By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I compared the X3 and CX-7 with the RDX and found that the RDX was the flattest of the three.
I haven't compared it directly with the Highlander or RX, but even in photos it looks like the RDX is the most level of the three cargo floors.
Highlander
RX350
RDX
-juice
(image from cars101.com)
Hit the button on each seat back and it folds totally flat in one step, and preserves the rear footwells too. No need to remove the headrests. It makes for one large platform.
Does anybody know if the rear headrests need to be removed when folding the rear seat in the RDX? I made a bunch of measurements when I went on a test drive, but the sales guy actually folded the seats while I was looking under the hood, so I missed that part. Don't recall seeing any decapitated headrests floating around anywhere though...
I think there's a lip on the top edge of the seat that makes the angle look different.
-juice
Fitting lots of flat stuff, (or to sleep in) and for lack of stereo blocking by the cushion, I'll take the Subie or Lexus/Toyota layout. Of course, there are other considerations about the benefits of each vehicle. I have wishful thinking there is room for improvement in the design of the Acura and CX7...
Perhaps in the future they too could get a split back seat that hinges into the floor above that SH-AWD. I think Subaru and Lexus/Toyota recognize that designing a car people really like isn't always about marketing all-out performance against a single direct competitor, but in the many details making the car really likable on a daily basis. Acura is usually fairly good at it, but being a new vehicle, in this case perhaps they were really focused on "beating" the X3 design initially.
You can see a very slight angle to the folded seatback, which goes away when it's loaded and the seat cushions compress a little (as it did when I carried several boxes of hardwood flooring a couple weeks ago).
I wouldn't normally harp on one feature, but I think this is the way it should have been done on the RDX. The CR-V's setup makes sense for that vehicle and the way the seats are laid out and offer recline. On the RDX, they should have gone with a one step fold-flat design like Subaru. The two-step fold is a bit clumsy and eats up usable space.
Either way, you have the "tender" seat back sticking up there ready to grab ski or snowboard edges. If your 2x4 slides forward, it's going to ding the fabric or leather. Which takes us right back to the RDX - it looks amenable to a piece of carpet or something rigid to keep the projectiles from sliding to the dash or seat backs:
You know, if they just left a gap between the rear seats and the floor, we could get the long slidy things in without worrying about how well the seats fold.
Good question. I just used Google images to find what I was looking for. Didn't pay attention to article where it was used.
That said, the RX pictured below it is not a hybrid and has pretty much the same degree of tilt.
I agree that the folding mechanism is more simple. And the dimension labeled "H" in C-Hunter's image (link below) is greater. I actually compared the RDX, X3, and CX-7 with a tape measure and despite all of them using essentially the same method, the RDX was the shortest. On the other hand, the RDX has the flattest cargo floor (barely any incline).
c_hunter, "Acura RDX" #2021, 21 Sep 2006 12:19 pm
But the method with the seat cushion lifted up appears much flatter in both the RDX and the 2nd Outback (Steve's).
Hopefully someone will find some more RDX interior shots to look at.
The thick top edge of the back of the seat effectively keeps flat things from sliding too far; you don't need a folded bottom seat cushion there. If I need more, then I put something there, and use the tie downs I keep in the hidden storage, and/or towels or pillows or moving blankets.
I don't necessarily think that flatness is the most important quality a cargo area can have, but, based on what I'm seeing in these pics and first-hand at the auto show, the RDX has it all over these others.
Actually, the backs of the Outback front seats are hard plastic now so they are pretty tough. And it even looks good too! I think I see a similar design on the back of the RDX seats.
What I was getting at is, if it's flat enough to comfortably sleep on (with some padding) or fit lumber or skis and like items, flatness just isn't the most useful measure of utility. My point was regarding folding seatbacks in relation to the load floor, it might be more useful to gauge dimensions, finish, durability, ease of use, and versatility (and if the folded seats block storage and muffle the speakers).
Speaking of which, I can confirm Varmint's note about the RDX's load floor length being shorter. It's about 7" shorter than my Outback, which would be an issue for skis -- I like taking 2-3 pair of skis with me to the hill in the car, and the wet ones come back on the roof rack. In the Outback they can stretch front to back no problem. I would have to put the skis diagonally across the back of the RDX, which of course will hamper other cargo capacity. In this aspect, the extra cargo platform in the CR-V looks like it would be really useful as long as I can still sit on the back of the car to put on ski pants and ski boots. I am toying with the idea of building a similar platform for the Outback now...
Then, we go back home to the dry deserts of LA. Hey, that was kinda nice, wasn't it?
Craig
-juice
I am living in Fairfax, virginia. I just got a quote from an Acura dealer.
The Navigation is installed by dealer.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if dealers were starting to cut below MSRP. The RDX is a good vehicle, but it's not the sort of car that can command full sticker.
2025 Toyota Crown Signia Hybrid, 2022 Ram 2500 Laramie 6.4 Hemi, 2007 Mazda MX-5 Miata PRHT
RDX with NAV is $37165.
CX-7 GT AWD with Tech Package (with NAV) and a few options to add some Acura-esque content is $33450.
Quality, luxury, and market arguments aside, there is about an 11% difference there.
It seems you are enjoying your CX-7. I hope you are not beset with some of the initial problems that some of the other owners are experiencing. Mazda is a great brand. Both my 626 and Millenia have and continue to serve us well.
No keyless start.
But that 11% difference, and then some, actually goes in the areas you chose to ignore.
Speaking of rudeness, you are articulate enough to know that using "McDonald's" and "fine dining" as a metaphor is incendiary at best. It's also quite an exaggeration.
I specifically excluded (not ignored) the quality issues because the conversation was about the magnitude of the price difference and not the reasons behind it. Unless you dispute that there is an 11% cost difference between the two cars, you are coloring outside the lines here.
Frankly, the stance that we can compare Acuras to higher-end vehicles but no lower-end vehicles may ever be compared to an Acura is getting tiring and comes off as arrogant. When Lexus, Infiniti, and Acura all came out, they were gunning for the Germans, but came in at a lower price point. These days, it's perfectly okay to say "the IS350 is just as good as a 330i, but for $3000 less." The distinctions between the Lexus and BMW in this case are the same kinds of differences between the Mazda and the Acura, yet my experience with the Lexus owners makes them seem secure enough with their brand to not interject every single time someone compares them to something else. What's puzzling to me is that why you, someone who doesn't appear to work for Acura and who has admitted they're not even in the market for this class of vehicle, is so insecure about it.
That said, continuing to talk about premium without considering WHY a car might carry a premium is not logical at all, simply trying to make a point that doesn't exist.
Something like a base RX350 would be a better option for you - very comfortable, smooth, etc.
primarily FWD. In the instant case it uses brake application to re-apportion torque to the rear wheels and uses a VC to apportion torque, 25% max., to the rear for extended periods of front wheel slippage.
I have a 2001 AWD RX300 which has 1.5" wheel spacers all around so snow chains can be fitted to the rear should I get "caught out" in adverse roadbed conditions.
Our 1994 AWD Ford Aerostar remains my favored transport for
"intentionally" driving into an area of adverse roadbed conditions, snow skiing.