When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Largely confirms what some of us have been whispering that the Acura platforms for the RDX, TLX, and new MDX aren't truly "bespoke" or "new from the ground up" as Honda/Acura like to say. In this case Acura acknowledges that the RDX is shares commonality with the CR-V platform (which is also the Accord platform). My understanding of the RDX is that the core of the platform is basically the same as the Global Accord/CR-V platform while the front is reengineering to fit a V6 and the rear is reengineered to fit SH-AWD and provide additional stiffness.
The 2022 Acura MDX introduces a new platform to the Acura and Honda lineup called the Global Light Truck Platform, and it's currently exclusive to the MDX. The new 2021 Acura TLX is also built on a totally new platform that isn’t shared with any other Honda or Acura. Going further back, when the redesigned 2019 RDX debuted, Acura said that model was built on “a new-from-the-ground-up, Acura-exclusive platform."
That’s three totally-new and Acura-exclusive platforms in a short time period, and it got us thinking. What is Acura up to here?
Most manufacturers these days are increasingly going in the exact opposite direction. Volkswagen’s MQB architecture underpins everything from the hot hatch GTI to the gigantic Atlas. Toyota’s TNGA platform has multiple sizes/versions, but Toyota still considers them related and will tell you that TNGA is the basis of cars from the Corolla on up to the Highlander, plus the Lexus UX and ES. You can find similar stories all across the industry, in both luxury and non-luxury brands. Acura, on the other hand, appears to be taking a totally different approach.
To get some clarity on strategy, we reached out to Acura. The answers are multifaceted, but Acura says it's spending money where it pays dividends for performance — but there's also more sharing between models than it might look like on the surface.
“The definition of what constitutes a 'common platform' varies by automaker,” Acura exclusively told Autoblog during a wide-ranging e-mail interview involving the input of numerous engineers and product planners. “For us, the most fundamental value is to maintain the same carry points throughout production and enable us to produce different vehicles in the same manufacturing environment.”
As an example, the TLX and RDX feature similar carry points in the chassis to enable their production on the same line, but that’s where the two diverge.
“The TLX is different in that it has a bespoke platform that is not shared with any other Acura or Honda vehicle,” Acura says. “This approach was adopted to meet the high dynamic targets [for the Type S], and unique powertrain [the 3.0T V6] and drivetrain applications [SH-AWD] that required a different platform from the Accord.”
Acura says the same for the RDX, but it also revealed that its crossover “is based on a common platform that underpins other vehicles, including the CR-V.” This “common platform” is modified for use in the RDX and “is engineered much differently to fulfill the unique performance requirements set for RDX and the Acura brand.”
Additionally, Acura noted that while many of its cars are on different platforms, “there are some similar construction materials and methods (high strength steel, high-performance adhesive, roller hemming for the panoramic roof, etc.)” that it uses across its lineup.
Acura’s small range also allows it to have as much differentiation as it does. Unlike Mercedes-Benz’s or BMW’s massive product ranges, Acura has just four volume-sellers — ILX, TLX, RDX and MDX. “This allows us to focus our resources on engineering each Acura model for the specific needs of our customers. A prime example of this would be the cast aluminum damper housings and double wishbone suspension at the front of the new ‘21 TLX and ’22 MDX. Those contribute to and/or capitalize on the very rigid chassis that each has.”
Acura wants its cars to drive and feel like Acuras, not glorified Hondas. To do that, it’s investing in a key area that contributes to improved driving performance — the chassis. After spending time in the new TLX and MDX, it's clear the investment pays off in the way those cars drive.
Unlike the TLX, though, the new structure underneath the MDX — the Global Light Truck Platform — will see duty in several Hondas as well. When the next-generation Pilot, Passport and Ridgeline arrive, expect them to use a version of the new Global Light Truck Platform.
That’s the kind of platform sharing we’re accustomed to seeing throughout the industry. There’s still plenty of engineering work going into making Acuras meaningfully different than Hondas, but don’t think efficiencies aren’t being taken advantage of where they could be. Looking to the future, Acura has the ILX to revamp next. That will undoubtedly borrow from the Civic, as it has before, but it’s yet to be seen how much differentiation Acura will aim to achieve.
