kylem

Well, well well. I now know for sure what's in a name, and why my wife pays $600 for a Fendi bag. I've seen many on this board refer to the CX-7 as "cheap" and to say, without support, how much better the Acura is. Aside from the name, WHY? It can't be based on looks the Acura is an old style box. The CX-7 is a sporty concept car. The interior of the CX-7 is as striking as the exterior, but I think the interior of the Acura is better than the exterior, VERY similar to the CX-7. As to the mechanics, the engines are similar. I have driven the CX-7, and love it, but not yet driven the Acura (but this factor hasn't stopped others from proclaiming the Acura's alleged superiority, so I can write without guilt). The pros who have driven both, and who express a preference for the Acura, speak in vague terms like "refinement," ok -- I'm guessing many will like the feel of one or the other based on drive feel preference. On the other hand, the Mazda souped up like the Acura isn't "cheap" and can weigh in at about $33K. Would I pay a few grand more for a better name and presumably better resale value, maybe. But all in all, I lke the CX-7 much better. Exterior looks mean alot to me in a car. The first time I saw the CX-7, I said "wow." Driving passed my Acura dealer today, I had to look hard to find the RDX -- it looked like a smaller MDX, just another small SUV. Flame away!

wolfeman314

Well, I can see when you're coming from. I have driven both cars, and can speak for the quality of each. In my initial drive of the CX-7 I was impressed with its concept but felt that the car wasn't terribly well isolated, with lots of road and wind noise. Otherwise, I thought the interior was cool, but the overall grade of materials was nothing remarkable. I held out, expecting the RDX to address some of my concerns. After driving the RDX, I can say with great confidence that it has. The RDX is extremely quiet on the road (far more so than the CX-7), and the grade of the interior materials is excellent, with the exception of a couple pieces. Also, whether you want to attribute it to Acura's variable impeller or not, I found the RDX's engine to be far more responsive at all engine speeds. Handling, as well, is far more balanced in the RDX. I understand that $5,000 is a lot to ask of someone looking at a $32,000 SUV, but the RDX puts the money to good use. I suggest you take the time for a test drive because it really does improve in many of the areas the CX-7 has trouble.

dhager

I have driven both as well and will be picking up my RDX tomorrow. I actually prefer the exterior of the CX7 to that of the RDX. I like elements of the RDX like the front end but overall the design of the cx7 is mor unique. So why did i lease the RDX..I much prefer the interior...which is where I spend all my time when in the car! I have an 04 TL w/ nav now and the rdx is very similar but a bit more agressive and has a unique seating position..it really does feel like you are in a sports car with great visiblilty. The CX7 interior was cheap, the seats were not comfortable and had that horrible croc stripe down the middle. I could have had the loaded GT for $425 mo but I just didnt feel a "need" to have the car like i do witht he RDX....I have just been obsessed with it for the past few months! I hope for my sake (and my wifes) that i enjoy it as much i think i will...cuz i could have saved $25 month and an extra $2000 upfront if i had gotten the mazda...

kylem

You can have your opinions, some are supported but others are not.

You found this interior great:


http://www.edmunds.com/new/2007/acur...31/photos.html

and this interior to be "cheap"

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2007/mazd...72/photos.html


-- they're almost identical, with the CX-7 having the cool factor edge for sure. As for the seating comfort, again a point of personal preference -- I think Mazda has figured out how to build a generally comfortable seat.

ninjamyst

This is really your preference but I don't see how anyone can justify getting a Mazda over an Acura. I actually think the CX-7 looks like a bloated boar or something on the exterior. The interior looks like typical cheap Mazda quality found in their Mazda6, very simple and blah. The RDX looks much more aggressive and sporty on the outside and lots more techy on the inside. Also hate those nasty red gauges on the CX-7. But again, everyone has their preferences and for me, the RDX is a pretty solid car.

MarbleGT

I would wait for the car to be out for at least 2-3 months before I would say that
As far as Mazda over Acura, thats a tough call. Mazda is on its way up. The mazda3 is an excellent car, with 0 problems. The mazda 6 come in a variety of trims and is also near problem free. The rx8 can compete with m3 on a circuit, has some gas mileage problems, but overall is an awesome machine! The mx-5 is probably one of the most solid relible cars on the market. I would expect the cx7 to be right up there with all of these.

Acura, to me, is bad ass. The only thing I dont understand is that fact that they only offer 5 different models with only 1 option (navigation) on 3 of 'em.

I'd like to see them compared in a magazine shootout. They both look VERY VERY good.

hondamore

Well, the Mazda salesmen, er supporters, are nervous enough about the RDX as competition that they just won't let the CX-7 threads die.
I've made this point before, but I will repeat it: if price was the only factor in buying a car, we'd all be driving Hyundai's and Kia's. The difference in price between the CX-7 and the RDX is irrelevant for the very reasons that you mentioned - the RDX's refinement, reputation, reliability not to mention the RDX has tech goodies and an overall design that ooze forethought and quality engineering and lest we forget that sweet handling and silky smooth power of the RDX. These are the things that successful, intelligent consumers don't mind paying a little extra for.

MarbleGT

The cx7 doesnt have the oh-so-important "wow-factor" that the RDX has. First time I saw an rdx (the other day at the dealership) i was thinking thats the best looking/most stealthy suv i had ever seen! CX7 doesnt do that for me.

jaobrien6

I really hate when people make comments like this. If I decide I prefer the CX-7, or that it meets my needs/wants better, that doesn't make me stupid.

tom317

After doing a lot of research and leg work, I narrowed down my choices to the CX-7 and the RDX. It was difficult for me to justify the additional $5-6K for the RDX (that's S-plan pricing for the CX-7 GT vs. MSRP for the RDX Tech) ... until I drove the RDX. I agree with the others here who feel that the RDX provides a superior ride to the CX-7. It was particularly noticeable after back-to-back visits to the Acura and Mazda dealerships, driving both cars within 20 minutes of each other on the same roads.

As for interior room, I'm a big guy (6'4", 300) and I felt that the RDX was a better fit for me - but not by much. As for other differences (that are important to me) - Acura has a better Nav system and the ELS audio offers DVD-Audio and an aux jack. I'd prefer the SIRIUS of the CX-7 over the XM of the RDX though. Of course the voice recognition and real time traffic in the RDX are pretty cool too!!

The 4yr/50K warranty on the RDX is worth something, compared to the standard 3yr/36K offered on the CX-7.

Another differentiator for me was the potential for higher resale of the RDX since I'm buying, not leasing. The numbers I've been using to compare the two vehicles are the residual for a 3yr/12K lease. The CX-7 is at 59% and the RDX is around 64% (I think). That helps narrow the $ gap a little bit.

I'm not an Acura guy nor a Mazda guy - never owned either one - so I'm not biased toward one brand or the other. At least not yet - I'm buying the RDX.

kylem

Some good points and food for thought. But I really need to question the person who said the Acura had the "wow" factor and this was lacking in the CX-7. I don't see that at all. Isn't the Acura (in apperance) just another compact SUV? The CX-7 looks different, and very sporty (eg. its steeply slowed windshield amd bulging fenders). I can see how some would appreciate the Acura's more classic look, but "wow" factor, that I don't see -- tell me I'm wrong.

unlemming

Why bother, you'll never believe that. You clearly prefer the CX7--congrats, buy it. You smell like troll.

kylem

I know I sound like a troll, but I'm not. Truth be told I'm looking to buy an "upscale car" and initially was looking at the FX. Then I heard about the CX-7 and waited, hoping I wouldn't like it since Mazda is not considered an "upscale" company. Unfortunately, I do like it, and -- at least on exterior appearance -- much better than the RDX. Frankly, I'm looking to be talked out of it but so far I'm unconvinced. As to the Acura's better ride, I'll defer because I've not yet driven the Acura. But the pro's certainly have praised the CX-7's ride -- in fact each RDX review I've seen prominently mentions the CX-7 as fair competition for the RDX despite the price differential (and the fact that Acura doesn't think so). I for one might be willing to pay a few more dollers for the name and presumed resale value, but so far I prefer the CX-7 regardless of price. Even worse, as I mentioned before, a fully loaded CX-7 isn't that much different price wise than the RDX, particularly when your talking payments over a number of years. So please, don't tell me I'm right, tell me why I'm wrong.

schuchmn

Both the CX-7 and the RDX make claims about handling like a sport sedan and since I own a sport sedan ('02 BMW 330xi), I was interested in testing that claim. When I drove a CX-7, I thought that the handling was the best of any SUV I'd tried -- much better than the RAV4 and the Murano (which I felt like I was wallowing around in). But when I got back into the sport sedan, I realized that the CX-7 didn't quite live up to its claim. While I won't say that the RDX handles as well as a BMW, it's the closest thing by far in any SUV I've driven. BTW, I didn't drive the X3 because the price on one equipped as well as the RDX was over my limit.

