Hi, first post here!

I have a murano that is ending its lease, buy back is 17.5 (not bad). I like it overall, but it sucks in the snow ( I have goodyear fortera tripletread tires), and I dont really trust the cvt transmission

my requirements:
1) good handling in the snow....I live in the snow belt, I drive slowly, but I just dont feel comfortable in the Mo
2) good highway cruiser...I drive 500 miles a week on the highway, I just put the cruise on 80ish and go, I need to feel comfortable driving at that speed that the car can handle it
3) reliability....so much time on the road, must be reliable (this is where Im afraid of nissan cvt)

thats my requirement....I checked the MDX: I dont need 7 seats, the maxda cx-5 type are too small for my liking, and the Infinity FX looks real ugly lol
I like crossovers cuz I like to sit up on the highway

I really enjoyed the q5: but the reliability (water pump, carbon build up) have turned me off

I recently stumbled onto the RDX, and the more I see it, the best value proposition it seems...I liked how it drove (but I know the new 1 doesnt have the sh-awd so I dont know how the new awd system is)....I used to have an Audi, so I think the quattro spoiled my driving lol

I guess Im looking for:
1) why I shouldnt buy the 1st gen rdx...being in the snow belt, I think sh awd would be awesome
2) is the tech pacakage necessary?
3) what made you buy 2013 rdx over the competitor?

Thanks for any input!

 

I've owned many, many cars, trucks, and SUV's. Not an expert....but, very knowledgeable and with pretty good common sense. Owned 3 CRV's; 07, 09, and an '11 my most recent AWD models before my '13 AWD Tech RDX.

You don't need Sh-awd in an RDX for winter driving. The '13 RDX gets around quite well. I am in snow country. I have tested it on lonely snowy, icy back roads to see what it would do...or not do. I was impressed. So, driven "sanely" the new RDX is very impressive. My wife drives it every day to work.

It has comfort, roominess, fairly quiet, nice options....and I like Acura's warranty policy.
Each to their own. The Tech version, to me is not necessary, even though I do have it, I could live without it. Some can't.

For the price....I believe it's a great buy...especially if you can negotiate a decent discount. Acuras have great re-sale value....another reason I chose it.
Fewer "issues" per vehicle vs many others.

Is it perfect...no, but, no vehicle is. I make a list of pros and cons. If the pro list is quite a bit longer than the con list then it's probably a go for me. Since I normally don't get to drive it until the weekends.....every time I get behind the wheel and take it somewhere....I'm always saying..."I like this thing...and I'm glad I bought it."
During the week, when I do go out, I have a '13 Acura TSX Special Edition. Super nice car. Again, great value for the money. The TSX has a great reputation. It was a no brainer for me to buy it.

It's got great power, almost the same fuel mileage I was getting with the 4 cyl. CRV's, is comfortable to drive, ergonomics are pretty darn good.....so I have no regrets at all.

Some people want "perfection" and keep trying to find it....by finding "problems" with their latest purchase. Just know...the perfect SUV, car, truck...is not out there. Just use the basic rules...that I use. Price and what do you get? How well does the value hold up at the 3 yr. and 5 yr. points? Repair history.....hey, it's an Acura. Yes, some other brands tend to offer more for a lower price or close....but, they fail when it comes to repairs (how often), re-sale value at the 3 yr. point....so the "initial" cost/value may look good....but, down the road that fades away in most cases. Honda Motor Corp. has a very positive reputation for a reason. They make pretty darn good vehicles. Never perfect....do I need to go there again??......but, make some great valued vehicles.

Don't know if that helps....but, it's my experiences and I'm sticking to it! LOL!!

 

Hi there! welcome to the forum.

I have a base 2WD '13 RDX and live in Texas so I can't comment on how the AWD is.
To me the gas mileage, size (I got 2 kids), handling-comfort, value, reliability and resale that won me over. It was the '13 RDX or a used '10 RX.

I didn't go with the tech package coz I didn't need fog lights or the nav. Only gripe was the power lift gate, oh well. I've now added HID lights via a simple and cheap DIY install.

About the previous RDX all I heard/read was the '13 is more refined/smooth driving at the expense of sportiness.

 

I share the same opinion as "Colorado Guy" on this issue...I think he hit the nail on the head with his post.

 

Ditto from my side as well.

2013 RDX has the value proposition nailed. BMW X3 may drive better, MB may have the brand cachet, Q5 may be sexier but when it comes to the complete package, comfortably under 40K (even fully loaded), none of the above 3 come close.

Plus don't forget the reliability aspect. A close friend of mine bought the new X3 last year and he pretty much has been making monthly visits to the dealership for "this and that" issues. All have been covered under warranty, but I could never afford the hassle and time.

