Acura RDX vs Mazda CX-7

135

Comments

  • extech2extech2 Member Posts: 120
    Last week we drove a Mazda CX7 GT 2-wheel drive and a tech-package Acura RDX. Even in top trim the leather seats of the Mazda felt like imitation vinyl, but the outside is great while the RDX exterior is just as dorky as the Honda CRV. Later we drove an Infinity FX 35. After the Acura the FX felt like a Cadillac, which might not be bad for some drivers. In my opinion the Acura is by far the most entertaining car of the three. I don't like the Acura colors or its exterior styling, but I still want it more than the other two. A question for RDX drivers: we didn't notice a dedicated coolant temperature gauge on the dash and the salesman showed us that one needs to change to a different screen to keep an eye on that. Is this bothering you?
  • defreitasmdefreitasm Member Posts: 152
    OK... what does imitation vinyl feel like and why would someone want to imitate vinyl anyway?
  • rblelandrbleland Member Posts: 312
    "Imitation vinyl" - the ultimate oxymoron....
  • d_hyperd_hyper Member Posts: 130
    It feels like a poor imitation of the leather imitation, I suppose.
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Member Posts: 498
    Maybe it's "pleather" - Plastic Leather :P

    Vince.
  • extech2extech2 Member Posts: 120
    "Imitation vinyl" - the ultimate oxymoron...

    Forgive me for not being clear on that one. What I meant was that the leather seats of the CX 7 weren't quite as nice as a high-grade vinyl.
  • nmknmk Member Posts: 111
    Obviously, the literalists in this crowd have too little a sense of humor. :shades:
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Member Posts: 498
    Now that you've trashed the CX-7 to no-end, are you satisfied? Time for you to go play somewhere else! ;)

    Vince.
  • extech2extech2 Member Posts: 120
    I'm not trashing the CX7. It is the best looking car on the market after the Mini Cooper and drives really well. But a great car deserves a better interior, that's all. I hope Mazda is paying attention.
  • carlitos92carlitos92 Member Posts: 458
    Well said.

    I don't know how much "better leather" costs, but I would have gladly paid a couple hundred more dollars for it in my CX-7. I'd pay another few hundred for REAL carpet as opposed to the mouse fur Mazda uses.

    However, I would not buy the RDX, even at the CX-7's price. But that's based almost solely on looks, and that's just me... ;)
  • extech2extech2 Member Posts: 120
    If I'd get the CX-7 I'd spend a few hundred dollars on sheep skin seat covers and plush carpets, at least on the front. The back doesn't matter much to me - my dogs never complain. (This isn't true, they hate it when they slide off the leather seats in the back of our Accord, and bark furiously in protest.) By the way, I agree that the RDX is the CRV's ugly step brother. And our Accord is even more homely looking, but it would run circles around the other two with its light weight and 6 cylinder engine.
  • budhbudh Member Posts: 109
    I just returned from a nearly 200 mile round trip to Fort Wayne, Indiana to test drive an RDX. Nearest dealer to South Bend is Fort Wayne and southern Chicago, both about equidistant.

    I liked nearly everything about the RDX other than engine noise to a small degree, and that you certainly felt every bump in the RDX compared to my 2002 Toyota Highlander. As has been mentioned in these forums, the RDX seems to try to satisfy the spirited enthusiast, and also the person who wants luxury and quietness, and fails to do either completely.

    My main goals were to check headroom issues, and also to see if you could maintain a constant 75-80 mph without the turbo involved on high steady speed. Good on both counts.

    The fact that I can (barely) sit in the RDX driver seat with its required moonroof, and that the CX-7 I must order without a moonroof (and therefore lose out on several option possibilities) will probably sway me toward the RDX. I just wish the RDX ride was a bit less harsh.

    Bud H
  • defreitasmdefreitasm Member Posts: 152
    It's funny but after awhile, most of the complaints and comparisons I see in the forums begin to get bizzare. We just can't find enough things wrong with a vehicle on our own anymore. Others have to point out the things we normally would never pay attention to. So much so that we begin to act like hypochondriacs and start to examine all the frilly options, the carpet, the seats, the steering wheel, does it have Ipod and bluetooth? Can it core an apple?? I dunno, who cares anyway? It's just a car dammit!!! Shut-up and drive!!!!

