2019 RDX DOES 0-60 in 5.7 SECONDS!!!!!!
05-31-2018, 11:27 PM
#41
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Posts: 1,494
Received 869 Likes
on
413 Posts
The Adaptive Dampers on the Advance/Elite trims are designed to give this package a better ride quality - which makes sense to me. With the larger tires, and of course SH-AWD, the ASpec is plenty sporty as it is, if you can believe the multitude of great reviews. Acura will also want to sell lots of Advance/Packages, and thus wants to make that package as attractive as possible.. Remember as well that lost of folks will prefer the more conservative, but fetching non ASpec styles....consider the number of people that own the existing RDX.
06-01-2018, 01:28 AM
#42
Three Wheelin'
See? It’s not just me who wants a fully loaded to the gills A-Spec. I was so looking forward to getting this new RDX but frankly, I just can’t justify getting a car that straight out of the box I’m going to be disappointed with. Just when you think Acura has finally come to its senses, then they go and do something utterly retarded.
06-01-2018, 02:02 AM
#43
Car Crazy for Sure!
Amplitude Reactive Dampers
"Give your head a shake" Not entirely sure what this means. I am not talking about competition. I'm talking about Acura's own product line. The A-Spec line differentiates itself as the Sporty Trim model. The TLX A-Spec comes with active dampers to tighten things up when you switch the IDS/Dynamic mode to Sport. If you're going to advertise your vehicles as Precision Crafted Performance then stop f'ing around with your bean counters trying to make the trim model fall within a few hundred $ of the competitor model, live up to your marketing material to give your customers what they want.
"would you really be willing to pay another 2500 above the current price point, to add that stuff?" YES. Why else would I be complaining about it? Even at another $2,500 to add the active dampers, power folder mirrors, and adjustable steering wheel its still $10K cheaper than the German competition with the same features and at least $5K cheaper than the other Japanese counterparts(Yes I'm looking at you Lexus). The market has punished the bean counters by eliminating options the customer wants over and over again. MMC they can add Type S and hybrid variants.
"would you really be willing to pay another 2500 above the current price point, to add that stuff?" YES. Why else would I be complaining about it? Even at another $2,500 to add the active dampers, power folder mirrors, and adjustable steering wheel its still $10K cheaper than the German competition with the same features and at least $5K cheaper than the other Japanese counterparts(Yes I'm looking at you Lexus). The market has punished the bean counters by eliminating options the customer wants over and over again. MMC they can add Type S and hybrid variants.
terminology. I have an '18.
In the the '19 RDX, the only dampers reacting to a change in the Dynamic mode...is the Advance Model. The A-Spec does not have that.
And by the way....Acura breaks down the "cost" of the A-Spec like this. A-Spec "option" costs $6,200...and since it must come with the Tech Pack....that is another $3,200. To me, lots of $$ for A-Spec.
It's all on the Acura web site...which now has the "build it' all posted for the 2019.
06-01-2018, 02:53 AM
#44
See? It’s not just me who wants a fully loaded to the gills A-Spec. I was so looking forward to getting this new RDX but frankly, I just can’t justify getting a car that straight out of the box I’m going to be disappointed with. Just when you think Acura has finally come to its senses, then they go and do something utterly retarded.
Seems the best route would be to get the Elite model and transform it into an A-Spec over time. What sucks though is the lack of a red leather interior on the Elite model and also the silver gauge cluster is SICK!! I suppose blacking out the trim and the wheels are easy enough. The only real struggle is the rear bumper and exhaust tips but that’s probably doable in the future too with inevitably wrecked RDX’s. Hell even the cluster should be easy too. I guess if you want an A-Spec-Elite you will just have to make it!
With that being said, I have a STRONG suspicion that a Type-S model is in the pipeline and Acura will satisfy those looking for the best performing and most equipped RDX that way (albeit at a higher price obviously). Also the 5.5-5.7 0-60 is AWESOME! The Q5 I drove for a week did 0-60 in 5.8s and that felt ridiculously fast to me. This is going to be a blast to drive regardless of trim level, I am certain of it.
