ozwaldo

Just got my new issue today with the RDX, X3 and CX-7 review.

The X3 finished a touch ahead of the RDX, but is not recommended because of poor reliabilty. Their top pick remains the RAV4, but the RDX did make the "recommended" list. The CX-7 is ranked last.

They clocked a 0-60 of 7.4 vs 7.9 for the X3 and a 9.1 for the CX-7. But for the 45-65 the RDX wins at 4.5 vs a 5.4 for both the X3 and CX-7.

sasair

Am I reading your 0-60 times wrong or did the RDX win that too? Just wondering cause it looks like it did from your wording, but you said "BUT" the RDX wins for the 45-65...

ozwaldo

Sorry about that - it was fastest for both the 0-60 and the 45-65.

OC-RDX

Just received my copy in the mail today. They've listed 6 vehicles in the Sporty SUV category. On the scale of 1 - 100, their ratings are:

RAV4 limited V6 - 83
X3 - 78
Murano - 75
RDX - 72
FX35 - 71
CX-7 - 62

The X3 is not recommend due to reliability issues and they are not yet predicting reliablity for the CX-7.

So if 83 is the best & 62 is the worst, I guess that puts the RDX in the middle of the pack. The review didn't even mention the voice activation system.

MR1

It did however indicate city mpg of 13.

lumpulus

If the realiablilty issues were given more weight the RDX would have been is second place.
Also they once again bitched about the "knob" being to difficult to use. BULL.
And of course. Road Noise.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

I can't believe they placed Murano above FX35. The top of the line Murano is $48k CAD and that's $3k more than the RDX tech. But hey I havent read their review yet so they must have their own reasons.

CJW

I agree that Acura's reliability is a big advantage. The CX-7, which I bought instead of the RDX, wasn't even recommended. So far I'm happy with my choice but reading CS does give me second thoughts..

Pacer

Don't get too many second thoughts from CR. The CX-7 should have likely gotten more credit than it did. I have seen top-notch products that I myself own and have used with zero issues get a bad rating in CR. And I've also seen products I know are second-class get good ratings. I used to take CR seriously. Now I take them with the stuff that girl with the umbrella sells.

Allanon

The Rav4 is a nice car but it was just too cramped inside and the drivers seat wasn't comfortable. Great gas mileage but the limited really should have had a nicer interior.

The only thing I'm surprised with is the Murano. That car is as ugly as the B9 Tribeca.

OC-RDX

City for X3 was 14 & CX-7 was 12

The overall MPG that they show is:

RAV4 limited V6 - 22
X3 - 19
Murano - 19
RDX - 18
FX35 - 18
CX-7 - 18

OC-RDX

I'd give them more weight than that. I agree with them more often than not.

If you read how they rated these, the first thing they listed is a comfortable ride. For a sporty SUV, that wouldn't be the 1st thing I'd look for. I'm sure that's why the RAV4 & Murano are listed as high as they are. Both have a softer ride, than the other 4.

SolidState

Do anybody trust Consumer Reports?

wensky2005

is the x3 3.0 si they tested?

schuchmn

This is exactly the reason that any rankings and ratings in anyone's test reports can't be taken a gospel -- the people who do the rankings and ratings may not share your wants, needs, and tastes. Besides, think about all of the issues and details you consider when you buy a car. Could you actually sum it all up with one number?

lumpulus

The only car as UGLY as the Tribeca is the Pontiac Aztec.

newteez

I was surprised at the 0-60 times for the CX-7, there is no way it does it in 9.1 secs. I have seen it for more like 7.5 secs. (Can anyone confirm this?)

Overall I agree with the CR testing, the ride is a little rough but so is any CUV. Plus the suspension is geared more towards handling response. Of the 5 cars tested (FJ Cruiser, X3, Wrangler, CX-7) The RDX was the only one that has a CR recommendation.


JD

CJW

CR does rigorous testing so I would trust them when it comes to safety. They're the reason I didn't bother test driving a Ford Escape Hybrid -- the SUV was not recommended because of a tip up during testing. They also give a lot of weight to reliability which explains why Honda and Acura almost always get recommended, and rightly so. However, they don't seem to factor in how much enjoyment a car delivers to the driver. I consider them an expert opinion but the expert opinion.