Good luck with your decision.

 

I'm really only going to add one additional thought to what the others have said as I agree with them...the RDX is a really good value when you compare it to it's direct competitors. I personally believe the Tech package is worth it to ge the "luxury" options so many are looking for in this segment. I looked at the base and felt like there were just too many things missing (especially relative to it's competitors) and opted for the Tech. Every day I'm glad I did and I still paid less than I would have for the majority of the competitors.

What I regret is not getting AWD. It sounds like AWD is a given for you because of your location so this may not be helpful for you but it may be to others considering purchase who read this thread. I don't live in the snow belt but we get occasional snow. This winter has had more than in recent years so we have been able to evaluate the RDX in sloppy, slippery conditions quite often. My other car is AWD so we have a better option for the really nasty stuff. And I convinced myself that FWD with traction control should be adequate for the type and frequency of snow we get.

What I did not consider is now much power the RDX has and how that would impact driving in the snow, or even rain for that matter. Don't get me wrong...I LOVE the power of this car. But it's almost overpowered for FWD. Any sort of wet or slippery conditions and you have to consciously accelerate easily or the front wheels will spin. From a stop, I am aware of the power and make sure I accelerate as conditions dictate. However, last week I was trying to merge into an entry lane to get on the highway. As I was attempting to do so, a truck forced its way into the lane and I had to slam on my brakes so as not to run into him. Of course he decided to then go so slowly that everyone was going around him to get into the highway entry lane. I opted to do that as well, and as I went to pull around him, I accelerated rather aggressively, partly out of frustration and partly because doing so in this car is lots of fun. The ground was dry, but the pavement and tires were cold due to the temp. I was probably going 15-20 mph at the time, and when I got on the gas, the front tires lit up like I was at a drag strip, smoke and sound effects for everyone around me.

My wife who was sitting in the passenger seat was, as they say, not pleased. After she was done scolding me, I told her "I honestly did not expect that to happen. My car does not have that kind of power and we were already moving so the tires breaking loose like that was a surprise." Inside, of course, I was thinking "@#$%, that was cool."

Looking back on it, I should have paid the extra $1,900 or so that the AWD cost. It would certainly make the RDX more manageable in lower traction conditions.

 

Another point:

According to recently released KBB cost-to- own awards for 2013:

LUXURY COMPACT SUV/CROSSOVER: Acura RDX

Only Acura on the list. No Audi, BMW or MB anywhere. Lexus and Toyota did sweep a whole lot!

 

1) what does tech package add?

2) for any 1st gen rdx onto 2nd gen rx....was it worth it? im finding great deals on first gen...but i suspect there is a reason for that

q5 is out: reliability
i have rx and rdx on my top list

 

thanks for input....i always use awd cars...snow belt is unpredictable

 

If the RX is on your list, I'd add the XC60...especially on a lease. Some pretty good deals out there if you keep the mileage down and don't need the 300hp T6.

 

thanks for post

what are the cons in your book?

 

Im trying to stay away from lease....I drive 500 miles each weekend

plus how is volvo reliability? i thought it wasnt that hot?

 

the volvo offer is 449 per month, nothing up front....but thats only for fwd version and a 10k limit per year.....I drive more than that

 

I have the AWD model and experienced the front wheel spin you did in exactly the same scenario. I used to drive a RWD G35 coupe and I was shocked when the RDX lit up the tires like it did prior to taking off like a bat out of hell. Apparently the rear axle doesn't get any power until the front slips. I think it probably hooks up pretty quick when driven sanely, but an aggressive sudden move out of frustration will allow the front tires to report and spin before the rear gets the message and power gets redistributed.

 

The RDX is a compelling package. It's comfortable, the right size and a solid value. Had Acura kept the SH-AWD, I probably wouldn't have looked elsewhere myself. I understand the reasoning behind it, but I also find it frustrating that you have to purchase the Tech package to get some features I feel should be standard.

 

How'd the mileage work out on the Murano? Are you over or OK? Sorry I forgot the part about the 500 miles a week on the highway. No free lunch, as they say.(My sales rep days were 1000 miles a week for about half the year).

You could still get a decent lease price on a Volvo AWD and 15k miles, but adding goodies would jack up the price considerably. There should be some killer deals on leftover 2012 models...very little change for '13...part of the reason we switched.

We had no serious issues in 56k miles(3.4 years) and I've not heard of any 'typical' problems out of warranty.(a few posts about oil consumption; but I guessing those are a tiny percentage) Comparing comparably equipped 2013 models, I'd stick with the RDX. Unless you wanted to lease again, it would take a close-out deal on a 2012 Volvo to make the numbers even out.

