Correct. The 3G RDX has a new, "completely exclusive platform for the RDX". It's not shared with CRV. This is from a Honda R&D person; the people who built the thing. Speculation to the contrary from internet sources that are comfortable with biases and assumptions should be discounted.

 

I believe that what Hans was saying is the the RDX is "based" on a CRV ...developed with knowledge from building and engineering previous and current generations of CR-Vs. The current RDX IS a dedicated platform. (Sorry Hans, I don't mean to put words in your mouth.) (human cousins may not look at all alike, or have the same "frame" )

The first two generations of RDX used the CR-V platform. The 2nd Gen RDX (2013-2018) used the 4th Gen CR-V platform (2011-2016) ...actually meaning that the Gen 3 RDX was mostly a generation behind the CR-V, at least the 2017 and 2018 models. The 3rd Generation RDX is totally different from any CR-V platform, but was developed using knowledge learned from developing the CR-V platform. (From Acura:" Originally, the RDX was built upon the same platform Honda uses for their Civic and CR-V passenger cars. However starting from its third generation, the Acura RDX is built on its own platform" ) See this: new platform The engineering used and developed from previous CR-V platforms was modified, expanded, etc. so that things learned from the CR-V development... and suspensions, subframes (etc) could be developed to provide a better handling vehicle for the intended audience. It is NOT the same platform as the 5th Gen CR-V. This doesn't mean that there are not some shared parts. I have one of both in my garage. 2019 RDX and 2020 CR-V.

 

I don't doubt that development of 3rd-gen RDX took advantage of general design and engineering data from prior generation CR-Vs and RDXs, but in terms of parts bin I believe it shares a few fasteners with current CR-V. As noted, it shares much bigger pieces with current Accord. And yeah, I also bought one of each, but the CR-V skipped town with my daughter. ( But both daughter and CR-V may soon skip back the way things are going... )

Back in the day, my mom once asked me what I thought of the new Cadillac Cimarron, ( oops, "Cimarron by Cadillac" ). After I wiped the vomit off my shoes, I advised her that it was a gussied up Chevy Cavalier that had nothing in common with other Cadillacs. Cimarron is now a synonym for "rebadged car disaster". It almost killed Cadillac as a brand.

Anyone remember the Acura SLX, AKA Isuzu Trooper? Or Honda Passport? No, not that one, the rebadged Isuzu Rodeo of the 1990's. And why does Honda want to remind us of that? Maybe "Honda TSA" didn't evoke the travel-themed vibe they were looking for, to go along with their "Pilot"?

Anyway, back to team SEXY ( models S, 3, X, Y ), if not for the "economy mainstream" model they are claiming is a luxury car, Tesla would be bankrupt. And now we're comparing their "mainstream SUV" offering to actual SUVs. Model Y is the spawn of a station wagon and a fastback. No SUVs were even in the room.

 

A blast from the past! '77 thru late '82ish I ran the service dept. at a Chevy dealership. Shortly after the infamous Chevy Citation, the "X" body replacement for the Nova, etc came out, this particular store's service dept. was selected by Chevy to do the labor on removing the engines out of new Citations, and installing the new "J" car engines for testing. The "J" car was the soon to be released Cavalier...which, as you mentioned, spawned the Cadillac Cimarron...The Cimarron followed the Cadillac Seville, which was a gussied up (4th Gen) Chevy Nova...

Useless bit of trivia:
Chevrolet Nova
Oldsmobile Omega
Pontiac Ventura
Buick Apollo

...All badge engineered Novas

 

Not actually useless. Their is a connection from the practice of badge engineering to the fact that 50% of the auto brands you mentioned no longer exist. Badge engineering is a symptom of a larger problem. In the case of GM: too much overlap.

Never saw the acronym before. Look at GM getting clever...

 

Tesla never claimed model 3 to be a luxury vehicle. The word luxury doesn't even appear in their press release nor model description site. In fact, they claim "affordable" and performance. If anything, fault them for saying it's affordable. But I understand it's hard to overcome that bias.

SUV, Fastback, CUV.... it all comes down to functionality and looks. Model Y looks more like the X4 or the GLE coupe.

Sandy Munro just got hold of one, can't wait for his tear down results.

 

IIRC, one of the reasons for the overlap was that GM had too much Nova production capability so they expanded the Nova to the other divisions. (That platform also underpinned the Camaro and Firebird) It really didn't fit well with Buick's product lineup or branding...and they continued that poor matchup with the J car ..Buick had their rebadged Chevy Cavalier (also named Chevy Monza for a few years): the Buick Skyhawk...Olds had the Firenza, and Pontiac had the Sunbird also known as the J2000 in some years.

