Acura: RDX News
03-31-2012, 11:05 AM
#1122
AZ Community Team
That video was great, excellent work Colin! 
03-31-2012, 07:35 PM
#1123
My first Avatar....
Good vid man!
04-01-2012, 10:36 AM
#1124
The credits at the end were the best.
04-01-2012, 03:02 PM
#1125
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
That was awesome!
04-01-2012, 09:12 PM
#1127
J M U ... DUUUKEESSSS
iTrader: (1)
I live by an Acura dealership and a lot of people have been test driving the new RDX. When I first saw it, I had to do a double take. Definitely looks better than the 1st gen, but, I almost confused it for a RX350 from the side.
04-01-2012, 09:42 PM
#1128
it was a good attempt Colin but i think there could've been more character development, the plot was a little too The Blindside-ish.
04-02-2012, 04:57 AM
#1129
Senior Moderator
With respect to how well the RX sells, that could be a good thing.
04-02-2012, 06:48 AM
#1130
Safety Car
Still No 2nd Gen Sub-Forum?
It's a fact of life: At some point, everyone has to grow up. For some people, this happens sooner than for others. For the Acura RDX, it took about 5 years.
The 1st-generation Acura RDX, launched in 2007, was a fun-loving CUV. It wasn't the most luxurious vehicle in its segment or the cheapest, but with its 2.3-liter turbocharged 4-cylinder engine and Super Handling AWD system, it stood out as one of the more enthusiastic entries in market segment that -- let's face it -- can be downright boring. Despite turbo lag and a ride many thought too firm, we enjoyed the previous RDX for being both practical and a hoot to drive quickly.
Alas, as Acura found out, being fun to drive doesn't always count for much these days, especially when it's middle-aged empty-nesters and young, high-income couples doing the buying. Turns out owners of previous RDXs didn't care much for its sporty dynamics -- they just wanted a good-looking, comfortable, fuel-efficient, and practical CUV for their daily commute. And that's pretty much what Acura has built for 2013. Gone is the turbo-4, replaced with a 3.5-liter V-6 that makes 273 hp and 251 lb-ft of torque. The 5-speed automatic is out too, exchanged for a more fuel-efficient 6-speed unit (the paddle shifters remain), and the advanced SH-AWD torque-shifting system is replaced with a standard AWD unit from the RDX's platform-mate, the Honda CR-V. Maximum rear torque bias decreases from 70% to 50%. Those changes, along with improved aerodynamics and new Michelin Primacy MXM4 tires, have improved fuel economy to 20/28 mpg 19/27 mpg city/highway for the FWD and AWD versions, respectively.
Other changes have made the RDX a little easier to live with. The suspension has been retuned with new amplitude reactive dampers that contain a two-valve design, allowing for softer spring rates and a more relaxed ride. The RDX is the first to receive the new dampers, which will ultimately see duty across much of the Acura lineup, including the new compact ILX sedan. Structural rigidity is also improved with the increased use of high-strength steel, while the overall vehicle size has grown slightly to accommodate the 1.4-inch-longer wheelbase and wider track. This increase has also borne slight improvements in front and rear passenger shoulder and legroom, and Acura says rear cargo space is still among the largest in the CUV class, at 26.1 cu ft with the rear seats up and 61.3 cu ft with them folded down.
From an aesthetic perspective, the RDX has been smoothed some here and there -- the front end in particular appears much cleaner -- but its overall appearance is similar to the previous generation's. We've never found the RDX's styling to be particularly exciting, and that hasn't changed with the 2013 version. Inside, the RDX has gotten more mature-looking; gone is the sporty 3 -dial instrument cluster, replaced with a single housing for all gauges. The center stack is rounder and a little more cluttered, and the display has been moved higher for improved visibility. Standard equipment includes heated leather seats, a moonroof, iPod compatibility, Bluetooth, and 18-inch alloy wheels.
On the road, although the new RDX is up 33 horsepower on the 2012 version, it's down 9 lb-ft of torque, which leaves the new car feeling about the same in terms of grunt, but lacking pesky turbo lag and gaining smoother, more linear acceleration. The engine is quieter than the old turbo unit (especially with the taller sixth gear), and road and wind noise have also been improved, making for a quiet, relaxed freeway cruiser. New electric power steering is efficient but light and dead-feeling, and the ride is much improved, as the new dampers keep good body control while smoothing out most of the road imperfections you would have felt in your kidneys with the previous RDX.
Much of what made the original RDX feel special -- the firm ride, turbo antics, and crisp handling -- are gone from this 2013 version, but don't despair. The new RDX is more mature for a more mature buyer, and ultimately that will pay dividends in both customer satisfaction and Acura's profit margins.
2013 Acura RDX AWD
POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS
DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT Front engine, AWD
ENGINE TYPE 60-deg V-6, alum block/heads
VALVETRAIN SOHC, 4 valves/cyl
DISPLACEMENT 211.8 cu in/3471 cc
COMPRESSION RATIO 10.5:1
POWER (SAE NET) 273 hp @ 6200 rpm
TORQUE (SAE NET) 251 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm
REDLINE 6800 rpm
WEIGHT TO POWER 14.1 lb/hp
TRANSMISSION 6-speed automatic
AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE RATIO 4.25:1/2.36:1
SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multi-link, coil springs, anti-roll bar
STEERING RATIO 15.0:1
TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK 2.8
BRAKES, F;R 12.3-in vented disc; 12.0-in disc, ABS
WHEELS 7.5 x 18-in, cast aluminum
TIRES P235/60R18 102V Michelin Primacy MXM4 M+S
DIMENSIONS
WHEELBASE 105.7 in
TRACK, F/R 63.1/63.4 in
LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 183.5 x 73.7 x 66.1 in
GROUND CLEARANCE 8.1 in
APPRCH/DEPEART ANGLE 17.2/22.0 deg
TURNING CIRCLE 39.0 ft
CURB WEIGHT 3839 lb
WEIGHT DIST., F/R 59/41 %
TOWING CAPACITY 1500 lb
SEATING CAPACITY 5
HEADROOM, F/R 38.7/38.1 in
LEGROOM, F/R 42.0/38.3 in
SHOULDER ROOM, F/R 58.6/57.2 in
CARGO VOLUME 00.0 cu ft
TEST DATA
ACCELERATION TO MPH
0-30 2.4 sec
0-40 3.5
0-50 4.8
0-60 6.2
0-70 8.2
0-80 10.3
0-90 13.1
0-100 16.5
PASSING, 45-65 MPH 3.1
QUARTER MILE 14.8 sec @ 95.1 mph
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 117 ft
TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH 1700 rpm
CONSUMER INFO
BASE PRICE $36,605
PRICE AS TESTED $40,305
STABILITY/TRACTION CONTROL Yes/Yes
AIRBAGS Dual front, front side, f/r curtain
BASIC WARRANTY 4 yrs/50,000 miles
POWERTRAIN WARRANTY 6 yrs/70,000 miles
ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE 4 yrs/50,000 miles
FUEL CAPACITY 16.0 gal
EPA CITY/HWY ECON 19/27 mpg
ENERGY CONSUMPTION, CITY/HWY 177/125 kW-hrs/100 miles
CO2 EMISSIONS 0.88 lb/mile
RECOMMENDED FUEL Unleaded premium
04-02-2012, 12:12 PM
#1133
Safety Car
AutoBlog
Sometimes in life, you hit the nail right on the head, sink a hole-in-one or strike a perfect bullseye. It happens in all walks of life – from the original Star Wars trilogy to the Apple iPod. It even happens from time to time in the automotive realm. Take, for instance, the 1965 Ford Mustang or the original Acura Legend.
Other times, we're not so lucky. Like the ill-begotten Star Wars prequel trilogy, the automotive world has played host to a long line of underwhelming encores. The Mustang II comes to mind, and so does the Acura RL.
