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 noticed that too. Hopefully, Acura will continue to optimize the software to improve responsiveness. Another reason (for me anyway) not to jump into a first year production vehicle.
I'm at least encouraged that the system can be updated over the air. Ideally that means more frequent updates to the infotainment center rather than ones that require a trip to the dealer.
I was concerned that the back of the RDX didn't look "premium" enough. Now it definitely doesn't. When CR-V has all-LEDs, it's downright LAUGHABLE that the "luxury" division can't say the same.
Yea kinda odd they left one set of lights to be non-LED....lol...oh well...aftermarket LEDs here I come!
Yea kinda odd they left one set of lights to be non-LED....lol...oh well...aftermarket LEDs here I come!
Acura probably saving that for the 2022 MMC. Along with power folding mirrors for the USA market, Active Dampers for the A-Spec, etc. Honestly, I would have preferred if they made the reverse lights incandescent and the turn signals LED.
Acura probably saving that for the 2022 MMC. Along with power folding mirrors for the USA market, Active Dampers for the A-Spec, etc. Honestly, I would have preferred if they made the reverse lights incandescent and the turn signals LED.
oddly I was driving behind a new CRV today and it had LED rear turn signals, come on Acura, go full LED.
The '19 RDX is now on the Acura web site. Kinda hidden, but, the "build" is there now. Main page...scroll down to just below the pics of Acura models....on the left side where it says "Build"...click there. It will show the
current vehicles in the upper portion..the '19 RDX is there, BUT doesn't say 2019. A little farther down it shows "Previous Models" and the 2018 has been moved to there.
The A-Spec option is $6,200 and it comes with the Tech Package...and that is $3.200. They break it down. Seems to me, that the $6,200 portion is really high! IMHO.
Let me be clear: The new RDX looks like a real winner to me.
But when shopping for a new vehicle it can be easy to be seduced by the positive points to and miss some negative points.
Some people have more experience and/or are better at noticing small details when test driving a vehicle.
Some people will have the chance to drive it for a longer ride.
The point of this thread is not to ask for more colors or for a 6 cyl. engine.
Any negative points you noticed?
I think it could be an interesting conversation.
Two more negatives:
The more I look at the exterior styling of the new 2019 RDX, the less enthused I am (I do love the interior though). And I loved the exterior styling of my 2015 RDX. Among other things, Acura has copied the "kink" in the rear roofline for the 2019 RDX that so many of the manufacturers have gone to. I won't post all the photos that demonstrate this, but it's everything from the Nissan Murano to the Lexus RX to the GMC Terrain as well as a bunch of others. I just think Acura missed an opportunity there.
The other negative is that Acura charges extra (something like $155.00 I think) for the cargo area cover. Admittedly they did this on my 2015 too, but I think it's a penny pinching move to not include something like that on a $40K+ vehicle.
The other negative is that Acura charges extra (something like $155.00 I think) for the cargo area cover. Admittedly they did this on my 2015 too, but I think it's a penny pinching move to not include something like that on a $40K+ vehicle.
Funny because for me it's not a negative, in fact it's a positive because I can choose not to buy the accessories I don't need and I can pick the one I want. :-)
Funny because for me it's not a negative, in fact it's a positive because I can choose not to buy the accessories I don't need and I can pick the one I want. :-)
That, and if I don't get enough of the discount I want on the vehicle, I start asking for free accessories. When I bought my WRX back in the day, the dealer only gave me a $1000 discount on the vehicle, but I managed to nab free winter floor mats, cargo mat, auto dimming mirror and the upgraded arm rest.
I'm sure this just isn't me....but, I've always put BSM on my Gen 2 RDX's. I saw a pic on Acura's web site that now shows the Accessories and there was a pic of BSM on a new RDX. Does NOT look good....meaning
with the fairly large piece of "garnishment" on the side of the RDX, that covers a long distance over both doors....then the BSM goes above that. Well, to me....it looks terrible. IMHO.
Anyone else sees the same...let us know what you think. From the first moment I saw what the new RDX would be like....my eyes went straight to that "garnishment" on the side...in "chrome look" it stands out like a sore
thumb and useless. When black, as on the A-Spec..it stands out on most colors....except black of course....blends right in. Just not a "value or aesthetics adder" at all. Same for the lower front bumper corners, esp in
"chrome look." They stick out and do not add to the design features, but, take away. If your eyes are drawn to these "shiny things" on each corner....then it's just "too much" embellishment of design tweaks. Again..IMHO.
