CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

Comparing a diesel motor's gas mileage against a gasoline engine's gas mileage is like apples and oranges...

c_hunter

Not necessarily -- the bottom line to many people is how much power the vehicle has and what kind of MPG is gets. Gas, diesel, hamsters, it's all abstract at some point.

Personally, I prefer gas over diesel engines myself, but there is a new generation of diesel engines coming that sound pretty good.

wavshrdr

I wish some of you were more informed about motors in general, no offense. It still takes a lot of energy to accelerate a 4 ton vehicle. My Excursion isn't even one of the newer tech diesel motors. The engine is over 3 times the size of the RDX AND the truck weighs twice what the RDX does. It takes a lot of energy to accelerate this massive object with a effective frontal area akin to that of a small garage.

In spite of all this, I get better mileage than most do with an RDX. Even towing my boat which together with the truck and boat is almost 4 times the mass of the RDX! My point is Acura did a terrible job with respect this, no comparisons to Mazda needed.

Typically a diesel in similar applications will get about 25-30% better mileage than their gas counterparts. The Acura has the latest tech that should improve its mileage but it doesn't. I am not an Acura basher by any means but I will call a spade - a spade.

What is the point of going with all the latest technology if it really doesn't pay any dividends. It obviously didn't in performance or economy.

If you want to try a diesel that will change your mind about diesels, try a BMW 330d or 530d if you are ever in Europe. Don't forget Audi won Le Mans with a diesel powered car. The future of high performance cars WITH excellent economy is diesels. I had a chance to drive an X3 with the 3.0d and it was a mid 7 second 0-60 CUV and it got in about 30mpg in sustained 80 mph autobahn running. With a chip this motor is a monster putting out about 500lb/ft of torque and moving the X3 probably into the high 5's 0-60 and improving its mileage.

Go down to your local MB dealer and try and ML320 CDI and see what you think about diesels now. It is pretty good but not as good as the BMW. If Honda has a decent diesel I drove in a Euro Accord. Go here to see what records Honda set with their diesel, 92mpg!

http://www.carpages.co.uk/honda/hond...s_12_05_04.asp

This motor could have been great in the RDX or a slightly grown version of it. If you like the flat powerband of the RDX most of you would love the new diesels as they have a very broad torque peak.

CJW

I agree the RDX has a better AWD system, but I drove my Mazda CX-7 between two trucks in a freezing rain storm at 90 mph last week. The CX-7 performed beautifully. I would have bought a RDX but felt the price was too steep. Now I'm glad I bought the Mazda CX-7 GT AWD with tech. package.

My advice: Test drive a CX-7 before you make your final decision.

mvwood

why would you do that? It's very dangerous, you know.

wolfeman314

The point is, most of our vehicles (in the US) are gas, not diesel. Make all the comparisons you'd like, but to be fair to the RDX, mileage is similar to the other vehicles in its class. Being a gas engine and all, there isn't much more we could expect. Yes, a hybrid or diesel powertrain would deliver better mileage stats, but that isn't expected of Acura or its competition. While you might dislike that fact, it remains. So, your claims of inferior engineering are ridiculous - it's different technology, and until we have widespread adoption of clean diesel in the United States, you have no case against gas vehicles.

Lrpba300

Let me try & make you understand some things.............................
#1. Many people compaired the RDX to the CX7. They are in the same CATAGORY of vehicles. So is the X3, but even more expensive. Yet you're talking about a 7.3l turbo diesel 4wd piece of s**t Ford? I wasn't looking at a TRUCK & most other people here aren't either! Stay in the same country of compairisons!!

#2. What is it that Acura/Honda can't do that's very impressive to you? You like the TL, but do nothing but bash the RDX, yet you say you haven't even driven one yet?? Don't let people who read about something do your thinking for you!! Go experience it yourself. You may find it to be impressive! Many of us here DO! (WAIT! you can't b/c you've already made a determanation based on non experienced information!

