2006 BMW X3 vs Acura RDX

jrynn · October 2006

I'm a big BMW fan. I leased a 2001 BMW 540i for three years, loved the car, zero problems. I've been driving an Acura RDX for three weeks now. ... The X3? ... Worth an extra $5-$8K? It's your dough. ... So spend the extra money. You'll get a BMW, but you won't get Honda reliability.

I'm a little unclear on why you'd give the edge to "Honda reliability" when you say your BMW had "zero problems" during your three-year lease.

If anything, based on my own BMW/Acura experience, I'd lean towards BMW. My X3 has required no unscheduled maintenance during its first year. My TSX, in contrast, spent weeks in the shop during its first year with two MAJOR safety problems: a driver's seat that slid during normal braking, and a seatbelt that would neither extend nor retract.

Your experience and my experience are but a small sample, but neither suggests that Acura has a reliability edge, especially when the RDX is in its first year of production.

bodble2 · October 2006

I think, in general, both anecdotally, and documented, Honda/Acura is more reliable than BMW. But the fact the the RDX is in its first year, whereas the X3 is "matured" model may even things out somewhat.

pammh · October 2006

I've owned Acura cars for the past 8 years and currently own an RSX-Type S, which I love but my lifestyle has changed. This past weekend, I went car shopping and test drove the Mazda CX-7, Acura RDX and the BMW X3, fully prepared to love the RDX. However, I was really disappointed in it -- I thought the back seat area was awkward to enter if you're a bit older, as I am, the navigation screen was hard for me to view without taking my eyes from the road for more than a second, and it didn't "wow" me. However, when I drove the BMW X3, I was totally wowed, even though it doesn't have all of the same standard features. When I priced out the RDX and X3 with my options, there was only about a $3K difference. I've gone ahead and ordered the X3, which I'm thrilled about.

The car I was impressed with for the money was the Mazda CX-7. I thought it offered several standard features that neither the RDX or X3 offered for a lot less money. I thought the navigation system was better than the RDX and it has a keyless entry and ignition. I thought that was cool. Plus, you release the rear seats with releases easy to get to from the back rather than on the seats themselves. I also thought the storage area in the back was better than the RDX.

bodble2 · October 2006

In my brief test drive of the RDX, I found the backseat fairly comfortable. But then again I'm not a big, tall person. However, I found the ride really stiff, almost uncomfortably so. I thought the turbo was kind of noisy, the power was good, but not exactly awe-inspiring. While it had lots of hi-tech toys, I thought it fell short in some of the luxury amenitie -- no seat memory, no power passenger seat, so-so leather quality.

I would be inclined to give up some of the tech toys (ie. nav, DVD audio) and opt for the X3 instead. (Not that the X3 doesn't offer a nav, but I would have to forgo it to keep the price down

).

patentcad1 · October 2006

I'm not concerned about a car's reliability while it's under warranty - I no longer lease cars. I buy them and KEEP them for 5-10 years. I want a car to deliver good reliability when it has 80-200K miles. And that's where Euro cars get stupid expensive compared to Hondas. Our Volvo was GREAT. Until it had 130,000 miles. FIVE THOUSAND BUCKS in relatively minor repairs over the last 18 months (30K miles) we owned the car. Never again.

If you lease your cars or keep them for <4-5 years: great, get a BMW. If you're in my position that's not a viable option. Too expensive to keep them on the friggin road. What's this based on? An overwhelming amount of anecdotal stories like 'I drove my Honda 200K miles and all I did was change the oil'. They simply do NOT BREAK as frequently as the Euro cars. And when they do they're cheaper to repair.

I have a kid to put through college in a few years. I need the money for that. Not for $1200 air conditioning condensers in Volvos or BMWs. The Volvo A/C took a crap with 150K miles. Ever hear of a Honda or Toyota needing that part? Yeah, right, me neither.

patentcad1 · October 2006

I looked at the CX- and read 3-4 road tests. My impressions:

Nice exterior styling (better looking than the RDX in my view) but very cheesy interior compared to the RDX.

Slightly larger cargo area.

Much crummier handling/accelleration, no comparison. MUCH more turbo lag.

Overall Acura quality is a considerable notch above Mazda's.

I test drove one. The cars are on different planets. Sorry. Drive them both and let me know what you think.

The RDX is worth the higher price.

bodble2 · October 2006

"..but very cheesy interior..."

Agreed. The interior may be more comparable to a CR-V's or RAV4's.

varmint · October 2006

To be fair, the CX-7's interior is pretty stylish. It's just not made from the same materials and doesn't have quite the same level of detail.

The BMW seems to have the old-world luxury thing going for it. Though, I find the heavy "leather-grain" pattern on the dash a bit much. While the material IS very nice, it LOOKS like industrial rubber. Meanwhile, the real leather on the seats is obviously the best of the bunch. This based on the 2006 model I last rode in.

The RDX went techno instead of old-world. Although carbon fibre is not in use, it has the look of a vehicle which would use it. Instead of the BMW's leather pattern on the dash, the RDX uses a pattern which resembles the rip-stop material from a backpack. Certain materials are definitely top notch, but then things like the mirror controls appear to come from a lesser vehicle's parts bin.

nobody3 · October 2006

Thanks to robertsmx and markcincinnati for all the details.

One thing I notice is that x-drive has one multi-plate clutch whereas SH-AWD has two at the rear unless I'm mistaken. See the video below, it's quite interesting.

http://www.germancarfans.com/print.cfm/ID/2050714.001/lang/eng
http://world.honda.com/HDTV/news/2004-4040401a/

It looks like, while cornering x-drive sends the torque to front wheels to avoid over-steering since it is rear-biased. Whereas in RDX, the torque is sent to the outer rear wheel (up to 70%) to avoid under-steering since it is front-biased. Distribution between right and left seems to be an advantage.

On a potentially unrelated topic, last winter, during one of my trips to a ski area, the road was open initially for AWDs and non-AWDs with chain. But then the road was closed after a few spin-outs (fish tails) and we had to wait. When they reopened, they allowed only AWDs. I could go thru safely, thanks to engine brakes. Unfortunately, quite a few (rwd)BMWs with chains were not allowed to go. My take is, RWDs may be very bad on snow without chains (fish tail) but with chains they are better than FWDs.

Ski-season is pretty close. Can't wait.

tenmac · October 2006

The more I look at the GM versa track the better it looks technologically. The quality of design and durability are another q entirely!

robertsmx · October 2006

Versatrek doesn't compare to X-drive or SH-AWD. It is comparable to Honda's Real Time 4WD used in CR-V.

jrynn · October 2006

... Our Volvo was GREAT. Until it had 130,000 miles. ... Could you BE a little more unreasonable in your expectations?

... FIVE THOUSAND BUCKS in relatively minor repairs over the last 18 months (30K miles) we owned the car. ... Evidently, you and the dealer have a different definition of "minor."

I have a kid to put through college in a few years. I need the money for that. Not for $1200 air conditioning condensers in Volvos or BMWs. Then perhaps a CR-V rather than an RDX would have left you with a more comfortable cushion against those future expenses.

wwest · October 2006

I would take a RWD vehicle over ANY FWD or front biased AWD, equally "shod", when I go skiing, but the X3 with rear biased AWD and a manual transmission beats them all.

But for the moment I'll just stick with my 94 AWD Ford Aerostar. Or at least until Lexus puts the GS300 AWD system into the RX series.

bodble2 · October 2006

Why not, then, just buy the GS300 AWD?

patentcad1 · October 2006

If you think the idea of a vehicle going past 130K miles without needing incessant repairs is 'unreasonable' then you have owned FAR too many European cars. Take a trip to the clue store and talk to some Japanese car owners who know that 200K miles without losing your shirt on car repairs is rather routine these days.

The tolerance level for Euro car weenies for this crap is astonishing. Evidenced by my willingness to term $5k in repairs over 18 months as 'minor'. The scary part is that they WERE for a Volvo. If there was ANYTHING 'major' involved that total would have been closer to $10K than $5,000.

As for buying a cheaper car, that's a different discussion entirely. Whether you're spending $20K or $40k on an automobile, in 2007 that SHOULD get you a vehcile that will run 200K miles or so without necessitating a 2nd mortgage for repairs the last couple of years. At least that's the standard set by companies like Toyota, Honda and Subaru. If you're used to the typical crap dished out at higher mileage by VW, BMW, Audi and other Euro brands it's no wonder you deem such expectations as unwarranted.

If all there were out there were VW's that needed window regulators @ 90K miles (every friggin VW I KNOW goes through that repair) you'd have a point. As long as there are cars like Hondas/Acuras that demonstrate the remarkable high mileage reliability they have shown I'll be going that route. It's all a crapshoot in the end when it comes to vehicle reliability. It's just that your odds are MUCH better with a Japanese car. Read the extensive Consumer Reports reliability surveys that thoroughly and consistently back up this belief.