The following 3 users liked this post by RDX10:
06-01-2018, 06:44 AM
#45
Hello World
And by the way....Acura breaks down the "cost" of the A-Spec like this. A-Spec "option" costs $6,200...and since it must come with the Tech Pack....that is another $3,200. To me, lots of $$ for A-Spec.
It's all on the Acura web site...which now has the "build it' all posted for the 2019.
It's all on the Acura web site...which now has the "build it' all posted for the 2019.
As posted yesterday:
BASE PRICES: Base, $38,295; Technology, $41,495; A-Spec, $44,495; Advance, $46,395
The difference between Base and A-SPEC is $6,200.
06-01-2018, 08:43 AM
#46
Volvo Defector
Yep same here. Wish you could get A-Spec Advance model. When I bought my car back in 2015 with just 2 miles on it, I wanted a fully loaded to the gills vehicle. I really like how the A-Spec models look but not a fan of the missing features.
The following users liked this post:
RDX10 (06-02-2018)
06-01-2018, 09:49 AM
#47
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Age: 45
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 190 Likes
on
119 Posts
A-spec all the way just for the rims - the wheels on the advance are hideous. The million dollar question is are the A-spec wheels like the ones on my TLX and cost $1K a piece to replace??? I think the RDX is a great evolution, more-so than the rest of Acura's line-up. I"m not sold on the powertrain, the new Accord is great on paper but I hated the drive. The SH-AWD in the RDX should help, but even Motor Trend's early review said the ride was fairly plain and you don't notice the SH-AWD unless you really push it. They also commented on the cabin noise, which was a complaint I had with our 2016 RDX. I hope it sells well for Acura, and they continue to improve
06-01-2018, 10:00 AM
#48
Team Owner
I just priced out a 2019 RDX on the US site... I am an admitted "options $lut" 
I love my cars to be optioned out and I've always been the one to buy the highest trim level available for a given car for a particular year. That said, I optioned out the RDX and it came in at just a hair over 53k. Not bad. Not bad at all. I bet in 12 months you can likely deduct another 1500-2000 from that price. I'd say that's some good value for the price!
I love my cars to be optioned out and I've always been the one to buy the highest trim level available for a given car for a particular year. That said, I optioned out the RDX and it came in at just a hair over 53k. Not bad. Not bad at all. I bet in 12 months you can likely deduct another 1500-2000 from that price. I'd say that's some good value for the price!
06-01-2018, 01:26 PM
#49
Volvo Defector
I just priced out a 2019 RDX on the US site... I am an admitted "options $lut"
I love my cars to be optioned out and I've always been the one to buy the highest trim level available for a given car for a particular year. That said, I optioned out the RDX and it came in at just a hair over 53k. Not bad. Not bad at all. I bet in 12 months you can likely deduct another 1500-2000 from that price. I'd say that's some good value for the price!
I love my cars to be optioned out and I've always been the one to buy the highest trim level available for a given car for a particular year. That said, I optioned out the RDX and it came in at just a hair over 53k. Not bad. Not bad at all. I bet in 12 months you can likely deduct another 1500-2000 from that price. I'd say that's some good value for the price!
Dear Acura,
Why do you hate your customers so much? This is infuriating.
Last edited by reddogTL; 06-01-2018 at 01:34 PM.
06-01-2018, 02:35 PM
#50
Team Owner
Because customers were asking for real wood trim on the top levels... Again, Acura can't build models to please everyone. It likely isn't economical for them to provide both options on the Advance. So half the people are happy with real wood, while the other half are mad it isn't real metal trim.
But... The advance is sold more as a luxury unit, where the aspec is the sport unit. Pick one... luxury or sport... You can't have both!
Also, this is nothing new for Acura... Again... They're a tiny company. They only move 130k cars per year. Ford does that in like 2 weeks' time. Hence why they can likely offer more. I dunno... Seems like you're looking for the holy grail of crossovers... In this case, your holy grail, but what we got doesn't match. Why even consider the RDX then? There are so many options in this segment. Something has to be able to tickle your fancy a bit better... And if not.. is Acura really doing anything wrong?
But... The advance is sold more as a luxury unit, where the aspec is the sport unit. Pick one... luxury or sport... You can't have both!
