When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I've never had any interest in an MDX and never knew of the Sport hybrid.
At under $50K, an RDX Sport SH-AWD would be very interesting.
I have absolutely no interest in an RDX with a 2.0t.
Just to clarify, there is a difference between SH-AWD which Acura has offered for a few years now, and the Sports Hybrid which is newer. The Sports Hybrid is AWD but also delivers greater HP and performance than SH-AWD AND offers greater fuel economy, especially for city driving. And for the MDX there is only a $1500 premium to get the Sports Hybrid. You can get an AWD V6 RDX right now under 40K, but that is without the Tech or other packages. I could see Acura offering a Sports Hybrid RDX that could start around $40 to 42K, and then go up from there depending on if you choose a tech or advance package. I currently have a 2010 MDX, so for me to move down to an RDX, I would like to see them focus on maximizing 2nd row room as I never really use the 3rd row. The current RDX is around 184" long, while the current MDX is over 196". If the RDX can grow to 188 to 190" long and use most of those extra inches in the 2nd row and for cargo space, it will do very well.
Curious - what are the primary reasons for not wanting a 2.0t?
I have driven and been a passenger in many 2.5l and smaller turbos and have never found one yet to be as smooth or quiet as a V6.The Lexus NX 200t being the latest one.
Also, the MPG numbers are deceiving because when you kick that turbo in, the MPG numbers fall.
The RDX V6 is wonderful.My Accord V6 Earth Dreams seems even better.
Until I don't have a choice, I will probably stick with 6 cyl vehicles.
Just to clarify, there is a difference between SH-AWD which Acura has offered for a few years now, and the Sports Hybrid which is newer. The Sports Hybrid is AWD but also delivers greater HP and performance than SH-AWD AND offers greater fuel economy, especially for city driving. And for the MDX there is only a $1500 premium to get the Sports Hybrid. You can get an AWD V6 RDX right now under 40K, but that is without the Tech or other packages. I could see Acura offering a Sports Hybrid RDX that could start around $40 to 42K, and then go up from there depending on if you choose a tech or advance package. I currently have a 2010 MDX, so for me to move down to an RDX, I would like to see them focus on maximizing 2nd row room as I never really use the 3rd row. The current RDX is around 184" long, while the current MDX is over 196". If the RDX can grow to 188 to 190" long and use most of those extra inches in the 2nd row and for cargo space, it will do very well.
Interesting!
I would think the Sport Hybrid would come in an Advance version but I'm probably wrong.
I would think discounting will be very low on an RDX Sport hybrid.
I would think the Sport Hybrid would come in an Advance version but I'm probably wrong.
I would think discounting will be very low on an RDX Sport hybrid.
Well in the MDX the Sports Hybrid comes in Tech Package which I think is around $52K, and then Advance which is around $58K, and I would assume the RDX would offer something similar, but $7 to $9K less, so maybe $43K for Tech package and $50K for Advance.
it be cool to see them pair the 3.5v6 with the 8speed dct but more likely the 10auto
The current iteration of the 8 speed DCT in the TLX couldn't handle the tourque of the V6 (or so the good people at Acura said) which is why they went with the ZF9speed. I suspect two trims - similar to the TLX, one (2.0t maybe) with the DCT and a V6 with the 10 speed. I just hope the 10 speed isn't an abomination wrt driving dynamics.
Talking about trans speeds...
I had a couple of RX350's and Lexus sedans and I'm still a member of the Club Lexus forum.
I'd still be in a Lexus if Toyota didn't go with the present styling design which I hate.
Anyway, here's one thread of more than a few that share the same opinion of the Toyota 8 speed trans.
The current iteration of the 8 speed DCT in the TLX couldn't handle the tourque of the V6 (or so the good people at Acura said) which is why they went with the ZF9speed. I suspect two trims - similar to the TLX, one (2.0t maybe) with the DCT and a V6 with the 10 speed. I just hope the 10 speed isn't an abomination wrt driving dynamics.
This would be great, but I won't hold my breath for two different motors in the RDX.
Originally Posted by srpuywa
a full redesign - still based on a CRV -- hahahaha
Why wouldn't they do this? Economies of scale. The RDX is a very different animal from the CR-V in any event. Have you driven a previous gen CR-V and compared it to the RDX?
Have you driven a previous gen CR-V and compared it to the RDX?
