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.
Sadly, we have become old people now too, later 70s. Tough to admit for this former “boy racer”. Our RDX is super-nice but it has *too many* bells-and-whistles, too many features. Like seat bolsters and extenders, the push button shifters, the where-is-it parking brake (oh yeah, down there), etc. We won’t discuss the touch pad. I lent it to a b.I.l. for the day and after all the training, he was happy to give it back.
The new CR-V seems to be a lot less complicated, very important for my wife.
So yes, talking about the CR-V in this Acura forum is very important.
In 3 years we have put 23K miles on it so the RDX will be here for a while, but if it isn’t for some reason, the CR-V may be the right move.
You bring up a great point! Appetites change as we age so there may come a point where an Acura is "too much."
The new CR-V seems to be a lot less complicated, very important for my wife. So yes, talking about the CR-V in this Acura forum is very important.
I agree that simplicity is greatly undervalued. Less is more. Luxury need not be complicated and gimmicky.
Originally Posted by Ludepower
CRV too anemic. X3 with all the bells and whistles is too expensive. All roads lead back to the RDX. It's found its sweet spot being the best of both worlds and why we all bought it.
Totally agree here too. Strong acceleration and sharp driving dynamics are a priority to me. I very much liked the dynamics of the X3 but thought the RDX was 99% as agile and refined. In some ways it felt lighter on its feet and crisper. To me, the BMW could not justify its higher price.
With respect to the CR-V, I feel Honda purposely tunes their suspensions to be a little soft and less responsive. Honda knows that’s what most American drivers prefer and that maximizes Honda’s sales. But Acura still targets a performance demographic. Acura’s steering and suspensions have a nice, refined edge to them. Even if the CR-V were two seconds faster to 60 mph, I doubt it would be rewarding enough to satisfy my tastes.
...
Strong acceleration and sharp driving dynamics are a priority to me. I very much liked the dynamics of the X3 but thought the RDX was 99% as agile and refined. In some ways it felt lighter on its feet and crisper. To me, the BMW could not justify its higher price.
...
This is exactly how we ended up with the CX-5 Sig over the RDX Adv.
You can never do too much research when it comes to something like this. If they put a 2.5l turbo in the CR-V, it would definitely take sales away from the RDX.
This is exactly how we ended up with the CX-5 Sig over the RDX Adv.
You can never do too much research when it comes to something like this. If they put a 2.5l turbo in the CR-V, it would definitely take sales away from the RDX.
Mazda definitely makes a fun-to-drive, athletic car. With the 2.5T, the CX-5 Sig it is plenty quick, has a heavy dose of luxury and is almost $10,000 less than an RDX Advance. It’s a great value. And yes, if Honda put the 2.0T in the CR-V, it would probably take away some sales from the RDX, and the Mazda CX-5 too for that matter.
But how much does power influence our buying decision? A Toyota RAV4 Hybrid is 5.4s to 60 mph with a 100-mph trap speed. No stock RDX or 2.5T CX-5 comes close to that level of acceleration. The RAV4 Hybrid Prime XSE lists for about $42G. But is that level of power enough to compensate for just so-so road manners? Likewise, if the CR-V still drives like a Honda, would the 2.0T be enough to pull that many sales away from the RDX? My guess is some, but not a lot.
The RAV4 Hybrid Prime XSE lists for about $42G. But is that level of power enough to compensate for just so-so road manners?
My sister had the RAV4 Hybrid Prime and didn't have it very long. If you're not familiar with the car, it's got an awful "angel chorus" sound when going in reverse. Not sure why Toyota couldn't come up with a more traditional backup sound, even if it sounds like a dump truck!
My sister had the RAV4 Hybrid Prime and didn't have it very long. If you're not familiar with the car, it's got an awful "angel chorus" sound when going in reverse. Not sure why Toyota couldn't come up with a more traditional backup sound, even if it sounds like a dump truck!
The Honda hybrids have that...well...some kind of tone that plays when driving at low speeds around the parking lot.
I actually like the new design. I'm not 100% crazy about it but it does give a refreshing look to the CR-V. My only issue is the wheels on the EX and EX-L. Looks like Honda phoned it in when the wheel design.
