Howdy, Stranger!

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

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Acura RDX vs Infiniti EX35

sxm5808sxm5808 Posts: 3
edited August 2014 in Acura
I am planning to buy acura rdx and am happy to buy a real good car. Today i saw specs/pictures of the new infiniti EX35 that is going to be released in december and now i am thinking if i should postpone till december. What do you think of EX35..
check this link of production version EX35


  • carlitos92carlitos92 Posts: 458
    I think this will be the most annoying of all the Infiniti designs. It's surely subjective, but I think the FX was the last vehicle of theirs I liked. Although I didn't end up buying one, I would say the RDX is definitely the looker of the two. The EX would probably give it a run for its money handling and performance-wise, but Acura reliability is hard to beat.

    Now if we could just get Lexus to get a small CUV on the market!
  • I would get the RDX. The RDX has a great reputation and the Turbo is to die for. The EX35 albeit new and not too bad looking is new to the market. My advice if you really like the EX35, I will suggest you wait until the end of next year to get one. Reason being, many new models (GMC ACADIA), have problems that need to be addressed and aren't quite addressed in the first year. A friend of mines have an ACADIA and he has been going to the dealer more than often with little niggles about his vehicle. If you don't want to be a test driver for Nissan, I will suggest you wait for the second year model.
  • johnny98johnny98 Posts: 88
    I'm going to reserve judgment until I see the Infiniti in person. I thought the Infiniti FX looked good in photos, but in person the proportions look weird. Also, the cargo space was very small for such a big vehicle. The EX looks like it will come with lots of fun toys. I expect that the price will be significantly more than the RDX.
  • extech2extech2 Posts: 120
    It's too early to pass judgment on the EX35 since we haven't seen one yet. However, about 3 months ago we drove an RDX base and a loaded FX35 2-wheel drive the same day, only an hour apart. The Acura drove much better, it was like comparing a sports car to a Cadillac. Then again if you want a more cushy ride, the FX or the new EX might be better for you. I'm sure it will sell at least for 6-8 thousand more than the RDX. We were ready to get an RDX, but I drove a Volkswagen GTI twice and for me it was a much more exciting car, and that's what I leased. But I'm sure 3 years from now we'll be checking the RDX again when the lease is ending.
  • For me the choice is clear- how can you compare the Acura 4 cylinder turbo to the smooth & strong 6 cylinder engine in the EX?
  • I know i cant compare and suv to a sport sedan, but after driving both nothing can beat the 335i..i am missing all the tech from rdx though!

  • Easy... Honda/Acura make the smoothest, silkiest 4-cylinder engines, bar none. That "strong" VQ-family V6 sounds like rolling flatulence in every car/CUV I've ever heard it in. ;)

    That being said, I think I remember people being disappointed with the engine noise in the RDX, but a lot of that was turbo whine they heard (or thought they heard) IIRC.
  • ...actually, a more expensive car can beat a 335i, just as the more expensive 335i beats the summary, that is a useless comment that adds no value as a post!...don't get me wrong, the 3-series is a nice car, but has no application here.
    "After driving both..."? - so, after comparing the 335i to ONE other car not even in the same class of vehicles, you conclude that "nothing can beat the 335i"....a very interesting and well thought-out conclusion!

    Maybe we can start forums comparing completely different cars more often...'Hyundai Elantra versus Toyota Land Cruiser', or maybe 'Carrera GT versus Dodge Caravan'
  • mvs1mvs1 Posts: 462
    I did not take the time to read far up the thread of this, although, this type of comparison does often occur. It's happening right now in our house My wife is considering an RDX, CRV, RX350, A4 (she currently leases an 05), and possible a few others. while these cars are apples to oranges you be surprised how many people like features they think are needs but mearly comforts.

    Now back to the EX vs RDX since this is on her shopping list. She's now becoming more interested in the financial portion of this equation and simply asked how mush more will the EX be? She asked me what platform the EX was built off of and then said, "Oh no that would be around $40k right.?"

    So until we see this car in December and have actually pricing i really is a hard question to answer. In the event the EX is within a few $1ks it should prove to be a hard decision.

