Cx-7
10-25-2006, 09:51 AM
#121
07 Carbon Gray/Ebony
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by technics_speak
But clearly it is inferior as it just doesnt excite drivers and might also explain why so many actual owners hate their CX-7!
10-26-2006, 05:59 AM
#123
Intermediate
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Age: 59
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mg7726
I read that. I think a fair summary is that, removing price as a consideration, the author likes all 3 vehicles, but thought the Acura had the most sporty and aggressive ride. I can see the point. The lower ground clearance of the Acura and the ability to shift more power to the rear wheels would make the difference --on a test track setting. As the writer also noted, and as I pointed out in an early thread, the super handling is nice in theory but most of the time ALL of these vehicles ride like front wheel driver cars. The VERY significantly greater braking abililty of the CX-7 over the Acura (CX-7 is best in class) was virtually ignored -- and that's a real world benefit. So, while the author clearly picked the RDX, it was a close call, and this opinion certainly doesn't end the debate.
10-26-2006, 07:27 AM
#124
Dennis
Join Date: Apr 2006
Age: 72
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kylem
I read that. I think a fair summary is that, removing price as a consideration, the author likes all 3 vehicles, but thought the Acura had the most sporty and aggressive ride. I can see the point. The lower ground clearance of the Acura and the ability to shift more power to the rear wheels would make the difference --on a test track setting. As the writer also noted, and as I pointed out in an early thread, the super handling is nice in theory but most of the time ALL of these vehicles ride like front wheel driver cars. The VERY significantly greater braking abililty of the CX-7 over the Acura (CX-7 is best in class) was virtually ignored -- and that's a real world benefit. So, while the author clearly picked the RDX, it was a close call, and this opinion certainly doesn't end the debate.
And you should have realized by now, NOTHING is EVER going to end the debate.
In the end, it all comes down to each person's wants and needs.
10-26-2006, 01:10 PM
#125
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,493
Received 835 Likes
on
519 Posts
Unfortunately, I typed a long post in a hurry yesterday but it didnt show up here...so..I will type another post here.
I think someone here mentioned about not much technical stuff has been discussed about here, but I think I talked about the differences between SH-AWD in the RDX and the Haldex system in the CX7. In a nutshell, the CX7's system is based on Volvo S40's system. Which means it's a FWD most of the time unless slippage is detected. That means in theory, it's not a permanent AWD system which is inferior than RDX's system when it comes to handling (RDX has higher grip, better laptime according to MT), and also, it should return better fuel economy than the RDX since it's FWD most of the time. But that's not the case. Another thing, someone said the CX7's engine has direct injection, which is supposed to increase power, torque, and fuel efficiency and what not. But then, I don't see athe CX7 having any performance advantage over the RDX in both comparisons in both magazines (C&D and MT). In fact, it carries 14lbs less weight than the RDX but is slower still. My point is, Honda made an engine without using direct injection, but it's still better or on par with the CX7's engine. The only thing that the CX7 is better than the RDX is braking. And that's a common problem with Honda cars. Everytime I read any magazine, the Honda always has the longest braking distance (or longer than average). I remember watching this Best Motoring Video, while it was testing the NSX-R for its emergency braking ability. The reviewer said something about the ABS system is not that great. It works well when you are slowing down, but not so well if you want to stop. In other words, If you slow down from 100km/h to 50km/h, the brakes on Honda cars work great. But if you go from 100-0, the ABS system just doesn't seem to stop the car effectively. This also explains why the NSX-R is able to outbrake everyone on a race track, but performed poorly in that emergency braking test. I am not sure if that's the case for the RDX, but I think it should be and Honda should really do something about it. Besides that, I think the RDX is not a bad car at all compared to the CX-7.
I think someone here mentioned about not much technical stuff has been discussed about here, but I think I talked about the differences between SH-AWD in the RDX and the Haldex system in the CX7. In a nutshell, the CX7's system is based on Volvo S40's system. Which means it's a FWD most of the time unless slippage is detected. That means in theory, it's not a permanent AWD system which is inferior than RDX's system when it comes to handling (RDX has higher grip, better laptime according to MT), and also, it should return better fuel economy than the RDX since it's FWD most of the time. But that's not the case. Another thing, someone said the CX7's engine has direct injection, which is supposed to increase power, torque, and fuel efficiency and what not. But then, I don't see athe CX7 having any performance advantage over the RDX in both comparisons in both magazines (C&D and MT). In fact, it carries 14lbs less weight than the RDX but is slower still. My point is, Honda made an engine without using direct injection, but it's still better or on par with the CX7's engine. The only thing that the CX7 is better than the RDX is braking. And that's a common problem with Honda cars. Everytime I read any magazine, the Honda always has the longest braking distance (or longer than average). I remember watching this Best Motoring Video, while it was testing the NSX-R for its emergency braking ability. The reviewer said something about the ABS system is not that great. It works well when you are slowing down, but not so well if you want to stop. In other words, If you slow down from 100km/h to 50km/h, the brakes on Honda cars work great. But if you go from 100-0, the ABS system just doesn't seem to stop the car effectively. This also explains why the NSX-R is able to outbrake everyone on a race track, but performed poorly in that emergency braking test. I am not sure if that's the case for the RDX, but I think it should be and Honda should really do something about it. Besides that, I think the RDX is not a bad car at all compared to the CX-7.
10-27-2006, 12:48 AM
#126
Originally Posted by technics_speak
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 unnecessary 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?
comments from our friend here, but is this statement accurate? My understanding is that the "flap" is variable and transitions smoothly between the two spooling chambers, slowly opening as more pressure builds. I am fairly certain this is the case just judging from the driving dynamics I have experienced in the RDX. If there was a sudden flip of the flap, I would expect to feel some sort of power increase or decrease at the moment it happens. Does anybody know (other than the omniscient technics_speak who's brilliance would merely exceed my comprehension )?
10-27-2006, 08:23 AM
#127
Smitty's Moral Police
The only thing I know for certain is that if technics_speak says it, it's overly biased and misleading to the point of being worthless.
Variable Flow Turbo
A variable flow turbo is the key element that allows the RDX's 4-cylinder engine to perform like a larger-displacement 6-cylinder engine, while still returning small-displacement fuel economy and very low emissions.
One of the challenges of turbocharging is the difficulty in sizing the turbo for optimal performance at all engine speeds. A small turbo spins up quicker, reducing lag (the delay between throttle-pedal movement and a substantial increase in boost pressure), but doesn't have enough flow for the best high engine-rpm performance. Conversely, a large turbo takes longer to spin up, but delivers maximum high rpm performance.
The new Acura variable flow turbo is designed to combine the best qualities of both small and large turbos, while avoiding their respective downsides or introducing any reliability concerns. The variable flow turbo increases exhaust gas velocity into the turbo housing at low speeds by restricting the inlet area with a movable valve, enabling the impeller to speed up quicker. At higher engine speed where exhaust gas flow is abundant, the valve opens progressively to maintain optimum exhaust gas flow into both the inner and outer scroll of the turbo housing, and to prevent choking.
Both the movable flow control valve and the wastegate that limits maximum boost pressure are powered by diaphragm-type actuators that are controlled by electric solenoids, which are in turn controlled by the engine's Electronic Control Unit (ECU). Under full-throttle operation, the flow control valve typically begins to open at 2000 rpm, and is fully open by 2500 rpm. Flow control valve position is determined by exhaust gas flow and not directly by engine rpm. Maximum boost pressure, which is dependent on temperature, altitude and other factors, is 13.5 pounds per square inch (700mm Hg).
Acura's variable flow turbo is designed for maximum durability. Unlike competitor variable-vane turbo designs that put the pivot point of moving parts in very high-temperature areas of the turbo housing, the Acura variable flow turbo has fewer moving parts inside the hot turbo housing, and is designed to shield the control valve pivot from the highest temperatures.