#3. If you want great mileage in an CUV, go get a RAV4, Hundai Sante Fe, etc. They get good MPG, but aren't in the same catagory as the RDX. I didn't buy this for JUST mileage. It does get BETTER MPG than my '03 MDX did, (and it isn't even broke in yet!!) Go bash that vehicle in an MDX board & I'll bet you get "run out of town" for your comments telling them they should have put a diesel in there MDX instead of the V6 gas engine??

..& one other thing, anytime you want to talk ENGINE to proper ENGINE compairisons, technoligies, specs, etc, bring it on. I've done my share of engine building in my day and will match witts with you anytime!

DNPhotography

i would test drive another suv but sorry. the CX-7 is a mazda... not even close to a Acura.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

The Ford Excursion 7.3L Diesel gets 17mpg average (hwy and city mix), which in my opinion isn't that impressive for a diesel engine and I have no idea how you manage to get no worse than 17mpg.

Yes the Audi does get better fuel economy, but then again it's not even in the same price range.

Just because the RDX is slower than the Rav4 doesnt mean it's an interior car. The Accord V6 is a lot faster than the TSX and cheaper also, but the Accord isn't a better car than the TSX. More car for the money is not equal to a better car is what I am trying to say. In the automotive world, people look for more than bang for the buck, there's something called driving fun too. And if you want to argue the Rav4 is a more fun to drive car, then please, don't ever talk about cars again as that's a total disgrace. And also, the Excursion will not outhandle the RDX anyday (unless it's off-roading, but the RDX is not a SUV, it's a CUV; why are we even comparing 2 cars in different categories?)

Let's compare cars that are more similar, not diesel vs gasoline, say, Ford Escape vs Acura RDX. Now the Escape has a 3.0L V6 with 200hp and 193lb/ft of torque. It weighs 500-600lbs less than the RDX, and has 40 less hp, 67lb/ft less torque. It also does not have a permanent AWD system like the RDX and yet, it doesn't return better fuel mileage than the RDX. Do I still need to discuss this further?

Another competitor to the RDX, the Nissan Murano, it has one of the best V6 engines in the world, the VQ35DE displacing 3.5L engine that has 5 more hp than RDX, but 14lb/ft less torque when compared to the RDX. It weighs about the same as the RDX too. The Murano is better than the Escape, as the AWD of the Murano is derived from the Skyline GT-R, but still, it doesn't get better fuel mileage than the RDX. This tells me the RDX's fuel economy is not "sucky." You can only say it's not the best.

I still remember how people bash on Honda's engines as torqueless, screamers, weak at low rpm, and things like that. Now that Honda makes something that produces more torque than hp, people are still not satisfy. What exactly do people want? I mean right from the beginning, Honda's engines are not that torqueless. Using the S2000 as an example, getting 156lb/ft torque from a 2.0L engine is not shabby at all. And you get 133lb/ft at 3000rpm, which I believe is average. Anyways, that engine is not even made for making low-end torque, it's designed for high rpm output. And it's because of the high hp, people have a feeling that it's "weak" down at the bottom end. I'm pretty sure that if Honda produced a S3000 instead, with a 3.0L engine from the Accord or 3.2L engine from the TL, people would say things like, "man, what is Honda doing? copying BMW Z3?" Honda is famous for its engine technologies, if it copies from others for its halo cars, what would other think?

I am not sure if you understand what I am trying to say, hopefully you do. But if you don't, it's ok, my English isn't that good and I know that.

wavshrdr

Please re-read my previous posts. I have driven several RDX's so I don't know where you get that from.

The MDX is a better value than the RDX, I hate to say it. Sales numbers in our area tend to back that up.

As for diesels, you will see a lot more coming to the US. Over half of all cars sold in Europe new are diesels. We have finally adopted low sulfur diesel in the US so that means more of them can come here.

As for motors building I'll take you up on that bet. Not to be argumentative but I was probably building motors before you were born. I would bet a big chunk of money that the vehicles I have setting in my garage are far faster than anything you have in yours. But what does it really matter?

If you like the RDX fine. That is your choice. If mid teens gas mileage for a CUV is fine, then more power to you. I am not thrilled with the mileage of the CX7 either. I am not saying the RDX is a POS. I am saying Acura could have done a much better job with it than they did.

