The MKX does slot between them in most linear measures ('cept wheelbase). The price tag is listed as 32-45K, which would overlap both of the Acura models, as well.
Yeah, they put it up on a pedestal so it doesn't look like a tarted-up Edge. Which it is.
I guess they sized it inbetween, so it might end up being cross-shopped with both Acuras. The old one was pretty huge, a friend of mine owns one. Stranded him once, actually, and I had to go "rescue" him with my 9 year old Subaru.
Did you 4get the other edge twin? The mazda cx7 goes here against the rdx moreso than a mkx. Mazda has something for the MDX. Its called the CX9. Edmunds has somthing on both models. In fact, the cx7 is gear toward the rdx, x3 and the fx35. It has a 2.3 turbo like an rdx but with 200 something hp :P . I posted that a while ago...
I'm sorry, but I'm not following you. The specs I posted above were meant to address a specific vehicle I was questionning (the MKX). I was not listing every competitor within range of the RDX.
"Did you 4get the other edge twin?"
You mean the CX-9, not the CX-7, right? As I understand it the CX-9 is Edge-based. The CX-7 is not.
The only direct competitor for the RDX so far is the BMW X3. There are other vehicles which compete in certain areas, but lack something which the X3 and RDX provide. The RAV4 with a V6 has the power, but not the handling and prestige. The Forester XT has the power and handling, but not the prestige. The Mazda CX-7 is another. The Subaru Tribeca or Toyota Highlander have the content and more space/utility, but not the prestige or the performance.
So, there are many indirect competitors. But comparing these is like comparing a loaded up Honda Accord with a Lexus ES330.
I'd be curious to verify this, but Mazda fans and dealer employees have been swearing up and down that the CX7 is not based on the Edge. They say it shares more with the Mazda5 and JDM MPV.
The CX9 is a stretch Edge platform, with the same engine, so it has a lot more in common.
I read a review of the CX-7 by Dan Neil where he mentions that parts of the rear suspension comes directly from the Mazda5. He complains (mildly) that it lacks travel. Meanwhile the front comes from the Mazda6.
The only things I would add is that really, the Forester XT is the only real performer of the cross-overs mentioned. It is significantly faster than the others, and the STI suspension is basically a bolt on deal. It has a much better power to weight ratio, they weigh less than 3300 lbs. and are underrated in power by Subaru. The CX-7 seems to match the RDX feature for feature. I'd still pick the RDX over the CX-7 just cause it "jives" better with me. We already own a Forester XT. It is a rocket, but it is NOT entry-level luxury.
Are there any other medium-sized cuv's I haven't noticed?
We need to replace our 1994 Mercury Villager (205K miles). It's my wife's daily driver. She wants something a bit smaller, but still SUVish, not a sedan.
We started by looking at the RX330. She likes the car but didn't like the big blind spot. Plus it is expensive.
Then we looked at the RDX, and thought we would pick it. Cheaper, a bit smaller. Like a luxury CR-V.
Then as our plans for kids' high school shifted to a private school about 27 miles away, and gas prices rose, we started thinking that we would save some money and buy a cheaper, higher mileage car. So we started thinking about the 2007 redesign for the CR-V.
But the one other car we looked at that we REALLY like is the Mazda 5. We were much more impressed once we saw it than we expected to be. You should check it out.
It's basically a microvan based upon the Mazda 3 engine and chassis. Definitely a riskier purchase, but it has 3 rows of seats, seats 6, has sliding doors. It is very inexpensive for what you get. It even has nav as an option. For 2007 a higher end model will add HID and heated leather seats. Estimating based upon this year's prices, you should be able to get a loaded Mazda 5 Grand Touring, leather, HID, nav, side/curtain airbags, etc. for around $25K.
This is probably old news... but i was at an acura dealer, and i asked the salesman when they were expecting the RDX. He said june '06!!! Of coarse, that was in march, things could have changed.
The Mazda5 is definitely more appealing in the flesh, than in pictures. The 3rd row is more or less useless except for midgets or very short trips. But then again you're not lugging around a bulky vehicle in order to get the 3rd row, so you can consider the 3rd row kind of a bonus. Most of the time just fold the seat down to create a large cargo area, and just use it for emergencies. However, 2 issues would hold me back from buying the Mazda5 -- the lack of a 5-speed automatic, and no traction & stability control. For a family-oriented vehicle, the latter omission is inexcuseable, IMO.
