I do wish it were faster, but only if it doesn't increase the fuel economy.
There is also a rumour going around that Lexus will give the NX a V6 option which would give you more power. This is also great because it will likely take regular fuel too as the RX takes regular.}

EDIT:
Sorry, regular as in 87 instead of requiring 91. I'm not sure if 87 is called "regular" in the US.

 

Regular is regular. Premium or super (or ethyl if you're an old fart) is the 90+ stuff)

 

I am in Canada too man, from Edmonton. Loving the atomic silver, I don't think there is any ugly color for the NX actually. Really liking the black wheels too. And oh I see, so they decontented to cause more seperation between the trims? Seems stupid to me. When I was shopping for a lease a couple months back, they only had f-sport 1 and 2, no 3.

 

Thanks, those are my aftermarket wheels with my winters. They're nothing fancy, but it makes the car look more utilitarian.

Yeah the packaging for Lexus is not very flexible. They really make you pay a premium for F-Sport.

 

I think it is a very good contrast against the silver. I also noticed that about the packaging, no options at all. Everything was packages, but in their defense the packages are very attractive lol.

 

It really sounds like you want an NX as your next car =D

 

God I wish. I was about a minute from leasing and then buying, but chose not to till I finish my degree. That, and I actually prefer the mkc to the nx, even though the nx interior is WAY higher quality and nicer.

 

Now you see the problem with keeping your username as RDX10.......

 

I will forever have a soft spot for the 1G rdx. It would obliterate both the mkc and nx in ANY sporting competition. So my username is in reference to the 1G and in my defense the 2G is far far removed from what the 1G was (for both good and bad).

 

Bro, no offense intended, but these NX are fugly.I mean, wtf is the sense of proportion in this thing?

The RDX has some serious problems (crappy VCM, excessive body roll, too soft steering, noisy suspension, noisy brakes, no visible rear exhaust, lots of cheap plastic) but at least its design is ok

PS: What about the Hyndai Tucson (1.6T, limited AWD). I think it looks much better than the NX and slightly better than the RDX, but offering better driving dynamics and much better value. I like RWD biased-vehicles with firmer suspension, but the new Tucson is quite appealing

 

I agree!

 

Also agree with the bolded part.

 

I personally really like the look of the NX. It grew on me over a few months but now I really like it, especially with the F-Sport grill. The look does seem to be polarizing as some of the older people I've met are far more likely to find the look over-stylized while I've hardly met anyone around my age (I'm 26) that doesn't like the look.
I think Lexus's new style is also growing onto people in general as well. I remember when the 2013 IS came out I absolutely hated the design but now I'm okay with it. I think the spindle grill looks much better on the NX/RX than it does on the IS/GS though.

I just can't get over some of the styling for the RDX, especially the lower half of the front bumper where the fogs are. It looks extremely cheap to me with the slight buldge and it looks like the designers just weren't sure how to finish it off. I also don't like the new front shield of the 2016 RDX, I liked the shield on the 2015 more (but I really don't like the shield all that much to begin with). Also, on top of all that, the wheels on the RDX are really bad. I was okay with the 2013-2015 standard RDX wheels, but on the 2016, I really feel like the wheel design makes the car look cheap. The non elite look wheels look like hub-cap designs and the elite wheel doesn't look much better. I also tend to like cars that stand out and I feel that the RDX does not stand out much, even in a crowd of non-luxury cars. This is why I really liked my 4G TL, the look stood out to me.

Overall, it's all personal preferences, but I do get a lot of compliments for my NX. I think it'll take some of the older crowds a bit longer to start to appreciate Lexus's new design, but it's getting there.

 

I am still pinning my hopes that a Japanese automaker will fill the niche again for a true driver's SUV like the 1G RDX. Have to look to the Germans if you want that kind of feel.

That said, I'd probably be perfectly happy with a new RDX or NX, despite ugly wheels or goofy grills.

 

I really hope Acura wakes up with the next generation rdx. They don't have the brand cache to charge as much as lexus right now, so STOP trying to be like lexus. You can't and won't do it at a budget.

You pick luxury or sport, if you want both, you raise the price to accommodate. If you insist on doing both at the same time and at a lower price, you better really mean it. Don't give a lukewarm offering.

Would I be happy with an nx or a 2G rdx. I don't know, tough call. I really want that drivers SUV back again. But maybe this time they can make it less polarizing than the 1G and also have a nicer looking and roomier interior. SHAWD is not a miracle system, you gotta give it something to work with. Even if they gave the 2G SHAWD, it would have still fallen flat on its' face in corners. If my family or a friends wanted an rdx, I don't have any reservations against it and could whole heartedly recommend it to them. It just isn't for me.

 

You've got to remember that the average consumer isn't on this forum and most would be quite happy with the RDX as-is. It has a decent reputation, good price point and lots of content. It has gotten good IIHS reviews and the fit and finish is better than most competitors. Where Lincoln has the boat anchor of being a car for the retired people hanging around its neck, the Acura has the reputation of being an upscale car without an age implication.

