loaded Venza Limited or Acura RDX (fwd) with Technology package?
08-13-13, 09:34 AM
#33
Lexus Fanatic
The RDX is Acura's smaller-than-MDX SUV. It never sold in anywhere near the MDX's large numbers. The 1Gen RDX was overly-sporty, with a very stiff ride and a turbo-four that, unlike other Honda/Acura VTEC fours, actually had some TORQUE. The 2Gen model has toned down the suspension a bit (still a little on the stiff side) and gone to a V6 instead.
08-13-13, 10:11 AM
#34
Advanced
Just test drove FWD RDX couple weeks ago for my friend who currently has 2012 RDX. The new RDX drives terrible comparing to the previous model, especially in FWD form. The acceleration is worse than previous 4-turbo was, and handling is awful. Also, not a fan of the new exterior. Not sure why they took a perfect small SUV and changed it to something much worse. Haven't tried Venza, but heard only good comments about it, and style-wise it's way more appealing. But of course RX would be the better choice if price permits.
08-13-13, 10:11 AM
#35
Lexus Champion
No surprise, but the new RDX is selling very well. Year to date it's selling slightly better than the MDX. That will probably change with the new MDX available now.
The previous gen RDX while more sporty did not sell very well for Acura.
The previous gen RDX while more sporty did not sell very well for Acura.
08-13-13, 10:18 AM
#36
Lexus Fanatic
08-13-13, 10:21 AM
#37
Lexus Fanatic
08-13-13, 10:32 AM
#38
I'll give you a response direct from me.
The RDX is Acura's smaller-than-MDX SUV. It never sold in anywhere near the MDX's large numbers. The 1Gen RDX was overly-sporty, with a very stiff ride and a turbo-four that, unlike other Honda/Acura VTEC fours, actually had some TORQUE. The 2Gen model has toned down the suspension a bit (still a little on the stiff side) and gone to a V6 instead.
The RDX is Acura's smaller-than-MDX SUV. It never sold in anywhere near the MDX's large numbers. The 1Gen RDX was overly-sporty, with a very stiff ride and a turbo-four that, unlike other Honda/Acura VTEC fours, actually had some TORQUE. The 2Gen model has toned down the suspension a bit (still a little on the stiff side) and gone to a V6 instead.
I actually drove a turbo 4 RDX when it came out since it is the 1st factory turbocharged Honda sold in the U.S. I was surprised at how sluggish it was. The V6 is much better.
08-13-13, 02:04 PM
#39
Lexus Fanatic
Did you give it some throttle in the lower gears? The one I test-drove had enough spunk to pin you mildly hard back in your seat....something I had never before experienced before with a Honda/Acura in-line 4.
08-13-13, 03:32 PM
#41
Lexus Fanatic
Just test drove FWD RDX couple weeks ago for my friend who currently has 2012 RDX. The new RDX drives terrible comparing to the previous model, especially in FWD form. The acceleration is worse than previous 4-turbo was, and handling is awful. Also, not a fan of the new exterior. Not sure why they took a perfect small SUV and changed it to something much worse. Haven't tried Venza, but heard only good comments about it, and style-wise it's way more appealing. But of course RX would be the better choice if price permits.
The new V6 RDX is quicker then the older turbo 4 RDX, I don't think I have ever seen a comparison where it was slower. The older turbo RDX may have felt quicker because of the torque and character of the engine but in reality it isn't. The new RDX has a smoother softer more cushioned ride but it is still a pretty decent handler, the handling is not as sharp as the older one with SH-AWD, based on sales buyers overwhelmingly prefer the smoother softer ride and V6 over the sportier 4 cyl turbo version. The V6 gets better fuel economy too despite being larger and quicker.
Only to a few that were into sharp handling and the turbo engine was the original RDX "perfect", it just did not sell very well though it would be nice if they offered the turbo 4 and SH-AWD in a sportier version of the current RDX.
08-13-13, 08:29 PM
#42
Just test drove FWD RDX couple weeks ago for my friend who currently has 2012 RDX. The new RDX drives terrible comparing to the previous model, especially in FWD form. The acceleration is worse than previous 4-turbo was, and handling is awful. Also, not a fan of the new exterior. Not sure why they took a perfect small SUV and changed it to something much worse. Haven't tried Venza, but heard only good comments about it, and style-wise it's way more appealing. But of course RX would be the better choice if price permits.
exact same can be said about the venza. But maybe it's more acceptable because it's $4k cheaper?
I test drove a venza a while ago and it felt like driving a van, or a faster version of a Home Depot rental truck.
08-13-13, 08:31 PM
#43
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
Just test drove FWD RDX couple weeks ago for my friend who currently has 2012 RDX. The new RDX drives terrible comparing to the previous model, especially in FWD form. The acceleration is worse than previous 4-turbo was, and handling is awful. Also, not a fan of the new exterior. Not sure why they took a perfect small SUV and changed it to something much worse. Haven't tried Venza, but heard only good comments about it, and style-wise it's way more appealing. But of course RX would be the better choice if price permits.
http://www.edmunds.com/acura/rdx/2013/road-test.html
08-13-13, 09:10 PM
#44
Lexus Fanatic
You must not have taken a S2000, Integra Type R, or last gen Prelude to redline
, they will all pin you back in your seat pretty good, especially the S2000.
08-13-13, 11:28 PM
#45
I picked up a 2013 Venza Touring V6 AWD recently. (Touring is just like USA's Limited model but without JBL).
I didn't really cross shop all that much before buying but I'll give you my limited info. Basically for me, it went down to price and features.
Over here in the Great not-so-White North, pricing structure may be different than in the US, but an RDX here with tech package is about 10G's above the price of a Touring model Venza. Acura is offering $2500 on the hood of the RDX you say? Well, Toyota is offering $4000.
So for approximately $34,000 before negotiations, I can get into a 268hp AWD Toyota with Navi, pano roof, 20" wheels, xenon, LED DRL, leather, backup cam, power hatch... etc. Which makes it a superb deal compared with Pilot (fug), Highlander (soon to be redesigned and I don't like the redesign), RDX, and Q5, each of which need about $10-15K to get the equipment to the Venza's spec. (Though I know with some of them you get more than what's in the Venza with that $15K).
This also makes it only about $500-1000 more than a comparably equipped Rav4 or CRV (no rebates) (and with those you couldn't even get things like Pano roof or LED DRL or power hatch). Plus those cars, to me, look unsightly now with the last redesign and all the black plastic all over the car. i.e. They look cheap to me. The Venza looks so much more higher end than those, on looks alone. (And in terms of car echelon it's on par with the RDX. To me, the RDX doesn't have the luxury cache it thinks it has. Kinda like the X1.)
The Acura interiors may be better built and better quality materials but I never did get to like Acura's interior designs. It's an upwards bulging screen with a black tower of endless buttons below, usually framed by overstyled hourglass curves. I actually prefer the interior styling they put into the regular Honda cars.
Handling? It handles good enough all things considered. I got this car for practicality, not to throw it into curves. If I really want to toss a car around I'd get into my F.
Other pros:
LOVE those LED DRL's. I spent $1300 to get them on my IS-F but I think they're nicer on the Venza. Really sharp looking with them on.
I like the 20" wheels. They give the car PRESENCE. Don't know why people complain about the size. Many owners of other cars spend big bucks to get them big. Many CUV's use big wheels now. (Doesn't Ford use 22's on rubber band tires?) It's also a 50-series tire. So it's not like I'm riding on rims. I think it rides great. Family never complained either.
I've never owned a SUV/CUV before so I wasn't sure whether I'd like the driving height. So I do like the fact the Venza's pretty much a tall wagon, but not quite SUV height. Doesn't feel like I'm on stilts.
6-speed auto. Honda is still using 5's for the CRV and Pilot.
Cons:
Yes, the overall design is 5 years old, but I do like the 2013 facelift with the new grille and especially those headlights.
Interior fit could be better. Especially with my grey interior I can see some inconsistent panel gaps on the lower dash.
Weight. It's a porker. But not too far off from the competition.
Considering the size, it should have more cargo room than it does. Must be that low-ish roof line.
I didn't really cross shop all that much before buying but I'll give you my limited info. Basically for me, it went down to price and features.
Over here in the Great not-so-White North, pricing structure may be different than in the US, but an RDX here with tech package is about 10G's above the price of a Touring model Venza. Acura is offering $2500 on the hood of the RDX you say? Well, Toyota is offering $4000.
So for approximately $34,000 before negotiations, I can get into a 268hp AWD Toyota with Navi, pano roof, 20" wheels, xenon, LED DRL, leather, backup cam, power hatch... etc. Which makes it a superb deal compared with Pilot (fug), Highlander (soon to be redesigned and I don't like the redesign), RDX, and Q5, each of which need about $10-15K to get the equipment to the Venza's spec. (Though I know with some of them you get more than what's in the Venza with that $15K).
This also makes it only about $500-1000 more than a comparably equipped Rav4 or CRV (no rebates) (and with those you couldn't even get things like Pano roof or LED DRL or power hatch). Plus those cars, to me, look unsightly now with the last redesign and all the black plastic all over the car. i.e. They look cheap to me. The Venza looks so much more higher end than those, on looks alone. (And in terms of car echelon it's on par with the RDX. To me, the RDX doesn't have the luxury cache it thinks it has. Kinda like the X1.)
The Acura interiors may be better built and better quality materials but I never did get to like Acura's interior designs. It's an upwards bulging screen with a black tower of endless buttons below, usually framed by overstyled hourglass curves. I actually prefer the interior styling they put into the regular Honda cars.
Handling? It handles good enough all things considered. I got this car for practicality, not to throw it into curves. If I really want to toss a car around I'd get into my F.
Other pros:
LOVE those LED DRL's. I spent $1300 to get them on my IS-F but I think they're nicer on the Venza. Really sharp looking with them on.
I like the 20" wheels. They give the car PRESENCE. Don't know why people complain about the size. Many owners of other cars spend big bucks to get them big. Many CUV's use big wheels now. (Doesn't Ford use 22's on rubber band tires?) It's also a 50-series tire. So it's not like I'm riding on rims. I think it rides great. Family never complained either.
I've never owned a SUV/CUV before so I wasn't sure whether I'd like the driving height. So I do like the fact the Venza's pretty much a tall wagon, but not quite SUV height. Doesn't feel like I'm on stilts.
6-speed auto. Honda is still using 5's for the CRV and Pilot.
Cons:
Yes, the overall design is 5 years old, but I do like the 2013 facelift with the new grille and especially those headlights.
Interior fit could be better. Especially with my grey interior I can see some inconsistent panel gaps on the lower dash.
Weight. It's a porker. But not too far off from the competition.
Considering the size, it should have more cargo room than it does. Must be that low-ish roof line.
Last edited by IceIridium; 08-15-13 at 12:29 AM.