 

I'm curious ... how was the XC60's fuel mileage? And how did it compare to the RDX?

I really, really liked the R-Design, but driving 25k+ miles/year I was concerned about fuel costs. I know it doesn't require premium, and the instant readout indicated I was doing considerably better than its EPA ratings on my test drive, but I was still too concerned to pull the trigger. Just wondering what real world results would have been.

 

i am 2k over the limit with 5 months to go....but the first 1.5 year was only 10k miles, and then with different job came the more miles

so let me get this straight: 2013 rdx, but i should consider 2012 xc60 if i get a killer deal (how do you define that? like 4k of msrp?)

 

i would say the lack of shawd is why the rdx hasnt closed the deal for me.....Im feverishly checking sites to see how people have fared this winter

from experience I know sh awd, bmw, audi, volvos have good awd system, but Im not sure how this acura awd is?

 

Reports are the newer model years are getting 22-24 overall, not a lot more on the highway(our best ever was 24+ on a 500mile highway trip). Our overall was right at 19, I'm afraid; so we've picked up 10-15% with the RDX.(right at 22 overall in town with 26+ on the highway) The XC is 300hp for the T6 and 325 for the R-design; so you're paying for that extra punch.

Honestly, I think the XC requires a serious deal to compete with the RDX. Many of the deals on the '12 XC leftovers were more like 6-8k off sticker, depending on equipment. Don't know how many are still out there. They really blew through them Sept-Dec.

Of course, buying a year 'behind' means it will take longer for the 'payoff' to be realized if you trade or sell. 10 years from now, it won't matter...you got a good deal; but 4 years from now you'd likely feel the pinch of a one year-older vehicle.

 

any rebuttals to the negatives this guy pointed out?

 

I went from driving a Lexus 330 RX, which was like driving a Greyhound bus, to a TL, which was a spirited ride. The RDX is right in the middle, the best of both worlds. There are tradeoffs. The FX37 was a rocket ship, but no decent sized adult can fit in the back seat. The BMW would be a great ride, but I question its reliability. The Audi is probably nicer, but your going to pay a lot more for it.

The RDX to me was a great blend of smooth, quiet ride, lively acceleration, decent handling, utility and price.

 

I think that review is pretty accurate with regard to the plusses and shortcomings. The only thing I think is overblown is his summary of the handling...for 95% of the driving that most of us do, it is set up well and very composed. There really isn't as much body roll as he implies. I do notice that due to the short wheelbase of most of the vehicles in this segment, you can get a bit of a seesaw effect on repetitive bumps like shown in the clip, but that is mainly a geometry/physics issue that only a longer wheelbase will alleviate.

 

Hmmmm.... Interesting how the CR negative review of driving through the cones contrasts with the positive MotorWeek review: "At our test track, the RDX’s electric-assist power steering felt great, and diving through the cones was easier than we were expecting given the absence of super-handling all-wheel-drive. Front end reaction is direct and turn-ins sharp, while body roll is moderate."

 

I'm not sure if the original poster got the feedback they were looking for comparing the gen 1 RDX to the gen 2. I've only driven the gen 1 for about 48 hours as a loaner but to me the V6 is much smoother than the Turbo 4. The biggest difference to me was the interior. I found the gen 1 to be much more Honda-like as far as fit and finish, whereas the Gen 2 is much more Audi/Lexus style.

If you are looking for the best possible value (as the Gen 1 would only be lot leftovers) and are the kind of person who will add performance modifications (chips/exhaust) - the gen 1 may be for you. Otherwise I think everyone else's input on this thread is spot on.

 

Well, they would be "picky issues" and nice to have items.
1. Extra passenger seat adjustments
2. Less steps to get phone book into the system if you have the Tech. Pckg.
3. A Bose sound system since the ELS is outdated...meaning to fully enjoy you have to find and buy DVD-A discs that are expensive and hard to find. That "system" went out of "business" years ago. I do have the Beatles "Love" DVD-A and you've never heard those songs like that before!! Wow! But, selections of that musical platform are limited and some can cost well over $200. I tried!!
4. I like the "new look" clean, neat rear valance area with the twin exhaust outlets "tucked up" and hidden.....BUT, with that said.....a "well done, blended into the lower valance exhaust outlets in polished aluminum....would look nice. Not like the MDX. They are too big and not proportional to the surrounding body design.

So, I really can't think of much else. I know some on here have their "beefs" but, I am very satisfied with what they've done. Again, no vehicle is perfect for everyone. We all want more, etc.
The plusses greatly outweigh the minuses.

The Pearl White color shows off the lines of this RDX quite well. It's richer looking than the other colors. I have the Parchment interior with the "wood" accents. We get lots of compliments.