Sorry but a microvan, including the Mazda5, is a poor comparison to the RDX - different class. I bet that most who are interesetd in the RDX are not in the Mazda 5
The huge price difference, more than anything else, probably would preclude any cross-shopping between the 2. You can literally buy 2 Mazda5 for 1 RDX.
Sorry but a microvan, including the Mazda5, is a poor comparison to the RDX - different class. I bet that most who are interesetd in the RDX are not in the Mazda 5
Generally, you are correct. I pointed out the Mazda 5 because:
1 - Most Mazda 5 owners cross shopped the CR-V, which is a relative of the RDX. 2 - Mazda 5 adding leather, having nav and hid at least adds *some* luxury features 3 - Mazda 5 also fun to drive, somewhat sporty - like RDX 4 - Both vehicles 4 cylinder, if you are less concerned about power and more about mileage the Mazda5 is a good alternative 5 - Both vehicles are of similar size and have similar storage space 6 - Although in a different class, there is pretty much nothing else other than the Mazda 5 *in* its class! So comparisons need to be made to something!
Believe it or not they'd both be on my shopping list.
Drive a Mazda5, you'd be impressed. It does not drive like a van, they're nimble and fun. There's no AWD and it's a lot lighter, but still, go drive one, you'll be surprised.
Plenty of things are missing, but look at the price, and it's compelling.
I just find it inexcusable that for a brand new model, they stuck in an ancient 4-speed auto, when older models in their lineup, including the Mazda3, MPV, and even the Tribute, have the 5-speed. :mad: Having driven a 5-speed for the last 5+ years, I notice a huge difference now whenever I drive a 4-speed (when I have a rental)-- the downshifts are more abrupt, the upshifts have big drop-offs in revs. A 5-speed would immencely aid in fuel economy and performance for the Mazda5 given the fact the engine is marginally adequate in power.
The lack of traction/stability control would be my second gripe. But at least it has side & head curtain airbags.
"The CX-7 seems to match the RDX feature for feature."
Only if you're comparing lists, not real content. Here's a few examples of what I mean. Looking at a list of the features shared by the RDX and CX-7, you'll see they both have...
Stereo upgrades - But I've seen nothing which suggests the Maxda's system is a match for the ELS system in the RDX. True, the CX-7 has the Centerpoint feature, but the system as a whole appears to be nothing special. Meanwhile the ELS (which first appeared in the TL) is given very high marks.
AWD - But the CX-7's system is limited to a 50/50 max power split, while the SH-AWD system can go 30/70 with the ability to route torque to a single rear wheel.
NAV - Both vehicles offer a NAV, but Mazda's system is no match for the Acura design (even with the I-drive-ish center control).
While you can certainly check a worthy number of boxes in the CX-7 equipment list, the quality of many of them is not the same. This is not a bad thing, as Mazda should not be selling in the luxury segment. It simply highlights the fact that these two really are in different classes, looking for different buyers.
I wonder about even more basic things. I'm not sure, but does the CX7 have power up/down window switches? A telescoping steering wheel? Power seat memory?
It may or may not, I'm just asking. It's just that the starting price is so much lower, I'd expect to have to give up a few of those things. And for the record, to save a few grand I probably would be willing to.
"I wonder about even more basic things. I'm not sure, but does the CX7 have power up/down window switches? A telescoping steering wheel? Power seat memory?"
I know the CX-7 has an 8-way pwr driver's seat with manual lumbar. Dunno about memory settings. Tilt, but no telescope for the wheel. It does have one-touch windows, but I don't know if they are up/down or just down. Not sure which package these come with, but there are there if the buyer wants them.
"...I'd expect to have to give up a few of those things. And for the record, to save a few grand I probably would be willing to."
Which more or less makes my point. Someone in your position would rather have the cash than the silly little features.
Meanwhile, a luxury-minded buyer wants the widgets, gizmos, and the prestige. And they are willing to part with a measly couple grand to get them. So, even though performance and utility might be very similar, the vehicles are targeted at different buyers.
I think I posted this before, but you can load up a Honda Accord with a strong V6, power everything, leather seats... the whole 9 yards... but that doesn't make it direct competition for a Lexus ES.
Well, for the Mazda 5, perhaps the extra weight means the 5th gear is too high. Just a guess. I agree, I'd like to see it with a 5speed AT as well.
As far as traction/stability control - well I've only had this on one of my past 8 cars. It's not like I haven't gotten by. And the Mazda5 is a low priced vehicle. I guess here in SoCal we don't worry as much about slipping
"It's one of the very few cars on the market today and are under-priced,"
I agree it seems very reasonably priced for what you are getting, even when compared to the Mazda3 from which it sprung.
