Car and Driver slams RDX Aspec
08-25-2018, 08:54 AM
#2
Suzuka Master
The A-SPEC is an appearance package for mainstream driver and if they ever do a Type-S RDX I suspect that will be a totally difference level of performance, but most people buying an RDX (A-SPEC or not) are not pushing the car that hard anyway.
Last edited by EE4Life; 08-26-2018 at 12:57 PM.
08-25-2018, 10:32 AM
#3
i got the aspec for the looks, not for anything else.
08-25-2018, 01:41 PM
#4
WayTooManyAcuras
Me too. I did not like the wheels or the chrome trim on the advance, and the $2K difference in price didn't hurt either! 
I am 100% happy with my choice, and the C&D column writers who cannot afford a Kia on their own can kiss me butt!
I am 100% happy with my choice, and the C&D column writers who cannot afford a Kia on their own can kiss me butt!
08-25-2018, 02:06 PM
#5
Drifting
I am sure there will be a performance RDX sometime in the future. The nice thing about Aspec is you can have desirable styling if you like it, that makes it more sporty.
A co-worker of mine has a white/black Aspec. I like it a lot, but if it omitted the suede inserts I would for sure get it. The red seats are too much of me, but the black is nice. So I will likely opt for the Elite Platinum (CDN). Too bad because I love the Aspec wheels.
A co-worker of mine has a white/black Aspec. I like it a lot, but if it omitted the suede inserts I would for sure get it. The red seats are too much of me, but the black is nice. So I will likely opt for the Elite Platinum (CDN). Too bad because I love the Aspec wheels.
The following users liked this post:
Ken1997TL (08-25-2018)
08-25-2018, 03:53 PM
#7
The following users liked this post:
Shadow2056 (08-31-2018)
Trending Topics
08-25-2018, 06:57 PM
#9
The very same magazine had a 2017 Fiesta ST slightly quicker in the quarter mile.
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...ed-test-review
TFLcar drag raced both side by side on a shorter track and the RDX won by a nose. The RDX was pulling ahead at the finish, which suggests a greater margin of victory would have been apparent on a standard (longer) track (1/4 mile).
08-26-2018, 03:52 AM
#10
I feel like they intentionally messed it up to make it look bad, every single other review has praised the A-specs handling and even saying it's as good as some RWD crossovers. So yeah no not buying this at all.
This post is so accurate. They seem to be getting paid generously by Mazda.
08-26-2018, 08:00 AM
#11
THey are correct the A- SPEC doesnt offer any performance benefits over the any other Acura RDX. It is purely an appearance package. Had Acura offered additional performance, it would make sense to look into the RDX deeper. Doesnt Acura usually offer add performance to the A-SPEC packages? However, If you want more performance, I am sure we will be able to add more when the tune is available for the RDX. I know you can already do this on the Accord for $695.
08-26-2018, 12:18 PM
#12
Also, a few folks have mentioned the 0-60 time difference between Car and Driver and all the other "sources." But you have to remember that all of those "sources" were parroting whatever Acura told them because at the time everyone was first sharing the 5.7 second figure, none of them had actually had a chance to do their own performance testing yet. Maybe Acura was being a little too optimistic with their estimate, or maybe the magazine's test car had an off day.
08-26-2018, 04:42 PM
#13
Pro
Kind of a clickbait headline for this thread but the reality of the Car and Driver review is a lot different. I read the review before I saw this thread and thought it was pretty fair, but I read it again just in case I had missed something. The review is actually very positive. There are quotes like "the new four sounds great"..."the RDX A-Spec feels quick on it's feet"..."the interior matches the sheetmetal's allure"..."full of highly impressive stuff"...etc. They did knock the grip, the braking performance, and the touchpad. And they have always had an issue with vehicles that offer sporty packages/trims like the A-Spec that seem to hint at performance improvements but don't really offer any.
Also, a few folks have mentioned the 0-60 time difference between Car and Driver and all the other "sources." But you have to remember that all of those "sources" were parroting whatever Acura told them because at the time everyone was first sharing the 5.7 second figure, none of them had actually had a chance to do their own performance testing yet. Maybe Acura was being a little too optimistic with their estimate, or maybe the magazine's test car had an off day.
