jaobrien6

Most reviews I've read have said that you need to drive the RDX at about 9/10 in order to feel the SH-AWD really work its magic. If that's true, how much does SH-AWD really buy us on a vehicle like the RDX? It's a vehicle that will almost never see a track, so how often are people going to push the vehicle that hard?

This is a serious question, because if the AWD really is the biggest difference between the two (I don't agree with that statement, by the way), I can't see why you'd pay several grand for an AWD system with capabilities you might never use.

slo007

The all wheel drive option is mostly for those emergency situations where the system can attempt to prevent the car from leaving the road. I've had a couple close calls with RWD and FWD cars where such a system could have prevented the entire situation....

RWD - Toyota 4Runner: fish tailed in wet weather at 20 mph. A 30-foot hole next to the road would have hurt a lot. Fortunately, I was able to recover the car by quick use of the accelerator, steering, and ABS-equipped brakes. I recall seeing the face of another driver nearby: her jaw dropped in fear.

FWD - VW Jetta: made a turn at 40 mph in a highway at night... to my surprise, sand was present on the surface and the car spun out. I slammed on the brakes and stopped just short of leaving the road. I was very fortunate that there was no oncoming traffic, as the car stopped on the wrong side of the road.

While I got lucky on both occasions, a less experienced driver could have been less fortunate, and possibly injured or killed. Hence the benefit of AWD -- it makes up a little for the lack of traction on the road by one or more tires.

Of course, the system is not bullet proof. It's very heavy and will increase the distance for the car to stop. A seemingly innocent quick stop in traffic can catch you by surprise and you might end up hitting the car in front of you. A lighter vehicle could have stopped in time.

kylem

Got it. Thanks, but anyway the comment wasn't directed to anyone in particular. I do think some folks actually think that way. Pretty funny about that beamer story, I read somewhere that Mazda was out to do to Acura what Acura did to BMW -- whether Mazda succeeds will only be known years hence. By the way, the Super Handling system actually distributes power between left and right wheels rather than just front and rear. While that sounds nifty, people need to realize that most vehicles with such dynamic control systems are essentially in either FWD or RWD most of the time. The CR-V was one of the earliest vehicles with so-called "realtime" AWD. In my humble opinion, there's not a dimes worth of difference in driver experience. 99% of us will notice the AWD in snow and ice situations only. While the theory of superhandling sounds good, it really seems more like a safety feature that's handled quite well already with traction/stability control. In fairness, I can't speak based on first hand experience on the feature -- but I strongly suspect that anyone who claims to have noticed this feature driving around the dealership is likely full of Sh*** Sort of like the guy who panned the stripe on the CX-7 as "cheap." If that same feature appeared on The RDX, it would be "attention to detail not seen in the inferior CX-7" -- come on smile, you know its true!

dennarda

When I purchased my RDX, I test drove the Mazda CX-7 and RDX within minutes of each other. There are distinct differences between these cars. The on-paper specs are rather similar, but I found the CX-7's engine to be rougher, and the ride and handling feel to be similar to a decent sedan (Mazda 6). The RDX had a truly premium feel, from the weight of the controls, to the steering.

No doubt, the low end pricing of the CX-7 makes it a steal (starting 10,000 less than an RDX). Once you add all of the bells and whistles, the price of the CX-7 ends up somewhere between an RDX and an RDX with Tech (MSRP of $34,620 when configured as close to RDX with Tech Package as possible). This comes down to a difference of $3,000. For that $3,000 you get the following on an RDX with Tech:
Objective
A better AWD system (I have put the SH-AWD to good use many times already in conditions that traditional AWD would have caused significant understeer)
A better audio system (DVD-A , Dolby PLII, and 410 watts)
A longer bumper to bumper warranty
Dual zone climate
Hands free phone (I am fairly certain the CX-7 does not have this)
Subjective
An improved engine (I realize the power ratings are nearly identical, but the smoothness and gusto is better in the RDX),
Improved customization options and system feedback
A better navigation system
An upscale interior feel (I realize this is subjective, but the Mazda interior feels quite common)
The slight ego boost of a "premium" brand