Also, this is nothing new for Acura... Again... They're a tiny company. They only move 130k cars per year. Ford does that in like 2 weeks' time. Hence why they can likely offer more. I dunno... Seems like you're looking for the holy grail of crossovers... In this case, your holy grail, but what we got doesn't match. Why even consider the RDX then? There are so many options in this segment. Something has to be able to tickle your fancy a bit better... And if not.. is Acura really doing anything wrong?
Last edited by TacoBello; 06-01-2018 at 02:38 PM.
The following users liked this post:
Curious3GTL (06-01-2018)
06-01-2018, 03:27 PM
#51
Because customers were asking for real wood trim on the top levels... Again, Acura can't build models to please everyone. It likely isn't economical for them to provide both options on the Advance. So half the people are happy with real wood, while the other half are mad it isn't real metal trim.
But... The advance is sold more as a luxury unit, where the aspec is the sport unit. Pick one... luxury or sport... You can't have both!
Also, this is nothing new for Acura... Again... They're a tiny company. They only move 130k cars per year. Ford does that in like 2 weeks' time. Hence why they can likely offer more. I dunno... Seems like you're looking for the holy grail of crossovers... In this case, your holy grail, but what we got doesn't match. Why even consider the RDX then? There are so many options in this segment. Something has to be able to tickle your fancy a bit better... And if not.. is Acura really doing anything wrong?
But... The advance is sold more as a luxury unit, where the aspec is the sport unit. Pick one... luxury or sport... You can't have both!
Also, this is nothing new for Acura... Again... They're a tiny company. They only move 130k cars per year. Ford does that in like 2 weeks' time. Hence why they can likely offer more. I dunno... Seems like you're looking for the holy grail of crossovers... In this case, your holy grail, but what we got doesn't match. Why even consider the RDX then? There are so many options in this segment. Something has to be able to tickle your fancy a bit better... And if not.. is Acura really doing anything wrong?
If anything, a majority of buyers won’t even know if it’s wood or plastic and won’t care. For those that care about this stuff, it’s a huge plus (to me it is at least). Fingers crossed for a type S model with carbon fibre or aluminum trim! How about that haha.
I am with you on this one Taco, Acura can’t please everyone and they can’t offer a million options. But they will please a majority of the market and I personally think they really did a good job this time around. Material quality looks to be top notch, they really could have cheaped out in so many places but didn’t. You can tell they really put effort into this RDX. Will I buy one...MAYBE, but if not there are a TON of other options on the market and this RDX poses some good competition for once.
06-01-2018, 03:35 PM
#52
Car Crazy for Sure!
So, my bad here.
If you buy a Tech only it's $3,200 more than a base.....and an A-Spec is $6,200 more than base. They just show both numbers in the column to add up. Confusing. And I'm normally a numbers guy! They fooled me!!!
06-01-2018, 03:35 PM
#53
The thing is...you can, and you should. We're not talking about missing options and features that would add cost to the vehicle. We're talking about existing details. It shouldn't cost Acura anything extra to let folks configure the vehicle how they want and slap stuff together that they already have in production at the factory. Why can't I get a Lunar Silver A-Spec with a red interior? Or why can't I get a Modern Steel A-Spec with a black interior? Why is Performance Red Pearl only available in Parchment? Why do I need to get the A-Spec if I want Performance Red with a black interior? Why can't I get an Advance with blacked-out exterior styling? Why can't I get aluminum instead of wood? It's a bonehead marketing move that has nothing to do with costs.
06-01-2018, 04:30 PM
#54
Hello World
Yep, you are right. What's strange on the "Build/Price" section when you are done and you look at the Summary...they show the 2 figures in the column that's added up for the total. Weird.
So, my bad here.
If you buy a Tech only it's $3,200 more than a base.....and an A-Spec is $6,200 more than base. They just show both numbers in the column to add up. Confusing. And I'm normally a numbers guy! They fooled me!!!
So, my bad here.
If you buy a Tech only it's $3,200 more than a base.....and an A-Spec is $6,200 more than base. They just show both numbers in the column to add up. Confusing. And I'm normally a numbers guy! They fooled me!!!