I personally hope they correct some of its shortcomings and it would be better for everyone. If nobody expects Acura to raise the bar they never will. As the old saying goes "It is better to shot for the moon and land on the fence than shot for the fence and land on the ground". I would rather encourage/prod/motivate Acura to build better vehicles than just blindly accept whatever they produce.

So if I follow your logic, Lrpba300, if a RDX,gets the same mediocre mileage as the Mazda CX7, that makes it ok or somehow acceptable. Or if the RDX gets far worse mileage than Rav4 and is considerably slower, that is ok as well. I am glad I don't have such low expectations. I expect more from a top tier manufacturer than lagging behind competitors in key areas. If gas was $7/gal like it is in Europe, you might be more concerned about fuel efficienty. Considering OPEC wants to keep oil at $60/bbl. or higher, days of sub $2/gal. gas are long gone.

I am not the world's number one diesel fan but turbo diesels make a lot of torque and have great efficiency. Since torque is what determines acceleration I tend to like high torque motors. If some you have the opportunity to try the diesels in a lot of European cars and SUV's, you might see what I am talking about. It is one of those have your cake and eat it to situations; quick and fuel efficient.

Anyway I am content to just agree to disagree. I will leave you with a quote from John Mendel (hopefully you know who he is). Here are his remarks the North American International Auto Show from earlier this year:

"RDX performance begins with Acura's first turbocharged engine...a 2.3-liter, 4-cylinder. This revolutionary i-VTEC Turbo technology is exclusive to Acura. As you would expect from Acura, this turbocharger is something pretty special. It delivers excellent fuel economy without compromising performance..."

I am still waiting for them to deliver on that promise. Perhaps they should refine their definition of excellent. I am glad that there is finally a turbo Acura since turbo Hondas have been around in the aftermarket for years. I built one of the first HKS turbo CRX SI's outside of Japan in the world back in 1985.

At least the RDX is outselling the RL (not too hard) but its sales lag way behind the MDX. At this point I will probably buy the MDX. The mileage is about the same and it is roomier and the motor is much more refined than the the RDX and it can actually tow something fair sized if needed. I like the RDX but they could have done more with it.

From the fuel mileage people are reporting, it definitely looks like they have the fuel injection set to run on the rich side (too much fuel). I am betting they are doing this to reduce the odds of detonation which can destroy a turbo motor in a matter of seconds. So if you were to run the car with low octane fuel on a hot day and under a severe load, the risk would be greatest. I am sure they don't want to have a lot of warranty claims so they biased the engine management to be on the extremely safe side. So pump in some extra fuel and we reduce the risk of detonation but kill fuel economy.

coldcase

Yeah that's probably why they mention the CX-7 in almost every review of the RDX. Come on.

I love Acura and Honda but most people and automobile journalists compare the 2 when they both tried them. It's not because the CX-7 is a "Mazda" that it's not even close to the RDX. It's close enough for people to cross shop both vehicules.

Lrpba300

Oh boy, here we go. telling me to re-read your posts. Lets review your comments in this post, shall we?

OK. 1 day ago you posted.."I have now driven the RDX and the CX7 numerous times"...... so all the previous times I read you hadn't, I was going by that. Excuse me for the great mistake!!

Next, you say, "The MDx is a better value than the RDX". Ok, according to what? You? The MDX has been out now going on 7 years. THe RDX has been out 3 months? That's a great compairison! It's also called SUBJECTIVE & your opiton. I think it's just as good , if not better than the MDX. (Which for the '07 model yr., equal or close to same options is $48k compaired to $38k!) And it gets WORSE mileage.. MDX=17city, 22Hwy. My RDX still in break-in gets better than that!!

Next great qoute.."As for motors building I'll take you up on that bet. Not to be argumentative but I was probably building motors before you were born".. Don't make me laugh so hard. I built my first engine in 1968! You weren't even thought of yet! You young ones are soooo funny!!! What you have in your garage isn't anything faster than I've been in, on the road or track, & you won't impress me at all there.

