I wish Acura offered the same amount of exterior and interior colors like Lexus. The more aggressive Lexus styling may scare off some of the "silver haired" buyers for the RX. I don’t see a lot of folks under 45 behind the wheel of a RX in my neck of the woods.

That is why I think Acura went more conservative with the 2013 RDX to snag some of those silver foxes with extra $$$ to spend. The ZDX didn’t do it, maybe the 2013 RDX will.

I hope Acura comes out with a Type-S version RDX during the model run with sh-awd and updated "sporty" styling (7AT and more HP).

 

well, hopefully the new RDX will be a little more "sporty" than the RX.

 

New CRV/RDX AWD system..
Better than the old CRV slip system.. but not SH-AWD.
lol

 

Meanwhile, BMW announced the 2013 X3 xdrive28i with the 240hp turbo-4 + torque vectoring AWD. The same engine allows the 328i to get 24/36 mpg, so I'd wager 21/30 mpg for the X3. Nicely equipped for around $45-47k, it'd be a true premium upgrade from the RDX.

 

can see the RDX pulling some RX sales...whatever the RX looks like for 2013, i think the RDX will slide into closer shoes of previous RX buyers with its generic unoffensive styling, plain interior and no-thrills approach. Definitely see the RDX jawing with the RX. Unless Acura is hiding some further options or trim up its sleeve, not sure how the 2013 could be on a list with anything from germany. Seems like a good alternative to the Murano, RX, maybe the Ford Edge and possibly Infiniti's new CUV or even the new pathfinder. Acura just does not have the luxury stuff to compete any higher. Reliability assertions aside, the Q5 has yet to be de-throned. The new X3 is certainly a great option too. But the RDX crowd does not shop those vehicles; the 2013 is going to do some damage, but probably taking from its little brother and those in the Honda family and not much else.

 

+1 The whole world is resorting to Turbo-4's while freakin acura settles for a freakin V6.

 

thats not surprising at all. most if not all 40k + entries in the entry lux CUV level are without question an upgrade from Acura. You get what you pay for. What do you expect in a sub 40k entry level lux cuv? the Acura RDX, which in some ways is a let down because other non-lux brands offer much nicer interiors and more features at similar pricing. the RDX is the spitting image of cutting corners to keep a sub 40 sticker. Mostly all of Acuras sub 40 vehicles are cheapened in the same way. Had they been more expensive, they'd actually compete with everyone else, but thats where Acura finds its comfort zone. Hard to keep up the pace while using cheaper/Honda parts bin materials, less sound-deadening material or, in the 1st gen - NO underbody cladding or isolation, more plastics, the list goes on. I know Acura has claimed a quieter RDX, and i bet it is, but no Acura is relatively "quiet" when compared to lexus etc.

To call a spade a spade, the most comparable and financially on-point replacement to the 1st gen RDX is the Q5 turbo in either premium or premium plus with rated MPG at 20/27. Starting at 36k, a few options gives you the same equipment (Quattro, 8sp, BT, ipod, heated seats, color infotainment display, rear hvac, etc) PLUS many features not available in the new RDX, all between 38-41k, its very difficult to beat. Its a great choice. and hard to ignore, especially now. At $38,750, a premium w/all options but panoramic roof is a wicked deal.

The 2013 RDX will most likely be a step back for us here, the enthusiasts, but alternatively, the 2013 looks like its ready to give a pretty significant BOOST to Acura sales. Everything matches up to a typical Acura or Honda shopper, and it really seems to collaterally grab at Lexus. The 2013 will be a hit, just probably not on any comparison tests.

 

Sorry Mike, the Q5 Premium is not a valid comparison. It doesn't have HIDs or memory seats. You really need to go with the Premium Plus + add the Sunroof to make it valid.

 

Any word yet on when pricing and final specifications will be announced other than spring 2012?

 

My apologies, the sunroof is included in the Premium Plus, so Q5 Premium Plus would be a good comparison with the RDX, right at 40K + destination.

 

BMW is also has the 2014 X4 with same engine choices as the X3. If you don't need the storage, the X4 might fit a couple or a single person with an active live style compared to the 2013 RDX or X3. I've always liked the X6 and ZDX styling for a second car in a family.

 

i think its quite funny how Acura people hop on the "but it doesnt have...HIDs! or fill in the blank" why is this funny? because somehow it automatically invalidates the competing vehicle lol. even in tech pack trim, the RDX LACKS so much other equipment in comparison to other vehicles, so maybe the RDX should never be compared to them either. The Premium Trim Q5 turbo has MORE than enough equipment to humble the RDX, standing on just the standard quattro/8speed tranz alone, or even the level of interior luxury or amenities not found in any RDX. So, no, the premium plus trim completely out does an RDX, but even still, at $41,250 AS IS, the premium plus is a hell of a buy and a very attractive option to those looking for more from either the 2013 RDX or something similar to the 1st gen in terms of engine/driving dynamics.

