I just rode test the new RDX

[bluewho25]

Guys I just rode test the new RDX this afternoon, I know it is not the same as the 2007 CRV but, since it will share the same platform and it have about the same size, I figured let me drive one.

First of all, it is so much smaller and lower and the cargo space it is so small too.
As soon as I parked next to it and got out of my car at the Acura dealership, I seen a black one and a silver one. I was so shock since I was viewing the rear end of both cars. They look so small.
Who ever started the rumors about the new CRV looking a lot like the Matrix was right, the car it is so low comparing to the current CRV.
I rode test the RDX with the navigation price at $37K and let me say this, there is nothing to brag about it.
The car looks and feels wider than the current CRV, the front and rear seats were comfortable and roomier. When I went to secured my three year old child seat, the TOP LATCH Tether Anchor was nowhere to be found, I am serius, it's just not there. I cannot believe that it wasn't there. Don't forget I owned a 2004 and a 2005 CRVs and both models had it.
The drive you may ask, while seated in it, I felt just a little higher than my current 2006 Accord, not much of a difference.
And the stupid voice on the Navigation was so fricking dumb and worse, I couldn't shut it off.
The seats are comfortable and roomier but, when I fold down the second row, it didn't go flat all the way.
From the end of the rear bumper to the back of the front seat, it looked so short in distance.
And the cargo space did remind me of the back of the Nissan Murano, but much smaller, really, really smaller.
On ground clearance, I know that it will be different that the CRV but it was low, about 5".
I know we are waiting for the new CRV but I will never pay $37K for the DRX, I rather get the Pilot EX-L since both will use about the same gas (Pilot=17 city and RDX=19 city) but the RDX requires premiun gas.
So, since it does have about the same exterior size as the new 2007 CRV, I am tottaly dissapointed.
After the ride test, I drove over the Toyota dealership with my family and got into a RAV4 Sport. I figured I wanted my wife to seat in it, since we just drove the RDX. And even my wife was so dissapointed about the size of the RDX compared to the RAV4. The fricking RAV4's cargo space is bigger and on the floor, it has comparments, so there is more room under the floor.
Finnally, we will wait to see the new CRV in person. I am sure the new CRV will look nicer inside but overall, WE ARE SO DISSAPOINTED since I love Hondas.

Honda, what were you thinking?
SORRY GUYS.

Let me know what you guys think.

EL GUAPO

[Robert]

I am surprised that the new RDX is only rated at 19 city and 23 highway. I am also surprised that it weighs just about 4,000 lbs and only tows 1500 lbs. The Pilot is rated at 17/22 mpg and uses regular fuel.

[lotatimmy]

how was the turbo powerplant?

-Tim

[captain0127]

With the new CRV being smaller does that transform into better gas mileage?

[bluewho25]

how was the turbo powerplant?

-Tim

The Turbo power was good but, since it comes from a I4 it drives like a supercharged engine. I owned a 1998 Buick Regal GS (supercharged) and the power was good to. I will prefer a V8 like my 1988 Chevy Monte Carlo SS with a 350 engine. Man I loved that car, the torque was there from the second you press on the gas compared to the supercharged cars, when the RDX takes off, especially under 2RPM the car drives and feels like my 2006 Honda Accord I4. But I felt the power kicking in as soon as I reach the 4 or 5 RPM, the 240 HP were there in a heart beat.

[bluewho25]

With the new CRV being smaller does that transform into better gas mileage?

Man, at this point how much better gas milieage? 23 or 24 MPG?
Who cares, the thing is so small.

[bluewho25]

I am surprised that the new RDX is only rated at 19 city and 23 highway. I am also surprised that it weighs just about 4,000 lbs and only tows 1500 lbs. The Pilot is rated at 17/22 mpg and uses regular fuel.

I tell you, today I am more confused. I wish I took the RDX to the local Toyota and parked next to the Matrix and took a picture of it so you guys can see what I mean when I say small car.
I gotta tell you but the new 2007 Element looks good now, too bad Honda will redesing it in 2008.
Even my wife was asking the question, why Honda went smaller instead of keeping the same size as the second generation?
Even the Rav4 is looking better (even thought Toyota sucks)
I may just keep my 2006 Honda Accord and get a Silver 2002 Nissan Xterra, just to have an SUV for the winter days.
Man, I am just talking S#hit.
To beging with, I was really hesitate about the size of our first 2004 CRV, and now I feel like the CRV will be a Mickey Mouse Car.

