Acura RDX vs Mazda CX-7

robertsmx · January 2007

Again, you can't call Varmint's statement incorrect simply based on assumptions that RDX falls in smaller market but with a bigger available slice, while CX-7 has to be satisfied with a smaller slice of the bigger market. If you must go there, you should do more than make a statement about the actual size of the slices available in each segment.

The two vehicles in question are virtually identical on a spec sheet while one being considerably cheaper. Guess which one can be expected to sell better.

d_hyper · January 2007

I'm calling a general statement "incorrect" because it does not address "supply" part of the supply/demand paradigm. This is basics. Why do I need to give the numbers to explain this? :confuse: Think of how many Explorers are sold at this price point.

Moreover, you're disputing yourself: if you can compare 2 vehicles - you assume, if for a moment, they belong to the same market niche where a 'cheaper' will sell more. But what if people would rather choose a better vehicle instead?

varmint · January 2007

Why is supply not constant. Did Mazda lose another ship? Last I read, Mazda's supply of CX-7s was higher than average for the US (ditto for the RDX). Has something changed recently?

I certainly agree there are other factors. The number of dealership outlets would be one, but I believe the advantage there actually goes to Mazda, not Acura.

Whether or not buyers in each economic bracket desire these vehicles is going to work both ways. Someone with a $35K budget might purchase either of these vehicles. Someone with a $25K budget has only one choice. Again, advantage Mazda.

d_hyper · January 2007

I'm talking about "market supply", not "mazda supply".
There are more vehicles at lower price point. Thus I brought Explorers as the Example. I thought I made it clear.
Apologies.

varmint · January 2007

No, my mistake. I was composing when you posted the Explorer example and missed it.

But I'm not following. While the Explorer at 30K represents another competitor, it also represents another opportunity for both the RDX and CX-7. When Honda was more than a decade late to the SUV party, the competition was well-entrenched. Yet, both the MDX and Pilot earned a large slice within their respective segments.

The lower you go in price range, the more competitors you have. Again, that's true. But you also have more potential buyers.

robertsmx · January 2007

But what if people would rather choose a better vehicle instead?

In the same segment, they would if money were no object. The $$$ factor is back again. By segment I imply vehicle type, not price (or else we could end up talking about how Pilot takes away sales from RDX, as they both compete in $30-35K price class).

d_hyper · January 2007

So, I apologize if anything is lost in translation, but it appears that consumers feel CX-7 is a better deal than RDX -thus more sales. BTW, it is both art and a science to find a 'sweet' price point.

robertsmx · January 2007

Of course! Better deal doesn't guarantee a better car though. Like I've been saying, it all boils down to what one can afford. The dollar factor.

varmint · January 2007

You're assuming that because sales of the CX-7 are higher, it represents a better deal. I think that's a faulty assumption. It merely has a better price for a larger number of buyers.

But low price and good deal are not the same thing.

d_hyper · January 2007

You know, unless you are Rolls-Roys or Ferrari, you want to price your vehicle to attract as many potential buyers as possible (w/o damaging profitability of course). We will likely see market correcting Acura's pricing shortly. Similar thing just has happened to Mazdaspeed6.

robertsmx · January 2007

What you're waiting from Acura to happen on RDX (vehicle selling at close to invoice) has already begun, and it happens with virtually all vehicles in the market, including the CX-7 (are people paying close to MSRP price for it? Doubt it). It isn't called "correction of pricing". It is called reality, and negotiating power of the people.

Back in fall 1997, I set a maximum $25K target for my new car purchase. Ended up getting MY1998 Accord EX-L for $200 over invoice in the first month the car went on sale. The car's MSRP wasn't "corrected", but I was able to negotiate and stayed well within my budget.

To help my aging Accord (now over 167K miles), a few months ago I decided to get TSX or TL. The former was more appealing due to being sportier and lower priced although TL was more refined. My budget was to go upto $35K this time around so both TSX and TL were possible. However, dealers won't budge beyond $500 below MSRP on the TSX but were willing to deal to invoice on TL. The difference was no longer about $6K. And I brought TL home.

