If you're in the market for a new car soon and look for the RD-X, what other vehicules are you considering?

For the first time of my life I consider a SUV (gulp)...I've always bought sport sedans. But now with 2 kids, camping gears, etc, my TL is not ideal. I just feel the RD-X is as close as a sport sedan you can get for a SUV (except maybe a Forester XT).

Anyway, the RD-X is at the top of my short list and I would need to be really disapointed when I try it to not buy it but I'll take a look at the Mazda CX-7 and Ford Edge too.

What do you guys think?

 

I will be looking at the following for various reasons:

RDX
Ford Edge
Honda CRV (2007)
Chevy Tahoe (2007)
Nissan Murano

The Tahoe does not really belong on this list, but they have improved it quite a bit, and its gas mileage is close to those above because of their cylindar management system.

The Murano has a great engine and ride, and also has very good back seat room. The drawback there is that the price pushes $40 k when equipped similarly to the RDX.

I saw the Ford Edge at the L.A. Auto show, and was impressed. You can price the car on Ford's website already. It is also in the high 30's when equipped like the RDX

I am leaning hard in RDX direction at this time, based upon Honda/Acura reliablilty, technology, and value.

 

The thing is, I doubt the RDX will have much more room than the TL when it comes down to it. It's not a big vehicle.

 

Well, I'll agree that the interior might not be bigger than the TL but the cargo/trunk is way bigger...

30+ cub. ft. for the RD-X and 12.5 for the TL.

 

Not to mention you actually get fold down rear seats. Hell, even my TSX has that.

 

My mother has a 2003 honda crv and she wants to get rid of it and is looking at the rdx. But the rdx in pictures looks alot smaller. I've read some posts but has anyone heard anything new regarding width or height??? I know the length is roughly suppossed to be 181 in. I saw in a video clip online that acura is making the rdx a driver oriented vehicle and the car is not meant to carry rear passengers so their is little leg room. Does this mean less leg room than the crv?? If anyone knows anything please post. I drive a 2003 tl 3.2 and that back seat is really cramped. I hope the rdx isn't similar. Thanks -Jeremy

 

This guy is posting the same message on a bunch of different threads.... mods?

 

yeah i made a mistake

 

yeah i made a mistake the first time i did not know where to post my comment the second time i made a mistake...sorry if it bothered you so much..i'm new to the board

 

How tall are you that you would think the TL is cramped? Or better yet, how wide are you?

 

I'm not tall or wide im 5' 5 and skinny but I sometimes feel the back seat legroom is cramped for long trips. I've ridden in the back seat of the mdx and that has alot of legroom compared to my tl.

 

Only 5'5" and the TL backseat seems too small?? How pampered does your skinny ass have to be?? You have no idea how what it's like for those of with ACTUAL size problems. At 6'2" I don't consider myself to be huge but I'm certainly no fun to sit behind or next too in the backseat. At 5'5" you and your passengers should have NO problems in just about any reasonable car.

To answer your questions visually, see the following thread and follow the links:
https://acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110

 

I was window shopping over the weekend, and checked out the FX 35. It is a pretty sweet ride, even though it has been around about 3 years now. It is defininitely better than the BMW X3 IMO, and offers more value. The lease deals are pretty favorable also.

It seems to lack some versatility as an SUV, and am not sure whether it wants to be a sedan or not. Anyway, it is fun to drive, has good power, and is chock full of all the tech gadgets.

However, the RDX will come in about $10 k less, so the comparison is not fair really.

It seems that for value, looks, features, and appearance, the RDX will be tough to beat.

 

If you are considering good leg room in the back seat with a small SUV, you need to look at the X3. My wife drives one and it is actually pretty roomy back there. More room then in my 05 RL. Don't get me wrong, I am not pushing the BMW as I am a huge Acura fan, but rear leg room in both the TL and the RL is limited. Hopefully the RDX rear leg room will be closer to that of the MDX which I used to own as well and it was very roomy








Aj

 

Great vehicle. Too bad the seats don't fold flat or else I would have traded my TL in for one instead of a TSX.

 

A few weeks ago my friends Expedition spontaneously combusted in his driveway. If it wasn't parked in the driveway instead of up close to the house as he usually parks it, it could have been much worse. After this I researched this "issue" and over 500 expeditions/F-150's have gone up in flames due to some defective cruise control part. In true Ford fashion they deny anything is wrong and are fighting anyone who tries to hold them accountable. Some people's houses have burned to the ground. They know there is a problem and have done a partial recall, but they have not taken all the steps needed to correct it and take no responsibility... for this behavior I will never buy a Ford. I saw the new Ford at the Houston car show, looks nice, but I'd never buy a Ford.

 

u can get a loaded fx35 for under 40k. rdx will probably be low to mid 30k so its def less than 10k difference. i love how the fx drives/handles.

 

The loaded FX35 I testdrove was about 46k, with the technology package, sports package, and a couple other options. However, it has a pretty high residual value, so the lease price is still pretty attractive. I agree that it drove and handles great, and is still a head turner 3 years after release.

That is why I got a Audi TT three years ago. It was near the end of its cycle, but still looks great, is not everywhere, and is a blast to drive.