Acura does a good job undercutting price, but its "standard" content also comes up short to what most upper-level brands deliver anyways.

 

For me, a car that does not have HID's or memory seats may as well not have a stereo or ABS, they're essential features. A luxury car without HIDs is not a luxury car, period. If I want a car without HID's or memory seats, I'll get a CRV and save some money.

True, but RDX sold for 5-6k off, the Q5 dealers aren't giving many discounts, so the real world price difference approaches 7-8k, and the engine is a bit weak in its current form, so add $500-1000 for a chip to match RDX factory stock performance.

 

An Audi without ABS?
The same can be said about a "luxury" car without push start, or keyless entry. I think that you two are having a dumb fight. Acura is considered a luxury car and so are any of the three Germans. Whether you get cloth or leather, it is still a luxury car/brand. Would you consider the Hyundai Eqqus a Luxury car? and if so, do you think it's in the same category of Lexus, Benz, etc?

 

not fighting at all.

imo - i consider some of Acuras MODELS luxury cars, mainly the MDX and ZDX. I think Acura is more like nissan than it is a luxury car maker, so i guess, i actually do NOT think Acura makes luxury vehicles judged against todays market. The entire Audi Q5 package is on another echelon compared to Acura, what I was trying to say was for those who want something similar to the gen 1 RDX, the Q5 turbo is the closest thing and also comes very competitively priced.

Acura sells vehicles with standard features that are just optional equipment on most cars from any manufacturer. Calling that luxury is a stretch, and certainly no comparisons can be made to Benz, Audi, BMW etc. If you get into an ILX/RDX/TSX/TL...i think those vehicles fall right in line with maximas, passats, muranos etc. So, TODAY, acura imo is NOT a lexus-like competitor but the 2013 RDX looks like a lexus-like vehicle. IN the 90's, i certainly think it was a different story where the Legend & Legend coupe were quite distinctive, tasteful, differentiated and luxurious. Now, you dont need Acura in order to get a fully appointed and somewhat sporting 4 door or CUV in the 30-40k range, and, most of what Acura sells in that range are middle of the pack products too.

so no fight from me, i guess after all that, I just dont think you can take Acura, as a brand, to be a luxury brand, its more model-specific. You walk into, even a LEXUS dealer, you know what to expect. Walk into an Acura dealer, you may have to give the sign out front a second look for Honda depending on what they have in the showroom.

 

New pic with better wheels

 

depends wat ur definition of luxury is. for me: a 2.3l turbo with ~245ft-lb of torque at the wheels and sh-awd, low road noise, hid, 10 speaker els audio. leather, nav, heated seats with tons of interior space for my laptop and cellphones. not to mention the $8k i saved over a x3.

from my experience the k23 was a very refined engine maybe not as smooth as the j35 but at times when im driving people around they commend its smooth operation. its all about the throttle modulation (hondata helps). aura could fix sudden turbo rush some people report easily. there is also very little noise below 3000rpm for a 4cylinder.

 

I agree. When Acura came out with its "Smart Luxury" approach it decided it was not going to compete directly with BMW, Audi, MB, Lexus. When the ILX comes out, with cloth seats, it will be more appearent. Yes some of their upper end cars are more comparable, but as a brand they are just not on the same level as BMW, Audi, MB, Lexus.

Let's face it, we all choose Acura cars based largely on price. We either didn't want to, or couldn't afford a true luxury car. With Acura you can get some great features at an affordable price. There is nothing wrong with that, I did it to. But we shouldn't be under the delusion that we bought a BMW at an Acura price. There is a reason the market will pay a higher price for a BMW (or MB, or Audi, or Lexus) over an Acura.

 

Acura learned a lesson from the face design of 09TL ,then comes out a plain design of RDX, no sharp feeelings at all, most of the lovers of ACURA are men, the new RDX makes it a womon car.

 

I've been shopping the entry level luxury SUV market for the past 6 months and while I will have to wait for a final verdict when I test drive the RDX, on paper I think Acura has a compelling vehicle that fits nicely on the overall value curve.

I think many buyers who are looking at $4.00+ per gal gas prices in the forseeable future...and nobody in this forum seems to highlight the "best in class" fuel economy afforded by the new RDX. And while I know the turbo 4's have come a long way...I do have a problem forking over nearly $50K for a 4 cylinder anything. Now if you can give me 35MPG in that 4 banger...then I might listen. I am glad Acura dropped the 4 and went with the V6...and managed to INCREASE fuel economy.

