Last post on Oct 18, 2010 at 6:36 PM
You are in the Acura RDX
What is this discussion about?
Acura RDX, Infiniti, SUV
#33 of 62 Re: Sports car vs. economy sedan [mayoarceo]
Sep 02, 2008 (8:04 am)
you sound knowledgeable -- well back in June I posted the question - which one is best for me -- the RDX or the EX and now I am considering the EX again. Would you comment please on the car in terms of MPG and its reliability? I will pay up to 36,000 for afully loaded car that performs up to par. Was considering a "used" LEXUS 400 but they want about 37,000 and there aren't very good rates for finance, yet. So for a car with 40,000 on it - am holding off. I will go and test the EX again to compare but a need a car soon. Please let me know your thoughts about it --- can't make out whether it's a good car or not from all these posts!!!
did you look into RX 400 hybrid, too expensive? used are available now and there are many out there -- new tech and all "new generation" as they love to say.
#34 of 62 Re: Sports car vs. economy sedan [karens2008]
Sep 11, 2008 (11:33 am)
The EX is a great car if you or anyone else you know never plans to sit in the back seat. It is beautiful from the driver's perspective and if you are single or have no children or friends it would be a great car. Just on aesthetics alone the dash and front passenger compartment easily beat just about any other small SUV.
The problem is that it really is not an SUV or even a CUV. I looked at one yesterday and thought, why did they even bother to build this car. I have never even heard of a car with 4 doors having only 28 inches of rear seat legroom. The X3, which is 3 inches shorter has 7 inches more rear legroom and 12 more cubic feet of storage. They ride on an identical 110 inch wheel base, so where did BMW find all that extra space? Or, more to the point, how did the Infiniti designers squander all that space?
Personally, to me it just seems like a G37 hatchback with less rear legroom, the G37 coupe has 29.7 inches of rear legroom. Not to belabor the point, but even a BMW 135i coupe, which is almost a foot shorter, has 32 inches of rear legroom. I think they should have just dropped the pretense and made it a 3 door hatchback, but that's not considered luxury to American buyers.
Sep 12, 2008 (3:58 pm)
I just bought an 08 rdx today. I did test drive the ex35, loved the handling. But as noted before the rear seat is cramped. But even worse was the visibility out the back window. I felt like I'd never be able to change lanes in that car.
#36 of 62 Re: Just purchased a G35, now looking at RDX and EX35 [wwest]
Oct 11, 2008 (5:07 pm)
We are considering a RDX but comfortable seats for long trips are a must - would anyone know what the seats are like? Righr now we have a 2005 3.0 Outback and the seats are quite uncomfortable on long trips. We are giving back the Outback soon (lease is up) and looking for safety, AWD, and good seats! Suggestions? Thinking about the 2009 Forester XT, the RDX and the Toyota Venza.
#37 of 62 Re: Just purchased a G35, now looking at RDX and EX35 [redrose1]
Oct 12, 2008 (10:02 am)
Buy the vehicle you want and the seats from ebay.com
#38 of 62 Re: Just purchased a G35, now looking at RDX and EX35 [wwest]
Oct 12, 2008 (10:44 am)
My husband who usually drives a Volvo S80 (because the seats are comfortable) drove the rdx from upstate NY to NYC (and back) and had no problems with the seats.
#39 of 62 Re: Just purchased a G35, now looking at RDX and EX35 [wwest]
Nov 15, 2008 (4:48 am)
>>>You appear to be so knowledgeable - would you be able to comment on the Subaru Forester turbo? We are undecided between the two and FE is a key factor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, sorry, Subaru simply doesn't warrant my attention.
Any manufacturer who touts the safety of AWD (AWD simply does not address the issue of safety) and patently UNSAFE "symetrical" [SIC] AWD to boot, doesn't warrant anyone's attention IMMHO.
Compare the SH-AWD system with ANY AWD(symetrical)/FWD/F-AWD system to see the shortcoming of all these "other" systems.
Care to be a little less Honda Fanboi and a little more specific? Are you at all familiar with the Subaru VTD drive system and VDC systems? We'll see how adding clutch packs to the rear axle holds up for the 150,000+ miles that the Subaru drive trains have demonstrated for 10 years.
You don't think that AWD delivers a safety benefit in low traction conditions?
Nov 15, 2008 (2:53 pm)
Got some more information on the RDX drive system and claims that it is the equivalent of any of Subarus three AWD systems, or that of the Acura RL is way off base.
According to the Wiki on SH AWD, "SH-AWD in the Acura RDX and Acura MDX use a default power split of 90% to the front and 10% to the rear. Like the unit in the RL, both can power the rear wheels with up to 70% of the engine torque. With this variant of SH-AWD, there is no acceleration device. Instead, the rear differential is constantly overdriven by 1.7 percent. During straight line performance, that difference is scrubbed off by the clutch packs. When cornering, the difference is used to overdrive the outside rear wheel."
This is similar to the AWD system used on automatic shift Subarus in the 90's, with the addition of the clutch packs on each side. It might be more accurate to call it a "three wheel drive and temporary four wheel drive system." The Acura RL system uses a planetary gear set and is likely far more durable as well as being more efficient and capable. Compared to Subarus VTD system or the DCCD system in the WRX STi, it's tractor technology.
#41 of 62 Re: RDX "AWD" [garandman]
Nov 15, 2008 (3:59 pm)
Thank you! It looks like wwest seems to be a bit of a Honda fanboy with little knowledge of how different AWD systems work. The SH-AWD system is more FWD than anything. All you really need to do is read the Wiki article, it sums it up. Not to mention various magazines covering SH-AWDs inner workings before it's release. The thing that scares me is 150,000 miles down the road. Those electronic packs out back taking all that excess abuse. SH-AWD falls short of what an AWD system is in my mind. Why is it missing a center differential. While my Subaru out in the driveway is utilizing a Torsen differential. When the snow falls this year I know I'm gonna be far happier than if I were driving an RDX. I know this because my good friend has one. I took it out last winter and it really just doesn't feel controlled to me in the snow. It doesn't feel as "on cue" as my Subaru does. I've also been in the auto industry as an employee and enthusiast for some time. What it comes down to for me in terms of AWD system I would like, it's Subaru Symmetrical or Audi Quattro (the true Tersen Quattro systems.)
#42 of 62 Re: Just purchased a G35, now looking at RDX and EX35 [garandman]
Nov 21, 2008 (9:19 am)
"You don't think that AWD delivers a safety benefit in low traction conditions?"
I think that any AWD system that results in the BRAKING effects of engine compression being primarily at the rear upon throttle lift or "clutch" downshifting will add some level of safety factor in low traction conditions.
I also think that any FWD or F/AWD can too easily lend a false sense of security to a driver not fully knowledgeable or experienced in the dynamics of handling these on a low traction surface.
Sorry if I have come across as a fan of Honda, my position is, has been, that the SH-AWD system is the best of the best for vehicles with a sideways mounted engine, or any "base" FWD converted to F/AWD.