crazymjb

While I definatly believe the RDX is better looking than the CX-7, that is always a matter of opinion. I would also like to add, while Acura is considered a luxery brand, definatly more so than mazda, it still doesn't compete in all areas(quality of materials, basic features) to even Lexus and infiniti, though I think Acuras generally look a lot better. For example, the RDX would be nearly a perfect vehicle with the addition of active Bi-xenons, both seats powered with driver memory, power tilt wheel, and LED tail lights.

Of course styling does come down to user preferenence, in my mind, the the CX-7 looks like a fat civic, which I find to look like a turd. I think/hope their is minimal contest on the interior, with Acura for the win. Hell, I think they are much nicer than even the highest end competition.

Next comes the powertrain between the two: Though I would have loved to see a V6 powerplant in the RDX, namely that of the TL, a VFT turbo 4 is the next best thing. The removal of turbo lag and ivtec from Acura give it the upper hand.

After that we have the AWD system. SH-AWD is the system to beat. There is NO contest. Coupled with the suspension this thing handles incredably, score another point for Acura.

After that we have technology. Another are which Acura excels in, even over Mercedes Benz. The navigation system used in Acuras, especially the RDX is unbeatable. ELS scores higher than logic 7 in audio reviews. And handsfreelink is another excelent system. Score another point for Acura.

Mazda does get the ground clearance, and that, I suppose "unique(for a good reason)" styling, but all in all you get what you pay for, and even with Acura thats a steal.

Acura FTW

Mike

ArthurKnight

Everyone keeps saying they wish there was a V6 in the RDX. I want to see what the 2nd generation Acura turbo is going to be like. I'm betting they refine it's horrid fuel economy and boost the torque and hp a bit, possibly even further reduce the turbo lag.

crazymjb

Porsche uses an infinitly variable turbo charger, maybe they would adopt something similar to that?

Mike

dom

Wow. Total opposite for me. Its styling puts me right to sleep.

elgage44

Well I've test driven and inpsected both and checked almost all the colors in person. I like both vehicles but I would only buy the RDX. A CX-7 similarly equipped (similarly because you can't get all the featues in the CX-7) is just about $4k less than the RDX with tech package.

For that $4k you get: slightly better performing engine with equal MPG, better handling and AWD system, voice command navigation system with real-time traffic (my favorite in terms of real-world practicality), blue tooth phone integration, MUCH better quality and interior design (I hate orange instrumentation...) the cache of an Acura over Mazda, better warantee/service program. In all fairness, the CX-7 has more interior room and cargo space, has better exterior styling (except for the front-end), auto-dimming rear-view mirror and remote starter.

The interior is what would make me never consider the CX-7. It just doesnt' feel right and the materials and design are almost cheap looking in my opinion. The top line model even has an amazingly ugly lizard pattern stripe down the middle of the seats. Just crap...

To be fair, there is no reason why the RDX shouldn't have passenger side power seats, auto-dimming rearview mirror and remote start with the keyless entry. I would not be surprised if they show up on the 2008 model just as what happened with the TSX between the 2004 and 2005 model years. (power seat and XM radio were added standard for the 2005 TSX)

I might wait for the 2008 to see what improvements are made to the MPG and what standard features are added after Acura has a year to 'iron out the details."

2skipowder

The Oregonian reported that the car carrier that tipped 60 degrees onto its port side, off of Alaska has finally made it to the dock in Portland. "There were 4,812 cars on board. About 100 were not Mazdas". They also said "Most of the cars onboard were Mazda 3 compact cars and CX-7 SUV's". They plan on selling them as "used cars".

So if you really want a deal, here they are!

If you want it bad, you get it bad. If you want it worse, you get it worse!

