Topic: First Drive: 2019 Acura RDX

[dirtyjeffer]

Not just 30% but $16,000 odd MSRP.  Might have to in n estimate this one to see if there are any miles on it.
https://www.alpinebuickgmc.com/VehicleDetails/new-2018-Buick-Envision-AWD_4dr_Premium_II-Denver-CO/3128190163

just wait until the tariffs start applying to Chinese goods...that vehicle will be $12k ABOVE MSRP.

[SearhardBurger]

Saw one of these on the road today.  Looked great in dark blue.

[johngenx]

My SIL arrived at the trailhead for our mountaineering trip in her new white RDX, and it's quite sharp despite the everyone-in-the-world-has-white colour choice.  The nicest RDX yet, by far.

[z973]

From car and driver
2019 Acura RDX A-Spec Delivers Value, Not Speed
Don't be fooled by its slick looks.

Highs


Good-looking body, first-rate engine, well-finished interior.


Lows


Touchpad tribulations, stiff ride, lethargic transmission.

[ChaosphereIX]

A o otherwise fine for the s uburban wives across t he land

and why would you expect, or want, more

perfectly competent and should be reliable. Not every vehicle has to aspire to be a 'Ring champion.

[johngenx]

My SIL grinds it out in Vancouver traffic, so no handling demon needed.  I'm starting to see quite a few around.

[NormT]

From car and driver
2019 Acura RDX A-Spec Delivers Value, Not Speed
Don't be fooled by its slick looks.

Highs


Good-looking body, first-rate engine, well-finished interior.


Lows


Touchpad tribulations, stiff ride, lethargic transmission.

Car & Driver just tested the 2019 RDX 2.0T and it was almost a half second slower to 60 mph than the 2018 RDX V6.

[Ex-airbalancer]

From car and driver
2019 Acura RDX A-Spec Delivers Value, Not Speed
Don't be fooled by its slick looks.

Highs


Good-looking body, first-rate engine, well-finished interior.


Lows


Touchpad tribulations, stiff ride, lethargic transmission.

Car & Driver just tested the 2019 RDX 2.0T and it was almost a half second slower to 60 mph than the 2018 RDX V6.

1/2 sec is only important in a race not everyday driving 

[ktm525]

Once upon a time Honda didn't make anything more than 4 cylinders and it took them a long time to finally put a V6 in the Accord. You could argue going to 4 cylinder is going back to their roots. The turbo on the other hand... I think 4 cylinder is fine in this thing. One thing that is mystifying in this category is the stiff ride (looking at you Volvo). Why? Are manufacturers having to up the spring rate to compensate for the higher center of gravity of CUVs?  I would think a plush ride would have more appeal to the unwashed masses.

[ChaosphereIX]

Once upon a time Honda didn't make anything more than 4 cylinders and it took them a long time to finally out a V6 in the Accord. You could argue going to 4 cylinder is going back to their roots. The turbo on the other hand... I think 4 cylinder is fine in this thing. One thing that is mystifying in this category is the stiff ride (looking at you Volvo). Why? Are manufacturers having to up the spring rate to compensate for the higher center of gravity of CUVs?  I would think a plush ride would have more appeal to the unwashed masses.

harsh ride is counteract physics - cant be plush and have good driving dynamics unless you are McLaren

if it doesnt "handle well" it would be lambasted by the journos etc. for being a poor handler...and that is not good when all the others are touting their handling etc. even in a segment where it doesnt matter

[z973]

the problem with this generation Acura is you have to go to the Platinum elite to get adjustable suspention
the Aspec rides on 20in with low profile tires
my friend used to have the last generation one and in winter it was very harsh in very cold weather all the problem with the gas filled springs and acura couldn't do anything

[ktm525]

Once upon a time Honda didn't make anything more than 4 cylinders and it took them a long time to finally out a V6 in the Accord. You could argue going to 4 cylinder is going back to their roots. The turbo on the other hand... I think 4 cylinder is fine in this thing. One thing that is mystifying in this category is the stiff ride (looking at you Volvo). Why? Are manufacturers having to up the spring rate to compensate for the higher center of gravity of CUVs?  I would think a plush ride would have more appeal to the unwashed masses.

harsh ride is counteract physics - cant be plush and have good driving dynamics unless you are McLaren

if it doesnt "handle well" it would be lambasted by the journos etc. for being a poor handler...and that is not good when all the others are touting their handling etc. even in a segment where it doesnt matter

Audi does a fairly good job in this class with the handling/ride balance. The steering is still Audi numb though.

