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
Porsche did the same thing with the Boxster back when the S2000 came out. They held out until the Boxter S became available. (Instead one of the mags used their own long-term test car for a comparo.)
Can't blame them in either case. I'm sure all manufacturers do this.
C&D already did a comparo with the CX-7 and RAV4, which the RDX won. Edmunds did a comparo with the CX-7 and RAV4 (but not the RDX). Readers don't like to see the same vehicles featured month after month, so I think it may be a while before we see a head to head.
On the subject of reviews, R&T got a 0-60 time of 6.3 seconds which is about a half second faster than anybody else. On another board, posters are trying to figure out how they got that.
You may be right. They all arrive at my house within a span of a few days. I can never keep track of which one wrote what.
"In all, the RDX is an impressive ball of technology, function and performance. (That performance, by the way, comes at a fuelmileage price — our best two tankfuls of admittedly brisk urban driving didn’t crack 14 mpg"
Their CX7 took 7.7 seconds and only got 20mpg.
The Forester XT managed a quick 6.2 seconds and got an impressive 22mpg.
Saturn Vue Redline comes in last as 7.8s with no mileage report.
Correction, BMW X3 3.0i was the slowest at 7.9s and a relative guzzler at 18mpg, but that was the 225 hp version.
Rank for speed: Forester, RDX, CX7, Vue, X3
Rank for economy: Forester, RDX, CX7, X3 (all require premium fuel)
Too bad they didn't measure the Vue's fuel economy, it's the only one that can take regular fuel.
-juice
A lot people on this site worship BMW (including X5 and X3). I drove BMW X5 (my in laws) for an extended period of time and don't like it. It is certainly German wouldn't -care-less attitude in its design. For those who like it, good for them. I guess I don't have kow-tau to things I consider inferior, regardless what brand it is.
Back to Acura RDX, I think the mileage is bit disappointing. For that reason alone, it won't sell well. But I know, it is a heavy car and the turbo gives a lot of torque and good acceleration. But the mileage will suffer. Too bad for Acura. Yes, it doesn't have so called brand name such as AUDI or BMW attached to it. Otherwise, everyone will be praising it - as if the best thing since slice bread. Such is human bias and stupidity.
No one vehicle has it all.
-juice
Right now, they clearly have designed the engine/turbo to extract more power at a given RPM. You can go after the flip side of the problem to get the same power at lower RPMs.
Anyone shopping similar vehicles is going to be equally depressed by what the competition offers. Both the X3 and FX get 2 or 3 mpg less than the RDX. They make the RDX look downright efficient.
If a buyer decides to move downmarket to something like the CX-7, they don't fare much better with only a 1 mpg advantage. Now you're giving up luxury features, refinement, and performance. That's a lot to sacrifice for a couple gallons of gas.
-juice
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
But less weight would mean they'd have to take out all the things that make this an Acura.
So instead, my suggestion would be to give it a manual transmission. That would transform the car. The TSX is a lot more lively with the 6 speed than it is with the auto, and I bet the RDX would be the same way.
Maybe a Type S later on? Who knows.
-juice
The hazardous are just too great.
Being fair, it really depends on how MUCH of each you're really giving up. A Mazda may never have the cache or intangibles of an Acura, but the CX-7 is not THAT far downmarket or down on performance from the RDX. The Mazda IS, however, less expensive to the tune of 10% or more, and that will buy a lot of gas.
Assuming you're not expecting 30 mpg, you can't go wrong with either choice. Just my $0.02.
And yes, better leather, better interior in general, refinement, are all part of the cost that premium badges are supposed to provide, and Acura does that. As for dealership experience, I have been to both ends of the spectrum, a dealership that I wouldn't visit a second time. And another where I have had wonderful experience (and picking up my TL from them tomorrow).
If you can't see those differences, the "premium" is definitely not worth it for you.
Well, you are right about that, at least. Enjoy your "downmarket" X3.
-c92
If you want to see premium, and pay for it, step up to Lexus. The interior on the RX, for example, puts the RDX and MDX to shame. On the RX, I can definitely see where the extra $$ goes to (and it's a lot of extra $$). Acura has never really gone toe to toe with Lexus in my opinion, except maybe on the RL and then just barely. The rest of the model lineup is a very small increment above other non-luxury makes in my opinion, and below the full-luxury makes.
Initially, for the RX300, the system including a VC, Viscous Clutch/coupling, mounted across the otherwise open center differential. In 2001 the rear LSD was dropped and VSC/Trac was added wherein the brakes were used along with engine dethrottling to simulate center and rear LSDs.
For the RX330 the VC was dropped entirely.
Now I see with the introduction of the RX350 the VC is back in use again.
Maybe this "new" VC will not remain "flaccid" when needed like the earlier one does.
If you should purchase an RX then get the FWD version w/VSC/Trac as it is just as (in)adequate on adverse roadbed conditions as the AWD version.
IMMHO it would be nice, really nice, if Lexus were to license the SH-AWD system for use on the RX series.
