Acura RDX sales numbers?

[dm_h_2007]

I have read on some other message boards that the sales numbers for this car are appalling. A guy in Boston said he got his in September and still has never seen another one on the road anywhere!

I am in Chicago and I have never seen an RDX on the road even once. I drive by the Acura dealer and they have about 30 sitting on the lot. This is the only place I have ever seen an RDX in person, on the dealer's lot.

Anyone have any actual numbers? It seems like this car is one of Honda/Acura's biggest flops yet.

[T-Bird]

Well at my Dealership (Pauly Acura in Highland Park) just north of Chicago on 41 we sell on average 3-5 a week which isn't bad considering we don't sell that many cars really.On one hand we can sell a shitload of MDX's and TL's but sell maybe 1-2 RL's a month and maybe 2 TSX's a week

[RC45]

Well, RDX sounds like a topical hemorrhoids cream... :P

[Pimp Racer]

My dad thought it was some type of drug when we saw one at a traffic light. :lol:

But in FL I have seen probably 4 at the most RDX's so far. They do look nice.

[Firdosh7747]

One of the reason why people aren't buying it is because it is terribly ugly i mean acura really F***ed up with the new design.

[T-Bird]

actually from what I hear from customers is that they all seem to like the redesign you have to realise that the truck has been around for roughly 6 months so it hasn't been out that long to really be making a presence just yet.

[Stoopie]

Hmm it looks quite weird IMO..

http://static.blogo.it/autoblog/acura_rdx_02_01.jpg

[dm_h_2007]

I think anyone in that market is going to get either the larger MDX or Pilot, the much better looking and cheaper CR-V, the much cheaper and more versatile Element, or the cheaper and same speced Mazda CX-7 (I see CX-7's everywhere!!). Honda just has way too many SUVs on the market right now and the RDX is by far the worst value of all of them.

They thought that the Turbo and "SH-AWD" would attract the younger market. Like the RSX market. But most kids don’t have 30K+ plus for a car. And if they do they would get a S2k, WRX-STI, G35 Coupe, GTO, etc., not an RDX.

[TopGearNL]

Hmm it looks quite weird IMO..

http://static.blogo.it/autoblog/acura_rdx_02_01.jpg

Fugly...!

[GT-R_R34]

a friend of mine went to see the RL and asked the salesman about the RDX and he told him that he was better off buying the MDX, before buying the RDX due to cost. RDX prices are about 38 K to 40K and the MDX starts about the same.

[dm_h_2007]

I've seen them, but to be honest Acura's in general really aren't that great of cars and are ugly and pretty boring. They lack everything a European car has.

In other words they lack RWD. :lol:

[ae86_16v]

I think anyone in that market is going to get either the larger MDX or Pilot, the much better looking and cheaper CR-V, the much cheaper and more versatile Element, or the cheaper and same speced Mazda CX-7 (I see CX-7's everywhere!!). Honda just has way too many SUVs on the market right now and the RDX is by far the worst value of all of them.

They thought that the Turbo and "SH-AWD" would attract the younger market. Like the RSX market. But most kids don’t have 30K+ plus for a car. And if they do they would get a S2k, WRX-STI, G35 Coupe, GTO, etc., not an RDX.

Very good point. . .

[5vz-fe]

The CRV only has a non-Turbo 4 banger, it's underpowered. It also doesn't have the luxury items offered in the RDX. The CX-7 gives the Acura a good run for the money, but it's reliability and fit and finish still abit behind the RDX. X3 is wayy too expensive, leaving RX350 the only competitior. But the RX350 is thousands more when similar equiped.

[ae86_16v]

The CRV only has a non-Turbo 4 banger, it's underpowered. It also doesn't have the luxury items offered in the RDX. The CX-7 gives the Acura a good run for the money, but it's reliability and fit and finish still abit behind the RDX. X3 is wayy too expensive, leaving RX350 the only competitior. But the RX350 is thousands more when similar equiped.

Well right now we don't know anything about Honda's Turbo 4 either. I know their Inline 4s are bullet proof, but could the same be said about the Turbo?

[T-Bird]

Well the K23 is basically a destroked K24 to alow the 8.5:1 compression ratio and then the block is reinforced throughout fora total of 84% more strength. They use a more rigid motor mount design, they have the top mounted intercooler which is actually fed colder air through it's ram air hood design. when cruising down the road at a consistent speed the vehicle isn't under boost until you hit the go pedal so even at 3K cruising down the road at 90mph there is no boost.

[dm_h_2007]

The CRV only has a non-Turbo 4 banger, it's underpowered. It also doesn't have the luxury items offered in the RDX. The CX-7 gives the Acura a good run for the money, but it's reliability and fit and finish still abit behind the RDX. X3 is wayy too expensive, leaving RX350 the only competitior. But the RX350 is thousands more when similar equiped.

The CR-V is underpowered? Underpowered for what exactly? Why would anyone want a lot of power in a tiny 5 seat SUV? You surely are not going to race this thing. You are NEVER going to take it off road because a CRV/RDX are not off-roaders by any stretch of the imagination. The ONLY thing you could possible use more power for is towing a boat or something.

That’s just one more reason why the RDX is stupid. Unless you are towing something or have a snow plow on the front (which would be ridicules!!) there is no reason to have a lot of power in a tiny on-road “SUV” car.

Not to mention the RDX is almost 400LBS heavier than the CR-V which pretty much cancels out the extra power anyway!

[ferrari550]

I live in a city with a little over a 100 000 people with 1 tiny acura dealer and i am after seeing a lot on the road. probably 20 or 30 in the last little while.

[dm_h_2007]

I found this from a Google search on another board so I can't speak to its accuracy. But it sounds about right -

"August (partial, sales started 8/10) 1361 units
September 1704 units
October 1701 units
----------------------
4766 units to date

Note that at the targeted rate of 40K units per year, they should be selling 3333 per month and would have acheived numbers around 8900 units to date. So the vehicle is selling about 46% below expectations. "

http://www.vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=629128

[T-Bird]

The CRV only has a non-Turbo 4 banger, it's underpowered. It also doesn't have the luxury items offered in the RDX. The CX-7 gives the Acura a good run for the money, but it's reliability and fit and finish still abit behind the RDX. X3 is wayy too expensive, leaving RX350 the only competitior. But the RX350 is thousands more when similar equiped.

The CR-V is underpowered? Underpowered for what exactly? Why would anyone want a lot of power in a tiny 5 seat SUV? You surely are not going to race this thing. You are NEVER going to take it off road because a CRV/RDX are not off-roaders by any stretch of the imagination. The ONLY thing you could possible use more power for is towing a boat or something.

That’s just one more reason why the RDX is stupid. Unless you are towing something or have a snow plow on the front (which would be ridicules!!) there is no reason to have a lot of power in a tiny on-road “SUV” car.

Not to mention the RDX is almost 400LBS heavier than the CR-V which pretty much cancels out the extra power anyway!

Go drive the new CR-V and then the RDX and tell me that the extra 100hp is a mute point due to 400lbs. I can personally attest that the RDX would rape the CR-V seven ways from sunday then turn around and brick in it's face. The RDX can actually keep up with the standard TL until 100mph where it slowly backs off. I've tested this quite a few times. and then get inside an RDX and tell me it's just like a CRV or even the CX-7 piece of shit. And the RDX isn't too bad when climbing hills sideways in the gravel/mud either.

[dm_h_2007]

The CRV only has a non-Turbo 4 banger, it's underpowered. It also doesn't have the luxury items offered in the RDX. The CX-7 gives the Acura a good run for the money, but it's reliability and fit and finish still abit behind the RDX. X3 is wayy too expensive, leaving RX350 the only competitior. But the RX350 is thousands more when similar equiped.

The CR-V is underpowered? Underpowered for what exactly? Why would anyone want a lot of power in a tiny 5 seat SUV? You surely are not going to race this thing. You are NEVER going to take it off road because a CRV/RDX are not off-roaders by any stretch of the imagination. The ONLY thing you could possible use more power for is towing a boat or something.

That’s just one more reason why the RDX is stupid. Unless you are towing something or have a snow plow on the front (which would be ridicules!!) there is no reason to have a lot of power in a tiny on-road “SUV” car.

Not to mention the RDX is almost 400LBS heavier than the CR-V which pretty much cancels out the extra power anyway!

Go drive the new CR-V and then the RDX and tell me that the extra 100hp is a mute point due to 400lbs. I can personally attest that the RDX would rape the CR-V seven ways from sunday then turn around and brick in it's face. The RDX can actually keep up with the standard TL until 100mph where it slowly backs off. I've tested this quite a few times. and then get inside an RDX and tell me it's just like a CRV or even the CX-7 piece of shit. And the RDX isn't too bad when climbing hills sideways in the gravel/mud either.

When I was 21 I probably cared about power even when it was totally useless too. But if I was 21 today and had $35k to spend on a car the RDX would just about the last car for that money I would consider. They could give it 400HP and it would still be a stupid car.

An RDX "raping" the CR-V? Thats like saying a WNBA team beat the hell out of another WNBA team!! Who the hell cares??

[T-Bird]

well you said that the extra 400lbs would overshadow the extra 100hp and I just let you know that isn't the case and for the price I could get the RDX I would actually consider it for an SUV since I would utilize the room it offers.

[dm_h_2007]

well you said that the extra 400lbs would overshadow the extra 100hp and I just let you know that isn't the case and for the price I could get the RDX I would actually consider it for an SUV since I would utilize the room it offers.

Why would you consider it for an SUV? You could get the absolute top of the line Pilot with 240HP V6, NAv, leather, every single option for about 3 or 4k less than the RDX. And the Pilot has MUCH more room and is a 7 passenger SUV not a 5! The Pilot is much better off road, has more ground clearance, has a larger toe capacity, is more rugged, etc. etc. etc.

Edit: Actually the Pilot is consider an 8 seater not 7! And the RDX real world gas mileage is as bad as 11 MPG!!! So you get much worse MPG for the same power as the Pilot! - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acura_RDX

[5vz-fe]

An RDX raping a CR-V should equates to a M3 raping a 318.

Why wouldn't I want all that power, it feels good to have the ability to do something right? How many Hummers out there actually see rocks? RDX has been designed to be a tall sporty wagon, period. Plus, not everyone has 4 kids and a wife, sometimes size don't matter.

Wow, of all the specs, u quote wiki

[T-Bird]

well you said that the extra 400lbs would overshadow the extra 100hp and I just let you know that isn't the case and for the price I could get the RDX I would actually consider it for an SUV since I would utilize the room it offers.

Why would you consider it for an SUV? You could get the absolute top of the line Pilot with 240HP V6, NAv, leather, every single option for about 3 or 4k less than the RDX. And the Pilot has MUCH more room and is a 7 passenger SUV not a 5! The Pilot is much better off road, has more ground clearance, has a larger toe capacity, is more rugged, etc. etc. etc.

Edit: Actually the Pilot is consider an 8 seater not 7! And the RDX real world gas mileage is as bad as 11 MPG!!! So you get much worse MPG for the same power as the Pilot! - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acura_RDX

Don't try and throw around Honda facts at me OK I know them better than you I'm sure and I could get the RDX and the Pilot for roughly 10K+ less than sticker if not more if I wanted one. And actually real world RDX gas mileage for those who like to womp on it see roughly 9mpg. I drive RDX's on a daily basis I know how they drive and Again the luxury you don't get in the Pilot versus the RDX makes the RDX more appealing to me. And why would I want the detuned Pilot anyway? they ride like crap.

Oh and I just speced out a Pilot at roughly 39500
and The RDX at the same price with $3k in rims.

[5vz-fe]

Hey T-Bird, how much heavier is the 3.2 TL engine?

[T-Bird]

3.2 over the 2.3? I'm sure a decent amount I know the 3.5's are heavy as hell but the 2.0 is pretty light in comparison. and those 2 are similar externally to their counterparts but the K23 is heavier than the other's in the K series due to the reinforments it has. The RDX if driven nicely can achieve decent gas mileage just as good as the V6 big brothers ie Pilot (4 year old MDX technology with a different body) and the new beast MDX (new 3.7L with 300hp)

The engines when bare are light I picked up a TL block with one hand I think the scrap guy said it was 30lbs.

[dm_h_2007]

Well the numbers speak for themselves. The RDX is selling about half as many units as the projections. And of course the sales projections were very conservative to begin with. That is appallingly awful sales! Like others have said on that other board, this car will not survive through even one redesign cycle.

The RDX has to be one of the biggest flops since…. Hmmm….. maybe the 2002 T-Bird!?!? LOL Irony is a great thing!

[Zot09]

Well the numbers speak for themselves. The RDX is selling about half as many units as the projections. And of course the sales projections were very conservative to begin with. That is appallingly awful sales! Like others have said on that other board, this car will not survive through even one redesign cycle.

The RDX has to be one of the biggest flops since…. Hmmm….. maybe the 2002 T-Bird!?!? LOL Irony is a great thing!

OK, that comment was totally uncalled for. T-Bird is here stating facts and his own opinion, and here you are insulting him. Stop being such a little baby.

[dm_h_2007]

Well the numbers speak for themselves. The RDX is selling about half as many units as the projections. And of course the sales projections were very conservative to begin with. That is appallingly awful sales! Like others have said on that other board, this car will not survive through even one redesign cycle.

The RDX has to be one of the biggest flops since…. Hmmm….. maybe the 2002 T-Bird!?!? LOL Irony is a great thing!

OK, that comment was totally uncalled for. T-Bird is here stating facts and his own opinion, and here you are insulting him. Stop being such a little baby.

Well then you took it the wrong way. First of all I'm a big Ford fan. And an older T-Bird like he has as his Avatar would be totally cool! But I genuinely think the RDX is a terrible design, is way over priced, has a cheap plastic interior that everyone keeps calling "luxurious" and is destined to totally flop and be discontinued befe even one redesign cycle. Plus the piss poor sales numbers running at almost 50% below expectations say it all. None of that has anything to do with T-bird.

And all of this reminds me of the 2002 T-bird that we all know was a total disaster for Ford! That is all I was saying. It was not meant to be personal at all.

[TopGearNL]

And all of this reminds me of the 2002 T-bird that we all know was a total disaster for Ford! That is all I was saying. It was not meant to be personal at all.

Yeah that was a disaster for Ford! :|

He meant the car Zot09, not the member T-bird... :bah:

[5vz-fe]

Well the numbers speak for themselves. The RDX is selling about half as many units as the projections. And of course the sales projections were very conservative to begin with. That is appallingly awful sales! Like others have said on that other board, this car will not survive through even one redesign cycle.

The RDX has to be one of the biggest flops since…. Hmmm….. maybe the 2002 T-Bird!?!? LOL Irony is a great thing!

OK, that comment was totally uncalled for. T-Bird is here stating facts and his own opinion, and here you are insulting him. Stop being such a little baby.

Well then you took it the wrong way. First of all I'm a big Ford fan. And an older T-Bird like he has as his Avatar would be totally cool! But I genuinely think the RDX is a terrible design, is way over priced, has a cheap plastic interior that everyone keeps calling "luxurious" and is destined to totally flop and be discontinued befe even one redesign cycle. Plus the piss poor sales numbers running at almost 50% below expectations say it all. None of that has anything to do with T-bird.

And all of this reminds me of the 2002 T-bird that we all know was a total disaster for Ford! That is all I was saying. It was not meant to be personal at all.

Cheap plastics? It really makes me wonder if u even sit in the car before at all.

[dm_h_2007]

Well the numbers speak for themselves. The RDX is selling about half as many units as the projections. And of course the sales projections were very conservative to begin with. That is appallingly awful sales! Like others have said on that other board, this car will not survive through even one redesign cycle.

The RDX has to be one of the biggest flops since…. Hmmm….. maybe the 2002 T-Bird!?!? LOL Irony is a great thing!

OK, that comment was totally uncalled for. T-Bird is here stating facts and his own opinion, and here you are insulting him. Stop being such a little baby.

Well then you took it the wrong way. First of all I'm a big Ford fan. And an older T-Bird like he has as his Avatar would be totally cool! But I genuinely think the RDX is a terrible design, is way over priced, has a cheap plastic interior that everyone keeps calling "luxurious" and is destined to totally flop and be discontinued befe even one redesign cycle. Plus the piss poor sales numbers running at almost 50% below expectations say it all. None of that has anything to do with T-bird.

And all of this reminds me of the 2002 T-bird that we all know was a total disaster for Ford! That is all I was saying. It was not meant to be personal at all.

Cheap plastics? It really makes me wonder if u even sit in the car before at all.

Yes cheap plastic!!!
http://files.myopera.com/Mischa/albums/93432/Acura%20RDX.jpg
Just look at that. It looks just like the cheap interior of an RSX just with the added "neto" blue lighting. That looks cheap, like a civic. And that would be fine if the car cost $28k, but at 35, 36k its appaulling!

[5vz-fe]

U still haven't answer my question....have u sat in one before?

[dm_h_2007]

U still haven't answer my question....have u sat in one before?

No and I never will. But I have driven the RSX, TSX ( I had a TSX for a month, talk about a cheap interior!! That fake plastic wood is about as bad as it gets!!), and TL. I have no interest to ever sit in or drive a RDX, ever.

Its not like the inside of any of these cars is that different for each other. All Honda's (Acuras) feel the same on the inside. Except the TSX has a steering wheel the size of a hola hoop!!

[T-Bird]

cheap interior by what standards? The interior isn't cheap at all in fact it is nicer than the 4 X3's we've had traded in on them and the Murano's aswell.

And I do agree that the truck is overpriced (Everyone at work agrees but you still realise it is cheaper than the real competition, Mazda doesn't count) It sits much higher than the RSX and TSX in terms of interior materials.

[dm_h_2007]

cheap interior by what standards? The interior isn't cheap at all in fact it is nicer than the 4 X3's we've had traded in on them and the Murano's aswell.

And I do agree that the truck is overpriced (Everyone at work agrees but you still realise it is cheaper than the real competition, Mazda doesn't count) It sits much higher than the RSX and TSX in terms of interior materials.

By what standards? Just the simple standard of all other Acura/Honda products!

You can see those seats are the very same “perforated leather” as in the RSX, TSX, TL, S2K, and CRV, etc.. H#ll I have a top of the line 2003 Odyssey in my driveway with those very same perforated leather seats. And a NAV that is the very same minus that neto joystick!

That’s my point. The RDX does not really have any additional “luxury” features as any other Honda/Acura product!

And the interior of the CX-7 doesn’t count?? Why the hell not? Look at it!! Its just as nice as the RDX with it’s fancy boy plastic!! If anything it’s a little better! But the CX-7 costs around $7,000 less!!! And they have the very same displacement, turbo, and weight!

CX-7 photos -
http://www.gear6.net/images/feb06/cx72.jpg

http://images.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/images/vehicles/gallery/CX7/pho_gallery_CX7_int5.jpg

http://images.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/images/vehicles/gallery/CX7/pho_gallery_CX7_int16.jpg

[T-Bird]

cheap interior by what standards? The interior isn't cheap at all in fact it is nicer than the 4 X3's we've had traded in on them and the Murano's aswell.

And I do agree that the truck is overpriced (Everyone at work agrees but you still realise it is cheaper than the real competition, Mazda doesn't count) It sits much higher than the RSX and TSX in terms of interior materials.

By what standards? Just the simple standard of all other Acura/Honda products!

You can see those seats are the very same “perforated leather” as in the RSX, TSX, TL, S2K, and CRV, etc.. H#ll I have a top of the line 2003 Odyssey in my driveway with those very same perforated leather seats. And a NAV that is the very same minus that neto joystick!

That’s my point. The RDX does not really have any additional “luxury” features as any other Honda/Acura product!

And the interior of the CX-7 doesn’t count?? Why the hell not? Look at it!! Its just as nice as the RDX with it’s fancy boy plastic!! If anything it’s a little better! But the CX-7 costs around $7,000 less!!! And they have the very same displacement, turbo, and weight!




Actually the RDX seats are different just because they use the same leather doesn't mean the seat is the same especially when compared to the RSX. The Navi unit in the RDX is a generation ahead of the Newest Honda version and if you have an 03 Honda you are 2 gens behind. This isn't the top of the line big boy we are talking about the truck does what it does VERY well and trust me people looking at the RDX aren't looking at the CR-V and going well it is cheaper by 4-5K. The customers that come into our dealership are buying the Acura because it is an Acura and they pay cash, you have to remember the kind of clientel you get when you are looking at luxury vehicles even if we aren't quite Mercedes level. We had a guy with an NSX come in and buy and RDX because he wanted something to drive in the winter, and a guy in an F430 spider buy a TL for his airport car. Most of our RDX's though have gone to HighSchool and College kids.

[dm_h_2007]

cheap interior by what standards? The interior isn't cheap at all in fact it is nicer than the 4 X3's we've had traded in on them and the Murano's aswell.

And I do agree that the truck is overpriced (Everyone at work agrees but you still realise it is cheaper than the real competition, Mazda doesn't count) It sits much higher than the RSX and TSX in terms of interior materials.

By what standards? Just the simple standard of all other Acura/Honda products!

You can see those seats are the very same “perforated leather” as in the RSX, TSX, TL, S2K, and CRV, etc.. H#ll I have a top of the line 2003 Odyssey in my driveway with those very same perforated leather seats. And a NAV that is the very same minus that neto joystick!

That’s my point. The RDX does not really have any additional “luxury” features as any other Honda/Acura product!

And the interior of the CX-7 doesn’t count?? Why the hell not? Look at it!! Its just as nice as the RDX with it’s fancy boy plastic!! If anything it’s a little better! But the CX-7 costs around $7,000 less!!! And they have the very same displacement, turbo, and weight!




Actually the RDX seats are different just because they use the same leather doesn't mean the seat is the same especially when compared to the RSX. The Navi unit in the RDX is a generation ahead of the Newest Honda version and if you have an 03 Honda you are 2 gens behind. This isn't the top of the line big boy we are talking about the truck does what it does VERY well and trust me people looking at the RDX aren't looking at the CR-V and going well it is cheaper by 4-5K. The customers that come into our dealership are buying the Acura because it is an Acura and they pay cash, you have to remember the kind of clientel you get when you are looking at luxury vehicles even if we aren't quite Mercedes level. We had a guy with an NSX come in and buy and RDX because he wanted something to drive in the winter, and a guy in an F430 spider buy a TL for his airport car. Most of our RDX's though have gone to HighSchool and College kids.

Seriously laughing my ass off!! those customers that "come into our dealership are buying the Acura because it is an Acura and they pay cash, you have to remember the kind of clientel you get when you are looking at luxury vehicles even if we aren't quite Mercedes level" are coming in at about half the projected rate!!

Dude I grew up in Scottsdale AZ with a dad that always had Acura company cars. I know all about the stereo typical Acura drivers. We belonged to Gainy Ranch and I worked at TPC Scottsdale in HS. This is the only type of people that would drive an RDX. The dad’s that come in and buy a cars for their spoiled, 17 year old, nerdy, braces stricken, dork son that thinks he is cool racing out in the desert on his way to hit balls after school!!

And the even nerdier dad thinks its neat to drive occasionally! I know ALL ABOUT Acura’s typical buyers!!

Like I said none of that will help the Honda Generic interior of all Acura’s. They can add all the bells and whistle they want but the seats, dash, and layout of all Acura’s will still just be a fancy Civic!!

[T-Bird]

Actually I would say 75%of all RDX drivers are woman under 35 not dorky little sons, they all get the TL's. And if you think that the Acura interiors resemble a fancy civic maybe you should visit your local Acura dealership sometime. very few cars sell at the projected rates if they all did there wouldn't be cars on lots at dealerships. trust me no ones hurting from the current sales.

[dm_h_2007]

Actually I would say 75%of all RDX drivers are woman under 35 not dorky little sons, they all get the TL's. And if you think that the Acura interiors resemble a fancy civic maybe you should visit your local Acura dealership sometime. very few cars sell at the projected rates if they all did there wouldn't be cars on lots at dealerships. trust me no ones hurting from the current sales.

LOL your saying 75% of RDX drivers are women?? Wow dude I wouldn’t say that too loud around your dealership!! That will be the final screw in the RDX coffin!! You want those upper middle class, teenage, golf playing, male dorks to want the RDX!!! That is the whole philosophy of the "crossover" RDX. If it really is 75% woman then the RDX has already totally failed and died! And those golf playing dorks are not going to want a “chick car"!!

But thanks for helping me prove my point ;)

Lets just reiterate, a guy that works for Acura has just said the RDX is a chick car!

[T-Bird]

Umm and so is the TSX and RSX then along with the MDX and just about EVERY other luxury SUV including the Cayenne and Range Rovers. Acura never said it was to be for "upper middle class, teenage, golf playing, male dorks" it was to be for the people that had an RSX and are now in their mid/late 20's and need a bit more room but don't want a large SUV.

Oh and today we moved 3, 7 total this week not that bad actually.

[dm_h_2007]

LOL there is no way the RSX is 75% female!! There is no way the most popular female car on the market (VW Bug) is even 75%!! That was the whole point. You are so far off from reality and keep saying BS facts like they are real just because you work at an Acura dealership!

You need to go post that the majority of RSX owners are female crap on clubrsx.com! They will not only respond harshly too it, they will have links and facts to back it up!

[T-Bird]

LOL there is no way the RSX is 75% female!! There is no way the most popular female car on the market (VW Bug) is even 75%!! That was the whole point. You are so far off from reality and keep saying BS facts like they are real just because you work at an Acura dealership!

You need to go post that the majority of RSX owners are female crap on clubrsx.com! They will not only respond harshly too it, they will have links and facts to back it up!

I'm just posting what I see on a daily basis and those numbers are for my Dealership NOT the whole country. what facts ar BS btw? that at my dealership from what I see nearly 75% of RDX drivers are female? and the same for RSX's? I see RSX-S' driven by guys and not even all of them and most base model RSX's are driven by women. you are trying to spout off here that the RDX is the greatest flop in the history of the Automobile. The projected sales of ALL SUV's is down because pussy ass bitches are whinning about gas prices eventhough they aren't that bad.