My 92 year old mom is a Lexus fan. She still (pretty competently I might add) drives her 2002 RX 300 that looks and drives like new. She is seeing some of the advantages of newer cars (backup camera, blind spot and cross traffic warning) and has toyed with the idea of replacing her RX. She's thinking smaller but both the RX and the NX are far too ugly for her. She looked at the RDX and MDX loaners I've had and commented "very nice. Too bad they aren't a Lexus."

We decide if we like someone within 5 seconds of meeting them. Equally, most consumers decide if they "like" a product by the way it looks - be it a toothbrush or a car - and only if it passes the visual test will they look farther. The new RX/NX is too polarizing for many. The RX was the first "luxury" small SUV and over the years they took a winning formula and blew it to bits.

 

Strange how this isn't true for me...

I used to hate the rear end of a 7th gen (03-05) Accord, reminded me of a Civic for some reason, now I love it more than anything... I used to hate 7th gen Civics too (06-11) now vibe grown to love them, it took a few years however...

I also used to hate 4Runners (03-09) back in 2005, now those are by far my favorite...

Then there's things I loved from the get-go, but really, most of the things I've grown to love, I hated at first...

Just had to throw that out there... I guess the other 99% isn't anything like me...

Also, Acura and even Honda, has always had a certain amount of "sport" in anything they've made...

Take for instance, the 2005-2010 Odessey was considered to handle quite well, and that's a van!!!

The MDX is still respectable in that category, but there's a big hole where the RDX used to be...

The new RDX is an "old lady mobile" in terms of handling...

It doesn't have to be the next WRX STI, GTI, or GolfR, but it can at least be designed to keep up with an Accord or Civic in terms of handling...

So Acura needs an "in between" vehicle, sharp handling, and a high seating position...

I've NEVER heard of a bad handling Honda/Acura vehicle until now...

It doesn't need to be ready for an Autocross event, but as long as it doesnt handle like an old Buick, that's ok...

My point is, new RDX, be able to keep up with with a Tiguan or MKX at least...

I see your point, but these are my collaborated observations...

 

Of course. As we are exposed to new "looks" we grow accustomed to them and we accept them.

When Audi went to the "fishmouth" design in the early/mid 2000's, there was an almost universal uprising against that look. Now it is never mentioned. When Acura introduced the "beak" it was complained about - to the point that dealerships would paint the beak body color to try to make it disappear - now we are complaining about the new front end of the MDX and how the "old" front (the beak) was much nicer.

Granted, both Audi and Acura tweaked their designs a bit since the first iteration but it was basically the same. Can anyone but a true Acuraphile tell the difference between the pre and post facelift versions of the TSX or TL at first glance and without comparing the two side-by-side?

So yes, we might not find the NX design so offensive in a few years. It'll probably be tweaked a bit and we'll get used to it, but how many sales are lost right now because people refuse to even consider it?

 

Yes you are absolutely 100% correct. Car manufacturers are perfectly happy serving vanilla because the vast majority of consumers want vanilla or simply do not care. The main reason the first generation rdx was a "bust" is because they really went too far to the sport direction. Harsh suspension, turbo engine, polarizing exterior and interior...etc. I also see quite a few 2G rdx's vs nx's and I completely attribute that to the exterior looks of the nx. I really didn't like it at first, now I find it somewhat sharp.

The current RDX is visually very attractive to me exterior wise, there is no awkward angles or weird creases. It isn't so bland that it hurts (the 2013-2015 2G is though) and it is a tremendous bang for the buck. Just IMHO I would not pay 54k for that interior and somewhat wonky user interface.

The reason I want a sporty rdx again is because I like Acura as a brand. I can't wrap my head around buick products and while I do like the mkc/x, if Acura had a comparable product, I would easily take that.

I suspect lexus is going to tone back a little bit. You can only go SO angular before it becomes atrocious. But where Lexus has Acura beat, is on the interior, granted the lexus products are WAY more expensive than Acura's. I am not talking about material quality, I just don't like the look if the interior in modern Acuras; you don't get that luxury feel anymore, just a sea of grey and black plastics.

I think people want to feel that their vehicle has soul. Even people who don't care about cars mention the feeling of soul. The old Acura products did that flawlessly whereas the current gen Acuras feel cold and uninspired. Trying too hard to be unoffensive can backfire as well. I have seen it MANY times on the forum where people are buying Accords vs tlx's because they look nicer and I agree. The new civic BLOWS the ilx out of the water.

 

Both are really nice vehicles in a competitive class

However neither has 8 speed transmission like the x3 and q5 which appear smaller

Not sure why they made it cheap

A rav 4 has a 6 speed

 

I agree, I find it odd that Acura never installed the 8 speed dct into the rdx when they have it in the ilx.

 

Why would the average soccer mom care? ILX is marketed towards 20-30 somethings with some interest in a wee bit of sportiness.

 

I was assuming that they didn't put the DCT into the RDX for the same reason that they didn't put it in the V6 TLX - the engine might be too strong for the transmission. Actually, I might be wrong about that assumption too... I always just thought that the DCT was never mated to the V6 because of power.

