be curious to see how well the MDX is selling. The new styling is amazing. If I were in the market of an SUV/CUV and I had to choose between the two, I would make the necessary financial sacrifice to get the MDX over the RDX.

 

The engine in the Saturn Sky Redline:

Actual Specs:
2.0L, Direct Injection + Turbo Intercooling, Balance Shafts
260HP@5300/260lbs-ft@2500 fuel economy 22/31 (manual) Regular Gas.

with AA-VTEC,SH-AWD and Honda reliability added of course :-)

 

Yeah, but I wouldn't take the RDX over the MDX for the same reason that I prefer the TSX to the TL. I prefer a smaller vehicle.

 

If you prefer a smaller vehicle, wouldn't you actually take the RDX over the MDX?

 

An example of why I would never be able to make a living as a typist!

 

Haha. I know what you're saying. I'm just talking about the two cars side-by-side. I really am amazed at the redesign of the new MDX. I'm not a fan of SUV's/CUV's at all either...but I would take one.

I was implying that perhaps people in the market for a utility vehicle came to the Acura dealership to check out the RDX and then got sold on the MDX because of its new looks.

 

I remember being disappointed that I could almost never hear the turbo in my Jetta. The only exception was in a garage if I started it and then turned it off -- you could hear the turbo spin down. (But only if the engine was cold, you couldn't hear it if you did this after it was warmed up)

The new GTI 2.0T actually has a speaker so you can hear the turbo in the passenger compartment. Go figure...

It's a good thing that you can't tell it's there in the RDX other than the noise -- that means they did a good job engineering it. Folks must just be put off by spending 33K+ for a car with an I-4. I don't really blame them, and I love I-4's...

 

The dealerships around here have boatloads of them too. And I think Acura has 1.9% financing on them right now for 24 months, 3.9% for up to 60 months. This car is probably not even 6 months old yet. VERY uncharacteristic for a Honda/Acura product to be that new and already need incentives.

I see the problem this way:
TSX sells pretty well because it blends some of the luxury of the higher end brands with the economy and price of the "common" brands. For $28-$30K, that is acceptable. If it went ANY higher than that, people would bail for BMW's, Mercedes, Cadillac, Infiniti, etc. But you can get the TSX with all those great amenities that on those cars makes it cost way more. If the TSX were closer in price, people would pay the additonal extra and forget the Acura.

RDX is in the same boat, except they priced it too high. If the RDX was about the same price as the TSX, they would be doing okay with them. Instead they're $5K-$6K more expensive than the TSX. Suddenly at $33k to $35K they're right in the heart of the market, where people could get the X3 or, as mentioned, pay a wee bit more and get the MDX with a V6, noticably nicer interior, 3rd seat, etc. When you play in that market, the RDX just doesn't cut it with a turbo 4 (notice no other premium brand that I can think of sells a 4 cyl car, especially at that price), small size, kinda funny look. It is a damn nice car, but even I go, "33K for this?!"

It just costs too much. Sure you get SH-AWD, but I think most people don't care, would rather have a V6 and front or regular AWD. TSX just gets away with what it has because it is priced right. The RDX is not.

 

The RDX has a few problems IMO.

- Boring as hell styling.
- Poor MGP.
- Overpriced by about 3-5K IMO.

IMO, its the styling that hurting the most at this point.

 

I'vem driven and been in an RDX a few times.

#1: It's smaller in useable space than a CR-V. That's too small IMO. No luggage room of any real value once you really look at it. However, it's extremely comfortable.

#2: ZERO turbo lag, but the turbo whine is always audible. I like it, most others do not.

#3: fuel efficiency isn't good at all for a vehicle of that size. However, it more than makes up for it in fun-factor, as the turbo and the wicked SH-AWD really makes it a drivers' machine, IMO. That thing corners SO well (puts a TSX to shame!).

#4: Styling is subjective. I like it, some don't. About the only styling piece I don't like is the wierd way the gauge cluster meets the dash just below the windshield. The 3 humps look strange... maybe because the materials don't match? You have to see it to know what I'm talking about, but on a vehicle in that price range, it just seems very out of place.