By the way while I driving the RDX, no one was stering at it, I drove it for about an hour in and out of traffic. The RDX was not an eye catcher.

[sleeksilver]

With the new CRV being smaller does that transform into better gas mileage?

Man, at this point how much better gas milieage? 23 or 24 MPG?
Who cares, the thing is so small.

Dude, turbo motors aren't as efficient as regular powerplants.... Don't worry it will be considerably better :)

I am surprised that the new RDX is only rated at 19 city and 23 highway. I am also surprised that it weighs just about 4,000 lbs and only tows 1500 lbs. The Pilot is rated at 17/22 mpg and uses regular fuel.

It is still based off of the RDX so of course it's not going to be a towing monster. I'm sure that rating is still for without trailer brakes.... 3000 pounds with brakes :)


Bluewho25- You can turn off the nav voice very easily. The RDX is in a different class than the Pilot, and has a different target audience. It's not a normal comparison. It might be for you, because you have a family. I thought interior room in the CRV was supposed to go up? Maybe it's just smaller inside in RDX trim due to luxury trimmings and whatnot.

Anyway, I'll go test drive the new RDX just to see what it's all about.

[msfit32]

Shewwww.....I feel so much better now that I know that a 'luxury' vehicle ain't nothin' to be pining for! :lol:

I sometimes wonder if I am missing anything, because I never have and prob. never will own any kind of 'luxury' or high-end vehicle purely because I am too darn stubborn to pay that kind of $$$$ for a (rapidly) depreciating object....(I instead get the urge to 'trade up' my house every 2-7 years or so :wink: )

I do wonder if the ride is more pleasurable....as in quietness, smoothness, comfortable seating etc......?

[bing]

IMO, luxury vehicles are over rated by today's standards. Sure, they have fancier equipment and boasts the latest electronics, but at the end of the day, the extra premium paid is hard to justify. However, if money is no object, then by all means get one.

Okay, back to real life situations. The 2007 Acura RDX comes with the tether hooked and looped behind the seat (like the Odyssey). I agree that it is smaller and Acura is pitching it towards the double income, no kids (DINK), male demographic between 25-36. They want guys who appreciate technology, have extra money to spend, wants the reliability of "Honda", and power to compete against the European makes. Towing isn't a concern because urban dwealers don't usually own trailers!

The vehicle is indeed small and Bluewho25 is correct that it doesn't really turn heads. The LR3, X3, etc do exude more presence. At $37K, it's pricey and we'll have to see how the public response to this during fears of $5 per gallon gas and a loosing home equity values.

At the end of the day, I think there is a market for the RDX. It might be small to begin and only time can tell.

Bing

[Dave92029]

First of all, it is so much smaller and lower and the cargo space it is so small too.

I rode test the RDX with the navigation price at $37K and let me say this, there is nothing to brag about it.
The car looks and feels wider than the current CRV, the front and rear seats were comfortable and roomier.
The seats are comfortable and roomier but, when I fold down the second row, it didn't go flat all the way.
From the end of the rear bumper to the back of the front seat, it looked so short in distance.
And the cargo space did remind me of the back of the Nissan Murano, but much smaller, really, really smaller.
On ground clearance, I know that it will be different that the CRV but it was low, about 5".
I know we are waiting for the new CRV but I will never pay $37K for the DRX, I rather get the Pilot EX-L since both will use about the same gas (Pilot=17 city and RDX=19 city) but the RDX requires premiun gas.
So, since it does have about the same exterior size as the new 2007 CRV, I am tottaly dissapointed.
After the ride test, I drove over the Toyota dealership with my family and got into a RAV4 Sport. I figured I wanted my wife to seat in it, since we just drove the RDX. And even my wife was so dissapointed about the size of the RDX compared to the RAV4. The fricking RAV4's cargo space is bigger and on the floor, it has comparments, so there is more room under the floor.
Finnally, we will wait to see the new CRV in person. I am sure the new CRV will look nicer inside but overall, WE ARE SO DISSAPOINTED since I love Hondas.

