For those who have driven a 2016 and 2017 Acura RDX, is it worth it to get the AWD? I like the idea of getting AWD, but I live in a place that never gets snow. It is so much harder to find AWD in stock than 2WD. We get a lot of rain, and I very frequently drive through rain. Is AWD worth it? Does it add anything to acceleration, steering, and improved driving experience?

 

No.
If it's not suited for your terrain, it's not worth it. It does not provide any handling advantages, but may reduce wheel spin while climbing in twisty slippery conditions (please note that the RDX does not offer SHAWD which has some handling benefs). From your description it seems that you live in a flat land. Enjoy the fuel economy benefits of FWD.

 

Go FWD for reasons Comfy posted.

 

B.s., if it rains a lot, get AWD, 1 mpg is nothing, at least you won't be spinning your front wheels all the damn time when the roads are wet, unless you plan on driving like a grandma.

 

As Comfy posted "please note that the RDX does not offer SHAWD which has some handling benefits"

I'll add the AWD system presently in the RDX is far from great and offer little if anything with handling.

 

Might want to look into your driving habits or tires if you're always spinning your tires when the roads are wet

OP: If it doesn't snow and you don't go off roading, as others mentioned, not really worth it... AWD is the norm in some areas (ie north east) but is not an asset in others, like the climate you are describing... you'll just be spending more on maintenance and the purchase price with minimal, if any, benefit.

 

Let's not repeat ourselves all over. There are a few threads which have already discussed this in detail. The OP might want to look into those.
Here's one FYI.
https://acurazine.com/forums/second-...l-junk-941219/

 

I've had my 06 TSX and 08 RDX as my two main daily drivers for a while in NM (4-6 inches of precipitation per year average). The biggest factor I found are a good set of tires 1st, driving skills 2nd, driving aid like VSA/anti-lock brakes 3rd, and then awd/sh-awd 4th. My fwd TSX with Conti DWS tires handled 6 inches snow so much better than my sh-awd RDX with OEM Michelin (improved acceleration, handling, and braking with DWS in snow). It was the same Conti DWS advantage over OEM for wet roads, slush, and below freezing temps. I ended up switching to Conti DWS for all three vehicles for those occasional weather extremes between the bright sunny days.

Since all 3 vehicles have Conti DWS, the downsides with my sh-awd is mpgs, extra $$ for maint (transfer case & rear diff oil changes), minor HP/TQ loss because of powering extra drive train components+weight, and additional rear tire wear. Totally worth it since I can get 20X more use from sh-awd at any speed (especially in the corners) in dry weather compared to the just +13 awd low speed bad weather system. You might be paying extra for something when a good set of tires can be a better fix.

 

Here's another one. https://acurazine.com/forums/second-...r-snow-936786/

The general consensus seems to be to get good winter tires first rather than AWD. But we don't make rational choices all of the time. Therefore do what makes you happy whether it's AWD or upgraded tires or roofrails. .

 

I have a 16 AWD, coming from a 13 FWD, and live in a wet/dry climate with less than one snowfall per year. I went with AWD for its ability to put down the power under moderate acceleration. It's not the best AWD system, but I have a heavy foot and like that it feels more firmly planted than the FWD. Wheel spin on rainy days was common in the FWD, but almost impossible in the AWD. I'd buy AWD again.

 

AWD on the RDX is just a complication you don't really need. It's not particularly useful or refined.

 

I would get the AWD if it rains a lot in your area. I got AWD and I live in Southern California! Well I do go up to the mountains when it snows, but still. AWD and I've never regretted it.

 

We should keep in mind that some people simply like to spin wheels at every stop light (akin to some like letting the rear end drift at corners in RWD cars). So everyone makes their own choices and there's no right or wrong answer.

 

Why get an SUV if you don't have AWD is my philosophy. I live in Florida, and we don't get snow but for a day or two every 30 years. I like AWD for it's performance in the rain (we get tons of that..."Sunshine State" my butt), and the wheels are a lot tougher to spin on dry pavement.

The RDX has tons of pick-up power, which I love, but in the FWD (which I've driven a few times as a loaner) spins like crazy. No, I don't drive like "grandma"...which is why I picked an RDX.

 

YES THIS 1000%!!! THANK YOU! I live in a city where we get heavy heavy snow 8-10 months of the year, and yet I still see people buying fwd suv's why?!

 

This is a good argument and would kill the dilemma for many people. .

 

We have no choice in Canada. We have no 2WD even available on the RDX or MDX. Most of our country gets snow though, save perhaps BC, and its fairly rare there.

 

Good point. But I wasn't referring to just the Acura suv's. I meant in general. But living in Canada, I would take awd and snow tires any day of the week over the alternatives.

 

Is it the worlds greatest AWD system? No
Is it ever useful? Yes

Also, we live in a rural area, and I would never consider getting a car without a spare tire. With the FWD, it doesn't come with a spare so adding it would have been an additional expense. With the AWD model it's included, lowering the effective cost to add AWD to under $1000.