I'm sure this just isn't me....but, I've always put BSM on my Gen 2 RDX's. I saw a pic on Acura's web site that now shows the Accessories and there was a pic of BSM on a new RDX. Does NOT look good....meaning
with the fairly large piece of "garnishment" on the side of the RDX, that covers a long distance over both doors....then the BSM goes above that. Well, to me....it looks terrible. IMHO.
Anyone else sees the same...let us know what you think. From the first moment I saw what the new RDX would be like....my eyes went straight to that "garnishment" on the side...in "chrome look" it stands out like a sore
thumb and useless. When black, as on the A-Spec..it stands out on most colors....except black of course....blends right in. Just not a "value or aesthetics adder" at all. Same for the lower front bumper corners, esp in
"chrome look." They stick out and do not add to the design features, but, take away. If your eyes are drawn to these "shiny things" on each corner....then it's just "too much" embellishment of design tweaks. Again..IMHO.
Totally agree with the chrome comment. It's just not aesthetically pleasing to me and I don't think it will age well. The black on the Aspec is much better.
I'm sure this just isn't me....but, I've always put BSM on my Gen 2 RDX's. I saw a pic on Acura's web site that now shows the Accessories and there was a pic of BSM on a new RDX. Does NOT look good....meaning
with the fairly large piece of "garnishment" on the side of the RDX, that covers a long distance over both doors....then the BSM goes above that. Well, to me....it looks terrible. IMHO.
Anyone else sees the same...let us know what you think. From the first moment I saw what the new RDX would be like....my eyes went straight to that "garnishment" on the side...in "chrome look" it stands out like a sore
thumb and useless. When black, as on the A-Spec..it stands out on most colors....except black of course....blends right in. Just not a "value or aesthetics adder" at all. Same for the lower front bumper corners, esp in
"chrome look." They stick out and do not add to the design features, but, take away. If your eyes are drawn to these "shiny things" on each corner....then it's just "too much" embellishment of design tweaks. Again..IMHO.
Yeah it's really bad. I like the standard garnishment but I can't imagine anybody adding the BSM because you end up with two 'stripes' of trim, one in chrome (or black) and the other body-colored.
Funny because for me it's not a negative, in fact it's a positive because I can choose not to buy the accessories I don't need and I can pick the one I want. :-)
I see your point I guess for me I view that particular item as a necessity, not an accessory. So I'm still a little surprised (even though I shouldn't be) that some automakers don't include the cargo cover while others do.
Yeah it's really bad. I like the standard garnishment but I can't imagine anybody adding the BSM because you end up with two 'stripes' of trim, one in chrome (or black) and the other body-colored.
I agree it is ugly. BSM can serve some functional purpose (if the other guy's door is the right height!) and can help make a slab sided vehicle (like my 2010 Murano) actually look better by breaking up the side surface. In the 2019 RDX case it is too much, too busy, and would be of minimal protection to door dings anyway. Thank god its an option!
My local Acura dealer had eight on the lot. After the test drive the salesman asked "be honest is there anything you do not like?" and my reply was nothing. I am picky. Test drove a white with the espresso interior advance. The espresso was nice but a little too dark for my taste. I would get the parchment. Can not stress enough you need to test drive one. Pics and reviews do not do it justice. It is about the drive. It is just fun to drive. It handles great, quiet and has plenty of pep all in the comfort mode. Had to accelerate rapidly to merge on the interstate and has the power. The panoramic roof is a winner. Drove it at 11 am on a hot day with the shade wide open. No heat and was not overly bright. Must be tinted for heat reduction much more than our Lexus's. Got home at noon and we went out and slid the shade back in my Lexus ES and was overwhelmed with the heat and brightness and shut it immediately. Salesman during the drive said make a u-turn here which I did. Turning radius is incredible. I am 6:4 and had plenty of head and leg room. Alex on Auto in his review stated about the only negative was rear headroom. I sat in the back. Had to move the seat up but had plenty of headroom in the back. Acura hit a 575 foot home run. My only concern is gas mileage. I had 12 miles on trip A which I put 8 on. Half were on the highway. MPG registered 10 mpg. Really want to hear what others are getting!!!
This thread is unnecessary; we bought one of the first 2012 RDX available and have no issues mechanically, other than the Takata air bag recall; which took a while but has been completed. The hardest decision will be decided when we park ours next to the 2019; the one we have now might look better than the new one
That, and if I don't get enough of the discount I want on the vehicle, I start asking for free accessories. When I bought my WRX back in the day, the dealer only gave me a $1000 discount on the vehicle, but I managed to nab free winter floor mats, cargo mat, auto dimming mirror and the upgraded arm rest.
