Going to autoshow in 3 weeks, will compare new RX350/RDX and X3.

Everyday X3 seems like a worthy replacement, will see.

new picture on acura website.

SAD

also - been seeing a few new CR-Vs here lately and I have to say, they are FUGLY as hell from behind.

there are so many 2013 threads im confused. but if someone here was considering the new x3 i say go for it. reliability is better than others in class excluding rdx. also im not sure about the new turbo 4 models, but 6cyl 3L na engine had very poor response when i had it as a loaner (NOT the turbo 3.5i version, that one is very responsive). there were moments when i floored it and i got nothing, the car literally took 2 full seconds to drop gears and accelerate. so watch out for that, do a testdrive.

I definitely like those wheels better than the split-spoke ones in the other pictures. Hopefully they won't be an expensive alternative. Right now the stock wheels are one of the few things I really don't like from the pics we've seen.

Acura brought the 2013 RDX to our dealership today for a training session.

What are your first impressions of it, now that it is in front of you? Any surprises? Does it use regular gas?

Man I want the brakes of that rdx wonder if it would fit on the older rdx.

I saw the RDX back in November 2011 in Las Vegas. My first impression was that I liked what they had done a lot. They added much of the needed features everyone asked for (push button start, power tailgate, V6 with better gas mileage). I could tell they toned the the styling of the car. Lines are much softer. But I think it looks good in person.

The interiors is MUCH improved from the current RDX. Not that the current one is bad, but it just didn't feel upscale enough. Now, the RDX's interior fits in with the rest of the Acura lineup. Only thing I wish was included were rear vents behind the center armrest. There is just a storage opening area now.

I didn't get to ride or drive the car yet...the training facilitator took a few of the guys out for a drive, but I had already left before that happened. But one of the sales guys told me it was a night and day difference from the current RDX in regards to smoothness and quietness.

Yes, they did say you can use regular gas. On the gas door, it still says "Premium Fuel Recommended". It also has VCM.

Yeah, the brakes were pretty interesting. I first noticed the Acura name plate, then the holes in the center of the rotor.

273hp with premium and 271hp with regular just like the accord. the engine while fine with the accord is pretty gutless with the heavier rdx. in fact thr rx350 i drove felt a lot more powerful. the test model was showing 17.9mpg avg mostly city. this is all according to an acura employee from san fransisco.

I don't know why Acura even offers the statement "273 hp with premium", or 271 hp with regular. To me they should just make an engine that's designed to run either on premium or regular, giving customers a choice just complicates things.

I feel the same way about the K24 in the TSX, I use only premium due to the high compression ratio and the fact that acura now just recommends it. But if I were to buy a used TSX with over 100k I'd much rather buy the one that ran only on premium for all those miles vs. regular. I know alot of members use regular in their TSX and say it doesn't negatively effect their power or mileage, well if that was always the case why didn't Acura just say to only use regular?

I like the 2013 RDX as a cheaper more fuel efficent alternative to the MDX, I'm just curious if anyone will really use Premium if it is in fact just an Accord engine.

Let's be a little more clear with this guys. The J35 in the Accord is Hondas new VTEC-E which shuts down up to 3 cylinders. It is dead on power until 3k rpm. The RDX's engine is a version of the 6 speed Accord Coupe which uses the 3-lobe VTEC system. The power curve is totally different. The motor is a cousin to the 3rd generation TL and 4th generation FWD TL. As far as what gas you use, this is an update for Honda with their higher compression motors to recommend 93. Had they not, it would have reduced the amount of interest when customers are cross shopping the RDX because of mandatory premium fuel. But this motor will offer way more low-end than the Accords auto i-vtec motor.

? complicate things? I actually think it's great. If you cannot decide between TWO choices, then you have a problem....nothing personal inferred though.

And how would you know which gas was used?

"? complicate things? I actually think it's great. If you cannot decide between TWO choices, then you have a problem....nothing personal inferred though.

And how would you know which gas was used?

That's part of my arguement, when you buy an S2000 for example you know the previous owner used premium because it was required. With a TSX or this 2013 RDX there has to be a reason they recommend premium besides 2 more horsepower. Could the 87 Octane be harmful long term, I'm talking 200k miles. And again not trying to start an argument but my thought process is that the higher octane is better suited for the high compression engine thus they recommend it. Sure you can still get alot of miles out of the engine on regular, but will using the regular cause problems earlier like 02 sensors?

I know plenty of people that put 87/89 in their car when it clearly says 91 is either recommended or required. So I wouldn't always assume someone has used 91.

I found a few more pictures and a short dealer video of the 2013 RDX today. Looks like Courtesy Acura in Denver got their preview model. I'm looking forward to seeing one at my dealer on Tuesday.

http://courtesyacuralittleton.wordpr...-the-2013-rdx/

I think you are confusing the purpose of octane vs. higher octane is better mentality. Higher octane does not necessary mean longer engine longevity. Octane gas used is to prevent knocks in the engine and Octane usage is high dependent on ecu tuning. So, if Honda tuned the ecu to run, 89 octane, then it will most likely be sufficient enough to be healthy for a prolong period of time. The difference in HP is altered by the ecu with the use of sensors since it will have a different pattern of combustion such as timing and injection level.

The driving behaviours of the owner (redline the car til it cut off), routine maintenance, and engine internal's lubrications are more important factors for engine longevity. The technology and material used today, makes the octane difference from recommend and required neglectable.

correct me if im wrong.

higher octane will allow the j35 to run less rich a/f at higher rpm, allowing for a few more horses.

87 octane vs 93 octane with the accord v6 sedan auto:


please read this:
http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-ar...&page_number=1

and yes octane is the measure of anti-knocking index. it does not necessarily mean more power, but with today's high compression pistons, it is a necessity for top end power. this is not just for the accord, tests on on J32, J35 and J37 engines all show the higher the octane the more power the engines provide.

an overly rich a/f will tend to cost you power and foul up spark plugs. so aside for power gain reasons, high octane can help keep your plugs cleaner with the v6.

however wether 8-9 horses is worth the extra cost of the premium fuel is up to you to decide.

also please do not confuse this with the engine on the TSX V6 and TL FWD. Those powerplants run at even higher compression and are a beast compared to this v6.

Nice car. I think this will be a good seller for Acura.

depends on the pricing and lease/finance rates. '12 TL is a good car but it was outsold by a lot of competitors.

Well, I stopped by my dealer today since they had a 2013 RDX on site, and I really liked it. I took a bunch of pictures, but I'm not sure how to post them. I don't have an account on a photo sharing site, and don't really feel like creating one just for this. Can I create an album in AZ once I've posted 5 times?

Anyway, I thought the new RDX checked just about all the right boxes for me. The only misses so far are the hidden exhaust (it is dual, just tucked under the bumper), the CRV-like wheels, and lack of SHAWD. I'm pretty sure I could get over all of those if it drives the way I hope (sporty and quick but still comfortable). Otherwise, I'll probably go for the TL SHAWD Tech.

I took a short video as well and I'll try to get that up on YT (first time for that too).

Ok, here is the link to my interior video. Sorry for the shakiness after I get in the back seat.

ooh i love the new door stitching, gauges and push button start. but other than that nothing terribly attractive to win me over. maybe if i was 50+ years old i would consider it.

Looking at the new pictures on Acura.com it seems that Acura has removed one of the rear seat LATCH points for child car seats? The 2012 clearly shows 5 LATCH points which gives you 3 mounting locations (Left, slightly off-center and right). The 2013 seems to be missing the middle LATCH which would only leave you with two mounting positions unless you can use the selt belt for the middle.

Went to the dealer today but they will not have any RDX until the 29th but cannot sell any until April 2nd. Will have to go back then and take a closer look. The 2013 RDX is far from perfect but might tick enough boxes for me while making the wife happy. She wants a MB ML or Lexus RX and I am hoping to save some money

What does the non-tech version use as head light? Halogen projector?

I figured out I already had a Flickr account, so I posted my photos there. Here is the link:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/18075103@N03/

Hopefully this works.

The one weird picture of the strange looking leather is from the driver's seat. Both front seats have those horizontal lines on the seatback bolsters. Maybe this pattern has better wear characteristics, or it could just be for looks.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy the pictures. I can't wait to drive one.

Thanks for those pictures!

The trunk photo shows a rather poor design. It's angled up against the backseat. That slanted angle makes for wasted space for putting flat objects like boxes against it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/1807510...in/photostream

Secondly, the speaker is right against the side in a position/frequently used area where if you put any groceries of significant weight, you're going to dent that speaker pretty easily.

I'm mystified by this lack of forethought.

...also that slanted board is probably made of some non-durable cardboardy material.

After some use of putting boxes up against it, the heavy boxes will dent that slant and make it look really pretty!

Although you are accurate, only two points are usable at the same time. Namely you can only put a seat on each corner, or one in the passenger side and another one in the middle

I knew that but thanks for making that clear if I didn't. I will only have one child seat and was wanted to mount it in the middle using the LATCH system. It now looks like that is not possible.

It is still possible to have a seat in the middle position, by using the inner mounting points from each side. Depending on the car seat clips, some people would even share a mounting point for two seats.

One of the things I like the most about my Old Generation RDX's dash is that the speedometer is in the center. My other vehicle is the same way. I don't like the two (tach/speedo) gauges side by side. Call me silly, but I prefer the old one in that regard.

Actually, I think the slanted part was pretty heavy, possibly metal. There were some scuffs on the left side, so I tried to pull it back to fold it down and it felt heavy. Hopefully it won't damage as easy as you think.

Also, the speaker cover is made of hard plastic, so I wouldn't worry about damaging the speaker beyond cosmetic blemishes.

The other thing that surprised me was that the grill areas near the fog lights are solid. You can see it in this picture:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/1807510...in/photostream

I hadn't really noticed it until I got up close to it, so it's probably not a big deal, but I guess after looking at all the pictures I had seen I thought it was a true grill.

From looking at the documentation, the non-Tech seems to be halogen and the Tech seems to be Xenon HIDs.

There's a new batch of official photos released.

More over at http://acuraconnected.com/2012/03/27...image-gallery/

Here's a page with a few more photos. There is also one video with about 8 minutes of B-roll footage. You have to click to about 4 minutes in to get past the still footage.

http://www.hondanews.com/channels/ac...-images/photos

ugly, lol. i think rx350 looks better.

One thing I don't like is the fact the center console opens up straight to the rear instead of to the right.
When I checked out the 08 I test drove and the 2011 at the car show, I really loved the center console opening sideways to the right, and it was huge in there.
Non tech package doesn't have projector/HID headlights!, what kind of cheap crap is that!
Back seats are very unsafe, being able to lower them from the rear handle, and they slam pretty hard too, can easily break a kid's arm that way.

It's actually a spring loaded ABS looking material so dr150 your pessimism is probably a little exaggerated.

Overall, seems like a great little crossover but the lack of rear vents is a turnoff. I know my mom would complain about it if she sat back there. If a 12 year old odyssey can have vents in the third row, then a new acura should definitely have them.