06-01-2018, 05:45 PM
#55
The thing is...you can, and you should. We're not talking about missing options and features that would add cost to the vehicle. We're talking about existing details. It shouldn't cost Acura anything extra to let folks configure the vehicle how they want and slap stuff together that they already have in production at the factory. Why can't I get a Lunar Silver A-Spec with a red interior? Or why can't I get a Modern Steel A-Spec with a black interior? Why is Performance Red Pearl only available in Parchment? Why do I need to get the A-Spec if I want Performance Red with a black interior? Why can't I get an Advance with blacked-out exterior styling? Why can't I get aluminum instead of wood? It's a bonehead marketing move that has nothing to do with costs.
06-01-2018, 06:50 PM
#56
Drifting
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: New Yorkie, Hudson Valley
Posts: 3,001
Received 1,024 Likes
on
714 Posts
Since I am retired, and math aware, I could calculate the number of permutations that could be had if everyone could choose his or her preferences for each car.
Being retired, I no longer have to do stuff like that.
Be assured, that having the ability to pick and choose each and every option has a cost, and a significant cost. Packages save production costs at the factory, and inventory costs at the dealer. That is why an RDX can be had for fewer dollars than a similarly equipped bespoke BMW.
Being retired, I no longer have to do stuff like that.
Be assured, that having the ability to pick and choose each and every option has a cost, and a significant cost. Packages save production costs at the factory, and inventory costs at the dealer. That is why an RDX can be had for fewer dollars than a similarly equipped bespoke BMW.
06-02-2018, 12:54 AM
#57
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
There's for sure a cost for Acura, or any company, to offer so many trims and packages. For my business we design and sell wallets. While we would love to offer more colors, sizes, versions etc, there would be way more SKU's to deal with if we just add one color, or just one more size, or one more version etc.
Given Acura's volume, they probably wanna be a bit conservative, and go for the trims and packages that they think would be the most popular. Also, I suspect they were trying to keep the top trim under $50k just to make a point that they can make a very well designed car while being significantly cheaper than others in the same class. Perhaps an Advance A-spec trim will be available in a year or two once people are used to the new pricing, and there's room for growth.
Given Acura's volume, they probably wanna be a bit conservative, and go for the trims and packages that they think would be the most popular. Also, I suspect they were trying to keep the top trim under $50k just to make a point that they can make a very well designed car while being significantly cheaper than others in the same class. Perhaps an Advance A-spec trim will be available in a year or two once people are used to the new pricing, and there's room for growth.
06-02-2018, 08:59 AM
#58
Since I am retired, and math aware, I could calculate the number of permutations that could be had if everyone could choose his or her preferences for each car.
Being retired, I no longer have to do stuff like that.
Be assured, that having the ability to pick and choose each and every option has a cost, and a significant cost. Packages save production costs at the factory, and inventory costs at the dealer. That is why an RDX can be had for fewer dollars than a similarly equipped bespoke BMW.
Being retired, I no longer have to do stuff like that.
Be assured, that having the ability to pick and choose each and every option has a cost, and a significant cost. Packages save production costs at the factory, and inventory costs at the dealer. That is why an RDX can be had for fewer dollars than a similarly equipped bespoke BMW.
The marketing of models (base, tech, etc) also leads to better residuals. Calculations on KBB, Edmunds, NADA etc. show stepped-up values for "models", but very few individual "options" get significant credit.
I saw this work several years ago....I helped neighbor buy 2 new autos. He had (3 yr old) high model Accord trade, wife had Camry trade with lots of options. Accord trade was $1K higher, even though Camry had fewer miles and almost $3K higher msrp.
Options are fun, but costly on both ends. BMW used to be highly optioned, but last several years consolidated to "packages", which IMO have crazy groupings. Always trade-offs.
06-02-2018, 02:23 PM
#59
There's for sure a cost for Acura, or any company, to offer so many trims and packages. For my business we design and sell wallets. While we would love to offer more colors, sizes, versions etc, there would be way more SKU's to deal with if we just add one color, or just one more size, or one more version etc.
Given Acura's volume, they probably wanna be a bit conservative, and go for the trims and packages that they think would be the most popular. Also, I suspect they were trying to keep the top trim under $50k just to make a point that they can make a very well designed car while being significantly cheaper than others in the same class. Perhaps an Advance A-spec trim will be available in a year or two once people are used to the new pricing, and there's room for growth.