RDX's turbocharger is positioned to the rear of the engine, close to the exhaust ports for maximum transfer of the exhaust velocity to the turbo. Water passages in the aluminum exhaust manifold help keep the temperature in the exhaust system at optimum levels for both the turbocharger and catalytic converter. The turbo housing is made of austenite stainless cast iron for durability when exposed to high-temperature exhaust gases.
When the engine is shut off, coolant continues to circulate due to thermal convection, helping to prevent long-term heat-related damage to the turbo bearings.
That's one high tech $12 flap.
Variable Flow Turbo
A variable flow turbo is the key element that allows the RDX's 4-cylinder engine to perform like a larger-displacement 6-cylinder engine, while still returning small-displacement fuel economy and very low emissions.
One of the challenges of turbocharging is the difficulty in sizing the turbo for optimal performance at all engine speeds. A small turbo spins up quicker, reducing lag (the delay between throttle-pedal movement and a substantial increase in boost pressure), but doesn't have enough flow for the best high engine-rpm performance. Conversely, a large turbo takes longer to spin up, but delivers maximum high rpm performance.
The new Acura variable flow turbo is designed to combine the best qualities of both small and large turbos, while avoiding their respective downsides or introducing any reliability concerns. The variable flow turbo increases exhaust gas velocity into the turbo housing at low speeds by restricting the inlet area with a movable valve, enabling the impeller to speed up quicker. At higher engine speed where exhaust gas flow is abundant, the valve opens progressively to maintain optimum exhaust gas flow into both the inner and outer scroll of the turbo housing, and to prevent choking.
Both the movable flow control valve and the wastegate that limits maximum boost pressure are powered by diaphragm-type actuators that are controlled by electric solenoids, which are in turn controlled by the engine's Electronic Control Unit (ECU). Under full-throttle operation, the flow control valve typically begins to open at 2000 rpm, and is fully open by 2500 rpm. Flow control valve position is determined by exhaust gas flow and not directly by engine rpm. Maximum boost pressure, which is dependent on temperature, altitude and other factors, is 13.5 pounds per square inch (700mm Hg).
Acura's variable flow turbo is designed for maximum durability. Unlike competitor variable-vane turbo designs that put the pivot point of moving parts in very high-temperature areas of the turbo housing, the Acura variable flow turbo has fewer moving parts inside the hot turbo housing, and is designed to shield the control valve pivot from the highest temperatures.
RDX's turbocharger is positioned to the rear of the engine, close to the exhaust ports for maximum transfer of the exhaust velocity to the turbo. Water passages in the aluminum exhaust manifold help keep the temperature in the exhaust system at optimum levels for both the turbocharger and catalytic converter. The turbo housing is made of austenite stainless cast iron for durability when exposed to high-temperature exhaust gases.
When the engine is shut off, coolant continues to circulate due to thermal convection, helping to prevent long-term heat-related damage to the turbo bearings.
That's one high tech $12 flap.
10-27-2006, 12:06 PM
#128
Dennis
Join Date: Apr 2006
Age: 72
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to take just a moment here to remind people that there's a difference between "opinion" and "bias". If I tell you that I like the CX-7's styling better than the RDX's, that's an opinion. If I tell you that I thnk the RDX handles better than the CX-7, that's an opinion as well. If I tell you that any Acura is better than any Mazda, that's bias because it completely ignores any examination of the relevant facts. Bias does not simply mean "any opinion that disagrees with mine".
Now, as far as the design of the RDX's turbo goes, as a techie I find it all interesting. The idea of the variable flow turbo is clever and I'd think that it would improve performance. If the idea were so simple and obvious, there'd be more such turbos out there in the marketplace. Yes, I know that Porsche has an infinitely variable turbo, but look at the price point. If varying the turbo flow is effective (as Porsche seems to think it is), then Acura's design should do better than a non-variable turbo, all else being equal.
But as a shopper, I have to have a different take on the situation. I pretty much ignored anything Acura said about the turbo design because any marketing literature is suspect (these are the guys that said they used a 4-cylinder engine for better mileage, remember?). And so is some of the information you read in car magazines because it comes directly from Acura's marketing people. The only people who really know how well the RDX's turbo works are the engineers that designed and tested it, but we can't talk to them.
So as good as the idea is in theory, the real proof is in the driving. And I like the driving of the RDX much more that th CX-7. And that's opinion.
Now, as far as the design of the RDX's turbo goes, as a techie I find it all interesting. The idea of the variable flow turbo is clever and I'd think that it would improve performance. If the idea were so simple and obvious, there'd be more such turbos out there in the marketplace. Yes, I know that Porsche has an infinitely variable turbo, but look at the price point. If varying the turbo flow is effective (as Porsche seems to think it is), then Acura's design should do better than a non-variable turbo, all else being equal.
But as a shopper, I have to have a different take on the situation. I pretty much ignored anything Acura said about the turbo design because any marketing literature is suspect (these are the guys that said they used a 4-cylinder engine for better mileage, remember?). And so is some of the information you read in car magazines because it comes directly from Acura's marketing people. The only people who really know how well the RDX's turbo works are the engineers that designed and tested it, but we can't talk to them.
So as good as the idea is in theory, the real proof is in the driving. And I like the driving of the RDX much more that th CX-7. And that's opinion.
11-06-2006, 07:02 AM
#129
Cx-7
I Have Driven Both..purchased The Rdx...i Traded In A 03 Mdx Love It. And Ar Loving The Rdx.
What Will Ure Cx-7 Be Like In Three Years..better Buy The Extented Warranty..ull Need It!
What Will Ure Cx-7 Be Like In Three Years..better Buy The Extented Warranty..ull Need It!
11-06-2006, 02:25 PM
#130
Advanced
Join Date: Jan 2006
Age: 68
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In three years I think you'll find the Mazda CX-7 with above average reliability BUT with a much higher resale value than the Acura RDX. Why? Mainly because of the RDX's bland styling. The exterior of the RDX is obviously a knockoff of the BMW X3, and a rather bland knockoff at that.
I expect future RDX models, probably by 2009, to follow Mazda's lead and do a redesign which will further diminish the resale value today's RDX.
I expect future RDX models, probably by 2009, to follow Mazda's lead and do a redesign which will further diminish the resale value today's RDX.
11-06-2006, 02:36 PM
#131
Photographer
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Honolulu, HI
Age: 43
Posts: 640
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CJW
In three years I think you'll find the Mazda CX-7 with above average reliability BUT with a much higher resale value than the Acura RDX. Why? Mainly because of the RDX's bland styling. The exterior of the RDX is obviously a knockoff of the BMW X3, and a rather bland knockoff at that.
I expect future RDX models, probably by 2009, to follow Mazda's lead and do a redesign which will further diminish the resale value today's RDX.
I expect future RDX models, probably by 2009, to follow Mazda's lead and do a redesign which will further diminish the resale value today's RDX.
11-06-2006, 04:23 PM
#132
Base RDX - Carbon Pearl
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rdx
I didn't read all posts on this thread, but I do notice a couple people insist on saying how much CX-7 is better than RDX. I am thinking why don't they stay in their Mazda/CX-7 forums and share their happiness with their follow CX-7 owners. No need to come to a RDX forum to "REASSURE" they made the right choice Everyone makes their own choice. If you like your CX-7. Enjoy your ride with it !
We are having fun with our RDX no matter what you say as we don't really care.
Everyone makes their own choice. If you like your CX-7. Enjoy your ride with it !We are having fun with our RDX no matter what you say as we don't really care.