And please bear in mind here that while we're all looking AT the same car, we're all looking FOR different ones. I mean, each one of us has his or her own list of gotta-haves. Some people's gotta-haves are different than mine and some of them even seem silly to me, but it's really a matter of individual needs and tastes.

wolfeman314

Kylem, all we can do in these forums is describe to you why we think the RDX is a superior choice. We can point out the very same differences that are presented in the paperwork of the RDX and CX-7 and add in our own subjective interpretations. Since you aren't receptive to this, I think it's time you took a half hour to go down to the Acura dealership so you can be on an even plane with the rest of us. It's very obvious from the moment you get into the RDX that it's a much different car from the CX-7 (however similar in concept and execution). . . and in my opinion, a much better one.

dhager

FYI residual on the RDX wth NAV is 59% for 36 mos./12k miles and 62% without the nav! I'm picking mine up in 2 hours..i'll post some pics later today...

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

I got a chance to drive the CX-7 this weekend at the Mazda Zoom-Zoom Live! event. Overall the vehicle is decent, but there were a few things I noticed where my expectations were higher.

1) Acceleration did not feel as powerful as I expected. The engine is certainly torquey enough, but I anticipated far more forward force given the kinds of reviews that I had read.

2) Interior materials were mediocre but not bad. They felt similar in quality to the materials used on the Mazda6, which has improved a great deal over the older Mazda's but still has room for improvement, especially with fitment of the interior panels.

3) Driving dynamics were good, but I never quite felt like I knew exactly where I was putting the front wheels. There was just a bit of vagueness in the steering that made me hesitant to push the car any harder than I did.

Overall, a very solid effort put forth by Mazda. I liked the vehicle overall and the price is decent. However, I am still concerned a bit about Mazda's resale and residual values, which is keeping me from plunking my own money down on one.

Hopefully, I will get around to test-driving the RDX this week. I would like to try it while the impressions of the CX-7 are fresh to get a better comparison.

97AcuraCL

i need to create a tutorial on forum usage for the new RDX board, its seems people dont understand the importance of paragraphs

jaobrien6

Definitely go test drive the RDX if you can, I'd especially be interested in your take on comparing the two since I'm sure you got to push the CX-7 at the Zoom-Zoom event harder than I got to during my test drive.

ninjamyst

Sorry for the misunderstanding but I didn't mean "solid" as in reliable and problem free. I am actually against buying first year model cars, especially one with a new turbo (I know Honda makes turbo for other things but this is their first commerical car turbo in the US). What I mean by "solid" is just a great overall value. I will definitely pick one up when they do the refresh in 2-3 years.

MarbleGT

oh, I gotcha.....Yea, I agree. Acura's value seems to be pretty good (04 to present) they seem to have worked out the majority of the kinks. I have faith that they wouldnt release anything not good.

kylem

Perhaps the more car-like feel is explained by the 6.3" ground clearance on the RDX as compared with 8.1" on the CX-7. That nearly 2" is BIG. You will give up some handling, but I like/need the greater clearance in my situation -- not that I'll be doing off-roading, but I do drive alot in unplowed snow and have found increased ground clearnce to be very helpful -- not to mention I hate bottoming out!

CL6

Iwao Koizumi designed the RDX then jumped ship then went to Mazda.

phile

Dave Marek is responsible for the RDX, he and Ricky Hsu have been responsible for the majority of Acuras (new TL, new RDX, new MDX) designed lately. I don't know where you read that, a google search for Iwao Koizumi shows he's been with Mazda since 1995 with the RX.

CL6

My mistake, I got the man's name wrong. I will try and locate the correct name this time!

schuchmn

That may be part of it, but the RDX felt stiffer and gave me more feedback. What this transates to is a more precise feel of the handling The CX-7 was good, but the steering felt a little vague compared to the RDX.

But, like most things, the feel of a car is a subjective criterion -- how you like the car to feel is a matter of taste as is the importance you place on that aspect of the vehicle. Personally, this is more important to me than memory seats or hot styling. And this is nor meant to put down people to who like memory seats and hot styling -- as I said, it's a matter of taste.