My sister had the RAV4 Hybrid Prime and didn't have it very long. If you're not familiar with the car, it's got an awful "angel chorus" sound when going in reverse. Not sure why Toyota couldn't come up with a more traditional backup sound, even if it sounds like a dump truck!
Wait, was that the reason she got rid of it?? Cause that's a little nutty... 😆
There are plenty of Toyota hybrids on my street. I don't know where you live, but I can't imagine anyone having a problem with it. It's a thousand times less obnoxious than the performance cars that buzz by and disturb the peace...
SHAWD is an active system. I enjoy its benefits daily, year round. Combined with good tires, it's there literally every time you turn at low speed with moderate throttle input. You can feel input into your steering from the throttle, a much more mild version of how you can steer an RWD car mid-corner with throttle inputs. It's certainly niche appeal (most drivers just prefer to turn ... slowly).
Being always active means it's great in snow compared to the slip-n-grip systems found in many of the competitors, but inclement weather is certainly not the only application.
But here in Philly we have very short blocks and tight narrow streets so this still wouldn't be that useful for me daily...and you are turning from traffic right back into traffic usually so you don't have the opportunity to throttle much. Out into the exurbs and during off hours it would probably be fun to have, though.
There are plenty of Toyota hybrids on my street. I don't know where you live, but I can't imagine anyone having a problem with it. It's a thousand times less obnoxious than the performance cars that buzz by and disturb the peace...
I was very specific in calling out the RAV4 PRIME. I'm not aware of any other Toyota hybrids with this issue, including Prius.
Ok. I was wrong. Wow. That's crazy. Why doesn;t it sound like all of their other hybrids backing up?? (Which is a less ridiculous version of that same sound, and to be honest, what I thought you were complaining about).
Ok. I was wrong. Wow. That's crazy. Why doesn;t it sound like all of their other hybrids backing up?? (Which is a less ridiculous version of that same sound, and to be honest, what I thought you were complaining about).
This is a pretty well known epic fail by Toyota (tons of YouTube videos for this). If there's a next gen of this car, you can be sure they will change the "angelic chorus". LOL!
This is a pretty well known epic fail by Toyota (tons of YouTube videos for this). If there's a next gen of this car, you can be sure they will change the "angelic chorus". LOL!
Fortunately the fix in the video does not seem that difficult.
Our 22 Highlander Hybrid has the same awful sound. It is REALLY bad. Due to age and injuries, I don't think I am able to do what the guy in the video did. Sadly.
I agree that simplicity is greatly undervalued. Less is more. Luxury need not be complicated and gimmicky.
Totally agree here too. Strong acceleration and sharp driving dynamics are a priority to me. I very much liked the dynamics of the X3 but thought the RDX was 99% as agile and refined. In some ways it felt lighter on its feet and crisper. To me, the BMW could not justify its higher price.
With respect to the CR-V, I feel Honda purposely tunes their suspensions to be a little soft and less responsive. Honda knows that’s what most American drivers prefer and that maximizes Honda’s sales. But Acura still targets a performance demographic. Acura’s steering and suspensions have a nice, refined edge to them. Even if the CR-V were two seconds faster to 60 mph, I doubt it would be rewarding enough to satisfy my tastes.
One thing I would definitely miss is that sweet 2.0 with 10-sp. V6? Who needs a steenkin' V6? Yesterday I took the RDX in for it's 3-year brake fluid service (he talked me out of the transmission service) and I quickly observed this is not the same old service setup. One expects guys in white shirts with the logo on one side and their name on the other, with black work slacks and work shoes. Nope, full suits, white shirt and tie, shiny shoes. Marble floors and counters. Then I realized Acura seems to be getting away from "entry level luxury" and moving right on up into luxury territory (though every one of us on here could refute the full luxury thing but maybe their target market, non-enthusiast ordinary people with good credit will be happy.). Seems to me the base price on my model is about $4K - $5K higher now. So the CR-V pushing $40K won't seem so alarming to people.
Is that really an accurate statement backed up by fact? When I began looking for a CUV with the amenities I wanted, Honda never entered the picture, despite owning multiple Honda vehicles over the years. I’m fairly certain that my ‘22 RDX Aspec Advance doesn’t have an equal in the CR-V.
Originally Posted by fiatlux
The RDX and CRV are very frequently cross shopped, so it’s not entirely irrelevant to this subforum.
Is that really an accurate statement backed up by fact? When I began looking for a CUV with the amenities I wanted, Honda never entered the picture, despite owning multiple Honda vehicles over the years. I’m fairly certain that my ‘22 RDX Aspec Advance doesn’t have an equal in the CR-V.
Your Aspec Advance is also in its first year of existence after much outcry. I can definitely see the Aspec or lower being cross-shopped with the CRV in prior years (especially when they were based on the same platform).
One of the toughest decisions in the past was Avalon or ES350? Toyota got rid of the Avalon so now problem solved!
Fair enough. This is my first Acura and so I don’t have the history, although I believe Acura left the CRV platform in the rear view mirror beginning with the 2019 year model (3G).
I would love to see an RDX in Type-S but that would cannibalize the Type-S MDX so not likely to happen.
QUOTE=ELIN;16859328]Your Aspec Advance is also in its first year of existence after much outcry. I can definitely see the Aspec or lower being cross-shopped with the CRV in prior years (especially when they were based on the same platform).
One of the toughest decisions in the past was Avalon or ES350? Toyota got rid of the Avalon so now problem solved![/QUOTE]
I would love to see an RDX in Type-S but that would cannibalize the Type-S MDX so not likely to happen.
It's understood that every Acura model will eventually have a Type S, including the RDX. You'll have to wait until the next gen RDX as the current one's engine bay isn't large enough for the Type S engine.
It's understood that every Acura model will eventually have a Type S, including the RDX. You'll have to wait until the next gen RDX as the current one's engine bay isn't large enough for the Type S engine.
That’s my guess also. The redesigned RDX (whatever year that is slated for) will have a Type S variant where the engine bay is large enough to accommodate the 3.0 Turbo motor.
An RDX with the 3.0T sounds pretty wonderful, but if there is an RDX Type S, it seems far more likely it will be powered by a tuned version of the 2.0T.
An RDX with the 3.0T sounds pretty wonderful, but if there is an RDX Type S, it seems far more likely it will be powered by a tuned version of the 2.0T.
That sounds incredibly unlikely given that it would only net what, an extra 30 or so horsepower?
The crossover counterpart to the TLX is the RDX, so it stands to reason both would have similar powertrain options, as we see with the regular models.
That sounds incredibly unlikely given that it would only net what, an extra 30 or so horsepower?
The crossover counterpart to the TLX is the RDX, so it stands to reason both would have similar powertrain options, as we see with the regular models.
I believe the Civic Type R makes 315HP. Assuming the RDX Type S uses the exact same engine, that's a difference of 43HP. There's only 65HP separating the MDX and MDX Type S. I didn't crunch any numbers, but I'll wager that increase reflects a similar HP-to-pound ratio as the two 2.0T's would in the RDX. Of course, many have claimed the CTR's HP is limited to 315 because it has to put that power down through front wheels only, and that the 2.0T has plenty more to offer. It's Honda, so I have to believe that's probably true.
I disagree that the crossover counterpart to the TLX is the RDX - at least not from an architectural standpoint. Acura says they are both unique, of course, but in the past the RDX and CR-V were both built on the Civic platform, not the Accord platform which was reserved for the larger MDX and Pilot. I'll also add that the cost for the TLX getting the V6 is compromised interior room relative to the car's footprint. Not great for a sedan, but terrible for a utility vehicle.
As I said, I genuinely hope Acura does offer the 3.0T in the RDX. But from a cost and engineering standpoint, the 2.0T makes more sense. Fingers crossed they prove me wrong.
I believe the Civic Type R makes 315HP. Assuming the RDX Type S uses the exact same engine, that's a difference of 43HP. There's only 65HP separating the MDX and MDX Type S. I didn't crunch any numbers, but I'll wager that increase reflects a similar HP-to-pound ratio as the two 2.0T's would in the RDX. Of course, many have claimed the CTR's HP is limited to 315 because it has to put that power down through front wheels only, and that the 2.0T has plenty more to offer. It's Honda, so I have to believe that's probably true.
I disagree that the crossover counterpart to the TLX is the RDX - at least not from an architectural standpoint. Acura says they are both unique, of course, but in the past the RDX and CR-V were both built on the Civic platform, not the Accord platform which was reserved for the larger MDX and Pilot. I'll also add that the cost for the TLX getting the V6 is compromised interior room relative to the car's footprint. Not great for a sedan, but terrible for a utility vehicle.