If not for my budget, I would have brought home a better car (not necessarily better value) than TL, the Acura RL. I wouldn't have gotten RL even if it were selling for $38K-$40K. The dollar factor played a role.

You can only attract as many buyers as a segment will allow. I won't be surprised if Honda is selling more CR-Vs at the same price point as Mazda is selling CX-7.

varmint · January 2007

It depends on what is meant by "price correction".

If price correction means the price drops from MSRP to invoice, then, yes, that's already happening.

If price correction refers to changing the product to bring the price in line with the market (decontenting, for example), that has not happened. But, honestly, I think it might.

The RDX delivers $35K worth of technology, performance, and style. There's no question about that. The AWD, ELS stereo, NAV, and chassis are all worthy of cars costing far more. What it doesn't deliver is much in terms of pampering, quiet, and utility.

I've said this in other threads, but I think the RDX is an unbalanced package. It targets the performance enthusiast and doesn't leave much compromise for the poseur. I think many of the buyers are just looking for something which looks really sporty, but could care less about real performance. When they get in the RDX, they find that it rides too stiff for their tastes, doesn't have enough cargo capacity for the double-wide baby stroller, and, dagnabit, they can hear sounds coming from under the hood.

It's not unlike people who purchase Wranglers and S2000s so they can look cool.

I mean, let's face it. If all the market wanted was performance, the Subaru Forester XT would be king. Sub 6-second acceleration runs, solid handling, and a manual tranny are all wrapped up in that package. Plus it gets better gas mileage.

So, yes, I can see some "re-contenting" in the future of the RDX. Not because the RDX doesn't deliver on its promise. Rather things will have to be changed because it does deliver the goods. They just targeted too narrow an audience.

robertsmx · January 2007

The overly optimistic sales projection for RDX has to be blamed for much of the sales fuss around the vehicle. It is a good vehicle, but with 200 odd outlets, a base price in low 30s and limited utility without a push for massive lease incentives, and going against Acuras best selling car (in price point) as well as a more sensible outgoing SUV (06 MDX), 40K units/year was an unbelievable estimate given the typical Acura conservativeness. For sake of comparison, Acura projected only 15K units in the first year for TSX which it easily beat. At 35K units/year now, it is considered a huge success.

Perhaps a offering a V6 instead of turbo/I-4 would have changed a lot of perception. But I think it is a good vehicle that can sell at its price with couple of minor additional features (which are bound to show up during MMC if not in 2008) but at about 25-30K units/year. Not bad, considering that the relatively inexpensive RSX wasnt selling as well (in the same period over last 3-4 years) as RDX did in four-five months.

carlitos92 · January 2007

Your point is noted, but the RSX is a bad exmaple for any kind of sales comparison... It had the misfortune of being introduced right at the nadir of hatchback popularity in the U.S., and then got shafted on content the last half of its model cycle. Hell - for 2006, the Honda Civic had more content and comparable performance for less money...

I almost bought an RSX Type-S two years ago, but other than a great engine and nicely-designed interior, could not find any kind of compelling reason to spend that much money. Acura concentrated its sales and engineering efforts on its more expensive models (and rightfully so, considering the profit margin), and it showed.

The RSX, for me, will always be the prime example of a really great car that was mis-timed, mis-marketed, and neglected into oblivion. But I doubt Acura, or TSX/TL/MDX owners (such as yourself) will really care.

varmint · January 2007

You cannot compare the TSX and RDX.

There are reasons why Acura projected 15K for the TSX. The TSX cost next to nothing to bring over here. So it could be sold in low volume and still make a decent profit.

That's not true of the RDX. It has much more significant development costs. Acura either needs to sell more copies, or sell it at a much higher price point. Otherwise, the product doesn't generate enough profit to justify the expense of building it.

Sales numbers alone don't mean a thing unless you also consider profitability. Porsche is one of the most profitable car companies on the planet, yet they have one of the lowest sales volumes.

robertsmx · January 2007

The concept of being conservative with estimate has nothing to do with cost of development. That piece is to be covered in pricing the vehicle itself.

Even if development cost for a product may be less (TSX, but it is imported as opposed to RDX being manufactured alongside Accord and TL in Ohio), a company would still like to sell as many copies as they could. However, the question is, was 40K unit sales projection in first year overly aggressive? I think so.

If I were to take the decision, I would have projected 20-25K units, and would have adjusted production based on sales success (or failure), an advantage afforded by flexible manufacturing system that Honda has been using since 2001. And imagine, had that been the case (a 20K unit sales projection), the perception about RDX's position in the market would be different since it is at a pace to meet or may be beat 25K units over 12 month period (the way things were for TSX).

aviboy97 · January 2007

Interesting points.

I am not sure how profitable Acura is, but, Mazda has had great success in recent years. 2005 was their most profitable year to date. I have yet to see profit margins for 2006.

I know Mazda spent a lot of time any money developing the CX-7. With sales where they are, and if they stay this way, the CX-7 should turn into a profitable vehicle.

audia8q · January 2007

I know Mazda spent a lot of time any money developing the CX-7. With sales where they are, and if they stay this way, the CX-7 should turn into a profitable vehicle.

For the past few months, In many markets including ours, the CX-7 has been outselling the Mazda6...making it the #2 volume product for mazda.

varmint · January 2007

If the RDX's LPL had developed a plan to sell only 20-25K units, his boss would have hammered it with a "Not Profitable" stamp and filed it in a circular bin without a second thought. He would have then given the greenlight to some other project.

"However, the question is, was 40K unit sales projection in first year overly aggressive?"

Pardon the sarcasm, but THAT'S STILL A QUESTION!?!?

Acura targeted this market because they expect it to grow by some insane percentage over the next few years. Had the RDX been launched 2-3 years in the future, it might have reached the 35-40K sales goal. However, there can be no doubt left that they will fail to make that 40K projection this year. They got here far too early for those kinds of numbers.

It's like they started selling ski equipment in April or bathing suits in October.

As for the flexible manufacturing process, yes, that will help stop any more bleeding of funds. They will not lose money on the assembly end. In short, the flex system prevents a bad situation from getting worse. However, it does not recoup the original R&D costs or help to pay the manufactuers who make parts for the RDX.

varmint · January 2007

Yeah, Mazda has done a great job of exploiting a niche within the mainstream. The media made a big fuss over Nissan and Infiniti (rightfully so), but I think the turnaround for Mazda would have been the big news if Nissan hadn't stolen the spotlight.

Comparing the RDX and CX-7 sorta reminds me of an article I once read about the S2000 and Toyota's MR Spyder.

For the S2000, Honda pulled out all the stops. It was meant to be a birthday present for the company, after all. They developed it on a unique chassis, with a mostly new engine, and built it in a low volume specialty factory. The result was high-investment costs, but an absolute marvel of engineering.

Toyota built the MR Spyder using many parts from the Corrola, Celica, and other vehicles. It's a practical approach. The result was something with only moderate a modest level of performance, but it cost them far less to produce.

Obviously, the RDX isn't nearly as purpose-built as the S2000, but it brings a significant number of new technologies and gadgets to Acura's parts bin. Meanwhile, Mazda already had an engine, AWD system, suspension bits, and other parts ready for use. Their approach was much more "practical". The design of the vehicle fits better with their current products.

But I still prefer the RDX. ;-)

cxrabbit · January 2007

I considered the RDX and even went to look at it, but for what I wanted it was out of my price range. I wanted to keep it under 30K and was able to do that with the CX-7 while still getting some of those creature-comfort features (like nav system, keyless entry, heated seats, bose system). No way I could have gotten the RDX with that stuff for less than 30K.

