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.
Oh ok I see. I thought yours was the newer generation where Acura has sadly removed SH-AWD. I owned a 2007 RDX, my absolutely most favourite car I have ever owned. I had to sell it due to discomfort sadly.
But yeah like I mentioned above, the SH-AWD system has some tolerance for different sized wheels as opposed to more rigid systems.
Oh ok I see. I thought yours was the newer generation where Acura has sadly removed SH-AWD. I owned a 2007 RDX, my absolutely most favourite car I have ever owned. I had to sell it due to discomfort sadly.
But yeah like I mentioned above, the SH-AWD system has some tolerance for different sized wheels as opposed to more rigid systems.
Yes, its very nice. Just getting old and wish I had latest technology stuff. Its also strange that Acura uses SH-AWD except current RDX.
What does your owner manual say about mixing tires on AWD? They usually give warning about permanent damages, sometimes they just complain that "you might not get ideal handling"
Yes, its very nice. Just getting old and wish I had latest technology stuff. Its also strange that Acura uses SH-AWD except current RDX.
What does your owner manual say about mixing tires on AWD? They usually give warning about permanent damages, sometimes they just complain that "you might not get ideal handling"
I hear you on feeling old. The nav resolution is crap, no cooled seats or heated steering wheel, no power lift gate....just overall very archaic. It's one of those cars you buy for the driving experience and not the luxury and in fairness very few cars these days drive like that.
I don't own an RDX anymore. But on my previous VW Touaregs (2004, 2004, and 2007) there was a warning in the manual that said "DO NOT MIX TIRES, may result in transmission failure). That car would eat tires for this reason. Very sensitive.
I hope for the 2019 RDX, they keep a V6 engine and up the horsepower north of 300 and add SH AWD along with all the current technologies found in the MDX and TLX, etc. The 2019 RDX could potentially propel Acura to a new level, if they do it correctly. It's now Acura's most popular vehicle and I can really see this thing beating out the likes of the Lexus NX and RX350 even, but they have to go all out. Acura needs to hold nothing back for the next RDX.
I hope for the 2019 RDX, they keep a V6 engine and up the horsepower north of 300 and add SH AWD along with all the current technologies found in the MDX and TLX, etc. The 2019 RDX could potentially propel Acura to a new level, if they do it correctly. It's now Acura's most popular vehicle and I can really see this thing beating out the likes of the Lexus NX and RX350 even, but they have to go all out. Acura needs to hold nothing back for the next RDX.
I agree. And if you look at that brand new CR-V, Honda has already set a pretty high standard for the RDX. But I'm troubled by a few things; the worry about them dropping the V6, them already getting rid of the traditional shifter and replacing it with some kind of button in its place. And I'm not a huge fan of the new front end of the TLX or MDX. I currently drive a 2005 TL, and when they brought out the next gen of that, I HATED the look. So, I'm not sure that the new styling will be a step up.
I'm seriously thinking about getting a 2018 right now with the thinking that I would hold it for two years and then get the new model IF I LIKE IT. After all, they won't be offering any deals when the new one debuts and also, with a major re-styling, they may make at least a few small changes in year two after they've found out what they really missed in the re-style.
Another thing that kind of pisses me off currently is the paint jobs offered on the RDX versus the new CR-V. I think the colors are exactly the same...shouldn't the RDX be a step up in paint jobs?
I hope for the 2019 RDX, they keep a V6 engine and up the horsepower north of 300 and add SH AWD along with all the current technologies found in the MDX and TLX, etc. The 2019 RDX could potentially propel Acura to a new level, if they do it correctly. It's now Acura's most popular vehicle and I can really see this thing beating out the likes of the Lexus NX and RX350 even, but they have to go all out. Acura needs to hold nothing back for the next RDX.
The first time ever, but I agree with you 100%. Acura has a potential number one seller on their hands. This is not the time to sit around and wait. The new Q5 has a stunning interior, there is a new X3 coming out, the GLC is due for a refresh soon, so is the NX. So Acura needs to push with all they have. But sadly Acura is run by idiots.it will not see 300+ hp, I also don't see SH-AWD returning. Furthermore they are scared the RDX will cannibalize MDX sales if it makes more HP (yeah ok) and better technology. So if anything expect a slightly warmed over version with a few extra features. Don't expect a dramatic change.