 

unless you live somewhere with a fair amount of snow or you go off road the AWD will be of no use. The system only engages after a certain amount of wheel slip is detected... it works but as a direct comparison to my Subaru Legacies, it's not good at all. It does what it is designed to do, help you get started on slippery surfaces. The plus side is that the V6 is downright enjoyable in that SUV.

 

I remember when the 2016 came out, they said they tweaked the awd system to send more power to the rear and also to send some to the rear when cornering. I am sure it probably only sends like 20% or less during turns to avoid binding the awd system.

But of course this system has NOTHING on the shawd system. Can't even hold a spark to it. I honestly think shawd is superior to quattro, 4matic, and even low levels of x-drive (a.k.a ones without the active rear diff). It is a damn shame they took it out of the rdx.

 

About 10 years ago, AutoMotorSport (the German equivalent of Car&Driver and Road&Track) tested the E350, 535, A6 and the Legend (the RL was sold in Europe as the Honda Legend). They weren't impressed with the SH-AWD and ranked the drive systems as follows - 4Matic, x-drive, Quattro and SH-AWD.

Here is a link to the article E 350, 530 xi, A6, Honda Legend: Drei-Wetter-Haft - AUTO MOTOR UND SPORT

 

The new Honda Pilot and I think the all new Honda Ridgeline will have the exact same awd system as the MDX. Honda changed the programming where it doesn't do the rear TQ split left/right like the MDX can. You might come out the same price/feature wise picking a maxed out Pilot/Ridgeline compared to +17 RDX Adv awd? You would have the advantage of more space, same mpgs, better awd system than RDX, haggle more on price, same technology, more towing, and more dealership to service the vehicle.

 

mostly a weight saving choice and it offers superior fuel economy over SH-AWD.. Gotta step up to the MDX to get that though... I had a 2013 RDX for about a week and it was good in the snow overall but I was not a big fan of the front end sliding around before it decided to engage the rear wheels at which point it straightened right up,

 

Except that the Pilot is currently a hot seller with few discounts.

 

I imagine the Pilot/Ridgeline will have the typical 1st/2nd year bugs like Acura. Since the tech and transmission bugs have already been addressed with the MDX and TLX, the Honda Polit/Ridgeline could be a more reliable 1st/2nd year long-term vehicle (compared to the 9AT issues with 2015 TLX). It might also be an added bonus the Ridgeline (and certain Pilot versions) only comes with the proven 6AT that seemed to get better mpgs in the 14-15 MDX compared to the +16 MDX+9AT. I would have to take all three for a test drive that are similarly priced with the same features and see which one might support my lifestyle the best long-term.

The lines are really getting blurred with Honda and Acura. Other than body style, suspension settings, and higher price for an Acura; there isn't much difference to the average consumer comparing both car companies.

 

I wish the link was in english, though I am sure I can easily translate it using google.

But I was talking from a personal perspective. I have extensive experience with quattro (on my 3 touaregs) and x-drive on my 2 X5's (05 and 08). I have driven 4matic but not long enough to make a confident decision. Though given the other 2 rear biased awd systems, I would not be surprised.

Quattro was amazing in mud, any offroad situations, and could really handle the constant beating. But when it came to on road icy conditions it was a nightmare. If I took a turn just slightly too quick it would over steer and do a complete 360. If I was already going in a straight line and pressed the gas pedal harder, it would start sliding sideways in the direction of one of the rear wheels. If I was at a stop light and it was icy, it would again start sliding sideways on one of the rear wheels.

X-drive behaved like Quattro on icy roads, but it couldn't handle the offroad stuff at all. Mud and deep snow were scary to drive in and it would go nowhere. Keep in mind both the X5 and the touareg had michelin all season tires.

SH-AWD on the other hand did not care if it was icy, it could not care less. I could watch the MID as I was starting to move on an icy patch at a stop light and see the system sometimes sending more power to one rear wheel but I would still keep going straight. Mash the throttle while already in motion and it would keep going straight, no side to side motions. I never took my rdx offroad for obvious reasons, but I am more than certain it can handle the mud given how well it drove in deep snow and other bad road conditions. The RDX had new Michelin winter tires though.

The other thing is that those other awd systems send 70% rear and 30% front under most conditions and while they could send something like 95% to the rear, they can't really send 100% of rear power to one wheel like SH-AWD can unless you get the system on the X5/6 M packages.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP2DWeK4QKA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhP3lls0gFk

Skip to 3:30s on the second video and watch quattro and 4matic try and get up the hill.

Why link no work? I tried changing the m from mobile format to www in the link.

 

Sorry I forgot to respond to you. While I understand there was a weight savings, in total they could have saved much more weight by using aluminum or magnesium in the suspension vs taking out a superior premium awd system. The front end slide is an inherent design failure in all these slip and grip awd systems. You gotta slip to gain traction and in the rdx they don't even give you an AWD lock button to help you get around this.

 

^it's all good... besides we know what they are up to with the RDX, better value compared to others in the class.. (they are pretty good at it) and unfortunately the AWD is a check box item vs. a really useful item. Even Foresters let you lock the AWD via X mode. an AWD lock would go a long ways imho...

