Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Acura RDX vs Mazda CX-7



  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    Looking at the interior pics, it's interesting to see where each manufacturer went for style and where they chose to focus on solid ergonomics. Both have their pluses and minuses. I don't think I could say that one is better than the other from a strictly functional point of view.

    On the appearance issue, I would definitely have to give the edge to the Acura.
  • d_hyperd_hyper Posts: 130
    RDX looks like a very angry CRV to me. Interior is cluttered too. On a practical side if no AWD is required, I would buy Mazda6 wagon w/rebates
  • When comparing the value of the RDX and the CX7, I think its important to point out that the RDX will very likely retain its value much better.
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    I think that remains to be seen. Typically, Honda and Acura vehicles retain a significant portion of their value. Part of that comes from the fact that the dealers do not push sales with incentives and special lease deals.

    That said, the RDX is starting to see some deals. That may hurt its long term value. Though, in all fairness, Mazda is having to push the CX-7, as well.
  • audia8qaudia8q Posts: 3,138
    That said, the RDX is starting to see some deals

    The RDX at our Acura store is not a good seller at this point..which is a bit unusual for Acura. The MDX otoh is selling very well. We are selling more CX-7's than RDX's
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Which is something one should expect for a lower priced vehicle.
  • ...It's also known to happen when the market has a preference for one vehicle over another similar one. If it was based solely on price point, Hyundai would be selling more Sonatas than Toyota sells Camrys.
  • audia8qaudia8q Posts: 3,138
    not really...Our MDX sales have traditionally been one of our best selling suv and they are certainly not the cheapest...we also sell more navigators than mountaneers, so price isnt an indication of sales volume.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Honda sells more Pilots than MDXs. Honda sells more CR-Vs than CX-7. Must I go on?
  • jblaze13jblaze13 Posts: 152
    I agree. We purchased a TSX 3 years ago at a discounted price and it has still maintained its value very well. Luxury vehicles typically maintain their value better and the CX-7 isn't considered luxury. That isn't the determining factor but it does factor.

    Both vehicles have much to gain in terms of how the front end looks IMO. The RDX looks like the eyes (headlights) are squinting and the CX-7 has a biiiig mouth (air intake). They are both still good buys.
  • audia8qaudia8q Posts: 3,138
    I was speaking about our dealerships...Since we don't sell Honda what is your point and what are you talking about?
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    My point is clear. Lower price helps, as does orientation. Your dealership probably sells more MDX than it does CX-7. But, MDX's appeal is different. RDX is to MDX what TSX is to TL, smaller and sportier against the more plush.

    If orientation is identical, and you do compare sales, pricing becomes an integral part. Higher priced vehicles (or trims) will generally show lower sales volume. Let me ask, which trim of CX-7 is the best seller? How much does it typically go for?
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Let me ask, which trim of CX-7 is the best seller? How much does it typically go for?

    In my dealership, the Mazda CX-7 Grand Touring with the moon roof/ Bose Audio package sells the best with a price in the neighborhood of $30,000, as well as the CX-7 GT w/Tech at $32,700. The least selling is the Sport trim with a price of $26,000.

    In my case, the more expensive is the best selling, or desired by those who have shopped it. This has been the trend that I have seen other dealers follow as well.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Thats interesting because of the many, I have seen only one GT model on the road so far. But then, I see more Accord EX and V6 models on the road than LX trim although the latter is said to carry most of Accord's sales volume.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    I see more Accord EX and V6 models on the road than LX trim although the latter is said to carry most of Accord's sales volume

    I happen to see more 4 cyl Accords then anything, especialy in the sedan. I usually see the coupe with a V6.

    I also sell much more Mazda6 i's (4 cyl) then the Mazda6 s's(V6).
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    I also sell much more Mazda6 i's (4 cyl) then the Mazda6 s's(V6).

    I'm sure. My point. :)
  • audia8qaudia8q Posts: 3,138
    Our CX-7 sales

    53% sport
    40% GT
    7% touring

    19% 2wd.....This is the big surprise.

    32% copper red
    29% black cherry
    19% galaxy gray
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    That is surprising, considering we are so close in location.