    Oh and I'll take he Land Cruiser and GT ;)
  • Haha! You take your comparisions very seriously man! actually i started the thread and thought i should update about my new disrescpect for rdx..
  • I enjoy hyperbole for humor's sake just as much as the next guy, but it's incorrect to assume a more expensive car automatically beats a less expensive car.
  • waltazwaltaz Posts: 131
    Hey...I just purchased a G35 Journey last weekend for my wife, to replace her '04 Accord EX-V6. The G is the best car I've ever purchased - we absolutely love it.

    I drive an '06 Pilot loaded EX-L with Navi, and am experiencing "I want a new car too" angst, though I love my Pilot. So now I'm looking at an RDX or an EX35 to replace my Pilot. My rationalization is that I don't really need the third row seats that I needed two years ago, so I can "downsize" a bit.

    My understanding is that the EX35 is basically the G sedan with a different body style, so I don't know that I want two cars that are so similar, even though we LOVE the G. And if I'm "downsizing" from the Pilot, then I don't need the MDX, which is basically the Acura Pilot.

    A key use for me is racking mountain bikes up top - I have a Thule rack on my Pilot's rails, and will want to rack the RDX. I don't think that either Thule or Yakima have a fit kit for the EX35 yet (they don't for the G), and I haven't checked for the RDX.

  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    Off topic, but I think I'd like to see some pics of your new Journey - maybe you can stick some on your CarSpace page?

    Fitment kits from Yak and Thule seem to take a while. I understand they need to get their hands on a car for a while to figure out how to make the clips but the engineering seems to drag out for months sometimes.
  • waltazwaltaz Posts: 131
    will do re the pics...I've got some, just need to get them up
  • karens2008karens2008 Posts: 26
    has anyone driven both the RDX and the EX for a decent comparison that they can post? I loved the EX drive - and didn't think the mileage was anything to write home about.... but the ride is great --- don't know how it compare to RDX because haven't driven it yet, but hear bad things about funny noises.... I hate funny noises.
    Heard that the EX can use mid-grade gasoline - true? or not? don't want to have to use high grade for the RDX which I think is necessary, correct?
    Any more thoughts? - would be appreciated!
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    With the advent of EFI and knock sensors premium fuel is not really required for ANY of these passenger public road use modern day high compression engines, not even the Porsche ones.

    But since the RDX is so severely underpowered until the turbo comes on line the detrimental effects, performance sacrificed, is undoubtedly much greater than otherwise. The RDX's "native" engine compression ratio is only about 8:1 and so the turbo is REALLY required for the engine to produce a decent level of initial start out torque.

    And that's probably also why the FE is so abysmal, you need to be "on" the turbo in order to get any decent level of acceleration and to get "there" you need to quickly go through the engine/turbo combination "slack" lower RPM range.

    Just simply a HUGE waste of fuel until a decent level of combined engine/turbo compression level is attained. Then add the fact that the intercooler is passively cooled until RAM air roadspeeds are achieved (IF EVER..!!) and with a fairly restricted cooling airflow path to boot and you get an RDX with literally HORRIBLE FE.

    And keep in mind that when just cruising casually along, no turbo boost, you are operating the engine in a horribly inefficient, 8:1 compression ratio mode.

    The RDX engine really needs to be redesigned to actively modify the intake valve timing along the lines of the Miller Cycle, an actual compression ratio of ~13:1 with "virtual" of 10:1 during idle or light load cruising but with intake valve timing control so the "actual" compression ratio changes linearly to 8:1 as turbo boost climbs.

    But variable volume positive displacement SuperCharging, TRUE Miller Cycle, would be much simpler overall.
  • redrose1redrose1 Posts: 49
    You appear to be so knowledgeable - would you be able to comment on the Subaru Forester turbo? We are undecided between the two and FE is a key factor.
    Also, any thoughts about the 6cylinder Rav4?

    Thanks alot!
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    No, sorry, Subaru simply doesn't warrant my attention.

    Any manufacturer who touts the safety of AWD (AWD simply does not address the issue of safety) and patently UNSAFE "symetrical" AWD to boot, doesn't warrant anyone's attention IMMHO.

    Compare the SH-AWD system with ANY AWD(symetrical)/FWD/F-AWD system to see the shortcoming of all these "other" systems.