    Oh and about that gas mileage thing.... I normally don't pay attention to how much I pay for gas... let alone how many miles to the gallon I get. Now I keep checking but not that I'm starting to getting close to exceeding the EPA's figures with my CX7, I think it's time to stop counting since it will only get better now that warm weather is almost here.

    This is not directed to anyone in particlur but if it feels like you... maybe it is.

    :P
  • tidestertidester Member Posts: 10,059
    Can it core an apple??

    Now that's bizarre! ;)

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper

    P.S. Spell check is good! :)
  • astegmanastegman Member Posts: 171
    Nah, it's not just you. We, as the buyer, have the obligation to research the hell out of the car we're thinking of buying. If you do your homework, you won't get caught with your pants down. If you don't...well, then you really can't complain. There are limits, of course. Just today - 7 months after buying my CX-7 - I discovered that there doesn't seem to be a signal light to let you know you're out of wiper fluid. That's pretty pathetic, in my opinion. However, is that something I would've researched prior to buying the car? No. And even if I'd known that going in, it wouldn't have been a deal breaker in the grand scheme of things.

    So yeah, enough with the complaining and kvetching. Life's too short. Do your homework and make a choice based upon all the info that's out there. Or not! It's up to each one of us.
  • carlitos92carlitos92 Member Posts: 458
    Oh, c'mon now... If all you need in a vehicle is four round wheels, gears, and an engine, what'd you go and buy a 'spensive CX-7 for? :P

    Your point is taken, but everybody has their hot buttons, and we're all different. Me, I could care less about a power passenger seat or seat memory. The idea of in-car navigation is actually a detractor rather than a benefit for me. And a power liftgate?... Simply ABSURD in my book. I know many will disagree with those statements. No problem. Let 'em complain. We're all here for the conversation anyway, right?

    As for the carpet in the CX-7, I take issue with it because my 15-year-old Civic had carpet that was like lambswool in comparison. The Mazda's natty rug certainly doesn't compare well to the RDX, and maybe not even to a Kia.

    iPods are another hot button for me because I have 8,000 songs on mine and find myself always with it at my side. Had to pay $150 for a part AND rip apart my dash to hook it up to my CX-7. Would people have complained if ALL the CX-7s had iPod hookups and the base price were $150 more? Dunno.

    All in all, I love my CX-7, and yes, I will shut up and drive now. But if I can't say "the emperor has no clothes" I can at least imply that he is improperly dressed in some areas... :P
  • defreitasmdefreitasm Member Posts: 152
    "Can it core an apple??

    Now that's bizarre!"

    You'ld have to be a Honeymooner's fan to get that one.
  • defreitasmdefreitasm Member Posts: 152
    "There are limits, of course. Just today - 7 months after buying my CX-7 - I discovered that there doesn't seem to be a signal light to let you know you're out of wiper fluid."

    You need a light to tell you when you run out?? When you run out you'll be the first to know. LOL

    Just kidding... I know you mean low level light.
  • defreitasmdefreitasm Member Posts: 152
    "Oh, c'mon now... If all you need in a vehicle is four round wheels, gears, and an engine, what'd you go and buy a 'spensive CX-7 for?"

    CX7... expensive???? I guess it depends on how you look at it. It's not the cheapest car out there but almost fully loaded at 30,000 invoice doesn't seem like much these days for a crossdresser.


    "The idea of in-car navigation is actually a detractor rather than a benefit for me."
    There are pros and cons to in-car navigation.

    "As for the carpet in the CX-7, I take issue with it because my 15-year-old Civic had carpet that was like lambswool in comparison."

    I don't even look at the carpet because the mats cover most of it anyway. I also went out and bought the winter mats. They are a great value. They don't hold as much water as some of the other brands out there, but they do the job. Regular mats just get worn out or stained much too quickly.

    "iPods are another hot button for me because I have 8,000 songs on mine and find myself always with it at my side. Had to pay $150 for a part AND rip apart my dash to hook it up to my CX-7."

    Yes they should have included an Ipod connection, but there are lots of cars out there that don't support that feature or allow connecting some kind of external media. Someday it will be the standard until something else comes out.
  • 1stmazda1stmazda Member Posts: 17
    My cx-7 does have a fluid low indicator. And it works.

    Maybe there's a problem with your vehicle?
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Member Posts: 498
    "My cx-7 does have a fluid low indicator. And it works."

    Learn something new every day! I've never allowed my fluid to get that low, therefore, the indicator has never popped on, therefore, I never thought about whether or not the CX-7 has an idiot light for washer fluid. Damn, those Mazda engineers think of everything! :P

    Vince.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    I missed that episode of the Honeymooners - now it all makes sense. :shades:
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    It does have a low fluid indicator light. Maybe your lines were clogged?
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    No, it's not just you. The comparisons do get bizarre. Last week, I found myself posting a link that compared three cars by the amount of chemical pollutants ("new car smell") each emit into the cabin.

    (FWIW, the RDX scored "low concern" at 0.8 and the CX-7 earned a "moderate" 2.1 score.)

    But anyway...

    As bizarre as these comparisons can be (and typically are) they do teach us new things to consider. Each reader can decide for themselves whether or not the information is useful.

    Besides, they give us a break from the usual 0-60 test results and magazine racing.
  • nmknmk Member Posts: 111
    In addition, it lets Mazda know what the owner/driver complains about and it should make the next model better. :P

    BTW, They never put wiper fluid in mine. :( I found this out because after a number of months I needed to use it, and it tweren't there.

    So where is this supposed light on a GT model? :confuse:
  • wjbushsrwjbushsr Member Posts: 135
    My CX-7 must have been one of the first ones off the line, I got mine June of last year as soon as they were released to the States, it certainly does not have a sensor for low fluid level.
  • astegmanastegman Member Posts: 171
    I checked the owner's manual and indeed there is a light that's supposed to show up when the wiper fluid gets low...however, this light is only on "some models" (wording as per the manual, not me), but it doesn't say which models. I have the top of the line model (I'm embarrassed to say I can't remember what it's called), so I sort of assume I'm supposed to have that light. All I know is that on Wednesday, when I went to spritz my back window, no fluid came out...so, either I have the light and it just didn't work, or I don't have the light, or perhaps the lines were clogged (although I did refill when I got home, and it took almost a whole jug of fluid, so I have to think it was pretty darn near empty).

    Not sure where on the cluster this light's supposed to show up; it's not specified in the manual as far as I could tell. Anyway, this is quite off-topic for this thread. Sorry.
  • defreitasmdefreitasm Member Posts: 152
    "I checked the owner's manual and indeed there is a light that's supposed to show up when the wiper fluid gets low...however, this light is only on "some models" (wording as per the manual, not me), but it doesn't say which models. I have the top of the line model (I'm embarrassed to say I can't remember what it's called), so I sort of assume I'm supposed to have that light. All I know is that on Wednesday, when I went to spritz my back window, no fluid came out...so, either I have the light and it just didn't work, or I don't have the light, or perhaps the lines were clogged (although I did refill when I got home, and it took almost a whole jug of fluid, so I have to think it was pretty darn near empty)."

    I ran out of fluid once, maybe twice, and did not notice a light either. The top model is called GT with Tech package wich I have. I would assume if there is a light that would be the model that has it. Maybe it's part of the CEL light. LOL
  • nmknmk Member Posts: 111
    Maybe it's part of the CEL light. LOL

    YES!!!! it stands for "Can't eject liquid" :shades:
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Member Posts: 498
    Motor Trend has another online article, RDX vs CX-7 vs RAV4. They stuck CX-7 at the bottom.

    What do you think?

    http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suv/112_0610_crossover_comparison/index.html-

    Vince.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    I think the editors put a tiger in the middle of a cat fight.

    Seriously, I can understand why the editors would pit the RDX up against the CX-7 and RAV4. All three were relatively new at the time. (It's an older article.) Enthusiasts care about new vehicles not old ones. And based on what I've seen, BMW was not about to send their 3-year old X3 into battle with the RDX until they refreshed it. Nor would Infiniti want to send their long-in-the-tooth FX35. Can't blame them. That means the MT editors had little choice, but to love the ones they were with.

