With more weight (4-500 lbs) and virtually the same engine as the RDX (just 17 more hp and 16 more ft/lb torque), I expect the new MDX to perform about like the RDX, but with worse gas mileage.

I guess if you need a third-row seat and a little more cargo room it makes sense, but I'm surprised they didn't actually INCREASE the horsepower and torque, rather than decrease it. An MDX with maybe 325 hp would have made more sense, but here again the overly-conservative product people at Honda went the other direction.

My '06 MDX - as well as the loaners I've gotten since then - just didn't have the grunt of my RDX, and I always wished for more engine to move that beast around. Looks like that ain't gonna happen, and I'm sure Acura disappointed some prospective owners. Maybe it'll sell more RDX's, though!

 

Well I think early testers are showing that the new EarthDream direct injection V6 engine is gem: acceleration is on par with the RDX, fuel eco is too both city and hwy.
Most reviews also rave on the noticable quiet ride, dual LCD screen and high quality interior.

So with the added 3rd row, more cargo room, a few more gizmos and no performance downside compared to the RDX, I think the MDX especially with SH-AWD has a lot to offer.

 

I just read the review of the new MDX in one of my car mags, and I agree they are complimentary of it. Apparently, in spite of the loss of 10 hp and .2 liter, it still performs pretty well.

Given that the styling is so similar to the RDX, and the performance is as close as it is, I guess it comes down to whether one needs the additional seats and room. Or if the amenities are enough to justify the extra cost.

For me, it's a matter of it being different enough to distinguish it from the RDX. A quick glance won't do it, unless you happen to see those jewel eyes.

 

Even though motors are basically the same size, one has to remember they're clearly different as well. MDX is using Earth Dreams tech (direct inj) where as the RDX is using port-injection. I had help with figuring it out from another azine member. Even though the MDX went on a decent diet, and is slightly less powerful, it still performs just as well, if not better than the 2G MDX, yet gets a SIGNIFICANT improvement in MPGs (on par with the RDX, yet it's bigger, slightly more powerful). It's a really good value imo, and in a way it will come down to what the potential buyer needs. Either way the RDX and MDX are great selling vehicles and there's no slowing down any time soon.

Now that you mention the jewel eye headlights, I wonder when will the RDX get them? MMC or FMC. Eventually the headlights will have to trickle on down throughout the line. It wouldn't surprise me to see them on the future TLX.

 

I would rather have port versus direct injection. Direct causes valves to get dirty and over time 50-60k miles need to be cleaned because of engine performance problems. Costs about $500 to clean a six cylinder engine, they have to use a special machine that uses ground walnuts. Sometimes the latest stuff is a pain in the butt and this is not covered under warranty but the dealer loves it great revenue source.

 

Not to beat it to death, but I tend to think more in terms of model differentiation ... if you're going to ask $5+k more for a vehicle, you usually make it quite distinct from the model below it. With styling that makes you look hard to tell an MDX from an RDX, the only obvious difference between the two is the extra row of seats.

So in view of having roughly the same styling, engine output and overall performance, you might give it enough extra displacement and/or hp to separate it. In other words, make it a step up in performance to distance it further from the RDX. That way, you'd have an extra row of seating AND a vehicle that would run away from the RDX in terms of power. Whereas most automakers have used direct injection as a tool to gain more power, Honda/Acura is using it to offset weight and gain mpg's, making it perform about like the RDX.

To the casual observer, the extra dough for an MDX buys you a 3rd row of seats (if you want/need that), some doo-dads and a slightly beefier vehicle.

My marketing background tells me that isn't the best formula for moving MDX's.

 

I think they would rather market the new MDX as having the best MPG in the class of 7 seat luxury CUVs/SUVs. A lot more power and they probably couldn't claim that. Take your pick and Acura did. We'll see if it pays off. But you have to admit from a marketing viewpoint that 28mpg hwy and "Best in Class" for this size vehicle makes a nice sound bite.

Also, looking at the Q5 and Q7, they look very similar and comparing the 3.0l engines they are even closer in hp/tq. than the Acuras. In fact the Q5 prem. plus is only $3k less than the Q7 premium.

 

According to 0-60 website. The RDX is faster than the MDX.

RDX 0-60

Acura MDX 0 to 60 mph and Quarter Mile Times
2001 Acura MDX 0-60 mph 7.5 Quarter mile 15.7
2007 Acura MDX 0-60 mph 8.0 Quarter mile 16.2
2007 Acura MDX Sport 0-60 mph 6.9 Quarter mile 15.3
2008 Acura MDX SH-AWD 0-60 mph 7.4
2010 Acura MDX 0-60 mph 7.1
2014 Acura MDX AWD 0-60 mph 6.2 Quarter Mile 14.7


Acura RDX 0 to 60 mph and Quarter Mile Times
2007 Acura RDX 0-60 mph 6.9 Quarter mile 15.3
2008 Acura RDX 0-60 mph 6.4 Quarter mile 14.9
2010 Acura RDX 0-60 mph 6.7
2013 Acura RDX 0-60 mph 6.1 Quarter Mile 14.5

 

.1 and .2 isn't faster. That is pretty much equal.

