My lease will end soon on my base 04 MDX (I already extended it 8 months to get my kid off to college).

I am seriously thinking about the RDX, rather than a new MDX, because the MDX is bigger than what I need, and of course more $$. On the other hand, I like my current MDX, and I could buy it for $19,000. It has 52,000 miles. I like the RDX, but think the fit and finish is not quite as nice as my MDX. I get 18/22 mileage on the MDX, and of course nice power with 6 cylinders. The RDX doesn't seem like an improvement mileage-wise.

Are there any ex-MDX owners who have transitioned to the RDX?

 

I'm not in your situation, but will throw in my two cents anyway.

Your generation MDX was a class-leading vehicle. Acura really did everything right with it. 52K miles is low, and it has a lot more life left in it. $19K isn't a bad buy-out price.

The RDX likely has some bells and whistles that simply didn't exist in 2004. You can't discount the emotional appeal of getting a brand-new vehicle. And the RDX is far and away sportier and more fun to drive.

The RDX definitely has a cheaper interior than most other Acuras (and certainly than the MDX). It will get poorer gas mileage than your MDX. And it is certainly smaller, although you said the MDX is now too big for your needs.

You need to ask yourself what your needs really are. Maybe an '08 TSX would fit the bill, and those are deeply discounted now that they're trying to make room for the '09. The RL is in the same position, and it is perhaps the best value luxury car in the market bar none. It all depends on what you need in your vehicle!

 

I think you should let go of your MDX and maybe purchase an used '05 or '06 MDX Touring w/ navi. In my area, these go for just a little more than your buy out price with similar mileage. I agree with your views on the new MDX and RDX since my parents were looking to buy a 1st gen MDX at the end of 2006. 2nd gen X is just too expensive and the RDX is not as luxurious as other Acuras. We decided to stick with our odyssey because of gas prices.

 

Not a previous MDX owner either, but the person I got my RDX from was...he had the MDX, saw the RDX and liked it, bought it and realize it was too small for him. Now he rides in a new MDX....

Switching to an RDX you will be getting a smaller and stiffer car for way more money than what you can get your leased MDX for, with little or no benefits in the mpg department.

 

Have you driven an RDX yet?

 

id say before you even consider making the move....know exactly what u would be getting yourself into first. The RDX driving experience will be totally different than ur current MDX. Some people somehow buy the RDX after test driving, etc, bring it home and have no idea why the ride is the way it is....not that its a bad thing...(which the ride is NOT) but some people dont care for the firm/stiff/sportyness of the RDX, especially if they are coming from a vehicle that couldnt be more opposite of that.

know what you are getting into, regardless of wanting to downsize, etc.

 

I had an 04 MDX, actually my wife was the primary driver, but when she was out on disability and before my 07 RDX was available, it was my daily driver for about 9 months.

No comparison, the RDX is a blast to drive.

The driving experience is very different.

Where the MDX drives heavy, not so for the RDX, plus the handling puts it in another dimension.

There were things on the MDX that I was looking forward to on the 07 RDX, memory seats, rain sensing wipers, auto on-off headlights and power-passenger seat.

While the 08 has the memory seats, the 09 adds the power-passenger seat so the RDX is slowly getting MDX items it should have had from the beginning.

I did average better MPG in the MDX, about 21-22 on my normal daily route where in the RDX, I am at 19-20 with 16k miles driven.

Now, having driven both, I would say go for the RDX.

 

heck, you've gotten rid of the last one! enjoy yourself some! lol

 

I had a 2005 MDX as a loaner about a year ago while my prior Acura, 2003 CL Type-S, was in for service. I wasn't impressed with the MDX. It felt heavy and truck like. In contrast, I love my '08 RDX! It's night and day. The RDX (even though comes in at almost 4000 lbs) feels very light on it's feet. The SH-AWD is just awesome. The turbo is a blast. Granted, the "luxury" appeal could have been a little better but it is still not bad all considering. The exterior fit and finish is impeccable. The RDX really provides a LOT for the price.

 

Thanks for this great advice. This is a terrific forum.

I will visit the dealer again this weekend. Sounds like there are excellent deals on 08s.

My second car is a 05 330xi, so I have access to performance when I am in the mood. I recognize that the RDX is sportier (and stiffer) than the MDX.

My reason for staying with an SUV is that it is nice to have for hauling stuff around and for long trips, and for snow (the 330xi is a real disappointment in snow). The MDX is about the only car I have owned that does not hurt my back during long drives, so the RDX is a risk from that point of view.

I think it is disappointing that a 08 four cylinder turbo RDX gets no better (perhaps worse) mileage than a much bigger 6 cylinder 265 horse 04 MDX. Perhaps I'll buy the MDX and wait for Acura to get the RDX amenities up to MDX standards and produce an RDX diesel.

 

if you take long drives definitely go for an mdx. i have an rdx and my back hurts after 3+ hours on the road...and i'm only 31. =b

we actually have both in our home. rdx is my daily driver but once in a while i'll take the mdx out and it has a more luxurious and comfortable feel to it. although i can't weave in and out of traffic like i do with the rdx. just my .02.

