What do you mean by "fake g force" icon? It's not a real gauge? I had assumed it was. Also, I think the SH-AWD trims do some with a spare.

 

The stability control and "agile handling" assist systems use accelerometers, so I agree the "G-force" gauge is probably real, cheesy or not.

I believe A-spec lacks spare, including SH-AWD, but it's not hard to add. Just don't buy the compact tire from Acura cuz it's stupid expensive; get the wheel/jack kit from Acura or Honda and buy a Kenda compact tire from Tire Rack or Discount Tire.

 

Suggestion for those test driving....check tire pressure on TPM. Dealers obviously should assure correct tire pressure (rec. 33 psi) to assure best driving/ride characteristics.
Usually they don't. Car are transported with high tire pressure, and should be corrected upon arrival. My test RDX had 41 to 44 lbs....unfortunately typical for most dealers.
Before driving...check it. Should be 33-34 lbs, or if car has been driven several miles, they could be warm (add 2-3 lbs).
Ten lbs. over-inflated makes a big difference.

 

Besides that, one thing holding me back is that Acura may come out with an "Elite" package next year with the look of the A-Spec and the features of the Advanced.

 

I am also looking at the X3 for my next car. I would want the M40i version, but very lightly optioned(~58k) I was quoted around 650/mth with 4200 at signing. Way too high for a $58k car lease to me. I will keep watching to see if lease deals surface over time. I am curious to know how you negotiated the $550 deal(as your true payment would be around $510/mth before the 8.25% tax is added). Is this a "zero at signing" deal, or do you have a big down payment? The dealer here made it sound like the M40i was hard to get which made no sense to me as they have 8 or 9 in stock and are discounting by $5k. I contacted Audi today about an SQ5 lease. For a $58,500 MSRP Prestige SQ5 they told me the lease would be over $800/mth. Nope.

 

Just sent you a PM re my X3 deal. Audi's lease terribly...there is no fix for that.

 

 

I checked the acura site and yes, the ASPEC doens't have a temp spare. However, all other SH-AWD trims do have the temp spare. Maybe because the ASPEC comes with the heavy 20" wheels they needed to delete some weight.

 

Yeah, if I was in the market, I'd want Advance with the ASPEC trim. Also, because I keep my cars for so long, I want every option.

 

True, the A-Spec does NOT come with a spare tire kit. And, it's NOT available as an Accessory. What you are completely forgetting or just don't know...what you stated to buy is not near enough hardware. The spare
tire is lowered via a cable system, etc. Takes many more "parts" to piece together the "under the floor" spare tire. You'll have to go to the Parts Catalog and look up all the items needed to put a "Spare Tire Kit" together.
I know...I've been working on what to do with this mess!!

 

I've been very skeptical of the "real life' fuel mileage on this new turbo 4....and the more I piece together the more disappointed I know I would be if I do buy one. IF you get in to the throttle too much you will really
see your gas gauge take a big dive! These engines are just not made for great fuel economy.

Which begs the question I've had for some months now. WHY...why put in this turbo 4 in place of a great 3.5 V6 that I get way better mileage in than what this turbo 4 will get???? Crazy. I've owned 3 Gen 2 RDX's and
with all of them I got consistent 22 mpg in town and well over 30 on the highway. And, they have all been plenty quick off the line and whenever you need "go power." They have it.

I will be anxious to hear from folks that have theirs and what their fuel mileage is. May start a thread just on that subject. "What Are You Getting for Fuel Mileage?" My gut tells me there are going to be a lot of disappointed
owners. IMHO. Is it worth the price of fuel for this thirsty engine to get a really nice overall RDX? Most will say yes....but, my point is...again...WHY??? why do we have to put up with a gas guzzler when we had a
great V6 with outstanding fuel mileage?

Now..last little point. Those that drive like "grandma going down the block to the corner grocery"....and never really pushing that turbo to spool up....will get half way decent mileage. Now...really...how many of the new
owners are going to drive this thing like that? NOT MANY!!! LOL!!!

 

 

Colorado Guy AF RET this is Oklahoma Guy Army RET.

