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
-juice
-juice
The arrival ETA is July 27th for dealers close to the production point(a little longer depending on the dealer's proximity to Ohio). The dealer ride-n-drives will be held early next month at which time the price points should be released and I'll be able post more information about handeling characteristics. Hopefully some video too. Check my Car Space page in the weeks to come and I'll post any new details here as soon as I hear anything new.
Rob My Car Space
Probably because Honda has been providing different beta versions for reviewers... and monitoring the feedback to determine the production version. :P
I am looking forward very much to the release of the RDX. I saw it at the NYC Auto Show and was pretty impressed. I can't wait to drive it...yet I am looking at some other things until then.
I drove a CX-7 today. It was the loaded model. I am not an auto-phile but here is what I can give you: It was pretty snazzy looking (if I was drunk and just glanced it out of the corner of my eye I might have mistaken it for a Cayenne) and felt really comfy inside. The front leather seats had this racing stripe down the middle - a cool little touch. The dash is pretty easy on the eye and the Navi looks good. It drove well and had nice pep out of the gate. A CONCERN of mine with the RDX was storage space in the back (1 kid and 1 on the way) but the CX-7 seemed to have a pretty good amount of cargo space for a mid-range SUV (or CUV) and the numbers the dealer gave me for its cargo space were just a few cubic feet shy of what the RDX is listing.
Hope this helps anyone who is looking at both.
From magazines and reviews, it looks to me like the RAV4 has the most power and best fuel economy among this group.
"The ride isn't as harsh as the X3's seems to feel, despite the big 18-inch tires that come standard. But it is pretty taut, and anyone used to the plush response of a big American-style ute might be turned off by the RDX's disdain for lots of ride motions."
If you find the X3 incredibly harsh (as some reviewers have remarked), then the RDX is probably going to be too firm for comfort. If the X3 is firm, but not so stiff you can't tolerate it, then the RDX might seem just peachy.
It all depends on your perspective. Which is why we see such a wide range of opinions on the matter. Besides, they're journalists. Give them something to write about and they're going to have a strong opinion one way or the other.
Not necessarily.
The 3.5l V6 is a gem and does make the most horsepower in the class, but the automatic Forester XT AWD gets 21/26, better city mpg but not as good highway mpg since the V6 in the RAV4 is geared tall. So the fuel economy is a split decision. RAV4 does accept regular fuel, so it might take the tie-breaker there.
Also, in 0-60 tests, the Forester XT takes the cake, due in part to its lesser weight, but also due to gearing. The automatics reach 60mph in the low 6 second range, I believe SoA's official number is 6.1s. Toyotas have been in the mid-high 6s so the difference is pretty small.
Manual tranny XTs are even quicker, but only the X3 offers a manual to compete with the Forester XT. CX7, RDX, and RAV4 will not. Most times for the Subaru have been in the 5s, pretty amazing for the price. You have to get into some seriously pricey SUVs to beat that.
Both RAV4 and Forester lack a true sports suspension like the X3 has, however. Subaru will bring 17" rims as standard for MY07, but I'd like to see the STI suspension at least as an option, or maybe at the very least the JDM cross sport model's suspension (lowered, stiffer).
-juice
On paper maybe, but in real life not sure.
The RAV4 might have a slight performance egde but I'd be surprised if the RDX doesn't have better real world milage.
Biker, who can't wait for the MY08 real world milage numbers to limit all of the milage discussions.
Other than the X3 and the RDX, name a smallist SUV that isn't FWD based and therefore typically dangerously, like any FWD, front torque biased.
A manual Forester XT has a 50/50 split, so it is not FWD biased. STI suspension bits are direct swaps. I would put money on an STI-suspensioned XT over an X3 any day for pretty much any type of race. I would put the JDM Forester STI ahead of any SUV other than MAYBE the Cayenne turbo. It had about the same power to weight ratio, and it gobs lighter.
I would hesitate to call FWD "dangerous". An Integra Type R can out-handle at least 95% of the RWD cars ever produced.
"..Integra Type R can outhandle..."
Only on dry sticky pavement, on the slippery stuff RWD carries the day.
Tell you what, you and I, together, design a wintertime road course and I'll put my 94 AWD Ford Aerostar up against ANY vehicle, unmodified, you mentioned except the X3.
Apparently you've never driven a Miata. On the slippery stuff, you so much as lift the throttle in a corner and you spin, period. No amount of skill can catch you, it's a 180 at least, 360 if you have a lot of momentum.
Besides, there are waaaaay too many other factors to generalize like that. You have to look at spring rates, shock quality, roll bar sizes, tires, weight distribution, center of gravity, weight, steering ratio, and plenty of subjective things like steering feel.
And by the way, FWD is not "dangerous", it may be boring a lot of the time, but FWD with the typical understeer is far more predictable than RWD with snap oversteer a la Porsche 911.
Why target the X3? A couple of thoughts, first BMW carries a lot of prestige, 2nd they may even be thinking it's an easy target, relatively speaking.
-juice
Bad reviews for the X3 would make it a perfect target, don't you think?
Aside from that, I don't think the X3 has been as big a flop as you think. YTD through May, BMW has sold more units of the X3 than they have of the X5. Sales are on par with the Volvo XC90 and higher than established players like the Navigator and Escalade. Even up and comers like the Infiniti FX45 sell far lower volume.
But I would accept rear torque biased AWD as a compromise.
Look at where the majority of the RDX' engine torque "goes" when it encounters a situation/circumstance wherein a FWD or front biased AWD would be in deep trouble...!
Due to the additional weight at the front FWDs are an excellent choice for accelerating in a straight line, say from a stop on snow or ice. But otherwise, turning and/or slowing, just as the new RDX SH-AWD design indicates, FWD can become hazardous to your health in an instant.
Well, you'll have to explain that (again).
Last thing I would have expected from such a highly traditional FWD marque as Honda/Accura but...
Three CHEERS...!
The extra weight on the nose of a FWD vehicle means better traction at the drive wheels. Traction is traction whether turning or moving in a straight line.
RWD puts the power at the rear where there is less weight to press down on the drive wheels. Plus, a loss of traction at the rear is harder to recover from than a loss at the front.
AWD is like FWD with an additional benefit. Because it can make use of the traction at the rear, if the front tires slip. By spreading the power to four contact patches, it also reduces the potential for slippage at the the drive wheels. THIS is why the RDX sends power aft. If sending 100% aft were best, more systems would do so.
RWD has plenty of advantages in dry weather, but it is the worst possible set up when the road gets slick.
Mind you, I'm not claiming the X3 has been a huge success. I just don't think it's been selling poorly.
-juice
Exception being the modern Porsche 911 and the early VW beetles.
"Plus, a loss of traction at the rear is harder to recover from than a loss at the front..."
Huh...!!??
Maybe you have a secret recovery technique for FWD that you should go public with. To my knowledge once traction is lost at the front loss of directional control goes right along. Acknowledging that there are two levels of traction, non-slip/spin or the lesser level of a spinning/slipping tire, a RWD vehicle still remains substantially easier, more likely to recover, than a FWD vehicle.
In a RWD vehicle loss of traction at the rear still leaves the driver with the ENTIRE front contact patch with which to recover, regain or retain directional control.
That's why modern day traction control systems differ in their FWD or front biased AWD implementation versus RWD or rear biased...
Modern day traction control firmware on a RWD (or..) will instantly apply the brakes to slipping wheel(s) but will delay dethrottling the engine for a few hundred milliseconds, giving the driver time to retain or recover control using stearing inputs and throttle feathering.
Since loss of traction at the front (Stearing "section") of a FWD or front biased AWD is so much more critical the control firmware will not only quickly brake a slipping wheel or wheels it will also dethrottle the engine INSTANTLY.
The RDX seems to have the ideal AWD system, move the engine torque (or majority thereof), leading or lagging, to the rear wheels at times when the front tires' contact patch might be best allocated to directional control.
I like it!
"RWD has plenty of advantages in dry weather, but it is the worse possible set up when the road gets slick."
NOT!
Exactly the opposite in fact.
In adverse, slippery, roadbed conditions FWD acts a lot like a 4WD or 4X4, oftentimes, (MOSTLY??) giving the driver too much confidence for the current roadbed conditions with its ease of starting up and/or accelerating on a slippery roadbed surface.
Neither of these will help you stop if the time should arise, and both can become detrimental to directional control is adverse roadbed situations or circumstances.
For instance the AAA is currently recommending that drivers of FWD vehicles with automatic transmissions practice quickly shifting into neutral in order to prepare for the day when that loss of directional control is threatened, impending, by engine braking on those front drive wheels.
Having grown up in the era of RWD I guess I must consider myself an expert in that venue. FWD didn't arrive on the scene until about 1970 and wasn't commonplace until much later.
But basically you're correct, given that the clear majority of the time John Q Public drives on high traction surfaces FWD has the definite advantage.
But I think I see the FWD trend reversing....
I'm surprised to hear this. I see about five X5's for every one X3 on the road. What is your source of this info? I'm in the LA area so maybe the stats are different. Anyone else?
X3 = 13,520
X5 = 11,565
X5 sightings are more likely, because this is the sixth model year versus only the third year for the X3..
regards,
kyfdx
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Any downside?
I respectfully disagree. For John Q Public, all else being equal, even with the best traction/stability control, RWD will be more of a handful in the slippery stuff. I will always be able to negotiate my way in the snow better in my Honda or Acura, with or without traction control, then any RWD BMW, with all its fancy traction and dynamic stability controls.
On the one hand, I like the idea of a 4-banger light Turbo SUV. Yet, BMW dropped their 2.5L engine option. Sure, it'll be low on torque but get decent fuel economy right? Well, Motorweek stated HWY at 24 mpg! :sick: A V8 Tahoe almost does that! The upcomng Tahoe Hybrid will spank it and can tow!
Am also admittedly disappointed that the next CR-V looks like a twin. Seems to me the engine in the RDX should differentiate it a bit more.
Bring on the diesels Honda...we need torque! :shades:
A Hybrid will do better, but it makes a bigger difference in city driving, not highway. I bet it gets 20 or 21 mpg, tops.
Plus, it's not tuned for performance. A TrailBlazer SS is much, much closer in concept, and gets 14/17. That's a pretty significant difference.
-juice
Exactly. Oversteer is more difficult for the average driver to correct. This is why foul weather recommendations include putting the best tires (or snow tires) on the rear wheels if you don't have enough to fit all four. This is true even if the vehicle is a FWDer. The majority of driver's cannot cope with having the tail end passing the front.
"Actually the only reason FWD vehicles exist at all is because they're less expensive to manufacture."
It's also easier to make a vehicle spacious without a long drivetrain running the length of the vehicle. There are fewer losses in the drivetrain. And the vehicles can be built lighter.
http://www.aicautosite.com/editoria/asmr/svsuv.asp
People will see more X5s on the road, because it has been on the market longer. They've been on sale since 2001. Meanwhile, the X3 was added in 2004 or 2005. So, even though the sales rate of the X3 is about the same as the X5, the total number of sales is not.
RAV4 is cleaning up, eh? Wow.
-juice
There's a NEW Tahoe...released months ago. 320 HP std!
Tahoe 2WD EPA estimated MPG 16 city, 22 highway;
Tahoe 4x4 EPA estimated MPG 15 city, 21 highway.
Let's hope the new RDX gets better than 24 mpg Hwy.
At the auto show I swore I saw 14/20 mpg.
Maybe you're talking about the models with cylinder deactivation, and those only came out later in the model year? Tell you what, though, I would not want to own a v1.0 of that technology, not from GM.
-juice
PS All Tahoes get the same std engine. Even a stripper base model.
However, all the other press materials (including the Honda/Acura news site) state an estimate of 19-24 mpg.
As for the Tahoe, you gotta wonder what real-world mileage will be like, plus if they offer low gears and stuff for towing the numbers will drop further.
-juice