If you don't like the RDX, so be it. I don't buy any vehicle strickly b/c of mileage only. You are the one that sounds hell bent on it, so buy accordingly, I don't. Is it an important factor? Some. Is it the only thing? Hell no. Driving enjoyment, handling, ride comfort, etc. are just as important as mileage. You keep refering to
people that are having low mileage amounts. You should read some other posts on here that speak of 20-25 mpg. You obviously don't make any refence to those REAL WORLD accounts, do you? If you have such HIGH expectations, why don't you go by a Hybrid Civic? It can get 60+ mpg? What would you complain about then? It's not a diesel? Please.....I don't want no stinking diesel!

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Yes, I do agree diesel is a great alternative to hybrid when it comes to fuel economy and torque. But you need to understand that generally, people in North America don't have the same thinking as Europeans. They still believe diesel is smelly, dirty, and noisy. Even though diesel technologies are pretty advanced now, but humans are biased, it takes time to change their thinking. So within the next 5 years if not 10, diesel will slowly have more market share, but the keyword here is SLOWLY. Of course, Honda understands that too, that's why it will be introducing new diesel engines within the next 3 years that will comply with the newest and strictest emission standards. But before that happens, We still need to rely on gasoline engines.

I am only 19 and so I dont have any extra money to build engines or do anything to my car, I still go to school. But this has nothing to do with RDX vs others.

Did you even read my last post? When compared to a car that is a lot lighter, a lot less powerful, and without a permanent AWD system, like the Ford Escape, the RDX actually gets better gas mileage. Even when comparing with Murano, which has one of the world's best engines, it matches it too. So "excellent" may be exaggerating, but it's definitely not sucky. Of course, I do prefer better fuel economy if that's possible.

Torque doesn't always determine acceleration. Torque alone won't get you anywhere. You need to take into account the rpm, gear ratios, and weight. Low end torque is good for city driving. If you make some decent torque at high rpm, you will get good horsepower and thus good acceleration, assuming ur car is not too heavy. For example, the S2000. what do you think would happen if you switch the torque and hp figures around? ie. 156hp and 240lb/ft torque? Do you think it's still possible to do 0-60mph in less than 6 seconds? I am assuming that you tune the gear ratios so that the the max speed for each ratio is identical. As you can see, TYPICALLY, it's the hp that determines your acceleration. But then of course, 240hp and 240lb/ft of max torque would be faster if your torque curve is like a plateau.

wavshrdr

First off, I am unlikely to be younger than you. I merely refenced Honda turbo experience. Educationally my background is aerospace engineering. I am not a Honda/Acura basher as I used to work for Honda (corporately though I did start at a dealer).

I am comparing the mileage that was recorded by a magazine that tested both the RDX and 2007 MDX in very short order. They recorded almost identical mileage while testing.

What is the point of buying a smaller SUV/CUV other than size? It begs the question of buying an SUV when you could buy a "car" then. Where is the real utility here?

As for the RDX getting mid 20's I have seen very few of those posts. Most were CDN mpg and not US. I have looked here and many other forums to get an idea of what the real world mileage has been so far. I don't buy based on on sole factor but it will weigh heavily on my purchasing decision if it is too far out of range.

Mileage becomes important for a lot of reasons. Some that depending on where you live might not be an issue. Where I live we have pretty cold winters. Cars will typically get even worse mileage here than the rest of the US because of that. But the direct effect that poor mileage has is that when you couple it with a reduced fuel tank size you have very limited range. If you are standing outside filling your car up and it is 70F outside, then it isn't so bad. Try doing that when it is -20 not counting the winchill and because of the poor range you have to do it every 2-3 days it becomes a real drag. I can easily put on 100+ miles each day if I am driving to client's sites. Not to mention in the winter here you always want to have at least a half tank of fuel at all times due to safety reasons. So you can end up filling up every day. Where you live this might be an issue.

It is these regional differences that sometimes define the success of a car. Subarus sell incredibly well here. A lot of people use them instead of SUV's because they do get better mileae and handle pretty well. Of course the turbo'd versions have a higher fun to drive factor. In general the vast majority of people where I live would be better off with a AWD wagon than an SUV. Unfortunately it doesn't look as "cool" or trendy.

I think something that is sort of interesting is the newest version of the RL outsold the RDX the first month it was introduced compared the first month of the RDX. Not a very good stat.