I have the 2.0T Accord sport and it can suck up gas. Too much engine in this front drive car. Sort of a waste. The 1.5T however is extremely efficient and the Civic SI got a real tested 47 highway by consumer reports noted in their annual auto issue. That is impressive. Stick not CVT.

Back to 2.0T. In the heavier SH-AWD RDX-this will likely never be know for being frugal. The X3 has that reputation with its 2.0T powertrain. Again I drove the RDX and it was so thirsty. Sales guy said what you doing? Resetting trip computer. Now on highway, cruising it showed promise for the 27 if one behaves.

The reports of 15 mpg are likely long idle plus sport plus mode 100% which any engine would be thirsty.

The V-6 on the highway got a real mpg rating of 34 mpg on the neat and wonderful Real MPG tab on their web site. I love that. It allows scientific comparisions. Fuelly is good as well.

Fun yes but long term cost of fuel is a worry. I did have a 2015 BMW 328D x drive which managed 48 mpg on trips. This represents a great savings over time and they were discounted heavily.

 

WAIT!!!! hasnt that ALWAYS been the case for the life of automobiles? the more you get on the throttle the more fuel you use...
to save fuel, DON'T get on the throttle, or stay out of boost.

which applies to the naturally aspirated v6....if you drive at a constant 55mph, your fuel mileage INCREASES!
smash the gas to 80MPH and your fuel mileage DECREASES!

 

Yup.

I strongly contend ,as a person who usually finds best deals, that a BMW or Q5 are priced equivalently to the Acura at this point based on BMW and Audi marketing allowances and pricing. As a person who can get military incentives from both companies, loyalty from both as well as seeking USAA or PENFED pricing. $5k or 10% off is a piece of cake. I can be $6k off easily. So if the X3 and Q5 are sitting at $50k the tech AWD at MSRP not such a deal. yes you get more equipment on the Acura. I concede that.
And yes you would have to work to get such a deal. However, waiting is likely the best option to get an RDX with a decent discount.

I had a bonifide deal worked up for a 2018 BMW x drive X3 stripper with only heated seats for $36,000 ($44500 MSRP) out the door after loyalty, military and an allowance for 2,500 miles as a loaner. That is a great price on a great car. It was black and I live in HOTAHOMA. So no can do.

 

HI, and thank you for YOUR service. Well, the BMW was a diesel...so can't compare with a turbo 4 gas. I just think the new engine will be a disappointment compared to the 3.5 V6. You spool up that turbo for more spirited
driving...or passing, etc, that turbo will then push more air and DEMANDE more fuel...and it will, over a weeks worth of driving..or so, really cut in to the fuel mileage.

It's just the nature of the beast. I'm having a hard time "pulling the trigger" on this one. Had/have 3 Gen 2 RDX's. Loved them. IF this new RDX had a 3.0 V6, naturally aspirated, with direct and port fuel injection and tuned
to get at least 280 hp......I'd be all over it. They just messed up in my opinion going to this engine. Why...what's it going to do for us. Little more torque than the V6...big deal. My Gen 2 RDX's jumped off the stop lights and
I shocked many an Audi and BMW for a good distance. They are and can be very quick. I should know..I've hot rodded mine enough to know what it's capable of. The turbo 4 is not an "upgrade" at all....to me. And in reality
many are going to find this out...IF they are car people and have owned 3.5 V6's from Honda Motor Corp...or comparable engines from other manufacturers. Turbo in line 6's from BMW don't count!! LOL!! Although I'd like
to have one! Actually I'd like to have the all new BMW X5 coming out.....but, big bucks there. Not quite ready for that....but, will be on my radar within a year or two.

