raj8

I'm thinking about getting the 2013 RDX and feel that it's a huge improvement compared the 2012 version. I just wonder if it's big enough to handle multiple kids. Currently we have 1 kid and I guess a second is possible. I have looked at other vehicles like the MDX and Lexus RX but find the RDX to be a better choice. The MDX has only .4inches more leg room in the back compared to the RDX. The RDX also has more leg room compared to the RX which is surprising. Anyone here considering the new RDX that has young children. Think it's a good fit?

arbiterlin

MDX has 3 rows of seats...

raj8

I know but the 3rd row seems so pointless to me since it's so small.

arbiterlin

I test drove the new RDX, and it does have lots room in the back... bigger than 2012 GLK, X3, Tiguan and FX35 that I tried recently...

raj8

Also another factor is gas... 16/21 for the MDX and 19/27 for the RDX with regular gasoline.

raj8

Yea I test drove it too and it had more room then what I was expecting.

NAMA

I have two kids 5 and 8 and hope it's big enough, too. Currently drive a first generation RX300 and the exterior dimensions are very close, so if the interior is close it should be fine as the RX had no problem with two car seats.

joeyoTL

As new parents, my wife and I find ourselves looking for more room than my Audi A4 has to offer. As an Audi owner, I'm really considering a Q5, but the new RDX has my attention. We have a Toyota Highlander which offers plenty of room, but we're now limited to driving that everywhere we go.

raj8

Joey... I test drove the Q5 too and thought that was a great car. To me it seemed like the RDX had a lot more room for passengers and cargo. The price also favors the RDX, well when Acura decides to negotiate more on the price.

bh9712

Not sure if it makes a difference, but the RDX does not have adjustable rear vents - it has vents under the front seats. The back seat might get a little warm in the summer...

mrgold35

I have an 08 RDX with a 5'8" 14 year old. We have plenty of room for his track and basketball gear, cruising around town with 3 to 4 passengers and 3 to 5 day vacations to Colorado to ski. The current RDX is the perfect size for three. I recently purchased a roof box for my RDX (Rocket box Pro 14) to give me more room for longer trips.

It looks like the 2013 RDX slots right between the 2007-2012 RDX and the MDX. The improvement areas I like in the current 07-12 RDX are on the 2013 model (improved gas mileage, improved interior, updated tech, auto hatchback, regular gas, more room, etc...). If you still need more room, you can get a roof box a lot cheaper than a MDX. If I had 5 in my family and/or needed to tow anything, I would upgrade to a MDX. I think the RDX is the 90% solution for our daily needs.

I am waiting to see if the RDX will come out with an Advance model with cooled front seats in 2014-2015. It gets mighty hot in NM in the summer time.

DizkoDan

How old is you current child? Still in a car seat? If another one came this year, how long would they both be in car seats? Obviously with new recommendations to keep rear facing until at least 2 years old, this puts a serious dent in front passenger leg room (or front and driver if you put it in the middle). I have a somewhat smaller forward facing convertible in my RDX, and I have to put the front seat about halfway forward just to keep my son's feet from resting on the seat. I think as long as you are willing to compromise on front seat leg room, it would be okay for 2 kids and 2 adults. Don't forget with the little one's come strollers and all the other junk, that fills otherwise usable space!

Personally, I would opt for something bigger if it were to be the family hauler. We have a CX-9 that we use for trips and such (we have 2 big dogs, no way they could fit in the RDX).

raj8

Our child is 10 months old don't expect to have another for at least a year but you never know.

DizkoDan

So yeah, anytime within the next couple of years, and you will have 2 kids in some form of car seats for many years to come. One of the things that the other vehicles will offer is a wider back seat. This is something that will make a huge difference when dealing with car seats. As you are aware, infant seats are very wide. Convertible's can be somewhat smaller, but most of the good one's that will allow your child to grow into them are still pretty wide, and somewhat encroach on the next seat on the bench. 3rd row seating isn't really an option in a crossover, since you can't put car seats back there anyway. And with seats installed in the 2nd row, you won't even be able to get to the 3rd row to squeeze someone else in there.

Again, I'd think that if you are willing to accept that things will be tight with multiple car seats, it would work okay. However, if you are planning for this, I think that there are better options out there.

BigHatch

go to the dealer and put your car seat in it.

Opus360

Agreed. I test drive the Q5, X3 and 2013 RDX. RDX has more room for passengers and cargo, and lower cargo loading height.


I noticed that too and wonder why there wasn't any rear vents. My non-luxury family car from the 1990s has it.

MardiGras

The 2013 RDX requires Premium gasoline (91 octane or higher). Check their web site.

inanimate

Has anyone checked out the trunk in detail? I was pretty surprised that it's listed as being so much smaller than the CRV trunk. (37 vs 28 cuft). I was really hoping that this new gen would be over 30. Anyone know what the real deal is?

dnd2984

iTrader: (6)

I was at the Acura dealer, and we are considering getting a mdx in the next year or two (wife has CRV on lease) when we have kids... After looking at the new RDX, it will be the vehicle of choice, I was also surprised how big it was on the inside, I am 6 foot 200lbs and adjusted the seat to my liking and than tried the rear seat, It was really roomy. I say go for it.

bh9712

According to the owner's manual, Acura recommends 91 and says anything under 87 might damage the engine...

DibbyD

On this website, Honda says "The use of Premium fuel is recommended (but not required) for the 3.5L V-6 engine in the 2013 RDX." Scroll down to the section on Fuel Tank and Driving Range.

http://www.honda.com/newsandviews/ar...spx?id=6554-en

Syzygy

I have 2 1/2 year old twins and just traded my 2008 RDX for a 2012 MDX. The RDX was starting to feel really cramped. Having a double stroller in the back along with a couple of booster seats and a diaper bag or two doesn't leave a lot of space for much else. I found that I was constantly having to re-organize everything in the back to get it to fit. And long trips, especially overnight trips, always seemed to require keeping a fair bit of gear on the floor in the back seat. That just ends up blocking the floor vents and in the summer it can make the kids pretty miserable.

By comparison, the MDX has a ton more space in the back with the 3rd row folded down. Most of the time this is how we use it. My wife can also fit in between the car seats in the second row much easier than in the RDX. It's still tight, but the RDX was nearly impossible. The MDX just offers a much higher convenience factor right now for us, although it is quite a bit worse on gas.

I also had no trouble installing 1 of the car seats in the 3rd row and leaving half of the 3rd row folded down. It was pretty decent as far as cargo space and allowed us to bring the grandparents along.

I guess it all depends on how you use your vehicle. We do a lot of day/weekend trips so the extra space in the MDX is a big plus. I am really happy with the MDX. I sometimes miss the center console of the RDX but the rear climate control is much more useful on a daily basis.

Litt

We have the MDX and 2 kids with carseats. The 3rd row is always folded down. I have often thought that we could make due with an RDX. I guess the main thing is that the trunk is very large. That's nice to have the extra space. I suppose that if you think you can fit your double stroller back there and a diaper bag in an RDX then go for the RDX.

The MDX is the perfect car! no doubt. except the fuel economy is very poor, and it costs more than the RDX.

MardiGras

The RDX section at Acura.com under Engine Specifications says: "Required Fuel -- Premium unleaded 91 octane", with a footnote that states: "Using gasoline with an octane lower than 91 octane may cause damage to the engine. Please consult the owner's manual for details."

It's all right here: http://www.acura.com/Engine.aspx?mod...modelYear=2013

Whether it is "Required" or "Recommended", why bother going against the manufacturer by using a lower octane fuel that will net you reduced power, performance, & gas mileage, and possibly damage the engine with no savings in the end??

atlACURAboi

I drove a loaded up 2013 RDX yesterday. Really liked it. Im in a 2011 TSX V6 now, wish i was further into my lease to trade, because the dealer has the exact one i want. Great car, lots of power, room, and loved the HD display screen. Sales rep said i can use REGULAR gas in the car. I DO NOT have to put premium in it.

MardiGras

Good luck with that. Worst thing you can do is believe a freakin' sales rep over the engineers who designed & built the vehicle!

Onac

And you are believing a webmaster who is giving you out dated info. It lists all those other Acura cars in the foot note, note just the 2013 RDX. The webmaster just reused a footnote. Hopefully Acura updates their website soon to end all the confusion going around. It also says to check the manual for details and the manual says different. I will trust a manual over a website.

Of course with all that said I will still probably put 91 in since I drive so little miles a year the different between 91 and 87 is like $10 a month at most.

Onac

http://www.honda.com/newsandviews/ar...spx?id=6554-en

"The RDX's 16-gallon fuel tank is located in a protected position under the body and forward of the rear wheels. The RDX has an EPA estimated* city/highway/combined fuel economy of 19/27/22 mpg (AWD) and 20/28/23 (2WD), which gives it an estimated highway range of approximately 430 miles (AWD) and 450 miles (2WD) miles on one tank of fuel. The use of Premium fuel is recommended (but not required) for the 3.5L V-6 engine in the 2013 RDX."

DubSilk

My wife and I went to the car show to check out possible vehicles for our soon-to-be-arriving bundle of joy. Our major concern, of course, was rear facing car seats.

We are considering the 2013 Subaru Outback, Toyota Venza, and, after the car show, the new RDX. Even though I have driven an Acura for years, we hadn't considered the RDX because we figured it would be too small. We were pleasantly surprised by the room in the rear when we checked it out at the car show.

When we returned home, we checked the numbers, which confirmed what we discovered at the car show. The size of the rear seats of all the vehicles are comparable - HUGE.

We have test driven the 2012 Outback already (waiting for the 2013s to hit the showrooms), and we will check out the RDX in a week or two.

HotRodW

So have you driven the Venza yet? I drove one last summer before buying our Q5, and I was very disappointed in it. It rode rather harshly, and yet it still didn't handle very well. And I thought the interior materials felt cheap for a $40k vehicle. It is being updated for 2013, but from what I hear it's primarily just styling tweaks. I'm looking to replace my Forester in the next year, and the RDX, Outback, allroad and GLK (diesel) are at the top of my list.

DubSilk

We haven't driven the Venza yet. While I am not a huge fan of Toyotas, it made the list based on the comparable size numbers. It is really a two car race between the Outback and the RDX. Thanks for the heads up. We will take it for a spin AFTER the RDX.

Opus360

+1 on Venza ride.

My co-worker has a Venza, and I don't like the ride at all - very stiff, sport car like. For comparison, I looked at and test drove the Audi Q5, Toyota Highlander, Acura RDX 2013, MDX and BMW X3, and all these SUV got a better ride than the Venza. I would suggest looking at the Highlander instead - it rides very comfortably.

jfarabaugh

I just bought a 2013 RDX (waiting for delivery still). we are expecting our first child in July and I took our Britax car seat with to see how it fits. Keep in mind that the Britax seat we have is one of the larger rear facing car seats. I had to move the front seat up some but it is still very usuable (at 6' i could still use it). Unlike in my RL where I had to max the front seat up to the point where my 5' 2" wife could no longer sit in it.
Also try to keep in mind that they are not rear facing for all that long but you still need a usable front seat.

40k for an RDX or 40k for a venza is a no brainer IMO

Onac

Is your seat the Chaperone? Our little girl is coming in August and that is the Britax seat we have. Was going to bring it in to the dealer with us when we do our test drive. Sadly our dealer doesn't have any AWD yet.

jfarabaugh

We have the B-Safe which I think is maybe .5" to 1" smaller than the Chaperone. It should fit still. My wife already said that she will be riding in the back with our little girl until the seat is turned around anyway.

Dealer just emailed me....ours wont be delivered until the 26th
why it takes 10 days to get from ohio to eastern PA in beyond me.

compewterbleu

Crazy, I know two guys who are single looking to purchase one of these, one works in the finance department at the dealership. I'm single and it appealed to me...did they put crack in the paint or something? LOL!

Rocketsfan

Hey! I'm single and considering it. It actually makes sense for my road trips where I need more room than my 3G TL. Not to mention every now and then I need more room to bring crap home from Home Depot or something. Of course, I hated it at first... then decided to go check it out one more time and liked it. lol.

DizkoDan

Not really crazy that single men are interested in the rdx. That was originally the target audience. I'm more surprised that people are interested in the '13, since it lost a lot of the original appeal.

Onac

That was the problem with the first gen. It's target audience was way too small and sales proved that. Maybe I am getting older (38 now with a little one on the way) or more responsible but being able to "corner" in my suv is just not any where near the top of my requirements. RDX wasn't even on my list of cars until the 13 with its smoother ride and better cabin feel. Will probably lease it though and switch to a MDX when it is redesigned.

DizkoDan

That's not quite what I meant. The 1st gen rdx was all about performance, technology, and luxury (with a bit of utility) blended. The sh-awd system is a lot more than being able to "corner". It's a far superior awd system than any other that honda uses. You know, for situations where you actually need awd like bad weather. It's just a bonus that it adds to the overall handling abilities of the vehicle.

You are correct though that the market was small for such a vehicle. They are doing the right thing for sales, but I think it's safe to say that the majority of current 1st gen rdx owners are not in the new target audience.

I'm not saying anything bad about the new one, I think it's great for what it is now. A classier crv.