The other big complaint I had in considering the old RDX was the interior materials. The materials and interior were very plastic, the two color schemes (dull grey and black) are not what I am looking for nor desire. I remember sitting in the rear seats and looking at the cheap plastic speaker cover and truely felt I was in a low end Honda. By the looks of the photos, Acura spent a little money on improving the internal build quality and materials and for that it gets put on the consideration list. I also wanted the latest and greatest tech package...which by the virture of it being a new model will now be available.

In terms of looks, I have to share my personal feeling that when it comes to an SUV there is only so much one can do. It ultimately has to retain a bit of it's box on wheels to get the cargo, rear-head room and interior space that we want in an SUV to begin with. There is a reason why the new RDX looks like the RX350 etc...becuase when you optimize everything...you start to arrive at the same point. Now the ZDX with it's sloped rear lines I thought was unique and beautiful...and I still love the X6 as well...but it comes at a price. Rear visibility, rear seat headroom and entry, etc. If I started correcting all of the issues in the ZDX...something tells me I'd be arriving close to the new RDX.

The two vehicles that are still on my list are the Q5 and X3. The Q5 in the 2.0 is the fairer comparison to the RDX and again I get a 4 banger with slightly less fuel efficiency...and priced with the tech toys I want...it's in the mid to high 40's...7-8K more. And why do German car owners disconnect "quality" with "luxury"? The Audi Q5 repair record is horrendous...while the Acura keeps itself out of the shop. Yes I want nice leather seats, aluminum trim...etc...but I also want my car to stay out of the shop when I am plunking down more money.

That leaves the X3...which I think is really the biggest competitor to the RDX. The quality so far seems to be strong for that model...but the options game really drives me nuts. Paying a premium for metalic paint reminds me of Ford in the 70's. The base price sounds great...but put in all of the RDX features and your're up 8K or more (and that for the i28 drive version). Now granted in some circles some would argue that you get some badge bragging rights with that extra cost....but exterior and interior design wise...I don't think they are in different leagues.

So I'm waiting to see and drive the new RDX in person. But I don't think Acura has made any major missteps with this new RDX at least on paper. It has placed it back on my shopping short list which I think is exactly what Acrua wanted to do.

 

The one other thing I have learned is that exterior styling is in the eye of the beholder. In 2009 Acura pushed the design of it's flagship TL to a very new space...and people revolted. In 2010, they came out with a very unique and differentiated SUV with the cross-over ZDX...again a failure in the market.

When Acura pushes the envelop and attempts to achieve some differentiation...you all scream about "beaks" and chrome. When they play it safe, you also complain.

Truth is..if you are really brave enough to drive a vehicle that stands out...go buy up one of the last ZDX's....I think that unfortuantely that vehicle was just a bit too ahead of the market.

I look at what Acura did to the new refreshed TL, and I think they took away it's mojo. It was sharp, angular, and distinctive...and I personally feel is still one of the more unique mid-sized sedans out there.

Perhaps Honda needs to create a total new brand (i.e. think Scion etc.) where it can play around without the fear of scaring your typical Honda and Acura buyers away. Unfortunately, I don't think the customers of either brand are really up for anything avant-garde.

 

The two vehicles that are still on my list are the Q5 and X3. The Q5 in the 2.0 is the fairer comparison to the RDX and again I get a 4 banger with slightly less fuel efficiency...and priced with the tech toys I want...it's in the mid to high 40's...7-8K more. And why do German car owners disconnect "quality" with "luxury"? The Audi Q5 repair record is horrendous...while the Acura keeps itself out of the shop. Yes I want nice leather seats, aluminum trim...etc...but I also want my car to stay out of the shop when I am plunking down more money.

That leaves the X3...which I think is really the biggest competitor to the RDX. The quality so far seems to be strong for that model...but the options game really drives me nuts. Paying a premium for metalic paint reminds me of Ford in the 70's. The base price sounds great...but put in all of the RDX features and your're up 8K or more (and that for the i28 drive version). Now granted in some circles some would argue that you get some badge bragging rights with that extra cost....but exterior and interior design wise...I don't think they are in different leagues.

So I'm waiting to see and drive the new RDX in person. But I don't think Acura has made any major missteps with this new RDX at least on paper. It has placed it back on my shopping short list which I think is exactly what Acrua wanted to do.[/quote]

I am right where you are on this. On the Q5, I like the looks of it and the nice interior, but when you look at its likely reliability, it is kind of scary. And then it winds up being about $5 to $7k more. The X3 may be a bit more reliable than the Audi, but I have had bad expeniences with both my 5 and 3 series models in the past, so who knows?

The new RDX really looks more or less like all of the other compact SUV's (except for the new Land Rover). It's interior looks improved, from what I can see in the pictures and the features cover most of what I am looking for. When you combine that with what should be very good reliability, decent gas mileage and thousands of $'s less, it sounds like a reasonable alternative to me. I look forward to seeing it in person when they come to the dealers.

 

Q5 AWD matches the 2013 RDX AWD mpg and it has more torque where it counts, which is the low end. The Honda 3.5 V6 is pretty gutless below 3000 rpm unlike the Audi or the 2.3T RDX engine, I remember having a 300hp TL SHAWD loaner when my RDX was in service and I was very disappointed with the performance compared with my RDX, it had no torque unless the engine was revving hard. In the real world, I'll bet anything that the Q5 will get better mileage than the V6 RDX as well.

The only valid concern with the Q5 is reliability, but if you change cars every 4 years or less, that's not a problem either.

 

true that. anyway i was at the autoshow saturday and managed to snap these pics. The car actually looks awkward to me in person, very much like the 09-11 TLs:



interior shot:


one point, the projector in the headlight did NOT look anything like i have seen on the acuras. it was way too small and it look REALLY REALLY like a halogen projector.

 

ooh forgot to add, the acura dude who opened the doors also said the rdx v6 requires 91 octane gas.

 

Pickler...thanks for the photos.

How was the quality of the interior, especially the leather seats, compared with say an Audi Q5?

 

the plastics on the dashboard and doors were much improved. The interior looked better overall. however the leather seats looked very artificial and stiff. I think the leather quality on the prev gen was much better. I have never liked audi's interior design so i prefer it over Q5 still.

 

I have been considering the Q5 and the new RDX, but out of curiosity, I looked at the specs for the new 2013 Ford Escape. I handn't seen anything on it before, but if you get it loaded, it seems to have everything and more in tech that the RDX has. It also comes with either a 1.6T, or 2.0T engine. It has a rear A/C vent too.

It has the panarama moon roof and even the LED daytime running lights like on the Q5. I'm pretty sure that the quality of the interior is a bit lower than the RDX, but it does look pretty close in a lot of ways. This is just my first impression, but what do you guys think?

Here is a link: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...e/viewall.html

 

Acura did say Xenon is no longer standard. That might explain the halogen projector?

 

That is an intersting question. In one of the write-ups that I read, it sounded like you get the HID's only with the Technology package. You can't really tell on anything that Acura has put out to date.

 

Do you have to change the timing belt on this new RDX or is this a timing chain?....

 

Good point. Last year, I just spend $1,300 for a timing belt change for a VW.

 

looks like Acura knew exactly what they are targeting

 

I also had to spend $900 on a timing belt change on my VW 70,000 miles ago. The independent auto mechanic forgot to lube up a critical part which I only found out AFTER the mechanic warranty for the job expired. Now it bleeds oil and extra money from "due early" oil exchanges until the next belt change!

From an Acura dealer, a sales guy told me the 2013 RDX has a belt since it's an engine used in other models. He didn't sound sure, so that's why I ask here....a more informed audience.

If it is indeed a belt, Acura should slap itself......As almost every premium model I've tested has a chain to prevent this nuisance and cost of changing a belt. I don't want another "VW story" again dammit!

 

If it is the base TL and TSX V-6 engine then yes, you will have to change the timing belt. All the Honda V-6's have timing belts to date.

 

no standard HID's...or SHAWD...91 octane in the sure to be heavier V6...

looks not so appetizing to those hungry for the new model after all... (i'm NOT one of them)

 

i'm definitely bummed about the no HIDs and 91 octane, if true.

i actually prefer a heavier vehicle especially considering fuel economy is very good, relatively speaking.

 

When I bought my RDX in 2010, the Q5 6cyl w/sunroof was actually a bit cheaper (acura demanded MSRP while audi was running a $3,500 rebate plus the dealer was willing to do invoice+$500). The audi is smoother and nicer, but feels way too disengaged from the road unexciting almost like an E Class.

Besides, I once gave a guy a jump start with my audi...it fried the car's computer. And the brilliant designers at Audi decided to put the computer inside the driver's seat. Dealer charged nearly $5,000 to tear apart the seat, replace the computer, and restitch the seat back together. Though that's my fault, I don't see why they make the cars so hard to fix especially if they are low reliability.

 

Anyone know why this is?? Nearly all new Honda & Acura 4-cyl engines have maintenance-free timing chains, yet all V-6's have timing belts that eventually have to be replaced.

 

I was wondering the same thing and why they still use SOC on the V6's, instead of DOC. I searched the web for answers. Regarding the timing belts, the best answer that I could find was that the belts don't stretch and so keep the timing more accurate over time. They say that the chains and cogs begin to wear out from the start and over time, the timing goes off as a result. Also, the belts are more quiet than the chains. I don't know if this is true or not.