Acura RDX v Nissan Rogue

salinas

The RDX is obviously a more "luxury" crossover then the Nissan Rogue, but I'm still curious about people's opinions comparing the two. After all, people do compare the RDX with the CR-V and Mazda CX-7.

From a performance standpoint, I'm sure the RDX outperforms the Rogue, but truthfully, I'm not an agressive driver. I would look to the Acura mostly for potentially better reliability, safety and maybe a more refined interior. What other features of the RDX are selling points for it over the Rogue?

flats

If you are into number crunching, check out edmunds comparison at:
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/nvc/edmunds/VehicleComparison?styleid=100905541&styl- eid=100944561&maxvehicles=5&refid=&op=3&tab=print

salinas

Thanks, that's a useful list. I probably wouldn't go for the tech on the RDX as I don't care that much for a navigation system, but there doesn't seem to be that many more features the RDX has compared to the rogue. The RDX has memory seats, reverse tilt outside mirror and dual lighted vanity mirrors, rear folding armrest with storage, tilt and telescoping steering wheel. More then likely, a better sound system. Considering the huge price tag difference, I was hoping for a few more bells and whistles. But maybe those few bells and whistles, and the overall performance and quality of Acura vs Nissan, are worth the few thousand more dollars.

flats

I've only driven the RDX. It is an absolute blast to drive!

The Rogue has gotten some nice reviews. The only thing I see consistant in the negative area would be its small cargo area when compared to its natural competitors like Rav4 and CR-V. But that may not be an issue for you.

Obviously, the RDX will be more expensive. But since you are comparing it to the Rogue, I am assuming you need more then price difference to justify your purchase one way or the other. When I price out the Rogue, I quickly got into the 27k MSRP range. Seeing how the car just hit the market, that's most likely what you would have to pay. The Base RDX is going for 31-32k. So the difference is 4-5k ish.

Check out Edmunds True Cost to Own. You'll quickly learn there is more to buying a car then the initial purchase. The Rogue isn't there yet, fyi.
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/cto/CTOintroController

I wish the RDX got better mpg. That's my main beef with it.

mikelevine64

Another Item to consider is the fuel reg. for both vehicles.

RDX Premium Unleaded

Rogue Reg. Unleaded

salinas

If I really loved the RDX I might still go for it even with the higher "over time" costs, but somehow I didn't. I can see the appeal for those who want a sports car but need more space to tote along friends or bikes or something. In my case, I found the roughness of the ride distracting.

Anyway, thanks for the input!

mikelevine64

I will not consider the RDX due to the Prem fuel requirment.

The price of fuel is just going to keep up & up :mad: :mad:

babbot

I was just looking at the same comparison, and putting the two of these side by side with the Edmunds comparison tool really sealed the deal for me. The specs and features are extremely similar (factoring in all a fully loaded Rogue).

I've driven both the RDX base model (ie; no navigation) and the fully loaded Rogue.

The advantages of the RDX are primarily a few more luxury/tech toys and a generally more luxurious finish, and a ton of power in the engine (240hp). While it was a blast to drive, I walked away feeling that it was not worth the money. Also, folding down the back seats was a pain, with having to flip up the seat part before lowering the seat back.

I originally saw the base Rogue and wasn't impressed, but the fully loaded AWD is another story. While not as luxurious as the RDX, it's still pretty nice, especially from the driver's seat. It handles really well, and with the manual shift option/paddle shifters it's pretty fun to drive and I can manually push the 170 hp engine to give me the power I need to get on and around on the highway.

All that being said, I'll be buying a Rogue this week, mostly because of the $5000+ I'll save up front, and the big ongoing savings of 5+ mpg while using regular instead of premium.

johnny98

Shouldn't you be comparing the Nissan Rogue to the Honda CRV? In terms of comfort and refinement and performance, the Acura RDX is a completely different class of vehicle, competing more with the Infinity EX and FX.

slimhiggs

I compared the CRV to the Rogue --- In the end, driving the CRV, I still felt like a "soccer mom" --- an image I wanted to leave behind. The Rogue makes me feel like I've moved up a little --- dashboard is nicer and the Bose system caters to my music needs.

wstevec

I totally agree, not be mention that at $33K +, the least they could do is stick a
V-6 that takes regular in it. I am sure they could put the V-6 from the Accord in it with little trouble. If they did, I would be buying one tomorrow. Right now, I am all mixed up on what I want, the BMX X3 is nice but costly and needs premium gas and the new Infiniti EX35 is right up with the BMW. I might just wait and look into the new Toyota Venza crossover. Anyone know of any future plans that Acura may have for the RDX? :confuse: Thanks.

wwest

If you really truly need AWD then the RDX SH-AWD system is head and shoulders above, better, than the Rogue which can only route 30% of the engine torque to the rear. Basically the Rogue is just another patently unsafe, squirrelly handing F/AWD vehicle.

If they were to "clean up" the super-cluttered dash area of the RDX I might even buy one.

ticmxman

OK IF the Rogue is "Basically the Rogue is just another patently unsafe, squirrelly handing F/AWD vehicle" what should the common man/budget buyer look at. And I've yet to see all the posts complaining about the basic awd vehicles (CRV, RAV4, Rogue) that are "patently unsafe and squirrelly handling", I guess all the owners are still in the dark on their poorly designed vehicles.

wwest

Here's an idea of how bad it really is...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=t09ExAUgtyE&feature=related

furb21

:confuse: Pretty good video but what does that have to do with the Rogue? Did they perform the same test on the Rogue and I missed it? Maybe you meant to paste a different link. I'm looking for performance "Cons" on the Rogue since I have finally narrowed my search down to the Rogue or the Outback (CR-V just got cut). I'd like to see the same test performed w/ a Rogue. If it fails miserably, like most others, I'll buy an Outback.

ticmxman

The Rogue was not tested. I also noted the video cut out the disclaimer about real world driving condtions versus the test. That being said IF I had to deal with snow and ice a Subaru would get a lot of consideration. I drive fwd in my area so the point irelavant to me.

wwest

Since the Roque can never apportion more than 30% of the engine torque to the rear the video has importance.

mlmcgahee

Get your facts straight man....

2008 Nissan Rogue AWD
From a Stand Still: 50% Front and 50% Rear.
While Driving: Front Wheel Drive Only.
Cornering: 30% Rear and 70% Front.
:P
The Video was hype. You must be a Subaru sales person......

wwest

No, retired, computer manufacturing/sales.

I thought that I got that directly from the Nissan site, I'll go back and look.

Lexus fan here.

And no, the video seems true to the facts to me.

mlmcgahee

No problem...
We have something in common. I am a computer technician.

I work out of my Rogue and drive it 300+ miles per week. I had a 2007 Toyota RAV4 bought in April 2007, but was a Lemon Law buyback due to 3 transmissions in 6 months. I have had my Rogue for 4 months now and it's been perfect so far.

http://www.carspace.com/mlmcgahee
ces1938, "Toyota RAV4 Cruise Control Problems" #1, 4 Jul 2007 7:21 am

Mike