Anyway, given that neither Lexus or Acura has a perfect AWD system, I would focus on other "premium" features when trying to differentiate them from the crowd. I see a lot of differentiation with Lexus, but not much from Acura.
MDX is in its seventh year in the market, fortunately, it won't be seven years before we see the new model. And before you pass your judgement on that vehicle, at least see the quality and features that is being offered for its price. Sorry, your arguments don't hold a candle.
-c92
... the CX-7 (while plenty good for the dollar) does not match up against the RDX. Spec racing is all fine and dandy. But even though you can check the same boxes with the CX-7, the quality and function of the items in those boxes are not the same.
While I certainly agree that many buyers will not value the difference in performance between Acura's 2.3L turbo and the unit in the CX-7, that does not mean the difference should not be considered. The same can be said of the ELS stereo, the NAV, the interior styling, and extra features. If someone falls into the category which does not value such things, it simply means that person is not part of the target market.
Frankly, I expect the only reason why a CX-7 (or RAV4 or Forester XT) buyer would've cross-shopped the RDX is because they were mislead by a box-checking comparison.
Other than Varmint, I haven't seen very many other level-headed Honda/Acura enthusiasts here, and that's unfortunate. I think the zealous enthusiasts would be doing themselves and Honda/Acura a favor by toning down the attitude. I have a Honda and an Acura now, and will gladly tell you about the things that are wrong with the vehicles and what could be better -- I like them, but they are not perfect by a long shot. I really questions someone's credibility when they may act otherwise about the cars.
Going back to my main point -- when I compare the Hondas that I have owned (currently one now), and the one Acura that I own now, and the one Subaru I own now, nothing about the Acura stands out as being premium or better than the other two by a significant amount. I think we can say that about most of Acura's vehicles when compared to other similar makes. Acura has never really played with the big boys in the luxury field, except maybe on the high end (RL) and then just barely. What they have done is offered some great cars at a good value that are more luxury minded and more sporting than their Honda stablemates. But not by a huge amount. I think the Acura name appeals to a lot of people, but it doesn't automatically make the car better.
Sorry, that was sprinkled in somewhere in this debate, so I forget who said it.
Also, the pre-production model on the NAIAS floor was all scratched up, and both the dash and the plastics around the door sill would scratch if you ran your nails over it.
I have yet to test drive a production model (please, tell me they're much better), but even the pre-production Hyundai Accent didn't have those issues.
-juice
Am I surprised that a $46K RX350 feels more upscale on the inside than a $38K RDX? Nope. It should! And for the same reason RDX feels more upscale, has more features and superior AWD system than CX-7. It comes with a price. If you disagree with me, let me know, instead of getting bogged down with unnecessary rhetoric about Honda/Acura enthusiasts.
And yes, I read the Edmund's review, and I trust their opinions. But if we shouldn't strictly compare vehicle specs, let's not swap links either. For every review like Edmund's I can find another review or poster that supports my viewpoint. Live with it.
-c92
I'm glad CX-7 works for you. It probably would work better for me too, however I would take CR-V above both of them. But this thread is neither about CR-V nor CX-7.
You're right.
carlitos92, robertsmx is right.
I guess I'll have to go my fallback argument, which was "the RDX is just FUGLY and has the wheels of a base model RAV4."
Seriously, it's been fun. Cheers.
-c92
You may be right there. I'm kinda fence-sitting myself regarding the looks of the RDX and the new MDX, especially the rear roof-line and window treatment. Too much Infiniti FX resemblance for my taste.
-juice
OK, there are too many angles on some of the details, but I don't think that spoils the whole package. It still looks good.
-juice
And I like the fact that it looks low and planted, as opposed to appearing tall. That was, in fact, one of the pleasant surprises when I first saw it in person at an auto show.
A number of reviews have mentioned that the turbo is (to paraphrase) addictive. While it results in mileage that is rather abysmal, I do think it tells us something about the nature of the vehicle. Obviously, they enjoy pushing it. Isn't that the way a sporty vehicle should be?
We'll have to see how owners do with mileage. I expect that once a driver gets past the honeymoon period, fuel economy will improve. The magazine don't have the cars long enough for that to happen.
I do think they could have simplified the front clip. The lights are great. The grill is typical, but at least the strakes leading into the air ram give it more character than the same grill on other Acuras. I think it's a wee bit cheesy, but if they had simply used a traditional Acura pentagon, it would have been boring. So, I think it's better than nothing.
The real problem comes with the number of creases and openings in the nose. This has been commented on many times before. I also think the front bumper could be thicker/taller to take up some of the space below the lights.
Conversely, I think they could have done something more with the profile. I'm glad they didn't put a bump in the belt line like the CX-7 (that looks silly), but it could have used a more aggressive line around the door handles, or even well below that above the rocker panels.
Overall, it's a nice-looking vehicle with a few minor flaws. There isn't another vehicle like it which cannot be picked apart the same way.