If, like me, you're just looking for a small sporty SUV at a resonable price, the CX-7 has to be on your road-test list. If all you want is a small, less expensive SUV with a modicum of amenities, the RAV4 Limited has to be considered as well. But, of course, if what you're looking for a small, sporty, premium brand and the X3 is out of your price range, then the RDX is the only thing out there at the moment.

No car is perfect and you have to make your own decisions about the trade-offs you're willing to make.

kylem

Perhaps am strange, I can afford any car I want (within reason), but an impressive name means nothing to me. I'll rarely pay extra for a name. I really liked the Cayenne which I could have had for around 50K, but the way I wanted it was at around 70K, which was more than I wanted to spend. Within that range, I'll buy what I like, and right now I'm liking the CX-7, though admitedly that's based almost entirely on exterior appearance. No offense, but to me the RDX is just another compact SUV while the CX-7 is striking (personal taste I admit). And, again meaning no offense, but if I was looking to impress others, I wouldn't be buying an Acura. It's a fine car for sure, but you need to get into the upper levels of Lexus, Infiniti, Mercedes, etc to get that "rich guy" panache. I think that talking the difference between a 33K Mazda CX-7 (the fully loaded job) and the 37K Acura is almost irrelevant -- anybody with real money would say it's the same thing. I sure do. At this level, the cost would only be a tiebreaker in a dead heat. Those who say that Acura is not competing with Mazda because of the few grand difference (comparing apples to apples) is a wannabe at best.

rdxsteverino

This will be fun to watch

vicpai

.....I will totally agree with you!!! .....the RDX has got to be pretty much the best looking SUV out there!....there hasn't been a vehicle's styling that has "so emotionally" moved me, in a long time

unlemming

So price is the determing factor of quality/luxury for you? If it's expensive if must be good? You're right, Infiniti/Lexus/Mercedes have Acura beat on that. I think this is the only time in my life I would compare Infiniti to Mercedes.

kylem

Not at all. It's just that I associate Mercedes, Infiniti, Lexus as "luxury" vehicles. I suppose I knew that Acura was to Honda as Nissan is to Infiniti, but I just never thought of Acura as a luxury car in the same way. I just thought it was a superior vehicle (which it is). Not much if anything in the Acura line (except thier rarely seen sports car) is in what I consider the luxury price range -- north of 40-50K for starters. Now, I know that Lexus, etc has cars in the same range as Acura, but they also have the real expensive stuff as well. Perhaps I'm wrong (even about the numbers), but that's my honest impression. Given my mindest, I had a fleeting idea of buying the FX because of the "luxury" badge, but have not considered the Acura for the same (luxury badge) reason.

kylem

At the risk of being called a troll, I really can't imagine how this is so. What's different about the RDX compared to other compact CUV's? I can frankly see someone saying they hate the CX-7 because it's different (perhaps even wagon like). I'm not saying the RDX isn't a good looking vehicle, it is, but how in the world does it say "wow." Love it or hate, the CX-7 is at least different in terms of exterior appearance. What makes the RDX "great" comapred to the very standard looking MDX?

vicpai

.....everyone has their opinions, and some of the other stuff you say about the RDX is true, like its pathetic powerplant and the pathetic gas mileage it gets for being a 4 cylinder mill. However, styling is a very subjective issue and you very well know "beauty is in the eye of............."

I'm not one that likes "daring" "different" or "fad-ish" styling. I HATE it when companies style something just to be different, or what they sometimes term as "bold and daring". (look at the 2002-2006 Lexus ES 300/330. That was one of the most UGLIEST designs in my opinion). The RDX, in my opinion blends a nice MODERN, stylish body with smooth flowing designs front to rear, with JUST THE RIGHT amount of curves and angular lines (not overdoing one or the other), while still maintaining an overall clean, conservative, upscale look, thankfully not taking it into the "outrageous" realm. Some of the design elements that I really like about the RDX are, first, the way the hood smoothly flows into the roof, then the roof tapers back beautifully into the rear tailgate. The "rounded" design of the tailgate and the taillights are beautifully and "smoothly" done as well (including the rear bumper and exhaust pipes). The "wheel arches" are "just right" too (not too overly done). The hood itself is an icon of beauty, reminding one of a sixties era sports car (I think it was an MG or a Triumph). The perfectly proportioned grille with its "Jet fighter" fairings on the bottom is another icon of beauty reminding me of the trailing edge of the wing of an AIRBUS A300-600 ....very very subtle, upscale and high class, indeed. THANKFULLY NO GARISHNESS anywhere on this vehicle (........and thankfully neither did they resort to nut-job stuff like hood scoops etc., which would've screwed up this vehicle totally)

