Why has the Acura RDX been sales flop?

Because it cost more than 32K but only has a 4 cynlinder. In this price range you need a 6 cylinder engine, no matter how smooth or powerful your 4 banger is. It is the same as the RL, they need a V8 but only put a V6, they haven't learn the lesson yet.

— middleman (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 3:01:01 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 10   

Around here in OC I see way more Infiniti FX than the Acura.

— EL34 (View Profile)

Posted on 3/1/2007 12:25:18 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: -3   

They made the same mistake that they did w/ the RL. Small motor....higher price. It actually competes against the 07 RAV4, Mazda CX-7 and Hundai Sante Fe. But it cost more. Sure it's got SH AWD but it'll get outrun by the RAV4 V6. It's still a nice suv, but the competition is unrelenting.

— r_driver04 (View Profile)

Posted on 3/1/2007 12:52:37 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Price, Exterior styling and CX-7 is much better looking, at least as nice and considerably cheaper.

— the_gamper (View Profile)

Posted on 3/1/2007 3:33:57 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

Here is a letter sent in from a customer who wanted to buy one and ended up with a CR-V instead...interesting comments:

the reasons it's failing in the marketplace:

1. Crappy lease programs, especially residuals. If they set the lease up so the national ad was for 399/mo for 12k 36months with zero down it would sell.

2. The gas mileage stinks. given the excellence of their engineering, it's inexcusable that this thing gets such poor mileage.

3. The sport suspension. I actually like it on this car, but by size, the car will probably skew towards female, and the ride is too stiff for most female customers

4. The marketing campaign blows, and is entirely forgettable.

Fundamentaly this is a great car. The ride is great, the seats perfect, handling great, but the car lives in a place where it has no clear and definite target audience. Compare it with the new CR-V. As good as the Acura is, the CR-V gets almost 50% better EPA mileage, and the cabin is something like 20 cubic feet larger than the similarly sized RDX.

My two cents.

— Agent001 (View Profile)

Posted on 3/1/2007 7:44:45 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

I see quite a lot of differentiation between the two. For one, the RDX is smaller than the CR-V, both on the inside and out. 2, they don't look a like at all. The rear lights are in totally different spots for instance (column vs horizontal)

— aznstuart (View Profile)

Posted on 3/1/2007 10:25:39 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

It can't be that over priced when a BMW X3 is priced similarly with options TO MATCH the RDX's STANDARD features and costs 45k while the RDX comes out to 38k.

— aznstuart (View Profile)

Posted on 3/1/2007 10:28:11 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

my theory is, ever since 001 told us that the RL drives like a turd, acura has been branded so by car aficionados and sales would follow suit! simplicity at its finest!

— DiamondJim (View Profile)

Posted on 3/1/2007 10:53:12 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

I've owned an RDX for about 2 months and it is ok. I like the concept of a sporty, small crossover vehicle and I do enjoy driving it (I used to drive a 3-series but I needed a little more space). However, the RDX's gas mileage is terrible and I can't believe it doesn't come with a power passenger seat or auto dimming mirrors. I almost bought the RX350 but I found an Ac dealer that was basically giving the RDX's away so I went with it. I have a feeling that Acura will have to retune the engine or replace it with a 6 if they want to keep it in their lineup.

BTW- I rarely see another RDX on the road around San Diego but when I went back to visit family in Northern Virginia I saw them everywhere.

— RDXowner (View Profile)

Posted on 3/2/2007 12:20:31 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Ill tell you why: because Acura said at the NAIAS 2007 'PEOPLE, WITH THESE NEW CONCEPTS AND PRODUCTION CARS YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE BY 2010 WE WILL PROBABLY BE THE MOST ADVANCED CAR COMPANY OUT THERE!' that burned me up. so with the RDX they want us to think' oh look lets buy this overpriced, 4 cylinder, ugly beater with a million 'tecnology-enhanced' accesories.' LISTEN UP DONT BUY THE RDX!