Honda, what were you thinking?
SORRY GUYS.

Let me know what you guys think.

EL GUAPO





Wow! I was at the Acura dealer yesterday and I also sat in a new RDX. The Honda dealer sent me there to get a sense about the CR-V size.

I was sursprised at how large it appeared to me. There is no spare tire hanging off the back (thankfully).

It may have been the 18' wheels, but I thought the RDX looked very substantial. The fit and finish of the interior is so much plusher than a CR-V that you really should not try to compare the two. The CR-V is even close to the RDX's interior finish.
I also love the smell of new car leather and this baby had lots of leather, HID lights and lots of other up scale goodies. I was very favorably impressed. I thought it was a beautiful SUV. I'm looking forward to Oct. 1 to see the CR-V.

[chiph]

But can you get a mountain bike in the back?

Without the rear spare, you'd either have to toss it in the cargo area (probably needing to pull the front wheel off), or get the hitch (if there is one available, even) and hang it off that.

Chip H.

[bing]

The current CR-V has more interior space than the 2007 Acura RDX. Here's a photo showing with one golf bag. The CR-V can fit a couple more.

http://www.rdxdrivers.com/images/x3/rdx_2007_cargo.jpg

I don't think you can fit a mountain bike back there unless you remove the front wheels. The rear cargo area is higher than the rest of the vehicle (it actually bows upwards back there) but it's much tighter than the CR-V.

The fit and finish is indeed very good. I was told it doesn't have a auto rear dimming mirror...hmmn, why skim on such conveniences?

Bing

[bluewho25]

The current CR-V has more interior space than the 2007 Acura RDX.

I don't think you can fit a mountain bike back there unless you remove the front wheels. The rear cargo area is higher than the rest of the vehicle (it actually bows upwards back there) but it's much tighter than the CR-V.

The fit and finish is indeed very good. I was told it doesn't have a auto rear dimming mirror...hmmn, why skim on such conveniences?

Bing

Bing, the new RDX doesn't have a auto rear dimming mirror.

I also mentioned in a previous post that I wish I had taking the RDX (I rode test it for about an hour) next to a Toyota MAtrix and take pictures of it. It is just a little bit biger.

The following info is from vehix.com

Exterior Dimensions

RDX
Wheelbase (in)104.3
Length, Overall (in)180.7
Width, Max w/o mirrors (in)73.6
Height, Overall (in)65.2
Tread Width, Front (in)61.9

Tread Width, Rear (in)62.6
Min Ground Clearance (in)6.3


Toyota MATRIX

Wheelbase (in)102.4
Length, Overall (in)171.3
Width, Max w/o mirrors (in)69.9
Height, Overall (in)61.6
Tread Width, Front (in)59.6
Tread Width, Rear (in)59.1
Min Ground Clearance (in)5.9

How about the difference in Groung Clearance? 0.4"
And what about the Height? just 3.6"

What about the rest of those dimentions?

[Visiting_Guest]

ya, but almost a FOOT length difference, that is more than substantial, somehow I find it impossible to compare this thing to a matrix in anyway shape or form. Its like pulling an s2000 up to a civic and saying well teh numbers are similar. Im driving an RDX on thursday, and I will bring my digital camera and take all angles and park it next to my 2005 v6 2 door coupe so we can make comparisons haha =)

I just have this gut feelings, that I'm going to be dissapointed. For over 33 grand, I just feel like these vehicles, in this class, should offer more than a nice engine. And its not like the turbo is in a sports car, its a turbo in a heavy truck so its really not much of a thrill. I feel like i should get more size, that Pilot is looking better and better each day.

anywho, thursday I'll have my verdict. In terms of comparisons to the CR-V, i cant see how it will be anything but slightly diff than the RDX. To me it seems like the old late 90's CL's and the Honda Accord Coupes, same exact car different badging. But that may not be a bad thing . . .