 

I agree in "basic principle"....but, comparing a turbo 4 in a heavy vehicle to the 3.5 V6 under hard acceleration....is just not a good comparison. That turbo 4 is going to suck more gas. And come on, how many are really
going to drive theirs...with slow, acceleration up to 55 and then hold it steady there? Really.....many miles are driven, my most, in the city. Accelerating from a stop going up to 45 or so...will make the turbo "work" and the
fuel will flow. It is what it is. Yes, those on the highway....on long commutes to work, or on a trip will experience...obviously decent mileage.....but, overall the suburb/city driving is what most will be doing and zipping around
town will make the turbo spool up...and again, the fuel will flow. Just more so than my 3.5 V6. I've owned so many of those....I know what they are capable of. Great mileage overall.....and I'll take their mileage over the
new 2.0 turbo 4 any day. And don't need an air to air cooler to help against "heat soak" etc. Best if it had air through liquid cooler for the turbo air.....but, the RDX is already getting pricey.

Hey, I taught turbos in tech school......they are a way of getting more torque and decent HP out of a small engine. Now the 1.5T gets decent mileage...BUT, what's the trade off??? Poor performance. The larger displacement
you go....the more fuel that engine will need. And so it goes. This can get deep.....but, YES I can get HIGH HP out of a really small disp. engine with huge turbo boost and a race tuned engine. But, guess what/??? Better
have the money to pay for the gas that will flow...heavily through that fuel system. Nature of the beast again.

Let's wait and see some "honest" reporting of these engines in the RDX.....over time when broken in...and folks tell us how they really drive them...and then what they get in town...and on the highway.
Let's have a discussion then.

 

^you have the option of staying out of boost...

 

There are "spare tire kits" available as Accessories...BUT...when you plug in the VIN # of an A-Spec in the Acura Accessories section of their computer....there is NOT a spare tire kit available. Ticks me off.....but, IF a person
is dead set on getting "one"....then all the parts could be bought through the Parts Section. More hardware is needed to "hang and support" the wheel/tire assy. and the cable system that you have to "crank down" to lower
the wheel/tire....so, lot's of "moving parts" to put it together. I've been fighting with this issue for a few weeks. Acura is crazy! LOL!!! And I really like Acura vehicles.....but, this issue is nuts!!

 

With all due respect to your Mr. Moderator status.......that means "feathering the throttle"...barely pushing on the pedal. Staying out of the boost is virtually impossible when you are accelerating around town. Do you
honestly think that the turbo is not "working' doing that? Of course it is. I'm not talking about mashing the pedal to the floor. So, you won't convince me that the boost isn't on as most all people drive around town...in a
somewhat spirited way....as I do, my wife and most others. We're not drag racing.

It is what it is. IF engine builders didn't want any boost until you are almost mashed to the floor....then you'd have a sick, slow accelerating 2.0 gas engine putt putting around town. Boost comes in much lower in the
RPM cycle....boost means...fuel flow.....more RPM...more boost...MORE fuel. And that's in town. Again, let's wait and see what folks are getting around town..tell us how they are driving....and what they are getting.
Till then this is mostly speculation...although I'll bet $100 that my 3.5 V6 gets better MPG than what the 2.0T will be getting.

Nuff said for now.

 

The Canadian ASpec has a spare, so the parts are def out there. In time, just like the TLX Im sure Acura will have a full kit available.

 

Exactly. I've written about this before in different threads. I always take my calibrated pro tire pressure gauge with me and check the tires. Normally they are always way too high. I let them down to "normal PSI" and then
I test drive. I know MOST folks don't think about that or do that. It takes "car guys" that have been mechanics or know the tech world and also have purchased a lot of cars.....normally.

Spot on GTF!!!

 

Agree completely. Will be closely watching fuelly.com to see actual mpg results from real owners.
Own 2014 RDX, 75,000 miles, plan on keeping long term.
Make frequent 700 mile trips from SC to OH. Comfortable seats, no engine struggles on mountain inclines, comfortable cornering around I-40 mountain curves going 70 mph even with FWD only, has full spare tire if needed.
Last trip just completed, 1,600 miles, 28.2 mph, highway speed 78 mph.

 

Let's look at the Accord's engine. Almost the same...down 20hp...but, just tuned slightly diff. As is the Civic Type R.