— pacotacolol (View Profile)

Posted on 3/5/2007 8:14:49 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

How does it drive and handle. I considered an RDX but end up going a cheaper route with a 07 RAV4 V6. I average 22mpg. What mpg are you getting?

— r_driver04 (View Profile)

Posted on 3/6/2007 10:31:27 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

Engine choices(as middleman noted) and looks are what kill it for me. Maybe if I get time later I'll PS on some rims to see if it helps, but I doubt it, it looks like a soccer mom mobile. If you want a car to be hot, you have to bring something that will get a group of enthusiasts behind it. This car lacks that soul.

— Agent004 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 3:11:23 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

The RDX beat the X3 in sales for both January and February.

— aznstuart (View Profile)

Posted on 3/1/2007 10:29:17 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

I saw this one coming before it came out, I think even a great deal of the loyal Acura crowd did too. It’s the wrong combination of features, price and gas mileage. A formula Acura usually calculates with amazing precision, but they got it wrong on every level this time.

Features. No smart access, memory seats, auto-dimming mirror, heated outside mirrors, power passenger seat, rear seat vents, no rear seat entertainment options... no Bluetooth without a $4k tech package... And a turbo 4 banger instead of a 6 connected to a 5 speed auto.

For the price, which is about 38K with the tech package, it’s lacking what many (most) consider standard features in this class.

Add that fact that initial editorial driving tests reported gas mileage as abysmal as 13 MPG and wallah! You have a sport utility that doesn’t sell.

— webguy (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 3:14:42 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

People that want a 4 banger with a turbo don't want an automatic SUV.

— 5MTenthus (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 3:16:37 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

$38k is getting into some series competition. For $33k you can get a completely loaded Mazda CX-7. Perhaps the Acura brand name doesn't carry the weight?

— lewissalem (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 3:20:00 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

the turbo lag is very bad. Aside from a hood that is so heavy that it needs to be propped up, it is not a bad vehicle. As others have stated, for $32k + you could have at least put a 6 cyl in the vehicle. The rest of the competition did. How bout the hood? Does it have to be that heavy? Are they the only luxury manufacturer in the world that uses a prop to keep the hood up.

— BMW4me4ever (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 3:20:49 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1   

"Why has the Acura RDX been sales flop?"

Because on the road it doesn't look any better than a CR-V or RAV-4.

— EL34 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 3:24:04 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -2   

Does anyone really know the actual numbers? I recall having read an article here at Autospies a few weeks ago about the numbers for SUV sales.

And from what I remember, Acura actually was one of the few that actually saw a significant increase in SUV sales. I'm guessing that this had a lot to do with the RDX.

— flozel1 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 3:30:30 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

it's funny you say that because THAT number was a 33% INCREASE for the X3...

— DallasMR2 (View Profile)

Posted on 3/1/2007 11:13:05 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

The X3 just got a Mid-life refresh if I recall correctly with a new engine making some 260hp and a make over including colored lower body panels.

— aznstuart (View Profile)

Posted on 3/1/2007 10:31:38 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

two reasons in my opinion. LOOKS - I think great interior, dumpy exterior. PRICE - Just too much when you know it's a sibling of the CRV. Now, I've test driven it and it is a nice vehicle and the 4 banger really moves - plenty of pickup. But, tough to charge a premium price when you've got a 4 cylinder. If they value priced it, someone could justify the 4 cyclinder. Also from what I understand, the mileage stinks. What then is the point of the 4 cyclinder? If I'm looking at leasing something in this segment, I would get an FX all day long over this.

— M35er (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 3:34:04 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1   

I love the luxury cute ute class of vehicles. It just makes sense. It's a low priced way to get into a luxury make, often with payments not much higher than what any loaded RAV, CR-V or Escape would cost you per month. And the vehilces have enough room, power and features for most people's needs.

That being said, the RDX barely qualifies for this class of vehicles. It doesnt look luxurious (not to say it looks bad, just not luxurious). It is an Acura, which is just losing cache by the minute. And for a lot less money you can get the power of a 268hp RAV4 or the prestige and technology of a hybrid Escape. (For the same money, you can get power, prestige and just about everything else you need from a BMW X3.) What do you really get for your money in the RDX?

