AD #2365 – CR Now Recommends Tesla’s Model 3, JLR Developing AV Off-Road Tech., All-New Acura RDX Impressions

May 31st, 2018 at 11:28am

Runtime: 6:49

0:30 After Update, CR Now Recommends Tesla’s Model 3
1:18 Land Rover Developing Autonomous Off-Road Technology
1:53 How VW Lightened Its Pike Peak EV Racer
3:08 Cost of 3D Printing Coming Down Fast
5:03 All-New 2019 Acura RDX Impressions

Visit our sponsors to thank them for their support of Autoline Daily: Bridgestone , Dow Automotive Systems , Lear Corporation , BorgWarner and ExxonMobil.

»Subscribe to Podcast |

5661 rss-logo-png-image-68050 stitcher-icon youtube-logo-icon-65475

Thanks to our partner for embedding Autoline Daily on its website: WardsAuto.com

20 Comments to “AD #2365 – CR Now Recommends Tesla’s Model 3, JLR Developing AV Off-Road Tech., All-New Acura RDX Impressions”

  1. MJB Says:

    VW’s Pikes Peak EV Race driver’s suit stitching printed on instead of sewn just to help save weight? Ridiculously hair-splitting… Well, in that case, they can’t leave out having the driver not eat for three days and performing an enema right before the race too, right? ;)

  2. Frederick Schmidt Says:

    Another Tesla collision. They are not ready for the road using whatever they call their system of driving the car. The system should be disabled until they prove it is ready for street use. Also until they train the owner/driver till they are ready to use the system. http://www.ibtimes.com/tesla-autopilot-model-s-hit-5-cars-started-itself-owner-says-2685951

  3. Frederick Schmidt Says:

    They new “buzzy” Acura RDX…why would one buy a buzzy expensive Acura. The reported fuel economy is not worth the “buzzy” trade off for the economy change. What makes an Acura worth the extra money over a Honda is quiet ride and luxury. “Buzzy” engine noise is not luxury. In my opinion this is not a step forward for Acura.

  4. XA351GT Says:

    Surprised not to see anything regarding the rumor that FCA is going to eliminate the Chrysler brand from existence . That could be announced as soon as Friday according to what I read.

  5. BobD Says:

    On Telsa OTA updates – I wonder how thoroughly tested the “fix” was before it was pushed out. Perhaps the tweak provided for better braking on dry payment to satisfy the testing procedures used by CR, but might degraded performance under other conditions (e.g., ice, gravel, severe steering). Having worked for a large automotive OEM, even minute tweaks to anything safety related REQUIRED months and months of validation testing (physical and simulation) prior to production changes being approved. Just seems like Tesla was either very sloppy in its initial calibration of its braking system, or the calibration was the way it was for a reason to balance performance under numerous conditions. I’m not sure I’d want a “fix” to my braking system that took less than a week to implement from start to finish. If it was that simple to fix, they should have gotten it right the first time. Another example of where not following the norm may have future consequences.

  6. Kit Gerhart Says:

    I’m surprised that CR has enough reliability survey data on the Tesla Model 3 to “recommend” it. They only recommend cars that have average or better reliability, no matter how well they work otherwise. They list the 3′s reliability as 3 of 5, so they apparently have data on 100 cars which, I think, is the minimum they need to consider survey data significant.

  7. BobD Says:

    Just to play Devil’s Advocate — as the next scandal to diesel defeat devices, what is to keep a company from using OTA updates from pushing a “special” calibration to an evaluation vehicle being tested by CR or others to gain a better rating? I’m sure CR does their testing at a known location, and the vehicle is constantly reporting where it is to the OEM, and when one of these “special” locations are detected, the OEM could quickly download an “optimized” calibration to game the system. Then later on return to the standard calibration for reliability/durability.

  8. Kit Gerhart Says:

    #3

    Yep, 1 mpg improvement over the old RDX with the V6, and maybe the change to the 10-speed gearbox would have improved the mileage by that amount, even with the six. Yeah, buzzy engines don’t belong in “premium” cars. In 2018, no car should have a conspicuously buzzy engine.

  9. Kit Gerhart Says:

    4 What did you read? I’m not finding anything.

  10. Kit Gerhart Says:

    4, 9 Never mind. AW has an article about the rumor.

  11. Lex Says:

    Acura is now competing against the Chevy Equinox and GMC Terrain. They have taken the RDX down market IMHO. This 2.0 Liter Turbo should have gone into the Honda CR-V and a smaller 3.0 Liter V6 should have been developed and gone into the RDX.

  12. Albemarle Says:

    I say, let the oems do whatever they want with self-driving cars. The worst auto-drive is still light years better than many drivers on the road. Stop looking for perfection and accept better.

  13. Frederick Schmidt Says:

    #11…exactly! I have a 2013 Honda V6 AWD crosstour. It have a 6 speed auto with cylinder deactivation. It gets between 26 to 28 mpg on the highway averaging 70 to 80 mph and 22 mpg city/local driving. That is loaded with luggage and the cylinder deactivation works seamlessly. I would imagine with a 10 speed trans it would be even higher mpg’s.

  14. Kit Gerhart Says:

    11 Maybe the are not offering the 2.0 turbo in the CR-V, to get people who want it to spend more money and buy an Acura. As you say, though, they are just moving Acura down market, to compete with Chevy.

    As far as 2.0 turbos, are they “buzzy” in $60K Benzes and BMW’s? I haven’t driven a recent E-class, 5 series, or X3, all of which use turbo fours. The only recent turbo four I’ve driven is a MINI S. It is a little buzzy when you get on it, but it cost about $28K, not $50-60K

  15. joe Says:

    Consumer Reports must have received their check.

  16. Len simpson Says:

    Kit—–fell in love w/GM 2.4 before it was on the road, bought the 1st vehicle offered, put 80 K before going back to SUV’s—-had 2 counter balance shafts , was not “Buzzy”

  17. Kit Gerhart Says:

    I suspect the mounting, and sound deadening have a lot to do with whether or not an engine is “buzzy.” I drove a Camaro with the 2.0 turbo, and it seemed quite refined, for that type of car. Actually, the 2.5 turbo in my antique minivan is mostly smooth, but the vehicle is kind of noisy in other ways, like road noise, and transmission whine in top gear.

  18. Kit Gerhart Says:

    The safest cars, with no fatalities over the last four years. The surprising one to me us Cherokee 4wd.

    http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/25/autos/safest-and-deadliest-cars-on-the-road/index.html

  19. Kate McLeod Says:

    I still don’t trust Tesla. That’s all.

  20. David Sprowl Says:

    The excitement over AV is at best a panacea of fluff. Anyone who has ever been involved in auto production (parts of OEM)can tell you that sensors will fail. And those failures can result in catastrophic damage. Who will assume that liability? Not certain the masses will buy into AV anytime in several vehicle design cycles. RIP Chrysler & dodge? most likely.