BMW/Audi/Mercedes did it even though the average soccer mom doesn't care.. but I'm not sure if the RDX is more strongly targeting soccer moms.
With the ILX, I was so happy when they added the jewel headlights and the DCT.. but now with the new civic I see no reason in getting an ILX. I can get a fuel efficient turbo on the Civic plus CarPlay/AndroidAuto which are huge bonuses for me. Also the Civic has Blindspot monitoring and Cross traffic alert which I don't think the ILX has. I think Honda is cannibalizing themselves a bit there.

 

I STRONGLY disagree with this statement. Honda put a 9 speed in the pilot, toyota has an 8 speed in the new 2017 highlander, bmw has 8 speeds across the range, so does audi. Lexus uses an 8 speed in the rx...I can go on...the number of gears has NOTHING to do with soccer mom vs enthusiast owner. It is about keeping with the times.

While I think in this application you are correct that the V6 is too powerful. Other brands like mitsubishi have a 6 speed dct in the evo and it makes 300hp stock, so obviously Acura could easily beef up the parts to handle the power if mitsubishi can. They apparently innovated a dct that still uses a torque converter so that you don't get any harshness with shifting...so why not install that in the rdx?

The new civic is impressive and I have hated the civic forever. I really like the fast back roof line and the head/tail lights look amazing on the top of the line. Hell even the grille looks better. Without the ilx offering awd, I can't understand why would ANYONE take an ilx over a civic?

 

Lol just being cynical about the conservative approach of the new RDX.

But the Civic line looks nice, and will be really interesting once the 6 speed MT rolls out in more than the base model. And the SI and Type R. I still miss my '94 Civic EX Coupe 5 speed!

 

The TLX isn't doing so hot with that transmission... Now I didn't know the V6 came with the 6 speed, which is said to be Hondas best transmission for reliability...

But hey, at least the RDX will be reliable compared to most new Acuras, MDX, TLX, and so forth...

Has anyone upgraded their 2013+ RDX suspension yet?

Lowered with struts, or coilovers...

I like the new design, heck, that's all it really needs, just less body roll...

I hate the idea of the CVT and no Vtec in the Civic turbo, but other than that, it's great... And really, it's probably a non-issue really... After all, Honda does make the best CVTs from what I hear...

The Civic even has auto hold on the brake, now that's nice!!!

 

Lol I am sorry, hard to gauge sarcasm through typed text. I thought you were being serious. But you are right, soccer moms don't care!

The type R will only be a hatchback correct? Isn't it funny that the most high performance vehicle in hondas north american roster is going to be the civic and not an Acura? Barring the nsx of course. Now on that note, nissan has the gtr vs making it an infiniti....so I don't know if that is even a valid point.

The V6 tlx comes with a much hated 9 speed auto.

 

Acura has had years of transmission issues from back in the day with the 1G TL/CL and then again in the 3G/4G TLs and the MDXs. The torque converter issue was funny on my 2012 TL was not smooth and I was therefore a bit skeptical about getting an RDX which has a similar transmission to my TL. I wouldn't say Acura's reliability is outstanding among Japanese cars due to primarily their transmission issues.

As for Honda CVTs.. I had a 2013 Accord I4 and it had a CVT which I really disliked. It was very jittery at low speeds especially when approaching a stop. I would like to try the new Civic to see if Honda has improved their CVTs because if it is still the same then I don't think I will get a Civic (we're looking at getting a hatchback for our second car).

I've heard that Subaru makes amazing CVTs and that the CVT in the WRX (not sure who would buy a CVT-WRX but it does exist) is very exceptional.

 

I've heard the 2013 had CVT issues, I think the 2014+ has a re-program, or something like that...

The 6 AT in the MDX, ZDX, current RDX, as well as most Honda models currently, as in the Accord V6, is said to be "rock solid"!!!

Now I'm not really sure of TQ convertor issues...

4 AT 1998+ were pretty bad, especially on V6 models...

5 AT on 2000+ vehicles, until about March 2005 had really bad issues, with the very worst of them occurring on 2001-2003 models mainly using V6's...

There were issues later on, but it's not a plague epidemic like it was around 2003...

 

Something about the rubber bandy nature of cvt's and the i herent lagginess of turbos just doesn't work for me. That and the feeling I get that CVT's are not very reliable and won't enjoy turbo torque all the time.

 

The Jalopnik reviews were quite positive about the CVT + turbo. But being driving enthusiasts, not surprisingly they were anxious for the rollout of the 6 sp MT. That sounds like fun to me.

 

I am at the point where I only take reviews with a grain of salt except for very little reviewers like alex on autos. Amazing cars are bashed while shitty cars are praised. Car and driver is getting paid to "review" honda and toyota vehicles. I find it amusing reading old reviews of the toyota rav4 and honda crv where reviewers almost always mention a "high quality" interior. Well when I have to SEARCH for soft touch materials and the headliner feels like cardboard....yeah I don't think so.

Even when Kia and Hyundai produce superior products, they are never good enough, ever. Even when they are light years better. The 1G rdx got shit all over for a "hard ride" whereas I found it to be incredibly pleasant.

Cars that seem like they would be good are always good and cars that seem bad are always bad...it is frustrating honestly.

 

I guess we should see for ourselves then!!!

Test Drives!!!

Be your own critic!!!