    Shame they fell so short in the engine compartment.
  • redrose1redrose1 Posts: 49
    May I ask... what smallish crossover do you like - keeping in mind safety, FE , and winter driving conditions? Would you rule out the RDX?Would appreciate your opinion!
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    I currently own, daily driver, a 2001 AWD RX300. Being totally aware of the RX's F/AWD shortcomings mine is modified so that I can use tire chains on the rear initially and then add the front chains if the need arises. One set of chains rides in the RX at all times and the second only during the winter months.

    The RX rides on nice and quiet, comfortably riding, summer only Bridgestone Turanza tires all year 'round and so I NEVER hesitate to use the chains if conditions warrant, even slightly warrant.

    I have no current plans to rid myself of the RX but if I did the RDX would probably be on my short list. But in my opinion the RDX's dash/intrument panel appears too "busy" and the abysmal FE is a sure show-stopper.

    I keep hoping to see a Lexus hybrid version of the RAV4 but....

    Oh, almost forgot, I was going to buy a new RAV4 but the manual tranaxle was dropped from the design.

    Right now, today, if my hand were forced the Suzuki SX4 w/stick ($5.00 gas) would top my list. But I'd probably remove the front halfshafts and weld the rear driveline into full time use.
  • lynn3808lynn3808 Posts: 2
    the turbo is to die for. When you get the bill when it fails and Acura has no idea why it failed. Just wonder how many miles the new one will take before it fails. The originial failed at 50,000 miles. I wasn't looking for a throw away car when I bought an acura. very disappointing.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    How many "boy-racers" see the turbo label and go out and buy one with too high expectations..? And then begin "modding" it with CPE CAI's, Hondata reflash and such and then question why the turbo fails taking the engine along for the "ride".
  • mayoarceomayoarceo Posts: 2
    I would choose the EX35 hands-down. Why? Well let me tell you a little thing that irks me about Acura.. When you buy an Acura you are basically buying a gussied up Honda... Don't get me wrong, I love Honda, I drive a 2007 Honda Civic SI. Anything Acura is based off a Honda platform. The RDX comes from the CRV and the CRV comes from the Civic. Now I know what you are thinking, the Infiniti is a gussied up Nissan... Well i'll tell you why it is different. All of Infiniti's new cars are all truly sporty(except the QX56) because they are derived from the 350Z platform... So the EX35 comes from the G35, which comes from the 350Z. Seriously, I dont think the RDX is the same value as the EX35. And besides the EX35 is faster, gets better MPG, handles better, best safety rating in the segment, and I know someone will bring up Honda reliability but the EX35's engine has been a top engine across segments for the past 14 years. In the end where is your money best spent? A crossover derived from a RWD sports car or a crossover derived from an economy sedan?
  • depdep Posts: 79
    Toyota, Nissan, and Honda all share a huge % of components between their regular and lux brands. No question there.

    However, just to pick a nit, the RDX was designed first with the CRV inheriting many of the components, etc in its redesign.

    Now, if you really think that all the Infinity models are "derived from the 350Z platform" then you have a world of disappointment coming your way. They pair up with their Nissan counterparts just like Acura and Lexus cars do.
  • depdep Posts: 79
    I am not sure what RDX you drove but the one I drive is not under powered at all. Once you take some time to learn how the systems work together in real world driving you get a smooth, powerful, and very responsive SUV that drives like a TL. It corners like it is glued to the road and can play on the expressways with the best of them.

    That said, I don't expect the RDX to drive like a sports car not do I often have the need to 'floor it' so if one is expecting that you might have a different take on the RDX.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    All that you have said is very true but the really important point you missed was that Infiniti's are traditionally RWD or at least, for R/AWD, built on a RWD "base". I have heard that at least one of the upcoming Acura sedan is to be RWD....


    Acura is current trying to climb one of the last steps on the ladder to being a fully upscale (read: knowledgeable and/or experienced buyer/driver) automotive manufacturer.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    What I actually said was that the RDX is UNDERPOWERED until the turbo boost comes on line.

