• Jul 24th 2009 at 10:27AM
  • 46
2010 Acura RDX - Click above for image gallery

Last week, we showed you a few photos of what looked to be the 2010 Acura RDX that had begun floating around the interwebs. A subsequent call to Acura confirmed that they were, in fact, the real deal. Now, without any fanfare, the updated compact crossover has appeared on the company's website, complete with specification changes and pricing.

As shown earlier, the RDX is indeed on the receiving end of the corporate shield grille rhinoplasty, and also gets new fog lamps and air inlets. The rear end has been cleaned up as well, with new hexagonal exhaust inlets with stylized cutouts and a mesh insert in the fascia's lower reaches.

The big news for 2010 is the availability of a front-drive version, which helps shed weight and parasitic drag to increase fuel economy. At an EPA estimated 19 miles-per-gallon city and 24 highway, the RDX still strikes us as behind the curve, but perhaps not as much as the (unchanged) 17/22 figures of the Super Handling All-Wheel Drive (SH-AWD) version.

Predictably, this least-complex RDX is also the cheapest, ringing up at $32,520 plus delivery. If you do want the foul-weather security of all-wheel drive, you'll have to pay a minimum of $34,520. Plump for the technology package (which includes traffic- and weather-linked sat-nav, premium Acura/ELS surround sound, and so on), you're looking at $35,620 in front-drive guise, and $37,620 for all-wheel drive.

We see no mention of streaming audio as hinted at earlier, but Bluetooth telephony is still part of the mix. Further, a rearview camera will come standard, even if one doesn't pony up for the Technology pack with navigation.

No matter which model you choose, the RDX continues to be motivated by the same turbocharged, intercooled 2.3-liter four-cylinder, giving 240 horsepower at 6,000 rpm and 260 pound-feet of torque at 4,500 rpm.

We'll keep our eyes peeled for an official press release and a full complement of high-res images, but for now, enjoy our screencap'd gallery below. Thanks for the tip, Trevor!

[Source: Acura]

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
      • 6 Years Ago
      I really hope Honda can get their act together on this car. Girlfriend's mother has a Turbo, and the thing is buzzy, jittery and loud at city speeds, let alone hwy. Yes it handles great, and more than enough power on tap -- but overall I just don't get the appeal.

      Oh and the paddle shifting sucks -- the delay between shifts is as bad as a Chrysler 4speed manumatic (or, a Chrysler 4speed manumatic is as good as this setup).
        • 6 Years Ago
        Not to mention the fuel economy. My friend's never goes under 13.0-14.0L/100km--horrendous for mixed cycle driving. The RAV4 V6 gets better fuel economy and has better performance. The "4-cylinder" is purely for marketing purposes.
      • 6 Years Ago
      I could see how this was difficult for them to bring out. Acura knows that this grill won't make a return on a new model, but if they axed it, the entire MMC would have been thrown off. Maybe they are thinking that how many sales could they loose over it? I hope a lot. Honda needs to be kicked in the shins and hopefully they will go back and fix all of their screw-ups. Besides the premature rear pads wearing and some cars drinking oil, I haven't been more disappointed in Honda's lineup. Also Honda really needs to start looking at getting more dials for the radio/hvac. Even in the 08 Accord I could never get used to changing thing around (wasn't mine) when you had a second to look down while driving.

      • 6 Years Ago
      To be fair, the beak looks better than on other models (TL, RL, not TSX, not MDX (which has a different grille altogether)), but overall the new RDX looks a lot worse than the old one (I loved the look of the old one, inside and out).
      Furthermore, with the making of SH-AWD an option, there is basically no longer any compelling reason to buy an RDX, given the old one (with standard SH-AWD) sold at basically the same price as the new base price (around $33000).
      Shame, really.
      • 6 Years Ago
      How many of you guys have driven the existing RDX? In 9" of snow? I have. It's good/nice. I do NOT like the SH-AWD, though. I wobbles from left to right too much in comparison to the Honda sister. But, the turbo engine is very nice for the vehicle, imo. Not something I would rate a negative at all.

      Not the best buy in the market segment, but my favorite one of the lot. I still think the CR-V is the sweet spot.

      Granted, anyone wanting off-road capabilities should not look to Honda/Acura. Just stating the blindingly obvious before someone else does.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Off-roaders won't bother looking at the crossover segment, period. They want Wranglers, Xterras, 4Runners, etc. Honda doesn't have a 4WD that's not basically a stilted FWD car or van.

        And I agree, the CR-V is the better vehicle, though I much prefer the boxier pre-2007 models to the sloped-back current one. And before I'd buy an RDX I'd look into an X3 or even a Mazda CX-7

        • 6 Years Ago
        Yes, I have driven it. It is noisy, buzzy and rides way way too stiff for the unremarkable handling. The interior uses cheap materials and looks it. It gets terrible gas mileage. They throw in tons of tech garbage with terrible interfaces and buttons all over the interior...I think I counted over 70 buttons within drivers' reach. And now, they have the beak.

        In a word, fail.
      • 6 Years Ago
      So this "SUV" has a turbo 4 and all they can get out of it is 16/22 with AWD. The peak power and torque numbers are also way up in the rev range, this doesn't bode well for a vehicle that's meant to carry lots of people and stuff.

      I wonder if people like LSx will think that this fuel economy is OK since he ripped on the ecoboost Flex (which is much bigger, has over 100 more HP and 90 more lb-ft of torque) for getting similar numbers and claiming that it gets lousy V6 economy. Apparently it gets lousy 4 cylinder fuel economy if your comparing it to this mess.
        • 6 Years Ago

        I wouldn't hold your breath...

        There is no excuse for a vehicle this size with that amount of HP to get anywhere near that fuel economy. If a Flex (which is heavy as all hell) with that much HP and an actual people/stuff hauling capabilities can match that, you have a problem.

        And now you know why the turbo 4 hasn't been used in anything else but the RDX.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Even the with a 3.2 litre V6 engine, a lot more weight and AWD, the Audi Q5 gets slightly better EPA numbers (18 city/22 highway).

        I'll take it over the useless can-opener that is this RDX.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Yeah, a Buick Enclave AWD gets 16/22. Considering it weighs more than 1,000lb more, has 22 more horsepower, two extra cylinders, and seating for 8, I'd say the RDX's economy is embarrassingly bad.

        As others have said, the new beak doesn't make it look any worse. At least it's taken the "loose folds of neck skin" look away from the front. But the Guillotine doesn't do it any favors, either. It looks like a cheap graft job, since they're using carryover headlights that don't harmonzie well with it.

      • 6 Years Ago
      HONDA CEO: We learn from our mistake. lol

      I just cant wait to see when their sales start to plummet rock bottom...they will surely learn from their STUPIDITY.

      • 6 Years Ago
      Sigh. I really had hoped the chrome beak would evolve into something more palatable by now. It's a shame because other than the nose, Acura's offerings are fairly handsome, if a bit mechanical looking for my taste. My wife is looking at new sedans at the moment and won't even consider an Acura because of the styling.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Well said. "Cold" is a good way to describe Acuras.

        We're leaning towards the Infiniti M35x for my wife's next one. Great deals out there right now on used ones, fairly interesting styling, good performance and reliability, and a pretty nice interior. The enthusiast in me won't let her get a Lexus-- that's the automotive equivalent of novocaine.
        • 6 Years Ago
        I agree completely, mechanical is a great word to describe them. I don't find Acuras luxurious in the least bit, they're too cold. Personally, I don't mind the new TL's exterior, in fact I even like it a little bit, but I hate the interior! I'd rather have an Infiniti, or dare I say, Lexus.
        • 6 Years Ago

        Well, you'd spend money on a TL because you really wanted a more expensive RL, but with more horsepower, for less money. Talk about a stupid, stupid, stupid move.

        Seriously...the TSX is almost as big as the TL AND it's being offered with a V6. So yeah...it seems like the only thing Acura needs the TL for is to compete with itself.
        • 6 Years Ago

        Funny you mention that, because I was thinking the same thing. I happen to like the layout of the TL and TSX, but the presentation is nothing special. It's almost as if the folks there made small changes, whereas everyone else in each of Acura's respective segments made giant leaps (look at the first gen G35 vs. what we get now).

        All of which begs the question, why spend the extra money on a TL? The Accord looks better, is just as fast, has a reasonable amount of equipment and has a very similar interior layout/design. I'm not totally sold on Lincoln, but at least when I look at some of their newer offerings (MKZ, MKS and MKT) I don't think gee this is just like a Ford _________ .
      • 6 Years Ago
      with that nose-job, it ain't peeking at nothing!
      • 6 Years Ago
      I smell an engine swap! :-)
      • 6 Years Ago
      What is it with Acura lately?
      • 6 Years Ago
      Looks like a damn parrot.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Too bad.
    • Load More Comments