I agree. And if you look at that brand new CR-V, Honda has already set a pretty high standard for the RDX. But I'm troubled by a few things; the worry about them dropping the V6, them already getting rid of the traditional shifter and replacing it with some kind of button in its place. And I'm not a huge fan of the new front end of the TLX or MDX. I currently drive a 2005 TL, and when they brought out the next gen of that, I HATED the look. So, I'm not sure that the new styling will be a step up.
I'm seriously thinking about getting a 2018 right now with the thinking that I would hold it for two years and then get the new model IF I LIKE IT. After all, they won't be offering any deals when the new one debuts and also, with a major re-styling, they may make at least a few small changes in year two after they've found out what they really missed in the re-style.
Another thing that kind of pisses me off currently is the paint jobs offered on the RDX versus the new CR-V. I think the colors are exactly the same...shouldn't the RDX be a step up in paint jobs?
Don't think of Acura as a step up from Honda, rather a step to the right (with right and up being premium or luxury class vehicles respectively). Hondas currently share WAY too much with their Acura counterparts and in many cases the Honda actually has more features (auto highbeams, pano roof, heated steering wheel in the CRV or HUD and 10AT in the Accord). Do I think Acuras are nicer than Hondas....yes but not by a large enough margin.
I don't know man. The beak wasn't perfect but I'm really not a fan of that wonky looking pentagon grille Acura is transitioning to. And I'm not feeling the spy shots I've seen, with possibly oversized headlights flowing into that oversized grille. I don't like the direction this is heading...
After car shopping with my wife, let me tell you to appreciate the v6. Even the turbo 4 in the cx-9 didn't feel as nice as the RDX and it is private the best 4 cyl turbo in the SUV market.
I don't know man. The beak wasn't perfect but I'm really not a fan of that wonky looking pentagon grille Acura is transitioning to. And I'm not feeling the spy shots I've seen, with possibly oversized headlights flowing into that oversized grille. I don't like the direction this is heading...
I HATE the new grille. I absolutely despise it. I keep trying to like it and I can't. Mind you, I actually like the most recent version of the beak. I hated the 2009 TL version, but this latest one wasn't bad at all. Between the droopy mustache pentagon grille and the GIANT badge...it's nasty. Sidenote, those headlights actually look super sharp to me.
I don't know man. The beak wasn't perfect but I'm really not a fan of that wonky looking pentagon grille Acura is transitioning to. And I'm not feeling the spy shots I've seen, with possibly oversized headlights flowing into that oversized grille. I don't like the direction this is heading...
Yeah, I agree. The beak ain't perfect, but that metal front with all the little metal inlays is kinda weird to me, too. I don't hate it as much as Lexus, but I'm not a fan overall.
I hope for the 2019 RDX, they keep a V6 engine and up the horsepower north of 300 and add SH AWD along with all the current technologies found in the MDX and TLX, etc. The 2019 RDX could potentially propel Acura to a new level, if they do it correctly. It's now Acura's most popular vehicle and I can really see this thing beating out the likes of the Lexus NX and RX350 even, but they have to go all out. Acura needs to hold nothing back for the next RDX.
There is ZERO chance of a 300hp V6. Why would they have a more powerful engine in the RDX than they do in the MDX? 2.0T with around 260hp will be the motor with a 10-sp auto with the shifter panel as in the new Accord. .
Curious - what are the primary reasons for not wanting a 2.0t?
Number of reasons:
1) Can get decent horse power, 250hp out of 2.0t, or perhaps 300hp if its tuned right
2) Better gas milage
3) Higher torque at lower RPMs
4) Less weight for the engine, making car less nose heavy and lighter.
Driving Turbo from personal experience is really fun. Very happy with prior generation turbo, if Acura can add 10speed to it and refine turbo, I will buy it.
Last edited by russianDude; 09-14-2017 at 08:23 PM.
Number of reasons:
1) Can get decent horse power, 250hp out of 2.0t, or perhaps 300hp if its tuned right
2) Better gas milage
3) Higher torque at lower RPMs
4) Less weight for the engine, making car less nose heavy and lighter.
Driving Turbo from personal experience is really fun. Very happy with prior generation turbo, if Acura can add 10speed to it and refine turbo, I will buy it.