Of course, every so often, automakers release a car to market that's just isn't quite fully baked, like the ill-timed and poorly received Edsel from Ford. Though not nearly as obvious, the 1st-generation Acura RDX falls into this unfortunate camp.
Originally marketed to the upwardly mobile male Gen-X population – a guy Acura named Jason back in 2006 – it turns out that well-to-do, tech-savvy men aren't actually all that interested in an entry-level premium crossover from Honda's luxury division. And that's why, for 2013, the Acura RDX is being re-aimed at the heart of the market: namely, baby boomers and young couples – defined by Acura as DINKS – "Dual-Income, No Kids" – who prefer quiet, comfortable and composed to quick, nimble and raucous.
The transformation of the Acura RDX begins with its exterior. In place of the pug-nosed look of the original – made necessary in part by the inclusion of an intercooler and its assorted plumbing – is a more refined, upscale appearance. There's still no mistaking the RDX for anything but an Acura, due primarily to the large metallic fascia up front and the crisply angular styling down its flanks and hind quarters. A faux spoiler of sorts is formed by the shape of the D-pillar and the top of the liftback, lending an air of sportiness missing in much of this segment.
Growing an inch or so in every direction, the 2013 Acura RDX's cabin is endowed with more space for passengers and cargo. At 103.5 cubic feet of total volume, the RDX offers more room than any of its closest competitors, who are, as defined by Acura, the Audi Q5, BMW X3, Cadillac SRX and Mercedes-Benz GLK. We'd add the Lexus RX 350 to that list, and it also has less overall room inside.
1 notable change to the RDX formula is a redesigned cargo opening. At 48.8 inches, it's a full 6.5 inches wider than before, and without any odd contours or shapes, it's much easier to load large and bulky items into the rear cargo area where there's 26.1 cubic feet of storage with the 2nd row up, and 76.9 cubic feet with it stowed.
Acura has redesigned the interior of the new RDX to feel more open and spacious, utilizing deep cutouts in the dash in front of both the driver and passenger. The ploy works; after sitting in a previous-gen RDX for a few minutes, it is clear that the new model offers an overall impression of airiness that its predecessor lacked. Acura has also designed in a lot of cubby space in the new RDX, including spaces up front to store phones and electronics near their associated auxiliary and USB inputs ahead of the shifter and in the center console.
Acura has loaded a lot of technology into the 2013 RDX, too, including keyless entry and push-button start, Pandora internet radio (with pause and skip buttons) and Bluetooth connectivity that can display SMS text messages via the in-dash display. Also new is a so-called Multiview rear camera system that offers 3 distinct viewing modes – wide view, normal view and top view – each of which gives a useful look at what's lurking behind the car's rear bumper. Wide view in particular is a nice touch, offering a 180-degree field of view.
Opt for the Technology Package and you'll get a hooded 8-inch screen in the center of the dash with VGA resolution. A 60-gigabyte hard drive is used to store map data, leaving 15 gigs free for media storage. Buyers who opt for this package will also get an upgraded 410-watt ELS surround sound audio system and a power liftgate.
Just as notable, however, are the technologies that the RDX is missing. For instance, there's no blind-spot warning system, no adaptive cruise control, no parking assist, no lane-departure warning and no rain-sensing windshield wipers, though there is a provision to turn the headlights on when the wipers are activated. Some buyers won't care about high-tech features such as these, but in many cases, they come as standard equipment or are optional on comparable models from competitors.
It's also worth noting that there's only 1 engine available: a 3.5-liter V6 with 273 horsepower and 251 pound-feet of torque in lieu of the last RDX's turbocharged 4-cylinder. While enthusiasts (ourselves included) may initially bemoan the absence of Honda's high-output turbo mill, after piloting the RDX, we can safely say the V6 route was their best course of action. Not only is acceleration to 60 miles per hour kept the same (timed just under 7 seconds, according to Acura), but the 6 is smoother, quieter and more refined than the engine it replaces.
Gone, too, is the Super-Handling All-Wheel-Drive system that received so much positive fanfare in the original RDX. All-wheel drive is still available, but it's a much more plebeian on-demand system that can send as much as 50% of the engine's torque to the rear wheels. Sure, it works as intended, but it's not very exciting, and it doesn't assert itself when driving like the SH-AWD technology did. We miss it, but Acura contends that its new system is lighter and less expensive, leading to increased fuel economy and a more attractive price point. Plus, it will still help the RDX through inclement weather in snowy climes.
Also helping save fuel is Acura's Variable Cylinder Management, which is capable of operating the 3.5-liter engine on 3, 4 or all 6 of its cylinders. Even when the driver is paying rapt attention, there's no discernible change in engine feel or sound from inside the cabin, but, with estimated ratings of 20 city, 28 highway and 23 combined (19/27/22 with all-wheel drive), this tech pays big dividends when it comes time to fill up. Those figures are 2 mpg higher in the city and five mpg higher on the highway than the last RDX with 2 less cylinders, and they put the RDX at the top of its class in fuel mileage. Unfortunately, despite the loss of forced induction, Acura still recommends premium fuel.
Driven back-to-back, the 2013 RDX is quieter and smoother in operation than the model it replaces, though there's definitely less torque when accelerating from a standstill. We checked the spec sheet to verify our feeling behind the wheel, and sure enough, the old engine offered up 260 lb-ft of torque at 4,500 rpm – that's 9 more torques at 500 fewer rpm than the new V6. Once moving, however, there is abundant passing power. We don't think any of its target buyers are going to miss the rush of turbocharged torque provided by the old 240-hp 2.3-liter 4.
For 2013, Acura has finally fitted the RDX with a 6-speed automatic transmission, replacing the aging 5-speed of its predecessor. The 1st 5 ratios of the new transmission are lower than before, while the 6th gear is 16% higher than the top gear of the old unit. This keeps the engine spinning at a lower speed on the highway while keeping it in its higher-rpm powerband everywhere else.
RDX buyers will also appreciate the 2013 model's newfound smooth ride. While the suspension remains MacPherson struts up front with multi-link trailing arms at the rear, Acura has employed new Amplitude Reactive Dampers that offer a more compliant ride (the main damper spring is 15% softer) while lessening body roll in the corners. The trick shocks use twin valves and integrated rebound springs to keep up and down movement in check. Plus, they attach to a stiffer body structure using new mounts that improve ride and handling. 18-inch alloy wheels are fitted with 235/60 Michelin Primacy MXM4 tires, making for a track that's 1.3 inches wider up front and .8 inches wider at the rear.
We definitely noticed the improved ride of the 2013 RDX, but were unimpressed with the feel of its electronic power steering. Despite the fact that Acura has included a more rigid steering shaft to cut down on unwanted vibration, the variable-speed steering setup feels much less natural than the old model's hydraulic system. Acura's engineers lessened the force required to turn the wheel at low speeds, but all we noticed was that finding and locking in on straight ahead required much more thought, and we never quite came to grips with how much effort it took on the wheel to execute a change of direction. Add it all up and what you're left with is a smooth operator that doesn't beg to be hustled like the last RDX.
Considering the added refinement and the increase in size and additional standard equipment, Acura has managed to keep pricing mostly in check for 2013. Base price is $34,320 plus $885 in destination charges, and an RDX outfitted with the Technology Package begins at $38,020, while all-wheel drive adds $1,400. For the record, these prices are about $1,400 more than the 2012 RDX, but it's still several thousand dollars less than competitors such as the BMW X3 and Audi Q5.
Judging by the new demographic Acura is aiming at, the brand has managed to craft exactly the machine they decided their customers wanted. When you consider that the sales leader of the segment is the Lexus RX, it's easy to understand why Acura chose to soften the edge of its entry-level crossover. It's not going to light many fires in the hearts of driving enthusiasts, but it's not supposed to anymore. As a somewhat lower-cost alternative to its European rivals, the 2013 Acura RDX ought to make plenty of sense to the sizable segment at which it's directed.
Last edited by TSX69; 04-02-2012 at 12:22 PM.
