acura1972

hi guys, i was convinced of buying the 2010 rdx initially until i test drove the q5 last weekend... essentially, here in canada, there's a price diff of $5-6k for the q5 configuration that i want vs. the 2010 rdx base pkg... upon further research, there are things i cannot "test drive" away so probably you guys can help me on... i am in the fence for both cars due to the following:

a) reliability -- rdx seems to have less reliability issues -- tried and tested model the past few years... agree? [the reason i am concerned is bec i want to own the new car at least 5-8 yrs]

b) fuel economy -- ive read posts that rdx fuel economy is very bad... some even 11mpg on city driving. the q5 is better in this regard. is the rdx that huge a gas guzzler? seems like it's even worst than the 2010 mdx? (if so, i might as well buy an mdx since it's priced almost the same as a q5 if i want acura reliability?)

c) turbo lag -- ive read posts that on making left turns on green lights, people notice the lag -- some even said it is dangerous? [personally i didnt notice it, but just wanted to clarify, hence only point c in my consideration - eg. not a main issue]

in essence, i dont think i can "test drive" away letters a) and b)... i like the rdx for its zippyness but am willing to pay up for the Q5 if reliability of q5 is close to RDX and if fuel economy is really that bad in the RDX... heck i might even opt for the mdx if fuel economy is that bad in the RDX... however, i dont really need the size of the mdx...

any thoughts? i love the honda cars i had before (and i love the CRV but it was just too "weak" a car for me power wise, hence q5 vs rdx)...

many thanks!

princelybug

iTrader: (16)

Of the two, all things being equal, I'd go with the Q5.

But, I fear that letter "a" will come back to haunt you down the road.

cwepruk

Both good choices. I'd lean Q5 for the interior/V6, but it does cost more.

My answers:

A) No issues with my 2008 yet. A rattle or two, but overall, no issues. Stock tires don't seem to last that long - but that varies too.

B) Fuel Economy is 17-18 city, 23-24 highway (+/- 1). I've checked it many times and it's pretty consistent at this level. This is US mpg, not Imperial.

C) It's not a huge issue. From a dead stop, it's about a second. It can be a bit annoying on the odd left turn where you are trying to clear an intersection, but hardly dangerous.

acura1972

thanks guys... just a few clarifications if you dont mind:

@princelybug: what makes you say that "you fear a will come back to haunt me down the road"? - is audi's reliability that much worst than acura? -- i thought consumer reports said audi's reliability was "improving"? i guess it hasnt improved that much then...

@cwepruk: 17-18mpg city isnt that bad then... ive read wide ranges... would you consider yourself an "average" driver in terms of gunning the gas? if so, then i should use this... 11mpg seems a bit odd but that's what car and driver and some other posters noted... that got me shocked, truth be told... [eg. the odd production vehicle that gas guzzles!]

thanks!

corduroygt

If it's only 5k Canadian go with the q5 because it's a more premium car. In my case a q5 cost 30% more than a rdx so I chose the rdx

drew11588

i feel like audi is more about the looks, everytime i sit in one that is only a couple years old, i feel like im sitting in a cheap car

R*D*X*

i read some audi q5 forum and their most common problem is transmission. I also like the look of Q5 but reliability and resale value of RDX is better than audi.

cwepruk

In normal, mild driving, summer weather, No AC - I get about 19 in the city. In cold winter weather, A/C on or spirited driving, I get about 16-17.

Highway driving, intermittent A/C use, cruise set at 125 km/hr I get about 22 HWY. 110 km/hr, no A/C and it's more like 24-25.

ucsmfu

don't go for Q5 just because of the led headlight looks, you could do the same with the rdx, don't forget RDX has AWD-SH, it's killer for winter driving

LuvMyTSX

I too like the looks of the Q5, but their interiors are not spectacular, IMO. Plus, I do not trust Audi reliability. Personally, I'd go for the RDX or MDX. Both are reliable. MPG is a tossup between pretty much all SUVs....none are great.

jkuras

Hey all, 1st post and NEW RDX owner here as of 3 weeks ago.

1972, I had the same exact dilemma as you. I did tons of research in the months leading up to this. In the end I had to go RDX -- came down to price and reliability. The Q5 with the options I wanted was nearly $10k US more, and I too was concerned about Audi reliability. If you look at the last Consumer Reports auto issue, you can see Audi has its fair share of questionable ratings over the years, and Acura is solid nearly across the board. The RDX has had a few years to sort any lingering bugs out, the Q5 has not. That was it for me.

Fuel econ is not bad nor good ... just expected in the 17/22 range. Hard to judge after 3 weeks/still breaking it in but I'm not worried so far.

Turbo lag ...this worried me a little too... I test drove the RDX three times and decided it was a non-issue. Not sure what people are complaining about.

Carbon2008RDX

I was picking up takeout Friday after work and a new Q5 parked next to me. I really liked it's looks but don't know much about it other than it's a smaller version of a Q7. The Q5 appears to be identical size wise as then RDX. I asked the opinion of a friend who works in the car industry and he basically said the Acura SH-AWD is superior to the Audi AWD system, Acura is much more reliable, weighs like 250-300 lbs less, the RDX has much more torque, and lastly the Q5 costs almost $10K more! With that said I'll stick with my RDX!

acura1972

thanks guys... jkuras, what a timely post -- thanks... as you guys can see, it's easy to second guess myself as this is a $45k Canadian $ purchase for me... ($50+ if Q5 -- $55k+ if comparably equipped Q5 -- i was satisfied with a non-comparably equipped Q5 at $50k - no LED lights ). i personally believe (rightly or wrongly) that acura is more reliable... and i guess i just really wanted real life experiences to validate this -- especially the gas consumption, as i dont mind it being 10-20% less fuel efficient vs the Q5 but not 40-50% less efficient (eg. Car and Driver's 11mpg really floored me... no pun intended) ... many thanks for your experiences...

MMike1981

this is a hard decision @5k price difference? what am i missing?

Q5 all day long. nite & day. reliability is the only long term concern. The interior, fit & finish, level of luxury, ride, and looks are not (imo) even close. RDX holds its own on the pavement, but everywhere else swings and misses against the audi.

MMike1981

not being picky, but this really is meaningless because the performance and mpg is a general wash (equal on paper) between both models. On top of which, the audi rides much better.

Having a Q5 within the family, comparing both often, its not a fair fight. The pure elegance and quality inside the Audi is amazing. Sound system is of the best ive ever heard, ever, in a car. there are other things, but theyve been talked about prior to this thread.

But, the RDX's ace in the hole has been and still is its performance which remains at the top. If you can forgo everything that it doesnt provide, then its a great decision with the RDX. that being the case, if the price difference was only 5k, right now, without any hesitation id get the Q5.

However, imo, the RDX is most attractive as a base model, its a pure steal and the best value; not much can compare to it based on price.

acura1972

hi mmike1981... the 5k difference is quite a lot in terms of barebones q5 (which i was perfectly fine with)... someone else pointed it out that 5k difference is having a q5 without no parktronic/backup camera, no HID's, no bluetooth integration, no memory seats ,moonroof, no led on the lights... -- but see, for me i didnt need backup camera (i am not used to driving with one actually), no bluetooth (i dont talk on the phone while driving), no memory seats (i can adjust myself), moonroof (i dont need it either)... the only thing nice to have there is maybe the panoramic sunroof... that will bring the q5 at C$7k (eg incl panoramic sunroff) diff fm the rdx (base)... i guess you now see why i was at a dilemma... ...

MMike1981

yea...its all comes down to what you value.

wrestrepo

I am sure that the Quattro system is (at least) as good, if not better....they have only been making it for what? 30 years?

I have been tracking my fuel consumption in fuelly.com You can go there and pick any brand/model (unfortunately no Q5s) and see what kind of mileage people are getting. These are my numbers:

Total Fuel-ups
30

Avg Miles/Fuel-up
270.1

Avg Price/Gallon
$2.76

Avg Price/Fuel-up
$39.17
Total Miles Tracked
7,834

Last Price/Gallon
$2.86 (+$0.06)

Avg Price/Gallon
$2.86 (30 Days)

Avg Price/Mile
$0.15
Avg L/100km
12.3

Best Miles/Fuel-up
333.0 6/20/09

Best Price/Gallon
$2.23 4/15/09

Total Spent 2010
$44.98

avg MPG
19.1

best MPG
5/23/09
21.4


I don't know the differences between the base and tech models in the 2010 vintage, but if it's only the Navi I would go for a base and purchase an external GPS unit. The advantage of the Acura is that it comes loaded for a reasonable price


We have debated what cars we would have gotten if we didn't have an RDX and the GLK and Q5 always come up. I believe that they are the only other (kind-a comparable) cars in this segment that perform close to the RDX. Having said that, remember that the RDX is a 4 cyl in a category that should have 6 and can only tow 1,500lb if that matters to you.

My advice, as I have told most people, is to go with whichever "feels right". The numbers only matter so much, you need to like the car too. Let me put it to you this way, if I was a college admissions person, I want to see more than just SAT scores on a candidate, I want to see what else do they do and not base my decision on a number alone.

acura1972

hi mike and wrestrepo, thanks for all the insights/numbers... yes, now it all just boils down to value versus luxury [dont get me wrong, value is a positive -- im not saying it's cheap, in fact, on the contrary, it's money well spent!]... mike, given that you own both, would you be able to compare their reliability? ill give it some more thought this weekend then just buy what "feels" right... gut check time...

MMike1981

it was purchased within 6 months ago so i couldnt shed the least bit of light on that for you. best bet is to just surf the web and dig up what you can find. what i can say is that i got 30k on my 08 rdx, and probably what im going to tell you is not what you want to hear, but i had an 07 rdx which was a lemon due to structural problems primarily in the roof. no car is perfect, within the last 3 years ive driven 3 different cars, changing cars because of lemon issues. It started with a Mazda CX-7 GT, got 6k out of that and it was a total disaster (lemon). no matter what you get, dont expect perfection, brand reliability helps as your guide, but go with what you WANT in the end, what you want to be in everyday. honestly, audi/volks have improved their reliability in recent years, also Benz has seen very favorable results in their vehicles based on the c-class platform.

i feel like acura sets its teeth in on the initial sales pitch, "oh look, it has ALLLLLLL This stuff, and look at that price!!" yea thats great, but all the techincal gadgets dont make up for the ride quality, luxury content (or lack there of) style and interior/exterior preference, obviously some of that is subjective....but when im in my RDX im never reminding myself that yes!!! i still have BT and HIDS, far from it, in fact, those things that acura bundles imo arent exactly selling points or deal breakers. give me a V6, give me a much better interior, less plastic, rear HVAC, BETTER SOUND DEADENING!! id take that over the gadgets, most of the gadgets you can get aftermarket which are basically better than the standard equip anyways.

The 'tech pkg' is nav & 'upgraded' stereo (my ears dont hear an upgrade and dvd audio is more or less non existent regardless) but ive talked & compared that crap on here so much that its just a personal thing. ive listened back to back and there is no discernible difference, to me, other than the better sub w/the tech package, the ELS sounds out of balance up front regardless of how you tweak it (i have worked in prof audio for quite a while, have a home recording studio, all im saying is when i go from the base stereo to the els, you have to work very hard to justify it, and the surround sound just does not work unless the music is coded for it.) ok im digressing....

so just work thru the process and make the choice considering the stuff that matters most to you. at the time i bought the RDX, it was the best thing out. Alot has changed, quickly, in this segment. So theres no buyers remorse on my part, i just wish Acura delivered more in the 2010 that would make me want to stick with the brand. When the Q5 goes thru its first round of updates, im most likely jumping ship (prob when the warranty runs out on the acura)

wrestrepo

How do you run through three lemon cars in three years? Are you "too picky"? Do you have bad luck? and how the heck do you discover "structural issues" in a car?....I am asking real questions, not being critical of you.

Scottieb

I will tell you I have had 2 Audi TT's, and an Audi A4. The one thing I love about my RDX is that it does every thing right, with no little quirks like the Audi's had. Seems there was always some issue popping up on the Audi's. An example is both TT's had gas gauge issues leaving me on the side of the road a few times when it should plenty of gas, but turns out that was not so. I did find service can get expensive as well, especially after the warranty expires. Audi makes great cars, but be aware; it is prone to those little German gremlins!

corduroygt

I'll disagree with you in the exterior looks department, at least when we're comparing 07-09 RDX. Audi has too much of a jellybean look for me, while I like the aggressive and sharp lines of mine. The '10 RDX however, is not that good looking.
Pricewise, in the US, the difference is more than $10k with Acura giving deep discounts, and for that kind of money, the RDX makes sense.

mav238

I agree... Audis are pretty nice cars to drive, but they do have quality issues in terms of reliability, though they have definitely worked on this aspect a lot lately.
But the Q5 looks really nice...

MMike1981

completely UNLUCKY. nightmares let me tell you. They are 2 very long stories, but if you want, search the forum for those versions, the abbreviated versions are that the CX-7 was a mechanical nightmare, died on the highway with me going 70, twice, died during daily driving, detonation, stuttering, 3 cat converters, a few fuel pumps, spark plugs, 2 computers you name it it happened in my car. The RDX developed a clanging in the roof above the front ceiling inside, which when they TOOK APART my car showed that a weld came apart. Reason why this all happened so quickly is because i never got over 6k miles in either of the cars. So im on my 3rd car (cx7 was in 2006, rdx was in 2007, 08 RDX in dec 08.) Trust me, not only do i care less about reliability reporting but NO ONE should have to go thru what i went thru. Its absolutely horrible. Acura handled the situation with class & professionalism and quick response (all thigns considered the process ran about 1 month) Mazda however, i had problems from DAY 1 and i hda the car from sept of 06 thru may of 07. How long did i actually drive it for while paying the payments? Sept 06 thru January 07. Worst experience of my life.

So i guess in the end, what i was trying to say is, reliability is a good guide by brand name, but u just have literally no idea what product you will be buying, brand is a good measure but never the test.

MMike1981

I should have said looks wise comparing to the 2010 Acura which is puke. I still love the 07-09, which appears favorably next to the Q5.

dzasta

I hate to disagree with you, but there is a fundamental difference btw SH-AWD and Quattro. One is AWD (SH-AWD) and the other is 4WD or 4x4 (quattro). 4x4 > AWD

Even amongst the 4x4's, i would put quattro near or at the top along with subaru's 4x4. Amongst AWD's i would put SH-AWD at the top. just thought i would point this out.

As for the Q5 vs RDX, I would get the Q5 hands down. its worth the extra money. in fact when we were shopping for our RDX it was down to the Q5 or RDX. we ended up with the RDX because there simply weren't any CPO Q5's available (we dont like to buy brand new cars esp. for an audi). i dont think there is anything a RDX can do that a q5 cant do better. but the RDX is a damn good CUV in its own right as evidenced by one sitting in my garage.

greyghost04

The only reason I didn't get the Q5 was that they were charging full MSRP I'll never pay full list. Most of them were sold before they got off the truck. It was a high volume dealer too.

dzasta

Yea the q5 is still too new and the stealerships know that they can sell them at MSRP so they dont have to budge on the price. the one and only CPO we found was only 3k off MSRP granted it only had 4000 miles. the only way i would buy a car new would be under invoice paid in full which are both unlikely.

omgacuralol

I don't really like the look of the base Q5...the wheels look tiny. The S-Line on the other hand look amazing...

We haven't had a single problem with our 3+ year old RDX aside from a small dash rattle (only when its really cold out). With the Audi you can expect electrical issues, almost guaranteed.

Mileage is ~18 city, 21-22 highway for a normal driver.

markmass

RDX all the way.

I was down to the A4 Avant and RDX. The A4 was really nice, but I didn't want to buy it. I wanted to lease it for 3 years and hand it back before it got expensive to fix.

Audi doesn't sell extended warranties on their cars. There's a good real--they'd probably go broke. I got a 100k extended warranty on my RDX. It's probably a waste of money, but they said I could get a refund if I didn't use it.

The Audi salespeople at 2 different dealerships didn't seem to want to sell me the A4. The Acura guys wanted to sell me a car and gave me a good deal. I told the Audi salesperson that I was going to buy a car that weekend so they needed to get back to me on the price. They didn't so I bought the RDX.

Reliability: Honda/Acura vehicles are reliable. Audi vehicles are not. Period. I think the Q5 was new for 2009 as well.

Fuel Economy: The fuel economy in the RDX isn't good (~20 mpg), but you're not going to get much better unless you go diesel.

Turbo Lag: I've never experienced it in the past ~15k miles.

corduroygt

09 RDX Tech for $32k (Acura Fire Sale) vs. 09 Q5 Prestige for $48k (MSRP because it's new)
It was really an easy choice for me, although the Q5 has more features and a better interior, it's not $16k better.

greyghost04

I don't understand why people write that they don't like the turbo-lag on the RDX? The turbo comes on so fast in the RDX you very quickly learn to go very light on the gas or you'll be pinned to your seat. I've never felt any lag in my 2010.

mav238

I agree with you here as well... personally, I would not consider the $16K price difference at all, as the Audi badge does not really warrant the extra cost... $8K maybe...

But if a porsche will build a similar type of CUV class vehicle, the $16K difference will probably be worth considering...

corduroygt

I definitely notice the turbo lag but then again I'm coming from a 400 HP 6 liter ls2...

jkuras

I've got the tech pkg and think the ELS stereo sounds fantastic. DVD Audio is not quite dead yet, although it certainly didn't take off like the music industry wanted in the past decade. The rise of the iPod had a lot to do with that. It largely depends on your musical tastes. If you are into classical music or progressive rock it is worth considering, as there are still artists in those genres dedicated to the format. I've also converted some of my live concert 5.1 DVD videos to DVD-A. Had my RDX a month and I've barely touched the XM or the other sound options... all I listen to is DVD-As. This is one of the major reasons why the RDX and Q5 gravitated to the top for me, but see my above post for why I eventually chose RDX.

cwepruk

They are both full time AWD systems that can transfer torque. The Audi has a rear bias, while the RDX has a front bias, but there isn't a huge difference between them other than the RDX torque vectoring in the rear.

MMike1981

of course this isnt apples to apples at all...you are dealing with a discounted, restyled vehicle at its rock bottom clearance price vs a brand new model. when the RDX first came out, they sold at sticker as well. its not 16 k better..but its definitely 5-10k better.

IMO, audi's move themselves. they have gained immense popularity in recent years with their top scoring models. there is barely any dealer incentive to lower selling prices because the guy behind you will pay more than you when you are looking at these types of vehicles. Im not saying people arent looking to deal, but when a car is hard to find, and demand is high, well you know the rest. Acura has had problems moving RDXs since they came out; theres a reason they are always selling for much less, which makes them a hell of a buy because their resale is still tops. But with every premium product, you take a hit on the buy in, but in the end...whats it worth to you

MMike1981

and this is basically the only thing that separates the stereos in the RDX. if you arent playing a dvd-a, imo, its not worth it at all.

corduroygt

Well, those were the prices when I was ready to buy a new car...so it was an easy choice for me, especially considering I wanted to buy the RDX before it got hit with the ugly stick in '10. I'm also more into driving dynamics than interior plastics, the RDX is good enough for my not so refined tastes.

I always try to buy cars a while after they come out to get the good deals, I will never ever pay MSRP for any car, I can wait.