Given Acura's volume, they probably wanna be a bit conservative, and go for the trims and packages that they think would be the most popular. Also, I suspect they were trying to keep the top trim under $50k just to make a point that they can make a very well designed car while being significantly cheaper than others in the same class. Perhaps an Advance A-spec trim will be available in a year or two once people are used to the new pricing, and there's room for growth.
However what I think they should have done was drop the A-Spec trim and make it an add on appearance package. That in an of itself cuts out one of the trims so it’s like adding one trim vs 3 if that makes sense. I suspect that in a year they will offer an “A-Spec appearance package” with just exterior upgrades. Acura has been rather aggressive with year to year changes in the MDX so I wouldn’t be surprised.
06-02-2018, 05:50 PM
#60
Team Owner
The thing is...you can, and you should. We're not talking about missing options and features that would add cost to the vehicle. We're talking about existing details. It shouldn't cost Acura anything extra to let folks configure the vehicle how they want and slap stuff together that they already have in production at the factory. Why can't I get a Lunar Silver A-Spec with a red interior? Or why can't I get a Modern Steel A-Spec with a black interior? Why is Performance Red Pearl only available in Parchment? Why do I need to get the A-Spec if I want Performance Red with a black interior? Why can't I get an Advance with blacked-out exterior styling? Why can't I get aluminum instead of wood? It's a bonehead marketing move that has nothing to do with costs.
so now it's not just a matter of "just throw red seats into the silver cars!", because some people want red, some want parchment, some want espresso, some want black. That's four interior options for one exterior color. Now multiply that by 6 different exterior colours and that's a lot of options for just color, without even considering trim levels. 24 color options, without considering trims, is a hell of a lot for Acura to produce and sell well on all counts. It's too much variety. Too much options. For a cross over that moves what, 40k units per year? That's the guaranteed way to not make money. Because you will be left with options that sit on the lot, that aren't selling.
now take into account trims... that's 24 color options for the base, 24 for the tech, 24 for the aspec, and 24 for the advance... that is really bad strategizing on trying to move shit.
You need to realize Acura is a small fry in this business. The fact you do get more than one interior color is amazing. You may not feel it is... but you're not looking at it from the numbers perspective, like Acura is. They don't do this shit to piss us off... they're literally giving us everything they can feasibly give us, while staying profitable. If you want more variety, stay away from the small fry in the market
Last edited by TacoBello; 06-02-2018 at 05:54 PM.
The following users liked this post:
steve_97060 (06-02-2018)
06-04-2018, 01:48 AM
#61
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
Fully agree with this post. There is absolutely a cost to offer bespoke options like this. VW offered the 2004-2005 Touareg with bespoke options for those years only, then they realized how expensive that was to do so now they made trim levels (base, mid, top).
However what I think they should have done was drop the A-Spec trim and make it an add on appearance package. That in an of itself cuts out one of the trims so it’s like adding one trim vs 3 if that makes sense. I suspect that in a year they will offer an “A-Spec appearance package” with just exterior upgrades. Acura has been rather aggressive with year to year changes in the MDX so I wouldn’t be surprised.
06-07-2018, 10:03 PM
#62
The appearance package would just be exterior parts only. (Wheels, lights, bumper) and not include any of the interior stuff....but that’s kind of convoluted to make an appearance package on what is supposed to be an appearance package.
06-28-2018, 08:02 PM
#63
This Car and Driver article states the 0-60 times as 5.6 - 5.7 seconds: https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...t-drive-review
I would like to see the testing on passing times of 30-50 mph and 50-70 with the 10AT. That is what I do 90% of the time if I need to get going. Haven't figured out what is different about the A-spec model and why it gets lower MPGS?
I would like to see the testing on passing times of 30-50 mph and 50-70 with the 10AT. That is what I do 90% of the time if I need to get going. Haven't figured out what is different about the A-spec model and why it gets lower MPGS?
06-29-2018, 06:03 AM
#64
mrgold35
06-29-2018, 07:19 AM
#65
Burning Brakes
06-29-2018, 08:18 AM
#66
100% agreed. My MB GLK had exactly that. $950 appearance package that included exterior trim, chrome roof bar and 20" wheels. Nothing inside. I would pay that price for the A-Spec exterior trim.