So, in the Accord...the 2.0 turbo...the boost starts coming it at 1,600 rpms's. And, R & T said you can really feel it. So....what does that mean?.....It means the turbo is starting to really "spool up" and the power
is coming on....and what does it take to make power....fuel...along with how the engine is tuned, etc, etc.

Now, IF you don't want to drive at 1,600 rpm's and above...and keep it below that #, then I guess you'll be putt putting around town like an 85 yr old Grandpa going to the lodge meeting down the street.

R & T...Quote from their time with the Accord 2.0 turbo. "Turbo 4 achieved no better real world highway fuel economy than the previous V6." And, boys and girls...what V6 would that be?? Our very own 3.5 with a
6-speed trans. And, the Accord was not quicker or faster than the the V6. IF you want to split hairs....maybe fractions of a second here and there. Which in reality that means nothing.

So, back to my original point with these turbo 4 engines...as R & T said...the intent, apparently going to the 2.0T engine was for fuel economy. Bottom line..that's not happening in the Accord vs the 3.5 V6....and
it's not going to happen in the heavier and more hp '19 RDX vs the '18 RDX.

As much as many folks want to believe...."oh, a 4 cyl has to get more MPG than the old outdated 3.5 V6! Uh, NO it does not have to....and real world...it won't. Few exceptions....but, not enough to justify making the
big changeover to the 2.0 turbo engine. For what reason? That's what R & T wants to know with the basic same eng. in the new Accord. What's the point to make the change? Owners are finding out in the Accord...no
better fuel economy vs the V6.....and the new RDX owners will find out the same.....soon.

 

I would like it if they offer a lower powered engine choice. For for A4, Audi offered two 2.0 turbo engines, one with 252 hp, and one with 190 hp. I went with the 190 hp engine, for the lower cost and the higher MPG. The engine has plenty of power for me, and I can easily increase the MPG by not pushing the engine as hard. However for the Q5, Audi does not offer the 190 hp engine.

I assume the 1.5 turbo Honda uses in the CRV would be considered underpowered for the RDX. Maybe a lower powered 2.0 would be a good compromise of sufficient power and higher MPG. However, Acura could not then brag that the RDX has the highest standard hp in its class.

If the RDX engine was tuned to have only 230 hp, and higher mileage, many people would be here complaining about the low hp.

 

You are on to something. Acura targeted performance bragging rights with this 2.0T. Again I have this engine in the Accord. I drove the RDX last Friday and liked it. The mpg did bother me. The detuned Audi 2.0T is interesting. Not a dog and not a race car. just a nice engine with very good mpg.

My RDX blinders came off today. I have the diesel 328d so very spoiled with 49 mpg trips. Anyhow, BMW had a driving event today. $1000 certificate from BMWUSA for driving.

I drove an X3 today. Quiet, Smooth and I did a sport vs mpg run. The highway rating is 29 but 30+ easy long distance. Sport mode have fun. Econ mode get your 30 plus. This 2.0T seems better than the Audi version (IMO)

I will also tell you all that BMW has large marketing incentives. I am at $5k off just walking in. I am attaching my USAA price which has an additional $1000 off coming with the certifiicate I got today. I added NAV, blind spot, heated seat, steering wheel, 19 inch wheels, a safety package and it is right even with RDX Tech in price.

This one was without real leather. The RDX is less money BUT the BMW seems a step above. It is a top Consumer Reports pick.

Not sure what I end up doing now with an RDX in production with my name on. My heels have greatly cooled on the RDX.

 

I wonder if this focus on "Precision Crafted Performance" is the reason why Acura is tuning the 2.0T towards performance rather than fuel economy. Ideally, it would be nice to have the best of both worlds with a Sport Hybrid option one day. But with the V6T coming to Acura's portfolio, I wonder if they will even bother with the Sport Hybrid and just focus on the two powertrains (NSX excluded of course).

 

Acura must be able to mix in with Honda on meeting CAFE standards.