It's really no surprise that half of those GM divisions no longer exits. I still wonder why there is a GMC division. Just make higher end trim lines of the Chevy pickup and call it a day.

 

This looks like more space than our RDX....... so much for a fastback huh...

 

Yeah, that looks great. Hope he leans his head back over the rear seat before someone slams that hatch down on his head! The steep slope of the hatch is what makes it a fastback, for those who are unfamiliar with the term.

And to preempt the but, but, but what about the GLC whatever "crossover coupe", those are also fastbacks. A coupe is a two door, for one thing. And the other slanty roofed crossovers are equally useless for hauling bulky cargo. But at least some of them have a little ground clearance.

 

Make that shallow slope, or not very vertical, or something like that. Shouldn't post at 2:00am.

 

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere, but for those of us who aren't in a big rush to go electric, Honda has announced a cooperative venture with GM. They hope to have product on the road around 2024.

https://hondanews.com/en-US/honda-co...tium-batteries

 

I guess they prefer to tip toe into the new space. They will be beat by Nissan, Kia, Hyundai, and VW by then, but since sales are unlikely to be huge, Honda will probably be OK arriving late to the show. Nissan Ariya looks amazing.

 

Well, Nissan needs to do something to stay relevant. I kinda forgot about them after the 280Z.

 

Well, they don't need to sell them, just make them to meet the emission rule by 2025. This is why most traditional manufacturer will roll out a half-ass EV that's not worth a dime. Hopefully they will see the change in consumer behavior and take EV seriously. Hybrid, as it stands now, won't hit the required MPG unless significant improvements are made in the current technology. OR, a change in policy.

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/t...fornia-waiver/

 

But the manufacturers have seen the change in consumer behavior. The consumers stopped buying sedans and switched to SUVs that get inferior fuel economy. So although new sedans are much more efficient than old sedans, and new SUVs are a bit more efficient than old SUVs, the overall change is pretty much a wash.

If you give Americans a choice between what's good for them and what they want, which do you think they will choose? Now try giving them a choice between what they want, and what is in the collective good.

In that regard, I'm actually pretty amazed at what is happening right now in terms of "social distancing", with a bit of coaching and convincing, and some threatening, and a lot of pure terror. It gives me hope.

 

People are convinced that social distancing benefits “me” and is also good for everyone. Just being good for everyone is not enough, IMO.

 

Likely true for a great many people, but few things related to human nature are universally true. A big exception would be the medical people, first responders, researchers and others who the rest of us are depending on. These people are self-sacrificing in ways that demonstrate how they are the best of us.

 

Yes, for sure. And the various emergency service people, and members of the military. Too, this crisis is seen as more real than ‘global warming’ which is where the switch to EV from ICE is seen as being aimed at.

FWIW, I do expect my next car to be an EV, and quite possibly a Tesla. But it is more than global warming that is pointing me in that direction.

 

I'm in the same boat. If global warming is my primary goal, I would be driving a Prius 10 years ago. I haven't met anyone with a Tesla that talks about global warming as their primary reason for buying one. I for one likes the technology and engineering the company puts behind the product. Second, the disruption of the dealer network ( which I frankly want to avoid at all costs.) The third would probably be the performance and driving dynamics (model 3, hopefully model y drives as nice) The last would probably be supporting the transition of ICE to EV for removal of oil dependency and corn subsidies.

 

The Tesla buyers do seem to have interests and motives that are very different from Prius (or other) BEV buyers..I agree that the vehicle performance and dynamics are a bigger pull for those who end up in a Tesla. Some people also seem to be Musk fans and want to be a part of whatever he's doing. I do see myself in an EV not too far from now, and I believe climate change is real, but I wouldn't buy a Prius in any current form given a choice. I want something less single-minded; I'll need more "performance and dynamics". Eliminating dealer sales interactions is a big draw too.

 

That is a big draw for me -- knowing that I didn't get screwed over compared to someone else driving the exact same car.

I wouldn't mind paying for service from a good salesperson, but nowadays I don't think there are any left in the business. There was a time when being a car salesman was a career rather than a gig. Nowadays, few sales people even know the features in the car or the manufacturers line up as well as an informed customer. So their job is basically to go with customers on a test drive, make small talk, and then be the go-between to sales manager until the deal is signed. Go in a few weeks later and the salesperson may no longer be working there.

 

I had a great salesperson AND a great service adviser over the last 6 years at our Ford/Lincoln dealer. Even with that, I couldn't justify buying another new Ford or Lincoln product, with the poor resale value and high starting prices (Lincoln). It was a tough choice, as a great sales experience and excellent service experience is one thing I expect at a premium brand dealer. So far I am underwhelmed by my Acura dealer.
I hear getting warranty work on Teslas is not an easy thing.