Negotiating the car first and then the accessories separately has always worked for me. Accessories are incredibly overpriced; so, there's a lot of negotiating room there.
Also, end of the year (and also likely, but to a lesser extent, end of the month) is huge. Do it all by email or phone; avoid the showroom.
The Wife and I test drove a Spec model and a couple negatives in that short test drive was the NAV unit seemed small and hard to read and would be better if it were tilted somewhat towards the driver. Also there was a sense that the transmission was trying to figure out which gear to be in, however it is a big improvement over that stupid ZF tranny that's in Her TLX and is the reason she is looking at something else.
She did like it a lot and I liked the ride better than the Lexus NX we test rode. She may test ride the MB GLC again which from what I remember rode very well (I have the GLC43 which is a different animal) and possibly the QX5 to compare so we will see.
Being a current Lexus NX owner my concerns are that the new RDX has direct injection rather than both direct and port injection. Potential carbon buildup is the issue. The other issue is not having a liquid cooled intercooler which would reduce heat soaking. Any others have these concerns?
Being a current Lexus NX owner my concerns are that the new RDX has direct injection rather than both direct and port injection. Potential carbon buildup is the issue. The other issue is not having a liquid cooled intercooler which would reduce heat soaking. Any others have these concerns?
I'll be interested to see the responses of those with technical expertise, but the injection and intercooler do not concern me in the least. Direct injection is a more efficient but complicated - and therefore costly - approach but seems to be the way of the future. Direct injection leads to more efficient combustion so I would think there is less likelihood of carbon buildup. As for the intercooler, the turbo in a crossover shouldn't be getting too heavy of a workout and I expect Acura has specified the intercooler appropriately.
I'll be interested to see the responses of those with technical expertise, but the injection and intercooler do not concern me in the least. Direct injection is a more efficient but complicated - and therefore costly - approach but seems to be the way of the future. Direct injection leads to more efficient combustion so I would think there is less likelihood of carbon buildup. As for the intercooler, the turbo in a crossover shouldn't be getting too heavy of a workout and I expect Acura has specified the intercooler appropriately.
Direct injection is more efficient, yes, but because the fuel never touches the back of the valves, carbon build-up is a potential (and potentially costly) side-effect. Early VW/Audi DI engines are renowned for it, and some EcoBoost engines as well. Lexus uses a combination of both direct and port injection to ensure the valves get a consistent fuel bath, and Ford is starting to add port injection as well. Even without port injection, DI engines have become less prone to carbon buildup, however. Being sure to use tier 1 fuel is one of the few things consumers can do. Some argue that regular full throttle launches and on-ramp charges can help, too. So now I have an excuse for my occasional delinquent behavior.
Thats’s impressive. The BMW X3 is one of the cars I’ve been looking at. The only thing that’s kept me from signing is the comments I’ve heard about their higher than average repair costs. Even simple things like oil changes, since they suggest a special oil. That's why I’ve decided to wait and check out the new RDX. The Acura TL has been about average for both service issues and repair cost. What has been your experience with your BMW?
Don't forget that BMW includes all service for the first 3 years/36000 miles in the purchase price.
Direct injection is more efficient, yes, but because the fuel never touches the back of the valves, carbon build-up is a potential (and potentially costly) side-effect. Early VW/Audi DI engines are renowned for it, and some EcoBoost engines as well. Lexus uses a combination of both direct and port injection to ensure the valves get a consistent fuel bath, and Ford is starting to add port injection as well. Even without port injection, DI engines have become less prone to carbon buildup, however. Being sure to use tier 1 fuel is one of the few things consumers can do. Some argue that regular full throttle launches and on-ramp charges can help, too. So now I have an excuse for my occasional delinquent behavior.
"Some argue that regular full throttle launches and on-ramp charges can help, too"
Direct injection is more efficient, yes, but because the fuel never touches the back of the valves, carbon build-up is a potential (and potentially costly) side-effect. Early VW/Audi DI engines are renowned for it, and some EcoBoost engines as well. Lexus uses a combination of both direct and port injection to ensure the valves get a consistent fuel bath, and Ford is starting to add port injection as well. Even without port injection, DI engines have become less prone to carbon buildup, however. Being sure to use tier 1 fuel is one of the few things consumers can do. Some argue that regular full throttle launches and on-ramp charges can help, too. So now I have an excuse for my occasional delinquent behavior.
