gizzard

We've had a 2019 Tech SH-AWD for three weeks. As background, we upgraded from a 2006 Honda Civic because we needed more room for rear facing car seats, a higher exit / entry position, and more cargo room, and the Civic was aging. The RDX won out over the 2018 BMW X3 and 2018 Volvo XC60.

The Good:

1. The RDX has great handling on throttle. The hype behind the SH-AWD is well deserved. There is some body roll and I suspect the reviewers claiming great chassis dynamics are driving the Advance model with adaptive dampers. That being said, for an SUV even the standard suspension is good. Off throttle, I don't think it handles any differently than the BMW X3, and both are better than the other contenders in the class.
2. Interior quality is awesome. There is plenty of room everywhere and the materials are very high quality. The steering wheel dial controls have great tactile feedback.
3. I really like the keyless entry system. Simply putting your finger on the handle to lock the doors is great.
4. I have mixed feelings on the infotainment, but overall it belongs in the good category. The touch pad is not that hard to get used to. The display is crisp and easy to read. The 3D navigation display is placed just right and displays useful information. The system plays FLACs off of a USB without issue. But, the responsiveness of the infotainment is a little slow. There is a beat between pushing the touch pad and getting a response. It gets better the longer the car is on, making it likely that the system is not fully booted up at first. It still takes a while to switch content from the main screen to the small one. My USB stick was stuck on "Initializing" once and it rectified itself after I removed and reinserted it. The volume control seems to need re-calibration, but I suppose this will depend on the audio source. There is no way I could handle 50% on the volume rocker without ear plugs, most of the time I am listening at just 2 or 3 clicks up from mute.
5. Over time, I have grown to like the LDW system and FCW system. I tried using the ACC / LKAS in our traffic and found the braking was abrupt and harsh and it allowed too much space between our car and the one ahead (enough to allow other cars to dart in!), even at the closest setting.

Minor Gripes:

1. The parking sensors are generally useful, but I wish you could customize the distances that generate each level of alarm. I often need to get as close as ~4 inches to bystanding cars, and IIRC the continuous tone starts at around 12". I suppose the problem is that when an obstacle is 4" from the physical sensor, the bumper itself might be closer than that already. The more I have driven it though, the less I have needed to rely on the sensors, since the side mirrors are gigantic and the rear camera is pretty good.
2. For the climate control, I wish you could limit the maximum fan speed when the system is set to Auto. The fan is just so loud at full blast. Also, there are times the cabin feels stuffy but I can't seem to set the temperature and fan speed to compensate without making it too cold in the front.

The Bad:

1. In 95% city / 5% highway traffic, we are averaging ~16.5 MPG in Comfort mode, mostly in 85+ degrees F weather. We are just over 500 miles total and I have filled up with premium twice and confirmed this number manually. I honestly think the MPG is related to the transmission behavior (see below). There is a chance the engine needs to be "broken in," so we'll see what happens over the next 500 miles. I should point out that my definition of "city" is a dense northeastern city where our average commute speed is usually as bad as 10 mph. I am not sure how the EPA defines "city" or what type of traffic it models when generating their estimates.
2. The traffic in the navigation system is sourced from HD radio (I believe), and not as accurate as Google Maps. This is probably not a surprise to anyone. The problem is the displayed estimated time of arrival does not take traffic into consideration, and I don't think the system selects routes based on traffic either.

The Ugly:

1. In its current state, the transmission is not good at all. In Comfort mode, you shift out of first at < 5 mph - it is very similar to the early shifting of a tractor-trailor. If you accelerate continuously from 0 to 60, like you would on an open road with no other traffic, there are only hesitations at shifts between 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 for the most part. Because we are in stop-and-go traffic almost 95% of the time, usually we cannot continuously accelerate - many times I have to let off on the throttle a bit, then speed up again, then slow, etc. The transmission cannot handle this pattern of driving. It sometimes hunts for gears or holds to a gear much longer than necessary. On one instance, I was in 2nd at 4000 RPM slowly accelerating from ~15 to 25 mph, and it just hung there. On several instances, there was quite a delay in 20-40 type acceleration when merging / changing lanes, and not just in down-shifting speed; the throttle response just seemed to lag the demand for power.