 

Exactly. It seems the 2G is 100% a value play. While I agree you get A LOT for the money and that there is A LOT to love. But I just don't agree with that approach. I feel like they sacrificed too much in order to meet a price point. SH-AWD should not have ever been on the table.

 

I get where you're coming from, but it's from the point of practicality. At that point, you should be driving, at best, the speed limit and accelerating at a rate that does not leave other vehicles behind you...IOW it should be an "even playing field." I don't believe I belong in such a world, therefore, I want to leave my compatriots in the dust if I can...yes, I believe I am close to the best on the road in my class and I do not need to submit to them just so they may feel good about themselves. I WANT TO BE BETTER, AND AM (in the performance category) and I won't shy away from it.

 

I live in Canada and in some days in winter, we get heavy snow. The AWD on the 2016 Acura RDX works very, very well. I have had this vehicle for almost a year now and have had no problems driving through massive snow storms (driving past other cars, often sedans and probably 2 wheel drive, that are stuck in the snow).

 

When you are driving the RDX, have you ever thought that you may not be in the right car for the job (I mean best on the road - in terms of performance) - with due respect , Sir. May be a Porsche would be just at home with you. I presume you already have those.

 

The RDX accelerates faster than most cars in its class, and is one of the fastest vehicles that you'll generally see on the road. It goes from 0 to 60 mph or 0 to about 100 km/h in 6.2 seconds. That is FAST!!! The base Porsche Macan has a time of 6.7 seconds. Putting the RDX into Sport mode makes it even faster. To get the performance (and other features) of the RDX in other vehicles you would have to pay substantially more. Example: with the Porsche Macan, you'll have to pay $20,000 (Canadian) more to get a trim that is faster than the RDX and with the features that the RDX offers.

 

acceleration is only one aspect of performance... I could care less that it can get to 60mph in under 6.5 seconds as I am not out there constantly racing light to light (you'll understand when you get older....hopefully). A Jeep Grand Cherokee will utterly lay waste to the RDX in terms of accelerations especially when outfitted with the hellcat trim package... and that thing weighs in at about 2000lbs more....and had a REAL AWD system with nearly 3x the power

 

The Jeep brand is not as prestigious or luxurious as an Acura. I highly doubt (without modifications) that the Jeep Grand Cherokee can achieve the speed of an Acura RDX. Do you have any numbers to back up your claim? The RDX does 0 to 60 in 6.2 seconds.

 

The other way to look at it is.....
A German magazine tests German cars against a Japanese one and ranks all three German cars above the Japanese one. Anyone surprised here......? The result would have been more credible if the tests were done by a non- German magazine. Just saying....

 

Oh, RLY?

Jeep Cherokee SRT8 will blast to 60 (with REAL AWD mind you) in 4.5 seconds
Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT Reviews - Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT Price, Photos, and Specs - Car and Driver

The Hellcat does it in less than 4 seconds
2017 Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk: 25 Cars Worth Waiting For ? Feature ? Car and Driver

The RDX takes an ETERNITY at 6.2 to 6.4 to get to 60mph
2013 Acura RDX First Drive ? Review ? Car and Driver

yeah, that's what I figured.... and yes the Grand Cherokee is considered Jeeps Luxury vehicle and it has an interior to match in terms of niceities

 

I hate to say it but now you are comparing a $65,000 to 70,000 car (SRT) to car costing $35-40,000. I figure the hellcat will cost even more.
The Jeep has a large range in price depending on trim levels. Anyone who is cross shopping these vehicles would be comparing only those which are evenly price matched. I agree that jeep has a nice interior as well as real AWD.
But otherwise Rockyboy has a point.

 

I know that, you gotta read what rockyboy was saying about the RDX being fast :o so I put it in perspective.. Today a car with a mid 6 second 0-60 time is considered average....not fast

"The Jeep brand is not as prestigious or luxurious as an Acura. I highly doubt (without modifications) that the Jeep Grand Cherokee can achieve the speed of an Acura RDX. Do you have any numbers to back up your claim? The RDX does 0 to 60 in 6.2 seconds. "

I know what the RDX is and I have stated on MULTIPLE occasions that I like it, but to call it luxury on par with Lexus is ludicrous.... He also claimed that the Jeep was slower and it is not....unless you buy the base V6 and that comes it at a prince significantly less than a RDX so that really is not a valid comparison considering it is over $11K less but if you must know 7.1 is not that bad either considering the helft of the vehicle involved...

I have owned multiple Hondas and Acuras over the years and let me tell you this, they have steadily gone down hill in terms of quality AND performance... Honda's refusal to pop out a V8 for Acura and to keep their quality up is what has caused them to suffer. The last GOOD Acura they made was the 2004-05TL it had good features, decent quality and good acceleration... Anyone want to explain to me why a 2004 TL is not slower than a TLX V6 despite being over 12 years older and the TLX having .3L more and 20 more hp? and having roughly the same curb weight?