[bluewho25]

ya, but almost a FOOT length difference, that is more than substantial, somehow I find it impossible to compare this thing to a matrix in anyway shape or form. Its like pulling an s2000 up to a civic and saying well teh numbers are similar. Im driving an RDX on thursday, and I will bring my digital camera and take all angles and park it next to my 2005 v6 2 door coupe so we can make comparisons haha =)

I just have this gut feelings, that I'm going to be dissapointed. For over 33 grand, I just feel like these vehicles, in this class, should offer more than a nice engine. And its not like the turbo is in a sports car, its a turbo in a heavy truck so its really not much of a thrill. I feel like i should get more size, that Pilot is looking better and better each day.

anywho, thursday I'll have my verdict. In terms of comparisons to the CR-V, i cant see how it will be anything but slightly diff than the RDX. To me it seems like the old late 90's CL's and the Honda Accord Coupes, same exact car different badging. But that may not be a bad thing . . .


I am comparing those two cars in size.
My point is that the RDX/CRV are too small like the Matrix.
As far as HP, it pulls realy good. And yes the Pilot EX-L is starting to look really good.

[Bmotor]

I test drove an RDX back on Aug 10th when they were 'officially' released for sale. It was one with the technology package. All very, very impressive but all very, very expensive. The turbo kicks butt, but off line it is weak for just a tad and then power builds impressively. At speed, increasing speed, the car just kicks butt. The paddle shifters are neato torpedo.

I found the interior space a bit cramped because of all the luxo padding. The seats are supportive and (I think) huge. The door panels protrude (I think) in the passenger compartment. The console is huge. In short, I think there is less interior space than otherwise might be. The leather though is major premium.

The nav and voice controls were all neat, neat, neat. I thought the build quality was a tad not quite perfect (hood gap). But the car was just phenomenol.

That said my wife and I declined and purchased a new 2006 PewterP CR-v, which we are delighted with. Sure the RDX kicks major butt, but I got my 2006 out the door for 24. The RDX would have been 40K+. That's a whole other car in my book. So for now I'll hold off on the RDX.

[Visiting_Guest]

I did my test drive in the RDX last nite and all i can say is

WOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWw

yea u heard it , WOW. Forget matrix size, forget every other rumor put on here. This thing is SOLID. Altho it may seem small when ur looking at actual numbers which is what most of the people on this board seem to like doing, the front and passenger cabins are very roomy, I actually didnt feel cramped AT ALL. The rear seat legroom is actually quite expansive, i put my driving seat in my position and sat behind myself and im 6ft tall and there was ample room left. Let me tell u, the front storage bin, where some people are wishing for no console, well, it swallowed my arm up to my bicep in depth, and it is wider than a legal file since i had some on hand. AND, there is a bilevel shelf u can pull out, in case u didnt want the deeepness of the bin., add the additional cup holders and other nooks within it, and i think its a much more effective use of space than having no console at all.

FIt and finish? well its acura and i think its their best interior design and finish to date. I was absolutely stunned by the material quality, the thickness of the leather, and guages etc. Im not sure what the 40K the other guy was talking about, but with the tech package and an whole sheet of addons from the dealer, like moonroof visor, matts, locks etc this baby is 38. The one i am considering is sold to me at 33,600, and they will discount 500 since i worked soley thru some internet thing.

DRIVING: well i tend to disagree with some of the reviewers and even my first instincts that it would not feel sporty. The SH-AWD, well i wish honda would put it in the crv but i guess not gonna happen. The first corner i took in this thing, the car is propelled into it, i felt power in all 4 corners of the vehicle, and there was barely no body lean whatsoever, and i was driving with 2 other passengers and going city speeds. The tourque aval at low end is insane. In the zero - 45 range this turbo feels like the engine will come out of the hood, EXCEPT, its so smooth that getting up to 40 is almost unnoticable.

The ride quality, which i think the closest comparison can be made in terms of CRV was impeccable. On the highways this thing cruises with ver very minor bumps entering the cabin & smooth and controlled i felt like i was in my accord coupe to be severly honest. 60-80 mph range in an instant, and the turbo flow meter is a nice touch. The paddle shifting works great and is easily done.

Biggest dissapointment, obviously, is the smaller room in the cargo area, the back of the rdx is almost a clone of the infiniti fx/murano; the bump out is big where the hatch comes out and is very bubbled in back. still tho, stacking 2 decently sized travel duffles on top of eachother might go higher than the seatback.