Also, a few folks have mentioned the 0-60 time difference between Car and Driver and all the other "sources." But you have to remember that all of those "sources" were parroting whatever Acura told them because at the time everyone was first sharing the 5.7 second figure, none of them had actually had a chance to do their own performance testing yet. Maybe Acura was being a little too optimistic with their estimate, or maybe the magazine's test car had an off day.
08-26-2018, 05:22 PM
#15
Burning Brakes
The following 2 users liked this post by MI-RDX:
catbert430 (08-26-2018),
Madd Dog (08-26-2018)
08-26-2018, 05:59 PM
#16
Pro
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Southwestern Pennsylvania
Age: 71
Posts: 562
Received 219 Likes
on
134 Posts
Car and Driver didn't 'slam' the RDX.
The only people who slam the RDX are the trolls on this forum.
Most especially the people who claim to have experienced every glitch that has been reported and those who are still shopping.
The TLX forums are just as bad.
They should change the name to AcuraWhine.
It's becoming very tedious.
I think I need to spend more time enjoying my RDX and less time reading the endless complaints and concerns.
The only people who slam the RDX are the trolls on this forum.
Most especially the people who claim to have experienced every glitch that has been reported and those who are still shopping.
The TLX forums are just as bad.
They should change the name to AcuraWhine.
It's becoming very tedious.
I think I need to spend more time enjoying my RDX and less time reading the endless complaints and concerns.
The following 3 users liked this post by catbert430:
08-26-2018, 06:03 PM
#17
C/D is not the trusted automotive source it once was. They're bias comes through in their reviews, sometimes sickeningly so. But one thing I rarely question is their official performance test results. Which make me wonder:
Was this particular test sample down on power?
Were early testers 'juiced', as was common once upon a time?
Has Acura made a running change to the ECU and/or shift logic, possibly to smooth out the rough shift criticism?
Regardless, I'm inclined to believe the numbers are accurate. 0-60 numbers mean little to me anyway since brake-torque launches just don't happen in the real world. 5-60 and 50-70 are the numbers I tend to focus on, along with seat-of-the-pants feel.
Was this particular test sample down on power?
Were early testers 'juiced', as was common once upon a time?
Has Acura made a running change to the ECU and/or shift logic, possibly to smooth out the rough shift criticism?
Regardless, I'm inclined to believe the numbers are accurate. 0-60 numbers mean little to me anyway since brake-torque launches just don't happen in the real world. 5-60 and 50-70 are the numbers I tend to focus on, along with seat-of-the-pants feel.
08-26-2018, 06:05 PM
#18
Agreed. It always amuses me how folks are quick to accept the quickest 0-60 time they can find as gospel and any other sources who get slower times are full of s$%t..... I thought it was strange the 19 would be so quick compared to the 2nd gen as we are talking about less horsepower with more torque with the 2.0T. It seems like a bit of wishful thinking the new motor would produce almost a second quicker 0-60 times (5.7 sec vs 6.5 sec) runs with such a small power advantage. I am sure this will set off a few arguments with the "40% more torque" figures thrown around a few months ago.
To be fair, if I bought a vehicle and cherished / bonded with it, then the very next year a successor appeared that blew mine off the road, I might be a bit chaffed too.
.
08-26-2018, 08:01 PM
#19
Agreed. It always amuses me how folks are quick to accept the quickest 0-60 time they can find as gospel and any other sources who get slower times are full of s$%t..... I thought it was strange the 19 would be so quick compared to the 2nd gen as we are talking about less horsepower with more torque with the 2.0T. It seems like a bit of wishful thinking the new motor would produce almost a second quicker 0-60 times (5.7 sec vs 6.5 sec) runs with such a small power advantage. I am sure this will set off a few arguments with the "40% more torque" figures thrown around a few months ago.
The 2.0T not only makes full torque just off idle, it also has the 10 speed auto and superior AWD system to better put down the torque. It's wishful thinking to assume a basically 20 year old engine is going to be as good as a brand new engine with new technologies just because it makes a handful more horsepower.
C/D is not the trusted automotive source it once was. They're bias comes through in their reviews, sometimes sickeningly so. But one thing I rarely question is their official performance test results. Which make me wonder:
Was this particular test sample down on power?
Were early testers 'juiced', as was common once upon a time?