04-02-2012, 01:12 PM
#1134
Safety Car
Auto123
PHP Code:
Summary Rating: Complete Rating
Styling (80%)
Accessories (82%)
Space and Access (80%)
Comfort (87%)
Performance (82%)
Driving Dynamics (77%)
Safety (80%)
General Appreciation (70%)
Quite likely the most evident example of success while trying something new is Chrysler's Magic Wagon. Today, minivans are dying a slow death, but Mr Iaccoca created something. On the other hand, the Pontiac Aztek was nothing if, well, nothing good.
Acura, in Honda's image, started off 25 years ago to the beat of their own drum. In no time flat, they had established themselves as the cool Japanese alternative to the German and American luxury brands. Success was at hand. Being original was paying off. Then, things went sour.
The blended breed
Acura resisted as long as they could to the SUV now CUV trend, but eventually caved in. The MDX knocked the socks off its competition and so, they returned with a compact version and dubbed it RDX. If the MDX was mainstream, the RDX wasn't.
Powered by a turbocharged 4-cylinder engine with an emphasis on handling, the compact CUV's turbo lag and stiff ride did not win over as many buyers as it should have. Commercials like the 1 showing the Acura RDX cornering with the help of a grappling hook left shoppers perplex but not the media which quickly fell for the RDX's charm and attributes.
5 years ago, the concept may have been foreign to potential buyers; Acura was ahead of the curve. It's a strange thing that as the old RDX's competitors are closing in on it, the new 2013 Acura RDX is off in a different direction.
For 2013, fortunately or unfortunately, in an effort to get back into luxury CUV buyers' good books, the new RDX has gone mainstream.
Old is new
That reads wrong, but the point is that the new RDX looks more like a slightly shrunken MDX than its distinct predecessor. As I noted, the MDX recipe has been a smash hit with consumers, so hopefully this is a good move.
Acura, Japan's 1st luxury car brand (were you aware?) is predicting a near 50% increase in deliveries in North America in 2012. They must have done their homework with the 2013 Acura RDX (and the ILX - review coming April 20th) to present such an audacious forecast.
There's no doubt that Acura was searching to create a more mature RDX when I stand near it and study its body lines. The looks are clean and pretty much what the next-generation MDX could have been. Beyond that, there's no flash and no pizzazz and somehow it works. Admittedly, the subtle very-Acura styling is growing on me.
Familiar territory
The cabin is also familiar Acura territory. In other words, the sombre, serious environment is very tekkie, all business and extraordinarily crafted. I, for 1, like the dark monochromatic presentation while I know that others feel as though they are stepping into a funeral home.
As always, Acura offers up some excellent seats, fore and aft. Acura may be coming out of an exterior-design warzone but they've always been able to put together passenger quarters that were appealing, comfortable and luxurious. The 2013 Acura RDX has it all plus a sizable trunk.
No mo' turbo
While many manufacturers are moving towards turbocharged 4-pots, Acura has decided to move away from theirs. It's a strange move as BMW and Audi have clearly caught on to the trend. My gut feeling says that it was far too expensive to build the 2.3T for only 1 vehicle. The new V6, on the other hand, is everywhere.
The 3.5L V6 is not new (from the Accord to the Pilot and on to the TL) but it is good and well established. The horsepower rating is of 273 which is a significant bump up from the 240 generated by the 2.3L turbo-4. Torque is down by 9 to 251. The end result is a vehicle that is slightly quicker in most respects than the old.
Despite the power increase, the 2013 Acura RDX's fuel consumption drops slightly. The V6 benefits from the 2nd generation of Variable Cylinder Management (VCM) and from an MDX and TL-sourced 6-speed automatic transmission. Now rated at 10.7L/100km city and 7.3L/100km highway, the Acura-dubbed sexy CUV consumes 1L and 1.4L less fuel, respectively. Yup, the V6 guzzles less petrol than the 4-pot...
Fuel consumption improvements also come from low rolling-resistance tires, a revised braking system that reduces pad-disc drag, electric power steering and improved aerodynamics.
About the brakes, pedal feel and response is nothing short of amazing. The required effort is minimal as is pedal travel but without affecting the entire system's smooth operation. Steering is equally good precision-wise; however, the driver is completely isolated from the road.
Keyword: refinement
Without a doubt, the achieved result of all of Acura's efforts related to the new 2013 RDX is refinement.
The RDX's ride is improved to a more sedan-like quality. The RDX gets amplitude reactive dampers that not only "smoothen" out the road but do little to negatively affect handling. What the 15% softer damper springs have done is generate more roll on turn-in than with the previous RDX. Nothing to worry about.
The RDX's track is now wider and the wheelbase is longer. As well, portions of the chassis have gained in rigidity and layers of sound-deadening materials have been added everywhere. This thing is quiet, smooth are very comfortable.
I enquired about Acura's primary target in redesigning the RDX and the answer I got was the Audi Q5. I managed a quick tour in the Q5 and although it seems as though Acura is on right track, I found that they've actually put a bulls-eye on the Lexus RX.
To capture a more youthful market, or so says their proposed marketing efforts, I think they may have overshot the younger crowds and landed in the laps of the empty-nesters, the secondary target of the 2013 Acura RDX.
No more SH-AWD
Decidedly, Acura has chosen to put performance and handling off the front burner, as they have replaced their famed SH-AWD with a more conventional AWD with Intelligent Control.
The system is good, as my driving partner and I did wander off the beaten path on a few occasions and noticed first-hand that the new AWD demonstrates a fine balance between capability, traction and all-weather performance. Torque split can go as far as 50/50, which is more than sufficient for this type of urban family vehicle.
Smart solution
The 2013 Acura RDX has become "more" to or for a broader audience. It's got appreciable styling, decent fuel economy and, what Acura calls "high density packaging" or lots of stuff in a compact package.
The issue I maintain for the new RDX is that, despite Acura's desire to once again want to be an object of desire, as it once was, it stirs no emotions. It does nothing especially well, far from bad, is not striking aesthetically nor is it exhilarating to drive. The NSX, still roughly 3 years away, won't do any good for the brand in the short run...
I like the new RDX, but I can't say that I'd pick it over an Audi Q5 and BMW X3. I would consider it if I was in the market for a Lexus RX only because of Acura's perceived youthfulness that Toyota's luxury brand does not nor will ever have.
Prices are up for 2013 but content is up further. There is no "base" model for 2013; starting price is of $40,990 and the Tech package adds an extra $3,000. Acura expects that the Tech version should represent 60% of the total take. The 2013 Acura RDX will go on sale on April 2, 2012. It is built at East Liberty, Ohio and Acura Canada expects sales of 4,500 units in the next year.
Key Competitors
Audi
Q5
Infiniti
EX 35
Mercedes-Benz
GLK-Class
Audi
Q5
Infiniti
EX 35
Mercedes-Benz
GLK-Class
04-02-2012, 04:36 PM
#1136
I drive a Subata.
iTrader: (1)
I'd get a Q5 over this anyday. 
04-02-2012, 04:44 PM
#1137
The sizzle in the Steak
It still makes me 
at the absurd placement of the engine start/stop button.
at the absurd placement of the engine start/stop button.
04-02-2012, 04:46 PM
#1138
04-02-2012, 04:59 PM
#1139
The sizzle in the Steak
04-05-2012, 07:31 AM
#1141
Safety Car
TruckTrend
The 1st-generation RDX definitely had its fans with its entertaining turbocharged 4-cylinder engine. With 260 lb-ft of torque, once the turbo came up to boost, it made for 1 lively-driving crossover.
But the on-or-off boost response was a turn-off for many potential customers that valued refinement and smoothness over the juvenile thrill of the turbo coming on-boost. As Acura discovered, fun-to-drive isn't always the most valued attribute among entry-premium crossover shoppers. Owners of the previous RDX didn't care much for its sporty dynamics -- they just wanted a handsome, comfortable, fuel-efficient, and practical crossover for their daily commute. And that's essentially what Acura has delivered for 2013.