 

CarsDirect.com indicates I could get a base 2005 FX35 for only $31,386. Not bad.

 

Speaking of carsdirect.com, why it includes future cars like the Mazda CX-7, Ford Edge, Jeep Compass but not the RDX?

 

Edmunds now has MSRP pricing for the CX-7 and option pricing.

I got a maxxed-out fully loaded price of $36,745.

Knowing Edmunds a first-drive review will be available next week.

 

Sorry, forgot the links for pricing...Edmunds and Mazda

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2007/mazda/cx7/index.html
http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/sele...E_FLA&x=56&y=8

For under $30k you can get a CX-7 Touring AWD with moonroof, leather, Bose stereo and fogs. Looks good!! would look better if it wasn't a Mazda.

 

I heard about this, i think Dateline NBC did a show about it a few months back. I remember them saying that when the vehicle is turned off the cruise control part still runs electricity through it and causes it to overheat and start a fire.

 

I own an FX35 and I love it. Very fast and fits me very well (I'm 6'5"). Very competent in snow.

 

As you may see in another thread I started, I bought a FX 35 with the sports, tech, an touring package. I am very happy after one month. It was about 45 + tax;lic, but the extra cash results it a better vehicle with better features, IMO.

The FX is a true sports crossover SUV, with the spirited driving of a sports sedan with the features and versatility of a SUV.

 

Funniest thing I've read in a long time!!!

 

I'm seriously considering selling my '04 MDX for the RDX. Don't really need the size of the MDX anymore and would love to save some $$ on gas. The RDX seems like the top contender right now but its fuel economy numbers (18/24) are not at all impressive (the MDX is 17/23); the power would be nice, size is good, but the weight (!!!) - its 4,000 lbs!! In the same size I guess the new RAV4 deserves some attention; the V6 has the power, its a tiny bit smaller than the RDX but the fuel economy numbers are way up there (21/28) - its almost 400 lbs lighter than the RDX. On the other hand there is no Nav option - what's with that? - and the interior looks, well, seriously boring. The CX-7 would tempt me if it weren't a Mazda ... and my closest dealer wasn't horrible. Waiting for the new CR-V - no way - not enough power without the turbo. Rumors of a new smaller Lexus built off the RAV4 might tempt me to wait but my early RX300 was no paragon of quality. Of course, the X3 fits in there too but I refuse to pay that kind of money given its obvious shortcomings. I'll go look over the RAV4 but unless someone else crashes this party its looking like the RDX to me.

 

whoever said a loaded murano costs up to 40k is an idiot. u can get murano's for invoice all day

 

Well, I looked at the RAV4 this weekend. One look at the interior was all it took - I won't be going there! Which does nothing but frustrate me further over the RDX and especially over its pathetic fuel economy numbers. Right now I'm starting to think about going for a TL and just forgetting about the RDX.

 

I don't understand all the people who are saying they're going to just get a TL instead, mainly because of price, features and/or gas mileage. IMO, these two vehicles don't compete with each other at all.

I am in the market for something with AWD and the cargo carrying abilities of an SUV, wagon or hatchback. Therefore, the RDX is on my shopping list, and the TL is not. If I didn't need the AWD and the cargo space, I wouldn't even consider the RDX. Since I do need those things, I can't consider the TL.

 

Well, the ACE body stucture seems to add about 2-300 lbs to every car it touches. On the plus side, it's a proven chassis that is arugably the safest on the roads. The fuel economy numbers are preliminary and I'd be curious what your 'real world' numbers are for your 260hp (if I remember correctly) MDX?

 

A petty point, but the Acura site lists the "preliminary mileage numbers" as 19/24 and not 18/24. I think that the "preliminary" part of that is the key issue here as it is still too early to make judgements on the RDX's mileage. Also, please remember that the new MDX with it's pumped up V6, and even heftier curb weight, will probably take a hit when it comes to mileage as well. There is a price to pay for luxury items and for safety (as Colin mentioned). If mileage is a primary concern, a loaded CRV may be a better option for a small SUV. If better handling, more power and a few more luxury features are more important, the RDX is the better option.

 

Well, it seems lately that every new generation of a model comes with a more powerful engine and the same or better gas mileage (not just honda, everyone seems to be doing this), so I wouldn't assume that the new MDX will get worse mileage than the current one.

 

Considering the TL instead of the RDX may seem like an apple 'n oranges thing but we're all looking for a variety of features in our cars and all I'm saying is that the mixture the RDX appears to offer is compromised enough that I'll consider a different set of features. Whatever alternatives I look at I know will also be compromised.
The real world numbers on my 260 HP MDX's fuel economy are, in fact, very close to the official numbers. And so I'm going to assume that the RDX's fuel economy figures will also be close to the real world. Problem with that is, as we're all reminded at every fill-up, the real world economics of fuel economy have changed.

 

Well, Hawaii has some of the highest gas prices in the nation, and I'm happy that no matter how I drive the S2000 on the street, I'm never below 20 mpg. Usually in the mid-20's.

 

I'm becoming more interested in the new CRV. This site is reporting that it'll have a hybrid version available this year. I wonder how the hybrid CRV's hp/torque will compare to the RDX?