Verdict: CANNOT WAIT TILL THE CRV COMES OUT. i was closely comparing this to my mazda experience with the cx-7, and i left feeling like either the rdx should be 40k or the mazda should be 20k, but the mazda at 30k i feel like there is a 10k missing that is how good this RDX is for 33,600. and how horrible the mazda was at 30. I cant see buying anything else. totally floored.

[bluewho25]

I did my test drive in the RDX last nite and all i can say is

WOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWw

yea u heard it , WOW. Forget matrix size, forget every other rumor put on here. This thing is SOLID. Altho it may seem small when ur looking at actual numbers which is what most of the people on this board seem to like doing, the front and passenger cabins are very roomy, I actually didnt feel cramped AT ALL. The rear seat legroom is actually quite expansive, i put my driving seat in my position and sat behind myself and im 6ft tall and there was ample room left. Let me tell u, the front storage bin, where some people are wishing for no console, well, it swallowed my arm up to my bicep in depth, and it is wider than a legal file since i had some on hand. AND, there is a bilevel shelf u can pull out, in case u didnt want the deeepness of the bin., add the additional cup holders and other nooks within it, and i think its a much more effective use of space than having no console at all.

FIt and finish? well its acura and i think its their best interior design and finish to date. I was absolutely stunned by the material quality, the thickness of the leather, and guages etc. Im not sure what the 40K the other guy was talking about, but with the tech package and an whole sheet of addons from the dealer, like moonroof visor, matts, locks etc this baby is 38. The one i am considering is sold to me at 33,600, and they will discount 500 since i worked soley thru some internet thing.

DRIVING: well i tend to disagree with some of the reviewers and even my first instincts that it would not feel sporty. The SH-AWD, well i wish honda would put it in the crv but i guess not gonna happen. The first corner i took in this thing, the car is propelled into it, i felt power in all 4 corners of the vehicle, and there was barely no body lean whatsoever, and i was driving with 2 other passengers and going city speeds. The tourque aval at low end is insane. In the zero - 45 range this turbo feels like the engine will come out of the hood, EXCEPT, its so smooth that getting up to 40 is almost unnoticable.

The ride quality, which i think the closest comparison can be made in terms of CRV was impeccable. On the highways this thing cruises with ver very minor bumps entering the cabin & smooth and controlled i felt like i was in my accord coupe to be severly honest. 60-80 mph range in an instant, and the turbo flow meter is a nice touch. The paddle shifting works great and is easily done.

Biggest dissapointment, obviously, is the smaller room in the cargo area, the back of the rdx is almost a clone of the infiniti fx/murano; the bump out is big where the hatch comes out and is very bubbled in back. still tho, stacking 2 decently sized travel duffles on top of eachother might go higher than the seatback.

Verdict: CANNOT WAIT TILL THE CRV COMES OUT. i was closely comparing this to my mazda experience with the cx-7, and i left feeling like either the rdx should be 40k or the mazda should be 20k, but the mazda at 30k i feel like there is a 10k missing that is how good this RDX is for 33,600. and how horrible the mazda was at 30. I cant see buying anything else. totally floored.

Dude I am glad to hear you've like the RDX.
The reason I test drove the RDX was to get a feeling of what the new CRV will look like. I never drove the RDX with the intention of buying the car.
And that is the single reason I drove the RDX.
To me the RDX is nothing to brag about for $33,600. Do you want me to brag about a car? how about the 2006 Accord V6 EX-L? that is a car to brag about in every single point, from HP to luxury.
Back to the RDX, I am waiting for the new CRV like most of us are here.

Most likelly, I will end up getting the 2007 CRV EX. Like I mentioned before, my issues are the Cargo space (small and it will look like the Murano) being too small and the groung clearance but, I can live with that since my other option will be the RAV4, wich the interior looks so cheezy.

El Guapo

[sleeksilver]

Dude I am glad to hear you've like the RDX.
The reason I test drove the RDX was to get a feeling of what the new CRV will look like. I never drove the RDX with the intention of buying the car.
And that is the single reason I drove the RDX.
To me the RDX is nothing to brag about for $33,600.
El Guapo

I don't know why you drove the RDX to get a feel for what the new CRV will be like. :?
They will be COMPLETELY different. The only thing that will be similar is the size. Interior, suspension tuning, motor, quality of materials, sound deadening, transmission mapping, AWD system, wheels, tires, etc. will all be different than the CRV. I don't think they even share any body panels, maybe the rear hatch?