 

Very close to my experience. I dealt with a young guy -- late twenties -- who was unable to respond directly to ANY question, and certainly nothing about money. I ended up dealing directly with their really good sales manager as the kid was actually slowing me down. He was totally unnecessary from my standpoint, but obviously the sales manager can't be all things to all customers. I understand how Musk thought he could do better.

 

The RDX evolved from the CR-V which evolved from the Civic. Now, a little tiny bit of truth about building a vehicle. I realize most people don't know all the details of designing and building a car and the factory and machines that go into putting one together. Its an expensive proposition, make no mistake. If you want a clean sheet car you should expect to spend between four and six billion dollars. Ford spent the higher amount on their new "world car" back in the 1990's. You know those model here in the US as the Contour. It was to be built around the world under different names. The high price tag was due to having to build all the tooling. I think they got the new Taurus out for about four billion. A more modest new model you may get up and running on the cheap for around one billion dollars. Volkswagen got their new Golf model out on the cheap for 1.2 billion. A redesign for the new BMW 7 series came in at "only" eight hundred million.
A few details to remember: Honda builds the RDX at East Liberty, Ohio. What else is built there??? And, if you read Honda's press releases, they state they spent "Fifty-four million dollars on new equipment to build the RDX". Now, 54 mil doesn't buy near the equipment to build an all new car model. It is in the best interest of Honda/Acura to state that this is an "all new platform". They want to separate the CR-V from the RDX, wouldn't you? And, there are many differences between them in the design and appearance. But look at what is in the RDX; This car got a lot of its components from the Honda parts bin. They had to. They can not build the RDX for the price they do if they had to spend a billion dollars or more on an all new model that is totally unique from anything else they build
.
When a car is built you start with one basic part, the floor pan. This is the basic structure where everything else gets attached. The parts of the floor pan are placed on a "jig" which is a super precise fixture that holds everything in place while the pieces get assembled. On the assembly line there is one jig for each body going down the line. It takes a LOT of those jigs to run the factory. Those jigs cost like $30,000 a piece and you need lots. More on that later. Those big oblong holes in the bottom of your car, these are there to fit on the jig while the car moved down the line. Its fun to watch a car start from that first piece and then get built up from there. There are a LOT of very expensive robots that put this thing together. There are massive machines that precisely line up all the parts and then weld them together. All of these cost a ton of money.
The key to being able to build cars and hold the price to an acceptable level is to have machines and assembly lines that can build more than one model. For example, the Honda plant in Mexico built both the FIt and the HR-V on the same line, with minor changes, to save money. When the HR-V first came into production they couldn't build Fits. The HR-V got so much in demand they had to switch back to importing the Fits from Japan as the Mexican plant couldn't fill the orders.

Honda is very smart about how they build their car plants. They watched companies like GM build a plant that could only build one model car (or variations on that model, like the old Chevy, Pontiac, etc variations they use to make). Honda built their plants to be very flexible in what they could do. The East Liberty plant set a record some years ago for the fast model change ever. Honda converted the line from building one model to another over a three day long holiday weekend. It would have taken GM months to have done that. Honda designs their vehicles to be able to share much of the underpinnings, the parts that fit on those jigs that move them through the factory. They then make the line wide enough so that they can slide one machine aside and scoot the other in its place quickly. Again, they changed out an entire line in just a few days like this. Now, to make this work you have to have models that "share" a lot of things. For example, you may use the same basic floor pan layout but switch some parts. Its easy to change suspension parts as you can make them longer or shorter or even of a different design as long as they fit on the basic layout of the vehicle. If you are smart you design your new car with some flexibility in it so that you can make changes down the road so you don't have to replace all your millions of dollars in production equipment. They do the same on engines...build them with a eye to the future and what they predict they will need later. I was at GM when the new C-5 Corvette was being designed. The engineers were instructed to design the systems looking ahead eight model years for the changes they expected to evolve. The C-5 was totally new and before GM put up the massive amount of money for it they had to have a plan for that model for at least eight years. When the new CR-V was designed for 2017 you have to know Honda was well aware of the new RDX design that was going to be built in the same plant sharing a lot of machinery.
So, its a word game, this "platform" thing is all in how you want to define the word. Its not a lie, there are more differences on the new RDX from its Honda cousin than in previous model. But, at the heart of that vehicle it is an evolution from the CR-V / Civic under pinnings and built in the same plant with many of the same machines.. They didn't have a billion dollar budget to work from. The RDX sells in small numbers compared to the CR-V so they had to keep costs down. You have to recover all that development cost and the expense of the tooling in just a few years. The cost of development has to be factored in to the price of the car and the fewer you sell the higher the per-unit cost. So, you guys are smart and can do math. Figure it out. Yes, the RDX is a big departure from the "upgraded CR-V" of the past, no doubt about it. But under and inside that car is a lot of CR-V, Accord, Civic DNA.
Some day I need to write about how a new engine comes into being. With an assembly line a mile or more long with all the custom built machinery to make the engine. Oh, design and testing for years....better think north of a billion dollars. So, why do you think they use that same basic engine in the Civic Type R, the Accord, and the RDX? Changing a few parts is not so expensive, designing and building a complete engine from scratch is hyper expensive. Why do you think car companies are so conservative about making major decisions?