The current MDX, although quite nice looking itself, has begun to look "plain" and "dated" now, due to too many angular edges and lines. The next generation MDX (as seen in the spy pics) is pretty nice looking as well, but I still think the RDX looks waayy better (new MDX's grille and couple other things are a bit "overdone" in my opinion )

However, in conclusion, I must say that I cringe at the thought of some people who will massacre this beautiful vehicle with stuff like 20" chrome "dubs" and the like (just like idiotic people massacre vehicles such as BMWs and Mercedes with the same stuff)

In the end, inspite of my feelings about the looks of the RDX, I will be getting the redesigned MDX. I've always said it, and I will say it again. Looks are just one part of the equation (and to me, the less important part, at that)

schuchmn

On the siubject of extrerior styling, my usual feeling is that it's for other to admire while I'm passing them.

laee3

cx-7 is an alright car.. and the pictures of interior you posted... how the hell do you think they look identical.. have you even sat in rdx??? go read the recent article on motor trend about their compairson, and maybe you will be convinced....

savage

I drove the CX-7 at the Mazda driving event 2 weeks ago, the same morning i was at my acura dealership getting service and my salesguy had a RDX in stock and i took it for a drive.

I liked the CX-7, a friend actually bought one 2 days after the Mazda driving event. But i was not blown away by it. The RDX definitely beats it for interior, technology, handling, and performance. I drove both hard and the RDX felt more planted in the corners and had little body roll. Also a huge pet peeve for me with the CX-7 was the noticable turbo lag. It was a big too much, the RDX exhibited little to none in my driving.

Overall i liked the CX-7 but you definitely see an additional level of refinement in the RDX, but that is also expected with a near 40k loaded price tag. Also there is something about the goofy front end on the Mazda's. I know a lot of people like it, but I hate the front end on the Mazdaspeed 6 and the CX-7. It is like Mazda is trying to copy the style of the RX-8 but just dont execute it correctly.

Anyways to each their own. For the money, mid 20's, the CX-7 is nice, but if you can afford the extra bucks for the RDX i think is a no brainer.

hondaveetec

We use an airport pick-up service whenever we go on vacation. They use Mazda MPV's to transport us... The trip to the airport has never been comfortable. I find that the seats of the MPV are really non-supportive and they are very stiff, also very low. I don't know if this is on every Mazda or what...

But my son currently owns an Acura and the seats are supportive no matter where you sit. However, the interior of the Acura has a few rattle problems. I also like the exterior styling of the CX-7 much much better than the RDX. The RDX has a lot of extra lines, and smooth designs are very popular nowadays, I'm not sure why they made the exterior busy on the RDX, this is not typical of Honda design!

anyways, both are great cars and if I am on a budget, I would go for the CX-7, however, if I want a more high-class cruiser, I would definately go for the RDX anytime.

just my opinions.

fast-tl

Tom, I need to correct you on the Mazda warranty. You're not giving the complete story. See below on how the CX-7 warranty actually BESTS the RDX where it counts: powertrain.

2007 Vehicles:

BUMPER-TO-BUMPER

Mazda warrants that new 2007 Mazda cars and trucks will be free of defects with normal use and prescribed maintenance for 36 months or 36,000 miles, which ever comes first. Ordinary maintenance items or adjustments, parts subject to normal wear and replacement and certain other items are excluded. This transferable "limited warranty" is included on all new Mazda vehicles sold and serviced in the United States.

POWERTRAIN LIMITED WARRANTY

Mazda warrants that the Powertrain Components of new 2007 Mazda cars and trucks will be free of defects with normal use and prescribed maintenance for 60 months or 60,000 miles, which ever comes first. Ordinary maintenance items or adjustments, parts subject to normal wear and replacement and certain other items are excluded. This “limited warranty” is transferable during the warranty period on all new Mazda vehicles sold and serviced in the United States.

Jeb

Actually Acura's warranty is still better than mazda's here -- the powertrain warranty for the rdx is 6 year/70,000. The rest of the vehicle is 4 yr/50,000. (this is from the acura website)

fast-tl

True, I found this after my post and hadn't made it back to correct myself. Thanks.