Last edited by acuraada; 06-29-2018 at 08:29 AM.
06-29-2018, 08:22 AM
#67
mrgold35
Great thing about the internet and forums is everybody is right and at the same time everybody is wrong. Information can be right and wrong at the same time relative to your observation and situation (like the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment type of thing).
Car and Driver:
Phone: (800) 348-5711
1585 Eisenhower Place
Ann Arbor, MI 48108
06-29-2018, 09:18 AM
#68
Burning Brakes
You should call or write C/D and let them know. I figured if it is on the internet so it has to be true.
Great thing about the internet and forums is everybody is right and at the same time everybody is wrong. Information can be right and wrong at the same time relative to your observation and situation (like the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment type of thing).
Car and Driver:
Phone: (800) 348-5711
1585 Eisenhower Place
Ann Arbor, MI 48108
Great thing about the internet and forums is everybody is right and at the same time everybody is wrong. Information can be right and wrong at the same time relative to your observation and situation (like the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment type of thing).
Car and Driver:
Phone: (800) 348-5711
1585 Eisenhower Place
Ann Arbor, MI 48108
Regarding information being right or wrong that's kind of true. It's a fact that the sun rises in the east - it's a perception that it rises to your right or left depending on the direction you're facing, but it's always correct.
Now, let's start a philosophy forum.
The following users liked this post:
mrgold35 (06-29-2018)
06-29-2018, 12:26 PM
#70
Intermediate
The following 2 users liked this post by warrenj3139:
catbert430 (06-29-2018),
mrgold35 (06-29-2018)
07-03-2018, 04:47 PM
#72
Burning Brakes
Alex on Autos says he did 0-60 in 5.7 seconds in this video he posted today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX-17khwcYs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX-17khwcYs
07-04-2018, 12:06 AM
#73
09-11-2018, 01:20 PM
#74
The title of this thread is CATEGORICALLY FALSE. The first instrumented test done by a respectable outfit (Car and Driver) clocked the 2019 RDX A-Spec at 6.6 seconds to 60 mph and 15.2 seconds in the ¼ at 93 mph. Alex on Autos would have needed a downhill road and a 60mph tailwind to hit 60 in 5.7.
Needing to see for myself, as I was seriously considering the 2019 RDX as my next vehicle, I went to my local Acura dealer this morning and test drove the 2019 RDX A-Spec and a 2017 RDX Tech back to back . . . Car and Driver's instrumented test rings true, as the 2017 was clearly quicker than the 2019 in stock form. With the 2.0T set to Sport+ the additional torque is obvious at low RPM, but the motor completely falls on its face come 4500rpm, whereas the 3.5L pulls hard all the way past 6,500rpm. The 3.5L easily outmatched the 2.0T in 60mph highway pulls to 90mph, and hooked up and pulled harder from a dig with TCS off even with its inferior AWD system and narrower tires. (235 vs 255) In addition, the 2017’s brakes were more firm, predictable, and had better modulation than the 2019’s. Honestly, aside from the engine, trans, and brakes, the rest of the car is a very welcome upgrade. It’s a beautiful vehicle inside and out, the fit and finish is impressive, and it handled better than the 2017, I just wish that Acura hadn’t tried to fix what wasn’t broken in the running gear.
Considering what Hondata has already accomplished with the 2.0T in the Accord, a ‘19 RDX with a quick tune will surely outperform the previous generation. That said, I’m not sure how much abuse the 10AT will put up with. (I found that the 10AT had a hard time commanding the factory power at times)
Before numbers were revealed and I drove both, I expected the 2019 RDX to be in the 5.9-6.0 sec range bone stock and close to 5 flat with just an intake and a tune, but realistically, the ’19 will likely require an intake, downpipe, turbo transplant from a Civic Type R, larger intercooler, and an aggressive tune to be around 5 flat. Those things being what they are, I’ll likely target a CPO SQ5 rather than try and modify the 2019 RDX to fit my performance requirements. It’s a shame, because I’m a legitimate Honda/Acura fan.