CJW

I meant to say "I consider them an expert opinion but NOT the expert opinion."

creativeguy

You may not necessarily agree with CS sometimes, but at least you know they are always giving their unbiased opinion. They don't sell ads or take any money from the companies whose products they test, so they have no fear of "biting the hand that feeds them." The car mags like R&T, Motor Trend, etc. may say they prefer one car over another, but they would never outright tell people not to buy it. Remember CS and the Suzuki Samarai? They killed that death trap. (and rightly so). You can't do that if Suzuki is advertising on page 5 of your magazine.

hellokitty

My co-worker test drove the X3 and she didn't like it. She likes my RDX better, how come X3 has higher score, doesn't make sense, I need to test drive a X3 to see.

JurassicPizza

I consider them the expert opinion on safety and reliability. For other stuff I'd go with Car and Driver.

Actually I think it speaks very well for the RDX to get CR's highest recommendation despite having a completely new engine. It means they have a lot of respect for Acura's engineering and manufacturing prowess.

OC-RDX

Yes, 2007 X3 3.0 si.

When they tested the X3 2.5i back in Dec 04, they gave it a score of 68 vs the 2007 model score of 78. So it would seem that they were impressed with the updates. But, since reliability has worsened, they do not recommend it.

JayCT

I too highly respect CR's ratings and read them every month and rely on their opinions when making major purchases. They pretty much are always correct.

I will say that their selection of the RAV4 as the top small SUV is a bit questionable to me. I found the RAV4 to be cramp and uncomfortable and the design to be just plain boring. And this is coming from a guy whose favorite vehicle was a 1998 CRV EX. I also found that that finding a leather RAV4 was nearly impossible for some odd reason. There appeared to be only one in the State of CT when we were looking at them a few months ago and it had so much on it that it would have cost more than the RDX we eventually purchased.

I do not think that the RAV4 is comparable to the RDX. They are completely different class of vehicles. Would you compare a BMW to a Chevy? Come on!!! I may even write to CR to point that out. Anyway, I am very happy with the RDX so far and I did not even use CR when looking for a vehicle last week. The ride is a bit harsher than I like but it really handles well. I guess there are trade-offs. JMHO Jay

JurassicPizza

A dealer told me that Toyota had some issues with the leather seats that was preventing their production in greater numbers. I took it as just another sign that it would be better to have a "normal" RDX than an "extreme" RAV4 from both a quality and service standpoint.

Fishbulb

I think that CR probably are comparing vehicles in price brackets. The Rav4 limited, at least in Canada, is suprisingly expensive. It tops out only a few thousand less than a RDX.

Regarding the outcome of the survey, there isn't a doubt in my mind that the Rav4 is a better vehicle for most people. Reliability, a strong engine, great fuel economy on regular gas, etc.

CR aren't car enthusiasts, and aren't reviewing from that perspective. The people that buy RDX's are people that love to drive, and have a different set of criteria which consumer reports doesn't take into bottom-line consideration.

mvwood

I didn't love to drive until I got my RDX. Now I look for excuses to have to drive places.

jaobrien6

Because a lot of this is subjective, and not everyone has the same opinion. As was already said repeatedly, everyone also has different wants and needs, and different priorities... The things that CR liked better about the X3 might not be very high on your friend's priority list.

IMO, there's no reason for you to go test drive the X3, unless you would seriously consider trading in your brand new car right away. When you are ready to replace it, if you want another small SUV, sure, then go take a look.

CJW

I ruled out the RAV4 when I couldn't get the model I wanted, that and I didn't like the rear door, the tire mount on back and the position of the front seat. Too many little problems added up to no sale.

I passed on the RDX because I felt the CX-7 had a more sporty ride and look, and they wouldn't budge on the RDX prices. I'm happy with my choice but time will tell if the RDX and RAV are as superior as CR states. These are all new models (counting the RAV redesign as new) so the jury is still out on all three.

seevemonka

CJW,we have heard you opinion over and over and over again. Get over it allready . I don't even own a rdx. I have driven both. The rdx is a superior car. However it should be; because of the extra charge. I know sporty luxury cars. I have owned 3 bmw's. I will be seriously looking at the rdx, next purchase. The cx-7 is a fine car, but is not even close to luxury.