 

thanks, i guess my question comes down to:

are all the advantages of the 2nd gen enough to overcome the lack of sh awd....the CR video of the tires not getting traction when starting in the rain does not inspire confidence at all

 

^^^ I would say yes.....Unless SH-AWD is the only reason you were considering Acura's brand. In other words, if you like an Audi or a BMW but what drew you to Acura was the SH-AWD, then yeah, you will be disappointed but Colorado Guy articulated quite nicely the advantages of the RDX. Keep in mind that while the 2nd Gen is worth it for me, at the end of the day, you need to make that list of pros and cons and then make the decision based on which column wins Best of luck...

 

hi, yes awd is VERY important to me, my driving is necessary in all 4 weather seasons

imo, audi, bmw, volvo, sh awd acura, subaru are tops of the awd system (ive never driven MB AWD so cant comment).

but with my busy schedule, I need to minimize reliability issues....that really takes the germans out of it, while they make really awesome cars, due to complications of how intricate everything is, some sort of problem always arises

i know i get the reliability with acura

 

You might want to check out the new Forester XT when it hits dealer showrooms. I'm not a CVT fan as a rule, but word is the Forester's new CVT does a pretty impressive impersonation of an 8-speed automatic when used in sport mode. With proven AWD, competitive gas mileage and potent turbo power, it sounds like a much improved option. If you can live without the premium badge and extras, that is.

 

Hi carfan, my 2012 RDX is a non-tech, AWD. I drive in snow country - and had many of the same worries you mention. I bought a set of studless snow tires (Blizzaks in my case -among several good options) for winter driving , and with them the RDX handles very well in snow. I've gone so far as to test the car aggressively in empty parking lots, with fairly deep snow/ice, and the handling is very good, surprisingly so. Even under hard accelleration and a hard turn, traction breaks down only on the sheerest ice - the kind of ice you'd fall on when walking. The good handling is partly a consequence of the AWD - and undoubtedly, partly due to good snow tires.

With my experience to date, I don't hesitate to recommend the RDX for snow country - but consider good snow tires. That might make all the difference.

 

does the rdx have a option to start the car in 2nd gear? (like a winter mode)

 

Yes. Put the trans in S mode and paddle shift to 2nd while stopped.

 

A read a review that indicated that the Forester is actually slower in the 8-speed automatic mode. Plus it gets worse fuel economy. It was probably put in for marketing reasons more so than anything else.

 

That may be true. It certainly makes sense ... the big advantage of the CVT is that the engine revs to the sweet spot and stays there for maximum efficiency and optimum acceleration. But a lot of people hate the slipping clutch/rubber band feel of CVT's. I think those people will be happy to burn a little more fuel if they can alleviate the conventional CVT characteristics. At least they'll have the choice. Plus the turbo is equipped with paddle shifters for manual shifting. Whether engine braking or having some fun on back roads, that's a nice feature to have. Of course, a manual would be a better option for that, but nobody buys them any more.

 

Like you, I ended up paring my choices down to the RX and the RDX, because both were considered high-resale quality crossovers. Based on that, the above CR video doesn't really address issues that would cause you to choose the RX over the RDX (maybe others, but not these two.) The RX is less "sporty," less fun to drive than the RDX, and in everything else--features wise--the RX simply costs more. Period.

I ended up opting for the RDX Tech pkg, because it was going to cost less. The Tech pkg includes flood lights, ELS sound system (including subwoofer), power lift gate, and Navigation (which I could have done without, especially with the iPhone 4s and Bluetooth.) Although, there is the voice-command technology, that works something like iPhone's Seri, which I'm still figuring out (preferring Seri at this point.)

Bottom line, I was getting a reliable, good quality, quieter ride, good sound system, basic features I really wanted, and nice interior for about $6K less.

 

i was watching a cnn report on the snowstorm in CT today

there were not many cars out (due to ban), but I saw a porsche cayenne and a first gen rdx out there plowing thru on the road....gave me chuckle

 

thanks for reply


reliability is really huge for me....and I want to put well over 100k on this car I buy

while audi has amazing awd, i cant look pass the issues theyve had

honestly, its down to rdx and rx

 

I live in snow country and test drove an RDX yesterday during a good snow storm. I'm getting ready to pull trigger on one and was also concerned how it would handle the bad snows here in Michigan versus my 2012 Tacoma 4x4. I was pleasantly suprised how well the RDX handled during our storm yesterday. It had no wheel slippage at take off in pretty heavy slush with the stock Michelins. After driving, I would be very comfortable owning one and winter driving, especially with Blizzaks.

 

Pick either one! Both are great. I didn't go for RX myself cuz most of the ladies in my area have one.

New RDX is something different (unique).