Yea the RDX is a pretty good deal, but I was also quite surprised by the price tag of the MDX. I thought it would cost about $5k CAD more considering how much power it has, the fact that it's tuned in Nurburgring, and the features it has. But it's a little bit too big for me.

 

iforyou - We have an 02 MDX so I understand what you mean about it being too big. My wife drove it and sscraped the side of it a couple of times before I took it from her. We bought the RDX as a replace for a CRV that she drove, but she knew I wanted to drive and she gave it to me. She is back in the MDX, but since it is no longer our "good" car it doesn't matter if she bangs it up. Jay

 

i think its on the way you view the cars, the rdx handles better then the rav4 ... but is that really saying much? why would anyone want an suv thats great in the corners? whose taking suv's to go crazy on mtn passes? the rav4 works cuz it has an ok interior its cheap, it can haul more and the engine is a bit smoother... i like the rdx more because i like to have a lil fun.. but for people who want to take the kids on a vacation.. i think the rav4 wins due to a less bumpy ride and smoother motor.

 

Well a lot of people want or need the practicality and utility of an SUV without having to put up with truck like body roll and handling. If you can only have one vehicle, and need some utility, why not choose one that is also fun to drive? Most SUV's are definitely not fun to drive through the twisties, and to some people (who are used to, or maybe would rather be driving a sedan) this is a very valuable attribute.

 

By scrapping the side of the MDX, do you mean your wife turned too early and the side would hit something? Cause this is the thing I worry about a lot too. I drive a 2G TL and man this car is long and driving it in some parking lots can be tough. I guess it's also because of my poor driving skills....

 

Yup you answered your question yourself! a rdx offers more fun than a rav4.

It's like, would you prefer a Camry or BMW 325i? The Camry wins due to a more comfortable ride and quieter engine. But, the BMW would surely make the driver very happy.

I mean, sedans weren't made for sporty driving decades ago. They were made for getting the whole family from point A to point B. But eventually some companies came out with the idea of sports sedan, which is pretty much the same as how people are coming up with names such as CUV. And now, look at Mercedes Benz, they are making a sporty minivan, the R63 AMG. I think it has around 500-600hp?

 

iforyou - I know she scraped the side of the garage door a couple of times. We live off a very narrow street and brush along the side of the road jumped out in front of her a few times, if you know what I mean. She is also in and out of a lot of parking lots in the city and I am sure some of the dings are from that. Jay

 

Thats's what doesn't make since to me, Moter Trend picks the Camry for Car of the Year- and thats fine I sure its a very nice car. But when you want a sports car and thats what the RDX is trying to be (and I think its doing a very good job of it - that is a sports car with some cargo room) you would know that its not going to be smooth like your farthers Olds or Cadie, so why bring it up unless its so bad that the ride is unbearable.

So for Consumer Reports to knock it down for a hard ride so what. I remember before I was hooked on the RDX I was doing test drives for my second family car and I tried the Ford Sport Trac-the ride was so bad and bumpy how could anyone drive one is what I thought.

When I campare the RDX to my wifes Toyota Sienna of course its not as soft and can't carry as many people, but thats not why we buy a RDX. And when I compare it to the 95 Integra I replaced the ride is every bit as good or better and it feels faster and has more room.

But this is me when I'm in my RDX and this is me in the Toyota .

So the bottom line is who cares what the reviewers think, its all subject to what the individuals testers like not what you like. They do not look at cars we do, and that is to fit our needs. I think reviewers aren't happy unless they can find something wrong with what they test. That seems to be the nature with people in general concentraiting too much on what is bad about someting and not what is good. Its easy to find fault nothing is perfect.

The RDX works for me and thats all I realy care about, not what a Consumer Reports tester thinks.


My .

 

How could the FX35 score lower than the Murano if the FX is the Luxury Murano??

 

Its the ride Stupid.

Not saying your stupid just a figure of speech - but it validates some of what I said above. CR shouldn't even factor in comfort of the ride in comparing cars among different classes.

X-3
FX-35
RDX
CX-7

have similar goals in providing a sporty SUV/CUV so why compare them to the

RAV 4
CRV
Murano

or when you do compare them pull the comfort of the ride out of your rating system.

 

hmm I think you misunderstood my post, or I'm the one who's misunderstanding it right now. By all means, I don't consider a Camry a sports sedan at all. And I love the RDX as much as anyone here on this forum. Why? Cause I like sportiness, I am willing to sacrifice a bit of ride comfort for some sportiness. Hopefully this will clear things up a bit.

I see what you mean by the bumpy ride of the Ford Explorer. I drove a F-150 numerous times and man even small irregularities could upset the car so badly. My butt actually hurts every time I drive it.

 

No I wasn't saying that the Camry is a sports sedan, just the fact it one car of the year and it has such a soft ride and smooth ride ... thats why its car of the year and of course our RDX's have such a harsh ride how could they ever be considered on the scale of the greatness of the Camry.

FWIW Moter Trend picked the Mercedes(not sure which model)for SUV of the year and of course if I remember right its only 80K. The RDX was in the running. Yeah and if I had 80K to spend on a car I still wouldn't.

 

They are not even the same platform. Murano is FWD based (Altima) while the FX is RWD based (G35, Z).

 

I think that Consumer Reports made it clear that the RDX is a good vehicle by making it a "Recommended" vehicle. That is a pretty big honor for a first year vehicle. They do not do that for every vehicle and for very few manufacturers. It says a lot about Acura reliability.

They chose the RAV4 because it overall meets the needs of most people. I do not agree with their assessment of its comfort because the passenger seat, to me, was very cramped with my knees touching the dashboard when the seat is back as far as it can go. It eliminated it from our consideration. I also find the styling to be a bit plain on the exterior and sort of cheap on the interior, even in their top-of-line models. If I am going to spend close to $30,000 on a vehicle (which a fully loaded V6 RAV4 goes for), I better be comfortable and like the style of the vehicle. JMHO Jay

 

Hmm I guess we are on the same channel now. Same as you, I wouldn't spend 80K on Mercedes. I would rather spend 45k on the RL and 33k on the RDX and still have 2k left.