CJW

I agree with you. The RDX is more of a luxury SUV while the CX-7 is designed more for sport. I'd say the same about my '06 TSX compared to Mercedes or Lexus.

Fishbulb

How, exactly, is the CX-7 "more designed for sport". It accellerates slower, rides softer, and is continually tested slower through the slalom.

Its simply a cheaper, non-premium brand version of the RDX. There's nothing wrong with that, but just accept it.

TSX69

Best Sporty SUV

Rav4 tops the ranks in Consumer Reports survey. BMW X3 is second, but not recommended.
POSTED: 10:01 a.m. EST, December 8, 2006
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Toyota Rav4 outranks luxury SUVs costing as much as $13,000 more in a new round-up of mid-sized crossover SUVs by the magazine Consumer Reports.

The Rav4, which was redesigned for the 2006 model year, earned a Top Pick.

The BMW X3 was the second-place finisher in terms of overall road-test scores, but it didn't earn a recommendation because of its poor predicted reliability.

The magazine also tested the Nissan Murano, Acura RDX, Infiniti FX35 and the Mazda CX-7.

Photos: Consumer Reports' best sporty SUV

Consumer Reports buys vehicles anonymously for its test fleet through ordinary retail dealerships and tests them at a specially built facility in Connecticut. Among the tests performed are acceleration, handling, braking, ride quality and visibility.

In addition to track tests, test engineers also drive the vehicles in ordinary day-to-day situations.

The CX-7, the vehicle closest in price to the Rav4, finished last of the six. Its road test score was 62 out of a possible 100 compared to the Rav4's 83.

The rankings are published in the magazine's January issue.

The magazine also includes reviews of six off-road SUVs. Of those, the Nissan XTerra S earned the top ranking. Its road test score of 59 was lower than that for any of the sporty SUVs, but it was just three points behind the Mazda CX-7.

Consumer Reports' rankings for off-road SUVs were based primarily on their on-road performance and handling.

The Kia Sorento and Jeep Liberty Sport also merited recommendations from Consumer Reports based on "Good" predicted reliability and road test scores of 43 and 42 respectively.

The Toyota FJ Cruiser ranked fourth with a road test score of 36. In spite of its "Excellent" predicted reliability, the FJ Cruiser did not earn the magazine's recommendation because of its low road-test score.

The Hummer H3 also did not earn a recommendation because of its low road-test score of 26 and "Poor" predicted reliability.

Lowest-ranked was the newly redesigned 2007 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited with a road test score of 17 out of a possible 100. That score was, at least, a significant improvement from the previous version's score of 5.

Toyota Rav4
Rank: 1
Road-test score: 83 (out of possible 100)
Price as tested: $30,328
Recommended

Highs: Agility, fuel economy, rear-seat room, access, controls, crash-test results.
Lows: Thigh support for some drivers.

The redesigned RAV4 tops its class with either the standard four-cylinder or optional V6 engine. An available third-row seat and powerful V6 make it a good alternative to some more-expensive midsized SUVs. It is agile and roomy, it rides comfortably, and it has a smooth drivetrain and a flexible interior. Fuel economy with either engine is impressive. Unfortunately, curtain air bags remain optional.

BMW X3
Rank: 2
Road-test score: 78 (out of possible 100)
Price as tested: $43,120
Not recommended because of worse-than-average predicted reliability

Highs: Agility, steering, braking, fit and finish, controls.
Lows: Ride, price, premium fuel, touchy throttle.

The X3 offers the versatility of an SUV with the sportiness typical of a BMW. The engine is smooth and powerful, handling is agile, and steering and braking are excellent. Previous X3s had a punishing ride. This one is still choppy, but more tolerable.