 

Even with all of that being true, and no doubt it is, it still counters those who say the RDX is just a tweaked CR-V -- especially in a pejorative sense. Even sharing manufacturing architecture, component parts, assembly line, etc., there is very little in common above the shared manufacturing efficiencies to support the RDX being basically a CR-V. This is meant in the same way that using a common foundation design, building materials, architect, and tools for two visibly and functionally different houses does not make the houses basically the same. I'm hearing the same thing again only from someone much more knowledgeable about the specifics.

 

Don't know enough about car design/manufacturing, but based on what I have read, there is more to sharing a platform than sharing parts, design elements and engines. For example, A4 and Passat were built on the same platform, but that is no longer true.

 

Well, he describes the manufacturing process that might be shared with the different models. It doesn't really explain the engineering and design that differentiates between the vehicles pre production. Obviously Acura benefits from Honda's manufacturing process, manpower and plants. It also make sense for the design and engineering to take Honda's existing parts/process into consideration so it can be efficiently manufactured.

To me, the models are cousins means they are usually rebadged and minimal changes in parts, only do so to distinguish branding. Immediate example of this would be the Eagle Talon and Mitsubishi Eclipse, Land Cruiser vs LX... etc. Same frame, different skin and interior.

I'm not in the automobile industry so that's just one man's opinion.

However, back to the original point which was hans' effort to refute the fact that Tesla sold more cars than Acura by stating real numbers are behind Honda's. I think the real point he is trying to make is that Tesla remains a small car manufacturer..... But that's obvious as Tesla only makes EVs.... so.. I understand folks here might not like hearing disparaging comments on Acura.. (this is an Acura forum afterall...) It is certainly not my intention but rather an obvious point that should put Acura to shame and do better.

Maybe this is how Acura is able to justify its lackluster sales figures all these years, blend our sales figures into the mothership.

As someone mentioned before, Acura needs some tough love to grow.

 

Oh, we just like to argue about anything that presents an opportunity. But occasionally I learn something new, so all good.

Yeah, if Acura's models didn't share anything with higher volume Hondas, they would probably cost at least 10 times as much. Same with Audis/VWs, etc, etc, etc.

But don't forget, some of what's in RDX is expected to migrate through the rest of Acura's lineup. Like the infotainment system. That's enough to keep you up at night!

 

Maybe those leaked pictures were fake.

 

This free (for a limited time) documentary says clean energy is a hoax. It made me sad. After watching this, I am less interested in electric.

 

Thanks for sharing! Was worth watching.

Pretty much describes what we have been talking about here... corn subsidies, rare earth metals, etc..... No one has done the research on the cost of fuel to make the new fuel.

although I fail to see how this is related to one owning electric cars... unless you have decided to cut off electricity all together? As I've said it before, if my main goal was to better the environment, I would have been driving a Prius 15 years ago. Or, better yet, own zero car and take mass transit....

I guess Thanos has a point at the end of the day.

 

Good point. My takeaway from the video was that EVs are worse than IC cars (e.g. it talks about aluminum vs steel) but maybe that isn't the point that it's trying to make?

 

That video is the biggest downer since "Silent Spring".

My takeaway from the documentary is that we're all F'd if we ( homo sapiens ) can't voluntarily control human population and reduce our consumption. And to my knowledge, no species has ever done that; something does it for them. So sooner or later, the shit's gonna hit the 400 foot wind turbine.

In the meantime, what to do? I think I'll go for a bike ride ( solo ). I'll try not to eat any wood chips. ( But sometimes I wonder what's in those Cliff Bars! )

 

I am not sure what the aluminum part is all about. IC cars uses aluminum as well. This is a well known fact. I don't see the documentary as being electric vs IC cars but rather the green energy movement period.