#5: My opinion is that its not selling well because North Americans are always looking for V6 / V8 as a symbol of power. An I-4 w/ equivalent power but lighter weight than a V6 is still looked upon as a lesser vehicle because of its small displacement engine. I think this is a stigma that the American public won't ever let go of until the Big 3 finally crash and burn, and then the public will realize there's more to performance than sheer displacement in pushrod engines.

 

Sales of the cheaper CX-7 were 2,952 for February so you may be onto something with the I-4.

 

I've looked at the RDX, but am put off by the price. The base model is not too bad, but by the time you get the technology package, which has all the goodies (bluetooth, good stereo, nav, etc.), it's way too much money. My guess is most people don't know what kind of engine the RDX has, but when they see the gas mileage figures, the price and then find out it's only a four, I'm thinking they immediately think, "I'm not paying that for a four-banger."

 

Actually, Audi A4's have been available with a turbo I-4 for many years (since 2000 or so), and are at a similar price point (though you can get one for 1-2K less, maybe)

I cross-shopped the A4 2.0T with the TSX, but didn't like it. The previous 1.8T was a smooth enough motor for the car (if slightly underpowered given the A4's heft), but the new 2.0T is noisier and seems out of place. However, it gets 34 mpg on the highway -- at it's a 3400 lb-car. Not bad from a fuel-efficiency standpoint, but they do this with tall gears, which limits the fun factor.

 

i also thought that it was priced too high. it almost doesn't make sense to buy it when the MDX's were selling in many areas close to invoice. my coworker got an mdx for only a couple thousand more than an RDX.

i think it was just too similar to the MDX to justify many people choosing the RDX over the MDX, like you said, gas mileage was an important factor too.

 

The RDX supposedly has 13.5 psi boost pressure according to specs. That means that eventhough it is a 2.3L, it has the equivalent fuel consumption of a 2.3 x (13.5+14.7)/14.7 = 4.4L NA engine when at full boost.

 

If it is going to get the same MPG as a 4.4 L engine, why wouldn't I just opt for a V6?

I could probably just go get a Nissan Murano. Its only slightly bigger, but has a sweet 3.5 V6, most of the same features (nav, Xm, backup camera), and handles nearly as well.

The TSX hits the market in a good spot value wise (although it probably still isn't as a good a "value" as the USDM Accord). The RDX misses by a wide margin.

When Acura redesigns the TSX next year, they'll need to learn from this situation and place the TSX at an appropriate spot in the market.

IF they put out a AWD Turbo TSX that costs TL bucks, it might not stick.

 

Ah, but that's the trick -- it only hogs like 4.4L on full boost. When running on a vacuum -- which can be much of the time if paired with a vehicle of reasonable weight -- especially at modest highway speeds, it just burns gas like a 2.3L I-4.

I think turbo I-4's are not well suited to big heavy vehicles for just this reason - they end up running on boost all the time and hence burn gas like large engines, so there is little advantage other than less weight, and the engine is more complicated.

 

Oops...


http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...7-27-rdx_x.htm

 

I hope the new TSX does not move up to RDX range, or it will be off my list. Too expensive.

I don't know if it does run off boost on the highway though. the highway MPG rating is really not that good.

My grandparents have a Lexus RX330. Much larger and bigger engine than RDX. They average about 20mpg reality too.

 

Well, my family was about to buy the RDX but with that money, we got an is250 instead. Sorry Acura....

 

That's the problem with the RDX. The turbo's boost pressure is pretty high. Say you were going around not at full boost, but at a moderate 8psi. Even then, the fuel consumption would be around that of a 3.4L NA engine.

 

Poor Gas Milage (Premium gas too yuck)
Unknown Reliability for 1st gen turbo.
The RDX feeling like my TSX during city driving.
Not having passanger power seats or rear auto dimming mirrors (on a 35k car no less)


Are the reasons I walked away from the RDX/

I got it down to $33k for the RDX w/ tech pack and 3.9 APR but they weren't giving me what I wanted on the trade in so I walked away two weeks ago. I ended up with a Fully Loaded 2007 Toyota Camry XLE V6. Its has a lot more power you can feel and is a great family sedan all for $30k and what I wanted for the trade in. Plus I'm getting 26 mpg in city with the V6 with only 200 miles on the ODO. Its acutally getting better milage then my 05 TSX which is getting around 25mpg, same city route.