We test drove: 17 CRV, Audi Q5, Toyota Highlander, Subaru Outback and decided on the 17 RDX.
The CRV was a EX top of the line model that felt cheap inside even with all the bells and whistles - only thing the RDX is missing from the CRV is reclining rear seats
I am not an engine expert by any means, but I believe a carmaker can use the same basic components of an engine and tweak it for individual vehicles. Thus, they could use the same Sports Hybrid components between the MDX and RDX, and make slight modifications to enable the MDX to have a higher HP figure. But, even if that was not the case, if Acura had just one offering per vehicle (ILX, TLX, RLX, CDX when it comes, RDX, MDX) that is a sports hybrid, that would be a max of six different engine configurations which they are already doing more than that by offering some sports hybrid and base engine options.
Acura already dropped the ball on the MDX sport hybrid because of their stupid power hierarchy rule. It should have come with the same powertrain as the RLX with 377 hp but Acura was too stupid to put that in so instead hey dropped in a lame 3.0l + hybrid so the power would be lower (citing the normal powertrain won't fit...yeah, sure). It only makes 325hp which is a joke when looking at it's luxury competition who's base engines make more in some cases, let alone their upper trims. That means Afura would have to tweak the system to make only 300ish hp and at that point what is the point? The most I see them doing is a 2.0t + hybrid tech and maybe not even sport hybrid tech. Acura is like a limp noodle.
Originally Posted by colt427
I see,thanks.
Do you think Honda will make a Sport RDX hybrid that will list for at least $54K?
I may be wrong but I don't see it happening.
Well seeing as how the MDX hybrid is only a $1500 premium over the standard MDX, I don't think the RDX will be what you are thinking. Also the RDX has massive price margins IMHO (it doesn't offer anything crazy, normal AWD, old and normal
engine...they really cut a lot of corners with this gen RDX IMHO) so it really shouldn't cost too much.
Originally Posted by srpuywa
a full redesign - still based on a CRV -- hahahaha
While the RDX is based on the CRV, there are actually some structural differences to compensate for the extra weight of the V6 engine and 6 speed auto. I know that in the case of the 1G RDX they did some significant structural changes so that it could handle the 2.3T and SH-AWD.
a full redesign - still based on a CRV -- hahahaha
I don't know about you, but if you can't feel any difference while driving between the CRV and RDX , then in all fairness you should stick with CR-V. At least it'll save you some money. LOL .
I don't know about you, but if you can't feel any difference while driving between the CRV and RDX , then in all fairness you should stick with CR-V. At least it'll save you some money. LOL .
you must of missed this in your hurry to make a smart ass remark: We test drove: 17 CRV, Audi Q5, Toyota Highlander, Subaru Outback and decided on the 17 RDX.
Based on these pics, I have a feeling that Acura is making RDX much bigger than the current one. In 2 years, they will make MDX a bigger 7 seater and bring CDX to NA to fill the gap.
RDX will compete with current 5 seater RX and MDX with the future RX and Q7.
Based on these pics, I have a feeling that Acura is making RDX much bigger than the current one. In 2 years, they will make MDX a bigger 7 seater and bring CDX to NA to fill the gap.
RDX will compete with current 5 seater RX and MDX with the future RX and Q7.
The current RDX is already on the larger end of compact and really pushing on the barrier of mid-sized. In fact it is longer than my 7 passenger Sorento and only about 5.5" shorter than the current MDX/RX/X5 so if they make it just a few inches longer it will literally be as long as the MDX is now (in fairness the MDX is on the small side for a 3 row large crossover as it is so it could use a few inches. The RDX grew nearly 5 inches when they moved from 1G to 2G.
The current RDX is already on the larger end of compact and really pushing on the barrier of mid-sized. In fact it is longer than my 7 passenger Sorento and only about 5.5" shorter than the current MDX/RX/X5 so if they make it just a few inches longer it will literally be as long as the MDX is now (in fairness the MDX is on the small side for a 3 row large crossover as it is so it could use a few inches. The RDX grew nearly 5 inches when they moved from 1G to 2G.