11-06-2006, 04:45 PM
#133
Intermediate
Join Date: Oct 2006
Age: 47
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CJW
In three years I think you'll find the Mazda CX-7 with above average reliability BUT with a much higher resale value than the Acura RDX. Why? Mainly because of the RDX's bland styling. The exterior of the RDX is obviously a knockoff of the BMW X3, and a rather bland knockoff at that.
I expect future RDX models, probably by 2009, to follow Mazda's lead and do a redesign which will further diminish the resale value today's RDX.
I expect future RDX models, probably by 2009, to follow Mazda's lead and do a redesign which will further diminish the resale value today's RDX.
As for the RDX being a knockoff of the X3??? I'm a little confused by how you arrived at that?? I don't see any resemblence at all??? Dimension-wise, all three cars are pretty similar. I mean the RDX was targeted against the X3. Personally, I think the CX-7 is an attractive car (albeit a bit bubble like with the big fender flares), but my wife thinks the RDX is a better looking car. She also liked the X3, but thought the back of the X3 is kinda funky looking.
11-06-2006, 07:11 PM
#134
Dennis
Join Date: Apr 2006
Age: 72
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by acurardx
I am thinking why don't they stay in their Mazda/CX-7 forums and share their happiness with their follow CX-7 owners.:
11-07-2006, 06:59 AM
#135
Advanced
Join Date: Jan 2006
Age: 68
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Park your RDX next to a BMW X3 and you'll see that in many respects the exterior design of the two cars is almost identical. This was not an accident. If you have a TSX, like me, then park it next to a 97-2000 Audi A4.
Acura/Honda makes excellent cars but they're following, not leading. Mazda is the leader for crossover SUV. I can't help wondering if a couple of years from now someone will park a 2009 RDX next to my 2007 CX-7 and the two will look identical...
Acura/Honda makes excellent cars but they're following, not leading. Mazda is the leader for crossover SUV. I can't help wondering if a couple of years from now someone will park a 2009 RDX next to my 2007 CX-7 and the two will look identical...
11-07-2006, 09:46 AM
#137
Gearhead
Obviously many of these points are subjective. What is hard to argue with is the sales numbers of the CX7. In my garage there is a TL, not a Mazda. The marketplace is voting with their dollars and it is not for the RDX. That is not to say it is a worse car than the CX7. Apparently though to many people, the CX7 represents a better value.
I personally think the RDX is a better car than the CX7. If I were to lay out 30k or so tomorrow though, I would buy the CX7 over the RDX. In the real world, the RDX is not worth the extra 5-7k premium over the CX7. It is worth a bit more to me but not that much more. The turbo motor in spite of all its technology isn’t near as entertaining to drive as my TL is. It has good mid range but no real top end pull that would make a bit more fun to drive when driving aggressively.
I have now driven the RDX and the CX7 numerous times back to back as they were both finalists in what SUV I would buy next. I like the RDX but I don’t love it. I am not content with the lack of memory seats or lack of power passenger seat (just examples) at this price point. For close to $40k out the door, I expect more. I still am displeased that for all the tech in the motor, a stock V6 Rav4 will smoke it in a straight line at any speed without effort AND getter better mileage while doing it. Sure the RDX may handle better but how often can I really enjoy that on my morning commute?
If the RDX at least had the punch AND the mileage of the V6 Rav4 and a bit more aggressive styling I’d likely pony up the extra cash over a CX7. As it is the RDX is pretty bland and I’d like something with a bit more curb appeal. To me this is where the CX7 is definitely better than the RDX but that is of course a subjective opinion. I also dislike that the totally did away with a touch screen nav. I am not the only one using it and my family doesn’t always remember the verbal nav commands on my TL yet they can easily poke around the screen. The nav screen looks washed out most of the time too no matter how I adjusted it.
So the way I see it, you spend a lot more money and don’t get the class leader in almost any area and bland styling. A lot there to like but not too much to love. I think the best way I can describe it is it is a car that doesn’t inspire passion, reasonably competent but nothing to get too enthused about. Sort of like a Toyota Highlander or last gen Camry before the put a good motor in it.
I personally think the RDX is a better car than the CX7. If I were to lay out 30k or so tomorrow though, I would buy the CX7 over the RDX. In the real world, the RDX is not worth the extra 5-7k premium over the CX7. It is worth a bit more to me but not that much more. The turbo motor in spite of all its technology isn’t near as entertaining to drive as my TL is. It has good mid range but no real top end pull that would make a bit more fun to drive when driving aggressively.
I have now driven the RDX and the CX7 numerous times back to back as they were both finalists in what SUV I would buy next. I like the RDX but I don’t love it. I am not content with the lack of memory seats or lack of power passenger seat (just examples) at this price point. For close to $40k out the door, I expect more. I still am displeased that for all the tech in the motor, a stock V6 Rav4 will smoke it in a straight line at any speed without effort AND getter better mileage while doing it. Sure the RDX may handle better but how often can I really enjoy that on my morning commute?
If the RDX at least had the punch AND the mileage of the V6 Rav4 and a bit more aggressive styling I’d likely pony up the extra cash over a CX7. As it is the RDX is pretty bland and I’d like something with a bit more curb appeal. To me this is where the CX7 is definitely better than the RDX but that is of course a subjective opinion. I also dislike that the totally did away with a touch screen nav. I am not the only one using it and my family doesn’t always remember the verbal nav commands on my TL yet they can easily poke around the screen. The nav screen looks washed out most of the time too no matter how I adjusted it.
So the way I see it, you spend a lot more money and don’t get the class leader in almost any area and bland styling. A lot there to like but not too much to love. I think the best way I can describe it is it is a car that doesn’t inspire passion, reasonably competent but nothing to get too enthused about. Sort of like a Toyota Highlander or last gen Camry before the put a good motor in it.
11-07-2006, 10:16 AM
#138
Intermediate
Join Date: Oct 2006
Age: 47
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CJW
Park your RDX next to a BMW X3 and you'll see that in many respects the exterior design of the two cars is almost identical. This was not an accident. If you have a TSX, like me, then park it next to a 97-2000 Audi A4.
Acura/Honda makes excellent cars but they're following, not leading. Mazda is the leader for crossover SUV. I can't help wondering if a couple of years from now someone will park a 2009 RDX next to my 2007 CX-7 and the two will look identical...
Acura/Honda makes excellent cars but they're following, not leading. Mazda is the leader for crossover SUV. I can't help wondering if a couple of years from now someone will park a 2009 RDX next to my 2007 CX-7 and the two will look identical...
Are you purely talking about dimensions or are you actually talking about the exterior design? If it's the latter... uhhh, nope. Don't see it. I also don't see how the TSX is similar to that A4 model... Just my opinion.
If anything, the RDX is closer to the Audi Q7's or Tribeca's design from the side profile or the back...
11-07-2006, 10:45 AM
#139
Intermediate
Join Date: Oct 2006
Age: 47
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wavshrdr
Obviously many of these points are subjective. What is hard to argue with is the sales numbers of the CX7. In my garage there is a TL, not a Mazda. The marketplace is voting with their dollars and it is not for the RDX. That is not to say it is a worse car than the CX7. Apparently though to many people, the CX7 represents a better value.
I personally think the RDX is a better car than the CX7. If I were to lay out 30k or so tomorrow though, I would buy the CX7 over the RDX. In the real world, the RDX is not worth the extra 5-7k premium over the CX7. It is worth a bit more to me but not that much more. The turbo motor in spite of all its technology isn’t near as entertaining to drive as my TL is. It has good mid range but no real top end pull that would make a bit more fun to drive when driving aggressively.
I have now driven the RDX and the CX7 numerous times back to back as they were both finalists in what SUV I would buy next. I like the RDX but I don’t love it. I am not content with the lack of memory seats or lack of power passenger seat (just examples) at this price point. For close to $40k out the door, I expect more. I still am displeased that for all the tech in the motor, a stock V6 Rav4 will smoke it in a straight line at any speed without effort AND getter better mileage while doing it. Sure the RDX may handle better but how often can I really enjoy that on my morning commute?