I have read that BMW also had problems with carbon buildup.
Since Honda has only been selling direct injection turbo engines for less than three years in the US, it is probably too early to know if they are going to have problems. The great thing about my prior Acura/Honda cars was that they never had any major engine issues in well over a million miles of combined use.
I have read that BMW also had problems with carbon buildup.
Since Honda has only been selling direct injection turbo engines for less than three years in the US, it is probably too early to know if they are going to have problems. The great thing about my prior Acura/Honda cars was that they never had any major engine issues in well over a million miles of combined use.
Doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. There's a place here that "walnut shell blasts" (I thought it was a joke at first) the intake valves for $250.
Notice how your walnut shell post says just the opposite. If you drive aggressively you will need to have your valves cleaned sooner according to them. I think it would be best to follow what ever recommendations the manufacturers come up with if this truly ends up being a problem.
If you really want something to worry about, read a little of this post in the CRV forum. It seems several people with Honda's 1.5 DI turbo are having fuel dilution issues.
Doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. There's a place here that "walnut shell blasts" (I thought it was a joke at first) the intake valves for $250.
Depends on the engine design and the extent of the build-up. Early on, Audi's DI 3.2 had to be pulled to remove the build-up if I'm not mistaken. Very expensive if not covered under warranty, and Audi was famous for pushing back on warranty claims. They have improved the cleaning process, but you'll still want to avoid an early Q5 3.2 and anything with the 4.2L V8.
Ford has now gone to port injection along with their DI because of coking issues with the Ecoboost. Carbon build up and oil dilution is definitely a concern of mine. Drove an A-Spec today and it was awesome, wife says “yes”, while I say “wait.”
Notice how your walnut shell post says just the opposite. If you drive aggressively you will need to have your valves cleaned sooner according to them. I think it would be best to follow what ever recommendations the manufacturers come up with if this truly ends up being a problem.
If you really want something to worry about, read a little of this post in the CRV forum. It seems several people with Honda's 1.5 DI turbo are having fuel dilution issues.
The information about the problems with the 1.5 DI turbo does not sound good. It sounds like in an effort to avoid a carbon buildup problem, they created a different problem. I guess I will need to look at Accord forums to see if there are problems with the 2.0 DI turbo.
Being a current Lexus NX owner my concerns are that the new RDX has direct injection rather than both direct and port injection. Potential carbon buildup is the issue. The other issue is not having a liquid cooled intercooler which would reduce heat soaking. Any others have these concerns?
Honda has been selling cars with DI since the 2013 Accord in North America. It appears Carbon Build-up is much of an issue. I'm sure if you google specifically for Accord carbon deposit, you will find a few links. But it doesn't seem to be a common, widespread issue.
As for the intercooler, IIRC, the one in the Accord 2.0T is the same unit as the CTR. I'd imagine the RDX most likely has the same unit too. From my experience with the CTR, in daily driving, heat soaking isn't an issue. I even took it to the track and it was fine, albeit it was in the fall. But then again, the RDX doesn't make as much power as the CTR, and is unlikely to be driven on a track, I wouldn't think heat soaking is an issue. My 1g RDX on the other hand, with its top mounted intercooler, has heat soaking...lol.
I am a long time BMW guy, and "in the market" now for a replacement of my 535. Have looked extensively at at the X3 xDrive 30i and just considering alternatives. A well-equipped ($53k or so MSRP) X3 is $49K out the door without considering any rebates/incentives (right now there are only a few available depending on geography...so maybe $1500 or so for someone who qualifies for loyalty etc). That's comparable to an Advance RDX with no discount. Acura has never leased very well, and right now BMW is sort of in the same category (4% APR MF, unsupported RV's). So, do I go with what I'm familiar with, or take a chance on the new RDX? Not sure. My old MDX had its share of problems, while the last three BMWs have been flawless. But I'm intrigued by the RDX and will take a look at it when it gets to my local dealer. I miss the SH-AWD that was in my MDX...that is definitely something positive about the RDX.
Updating this post. After test driving an RDX (Tech - no Advance models on the lot) today I have decided to stick with BMW and get a well-optioned X3.