As I said, I genuinely hope Acura does offer the 3.0T in the RDX. But from a cost and engineering standpoint, the 2.0T makes more sense. Fingers crossed they prove me wrong.
The TLX and RDX are counterparts because they're priced similarly, their interiors are very very similar, and their hardware is very very similar. Even if you look at prior generations, the 2G RDX was much closer to the TL and TLX than it is to the ILX.
Would you agree that the X3 and 3 Series are counterparts? That the GLC and C class are counterparts? That the Q5 and A4 are counterparts? That the XC60 and S60 are counterparts? Well, if the RDX competes with the X3, GLC, Q5, and XC60, and the TLX competes with the 3-Series, C-Class, A4, and S60, then it would stand to reason that the RDX and TLX are counterparts. #transitiveproperty
The TLX and RDX are counterparts because they're priced similarly, their interiors are very very similar, and their hardware is very very similar. Even if you look at prior generations, the 2G RDX was much closer to the TL and TLX than it is to the ILX.
Would you agree that the X3 and 3 Series are counterparts? That the GLC and C class are counterparts? That the Q5 and A4 are counterparts? That the XC60 and S60 are counterparts? Well, if the RDX competes with the X3, GLC, Q5, and XC60, and the TLX competes with the 3-Series, C-Class, A4, and S60, then it would stand to reason that the RDX and TLX are counterparts. #transitiveproperty
The X3 and 3-Series are counterparts because they do in fact share a platform. Ditto the GLC/C-Class, Q5/A4 and XC60/S60. There are exceptions, but platform-mates tend to share powertrain offerings. The CR-V and Accord might be counterparts following your guidelines, but from a mechanical standpoint the CR-V and Civic are much more similar.
I disagree that the crossover counterpart to the TLX is the RDX - at least not from an architectural standpoint. Acura says they are both unique, of course, but in the past the RDX and CR-V were both built on the Civic platform, not the Accord platform which was reserved for the larger MDX and Pilot. I'll also add that the cost for the TLX getting the V6 is compromised interior room relative to the car's footprint. Not great for a sedan, but terrible for a utility vehicle.
Acura's use of "unique" stretches the truth quite a bit - it's no more unique than the difference between a Golf and an Atlas (both of which are on the MQB platform). Honda uses a few global platforms (small car, medium car, and truck) and the rest are just modifications from that. Eg. the Pilot, Passport, MDX, and Odyssey are all on the same platform while the Accord, Civic, CR-V are all on the same platform. The RDX and TLX both share a lot of the basics from the Accord/Civic platform - particularly the middle of the platform. It's "unique" only in that there's customisation but it's no more unique than the difference between an A4 and a Cayenne (also the same platform).
As for the TLX's V6, the packaging compromise wasn't driven by the V6, it was driven by the design decision to do a cab backwards look - if you look under the hood the empty space is between the struts and the firewall, not the where the V6 goes.
As for the TLX's V6, the packaging compromise wasn't driven by the V6, it was driven by the design decision to do a cab backwards look - if you look under the hood the empty space is between the struts and the firewall, not the where the V6 goes.
They did go a bit far attempting to give it a RWD appearance. Unfortunately the front overhang still gives it away.
What I find particularly baffling about the TLX's packaging is the rear legroom. The TLX is 2.5" longer than the Accord with a 2.5" longer wheelbase, but it has 5.5" less rear legroom. In fact, the Integra has 2.5" more legroom than the TLX.
I believe the Civic Type R makes 315HP. Assuming the RDX Type S uses the exact same engine, that's a difference of 43HP. There's only 65HP separating the MDX and MDX Type S. I didn't crunch any numbers, but I'll wager that increase reflects a similar HP-to-pound ratio as the two 2.0T's would in the RDX. Of course, many have claimed the CTR's HP is limited to 315 because it has to put that power down through front wheels only, and that the 2.0T has plenty more to offer. It's Honda, so I have to believe that's probably true.
I disagree that the crossover counterpart to the TLX is the RDX - at least not from an architectural standpoint. Acura says they are both unique, of course, but in the past the RDX and CR-V were both built on the Civic platform, not the Accord platform which was reserved for the larger MDX and Pilot. I'll also add that the cost for the TLX getting the V6 is compromised interior room relative to the car's footprint. Not great for a sedan, but terrible for a utility vehicle.