Both the X3 and XC60 have 8 speed automatics and are much smoother shifting when accelerating from 0 to 40 in city-type, stop-and-go traffic. There is absolutely no comparison here. I know this is an Acura forum, but honestly, anyone who claims the RDX shifts just as smoothly as these other cars is probably suffering from confirmation bias. The character of the RDX's transmission was clear to me on a short test drive, but ultimately the RDX won out over the other options for other reasons. You can know if you will tolerate this transmission in five minutes of driving - just do it in traffic.

MI-RDX

Yeah, your city driving appears to be worse than what the EPA considers 'city'. Here's a link to the testing criteria - go to the last tab for a summary table.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

The RDX definitely likes to be driven with a more aggressive throttle input, and when driven that way drives well - stop and go is not what it was designed for.

I used to have the same issues with my Cadillac SRX. I was able to mitigate it a bit by using ECO mode which affected both throttle response and shift points.

I've played a bit with the 'Snow' mode and noticed some of the same characteristics as the SRX in ECO mode so maybe using that in the extreme stop-and-go traffic might smooth things out a bit.

A new car is always a learning experience and I'm still adapting my driving every time I get into it, and will probably keep doing that for a few months.

gizzard

Interesting, thanks for the link. While I don't disagree with your statement that this car likes a more aggressive throttle input, my experience has been that even in times of aggressive throttle input (like during a 20 to 40 or 30 to 50 acceleration for merging), the response can be more laggy than expected. Perhaps as you say driving a new car will be a learning experience, in particular with how a turbocharged engine responds vs natural aspiration. If true, it surprises me a bit that Acura did not at least consider stop and go traffic when designing the transmission. The vehicles they consider competitors (Q5, XC60, X3, GLC300) are all marketed towards a more broad audience than the hard-driving, enthusiast type.

TLMDXRDX

I agree with you that the city MPG is not up to what was advertised (21 MPG) city and for my first thousand miles I was in comfort mode and had 75% city driving and got only 19.7 MPG. I am on my second thousand and switched to Sport mode per a suggestion from someone else, and this seems to align better with my driving pattern and I am getting over 20 MPGs now (20.3). I still have 600 miles to go to round out the 2nd thousand milestone and will report back, but you might want to consider sport mode for MPG and for your driving habits as they sound like mine. I noticed in comfort mode there were some early delays in shifts between gears and called the dealer and they said the car is trying to learn your driving behavior. For me, the slow shifts still happen occasionally (maybe 5% of the time now) and it's annoying, but not enough to take away from a homerun of a vehicle for Acura.

mrblase

After driving 2,500 miles on my Advance 2019 RDX and using regular gas for 3 tanks I'm convinced that premium fuel is essential to improved mileage and performance especially in reducing the turbo lag at low speed when driving in slow traffic situations where you are constantly using the lowest 3 gears. These lower gears are meant to let the vehicle accelerate quickly and let the turbo spool up quickly as well. In stop and go situations the turbo is never able to stay on boost, which I feel results in the substandard shifting that we are experiencing in slow traffic situations. Less gear ratios in the lower range (1st through 3rd) would keep the turbo on boost and improve the slow speed driving dynamic. I've owned 3 other turbo engine cars over the years and the RDX has less lag than any of the other but it does have lag. To be fair every competitive vehicle that I test drove with a 2 liter turbo had turbo lag also but some masked or handled it better by having less gears or in the case of the Infiniti a CVT transmission.

When I considered all the pro's and con's of this group of vehicles they always had some compromise, but the 2019 RDX was the clear winner and I don't regret my purchase at all.

Sounds

Did you test it with a tank or 2 of premium fuel to compare?

mrblase

Yes I switched to premium for the last couple of tanks and the difference was very pronounced, which is why I made that statement. My mileage has increased on the same driving route by 2.5 to 4 MPG and the acceleration if noticeably better as well. On a highway trip the best I mileage I could get on regular was between 24 or 25 MPG. With premium I almost got 30 MPG

I buy my gas at Costco and the extra 25 cents is worth it for the improvement in driving performance.