But the other side of the coin is that given its low price, they could add the extra features, increase price by 2 or 3 grand, and still be killer deal. In fact, it may then be an unqualified grand slam.
For the most part I agree, but keep in mind there are many many mid-size sedans, so that portion of the market is a lot more segmented.
There aren't as many crossovers that lean towards sporty and small, most up to now have been roomy and practical.
So this Compact Sports Crossover segment, we might call it, has fewer entries that overlap less, but still will end up competing with each other. I think the segment will grow and Acura will carve out a nice little niche of its own with its high-content strategy.
Nope. Just because they are targeting a higher market segment does not make Acura immune to cost cutting. They simply have the freedom to offer a bit more in several areas.
Here's a link to the RDX features list. Notable omissions include a power operated passenger seat. No memory seats (even with the Tech package). Also no rain-sensing wipers. These seem to be the missing features most people have griped about.
On a personal note, I wish Bluetooth were standard without needing to purchase the Tech package. I think they rolled too much into that. It looks like a good $4K jump from the base vehicle to one with the extras.
Well, I like having a manual adjustment for the passenger seat since it adjusts more quickly and easier than a power seat so I wouldn't miss the motors, but while we are on the cost cutting subject again, I'm still put off by the missing " all auto" feature from the two rear windows; that shouldn't cost much, and it's a great feature when you live in a warm climate. It especially seems like it's missing when you've lived with a Lexus (or Audi or BMW) vehicles that are sure to be cross-shopped.
We also discussed earlier, and equally absent is the lack of a tow package to upgrade (even slightly) the very low 1500 pound rating, or just to provide additional "heavy duty" engine/transmission/steering cooling for the turbocharged RDX (even if for the buyers who rarely or never tow more than a single motorcycle or jetski, but to especially add an extra measure of durability and resale value).
You can't have everything... But maybe upgrades will be forthcoming.
Auto headlights was another feature that I was hoping, but did not really expect, to see on the RDX. I suspect, though, that most, if not all, of these features would be added sometime during the life cycle.
You know, it's funny, but after I got my toll reader I hardly ever use my windows at all. I could probably get by with sealed windows that never opened!
I know customers want auto up/down windows, but I hardly ever use my power windows at all.
:shades: And i'd take the loaded accord(I mean Ex V6 and nav). Believe it or not the accord v6 is sporty and very luxurious when compared to the es330. But now that comparison is invalid. The accord is 5 years old and dated and the new es350 is out...
anyways, the cx-7 is actually a very sporty vehicle. Judging by the way you're talking you haven't tested a cx7(or accord). The fully loaded grand touring awd cx7 is quite luxurious and sporty. Imo it compares better to a rdx than the mkx would. I see it like this. Here you're comparing sport and luxury. The Cx7 and rdx are both. The mkx is only luxury. Before this continues, i suggest you try a cx7, accord (my fav car) and mazda 5. Remember back in the early 1990, mazda's plans for AMATI? If it would have followed through, the cx7 would be there as well as the discontinued millenia. My sis owns a millenia since 2000 and has had no problems. More people should look at mazda and try them out. Mazda is a great brand! So to conclude, the cx7 gt is a direct competetor to the rdx as the cx9 is to the mdx!
I also think the CX-7 (at least the Grand Touring AWD) is a direct competitor for the RDX. Yes one is a Mazda and one is an Acura but once you look past the brands you see two very similar vehicules. Similar sizes, similar features and similar focus (sport/handling and somewhat luxury). The RDX offers more but it also ~4K more.
The RDX was on top of my list to replace my TL '04 6-spd. However, I just test-drove a CX-7 and was *really* impressed...not sure anymore that I want to pay 4k more to have a slightly better AWD system (I suspect that the differences would only be seen on a track) and slightly better navi.
And the look of the CX-7 grows and grows on me to the point I now consider the RDX look boring.
I am also considering the CX-7 and RDX. When you say that the RDX will cost ~4k more, what are you assuming for the prices for the Grand Touring and the RDX?
The CX-7 I'm looking for is $32,995 (GT AWD w/ Tech Package + Sat Radio). While the official price of the RDX is not available yet, various sources point to $37k for one with the Tech package (MotorTrend June'06 estimates also $37k for a fully loaded one).
autoboy16: hang on, though, have you driven a MKX? If not, isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?
Some Lincolns can be sporty. You could get an LS with a manual tranny, and that's RWD too.
wwest: I prefer full-time systems as well, but to call it "UNSAFE" goes too far.
Recently a magazine conducted tests and a Ford Five Hundred came in 2nd place on their test course. That's with the same Haldex type system that Mazda will employ.
It was decidedly safe, in fact it very nearly won the comparison.
Have you driven an RDX? I mean, if driving the vehicle is your gold standard, don't you have some homework to do?
This is not about how close the vehicles are in terms of specifications. It's about the buyers. The buyers are coming from two different perspectives. By selecting the Accord over the Lexus, you admit that you are not a luxury buyer. That's not a problem. I applaud you for your fiscal sensibilities. But you must understand that a luxury buyer is not going to share the same priorities.
A V6 RAV4 or Turbo Forester will smoke a BMW X3 in a straight line and also do quite well in the curves. Heck a Saturn VUE will compete. You can load these vehicle up with plenty of hardware, gizmos, and gadgets. But I doubt you'll see Bimmer fans knocking on the doors of a Toyota dealer because they want to "save a few bucks".
It's not about the vehicles. It's the buyers that differ.
For the most part, sure, but there are also plenty of people that are between the two, thinking about moving up but also looking at loaded non-luxury models for value.
Or wealthier folks that just don't want to show off, or want to avoid the gadget arms race.
We did a letter-writing campaign to Subaru a while back, and I was the one that put it all together. I asked each person to toss in a business card. I was floored at the job titles, VP of this, CEO of that, unbelievable. My guess it half the members in the Subaru Crew make six figures. Made me feel poor! :sick:
I dunno, consumers are unpredictable. There's a guy cross-shopping a RAV4 with an Odyssey here on Edmunds. :confuse:
I also think brand loyalty ain't what it used to be. People are looking for more variety. One buddy of mine was an Acura fanatic (early Integra), but then went to a Galant VR-4, then a Passat 1.8T chipped, then a Saab 9-3, now a Jeep Wrangler Unlimited. He invited me to a Jeep Jamboree.
There are plenty of people with wealth who are not luxury buyers. Last I heard, Chris Rock was driving an Altima. The buying mentality is not a matter of wealth, it's a matter of whether or not a high priority is placed on fine quality, coddling, and prestige.
to see how much cross shopping is done between the Land Rover LR2 and the RDX once they are both out on the market. I think they will be serious direct competitors.
Actually my short list is the RDX vs. the Subaru Outback XT Limited and the Legacy GT. I think I will like some of the luxury features of the RDX but the OB XT has much better towing and snow capability(?). The GT is a more direct comparison but it still lacks some of the tech items. Even there we do not know the $ for these goodies.
Comments
http://www.autobytel.com/content/shared/articles/templates/index.cfm/article_id_- int/1316
Yeah, you're right. I just did a quick "spec check" and the MKX is closer than I expected. It looked considerably larger spinning on the stand in NY.
RDX
Length = 180.4
Width = 73.6
Height = 65.2
WB = 104.3
MKX
Length = 186.5
Width = 75.8
Height = 67.5
WB = 111.2
MDX
Length = 188.7
Width = 77.0
Height = 68.7
WB = 106.3
The MKX does slot between them in most linear measures ('cept wheelbase). The price tag is listed as 32-45K, which would overlap both of the Acura models, as well.
I guess they sized it inbetween, so it might end up being cross-shopped with both Acuras. The old one was pretty huge, a friend of mine owns one. Stranded him once, actually, and I had to go "rescue" him with my 9 year old Subaru.
-juice
"Did you 4get the other edge twin?"
You mean the CX-9, not the CX-7, right? As I understand it the CX-9 is Edge-based. The CX-7 is not.
The only direct competitor for the RDX so far is the BMW X3. There are other vehicles which compete in certain areas, but lack something which the X3 and RDX provide. The RAV4 with a V6 has the power, but not the handling and prestige. The Forester XT has the power and handling, but not the prestige. The Mazda CX-7 is another. The Subaru Tribeca or Toyota Highlander have the content and more space/utility, but not the prestige or the performance.
So, there are many indirect competitors. But comparing these is like comparing a loaded up Honda Accord with a Lexus ES330.
The CX9 is a stretch Edge platform, with the same engine, so it has a lot more in common.
-juice
-juice
No, not even close. Neither is the CX-7, IMO. They are closer to a RAV4 V6.