As I said, I genuinely hope Acura does offer the 3.0T in the RDX. But from a cost and engineering standpoint, the 2.0T makes more sense. Fingers crossed they prove me wrong.
The R engine has a different turbo, makes way less low end torque but far more higher end power. It is not just a tune on the same engine.
They did go a bit far attempting to give it a RWD appearance. Unfortunately the front overhang still gives it away.
What I find particularly baffling about the TLX's packaging is the rear legroom. The TLX is 2.5" longer than the Accord with a 2.5" longer wheelbase, but it has 5.5" less rear legroom. In fact, the Integra has 2.5" more legroom than the TLX.
Wow, I Googled this because I didn't believe you, and your right! I had a rented TLX and it felt WAYYYY smaller inside than my Accord. Amazing.
They did go a bit far attempting to give it a RWD appearance. Unfortunately the front overhang still gives it away.
What I find particularly baffling about the TLX's packaging is the rear legroom. The TLX is 2.5" longer than the Accord with a 2.5" longer wheelbase, but it has 5.5" less rear legroom. In fact, the Integra has 2.5" more legroom than the TLX.
For some odd reason, the TLX has always had less rear leg room than the Accord. Everything in the TLX class has little to no leg room in the back. 3 Series is the same way as well as the A series from Audi and C class from Mercedes.
For some odd reason, the TLX has always had less rear leg room than the Accord. Everything in the TLX class has little to no leg room in the back. 3 Series is the same way as well as the A series from Audi and C class from Mercedes.
Maybe they figured that too much legroom in the back will make the car feel like a family car, which would take away from the "sporty" nature of the car. I honestly can't fathom any other reason why they would do this, especially considering the 1G TLX has the same wheelbase as the 9G Accord and isn't saddled with the "RWD proportions" like the 2G TLX. It seems more like a conscious decision they made rather than one due to the constraints of the platform. It's not even like the trunk is bigger; in fact that Accord has a bigger trunk to boot. Fuel tank is the same size too, so it's not like that ate into the space...
For some odd reason, the TLX has always had less rear leg room than the Accord. Everything in the TLX class has little to no leg room in the back. 3 Series is the same way as well as the A series from Audi and C class from Mercedes.
AND, the Gen 3 RDX has less rear legroom then either the Gen 5 or Gen 6 CR-V
Maybe they figured that too much legroom in the back will make the car feel like a family car, which would take away from the "sporty" nature of the car. I honestly can't fathom any other reason why they would do this, especially considering the 1G TLX has the same wheelbase as the 9G Accord and isn't saddled with the "RWD proportions" like the 2G TLX. It seems more like a conscious decision they made rather than one due to the constraints of the platform. It's not even like the trunk is bigger; in fact that Accord has a bigger trunk to boot. Fuel tank is the same size too, so it's not like that ate into the space...
Originally Posted by JB in AZ
AND, the Gen 3 RDX has less rear legroom then either the Gen 5 or Gen 6 CR-V
The more I look at it the more I see yall's point. The adding more back seat space seems like it'll take away from the "sporty" feel and make it more a family vehicle. If you had the same space in the TLX/RDX as the Accord/CR-V, it'll be competition with it's own product. People might go more for the CR-V/Accord since it's like $5-10k in price difference.
I assume the rear leg room issue has a lot to due with the fact that the TLX has the optional SH-AWD system when compared to the FWD-only Accord (and even Civic). Gotta make room for that driveshaft and rear diff. It's just unfortunate that it has the least amount of rear legroom in its class, which include all other cars with AWD systems with the same hurdles.
For some odd reason, the TLX has always had less rear leg room than the Accord. Everything in the TLX class has little to no leg room in the back. 3 Series is the same way as well as the A series from Audi and C class from Mercedes.
Problem is the TLX is larger than the Germans you mentioned. In fact, the TLX is the size of the 5-Series, E-Class and A6, and all three have more rear legroom.
We'll see how well the 3G RDX and new CRV does, but the previous gen CRV sure didn't fare well with the updated crash test. If the RDX does considerably better than the CRV, that could be the deciding factor for families.
12-04-2022, 06:08 AM