Sorry, misread it: Yeah, you don't need to convince me about turbo.... Give it SH-AWD and it becomes perfect. Though I have a feeling that Acura likes to keep RDX as their "lower" tier vehicle to make it affordable and will want to add all the nice features to MDX.
Sorry, misread it: Yeah, you don't need to convince me about turbo.... Give it SH-AWD and it becomes perfect. Though I have a feeling that Acura likes to keep RDX as their "lower" tier vehicle to make it affordable and will want to add all the nice features to MDX.
I hope you're wrong about the fact that Acura sees the RDX as the "lower tier" vehicle. I believe there is value in them considering the RDX as the "Luxury Sports SUV" for a younger buyer, whereas the MDX is the "Luxury 3-Row" for the older, more family oriented buyer. Isn't this how they position the TLX and RDX? Kinda?
I hope you're wrong about the fact that Acura sees the RDX as the "lower tier" vehicle. I believe there is value in them considering the RDX as the "Luxury Sports SUV" for a younger buyer, whereas the MDX is the "Luxury 3-Row" for the older, more family oriented buyer. Isn't this how they position the TLX and RDX? Kinda?
I hope I am wrong too. However, why did they take away SH-AWD from second gen RDX? SH-AWD has been very successful and is used on all AWD Acura models. Why would they use something less sophisticated on RDX? Or if you notice, RDX interior is not as luxurious/quality as in MDX. The only explanation I find is that they wanted to keep costs down and continue selling RDX at affordable price point. RDX first gen used to be into sports, but then Acura decided to make it more appealing to family oriented buyer. 2nd RDX has much softer suspension, and lack of SH-AWD is another confirmation that Acura corporate does not want this car to be into "sports". All they care about is selling it to a large number of people, people that seek sport tuned SUVs are in minority.
I am optimistic about turbo coming back, but not so optimistic they will necessarily give sport tuned suspension and/or add SH-AWD. They will still want it to be appealing to typical family people.
I hope for the 2019 RDX, they keep a V6 engine and up the horsepower north of 300 and add SH AWD along with all the current technologies found in the MDX and TLX, etc. The 2019 RDX could potentially propel Acura to a new level, if they do it correctly. It's now Acura's most popular vehicle and I can really see this thing beating out the likes of the Lexus NX and RX350 even, but they have to go all out. Acura needs to hold nothing back for the next RDX.
Yes Rockyboy, I'm completely with you in this matter. Hope that you can dump your 9.5 and get a 10 with the newer model. .
Originally Posted by RDX10
I HATE the new grille. I absolutely despise it. I keep trying to like it and I can't. Mind you, I actually like the most recent version of the beak. I hated the 2009 TL version, but this latest one wasn't bad at all. Between the droopy mustache pentagon grille and the GIANT badge...it's nasty. Sidenote, those headlights actually look super sharp to me.
I totally agree with you on this one. I really hope they make some serious design changes to the front end. And offer two separate versions of engine. One for the turbo folks and rest for traditional RDX lovers.
I believe that it's a totally Japanese design direction with Lexus and newer Acura and both look hideous to me from front.
May be they should learn a thing or two from Mazda.
I believe that it's a totally Japanese design direction with Lexus and newer Acura and both look hideous to me from front.
May be they should learn a thing or two from Mazda.
Seriously, to each his own, but to my eyes that current Lexus front is perhaps the ugliest automobile design I've ever seen. WOW.
i feel like 2.0 liter turbos are overworked with vehicles weighing over 3800 pounds. Hence why they putting 6 cylinders in everything the first place. vehicles are getting bigger and heavier due growth, tech and safety. Alot of manufacturers are building them around 1 bar of boost which is essentially double the engine output. So if you have 250hp turbo engine at full boost thats about 125hp when off. Turbos add more complexity more stuff to go wrong. When its humid out you get less performance and response, you have to worry about heatsoak.
Downsizing is a result of the trying to game the epa because of how they test.
Now if they need to put in a 2.0T because of a hybrid system i can understand that, but why not grab whats out of the mdx if it fits.
Perhaps its time to make RDX a little smaller and lighter. Turbo engine has less weight too. I don't know why second generation RDX got bigger, first gen size was good. Seems like cars are getting smaller, Honda Accord certainly seems smaller. Didn't they make TLX smaller than last gen too?