What is odd is that the RDX has traditionally been a couple inches longer than the CR-V, yet the CR-V has more 2nd row room when you look at the specs. Part of this could be from the beak and front-end design. I don't mind if the RDX grows a bit in size as I do believe Acura will soon offer the CDX as a compact, and the RDX would need to grow a few more inches to have some separation from the CDX, and the MDX could also grow a couple more inches when it gets redesigned. For instance, the MDX is often positioned as a competitor with the Lexus RX, but I really think the MDX is more competing with a vehicle like the Audi Q7, while the RDX is the competitor for the Lexus RX. The Audi Q7 is nearly 3.5" longer than the current MDX which is why I think the MDX could grow a bit more for the next generation.
What is odd is that the RDX has traditionally been a couple inches longer than the CR-V, yet the CR-V has more 2nd row room when you look at the specs. Part of this could be from the beak and front-end design. I don't mind if the RDX grows a bit in size as I do believe Acura will soon offer the CDX as a compact, and the RDX would need to grow a few more inches to have some separation from the CDX, and the MDX could also grow a couple more inches when it gets redesigned. For instance, the MDX is often positioned as a competitor with the Lexus RX, but I really think the MDX is more competing with a vehicle like the Audi Q7, while the RDX is the competitor for the Lexus RX. The Audi Q7 is nearly 3.5" longer than the current MDX which is why I think the MDX could grow a bit more for the next generation.
that's exactly my view as well.
- CDX will fill the gap
- RDX will compete with Lexus RX
- MDX will compete with Q7
I think it's a brilliant idea! Acura will cover from compact to a full 7 seater SUV.
What is odd is that the RDX has traditionally been a couple inches longer than the CR-V, yet the CR-V has more 2nd row room when you look at the specs. Part of this could be from the beak and front-end design. I don't mind if the RDX grows a bit in size as I do believe Acura will soon offer the CDX as a compact, and the RDX would need to grow a few more inches to have some separation from the CDX, and the MDX could also grow a couple more inches when it gets redesigned. For instance, the MDX is often positioned as a competitor with the Lexus RX, but I really think the MDX is more competing with a vehicle like the Audi Q7, while the RDX is the competitor for the Lexus RX. The Audi Q7 is nearly 3.5" longer than the current MDX which is why I think the MDX could grow a bit more for the next generation.
That is an interesting point, with the RDX having a V6 it also takes up more room possibly intruding on cabin space? Or possibly the seating in the RDX is is more thickly padded in the front/rear cutting down on room? Not too sure.
I don't mind if the RDX grows either, but the CDX is REALLY REALLY small. Subcompact SUV's are typically around 170" (CDX is probably like 172") while compact SUV's are around 180" so I really don't see the CDX as compact but instead sub compact and nobody will cross shop a CDX with a Q5 or GLC (more like Q3 and X1). So by making the RDX larger they are effectively creating a gap in the lineup rather than closing one. However I think we all agree that the MDX needs to grow a few inches, the infiniti qx60 is a whopping 6 inches longer and has WAY more room inside to the point that the third row is useable by adults. IMHO the MDX has always been a 4+3 vehicle and that needs to be fixed.
Just like with their sedans, Acura seems to always be a class off with everything. The RLX competes with mid-level germans like the E-class and 5-series, and the Lexus GS rather than the S-class, 7-Series, and Lexus LS. The TLX competes with the A4 and 3 series when it should be competing with the E-class, A6...etc. Lastly we have the utterly forgettable ILX that is supposed to be competing with A4/3-series but instead competes with the A3 and CLA.
So I don't want to see Acura commit those packaging mistakes too with their crossovers.
My wife bought the first 2013 RDX in Iowa. She now has 55k miles on it and has been very happy with it. Really the only beef we had with it is that it doesn't have rear vents. She really wants to get a new small SUV and I want to keep it below $40k. We went and looked at the loaded CRV and she liked it ok but the first thing she commented on was the motor. She is use to the 280hp V6 she has in the RDX. Without knowing anything about 4cyl vs. 6cyl, turbo, etc. she right away commented that the RDX seemed so much smoother. She did like the tech in the CRV a lot more. I've considered a lot of other smaller SUV's in this under 40k price range and there really isn't anything better than the RDX that she is currently driving.
Hopefully they keep the V6, add rear vents, and improve the technology.