    In order to accomodate the turbo boost pressure level once it "arrives" the engine is detuned/derated (<10:1 CR) from the "norm" for non-turbo DFI engines. A normal I4 with DFI (12:1 compression ratio) of this displacement could probably "loaf" along at a much lower RPM, fewer frictional losses.

    Another aspect of the detuning/derating design is it puts more "WASTE" energy in the exhaust manifold....notice how quickly the turbo spools up....and KILLS your MPG.

    RDX and CX-7 "turbo" equals POOR engineering compromises.

    Therefore the abismal hwy MPG.
  • depdep Posts: 79
    I did misread then. My bad.

    However, I don't consider 22 MPG (what I get in real hwy driving) on an SUV of that size and performance to be 'abysmal'. If it had the normal 2.4 making 170HP or something then I would be looking for more MPG. But for a 240HP/260ft/lb engine I think it is doing OK. Not amazing but not at all abysmal.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Abysmal in the sense that the larger V6 in my '01 AWD RX300 easily gets 22 hwy. And I understand the newer RX350 does even better than that.

    I would have thought the smaller I4 would (should..??) do better since most hwy use would be off-boost.
  • depdep Posts: 79
    I will give you that the Toy 3.5l is an amazing engine. I recall when they replaced the 3l in the Avalon with the 3.5 the power went way up but so did the MPG! It is smooth and enjoyable under all conditions.
  • Read ANY major automotive press review of any Infiniti except the the QX56 and it will say they share platforms with the G coupe and sedan, both of which share the same Front Mid ship Rear wheel drive architecture as the 350z. Only exception is the addition of All Wheel Drive in certain models. Take a look at the vehicle specs, their wheelbases and widths are nearly identical only different by a couple of inches. No Nissan other than the 350z shares any of the architecture with the Infiniti cars. Even the engines on the Nissan cars use the VQ35 while the Infiniti cars use the dual intake VQ35HR not to mention the engines in the Nissans (Altima, Maxima, Murano) are mounted horizontally and they are all front wheel drive.
  • Hey there!

    you sound knowledgeable -- well back in June I posted the question - which one is best for me -- the RDX or the EX and now I am considering the EX again. Would you comment please on the car in terms of MPG and its reliability? I will pay up to 36,000 for afully loaded car that performs up to par. Was considering a "used" LEXUS 400 but they want about 37,000 and there aren't very good rates for finance, yet. So for a car with 40,000 on it - am holding off. I will go and test the EX again to compare but a need a car soon. Please let me know your thoughts about it --- can't make out whether it's a good car or not from all these posts!!!
    did you look into RX 400 hybrid, too expensive? used are available now and there are many out there -- new tech and all "new generation" as they love to say.

  • docrwdocrw Posts: 94
    The EX is a great car if you or anyone else you know never plans to sit in the back seat. It is beautiful from the driver's perspective and if you are single or have no children or friends it would be a great car. Just on aesthetics alone the dash and front passenger compartment easily beat just about any other small SUV.

    The problem is that it really is not an SUV or even a CUV. I looked at one yesterday and thought, why did they even bother to build this car. I have never even heard of a car with 4 doors having only 28 inches of rear seat legroom. The X3, which is 3 inches shorter has 7 inches more rear legroom and 12 more cubic feet of storage. They ride on an identical 110 inch wheel base, so where did BMW find all that extra space? Or, more to the point, how did the Infiniti designers squander all that space?

    Personally, to me it just seems like a G37 hatchback with less rear legroom, the G37 coupe has 29.7 inches of rear legroom. Not to belabor the point, but even a BMW 135i coupe, which is almost a foot shorter, has 32 inches of rear legroom. I think they should have just dropped the pretense and made it a 3 door hatchback, but that's not considered luxury to American buyers.
  • I just bought an 08 rdx today. I did test drive the ex35, loved the handling. But as noted before the rear seat is cramped. But even worse was the visibility out the back window. I felt like I'd never be able to change lanes in that car.
  • We are considering a RDX but comfortable seats for long trips are a must - would anyone know what the seats are like? Righr now we have a 2005 3.0 Outback and the seats are quite uncomfortable on long trips. We are giving back the Outback soon (lease is up) and looking for safety, AWD, and good seats! Suggestions? Thinking about the 2009 Forester XT, the RDX and the Toyota Venza.