The article only says "it depends." You can read the article any way you want. For example, if you want to "read into it" that the RDX shares a platform with the CR-V, you can. That's not actually accurate, but you wouldn't be wrong it say that. Or, if you want to "read into it" that it doesn't actually share a platform with the CR-V, you can. That's also not entirely accurate, but you also wouldn't be wrong.
The point is that people get really tied up into worrying unnecessarily that their (relatively) expensive car is in any way related to a less-expensive car. They want to know that if they paid a lot more for their Acura or Lexus it's more than just a prettier Honda or Toyota. This is even if they drove the RDX and CR-V and themselves felt that the RDX was better and purchased it. That's saying that you the driver acknowledge that they're different, but then people are still insecure and want the manufacturer to affirm that difference to them in writing.
It's not "new from the ground up," but it is new and different. That's in line with what they said.
Like supafamous said, nothing really new. Anyone who studies the body-in-white can tell RDX chassis is evolved from CR-V, mainly in the front. The rear box and subframe are completely different - the box section is heavily bolstered (by the dual-ring structure), and the subframe is Acura-only (for RDX/TLX, MDX received an updated version).
Talking about MDX, one thing that stands out to me is how Acura manged to clear up the tunnel section almost completely. That is something new in Acura's history. Strangely, Acura did not use those space for storage. Could the space be reserved for hybrid components?
Like supafamous said, nothing really new. Anyone who studies the body-in-white can tell RDX chassis is evolved from CR-V, mainly in the front. The rear box and subframe are completely different - the box section is heavily bolstered (by the dual-ring structure), and the subframe is Acura-only (for RDX/TLX, MDX received an updated version).
Talking about MDX, one thing that stands out to me is how Acura manged to clear up the tunnel section almost completely. That is something new in Acura's history. Strangely, Acura did not use those space for storage. Could the space be reserved for hybrid components?
All Honda/Acura “Platforms” uses the ACE body structure, so the front crash structure of all Honda/Acura “Platforms” should be relatively similar. I think a hybrid model will be reintroduced at the MDX mmc, just like the first MDX hybrid.
So, some time back I wrote that the RDX was built on the same "platform" as the CR-V. I pointed out that due to the way cars were built they required a very expensive assembly line riding on high dollar fixtures that kept everything in place. I was ridiculed for this statement and scolded about how wrong I was. I explained that while the fixtures and the basic structure would share things the details of the car, like the suspension, could be much different from model to model. I took a beating from some due to pointing this out. My opinion was based on my years working in the industry for a couple of the big car makers, knowing how cars were designed and the costs associated with them and spending a lot of time in the plants going over all the steps in the building of the vehicles. I pointed out that it costs major amounts of money to put an assembly line together and the comparative lower volume of the RDX compared to say the CR-V make the economics of things clear. You just can't send a billion dollars developing a vehicle and the plant to produce it only to sell the numbers Acura does. You have to maximize your use of your plant and equipment to make a return on your investment.
Most car makers don't talk much about this and for good reason. Who would want to know that their high end car shared anything at all with their lower priced cousins? Just because say an RDX shares some commonality with a few basic design elements of the chassis of say a CR-V does not mean they are the same car. Not at all! The truth of the matter is simple dollars and cents. You can not design a vehicle like the RDX, make it 100% unique and sell it at a reasonable price if you are only using your production facilities to make 50,000 or so vehicles a year. The CR-V sales come in at something more like 350,000 units per year. Now, which model will pay off its major development costs first? Dumb question, right? Fact is the plant that makes the CR-V can also make other vehicles on the same line. They do switch out some of the machines to do this, but Honda put a lot of thought into their line and at one time held the record time for switching from one model to another in just three days! Now, consider that back in the 1960's or 70's GM would shut a plant down for several months to make the same type change over. All of this is very common in the industry and has gone on many years.
Lest we forget, Acura also claimed the 1G TLX was built on an "all-new platform", so you'd be wise to take with a grain of salt anything Acura's marketing department says.
The TLX is built on an all-new platform (body and chassis) that was designed from the ground up to support and enhance the vehicle's outstanding driving dynamics, luxury-sedan refinement, class-leading fuel efficiency and high-level collision safety performance.
Could care less about this kind of stuff. I like the car! No point in getting wrapped around the axels about it.