We need to replace our 1994 Mercury Villager (205K miles). It's my wife's daily driver. She wants something a bit smaller, but still SUVish, not a sedan.
We started by looking at the RX330. She likes the car but didn't like the big blind spot. Plus it is expensive.
Then we looked at the RDX, and thought we would pick it. Cheaper, a bit smaller. Like a luxury CR-V.
Then as our plans for kids' high school shifted to a private school about 27 miles away, and gas prices rose, we started thinking that we would save some money and buy a cheaper, higher mileage car. So we started thinking about the 2007 redesign for the CR-V.
But the one other car we looked at that we REALLY like is the Mazda 5. We were much more impressed once we saw it than we expected to be. You should check it out.
It's basically a microvan based upon the Mazda 3 engine and chassis. Definitely a riskier purchase, but it has 3 rows of seats, seats 6, has sliding doors. It is very inexpensive for what you get. It even has nav as an option. For 2007 a higher end model will add HID and heated leather seats. Estimating based upon this year's prices, you should be able to get a loaded Mazda 5 Grand Touring, leather, HID, nav, side/curtain airbags, etc. for around $25K.
~allcarsrcool
Generally, you are correct. I pointed out the Mazda 5 because:
1 - Most Mazda 5 owners cross shopped the CR-V, which is a relative of the RDX.
2 - Mazda 5 adding leather, having nav and hid at least adds *some* luxury features
3 - Mazda 5 also fun to drive, somewhat sporty - like RDX
4 - Both vehicles 4 cylinder, if you are less concerned about power and more about mileage the Mazda5 is a good alternative
5 - Both vehicles are of similar size and have similar storage space
6 - Although in a different class, there is pretty much nothing else other than the Mazda 5 *in* its class! So comparisons need to be made to something!
Drive a Mazda5, you'd be impressed. It does not drive like a van, they're nimble and fun. There's no AWD and it's a lot lighter, but still, go drive one, you'll be surprised.
Plenty of things are missing, but look at the price, and it's compelling.
-juice
The lack of traction/stability control would be my second gripe. But at least it has side & head curtain airbags.
It's one of the very few cars on the market today and are under-priced, IMO.
-juice
Only if you're comparing lists, not real content. Here's a few examples of what I mean. Looking at a list of the features shared by the RDX and CX-7, you'll see they both have...
Stereo upgrades - But I've seen nothing which suggests the Maxda's system is a match for the ELS system in the RDX. True, the CX-7 has the Centerpoint feature, but the system as a whole appears to be nothing special. Meanwhile the ELS (which first appeared in the TL) is given very high marks.
AWD - But the CX-7's system is limited to a 50/50 max power split, while the SH-AWD system can go 30/70 with the ability to route torque to a single rear wheel.
NAV - Both vehicles offer a NAV, but Mazda's system is no match for the Acura design (even with the I-drive-ish center control).
While you can certainly check a worthy number of boxes in the CX-7 equipment list, the quality of many of them is not the same. This is not a bad thing, as Mazda should not be selling in the luxury segment. It simply highlights the fact that these two really are in different classes, looking for different buyers.
It may or may not, I'm just asking. It's just that the starting price is so much lower, I'd expect to have to give up a few of those things. And for the record, to save a few grand I probably would be willing to.
-juice
I know the CX-7 has an 8-way pwr driver's seat with manual lumbar. Dunno about memory settings. Tilt, but no telescope for the wheel. It does have one-touch windows, but I don't know if they are up/down or just down. Not sure which package these come with, but there are there if the buyer wants them.
"...I'd expect to have to give up a few of those things. And for the record, to save a few grand I probably would be willing to."
Which more or less makes my point. Someone in your position would rather have the cash than the silly little features.
Meanwhile, a luxury-minded buyer wants the widgets, gizmos, and the prestige. And they are willing to part with a measly couple grand to get them. So, even though performance and utility might be very similar, the vehicles are targeted at different buyers.
I think I posted this before, but you can load up a Honda Accord with a strong V6, power everything, leather seats... the whole 9 yards... but that doesn't make it direct competition for a Lexus ES.
As far as traction/stability control - well I've only had this on one of my past 8 cars. It's not like I haven't gotten by. And the Mazda5 is a low priced vehicle. I guess here in SoCal we don't worry as much about slipping
I agree it seems very reasonably priced for what you are getting, even when compared to the Mazda3 from which it sprung.
But the other side of the coin is that given its low price, they could add the extra features, increase price by 2 or 3 grand, and still be killer deal. In fact, it may then be an unqualified grand slam.
There aren't as many crossovers that lean towards sporty and small, most up to now have been roomy and practical.
So this Compact Sports Crossover segment, we might call it, has fewer entries that overlap less, but still will end up competing with each other. I think the segment will grow and Acura will carve out a nice little niche of its own with its high-content strategy.
-juice
-juice
Here's a link to the RDX features list. Notable omissions include a power operated passenger seat. No memory seats (even with the Tech package). Also no rain-sensing wipers. These seem to be the missing features most people have griped about.
On a personal note, I wish Bluetooth were standard without needing to purchase the Tech package. I think they rolled too much into that. It looks like a good $4K jump from the base vehicle to one with the extras.
-juice
We also discussed earlier, and equally absent is the lack of a tow package to upgrade (even slightly) the very low 1500 pound rating, or just to provide additional "heavy duty" engine/transmission/steering cooling for the turbocharged RDX (even if for the buyers who rarely or never tow more than a single motorcycle or jetski, but to especially add an extra measure of durability and resale value).
You can't have everything... But maybe upgrades will be forthcoming.
I know customers want auto up/down windows, but I hardly ever use my power windows at all.
-juice
anyways, the cx-7 is actually a very sporty vehicle. Judging by the way you're talking you haven't tested a cx7(or accord). The fully loaded grand touring awd cx7 is quite luxurious and sporty. Imo it compares better to a rdx than the mkx would. I see it like this. Here you're comparing sport and luxury. The Cx7 and rdx are both. The mkx is only luxury. Before this continues, i suggest you try a cx7, accord (my fav car) and mazda 5. Remember back in the early 1990, mazda's plans for AMATI? If it would have followed through, the cx7 would be there as well as the discontinued millenia. My sis owns a millenia since 2000 and has had no problems. More people should look at mazda and try them out. Mazda is a great brand!
The RDX was on top of my list to replace my TL '04 6-spd. However, I just test-drove a CX-7 and was *really* impressed...not sure anymore that I want to pay 4k more to have a slightly better AWD system (I suspect that the differences would only be seen on a track) and slightly better navi.
And the look of the CX-7 grows and grows on me to the point I now consider the RDX look boring.
Truly a break-through, BENCHMARK, AWD system.
Whereas the CX-9 is just another patently UNSAFE FWD system, Like the RX and HL, pretending to be AWD.
Some Lincolns can be sporty. You could get an LS with a manual tranny, and that's RWD too.
wwest: I prefer full-time systems as well, but to call it "UNSAFE" goes too far.
Recently a magazine conducted tests and a Ford Five Hundred came in 2nd place on their test course. That's with the same Haldex type system that Mazda will employ.
It was decidedly safe, in fact it very nearly won the comparison.
-juice
This is not about how close the vehicles are in terms of specifications. It's about the buyers. The buyers are coming from two different perspectives. By selecting the Accord over the Lexus, you admit that you are not a luxury buyer. That's not a problem. I applaud you for your fiscal sensibilities. But you must understand that a luxury buyer is not going to share the same priorities.
A V6 RAV4 or Turbo Forester will smoke a BMW X3 in a straight line and also do quite well in the curves. Heck a Saturn VUE will compete. You can load these vehicle up with plenty of hardware, gizmos, and gadgets. But I doubt you'll see Bimmer fans knocking on the doors of a Toyota dealer because they want to "save a few bucks".
It's not about the vehicles. It's the buyers that differ.
Or wealthier folks that just don't want to show off, or want to avoid the gadget arms race.
We did a letter-writing campaign to Subaru a while back, and I was the one that put it all together. I asked each person to toss in a business card. I was floored at the job titles, VP of this, CEO of that, unbelievable. My guess it half the members in the Subaru Crew make six figures. Made me feel poor! :sick:
I dunno, consumers are unpredictable. There's a guy cross-shopping a RAV4 with an Odyssey here on Edmunds. :confuse:
I also think brand loyalty ain't what it used to be. People are looking for more variety. One buddy of mine was an Acura fanatic (early Integra), but then went to a Galant VR-4, then a Passat 1.8T chipped, then a Saab 9-3, now a Jeep Wrangler Unlimited. He invited me to a Jeep Jamboree.
Very unpredictable.
-juice
Useless car guy trivia: among millionaires, the most common brand of car is Ford.
-juice
-juice
I'd bet he did it for laughs! :P