I do believe the dealers are desperate to sell the RDX. Fountain Acura in Orlando had 17+ on the lot, but only saw a very few TSX for sale.

 

That's not really a reason. Turbos have been around for ages and the turbo that is in the RDX is made by a turbo manufacturer, not Acura/Honda. Also, Honda has been using turbo'd engines in the JDM lineup for ages.

 

I mean, we can go deep into the reason for poor RDX sales but for me, right off the bat,

I personally do not like the RDX Body style and in marketing, image is almost everything.

 

Yes, but you can't dispute that a turbo is a reliability issue just from the additional complexity it adds (A/F ratio management, boost control, exhaust piping, emissions, high EGT's and oil coking potential etc.). Also, they don't tolerate poor maintenance as well, especially regular oil changes.

Don't get me wrong, I like (love ) them now that I've owned one, but I would never have bought one until VW stamped their 10 year/100K powertrain warranty on one in 2001 (since changed), and I thought "Well, how bad can it be with a warranty like that". Even so, the 1.8T engine in general had major oil sludging issues related to use of non-synthetic oil, which speaks to the need for proper maintenance.

I thought about buying another VW turbo, but I was very lucky with my last one and didn't want to risk a bad roll of the reliability dice (the local dealer service is abysmal ), so I bought a TSX instead.

I'd buy a turbo from Honda, but I'd prefer one with 6-8 psi of boost rather than 13.5 (almost a full bar -- that's Audi TT 225 territory)

 

I was a factory trained Audi dealer tech in the late 90s and I don't recall any issues like this. In fact, you wouldn't believe how poorly some people maintained their cars despite the fact that Audi paid for all scheduled maintenance. Still, those engines stayed very clean inside.

I replaced two 1.8t turbochargers under warranty. Do you know what the problem was? It wasn't the bearings, the turbine, the impeller, or even the gaskets. It was the wastegate actuator rod, of all things. They have a weak spot and some of them would break, rendering the wastegate wide open (and giving the engine no boost pressure).

The only warranty turbocharger-related work I did on a 2.7t was due to a faulty double-walled exhaust manifold. It developed a rattle and required replacement. The turbochargers were fine.

Turbocharging is obscenely reliable on diesels, and nowadays it is fantastic on a gasoline engine as well. This isn't the 1980s anymore. Nobody uses the turbocharged 2.3 liter Pinto motor today

 

Until the 1.8Ts all started breaking down due to sludge, created by the heat of the engine. Audi had a class action lawsuit against it for this (1997-2004 A4s with 1.8T engines were the class, if I remember correctly). VWs had the same issue (I had one) and, in fact, the VW 1.8Ts were more likely to experience sludge buildup because the oil lines are smaller than the ones in the Audi. The dealers aren't allowed to use non-synth oil in them anymore (for anyone who gets VW maint. at the dealer). But I don't blame the turbo. I blame VW design for the issue.

There is no question that if designed and then maintained properly a turbo can last, and last, and last... but in my opinion they'll never be as bulletproof and idiot proof as a Honda NA engine.

 

:gheylaugh:

Yes, the last time I had an oil change in my 1.8T, they made me initial something that I had "declined the recommendation to use synthetic oil", even though I had brought in my own Mobil 1 0W-40 with me.

Fortunately, the tech had a clue and logged the oil that was actually used on the ticket.

VW has really tighted up their oil specifications lately -- you have to find an oil that meets a certain VW spec (eg. VW 502.02 etc. ). If you've purchased a 2002 or TDI, then almost no oil you can buy meets the spec an you have to let the dealer supply the oil.

On the other hand, Honda basically says you can use any "API certified" motor oil.

 

i dropped of the tsx for warranty work and they gave me an rdx as a loaner.

the advisor said people have mixed feeling towards them

after i drove it for a day and a half, i loved it
it was quick and a blast to drive,
i liked the paddle shifters and the rush of the turbo in 1st gear

but some parts of the interior were cheap, plasticky and not of high quaility
and the exterior is just butt ugly.

 

i think the reason the RDX is not selling so well is that as a house (when selling)..... would you like to have the most expensive house on the block in a cheap neighborhood or would you have the cheapest house on the richest neighborhood. i think the TSX is a great value thats why it still sells strong, while people are having a hard time grabbing an RDX with MDX money.

 

Excellent analogy!