Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
Let's see how it sells. I bet it does pretty well. The MDX is bigger than most people need, and probably not as fun.
Did you like the new MDX concept, varmint? The grille is a bit bold, almost VW-like, but it almost looks like a negative of what the grille should be. Also, while the family resemblance is strong, it almost looks more like a Mazda. But I guess this will be Acura's new look?
Profile looks great. I see some Infiniti FX in there, but in a good way. I also like the rear, and the fact that they didn't play it too "safe".
-juice
Plus, when the '07 comes out, it will likely have the new 3.0 litre six that is in the 330i.. 255 HP..
I do agree... they will definitely be competitors.. Can't say the last time I saw an X3 towing anything..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Any how, the X3 isn't slow, but it does hesitate a bit off the line. There's a lot of mass to get going. Even factoring in (very minor) turbo lag, the Forester XT is a lot quicker.
-juice
http://www.bmwusa.com/vehicles/X3/30i/techdata.htm
Now it may be true that most folks won't tow with an RDX, but for those looking at this type of vehicle—and who do tow, I'd suggest they look elsewhere.
Bob
The Tech Package will add Navigation with Voice Recognition, ELS sound with 10-speaker surround, Hands Free Link ( Bluetooth Handsfree ), Acura Link with real-time traffic and solar sensing climate control.
Check your local dealer and see if they have received the new brochures.
-juice
Bob
-juice
The upgrades cost little as a factory package (used to be standard, but are included on nearly every vehicle sold), and even if you never tow, increase the powertrain's cooling performance at the very least.
It does tip the scales a bit, when you are already considering a "crossover" instead of a wagon or a truck.
For me, the X3 fits a slightly different niche (prestige of BMW), and Acura may catch a percentage of those considering one, but many folks who really want a BMW will still likely still want one. Some will like the RDX better, but some will still want the all-out performance and badge at the cost of some of the things the aisians do so well. So Acura sets it's sights high competing with the X3, however most competition will come from other makes and models.
225 vs 240 is borderline significant in terms of hp. It take more than a little tweak here and there to get a gain like that. Remember, when this line of discussion was started we were talking about fuel economy, not acceleration. Acceleration requires things like gearing, wheel size, weight, etc. I'm comparing output alone. Which in the RDX amounts to 46 lb-ft of a difference when you look at the other measure. That is significant.
The point being the K23 is a hard-working little block. Hence the modest fuel economy.
http://www.hondanews.com/catID3092?mid=2006041234841&mime=asc
The upcoming Ford Edge with similar equipment prices at around $32,000. Would think an Acura would cost as much as a Ford.
As for X3... I don't see many of those around. See more X5 though. So, I hope Acura does better than BMW has, whether or not Acura develops an appeal for badge chasers that typically would go buy a BMW.
The TL vs TSX is probably a good parallel. I do wish the RDX had a little more utility, but it is positioned as the performance SUV not the family hauler. Reps at NY claimed the new MDX will not be getting significantly larger. Just a little wider. So, it will remain the utility player.
Acura claims the RDX will accelerate faster than the X3. We shall see. The Acura has more torque to move the weight and gearing is much, much shorter (at least for the auto). That said, BMW has some magic pixie dust for problems like that and they are upgrading the engine soon. BMW also deserves respect for their suspension tuning, but I've got a feeling the +2" track of the RDX, slightly lower curb weight, and SH-AWD may be enough to give it the edge. I doubt the ride of the RDX will be has harsh as the X3. Let's just hope Acura got the steering and tires right.
Robert - Sales for the X3 are pretty much a match for sales of the X5. Neither one is going to set the world on fire. They do 2.5 to 4K units each month. I figure Acura will match that and the MDX will continue to sell in higher volume. (BMW doesn't need the high volume as their profit margins are huge.)
These include the:
2007 Mazda CX-7 Grand Touring 4dr SUV AWD* (2.3L 4cyl Turbo 6A)
hp: 244 hp @ 5000 rpm
torque: 258 ft-lbs. @ 2500 rpm
MSRP: $28,000
2006 Mitsubishi Endeavor
Limited 4dr SUV AWD (3.8L 6cyl 4A)
hp: 225 hp @ 5000 rpm
torque: 255 ft-lbs. @ 3750 rpm
MSRP: $32,299
2006 Infiniti FX35 4dr SUV AWD* (3.5L 6cyl** 5A)
hp: 280 hp @ 6200 rpm
torque: 270 ft-lbs. @ 4800 rpm
MSRP: $39,300
and the 2006 Volkswagen Touareg
V6 4dr SUV AWD (3.2L 6cyl** 6A)
hp: 240 hp @ 6000 rpm
torque: 229 ft-lbs. @ 3200 rpm
MSRP: $37,410
For the record is now the 2006 RX330 is now
2007 Lexus RX 350 4dr SUV AWD* (3.5L 6cyl 5A)
hp: 270 hp @ 6200 rpm
torque: 251 ft-lbs. @ 4700 rpm
MSRP: $38,800
The Mazda and the RDX both have 4cylinders but in my opinion the mazda is the better deal because of its lower price so far. :mad: IT IS MY OPINION and i'm just trying to remind you about the other choices and what may be a good comparison in the future.
This information came from the edmunds.com new car comparison. All interested in what i said... :confuse: wrote should check it out. Remember these are a few of the many overlooked vehicles today
* other drive train option available
** offer v8 engine
At that price Acura could sell a lot of these...
BTW, I was in NY on Saturday. Gotta say I am not too thrilled with the little RDX. Interior is catchy, and built well. The exterior is built extremely well. The styling is kinda "Eh" though. It looks like its got a bit too much junk in the trunk IMO. And the new MDX is quite similar in appearance. In person, I could barely tell the two of them apart aside from the size difference.
On a side not, the Maxda CX is so, so, so bland
The RDX is rumored to run 32-27K at MSRP. Several of those other rigs you mentioned are mid-size rigs which, at 37-38K, are stripped (relative to a luxury class vehicle). They will have things like a single disk CD players, cloth or faux leather seats, no moonroof, and such. Meanwhile, an RDX at $37K is going to have an ELS stereo, a top-notch NAV, leather, moonroof, etc.
Do you think those extras are worth the extra money? Maybe... Maybe not... But if you don't want them, you are just as well off buying a loaded up Tribeca, Pilot, or Highlander and staying away from the luxury vehicles. Heck, a WRX wagon will perform better than an RDX or X3. If all you want is a single-purpose performance vehicle, that's the way to go. But if you want performance AND style AND comfort, you're going to have to pay.
And, for the record, just because a vehicle has power does not mean it can perform. That V6 Touareg you mentioned weighs in at about 5,000 lbs. The V6 is notorious for being a dog.
I'd love one of those with a manual transmission, and just use a truck for towing when I need to. Forget combining them into one hulk of an everyday car like an SUV, let's save some fuel and have more fun on the drive.
Personally, I prefer the more balanced approach Acura took with the MDX. It provides a decent amount of ground clearance for getting through the rough stuff, enough towing capacity to handle sporting equipment, and more than enough cargo space inside. Yet it can still be pushed a bit when you want to make the trip from A to B a little more interesting.
That said, I cannot fault Acura for taking this route with the RDX. I mean, half the market has been complaining that Acura doesn't provide something sporty enough. With all the whining about V8s, RWD, and bland styling you'd think people would welcome a vehicle a little more dedicated to performance and style. Instead, we're hearing from the other half of the market who appreciates the utility and functionality of Acura's current designs. They're never going to make everyone happy.
More surprising, the MDX Concept was close by and when we walked by that not a single person was looking at it. Strange. :confuse:
My reaction was a bit mixed.
I liked the styling better in person. What seems a bit busy in photos makes more sense up in person. The MDX Concept was close to it and bears a strong family resemblance, so the look starts to make more sense.
Detail - there are fewer seams than in some competitors, the MDX is the same way. The rear door covers all the way to the rear wheel well, so no seam there, it just looks cleaner that way.
The rims look beefy, I liked those.
There are too many labels on the back, it says "Acura" on the left, "RDX" on the right, "Turbo" below that, and then "SH-AWD" in small letters at the top of the bumper. Delete those last two. Turbo is the only way they come, and AWD is standard, plus the SH-AWD acronym just sounds dumb.
The grille insert is cheap and plasticky. A simple black mesh grille (even chrome) made of metal would have worked better. We also saw the CX7 and the front end was just better sorted.
Inside, the front seats are wonderfully shaped. The leather resembles vinyl a bit too much, but I guess it should be durable. They are very comfy, a bit wide for taking the corners.
Some of the "pluminum" trim is painted plastic, including the stuff on the doors and steering wheel. Those feel more Honda than Acura, but it does have 3 proper spokes and a nice, wide arm rest (which could be more padded, same for the elbow rests on the doors).
One sore spot was visibility, the D-pillar is wide and that rear quarter window is tiny. Top it off, if you raise the rear head rests those block what little view you might have had to those blind spots. Just get the NAV with the rearview camera if you ever plan on backing up, and be careful changing lanes to the right.
The rear seat was only moderately roomy. More space than in a Forester, but not much. And that came at the cost of the cargo floor length, which seemed small. That plus the angle of the hatch eats in a bit. It's better than in an FX35, but a lot less useful room than in boxy alternatives.
In fairness, it is roomier than the CX7. Mazda had one of those so we looked at both closely. It does seem more upscale, comfortable. Compared to an X3 it didn't seem as tall and airy, but it's a lot more high-tech and potentially more fun.
I think that the driving experience is what is going to make or break this vehicle. A CR-V is a lot more practical, acres more rear seat room and more versatile in the cargo area as well. Same towing, too. This interior was nicer but that alone would not be enough to sell people. A 166hp base engine model would flop, IMO. It needs the turbo.
So my opinion didn't really go up or down much. It's a little smaller than I expected, but the seats and styling sort of make up for that. I'll probably be looking at something a tad larger.
-juice
The CX7 is actually even more cozy, with even less space. I personally prefer the styling of the Mazda, very muscular and purposeful, with fewer overdone details like the RD-X had.
Inside, though, my vote would go to the Acura. Both had rear seat cushions that were too low, but the CX7 felt like a 4 seater, while the RD-X could probably hold 5 in a pinch. I have a nanny that would occupy that 5th seat, so to me the difference is significant.
Close call, and the driving experience would sway me either way overall.
-juice
The RD-X may not be as upscale as the photos would suggest. A couple of telling omissions --- no memory seats, and still no fully-automated light control.
I thought it had pretty good legroom in the rear, but I sure wouldn't want to sit three-across back there.
One thing I was surprised about was that there was a lot of scuffing (plastic) on the top of dashboard and around the lower edges of the doors (from feet). It could be that it was just because it was an abused show vehicle, but it also suggests that over time this is what an owner might expect.
The interior was gray, and was okay, but nothing more. I certainly wasn't blown away by the interior, either in terms of features, styling or quality.
Bob
My Forester is 9 years old and doesn't have 1/10th that many scratch marks.
I'm sure the production plastics will be better, they had better be. Elements had an issue with the cladding getting easily scratched, so hopefully they'll sort that out before production.
The X3 is a little more upright, airy. It seems to have a bigger greenhouse and more headroom, but it isn't really usefully roomier. First year models had an unbearably stiff ride but I've heard they're better now, I dunno.
-juice
The RDX and X3 are about the same overall width, even though the RDX has a 1.5 - 2" wider track. According to the spec sheets, the X3 has more hip room, yet it's short on shoulder room. Head room is a toss-up. Without a moonroof, the X3 has slightly more than the RDX. With the glass on top, the X3 has slightly less. The RDX has a slight advantage in measured legroom. Oddly enough, all of the above is true in both the front and rear seats.
As is often the case, measurements like these do not tell the whole story. But it'll be interesting to see how the RDX stacks up.
Sitting in the BMW, I felt pretty comfortable. The leather is thick, durable, and comfy. Unfortunately, the dash materials are more durable than luxurious. I'm pretty sure nobody is going to scratch the dash on an X3. On the flip side, the texture reminded me of the underside of a rubber floor mat. Maybe it's a personal thing, but it seemed more fitting for an Xterra.
They are the same basic engine. Both use the J35 engine block, which is simply an enlarged version of the engine in the Accord (3.0) and Acura TL (3.2). The same 3.5 liter block is also used in the Odyssey, Ridgeline, and newest Acura RL.
The difference is how the engine is tuned. Acura has the engine beefed up a little bit to provide more horsepower in the MDX.
As for the suspension, the MDX is tuned for sportier driving and will actually be stiffer as a result. So, if smooth is the thing you are after, get the Pilot. However, the MDX will suffer less body roll in the turns and generally feels a bit lighter on its feet.
Hope that helps.
Agreed.
Are we allowed to agree? I just felt the earth tremble. :surprise:
I don't think the X3's seats are as low to the ground, at least that's not something I recall from sitting in one, and that's the type of thing I look for. Both the CX7 and RDX has the rear seat cushions a bit low (and short on thigh support).
Acura may have done that to allow for more headroom, but you end up sitting with your knees splayed out a bit.
You know what's funny? I was more impressed, astonished, really, about how much room was in the Fit. Tremendous leg room in the front and rear, plenty of passenger space. I liked it overall better than the Civic.
-juice
Not much difference in on-the-road performance though.
It's hard to answer that without driving it. The interior alone is not enough to justify the cost, IMO, on paper.
But if it's the most fun you can have in a SUV, then sure, it would be worth it. On the road is what counts.
For instance, this is why a Miata costs more than a Mazda3s.
-juice
Looks good in Black. The only thing is that makes the plasti-chrome grille stick out more, so I'd go with Silver.
Not sure why Acura needs that i-Drive like controller for the NAV. Why don't they make it touch screen?
You could point it in 8 directions, but it did not spin like an iDrive controller does. You can push it in but it doesn't click as naturally as BMW's button.
Ditch it and go voice-controlled and touch-screen.
-juice
It is voice-controlled.
Touch screens have their advantages in terms of selecting from menus. The downside is the textured surface they use degrades clarity. If you don't use a textured surface, the screen gets all smudged up with fingerprints (degrading clarity).
My Garmin does end up with finger prints, but it never really gets that bad.
The MDX in NY was just a concept. We'll see how close it is to production, though it seems much closer than the RD-X concept was (side mirrors, for instance).
-juice
mack9, "Mystery car pix...." #6333, 20 Apr 2006 8:11 pm
My guess is that's an MDX test mule. The rims match the MDX concept's and it seems about that size.
Some folks say RDX or even CR-V, what do you think?
-juice