Sounds

Okay, thank you.

fr4c

One thing I've noticed with this engine, and it could be placebo, is that it seems to prefer 93 grade from stations like Sunoco and Shell. I'm not getting the same level of responsiveness and acceleration running on Costco's 93. Technically they are all considered "Top-Tier", but I personally know my wife's WRX drives better with non-Costco gas.

#buttdyno

Sounds

I had forgotten about having to pay extra for Premium gas. Truth is I'd much rather be able to get away with Regular gas. (I'm coming from a Honda Pilot and never had to think about it before.)

gizzard

Yes, when the current tank is up I will drive in Sport exclusively for the next tank and report any changes. I suspect that with each tank the MPG should very slightly improve with engine break-in, but perhaps the drive mode is making a bigger impact.

I thought of this also. Both tanks have been premium, but the first was Wawa (technically not top-tier though they claim to add detergent) at 92 octane IIRC and the second was Valero (top-tier, 93 octane IIRC). To simplify things moving forward I might just stick to the Exxon close by.

MI-RDX

At that price it's a no-brainer decision - but I'm dealing with 60 to 70 cent differential, effectively just blowing money out the tailpipe with very minimal benefit.

Madd Dog

Sounds

Exactly. Same here. I'd rather use regular non-premium gas if I can. My wife uses regular in her Acura TSX and has no issues at all. Question: how much impact would SH-AWD vs FWD have on regular vs premium gas?

Sounds

Do you have SH-AWD or FWD ?

Madd Dog

MI-RDX

None - same engine, same trans.

FWIW at about 750 miles so far I'm getting 23.2MPG on the trip meter (which measures fuel usage much more accurately than I can) using a mix of comfort and sport, about 250 miles were highway the rest urban/suburban. I've only put in Shell regular after burning whatever the dealer put in.

Sounds

I was kinda thinking the same thing. To go with Premium gas "as needed", but use Regular by default.

Sounds

Good to know. Thanks. I'm also on the fence about SH-AWD vs FWD since I live in Florida where it's completely flat, has mostly straight non-curved roads, and never ever snows. If getting SH-AWD means I'd *have to* use Premium gas, I'd go with FWD. If not, I'm back on the fence.

Madd Dog

Sounds

Gotcha. Thanks. I think I'll start a separate thread about the AWD thing, I'm curious to know what others think about this. Thanks again.

Tom2

The difference in real world performance with premium fuel is negligible.

FlopMeister

with turbo motors, you should be using premium fuel all the time. In fact, the manual says only premium. It's not good for a turbo motor to run on regular. They will "knock" which is really bad for the internals of the motor.

Madd Dog

This engine is virtually the same as the one in the new Accord, and that calls for regular.

MI-RDX

Sorry but for the '19 that's not the case. Manual states premium is recommended but 87 is fine. This is the inside of the fuel door:

DrWoo

I’ve been running on 87, but I’m curious, does anyone actually have 91 available where they live? Every station I stop at has 87, 89, and 93. Does Acura expect you to mix grades, or do some places actually carry 91?

Madd Dog

Jerzy

I just made 4400 mile trip Chicago-Utah-Chicago and got overall 25.8 mpg on premium gas. Transmission is wonderful, but it was a little jittery in the first 5k miles. It jerked between lower gears (I think 2-3) when accelerating slowly. Now it has 12k miles and it is very smooth. Engine is not exactly the same as the one on Accord - tuned differently (Accord has lower horsepower). The fact that engine can use 87 octane gas doesn't mean it is as good for the car as 91. Factory recommends 91 octane for a reason. Operation of direct injected engine is very complicated and higher octane gas (slower burning) is always beneficial. I calculated that while driving 10k miles a year at about 22mpg car will use 455 gallons of gas. Assuming difference of about $0.7 between regular and premium it costs me 455x0.7 = 319 dollars a year. I think it is worth it, not to mention that car will get slightly better millage with premium gas. Any modern engine with antiknock sensor will run on 87 octane by adjusting engine timing but it doesn't mean it is the best for the engine. I plan to keep this car for a while.