• Jul 12, 2006

After much anticipation, Acura's RDX will hit the showroom floor on August 10 with a sticker price starting at $33,610. The vehicle, slated to compete with the likes of the BMW X3, seats five and cranks out 240 hp thanks to its turbocharged 2.3L four-cylinder engine, the first turbo'd Acura this side of the pond.

Adding the optional Technology Package scores you a 410-watt audio system and navi with voice recognition and rearview camera, among other goodies, but it will cost you -- the price jacks up to $37,110.

Acura projects that it will sell 16,000 by the end of 2006 and 40,000 when it has a whole year to work with in '07.

[Source: Automotive News]



I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 41 Comments
      • 8 Years Ago
      You idiots fail to consider the difference in quality between a Mazda and an Acura. Hop in a Mazda6 and try out a TSX. . . go drive a TL and . . oh wait, Mazda scrapped their upscale line. Mazda is just like Toyota, Honda, and the rest of the pedestrian brands. The CX-7 is a spectacular parts bin car, but it lacks any substantial refinement. . . road isolation is minimal, it feels like a front wheel drive car, even equipped with AWD, and turbo lag is noticeable, no matter what you hear in the magazines. So while we don't know what the RDX will really be like, I wish you'd all stop referring to the CX-7 as this great car because, well, it's not. Go drive one.
      • 8 Years Ago
      The VUE is doing just fine. And Chevy has the Equinox
      and the GMC Acadia was announced today. The Acadia has 267HP and gets 17/24 (17/25 in FWD). This isn't quite comparable, however because it is a 7-seater. If you want a 5-seater like the RDX, the VUE gets 19/25 in the 240HP FWD version and 20/28 in the 240HP AWD version. The RDX gets 19/23, seats 5 and has 240HP.

      As usual, the comments that GM doesn't have anything but enormous SUVs is from an uninformed person with nothing to add but their own biases. And most amazingly, on a day when GM actually announced a crossover vehicle.

      I was actually thinking of an RDX or a CX-7, but the RDX is out now. It's awfully expensive, and it gets no better mpg than the CX-7. Perhaps I'll consider a Buick Enclave in its place.

      GM is getting very good at crossover SUVs (starting from the Aztek they had no place to go but up), it's Honda playing catch up in this case. The CR-V is not a competitor to the vehicles GM is announcing in this space (although the RDX is to some of them). It's just getting to the right size and it's still a Civic-quality interior.

      Gardiner Westbound: The X3 is a piece of crap. If anyone actually compared any vehicles at all to it, they wouldn't buy the X3. It's somehow even worse than the X5, which is a vehicle with all the crappy mileage of an SUV with less trunk space than a Subaru Impreza. It's pretty difficult to tear away BMW's customers for these vehicles when it's pretty clear they aren't making their purchasing decisions based upon much except brand.

      It is mystifying to me how BMW manages to sell cars
      in this space. They need to do a lot better. And the space is starting to get very crowded.
      • 8 Years Ago
      Well, they better gouge as fast as they can, because looking over their shoulder they'll see the Buick Enclave. With their great reliability, recent aggressive pricing (Lucerne CXL with V8 under $30k), and awesome design, Buick will grab a chunk of the premium market share.
      http://www.buick.com/enclave/index.jsp
      • 8 Years Ago
      Hello Mazda CX7, how are you?
      • 8 Years Ago
      I agree with #26- I'm glad I'm not the only one who DOESN'T hate GM and believes that they have good vehicles in their model lineups. And I'm not too impressed with the X3 myself. But onto the RDX- it's disappointing, in my view. Yes, the engine is a turbo four but an optional V6 would certainly be welcome in a vehicle like this, especially with the high sticker price. The styling is frumpy and the entire vehicle does nothing to grab my attention. With prices ranging from $33k to $37k, Acura should provide more vehicle. But of course, people are paying for the reputation...
      • 8 Years Ago
      ahhh, and the fanchildren clash...

      What's cute is when the Hondacura fanchildren use the same arguments that BMW fans use to denigrate the RDX when blasting the CX-7 (is cheaper, must be lower-quality and performance)... and then turns around to use the same arguments that Mazda fans use against the RDX to blast BMW (Just paying for a Marque, RDX is same level of performance for less cost, obviously a bargain)

      Hondacura fanchildren, per usual, fail on two counts instead of just one... by being stuck in the middle.
      • 8 Years Ago
      I don't know why anyone is surprised by this announcement. If you look at the Acura line up, in only makes sense in the 32-33k range.

      At this point, Acura is a great value, in my opinion. Their vehicles perform close to BMW, but are far more reliable for less cost. They exceed the other brands (except Lexus and maybe Cadillac) in interior quality and general performance by a good deal. For the time being, you are paying the higher price for more engineering value. If they succeed in moving more upscale, you'll have the same problem as when buying a BMW, you pay a premium for both the engineering/performance AND the brand cachet.

      Why doesn't Cadillac have something so that an American brand would actually have an upscale small SUV to compete with the BMW X3 and now the RDX? Why didn't they lead into this market instead of being late to the party, again?


      • 8 Years Ago
      Anyone who suggests that this isn't competing with the CX7 is deranged. They match up in size, drivetrains (RDX has a watered down SH-AWD, not the same as in the RL) and most content. Both are pigs on gas. Mazda will have 3x the sales and Acura will soon be discounting. I love my tsx, but Mazda is going to displace Acura from the affordable fun-to-drive premium entry soon. I agree with the above poster - Acura has learned nothing from the RL debacle.
      • 7 Years Ago
      Saw one on the road- looked pretty good from the front as I passed it. Before I knew it, turbo kicked in and it was way ahead of me.

      Acura TL -Type S (2003)
      • 8 Years Ago
      Thats expensive. Considering I got pitched a fully loaded Pilot with nav below the baseline by several grand and an MDX for the RDX's base price, I think Acura just priced the RDX out of my comfort zone even though I prefer the RDX formfactor and the appeal of turbo. I guess I'll slum it luxury wise with the Rav and its more fuel efficient 260+ hp.
      • 8 Years Ago
      Truedelta price comparison is way off. His "comparably equipped comparison" gives value for things that are available (but not included in the price).

      If you include only the correct standard features, the Acura has $925 more content for $5,815 more cost. In other words, comparably eqquipped the RDX is $4,890 more.

      If you fix the features that are wrong (CX-7 has standard keyless entry and brake assist), the RDX is $5,165 more when comparably equipped.

      • 8 Years Ago
      I'll take the Cx-7, thanks.

      Then again, neither of them is as fun as my Mazda3 hatch:-)

    • Load More Comments