Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Acura RDX vs Mazda CX-7

roma007roma007 Posts: 24
What do people think of one car vs the other. I personally think the Mazda looks better from the outside, but Acura has a better interior. Overall though, is the RDX worth the extra premium, especially when comparing the RDX w/o Technology Package and CX-7 GT AWD?


  • This is where all the people with Acura tattoos chime in about the virtues of SH-AWD... Nurburgring, torque distribution, blah blah blah...

    Drive them both and whatever makes you happy, go with it. They are both fine cars. If marginally better leather and free WI-FI at the service department float your boat, stick with Acura. If you have only $30,000 and aren't going to race sports cars on mountain roads, go with the Mazda.
  • I test drove both cars today. The CX-7 is a nice car, and performs quite well. However, the RDX is so much more fun, especially when you hear the turbo spool up and feel the car go. I just don't feel a loaded CX-7 is worth the $30+K price tag, because the interior is a lot less luxurious. The entry level CX-7 is a good value though.

    The RDX is the winner for me. Now if I could get them to move the line on pricing, since they refuse to budge off MSRP.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Pricing shouldn't be an issue at all, on either of these vehicles. I'm sure you would be able to find RDX w/o tech package for close to invoice (about $30K).
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Through October:

    CX-7: 15,250
    RDX: 4,766
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    But Honda sold more CR-Vs in October itself (20,413) than the YTD sales of CX-7 and RDX combined (20,286). :P
  • sssfegysssfegy Posts: 132
    Ya, What a country! :P
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159

    I, personally, think the CR-V got beat with the ugly stick, did little to improve upon the previous gen, however, this is the wrong thread to be discussing that.
  • Invoice on the RDX without the tech package is closer to $31K ($30,700ish) with the destination charge, which IS part of the dealer cost. There is about $900 in holdback on RDX's as well however. But realistically, $31K is probably closer to what you'll be able to buy an RDX for. I paid about $33K. Knew I was overpaying at the time (two months ago) but couldn't wait. The car is superb.
  • I went to the dealer to buy an RDX. (Thank god i didnt) They wouldnt budge 1 penny off the MSRP. Now I kno the price has come down, closer to the low 30's. But in comparison, A CX-7 GT at sticker of 30,800 w/bose is had at 28,500.

    i discovered the CX-7 after my romp thru my "high class high price" acura dealer. I was dumbfounded as to why the Acura at the time was almost 35k and my GT i could buy at invoice of 28,5 w/bose & roof. It didnt make sense to me then, and it doesnt now. MAzda NAILED this market niche. Honda, Toyota, Acura, all missed the boat big time on this emerging type of vehicle. the RDX just reminded me of a mini overpriced ute like the X3.

    Acura pushed out the RDX with failed MPG ratings, over the top sticker, and blander than all hell styling. not worth my 34k. BMW X3, forget it at that price. If you like run of the mill Honda boringness (which is nice in an accord) not nice when ur spending 33k, the RDX has it. I felt no personality with the car, no statement. The only thing i liked was the unsilenced turbo and the turbo gauge. However, I would def say that the blower of the turbo would aggrevate me over time.

    The CX-7, in my opinion, blew open this part of the market with a quality vehicle, with power, the right amenities for buyers in this niche (who cares about seat memory, if you buy the car you will probably be the only one driving 90% of the time!). For the price you cannot beat the MAzda, the GT is a STEAL! Nothing comes close to the CX-7 besides the Murano (which is a good car) but still a little more expensive, bigger, and not as good handling.

    Owning Honda since i was 16 - driving the CX7 from Mile 1 made me realize that their suspension & breaking and driving mechanics just blew the tires off my then 2004 2dr Accord V6. The 7 is an exceptional value anyway you slice it - yes they could have at least put handles on the back doors, but if you value handles on doors more than you do driving - then you are looking at the wrong car!

