Howdy, Stranger!

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





Acura RDX vs Infiniti EX35

sxm5808sxm5808 Posts: 3
I am planning to buy acura rdx and am happy to buy a real good car. Today i saw specs/pictures of the new infiniti EX35 that is going to be released in december and now i am thinking if i should postpone till december. What do you think of EX35..
check this link of production version EX35
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDCpaMb_wrE
Tagged:
«1

Comments

  • carlitos92carlitos92 Posts: 458
    I think this will be the most annoying of all the Infiniti designs. It's surely subjective, but I think the FX was the last vehicle of theirs I liked. Although I didn't end up buying one, I would say the RDX is definitely the looker of the two. The EX would probably give it a run for its money handling and performance-wise, but Acura reliability is hard to beat.

    Now if we could just get Lexus to get a small CUV on the market!
  • I would get the RDX. The RDX has a great reputation and the Turbo is to die for. The EX35 albeit new and not too bad looking is new to the market. My advice if you really like the EX35, I will suggest you wait until the end of next year to get one. Reason being, many new models (GMC ACADIA), have problems that need to be addressed and aren't quite addressed in the first year. A friend of mines have an ACADIA and he has been going to the dealer more than often with little niggles about his vehicle. If you don't want to be a test driver for Nissan, I will suggest you wait for the second year model.
  • johnny98johnny98 Posts: 88
    I'm going to reserve judgment until I see the Infiniti in person. I thought the Infiniti FX looked good in photos, but in person the proportions look weird. Also, the cargo space was very small for such a big vehicle. The EX looks like it will come with lots of fun toys. I expect that the price will be significantly more than the RDX.
  • extech2extech2 Posts: 120
    It's too early to pass judgment on the EX35 since we haven't seen one yet. However, about 3 months ago we drove an RDX base and a loaded FX35 2-wheel drive the same day, only an hour apart. The Acura drove much better, it was like comparing a sports car to a Cadillac. Then again if you want a more cushy ride, the FX or the new EX might be better for you. I'm sure it will sell at least for 6-8 thousand more than the RDX. We were ready to get an RDX, but I drove a Volkswagen GTI twice and for me it was a much more exciting car, and that's what I leased. But I'm sure 3 years from now we'll be checking the RDX again when the lease is ending.
  • For me the choice is clear- how can you compare the Acura 4 cylinder turbo to the smooth & strong 6 cylinder engine in the EX?
  • I know i cant compare and suv to a sport sedan, but after driving both nothing can beat the 335i..i am missing all the tech from rdx though!

    sanjay
  • Easy... Honda/Acura make the smoothest, silkiest 4-cylinder engines, bar none. That "strong" VQ-family V6 sounds like rolling flatulence in every car/CUV I've ever heard it in. ;)

    That being said, I think I remember people being disappointed with the engine noise in the RDX, but a lot of that was turbo whine they heard (or thought they heard) IIRC.
  • ...actually, a more expensive car can beat a 335i, just as the more expensive 335i beats the rdx...in summary, that is a useless comment that adds no value as a post!...don't get me wrong, the 3-series is a nice car, but has no application here.
    "After driving both..."? - so, after comparing the 335i to ONE other car not even in the same class of vehicles, you conclude that "nothing can beat the 335i"....a very interesting and well thought-out conclusion!

    Maybe we can start forums comparing completely different cars more often...'Hyundai Elantra versus Toyota Land Cruiser', or maybe 'Carrera GT versus Dodge Caravan'
  • mvs1mvs1 Posts: 462
    I did not take the time to read far up the thread of this, although, this type of comparison does often occur. It's happening right now in our house My wife is considering an RDX, CRV, RX350, A4 (she currently leases an 05), and possible a few others. while these cars are apples to oranges you be surprised how many people like features they think are needs but mearly comforts.

    Now back to the EX vs RDX since this is on her shopping list. She's now becoming more interested in the financial portion of this equation and simply asked how mush more will the EX be? She asked me what platform the EX was built off of and then said, "Oh no that would be around $40k right.?"

    So until we see this car in December and have actually pricing i really is a hard question to answer. In the event the EX is within a few $1ks it should prove to be a hard decision.

    Oh and I'll take he Land Cruiser and GT ;)
  • Haha! You take your comparisions very seriously man! actually i started the thread and thought i should update about my new buy...no disrescpect for rdx..
  • I enjoy hyperbole for humor's sake just as much as the next guy, but it's incorrect to assume a more expensive car automatically beats a less expensive car.
  • waltazwaltaz Posts: 123
    Hey...I just purchased a G35 Journey last weekend for my wife, to replace her '04 Accord EX-V6. The G is the best car I've ever purchased - we absolutely love it.