I am comparing those two cars in size.
My point is that the RDX/CRV are too small like the Matrix.
As far as HP, it pulls realy good. And yes the Pilot EX-L is starting to look really good.

The Matrix is a foot shorter! How can you compare the size???? A 1 foot difference in a car is a LOT. My girlfriends sister has a Matrix and it is tiny, there is no way that it will have even close to similar cargo capacity as the new CRV or the RDX.

I'm telling you right now, people who are buying the RDX won't typically cross shop b/w the RDX and the Pilot. They are in completely different classes. The Pilot is basically a SUV minivan for families (no offence to anyone! :lol: ) , the RDX is targeted at a younger crowd with no kids and they couldn't care less about off road capabilities and cargo capacity. They want high tech features like bluetooth and DVD audio with navigation, most of which the Pilot doesn't have.

The RDX is a great value compared to the X3 which is stupid IMHO. I drove the CX-7 and I thought it was a great vehicle, I want to see how the RDX will stack up against it. :)

[Visiting_Guest]

ya an accord is worth braggin about, i own a juiced out one myself.

but look at this class - for 33,600 the Acura blows away anything even remotely comparable for that place, if u told me it was 38 w/o nav i would say ya not bad comparable to the X3 (which i agree is "stupid" lol) but for 33,600 ill brag up n down about it cuz its REDICULOUS for that money u get a TON for that.

Sleeksilver - i was completely let down by the mazda after the RDX, im curious to see what you think.

I think its a little bit of a stretch to say that beyond the motor and the awd system, these 2 things wont be alike. Hell, if u look at the test drive photos from earlier this summer, they r one in front of the other and u cant even discern a difference besides the tail lights. It would boggle my mind, that honda being the frugle company they r would make 2 vehicles of the same platform and have over 90% of the parts etc completely different from eachother. Just look at the past: CL/Accord Coupe, accord 4door/TL (not the new one), Pilot/MDX. just my 2 cents i think they will be more similar than diff, obv maybe not gadgets like blue tooth but the chassis and underpinnings are whats most important.

[Varmint]

Here's my RDX review.

http://www.rdxdrivers.com/forums/index.php?topic=54.msg140#new

[Visiting_Guest]

great review looks like we had a similar experience with the vehicle, minus the COP hahahah

[sleeksilver]

I think its a little bit of a stretch to say that beyond the motor and the awd system, these 2 things wont be alike. Hell, if u look at the test drive photos from earlier this summer, they r one in front of the other and u cant even discern a difference besides the tail lights. It would boggle my mind, that honda being the frugle company they r would make 2 vehicles of the same platform and have over 90% of the parts etc completely different from eachother. Just look at the past: CL/Accord Coupe, accord 4door/TL (not the new one), Pilot/MDX. just my 2 cents i think they will be more similar than diff, obv maybe not gadgets like blue tooth but the chassis and underpinnings are whats most important.

I wouldn't say that exactly. The cars have a noticeably different personality. CL vs. Accord coupe. They don't share any of the same interior bits, not a single body panel, different motor, suspension etc. If you are talking about the old CL then I'll agree with you more on that. I hate it when people call a TL a "jazzed up Accord" because they are so different.

Honda is a frugal company, and that is why they are so profitable but basically the only thing that the RDX and CRV will share is (you are correct) the chassis and suspension bits. There are a bunch of other parts too but they won't be major components. I know they will drive completely different, also due to the awesome SH-AWD system. The CRV will be tuned to be softer than the RDX too.

Anyway, with this new model coming in I just hope they gave us a better AWD system. I noticed in the spy photos they dropped the RT-4WD and now it's just AWD. I hope that's better than what we have! :)

[Visiting_Guest]

ya i was talking about the older acuras and hondas, they were all the same, well i kno this, cuz i had both acuras and hondas haha. in terms of sharing same styled interior pieces etc obviously they will be different but that is just the wrapping on the package