So for those of you happy with the RDX, great. I have never said it was a terrible or bad car. Honda just left a lot on the engieering table that could have been done. Anyway not much more to add to this debate until Honda makes some changes in the RDX or Mazda comes out with a Mazdapseed version of the CX7.

One last point of clarification, there is $6k difference between comparbly equipped MDX and RDX. The MDX with tech pkg is about 44k. It will be only 48 if you go with tech, sport and entertainment packages.

wavshrdr

I spoke in broad terms. If I have a choice of a 200hp/150lb/ft or 200hp/250lb/ft, I will gladly take the second one. If you have a high revving motor that makes a lot of HP, then you can use a gearbox with lot of ratios and torque multiplication to get the torque you need for acceleration. The beauty of diesels for most drivers would be they don't need to be spinning high RPMs to make serious torque. For example my race diesel VW makes 307 lb/ft of torque at 1600 rpm out of 1.9 liter motor without the propane injection. If that motor is doing anything but idling it is making serious torque and has outstanding pull without shifting the gearbox like a blender. So while it make only 142 HP at the wheels, the torque numbers are pretty amazing for a tiny little motor.

So no matter how you slice it, you still need torque to accelerate. So either you get it through gearbox multiplication or from the motor. This is where a well designed CVT can be of great benefit. I of course realize that weight is a factor; physics 101. Low mass is almost always a benefit to improve acceleration, handling, economy and a host of other areas. You can have a car with a tiny motor that is incredibly quick as long as it is lightweight but without the horsepower it will have a low top speed unless it has excellent aerodynamic efficiency.

A few years ago, Road and Track (I believe) took and old land yacht such as a Pontiac Bonneville (if I remember correctly) when they still had old tech V8's. They took it to the dragstrip and ran it as it was. It ran about a 17 second 1/4. Nothing amazing at all. Next they took out the jack, rear seat, spare tire and other stuff. They knocked off about a second. Step by step they kept removing stuff from the car until they finally took off the doors and started chopping off body parts. Lo and behold that car ran a 14 second quarter.

At the time they did this that would have smoked a lot of sports cars in acceleration. I lived through the period of watching Corvettes have an L88 option for an engine and then going to the mid 70's smog motor where a Cosworth Vega would run with a Corvette of that period. Blazingly fast smog motor ran 16's in the Vette. Sad to look back then and see a Vette that could get dusted by a whole host of current family cars and SUV's. The RDX and CX7 have more HP then the L82(optional higher HP version) motor of the 1975 Corvette. Looking back in some ways the good old days weren't so good. Sadly my WRX even smokes my old 427 Vette.

Anyway to improve all around performance of the RDX it they could have tried to shave a few more pounds. Acceleration would be better AND without having to move all that mass all the time mileage would be better as well. At least it doesn't suck fuel like the Audi Q7 V8 I drove. Even under mild acceleration the instaneous mileage computer was seeing low single digits such as 4.6 or 5.1. Hard acceleration would bring up 2.6 mpg numbers.

CJW

Not in a CX-7

CJW

Why not? They're both well crafted Japanese cars. They're both made in Japan.

Ooops! I forgot. The Mazda CX-7 is built in Japan. The RDX is built in Ohio.

buckeye#1

I am no epert by any means but I have driven
both the CX-7 and RDX several times.Both vehicles offer
pluses and minuses,but I like both.I feel that with the RDX
all of its amenities are just a little nicer than the Cx-7's.
Now you do pay a premium for the RDX,but people need to quit bashing one or the other.

Digits

I didn't realize the safety features in a CX-7 could prevent it from being crushed by semis in an accident. I guess it is a better car.

CJW

Why buy a crossover SUV with AWD and turbo power if you're not going to use it?

mvwood

well, for us, and we are not car people by any means (which explains the 92 Cavalier), it was that the car could expand with us as we have 1 or 2 kids before we need a bigger SUV, it looks great, feels great on the inside, and has a solid name and reputation.