Financial reason: You can get an X3 for 8-10% off MSRP without much work (I am at 10% off) and then after that there are loyalty ($1500) and other incentives ($500 fleet for my college). So for an X3 with Premium, Convenience, Driving Assistance, Park Distance Control (essentially equivalent in equipment to an Advance excluding upgraded audio) my 36/12 lease payment (including 8.25% taxes) on a $52K MSRP X3 is just $550 versus the $680 that I was quoted today for an Advance. The $680 quote included a $1000 loyalty incentive since I still had my old MDX...without that the Advance lease rate would have been $700+ (for a $49k car...which is just insane).
Non-financial reason: The RDX is nice, and while I'm sure the Advance might be a bit better than the Tech (with HUD and upgraded sound), I preferred the "feel" of driving a BMW. I also struggled with the Acura infotainment. It didn't help that the sales guys also struggled with it. They have only had the cars for a short time, and before the test drive we spent five minutes trying to navigate around the system. I don't like the way I'd need to enter addresses on Nav using the touchpad (I prefer the iDrive dial), but I imagine that I'd get used to it. When I looked at all the dials etc on the steering wheel, I also realized that I missed the "simple" BMW look. The RDX drove well, but I didn't really put it through any paces.
Net net - nice car, just not for me. Also, inventory in the Bay Area is really poor. Not many Advances, and my dealer had only one Tech in some horrible looking brown color. Who the heck would want a brown RDX?
In response to your post. Thanks for your thoughts on the comparison. I’ve been toggling between the X3 and RDX. I find it interesting that from a purchasers mind set (who is not planning on leasing), the primary people happy with their BMW’s (straight off the BMW blogs) are those who lease. One person has even advised that the repair and maintenance becomes a problem after the warrenty expires and the only way they would have one is to lease and trade in on a newer model when the warrenty/lease expires, every three years. This is not a knock...just a noteworthy concern. Have you ever been hit with an outrageous repair bill on a BMW?
In response to your post. Thanks for your thoughts on the comparison. I’ve been toggling between the X3 and RDX. I find it interesting that from a purchasers mind set (who is not planning on leasing), the primary people happy with their BMW’s (straight off the BMW blogs) are those who lease. One person has even advised that the repair and maintenance becomes a problem after the warrenty expires and the only way they would have one is to lease and trade in on a newer model when the warrenty/lease expires, every three years. This is not a knock...just a noteworthy concern. Have you ever been hit with an outrageous repair bill on a BMW?
Many people will only lease, and not buy, BMWs. The are excellent but not durable vehicles, and costly to maintain and repair. I trust you have heard that some say BMW = "Broke My Wallet"?
One thing that I did not like, and did not even notice until a test drive, is the big curves in the hood. There are two big mountain like formations in the hood you can see while driving. I suspect you would get used to it after a while. However, that is one of my wife's pet peeves. She prefers to have as little of the hood visible as possible when driving. In her Camry, you see almost none of the hood.
I test drove the RDX yesterday, and an X3 today. The X3 rode a little better, but I did not drive them over the same route, so it was not an apples to apples comparison. After reading all the positive comments about how the RDX drives, I was a little disappointed with it.
Last edited by cruiserchuck; 06-06-2018 at 09:16 PM.
Updating this post. After test driving an RDX (Tech - no Advance models on the lot) today I have decided to stick with BMW and get a well-optioned X3.
Financial reason: You can get an X3 for 8-10% off MSRP without much work (I am at 10% off) and then after that there are loyalty ($1500) and other incentives ($500 fleet for my college). So for an X3 with Premium, Convenience, Driving Assistance, Park Distance Control (essentially equivalent in equipment to an Advance excluding upgraded audio) my 36/12 lease payment (including 8.25% taxes) on a $52K MSRP X3 is just $550 versus the $680 that I was quoted today for an Advance. The $680 quote included a $1000 loyalty incentive since I still had my old MDX...without that the Advance lease rate would have been $700+ (for a $49k car...which is just insane).
Non-financial reason: The RDX is nice, and while I'm sure the Advance might be a bit better than the Tech (with HUD and upgraded sound), I preferred the "feel" of driving a BMW. I also struggled with the Acura infotainment. It didn't help that the sales guys also struggled with it. They have only had the cars for a short time, and before the test drive we spent five minutes trying to navigate around the system. I don't like the way I'd need to enter addresses on Nav using the touchpad (I prefer the iDrive dial), but I imagine that I'd get used to it. When I looked at all the dials etc on the steering wheel, I also realized that I missed the "simple" BMW look. The RDX drove well, but I didn't really put it through any paces.
Net net - nice car, just not for me. Also, inventory in the Bay Area is really poor. Not many Advances, and my dealer had only one Tech in some horrible looking brown color. Who the heck would want a brown RDX?
Thanks for your comments and analysis. I'll be turning in a 2016 X3 the end of this year/early next year. I'll be about 3000-5000 ($750-1250) over on miles making another BMW X3 that much less expensive than anything else. If Accura is as bad as you say about leasing it does not look like we will end up in an RDX. We will drive one as we get closer but will also look at Q5 and GLC.
We test drove a 2018 X3 the other day when our 2016 was in for service and while it was a pretty basic model it rode and handled nice. The courtesy car that took us to lunch and back was a better appointed 2018 and it was very nice to ride in.
I enjoy car shopping and forums like this make it even more fun.
Apples to apples (MF and RV), the RDX should actually be a better lease than the X3. Base MF of the Acura is .00131 vs .00166 for BMW. (I could buy down the BMW MF to .00131 with my grandfathered MSD's, but people without existing MSD's can't do that). Residuals are a percent or two better for the RDX as well. But the big difference is the selling price. You can't get a 10% off deal on an RDX. Also, loyalty and fleet incentives on BMW are better. So until the RDX starts discounting, it is a tough lease.
One thing that I did not like, and did not even notice until a test drive, is the big curves in the hood. There are two big mountain like formations in the hood you can see while driving. I suspect you would get used to it after a while. However, that is one of my wife's pet peeves. She prefers to have as little of the hood visible as possible when driving. In her Camry, you see almost none of the hood.
I test drove the RDX yesterday, and an X3 today. The X3 rode a little better, but I did not drive them over the same route, so it was not an apples to apples comparison. After reading all the positive comments about how the RDX drives, I was a little disappointed with it.
i like the hood.....makes it feel like you’re driving a 800hp sports car...which I guess is the whole point of the Redesign - attracting younger buyers.
I'm at least encouraged that the system can be updated over the air. Ideally that means more frequent updates to the infotainment center rather than ones that require a trip to the dealer.
yes I was surprised to see the at home WiFi upgrade option....that’s awesome!
1. no spare tire on the a spec
2. I thought the “turbo” and fake “g force” icons are cheesy
3. The side wrap and lumbar supports for the seats took a while to adjust and the difference was minimal.
Updating this post. After test driving an RDX (Tech - no Advance models on the lot) today I have decided to stick with BMW and get a well-optioned X3.
Financial reason: You can get an X3 for 8-10% off MSRP without much work (I am at 10% off) and then after that there are loyalty ($1500) and other incentives ($500 fleet for my college). So for an X3 with Premium, Convenience, Driving Assistance, Park Distance Control (essentially equivalent in equipment to an Advance excluding upgraded audio) my 36/12 lease payment (including 8.25% taxes) on a $52K MSRP X3 is just $550 versus the $680 that I was quoted today for an Advance. The $680 quote included a $1000 loyalty incentive since I still had my old MDX...without that the Advance lease rate would have been $700+ (for a $49k car...which is just insane).
Non-financial reason: The RDX is nice, and while I'm sure the Advance might be a bit better than the Tech (with HUD and upgraded sound), I preferred the "feel" of driving a BMW. I also struggled with the Acura infotainment. It didn't help that the sales guys also struggled with it. They have only had the cars for a short time, and before the test drive we spent five minutes trying to navigate around the system. I don't like the way I'd need to enter addresses on Nav using the touchpad (I prefer the iDrive dial), but I imagine that I'd get used to it. When I looked at all the dials etc on the steering wheel, I also realized that I missed the "simple" BMW look. The RDX drove well, but I didn't really put it through any paces.
Net net - nice car, just not for me. Also, inventory in the Bay Area is really poor. Not many Advances, and my dealer had only one Tech in some horrible looking brown color. Who the heck would want a brown RDX?
I would definitely not buy RDX now because 1) it's the new hotness and apparently people are willing to pay MSRP so that's a no-go for me. I've never paid above invoice for past cars. And 2) first model year of brand new design. Too many bugs. I always buy second model year or later. I also keep my cars for 15-20 years so durability and reliability are important to me. But if you lease, it doesn't matter.
05-31-2018, 04:49 PM
Powertrain Warranty
Body Side Molding Accessory....:(
I guess for me I view that particular item as a necessity, not an accessory. So I'm still a little surprised (even though I shouldn't be) that some automakers don't include the cargo cover while others do.