Gone is the turbo-4, replaced with a 3.5-liter V-6 that makes 273 hp and 251 lb-ft of torque. The 5-speed automatic is out too, exchanged for a more fuel-efficient 6-speed unit (the paddle shifters remain), and the advanced SH-AWD torque-shifting system is replaced with a standard AWD unit from the RDX's platform-mate, the Honda CR-V. Maximum rear torque bias decreases from 70% to 50%. Those changes, along with improved aerodynamics and new Michelin Primacy MXM4 tires, have improved fuel economy to 20/28 mpg 19/27 mpg city/highway for the FWD and AWD versions, respectively.
Other changes have made the RDX a little easier to live with. The suspension has been retuned with new amplitude reactive dampers that contain a 2-valve design, allowing for softer spring rates and a more relaxed ride. The RDX is the 1st to receive the new dampers, which will ultimately see duty across much of the Acura lineup, including the new compact ILX sedan. Structural rigidity is also improved with the increased use of high-strength steel, while the overall vehicle size has grown slightly to accommodate the 1.4-inch-longer wheelbase and wider track. This increase has also borne slight improvements in front and rear passenger shoulder and legroom, and Acura says rear cargo space is still among the largest in the CUV class, at 26.1 cu ft with the rear seats up and 61.3 cu ft with them folded down.
From an aesthetic perspective, the RDX has been smoothed some here and there -- the front end in particular appears much cleaner -- but its overall appearance is similar to the previous generation's. We've never found the RDX's styling to be particularly exciting, and that hasn't changed with the 2013 version. Inside, the RDX has gotten more mature-looking; gone is the sporty 3-dial instrument cluster, replaced with a single housing for all gauges. The center stack is rounder and a little more cluttered, and the display has been moved higher for improved visibility. Standard equipment includes heated leather seats, a moonroof, iPod compatibility, Bluetooth, and 18-inch alloy wheels.
On the road, although the new RDX is up 33 horsepower on the 2012 version, it's down 9 lb-ft of torque, which leaves the new car feeling about the same in terms of grunt, but lacking pesky turbo lag and gaining smoother, more linear acceleration. The engine is quieter than the old turbo unit (especially with the taller 6th gear), and road and wind noise have also been improved, making for a quiet, relaxed freeway cruiser. New electric power steering is efficient but light and dead-feeling, and the ride is much improved, as the new dampers keep good body control while smoothing out most of the road imperfections you would have felt in your kidneys with the previous RDX.
Much of what made the original RDX feel special -- the firm ride, turbo antics, and crisp handling -- are gone from this 2013 version, but don't despair. The new RDX is more mature for a more mature buyer, and ultimately that will pay dividends in both customer satisfaction and Acura's profit margins.
2013 Acura RDX AWD
POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS
DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT Front engine, AWD
ENGINE TYPE 60-deg V-6, alum block/heads
VALVETRAIN SOHC, 4 valves/cyl
DISPLACEMENT 211.8 cu in/3471 cc
COMPRESSION RATIO 10.5:1
POWER (SAE NET) 273 hp @ 6200 rpm
TORQUE (SAE NET) 251 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm
REDLINE 6800 rpm
WEIGHT TO POWER 14.1 lb/hp
TRANSMISSION 6-speed automatic
AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE RATIO 4.25:1/2.36:1
SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multi-link, coil springs, anti-roll bar
STEERING RATIO 15.0:1
TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK 2.8
BRAKES, F;R 12.3-in vented disc; 12.0-in disc, ABS
WHEELS 7.5 x 18-in, cast aluminum
TIRES P235/60R18 102V Michelin Primacy MXM4 M+S
DIMENSIONS
WHEELBASE 105.7 in
TRACK, F/R 63.1/63.4 in
LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 183.5 x 73.7 x 66.1 in
GROUND CLEARANCE 8.1 in
APPRCH/DEPEART ANGLE 17.2/22.0 deg
TURNING CIRCLE 39.0 ft
CURB WEIGHT 3839 lb
WEIGHT DIST., F/R 59/41 %
TOWING CAPACITY 1500 lb
SEATING CAPACITY 5
HEADROOM, F/R 38.7/38.1 in
LEGROOM, F/R 42.0/38.3 in
SHOULDER ROOM, F/R 58.6/57.2 in
CARGO VOLUME 00.0 cu ft
TEST DATA
ACCELERATION TO MPH
0-30 2.4 sec
0-40 3.5
0-50 4.8
0-60 6.2
0-70 8.2
0-80 10.3
0-90 13.1
0-100 16.5
PASSING, 45-65 MPH 3.1
QUARTER MILE 14.8 sec @ 95.1 mph
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 117 ft
TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH 1700 rpm
CONSUMER INFO
BASE PRICE $36,605
PRICE AS TESTED $40,305
STABILITY/TRACTION CONTROL Yes/Yes
AIRBAGS Dual front, front side, f/r curtain
BASIC WARRANTY 4 yrs/50,000 miles
POWERTRAIN WARRANTY 6 yrs/70,000 miles
ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE 4 yrs/50,000 miles
FUEL CAPACITY 16.0 gal
EPA CITY/HWY ECON 19/27 mpg
ENERGY CONSUMPTION, CITY/HWY 177/125 kW-hrs/100 miles
CO2 EMISSIONS 0.88 lb/mile
RECOMMENDED FUEL Unleaded premium
POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS
DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT Front engine, AWD
ENGINE TYPE 60-deg V-6, alum block/heads
VALVETRAIN SOHC, 4 valves/cyl
DISPLACEMENT 211.8 cu in/3471 cc
COMPRESSION RATIO 10.5:1
POWER (SAE NET) 273 hp @ 6200 rpm
TORQUE (SAE NET) 251 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm
REDLINE 6800 rpm
WEIGHT TO POWER 14.1 lb/hp
TRANSMISSION 6-speed automatic
AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE RATIO 4.25:1/2.36:1
SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multi-link, coil springs, anti-roll bar
STEERING RATIO 15.0:1
TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK 2.8
BRAKES, F;R 12.3-in vented disc; 12.0-in disc, ABS
WHEELS 7.5 x 18-in, cast aluminum
TIRES P235/60R18 102V Michelin Primacy MXM4 M+S
DIMENSIONS
WHEELBASE 105.7 in
TRACK, F/R 63.1/63.4 in
LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 183.5 x 73.7 x 66.1 in
GROUND CLEARANCE 8.1 in
APPRCH/DEPEART ANGLE 17.2/22.0 deg
TURNING CIRCLE 39.0 ft
CURB WEIGHT 3839 lb
WEIGHT DIST., F/R 59/41 %
TOWING CAPACITY 1500 lb
SEATING CAPACITY 5
HEADROOM, F/R 38.7/38.1 in
LEGROOM, F/R 42.0/38.3 in
SHOULDER ROOM, F/R 58.6/57.2 in
CARGO VOLUME 00.0 cu ft
TEST DATA
ACCELERATION TO MPH
0-30 2.4 sec
0-40 3.5
0-50 4.8
0-60 6.2
0-70 8.2
0-80 10.3
0-90 13.1
0-100 16.5
PASSING, 45-65 MPH 3.1
QUARTER MILE 14.8 sec @ 95.1 mph
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 117 ft
TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH 1700 rpm
CONSUMER INFO
BASE PRICE $36,605
PRICE AS TESTED $40,305
STABILITY/TRACTION CONTROL Yes/Yes
AIRBAGS Dual front, front side, f/r curtain
BASIC WARRANTY 4 yrs/50,000 miles
POWERTRAIN WARRANTY 6 yrs/70,000 miles
ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE 4 yrs/50,000 miles
FUEL CAPACITY 16.0 gal
EPA CITY/HWY ECON 19/27 mpg
ENERGY CONSUMPTION, CITY/HWY 177/125 kW-hrs/100 miles
CO2 EMISSIONS 0.88 lb/mile
RECOMMENDED FUEL Unleaded premium
04-12-2012, 07:11 AM
#1142
Safety Car
InsideLine
Musicians will tell you that the sophomore album effort is always the most challenging to tackle. When faced with the task of creating the 2013 Acura RDX, the 2nd generation of the company's entry-level compact crossover, the company decided to tweak its genre from modern rock to something that takes a step toward smooth jazz.