My wife bought the first 2013 RDX in Iowa. She now has 55k miles on it and has been very happy with it. Really the only beef we had with it is that it doesn't have rear vents. She really wants to get a new small SUV and I want to keep it below $40k. We went and looked at the loaded CRV and she liked it ok but the first thing she commented on was the motor. She is use to the 280hp V6 she has in the RDX. Without knowing anything about 4cyl vs. 6cyl, turbo, etc. she right away commented that the RDX seemed so much smoother. She did like the tech in the CRV a lot more. I've considered a lot of other smaller SUV's in this under 40k price range and there really isn't anything better than the RDX that she is currently driving.
Hopefully they keep the V6, add rear vents, and improve the technology.
They added rear vents for the 2016 model....the fact that someone during design thought it was a good idea to not put rear vents in a family crossover says A LOT abouy the prople designing it.
I will say one thing, I feel that the 2G RDX has aged very well. I hope Acura comes through with a good design and more performance. If they use the new 2.0 and make it as powerful as Audis I wouldnt mind it. The new Q5 is just as fast (maybe faster) to 60 than the RDX. I dont hear many bad things about the german turbo 4cyl.
I will say one thing, I feel that the 2G RDX has aged very well. I hope Acura comes through with a good design and more performance. If they use the new 2.0 and make it as powerful as Audis I wouldnt mind it. The new Q5 is just as fast (maybe faster) to 60 than the RDX. I dont hear many bad things about the german turbo 4cyl.
IMO the German 4 cyl turbo SUVs are more engaging to drive than the current 6 cyl Acura RDX. Turbo torque in the usable range together with crisp handling makes for a lot of fun, without necessarily being faster in a straight line than the V6.
Acura completely killed any hint of sportiness in the current RDX. But I too have hope for some performance additions in the next gen. I saw a TLX A-spec on the street today for the first tiime. It looked great, and hopefully hints at better things to come for the RDX and the overall Acura mindset. Until then, I'm sticking with my 1G that puts a smile on my face every time I drive it.
Its too bad they dont have a downsized 6 cylinder with a power adder like the q5 with 3.0t. No lag with the supercharger and good acceleration when off boost.
IMO the German 4 cyl turbo SUVs are more engaging to drive than the current 6 cyl Acura RDX. Turbo torque in the usable range together with crisp handling makes for a lot of fun, without necessarily being faster in a straight line than the V6.
Acura completely killed any hint of sportiness in the current RDX. But I too have hope for some performance additions in the next gen. I saw a TLX A-spec on the street today for the first tiime. It looked great, and hopefully hints at better things to come for the RDX and the overall Acura mindset. Until then, I'm sticking with my 1G that puts a smile on my face every time I drive it.
The 4-cylinder turbos offer good power and great low-end torque. For me, it's now how much power they make, it's the way they make their power. My wife's Q5 was fun to drive and efficient, but it sounded terrible. It also ran out steam at higher RPMs where a naturally aspirated engine is still pulling. Our GLC300 is better in virtually every way, but it still lacks a certain refinement. There are advantages to both configurations, but in most cases I prefer a NA six to a blown four.
I don't see Acura moving away from the comfort-oriented formula. It's working too well. The younger me would have rather had a gen one RDX, but these days I care far more about comfort and refinement than corner-carving ability. It seems obvious I'm not alone. I think the best you can hope for is an A-spec trim, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I do think they need to make SH-AWD standard on every AWD model. The ideal RDX would have the MDX Sport Hybrid's powertrain carried over intact, but I realize that's a pipe dream.
Its too bad they dont have a downsized 6 cylinder with a power adder like the q5 with 3.0t. No lag with the supercharger and good acceleration when off boost.
Unfortunately, Audi no longer offers the 3.0T in the base Q5. You need to step up to the SQ5 to get a six cylinder, and it's the new turbocharged 3.0 instead of the more responsive (but less powerful and less efficient) supercharged 3.0. The Q5 2.0T is plenty quick, but again, it doesn't sound very good. The 7-speed DSG offers wonderfully fast shifts once underway, but it's clunky and inconsistent at low speeds and when starting from a stop. I found the lag to be unacceptable in a car that pricey. I'm also disappointed with the new "quattro with Ultra" AWD. They should have stuck with the proven ZF-8-speed and Torsen-based quattro AWD.
