I don't see much difference of 07 X3 as comparing to previous model !!!

The 3.0Si with metallic paint and 18" rims costs CAD$54,500 + taxes ! No nav and only 225 lbs torque !!!

I don't understand why would people pay extra $10,000 for it instead of a RDX (in facts, it is CAD13,500 more than the base RDX)

RDX is a sure winner !!!

 

The name. BMW didn't do it much for me when I looked at the auto show, also I hate their C/SUVs. BMW makes some sick cars, but again, I don't much care for the SUVs.

Mike

 

Well, it's worth the extra money because, like many of BMW's cars (save the 7-series, for which the S-Class is top dog), it is the standard by which competitors are judged. The 3.0si is (probably) faster and outhandles the competition. Without a doubt, anyone looking for the finest CUV for whom cost is no object will go for the X3. While we might not love the way it looks inside or out, if you've been behind the wheel of a BMW (even the painfully underpowered 325i), you know where that extra money goes: their cars feel like they were carved from a solid block of steel. They stick to the road; they hustle through corners.

I know the reaction to my comment is going to be rough. . . but just know that I am trying to be as objective as possible. If you come back and tell me the RDX feels as solid, you haven't driven an X3. Admittedly, if I were to purchase a CUV tomorrow, I wouldn't think twice about getting an RDX. It does have superior technology and an arguably superior AWD system, but that's where it ends (except maybe reliability, but since when do enthusiasts care about reliability?).

So it all comes down to how much money you have to spend on a vehicle. Just like someone who can only afford to spend 30k should get a CX-7, someone who is happy to spend 40 or 45k on a CUV will likely make his way to the BMW dealership. It's those of us in the middle (or who value the few thousand dollars one way or the other) that end up with the RDX. Such is the conundrum of the RDX: it's better than the cheaper competition and not really the best in class, but surely the best for the money (of the premium brands; don't hate, you CX-7 people).

 

BMW's are fantastic, and for a real drivers car, they are good. But I have to wonder, what "real driver" gets a CUV? If I was spending that kind of money, well personally I'd go with the new MDX, BUT, If I was looking at BMWs I would be looking at either the 335 or the 330Xi.

Mike

 

Yes, that's true, a real driver doesn't want an SUV or even a CUV, but some people only have one car and justifiably need some cargo capacity. Also, you keep harping on about the MDX, but it's big. . . bigger than many people need a car to be. And however well it handles, it's still kind of big and doesn't have terribly impressive acceleration, so many people would be happier with a more maneuverable 5 passenger SUV.

 

With 2 kids, X3, CX-7, RDX etc are more interesting than a minivan, a huge SUV with body roll or a minivan. I'd love to get a sedan but there's no way it will accomodate me and the kids. So CUV are my main focus right now...(I hate wagons btw)

As to why someone would go get an X3 over the RDX? If you buy it, then sure RDX is defenitely much cheaper....Leasing though is another story. You have to understand that BMW have aggressive lease rates.

I'm in Canada and although I agree that you get a better value in the RDX, you can still get an X3 pretty well equipped for about the same price as the RDX or just a little more.

Reason is that BMW set residual values higher than Acura and that Acura interest rates on lease is at least 2.5% more per year.

Add the 4 years maintenance for free on the BMW and I can tell you I will still check BMW when it's time for me to lease my new car.

I like the RDX but there's no way I will pay 7.5% or 8% on a lease when a bunch of manufacturers have aggressive ( I should say reasonable) lease rates.

Get me a decent lease rate on the RDX and I'll probably bite. Give me those very high lease rates and I will definitely see what others offer for sure. Right now the X3 is on my list.

 

The X3 has always been reviewed as crap since its introduction, and still hasnt improved much. They couldnt give them away when it first came out.

 

From what I saw at the car show, CUVs are very small. For someone who wants a car for them and two kids, I would probably recommend an AWD sedan. The RDX was not as roomy as our TL, or at least didn't feel so.

Mike

 

AWD sedans umm...no folding seats (99.9% of them) plus small trunk in general. Not going there. An MDX would be nice but out of my budget. So we'll have to fit in a CUV if the RDX is too small I guess I'll have to see other models.

 

Not in Canada...I know there's critisism on the X3 sure but crap? Yeah...

He sure doesn't think it's crap plus a whole lot of other reviews I've seen:

http://www.forbesautos.com/research/...-update_2.html

Acura is not the only company in the world...as much as I like it.

 

My cousin leased a X3 and I was SO unimpressed I was shocked! Harsh ride, gutless power, loud and the list goes on......you can have BMW X3's.....

 

Did he get the new 2007 model or the previous years?

 

The RDX is more versatile than most sedans... However, our TL feels a bit less claustrophobic IMO. Again, the RDX is a great car, it just ended up being a bit on the small side for us.

Mike

 

The RDX is much more roomy than the A4 we traded in. On a recent dinner outing with family, those relegated to the back seats commented favorably on the space, much more comfortable than when they were in the Audi.

Just another data point.

 

I went from a 05 TL to an RDX. One of my reasons was the increase in space, at least in a few dimensions. I am 6'4" and find the driving position of the RDX to be much better for me. In the TL, my knees ended up on the sides of the steering wheel. I would say the RDX is a bit smaller side to side and does not have the nice open airy feel that the TL did. The loss of side to side room does not bother me though (I'm tall but scrawny) .