Or keep buying European cars. It's your dough. Nice cars of course. If you can afford to buy and maintain them. I was a Euro car weenie for a lot of years. Now I will only buy a Japanese car - strictly because I have more faith in their long term reliability prospects. The difference between 2007 and 1997 or 1987 is that in the past couple of decades Euro cars were FAR superior to Japanese cars in features/design, even if they were pricier. No longer. My Acura TL may give up something to pricier BMW's and my Acura RDX may not be quite as schwag out of the gate as Euro SUV's, but both are pretty damn nice - nice ENOUGH - and offer far more bang for the buck. I actually LIKE the newer Acura interiors more than the BMW's I've been in recently. And the handling/peformance/features for the price made the car buying decisions easy.

So far BMW is winning with its products. But I agree- recent cars from Acura/infiniti/Lexus may cost them sales. Audi, BMW and VW will keep making nice cars and selling them. To some extent the Euro car makers are insulated from the concerns of buyers like me - I would guess most people buying BMW's and Audis are NOT trying to drive them to 200K miles anyway.

patentcad1 · October 2006

And this hand wringing over FWD vs. RWD 'bias' doesn't appear to be valid or pertinent as far as Acura's SH-AWD system is concerned. Read the road tests. Or DRIVE the system. I have tried to get it to break loose in the rain on sharp curves. Can't do it. Looking forward to driving the car in the snow.

It just flat out WORKS.

varmint · October 2006

If you want SH-AWD to be rear-biased, step on the gas.

If you're not stepping on the gas, you don't need a rear bias.

I suspect there are more salient differences between these two vehicles than the bias of the AWD systems.

wwest · October 2006

.....I'm married....??

wwest · October 2006

Rear biasing is desireable anytime there is lateral loading on the front tires' contact patch.

wwest · October 2006

If Acura itself didn't define that the use of tire chains ONLY on the front is the proper method I would tend to agree.

bodble2 · October 2006

Ok, you got me...what's the punchline? :confuse:

varmint · October 2006

Like braking into a corner? The rear wheels aren't even getting power. It's non-biased at that point.

The biggest advantage to RWD is the fact that the engine can be mounted pretty much anywhere with respect to the wheels. That often means a better balanced chassis. But if a FWD vehicle does achieve the same balance, even that advatange evaporates.

Which is wy I think there are other more important factors at work than torque bias.

But a buyer can also look at things another way.

The RDX can be rear-biased or front-biased. So can the X3.

The RDX can be rear-outside-biased. The X3 cannot.

nobody3 · October 2006

The "feel and handling" on dry paved surface may be different between rwd and fwd (Or front biased vs. rear biased in case of AWDs). I guess, SH-AWD is trying to achieve that handling by diverting torque to outer rear wheels up to 70%. (tight cornering with out loosing control)

But when it comes to snow/ice the story is somewhat different. Assuming practically no one ever uses chains on AWDs, front biased is slightly better than rear biased just because of the simple fact that RWDs tend to over-steer/fish-tail (which is worse than under-steering).

When it comes to safety on snow/ice, it hardly matters whether it is rear biased or not in case of proactive or full time AWDs. But it matters a lot in reactive AWDs like in 'Realtime AWD' of CRV etc.,. which are practically FWDs.

nobody3 · October 2006

Front technical point of view, RDX can achieve finer control since it can divert/adjust torque to left or right rear wheels which is not possible in x-drive.

In RDX, the bias is applied both while accelerating as well as decelerating.
http://world.honda.com/HDTV/news/2004-4040401a/

As per this Video, the engine brakes are applied to outer rear wheels when decelerating (like in the corners) to avoid over-steering.

patentcad1 · October 2006

This is so far over my automotive head I'm getting vertigo. You guys must all be automotive engineers. I do pump my own gas. And with an SUV you do get to do a bit more of that : ).

bodble2 · October 2006

"I do pump my own gas."

I try to find the full-service stations.

patentcad1 · October 2006

In NY State a 'full service station' is one where you get rudeness along with your petrol.

Note the faux sophistication implied by the use of 'petrol' instead of 'gas'.

wwest · October 2006

The only really bothersome issue for me with with regards SH-AWD is why, what is the cause, of recommending, REQUIRING, tire chains be used ONLY on the front.

Seemingly, to me, tire chains on the rear only (unlike the RX and HL there is room, I checked.) would increase the level of overdrive to the rear thereby even further improving the techniques of SH-AWD in really adverse, chains required, conditions.

Whereas tire chains ONLY on the front is a clear invitation to disaster.

carlitos92 · October 2006

Wwest, but you've also implied a while back that any FWD-biased AWD system was almost Corvair-like in its instability. No offense intended at all, but clearly, there is something that you, I, and everybody else may be missing about the SH-AWD setup. Somebody, anybody - if you know an Acura engineer, get them to sign up for CarSpace!

Patentcad - I completely agree about the disparity between Japanese/Euro longevity. My Civic got driven at 9/10 for over 100,000 miles, and even then, did not cause me to consider it "time to sell" or "critical mass" for repair costs. Everything I replaced (CV joints, timing belt, etc.) I would consider normal wear-and-tear. The things on my Jetta that are failing (yes, the window regulators among them) have no business being replaced on a car with 75,000 miles. Surely, a VW is not a BMW or even a Volvo, but given proper care, the Hondas as a rule are much more robust and trustworthy in my and my friends' experience.

patentcad1 · October 2006

>>Whereas tire chains ONLY on the front is a clear invitation to disaster<<

I've been driving in snow country for 20+ years (Adirondacks, Vermont). I have yet to encounter a circumstance where chains were superior to an AWD car with proper winter tires (i.e. Blizzaks, etc.). This 'they want you to use chains on SHAWD is a disaster watiing to happen' is the biggest Red Herring I've ever heard. Get serious.

SHAWD + winter tires? You could probably drive that car up a frozen waterfall in New Hampshire.

Is there a VW with over 75-90K miles that has NOT had window regulators replaced? Where does VW source those parts? The former Soviet Union??

wwest · October 2006

"...may be missing something about the SH-AWD setup."

Well, frankly, no.

The thing to remember is that the engine is always SOLIDLY coupled to the front differential, whereas any coupling to the rear wheels is always transient, or temporary.

Torque is coupled to the rear during acceleration and/or deceleration, but how long can either of those situations be prolonged?

Torque is also delivered to the rear during a turn, predominantly to the outside wheel, and even if you continue in a continuous turn the outside rear wheel, even absent extra torque delivery, would rotate at a higher rate than the rear inside rear wheel.

So which end of the car ALWAYS has engine drive torque available...??

The FRONT.

Not that any of that matters insofar as the use of tire chains on the rear only is concerned. Were I willing to experiment I would use chains only on the rear but have
a modification so I could close the rear clutches as long as the roadbed was slippery enough that driveline binding, wind-up, would not occur.

With the rear driveline overdriven, a constant engine torque delivery to the rear on a high traction surface would soon result in driveline failure due to front/rear driveline binding/windup.

wwest · October 2006

You're perfectly correct..!

No one, ever, should ever have need for the use of tire chains.

patentcad1 · October 2006

TIRE CHAINS??

Doesn't that sound like a throwback to 1965? Have any of these people ever heard of modern winter tires like Blizzaks?

I have no plans for winter tires on my RDX. I'll be in the Adirondacks at our friend's house in January. And if I can get up their steep dirt driveway (which is typically hardpack snow/ice by then) that will be the test. If the RDX with SHAWD fails that one - then I may go for winter tires. I'm confident that won't be necessary. I'm not in extreme winter driving conditions too often. If I faced them more regularly the winter tires would be a no brainer. I've had them on my last several RWD and FWD cars (Blizzaks, Goodyear Ultra G3's).

markcincinnati · October 2006

I was reading along and starting (again) to consider drinking the kool-aid. Then I go to your assertion that "both are pretty damn nice - nice ENOUGH."

I fight (and I believe I am not alone) the concept of "good enough" or "good is the enemy of great" regularly (my company is in software development.)

The subject of reliability is growing in importance (for me.) Yet, my 2005 Audi A6 and my wife's 2005 X3 have been reliable. But, as you would correctly point out -- we have but put 25,000 miles on them.

I am a proponent of not driving a car beyond its warranty.

But, as I also assume you would correctly point out -- it is our money.

What I hope you want (what I hope we all demand, indeed) are cars that are both reliable and built to perform (in all ways) beyond "nice ENOUGH."

The Infiniti, alone as far as I can tell, knocks on the European's door in terms of the feel behind the wheel.

Reliability without great drivability -- isn't worth it (to me.)

For, to me, the German reliability is "good ENOUGH" considering the way they perform in all other aspects.

No, I am not willing to accept "good ENOUGH" with respect to drivability. And I do "demand" ever higher reliability -- and after 28 Audis, they continue to advance up the reliability ladder. For some, not fast enough (probably for most of us, in fact.)

But, we seem to have reached a point in automotive evolution where you can have:

1. Great performance and good reliability or

2. Great reliability and good (nice ENOUGH) performance.

Given those two black/white choices (and reality is certainly a shade of grey, I'll admit), well, I'll take door number 1.

I also stopped with the Japanese watches -- but, then again, they certainly "tell time" accurately enough.

There is just something about a Tag though that the Japanese haven't cracked either.

And, it is my money.

I will be, in 15 months, in the market again. I will look at both European and Japanese (and perhaps American) makes.

At this point, the Europeans still lead in every way that counts (behind the wheel) for me.

Takes all kinds. :surprise:

robertsmx · October 2006

The thing to remember is that the engine is always SOLIDLY coupled to the front differential, whereas any coupling to the rear wheels is always transient, or temporary.
Torque is coupled to the rear during acceleration and/or deceleration, but how long can either of those situations be prolonged?
With the rear driveline overdriven, a constant engine torque delivery to the rear on a high traction surface would soon result in driveline failure due to front/rear driveline binding/windup.

As with any full time/permanent AWD system, front AND rear axles are always coupled in SH-AWD. The extent of distribution depends on the circumstances. This includes cruising, straight line acceleration, acceleration around a corner, deceleration, detection of loss of traction and, in case of MDX, hill grade logic will send 70% of torque to rear axle during uphill starts as well as hill climb acceleration regardless of traction and for as long as the vehicle continues to climb.

BTW, the concept of overdriving wheels in SH-AWD applies only to the outer rear wheel during cornering, which makes sense for optimum traction.

robertsmx · October 2006

Reliability without great drivability -- isn't worth it (to me.)

Me too! Hence my preference for Hondas/Acuras.

markcincinnati · October 2006

:confuse:

nobody3 · October 2006

It is given that RDX is front biased (I don't think anyone is disputing that) and it is logical to have tire-chains in the front.

I agree, using chains on the front wheels only is not a great idea (spin-outs). But I am yet to see any one using chains on AWDs. If one is really a big fan of chains (or on a rescue mission ) one may choose to use chains on 4 wheels.

As I said before, it may be a big deal when it comes to handling on dry pavements but there is not much of a difference on snow. If anything, RDX has an edge (a little may be) as long as you don't use chains.

stever · October 2006

I carry chains in my FWD minivan in the winter but don't bother in the AWD wagon. Wwest and I have disagreed about the safety aspects of using chains before but I think the Montana snow he used to drive in was different from the Alaska snow I used to drive in. :shades:

And as Patentcad1 mentioned, it's the tires that count anyway.

robertsmx · October 2006

Yep.

If one had to use tire chains, ideal, of course, would be to put them on all four wheels. The second best option would be to put them on the front wheels (if the vehicle allowed only that, or one had only a single pair of chains). This allows for good grip on acceleration, good steering and good braking. But dealing with the rear end can be a challenge and part of it may be addressed by vehicles stability system (besides, not all traction is lost). And most of it will be handled by a cautious driver which would apply regardless of where the chains are fitted. Better yet, a set of snow tires would help immensely.

patentcad1 · October 2006

When you're done pontificating on the superiority of German Engineering (always capitalized of course) you might want to spend a week behind the wheel of an SH AWD Acura or an Infiniti sedan. The latter has actually beaten BMW's in comparison tests by leading car magazines. You can argue with those editors when you're done here. Easier said than done of course. I had one helluva time picking the RDX - waffled back and forth between the RDX and a Subaru Outback XT Ltd - very happy I settled on the Acura. But it was very tough specifically because you only GET 10 mins. behind the wheel of the cars you're interested in - when you really need several days or weeks. Which you only get to do if you're an editor @ Road & Track or Edmunds.

The assertion that Audi's and BMWs with 25K miles are 'reliable' is a head scratcher, but then I figure ALL cars shouldn't break before they have 50K miles or so. But then if I drove Euro brands I'd NEVER venture beyond the factory warranty.