My two favorite CUV powertrains right now are the Acura's 3-motor hybrid, and Ford/Lincoln's 2.7L turbo. Both are refined, and both offer right-now response. The Acura is far more efficient, but you pay quite a premium for that efficiency. If you haven't driven an Edge Sport or MKX 2.7T, you should give one a try. If you test them objectively, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at how good they really are. The 2019 MKX will likely get the Continental's even better 400 HP 3.0T.
The 4-cylinder turbos offer good power and great low-end torque. For me, it's now how much power they make, it's the way they make their power. My wife's Q5 was fun to drive and efficient, but it sounded terrible. It also ran out steam at higher RPMs where a naturally aspirated engine is still pulling. Our GLC300 is better in virtually every way, but it still lacks a certain refinement. There are advantages to both configurations, but in most cases I prefer a NA six to a blown four.
I don't see Acura moving away from the comfort-oriented formula. It's working too well. The younger me would have rather had a gen one RDX, but these days I care far more about comfort and refinement than corner-carving ability. It seems obvious I'm not alone. I think the best you can hope for is an A-spec trim, but I wouldn't hold my breath. I do think they need to make SH-AWD standard on every AWD model. The ideal RDX would have the MDX Sport Hybrid's powertrain carried over intact, but I realize that's a pipe dream.
If Acura wants to maintain the comfort-first, family image of the RDX, then the V6 certainly seems like the best choice. Agreed, the formula has worked well. I really like Acura, but that formula will keep me looking elsewhere for my next SUV, unless they bring something sportier to the table. But ya, unlikely.
And you're right again - tossing an SUV through corners really isn't my priority. But because I can do that with the 1G, I find myself enjoying an occasional spirited drive.
Unfortunately, Audi no longer offers the 3.0T in the base Q5. You need to step up to the SQ5 to get a six cylinder, and it's the new turbocharged 3.0 instead of the more responsive (but less powerful and less efficient) supercharged 3.0. The Q5 2.0T is plenty quick, but again, it doesn't sound very good. The 7-speed DSG offers wonderfully fast shifts once underway, but it's clunky and inconsistent at low speeds and when starting from a stop.
My two favorite CUV powertrains right now are the Acura's 3-motor hybrid, and Ford/Lincoln's 2.7L turbo. Both are refined, and both offer right-now response. The Acura is far more efficient, but you pay quite a premium for that efficiency. If you haven't driven an Edge Sport or MKX 2.7T, you should give one a try. If you test them objectively, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at how good they really are.
Well they still offer the supercharged 3.0t in the a6,q7 and other models and will probably have better real world mpg, and response versus the turbo variants since you dont have to the press the go pedal as hard. i drive mostly on the highway so i like the quick shifts of the dual clutch, plus it weighs less.
The problem is that all these new vehicles keep adding more weight with tech, safety, etc... while trying meet fuel economy standards you cant just keep throwing 2.0 turbos at everything which is why i like downsized 6 cylinders to replace naturally aspirated 6's.
i tested an edge sport its a little bigger than i want, but its has plenty of legroom for 6' footers in 2nd row and i'm waiting to see if they are gunna put that new 8 speed in there. I wish i could find similar front and rear legroom of a ford edge in the size of rdx. Seems like manufacturers prioritize rear cargo room over 2nd row leg room when you can easily fold down seat for more capacity
For a spirited drive I hop on this - it has a 6 cylinder motor and 160 HP
Yep, that will work!! Love those BMWs. This is how I stay entertained, and also maybe explains my love for Honda products. An A-spec package on RDX in 2019 could be great.
Well they still offer the supercharged 3.0t in the a6,q7 and other models and will probably have better real world mpg, and response versus the turbo variants since you dont have to the press the go pedal as hard. i drive mostly on the highway so i like the quick shifts of the dual clutch, plus it weighs less.
The problem is that all these new vehicles keep adding more weight with tech, safety, etc... while trying meet fuel economy standards you cant just keep throwing 2.0 turbos at everything which is why i like downsized 6 cylinders to replace naturally aspirated 6's.
i tested an edge sport its a little bigger than i want, but its has plenty of legroom for 6' footers in 2nd row and i'm waiting to see if they are gunna put that new 8 speed in there. I wish i could find similar front and rear legroom of a ford edge in the size of rdx. Seems like manufacturers prioritize rear cargo room over 2nd row leg room when you can easily fold down seat for more capacity
It's expected that the supercharged engine will gave way to the new 3.0T throughout the lineup. It's a shame, but EPA ratings matter more than real world fuel economy.
