2010 Acura RDX Gets Minor Refresh, Adds 2WD Model

Power Plenum for everyone!!!

I applaud Acura for trying to make RDX easier to purchase with a cheaper FWD model but the SH-awd is its Achilles heel when it comes to handling performance. With 260ftlbs of torque driving only the front wheels.........

Although the SH-awd version of the RDX has proved to be quite a performer, I cant wait until the "tier 1" Acura's debut.

"I cant wait until the "tier 1" Acura's debut.
Leave a comment"

Hear, hear!

not the grill

oh great, now it is even uglier. I hope they changed the rear-end styling, too, because it was ugly as well. Like a pug.

Why are they using that grill on everything? It's not exactly getting rave reviews.

Sometimes I wonder if car designers ever read car reviews or blogs.

Seriously, they need to go back to the grill that was used on the previous Tl.

^
Their entire lineup needs go go back to what the previous TL/MDX looked like. The TL was a great looking vehicle.

Well, that sucks. My aunt just bought her 2009 RDX on July 4th. At least she got a great deal on it.

I want to like the RDX, but in a world where the CR-V EX-L AWD (there's some alphabet soup for you) exists for a buttload less money (not just any butt, this is J.Lo Booty), I fail to fully comprehend its 'raison d'etre'.

I have driven both and while the RDX is marginally faster and has better road feel, it is also notably thirstier, and the build quality is identical to the CR-V. I guess I just don't think a badge, some chrome and a few extraneous features are worth the $6k premium (at least according to Edmunds TMV).

"I guess I just don't think a badge, some chrome and a few extraneous features are worth the $6k premium (at least according to Edmunds TMV)."

Tyran, it goes much further than that. The CRV and RDX share platforms but the suspension tuning and geometry is totally different, totally different drivetrains, materials, features and layout. Just about every material and mechanical aspect of these 2 are totally different. The RDX is simply not a badge engineered vehicle. Platform sharing and badge engineering are 2 very different things.

I will admit to not liking the build quality compared to its price and the fact its under a luxury nameplate. It wasn't bad at all (for a non luxury mainstream brand) but it didn't feel substantial like the current Acura cars. Given its price I would have liked to have seen a level of substance comparable to the current TSX (very Germanic in substance) as the difference in substance between the 1st generation TSX and second generation is borderline extreme.

Another great vehicle that won't sell as well as it should because Honda has clearly lost touch with what makes a vehicle attractive to look at.

STOP WITH THE DUMB POWER PLENUM ALREADY! It's terrible.

Acura should go back to real names and call this the Acura SilverBeak.

hondacura4 - I never said badge engineered, and it certainly wasn't the inference I was going after, either.

I thought it was obvious that I was simplifying the comparison, but in reality, the end result to the casual consumer is the same thing - a quality, compact AWD SUV. As an engineer and enthusiast, I can certainly appreciate all the details that are different between the two cars, but to me, for what I would use it for, the RDX does not offer anything overwhelmingly superior to the plebian Honda.

"hondacura4 - I never said badge engineered, and it certainly wasn't the inference I was going after, either."

I apologize Tyran as maybe I misinterpreted your post. However, your quote below lead me into thinking you were referring to badge engineering.

"I guess I just don't think a badge, some chrome and a few extraneous features are worth the $6k premium (at least according to Edmunds TMV)."

I'm not a big fan of the "Power Plenum" in any way, shape or form but I do think the version above looks better vs the current.

this thing looks like Chip....of chip -n- dale...

or could be used to advertise another Disney group...

"We're the chipmunks...Alvin, Simon...Theodore!
Doo, doo....doodoodoodoo!"

tryan, isn't the RDX a boatload faster than the CR-V? The CR-V is a 166hp standard 4 and the RDX is a what, 230hp turbo? Even if it's a bit heavier it should still leave the CR-V for dead.

OK, I did a quick troll through the archives. In IL tests the CR-V hit 60 in 9.8 sec (LX w/Nav, so similar to the MDX) and the MDX in 6.8.

That qualifies as more than 'marginally better' in my book.

"tryan, isn't the RDX a boatload faster than the CR-V? The CR-V is a 166hp standard 4 and the RDX is a what, 230hp turbo? Even if it's a bit heavier it should still leave the CR-V for dead."

Banker, the RDX's performance is light years ahead of the CRV and should be as its a performance oriented SUV.

That was my operating assumption. Tryan stated that he has driven both and that the RDX was marginally faster, which didn't (and doesn't) make sense to me.