    Thank you!
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Buy the vehicle you want and the seats from
  • My husband who usually drives a Volvo S80 (because the seats are comfortable) drove the rdx from upstate NY to NYC (and back) and had no problems with the seats.
  • >>>You appear to be so knowledgeable - would you be able to comment on the Subaru Forester turbo? We are undecided between the two and FE is a key factor. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, sorry, Subaru simply doesn't warrant my attention.

    Any manufacturer who touts the safety of AWD (AWD simply does not address the issue of safety) and patently UNSAFE "symetrical" [SIC] AWD to boot, doesn't warrant anyone's attention IMMHO.

    Compare the SH-AWD system with ANY AWD(symetrical)/FWD/F-AWD system to see the shortcoming of all these "other" systems.

    Care to be a little less Honda Fanboi and a little more specific? Are you at all familiar with the Subaru VTD drive system and VDC systems? We'll see how adding clutch packs to the rear axle holds up for the 150,000+ miles that the Subaru drive trains have demonstrated for 10 years.

    You don't think that AWD delivers a safety benefit in low traction conditions?
  • Got some more information on the RDX drive system and claims that it is the equivalent of any of Subarus three AWD systems, or that of the Acura RL is way off base.

    According to the Wiki on SH AWD, "SH-AWD in the Acura RDX and Acura MDX use a default power split of 90% to the front and 10% to the rear. Like the unit in the RL, both can power the rear wheels with up to 70% of the engine torque. With this variant of SH-AWD, there is no acceleration device. Instead, the rear differential is constantly overdriven by 1.7 percent. During straight line performance, that difference is scrubbed off by the clutch packs. When cornering, the difference is used to overdrive the outside rear wheel."

    This is similar to the AWD system used on automatic shift Subarus in the 90's, with the addition of the clutch packs on each side. It might be more accurate to call it a "three wheel drive and temporary four wheel drive system." The Acura RL system uses a planetary gear set and is likely far more durable as well as being more efficient and capable. Compared to Subarus VTD system or the DCCD system in the WRX STi, it's tractor technology.
  • Thank you! It looks like wwest seems to be a bit of a Honda fanboy with little knowledge of how different AWD systems work. The SH-AWD system is more FWD than anything. All you really need to do is read the Wiki article, it sums it up. Not to mention various magazines covering SH-AWDs inner workings before it's release. The thing that scares me is 150,000 miles down the road. Those electronic packs out back taking all that excess abuse. SH-AWD falls short of what an AWD system is in my mind. Why is it missing a center differential. While my Subaru out in the driveway is utilizing a Torsen differential. When the snow falls this year I know I'm gonna be far happier than if I were driving an RDX. I know this because my good friend has one. I took it out last winter and it really just doesn't feel controlled to me in the snow. It doesn't feel as "on cue" as my Subaru does. I've also been in the auto industry as an employee and enthusiast for some time. What it comes down to for me in terms of AWD system I would like, it's Subaru Symmetrical or Audi Quattro (the true Tersen Quattro systems.)
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    "You don't think that AWD delivers a safety benefit in low traction conditions?"

    I think that any AWD system that results in the BRAKING effects of engine compression being primarily at the rear upon throttle lift or "clutch" downshifting will add some level of safety factor in low traction conditions.

    I also think that any FWD or F/AWD can too easily lend a false sense of security to a driver not fully knowledgeable or experienced in the dynamics of handling these on a low traction surface.

    Sorry if I have come across as a fan of Honda, my position is, has been, that the SH-AWD system is the best of the best for vehicles with a sideways mounted engine, or any "base" FWD converted to F/AWD.
  • Have you ever owned an AWD vehicle? The benefits of delivering power to all four wheels are not restricted to engine braking.

    "I also think that any FWD or F/AWD can too easily lend a false sense of security to a driver not fully knowledgeable or experienced in the dynamics of handling these on a low traction surface. "

    As that represents the vast majority of cars and crossovers sold in the Us today, I hope not......
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    "The benefits of delivering power to all four wheels is not restricted to engine braking.."

    Not what I said, NOT nearly what I said.

    There are LOTS of advantages of AWD...