If the RDX at least had the punch AND the mileage of the V6 Rav4 and a bit more aggressive styling I’d likely pony up the extra cash over a CX7. As it is the RDX is pretty bland and I’d like something with a bit more curb appeal. To me this is where the CX7 is definitely better than the RDX but that is of course a subjective opinion. I also dislike that the totally did away with a touch screen nav. I am not the only one using it and my family doesn’t always remember the verbal nav commands on my TL yet they can easily poke around the screen. The nav screen looks washed out most of the time too no matter how I adjusted it.
So the way I see it, you spend a lot more money and don’t get the class leader in almost any area and bland styling. A lot there to like but not too much to love. I think the best way I can describe it is it is a car that doesn’t inspire passion, reasonably competent but nothing to get too enthused about. Sort of like a Toyota Highlander or last gen Camry before the put a good motor in it.
I personally think the RDX is a better car than the CX7. If I were to lay out 30k or so tomorrow though, I would buy the CX7 over the RDX. In the real world, the RDX is not worth the extra 5-7k premium over the CX7. It is worth a bit more to me but not that much more. The turbo motor in spite of all its technology isn’t near as entertaining to drive as my TL is. It has good mid range but no real top end pull that would make a bit more fun to drive when driving aggressively.
I have now driven the RDX and the CX7 numerous times back to back as they were both finalists in what SUV I would buy next. I like the RDX but I don’t love it. I am not content with the lack of memory seats or lack of power passenger seat (just examples) at this price point. For close to $40k out the door, I expect more. I still am displeased that for all the tech in the motor, a stock V6 Rav4 will smoke it in a straight line at any speed without effort AND getter better mileage while doing it. Sure the RDX may handle better but how often can I really enjoy that on my morning commute?
If the RDX at least had the punch AND the mileage of the V6 Rav4 and a bit more aggressive styling I’d likely pony up the extra cash over a CX7. As it is the RDX is pretty bland and I’d like something with a bit more curb appeal. To me this is where the CX7 is definitely better than the RDX but that is of course a subjective opinion. I also dislike that the totally did away with a touch screen nav. I am not the only one using it and my family doesn’t always remember the verbal nav commands on my TL yet they can easily poke around the screen. The nav screen looks washed out most of the time too no matter how I adjusted it.
So the way I see it, you spend a lot more money and don’t get the class leader in almost any area and bland styling. A lot there to like but not too much to love. I think the best way I can describe it is it is a car that doesn’t inspire passion, reasonably competent but nothing to get too enthused about. Sort of like a Toyota Highlander or last gen Camry before the put a good motor in it.
If you want Rav4 Power and mileage, then get the Rav4, but you won't because there are a lot of other things you DON'T like about the Rav4, right? You already said the RDX is better than the CX7 in your opinion and if the lack of certain power features really bother you, just wait a year and it will be there.
The RDX sits right in between the CX-7 and the X3 for a reason, it's looking to sway those who wants to buy a X3 at first, but then realize they can get 90% of that car at $7-8K less. It's also there to sway potential CX-7 buyers to move up a notch in luxury and handling (slight notch here) but at a $5K price jump. Obviously, it's up to the consumer to decide. It makes sense the CX-7 will sell more because people still gravitate to the cheaper car. It's a terrific value! Acura will have it's work cut out for it in trying to match up against the BMW name and the fact the X3's been out since 2004, but it's doing ok so far.
The ultimate RDX will probably come at 2008-9 in which the HP wars against the X3 and CX-7 will cause Honda to up the boost on the turbo or put in a bigger turbo and throw in a 6 speed auto to help keep the same fuel economy. The CX-7 will probably have a Mazdaspeed version as well. Anyways... the discussion is all in good fun. The key here is that competition is good and it has forced Honda to introduce their first turbo car in the US. The first Honda with more torque than hp... it's a good thing. I can't wait to see what the future holds for the next X3, RDX, and CX-7.
11-07-2006, 12:25 PM
#140
Gearhead
Honestly the part that keeps me from buying the RDX is its flaccid motor. This is the real deal killer for me as I don’t have great pull from the motor and I get crappy mileage. It is an absolute buzz kill for me. It has no sweet exhaust wail like the BMW yet it looks mundane.
I am all for competition in the marketplace. Racing (and any form of competition) tends to improve the breed. I would like to see more HP from the RDX but you know Acura won’t be too keen to do it because then you start to approach the numbers of the MDX.
I do have another tack to take though. If the RDX continues to languish on the lots here I will just wait until the price softens to the point I’d be willing to buy one. Although if that happens I’d be more inclined to lease as the resale might just die on these if they don’t move and they become super hard to move. Or if Acura addresses a lot of the issues then I could pick up one of the first year, potentially less desirable ones, for cheap.
If I owned one right now I’d truly be concerned if sales don’t pick up soon. From what I can see the RDX sells in less number than the X3 and the RDX costs a fair amount less. The CX7 outsells the RDX about 4:1 and is a fair amount less. Anyone else see the problem here? IF the RDX was truly competitive in the marketplace, its sales numbers SHOULD be somewhere between the significantly more than the X3 and less than the CX7. This is what kept me from buying the RL. I had a feeling that while it was a nice car, it failed in some of the key areas like motor that I was looking for.
A more highly tuned with factory warranty would be nice or even a Mazdaspeed CX7. While I love my TL, I am not blindly loyal to Honda/Acura. I have bought quite a few of their products and I used to work for Honda so I do have a tendency to prefer their products over many but I am afraid they are becoming soulless autos like the last gen Camry’s were. Honda/Acura is tending to play it too safe as far as I am concerned and it will cost them in the long run.
Open debate on this forum is quite useful and helpful. That is what I love about it and not a bunch of a-holes like on the BMW forums. Generally people here are pretty civil. It is good to discuss the relative merits of each vehicle when they are direct competitors. This forum saved me from making a big mistake in buying an RDX now as it pointed out some flaws I was yet aware of in the RDX that would have really bugged me and it appears I am not alone.
The RDX should have surpassed the competition rather than almost equaling it…
I am all for competition in the marketplace. Racing (and any form of competition) tends to improve the breed. I would like to see more HP from the RDX but you know Acura won’t be too keen to do it because then you start to approach the numbers of the MDX.
I do have another tack to take though. If the RDX continues to languish on the lots here I will just wait until the price softens to the point I’d be willing to buy one. Although if that happens I’d be more inclined to lease as the resale might just die on these if they don’t move and they become super hard to move. Or if Acura addresses a lot of the issues then I could pick up one of the first year, potentially less desirable ones, for cheap.
If I owned one right now I’d truly be concerned if sales don’t pick up soon. From what I can see the RDX sells in less number than the X3 and the RDX costs a fair amount less. The CX7 outsells the RDX about 4:1 and is a fair amount less. Anyone else see the problem here? IF the RDX was truly competitive in the marketplace, its sales numbers SHOULD be somewhere between the significantly more than the X3 and less than the CX7. This is what kept me from buying the RL. I had a feeling that while it was a nice car, it failed in some of the key areas like motor that I was looking for.
A more highly tuned with factory warranty would be nice or even a Mazdaspeed CX7. While I love my TL, I am not blindly loyal to Honda/Acura. I have bought quite a few of their products and I used to work for Honda so I do have a tendency to prefer their products over many but I am afraid they are becoming soulless autos like the last gen Camry’s were. Honda/Acura is tending to play it too safe as far as I am concerned and it will cost them in the long run.
Open debate on this forum is quite useful and helpful. That is what I love about it and not a bunch of a-holes like on the BMW forums. Generally people here are pretty civil. It is good to discuss the relative merits of each vehicle when they are direct competitors. This forum saved me from making a big mistake in buying an RDX now as it pointed out some flaws I was yet aware of in the RDX that would have really bugged me and it appears I am not alone.
