- The second-generation Acura RDX goes on sale this spring.
- The 2013 RDX features a raft of improvements, including a larger, more powerful engine.
- Production shifts from Marysville to East Liberty, Ohio.
DETROIT — The redesigned 2013 Acura RDX goes on sale this spring, with a raft of improvements, including a larger, more powerful engine.
Shown here as a prototype, the second-generation RDX is powered by a 3.5-liter V6 rated at 273 horsepower and mated to a six-speed automatic transmission. The front-wheel-drive version is expected to get EPA fuel-economy ratings of 20 mpg in city driving and 28 on the highway. That compares with 19/24 for the 2012 RDX, which uses a 240-hp turbo 2.3-liter four-cylinder engine and five-speed automatic.
The five-passenger RDX also gets a longer wheelbase and wider track for enhanced stability and ride comfort, as well as an improved all-wheel-drive system and a new motion-adaptive electronic power steering system. Exterior styling changes are evolutionary.
The 2013 RDX receives more passenger and cargo space, and such features as a power tailgate, a smart entry keyless access system, push-button start and a three-view rear camera.
Production moves from Honda's Marysville plant to East Liberty, Ohio.
Inside Line says: Honda dialed things up in all the right places.
Add A Comment »
lions208487 says:
09:14 AM, 01/11/2012
The pix from the auto show indicate a better design than this picture. Fuel economy improves with a naturally aspirated 6, that's what happens when you have a turbo 4 in a heavy vehicle. Take note BMW and Ford. a 528i with a turbo 4, and a Explorer with and Ecoboost Turbo 4 equal crappy real world fuel economy numbers.
nefariousnigel says:
07:12 AM, 01/11/2012
This is a bad picture. The auto show pictures reveal it to be a mini-MDX from many angle and that's a good thing. Maybe I'm biased because I own an MDX.
This highlights some amazing the potential in the base CR-V platform. The old RDX was a hoot to drive if you didn't mind the noise and pathetic MPG (I had them as loaners). It was VERY quick and its handling blew away the Q5 I drove for an extended test drive at an Audi event. But man, was it crude on the NVH and ride front.
Nevertheless, the old CR-V platform felt like it could take even more power so this V6 isn't a stretch. I suppose Toyota had everyone beat with the V6 RAV4...I've never driven one so I can't compare.
racerhead says:
03:44 PM, 01/10/2012
This is a rebadged Honda CRV. I saw the new CRV at a Target store parking lot here in Mission Viejo, Ca in OC today and it is a dumb looking SUV. The back of the roofline bulges out way too far. This Acura still has the beak. Ick!
cz_75 says:
02:39 PM, 01/10/2012
Same ugly beak grille, toned down a little. Why hang onto a terrible design feature when it kicked the ass of previous model sales?
twistedrider says:
11:59 AM, 01/10/2012
Please....give the BOTTLE OPENER BEAK a rest! Enough already, geez. And while you're at it, Honda, don't screw up the Civic's dashboard with the two-tier digi speedo. Now that's really ugly.
blurglide says:
10:53 AM, 01/10/2012
An "improved AWD system"? Uh- they ditched the awesome SH-AWD for the cheaper and lighter basic system in the CRV. I wish they could've been more creative with the engine, too. This is a fairly old and basic one. You'd think some tinkering with the turbo 4...perhaps direct injection, would have more mpg potential, and better weight distribution, than this V6, as demonstrated with Ford's Ecoboost. Interesting that the CRV chassis can handle a V6. I wonder if they offer it? I like the CRV except for the weak engine.
Overall this looks like a good option though. Styling is pretty good, handling should be nice, and it has lots of room to haul gear.
m6user says:
10:29 AM, 01/10/2012
Improvements to what were common complaints should make this a lot more attractive. It's still 5 passenger and smaller than the MDX. The turbo 4 sucked on MPG....literally and the ride was stiff and a little tight for a lot of Acura customers. They seemed to have addressed these complaints and added a fair amount of power with a smooth V6 at the same time. Design is evolutionary and the beak on both MDX and the RDX were never as pronounced as on the sedans and blended in better. I don't people complained about the beaks on the SUVs like they did on the TL/TSX.
lowprofile says:
09:13 AM, 01/10/2012
Looks like an oddly proportioned Venza from the side.
aston_dbs says:
09:03 AM, 01/10/2012
LOL @autoadviseorg:
"...Even the Infiniti EX looks much different than the FX inside out. Same goes for the BMW X3 and X5, Mercedes GLK and GL..."
I'm not really sure what you are actually looking at, but the statement above couldn't be more wrong...
EX LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE (previous generation) FX.
Inside Out?
You probably need (a new) glasses. Most Infinitis/Nissan have SIMILAR interior design.
Same goes with BMW X5/X3 AND MB GLK/GL.
Seriously...
1919diesel says:
09:02 AM, 01/10/2012
I do notice a difference from the current RDX, but I can't help asking myself, is this design really any better? I think not - they are making it a mini-MDX, not a bad thing, but not as good as the current RDX.
And I thought the "Acura BEAK" had scared away enough buyers they were going to adjust their design/styling? No? They still like the beak? Really?
Again, another uninspiring Honda design that will hardly stem the tide of declining market share. Honda is now officially coasting on their quality reputation. We will see if they (or Toyota) can reverse the decline, or are they going into a slide like the domestics in the 1970's/1980's?