The move makes sense, as the original RDX didn't quite resonate with the demographic for which it was intended. With the luxury of this hindsight, Acura is aiming the 2013 RDX at a more mature and mainstream buyer.
6 Cylinders Instead of 4
For starters, the powertrain has been completely overhauled. The outgoing RDX's 2.3-liter turbocharged 4-cylinder has been binned in favor of a normally aspirated 3.5-liter V6. Considering that many other automakers these days are going in the exact opposite direction with their powertrain strategy, this may sound like a curious move on Acura's part.
Fuel economy and drivability were the driving forces behind the decision. The turbo-4 lacked the direct-injection fuel system that would have enhanced its fuel-sipping potential, and its laggy-then-abrupt torque delivery conflicted with the 2013 RDX's mission of increased maturity. Though more frugal with fuel, the V6 still generates a healthy 251 pound-feet of torque at 5,000 rpm and 273 horsepower at 6,200 rpm. For those keeping tabs, the new V6 gains 33 hp while giving up a slice of midrange torque to the turbo-4.
In our testing the 2013 Acura RDX ran to 60 mph in 6.5 seconds (6.2 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip) and completed the quarter-mile sprint in 14.7 seconds at 94.0 mph. This is robust thrust that places the RDX among the fleeter crossovers in its class. What's more, its speed is now accompanied by a crisp linearity at part-throttle that the previous turbo engine never exhibited. It's more natural-feeling, more... mature. There's that word again.
Improved Fuel Economy
The V6 packs some fuel-saving tricks that help earn the 2013 Acura RDX a provisional 20/28 mpg for FWD models and 19/27 for AWD variants, figures that are up from 19/24 and 17/22 respectively. One of those tricks is cylinder deactivation — the V6 will shut down 2 or 3 cylinders depending on driving conditions.
In practice the system is seamless, something you never hear or feel while driving, probably because the RDX's active engine mount and the cabin's active noise cancellation system are doing their jobs. We put a few tankfuls of fuel through our tester and netted 22 mpg in mixed driving, which is dead-smack on its combined EPA number.
Another fuel-saving move that also improves drivability is the additional cog in the automatic transmission, bringing the total to 6. The new 6-speed autobox allowed the powertrain engineers more flexibility in gear ratio selection and spread. Notably, the steering wheel has sprouted paddle shifters, which are useful devices even in everyday driving — like when you want to summon engine braking.
Further fuel economy improvement was gleaned by the switch from hydraulic power steering to electric power steering. A bit of heft has been lost in the transition, but that's probably the right move considering the RDX's shift in mission. Nevertheless, the 2013 RDX's tiller is still sharp, and it helps make the wagon drive more nimbly than its 3,821-pound curb weight suggests.
Simpler All-Wheel-Drive System
Gone is the outgoing RDX's handling-enhancing SH-AWD system, replaced with a simpler AWD system that's lighter and cheaper — AWD is now a $1,400 option rather than $2,000. The new system — largely carried over from the Honda CR-V — may be more pedestrian, but it, too, provides strides on the fuel economy front by decoupling drive to the rear wheels when it's not needed.
Despite the loss of SH-AWD and the freakish agility it conferred, the new RDX still handles with alertness and composure. In the slalom the 2013 Acura RDX turned out a tidy 64.6-mph result despite moderate 0.79g grip from its 235/60 all-season Michelin Primacy MXM4 tires. In our braking tests the RDX reached a halt from 60 mph in 128 feet.
The new RDX's ride quality is noticeably less busy than that of the outgoing trucklet, while still doing a fine job of controlling body roll. Acura credits new dual-piston dampers with integrated rebound springs that mechanically provide travel-dependent damper force — the idea here is to skew both ends of the age-old ride-handling trade-off, making both better. You know, to make it more capable. Bet you thought we were going to say "mature," right?
Quite Pleasant, Really
Strides in refinement are evident when you slide into the seat. From the low levels of road and wind noise to the glove-soft leather on the seats and steering wheel, the RDX is an eminently pleasant place in which to spend time. There's a greater sense of space in the cabin, too, though the actual dimensional gains are rather modest. Still, airiness is welcome whether it's illusory or not.
Its face adopts a corporate, mini-MDX look that's more cohesive than the, uh, amphibious first-gen RDX. The proportions are balanced and the styling clean, if on the anonymous side, which is no bad thing considering some of the truly odd styling flourishes we've seen come out of Acura's design studio in recent years.
Acura didn't quite hold the line on pricing, of course, as base prices rise slightly over the outgoing model. Front-wheel-drive versions of the 2013 model increase by $1,425 to $35,215 with destination, while AWD models start at $36,615, an increase of $825. Notable standard features include a back-up camera, heated seats and keyless entry.
At the pointy end of the pricing spectrum is our fully loaded all-wheel-drive tester equipped with the Technology package at $40,315. Crossing the $40K threshold with an entry-level compact SUV is a bold psychological move on Acura's part, but at least there's a comprehensive list of equipment in the deal — the Technology package grants access to nav, a power liftgate, HID headlights, premium sound and a few other items.
Targets Hit
The new RDX successfully achieves its objectives. From its improved fuel economy to the smoother ride quality, enhanced refinement and linear power delivery, the 2013 Acura RDX is far better equipped to take on its crossover rivals.
It may be fashionable to poo-poo any decision involving the de-sport-ification of a vehicle, but it is hard to find fault with the logic behind Acura's alterations to the RDX formula. Better still is that the end product, the 2013 RDX, is a wholly accomplished and enjoyable result.
Growing up isn't so hard after all. Keep the Kenny G to yourself, though.
Specs & Performance
Vehicle
Year Make Model 2013 Acura RDX 4dr SUV With Technology Package (3.5L 6cyl 6A)
Vehicle Type AWD 4dr 5-passenger 4dr SUV
Base MSRP $39,420
Options on test vehicle Technology Package ($0 -- includes Acura navigation system with voice recognition, AcuraLink real-time traffic with traffic rerouting, AcuraLink real-time weather, Acura/ELS Surround premium audio system with 410-watt digital sound-processor amplifier, 10 speakers, DVD-Audio, CD player, MP3, WMA and DTS player, Dolby ProLogic II, XM radio with note function music reminder, USB port and aux jack connectivity, and 15GB of hard disk drive (HDD) media storage, Pandora Internet radio interface, SMS text messaging feature, GPS-linked, solar-sensing, dual-zone automatic climate control system)
As-tested MSRP $40,315
Assembly location East Liberty, Ohio
Drivetrain
Configuration Transverse, front-engine, all-wheel drive
Engine type Naturally aspirated, port-injected V6, gasoline with cylinder deactivation
Displacement (cc/cu-in) 3,471/212
Block/head material Aluminum/aluminum
Valvetrain SOHC, 4 valves per cylinder, variable intake + exhaust-valve timing and lift
Compression ratio (x:1) 10.5
Redline, indicated (rpm) 6,800
Horsepower (hp @ rpm) 273 @ 6,200
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm) 251 @ 5,000
Fuel type Premium unleaded (recommended)
Transmission type Six-speed automatic with steering-wheel-mounted paddles
Transmission ratios (x:1) I = 3.36, II = 2.09, III = 1.48, IV = 1.07, V = 0.75, VI = 0.56, R = 2.27
Final-drive ratio (x:1) 4.25
Chassis
Suspension, front Independent MacPherson struts, coil springs, twin-tube dampers, stabilizer bar
Suspension, rear Independent multilink, coil springs, twin-tube dampers, stabilizer bar
Steering type Electric-assist, speed-proportional, rack-and-pinion steering
Steering ratio (x:1) 15.0
Turning circle (ft.) 39.0
Tire make and model Michelin Primacy MXM4
Tire type All-season front and rear
Tire size, front P235/60R18 102V
Tire size, rear P235/60R18 102V
Wheel size 18-by-7.5 inches front and rear
Wheel material Cast aluminum
Brakes, front 12.3-inch one-piece ventilated cast-iron discs with single-piston sliding cast-iron calipers
Brakes, rear 12-inch one-piece solid cast-iron discs with single-piston sliding cast-iron calipers
Track Test Results
Acceleration, 0-30 mph (sec.) 2.7
0-45 mph (sec.) 4.3
0-60 mph (sec.) 6.5
0-60 with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) 6.2
0-75 mph (sec.) 9.4
1/4-mile (sec. @ mph) 14.7 @ 94.0
0-30 mph, trac ON (sec.) 2.9
0-45 mph, trac ON (sec.) 4.7
0-60 mph, trac ON (sec.) 6.9
0-60, trac ON with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) 6.5
0-75 mph, trac ON (sec.) 7.8
1/4-mile, trac ON (sec. @ mph) 15.0 @ 93.9
Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) 33
60-0 mph (ft.) 128
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) 64.6
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) ESC ON 62.1
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) 0.79
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) ESC ON 0.78
Sound level @ idle (dB) 42.6
@ Full throttle (dB) 73.5
@ 70 mph cruise (dB) 66.2
Engine speed @ 70 mph (rpm) 1,900
Test Driver Ratings & Comments
Acceleration comments: There's about a tenth or three to be gained with generous pedal overlap and the front tires even bark a little bit. Upshifts at WOT (in both D or S) are smooth and reasonably quick and exactly at redline, hence no need for Manual. I didn't sense (feel or hear) any telltale VTEC cam changeover - odd, no?