 

I know, in this day and age everyone gets a trophy that participates

Ok it costs close to $10k more and you get a third row and it "is" slower

 

No, it's .1 and .2 of a second slower. That's why they measure those things instead of just guess. Nobody said the MDX was a lot slower.. Just a little bit.

 

apple to orange. MDX has the Acura exclusive (for now) Dream Earth direct inject V6 plus LED headlights and other high tech stuff can't be found on a Honda. RDX is basically a CRV with Accord V6's powertrain. apple to orange. with that said, i wish the price gap between the two can be a little smaller.

 

The logic above is solid.

 

What flavor is that cool aid your drinkin?

 

For now the vehicles are close in dimensions. It's ok. Acura may differentiate the two for the next generation. For now though, the MDX has all the latest gadgetry. I still think they're both excellent vehicles, they're just marketed to different demographics.

I agree. I've read this on an audi forum with the RS4. Audi dealers make a killing when it comes to DI issues. They make nice vehicles as well and I can see your concern with DI as well. I'm hoping since Honda was late to the game, that they've figured out the common problems with DI.

This is what I'm thinking. Either way it wouldn't surprise me if the MDX outsells the RDX anyhow. It's been Acura's #1 seller for a few years now. I'm pretty sure the RDX is more than enough for a lot of Acura's customers, but people will choose the MDX. In the USA logic is somewhat backwards

 

Well, I am in US and looked at both few weeks ago and drover away with RDX. I already have 3rd row sit in my 2008 Highlander which I am yet to use. There was nothing in MDX which would entice me to pay the 10-15K extra.

 

When buying a SUV, acceleration is not a top priority, so as long as it's adequate, buyers really don't talk much about it.

Look at it with a different perspective, the base FWD MDX is a better choice for someone (e.g. me) that doesn't care for NAV vs. FWD RDX Tech:

1. MDX has power liftgate standard
2. MDX has Jewel headlights standard (RDX requires Tech to get HID lights)
3. MDX has bonus "emergency" 3rd row seats. I like that feature as my parents are usually in town once a year and it's nice to have everyone in the same car.
4. IMO, the MDX interior is nicer and looks more techy with the dual screens. The RDX interior isn't bad, but just "ok".
5. The price difference is only about 4K MSRP (base MDX vs. RDX Tech)

 

 

LOL - apparently you haven't spent any time in a CRV.

 

I'm going to disagree with the above. IMHO, the vehicles are not even close in dimensions. The MDX is over 10" longer, which results in a HUGE difference in cargo capacity behind the second row: 43.4 cu ft. in the MDX vs. only 26.1 cu ft in the RDX. The RDX barely fits my son's stroller in the back (by less than an inch) whereas there is almost a foot of extra space in the MDX. In addition, the MDX is almost 4" wider than the RDX, making it a lot more comfortable to fit 2 adults + a car seat (or a 3rd passenger) in the back. The 2nd row in the MDX slides forward and backward 6", so I'm not sure how the cargo area and 2nd row legroom are calculated.

If you're in the market for a mid-sized SUV/crossover, I don't think you'd look at the RDX unless you are okay with the size of the cargo area. I'd appreciate and utilize the extra space in the MDX, but it's above my budget and it wouldn't fit in my garage (whereas the RDX would).

 

If you need more space get the MDX , if not the RDX seems like a good choice. I think this is very very very obvious

 

blSwagger, I said they were close in dimensions. I meant overall. I love the MDX and I like the RDX as well AND I do agree with your post.

 

I could not agree more my brother, look @ my previous before this 2013 as I put 45K on it thus some experience w/ the platform.

 

I traded a loaded 2012 CRV for the 2013 RDX w/Tech.

They aren't close. The RDX is MUCH nicer...so much so that I got rid of my CRV!

 

FWIW I had already driven a 2013 CRV w/ nav. extensively, had begun final negotiations w/ my 2011 CRV selling dealer & would have pulled the trigger on the CRV if one of my running partners had not brought the RDX to my attn.

I'll stop belaboring the RDX vs CRV issue but long story short, I am still repaying her for that tip, not sure how many more meals/favors it's going to take but I do enjoy my RDX MUCH more than my CRV.

 

Yea except unfortunately it's easily 10 grand more. That's quite a lot more costly.

 

I'm amazed that this hasn't been discussed more often on this forum. I have a 2009 Lexus is250 and the carbon buildup on the engine is crazy. All because of di. The car has gotten a engine top cleaning, and will inevitably need it's pistons changed out.

Unless acura has it figured out, I'm never touching another di car.

 

They tend to discuss how your smart phone works with the vehicle versus the stuff that makes it run on this site.

 

If I could have the MDX I'd buy that, but it's easily 7-10k more just for the car. It's much nicer, but a lot more costly.

 

People are assuming Honda/Acura knows what they are doing on the engineering side. Time will tell if it there will be problems.

 

Not. Even. Close.

 

6,2 in my 2013 RDX Tech and will let you know next week on MDX Navi 2014
Should be about the same
RDX 42,000 Kilometres and MDX will be new