The Edge is cavernous for its size. Although I'm anxious to put VAG behind me (for their lack of morality, not the products), I'll probably wait to see what the mid-cycle updates bring to the Edge and MKX. Most media outlets are reporting they're getting the new GM/Ford 9-speed, but insiders say Ford has their own 8-speed in the works. I'm also anxious to see what the new RDX offers. I'm smitten by the MDX Sport Hybrid's powertrain and adaptive chassis, but I don't care for the infotainment system.
It's expected that the supercharged engine will gave way to the new 3.0T throughout the lineup. It's a shame, but EPA ratings matter more than real world fuel economy.
The Edge is cavernous for its size. Although I'm anxious to put VAG behind me (for their lack of morality, not the products), I'll probably wait to see what the mid-cycle updates bring to the Edge and MKX. Most media outlets are reporting they're getting the new GM/Ford 9-speed, but insiders say Ford has their own 8-speed in the works. I'm also anxious to see what the new RDX offers. I'm smitten by the MDX Sport Hybrid's powertrain and adaptive chassis, but I don't care for the infotainment system.
I've noticed you mentioning the MKX on here a few times and like you I don't understand why it is such a hidden gem still. The build quality is amazing and they really worked hard to take it away from its' ford roots not to mention that 2.7l has a whopping 380lb/ft. I do have a list of things I really want to see on the 2018 models though such as a newer transmission (that 6 speed is notoriously sluggish as evidenced by the piss poor 0-60 times given the power to weight ratios of many ford products) with more gears, the AWD system from the sedans (functions exactly like SH-AWD), the 3.0l twin turbo (take it even further away from the Ford products and also who doesn't like more power?), lastly I'd like to see that split wing grille die. I'l post a rendering of what the facelift model could look like and I really like it.
Spy shots of the facelifted 2018/19 MKX still in camo. Renderings of what the 2018/19 MKX will look like.
I've noticed you mentioning the MKX on here a few times and like you I don't understand why it is such a hidden gem still. The build quality is amazing and they really worked hard to take it away from its' ford roots not to mention that 2.7l has a whopping 380lb/ft. I do have a list of things I really want to see on the 2018 models though such as a newer transmission (that 6 speed is notoriously sluggish as evidenced by the piss poor 0-60 times given the power to weight ratios of many ford products) with more gears, the AWD system from the sedans (functions exactly like SH-AWD), the 3.0l twin turbo (take it even further away from the Ford products and also who doesn't like more power?), lastly I'd like to see that split wing grille die. I'l post a rendering of what the facelift model could look like and I really like it.
I think there's a lack of respect for the Lincoln brand in general. Much is Ford's fault for years of not differentiating styling and features sufficiently between Ford and Lincoln. That is changing more and more with each new model. The Continental is quite convincing as a luxury car. It's no S-Class level flagship, but it's leaps and bounds better than the MKS it replaced.
I've driven both the Edge Sport and MKX, and I found the Edge Sport to be noticeably quicker and more responsive despite its lower [published] power ratings. I suspect, but can't prove, that Lincoln tuned the transmission for smoother shifts more appropriate for the MKX's target audience. That combined with a higher curb weight for the MKX would explain the performance delta. But the Lincoln is quieter and more comfortable, and the optional 22-way seats and Revel audio system have to be experienced to be appreciated. I think the MKX's grille is the best execution of the split wing so far, but I won't miss it when it's replaced the Continental's handsome mug.
As much as I like the MKX, I'm hoping that Ford adds a Platinum trim to the Edge as they've done with the Explorer. I picture something similar to Europe's Edge Vignale, but with the updated 2.7T under the hood. Getting luxury features in a mainstream brand is a real plus for me and my business.
I think there's a lack of respect for the Lincoln brand in general. Much is Ford's fault for years of not differentiating styling and features sufficiently between Ford and Lincoln. That is changing more and more with each new model. The Continental is quite convincing as a luxury car. It's no S-Class level flagship, but it's leaps and bounds better than the MKS it replaced.