+1, I find this stuff very interesting but yeah it's the end vehicle that matters.
Originally Posted by sonyfever
Like supafamous said, nothing really new. Anyone who studies the body-in-white can tell RDX chassis is evolved from CR-V, mainly in the front. The rear box and subframe are completely different - the box section is heavily bolstered (by the dual-ring structure), and the subframe is Acura-only (for RDX/TLX, MDX received an updated version).
Talking about MDX, one thing that stands out to me is how Acura manged to clear up the tunnel section almost completely. That is something new in Acura's history. Strangely, Acura did not use those space for storage. Could the space be reserved for hybrid components?
+1, The 2G RDX chief chassis engineer spoke about the unique unibody components to the RDX in a YouTube clip using a bare chassis that had certain area's cut away to show details. IIRC there are certain areas of around the door openings and floor sill that utilize a similar "double box" section for increased rigidity.
Originally Posted by hans471
So, some time back I wrote that the RDX was built on the same "platform" as the CR-V. I pointed out that due to the way cars were built they required a very expensive assembly line riding on high dollar fixtures that kept everything in place. I was ridiculed for this statement and scolded about how wrong I was. I explained that while the fixtures and the basic structure would share things the details of the car, like the suspension, could be much different from model to model. I took a beating from some due to pointing this out. My opinion was based on my years working in the industry for a couple of the big car makers, knowing how cars were designed and the costs associated with them and spending a lot of time in the plants going over all the steps in the building of the vehicles. I pointed out that it costs major amounts of money to put an assembly line together and the comparative lower volume of the RDX compared to say the CR-V make the economics of things clear. You just can't send a billion dollars developing a vehicle and the plant to produce it only to sell the numbers Acura does. You have to maximize your use of your plant and equipment to make a return on your investment.
Most car makers don't talk much about this and for good reason. Who would want to know that their high end car shared anything at all with their lower priced cousins? Just because say an RDX shares some commonality with a few basic design elements of the chassis of say a CR-V does not mean they are the same car. Not at all! The truth of the matter is simple dollars and cents. You can not design a vehicle like the RDX, make it 100% unique and sell it at a reasonable price if you are only using your production facilities to make 50,000 or so vehicles a year. The CR-V sales come in at something more like 350,000 units per year. Now, which model will pay off its major development costs first? Dumb question, right? Fact is the plant that makes the CR-V can also make other vehicles on the same line. They do switch out some of the machines to do this, but Honda put a lot of thought into their line and at one time held the record time for switching from one model to another in just three days! Now, consider that back in the 1960's or 70's GM would shut a plant down for several months to make the same type change over. All of this is very common in the industry and has gone on many years.
Economies of scale and scope are what drives the auto industry. Honda/Acura, Toyota/Lexus, even within a manufacturer (ie GM Zeta or Alpha modular chassis). Whether it's the new DWB suspension being used on the MDX and TLX, K20 on a variety of Honda/Acura vehicles, or newish Honda 10AT being used there as well.
As for being scolded, don't worry I doubt those people even understand Porter's Five Forces.
Do slightly disagree on the latest CR-V/RDX chassis there are some significant differences that make them more a modular platform sharing than true platform sharing. Haven't looked underneath a 2G RDX but my wife has a 2017 CR-V so while some of the unibody chassis is probably identical there's alot of other aspects of the 2G RDX that use different stamping dies. But Acura/Honda have effectively decided to spend the money on that tooling to lend a more exclusive platform.
I don't mind this at all especially if it keeps the car competitively priced and a value against other German models.
That being said, what then is the excuse for Honda's instrument cluster theme looking better than Acura's?
I just saw a review of the 2022 Mitsubishi(!!) Outlander and its instrument cluster appears 10/12 years ahead of what our RDX has - and could be argued to be ahead of what the new MDX is offering.
Their poor approach here I'm certain influenced (and continues to push) buyers to Audi, BMW, Volvo, etc. And with Genesis ramping up and producing reliable cars that also stand tall as a value against existing offerings in the segment - I can only expect sales to get worse for Acura. So share away to keep prices down, but at least do it right Acura.
+1, I find this stuff very interesting but yeah it's the end vehicle that matters.