"2019 Acura RDX A-Spec Delivers Value, Not Speed" . . . https://www.caranddriver.com/acura/rdx
Needing to see for myself, as I was seriously considering the 2019 RDX as my next vehicle, I went to my local Acura dealer this morning and test drove the 2019 RDX A-Spec and a 2017 RDX Tech back to back . . . Car and Driver's instrumented test rings true, as the 2017 was clearly quicker than the 2019 in stock form. With the 2.0T set to Sport+ the additional torque is obvious at low RPM, but the motor completely falls on its face come 4500rpm, whereas the 3.5L pulls hard all the way past 6,500rpm. The 3.5L easily outmatched the 2.0T in 60mph highway pulls to 90mph, and hooked up and pulled harder from a dig with TCS off even with its inferior AWD system and narrower tires. (235 vs 255) In addition, the 2017’s brakes were more firm, predictable, and had better modulation than the 2019’s. Honestly, aside from the engine, trans, and brakes, the rest of the car is a very welcome upgrade. It’s a beautiful vehicle inside and out, the fit and finish is impressive, and it handled better than the 2017, I just wish that Acura hadn’t tried to fix what wasn’t broken in the running gear.
Considering what Hondata has already accomplished with the 2.0T in the Accord, a ‘19 RDX with a quick tune will surely outperform the previous generation. That said, I’m not sure how much abuse the 10AT will put up with. (I found that the 10AT had a hard time commanding the factory power at times)
Before numbers were revealed and I drove both, I expected the 2019 RDX to be in the 5.9-6.0 sec range bone stock and close to 5 flat with just an intake and a tune, but realistically, the ’19 will likely require an intake, downpipe, turbo transplant from a Civic Type R, larger intercooler, and an aggressive tune to be around 5 flat. Those things being what they are, I’ll likely target a CPO SQ5 rather than try and modify the 2019 RDX to fit my performance requirements. It’s a shame, because I’m a legitimate Honda/Acura fan.
"2019 Acura RDX A-Spec Delivers Value, Not Speed" . . . https://www.caranddriver.com/acura/rdx
09-11-2018, 01:54 PM
#75
The title of this thread is CATEGORICALLY FALSE. The first instrumented test done by a respectable outfit (Car and Driver) clocked the 2019 RDX A-Spec at 6.6 seconds to 60 mph and 15.2 seconds in the ¼ at 93 mph. Alex on Autos would have needed a downhill road and a 60mph tailwind to hit 60 in 5.7.
Needing to see for myself, as I was seriously considering the 2019 RDX as my next vehicle, I went to my local Acura dealer this morning and test drove the 2019 RDX A-Spec and a 2017 RDX Tech back to back . . . Car and Driver's instrumented test rings true, as the 2017 was clearly quicker than the 2019 in stock form. With the 2.0T set to Sport+ the additional torque is obvious at low RPM, but the motor completely falls on its face come 4500rpm, whereas the 3.5L pulls hard all the way past 6,500rpm. The 3.5L easily outmatched the 2.0T in 60mph highway pulls to 90mph, and hooked up and pulled harder from a dig with TCS off even with its inferior AWD system and narrower tires. (235 vs 255) In addition, the 2017’s brakes were more firm, predictable, and had better modulation than the 2019’s. Honestly, aside from the engine, trans, and brakes, the rest of the car is a very welcome upgrade. It’s a beautiful vehicle inside and out, the fit and finish is impressive, and it handled better than the 2017, I just wish that Acura hadn’t tried to fix what wasn’t broken in the running gear.
Considering what Hondata has already accomplished with the 2.0T in the Accord, a ‘19 RDX with a quick tune will surely outperform the previous generation. That said, I’m not sure how much abuse the 10AT will put up with. (I found that the 10AT had a hard time commanding the factory power at times)
Before numbers were revealed and I drove both, I expected the 2019 RDX to be in the 5.9-6.0 sec range bone stock and close to 5 flat with just an intake and a tune, but realistically, the ’19 will likely require an intake, downpipe, turbo transplant from a Civic Type R, larger intercooler, and an aggressive tune to be around 5 flat. Those things being what they are, I’ll likely target a CPO SQ5 rather than try and modify the 2019 RDX to fit my performance requirements. It’s a shame, because I’m a legitimate Honda/Acura fan.
"2019 Acura RDX A-Spec Delivers Value, Not Speed" . . . https://www.caranddriver.com/acura/rdx
Needing to see for myself, as I was seriously considering the 2019 RDX as my next vehicle, I went to my local Acura dealer this morning and test drove the 2019 RDX A-Spec and a 2017 RDX Tech back to back . . . Car and Driver's instrumented test rings true, as the 2017 was clearly quicker than the 2019 in stock form. With the 2.0T set to Sport+ the additional torque is obvious at low RPM, but the motor completely falls on its face come 4500rpm, whereas the 3.5L pulls hard all the way past 6,500rpm. The 3.5L easily outmatched the 2.0T in 60mph highway pulls to 90mph, and hooked up and pulled harder from a dig with TCS off even with its inferior AWD system and narrower tires. (235 vs 255) In addition, the 2017’s brakes were more firm, predictable, and had better modulation than the 2019’s. Honestly, aside from the engine, trans, and brakes, the rest of the car is a very welcome upgrade. It’s a beautiful vehicle inside and out, the fit and finish is impressive, and it handled better than the 2017, I just wish that Acura hadn’t tried to fix what wasn’t broken in the running gear.
Considering what Hondata has already accomplished with the 2.0T in the Accord, a ‘19 RDX with a quick tune will surely outperform the previous generation. That said, I’m not sure how much abuse the 10AT will put up with. (I found that the 10AT had a hard time commanding the factory power at times)
Before numbers were revealed and I drove both, I expected the 2019 RDX to be in the 5.9-6.0 sec range bone stock and close to 5 flat with just an intake and a tune, but realistically, the ’19 will likely require an intake, downpipe, turbo transplant from a Civic Type R, larger intercooler, and an aggressive tune to be around 5 flat. Those things being what they are, I’ll likely target a CPO SQ5 rather than try and modify the 2019 RDX to fit my performance requirements. It’s a shame, because I’m a legitimate Honda/Acura fan.
"2019 Acura RDX A-Spec Delivers Value, Not Speed" . . . https://www.caranddriver.com/acura/rdx
Just out of curiosity, what altitude do you live at?
09-11-2018, 02:49 PM
#76
I think the move to 2.0T was a good move from a handling point of view. The 3.5l V6 is a BIG ass engine for a car the size of the RDX IMO. I'm starting to wonder if Acura juiced the engines during the test drives in initial testing.
Just out of curiosity, what altitude do you live at?
Just out of curiosity, what altitude do you live at?
09-11-2018, 03:00 PM
#77
Burning Brakes
Link to the test sheet in this post: https://acurazine.com/forums/third-g.../#post16288459
Last edited by MI-RDX; 09-11-2018 at 03:13 PM.
09-11-2018, 03:24 PM
#78
Senior Moderator
Take all of Rockyboi's posts with a grain of salt.
09-11-2018, 03:41 PM
#79
Team Owner
I think the move to 2.0T was a good move from a handling point of view. The 3.5l V6 is a BIG ass engine for a car the size of the RDX IMO. I'm starting to wonder if Acura juiced the engines during the test drives in initial testing.
Just out of curiosity, what altitude do you live at?
Just out of curiosity, what altitude do you live at?
09-11-2018, 03:46 PM
#80
Team Owner
I reviewed the C&D test sheet and they did not drive the RDX to achieve maximum performance. The one thing that stood out is the same thing that you noticed and that is the torque falls off quickly at ~4500rpm. If you look at the engine performance data the peak torque band is from 1600-4600 give or take a few revs. To get maximum performance you have drive within that band - in the C&D testing shifts were done at 6600rpm, not surprising that performance was negatively affected.
Link to the test sheet in this post: https://acurazine.com/forums/third-g.../#post16288459
Link to the test sheet in this post: https://acurazine.com/forums/third-g.../#post16288459
You want torque down low in the rpm band. Up high, horsepower takes over. That’s not to say you don’t have torque up high, it just starts to drop. It’s still much better than having to wait to 5000+ rpm in a NA engine to hit peak torque. You get a huge amount of steady torque up to 4600rpm before it starts coming down. But it still has good torque beyond that.
Diesel cars have have lots of torque but no horsepower up high (due to low rev limits). They peter out quickly when it comes to hauling ass at high speeds. A gas turbo engine keeps making horsepower up to, or close to redline.