    I drive an '06 Pilot loaded EX-L with Navi, and am experiencing "I want a new car too" angst, though I love my Pilot. So now I'm looking at an RDX or an EX35 to replace my Pilot. My rationalization is that I don't really need the third row seats that I needed two years ago, so I can "downsize" a bit.

    My understanding is that the EX35 is basically the G sedan with a different body style, so I don't know that I want two cars that are so similar, even though we LOVE the G. And if I'm "downsizing" from the Pilot, then I don't need the MDX, which is basically the Acura Pilot.

    A key use for me is racking mountain bikes up top - I have a Thule rack on my Pilot's rails, and will want to rack the RDX. I don't think that either Thule or Yakima have a fit kit for the EX35 yet (they don't for the G), and I haven't checked for the RDX.

    Thoughts?
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,181
    Off topic, but I think I'd like to see some pics of your new Journey - maybe you can stick some on your CarSpace page?

    Fitment kits from Yak and Thule seem to take a while. I understand they need to get their hands on a car for a while to figure out how to make the clips but the engineering seems to drag out for months sometimes.

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • waltazwaltaz Posts: 123
    will do re the pics...I've got some, just need to get them up
  • karens2008karens2008 Posts: 26
    has anyone driven both the RDX and the EX for a decent comparison that they can post? I loved the EX drive - and didn't think the mileage was anything to write home about.... but the ride is great --- don't know how it compare to RDX because haven't driven it yet, but hear bad things about funny noises.... I hate funny noises.
    Heard that the EX can use mid-grade gasoline - true? or not? don't want to have to use high grade for the RDX which I think is necessary, correct?
    Any more thoughts? - would be appreciated!
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    With the advent of EFI and knock sensors premium fuel is not really required for ANY of these passenger public road use modern day high compression engines, not even the Porsche ones.

    But since the RDX is so severely underpowered until the turbo comes on line the detrimental effects, performance sacrificed, is undoubtedly much greater than otherwise. The RDX's "native" engine compression ratio is only about 8:1 and so the turbo is REALLY required for the engine to produce a decent level of initial start out torque.

    And that's probably also why the FE is so abysmal, you need to be "on" the turbo in order to get any decent level of acceleration and to get "there" you need to quickly go through the engine/turbo combination "slack" lower RPM range.

    Just simply a HUGE waste of fuel until a decent level of combined engine/turbo compression level is attained. Then add the fact that the intercooler is passively cooled until RAM air roadspeeds are achieved (IF EVER..!!) and with a fairly restricted cooling airflow path to boot and you get an RDX with literally HORRIBLE FE.

    And keep in mind that when just cruising casually along, no turbo boost, you are operating the engine in a horribly inefficient, 8:1 compression ratio mode.

    The RDX engine really needs to be redesigned to actively modify the intake valve timing along the lines of the Miller Cycle, an actual compression ratio of ~13:1 with "virtual" of 10:1 during idle or light load cruising but with intake valve timing control so the "actual" compression ratio changes linearly to 8:1 as turbo boost climbs.

    But variable volume positive displacement SuperCharging, TRUE Miller Cycle, would be much simpler overall.
  • redrose1redrose1 Posts: 49
    You appear to be so knowledgeable - would you be able to comment on the Subaru Forester turbo? We are undecided between the two and FE is a key factor.
    Also, any thoughts about the 6cylinder Rav4?

    Thanks alot!
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    No, sorry, Subaru simply doesn't warrant my attention.

    Any manufacturer who touts the safety of AWD (AWD simply does not address the issue of safety) and patently UNSAFE "symetrical" AWD to boot, doesn't warrant anyone's attention IMMHO.

    Compare the SH-AWD system with ANY AWD(symetrical)/FWD/F-AWD system to see the shortcoming of all these "other" systems.

    Shame they fell so short in the engine compartment.
  • redrose1redrose1 Posts: 49
    May I ask... what smallish crossover do you like - keeping in mind safety, FE , and winter driving conditions? Would you rule out the RDX?Would appreciate your opinion!
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    I currently own, daily driver, a 2001 AWD RX300. Being totally aware of the RX's F/AWD shortcomings mine is modified so that I can use tire chains on the rear initially and then add the front chains if the need arises. One set of chains rides in the RX at all times and the second only during the winter months.

    The RX rides on nice and quiet, comfortably riding, summer only Bridgestone Turanza tires all year 'round and so I NEVER hesitate to use the chains if conditions warrant, even slightly warrant.

    I have no current plans to rid myself of the RX but if I did the RDX would probably be on my short list. But in my opinion the RDX's dash/intrument panel appears too "busy" and the abysmal FE is a sure show-stopper.

    I keep hoping to see a Lexus hybrid version of the RAV4 but....

    Oh, almost forgot, I was going to buy a new RAV4 but the manual tranaxle was dropped from the design.

    Right now, today, if my hand were forced the Suzuki SX4 w/stick ($5.00 gas) would top my list. But I'd probably remove the front halfshafts and weld the rear driveline into full time use.
  • lynn3808lynn3808 Posts: 2
    the turbo is to die for. When you get the bill when it fails and Acura has no idea why it failed. Just wonder how many miles the new one will take before it fails. The originial failed at 50,000 miles. I wasn't looking for a throw away car when I bought an acura. very disappointing.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    How many "boy-racers" see the turbo label and go out and buy one with too high expectations..? And then begin "modding" it with CPE CAI's, Hondata reflash and such and then question why the turbo fails taking the engine along for the "ride".
  • mayoarceomayoarceo Posts: 2
    I would choose the EX35 hands-down. Why? Well let me tell you a little thing that irks me about Acura.. When you buy an Acura you are basically buying a gussied up Honda... Don't get me wrong, I love Honda, I drive a 2007 Honda Civic SI. Anything Acura is based off a Honda platform. The RDX comes from the CRV and the CRV comes from the Civic. Now I know what you are thinking, the Infiniti is a gussied up Nissan... Well i'll tell you why it is different. All of Infiniti's new cars are all truly sporty(except the QX56) because they are derived from the 350Z platform... So the EX35 comes from the G35, which comes from the 350Z. Seriously, I dont think the RDX is the same value as the EX35. And besides the EX35 is faster, gets better MPG, handles better, best safety rating in the segment, and I know someone will bring up Honda reliability but the EX35's engine has been a top engine across segments for the past 14 years. In the end where is your money best spent? A crossover derived from a RWD sports car or a crossover derived from an economy sedan?
  • depdep Posts: 79
    Toyota, Nissan, and Honda all share a huge % of components between their regular and lux brands. No question there.

    However, just to pick a nit, the RDX was designed first with the CRV inheriting many of the components, etc in its redesign.

    Now, if you really think that all the Infinity models are "derived from the 350Z platform" then you have a world of disappointment coming your way. They pair up with their Nissan counterparts just like Acura and Lexus cars do.
  • depdep Posts: 79
    I am not sure what RDX you drove but the one I drive is not under powered at all. Once you take some time to learn how the systems work together in real world driving you get a smooth, powerful, and very responsive SUV that drives like a TL. It corners like it is glued to the road and can play on the expressways with the best of them.

    That said, I don't expect the RDX to drive like a sports car not do I often have the need to 'floor it' so if one is expecting that you might have a different take on the RDX.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    All that you have said is very true but the really important point you missed was that Infiniti's are traditionally RWD or at least, for R/AWD, built on a RWD "base". I have heard that at least one of the upcoming Acura sedan is to be RWD....

    Finally...!!

    Acura is current trying to climb one of the last steps on the ladder to being a fully upscale (read: knowledgeable and/or experienced buyer/driver) automotive manufacturer.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    What I actually said was that the RDX is UNDERPOWERED until the turbo boost comes on line.

    In order to accomodate the turbo boost pressure level once it "arrives" the engine is detuned/derated (<10:1 CR) from the "norm" for non-turbo DFI engines. A normal I4 with DFI (12:1 compression ratio) of this displacement could probably "loaf" along at a much lower RPM, fewer frictional losses.

    Another aspect of the detuning/derating design is it puts more "WASTE" energy in the exhaust manifold....notice how quickly the turbo spools up....and KILLS your MPG.

    RDX and CX-7 "turbo" equals POOR engineering compromises.

    Therefore the abismal hwy MPG.
  • depdep Posts: 79
    I did misread then. My bad.

    However, I don't consider 22 MPG (what I get in real hwy driving) on an SUV of that size and performance to be 'abysmal'. If it had the normal 2.4 making 170HP or something then I would be looking for more MPG. But for a 240HP/260ft/lb engine I think it is doing OK. Not amazing but not at all abysmal.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Abysmal in the sense that the larger V6 in my '01 AWD RX300 easily gets 22 hwy. And I understand the newer RX350 does even better than that.

    I would have thought the smaller I4 would (should..??) do better since most hwy use would be off-boost.
  • depdep Posts: 79
    I will give you that the Toy 3.5l is an amazing engine. I recall when they replaced the 3l in the Avalon with the 3.5 the power went way up but so did the MPG! It is smooth and enjoyable under all conditions.
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.