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.
I genuinely believe the RDX specifically the Aspec is one of the better looking SUV on the road.
Which SUV would you rate just as nice or better looking. Only caveat it can't be longer in length (187") than the RDX.
For me, the RDX is a tale of two angles. From the front and side profile, it looks fantastic. Aggressive, sharp, and well-proportioned. But from the back, it's a bit of a snooze. There's not a whole lot going on back there in terms of angles or shapes, and it kind of remands me of the bland HRV rear end.
So for overall appearances, I like (in no particular order)
Alfa Romeo Stelvio
Porsche Macan
Jag F-Type
Volvo XC40
X3 (in M guise)
The RDX SH-AWD Advance is at the very top as well. It all depends upon the preference for the "sportie look'. Black-painted wheels with 45 aspect ratio tires, for instance, is not for me - OK for suburban use but not for two-tracks.
Great looking compact SUVs: X3, Stelvio, XC40/60, Corsair, CX-5, Macan.
I think the rear is boring (as noted by others) and the stance could be a bit more aggressive - the wheel gap is a bit much for a performance brand and the wheels don't come out enough to the fender's edge (like on a X3 M40i or Macan). A 9" wheel with a 45 offset and a 1 inch lower ride height would do wonders for its looks. Coming from a FWD platform, it's too bad the front overhang is so long.
My favourite exterior is the X3 M40i in Phytonic Blue - great colour, very nice wheels, good stance, solid proportions. Not overly aggressive - definitely an urban vehicle.
Cayenne Coupe looks great in person.
GLE in AMG form has great stance.
Mansory Urus got to be the pinnacle of all. If you think Urus is straight out of a sci-fi book, see a Mansory Urus in person and it will leave you jaw-dropped.
Call me crazy, but I really like the VW Tiguan R-Line. It would be nice if it had something decent under the hood. Also, the Audi SQ5 ... but having wrenched on cars for a few years of my life, I doubt I'll ever park a VW/Audi product in my driveway. They always look nice, but make me want to put a wrench thru some f*cking drywall just thinking about the disaster of "engineering" that they decide to put them together with.
I like the X3 w/ mSport trim. Those wheels and blue brake calipers look amazing to me!
I like the RDX, too, but I think the X3 is a more enduring look. Either way, wasn't worth the extra $$ to me in the end, especially because my wife found the RDX seats so much more comfortable (and she's not wrong!)
Call me crazy, but I really like the VW Tiguan R-Line. It would be nice if it had something decent under the hood. Also, the Audi SQ5 ... but having wrenched on cars for a few years of my life, I doubt I'll ever park a VW/Audi product in my driveway. They always look nice, but make me want to put a wrench thru some f*cking drywall just thinking about the disaster of "engineering" that they decide to put them together with.
Not crazy - it's a nice trim level and agreed on the motor. If it had the GTI motor I might have ended up owning that instead. The updated 2021 Tiguan looks even better: https://www.slashgear.com/2021-volks...tech-30627058/
The X3 does nothing for me. On the other hand, the X2 is a very cool looking vehicle. Does it count as an SUV? Barely. And of course it's not nearly as functional as an RDX.
Last edited by Waetherman; 07-20-2020 at 10:03 AM.
The RDX SH-AWD Advance is at the very top as well. It all depends upon the preference for the "sportie look'. Black-painted wheels with 45 aspect ratio tires, for instance, is not for me - OK for suburban use but not for two-tracks.
Advance rims are a turn off. Honda likes to put ugly rims on their top trim like the Accord Touring.
Advance rims are a turn off. Honda likes to put ugly rims on their top trim like the Accord Touring.
Haha. I own both cars.
I like the Accord rims, though admittedly the Sport trim wheels are nicer.
I HATED the RDX rims. I mean, you're working your way through the configurator and you start with the base model ... Hmmm those wheels are alright ... Tech ... nice ... A-spec .. Wow! Advance ... WHAT??
If I could have had the A-Spec AND Advance packages, I would have bought the car months earlier than I did. Here's what I ended up with instead (before I got it tinted ... still haven't taken photos of the "final product"):
Advance rims are a turn off. Honda likes to put ugly rims on their top trim like the Accord Touring.
See emphasis on the tires: My preference would NEVER be the use of 45 aspect ratio tires on the two-tracks where I go. My emphasis is more on 'Utility' rather that 'Sport'.
I use other cars for 'sport'.
The only problem with good asthetic styling in an SUV/CUV (and the RDX is tops in style), is it sacrifices some of the "UV" practically. My RDX is only inches shorter and narrower than my 1st gen Pilot but it doesn't come close in interior passenger or cargo space. The lower profile and tapered aerodynamic styling results in my wife constantly reminding me on shopping trips how what has to packed by an expert cargo master (me), used to get lost in the back of my Pilot.