I've driven both the Edge Sport and MKX, and I found the Edge Sport to be noticeably quicker and more responsive despite its lower [published] power ratings. I suspect, but can't prove, that Lincoln tuned the transmission for smoother shifts more appropriate for the MKX's target audience. That combined with a higher curb weight for the MKX would explain the performance delta. But the Lincoln is quieter and more comfortable, and the optional 22-way seats and Revel audio system have to be experienced to be appreciated. I think the MKX's grille is the best execution of the split wing so far, but I won't miss it when it's replaced the Continental's handsome mug.
As much as I like the MKX, I'm hoping that Ford adds a Platinum trim to the Edge as they've done with the Explorer. I picture something similar to Europe's Edge Vignale, but with the updated 2.7T under the hood. Getting luxury features in a mainstream brand is a real plus for me and my business.
I agree fully with everything you have said. I think there is a definite lack of respect for the Lincoln brand but in honesty I am not shocked nor surprised. You can only provide slightly warmed over versions of products for so long before "stupid consumers" catch on.
I am especially impressed wit those 22 way seats but I have yet to get a chance to experience Revel audio. But if it's anything like the past THX (and I heard it blows that out of the water) I'm sure it will be amazing.
I think it would be cool for Ford to offer a platinum Edge but I really really don't see that happening. Also I totally understand where you are coming from when you talk about luxury features in mainstream brands in relation to your buisness. That is a major component of why many people buy Touaregs and unsurprisingly you have one yourself haha. On the topic of Touareg, they are discontinuing the 2018 model year in north America...I sincerely hope that is not permanent.
I totally understand where you are coming from when you talk about luxury features in mainstream brands in relation to your buisness. That is a major component of why many people buy Touaregs and unsurprisingly you have one yourself haha. On the topic of Touareg, they are discontinuing the 2018 model year in north America...I sincerely hope that is not permanent.
I'm fairly certain it is permanent. As you probably know, VW is developing a shorter, 2-row version of the Atlas for North America, and that will effectively fill the Touareg's spot in the lineup (size-wise, that is). The 2018 Touareg is moving up-market, and as a result will have more features, better powertrains and it will include a third row option. In short, the new model will be priced well into Audi Q7 territory, and VAG seems determined to put plenty of distance between the two brands here in the States. I'm actually glad they're keeping the new Touareg from us ... it removes all temptation to stay with the brand.
I'm fairly certain it is permanent. As you probably know, VW is developing a shorter, 2-row version of the Atlas for North America, and that will effectively fill the Touareg's spot in the lineup (size-wise, that is). The 2018 Touareg is moving up-market, and as a result will have more features, better powertrains and it will include a third row option. In short, the new model will be priced well into Audi Q7 territory, and VAG seems determined to put plenty of distance between the two brands here in the States. I'm actually glad they're keeping the new Touareg from us ... it removes all temptation to stay with the brand.
Darn I was really hoping it was a temporary thing but if they are building a short wheelbase atlas I really don't see the Touareg coming back. Especially since sales are already fairly terrible. Well goodbye 4motion-Quattro AWD and hello Haldex. I'd like to see VAG overhaul that 3.6 VR6 for a bit more power. Do you think dieselgate is why the Touareg was removed? Because I'm certain a large portion of sales were diesel models too.
There has been rumours of the Touareg becoming the Audi Q6 for a long time...guess it's sooner than we thought.
Darn I was really hoping it was a temporary thing but if they are building a short wheelbase atlas I really don't see the Touareg coming back. Especially since sales are already fairly terrible. Well goodbye 4motion-Quattro AWD and hello Haldex. I'd like to see VAG overhaul that 3.6 VR6 for a bit more power. Do you think dieselgate is why the Touareg was removed? Because I'm certain a large portion of sales were diesel models too.
There has been rumours of the Touareg becoming the Audi Q6 for a long time...guess it's sooner than we thought.
Dieselgate was definitely a factor. Historically, about 50% of U.S. market Touaregs were TDI's. But VW never really knew how to market the Touareg here. It was developed alongside the Cayenne, so it was always going to be pricey. The first generation model was marketed as a premium SUV with great off-road capabilities. V8 and V10 TDI engine options made it unique. For the second generation, they removed a bunch of weight, and a fair amount of capability in the process. Off-road types were immediately turned off. The short-lived hybrid model was fast and luxurious, but like the Phaeton it was too pricey and overly complicated for anything wearing a VW badge, and many VW dealers weren't even certified to service the hybrids.