To me, the performance differences were negligible and the CX-7 just better bang for buck.

fonefixer · January 2007

That must be nationwide sales figures. Since purchasing the CX-7 in late October, have only seen a handful on the road here in St. Paul/Minneapolis.

robertsmx · January 2007

If the RDX's LPL had developed a plan to sell only 20-25K units, his boss would have hammered it with a "Not Profitable" stamp and filed it in a circular bin without a second thought. He would have then given the greenlight to some other project.

In that case, it would have been better to be hammered, instead of being proven wrong. This would happen only if the LPL's boss strayed away from typical Honda conservativeness.

If someone like you and I could see that 40K estimate was being overly aggressive, I would hope that decision makers in Honda would know better!

robertsmx · January 2007

While it is okay to compare sales of two similar vehicles even though they are priced in different class, you can't directly do that between Acura (a premium brand) versus Mazda (a mainstream brand), much less talk about profitability. Honda versus Mazda would work.

With that in mind, consider that, while CR-V tops out at $28K-29K, it outsold Mazda's best sellers (Mazda3 and Mazda6) by itself. For Mazda, there is no way but to go up, a bigger challenge for a larger company like Honda.

aviboy97 · January 2007

you can't directly do that between Acura (a premium brand) versus Mazda (a mainstream brand), much less talk about profitability. Honda versus Mazda would work.

Sure you can. Mazda may be "mainstream", or non-luxury, however, they are a nitch brand. Honda and Toyota appeal to the masses in both production numbers and a conservative approach to building/marketing their vehicles. Mazda is not conservative in their approach, and builds in far smaller numbers the the both of them. If anything, Mazda has more in common with Acura on a business approach, then Honda and Toyota. That is where "profitability" comes into play.

Mazda will never have sales numbers like Honda. They do not have the resources, or the facilities to do so. Keep in mind, Mazda sold roughly 260,000 vehicles for calender year 2006, and Mazda was very happy with that. I think Honda sold 200,000+ Accords alone.

varmint · January 2007

Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of the CX-7's sales.

It started off at 1.3K and climbed up each month to a high of 4.2K. Since then, it's been dropping each month. They sold 3.4K this past month.

I think we can honestly call Audia8q's particular market an aberration, though. In the US, Mazda sold almost twice as many 6s as the CX-7. If his dealership is selling more CX-7s, he must be working in sport CUV central.

robertsmx · January 2007

Mazda is no longer as big as Honda, but it was a well established automaker before Honda was born. A third of Mazda is also owned by Ford, a reason you see it on this webpage. It is not by choice that Mazda is a niche player. It wasn't always. And somehow I can't see why a company wouldn't like to sell more than they do.

Again, I doubt it is by choice that Mazda sold only 286K units total for the year (Civic, much less Accord, outsold the entire Mazda lineup by itself). I am sure they would like to be in a position that Honda is now (and they used to be in the past, selling much better than they now).

Acura, OTOH, is Honda's premium brand. The cheapest Acura in the market today starts at $28K and its volume sellers (TL and MDX) serve a $34-$48K price class. And I don't think you will find profitability of Acura as a company (it is part of American Honda), but you should for Mazda. So, how do you intend to compare them?

robertsmx · January 2007

Recently, I saw two CX-7 at airport rental lot. That might also explain sales fluctuations (some months, it seem, fleet sales are higher than in other months).

varmint · January 2007

"If someone like you and I could see that 40K estimate was being overly aggressive, I would hope that decision makers in Honda would know better!"

If only I were that smart.

Initially, I did think the RDX could do 35-40K units. I mean, the X3 does that many. However, when the numbers came in and the results were not happy, I began to challenge my own assumption. I now think the X3 is a poor bellwether for the segment. It sells well because it steal sales from the X5. The RDX doesn't steal sales from the MDX. (In fact, I think it's been working the other way around.)

Bottom line: I agreed with the LPL and I was wrong.

varmint · January 2007

It's really a shame that Honda no longer sells a CR-V with the 5MT. The last one was good for 0-60 in 8.1 to 8.5 seconds with a slightly less powerful engine.

Put that 5MT in the new vehicle and you'd probably get sprints in the low 8 second range with handling that is just as close to the CX-7 as the CX-7 is to the RDX. But it has a much better NAV, much better fuel economy, and costs far fewer bucks.

Though, if bang for the buck is your highest priority, the Forester XT is VERY hard to beat.

robertsmx · January 2007

I was actually surprised to see that CR got CX-7 to run 0-60 in 9.1s. OTOH, they got 7.4s run out of RDX (X3 did the run in 7.9s).

erhayes · January 2007

CR does their acceleration run from a dead stop with engine idling ie. no foot on brakes-rev high and slam into gear stuff.

cxrabbit · January 2007

With that in mind, consider that, while CR-V tops out at $28K-29K, it outsold Mazda's best sellers (Mazda3 and Mazda6) by itself. For Mazda, there is no way but to go up, a bigger challenge for a larger company like Honda.

Tops out at $28-29K??? That's interesting. Honda here started with quote of $38K and within 30 minutes I had "haggled" it down to $33K with the manager standing there saying only if I buy right now. I also argued with them how on the Honda website it priced out much cheaper. They GET YOU big-time on all the options/accessories and nickle-and-diming you to death on charging for installation fees on every little thing. At least that was the Honda by me. I could NOT get them lower than $33K, so I walked.

And honestly, the CR-V was not nearly as fun/nice to drive. It would have been worth it MAYBE at $28K, but not at $33K.

robertsmx · January 2007

Yes, but that would apply to RDX and X3 too which turned in 7.4s and 7.9s respectively.

robertsmx · January 2007

I'm assuming you're in Canada. CR-V starts at $21K here in the USA and tops out at $28.5K or about $4K cheaper on MSRP than CX-7 at both ends. And neither should be selling at MSRP. I suspect more like 8-10% off MSRP (close to invoice pricing).

cxrabbit · January 2007

Nope. I'm in the grand old USA in New York.

robertsmx · January 2007

And they quoted you $38K for a CR-V?

audia8q · January 2007

I think we can honestly call Audia8q's particular market an aberration, though. In the US, Mazda sold almost twice as many 6s as the CX-7. If his dealership is selling more CX-7s, he must be working in sport CUV central.

Actually it wasnt just our dealership that sold more CX-7 than mz6's it was the entire northeast region..That was without any snow or winter weather...which usually kicks up awd sales big time.

robertsmx · January 2007

Mazda sold 5866 units of 6 in December compared to 3421 units of CX-7. If the entire NE is selling twice as many CX-7 as 6, then in the rest of the USA, CX-7 isn't selling very well.

audia8q · January 2007

I'm just reporting what was sent to me...The northeast, parts of florida and California markets are by far the strongest regions for mazda sales. It's been that way for a number of years...so I suspect the sales in the flyover states arent as strong for mazda. Also don't forget that the MZ6 gets sold in large numbers to fleets like enterprise or hertz. The CX isnt being sold in any numbers to fleet. Take away fleet sales and look at the results.

cxrabbit · January 2007

And they quoted you $38K for a CR-V?

Yup, that's the quote they started with.

sssfegy · January 2007

OMG for a 4 cylinder? :confuse:

cxrabbit · January 2007

Yup. I thought it was insane - not so much because it was a 4 cylinder, but a underpowered and unimpressive 4 cylinder (not only in performance but everything). Honda can really GET YOU on the cost of installations of options and accessories... even the salesman said that when I questioned how the website came up with a lot less than his price of $38K. "The website doesn't include installation costs for everything" - so they nickle-and-dime you up in price.

defreitasm · January 2007

I'm in NY and Loaded CRVs are going for way less than 30,000. In fact, you can get a loaded Pilot for around 31,000 maybe a little higher with NAv

strumgle · March 2007

I shopped for a small SUV two months ago. I evaluated the BMW X3, the RDX and the Mazda CX7. Honestly, the Mazda felt a bit like a compact car. The motor was noisy, the ride was stiff. It almost felt like a honda civic! ok I'm exaggerating a bit. The X3 had the best ride in all 3, but with a price tag that was too high for me. The RDX emerged as a well-equipped, luxurious and fun to drive compromise. Since I have it, I love it more everyday. It's really sporty and has this turbo umpffff that makes my heart spin a turn at every acceleration. I took the tech package, and all the technology in the car is perfectly integrated. The electronic stability kicks in just at the right time for unparalleled handling on ice and snow. Bluetooth is working perfectly and the GPS is very good except for the no-turn spots that it doesn't take into account. The only downside I found is the short wheelbase which affects slightly the comfort on very degraded road (it bounces the vehicle tilting front/rear).

Sorry to say that : if you can't afford the Acura, that's too bad for you. It's a better vehicle than the Mazda. But if you ain't got the money to pay for the RDX (just like I didn't have the money for the X3 and I think the ride is better on the X3...) well then go for the Mazda. It's the best in the west for lower budgets. Plus Mazda had low rates, and Acura well, Acura... they don't negociate!

just my 2 cents

wjbushsr · March 2007

I purchased my CX-7 before the RDX came out in June of last year, that being said, I would go with my CX-7 again, not because I could or could not afford the Acura, its a matter of taste. The RDX may work well for your low esteem boost, but for what I wanted and for what I needed, the CX-7 does a great job.

"A better vehicle than the Mazda..." not in my honest and humble opinion.
The reason Acura wouldn't negotiate with you is because they didn't have to.

To quote P.T. Barnum "There's one born every minute." :shades:

aviboy97 · March 2007

The Mazda is a great vehicle. Drives great, handles great, fantastic safety rating. Yes, it may not be as refined as the Acura, but, many forget we are comparing a lux vehicle to a non lux vehicle. If the Acura was not as refined as it is, it would be a total failure.

rbleland · March 2007

I looked at both the RDX and the CX-7 recently, and drove both of them, back to back. In Canada, the RDX is about $4k more than the CX-7; however, IMO, the RDX would have been my choice of the two. I found the Mazda cruder, noisier, the ride rougher and the interior a bit plasticy. I am presently using a '05 Highlander for my daily driver and it has a better ride, less noise and better "feel" to me than either of these two. I think the 18" wheels on the RDX & CX7 impact the ride a lot, ie. make it harsher.

I bought neither. Neither is a "bad" vehicle, just not my taste right now. Now the new MDX I like a lot.

Just my opinions.

fonefixer · March 2007

I also drove the RDX and CX-7, went with the CX-7 for a variety of reasons.
1.) CX-7 was $6000 less!
2.) CX front cabin was roomier than the RDX
3.) CX rear seating/foot room was about the same.
4.) Both used premium fuel
5.) MPG seemed to be close. (getting real world 18 on the CX
6.) Rear cargo area seemed to be a little bigger on the CX
7.) both use 4 cylinder with Turbo
8.) Liked the brakes better on the CX
9.) Handling, cornering was close
10.)Liked the design of the CX better.
11.)Interiors were close in luxury/quality
12.)Found engine noise is minimal once up to cruising speed, the vehicle has very little wind noise, heating system is quiet/effective, runs at very low RPM"S in 6th gear at high speeds.Excellent long distance driving characteristics.

With 6000 miles of experience, not unhappy with the CX-7 choice.

defreitasm · March 2007

"I shopped for a small SUV two months ago. I evaluated the BMW X3, the RDX and the Mazda CX7. Honestly, the Mazda felt a bit like a compact car. The motor was noisy, the ride was stiff. It almost felt like a honda civic! ok I'm exaggerating a bit."

I would say you are exageritng "quite" a bit. The Mazda is nothing like a Civic and in realty the RDX is based on a Civic. I feel that the RDX is everything the Civic should be but just too much money. If I were going to spend extra on an RDX, I would just bite the bullet and go with the MDX. Better yet, I probably would just get the VW Toureg for 40,000 despite VW's lower reliability rating.

Acura RDX vs Mazda CX-7

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles