econman

[QUOTE=Animagix]these two cars are similar on paper but I think the similarities end there. It's all subjective really. I was partial to the cx7 but my wife doesn't like the way it looked which is again, subjective. I was looking forward to the mazda earlier in 2006 because I used to own an rx8 and had a bit of fanboi'ism and immediate favoritism towards the cx7.
[QUOTE]

WOW!

This is pretty much my own saga. I wanted to like the CX7... I mean I really wanted to adore it. I thought it would be "RX8 with cargo" but I was underwhelmed. A thing is what it is and for me (subjectively) neither the CX7 nor the RDX are race cars. Hence, I appreciate the subdued "sportiness" of the RDX where is is luxurious without being pretentious.

Animagix

[QUOTE=econman][QUOTE=Animagix]these two cars are similar on paper but I think the similarities end there. It's all subjective really. I was partial to the cx7 but my wife doesn't like the way it looked which is again, subjective. I was looking forward to the mazda earlier in 2006 because I used to own an rx8 and had a bit of fanboi'ism and immediate favoritism towards the cx7.
I am extremely happy with the power the RDX possesses. I used to have to rev to 4-6k on my Rx8 to get the same kind of pickup. It is pretty damn sporty for an SUV because i threw this car around on the jackie robinson parkway. This car loves twisties.

econman

Yes. I likewise was impressed with the drive. I drove a good half hour and really pushed it a bit. Impressive how they put cornering performance into a car like this. Of course, some reviewers have complained it has too firm a ride, but I like that. Most "crossover" SUV's like this have terrible 'body-roll."

Animagix

sports-like suspensions will always have that slightly harsh ride. compared to my old cars (rx8 and audi a4) the RDX is soft to me. I can see where they would complain about the firm ride though, if you're coming from a boring boat of a car like a honda pilot or (insert any big suv here) it's going to be a little rough compared to those boats.

econman

Yes, which makes one wonder why such people would be interested in an RDX in the first people.

Like people who buy Hummers and then complain about gas mileage.

chipt911

Don't forget about the SH-AWD RDX has. I've never driven a more capable vehicle on snow or rain covered roads. Super Handling All wheel Drive makes for a very stable ride when coupled with the RDX suspension. If you do test drive the RDX, take some hard corners and see what we mean about the ride.

Silverstone

Reading threads like always make me laugh. (Even though I've only read the first 2 pages) Why do people go on a message boards for a cars they DON'T like only to bash it and tell them another car is better?

I can almost understand this happening on a sports car site (S2000 forums come to mind... Sti/Evo idiots) but ffs this is a SUV.... SUV! Nobody cares you think you like the CX7 doesn't look cheap and you'd prefer it.

There's 5 minutes of my life I can't get back...

neo1738

even though people test drive the rdx, i dont think they really know how to test drive the sh-awd. I will admit, i owned the car for about 6weeks before i actually figured out how to maximize this cars handling performance, and let me tell you....WOW! before a turn downshift a gear or two so the torque is built up, then give it some gas in the turn, you will see this is where there is NO comparison between the CX-7 and RDX!!!!

DNPhotography

i agree but why did you waste 1 more minute (of your precious life) to write your post. i didnt even read this whole thread because i already what it would be about. the only posts ive read in this thread is the last 2 posts.

lilfeat

I agree with neo.
I had the RDX for a day while my 05 TL was getting some service.
Within an hour or so of driving around, it was obvious that the RDX like to be pushed. Its like a litte bulldog!
I am now browsing this forum because I am considering the car.

There is one problem with the Mazda, which I think is a nice looking car.
When you option out the Mazda, it is still cheaper than the Acura, and if you feel that SH-AWD is worth a couple grand, then they come very close in actual cost.

Since it starts with a base price in the mid 20's the resale 4 year out will be poorer than the Acura that really only has 1 option.
That is common in most car lines where the have a lowball entry price. You will find that the majority of the CX7s being sold do not have the tech package.

If you lease this is no big deal, but if you tend to buy and sell after 4 years, cars with big deltas in option levels always tend to gravitate towards the lower end pricing.

wildchild_8635

but you know what? you always get what you pay for. Now, Acura has the most user friendly navigation system on the planet. Its packed with way more features than a doggone MAZDA. come on!! Get real or get a better job because RDX takes the cake on this one. Ive been an acura owner since the beginning of the 90's and I can tell you that they have always been ahead of the times.

XLR8R

The IIHS newest standards put a high value on head restraints and rear impact.

Note that the Mazda does not even have a head restraint in the center rear position.

jaobrien6

You've been an Acura owner since you were 8?

Rdxowner

well..i kno this dosnt have any sense with this thread but in July'06 ive bought a '06 CR-V and i asked them less than 1500 miles..bcuz if more than that its an used car for me..and than they called me(honda deler) and they said that the cars is 12 500 miles..i was Like "@&$^!%#^$*&@#^* !!!!" and i went to see and i gave them SHI* in front of everybody and i told them that all of my cars like my GMC Savana,BMW 5series,MercedesBenz ML 500 had leses than 1500miles..and than the day that i had to go pick up the CR-V i diddnt go..and than in OCTOBER '06 Ive Bought the ACURA RDX THAT MADE ME HAPPE IN MY LIFE..and i may be installing a TURBO XS in it..=)

Rdxowner

LMAO LOLLL

Psychobroker

To try to justify their paltry $3,000 savings on going with a CX-7 GT w/ AWD vs. an RDX

Psychobroker

I'm sorry, but... what?

Claire

That made my head hurt.

c_hunter

Double ouch.

kylem

"Ahead of the times"? Really? Is Acura still suing that idiotic "joystick" for Nav instead of the much preferred and state of the art touchscreen? That pain in the A$$ feature on the MDX was enough for me to stay away from that vehicle. BTW, I own 3 high end portable Nav systems for work, and let me say, without question simplicity and efficient routing are 99% of what should define what system is "best.' My CX-7 NAV may not be considered the most "advanced" feature wise, but it has functioned flawlessly, and easily as good as my expensive portables (of course the CX-7 tech pkg is overpriced too, I admit that). Oh
two more things, the live traffic feature is frustrating and borderline useless, I defy any real user to challenge that opinion. Second, I'm privileged to be able to afford any car I want, and to the extent I would buy a car for a "status" symbol, it would not be an Acura. In fact, I'm rather proud that among the Beamers and Mercedes in by community, I drive a Mazda. If I were to buy a "keep up with the neighbor" car, I would need to spend at least 50K, anything less and you might as well buy a car that says I don't give a $hit, like the Cx-7, zoom zoom.

wildchild_8635

Ok so I get the tomato to the face because you "dont give a sh*t" about how you waste your money? Its all good, but you didnt have to get on the defensive. I was just saying that you get what you pay for. I agree with you though on the crummy joystick. I never liked using it, my voice works just fine. And i wouldnt dare put a crappy aftermarket sys hanging from my dash, windshield and cigarette lighter. Those gps's that you have will have a higher resale value than the truck itself. Im not flaming, just my opinion but you do have a good point though.

darth62

I've test driven both vehicles in the last few weeks, and I can't begin to see one once of truth in what you are saying here. The turbo lag in the CX7 was ridiculous. I'd go so far as to say it was extremely annoying. Until I got it on the highway, it was an absolute pain to drive smoothly. I don't know how anybody could live with that engine on a day to day basis. Not my place to question anybody else's purchase choice, but I don't know what would motivate anybody to go with a car that lags that badly.

In contrast, the RDX seems to have very little turbo lag. The power is available fairly quickly. I did think that the turbo engine was a lot rougher than the 2.4 in my TSX, but that is another issue.

And, anybody who says the RDX has "a big car ride" simply can't be taken seriously. At best, it has a stiff busy ride reminiscent of a very small sports car (like the S2000). I'd even go so far as to say that Mazda has a better ride - the one area where the Mazda outshines the Acura.

Finally, the idea that Acura will copy the CX7 down the road borders on being ridiculous. Its not like the CX7 is exactly flying out the dealership. My local Mazda dealer was so desperate for potential buyers that he let me take the CX7 out for about 45 minutes on my own. The reality is that NEITHER vehicle is selling well and that the entire notion of a turbo 4-cyl SUVs has not caught on well with the American public.

darth62

1) I agree with you that a touchscreen is much easier to use than a joystick, but joysticks do have their advantages. My TSX constantly gets fingerprints on it's screen, and I'll bet the MDX/RL/RDX owners don't have similar problems.

2) I'd take an Acura NAV system over a Mazda system, joystick or not. The Acura system is much easier to use, faster, and has better graphics.

3) I haven't had much experience with "live traffic." I do have a friend who has it in his TL though, and swears by it. I basically get the same data through GOOGLE MAPS on my Blackberry. If Traffic via XM works anything like that, it is probably useful as heck in some cities. Out here in LA, that information works very well. I check the traffic every day before heading home, and its saved me from traffic jams on more than one occasion.

Incidentally, if you have a Mazda, how would you know how live traffic works? You certainly don't have it in your current vehicle. Maybe you have it on a portable NAV, but how do you know the Acura system doesn't work better?

4) I'd be lying if I didn't say I agree about the lack of value associated with a "prestige" make. But, buying an Acura does get you better service and a longer warranty (at least compared to the Honda ownership experience - my last car was an Accord). All things being equal, the non-lux brands always offer better value.

kylem

I'll explain how I know about live traffic if you tell me how you know the Acura NAV is "much easier to use" and "faster" than the Mazda. Just kidding......but really, the Mazda system is the easiest I've ever used, and that's primarily because it is rather basic. How is the Acura "easier"? As to faster, have you timed them? It takes me less than 30 seconds to program a brand new location in the CX-7.

The fingerprints argument on the T-screen is just rationalizing for the inferior joystick -- ALL NAV screens are dust magnets and need to be cleaned every few days. If you do clean, any fingerprints (I see hardly any) disappear. If you don't clean, you'll see dust not fingerprints.

On the live traffic, I have used on the Magellan portable. I'm not saying it doesn't work per se, but in my experience its no better and often not as good as the updates on news radio. In other words, I wouldn't pay extra for it as a feature, and certainly not for a subscription.

As to service, mine is excellent but I can only speak for my dealership as to Mazda since this is my first Mazda. So far so good.

kylem

Are you kidding? Really, this isn't even a legit discussion point. You almost never get fair value for extras like NAV, and NAV may prove to be the worst offender on that point. It was ridiculously expensive, and I don't expect to recoup on resale. Meanwhile, a portable Nav would move with me to the new vehicle. As to "crappy" aftermarket systems, have you looked? Many of them are superior to the built ins. Essentially, in my experience, you pay 5 to 10 times more for the built in aspect. I agree with you on looks, that's why you pay, but there is no "value" in that, except the looks, and MAYBE some marginal increase in resale value.

Psychobroker

The RDX Tech Nav package doesn't use a JOYSTICK, it uses either a center-mounted dial (very easy to use) OR voice activation/commands - how much easier can you get?

Real time traffic updates are very useful to me and the detour recommendations have helped me on numerous occasions.

kylem

But is it better than local radio traffic info? I suppose if your in a strange area it might help. But driving to work everyday, I find that newsradio is more up to the minute.

flar

The traffic reporting from KCBS in the bay area has been notoriously out of date for me. They also have a lot of area to cover so listening to the report is an exercise in dividing your attention to prune for the information you need. Also, unless you like listening to nothing but the news station, it is not useful if you spot something coming up and want to find out if it is a local issue or if it extends for a distance as you'd have to wait up to 9 minutes for the next traffic report. The display on the Nav is instantly there once you've been driving for more than a couple of minutes.

A better comparison might be Google Local Mobile for cell phones. It is free and shows pretty much exactly the same information as the Nav Traffic since I believe they both get their information from the same source. The GLM doesn't track your position (even with the newer GPS enabled phones I don't think that GLM taps into that), but it can be scrolled manually fairly easily.

I really liked the Nav Traffic, but since it costs $10/month to get it without XM I'm going to hold out and send them some letters to try to get them to offer it at a reasonable price first.

Psychobroker

Yes, because it's practically instantaneous AND I can continue listening to my DVD-Audio disc .

darth62

Don't get me wrong - I agree with you about the touchscreen. I find the interface in the TSX/TL MUCH easier to use than the interface in the RL/RDX (and, yes, I'm enough of a nerd that I've test driven each of those vehicles over the last few weeks). My only point was that it is not true that all touch screens are inferior to all Navs with those goofy controllers. I still think the menu structure is much more intuitive on the Acura line, and the entire system feels much more snappy to me. BUT, I admit that I have not lived with the Mazda system like you so I would not call myself an expert on it.

It is worth noting, however, that "experts" (like Consumer Reports) who have tested both systems always evaluate the Acura system more positively.

Live traffic: I suspect that depends on the city you live in. I get live traffic on my Blackberry and find it extremely useful. But, I've been told before that the LA area has especially good coverage (because of the CalTrans monitors). It is simply not the case that Live Traffic is NOT useful in every circumstance. If you live in the right place, it is a very desirable feature.

Service: I didn't comment on Mazda's service. I only said that I'd found my Acura experience to be superior to my Honda experience. But, frankly, I was never dissatisfied with Honda. My Honda dealer was always responsive.

Acura does little things that Honda didn't though: Giving me a loaner, cushy waiting room, etc. Not saying any of that is worth the premium however.

Bottom line is that I think you and I agree completely about the "value" associated with a prestige name.

Thanks for the thoughtful and balanced response to all my comments, btw.

darth62

Well, the value of the "built-ins" is intergration with the car's main systems. But, I agree with you that the "crappy" aftermarket systems (like the Garmin Nuvi) have gotten very slick, and it is a mistake to think of NAV as adding value.

darth62

Google Maps on my blackberry is about 100 times easier than listening to traffic reports. I instantaneously have a picture of exactly where I am going to be.

EKNE

Who the f---k want's a Mazda? Zoom-zoom..........

lilfeat

kylem and cjw should point their superior navigation systems to ->

http://www.mcx7.com/

;-)

By the way, my dog is better than your dog.

darth62

Well, I think that Mazda owners are welcome here. They bring a new insight. I just get annoyed when owners of one car completely distort the reality in order to make their point (like the poster above describing the RDX as a barge that has a big car ride whereas the CX7 is supposedly a tight handling sportscar).

Psychobroker

Or here: http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=230

More members there, good forums I've been in the middle of a couple heated discussions. Hey, at least they are prideful and love what they drive, just like us

batman

Seems to be a lot of problems there. TSBs.

Psychobroker

PS And they like our "Turbo" badges lol: http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showt...hp?t=123649761

AbovePrime.

I just thought I should add my 2cents to this discussion.

While the RDX does have a more sporting pretense, the Front End is just so odd and fugly.
The RDX DEFINITELY has a better interior, It does have some of the same design ques as the CX-7's interior.
The CX-7 is lacking on the skid pad compared to a RDX.
CX-7-0.79g
RDX-0.80g
not by much at all though.
The RDX beats the CX-7 on the slalom by 2 mph(If the CX-7 had lower ground clearance it could have taken the cake, but it doesn't)
CX-7-63.6 mph
RDX-65.7
Braking? CX-7, MURDERS but really it does.
The CX-7's steering is very natural feeling.
The RDX is definitly a sportier car with a better interior(some of the layout seems really tacky looking like the lower dash in between the shifter and the navigation screen)
But all in all I would have purchased a RDX, if it wasn't so FUGLY.
To Psychobroker, Its just a badge, And while both cars have turbos, you will not see one on my CX-7.
I am the PROUD owner of a CX-7 and 2007 MDX(styling is SO SO SO Much better!).
Home run with the CX-7's exterior design.
All in all The RDX compared to a CX-7?
Drivewise- The RDX is sportier, but not by much.
Interior materials- Mazda Definitely has room for improvement.
As for brand ego boosting, please give me a break. ACURA? HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
Call me when you get something worth talking about.

XIS

Doom Doom !