Braking comments: In "normal" driving, the brake jump-in is pretty abrupt with only a small amount of pedal travel. In "panic stops," the pedal feels softer with more travel. Tire and ABS both make an audible protest. Straight, fade-resistant brakes.
Handling comments: "Skid pad: Very little ESC intervention if any. Very communicative steering that isn't unnecessarily heavy or light. Very nice. Steady moderate understeer on the limit.
Testing Conditions
Test date 4/3/2012
Test location California Speedway
Elevation (ft.) 1,121
Temperature (°F) 78.1
Relative humidity (%) 14.1
Barometric pressure (in. Hg) 28.74
Wind (mph, direction) 1.4 headwind
Odometer (mi.) 2,113
Fuel used for test 91-octane gasoline
As-tested tire pressures, f/r (psi) 33/33
Fuel Consumption
EPA fuel economy (mpg) 19 city/27 highway/22 combined
Edmunds observed (mpg) 22
Fuel tank capacity (U.S. gal.) 16.0
Driving range (mi.) 448
Dimensions & Capacities
Curb weight, mfr. claim (lbs.) 3,732
Curb weight, as tested (lbs.) 3,821
Length (in.) 183.5
Width (in.) 73.7
Height (in.) 66.1
Wheelbase (in.) 105.7
Track, front (in.) 63.1
Track, rear (in.) 63.4
Legroom, front (in.) 42.1
Legroom, rear (in.) 38.3
Headroom, front (in.) 38.7
Headroom, rear (in.) 38.2
Shoulder room, front (in.) 58.7
Shoulder room, rear (in.) 57.2
Seating capacity 5
Tow capacity, mfr. claim (lbs.) 1,500
Ground clearance (in.) 8.1
Approach angle (degrees) 17.2
Departure angle (degrees) 22.0
Warranty
Bumper-to-bumper 4 years/50,000 miles
Powertrain 6 years/70,000 miles
Corrosion 5 years/Unlimited miles
Roadside assistance 4 years/50,000 miles
Vehicle
Year Make Model 2013 Acura RDX 4dr SUV With Technology Package (3.5L 6cyl 6A)
Vehicle Type AWD 4dr 5-passenger 4dr SUV
Base MSRP $39,420
Options on test vehicle Technology Package ($0 -- includes Acura navigation system with voice recognition, AcuraLink real-time traffic with traffic rerouting, AcuraLink real-time weather, Acura/ELS Surround premium audio system with 410-watt digital sound-processor amplifier, 10 speakers, DVD-Audio, CD player, MP3, WMA and DTS player, Dolby ProLogic II, XM radio with note function music reminder, USB port and aux jack connectivity, and 15GB of hard disk drive (HDD) media storage, Pandora Internet radio interface, SMS text messaging feature, GPS-linked, solar-sensing, dual-zone automatic climate control system)
As-tested MSRP $40,315
Assembly location East Liberty, Ohio
Drivetrain
Configuration Transverse, front-engine, all-wheel drive
Engine type Naturally aspirated, port-injected V6, gasoline with cylinder deactivation
Displacement (cc/cu-in) 3,471/212
Block/head material Aluminum/aluminum
Valvetrain SOHC, 4 valves per cylinder, variable intake + exhaust-valve timing and lift
Compression ratio (x:1) 10.5
Redline, indicated (rpm) 6,800
Horsepower (hp @ rpm) 273 @ 6,200
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm) 251 @ 5,000
Fuel type Premium unleaded (recommended)
Transmission type Six-speed automatic with steering-wheel-mounted paddles
Transmission ratios (x:1) I = 3.36, II = 2.09, III = 1.48, IV = 1.07, V = 0.75, VI = 0.56, R = 2.27
Final-drive ratio (x:1) 4.25
Chassis
Suspension, front Independent MacPherson struts, coil springs, twin-tube dampers, stabilizer bar
Suspension, rear Independent multilink, coil springs, twin-tube dampers, stabilizer bar
Steering type Electric-assist, speed-proportional, rack-and-pinion steering
Steering ratio (x:1) 15.0
Turning circle (ft.) 39.0
Tire make and model Michelin Primacy MXM4
Tire type All-season front and rear
Tire size, front P235/60R18 102V
Tire size, rear P235/60R18 102V
Wheel size 18-by-7.5 inches front and rear
Wheel material Cast aluminum
Brakes, front 12.3-inch one-piece ventilated cast-iron discs with single-piston sliding cast-iron calipers
Brakes, rear 12-inch one-piece solid cast-iron discs with single-piston sliding cast-iron calipers
Track Test Results
Acceleration, 0-30 mph (sec.) 2.7
0-45 mph (sec.) 4.3
0-60 mph (sec.) 6.5
0-60 with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) 6.2
0-75 mph (sec.) 9.4
1/4-mile (sec. @ mph) 14.7 @ 94.0
0-30 mph, trac ON (sec.) 2.9
0-45 mph, trac ON (sec.) 4.7
0-60 mph, trac ON (sec.) 6.9
0-60, trac ON with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) 6.5
0-75 mph, trac ON (sec.) 7.8
1/4-mile, trac ON (sec. @ mph) 15.0 @ 93.9
Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) 33
60-0 mph (ft.) 128
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) 64.6
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) ESC ON 62.1
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) 0.79
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) ESC ON 0.78
Sound level @ idle (dB) 42.6
@ Full throttle (dB) 73.5
@ 70 mph cruise (dB) 66.2
Engine speed @ 70 mph (rpm) 1,900
Test Driver Ratings & Comments
Acceleration comments: There's about a tenth or three to be gained with generous pedal overlap and the front tires even bark a little bit. Upshifts at WOT (in both D or S) are smooth and reasonably quick and exactly at redline, hence no need for Manual. I didn't sense (feel or hear) any telltale VTEC cam changeover - odd, no?
Braking comments: In "normal" driving, the brake jump-in is pretty abrupt with only a small amount of pedal travel. In "panic stops," the pedal feels softer with more travel. Tire and ABS both make an audible protest. Straight, fade-resistant brakes.
Handling comments: "Skid pad: Very little ESC intervention if any. Very communicative steering that isn't unnecessarily heavy or light. Very nice. Steady moderate understeer on the limit.
Testing Conditions
Test date 4/3/2012
Test location California Speedway
Elevation (ft.) 1,121
Temperature (°F) 78.1
Relative humidity (%) 14.1
Barometric pressure (in. Hg) 28.74
Wind (mph, direction) 1.4 headwind
Odometer (mi.) 2,113
Fuel used for test 91-octane gasoline
As-tested tire pressures, f/r (psi) 33/33
Fuel Consumption
EPA fuel economy (mpg) 19 city/27 highway/22 combined
Edmunds observed (mpg) 22
Fuel tank capacity (U.S. gal.) 16.0
Driving range (mi.) 448
Dimensions & Capacities
Curb weight, mfr. claim (lbs.) 3,732
Curb weight, as tested (lbs.) 3,821
Length (in.) 183.5
Width (in.) 73.7
Height (in.) 66.1
Wheelbase (in.) 105.7
Track, front (in.) 63.1
Track, rear (in.) 63.4
Legroom, front (in.) 42.1
Legroom, rear (in.) 38.3
Headroom, front (in.) 38.7
Headroom, rear (in.) 38.2
Shoulder room, front (in.) 58.7
Shoulder room, rear (in.) 57.2
Seating capacity 5
Tow capacity, mfr. claim (lbs.) 1,500
Ground clearance (in.) 8.1
Approach angle (degrees) 17.2
Departure angle (degrees) 22.0
Warranty
Bumper-to-bumper 4 years/50,000 miles
Powertrain 6 years/70,000 miles
Corrosion 5 years/Unlimited miles
Roadside assistance 4 years/50,000 miles
04-12-2012, 07:29 AM
#1143
normally not a vehicle I'm interested in, but it looks good! This is a great implementation of the beak. I'm on the verge of actually referring to that grille in a respectable manner....
Unfortunately it's not a X3 (*ahem* BMW) or Q5 (Audi) but I'll show my sister anyway to sees what she thinks. If it lures her away from getting a German CUV I'll REALLY be impressed. One thing though... why isn't Acura offering ventilated seats though? Not enough potential takers? They're a godsend on road trips.
Costco, who misses the crotch vents underneath steering columns of cars from the '80s and '90s
Unfortunately it's not a X3 (*ahem* BMW) or Q5 (Audi) but I'll show my sister anyway to sees what she thinks. If it lures her away from getting a German CUV I'll REALLY be impressed. One thing though... why isn't Acura offering ventilated seats though? Not enough potential takers? They're a godsend on road trips.
Costco, who misses the crotch vents underneath steering columns of cars from the '80s and '90s
04-12-2012, 07:54 AM
#1144
Senior Moderator
I love everything about this vehicle. If there's one thing I don't like its that is has VCM. With all the motor mount issues that have been traced back to VCM its still not something I'd trust.
04-12-2012, 01:27 PM
#1146
The sizzle in the Steak
normally not a vehicle I'm interested in, but it looks good! This is a great implementation of the beak. I'm on the verge of actually referring to that grille in a respectable manner....
Unfortunately it's not a X3 (*ahem* BMW) or Q5 (Audi) but I'll show my sister anyway to sees what she thinks. If it lures her away from getting a German CUV I'll REALLY be impressed. One thing though... why isn't Acura offering ventilated seats though? Not enough potential takers? They're a godsend on road trips.
Costco, who misses the crotch vents underneath steering columns of cars from the '80s and '90s
Unfortunately it's not a X3 (*ahem* BMW) or Q5 (Audi) but I'll show my sister anyway to sees what she thinks. If it lures her away from getting a German CUV I'll REALLY be impressed. One thing though... why isn't Acura offering ventilated seats though? Not enough potential takers? They're a godsend on road trips.
Costco, who misses the crotch vents underneath steering columns of cars from the '80s and '90s
04-12-2012, 01:59 PM
#1147
^ must mean they are better companies
04-12-2012, 04:53 PM
#1149
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 Posts
Just noticed the real world mpg from Edmunds under aggressive testing environment - 22mpg. Not bad, It matches perfectly with the EPA combined figure (19/27/22).
Also, seems like the 6AT + VCM combo is working well with the RDX. It's much faster than the Accord V6 5AT +VCM with essentially the same engine but 300lb lighter. Looks like they have solved the VCM robbing power issue.
Also, seems like the 6AT + VCM combo is working well with the RDX. It's much faster than the Accord V6 5AT +VCM with essentially the same engine but 300lb lighter. Looks like they have solved the VCM robbing power issue.
04-12-2012, 05:31 PM
#1150
Having taken the same 5 hour trek down to SoCal multiple times, the first time I took my sister's ES350 I was in freaking heaven. There wasn't a single moment that my back felt stuck to my shirt felt stuck to the seat.
and I'm still not a fan of cylinder deactivation. Honda V6 or GM V8 the transition is more apparent than I'd prefer. Not as bad as say, a hybrid going from battery only mode to kicking in/cutting off the gas engine, but still there. Perhaps you get used to it over time but I notice it and it bugs me. Would rather sacrifice that 1-2 mpg on the freeway rather than have all the downsides.
I can't believe Honda was wasting their time with specially designed engine mounts and forcing an option (noise cancellation) as standard equipment instead of pushing DI out and transmissions with more gear ratios out sooner.
and I'm still not a fan of cylinder deactivation. Honda V6 or GM V8 the transition is more apparent than I'd prefer. Not as bad as say, a hybrid going from battery only mode to kicking in/cutting off the gas engine, but still there. Perhaps you get used to it over time but I notice it and it bugs me. Would rather sacrifice that 1-2 mpg on the freeway rather than have all the downsides.
I can't believe Honda was wasting their time with specially designed engine mounts and forcing an option (noise cancellation) as standard equipment instead of pushing DI out and transmissions with more gear ratios out sooner.
04-12-2012, 07:13 PM
#1151
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
It seems like a hit (with the blogs) but Im left unimpressed by the exterior. I saw in person at the auto show and it looked very bland. I actually had to look for it in the Acura booth, nothing on it stood out to me 
04-12-2012, 07:20 PM
#1152
The sizzle in the Steak
^^ That was the point of this design.
Vanilla will sell.
Vanilla will sell.
04-12-2012, 07:51 PM
#1153
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
04-12-2012, 08:40 PM
#1154
Senior Moderator
I enquired about Acura's primary target in redesigning the RDX and the answer I got was the Audi Q5. I managed a quick tour in the Q5 and although it seems as though Acura is on right track, I found that they've actually put a bulls-eye on the Lexus RX.
04-12-2012, 09:14 PM
#1155
This is by far the best result on Edmunds test by any SUV with 270bhp. Edmunds is the most conservative.
Unlss Lexus creates 350bhp/8 speed automatic RX350. THere is no way they can match RDX. and RX will still not have 8.1 inch ground clearance.
This numbers matches Optima SX turbo. All the way upto quarter mile. only in trap speed it is slower.and still beat it in aslolam and fuel economy.
http://www.insideline.com/kia/optima...and-video.html
Unlss Lexus creates 350bhp/8 speed automatic RX350. THere is no way they can match RDX. and RX will still not have 8.1 inch ground clearance.
This numbers matches Optima SX turbo. All the way upto quarter mile. only in trap speed it is slower.and still beat it in aslolam and fuel economy.
http://www.insideline.com/kia/optima...and-video.html
04-12-2012, 09:15 PM
#1156
Whats up with RDX owners?
iTrader: (9)
So now we're comparing a crossover to a midsize sedan? 
04-13-2012, 01:07 AM
#1157
2G TLX-S
Just noticed the real world mpg from Edmunds under aggressive testing environment - 22mpg. Not bad, It matches perfectly with the EPA combined figure (19/27/22).
Also, seems like the 6AT + VCM combo is working well with the RDX. It's much faster than the Accord V6 5AT +VCM with essentially the same engine but 300lb lighter. Looks like they have solved the VCM robbing power issue.
Also, seems like the 6AT + VCM combo is working well with the RDX. It's much faster than the Accord V6 5AT +VCM with essentially the same engine but 300lb lighter. Looks like they have solved the VCM robbing power issue.
More gears = closer ratios between gears = faster acceleration.
More gears = can have super-super-long top gear = better highway fuel economy.
That's why it is crucial for Acura to play catchup and release 7AT and 8AT for even better acceleration times and fuel economy, just like the other top auto makers.
04-13-2012, 12:31 PM
#1158
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 Posts
Having taken the same 5 hour trek down to SoCal multiple times, the first time I took my sister's ES350 I was in freaking heaven. There wasn't a single moment that my back felt stuck to my shirt felt stuck to the seat.
and I'm still not a fan of cylinder deactivation. Honda V6 or GM V8 the transition is more apparent than I'd prefer. Not as bad as say, a hybrid going from battery only mode to kicking in/cutting off the gas engine, but still there. Perhaps you get used to it over time but I notice it and it bugs me. Would rather sacrifice that 1-2 mpg on the freeway rather than have all the downsides.
I can't believe Honda was wasting their time with specially designed engine mounts and forcing an option (noise cancellation) as standard equipment instead of pushing DI out and transmissions with more gear ratios out sooner.
and I'm still not a fan of cylinder deactivation. Honda V6 or GM V8 the transition is more apparent than I'd prefer. Not as bad as say, a hybrid going from battery only mode to kicking in/cutting off the gas engine, but still there. Perhaps you get used to it over time but I notice it and it bugs me. Would rather sacrifice that 1-2 mpg on the freeway rather than have all the downsides.
I can't believe Honda was wasting their time with specially designed engine mounts and forcing an option (noise cancellation) as standard equipment instead of pushing DI out and transmissions with more gear ratios out sooner.
I think in the past, Honda hasn't been able to overcome the carbon deposit build up issue with DI. Also, they probably find that the performance or advantage to cost ratio is not good enough? Now with their ED engines and new gearbox with more ratios, they have caught up to the competition at the very least. Now add VCM, I think they are in a good position.
Let me put it this way, at this moment, Honda is still using 5AT and engines without DI and other technologies. Yet, Honda can match most competitors in terms of performance and fuel economy. With 6AT and VCM, the RDX is already one of the fastest CUV in its class with class leading fuel economy. Now, when the ED engine series comes out, it will ensure that the performance and fuel economy advantages are kept intact.
Having more gear ratios in the tranny is always better in terms of acceleration and fuel economy.
More gears = closer ratios between gears = faster acceleration.
More gears = can have super-super-long top gear = better highway fuel economy.
That's why it is crucial for Acura to play catchup and release 7AT and 8AT for even better acceleration times and fuel economy, just like the other top auto makers.
More gears = closer ratios between gears = faster acceleration.
More gears = can have super-super-long top gear = better highway fuel economy.
That's why it is crucial for Acura to play catchup and release 7AT and 8AT for even better acceleration times and fuel economy, just like the other top auto makers.
Anyways, we all know how much the 6AT helps when you compare the 2g MDX 5AT and MDX 6AT.
2009 MDX 5AT: 15/20/17mpg
2010 MDX 6AT: 16/21/18mpg
It's fair to say that one extra ratio is good for at most 6% fuel economy gain. I said at most because other than an extra ratio, Honda also made changes to the new gearbox that help improve performance and fuel efficiency. The gain isn't too much because the old 5AT also has long top gear. It's hard to make it a lot longer as the engine probably is not powerful enough to cruise at 60mph at 1000rpm....
The real benefit like you said is acceleration. From test results, on average the 6AT MDX is 0.5 second faster from 0-60mph and 1/4 mile test.
I personally think 6AT or 7AT is the best. The advantage of having even more ratios become less and less (diminishing returns) to the point that I think CVT would make more sense, that is, if it can handle the high amount of torque.
04-13-2012, 05:08 PM
#1159
Seems like the transition in the RDX is less apparent than before. I'd like to test it in person to see the improvement. From what I've read, it's quite difficult to notice the transition now.
I think in the past, Honda hasn't been able to overcome the carbon deposit build up issue with DI. Also, they probably find that the performance or advantage to cost ratio is not good enough? Now with their ED engines and new gearbox with more ratios, they have caught up to the competition at the very least. Now add VCM, I think they are in a good position.
Let me put it this way, at this moment, Honda is still using 5AT and engines without DI and other technologies. Yet, Honda can match most competitors in terms of performance and fuel economy. With 6AT and VCM, the RDX is already one of the fastest CUV in its class with class leading fuel economy. Now, when the ED engine series comes out, it will ensure that the performance and fuel economy advantages are kept intact.
Or simply, just use ZF tranny!
Anyways, we all know how much the 6AT helps when you compare the 2g MDX 5AT and MDX 6AT.
2009 MDX 5AT: 15/20/17mpg
2010 MDX 6AT: 16/21/18mpg
It's fair to say that one extra ratio is good for at most 6% fuel economy gain. I said at most because other than an extra ratio, Honda also made changes to the new gearbox that help improve performance and fuel efficiency. The gain isn't too much because the old 5AT also has long top gear. It's hard to make it a lot longer as the engine probably is not powerful enough to cruise at 60mph at 1000rpm....
The real benefit like you said is acceleration. From test results, on average the 6AT MDX is 0.5 second faster from 0-60mph and 1/4 mile test.
I personally think 6AT or 7AT is the best. The advantage of having even more ratios become less and less (diminishing returns) to the point that I think CVT would make more sense, that is, if it can handle the high amount of torque.
I think in the past, Honda hasn't been able to overcome the carbon deposit build up issue with DI. Also, they probably find that the performance or advantage to cost ratio is not good enough? Now with their ED engines and new gearbox with more ratios, they have caught up to the competition at the very least. Now add VCM, I think they are in a good position.
Let me put it this way, at this moment, Honda is still using 5AT and engines without DI and other technologies. Yet, Honda can match most competitors in terms of performance and fuel economy. With 6AT and VCM, the RDX is already one of the fastest CUV in its class with class leading fuel economy. Now, when the ED engine series comes out, it will ensure that the performance and fuel economy advantages are kept intact.
Or simply, just use ZF tranny!
Anyways, we all know how much the 6AT helps when you compare the 2g MDX 5AT and MDX 6AT.
2009 MDX 5AT: 15/20/17mpg
2010 MDX 6AT: 16/21/18mpg
It's fair to say that one extra ratio is good for at most 6% fuel economy gain. I said at most because other than an extra ratio, Honda also made changes to the new gearbox that help improve performance and fuel efficiency. The gain isn't too much because the old 5AT also has long top gear. It's hard to make it a lot longer as the engine probably is not powerful enough to cruise at 60mph at 1000rpm....
The real benefit like you said is acceleration. From test results, on average the 6AT MDX is 0.5 second faster from 0-60mph and 1/4 mile test.
I personally think 6AT or 7AT is the best. The advantage of having even more ratios become less and less (diminishing returns) to the point that I think CVT would make more sense, that is, if it can handle the high amount of torque.
I agree that 6AT and 7AT are ideal, though having rode along in an LS460, an 8AT doesn't seem excessive. I've also resigned to the idea that there's a point of diminishing returns when it comes to extra cogs. Dunno how they can make a 9AT work when a CVT makes more sense, though myself and many others can't get used to the feel of a CVT. I'm just glad Honda is implementing these technologies now. It's about time.
on a sidenote it would be interesting to see GM implement a 7MT transaxle in the next generation Corvette. If Porsche can make it work with a naturally aspirated H6 then I don't see why GM couldn't with an LS V8.
04-13-2012, 06:16 PM
#1160
2G TLX-S
^^^^^
Just for curiosity, does Getrag still make transmissions for GM vehicles ?
Just for curiosity, does Getrag still make transmissions for GM vehicles ?