Doing things The Honda Way involves as much blind faith in one’s methods as it does a quantifiable formula for success. While the company has had many successes (the 1973 Civic right up until the most recent Civic), there have been mis-steps, like the first-generation Odyssey and the lack of a V6 in the 1994-1997 Accords. The one common denominator is that no matter what, Honda remains convinced that their way is the best and only way of doing things, and they’re not interested in hearing any other opinions.
As much as the 2012 Civic takes its lumps in the public arena, the first-generation RDX is a great example of “The Honda Way” gone awry. The 2.3L turbocharged engine was hailed by Autoblog in today’s editorial as “Honda’s Best Performance Engine”, but they apparently forgot about the K20, F22C and the B-Series and H-Series VTEC motors of a previous era. The K23A1 was laggy, erratic in its power delivery and mated to an uninspiring 5-speed automatic transmission for most of its life. The 6-speed transmission was improved, but not enough that most consumers would know or care or even use the paddle shifters. A dismal 17/22 mpg rating was the official number, anything that slightly deviated from a perfect EPA test cycle (i.e. sudden lane changes and merging situations, uphill driving, cold climates, snow tires) saw a noticeable drop in fuel economy and a thirst for premium gasoline didn’t help. The RDX later offered front-drive to go along with its SH-AWD system, a lovely feature that was ultimately wasted on the small crossover clientele, and the bespoke platform Acura engineered to accommodate the RDX.
The new RDX has been criticized by the B&B as being little more than a re-badged CR-V with a V6 engine. I haven’t heard confirmation of that, but it wouldn’t be so bad. The new CR-V won’t cause tachycardiya, but it’s a fine car to drive and full of practical features that will make people’s lives easier, like a low load floor and one-touch folding rear seats – the kinds of things that matter in the crossover segment rather than lateral g numbers and 0-60 times. Power is up to 273 horsepower and 20/28 mpg (city/highway) for front-drive models and 19/27. The SH-AWD will be missed by few, and the K23A1 even fewer.
I never understood the turbo RDX’s mpg numbers. I thought the point of a turbo 4cyl was to get V6 power with 4cyl mpg? Just about every other turbo 4 does this, and often with more horsepower… The first time I looked up the mpg of an RDX (after a friend bought one and complained about poor mpg) I thought it was a misprint. Shockingly bad for any 4 cyl.
So here they are admitting it by replacing it with a more powerful V6 that gets much higher mpg figures. Has Honda ever previously addressed the low mpg of the current RDX?
A turbo four works very well when you don’t need to dip into the boost. In an small, aerodynamic car and especially at highway speeds where you’re off-boost, it works well.
In city driving, and in a small crossover, it will suck like a larger engine.
Think about it this way: it’s virtual displacement, and displacement always exacts a mileage penalty. There is no free ride, ever. My Saab 9-3 (B205 engine, 200hp turbo) could approach what my Honda Fit gets on the highway. If I put the boost gauge into the yellow, it sucked gas like a six. If I put it into the red in an urban commute, it would bankrupt me.
I don’t know why people expect miracle. Drive a turbo Sonata like you stole it and/or in gridlock and you won’t get EPA, either, but at least it’s light and slippery of shape. The RDX is a SUV, meaning it’s small and brick like. A turbo is not the best choice.
Any engine sucks down gas if you are heavy on the pedal. The highway mpg is the biggest mystery to me on the RDX. A Kia Sportage turbo w/ more horsepower achieves 27mpg hwy and is rated in the city what the RDX is rated on the highway…
And wouldn’t the low RPM torque of a turbo 4 make it a good choice for a small SUV?
You can put it in a different way.
Turbocharged engine allows you to burn the same amount of fuel/air mixture in a given volume as the NA engine (at light/no load), but since turbo can supply/force more air in the cylinders, you can inject more fuel too. That gives you more output/power, when you run under load.
I hated the feel of the RDX, turbo lag was noticeable and overall was an uncomfortable ride. I prefered our CR-V in more than one way. I think what they are doing is perfect for what will sell. All Acura ever has been and needs to be is a nicer Honda with more tech and power…that will sell.
Yea my friend’s was very noisy (road and engine) and had a rough ride. Anecdotal SN: While it’s been mechanically flawless he’s had a lot of other things fail (seat heaters, a/c twice, electrical gremlins).
I thought it was telling that my parents, who have owned 30+ Hondas with nothing but good things to say about them, dismissed the RDX almost immediately when looking for a crossover. I had a presser a couple of years ago and was not impressed (no pun intended).
i am known for having a really bad short term memory, but i remember the stupid long term things. once of those was the 94-97 accord offered a v6. also, the first gen odyssey is considered a very good vehicle, while the second gen odyssey is panned for its poor transmission reliability.
I was going to say the same thing. If I recall the 95 (I had a 94 EX and read up about them, I only had the I4 though) was the first year to offer a V6, but the generation definitely had them. I still see plenty of the V6s, with their little badgey thing, pootling around.
The 94-97 Accord wasn’t supposed to have a V6. At the time, Honda’s (longitudinal) V6 car was the Legend. However, the US midsize market (’92 Camry especially) moved toward V6s in the early ’90s, so Honda had to shoehorn a transverse V6 into the platform after it was done (requiring a stretch of the engine bay to fit the second cylinder bank).
The 1996-1997 Accord absolutely offered a V6. You can check the mileage figures on fueleconomy.gov. That being said, it wasn’t a very good fit for the car. It was too heavy for the chassis, and in many cases was slower than the VTEC 4 cylinder in the EX model.
the first gen odyssey is considered a very good vehicle,
I don’t think it sold well – not nearly as well as the vehicle that replaced it.
agreed, it didnt sell nearly as well, however it’s reliability is almost as legendary as the toyota previa.
The first-gen Odyssey didn’t have sliding rear doors. Otherwise it would have been the most perfect minivan ever built.
My brother-in-law had one and loved it.
I recently traded in my 1997 (first gen) Odyssey and can vouch that it was, indeed, a very good vehicle. Not super-sized like today’s “mini-vans”, it was just a little larger than today’s Mazda5. It got decent mpg… about 21 mpg combined.
Ok, it wasn’t very fast, doing 0-60 in more than 10 seconds. It had a SOHC 4 cylinder 2.2L engine good for 140 horses. It was based on the Accord platform and had double wishbones on all 4 corners! Take that RDX (with struts in front)!
V-TEC and a tachometer didn’t arrive until the 1998 model.
Honda phoned in the development on the K23A1. It wasn’t particularly powerful, the economy was sub par and the power delivery questionable. Some more R&D could have made this a great engine – but is no longer the Honda way.
Ugly, slow, expensive, thirsty.
How much longer can Acura squander resources and still exist??
(See ZDX)
As long as Lexus exists would be my answer.
The RDX ran 0-60 in 6 seconds flat as recorded by a couple publications. That makes it one of the fastest CUVs available. How is that slow?
K23A1 was a waste. V6 is def the better move. Still not sure when Honda’s gonna get it’s head out of its ass but it looks like it’s gonna be a long time, judging by that thing they are calling the next NSX
Honda has quickly become overcome by almost all the major brands in the past 5 years.
I’ve never been impressed by their cars, but at the time, everything else in the same class was just worse. A year or so ago we dabbled with the idea of getting a Fit. Figured it was frugal, practical, and would be a good all around car for her. If he would of had the need, and money, for a new car then and there that might of been what we of bought too…..
But flash forward almost two years and the Fit wasn’t even on our list. I was thinking the Focus, or maybe holding out a few more months for the Sonic, but in the end we opted for a new V6 Mustang. Fits were running $17-18K at the Honda stealers, err, dealers. For less then $5k more, or the price of a upper-spec Civic, or cheaper then a Civic Si, we got a far better vehicle that not only runs circles around the Honda show room, but feels far more upscale then anything north of $10k setting in the Acura show room.
The people who buy them are blind brand loyalist; I don’t think they’re going to win over any new buyers, or at least, they sure as hell didn’t win us over.
There is no comparison between the Fit, Focus, Sonic and the Mustang.
Whilst I applaud your choice of the Mustang, I think you just decided you wanted a bigger car and were willing to spend the extra $5000.
A couple of years ago I was in the opposite situation, I really wanted a Ferrari GTO but settled on a 99 Ranger because it had a larger bed and 4 wheel drive.
–You too?
He posts pretty regularly about how he ONLY had to spend $5k more and got this completely amazing base model Mustang instead of whatever car the post is about. $5k is almost a 30% price increase, and to most people who are shopping for a sub-$20k car a 30% stretch isn’t even remotely possible. Especially those people who are shopping for practical cars and not sport coupe/muscle cars.
Exactly.
Thank you.
Derek, I’m sorry, but it’s too much work to read your writing sometimes. For example, a reader shouldn’t have to wonder if the “2.3L turbocharged engine” is the same as the “K23A1” (whatever that is).
And is “tachicardiya” Canadian for something?
Put some effort into this so we don’t have to.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51zlxMxXV4L.jpg
Here’s a simplied version of TTAC for you, now available on the LeapPad.
Does the LeapPad version use “its” and “it’s” appropriately? : )
Unable to incorporate spell check due to a need for shiny lights and Lightning McQueen voice software.
I think he meant “tachycardia” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachycardia
I don’t believe it’s spelled any different in Canadia.
That engine is a laggy, fuel-sucking pig and the RDX is and always will be a car owned by single, young, professional women who have a place of their own and a dog. When they get married they trade them in for a Lexus RX.
I have to agree, this article reads more like a Honda forum post than a stand alone article.
I agree with NorthwestT re the K23A1 but hadn’t though about posting it until I saw Kreindler’s poor, dickish attempt at humor.
I am here at a car blog written by real car guys supposedly for real car guys… who should know at least common engine codes. Everyone knows what an LSx is, the K20 is pretty well known, so K23A1 shouldn’t be too challenging either.
One of the reasons I like TTAC better than Autoblog or Jalopnik is for the inside info and the knowledge of the writers.
Try reading Bryce if you want something that will make you want to throw glass shards into your eyes.
“Tachycardia” is very rapid heartbeat. Can happen in any country.
NorthwestT, maybe you should put in a little effort. R18A1; F23A1; and my very favorite, the B18C5. Confused?
I suppose beauty is all in the eye of the beholder. I picked up a 2008 RDX 18 months ago to replace Beloved’s late lamented MINI (shortly before child 2 put in an appearance.) She still pines for the MINI (Stockholm syndrome, presumably?) but I’ve found the RDX to be an excellently fun little thing. Certainly not a paragon of sensible practicality by any stretch of the imagination, but a real hoot to drive. It was showing 23.9mpg on the (fairly accurate) trip computer when we bought it, as averaged over the previous 8000 miles, and with Beloved piloting it, it will do better than EPA just about every day of the week. The rare occasions I get to drive, not so much, but it’s certainly damned entertaining when I do. The muted little <squissssh> from the turbo blowoff is probably worth the price of admission alone. The expectation of long life with relatively little in the way of significant mechanical failure is really just icing on the cake.
Of course, consider the source; I have a history of Japanese and Italian motorcycle ownership, have voluntarily bought more than one French car, and I confidently expect my midlife-crisis-mobile to be a ’12 or ’13 WRX STI. I have a thing for turbots and four wheel drive and I’m evidently not entirely right in the head.
Having spent three years with my wife’s leased RDX, I have to disagree. There was some slight lag off the line but after that, there were bags full of low end and midrange grunt (I think mated to a manual in a lighter car the motor would have been a real monster). That, combined with the excellent handling and SH-AWD, made for an edgier, sportier experience than the norm for the CUV class.
Certainly the RDX had its flaws (harsh ride and fuel economy), but it was an entertaining, unique product with a soulful personality largely because of the turbo and SH-AWD.
And by the way, I would miss SH-AWD – it is far more effective, in both good and bad weather, than Honda’s standard setup (I’ve driven them back to back).
I, for one, will mourn the castration of the RDX and Honda’s continued descent into blandness. From my perspective, the RDX’s devolution into a “CR-V with a V6” is indeed a bad thing.
Yes, I am I think in agreement with everything in this comment. I have a current generation 4×4 Pilot for Minivan duty as well as the RDX, and the SH-AWD is significantly more engaging than even the very good VTM-4 system in use in the Pilot.
It is rather sad that the RDX is going V6, that bonkers torquey little engine gives it so much of it’s character.
Also for the record, the flappy paddles in the RDX are substantially more responsive than the flappy paddles in the MINI it replaced ever were.
Correction to the article. I had a 1996 Accord V6, – the V6 I believe was introduced in 1995 and was derivative of the previous generation Acura Legend’s. It wasn’t a very powerful engine, geared for passing manuvers in the 40 – 60 mph range and ran out of steam at 80 MPH.
Anyhow, I owned a 2008 RDX and this was probably one of the worse purchases I ever made. I’m still trying to figure out what I saw in the test drive and I’m convinced I was somehow hypnotized to sign on the dotted line. I never warmed up to it’s odd proportions. The performance was mediocre, the engine fan was incredibly loud and unrefined at idle, SH-AWD in a tall vehicle makes no sense (you can’t beat the laws of physics), it had a TERRIBLE crashing ride and the fit and finish was ‘meh’. I’ve never seen so much orange peel in a paint finish before. The front leather headrests disintegrated and peeled. The fuel economy was a joke and equal to my 2011 4Runner’s. The Elliot Scheiner ELS sound system is an award winning system? Really? The satellite/FM radio sounded terrible, although the promotional CD recorded in some obscure recording method that came with the RDX sounded great. Nice hook Acura. I could go on and on, but the RDX really put the final nail in the coffin with me for Honda/Acura products. What a ‘has been’ company. Don’t get me started…… ; )
I might add though that the resale value on this thing was most impressive. The trade in value was 62% of the purchase price and that included significant negotiation on the new car. Although a mistake of a purchase, it wasn’t a total financial disaster.
Unless it’s a low pressure turbo ala Volvo 760, I’ve always thought it was a bad idea to mate a small displacement turbo to a heavy vehicle. There’s no free lunch, if you want to generate a given amount of power, then you’d have to spend a given amount of fuel. The turbo *should* get better fuel economy because it would be lighter than the equivalent larger displacement engine, and because it would operate at less part-throttle than a larger displacement engine. But a V-6 operates at lower rpm’s, less friction, less wear and tear. So for the RDX, you’re taking a small engine and asking it to do much more work over it’s lifetime than some other engine combination.
Would be interesting to see how the new BMW turbos pan out in extended real world driving. On paper, the numbers are great.
The free lunch in a turbo is stuffing more air into the engine, more oxygen burns and you get more power. Turbo is all about free lunch. You get a lot of power out of 4 cylinders and at low RPM, allowing you to maintain high mpg. Until recently most turbo 4 cyl engines focused on high perfomance and not so much on balancing power and mpg. I would say mabye this was the RDX’s issue if it wasn’t for the average horsepower.
>The free lunch in a turbo is stuffing more air into the engine, more oxygen burns and you get more power.
Nada. You stuff more oxygen AND fuel. So to generate the same amount of power, you burn the an equivalent amount of fuel. It’s not that simple of course, but if you want to save fuel in a turbo, don’t dip into the boost, in which case, you’re just driving around with a smaller displacement engine.
It’s not equivilant or there’d be no point in it. Yes it injects a little more fuel but still in 2 fewer cylinders and you’re getting peak torque at very low RPM compared to a NA 4 cyl. That’s why you see modern mass market turbo engines getting only slightly worse mpg than the NA base engines.
Either way there is just no excuse for the poor MPG of the RDX, which is made obvious by the new V6.
The “free” lunch comes in the form of using the exhaust gases to spin the turbo, instead of using a drive belt for it like a supercharger in which case it’s taking away some of the power that the engine generates like any other accessory. You still have to maintain A/F ratio, so by compressing the incoming air you can shove more air AND fuel in, which in turn creates a bigger “bang”.
Turbocharger gives a smaller engine the ability to burn fuel like a bigger one when under boost. If you’re on boost all the time, like the RDX, the end result will be at best the same as you would have gotten with a larger displacement engine.
Don’t turbo engines run hotter as well? I never did like the idea of putting turbo-4s into these modern 4wd wagons.
Regarding the story – I don’t know how Acura still exists. Doesn’t make any sense to me. I guess some people are insane enough to buy them.
Regarding improper use of it’s – It’s does not show possession. It’s is a contraction meaning it is. So to me the headline says “Honda Killed It is ‘Best Performance Engine’ Because It Wasn’t Very Good. And that annoys me because it’s (it is) not that hard to figure out.
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe
That is all.
Well said. Also means “it has” (as in, “It’s been fun.”)
You guys ever tried premium fuel in the RDX? Proprely designed turbo 4-cylinders respond well to higher octane fuel.
Honda has a lot on it’s plate after getting beat by GM in California last year. Might as well go to with something tried and true, a V6. And with Imsight barely beating straight gas engines you won’t see a hybrid in the RDX soon.
All the time. Acura recommended the use of premium fuel for the RDX. The end result not so “premium”……
Regarding fuel mileage, my Lexus V8 gets better mileage when I drive it briskly. It’s only a pig when I try to save gas?!
Part throttle driving. The whole thing about ‘squeezing and egg’ to accelerate is a big simplification for the non-technical. You get better mileage by reducing the amount of time you spend accelerating at part-throttle.. in other words, accelerate briskly with an open throttle, short shift, and once you get to your speed, keep the rpm’s down.
My ex girlfriend told me the same thing. She said I drove too fast….
Exactly, which is one reason why it’s easier to get better mpg out of a manual trans. You can run WOT and keep the RPM low.
Doesn’t WOT stand for Wide Open Throttle? How do you get low RPM with that?
Yes because I can shift gears before the rev’s build. This is easy to manage in a 138hp Elantra… and I don’t do it in 1st gear. In 2-4 I’m heavy on the gas but shift early.
ott-it’s called lugging, and it’s not good.
The CR-V and the new RDX’s AWD’s a simplified system that, in its 2009 iteration, was thoroughly trounced by Subaru and other makers during a Catalina Island hill climb test. How much better the now somewhat refined (electronic instead of hydraulic control) system is remains to be seen. Hopefully the RDX’s coal cart ride has also been refined.
Honda arrogance carries over to their apparent steadfast refusal to arbitrate on lemons (so said the CA lawyer I spoke to regarding lemon settlements). That’s a pity and the reason I no longer own Honda vehicles.
Perhaps I misunderstand your comment, but if you’re suggesting that the RDX shares its AWD platform with the CR-V, then you’re mistaken. 2007 through present, the RDX has had the electronically controlled twin-clutched rear axle that all SH-AWD vehicles have had. It’s the simpler/cheaper of the two variants, in that it has a fixed overdrive ratio, rather than the more advanced two-ratio final drive in the RL (I think)
At any rate, it’s definitely not the driveshaft-mounted hydraulically actuated system in the CR-V. Not by a long shot.
Sorry, my comment was in regard to the replacement 2013 RDX, which no longer has the SH-AWD system, but instead an AWD system that, while electronically controlled, is essentially a CR-V AWD system (so said the Honda representatives I talked to at the Portland Auto show this year, and a recent Car and Driver article).
What gets confusing is the 2013 RDX’s apparently being rolled out in spring of 2012. If buyers want a new RDX with SH-AWD, they’ve little time left to get one.
Well heck, that is depressing. The fancy SH-AWD and the light nose were what made the RDX special in the corners. Sounds like they’re just turning it into another RX350 clone.
Oh well.
Who knows, maybe it won’t turn out as bad as it sounds. But if they’re really going to a single clutch pack on the drive shaft, electronically controlled or not, then that’s all she wrote for the rather magical handling the current model offers.
Well I guess you told me. Seriously, read your stuff before you post. If that doesn’t work, find someone else who can edit your text. Unless you just don’t care. And if you don’t, why don’t you do something else?
If they had dropped this motor in a Civic Si it would have been legendary for the Honda peeps!
The RDX was one of those products, I like that it exists, but I bought a WRX. It is better off as a middle of the road product, sadly.
The non-RL SH-AWD is a handling AWD system, not very good in other conditions, it is primarily FWD and can only on spin the rear wheels faster then the fronts, it is not capable of driving all wheels at the same speed so the rear wheels must freewheel in most cases.
Honda did try listening when indycar folks told them to lower the revs or their motors would never go 500mi. After failing to generate competitive power, they returned to high revs, and the rest is history.
Thankfully I’m not the only person that speaks engine code. I see K23A1 and know “RDX dookieness.”
The K23 was half-assed, and not particularly reliable. The one I drove was a lot laggier than you’d expect a direct-injected twin scroll 2.3L to be, having driven Speed3’s before- but automatic and heavy vehicle contributes there. Those EPA numbers are terrible though; one wonders how VW gets decent numbers out of the Tiguan or Mazda the CX-7 turbo.
I didn’t know they were ditching SH-AWD for the conventional CR-V AWD, which sucks even in snow. But still, the J35Z6 is a great motor – should be better overall.
Also, they did too sell ’94-’97 Accords with V6’s. The CD-chassis accord got the C27A SOHC non-vtec V6 from the 1st gen Legend in 1995, and had a totally different but almost indistinguishable front end as well. Smooth as silk, 95-97 V6 Accords were sweet cars even if they weren’t all that quick.
Hmm, for the record (goodness the internet is full of SMEs) the RDX engine does _not_ sport direct injection.
Can anyone actually cite any evidence that Honda are switching to the CR-V awd system for the new RDX? I don’t believe that they are. In fact, I doubt that Acura will use anything but SH-AWD final drives any time soon.
Also, Mr Boost, can you cite me any significant evidence of premature RDX engine failures that weren’t directly associated with horribly inadequate maintenance? I’m not saying you can’t, but I looked pretty hard and I found precious little.
SH_AWD is definitely gone for 2013 for the RDX. On the Acura Future Vehicle Page it is shown as “AWD”. One would assume it is the same standard Honda AWD system in other vehicles.
http://www.acura dot com /future/RDX#3
“The 2013 RDX, scheduled to launch in Spring 2012, will have as standard equipment a 3.5-liter V-6 engine that produces 273 horsepower- 33 more than the outgoing model. For even higher performance and improved fuel economy, the RDX makes use of a 6-speed automatic transmission with a new lock-up torque converter. The RDX also gets a new, lighter all-wheel-drive system that provides the required performance and safety with increased efficiency.” — From Acura Press Release, quoted verbatim from http://www.autoblog.com/2012/01/09/2013-acura-rdx-detroit-2012/
Unless you mean to suggest that Honda has developed an entirely new AWD system and then not bothered to advertise it, this is “Real-Time4WD” c/o CR-V and CrossTour
Lordy, I stand (depressingly) corrected. I wouldn’t have believed it but those are some powerful weasel-words they’re using there; “provides the required performance and safety” Not the desired performance, you’ll notice. The required performance. And safety! Well good. I was afraid I’d miss out on some required safety. That gets the blood boiling alright! Well done.
It sounds like they’re RX350-ing the RDX as hard as they can. What’s the betting that they’re going to soften the suspension out to land-yacht grade as well?
I miss old Honda.
I’ve got a 2003 CR-V as a winter vehicle. It definitely doesn’t suck in snow. Don’t know where you heard that from, or even gathered that yourself.
It is a reactive system that engages the rear wheels even before the front tires slip an 1/8th of a rotation. It is near instantaneous.
The best Honda engine was the stillborn (for the USA) diesel…Damn it Honda…slap yourself in the face, get off your butt, and reclaim your mojo!
Honda ain’t listening b/c they are now selling a Civic sedan rebadge and simple redid the RDX with the same v6 that’s in every other Honda. Honda’s management is just waiting for retirement and hiding in their executive suite. Sorry to say but the spirit of its founder is a non factor to the zombies in charge.
Honda used to build engines that people wanted to buy. They no longer do that. The competition has moved ahead in engine design and Honda’s main appeal is gone. Why would I buy a 2.3L turbo engine that makes only 240 HP and gets about 20 mpg when companies like Hyundai, Ford, GM each have turbo 4 cylinder engines with direct injection and make more HP and get better fuel economy?
Honda is getting a tad arrogant and some of there new entries show it. We looked at a new Civic and Oddessey and came away dissapointed in both. The van was nearly 37 large and had a 5 speed automatic transmission when most are using 6 speeds, a prop rod instead of hood stuts, cheap hard plastic door panals, a timing belt(who uses archaic timing belts anymore?) cheap uninviting interior and an ill-coordinated ugly exterior. Even my friends 8 year old son thought it looked weird. The Civic just didn’t seem competitive for the prices being charged even if the mileage ratings are good. It is as bland and cheap as the outdated Corolla and equally lacking in features. It’s small wonder they are rushing in upgrades so soon to this car. The 2.3 turbo is just another nail in there coffin.
I happened to like this engine a lot. My dad, who leased three Explorers (a ’94 that hit a deer, a great 5.0L V8 ’97, and a crap 2000 V8 AWD) and two Honda Pilots (a 2003 and a 2006–I learned to drive on both) leased his first 2009 RDX in July ’09 and turned in his lease a few months early on a red 2012 model.
I drove the RDX a few times on my own and found it to be a pretty peppy little trucklet, even if the ride was very bouncy. The interior’s nice, the AWD system wasn’t so bad, and it had plenty of midrange power. I’m not going to disagree that some of the new Acuras this year (the new RDX and ILX) are disappointing. But the K23A1 engine isn’t that bad.
The real kicker here is the current gen Civic was delayed an extra year b/c Honda did not like what it saw at that time. Imagine how bad it could have been I guess.
Actually, it probably would have been better. The delay was almost certainly about decontenting.