Even the 3G Pilot (which she wanted) suffers from this affliction. It's 8" longer and 3" wider than my 1G and still has less cargo room and ground clearance and would not fit in my garage. I just didn't want another big glass box and a 3rd row I never used.
That said, if I hadn't bought the RDX, I probably would have gotten a Pilot. But I have no regrets.
You can replace advanced rims with nice looking rims, but its another expense that goes towards the car. Maybe they did it intentionally because they think if you buying top of the line trim, you will also have money to add one of their $2500 wheel packet as an "option".
The only problem with good asthetic styling in an SUV/CUV (and the RDX is tops in style), is it sacrifices some of the "UV" practically.
I'm not going to lie; coming from a 3G CRV, I miss the extra cargo space. I think the 3G had around 35 cubic feet, and the RDX only has about 30. I felt that crunch on a fully-loaded vacation trip this last week with the family, but I managed it without having to put the rear seats down. We'll see how it fares on my first camping trip this coming weekend. We downsized are car but upsized our camping gear, so it'll be interesting..
The newer CRV has almost 40 cubic feet of storage which is really impressive. I used to say "everything fits in the CRV" but I can't say the same for the RDX. But I guess that's what hitch cargo carriers are for.
well that's certainly the trade off by going towards a "sportier" cuv....you get less room for your stuff.
Butt, you guise didnt buy the RDX to hold your stuff.
Well I actually did buy it to hold my stuff. When I looked for a new car, I considered a lot of compact SUVs but the Acura had the best cargo area of its class (the F-Pace was good too, but I haven't shaken my concern about Jaguar reliability... or price). But looking good was what drew me to the car in the first place - I saw one passing me on the highway (not hard to do in a CRV) and thought it looked great and still roomy enough for my gear. Once I saw one in the showroom, and got inside, it spoiled me for any future CRV or similar vehicles.
[QUOTE=fiatlux;16602640]For me, the RDX is a tale of two angles. From the front and side profile, it looks fantastic. Aggressive, sharp, and well-proportioned. But from the back, it's a bit of a snooze. There's not a whole lot going on back there in terms of angles or shapes, and it kind of remands me of the bland HRV rear end.
I like the X3 w/ mSport trim. Those wheels and blue brake calipers look amazing to me!
I like the RDX, too, but I think the X3 is a more enduring look. Either way, wasn't worth the extra $$ to me in the end, especially because my wife found the RDX seats so much more comfortable (and she's not wrong!)
Top german trims like AMG, BMW M and Audi S isn't a fair comparison. They're over the top gorgeous with the hefty price tag.
The RDX still has an ace up its sleeve if we get a Type S version or PMC version or mid life cycle changes.
Gloss black every black plastic trim on the car, black chrome emblems, wider tires, lower the stance, lip kits, bumper redesign, etc
You're right that the Germans have an unfair advantage because they are more expensive. And they sure are more expensive! Just going by MSRP, here in Canada, an X3 mSport 30i has to have just about every box checked to be similar to the top trim RDX, and that includes Adaptive Dampers ($1000) and Harmon Kardon ($1000), the Driving Assistant Plus pack ($3000 for ACC, LKAS and surround view camera) as well as the mSport pack itself ($4500) and the better of the two premium packs ($6000). In the end, including $900 for blue, $1500 for Leather (without which you don't get cooled OR EVEN HEATED seats), it came to C$70k, which is a full $15k more than the RDX. And of course, it would have to be factory ordered, so 5-9 week wait. In stock models almost never have adaptive dampers, HK audio or the driving assistance pack, and definitely don't have all 3.
Anyway I'm definitely interested in an RDX Type S when my lease is up in 4 years. If they can keep the price less than $10k above the current top RDX they would be competing with the mSport 30i while having the driving chops to compete with the mSport 40i. If the price is right, and the execution, I'll be all over that.
well that's certainly the trade off by going towards a "sportier" cuv....you get less room for your stuff.
Butt, you guise didnt buy the RDX to hold your stuff.
Yep. Our 2007 RDX backseat and trunk are laughably small.
You can replace advanced rims with nice looking rims, but its another expense that goes towards the car. Maybe they did it intentionally because they think if you buying top of the line trim, you will also have money to add one of their $2500 wheel packet as an "option".
"Maybe they did it intentionally because they think if you buying top of the line trim".
"Maybe" is correct. The Advance wheels look good to me - even when covered with mud..
"Maybe they did it intentionally because they think if you buying top of the line trim".
"Maybe" is correct. The Advance wheels look good to me - even when covered with mud..
It's obviously subjective, but my own take is that the RDX is aiming at two fairly distinct buyers, as indicated by the existence of two default drive modes (this is the only car I've owned, or even tested, that has a daily drivable Sport mode that doesn't go back to "comfort" when the car is turned off).
The first set of buyers are the ones that might have bought an Lexus RX, or some other luxury-focused vehicle, but realized just how much better the value, and the driving experience, is in the RDX. Those people probably enjoy the wheels. They do have some nice artsy detail to them. This set of buyers probably also did not hate the 2nd gen RDX, which featured almost identical wheels on every model pre-refresh, and admittedly, the Advance wheels are nicer than those.
The second set of buyers are the ones who, like me, came up with Honda's sportier offerings, and an appreciation for Honda's general ability to make sporty cars and fun-to-drive cars that were also incredibly practical, reliable and affordable. Or, just people who like sporty cars in general. This group of buyers almost certainly HATED the 2nd gen RDX. To us, it wasn't a "great value" it was just a slightly luxurious car that drove like a CRV with a V6 and had zero handling prowess. The Advance wheels bring us back to that awful, uninspired, cheap 2nd gen car. It's also a massive letdown if you're working your way up the trims in the configurator. The A-Spec wheels are EXACTLY the kind of wheels most of these drivers are after. Based on a 5-spoke design (yes, I know they have 15 spokes), large but not over-the-top, and a dark colour. I guess Acura thought that these people are more likely to buy an A-spec, but there is just so much stuff missing in the A-spec, especially the adaptive dampers, which are easily the most "sporty" feature available on the car.
I had the Advance wheels on my car for just over a week before my wheels came in and in that time, I went from hating them to just ignoring them. They aren't as bad as I thought. I will be happy enough to wear them in the winter.
Choosing between aspec vs advance, is features vs looks. I dont think price difference between the two is significant. There is no good explanation why aspec does not come with all the features that are in advance.
I like sporty looking cars with nice looking wheels, so aspec was an obvious choice. If they had aspec that had included features of the advance, I would pay for them, but Acura decided not to offer this.
I am sure some people buy Acura wheels from the dealer for 3k to replace their Advance wheels, that is why they make “optional” wheels.
Personal preference:
1. Mazda CX5 in Soul Red (giving a pass to that yawning front end)
2. Acura RDX Advance (a little prejudiced here)
3. Volvo XC60 in white
I genuinely believe the RDX specifically the Aspec is one of the better looking SUV on the road.
Which SUV would you rate just as nice or better looking. Only caveat it can't be longer in length (187") than the RDX.
I hesitated to reply to this, as I might have a contrary opinion...
I personally don't care for the A-Spec look, I do prefer a bit of chrome, and I really don't like the red gauges, at least from pictures I have seen here. They may be "sporty" but I think they would be really hard to read. I had a Pontiac 6000 STE in the mid-late 80's that had red dash lighting/gauges, and I remember finding them difficult to read.
I never looked/considered at any other trim than the Advance before I bought mine, as I wanted the feature set it provided, but I may NOT have bought an RDX at all if they all looked like the A-Spec. Just one man's opinion.
Without looking up specs to stay within the stated overall length requirement, I agree the CX-5 is a good looker (only in red!), but wouldn't buy one. I've seen a few recent Audi Q5s and Q7s (over length?) that are stunning, and I think the Lincoln Corsair is in my list of lookers (length?)..
I have only driven the CX5 a couple of times at a ride-and-drive events at a car show but I remember it being a fun car to drive, vaguely reminiscent of point-and-shoot Civics. But the short seats were a turnoff. I could learn to love the front end, just like I have done with all the Acuras we have owned over the last 10 years,
We need all the nanny features we can get as age and physical issues have crept up on us. My boy-racer days are a fond memory. So the RDX Advance is pretty much the perfect car for us if we can be 100% on top of all the features - a work in progress.
Personal preference:
1. Mazda CX5 in Soul Red (giving a pass to that yawning front end)
2. Acura RDX Advance (a little prejudiced here)
3. Volvo XC60 in white
I'd probably flip this list. I don't see a bad side in the current Volvo design. If not for reliability reputation and less involved driving character, I might have one.
I do like the CX-5, but it can look odd to me from some angles, and some proportions seem off. It comes across to me as an enlarged (puffy?) hatchback.The Mazda version of candy apple red is beautiful, no question. (Especially through polarized sunglasses)
The RDX design is not perfect, maybe just a little over-styled, and sideview can look bulbous around the rear hatch, but that's function over form. But overall, to me, second only to the Swede.
07-19-2020, 11:32 AM