Nissan Murano SL
Rank: 3
Road-test score: 75 (out of possible 100)
Price as tested: $36,390
Recommended

Highs: Acceleration, transmission, fuel economy, handling, rear seat, access.
Lows: Stiff ride, noise, rear visibility, premium fuel.

The Murano scored very well in our tests and is a competitive model in the crowded SUV market. We like its powerful engine performance, nimble handling, strong brakes, comfortable rear seats, and relatively good fuel economy. However, a stiff ride, limited rearward visibility, and its use of premium fuel are notable drawbacks.

Acura RDX
Rank: 4
Road-test score: 72 (out of possible 100)
Price as tested: $37,165
Recommended

Highs: Handling, transmission, fit and finish, console storage, optional backup camera, real-time traffic data.
Lows: Ride, road noise, premium fuel, radio controls.

The well-equipped Acura RDX feels sporty, but its turbocharged four-cylinder engine feels less refined than one might expect at this price. Handling is agile but the ride is stiff. The RDX is loaded with high-tech features such as a navigation system with live traffic data.

Infiniti FX35 (V6)
Rank: 5
Road-test score: 71 (out of possible 100)
Price as tested: $36,960
Recommended

Highs: Acceleration, handling, transmission.
Lows: Ride, rear visibility, cargo capacity, turning circle.

Like some competing models, such as the BMW X5, the Infiniti FX35 delivers a sporty driving experience more reminiscent of a sports sedan than a traditional SUV. The strong, smooth V6 engine easily provides very quick acceleration, and achieves a respectable 18 mpg overall, albeit using premium fuel.

The FX35's window line, low driving position, and restrained body lean give the feeling of being in a sporty coupe. But the high window line makes the cabin feel closed in. The trade-off for the vehicle's agility is a stiff ride that transmits bumps and pavement imperfections to the passengers. The company claims to have revised the suspension for 2006. The vehicle's exhaust roar, intended to sound sporty, can become tiring. The sloping rear hatch significantly limits cargo space.

Mazda CX-7
Rank: 6
Road-test score: 62 (out of possible 100)
Price as tested: $32,915
Not recommended because of insufficient reliability data

Highs: Handling, braking, midrange acceleration, backup camera.
Lows: Hesitation at low revs, ride, road noise, rear seat, premium fuel, radio controls with navigation.

Conceptually similar to the Acura RDX, the Mazda CX-7 has a lower price and less refinement. The turbocharged four-cylinder engine has a disconcerting delay at low revs but delivers good midrange power. Responsive steering and taut body control make it feel sporty, but the ride and road noise are turnoffs.

SolidState

I'm a little confused. If it's say "sports" doesn't that imply the ride will be stiff? It seems like anything that was agile, they complained about stiff ride. Can you really "have your cake and eat it too?"

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

In other words, CR, just like many other consumers, don't like sporty cars I guess?

jaobrien6

Yeah... I don't normally complain about CR like most people seem to on most car forums, but I have definitely noticed that if they say it has too stiff a ride, I think to myself "oh, I should really check that out."

c_hunter

BMW can do it -- they are reknowned for getting the ride/handling balance just right, something that eludes many other manufacturers. I have heard the X3 is a bit smoother riding than the RDX, but it still handles as good, if not better. Haven't actually driven one myself though. I did get the impression that the RDX was a touch too stiff compared to other comparable handling vehicles -- I could definitely feel it bobbing over road irregularties. Perhaps that's a downside to the CUV body and heavy weight.

seevemonka

I have driven both. I own a 325 with sport package. The base x3 is softer. The x3 with sport suspension is a little rougher. I would say the rdx is between the two.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

What about the handling then? Is it also some where in between the X3 and X3 with sport package?

seevemonka

I would say the handling is between the two. However, the bmw x3 feels more like a small suv; where the rdx feels more like a crossover(which I like). Technically speeking, the rdx might have a better salomn. I guess the bmw gives you what it allways does. It gives you that certain road/feel-connection to the road. The x3 is very well balanced. I still perfer the rdx, for many reasons. Like it has more passanger room, better value and the shw-awd is very good. It is all personal preferance. The rdx suits my needs better. If acura has a good finance package available next year. I will be seriously looking at the rdx.