 

Of course. But, if one has a turbo who the hell can stay out of boost? Especially city driving. I feel experienced as I have had both a 1st gen RDX 2008 SH-AWD which was obviously a turbo 4-banger and now currently a 2nd gen 2016 RDX AWD normally aspirated. The 1st gen sucked the gas/mileage in city driving. It was bad. Highway wasn't bad. Was actually pretty good. As for my 2nd gen it's OK for both but not great either. So, it's kind of a wash. As much as the new 3rd gen RDX is awesome in many ways I think I'll be sticking with my 2nd gen for a bit longer. It's mint and low miles. I love the 3.5 Liter V6 and it's sound and runs strong.

 

A 4000 lb vehicle with a 2.0L engine will not be able to stay off boost. Maybe maneuvering around a parking lot, but not on the streets in normal driving.

By the way, was behind a white one yesterday, apparently just purchased. Not sure what trim exactly, but definitely not the A-spec. Kinda goofy, "Buicky" looking. Very bland and generic from the back. The side had the "chrome" thingies on the door panels. It just didn't look sporty or classy. Seems that it sits lower than Gen-2, I didn't notice much ground clearance. The tires seemed a bit skinny compared to the rest of the car. Also, it looks stretched out length-wise. For some reason, the proportions reminded of being an overgrown station wagon, like the older Chrysler Pacifica or Toyota Venza, not an SUV. Maybe it was the combination of trim and color, but I wasn't very impressed. By contrast, Gen-2 has sportier dimensions and proportions. I didn't get a look from the front as I was driving mostly behind and alongside.

 

Other than the crappy incandescent rear turn signals the only other thing I can think of is they are no building them fast enough ;-)
Tired of my wife complaining they her new RDX is not available yet.

 

My last 2 cars had the Honda 3.5L V6.
A 2008 Accord EX-L V6 5ATand a 2016 TLX SH-AWD 9AT
The engine is a gem. Even CR says so and they are TLX haters.
With a heavy foot, I could always count on 30 highway in the Accord and surprisingly 34 in the TLX.

Mush as I'm enjoying the new RDX with the 2.0T, I'm betting that you're right. My first all-highway trip is coming up next week and I'll find out.

 

Personally, I am not a fan of the sport hybrid and hope they don't implement it across the line; more things to break. IMHO cars are already too complicated. I like to good ol' days when VSA = gas pedal + brake pedal + steering wheel. And I'll take performance over 1 extra MPG.

 

The Accord and the TLX are lighter vehicles, with a lower drag coefficient. I suspect that will be the reason they got better mpg than the RDX, not because the RDX has a turbo engine.

 

Do the German makes have a spare tire? More and more cars don't have spares. My 2016 ILX doesn't have one.

 

I've been driving for 50 years and have never had a car without a spare and would not be comfortable without one but I'm not sure just how important it would be to us anymore. Maybe we've been very lucky but I can't remember having to change out a flat on the side of the road in over 40 years now. I know my wife couldn't change one and I struggle just rotating the tires at home so maybe just a good roadside assistance plan would work just as well as a spare?

 

I do know, but forgot to mention the hoist. Thanks for pointing out the oversight.

There are kits sold for other models that may work fine. MDX, for instance. The only question would be whether the hoist included with those kits is cross-compatible with 2019 RDX. But again, don't buy the Conti compact spare tire from Acura. It must be made of unobtanium.

I have yet to see a full parts listing for 2019 RDX. Anyone?

https://www.oemacuraparts.com/auto-p...wheel-kit-scat



Speaking of messes, have you looked at the trailer hitch and the Baskin Robbins assortment of wiring harnesses and trim panels, depending on whether or not your RDX has the silly foot sensor? Yikes.

 

Oops. DON'T get that compact spare kit. 2018 MDX uses 5x120mm lug pattern.

( I can't edit posts yet cuz I'm a Noob )

 

This compact spare kit might work. It should have 5x114.3mm lug pattern wheel, like our 2014 MDX. RDX uses this pattern, and comments on the listing confirm compatibility of the compact steel wheel. Too bad the price has bumped up.

But you need to confirm compatibility of that hoist.

 

Yep. I seem to recall that manufacturers that surpass the standards and have "extra mpg" can sell "credits" to manufacturers that don't quite make it.