As far as turbo reliability... well, it depends who makes them. Turbo engine in first gen RDX has been very reliable and there only very few isolated turbo issues.... My 1st gen RDX is 155K miles, turbo is pretty solid...
Perhaps its time to make RDX a little smaller and lighter. Turbo engine has less weight too. I don't know why second generation RDX got bigger, first gen size was good. Seems like cars are getting smaller, Honda Accord certainly seems smaller. Didn't they make TLX smaller than last gen too?
As far as turbo reliability... well, it depends who makes them. Turbo engine in first gen RDX has been very reliable and there only very few isolated turbo issues.... My 1st gen RDX is 155K miles, turbo is pretty solid...
Audi Q5 and BMW X3 do fine with a 4 cyl turbo, and are way more engaging to drive than the RDX. In my area, I easily see 20 of these vehicles for every RDX. I could care less, quite honestly, as I don't see them bringing any sport factor back into it. But I'm sure Acura will get it right if they go 4 cyl.
Audi Q5 and BMW X3 do fine with a 4 cyl turbo, and are way more engaging to drive than the RDX. In my area, I easily see 20 of these vehicles for every RDX. I could care less, quite honestly, as I don't see them bringing any sport factor back into it. But I'm sure Acura will get it right if they go 4 cyl.
I agree. Acura stopped caring long ago about enthusiast car drivers that are looking for performance and sportier ride. They cater their products for general public so they can maximize the profits. Giving "options" is not something they want to do, its a lot cheaper to manufacture car with fewer options. They got rid of "Type S" option, it was really good option, you could get sport tuned engine (with more HP) and sport tuned suspension. All of it is gone. People think they will give v6 as option, I really doubt there will be any options on power train... its whatever corporate gods decide.
Audi Q5 and BMW X3 do fine with a 4 cyl turbo, and are way more engaging to drive than the RDX.
The drawback on both of those cases is cost. They are $10k more minimum than a similarly equipped RDX. Good for anyone who has a bottomless wallet; I don't and I appreciate the cost/performance ratio you get on an RDX.
I hope that they keep the V6 and bring the new audio system/CarPlay. Acura must realize that the RDX is what is keeping them alive, so don't change this model too much. My worst nightmare would be the ZF9.
The drawback on both of those cases is cost. They are $10k more minimum than a similarly equipped RDX. Good for anyone who has a bottomless wallet; I don't and I appreciate the cost/performance ratio you get on an RDX.
^very true but being stuck in the the middle competing against Hyundai Kia Mazda is an effort Acura will not win.
The Acura fate may come to rest alongside Oldsmobile and Pontiac.
Honda motors is so innovative...even building a personal jet.
Honda should reset/badge Acura as a player in the performance segment along with the likes of BMW-M and Mercedes-AMG.
The car was (and still is) a blast to drive, and has a very German feel to the ride and handling. But the DINKS (Dual Income No Kids) they targeted with this car were folks probably willing to just step up and buy the Q5 or X3. Where they are now makes more sense - family types looking to the in-between the CR-V and RX-350 market. So I don't think they will mess that up if they go 4 cyl. I really believe the only people who care about the 6 or 4 cyl thing (and know the difference) are a few guys posting here.
It they dont want to increase base price, make sport tuning an option. I will pay extra for it! The problem with Acura that there are never options on powertrain and suspension!
After reading all your comments, I agree with all of you (at least 90% of you lol). Acura needs to take some serious action and stop their BS. Acura RDX has a lot of potential.
- 300 HP is a bit unrealistic but let's say 290
- SH-AWD should be back
- New Dashboard design is a must with new technology
- The good news is that the car is bigger now. It will compete more with RX than NX. (this is my opinion)
X3 is on the way...Infiniti is coming with new QX50 and GLX will get a facelift soon. So Acura can't just sit and give us another conservative RDX. Honestly, if Acura doesn't give their 100% to RDX they will will lose more customers. I believe with TLX A-Spec, Acura has a better vision and is willing to change their current strategy. But again, who knows lol.
The drawback on both of those cases is cost. They are $10k more minimum than a similarly equipped RDX. Good for anyone who has a bottomless wallet; I don't and I appreciate the cost/performance ratio you get on an RDX.
