Acura RDX -Edmunds & TCC Test Drives(UPDATE-Pricing Announced for Turbo-charged RDX )
07-13-06, 04:02 PM
#61
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by G35_TX
It is biased Sick. And any review you do post no one will respect it because you are known to be way to biased towards LEXUS.
Remember, Gas is going up, people want more economical cars. Even in luxury cars. If it drives smooth, and quiet and has a great power band (even if its a 4 banger), it doesn't matter! People are starting to look at the gas mileage when purchasing cars and this car will sell.
Remember, Gas is going up, people want more economical cars. Even in luxury cars. If it drives smooth, and quiet and has a great power band (even if its a 4 banger), it doesn't matter! People are starting to look at the gas mileage when purchasing cars and this car will sell.
2. I have more auto knowledge in my pinky toe, than you will ever have.
3. I have more respect than you will ever gain. I don't hide behind a computer. I go to meets, I organize meets, I've literally met hundreds of people, probably over a thousand on this site and countless other websites, including Nissan and Acura. I post pics and videos of me and our events. I am RESPECT. Your just some guy that chats crap behind a computer.
4. Your proving your lack of reasoning skills, b/c your beloved RDX has WORSE gas mileage than the RX/MDX and V-8 luxury cars. So why on EARTH are you saying people want more fuel efficient cars, if your RDX is NOT fuel efficient? :egads
I was going to delete your post but I actually feel sorry for you. I can send a lady friend up there if you need the help.
07-13-06, 04:05 PM
#62
Originally Posted by G35_TX
It is biased Sick. And any review you do post no one will respect it because you are known to be way to biased towards LEXUS.
Remember, Gas is going up, people want more economical cars. Even in luxury cars. If it drives smooth, and quiet and has a great power band (even if its a 4 banger), it doesn't matter! People are starting to look at the gas mileage when purchasing cars and this car will sell.
Remember, Gas is going up, people want more economical cars. Even in luxury cars. If it drives smooth, and quiet and has a great power band (even if its a 4 banger), it doesn't matter! People are starting to look at the gas mileage when purchasing cars and this car will sell.
07-13-06, 04:07 PM
#63
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by CK6Speed
As 1SICKLEX mentioned many times before, slapping leather on the seats and adding power windows and seats doesn't make it luxury. I wasn't sitting in the cheapest one as I believe it was the sports version. Let's be honest though, the leather wont to anything to the dash and the rest of the cheap feeling plastic. Over all it is still a major step down from even entry level luxury cars.
07-13-06, 04:09 PM
#64
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by CK6Speed
I don't really know who will buy the car. I'm just entertaining myself and guessing right now 
What I do know from talking to women at work or even my own wife is that if they wanted a luxury SUV like the ones I mentioned but couldn't afford one, they would look to the smaller SUVs like the X3 which my wife loves (I hate it) rather then get a CRV or RAV4. If that were the only choice they would just not buy a luxury SUV and get an entry level sedan like the ES350 or TSX/TL. Since the RDX is more in line with the BMW X3, I can see those buyers at least taking a serious look at the RDX. Whether they actually but it or not I can't say, but I know they wont be stopping by the Toyota dealership or Honda dealership to look at the RAV4 or CRV. If anything, they would opt for a Toyota Highlander. Even if Acura doesn't have the image and prestige of the other luxury car manufactures, it still holds more prestige than a Honda or Toyota. That alone plays a large role in people's buying habbits as you yourself know and point out with the RL and such.
I agree with the price though. If fully optioned out it really does cost $37K that is a lot. I'd say loaded at $34K would have been reasonable.
Anyway, for me I could care less about this small SUV segment. The only thing I'm really excited about is the engine.
What I do know from talking to women at work or even my own wife is that if they wanted a luxury SUV like the ones I mentioned but couldn't afford one, they would look to the smaller SUVs like the X3 which my wife loves (I hate it) rather then get a CRV or RAV4. If that were the only choice they would just not buy a luxury SUV and get an entry level sedan like the ES350 or TSX/TL. Since the RDX is more in line with the BMW X3, I can see those buyers at least taking a serious look at the RDX. Whether they actually but it or not I can't say, but I know they wont be stopping by the Toyota dealership or Honda dealership to look at the RAV4 or CRV. If anything, they would opt for a Toyota Highlander. Even if Acura doesn't have the image and prestige of the other luxury car manufactures, it still holds more prestige than a Honda or Toyota. That alone plays a large role in people's buying habbits as you yourself know and point out with the RL and such. I agree with the price though. If fully optioned out it really does cost $37K that is a lot. I'd say loaded at $34K would have been reasonable.
Anyway, for me I could care less about this small SUV segment. The only thing I'm really excited about is the engine.
The only thing I can think is with SH-AWD and a turbo I-4 guys will grab the RD-X since those are items a man in more inclined to be impressed with.
The woman is more concerned with the badge, looks and reliability.
07-13-06, 04:43 PM
#66
Come Now 1SICKLEX
Originally Posted by 1SICKLEX
That is why I am confused.
Makes no sense.
Makes no sense.
Yes, I am trying to lighten the mood here ....
07-13-06, 04:56 PM
#67
Originally Posted by CK6Speed
This is where I actually have to agree with 1SICK and the gang. The I4 Turbo gas mileage is kind of a let down for me. I expected it to be better. If people are really looking at gas mileage the RX350 and RAV4 does look to be a better choice. However, if people are looking at a small entry level luxury SUV, it appears the X3, RDX, and maybe an Infiniti FX35 would be the comparing vehicles. The Mazda CSX spec wise competes as well, but people would have to get over the fact it is a Mazda.
07-13-06, 06:19 PM
#68
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: None
Posts: 1,169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CK6Speed
As 1SICKLEX mentioned many times before, slapping leather on the seats and adding power windows and seats doesn't make it luxury. I wasn't sitting in the cheapest one as I believe it was the sports version. Let's be honest though, the leather wont to anything to the dash and the rest of the cheap feeling plastic. Over all it is still a major step down from even entry level luxury cars.
A fully loaded RAV4 is $30,000. It remains to be seen whether it's worth the $3000 premium for the better interior, extra features and better handling of the RDX. I'm not a fan of the turbo 4 cyl. though. Take a smooth V6 over it any day.
07-13-06, 06:57 PM
#69
Originally Posted by CK6Speed
The RX should be redesigned sometime around 2008/2009 as a 2009 model, so that is quite a while yet. Plus, the MDX is actually the competing vehicle to the RX which will be redesigned for a 2007 model. That gives both the new RDX and MDX about 2-3 years before we see a redesigned RX. With the amount of computers and new technology going into cars, they are getting obsolete much faster than in the past anyway.
07-13-06, 07:27 PM
#70
Lexus Champion
I could never understand why anybody would want a small SUV like this.
They (like all SUVs and trucks) are tall and top heavy; anybody who says that rigs like this "are fun to drive" must have traded-up from a '92 Achieva (Doctor "S"port... paging Doctor Sport...).
At least they have lousy ground clearance... not to mention there is hardly any room behind the rear seats and it can't tow much (where is the "U"tility?"). It is a "V"ehicle, I'll grant that... and it is a Honda product, so it will be innovative and reliable.
But for the same money, why wouldn't you just drive a sedan?
People use the argument "well, we have kids, and we need the space..." How friggin' big are two babies, for crying out loud? My parents had two Fiat sedans when my brother and I were growing up; they managed to pack anything we needed into those cars. The Fiats at least had personality, great econony, and were FUN (and they didn't even have LCD TV's with DVD players in the back seat).
I call B.S. on the "space" argument. A Camry has quite a bit more storage and seating space then one of these wanna-be SUVs, is more economical, and more fun to drive. If you really need the space, you need a VAN. If you have a large family and a boat you tow weekly, you need a full-size SUV or four-door pickup.
Ego and Vanity are the only reasons to buy one of these rigs.
They (like all SUVs and trucks) are tall and top heavy; anybody who says that rigs like this "are fun to drive" must have traded-up from a '92 Achieva (Doctor "S"port... paging Doctor Sport...).
At least they have lousy ground clearance... not to mention there is hardly any room behind the rear seats and it can't tow much (where is the "U"tility?"). It is a "V"ehicle, I'll grant that... and it is a Honda product, so it will be innovative and reliable.
But for the same money, why wouldn't you just drive a sedan?
People use the argument "well, we have kids, and we need the space..." How friggin' big are two babies, for crying out loud? My parents had two Fiat sedans when my brother and I were growing up; they managed to pack anything we needed into those cars. The Fiats at least had personality, great econony, and were FUN (and they didn't even have LCD TV's with DVD players in the back seat).
I call B.S. on the "space" argument. A Camry has quite a bit more storage and seating space then one of these wanna-be SUVs, is more economical, and more fun to drive. If you really need the space, you need a VAN. If you have a large family and a boat you tow weekly, you need a full-size SUV or four-door pickup.
Ego and Vanity are the only reasons to buy one of these rigs.
07-13-06, 07:33 PM
#71
Originally Posted by SoCalSC4
I could never understand why anybody would want a small SUV like this.
They (like all SUVs and trucks) are tall and top heavy; anybody who says that rigs like this "are fun to drive" must have traded-up from a '92 Achieva (Doctor "S"port... paging Doctor Sport...).
At least they have lousy ground clearance... not to mention there is hardly any room behind the rear seats and it can't tow much (where is the "U"tility?"). It is a "V"ehicle, I'll grant that... and it is a Honda product, so it will be innovative and reliable.
But for the same money, why wouldn't you just drive a sedan?
People use the argument "well, we have kids, and we need the space..." How friggin' big are two babies, for crying out loud? My parents had two Fiat sedans when my brother and I were growing up; they managed to pack anything we needed into those cars. The Fiats at least had personality, great econony, and were FUN (and they didn't even have LCD TV's with DVD players in the back seat).
I call B.S. on the "space" argument. A Camry has quite a bit more storage and seating space then one of these wanna-be SUVs, is more economical, and more fun to drive. If you really need the space, you need a VAN. If you have a large family and a boat you tow weekly, you need a full-size SUV or four-door pickup.
Ego and Vanity are the only reasons to buy one of these rigs.
They (like all SUVs and trucks) are tall and top heavy; anybody who says that rigs like this "are fun to drive" must have traded-up from a '92 Achieva (Doctor "S"port... paging Doctor Sport...).
At least they have lousy ground clearance... not to mention there is hardly any room behind the rear seats and it can't tow much (where is the "U"tility?"). It is a "V"ehicle, I'll grant that... and it is a Honda product, so it will be innovative and reliable.
But for the same money, why wouldn't you just drive a sedan?
People use the argument "well, we have kids, and we need the space..." How friggin' big are two babies, for crying out loud? My parents had two Fiat sedans when my brother and I were growing up; they managed to pack anything we needed into those cars. The Fiats at least had personality, great econony, and were FUN (and they didn't even have LCD TV's with DVD players in the back seat).
I call B.S. on the "space" argument. A Camry has quite a bit more storage and seating space then one of these wanna-be SUVs, is more economical, and more fun to drive. If you really need the space, you need a VAN. If you have a large family and a boat you tow weekly, you need a full-size SUV or four-door pickup.
Ego and Vanity are the only reasons to buy one of these rigs.
07-13-06, 07:46 PM
#72
Originally Posted by CK6Speed
This is where I actually have to agree with 1SICK and the gang. The I4 Turbo gas mileage is kind of a let down for me. I expected it to be better. If people are really looking at gas mileage the RX350 and RAV4 does look to be a better choice. However, if people are looking at a small entry level luxury SUV, it appears the X3, RDX, and maybe an Infiniti FX35 would be the comparing vehicles. The Mazda CSX spec wise competes as well, but people would have to get over the fact it is a Mazda.
Even if we forget the engine, RDX does not have several important luxury vehicle features such as memory seats, or passanger electric seats. So a lot of the premium is for Acura badge, and then you have to get over the fact that it is significantly slower and then it also gets a lot worse mpg. Thats a lot of hurdles to overcome. Let alone the fact that they have to convince customers to pay more for 4cly engine.
07-13-06, 07:58 PM
#73
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
Originally Posted by CK6Speed
I sat in the Rav4 at the dealer and it is very cheap. No leather, very cheap Corolla plastic feel. It is a nice well optioned well priced small SUV, but let's be honest there is absolutley nothing luxurious about the interior. At least the RDX looks more like the TL/RL interiors if those buyers are interested in the luxury feel. The Rav4 is for the college kids that go to the beach, while the RDX is probably for the middle income soccor moms that just can't afford the MDX or RX330 and such.
07-13-06, 08:06 PM
#74
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
Originally Posted by CK6Speed
As 1SICKLEX mentioned many times before, slapping leather on the seats and adding power windows and seats doesn't make it luxury. I wasn't sitting in the cheapest one as I believe it was the sports version. Let's be honest though, the leather wont to anything to the dash and the rest of the cheap feeling plastic. Over all it is still a major step down from even entry level luxury cars.
I also shopped the Rav4 in April and was totally underwhelmed with the interior.
07-13-06, 08:09 PM
#75
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
Originally Posted by Och
MDX doesn't exactly compete with RX, its way bigger and offers a lot more utility. Its more of a competior for the GX470. RX however is much more refined.