I think these additions justify the additional cost of the RDX. The end result is that both the CX-7 AND the RDX are a steal. For me, I would strongly recommend the CX-7 to someone looking for a vehicle in the $25,000-$30,000 but would recommend the RDX to anyone looking in the $35,000-$40,000 range. The only gap is in the $30,000-$35,000 range where pricing overlaps a bit between the two. In this range it comes to personal valuations of what each car offers. For instance would you rather have a non-tech RDX with the improved AWD, dual climate control, and warranty, or a CX-7 with navigation system? Which configuration is more valuable to you?

jaobrien6

Well, not for me it's not. AWD for me is mostly so I don't have to put chains on when I drive up to go skiing while it's snowing.

Also, I disagree with your statement that either of those mishaps would have been helped by AWD... both sound like situations that would have been helped by stability control but not AWD, not even SH-AWD.

sunnyflava99

Sorry... totally unrelated i saw your avatar and love westies (the other dog's nice too). I used to have one growing up, mine wasn't afraid of anything. He used to routinely go up to bigger dogs and start shit... he was my little pitbull.

Anyway sorry about the rant. The Cx-7 looks good and may even perform good, but from my past experience with mazdas the engine sucks. Iv'e been a honda and now an acura faithfull since 1995. I've owned other cars during that time, but I can't tear myself from japanese cars. I current own a 06 TL and love it.

schuchmn

Having driven both cars, forget about the 9/10 stuff. The difference in handling in obvious from the start -- the quickness, the precision, etc. Remember that SH-AWD is not the only determinant of handling; the suspension design make a big difference as well.

kylem

I realize I'll be flamed relentlessly for this, but the better handling, "precision" etc described in the Acura is probably MAINLY accounted for by its minimal ground clearance. For all intents and purposes, it's a car with an SUV body.

wolfeman314

Don't you get tired of giving us crazy reasons for your purchase? If you're doing things off road in your CX-7 that you wouldn't dare to do in an RDX, I'm afraid you bought the wrong vehicle altogether.

kylem

Huh! The ground clearance in the CX-7, as well as the vehicle itself, isn't really meant for off roading. However, the ground clearance that it offers has real road benefits in snow (unplowed or badly plowed). In fact, I'd say that was the ONLY real benefit of the SUV's I've had over the years compared with 4-wheel-drive cars. That's a benefit of high ground clearance but does negatively affect the "car like" feel many are attracted to. This is a fact -- stop whistling in the graveyard.

schuchmn

No flame, but the difference is not ground clearance. I've been driving sport sedans for years and I know what a performance car feels like on the road. The RDX's steering gives much better feedback -- you know where the wheels are and what they're doing. The response to steering inputs is quick pretty much linear. The CX-7 felt somewhat numb and vague by comparison and it's response to steering input was slower. Don't get me wrong, the CX-7 handles extremely well for an SUV, better than any other SUV I drove. Except the RDX.

Migtht ground clearance contribute to this? Maybe, but not a whole lot. This is a matter of suspension design. Both the RDX and the CX-7 have the same basic suspension setup (struts up front and a multilink in back), but Acura and Mazda have executed them differently.

As far as the RDX being a car dressed up like an SUV, I think you're right and that was exactly what I was looking for. But your wants and needs are likely different than mine and that doesn't make either of us right or wrong. You may need the extra ground clearance and your driving style may be saner than mine and the handling difference may not be important to you.

As I've said many times, you have to decide what matches your personal needs and tastes the best. The RDX suited me and the CX-7 (a very nice vehicle that was also on my short list, btw) may suit you better. Road tests and the opinions of others don't change what it is that you yourself are looking for in a car.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Actually, the Sh-4WD is far more unique than other system in the industry, and it is not even related to the "realtime" AWD system nor the VTM-4 system found in the pilot/mdx. While those systems are FWD most of the time, the SH-4WD is not.
For the RL case, 70% of the torque is sent to the front wheels, that means 30% is to the back. I won't call this "FWD most of the time." Also, the torque split is variable like many systems, so if necessary, the back axle can get 70% of torque at most. But the most unique part is the ability to split torque between the rear wheels. If necessary, the system can send 100% of rear axle torque to either the left or right rear wheel. In other words, in the most extreme case, the front axle gets 30% of the torque, and the one of the rear wheels gets no torque, and the other rear wheel gets 70% of the torque. The theory is quite similar to Mitsubishi's AYC system. So yes, this is system is far more superior than the one in CX-7. If I remember correctly, the 4wd system of the cx7 came straight from the mazdaspeed 6. Mazda called it a "Active Torque Split" AWD system, but in truth, it's simply a Haldex-type 4wd system. In normal situation, unlike the SH-4wd, the mazda's system sends no torque to the rear axle. This means it is FWD most of the time. Now, this system is identical to the one in Volvo S40 AWD. So, while the RDX has a system that's similar to the system found in the mighty lancer evolution, the Cx7 only has a system from the Volvo S40. So tell me, may be I am exaggerating, but do you think a Lan Evo is more fun to drive, or the S40?

Keen drivers no doubt will prefer the Acura's system. Of course, there are many people who are not keen drivers. But when people criticize Hondas/Acuras, they always say that all they make are FWD cars and no FWD cars canmatch RWD/AWD for handling. Now that Acura is making an affordable crossover (not SUV) that has such a good 4wd system, which is able to deliver so much driving fun, people are saying it's not that useful because most people won't push the car to the limit. Why not think about the RDX as a CUV with a sporty characteristic. I am sure keen drivers who need a larger cabin will find the RDX very attractive. Basically, the RDX is a fun to drive sports car with a taller body.

I hope my post makes sense to you.

schuchmn

I agree with everything you said. But I think the point that some people miss is that most AWD systems don't redistribute power unless they detect slippage of the drive wheels, whereas SH-AWD adds things like acceleration, yaw rate, etc. into the calculation. The design goal of the system is more than just to provide good traction in slippery conditions. It's also meant to improve handling in all conditions. I guess you could call ne a keen driver and I'll tell you that whatever magic Acura used, it works.

That said, I would just caution people about buying anything based on what the manufacturer says it is or does. This may seem obvious, but in a ot of forums, people try to prove one product superior to another by quoting specs, numbers, etc. Just remember that you don't drive a spec sheet. It's what the product does for YOU that matters.

In the case of the RDX, it simply handles better for me than anything else I drove. Since SH-AWD works continuously and seamlessly, I can't say how much of the handling is attributtable to SH-AWD and how much to the suspension set-up. And in fact, other than curiousity, it doesn't matter to me. The fact that the RDX and CX-7 suspensions have the the same specs on paper (front struts and rear multilink) doesn't mean that the handling of both cars is equal.

dysonlu

Comparo on MSN.com:

http://autos.msn.com/research/compar...02481&GT1=8622

Expert and users ratings give the advantage to the CX-7... for what it's worth.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

This is exactly why Honda makes 2 (used to be 3) different versions of Honda Accord. One for the North American market, which is the accord that we see, and the other is mainly for the European and Japanese markets, which is the TSX here. They know that most (note that I am not saying all) Americans prefer "bang for the buck" rather than driving fun. That's why there are 2 versions. Most Americans prefer power, features, reliability, and a low price tag. They don't care much about driving involvement. That's why the Accord is so successful. This is also why the CX-7 have higher ratings, it's just another proof of what cars most Americans prefer. If you bring these 2 cars to the European market, then that will be another story. They care so much about driving fun that, even the European Accord (TSX) is only considered as "decent" rather than exciting. In Europe, some of the most fun to drive sedans are/were Peogeot 406, Ford Mondeo (Ford Contour in North America, which was, unsurprisingly, not as popular as the boring Ford Taurus), VW Passat, and Alfa Romeo 156. In fact, the Alfa was actually able to rival BMW 3-series in terms of being a driver's car.

So, I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, and if you don't, I can conclude it in a few words. Basically, an Acura is not a Honda, it's not here to make a bread and butter car, Acura's products are supposed to be more fun to drive than a honda. People in Honda understand that the market for fun to drive cars is smaller, that's why they make it as an Acura and make it more luxury at the same time. The CX-7 is nice, it has many nice features and more. I am sure many people are satisfied with it. For those looking for more fun, but also want a practical vehicle, and are willing to pay the extra few grand, then the RDX is for you. The CX7 to the RDX is like the Accord to the TSX, that's all.

schuchmn

Well, I'm not sure what it's worth. Every other test report I've read has come to the opposite conclusion.

This particular expert rating comes from a single reviewer. And since even expert reviewers disagee, you have to take such things with a grain of salt. Is this report better than Road & Track's? Is it as informative as a comparison test in Car and Driver? Does this reviewer have the same tatses as you do? The reviewer lists as RDX "cons" styling and off-roading. I'd say a) the styling is a matter of taste, b) the styling is nowhere near as important to me as handling, and c) I don't ever intend to take the RDX off road and the lower height makes the car less prone to rollover and so for me, this "con" is a "pro".

The user ratings are about as useful as trying to decide who to vote for based on sound bites without knowing anything else about the candidates. When a user says the car handles well, what does he have as a reference of comparison? If someone has never owned a sports car, how would he or she know what good handling is really like? In one of the forums, someone mentioned that he liked the Murano's handling. When I test drove one, I felt like I was waddling around in it and the steering had no feel whatsoever. That doesn't make me right and him wrong -- it just means we have different notions of what good handling is.

And 1-10 scales are downright worthless. That's even worse than buying a car based on it's spec sheet.

So read as many reviews and road tests as you can find and try to glean what the car is really like. When you've narrowed down the choices, depend solely upon the really important road tests -- your own.

Philbert

Yesterday I test drove a CX-7 in the morning, and then test drove an RDX in the afternoon (we also tried to drive a new CR-V EX-L, but the only one in stock was already on a test drive, and we needed to run some other errands). I also attended the Mazda Zoom Zoom live today and drove a few CX-7s on/in a couple different courses/situations.

I own a Mazda Miata, and through autocross competition, qualify for S-plan pricing on new Mazda vehicles. This additional disount, on a vehicle starting many thousand less, gave the CX-7 a healty advantage going in. But after driving them both, they just don't feel like the same class of car. In fact, I'm somewhat dissapointed in the quality of materials mazda is using in the interiors of their cars. The new "Miata" uses more hard touch, cheaper feeling, plastic parts than my 1999 example. The CX-7 is the same story. Nothing is really offensive in there, but it just doesn't feel like what an interior should at $30k+. The seats were not very comfortable, and combined with the steering wheel that did not adjust for reach, I couldn't find a truly comfortable driving position.

The RDX on the other hand, while having some cheap feeling bits inside, had an overall more refined look. The quality of the leather on the seats (and the seats themselves) was an order of magnitude better than the Mazda. The fabric of the headliner was much nicer as well.

I agree with some of the comments I've read in the thread concerning the powertrain differences. In the Mazda, despite retuning the Mazdaspeed 6 engine to produce max boost lower in the rev-range, I always knew when the turbo kicked in. And it just didn't feel that refined. It made a fair bit of noise, and overall drove like a "bigger" vehicle. The RDX, while still not driving like a sports car, or even sports sedan, did drive more like a car than the CX-7. Whatever Honda did with the variable flow turbo worked, because, while not perfectly seamless, didn't call nearly the attention to itself as the Mazda turbo did, and felt to spool up almost instantly.

Lastly, and of most consequence to my wife, though least to me, was the dealership experience at Acura vs Mazda. While nothing has compared to the Audi dealer we've been visiting (though unfortunately quite frequently, at the manufacturers expense) for nearly 4 years, the Acura dealership was much more friendly and personable. It was a place my wife felt comfortable doing business, and would not mind bringing the car into for service.

The same might not be said for the Mazda dealer. Again, not at the "slimeball" level of some dealers, this one, when presented with my S-plan certificate, gave me various excuses for not quoting me the exact purchase price of the vehicle, (under Splan, they are supposed to show you the invoice sheet, which has the S-plan price on it). He basically wanted me to agree to buy the car before I saw the price. We are merely doing research at this point, and while I could have lied and told him all kinds of things he wanted to hear to get all the information I was entitled to, I prefer not to operate that way, and shouldn't be forced into that position. Needless to say that if I buy a Mazda of any kind in the future, it will not be from that dealer.

I think an RDX is in our future, but not for a number of months. Little to no discount off MSRP, and the lack of any sort of lease promotion from Acura, makes it easy to sit around for a little while. As long as Audi is paying to keep the A4 running, we're content (sort-of) to wait it out.

Cheers,
Phil

CJW

I drove the RDX and CX-7 back to back. Personally, I think the CX-7 looks better and is more fun to drive. However, the Acura is clearly more refined. Better interior, better options, overall better quality. It does cost more but you are paying for a better car.

Still, I did enjoy driving the CX-7 more. I am now very undecided..

schuchmn

Since I spend a lot of time in my car, driving enjoyment is very high on my list of necessary features. Which is why I picked the RDX. So I'm curious. What makes the CX-7 more enjoyable to you?

Although many on this forum would take exception, I agree with you about the looks. But looks comes in lower on my list than fun-to-drive.

CJW

I like the way the CX-7 handled, which felt more sporty to me than the RDX, which felt more like a big luxury car. My Acura dealer is not budging one dollar on the price but the Mazda dealer is willing to deal. I think that will decide it...

Philbert

where are you located? have you tried soliciting quotes via e-mail from the internet managers of dealers in your general area? i'd guess one, or a few of them, are offering some discount. once you get a good offer, go back to the others that responded, and your local dealer, to try and beat it. once you get dealers competing with each other, you stand a much better chance of getting a good deal.

CJW

I'm in Connecticut and there aren't many Acura dealers around. Mine offered the RDX with Nav for $37,165, which is the list price. He said they might lower it after Thanksgiving but I need a car now..

diamondpearl_

enjoy your ride

CJW

I got a great deal on a Mazda CX-7 AWD GT with navigation -- for about six thousand less than an Acura RDX. I love this car but then everyone feels that way just after buying. Time will tell whether or not I made the right decision...

rseitzinger

We test drove the CX-7 and the CR-V, both were nice but they were not "Acura Nice".

CJW

I agree that the CX-7 is not as nice as the RDX, which does cost more, but it is still a very nice SUV. I was unimpressed with the Honda CR-V, which is a seriously underpowered hollow shell, especially when compared to the RDX or CX-7 (Grand Touring version).

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

I guess Honda doesn't want the CRV to compete with the RDX at all. I am disappointed that Honda didn't put the TSX engine into it, or at least something that will pump out 180-190hp. CRV isn't that much heavier than a TSX (i think it's even lighter?) so it should have enough torque even with the TSX's engine (TSX has a very flat torque curve). I am sure people don't mind the extra revs that's available along with the engine.

CJW

I went to the Honda dealer expecting to buy a CR-V but when I test drove it I realized they had made a major mistake. Our '06 TSX delivers good performance, especially on the freeway. Why they didn't boost the power more is a mystery.. I have 350 miles on my new CX-7 and am very happy with its performance.

technics_speak

the sheer blind bias in this thread has me rolling on the floor (laughing)

Aethetics alone: The CX-7 looks incredible. The RDX? Notsomuch. Well its got jagged edges and not one bit of 'flow' to it's design. The steering wheel alone looks like the incarnation of the Pontiac logo, let alone the clinical and entirely soul-less console. The back was borrowed from a B9 Tribeca, and the front from a large mouth bass. I've pretty much made my decision, and I'll be happy to save the cash, no no, not for the Acura insignia, but for me and my girl, thanks.

technics_speak

{riceboy}but the Mazda just doesnt feeel right., and its not as high tech as the Acura... i just KNOW it! i dont know what i'm talking about and heaven forbid i actually support my claims with details but.. yea and mazda doesnt build good engines. They have an incredible record for longevity, and are now supplying Ford with all their 4cylinder engines (must be a really crappy engine to go cross-marque, worldwide) but i dunno, it just doesnt have anything cool sounding like VTEC. Forget direct injection thats for diesels. I dont know what it does, but I've always heard its for diesels. Never mind 280ft/lbs of torque available from 2500rpm, i dont know how a really crappy mazda engine could support that kind of force at that rpm over 4 rod journals. maybe if you stick a VTEC badge on the valve cover, you might get your cheap mazda engine to last for over a year {/riceboy}

From a tuner's point of view, you made an excellent choice. Direct Gasoline Injection FTW. This one thing right here raises the engine's potential dramatically. ANY engineer will choose an engine that acheives low end torque through the usage of DISI, rather than a turbo with a metal flap on the turbine side. Did someone mention "technology"? Anyway... Did you know that the L3-VDT (engine in your CX-7) can support an insane amount of power without internal modifcation? Not only is a higher compression ratio more efficient, but direct injection can virtually eliminate any chance of engine-destroying detonation. However, the reason for the on-par performance with the K23A is that the stock tune in the Mazda is extremely conservative (run richer, super-sensitive knock sensor) which provides a huge margin of error, while still offering identical performance to a conventional turbo engine, such as the K23A. Which engine has more potential (or which engine management system will take more than a test drive to fine tune)? The 2.3 DISI of course. I havent read anything technical in this thread yet, so if anyone is interested, we can get into it.

wolfeman314

Enjoy your car. . . see you in the twisties. . .

A good read: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/au...ws/22AUTO.html

technics_speak

If I wanted opinion, I'd keep reading Honda boards No, but seriously... refer to the excess of ground clearance and then tell me just how far off the CX-7 is from the lower, more car like RDX.

jaehshim

i honestly have to say,
Mazda, owned by Ford, is becoming like a ford car now
couple points of new looks attract people, but from design of cup holder, electronic switches, seating quality, the whole console style ,is just a simple cheap plastic Ford style.

just cannot see how people can compare CX7 to RDX

the new Honda CRV is 500% more refined than CX7

technics_speak

This has been stated over and over, so maybe youre under the impression that if you keep saying it, it might be true?? Anyway, I'll cement it this time. FORD owns 33% ... that is one-third of the company. This has to do with exchanging money for technologies. They do share technologies, actually FORD uses mostly Mazda-derived technology to stay afloat. Mazda generally uses Ford's resources to build a superior product. I believe FORD is in charge of North American marketing , which explains why Mazda doesnt market well. They dont rely on marketing and they can't survive on niche markets. Perhaps theyre doing so well because they build a superior product that unbiased people actually prefer. That speaks volumes for the size of car company that it is. Mazda uses NONE of Ford's parts/practices in its Japanese built vehicles. Thats like saying Honda's are becoming GMs because they share technologies. You would have be a complete moron to believe that. Now I dont know you, and maybe you just didnt know? The world seems like a whole different place when you know certain things.

CJW

I've driven these cars and each has its good points. I came close to buying a RDX but I thought the price was too high and that it didn't have the flair of the CX-7. Maxda is on to something with this and I think you'll see the other car companies, including Acura, following their lead with crossover SUV.

Philbert

Technics_speak,

First, it can be considered troll-like behavior to step into a forum that caters to a certain crowd, and trash talk the subject of that forum. However, if you really read what a number of people here wrote about their purchasing decision, you'd see that there isn't much "sheer blind bias." Many people here wrote about their experiences comparing various vehicles in the general class of the RDX. In the end most of them chose the RDX, that's why there here and not over at a CX-7 forum...

While there may be some hyperbole surrounding opinions, that's all they are, opinions we are all entitled to. However, you're little [riceboy] diatribe was rather unfounded, based on what I've read here.

You mentioned 280 lb/ft of torque in a post above, which I can only assume you mention in the context of the Mazdaspeed 6, as the CX-7 has 258. I have driven both the CX-7 and RDX, and if you have as well, please tell me that I'm just biased to say the RDX has less turbo lag. I guess Car and Driver, Motor Trend and the rest are all biased as well. In the objective test numbers, the RDX tests quicker, so maybe we're on to something?

Also, since you brought up the steering wheel, I'll keep the perforated leather, 9:00/3:00 thumb contouring, tilt/telescoping wheel of the RDX over the less comfortable, rectangle spoke, non-telescoping wheel of the CX-7, which came out of the MX-5. In fact, the current MX-5/CX-7 wheel is inferior to the wheel in my '99 miata.

I agree that direct injection is a better, more efficient, means of getting fuel into the combustion chamber. But that doesn't take the place of inferior turbo technology. The average consumer wants a flexible powerplant that gives "real world performance" and could care less what the dyno says. Hence, that the CX-7 requires nearly 30% more time to complete the 45-65mph passing test might explain why people who have driven both find the RDX to have better power delivery, or as you mockingly said, "it just feels better."

Along the same lines, whether an engine can support massive additional horsepower with minimal modifications is of little concern to the average consumer. All that horsepower comes higher and higher in the rev range, and contributes even more to the "wait, on/off" nature of the throttle pedal.

Lastly, let's return to where we started, to your claim of "the sheer blind bias in this thread" that has you "rolling on the floor (laughing)"... could it be your comment:

right, no bias there.

Cheers,
Phil

technics_speak

In researching the two vehicles I was brought here by search, and compelled to sign up simply due to the utter nonsensical garbage some people have posted. Does not-subscribing-to-in-house-beliefs make me a troll? Sure.


No, you're right. In CX-7 tune, it creates 258. Now ask me if the engine (aside from de-tuning) is any different than the Mazdaspeed6 @ 280. Right, my point was that the L3-VDT (the common mill) was built supporting that capability. That IS a strong indication of a robust 4-cyl engine.



so close! I was about to believe you knew what you're talking about... I guess every turbo, without a metal flap in the turbine side that moves back and forth is "inferior turbo technology" *on the floor again* Tell that to any automaker building turbo cars for the past 20 years (Mazda included)

You want "superior turbo technology"? How about an infinitely variable turbo. Check Porsche on that one. That's superior. Not a 2 stage flapper. Thoroughly unnessecary for a non-specialty vehicle. Where's my money going?? The flap cant cost more than 12dollars to make. Maybe the Acura badge costs $3000?


Um. Youre not serious, are you? Anyone who cares about torque characteristics would entirely care about what a dyno says; consumer or not. I want my peak torque to be usable. I don't want it to shine only during a slow 35-65 pull.

On-off? When you learn a thing or two about the area under the curve, a rush of greater torque force can, indeed, feel just like that-- on off. The K23A in fact requires high-revs to make the horsepower. The CX-7 as it is tuned, kinda dies off after 5500, and so it would seem, given all the torque is DOWN LOW, which is useful for a vehicle of this size. But clearly it is inferior as it just doesnt excite drivers and might also explain why so many actual owners hate their CX-7!

wolfeman314

Technics, I won't give you the satisfaction of a response but will simply ask why you have remained on this board. You're not going to tell us something we don't already know and your tone is far from friendly. So seriously, go somewhere you're welcome, but don't start stirring up trouble.

schuchmn

Doesn't matter.

First, I don't believe that the difference in handling characterisitcs can be attributed to ground clearance alone.

But let's put opinions aside and take a pragmatic view. The cars were designed differently and have different driving dynamics. The ground clearances are what they are and unless you're going to do suspension mods to lower the CX-7, all that matters is how the cars handle. If you need extra ground clearance or prefer the handling of the CX-7, that's a different story. Personally, I have no need for ground clearance greater than that of the RDX; in fact, I prefer the car to be lower to the ground. And personally, the RDX's handling suited my tastes better than the CX-7.

Same for the engine. Yes, direct injection has its benefits on paper, but the Mazda engine doesn't produce better horsepower, torque, or mileage. Or to be completely pragmatic, it doesn't give the CX-7 better performance than the RDX.

And as far as this thread goes, I consider it to be healthy debate. People come to this site, not only because they like Acuras, but to collect enough data to make an informed buying decision. That's why I came here originally. And whether people consider the CX-7 to be in the same "class" as the RDX or not, the fact is that people are cross-shopping these two vehicles.

snorton48

I bought for $14 the analysis from Consumer Reports showing the dealer cost and other hidden holdbacks, incentives etc. Using this at the dealer I was able to get $2000 off sticker on a tech RDX. Try it, it's a low cost investment.