Sorry, but that's simply not true. A well-equipped Q5 Prestige is about an $8k premium, but contains far more stuff than you can get in the RDX. In general, the Germans have more features, more technology, more sophisticated AWD systems, and a far better dealer experience. Don't get me wrong, the RDX is fine for what it is, but let's not pretend you're getting a German-level package for $10k less. You just aren't.
Sorry, but that's simply not true. A well-equipped Q5 Prestige is about an $8k premium, but contains far more stuff than you can get in the RDX. In general, the Germans have more features, more technology, more sophisticated AWD systems, and a far better dealer experience. Don't get me wrong, the RDX is fine for what it is, but let's not pretend you're getting a German-level package for $10k less. You just aren't.
HotRod, please educate me, because I'm still coming up with higher difference in $$. If I start with Prestige and add paint color $575, plus Driver Assist Pkg $1800, plus Warm Weather package (get the ventilated seats, in my case) $1450, I come to $54,625. This is equivalent to the RDX ADVANCE at $44,000. What am I missing? You mention "far more stuff" on the Audi. To what are you referring?
Going further on the Audi vs Acura, I'm not in favor of buying an AWD vehicle. I rack up close to 20k/year and I just can not imagine having to spring for 4 new tires if I pop one. So, if I remove the AWD portion of the Acura, I'm down to $42,500 vs $54,624, a $12k+ difference. Then let's add repair costs. Wouldn't we expect the V6 non-turbo on the Acura to be a less expensive maintain than the V4 turbo of the Audi? I think it's widely accepted that Audi's are more expensive to maintain than Acura's. More money difference. Then let's add insurance of the Audi versus Acura: more money difference.
Honestly, I still think my $10k minimum difference is still pretty accurate. In fact, I think it's wildly conservative.
HotRod, please educate me, because I'm still coming up with higher difference in $$. If I start with Prestige and add paint color $575, plus Driver Assist Pkg $1800, plus Warm Weather package (get the ventilated seats, in my case) $1450, I come to $54,625. This is equivalent to the RDX ADVANCE at $44,000. What am I missing? You mention "far more stuff" on the Audi. To what are you referring?
Thanks,
John
I should have qualified my earlier post by stating that the RDX's configuration includes the optional 18" wheels. The standard wheels are just awful. But let's assume you can live with them. It is my understanding that the Q5 Prestige includes the following features not included or not available on the RDX:
20" wheels
Panoramic roof
Audi Virtual Cockpit
19-speaker B&O sound
Heads up display
7-Speed DSG
Quattro plus Ultra AWD with torque-vectoring across rear axle
Surround view camera
3-Zone climate
Drive Select
Dynamic LED headlamps
High beam assist
Heated washer nozzles
Acoustic glass
Wood inlays
Rear side window shades
Traffic sign recognition
40/20/40 split rear seatbacks
Cargo cover
Stainless steel trunk sill protector
There may be others. I know Audi used to include the roof crossbars at no cost, but I don't know if that's still the case. I haven't researched the RDX in quite some time, so feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken or if I've overlooked anything. Because the Prestige comes so well equipped, a more accurate comparison would be the Q5's Premium Plus package, which still compares favorably to the RDX, but is nearly $5k cheaper than the Prestige.
Finally, let's not forget that the Q5 started with the A4's MLB Evo architecture, while the RDX's underpinnings were derived from the previous generation Civic. So I'll reiterate, the RDX is fine for what it is, but there are lots of reasons it is so much less expensive than the Germans.
Audi Q5 and BMW X3 do fine with a 4 cyl turbo, and are way more engaging to drive than the RDX. In my area, I easily see 20 of these vehicles for every RDX. I could care less, quite honestly, as I don't see them bringing any sport factor back into it. But I'm sure Acura will get it right if they go 4 cyl.
That because the x3 is based on rwd layout and the Audi had their quattro awd. Now even audi has changed to front bias awd like many crossovers in the chase for mpgs similiar to that of the current gen rdx.