A couple years ago, VW dropped the base price significantly trying to boost sales, then inexplicably raised them again significantly for 2017. As you said, the sole engine, the 3.6L VR6 gasser, is woefully outdated. The supercharged 3.0 should have been available as an optional upgrade years ago. They offered it in the Hybrid and Q7 platform mate after all, so the engineering work was done. I'm guessing Audi managers blocked any attempts to make that happen. But the Touareg's biggest problem is the Q7, which has 3-rows of seats, the same Torsen type AWD system, a better transmission, a better warranty, plus more brand cachet and dealer perks. If you can live with Audi's 2.0T, which some would argue is a better engine than the 3.6, you can own a larger Q7 for less than the price of a base Touareg. How does that make any sense? Even the Cayenne isn't that much more money considering what you get. And now buyers can stay at the VW dealership and get a loaded Atlas with the same engine and more features, a vastly better warranty, and still save 10 grand or more. ($20k if you're comparing base models.) There just aren't many people like myself who view the Touareg as a Cayenne with a VW badge, so it's very difficult to justify the price.
Dieselgate was definitely a factor. Historically, about 50% of U.S. market Touaregs were TDI's. But VW never really knew how to market the Touareg here. It was developed alongside the Cayenne, so it was always going to be pricey. The first generation model was marketed as a premium SUV with great off-road capabilities. V8 and V10 TDI engine options made it unique. For the second generation, they removed a bunch of weight, and a fair amount of capability in the process. Off-road types were immediately turned off. The short-lived hybrid model was fast and luxurious, but like the Phaeton it was too pricey and overly complicated for anything wearing a VW badge, and many VW dealers weren't even certified to service the hybrids.
A couple years ago, VW dropped the base price significantly trying to boost sales, then inexplicably raised them again significantly for 2017. As you said, the sole engine, the 3.6L VR6 gasser, is woefully outdated. The supercharged 3.0 should have been available as an optional upgrade years ago. They offered it in the Hybrid and Q7 platform mate after all, so the engineering work was done. I'm guessing Audi managers blocked any attempts to make that happen. But the Touareg's biggest problem is the Q7, which has 3-rows of seats, the same Torsen type AWD system, a better transmission, a better warranty, plus more brand cachet and dealer perks. If you can live with Audi's 2.0T, which some would argue is a better engine than the 3.6, you can own a larger Q7 for less than the price of a base Touareg. How does that make any sense? Even the Cayenne isn't that much more money considering what you get. And now buyers can stay at the VW dealership and get a loaded Atlas with the same engine and more features, a vastly better warranty, and still save 10 grand or more. ($20k if you're comparing base models.) There just aren't many people like myself who view the Touareg as a Cayenne with a VW badge, so it's very difficult to justify the price.
I hear you on VW not knowing how to market the Touareg. 2004 was a woeful year with an extremely high number of repairs but the ability to customize the touareg via factory order. 2008 brought along a TON of enhancements and I'm of the opinion that the top of the line 08 V8 was the best touareg to hit NA. 2009 was off and 2010 by far the worst year, it's hard to find a 2010 Touareg with wood interior, leather, and power seats (what the hell). Then yeah like you said 2011 came out and a TON of improvements but they dropped any good engines and while I love the Touareg Hybrid, we didn't get any here and also I only like the 3.0T.
Like you said I don't understand why VW didn't make a model without the Hybrid tech but keep the 3.0t (that's what the R-Line should have been). I remember the price drop and IMHO it should have stayed there. The stiffest competition to the Touareg is the Jeep GC which IMHO does everything the Touareg does (except handling) better. I'm like you, I look at the Touareg as a Cayenne with a VW badge.
I agree fully on pricing. I do not understand why VW thought they would get away with that ridiculous pricing. I mean really. Look at the spec sheet and try and justify 75k (top price in Canada). You really can't. Not until 2017 did it finally get cooled seats, no air suspension, no really fancy tech. I love the Touareg and will buy a T3 someday, but at 75K I'd rather buy a Mercedes GLE or X5 or XC90 or even base range rover or even MDX advance. Also at 75k it is pricier than a cayenne and I don't know about you but I would take the cayenne with the much better 3.6l making 300hp.
IF the 2018 ever makes it here I sincerely hope VW will offer some real luxury features or drop the price 10-15k.
08-17-2017, 11:53 AM
.