Has Acura made a running change to the ECU and/or shift logic, possibly to smooth out the rough shift criticism?
Regardless, I'm inclined to believe the numbers are accurate. 0-60 numbers mean little to me anyway since brake-torque launches just don't happen in the real world. 5-60 and 50-70 are the numbers I tend to focus on, along with seat-of-the-pants feel.
Was this particular test sample down on power?
Were early testers 'juiced', as was common once upon a time?
Has Acura made a running change to the ECU and/or shift logic, possibly to smooth out the rough shift criticism?
Regardless, I'm inclined to believe the numbers are accurate. 0-60 numbers mean little to me anyway since brake-torque launches just don't happen in the real world. 5-60 and 50-70 are the numbers I tend to focus on, along with seat-of-the-pants feel.
With all that said, I am ok with 6.6 even and exactly, nobody should be out here pulling 0-60 runs on a regular basis. For me it's all about that mid-range passing power.
08-26-2018, 08:12 PM
#20
Team Owner
The amount of transmission gears alone should make it faster. More gears = closer gear ratios = faster acceleration through each gear, albeit a lower top end speed for each gear. But since there is ten gears... it can still haul at a good top end speed. Generally car companies make the final gear much taller, just for highway cruising purposes at lower rpm. Plus, who needs to drive an RDX at 120+ mph anyway. That’s just asking for trouble.
08-26-2018, 08:43 PM
#21
Drifting
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: New Yorkie, Hudson Valley
Posts: 3,001
Received 1,024 Likes
on
714 Posts
What stood out to me was the complete silence about the large difference in the CD numbers from the other numbers out there. If, indeed, Acura was saying, say 5.8, and Alex was saying 5.7 or .9, and somebody else was saying 6.0, for CD to go over 6.5 calls for some explanation. But there was none.
08-26-2018, 09:41 PM
#22
Actually, I meant juicing the cars in the press fleet. It’s been known to happen, and it’s simple to do with modern turbos. It’s the reason Consumer Reports buys their cars rather than using vehicles from the test fleet. Speaking of which, I wonder if CR has published a 0-60 time for the RDX yet?
08-27-2018, 02:45 AM
#23
What stood out to me was the complete silence about the large difference in the CD numbers from the other numbers out there. If, indeed, Acura was saying, say 5.8, and Alex was saying 5.7 or .9, and somebody else was saying 6.0, for CD to go over 6.5 calls for some explanation. But there was none.
Actually, I meant juicing the cars in the press fleet. It’s been known to happen, and it’s simple to do with modern turbos. It’s the reason Consumer Reports buys their cars rather than using vehicles from the test fleet. Speaking of which, I wonder if CR has published a 0-60 time for the RDX yet?
You're telling me that this 2019 RDX with DI and much more improved turbo and 10 speed auto is slower than my archaic 2007 RDX with a 5 speed and much lower power ratings? That is why I call B.S.
08-27-2018, 06:45 AM
#24
Intermediate
I do agree on the part about the tires and brakes. Still have no clue why the A-Spec is outfitted with Goodyear Eagle RS-A's as they are absolutely terrible (other than cost), and I really think that if the vehicle was even outfitted with one of the higher rated AS tires (Continental DWS06 or Micheline PS AS3+) it would be a night and day difference. The stock brake pads isn't anything special either, and I know mine personally squeals a little every time I drive my car for the first few stops until I wear down whatever compound/rust has built up on the rotors. Again nothing that a new set of pads can't solve, or drilled/slotted rotors if you really want to go all in. If Hondata ever comes out with a tune for this car, that will be high on my list. I think the stock brake setup is barely adequate for this vehicle.
08-27-2018, 08:46 AM
#25
08-27-2018, 09:00 AM
#26
Burning Brakes
08-27-2018, 05:19 PM
#30
8th Gear
Join Date: Mar 2016
Age: 39
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly what I thought, there was no screeching as you hit the pedal (the camera near the wheels didnt hint at any). He is probably not making use of the very tall first gear which would have significantly affected 0-30 mph. Alex on Autos expected a 0.2-0.3 sec difference in 0-60 from his first drive at Whistler (higher altitude??) to his own backyard in California and he did seem to observe that.