The RDX should have surpassed the competition rather than almost equaling it…
11-07-2006, 01:38 PM
#141
Intermediate
Join Date: Oct 2006
Age: 47
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You really think the motor is that weak? I should probably drive more powerful cars more often! Coming from an RSX-S that screams up to its 7800 redline but without that push in the seat feeling, the RDX is a torque machine. It throws you back into the seat a lot more than even the 07 X3 in the beginning, but you are right though, the power seems to taper off in the higher revs. The new 07 X3 just goes and goes up to its redline. Gotta love that inline 6. Maybe a little ECU mod from Hondata will make the RDX into a monster 
If you are looking for V6 power in a CUV and is willing to wait a bit, you might want to wait for the new LR2 from Land rover next Spring. It looks like a nice ride and they are claiming the starting price is at RDX level. The Audi Q5 is also coming soon too. Maybe that one will sport the 2.0T in higher hp trim as well as the 3.2 L V6 option??? This one should handle pretty well and be a X3 competitor as well.
Regarding sales... Sure the CX-7 is selling well, but I'm pretty sure they are also being discounted to invoice pretty easily right now. Mazda is also always aggressive with financing deals, so it's not hard to see these cars move. They will probably followup with cash rebates in a few months. Mazda resales are never the best anyways too. Honda probably needs to give a better leasing deal in order for sales to really pick up. Most BMW buyers are on leases. It's also really hard to convince BMW buyers to buy anything but a BMW due to badge prestige. Let's see if Acura can compete in due time???
Most of the BMW enthusiasts are pretty good folks, there are some that believe BMW can do no wrong and hence crack me up. Both my wife and I love BMWs and we were this close in owning our first one (X3)... but it just didn't happen... We just couldn't see why it was $7-8K better than the RDX. I am hoping for BMW to bring the 335xi Touring to the US though.
This may finally change our mind on owning a BMW.
If you are looking for V6 power in a CUV and is willing to wait a bit, you might want to wait for the new LR2 from Land rover next Spring. It looks like a nice ride and they are claiming the starting price is at RDX level. The Audi Q5 is also coming soon too. Maybe that one will sport the 2.0T in higher hp trim as well as the 3.2 L V6 option??? This one should handle pretty well and be a X3 competitor as well.
Regarding sales... Sure the CX-7 is selling well, but I'm pretty sure they are also being discounted to invoice pretty easily right now. Mazda is also always aggressive with financing deals, so it's not hard to see these cars move. They will probably followup with cash rebates in a few months. Mazda resales are never the best anyways too. Honda probably needs to give a better leasing deal in order for sales to really pick up. Most BMW buyers are on leases. It's also really hard to convince BMW buyers to buy anything but a BMW due to badge prestige. Let's see if Acura can compete in due time???
Most of the BMW enthusiasts are pretty good folks, there are some that believe BMW can do no wrong and hence crack me up. Both my wife and I love BMWs and we were this close in owning our first one (X3)... but it just didn't happen... We just couldn't see why it was $7-8K better than the RDX. I am hoping for BMW to bring the 335xi Touring to the US though.
This may finally change our mind on owning a BMW.
11-07-2006, 02:00 PM
#142
Base RDX - Carbon Pearl
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cx-7
If it is US$7,000 difference in price like you guys said, I would have 2nd thought about buying the RDX. But again, there are totally different pricing strategy in Canada.
Here in Canada, a base RDX is CAD$41,000 (like the tech package price you guys paid in US, lucky you !), and a compatible CX-7 would be model GT + AWD with a 6 Disc changers added which costs CAD$37,811. So, it is only CAD$3,189 (USD2,700) difference in Canada between the Acura and Mazda. I guess that can be more easily justified to buy the RDX over CX-7 for canadian. Also, if you see the comparisons list betwween them, there are other little minor items which RDX has and CX-7 doesn't.
Like I said before in other threads, our prices in Canada for different models and brands can totally alter our purchase decision as comparing the folks in US.
e.g. FX35 here in Canada way too expensive (CAD55K which is roughly USD48K, I know you are going to say it is ridiculous. Yes it is), not a compatible model to RDX at all.
Here in Canada, a base RDX is CAD$41,000 (like the tech package price you guys paid in US, lucky you !), and a compatible CX-7 would be model GT + AWD with a 6 Disc changers added which costs CAD$37,811. So, it is only CAD$3,189 (USD2,700) difference in Canada between the Acura and Mazda. I guess that can be more easily justified to buy the RDX over CX-7 for canadian. Also, if you see the comparisons list betwween them, there are other little minor items which RDX has and CX-7 doesn't.
Like I said before in other threads, our prices in Canada for different models and brands can totally alter our purchase decision as comparing the folks in US.
e.g. FX35 here in Canada way too expensive (CAD55K which is roughly USD48K, I know you are going to say it is ridiculous. Yes it is), not a compatible model to RDX at all.
11-07-2006, 02:20 PM
#143
Base RDX - Carbon Pearl
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CX-7 in US
I just checked the Mazda US site. CX-7 GT AWD with moonroof and 6 Discs changers, costs USD 30,180 CX-7 GT AWD price in US So, it is only less than US3,000 difference, pretty similar to the price difference in Canada. I guess it should be a easy choice !
11-07-2006, 02:35 PM
#144
Gearhead
Difference is the Acura dealers aren't that negotiable on price. The CX7 I can buy one with Tech pkg for $30,500 US and that has nav, hitch, rear camera, excellent stereo, 6spd auto (why not on RDX?) and more. A RDX with Tech pkg is mid $37,000 US.
jhwu- the turbo motor in the RDX isn't weak BUT it doesn't have that typical Honda/Acura pull to redline. The CX7 seems more "eager" by comparsion. I love the smooth, strong pull of my TL to 4,000 and then it really starts to sing all the way to redline. Just as I think the RDX should be building to a crescendo, it peters out. It just feels like it runs out of breath. So all their talk about the turbo design is nothing but hot air (pun intended) to me. I could easily have good low end pull AND no top end pull if I went with a small turbo. The variable turbos are to have your cake and eat it too.
The RDX isn't a monster down low and their is no top-end rush and the mileage sucks. So why would I want a turbo 4 when there appears to be absolutely no benefit to it in this application?
For comparison, the Toyota FJ Cruiser (retro looking beast) gets as good if not better mileage as reported by normal owners and it is much heavier AND has a big 4.0l V6 and it is probably damn near as quick as the RDX in acceleration. I happened to take one for a test drive last night and boy was I surprised. It may look like a tank but it is pretty quick and it handles better than I thought it would and looks retro cool. If that big tank can get numbers as good if not better the RDX, then Acura has some explaining to do. Average owners is getting 15-17 with man and 16-18 auto in town.
I still think Acura might want to retune the ECU or have an update for it. I would like to see if it is running on the rich side to avoid detonation.
jhwu- the turbo motor in the RDX isn't weak BUT it doesn't have that typical Honda/Acura pull to redline. The CX7 seems more "eager" by comparsion. I love the smooth, strong pull of my TL to 4,000 and then it really starts to sing all the way to redline. Just as I think the RDX should be building to a crescendo, it peters out. It just feels like it runs out of breath. So all their talk about the turbo design is nothing but hot air (pun intended) to me. I could easily have good low end pull AND no top end pull if I went with a small turbo. The variable turbos are to have your cake and eat it too.
The RDX isn't a monster down low and their is no top-end rush and the mileage sucks. So why would I want a turbo 4 when there appears to be absolutely no benefit to it in this application?
For comparison, the Toyota FJ Cruiser (retro looking beast) gets as good if not better mileage as reported by normal owners and it is much heavier AND has a big 4.0l V6 and it is probably damn near as quick as the RDX in acceleration. I happened to take one for a test drive last night and boy was I surprised. It may look like a tank but it is pretty quick and it handles better than I thought it would and looks retro cool. If that big tank can get numbers as good if not better the RDX, then Acura has some explaining to do. Average owners is getting 15-17 with man and 16-18 auto in town.
I still think Acura might want to retune the ECU or have an update for it. I would like to see if it is running on the rich side to avoid detonation.
11-07-2006, 02:46 PM
#145
Base RDX - Carbon Pearl
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
0%
I guess there must be a reason why there is a difference in leasing rate, discounts given, etc.
You can see GM, Ford and other US manufacturers offer 0 down and 0% financing a lot of time, but lot of us still don't want to buy one !
You can see GM, Ford and other US manufacturers offer 0 down and 0% financing a lot of time, but lot of us still don't want to buy one !
11-07-2006, 03:39 PM
#146
Intermediate
Join Date: Oct 2006
Age: 47
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, considering I bought a RDX Tech at $35K even in mid October, you can get discounts pretty easily. There are more and more people getting this price or lower now. So, it's about $4.5k more in real life costs. Still a lot of money, but not as bad as $7K difference. Yeah, I wish we can get a 6 speed auto in the RDX or any Acura for that matter, but heh, Honda won't offer it so we'll have to wait.
Ok, the FJ is a great offroad real SUV, but completely different than a RDX. Sure, mileage may be similar and maybe the FJ is just as fast (I dare to say not quite...), but you can say that about a lot of cars/suvs. Handling is not something that's easily duplicated especially in a SUV and requires a lot of suspension tuning. This is the focus of the RDX. The FJ does not handle well, but it climbs rocks well. Different truck.
Anyways, the RDX's motor is not a typically honda motor... it is a prototypical turbo motor which tends to run out of breath in the higher rpms but with a bit less lag thanks to the variable flow. If anyone expects the typical VTEC scream up to redline... well, sorry. However, the advantage of a turbo motor is the massive amount of torque wringed out of a smaller displacement motor, torque comes up strong much lower in the RPM range. I find it kind of unfair to compare the RDX to a TL which does 0-60 in mid 5s. I mean, it is a 4000 lb SUV that's quick but not blazing fast. I bet in manual sport mode (paddle shifter), shifting at around 5500 will probably yield the best runs for the RDX. Not that I would mess with our RDX as it is my wife's car, but once tuners get to the RDX, expect good HP gains and large torque gains. My 1.8T Passat went from a 150hp 155lb/ft to 200hp and 245lb/ft with a $600 APR chip. The chip also increased mileage by 1-2mpg and increase the top end a bit too. This is the beauty of a turbo motor in which if you choose to modify your car, it is a great base to start out with.
Jim
Ok, the FJ is a great offroad real SUV, but completely different than a RDX. Sure, mileage may be similar and maybe the FJ is just as fast (I dare to say not quite...), but you can say that about a lot of cars/suvs. Handling is not something that's easily duplicated especially in a SUV and requires a lot of suspension tuning. This is the focus of the RDX. The FJ does not handle well, but it climbs rocks well. Different truck.
Anyways, the RDX's motor is not a typically honda motor... it is a prototypical turbo motor which tends to run out of breath in the higher rpms but with a bit less lag thanks to the variable flow. If anyone expects the typical VTEC scream up to redline... well, sorry. However, the advantage of a turbo motor is the massive amount of torque wringed out of a smaller displacement motor, torque comes up strong much lower in the RPM range. I find it kind of unfair to compare the RDX to a TL which does 0-60 in mid 5s. I mean, it is a 4000 lb SUV that's quick but not blazing fast. I bet in manual sport mode (paddle shifter), shifting at around 5500 will probably yield the best runs for the RDX. Not that I would mess with our RDX as it is my wife's car, but once tuners get to the RDX, expect good HP gains and large torque gains. My 1.8T Passat went from a 150hp 155lb/ft to 200hp and 245lb/ft with a $600 APR chip. The chip also increased mileage by 1-2mpg and increase the top end a bit too. This is the beauty of a turbo motor in which if you choose to modify your car, it is a great base to start out with.
Jim
11-07-2006, 04:14 PM
#147
Gearhead
I am not anti-turbo by a long shot nor am I a stranger to Audi. My last 5 cars prior to the TL were Audis (A4's,S4,A6 2.7T and Allroad). APR makes great chips. But let me make my point a different way.
TL is not a light car and it is much quicker. The FJ Toyota weighs far more and is almost as quick. The RDX is already running high boost; almost 1 bar. This means that effectively the turbo is almost doubling the motor size. So it should be running pretty close to like it had a 4.0 liter motor under the hood and it doesn't.
Of course the tuner market will mod it (maybe) but then you have to watch the warranty issues. I pretty much did every mod I could do save block changes to my WRX and it definitely pulls to redline and beyond and isn't a dog down low. Honda could have given it more power which it needs which would at least excuse the terrible mileage.
I know the FJ is an apples to oranges comparison in many ways but it shows that Acura isn't even close in the HP/torque area to what the RDX needs yet is sucks fuel incredibly fast for such a small vehicle. The turbo does almost nothing in this instance to improve mileage while giving excellent performance, it does neither as well as the competition. Again I point the the normally aspirated Rav4 which out motors it AND gets better mileage. Slap the V6 Rav4 motor in the RDX and it would be a sweet(er) ride.
TL is not a light car and it is much quicker. The FJ Toyota weighs far more and is almost as quick. The RDX is already running high boost; almost 1 bar. This means that effectively the turbo is almost doubling the motor size. So it should be running pretty close to like it had a 4.0 liter motor under the hood and it doesn't.
Of course the tuner market will mod it (maybe) but then you have to watch the warranty issues. I pretty much did every mod I could do save block changes to my WRX and it definitely pulls to redline and beyond and isn't a dog down low. Honda could have given it more power which it needs which would at least excuse the terrible mileage.
I know the FJ is an apples to oranges comparison in many ways but it shows that Acura isn't even close in the HP/torque area to what the RDX needs yet is sucks fuel incredibly fast for such a small vehicle. The turbo does almost nothing in this instance to improve mileage while giving excellent performance, it does neither as well as the competition. Again I point the the normally aspirated Rav4 which out motors it AND gets better mileage. Slap the V6 Rav4 motor in the RDX and it would be a sweet(er) ride.
11-07-2006, 04:36 PM
#148
Instructor
Join Date: Nov 2006
Age: 47
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jhwu
Not that my wife or I particular care too much about resale value as we generally just buy what we like to drive... Based on past and current vehicles from Mazda and Acura, Acuras tend to depreciate less. I guess we'll see in a few years.
As for the RDX being a knockoff of the X3??? I'm a little confused by how you arrived at that?? I don't see any resemblence at all??? Dimension-wise, all three cars are pretty similar. I mean the RDX was targeted against the X3. Personally, I think the CX-7 is an attractive car (albeit a bit bubble like with the big fender flares), but my wife thinks the RDX is a better looking car. She also liked the X3, but thought the back of the X3 is kinda funky looking.
As for the RDX being a knockoff of the X3??? I'm a little confused by how you arrived at that?? I don't see any resemblence at all??? Dimension-wise, all three cars are pretty similar. I mean the RDX was targeted against the X3. Personally, I think the CX-7 is an attractive car (albeit a bit bubble like with the big fender flares), but my wife thinks the RDX is a better looking car. She also liked the X3, but thought the back of the X3 is kinda funky looking.
As for the RAV, it was our early favourite (before we knew the Acura was out there and in our price range), but the look got boring pretty quick.
It's opinion, but the CX-7 looks like a kid's car. The RDX looks and feels like a car for young professionals.
11-07-2006, 04:44 PM
#149
Instructor
Join Date: Nov 2006
Age: 47
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jhwu
You really think the motor is that weak? I should probably drive more powerful cars more often! Coming from an RSX-S that screams up to its 7800 redline but without that push in the seat feeling, the RDX is a torque machine.
More power than the RDX in a small SUV is something I don't really need.
11-07-2006, 04:47 PM
#150
Intermediate
Join Date: Oct 2006
Age: 47
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhh, fellow VWAG owner... Do you still own any of your Audis or the WRX?? I had two passats prior to my RSX-S. Loved them, but unfortunately a lot of electrical gremlins to deal with so hence I bought a RSX-S for commuting. Dead reliable and reasonably quick, but I still loved my APRed passat. Maybe this is why when my wife wanted a new car, we looked at the RDX. The turbo engine excited me and my wife liked it a lot too.
Honestly, I think the RDX is simply not enough car for you. Coming from modified S4s and WRXs... you're going to be disappointed at the RDX's stock performance. If I owned the cars you had, I would be disappointed too. I won't disagree with you about the fuel situation. Yeah, it does suck up gas quick in the city. Highway is ok, not bad.
I do think Honda made a mistake in simply targeting the X3 as the benchmark as oppose to totally destroy it with a high output turbo engine. I think they thought they would just trump it a little (old 3.0 engine) but failed to realize just how fast BMW responded with the 260hp inline 6.
Oh yeah, just curious... any reason you are considering a CUV this time? Have you considered a V70R?? My sister and brother in law just purchased one for 9500 off MSRP. Great looking car. Great deals on leftover 06s. Haven't ridden in it as they are in CA, but 300hp and 300lb/ft or torque in a car that can probably haul more stuff than the RDX. It was on my short list, but unfortunately not on my wife's...
Honestly, I think the RDX is simply not enough car for you. Coming from modified S4s and WRXs... you're going to be disappointed at the RDX's stock performance. If I owned the cars you had, I would be disappointed too. I won't disagree with you about the fuel situation. Yeah, it does suck up gas quick in the city. Highway is ok, not bad.
I do think Honda made a mistake in simply targeting the X3 as the benchmark as oppose to totally destroy it with a high output turbo engine. I think they thought they would just trump it a little (old 3.0 engine) but failed to realize just how fast BMW responded with the 260hp inline 6.
Oh yeah, just curious... any reason you are considering a CUV this time? Have you considered a V70R?? My sister and brother in law just purchased one for 9500 off MSRP. Great looking car. Great deals on leftover 06s. Haven't ridden in it as they are in CA, but 300hp and 300lb/ft or torque in a car that can probably haul more stuff than the RDX. It was on my short list, but unfortunately not on my wife's...
11-07-2006, 04:48 PM
#151
Instructor
Join Date: Nov 2006
Age: 47
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jhwu
Regarding sales... Sure the CX-7 is selling well, but I'm pretty sure they are also being discounted to invoice pretty easily right now. Mazda is also always aggressive with financing deals, so it's not hard to see these cars move. They will probably followup with cash rebates in a few months. Mazda resales are never the best anyways too. Honda probably needs to give a better leasing deal in order for sales to really pick up. Most BMW buyers are on leases. It's also really hard to convince BMW buyers to buy anything but a BMW due to badge prestige. Let's see if Acura can compete in due time???
And my wife and I didn't like any of them.
11-07-2006, 05:49 PM
#152
Gearhead
Still have my WRX. It is pretty well modded. On an AWD dyno it made 366WHP on 93 octane and without the bottle. That is fun car but a handful when it is snowing or damp out. I dial the boost wayyyyyy back then.
I agree that Acura should have went to crush the X3 if you are going to the effort. At the moment is behind just to start with. When BMW goes to the next version the RDW will look pretty sad.
CUV will more easily fit in my garage than my Excursion. However the promise of the CUV has really yet to be realized. Smaller should have translated into better fuel mileage. Even guys with 4Runners are getting better mileage.
Acura should have trimmed the weight or gave it more motor. I do like Volvos a lot. I loved the Allroad but got tired of the big truck fuel economy in the teens like the RDX. It wasn't the cost as much as the limited range. It gets to be a drag filling up every 200 miles or so especially when it is well below zero. If I have greater range I can find the best time to refuel in the winter and maybe let the really bad cold snaps pass.
I want Rav4 go and mileage with the Acura interior (with memory seats) and the Mazda's looks. I don't hate the RDX I just think Acura dropped the ball in some key areas. I could go with the X3 and not worry about it but I honestly hate the BMW dealers' attitudes. Contrary to what they believe, BMWs can't drive on water except when they hydroplane.
I may just hold off for the Audi when it comes out or go for the MDX or Q7 instead and give up any pretense of fuel economy. The RDX doesn't have it and the MDX is at least as good.
I agree that Acura should have went to crush the X3 if you are going to the effort. At the moment is behind just to start with. When BMW goes to the next version the RDW will look pretty sad.
CUV will more easily fit in my garage than my Excursion. However the promise of the CUV has really yet to be realized. Smaller should have translated into better fuel mileage. Even guys with 4Runners are getting better mileage.
Acura should have trimmed the weight or gave it more motor. I do like Volvos a lot. I loved the Allroad but got tired of the big truck fuel economy in the teens like the RDX. It wasn't the cost as much as the limited range. It gets to be a drag filling up every 200 miles or so especially when it is well below zero. If I have greater range I can find the best time to refuel in the winter and maybe let the really bad cold snaps pass.
I want Rav4 go and mileage with the Acura interior (with memory seats) and the Mazda's looks. I don't hate the RDX I just think Acura dropped the ball in some key areas. I could go with the X3 and not worry about it but I honestly hate the BMW dealers' attitudes. Contrary to what they believe, BMWs can't drive on water except when they hydroplane.
I may just hold off for the Audi when it comes out or go for the MDX or Q7 instead and give up any pretense of fuel economy. The RDX doesn't have it and the MDX is at least as good.
11-07-2006, 08:06 PM
#153
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,493
Received 835 Likes
on
519 Posts
I don't understand when some of you keep on saying that the RDX has bad fuel mileage. According to both car and driver and motortrend, its fuel economy is pretty much equal, if not better than the CX7, and as you all know, their torque and horsepower are also very similar. Not to mention (which i've already done so in my previous posts) that the CX7 has direct injection which in theory, should boast more power and fuel mileage.
As for performance, the RDX is the same as or slightly better than the CX7 according to the aforementioned magazines.
Performance, gas mileage....what else, handling. Handling, I have talked about it before already, so I am not going to type out a whole essay again. In a nutshell, the RDX's handling is better than the CX7 due to its Super Handling All Wheel Drive system (this is the reason why it's that much heavier than the Rav4). This system is a PERMANENT AWD system as opposed to the CX7's Haldex type AWD system derived from Volvo S40's system. Some of you might disagree with me because Mazda tells us that the system found in the CX7 is similar to the Mazdaspeed 6 one so therefore it must be very good. But Mazda also didnt tell us that the system came from the Volvo S40. Therefore, the rear wheels of the CX7 get power only when slippage is detected. On the other hand, the RDX always has at least 30% power at the rear axle. So, for normal drivers, which is not even necessary, and it's just a waste of gas, and that's true. That's why the RDX doesnt get good gas mileage (weight+AWD system). In return though, its handling is amazing for this kind of vehicles, and this is what car enthusiasts look for.
So, any market for such vehicle like the RDX? I don't know. May be people who buy CUV really don't need such good handling. But I'm glad that Honda is trying out new things and not just bringing out another bread and butter so-called CUV.
As for performance, the RDX is the same as or slightly better than the CX7 according to the aforementioned magazines.
