2022 Acura Mdx A-spec on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2019 Acura RDX First Drive Review | Boringness banished

WHISTLER, B.C. — Things have come full circle for the Acura RDX. The compact crossover launched in 2007 with an all-new turbocharged four-cylinder engine and an all-wheel-drive system that was sophisticated enough for the brand to affix the Super Handling designation to it. It was a fun, sporty vehicle in a sea of boring competitors, and we liked it enough to write a eulogy of sorts when the second-generation RDX ditched the fun turbo engine in favor of a V6, and dumbed down its optional all-wheel system so much that they dropped the Super Handling name. Acura's mainstreaming of the RDX for its second generation turned out to be a smart play. Sales jumped 94 percent in 2012, the first year that the redesigned RDX went on sale, leapt another 50 percent the following year, and have stayed over the 50,000 mark for the past three years. It may sound surprising, then, that Acura is flipping the playbook back a few pages by swapping its V6 engine back to a turbo four and reinstalling Super Handling All-Wheel Drive. We think it's a smart move. The 2019 RDX is both sportier and more upscale than the model it replaces. It does more than just check boxes. It's interesting, boasts some cool technology, and offers a strong value proposition. The 2019 RDX's all-new 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine delivers 272 horsepower and 280 pound-feet of torque. That's down a negligible seven ponies from the old 3.5-liter V6, but up 28 lb-ft, and it's tuned to provide the bulk of that torque in the heart of its powerband — peak torque plateaus between 1,600 and 4,500 rpm. An equally all-new 10-speed automatic transmission sends that power to either the front wheels, or, as was the case with the vehicles we tested, all four wheels. Jumping into a 2019 RDX for the first time, our main powertrain concern was that the 10-speed automatic would generate a ton of unnecessary, and distracting, shifts. This proved to be an unfounded fear. The gearbox does shift quite often under hard acceleration, but does so quickly and without any undue jerkiness. The sheer number of gearing options — the old six-speed auto had a 68 percent narrower spread of ratios — and the torque-rich engine combined to provide excellent straight-line acceleration in any real-world driving scenario we could conjure. The rest of the time we didn't really think about the transmission at all. We did, however, lament the push-button transmission interface.

How the Autoblog staff would configure the 2017 Acura NSX

The configurator for the 2017 Acura NSX is now online, and it finally lets people spec this long-delayed supercar. Technically prices start at $157,800 (after $1,800 for destination), but you can't actually get one like that yet. The iron brake rotors aren't available until late 2016, which means the carbon-ceramic rotors with black calipers are the least expensive choice at $9,900. The cost ticks up to $10,600 if you want calipers in silver or red. The build process inspired so much conversation among the Autoblog staff that we decided to share our choices with you and explain why we picked them. Let us know what you think in the comments. MICHAEL AUSTIN - $198,950: Mine's expensive, but I figure another 15 percent or so is irrelevant when the car already costs so much. I love the blue - it's alluring without being too flashy. Saddle leather is a must for me; it's definitely the best interior color. I skipped the carbon-fiber exterior sport package, just because I like the cleaner look of the standard body. Otherwise, carbon-fiber overkill: roof, rear spoiler, interior trim, and engine cover. If I had to cut costs I could sacrifice the $10,600 carbon ceramic brakes, which are probably unnecessary – but I'd have to wait until later this year. My only question is: where are the optional Michelin Pilot Super Sport tires I loved during our First Drive? CHRIS BRUCE - $180,700: I tried not to go too wild when speccing mine, but some upgrades seemed necessary. The standard black leather was too dark, so I opted for the Saddle and Alcantara, which added $1,500 to the price. I also picked with the matching black Alcantara headliner for $1,300 and the upgraded audio system for $2,800. For the outside, I loved the Nord Gray Paint, which has a little green in it, and I splurged for the $6,000 carbon fiber roof. To finish things off, I went with the silver calipers on the carbon-ceramic brakes for $10,600. STEVEN EWING - $172,700: I'm not the extravagant type. I don't want flashy colors, red calipers, or unnecessary carbon fiber crap on the outside. Give me something that flies under the radar, with the only the options I need. Plus, the NSX hardly feels like a $200,000 supercar to me. ALEX KIERSTEIN - $176,500: Japanese cars tend to look best in classic white, so I went with that for the exterior. I like a dark interior, but I also love Alcantara – so that goes on the headliner. The carbon-fiber roof is a bit of an extravagance, but this is all fantasy, right?

Honda Civic Hatchback Luggage Test: How it compares with sedan and Integra

Well, we have a first here at Autoblog Luggage Test HQ: the first time I've done the next-generation of a make/model that's already been luggage tested. I know, right, very exciting. So, for the first time, I'll be able to report how a vehicle compares with its immediate predecessor. As this is the Honda Civic hatchback, I can also show you how it compares with the Honda Civic sedan and the mechanically related Acura Integra. So. Many. Comparisons! In short, the Civic is a definitive example of why you can't really compare the cargo volume figures of a sedan and a hatchback (or wagon, SUV or other hatchbacked vehicle). The specs say the hatchback has 24.8 cubic-feet of space whereas the Civic sedan has 14.8, yet as I'm about to show you, the sedan actually has more space for holding bags or whatever. This is already a phenomena I covered with the Integra and its 24.3-cubic-foot trunk. Apparently, that half a cube makes a difference as it was indeed easier to load bags into the Civic hatch.  Top Civic hatchback, bottom left Civic sedan, bottom right Integra Some key observations here with this trio. The Civic sedan is 4 inches longer than the Civic hatchback, almost all of which is behind the rear axle. This lends its trunk greater length than the hatchback, which is more useful for stuffing in luggage. The Civic hatchback (and Integra) have more height, which balloons the cubic-foot number, but doesn't really provide much help in this test since I don't pack to the roof for safety, visibility and consistency reasons. If you lower the back seats, it's a whole different ballgame, but I'll get to that later. Now, to the bags. As in every luggage test I do, I use two midsize roller suitcases that would need to be checked in at the airport (26 inches long, 16 wide, 11 deep), two roll-aboard suitcases that just barely fit in the overhead (24L x 15W x 10D), and one smaller roll-aboard that fits easily (23L x 15W x 10D). I also include my wife's fancy overnight bag just to spruce things up a bit (21L x 12W x 12D). You can really see the difference in trunk length here. In the sedan (above right), you can fit the small roller bag behind the four biggest bags lined up. Definitely can't do that in the hatchback above left. In short, all the bags fit in all the cars (with some asterisks). It was a much easier fit in the sedan, though, and you can see that there's some extra space on either side of the egg-crusher hinges.