    That written, understanding why they did it is not the same thing as condoning it.

    I think the Mazda suffered in this comparo because the RDX had clear advantages in terms of sportiness and creature comforts. Meanwhile, the RAV4 had the edge in utility. That left nowhere for the CX-7 to shine. It couldn't get a word in edgewise.
  • johnny98johnny98 Member Posts: 88
    Those 3 vehicles are difficult to compare because the prices are different and some will say they are in 3 different classes. I think the bottom line is if you don't mind spending a little more money, then the RDX Tech beats the CX-7 in every way. If you do factor in price, then the value judgments will vary from person to person and exactly which features you need or want.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    Agreed on all points.

    Furthermore, if MT had included other vehicles in the comparison, it may have changed things. For example, if the Forester XT had been included, then the RAV4 may not have seemed quite so fast. Meanwhile, the RDX would have looked even more expensive. A V6-powered Suzuki might have spread the love a little thinner, too. That would have given the Mazda a better chance at pulling off a "jack-of-all-trades" win.
  • defreitasmdefreitasm Member Posts: 152
    The article doesn't change anything for me. I would still have bought the CX-7 out of those three. I drove them all plus, the Sante Fe, the CRV and the Pilot. For my money the CX7 does what I need it to do. If I only commpare the three in the article, the RDX was more than I wanted to spend. If I was going to go up in price then I would have gone even higher and considered the MDX or looked at a Toureg despite VW's lower relibilty ranking. As for the RAV, it just didn't handle as well as the other two and the looks just don't do anything for me. In fact the looks of the RDX, though better than the RAV, still don't as much for me. There are no wrong choices, but for my money, it's still the CX7.
  • coder0000coder0000 Member Posts: 3
    well, after weeks of research, test drive, haggling at different dealers. I finally purchased the cx-7.

    RDX is nice inside, but for $6000 more, I expect a lot more than a CRV based turbo crossover. Bluetooth, pedal shifter, etc.. all sound nice, but you have to ask yourself if these are worth $6000. Anyways, my decision on a cx-7 is purely based on the way this beast drives. RDX on sharp turns give me a feeling that the car is about to flip where as CX-7 hugs ground amazingly. (btw, i traded in my bmw 330, so i know how a good handling car supposed to be like)

    RDX also is very bumpy in my opinion, some people might like that, but i am not a big fan of too much road feel.

    Finally, the worst thing about RDX is the turbo air intake sound, the high pitched hissing sound might attract Racing enthusiasts, but not a day to day driver like me where i just want to get from point A to point B with some fun while driving.

    Turbo lag is nonexistent in my cx-7, sometimes i wish turbo won't kick in so i can save gas. LOL by the way, i am driving nice and slow for the first 1000 miles. i might get 27+MPG driving this way.

    At this moment, i have no complaints, let's see if CEL or SOUND system issues happen in my car.
  • coder0000coder0000 Member Posts: 3
    oh yeah, i did test RAV and SANTA Fe, RAV is boring and has NO LUXURY items, it is like a typical boring toyota. Santa Fe is cheap from outside and inside, boring and i just can't even put in 15k for it.

    Defreitasm you said it correctly, if i am gonna spend the money for RDX, i might as well spend another couple thousand more and get MDX, it is a truly amazing luxury suv.
  • johnny98johnny98 Member Posts: 88
    What was the price of your CX-7 that is $6K less than an RDX? You can get an RDX for under $30K these days.
  • coder0000coder0000 Member Posts: 3
    RDX with tech package is no way under 30k, especially brand new. If you can get a RDX for under 30k drive out, i will buy it from you right now.

    CX-7 drive out is 30k GT, AWD, ALL PACKAGES, and IPOD, ROOF RACK, AUTO DIM threw in by the dealer. brand new by the way.

    RDX with tech package and just a few accessories drive out will be around 36k at least.
  • johnny98johnny98 Member Posts: 88
    $36K is full MSRP for a RDX tech. You should be able to buy one for under $34K.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    Thats a good deal on the CX-7.