+1, The 2G RDX chief chassis engineer spoke about the unique unibody components to the RDX in a YouTube clip using a bare chassis that had certain area's cut away to show details. IIRC there are certain areas of around the door openings and floor sill that utilize a similar "double box" section for increased rigidity.
Economies of scale and scope are what drives the auto industry. Honda/Acura, Toyota/Lexus, even within a manufacturer (ie GM Zeta or Alpha modular chassis). Whether it's the new DWB suspension being used on the MDX and TLX, K20 on a variety of Honda/Acura vehicles, or newish Honda 10AT being used there as well.
As for being scolded, don't worry I doubt those people even understand Porter's Five Forces.
Do slightly disagree on the latest CR-V/RDX chassis there are some significant differences that make them more a modular platform sharing than true platform sharing. Haven't looked underneath a 2G RDX but my wife has a 2017 CR-V so while some of the unibody chassis is probably identical there's alot of other aspects of the 2G RDX that use different stamping dies. But Acura/Honda have effectively decided to spend the money on that tooling to lend a more exclusive platform.
When I mention "platform" I need to explain. It all has to do with that very expensive assembly line and the machines needed to actually put the car together. It starts with the "jig", a fixture that the basic structure of the car fits on as it starts coming together. This jig is a very expensive fixture as it has to be very precise. When you look under a vehicle and see those oval or round holes that seem to do nothing...maybe have plugs on them, that is where the first part of the floor pan sit. The fixture holds everything straight while the additional parts are added to the structure. You have to build up the vehicle piece by piece. Its done in stages. If you look closely you will sometimes see little tabs bent over. These were there to hold the loose pieces together while the base of the vehicle moves down the assembly line. Once a certain number of parts are stuck loosely together the unit will stop in a special welding machine that surrounds the parts and then uses precise lasers to line everything up and then start welding. These are high dollar machines. A good engineering team figures out how to build several different models on the same machines. Think about, these things are custom built and cost millions of dollars a pop. Of course there are some other machines that will be dedicated to one particular body type. These are parked on the side of the "line" and can be moved in and out depending on what model you are building.
This is a very common practice in the industry. face it, a new model requiring a complete new line will set you back billions, with a capital "B", of dollars. Its common in the industry to sell a complete line. For example China bought GM's complete 2.5 "iron duke" line to build those engines. A company in Russia bought the complete line to build the Chrysler "JA" (later JR) line (the "cloud cars", Chrysler Cirrus/Dodge Stratus/Plymouth Breeze. The JR sedans were built at the Sterling Heights Assembly Plant, and convertible moved back there from Mexico. The tooling from Sterling Heights Assembly was sold to Russian-based GAZ in 2006. GAZ intends to move the whole production line to a plant in Russia to build licensed JR sedans under a different name - GAZ Siber - a facelifted Chrysler Sebring of the first generation.
This is all just business as usual. Building cars is a VERY expensive business to get into. You need to make that factory build as many different models as possible with the machines you invested so much money in. You can modify suspensions, etc. but the very basics of the vehicle need to be shared as much as possible.
I spent many years working in this environment. It was the greatest job a car guy could ever want.
I don't mind this at all especially if it keeps the car competitively priced and a value against other German models.
That being said, what then is the excuse for Honda's instrument cluster theme looking better than Acura's?
I just saw a review of the 2022 Mitsubishi(!!) Outlander and its instrument cluster appears 10/12 years ahead of what our RDX has - and could be argued to be ahead of what the new MDX is offering.
Their poor approach here I'm certain influenced (and continues to push) buyers to Audi, BMW, Volvo, etc. And with Genesis ramping up and producing reliable cars that also stand tall as a value against existing offerings in the segment - I can only expect sales to get worse for Acura. So share away to keep prices down, but at least do it right Acura.
You opened another can of worms. Honda is so far behind on infotainment/connected features, and at least to me some decision makings on the infotainment architecture seem to focus too much on backward compatibility rather than embracing the processing power of the infotainment unit.