Performance, gas mileage....what else, handling. Handling, I have talked about it before already, so I am not going to type out a whole essay again. In a nutshell, the RDX's handling is better than the CX7 due to its Super Handling All Wheel Drive system (this is the reason why it's that much heavier than the Rav4). This system is a PERMANENT AWD system as opposed to the CX7's Haldex type AWD system derived from Volvo S40's system. Some of you might disagree with me because Mazda tells us that the system found in the CX7 is similar to the Mazdaspeed 6 one so therefore it must be very good. But Mazda also didnt tell us that the system came from the Volvo S40. Therefore, the rear wheels of the CX7 get power only when slippage is detected. On the other hand, the RDX always has at least 30% power at the rear axle. So, for normal drivers, which is not even necessary, and it's just a waste of gas, and that's true. That's why the RDX doesnt get good gas mileage (weight+AWD system). In return though, its handling is amazing for this kind of vehicles, and this is what car enthusiasts look for.
So, any market for such vehicle like the RDX? I don't know. May be people who buy CUV really don't need such good handling. But I'm glad that Honda is trying out new things and not just bringing out another bread and butter so-called CUV.
11-07-2006, 09:13 PM
#155
Sporty X type
I agree with Iforyou. I think that a vehicle that weights almost 4k, has FULL time AWD, and handles like a much smaller CUV! I'm getting between 16.5- 17.5 mpg, & it isn't even broken in yet. I don't drive agressively nor do I drive like granny.
Don't believe what's always written in reviews. You don't know how or where they do all the driving. I drive in town 98% of the time.
(PS Iforyou. The front wheels get 90% of the power when driving straight ahead and at hiway speed. That's right from Acura's website!)
Personnally, I wasn't that impressed with the CV-7 & I'd NEVER own a BMW, thank you very much! This CUV hits our needs PERFECT. For some, it may not. By the way, I've had a TL, an '02 & '03 MDX (both leases for work purposes) and the power / torque wasn't THAT much different to me compaired to the RDX. I'll know more when I can get on it more after break-in period.
Don't believe what's always written in reviews. You don't know how or where they do all the driving. I drive in town 98% of the time.
(PS Iforyou. The front wheels get 90% of the power when driving straight ahead and at hiway speed. That's right from Acura's website!)
Personnally, I wasn't that impressed with the CV-7 & I'd NEVER own a BMW, thank you very much! This CUV hits our needs PERFECT. For some, it may not. By the way, I've had a TL, an '02 & '03 MDX (both leases for work purposes) and the power / torque wasn't THAT much different to me compaired to the RDX. I'll know more when I can get on it more after break-in period.
11-07-2006, 10:16 PM
#156
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,493
Received 835 Likes
on
519 Posts
sorry guys, thanks for clearing things up for me! 30% is for the RL, not the RDX, I am sorry about that. But nonetheless, it's similar to super AYC+ ACD and it's still better than a typical Haldex design!
11-07-2006, 10:38 PM
#157
Gearhead
OK. Let me try and put this in perspective a bit more. The CX7 has sucky mileage too. I will compare the RDX with my presious Audi Allroad. The Allroad weighed more, had more HP, had a twin turbo V6 and got better mileage.
To compare with the CX7 is like saying Stalin is no worse than Hitler... Do you get my point? My big 7.3l turbo diesel 4WD Excursion that weighs twice what the RDX does has never gotten WORSE than 17.5 mpg and that was TOWING a 6,000 pound boat plus trailer.
If this is the best Acura/Honda can do then it isn't that impressive. I personally expect more from them. If you all want big flat torque with no top end pull, Honda could have dropped in one of their diesels and given you that with outstanding mileage to boot.
I haven't driven an RDX yet that is a 6 second 0-60 car yet like they got in one test whereas every Rav4 V6 will easily do it. Honda touts their technology but what did it REALLY get them with the RDX? It isn't the class leader in almost any area.
To compare with the CX7 is like saying Stalin is no worse than Hitler... Do you get my point? My big 7.3l turbo diesel 4WD Excursion that weighs twice what the RDX does has never gotten WORSE than 17.5 mpg and that was TOWING a 6,000 pound boat plus trailer.
If this is the best Acura/Honda can do then it isn't that impressive. I personally expect more from them. If you all want big flat torque with no top end pull, Honda could have dropped in one of their diesels and given you that with outstanding mileage to boot.
I haven't driven an RDX yet that is a 6 second 0-60 car yet like they got in one test whereas every Rav4 V6 will easily do it. Honda touts their technology but what did it REALLY get them with the RDX? It isn't the class leader in almost any area.
11-08-2006, 11:42 AM
#159
Intermediate
Join Date: Oct 2006
Age: 47
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wavshrdr
OK. Let me try and put this in perspective a bit more. The CX7 has sucky mileage too. I will compare the RDX with my presious Audi Allroad. The Allroad weighed more, had more HP, had a twin turbo V6 and got better mileage.
To compare with the CX7 is like saying Stalin is no worse than Hitler... Do you get my point? My big 7.3l turbo diesel 4WD Excursion that weighs twice what the RDX does has never gotten WORSE than 17.5 mpg and that was TOWING a 6,000 pound boat plus trailer.
To compare with the CX7 is like saying Stalin is no worse than Hitler... Do you get my point? My big 7.3l turbo diesel 4WD Excursion that weighs twice what the RDX does has never gotten WORSE than 17.5 mpg and that was TOWING a 6,000 pound boat plus trailer.
First of all. My commute is 27mi each way going from downtown Chicago to the far north suburbs. I assure you traffic is crazy and ranges from sometimes no traffic to bumper to bumper traffic. Sometimes I stay on the highway the entire trip or I break off into local surburban traffic to avoid jams.
Tuesday Morning: heavy heavy traffic. Took the highway out about 12mi. The mileage indicator was showing average of 20.5 mpg for this 12 mi. I broke off of the highway and took local roads for 15mi. Typical surburban traffic with lights, stop signs, and light to medium traffic depending on the road. My average went up to as high of 24mpg but settled at 21.9 at my destination.
Tuesday Night: heavy traffic again. Took local roads for about 7 mi to bypass the heavest jams. My average was 21.5 mpg. Went on the highway and it was heavy, but only actually stopped 8-9 times. Most of time, it was coasting, light accel, braking.. speed was anywhere between 3mph to 30mph. My average mpg actually went up to 22.5. So, went about 22mi on the highway and got home. The indicator now says 22.3mpg. Went down a bit with a little bit of city driving.
Wednesday Morning: No traffic at all (weird, aint it). Averaged 65-70mph and mileage went up to 23.4mpg. Got off the highway and drove the final 2 mi to my work and mileage dropped back down to 22.6mpg.
So, in ~81 miles of travel, pretty much driving though all kinds of real world conditions. 22.6mpg is not bad.
Key observations is that when the car stays stationary, it sucks more gas than most cars I've driven. This makes sense to me as when we drive purely in the downtown area of chicago, the car only gets ~15mpg because we sit around at lights and traffic so much. This is probably as worse of a city driving scenario as you can get.
Jim
11-08-2006, 01:10 PM
#160
Gearhead
Originally Posted by wolfeman314
You must drive like a grandma to get mileage in the high teens on an Excursion. . . so rest assured you'd achieve over 20mpg behind the wheel of an RDX.
FYI, it will easily smoke a TL or RDX in the quarter mile in its current state of tune (500HP 1000ft/lbs of torque). It runs the quarter at 13.88 on pump diesel. It does 0-60 in the mid 4 second range.
Obviously it isn't stock at the moment but the mileage is comparable to when it is new. The diesel motor is quite efficient. With the mods that were done to it, it isn't likely I drive like grandma. Actually she drove pretty fast anyway.
A hi-perf diesel would be the ideal powerplant for a CUV.