    Since you just bought it, I'm assuming the gas cap has already been replaced, and maybe the IMRC. If so, then you should not see a CEL.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    "The article doesn't change anything for me. I would still have bought the CX-7 out of those three."

    An article's ranking alone should never change a personal choice. Everyone weighs features and performance differently.

    Articles of that breed are meant to rate vehicles based on what the editors perceive as the most important criteria. If they, as a group, feel that fuel economy is more important that acceleration, then the rankings change. It doesn't change the way the vehicles performed.

    Consumer Reports, for example, is notorious for taking a very family-oriented view of their vehicles rather than the enthusiast-biased reviews of mags like C&D or MT.

    So, when I read an article like the one linked above, I try to determine what criteria they focused on. It seems to me, they ultimately choose performance and features above practicality, but gave the 2nd place nod to the RAV4 for its versatility.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    Consumer Reports, for example, is notorious for taking a very family-oriented view of their vehicles rather than the enthusiast-biased reviews of mags like C&D or MT.


    Agreed. Mazda is more of an enthusiast brand, and Consumer Reports bashed the CX-7.

    I think too many people think what CR says is law, when it's not.
  • johnny98johnny98 Member Posts: 88
    Consumer Reports doesn't really bash a car unless they feel it is unsafe or unreliable. In the CX-7's case, they did consider sportiness and the CX-7 came in last place in its class in both acceleration and handling. It was also last in passenger space, interior refinement, and gas mileage. They also had a specific complaint about the very sluggish drivetrain. Motor Trend also rated the CX-7 last out of 3, so CR is not that far off. The only place the CX-7 wins is in price, and that's where you value judgments come in to play. I am interested in reading other detailed magazine comparison tests if you can reference any.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    Yes and no.

    CR definitely has a different approach to their reviews and ratings. But they also picked the Mazda5 and Mazda3 in their "best in class" awards. So, I can't see them being anti-Mazda.
  • sssfegysssfegy Member Posts: 132
    Are you kidding they got the 0-60 in 9.6 sec.! What were they not smoking!If you like the interior layout and material quality on the Toyota better,then you like trucks more than sports cars...my dealer has Toyotas and Mazdas,the Cx7 is much more refined in my book,how does Mt consider the Rav in the same class? The Cx7 looks much better than the RDX(not in my opinion only!and it will almost exactly match the RDX's performance (based on driver magazines not cr), if they got the car to do the 0-60 in 9.6 sec. how can I trust the performance numbers from them? Ofcourse it will be last, and the only explaination is that they hate Mazda. Look at how they rate the M6's reliability vs Fusion! Advertisement maybe?
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    The CX-7 does give up refinement when compared to the RDX and X3, but, not the Toyota RAV4. Keep in mind they are luxury vehicles, except the RAV4.

    I don't think CR is on at all with their write up of the CX-7. Sluggish? I don't understand that. 9.1 0-60? Others have driven it to that speed in 7.XX seconds.

    CR is not in business to test performance. I think they are only good for long term reliability. They contradict almost every write up that has tested the CX-7 about performance.

    I have seen on CR's website, they finally addressed the fact that a PCM flash eliminates the turbo lag.
  • rnmomrnmom Member Posts: 32
    Look and almost leased the RDX but my husband refused the idea of preumium gas. What about the CX7 what type of gas? Last we have looking at the Sabura Tribeca it has all the features of the Murano?
  • johnny98johnny98 Member Posts: 88
    CX-7 also requires premium gas.
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    Subaru just released a much-improved Tribeca in terms of both engine performance and styling. It's worth a look.

    Tell your husband to get over the premium gas hang-up. ;) Going with regular might save you $200 a year. Buying a CR-V would save you $4,000 up front! Penny-pinching on fuel seems kinda silly in the grand scheme of things.
  • erhayeserhayes Member Posts: 10
    In addition; the new Tribeca used regular gas in it's 3.6L engine. Maybe the best vehicle of the ones we're discussing?
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles

Your Privacy

By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.