Like all other Moore's production, it raises more questions/issues than answers. I don't see how human can change their consumption habits unless a drastic event happens.... Like the COVID?! I'm sure you all have read about the animals occupying streets and beaches, cleaner air everywhere, mountain ranges were visible from miles, etc....

However, as soon as COVID is no longer an issue, we will be back at it. Reminds me of a line in the Matrix from Mr. Smith:

" Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. "

 

Well, don't place too much stock in the ecological lessons of a Hollywood science fiction series. ( But ya gotta admit "bullet time" is just plain cool! )

Not to minimize the greed and aggressiveness of homo sapiens, but that's hardly unique in the animal kingdom. In fact, it's expected. The checks and balances come from predation, resource scarcity, contagion ( cough, cough ), etc, not from "instinct". Instinct drives the urge to reproduce. We are victims of our own success.

It's pretty hard to argue that mice and rats willingly regulate their numbers. If not for predators of such, we would be knee deep in rodents, and there wouldn't be a scrap of food anywhere.

As for EV vs IC cars, the energy cost of construction is amortized over the useful life of the vehicle. And "Planet of the Humans" conveniently glossed over the fact that use of recycled metals is vastly more energy efficient than mining extraction. For aluminum, recycled is cited as 5-10% of the energy cost of freshly mined. Apparently, the savings are a bit less for steel, but still substantial.

Anyway, I think we need to recognize that transitioning to non-fossil fuels is going to be a very long process, and fraught with mistakes and questionable motives. But that doesn't mean we should simply throw up our hands and refuse to try. We pretty much know where the status quo will eventually lead us, whether we want to admit it or not.

 

Right, energy transition is a painful and long process. Nuclear is a very good example of that and we now know it's also not the end solution. I recall the first time I understood the general idea on how nuclear power plant works, it was shocking simple and crude... we learned to split atoms so we can generate steams to turn a turbine!

 

Tweaking the topic, and who's knows what the EV market looks like 3-5 years from now ( and I also think there is a good chance my next car is an EV), I just read a little about the 'Polestar 2', a new brand backed by Volvo ...and someone else... which appears to be coming out sometime this year....nice looking car. Anxious to hear more about it.

 

Polestar used to be the Volvo equivalent of BMW M and Mercedes AMG. But looks like they have morphed into their own brand now.

We will see the Volvo XC40 Recharge before that. They are taking orders.
https://www.volvocars.com/us/cars/xc40-pure-electric

Rumor has it the next Macan will be electric only.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a2...021-confirmed/

 

Actually it's an efficient mechanism of capturing the heat energy generated by controlled nuclear fission, because it capitalizes on the extraordinarily high specific heat of vaporization of water.

If we ever manage to harness nuclear fusion for anything other than incinerating cities, we will probably use the same process to generate electricity. It's used by fossil fuel and biomass power plants as well. And like the crude technology of ICEs, it's been refined over decades.

As previously noted, European car manufacturers are under intense governmental pressure to electrify, but Volvo and Porsche/Audi's impending BEV releases are hardly budget friendly. Not sure who's gonna buy them if COVID continues to crush the world economy.

 

I read the other day about Elon stating this company (Tesla) stock price was grossly over priced. To prove him right it quickly dropped in value! Some big investors who are conservative will not buy it as they think its price is inflated by speculation more than actual value. No one has a crystal ball and is able to see the future. Twenty years ago we were sure cars were going to 48V (sometimes listed as 42V) electrical systems as they offered so many clear advantages. MB had called a big meeting of the industry giants and worked out standards in the late 1990's.. OEM's engineered all the relays, starters, generators, etc. for the change over. Everyone agreed on the clear advantages, but there were issues at the time, things like arching switches and such. It fizzled but now is getting a second life So, there are many things out there that are great ideas. But even great ideas take lots of time to mature and suffer through many false starts along the way. Will we have all electric only cars anytime soon? No one knows. There are many issues yet to be resolved, like how to I make the twelve hour drive to the beach in one day? Or, I live in Kansas and its 120 miles each way for me to go see my gal. Range and fire hazards, battery life, load on the electric grid, etc. Just last week I read a very interesting article in a business magazine of the giant environmental impact should we switch to all electrical vehicles. We would need to produce four times more copper (from those mines that pollute so much), vastly greater amounts of Rare Earth Elements...again with damage from the mining process. Way more materials for the battery packs, etc. The list goes on and on. There just isn't any free lunch here. The author mentioned that you are just trading one environmental disaster for another and rather than have oil barons influencing government you will have the electrical kings taking over their job.

There will be more electrically powered vehicles as time passes. But, don't hold your breath and fear buying an IC vehicle just yet. They are going to be around for lots more years.