    58% GT
    42% Sport

    We don't stock Touring models, just flip them into GT's.

    Copper Red 14%
    Black 24%
    Galaxy Gray 33%
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    The *tendency* is for less expensive models to sell more copies than more expensive models. The reason, simply put, is there are more poor people than rich folks.

    If you take a look at the best sellers in mass-markets vs the premium markets, you'll see what Robertsmx is getting at. The Acura TL and Lexus ES350 are both top sellers in the premium segment, but can't compare with the total sales of the Accord and Camry within the mass market segment.

    It doesn't always work out that way. There will always be exceptions to the rule. But, all else being equal, the number of people who can afford a $25-30K CX-7 will be larger than the number of people who can afford the $30-35K RDX. With a larger market comes more sales.
  • d_hyperd_hyper Posts: 130
    This only works if supply is a constant, which is not. More companies wying for a larger market result in smaller slices, so your statement is incorrect. Good try, though.

    Also, note that I have not even touched on targeting technics etc. Nor the fact that "poor" people might not desire a turbo-super-handling SUV with limited cargo in the first place.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Again, you can't call Varmint's statement incorrect simply based on assumptions that RDX falls in smaller market but with a bigger available slice, while CX-7 has to be satisfied with a smaller slice of the bigger market. If you must go there, you should do more than make a statement about the actual size of the slices available in each segment.

    The two vehicles in question are virtually identical on a spec sheet while one being considerably cheaper. Guess which one can be expected to sell better.
  • d_hyperd_hyper Posts: 130
    I'm calling a general statement "incorrect" because it does not address "supply" part of the supply/demand paradigm. This is basics. Why do I need to give the numbers to explain this? :confuse: Think of how many Explorers are sold at this price point.

    Moreover, you're disputing yourself: if you can compare 2 vehicles - you assume, if for a moment, they belong to the same market niche where a 'cheaper' will sell more. But what if people would rather choose a better vehicle instead?
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    Why is supply not constant. Did Mazda lose another ship? Last I read, Mazda's supply of CX-7s was higher than average for the US (ditto for the RDX). Has something changed recently?

    I certainly agree there are other factors. The number of dealership outlets would be one, but I believe the advantage there actually goes to Mazda, not Acura.

    Whether or not buyers in each economic bracket desire these vehicles is going to work both ways. Someone with a $35K budget might purchase either of these vehicles. Someone with a $25K budget has only one choice. Again, advantage Mazda.
  • d_hyperd_hyper Posts: 130
    I'm talking about "market supply", not "mazda supply".
    There are more vehicles at lower price point. Thus I brought Explorers as the Example. I thought I made it clear.
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    No, my mistake. I was composing when you posted the Explorer example and missed it.

    But I'm not following. While the Explorer at 30K represents another competitor, it also represents another opportunity for both the RDX and CX-7. When Honda was more than a decade late to the SUV party, the competition was well-entrenched. Yet, both the MDX and Pilot earned a large slice within their respective segments.

    The lower you go in price range, the more competitors you have. Again, that's true. But you also have more potential buyers.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    But what if people would rather choose a better vehicle instead?

    In the same segment, they would if money were no object. The $$$ factor is back again. By segment I imply vehicle type, not price (or else we could end up talking about how Pilot takes away sales from RDX, as they both compete in $30-35K price class).
  • d_hyperd_hyper Posts: 130
    So, I apologize if anything is lost in translation, but it appears that consumers feel CX-7 is a better deal than RDX -thus more sales. BTW, it is both art and a science to find a 'sweet' price point.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Of course! Better deal doesn't guarantee a better car though. Like I've been saying, it all boils down to what one can afford. The dollar factor.
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    You're assuming that because sales of the CX-7 are higher, it represents a better deal. I think that's a faulty assumption. It merely has a better price for a larger number of buyers.

    But low price and good deal are not the same thing.
  • d_hyperd_hyper Posts: 130
    You know, unless you are Rolls-Roys or Ferrari, you want to price your vehicle to attract as many potential buyers as possible (w/o damaging profitability of course). We will likely see market correcting Acura's pricing shortly. Similar thing just has happened to Mazdaspeed6.
This discussion has been closed.