The RDX is basically outclassed by the vehicles in its own class and by the vehicles in a class below. (Did I say class enough times?)

— 1970toyotamarc (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 3:35:37 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

Its the size of a Rav4 with some lexury added to it, but with a price of an IS. Reduce the price or add more to the car than what it is now.

— Designer1 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 3:39:15 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -5   

Well....ugly/small/overpriced/4 cyl and KIA designers are much better...the old Aztec team must have been hired for this job. Also, I saw one on the highway a few months ago and oh my gord !!! How UGLY it was. I loved Acura until this thing came out now they don't mean anything to me anymore...sorry Honda.

— pricey (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 3:53:32 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -5   

As with past Acura's this one is TOO close to it's Honda counterpart. Acura has fixed their cars so they are all pretty unique compared to similar honda's. This is just TOO close to a CR-V. That and a lot of what others are saying related to features for the price and lack of V6. I think though that the single biggest reason traditional Honda and Acura buyers wouldn't buy this is related to it's similarity to the CR-V. It has the Turbo over the CR-V, but is it worth what is probably $5k for turbo and the hosed gas milage?? Think lots of peeps buy these smallish SUV's in part for the milage advantage they have.

— jasaero (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 3:54:03 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

The X3 even though its ride leaves something to be desired is a more compelling product and it looks better. Plus the fact that BMW has some very attractive leases! Its just not exciting enough if the Volvo X60 looks anything like the showcar it will eat the RDX's lunch!

— germeezy2 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 4:06:00 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1   

My personal opionion is that its really ugly. Just like all of the new Acuras...To the mainstream public I think the new Acuras are hideous. They have gone from class to boy racer. Nobody wants a high strung turbocharged SUV especially at 35+ thousand bucks.
T

— TauronB2G (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 4:08:06 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

As nice as the interior is, the exterior design falls flat. That being mixed with the relatively high price creates a bad situation.

— answer (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 4:28:02 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1   

Perhaps sales is regional. I saw so many of RDX in North California bayarea. The real question is why would anyone want to buy any SUV? My girl friend wanted a small SUV. We test drove X3si and RDX technology package. For equipment and User experience, RDX is designed better, and driving dynamic is not too far behind from X3, and it's MUCH cheaper, we figure, eqiually equiped X3 would cost at least 12K more... Besides, thanks for the cold market of SUV, my girl friend got 4K off MSRP on RDX. Voice assistance and spatial query on Zagat rating in Navigation is very handy. Paddle-shifter and the turbo sound are very exciting, and virtually no turbo-lag at all, quite fast as well. MPG verage 21 in real life so far, but that goes with any car that weights roughly 2 tons. I think it's the best pick on compact SUV now. Car has been around roughly 100 years, counting cylinder should not matter anymore. I would like to have mr. fusion in my car... well or at least E85.

— dsch_iter (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 4:40:21 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

I've said this before: why would someone by an RDX for $38,000 when they can get a similarly equipped RAV4 for $28,000 that includes 270HP V6, 0-60 in 7.2 seconds, and EPA 21-28mpg? Worse yet, the RDX is a smaller car, with less luggage capacity than the RAV4.

— quizz (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 4:53:34 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

I really think this car is hideous.I'm European so i see it for the first time but i think it's design is awful.That's why it's not selling.

— Kostin (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 4:57:08 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1   

There are a number of reasons why its not selling and alot of it has already been said. The ride is much to firm for the non-sport driver and let me tell ya, there are many people looking for a small SUV that's still comfortable to drive. BMW offers a normal and sport package.

If your going to offer a 4 cyl., you also must offer an optional 6cyl. And, dispite the variable flow turbo, it still has a lot of turbo lag.

Price point is much to high when you consider the lack of everyday equipment, and the cargo area is smaller than the RAV, CX7 or any other small SUV. You can't even fit golf clubs back there. I sell this product so you maybe able to sense alittle frustration in my rant.

— golfer38 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 5:25:57 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1   

i was given the RDX as a loaner while my MDX was in for service and I think that the RDX drives and handles very nicely. The only problem I have with it is that it has a very odd look to it, I think the rear is oddly shaped. When I look at it from the side, it just doesn't look right and I've heard the same thing form other people as well.

— reibok (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 5:26:42 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

If they put this engine in a TSX with a real transmission (read: not automatic), they'd have a sales success.

— 5MTenthus (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 5:31:49 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

i know, why dont they put the engine since its a turbo into a car and put a v6 into the Suv. i dont get it.

— trd1 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 5:44:51 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

this would have been ok as a honda crv, but as a luxury suv, not even close, nothing about this car saids upscale car except the acura badge, inside it looks like a rav4,equinox, etc competition and a turbo 4 is fine in the mazda thats thousands cheaper but why would anyone pay this much for an suv thats this small, has a 4cyl, and an interior like that.....

— bmwdrvr (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 5:52:15 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

And Lexus is a rebadged Toyota...

— joeyc (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 6:16:51 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

I'm sorry, I'd MUCH rather have an RDX than a RX. ...but maybe that's because I'm not a housewife.

— DallasMR2 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 6:31:00 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

either he's 8 years old, or resides at bellevue

— 1995e34 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 6:36:06 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1   

And Audi is a rebadged VW,so what your point??

— 2JZSoarer (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 10:23:10 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1   

This segment is newly forming and we will have to wait and see how it matures. There are new vehicles coming into this from every luxo manufacturer which will tell the tale of success and failure. The vehicle struggles due to its overall offering not because of a single element - the engine is awkward in the segment (the only Turbo), the package is not great and it is offers a more sporting character than luxury. Lots contribute to its misfortune - too bad its a nice vehicle that no one wants.

— THESCOOTER (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 6:03:13 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

Here is my reason: there is no advantage of buying this over a non-luxury version. The answer is that the CR-V and Rav4 take all the sales from this car, because they are the better choices when one is trying to buy a car in this category. Especially since the Rav4 has more power for less price. Maybe if it was cheaper people would justify buying this over a Rav4 but I guess that isn't going to happen. The competition is eating up the sales for this car. In my opinion I would either get the MDX or a Rav4 rather than getting a RDX (With choices limited to that).

— kart1 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 6:44:30 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

I'd say the looks aren't that great, plus it's pretty expensive, even when you factor in it being loaded.

— huu76 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 6:56:37 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

the x3 out sells the rdx because of handling.... bmw x3 has a rough ride but it handles about 85% of what the 3 series does...Oh and i think the rdx is ugly....

Bmw is killing them with the help of subsidizing the leases... I lease my 43k x3 for 385 0 down on a 36 month lease... Try getting that from a rdx it wont happen it will be definitely over 400

— lovemybimmers (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 6:59:11 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

I've see quite a few when visiting the east coast. Not so much on the west coast, which isn't a surprise because I don't see any X3's either.

And didn't the X3's sales start off relatively slow. I thought I remember reading reports about BMW's desperation to sell it.

But I agree with those who state the missing link in the RDX's acceptance is the lack of a 6-cylinder engine and the price. I wouldn't pay almost 40 large for something this small, with a 4-banger turbo when I can get a base MDX (very stripped, mind you) for almost the same price with 300hp V-6 and more utility.

— senorgato (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 7:02:24 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

I really wanted to love this, but I have to agree that you don't get enough for the money they're asking, even considering that they're asking a lot less. I was just in the dealer last week and casually mentioned an interest in the RDX and the salesman said he'd sell me one for $2500 off sticker. That's with no negotiation or serious interest on my part. I don't mind the looks, but the amenities are sub-par and I can't get over that the gas mileage for this thing is the SAME as the MDX!

— finishline (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 7:10:46 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

My wife thinks its ugly. Maybe that's why its a flop (multiply her x most women who look at these).

— ilmor (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 7:26:46 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

Its not much of a looker, it gets expensive and even though it has an impressive engine, it is still a four banger. For that cash, I would go with the X3.

— no1listensanyway (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 7:30:18 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Honda/Acura is not serious about making lux cars/SUVs.
They kinda make half-baked cars and think ppl will buy it because of the honda name.

Until Honda gets serious, they aint' going nowhere. The RL is suffering because Honda has refused to put in an V8. Same thing with the TL and rear wheel drive thing. It is time for Honda to get serious or stop making Acuras.

— BMWsuk (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 7:40:48 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 4   

Yes-I think mechanically the RDX and CRV are too similar.Your charging say $8000 more for a turbo motor and tighter suspension settings. Hard to justify. As a few have brought up the Mazda CX7 is quite a bit cheaper and has more dynamic styling.I think the base car w/o the tech package should start at say $28 or $29 grand and top out at $33 grand with the tech package.

— mini22 (View Profile)

Posted on 3/1/2007 1:09:16 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

exactly! and how can you call the RDX over priced when a similarly equiped X3 costs 10 grand more than the RDX?

— aznstuart (View Profile)

Posted on 3/1/2007 10:48:08 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

My friend just picked up a brand new MDX. Surprisingly the interior was better than what I expected and the ride was way above average. The seats were comfortable, the cabin was quiet, not bad for Acura, much improved from it's past gen model. Looks it's subjective it grew a little on me but still awkward. The price is about the right price to compete against it's competition. I don't know why the RDX was even created. Use that turbo engine to some performance Acura model instead.

My two cents
-Agent63

— Agent63 (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 9:04:57 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

I got in this crap at the autoshow in Portland,I pull the front seat all the way back to see how much leg room it had,dude I couldn't move my legs,case in point this vehicle is a flop because it has no rear leg room,and you can get a V6 Rav4 with more Horsepower for less money!!

— 2JZSoarer (View Profile)

Posted on 2/28/2007 10:14:51 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

or maybe you're just fat.

— aznstuart (View Profile)

Posted on 3/1/2007 10:49:31 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

Went to the autoshow and couldnt tell the mdx from the rdx. Had to look at the badge in the back. Not being unique looking doesn't help its cause.

— louisvuittondon (View Profile)

Posted on 3/1/2007 1:07:06 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

I was sooo looking forward to the RDX coming out because from pictures, i loved the way it looked inside and out. But I drove one the first week it came out and was dissapointed for the following reasons:

1) No V-6. The 4 banger is rough like a 4 banger, plus turbo lag, plus combined with the auto, it just wasn't smooth.
2) 16 mpg? Are freaking kidding me? And this is from the most fuel efficient car company in the world?
3) Interior didn't feel as premium as it first looked. The $38k RDX felt like the $27k TSX.

The entire time I was driving the RDX, I couldn't stop thinking that my $38k 325i was sooo much nicer, so much smooth, and felt so much more premium. I really wanted to like it, but the car is simply not a good value.

Don't get me started on the X3. As much as I like bimmers and as much as the X3 drives like one, it looks like a shoe, it looked dated the day it came out, and the interior feels too economy (even after last year's refresh).

I'm still waiting for the ideal premium small SUV to come out. Will Infiniti pleeeease make a mini FX? Thanks!

— dgoodson (View Profile)

Posted on 3/1/2007 1:44:53 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

I forgot to add that I read somewhere that Acura didn't put a 6 cylinder in the RDX because it wouldn't fit. That's a HUGE error on their part and they should have designed it so that it fit a 6 cylinder to begin with!

For $27k, people are willing to forgo a 6 cylinder and buy TSXs. For $38k though, a 6 is a PREREQUISITE for this class.

— dgoodson (View Profile)

Posted on 3/1/2007 1:48:25 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3   

Gotta have it factor = 0. It looks too much like a Kia, a Toyota, a Hyundai, a Suzuki, the list goes on, and most of these twins cost half as much. There is no Acura connection to this design, thus, no one wants to pay nearly 40k on something that will be mistaken for a 20k cheap-UV in their driveway. Every other Acura model is beautiful and/or unmistakable. The RDX is an exterior design failure.

— CBR2200 (View Profile)

Posted on 3/1/2007 2:27:01 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

Sorry, but I don't see many X3's in the Bay Area and, IMHO, it's fugly.

— JMd71 (View Profile)

Posted on 3/1/2007 11:30:32 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

The Acura nameplate is more synonymous with value and near luxury. The price point for the RDX would be fitting if their entire product line were more premium or offered exclusive features. Not many, if any, true luxury nameplates are so well known for their hatchbacks (RSX & Integra) as Acura - European cars excluded. I understand that they are trying changing their image by dropping the RSX from their line up, but they should have built up their brand recognition more before dropping the RDX into the market. Acura makes very good cars, but not one of them is a standout - in any category.

IMO, brand recognition dictates much of any autos pricing.
Example, look at Bose. Bose home theater systems, IMHO, are way overpriced and offer midrange (literally) performance. Their car systems aren't much better, but they can sell their systems for exorbitant prices because everyone and their mother have fallen for their brilliant marketing tactics and believe anything branded Bose is the best.

Acura doesn't have that much clout in the luxury segment and can't sell a $38k vehicle unless it's packed bumper-to-bumper with features/value. Simply put, the RDX is priced out of its league.

— ElSparquito (View Profile)

Posted on 3/1/2007 4:10:29 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

We took a look at the new Acura SUV's 2 weeks ago... we have a 2006 MDX, but i was thinking it was kinda big and my wife might like the RDX as it might fit her needs better... we dont really need a 7 passenger vehicle... she drove the RDX, however, and it "didn't do anything for her"... the interior desn't seem to be "luxury" to her - eg, it didn't have any wood trim - neither her nor i are really on the "aluminum trim" bandwagon...
and it really didn't seem like a luxury SUV - i bought our kids a RAV4 - they are 17... so i'm really not comparing the RDX to the RAV4...
it didn't seem to be the kind of car i personaly would want - if i would want a sporty SUV, i want some torque... we do like Acura products and she bought a new MDX sport (traded in our 2006 MDX) as she REALLY liked the MDX... it seemed much more appropriate!
i agree the RDX just didn't seem to fit in an easily defined category or need that we could see.

— nzl8dc (View Profile)

Posted on 3/1/2007 10:57:01 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

Two words for the dismal RDX sales...price and engine. I'm a big Honda/Acura fan, but Acura still doesn't get it. They are trying to move upmarket, BUT you don't do that with price first. Like others have stated, Acura has always been known as value and near-luxury. If they want to go upmarket the product has to be upmarket, then priced below the competition until brand is built...and then bingo, up pricing structure. See Lexus, they mastered this.

As for RDX, for the money it should have many luxury features it is lacking, like a power passenger seat. Timing is another thing. It came out with the Mazda CX-7 and was immediately compared to that, as they were very similar in features/style. Not good for Acura. Then you throw in the 4 cylinder with what seems to be awful gas mileage and blah. Who the hell wants to pay $38k for that. If Acura would have priced this base around $29k and loaded around $33k, we would be talking about how great this thing as sold, IMO. Unfotunately, they followed the losing RL forumula with this model as well. Too bad. Now, hopefully, that put that engine in the TSX.

— cktoo (View Profile)

Posted on 3/1/2007 11:05:59 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

It is so butt-ugly for starters....

— BimmerFan (View Profile)

Posted on 3/2/2007 2:14:32 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1   

Why has the Acura RDX been sales flop?

This is so easy to answer...first off its butt ugly! Acuras styling really sucks on their SUV's.And its a bit pricey!

— donthegreek (View Profile)

Posted on 3/6/2007 11:02:31 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

How many of you would pay $38k for the CRV with a Turbo and more equipment. That should answer the question! =)

— germeezy2 (View Profile)

Posted on 3/11/2007 2:20:56 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1