When I mention "platform" I need to explain. It all has to do with that very expensive assembly line and the machines needed to actually put the car together. It starts with the "jig", a fixture that the basic structure of the car fits on as it starts coming together. This jig is a very expensive fixture as it has to be very precise. When you look under a vehicle and see those oval or round holes that seem to do nothing...maybe have plugs on them, that is where the first part of the floor pan sit. The fixture holds everything straight while the additional parts are added to the structure. You have to build up the vehicle piece by piece. Its done in stages. If you look closely you will sometimes see little tabs bent over. These were there to hold the loose pieces together while the base of the vehicle moves down the assembly line. Once a certain number of parts are stuck loosely together the unit will stop in a special welding machine that surrounds the parts and then uses precise lasers to line everything up and then start welding. These are high dollar machines. A good engineering team figures out how to build several different models on the same machines. Think about, these things are custom built and cost millions of dollars a pop. Of course there are some other machines that will be dedicated to one particular body type. These are parked on the side of the "line" and can be moved in and out depending on what model you are building.
This is a very common practice in the industry. face it, a new model requiring a complete new line will set you back billions, with a capital "B", of dollars. Its common in the industry to sell a complete line. For example China bought GM's complete 2.5 "iron duke" line to build those engines. A company in Russia bought the complete line to build the Chrysler "JA" (later JR) line (the "cloud cars", Chrysler Cirrus/Dodge Stratus/Plymouth Breeze. The JR sedans were built at the Sterling Heights Assembly Plant, and convertible moved back there from Mexico. The tooling from Sterling Heights Assembly was sold to Russian-based GAZ in 2006. GAZ intends to move the whole production line to a plant in Russia to build licensed JR sedans under a different name - GAZ Siber - a facelifted Chrysler Sebring of the first generation.
This is all just business as usual. Building cars is a VERY expensive business to get into. You need to make that factory build as many different models as possible with the machines you invested so much money in. You can modify suspensions, etc. but the very basics of the vehicle need to be shared as much as possible.
I spent many years working in this environment. It was the greatest job a car guy could ever want.
totally agree the very expensive business especially with all and the term platform is also kinda gray area in terms of what it means,
From the upfront tooling costs of a modern vehicle (not including drivetrain which are predominantly shared across multiple vehicles), AFAIK the most expensive are the chassis structural sheet die stamping tooling. Those huge stamping die cost from mid-six to mid-seven figures (depending on the type of die and hardness and tensile strength of the metal alloy), and mostly are progressive dies (multiple die sets needed for a single subassembly stamping). Most of the high end dies are hardened machine tool steel which are EDM'ed which can take up to 1/2 year to machine, some of the most expensive are carbide tungsten dies. Typically 100-150 structural die's are needed for a modern consumer car which makes the cost up to 9 figures. And does not even consider the cost of the stamping presses which are in the seven to eight figure range for the enormous ones shown in the YouTube clips below. Love the robotic die press trams at MB, those die can weight alot. To save time alot of auto manufacurers use the die trams to change out the die from one part to another.
So for a RDX any deviation from the CRV costs more money for specific dies that make non-CR-V structural and outer sheet metal components. That costs has to be amortized across the 5-6 year production run for a Honda/Acura. Honda in the early 2000's made their Alabama plant and newer Ohio assembly plants modular assembly lines which are made to be rapidly reconfigured. Ontario also followed IIRC. Allows multiple vehicle (large and small) to be able to assembled at multiple locations. Honda also uses robots to do welding to do some welding jigging (developed internally and some from Fanuc) which are then welded by other servo welders.
The auto business is extremely competitive so much so that in the mid-2000's Chrysler purchasing and operations were complaining to upper management that final assembly unique fastener types had risen to IIRC ~350, the CFO got a single copy of every fastener and put them in a large executive conference room. Then the upper engineering management were invited into the room to explain why all these different type of fasteners (many close in type/configuration) were needed. After a day looking at all the fasteners they went back and moved back toward a standard assembly fastener list which got it down to IIRC ~150. Made purchasing, SCM, logistics, dealerships, and everything better.
02-16-2021 | 09:11 AM
I find this stuff very interesting but yeah it's the end vehicle that matters.
The 2G RDX chief chassis engineer spoke about the unique unibody components to the RDX in a YouTube clip using a bare chassis that had certain area's cut away to show details. IIRC there are certain areas of around the door openings and floor sill that utilize a similar "double box" section for increased rigidity.