[carcrazed]

I see a lot of these on the road now. The dark blue A-Spec would be my pick.

[OliverD]

Once upon a time Honda didn't make anything more than 4 cylinders and it took them a long time to finally put a V6 in the Accord. You could argue going to 4 cylinder is going back to their roots. The turbo on the other hand... I think 4 cylinder is fine in this thing. One thing that is mystifying in this category is the stiff ride (looking at you Volvo). Why? Are manufacturers having to up the spring rate to compensate for the higher center of gravity of CUVs?  I would think a plush ride would have more appeal to the unwashed masses.

Yeah, they didn't put a V6 into the Accord until 1995. Oddly, even though it had just been redesigned the previous year, they had to stretch the nose of the Accord by a couple inches to fit the V6. That Accord V6 could be distinguished from the 4 cylinder models by its chrome grille.

I have no idea how I remember these things. 

[NormT]

I like the looks, but I’m still in the camp preferring a V6.  Ah well.

The cargo capacity numbers as listed need to be checked.They’re much too high.

Just went back to double check the media information provided from Acura on this point.  Here's what they've said:


Cargo Volume Standard / Max:  835 / 881 L
2nd Row Folded down / Incl. Underfloor storage:  1668 / 2260 L

The 2260l with rear seats down and under floor include rear seat footwell area.   You have got to watch Acura with their cargo numbers as they like to stretch them as far as they can.  That is 79 cu ft is CR-V size.  These numbers do not compare with the rest of the industry as most are around 60 cu ft with no measurement of under floor and foot well area.

Autoblog did the same thing quoting the press release and not many publication.

"...Those dimensions can be manipulated by seat positioning, storage nooks and more. The Acura example illustrates this: The old MDX was measured using the 2002 version of J1100, said a former Honda representative who asked not to be named. (Acura is Honda's luxury division.) The redesign was measured using the 2009 version. If you measure the new MDX using the same method as its predecessor, its cargo room falls to roughly 75 cubic feet from 83.5, the spokesman said; measure it with the 2009 revision and the number falls to 68.4...."

https://www.cars.com/articles/2014/03/why-cargo-specs-can-stretch-the-truth/

[DriverJeff]

I like the looks, but I’m still in the camp preferring a V6.  Ah well.

The cargo capacity numbers as listed need to be checked.They’re much too high.

Just went back to double check the media information provided from Acura on this point.  Here's what they've said:


Cargo Volume Standard / Max:  835 / 881 L
2nd Row Folded down / Incl. Underfloor storage:  1668 / 2260 L

The 2260l with rear seats down and under floor include rear seat footwell area.   You have got to watch Acura with their cargo numbers as they like to stretch them as far as they can.  That is 79 cu ft is CR-V size.  These numbers do not compare with the rest of the industry as most are around 60 cu ft with no measurement of under floor and foot well area.

Autoblog did the same thing quoting the press release and not many publication.

"...Those dimensions can be manipulated by seat positioning, storage nooks and more. The Acura example illustrates this: The old MDX was measured using the 2002 version of J1100, said a former Honda representative who asked not to be named. (Acura is Honda's luxury division.) The redesign was measured using the 2009 version. If you measure the new MDX using the same method as its predecessor, its cargo room falls to roughly 75 cubic feet from 83.5, the spokesman said; measure it with the 2009 revision and the number falls to 68.4...."

https://www.cars.com/articles/2014/03/why-cargo-specs-can-stretch-the-truth/

Interesting...   

[johngenx]

The Gen 1 Highlander is listed as 1100L of cargo space behind the second row and I've had it sitting next to a 2019 RDX, and it's significantly larger than the Acura.

[quadzilla]

The Gen 1 Highlander is listed as 1100L of cargo

Something to be said about square vs sloped corners.

Sent from my SM-T230NU using Tapatalk

[RoadRageous]

Once upon a time Honda didn't make anything more than 4 cylinders and it took them a long time to finally put a V6 in the Accord. You could argue going to 4 cylinder is going back to their roots.

I remember that change. I think it was the 3.0l V6 that they used, and I recall the line from Honda's reps was that it didn't markedly change performance, but the two extra cylanders were necessary to compete as a prestige upgrade.

[rrocket]

Needless to say, we pick up the RDX on Saturday.

Nice!!

Congrats!