Acura RDX vs Infiniti EX35
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/00c498df290467a9e1e00cb2fbf67c39/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2Fb2214573351739b077f7d174afd227c5_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 0
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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDCpaMb_wrE
check this link of production version EX35
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDCpaMb_wrE
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Now if we could just get Lexus to get a small CUV on the market!
sanjay
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.
"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'
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
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.
Thoughts?
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.
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!
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.
Also, any thoughts about the 6cylinder Rav4?
Thanks alot!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Finally...!!
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.
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.
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.
I would have thought the smaller I4 would (should..??) do better since most hwy use would be off-boost.
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.
thanks!!
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.
Thank you!
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?
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.
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.
"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......
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.
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.
Currently...
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.
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.
Suggestions...??
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.
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.
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 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