I am thinking hard why Acura would modify the powertrain significantly to moderately improve gas mileage, emphasize more on precision crafted performance (engine performance curves also suggest improved performance, power to weight ratio makes sense), yet on their final test drive find that it runs slower to 60 than its predecessor. Blame it on fuel quality/ altitude/ driving style.
Can one of you guys here upload a 0-60 mph after your breaking-in period? I dont have a 2019 RDX yet.
I am thinking hard why Acura would modify the powertrain significantly to moderately improve gas mileage, emphasize more on precision crafted performance (engine performance curves also suggest improved performance, power to weight ratio makes sense), yet on their final test drive find that it runs slower to 60 than its predecessor. Blame it on fuel quality/ altitude/ driving style.
Can one of you guys here upload a 0-60 mph after your breaking-in period? I dont have a 2019 RDX yet.
08-27-2018, 06:01 PM
#31
Exactly what I thought, there was no screeching as you hit the pedal (the camera near the wheels didnt hint at any). He is probably not making use of the very tall first gear which would have significantly affected 0-30 mph. Alex on Autos expected a 0.2-0.3 sec difference in 0-60 from his first drive at Whistler (higher altitude??) to his own backyard in California and he did seem to observe that.
I am thinking hard why Acura would modify the powertrain significantly to moderately improve gas mileage, emphasize more on precision crafted performance (engine performance curves also suggest improved performance, power to weight ratio makes sense), yet on their final test drive find that it runs slower to 60 than its predecessor. Blame it on fuel quality/ altitude/ driving style.
Can one of you guys here upload a 0-60 mph after your breaking-in period? I dont have a 2019 RDX yet.
I am thinking hard why Acura would modify the powertrain significantly to moderately improve gas mileage, emphasize more on precision crafted performance (engine performance curves also suggest improved performance, power to weight ratio makes sense), yet on their final test drive find that it runs slower to 60 than its predecessor. Blame it on fuel quality/ altitude/ driving style.
Can one of you guys here upload a 0-60 mph after your breaking-in period? I dont have a 2019 RDX yet.
08-27-2018, 06:18 PM
#32
Drifting
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: New Yorkie, Hudson Valley
Posts: 3,001
Received 1,024 Likes
on
714 Posts
I don’t street race. Butt my scientifically calibrated but dyno puts it 6.0 or less. Comparing it to my 535 that hit 60 before the timer hit 6 seconds.
Scientifically Calibrated, mind you.
Scientifically Calibrated, mind you.
08-27-2018, 06:31 PM
#33
08-27-2018, 10:04 PM
#34
C&D generally has the fastest 0-60 times because they do the 1 foot rollout and are more than happy to brake torque or hard launch whatever they have their hands on (see Civic Type R which they got a 4.9 versus mid-5s for everyone else, the ND Miata which they got under 6s compared to mid 6s). The power to weight ratio on the RDX doesn't add up in this case as the Q5 and X3 are the closest to it and are in the high 5's. Either the calibration on the SH-AWD is not launch friendly (eg. bogs on launch) or this particular car was a bit short on horses. I'd wait till C&D does the inevitable comparo of the class leaders and see what comes up.
The performance numbers (braking and lateral G) are disappointing but should surprise no one - the tires on the car are SHIT and Honda brakes have never been anything to write home about (they are also generally shit).
The performance numbers (braking and lateral G) are disappointing but should surprise no one - the tires on the car are SHIT and Honda brakes have never been anything to write home about (they are also generally shit).
08-28-2018, 07:30 AM
#36
Burning Brakes
That's true once the turbo spools up but until then it functions as a NA engine. Nit picking a bit maybe but in that video the delay is obvious after the initial application of the throttle (my guesstimate is 2-3 seconds). If he had done a bit of torque braking to get the RPMs up the results would have been measurably different, and I'm sure the same test at 100 feet elevation would be different as well.
08-28-2018, 02:43 PM
#37
Though I’ve not attempted to time the vehicle from 0-60 in comparison to my 2018 TLX A-Spec the RDX feels faster. I don’t usually challange at stop lights, but the other day had a 330i try to throw sand in my face in that way some BMW drivers like to do. At the next light caught his as sleeping and laid the hammer on him. He was quite surprised. I’m running on Conti DSW’s so that might have helped a bit.
08-28-2018, 04:08 PM
#40
4th Gear
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts