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!

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.

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-messa...sage_id=629128

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??

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Yeah that was a disaster for Ford! :|

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