In the meantime I'll try to figure out how you can ascertain the 'superiority' over a car you may have driven for ten minutes (if that). I drove Euro cars for 20+ years. Loved them even when some (Saabs) were total lemons. But I like my Acuras BETTER. In several respects. And that would INCLUDE the way they drive. I can assure you that I have at least as many hours behind the wheel of high zoot Euro imports as 90% of the participants on this board (dating back to 8 years as a full time Mercedes Benz sales rep from 1983-1991).

All of which is academic. ALL these dopey cars are WAY overpriced, including my RDX. I couldn't AFFORD the friggin X-3 if I wanted it. Luckily for BMW, Audi et al there are enough affluent Americans with enough cashish left after paying for the crack they smoke to buy those posh sleds. Somebody has to : ). I know: I used to SELL those silly cars to consumers like you and me.

Ach der lieber dude. Look at it this way. Those original Axis Powers (from WWII) are getting our greenbacks one way or another. Germany or Japan, same difference to a WWII vet...

nobody3 · October 2006

May be talking about winter driving on these vehicles is little off-track.

We have to keep in mind that all these enhancements are mainly meant for improving the handling and safety at high speeds on dry pavements (may be little wet). Winter driving is just a side benefit.

wwest · October 2006

If you really mean "excessive" speeds on dry pavements then I couldn't agree more.

On the other hand if by "high speeds" you mean those typically encountered, legal or a tad beyond, on US freeways and highways then it is my firm belief that any modern day RWD or even a FWD would be more than satisfactory.

When I encounter adverse wintertime roadbed conditions my primary desire is to have the front "stearing" wheels dedicated to whatever lateral forces they encounter, period.

Of a secondary issue is the ability to move the vehicle forward simultaneously and if an AWD system can still meet that criteria then fine.

If the public at large never encountered wintertime, low traction roadbed, conditions, then there would be no need for RWD, let alone AWD or 4WD, and SH-AWD would not exist.

The Porsche C4 and the like would more than suffice for those that need the excitement of (TRULY) excessive speed on dry pavements.

patentcad1 · October 2006

I've driven a ton of AWD cars, including Porsches. The SH-AWD is the first car I've driven where I can actually FEEL the AWD system kicking in to improve handling on dry pavement. You can really perceive that rear-torque distribution feature that Acura claims is unique to the SH-AWD. So did some of the road testers on the RDX and new RL....

nobody3 · October 2006

By high speeds I meant 60+ MPH on winding roads typically shown in the ads. (If you are in Germany (***BMW***) make it 80+ MPH)

As pointed out, RWDs have over-steering issue (without chains of course). For people who don't want to use chains, like me, AWDs with front bias is slightly preferable for winter driving to avoid spin-outs. Of course, I'll choose any AWDs over FWDs or RWDs with or without chains. If it really warrants I'll go for winter tires.

wwest · October 2006

Yes, if you take any vehicle that is predominantly FWD, as is the RDX, and start "cranking in" corrective measures for the otherwise poor driving dynamics of this configuration during SPIRITED driving, you will most definitely FEEL the "torque to the rear" shift "kicking" in.

But had you started out with a simple RWD configuration the driving dynamics would remain constant and easily exceed that of the RDX.

bodble2 · October 2006

Very entertaining post...put a smile on my face...I like your writing style.

patentcad1 · October 2006

I don't mean to rain on anybody's parade. I was a Euro Car [non-permissible content removed] once myself. German cars only. But no longer.

Whatever makes you happy mein kleine autobahn weenies. Es ist seine geld (that's German for it's your dough).

sazmitty312 · October 2006

I have driven both of them and I am quite surprised that the RDX just kills the X3 in SPORT!!! The SH-AWD makes a lot of difference and the 4 cyl. turbo is so much fun. I love to push it to its redline and it also costs like what, 10k less than the loaded X3? It also has more torque than the X3 which is nice to have. I do have some things that I didn't like: I didn't get the fuel economy numbers posted by the EPA. It was in the high teens (17-18), but that's probably b/c i pushed it too much towards it redline! Also there are no rear AC vents and there is also no DVD player available! Also it has 10 less cu. ft. of cargo space the X3 and it is 20 hp shy of the X3.

bodble2 · October 2006

I've been a Honda/Acura devotee almost all my driving life. But I have a BMW itch I need to scratch. The '07 X3 3.0 with the 6-sp step seems enticing. I may have to try being a German-car weenie to see if it is all that it's touted to be. :P

2006 BMW X3 vs Acura RDX

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles