MMike1981

Not content with the success of the Q5, Audi is launching an even smaller crossover to compete with the BMW X1 and the Acura RDX.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t_drive_review

bluecarbonfiber

doesnt look horrible.. still an audi though

buckeye#1

Seems very picey when compared to the RDX

Boostin'

Hard to tell from just a couple photos, but looks ok. Pricey - maybe, but I'm sure the new RDX will creep up some there in $$$ too.

Mr Marco

More curious about the X1
"...especially the upcoming BMW X1 xDrive35i with its 300-hp N55 single-turbo inline-six"
mMm

737 Jock

For now, Honda is wisely staying away from Direct Injection -- the carbon contamination issues with DI would trash Honda's reliability ratings.

Anyone interested in a VAG product should read the extensive complaints about fuel stratified injection in VAG engines. The trouble with contaminated intake valves negate any improvement in fuel economy.

(Also the Q3 is a bit too small in terms of utility, to carry an RDX load of people and luggage.)

pickler

hehe i was waiting for a x1 vs q3 vs rdx thread. i don't think there will be a n55 turbo x1 as BMW is phasing out the inline 6 soon for 4 cylinder turbos. X1 in my opinion is a joke and the Q3 is way too overpriced, i rather the Q5. Also seafoam will take care of any carbon build up with DI xD there is no reason why honda should still be using 5 speed autos and multi-point fuel injection. For god' sakes, the 2012 ford focus will have a direct injected 160hp 2.0L engine hookedup to a 6 speed DCT. and it will score 40mpg hwy, bye bye civic.

MMike1981

well a few things...first, no plans to sell the Q3 in the states (so they say, cant imagine it not being sold here). 2nd, the price will be alot lower than the quoted Euro price, and the buy in will also be lower than the base Q5. That being said, there is a loss in space and utlity, but thats not what people will buy the Q3 for. Just like the RDX, it will be for basically many other things other than utility. Not saying the RDX isnt capable, but its severly hindered by the turbo 4/towing rating and its suspension, which of course is not for off roading lol. Also, its price and buy in, most people arrived at the RDX because of the price in comparison to alternatives, the Q3 does the same for the german brand. So, in the end, what the Q3 will offer is a great, lower priced sporting alternative to stepping up to the Q5, and you can travel in style with SOME cargo and utility, not necessarily the family of 4, plus dog, rafts, bikes etc lol. Most notably, Audi probably wont mess around with the sporting nature of the Q3 and offer some serious powerplant options....quoting 0-60's @ the lower 5 second range, this thing will blow the doors off the RDX and anything else. (of course, in upper level and upper price trim).

pickler

i think by the time this unreliable thing on wheels (q3) comes to america, the 2013 rdx v6 with 6 speed auto will be in the market. also i disagree that rdx is not a capable light offroader:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/112_0708_midsize_luxury_crossover_comparison/index.html

MMike1981

well let me be more precise then...i cannot tow even my small boat with the RDX, it feels like it will break when im frost-heaving it in the mountains because of the tight and crashing suspension, and the ground clearance while decent is not ideal. Just making a quick exit out of parking lots (over the curb) doesnt feel right. Its not made for it...can it be fun on some sand and lawn type stuff? some snow and all that? sure. but trails and more serious "off road" things...not so much.

as for reliability, im on my 2nd RDX due to "reliability". However, same Q5 from day one with no problems. You buy a car, its throwing a ball and seeing where it lands. my experience with cars has been "that person" who gets the bad ones, so reliability isnt a winning argument in terms of choice. they are all machines that will break down at some point. Whether your view of reliability is mechanical or workmanship over time, i know my RDX feels at least 10k less than what i paid, in the fit and finish dept, because some of it is so cheaply put together, and main components of my suspension have been replaced under 50k miles. Why? no reason, just wear and tear.

the best thing Acura can and could do is STOP CUTTING CORNERS AND UP THE PRICE, PLEASE! id love to own an acura that not only packs "reliability" but also true luxury and build quality, lets say, on par with the ZDX. that should be Acuras goal. if they come out with the "new" RDX that is like this one, it will be forgotten about as quick as the current model was.

mrgold35

The Audi seems more like the tall station wagon look compared to the traditional CUV. I think the Acura sport wagon folks will have to worry more compared to the RDX folks.

Audi make some beautiful cars/SUVs with tons of luxury, performance and tech. I’m just not 100% convinced the Audi will provide the same or less cost of ownership over time compared to the Acura with 150,000-200,000 miles on the odo (all my previous Honda went pass 200,000 miles). I will save Audi, MB, and BMW as my lotto cars when I win.

MMike1981

I agree, generally, they cost more to own thats pretty much a given. Reliability on the whole is lower than Acura, as are most other brands too. Acura in most cases is a sure thing for ownership over the long run. I guess i wish they would build the things the same way across the board and stop as much as they can in commingling honda stuff...the ZDX is how Acura should build every single car. package that quality with reliability, they have some greatness. Problem is, most people shop acura yes on reliability, but at the end of the day they are cheaper, sometimes alot cheaper than the competition, which is why most people settle on them...knowing they are reliable helps you sleep better at nite. however, i would def pay some more money to get a nicer overall product from Acura. They just need to provide it where it counts, they started with 2012 TL.

Kaze66218

Audi's stationwagons were the only thing passing me (motorcycle) on the Autobahns at 160+ mph... I have a certain respect for audi and it's drivers while in Europe. I love the Audi look too. May not be the right fit for some, but premium all the way.

But to add to the post I'd probably flop once it got here. As this is the United States of SUV-CUV America. Too many choices and the one with the lowest price and with highest reliablity will sell more.

Wish the real MB Quart was still around.

pickler

first off i never had any problems towing a 1300 pound fishing boat with a trailer. i just place the car in sport mode to avoid going into 5th and overheating the tranny. Secondly i have done some light offroading with the car on stock suspension without any damage to the bottom going over rocks and mud and crossing a shallow river. thirdly, the RDX is very reliable at least according to consumerreports and truedelta. here is a report from true delta, a great website by the way.

2007 RDX Reliability


2009 Audi Q5

MMike1981

well that would make alot of sense because its ONLY rated at a 1500 lb towing capacity, which is peanuts. And, there is not underbody protection on the RDX, drive at your own risk. see my cutting corners argument.

also, never said it was UNRELIABLE, what i said was its not an argument for me as my RDX has been pretty unreliable.

Notably, a used RDX topped consumer reports charts as a car that is as reliable as if you bought a new car. Thats pretty solid.

MMike1981

true delta is cool, knew the guy from another board, not sure how much his sample size has grown tho, when he first started, his data wasnt exactly reliable (no pun intended) because he had such a small sample bank.