    But all of those advantages will be easily overcome if engine compresssion braking is primarily at the front wheels, as it is in most F/AWD systems. The new Acura TL is getting a manual transmission, that would NOT be a viable option except for the ability to have rear torque biasing upon a downshift, or severe throttle lift, on a low traction surface.

    That's why there are very few stick shift FWD vehicles in the marketplace, and getting fewer every year. In the hands of an inexperienced driver they are PATENTLY UNSAFE in wintertime conditions. Even with FWD automatic transmissions the AAA is recommending that owners practice quickly shifting into neutral in preparation for doing that safely should the need arise, severe "plowing", understearing, on a low traction surface.

    Personally I would add my suggestion, gained from real life experience. In those same circumstances the use of rear implemented e-brake, judiciously/slightly, can be a tremendous aid in both holding the "line" and slowing the vehicle to gain more "bite" for those front wheels.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    "Have you ever owned an AWD vehicle...?"

    Yes, first an '85 Jeep Cherokee Limited, then a '92, both with RWD/AWD/4X4hi/lo modes. The '92 has been retired to a north central MT cattle and wheat ranch and is still doing stellar duty.

    A '94 AWD Ford Aerostar, "donated" to son.

    A '00 AWD Chrysler T&C, "donated" to daughter.

    An AWD '00 RX300, traded.


    A '94 AWD Ford Aerostar.

    2001 Porsche 911/996 C4

    2001 AWD RX300.

    The '00 Lexus RX was primarily FWD using a VC, Viscous Clutch, to apportion torque to the rear if the front wheels slipped consistently, for a prolonged period. The '01 primarily uses TC braking to apportion torque and has a more flaccid VC for backup. The VC in my '01 has failed completely, ~80,000 miles, so I only have TC for AWD fucntionality.
  • Your experience with modern AWD systems could use some updating.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706

    Currently looking closely at the CX-7, RDX, and Ridgeline.

    I Like the RDX's SH-AWD system, the CX-7's DISI engine, and the Ridgeline's utility. But I would settle, quickly, for a CX-7 with the FEH/MMH/Tribute's hybrid drive.


    But expect knowledgeable rebuttals.

    But for the moment I'm awaiting the details of the 2010 RX350 AWD system.

    Otherwise I will probably be converting my F/AWD '01 RX300 to R/AWD.
  • 645e3a645e3a Posts: 4
    > Instead, the rear differential is constantly overdriven by 1.7 percent. During straight line performance, that difference is scrubbed off by the clutch packs.

    Hmm.. I can't see how this can possibly help on fuel economy.. I look forward to the 2010 RDX rumoured with FWD as a powertrain option.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    "..scrubbed off by the clutch packs..." "...During straight line performance.."

    In this case the only time the rear clutch packs are seriously engaged is during moderate to heavy acceleration, and you can't accelerate forever.

    The RDX already has a FWD mode, all you need do is install a DPST switch to interrupt the flow of electricity to the rear clutch packs. Since they have positional feedback you would probably get a "don't care" failure code.
  • I chose the EX35 over the RDX due to the fact that the EX35 is rear drive based on the FM platform, (no rebadged Nissan version, where as the RDX is a rebadged Honda CRV with a turbo, other enhancements) handled better, nicer interior, more refined in my opinon vs the RDX. I like the EX styling better. The only plus of the RDX was that it has more room in the backseat/cargo, but not a lot more. There was very good pricing last month on the EX, $7k under MSRP. The best RDX pricing was only $2k or $3k under MSRP. IN the end the EX was nearly $3k cheaper than RDX.
  • smarty666smarty666 Posts: 1,503
    If ride quality is a priority of you then I would suggest the EX35 over the RDX. The ride on the EX35 was much smoother when I test drove it compared to the RDX, especially the models with AWD. The RDX with FWD had a slight improvment in ride quality over its AWD counterparts but still was much more harsh/choppy on the majority of surfaces compared to the EX35.

    I also liked the body style a little bit better on the EX35 than on the RDX. Don't get me wrong the RDX is a great looking vehicle with lots of power with that turbo I4, but if ride quality is a priority then get the EX35.

    Please, don't think I'm hating on Acura because I do drive a 08 TL :D
This discussion has been closed.