 

except one thing...its performance smokes the MDX WITH the same fuel economy.

 

actually, the power delivery of both is very different, with the Mdx taking the crown, the nonlinear response of the Rdx really put me off.

 

power delivery is a matter of choice and preference. bottom line, the RDX man handles the MDX in every respectable category, while coming in at 4k lbs and putting up same MPG or better.

linear power delivery or not....really doesnt matter. its preference, which may alter the way in which you THINK the car is performing, but in essence it doesnt effect the numbers that the RDX puts up. thats great that the MDX is linear obviously cuz of its V6...but u will also be more than 2 seconds slower from 0-60, and not even close to following it in the twisties.

 

the Mdx is not 2 seconds slower than the Rdx, its not possible. sure it weighs more but it has 300hp. it's only slightly slower than the rdx. the mdx also pulls more gs on the skidpad,&how can you say linear power doesnt matter? linear power is what every automaker strives for with a turbo engine and only few have gotten it down to a science, the rdx is good but still lacking, i found myself on the brakes midcorner because of the rush of power comes on at the wrong time upsetting the apex. my turbo xc90 has no such issues.

you THINK the rdx is two seconds faster but it's not.

 

Not possible? Really? do some research (which u obviously have not) and then get back to me.

Edmunds: The MDX gets from zero to 60 in 8.1 seconds; The MDX ran our slalom at 62.6 mph

RDX: the RDX boosted from zero to 60 mph in 6.8; It made it through our 600-foot slalom at a wicked 65.7 mph

motor trend has the RDX clocked 0-60 at 6.5 MDX mid 7's. road holding, etc.

please shed some more light on this subject with actual numbers and not what you think just because of a power rating.

 

Ive done tones of research
Car and Driver - Mdx - 7.0
Car and Driver - Rdx - 6.5

if you want to ignore the fact that a 240hp suv at 4000 pounds cannot be 2 seconds faster than another suv with 300hp that weighs 4600 pounds, sure the rdx is 2 seconds faster, ignorance is bliss i guess

at best, it's less than a second slower, its reflected in c/d testing. C/d also got .84 on the skidpad for the Rdx and .86 for the Mdx. have you ever heard of power to weight? i drove both of these suvs and the Rdx is not 2 seconds faster than the Mdx, sorry.

 

The power delivery and throttle response of the MDX is much better than the RDX despite the weight difference.

I've driven both as well, and Lexia is spot on. You can't just throw magazine numbers around and expect them to stick. The spongy throttle response is the major difference between the two - which is essentially the thing that affects everyday driveability, where the MDX shines.

Once the RDX has its turbo spooled up, it moves along nicely, but the MDX has the better engine, without any question in my mind.

 

Buying the 5 year old MDX is a lower value investment than buying an '08 or '09 RDX.

Consider from a safety standpoint, that the RDX is a "Top Safety Pick" and the '04 MDX doesn't even have side curtain airbags.

Financially, if you are planning to lease again, the new car is a better investment than the '04 used car.

I think the RDX will give you slightly better fuel numbers, about 19/24.

Yes the RDX is a bit downmarket from the MDX in the appointments and furnishings, but it's still pretty nice.

However, as MMike1981, bobq and Carbon2008 point out, in the RDX it's ALL about the driving experience. Take one on an extended test-drive. You have to love "sporty" and tolerate "rough".

 

Consumer Reports does their 0-60 testing from a stand-still, engine at idle. The MDX clocks 8.0 and the RDX 7.4.

The big difference is in the Avoidance Maneuver (emergency lane change). Here the RDX's 53.5 puts in in sport sedan territory (BMW 325xi= 53.0) and the MDX at 48.0 comes in slower than a Chevy Equinox.

 

....if you think the MDX offers the PERFOMANCE on par or close to an RDX and that the test drive backs it up....great. Coming from a BMW you should be able to (quite quickly) ascertain that the MDX is no RDX in the driving experience department. IF you are a city driver mostly...quite possibly you may want to look elsewhere as in a different vehicle all together.

in the real world (even tho the MDX will have more immediate power delivery) the RDX is overall MORE ATHLETIC, quicker, fun to drive, nimble etc than an MDX. you 2 guys talk about the power delivery from the RDX's turbo like its a CX-7 or worse. cmon now, i dunno what RDX u are driving, its not even close to a slouch with lag. its a bat out of hell.

BOTTOM LINE....its faster and quicker to timed traps than an MDX...and its slalom/manuevering abilities are better than an MDX. Once again, a test drive will put it to bed....but then again why do we rely on magazine numbers? lol

Lexia is stating the MDX performance facts and holding it to 1 exact test by car and driver, and fails to acknowledge (even their previous tests where it returned less favorable results) and other mag's testing numbers as well. the RDX, across the board, has returned better numbers in almost every possible category when tested. that is undeniable. as far as my 2 second gap comment, I apologize for overstating the difference. its more like 1 second+.

have fun shopping, and dont get me wrong...the MDX is a great truck....but if you are looking to downsize, but retain an excellent driving experience, its a no brainer in the money & fun factor. the money you will save going for an RDX vs an MDX will justify any MPG offsett by itself straight from the sticker difference. Also, im guessing you already know the RDX is a downgrade on the interior, but if you can live with that, my guess is you will be happy.

 

and after all this babling and BS...we have now taken the argument of the guy keeping his 2004 MDX and are now talking about the NEW MDX

sorry man. if your intention was to comapre just the 2004 vs a new RDX....there is no comparison

 

New Cars are not investments. There is no intrinsic return on investment. They are depreciable assets. The exception being a vintage automobile.

 

its more like less than 1 second. its ok though, i understand that you own an Rdx and wont admit the Mdx has a much better delivery of power, ive driven Cx-7's as well and they had less turbo lag than the Rdx I test drove. youre really biased and that's okay with me.. believe whatever you want to believe.

 

r u serious.

I owned a CX-7 before my RDX. Im on my 2nd RDX. Less turbo lag than the Acura...now i know ur on crack.

do u own an RDX?

 

add to that, BIASED? WHAT? I drove the MDX along with the RDX before i bought mine. Its not even close to the feeling you get once ur in the RDX.

how about....ur ignorant to facts? guy, its proof in the pudding. besides ur one test sheet ur going from (which is still slower than the RDX) my argument was never about power delivery, it was about performance vs performance, and i didnt stray from that....if u think ur gonna reason with someone that an MDX is a better performing vehicle than the RDX...be my guest. if you like the way power is delivered in the MDX...thats fine...

whether its an NA motor or a turbo motor that gets u up to speed...if you dont care for the way in which it does..., it doesnt really matter....my point from the get-go was that the RDX offers much better performance (which it does) for the SAME MPG.

im sorry i misspoke on the 2 seconds...going striaght from edmunds it saw the R in the 6 sec range and the M in the 8 sec, so I wrote quick.

 

This is an apples and oranges debate. You can't compare a truck based SUV to a car based CUV, but it seems a lot of folks are trying.

 

more or less.

 

invest
transitive verb
1 : to commit (money) in order to earn a financial return
2 : to make use of for future benefits or advantages

intrinsic
adjective
1 a: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing <the intrinsic worth of a gem>

I won't argue the financial definition. But people invest in cars for their value per dollar spent.

When I buy a car I "make use of it for future benefit or advantage" and I expect the "essential nature or constitution" of it's safety, performance, reliability and comfort to be a good investment.

 

the Mdx is on a stretched Accord platform, theyre both unibody, "truck" means body on frame.

mmike... i have 3 Cx-7's at my disposal and ive driven them all, they have less lag, and my xc90 has way less lag than both. i dont care for the lack of bluetooth, or homelink, or aux in so the Cx-7 isnt for me, which is why I'm taking a gander at the Cx-9.
the Mdx is vastly better in power delivery, the lag in the Rdx was unbecoming for a luxury Suv. Im still exploring my options, but the initial testdrive of the Rdx left me wanting something more refined in power delivery, ride and road noise for 37 grand, its clear Acura shortchanged the Rdx to keep it from bumping heads with slightly more expensive Mdx.

keep the insults to yourself, im unsubbing to this thread because you refuse to be reasonable.

 

lol

if you dont own an RDX and frankly dont own an MDX either...u DO need to stay out of it for now.

buy one, then u can discuss it this 'matter of factly. you cant possibly compare driving characterstics like you are just on a TEST DRIVE. and if you can...drive the friggin thing again, you are so off.

 

good you have a few mazdas at ur disposal....i owned and drove my GT for a year....its turbo is a joke compared to the Acura, thats frankly acknowledged in any circle....now if ur just trying to be rediculous and hammer away at the RDX some more...whatever.

 

I'm actually suprised by that quote - I drove the 07 CX-7 before I bought the RDX, and thought the lag was much worse in the Mazda. It also seemed that the transmission was too eager to downshift, perhaps because of the 6spd ratios, which also led to a delay before the power came on.

Perhaps they've improved the 08s.

 

Dude you are rambling. Which review or comparison done by journalists has the Mazda ranking above the Acura.
You perfer the other vehicle, thats cool. Buy it and join that forum. Why waste your time here?

RDX is not a luxury suv. Its seems to be a daily driver with mild sporting intentions.
Its a cross over. Get an Enclave or CX9 if you want posh. Then enjoy that legendary Mazda resale value.

 

Bravo Webster,

But your definition of value can be also given to a lap dance.( or other services).

 

val·ue
Function: noun
1: a fair return or equivalent in goods, services, or money for something exchanged
2: the monetary worth of something : market price
3: relative worth, utility, or importance

If you hire a guy to paint your rec room, you do expect "a fair return" right?

If you hire lap dancers to paint your rec room, well....you still expect your money's worth. (Particularly should the missus come home early.)