    This car just has a get in it and go feel, which is great, and i havent felt that way about a car. its a winner, listen to the people who take the time to type out their reviews, test drive every other truck then test drive the mazda. dont be afraid to get into it on the test drive, and you will see what all the fuss is about. it will make u smile haha
  • I've been reading various comparisons among these 3 vehicles and thought I would add my 2 cents. I am in the market for something like these vehicles and have test driven all of these plus quite a few others. This is really a tough choice for me and I welcome feedback from others.

    First off, the X3 is out. I really like the exterior styling, but the interior didn't do it for me for a $40k+ vehicle. I thought the inside was also a little cramped. I thought the storage in the back was cramped, too (the wheel wells seemed to intrude more than in the CX-7 and RDX). The only reason I considered it is because it is such a good lease deal right now. But, I want to hold on to my next car for awhile, so I don't really want a lease. I thought it drove very well. But, I did feel a definite hesitation from a stop. I assume this is due to the low torque rating and weight of the vehicle.

    I don't really like the exterior of the RDX. And I thought the ride was very stiff and a little jolting. But, the inside seemed very nice. Seats felt a little snug, but I assume that is to hold you in place like a sports car. RDX has better warranties than the Mazda and dealership gives extras such as loaners, car washes, etc. It felt very fast. A little hesitation from a dead stop, but I didn't think it was much more (if any) than the BMW. Dealership gave me a price of $31,400 for a non-tech package RDX.

    I really kind of like the exterior CX-7 styling. I thought it rode very nice. More car like than the RDX. The interior is ok. I think red gauges are pretty dated. It seems so 80s. The seats were ok, but I thought the stripe in them is kind of goofy. The AWD doesn't seem as sophisticated as x-drive or sh-awd. It had a REALLY bad dead spot from a stop. The hesitation from off idle is a real concern for me as I have to cross a major highway to get home that does not let up during rush hour. So, I must find the biggest of the little gaps and "go for it" a lot of times. I read about more problems with the Mazda in these forums than the RDX or BMW (or course, the Mazda has been out longer, too). Dealer said he couldn't do better than $29,000 for a GT-AWD with Bose/sunroof and Sirus. But, the local dealer only has that car in Black Cherry. I think the only color I like in the Mazda is red.

    There you have it. I see pros and cons with the RDX and CX-7 with about $2500 separating them. I called my insurance folks and they told me the RDX would cost alomst $500 more per year to insure than the CX-7. I was swung over to the RDX side until I heard that. Now, I'm giving the Mazda another look see.
  • I agree with your take on both the Mazda and Acura... As a CX-7 owner, I can't argue with the faults you found, but I offer the following:

    The red gauges have been around while but are actually better for night vision. BMW, Audi, and others have used them for years, but not in the interest of style.

    I have concerns about the durability of the goofy alligator fabric stripe in the Mazda seats, but have learned to live with the looks.

    The two biggest CX-7 problems (actually the only ones I've heard much about) are the gas cap (recall) and bad purge valves. Neither is crippling, and have more to do with emissions than anything else. Unfortunate that there are design flaws, but Mazda is responding to them well by and large.

    With either automatic turbo vehicle, if you're really worried about crossing the busy freeway, you could always briefly pre-load the engine by revving it up with your foot on the brake. It's not great for the transmission, but if you try it, you'll find the thing takes off like a rocket. The gist of it is that you already have the engine in the boost by the time you start moving. Short of that, I've found you also have to make sure the transmission is in first if you are rolling at a low speed. The Mazda's transmission, at least, is pretty conservative with the gears, and I have found that waiting for a kick-down from 2nd to 1st crossing that busy road can be a butt-clinching moment.

    The copper red is a great color; I'd shop around over a wide an area as you can. Mazdas are selling at invoice, and Acuras are getting
    there as well. Fears over MPG (possibly unfounded) and great competition in the segment are driving prices for both these vehicles down. Good luck.
  • Few things in hopes to clear up your concerns.

    The turbo lag evident on test drive because you arent used to the Mazda yet. I thought the same exact thing and thought it was a big flaw. Ride in it a few times, and you will learn how to use the pedal without noticing the lag again. Takes a few drives, but i hope it wont deter you from your desicion.

    2nd, the red gauges like the other poster said are all bmw and the like use these days. At nite, nothing beats the interior display of the Mazda.

    The mazda rides better than the RDX, and unless u are some sort of extreme driver, the chance that you will even experience the SH-AWD the way its supposed to work, you wont even notice a difference, in fact, i think the SH-AWD is an excessive system for the average buyer, nonetheless cool tho.

    Price wise if you are a serious buyer, you will buy the Mazda at invoice if u r really going to make a deal. the acura at 31,400 isnt bad either, but u wont have a Bose system. At 31,400 - if you were leaning towards the Acura, that would get u the tech pkg in the Mazda.

    My 7 is Black Cherry, hated it at first till it became the showroom model, its the 7's classiest color, the copper red is definately awesome too. GOOD LUCK!
  • O and i also forgot, as a part of every Mazda (not the dealer) Mazda has its own 24/7 roadside care, and Mazda provides you a loaner everytime you get service
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    The AWD doesn't seem as sophisticated as x-drive or sh-awd.

    It is not, however, I am wondering how you concluded that from a test drive, considering that on dry pavement, the CX-7 is one of the best, if not the best handling SUV currently on sale. AWD cannot really be felt unless you are driving it like a rally car on a track, or is you are in terrible driving conditions like pouring rain or snow.

    P.S. Sophistication does not translate to better handling or traction.
    Example. The Mazdaspeed6 AWD (same as CX-7) out handles a BMW 325Xi (X-drive)
  • The RDX seriously blows the CX-7 into the weeds from a performance/handling standpoint. Read the recent Motor Trend comparison test.
  • Can someone outline the principal differences between the navigation system found in the Mazda CX-7 (and soon to be released CX-9) and that found in the Acura RDX and new Acura MDX. I know that the Acura's is controlled by a "joystick" versus touchscreen in the Mazda; both are said to be voice activated. Any differences in the points of interest databases between the two brands? Any other differences?
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    I have seem many other numbers as well, such as 7.4 0-60 for the RDX and 7.7 for the CX-7. Quarter mile 15.2-15.5. Slolum 63.2-63.1. I would not say by ANY means that the RDX "seriously blows the CX-7 into the weeds..." That is just a crazy comment.

    These two vehicles are so close in performance.
  • sssfegysssfegy Posts: 132
    "These two vehicles are so close in performance"
    And Mazda rides smoother? How is it blown into the weeds?
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    And Mazda rides smoother? How is it blown into the weeds?

    I'm not sure what you mean? Are you saying the Mazda rides smoother?

    All I said was that I didn't think that the RDX "blows" the CX-7 away.
  • Ok, so it seems like most people agree that the X3 is way too expensive for the product offered. I feel the same way, which is why I test drove the CX-7 and the RDX. I ended up leasing an RDX, because it was way more fun to drive, and the interior is far more impressive.

    When I drove the GT CX-7, it felt like I was in a car made by a company that was trying to force feed the luxury. The silly seat stripe, the controls were a pain (some readings on the dash, some just below the windshield?), and that turbo lag was HORRIBLE! Plus, the price wasn't so fantastic. Then I drove the RDX, which is amazing. The moment you have a seat, the luxury is just there, it's not screaming at you. The handling is amazing, the turbo lag is non-existent, and the visibility is great. Granted, you do feel some bumps in the road, but c'mon, I'll take the handling and speed around town anytime. Plus, they're offering great lease/purchase deals RIGHT NOW!

    To me it's not even close. Go drive 'em both around town and see what you like. If you're going to be in rainy/snowy weather, then the RDX is a no-brainer. If you want to sacrifice style for a seat stripe, some funky red dials and a lame starter system, be my guest. I'll be flying by you in my RDX.
Sign In or Register to comment.