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

RDX vs cx7, the price difference is huge, if you are talking about the base price of each vehicle. I went to mazda website, and built a cx7 that's similarly equipped with the rdx, and the price difference was just about $1k. That was a few weeks ago and so I don't remember exactly the price difference, but the cx7 i built was above $30grand for sure. The rdx is intended to compete with the x3, im not too sure about the facelifted version of x3 (it should have a 272hp engine) but that car costs $5000 more than the rdx for the base model. Now add some options and upgrade to the 3.0L version and the price difference will even be greater. Then you add someNow I havent test driven both cars yet but we can expect acura cars have better quality than mazda cars. Quantitively speeaking, the acura can do 0-60 in 6.3 sec and 1/4mile in 14.8 sec. It was done by motortrend or road and track, and they revved it to 3000rpm before launching (but they do this to every car to get the best result). The last time I saw the cx7 does it in 7.5 sec, same as the nissan murano. I drive a 02 TL type s and all I know is that I won't mess around with rdx. I don't know how acura made the rdx as fast as the old TL Type S, it's about 500lbs lighter and has 20 more hp, but I guess the SH-AWD really helps the rdx to achieve such Escalade-rivaling performance numbers.

schuchmn

If you want to compare 0-60 times, one of the mags (Car and Driver, I think) recently did a 3-way comparison of thr RDX, the CX-7, and the RAV4. I'd figure those to be the best numbers to look at because they were done by the same drivers under the same conditions. And if you want to know how the RDX beats out the TL, look at the torque numbers rather than horsepower.

kylem

At this time I'm a proud owner of a CX-7, and I could EASILY have afforded either vehicle (I was looking at the Cayenne as my other option), I just wanted the most sporty SUV I could find. Name tags don't really impress me (ok Porsche would have been nice, but the model I wanted was literally double the RDX). For me, I couldn't get past what I consider the traditional look of the RDX -- I'm not saying it's not a fine looking car, it is. But the CX-7 has that wow factor to me that says sporty crossover alot more than the Acura. On the drive, I thought both vehicles were just great, I didn't notice significant turbo lag in either, though its been reported in BOTH vehicles. On handling, the CX-7 is on par with the Subaru WRX in a slalom -- and that's really something. Everyone says the CX-7's brakes are the best in class -- and that's frankly more important than a 1 second beat on 0-60 (though even there I've seen published numbers that say the CX-7 is on par with the Acura). As to the interior, I prefer the uncluttered look of the CX-7 and touch screen NAV. At least to me, there is nothing "cheap" about it. To me they both had a similar feel. Second is the downright crummy ground clearance on the Acura -- I don't think you can call it an SUV, you could NEVER take it off road, and while I don't drive off road much, I do drive through lots of unplowed snow, and the higher ground clearance is key -- a heck of alot more important than so-called real time traffic info -- which if they're using satillite radio service providers (I think they are) is never right anyway. The only thing the Acura has that would have been important to me is the wireless bluetooth intergration; that would have been nice. Good luck to all. I plan on hanging around here just to set the record straight if need be.

schuchmn

Going (kicking and screaming) from a sport sedan to an SUV, I also wanted the sportiest thing available. While I agree that the CX-7 looks the part, the RDX really drives the part. I was sold on the RDX on the first test drive.

Regardless of how fast a practiced driver can hustle a car through a slalom course, on the road I found the handling of the RDX much sharper and more precise than anything else I'd driven, and the SH-AWD is impressive in the corners. I consider this to be every bit as much of a safety feature as airbags.

As I've said before in this august forum, we all have our own set of priorities and I'm not dissing yours or anyone else's. Mine put handling above styling and I don't intend to ever take the car off-road. Besides, coming from a sport sedan, the RDX has more ground clearance than I've ever had. The interior is simply a matter of taste and HOW the nav system works doesn't matter to me as much as HOW WELL it works and as I learn thr Acutra's system, I'm finding that it works quite well.

And I'm not putting down the CX-7 either. I don't hold the opinion that any Acura is superior to any Mazda and the prestige value of a car is way down on my priority list . I test drove the CX-7 too and if the RDX hadn't come along, it's what I would have bought.

kylem

That's cool. Enjoy your ride. In terms of handling, I really couldn't see much difference -- then again, I wasn't able to test either car out on the autobahn. Frankly, when I get the chance to drive in "kick ass" mode, I trust that the CX-7's slalom performance will show itself well. Truth be told, these damn cars are so good out of the showroom (not just these, all highly rated brand new vehicles) that a test drive is almost pro forma. If I could take the car home for a day, well, that would be a different story.

wolfeman314

Umm, or maybe you just don't know how to get what you need to out of a test drive. Unless you regularly drive 120+ mph on German highways, I don't see how testing a CX-7 and RDX in those conditions would help your buying decision. So stick around here and hold your ground all you'd like, but with each post you lose credibility.

Jeb

The CX7 ads on TV are the worst. People should boycott the CX7 for this reason alone.

schuchmn

Both Acura and Mazda made claims about handling like a sport sedan. The CX-7 felt good, but when I got back into the sport sedan ( a 2002 BMX 330xi, btw) the difference was obvious. While I won't claim the RDX handles like a BMW, the feel was a whole lot closer, especially on a curvey back road.

What color CX-7 did you get? The one I test drove was black cherry mica with the sand interior -- really nice looking car.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

I havent got the chance to read the new comparison yet but I guess what i was trying to say is that the RDX is incredibly fast for a car that weighs 4000lbs and with "only" 240hp. I understand the fact that it has 260lbs/ft of torque too. But from my understanding torque plays a major role for low speed/low rpm acceleration only. That means the engine isn't making that much torque at high rpm, hence the lower hp number. So, I thought that 0-60 in 6.3 mite be possible, but 1/4 mile in 14.8 seconds is really amazing. A 3.2 TL Type S with 260hp and a quite flat torque curve (232lb/ft from 3500rpm-5500rpm) is just tiny bit faster even though it carries much less weight. The numbers from car and driver for the TL is 6.2 s for 0-60 and 14.8s for 1/4 mile. Do you have the numbers from car and driver for the RDX? I guess that would be a little bit more accurate for comparing those 2 cars. By the way, it also amazes me that the RDX makes more torque than hp, pretty rare for a honda/acura!

kylem

Yeah, your right -- the CX-7 has the better brakes, equals a WRX on the slalom and -- giving the devil his due -- the RDX on its best day is 1-2 seconds faster 0-60 (other tests show the vehicles about the same), yet you can tell a vast difference driving around the dealership, ok. Me thinks your smitten with the Acura badge. As to credibility, I don't think I'll get much on an Acura board, but honest folks will all know the vehicles are way more similar than they are different. Ask yourself this, if the vehicles changed places (i.e., the Mazda got the Acura badge and vice versa), and you took a test drive, would your immediate conclusion be that the Mazda (the disguised RDX) kicked butt? Because I drove them both and while the Acura may have been a tad quiter and had a tad thicker leather, there ain't no way any sensible person would describe a vast difference. There are many reasons someone might buy the RDX over the CX-7, but saying it's because the RDX drives SO much better is unfair, and will eventually be proven in head to head tests -- these two will more likely tie rather than produce a clear winner on the track -- I'd bet on it.

wolfeman314

See you in Vegas, ignoramus.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Yea, Cx7 and RDX are very similar cars. The main differences are here:

- RDX has a bit more high-tech features
- RDX is slightly faster (according to most magazines)
- RDX has an acura badge (i think it sounds better when u tell others u drive an acura than a mazda, unless it's an rx7 or rx8)
- RDX has slightly better handling
- RDX is more expensive (again, when you equip the mazda with similar features as the rdx, the difference is about $2k)
- CX7 has better brakes
- Interior quality and space, I'm not sure

Obviously, if you prefer one brand over the other, then you don't have to worry about which car to get, you won't go wrong either one anyways. But if you can't decide what to get, then the question becomes, are you willing to pay 2 grand more for the RDX to get better handling, acceleration, prestige (some may think acura doesn't really have any prestige but if honda is about the same as mazda, and acura has more prestige than honda, then I guess acura also has more prestige than mazda), and features.

kylem

I agree with everything you have said. This is a FAIR comparison. And, your right about the price -- if your considering getting the fully loaded CX-7, the price difference will not be a barrier for most. Your also right that most would consider the Acura to be a more high end brand compared with Mazda, but I don't think of it in the same way as say BMW or Mercedes, where some people buy mainly for the name. (And, of course, Madzda does not have high/low brand differentiation like Honda/Acura -- so buying a Mazda doesn't have the same "feel" as say buying a CR-V in lieu of an RDX.) The one thing your analysis omits, however, is the styling. That's a huge feature for many, and was the primary factor in me choosing the CX-7. Others probably like the RDX's style more, a matter of taste, but I think most will find that the CX-7 has a more sporty and unique look (yes, that's my personal opinion and many -- on this board particularly -- will disagree). Finally, although price wasn't decisive in my case, saving a few bucks is always nice.

diamondpearl_

No need to say all this, if you like CX-7. Go buy a CX-7 and put a smile on your face.

patbrass

I'm not sure how you got that $2k difference...According to CarsDirect and other sites:
- Mazda CX7 GT AWD + Tech Package + Sirius = $33,030
- Acura RDX + Tech Package = $37,165
...for a difference of more than $4k.

Anyway, I agree with most of the comments that the RDX is slightly better than the CX7 is most departments but the real question is does it worth $4+k? The answer is probably yes for most people on the RDX forums and probably no for most people on the CX7 forums.

As for myself, I bought the CX7 back in june mainly because I didn't want to wait 2-3 more months as I desperately needed to change my TL at the beginning of the summer. So far I have no regrets but I love the RDX as well.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Yea, I agree that Acura is no BMW/Mercedes Benz. Mazda used to have a high end brand in asia and europe. Actually, there were 2 brands, one was called xedos, the other was eunos. I think xedos was for the european market while eunos was for the asian market. Unfortunately Mazda didn't succeed in both markets and those names were forgotten rather quickly. Not to mention that those weren't introduced in North America. In terms of styling, I think both RDX and CX7 give me this "stunning" feel. They both look sharp and unique to me. But like you've said, it's about personal opinion.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Hmmm, I went directly to Mazda website and build the CX7. Let me go to there now and build one again, and I will list all the options:

Total price for sport model: $24345
Total price for Grand Touring model: $26895
Total price for Grand Touring model with AWD: $28595

we can skip the color and trim section,

Packages:

MOONROOF/BOSE/6CD CHANGER $1,585
SIRIUS SATELLITE RADIO $430 (similar to XM radio on RDX)
COMPASS/AUTO-DIM MIRROR WITH HOMELINK $250

I'm not sure whether the RDX has remote engine start and splash guards or not, so I didn't add those onto the CX7.

So as you can see, the total price for this CX7 is $30860. It's similarly equipped with the base RDX, but still doesnt have some features that can be found on the RDX. I think there are some features that are unique to the CX7 too, but then the RDX still has more features. Do the math, and u can see the price difference is about $2k.

kylem

I did! Currently wearing a big smile.

kylem

But even 4k shouldn't be a price barrier to those considering a top-of-the line CX-7. Either on a loan or lease, you'd be a damn fool to go with what you thought was an inferior car just to save 4K when your already committed to around 30K. If that amount of money is so decisive, your probably looking at the wrong class of car -- in that case the buyer could go with the base CX-7 (or even less), not in the same league as the RDX. There's also no question that the top-of-the line CX-7 competes with RDX -- except perhaps as to misguided snobs who think that buying an Acura will make others think they're rich. Put another way, most buyers of the high end CX-7 can "afford" an RDX.

wolfeman314

No one said it didn't compete. It's just so different in execution that it doesn't matter how similar they are on paper. . . Any reasonable person (I'm afraid you've previously demonstrated that you don't fall into this category) can determine in back-to-back test drives that the RDX is well worth the additional money over the CX-7. And as you said yourself, the extra few grand should be meaningless to a buyer in this class of car. Thanks for poking holes in your own buying theory so I didn't have to. . .

CL6

Who cares? Where do these discussions go besides nowhere?

wolfeman314

Good point. Which moderator would like to do the honor. . .

laee3

Well, in my opinion. I think RDX is well worth money. I really cannot understand how you can see they have same interior. RDX has better engine and handling. IMO if you can afford better then why not go for it? If you don't think it is worth 4k more then get cx-7, simple as that. Don't try to come to this forum and defend yourself when obviously most of people here own the RDX not the damn cx-7.

Boon

and the flame war continues! This is the first I've seen on this forum. There's an even more drawn out one on Edmunds with the RDX vs. X3.

my 2 cents: Haven't driven the CX-7 so can't comment on the ride. Thought the exterior was really eye-catching but friends had problems with their Mazda 3's and 6's so I stayed away. Wasn't hot on the RDX looks (someone else said it best, it reminds me of a mini-MDX) but fell in love with the interior as soon as I sat down. Now that time's passed, I prefer the sharper lines of the RDX. The CX-7 (and Infiniti FX) looks a bit bulbous in comparison...especially the front grille.

I like the CX-9 though.

slo007

Of course not. It just says you can't afford an Acura.

slo007

I completely disagree. I haven't driven either one yet, but based on the photos of both cars, the CX-7 looks really bland to me. The interior also looks cheap -- the vents design are old and come std. on the cheapest cars I rented this summer while in Europe for 5 months. The overall design of the steering wheel, along with that line going down the middle of the seats looks absolutely horrenduous. The rear layout of the RDX lights is not cool either, nor is the 80's look of the stereo; but I much preffer the entire Acura design vs. the Mazda model.

It comes down to personal opinion. I'd never buy a Mazda. Ford owns 33% of the company, and that's enough to keep me away. Ford cannot be trusted with reliability issues. The Firestone debacle comes to mind every time someone mentions they are buying a Ford. The high incidence of deaths in accidents involving Mustangs, the ignition switch prone to fires, etc., etc. My view of the company is very low. Unlike most people, I do not forget the past easily; and hold a grudge on those that don't respect the customer.

I'm selling my TSX and the resale value issue is beginning to look bleak. Acura's don't hold their value as much as I hoped. Reality check on this area.

Quote:

but so far I prefer the CX-7 regardless of price.

Why are you still here?

slo007

Nor the use of capital letters in front of sentences and periods on the end...

slo007

But I'm having so much fun!!!

kylem

Folks, this is an internet BB. None of this is life or death. For me, this is just pure debate -- I bought the CX-7. I'll continue the dbate as long as there are takers, if you don't like it, move on to a new thread.

A few replies to the recent flurry: 1. "Of course not. It just says you can't afford an Acura." Please!!!! This is the one that really keeps me coming back. It's the stupidest comment out there. You know what, if any of you have been around REAL wealth, not BS new money stock trader wealth, you would see that income can't be determined by car. If anyone has been to Nantucket, you'd see that the official car of one of the wealthiest spots on earth is a Ford SUV (followed closely by the CR-V). In my case, my other contender was a Cayenne, which cost twice the RDX. I ruled out RDX based on it's boring style (in my opinion) and lack of ground clearance -- it wasn't an SUV, more like a station wagon with an SUV shell.

2. "Any reasonable person (I'm afraid you've previously demonstrated that you don't fall into this category) can determine in back-to-back test drives that the RDX is well worth the additional money over the CX-7." I'm afraid you've been smitten by the false prestige bug. There's no vast difference in any respect.

3. "RDX has better engine." Prove it.

4. "I'd never buy a Mazda. Ford owns 33% of the company, and that's enough to keep me away. Ford cannot be trusted with reliability issues." But the CX-7 is built in Japan, while the RDX is built in Ohio. I'd never buy an American car (just kidding on this one, but the Ford stake has no relevance at all).

Keep 'em coming!

TL_2004

rdx has SH-AWD
cx-7 just has normal awd
this is the diggest different!!!

TL_2004

who likes cx-7 just go buy it!!!!
and get out here plz!!!
Acura is better than Mazda too much!!!

TL_2004

Acura better than Honda
Honda better than Mazda

slo007

Dear Kylem,

See the smily face after the comment?

It indicates sarcasm. I was just teasing you with the $$$ comment. Don't get so stressed out!

I received that exact comment when I browsed the 3-series forums back in 2003 when I was in doubt between the TSX and the 325i. The difference was $3-5K. Hardly a quantity to keep someone from buying a 325i... Obviously, I went with the best value, the TSX. In your case, that's the CX-7.

I wish you great luck with your new car!

schuchmn

Folks, this sure has been an interesting thread.

Except for the silly flames.

If you have something constructive to add, add it. But insults add nothing, waste bandwidth, and lower the credibility of the flamer. And if you don't like this thread, rather than suggesting that it shouldn't be here, just don't read it.

Jeez, guys, just a little courtesy here. It's not so hard.