I should have qualified my earlier post by stating that the RDX's configuration includes the optional 18" wheels. The standard wheels are just awful. But let's assume you can live with them. It is my understanding that the Q5 Prestige includes the following features not included or not available on the RDX:
20" wheels
Panoramic roof
Audi Virtual Cockpit
19-speaker B&O sound
Heads up display
7-Speed DSG
Quattro plus Ultra AWD with torque-vectoring across rear axle
Surround view camera
3-Zone climate
Drive Select
Dynamic LED headlamps
High beam assist
Heated washer nozzles
Acoustic glass
Wood inlays
Rear side window shades
Traffic sign recognition
40/20/40 split rear seatbacks
Cargo cover
Stainless steel trunk sill protector
There may be others. I know Audi used to include the roof crossbars at no cost, but I don't know if that's still the case. I haven't researched the RDX in quite some time, so feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken or if I've overlooked anything. Because the Prestige comes so well equipped, a more accurate comparison would be the Q5's Premium Plus package, which still compares favorably to the RDX, but is nearly $5k cheaper than the Prestige.
Finally, let's not forget that the Q5 started with the A4's MLB Evo architecture, while the RDX's underpinnings were derived from the previous generation Civic. So I'll reiterate, the RDX is fine for what it is, but there are lots of reasons it is so much less expensive than the Germans.
Audi is superior. For sure.
Damn, didn't know about the crossbars...my ex wife got the Q5 and has them and then I started noticing how many of them did!
I should have qualified my earlier post by stating that the RDX's configuration includes the optional 18" wheels. The standard wheels are just awful. But let's assume you can live with them. It is my understanding that the Q5 Prestige includes the following features not included or not available on the RDX:
20" wheels
Panoramic roof
Audi Virtual Cockpit
19-speaker B&O sound
Heads up display
7-Speed DSG
Quattro plus Ultra AWD with torque-vectoring across rear axle
Surround view camera
3-Zone climate
Drive Select
Dynamic LED headlamps
High beam assist
Heated washer nozzles
Acoustic glass
Wood inlays
Rear side window shades
Traffic sign recognition
40/20/40 split rear seatbacks
Cargo cover
Stainless steel trunk sill protector
There may be others. I know Audi used to include the roof crossbars at no cost, but I don't know if that's still the case. I haven't researched the RDX in quite some time, so feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken or if I've overlooked anything. Because the Prestige comes so well equipped, a more accurate comparison would be the Q5's Premium Plus package, which still compares favorably to the RDX, but is nearly $5k cheaper than the Prestige.
Finally, let's not forget that the Q5 started with the A4's MLB Evo architecture, while the RDX's underpinnings were derived from the previous generation Civic. So I'll reiterate, the RDX is fine for what it is, but there are lots of reasons it is so much less expensive than the Germans.
Thanks, Rod. Let me reiterate that my original statement was simply that the Audi and BMW were $10k more in price. You responded by saying that my statement was simply untrue. I stand by my statement and think you have failed to present evidence to the contrary. RE: the wheels. The Advance package has different wheels than the standard wheels, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder anyway.
In regards to the list you presented, I believe it's flawed thinking to present this as a list of things Acura doesn't have. Case in point: The B&O Sound System. Acura has an ELS Sound System. I wonder if you realize that Elliot Scheiner (ELS) is one of the biggest names in audio engineer. The ELS Sound System reflects his pedigree. You can check his credits here: Elliot Scheiner | Credits | AllMusic The point being that in this case, I don't consider the Audi as having something the Acura doesn't. Both sound systems are probably kick ass.
Another case in point: 60/40 rear seat (Acura) vs 40/20/40 (Audi). Is this really an improvement? Just a different approach with pros and cons on each side.
Also, please understand that my overall point was that the Acura represents great value at its $10k lower price point. I'm not saying that the driving experience is exactly the same. Nor am I saying that the Audi is not worth the extra $10k+. I'm only pointing out that the Acura is a great choice for someone who doesn't want to spend the extra $10k.
NOW, having said all that, here's where the Acura really shines ABOVE, yes, ABOVE the Audi's and BMW's.
Sorry guys, but this AWS fixation isn't for everyone. Sure, traction and handling are better. Sure, wonderful to have if we're driving pristine back roads shown in car ads. But driving AWD on an everyday basis in Los Angeles is JUST PLAIN STUPID. And let's just be honest here. The real truth is that AWD works best when ALL FOUR TIRES have the same tread life. Even if you argue that you need only replace TWO if you pop ONE tire, an AWD means that your tire costs will be DOUBLE AND you don't have the tire rotating flexibility of 2WD systems. For the most part, the AWD "advantage" is for many a large "disadvantage".
09-11-2017, 04:57 PM
. 
