Five cogs autobox
The RDX is only available with an automatic transmission, and in Canada all RDXs are fitted with the added traction of AWD whereas front-wheel drive (FWD) is available in the US. I’ve always preferred the benefits of AWD in this sort of vehicle despite the penalty in fuel economy.
In the case of my tester, fuel consumption was on the oppressive side given the size of its engine and the overly optimistic economy rating of 11.7L/100km and 8.7L/100km of city and highway driving respectively. My observed economy was more in the range of 12.8L/100km of combined city and highway driving.
Could it be that an extra couple of cogs in the autobox would improve fuel economy while smoothing-out performance? The competitors in the compact/mid-size crossover field are migrating to six and 7-speed automatic transmissions of late.
Despite its low cog-count, the RDX autobox shifts remarkably well and at the appropriate intervals, this includes downshifting. When the need arises to pass slower traffic, the RDX does so with compelling authority. Compelling authority is also revealed in the corners.
SH-AWD and firm underpinnings deliver handling competency
Perhaps the RDX’s most notable attribute is its ability to devour curves and hairpins in a most un-crossover-like manner. Counter-intuitive to its relatively high ride-height is the RDX’s on-road “sporting” characteristics.
I certainly enjoyed the spirited driving dynamics of the RDX, finding it to be highly responsive and eager to please when pushed into a corner. Some of that enjoyment was, however, tempered by firm ride dynamics.
The RDX is not as absorbent over rough surfaces as some of its competitors; that said, the smoother competition is unlikely to match the agility and handling competency of the RDX. Where do I fall in this ride-versus-handling continuum?
The RDX is only available with an automatic transmission, and in Canada all RDXs are fitted with the added traction of AWD whereas front-wheel drive (FWD) is available in the US. I’ve always preferred the benefits of AWD in this sort of vehicle despite the penalty in fuel economy.
 |
| The engine of the RDX produces 240 horsepower @ 6,000 rpm and 260 pound-feet of torque @ 4,500 rpm. (Photo: Rob Rothwell/Auto123.com) |
In the case of my tester, fuel consumption was on the oppressive side given the size of its engine and the overly optimistic economy rating of 11.7L/100km and 8.7L/100km of city and highway driving respectively. My observed economy was more in the range of 12.8L/100km of combined city and highway driving.
Could it be that an extra couple of cogs in the autobox would improve fuel economy while smoothing-out performance? The competitors in the compact/mid-size crossover field are migrating to six and 7-speed automatic transmissions of late.
Despite its low cog-count, the RDX autobox shifts remarkably well and at the appropriate intervals, this includes downshifting. When the need arises to pass slower traffic, the RDX does so with compelling authority. Compelling authority is also revealed in the corners.
SH-AWD and firm underpinnings deliver handling competency
Perhaps the RDX’s most notable attribute is its ability to devour curves and hairpins in a most un-crossover-like manner. Counter-intuitive to its relatively high ride-height is the RDX’s on-road “sporting” characteristics.
I certainly enjoyed the spirited driving dynamics of the RDX, finding it to be highly responsive and eager to please when pushed into a corner. Some of that enjoyment was, however, tempered by firm ride dynamics.
The RDX is not as absorbent over rough surfaces as some of its competitors; that said, the smoother competition is unlikely to match the agility and handling competency of the RDX. Where do I fall in this ride-versus-handling continuum?
 |
| My observed economy was more in the range of 12.8L/100km of combined city and highway driving. (Photo: Rob Rothwell/Auto123.com) |