Last post on Sep 26, 2013 at 9:44 AM
You are in the Acura RDX
What is this discussion about?
Acura RDX, SUV
#102 of 293 Horrible Bluetooth phone system
Jun 12, 2012 (9:44 am)
I love this 2013 RDX Tech, especially compared to the 2009 RDX Tech I traded in. To some the new ride is boring, not me. It is a by far smoother and quieter and with better gas mileage (up to 6 mpg thus far on both local & highway).
I have been driving 4WD & AWD vehicles for 50 years and very much like everything about the 2013 RDX Tech, EXCEPT for the awful new hard drive phone system, especially when compared to the 2009 RDX or my wife's 2012 MDX. The new phone system only allows 20 voice tag numbers, compared to 50 for the other Auras we have owned. I feel sorry for traveling salesmen who need to access their clients phone numbers. Then to boot, one cannot enter the main phonebook once the car is moving. The same holds true for the navigation system. My wife cannot change the system when she is the passenger with me. One has to find a safe place to pull off the road to properly access the phone or navigation system. This could cause more dangerous situations than the so called safety features to protect the public.
Also no remote start is available from ACURA, which may be a blessing in disguise as the "factory system" in our 2912 MDX is the worst I've used in over 20 years of using after market systems in our vehicles. The after market system in our previous Acuras and a friends 2005 RL are far superior.
Perhaps the solution for those considering the new 2013 is to not purchase the Tech package. One could save a lot of money, even after installing after market Bluetooth & remote start systems.
#103 of 293 Re: Horrible Bluetooth phone system [twwilliam]
Jun 16, 2012 (8:04 pm)
as to bluetooth, the base car still has that, right? might be a different set up not having the hard drive set up, but it still has it standard.
Jun 16, 2012 (8:18 pm)
for a new car for my wife. After almost 17 years in a minivan, she is ready to downsize. We still need something with reasonable utility for hauling stuff around (vacations, and occasional bulky object). So, a small SUV/CUV was a natural fit.
looked at most of the usual suspects (MX5/CRV/new focus/Santa Fe/Subaru outback). All had their plusses and minuses, and any would likely do the job, but nothing that really "wowed" her. CRV she liked the first time we saw/drove, largely because it was very similar to her Odyssey. I was indifferent to it.
Of that bunch, the Outback actually came out on top. I really liked it, but she felt it looked like a (dirty word coming!) "wagon". we stopped to look again and she got over that. Can also get for a very good price.
But, after a few looks, she still is fixated on the RDX. She just really likes it, and was pleased after driving on roads today. So, of course she picked the most expensive option (well, the BMW X3 was the most expensive, but we eliminated that!).
It certainly is a nice car. And very quick with this engine. Steering to me was overly light, but I'm sure could get used to it.
so, it will come down to price vs. cache. She just seems to want something fancy/cool/upscale for a change (things the Subaru doesn't really have).
The outback actually has every feature the RDX has, other than push button start (which I don't really like) and is roomier inside. And of course, cheaper, with a much better AWD system.
Actually, I am debating still just getting a FWD model to save money. We never really needed AWD with the van, and I don't expect that to change. Pretty much would only be for resale, but we anticipate keeping whatever we get for a long, long time, so not really and issue.
#105 of 293 Re: been looking [stickguy]
Jun 16, 2012 (9:49 pm)
I test drove the new RDX, after that the CR-V and after that the Outback. All I can say is I wish I could afford the RDX. Coming from a 2006 TL I loved its power, weight and steering. Instead I'll be deciding between the CR-V and the Outback.
#106 of 293 Re: been looking [stickguy]
Jun 17, 2012 (4:32 am)
For what it's worth, the Outback also doesn't have memory seats, which I really take advantage of, and the mileage is worse (unless you get the pokey 4cyl engine). You'll also have less of a warranty and less service included (my Acura dealer gives free loaners & oil changes). That being said, the Outback otherwise an outstanding car that you can't go wrong with, and as for cache', it may be a wagon, but tell her that Subarus carry their own kind of rugged chic.
As for the Acura, if you want an RDX for a lot less money, go with your gut and get the FWD version with no tech package, which is loaded. I've been driving FWD Acuras for 12 years and the traction control gets me through snowy, icy conditions just fine. 4WD is overkill for 98% of the people who buy it. And who needs a nav system when smartphones have superior turn-by-turn navigation built in? You can negotiate a great deal on the base model.
#107 of 293 Re: been looking [quakerwildcat]
Jun 17, 2012 (7:54 am)
Quakerwildcat - thanks for your posts. I was also considering same vehicles CR-V and then saw the RDX. How much mileage do you think you get on city driving or combined? (most of my commute is city, sometime rush hour) I was wonder if cyclinder activation works in city traffic. Do you have Acura RDX FWD or AWD? Thanks for help.
#108 of 293 Re: been looking [quakerwildcat]
Jun 17, 2012 (8:46 am)
you sure the 2013 has memory drivers seat? Just looked in the features section of the brochure, and on Edmunds, and it was not mentioned.
Not a huge deal to me, but certainly a nice thing to have.
one thing that to me looks to be an issue is the small gas tank on the RDX> only 16 gallons? You aren't getting much cruising range out of that. Figure you probably get a mixed highway real 25, meaning you will be searching for a gas station every 300 miles (at least if you try an not run below 1/4 tank).
and forget about around town, where you are probably going to get 17 or so. so every 250 miles?
even the Subaru 4 cyl, which gets better mileage, has 18.5 gallon tank.
#109 of 293 Re: been looking [kurienpt]
Jun 17, 2012 (8:50 am)
Edmunds did a full test of the RDX which involves a lot of 0-60 type runs and fast runs through slaloms etc and still returned 22mpg. Usually their tests result in substantially less than the vehicles EPA city mpg. So you can see that getting 22mpg in this test was commendable as it's right at the EPA combined avg for the RDX.
If you drive mainly city you should expect no better than the city EPA mpg which I believe is 20mpg. The cylinder deactivation only occurs at steady cruise so I don't think you'll get much of that at all in a city driving environment. I've been looking at the RDX and from what I've been reading and hearing it has pretty much lived up to it's EPA estimates.
#110 of 293 Re: been looking [m6user]
Jun 17, 2012 (9:50 am)
that data helps. thanks m6user!
#111 of 293 Re: been looking [kurienpt]
Jun 17, 2012 (6:05 pm)
It's the FWD version and I've only driven two tanks on it so it's probably unfair to draw conclusions about mileage. I will say that in 100% city driving with traffic it appears to be pretty low, like 15-18 range. Tomorrow I start a more normal mixed city/highway commute so we'll see what we get over the next tank or two.
Re the memory seats, my point was that the Subaru doesn't have them.