Mazda looks silly, so we didn't even consider it. RAV4 started out high, but lost us on the interior and the outside got boring pretty quick and fully loaded it's not that much cheaper than a premium name like Acura. BMWs are nice but too expensive for what we wanted.

So we got this. Lots of floor space in the back, great, sophisticated modern look, feels good to drive and has more snob appeal than a toyota or mazda.

I would suspect most car drivers out there are more concerned with these things than whether the engine could have been revamped by 3/4 of a degree to get more torque horsepower ratio or whether a diesel engine would have resulted in a better acceleration path.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

As I've said, I understand that torque is useful for city driving. And for a given amount of hp, if you have more torque, you will accelerate faster, especially in city driving, assuming same gear ratios and weight. But wut I was trying to convey, was that as long as your car is not overweight, more hp means less acceleration time when you floor to the metal, and shifts at redline. If you have low-end torque, but no high end torque, it's not going to be as fast. This is exactly the characteristic of the RDX. So, do you want low-end torque or high-end torque. It seems like you prefer both? I can't tell, you seem to be not satisfy with the high-end power of the RDX. A diesel engine doesnt make great high-end power, but you like it a lot. May be my 3.2TL Type S is what you are looking for? It has a wide maximum torque band (232lb/ft from 3500-5500rpm) and 260hp@6100rpm. It combines low and mid range torque along with high end power.

A CVT may be good for city driving, but not for racing. May be in the future, better CVT's will come out and then I might change my view. But for now, I still prefer manual transmission, I enjoy hearing the music my engine makes instead of the noise of an engine spinning constantly at 6000rpm (well sometimes there's a manual mode along with the CVT but that's another story).

So yea, a diesel equipped car is incredibly quick off the line, but before long, it will has to shift, and the gear multiplication tells us that it longer makes a lot of torque, and a typical gasoline-equipped car will pass it as long as it has more hp, even with less torque.

Yes, weight is important. That's why I like the Lotus Elise. Talking about lightweight, I recently watched the December 2006 Best Motoring video. It features a race between the new 911 Turbo, NSX-R, Gallardo, and M6. In the 5-lap battle, the NSX-R, with less than 300hp, managed to beat the other ~500hp cars. It's a very interesting battle and proves how limportant weight as well as engineering are.

DNPhotography

actually its built in Japan oh and its like apples and oranges. one is a luxury car and one is, well is just not

Brad G

no the acura is built in Marysville Ohio.

crazymjb

The country debate is low and old, it really doesn't make a difference, get over yourselves.

RDX is a nicer vehicle than the CX-7, I don't care what you say, simple fact. That said, the CX-7 costs less, and is in somewhat of a different class, if only partially.

Diesel vs. Gas... Diesel engines show real potential, but low sulfur fuels alone don't solve the emissions problems, also, power delivery has to be slightly different due to the limited tach range.

Now MDX vs. RDX... The new MDX is a very nice car, nicer than the RDX . For the price I believe what you get is similar as far as the B4B factor, that doesn't change the fact that not everyone has an extra 6-8K lying around, or wants/needs a car that size.

While the turbo is good and nice, I would have preffered the 3.2 or 3.5, but one can't have everything. Our 05TL gets 36MPG highway if we stay at a constant speed, but they way I drive it doesn't seen a combined mileage above the low 20s, with my father that number goes up to the mid 20s.

As has been stated before, 6-8K break in miles really make a difference. Our TL started out with a top MPG of 16-17, and slowly climbed to where it is over those first few K miles.

Mike

mvwood

was the deal with us. First, MDX is substantially mroe in Canada for some reason (like 10-15k) and the RDX was at the top point of our range (so we were glad it was there to be sure). The MDX is also too big, considering we have no kids and both of us have never driven an SUV before on a more than one-off basis.

DNPhotography

its not entirely built in Ohio. but thanks for clearing that up.

"The RDXs final assembly point is definitely Marysville, an award winning ISO9000 plant. The MSRP you should have also states that the origin of the engine and transmission is Japan. The parts content is listes as 65% U.S./Canadian and 25% Japan, leaving 10% "other". I hope this answers your question satisfactorily. Please let us now if you need any additional information."

Lrpba300

Props to you wavshrdr, you're starting to say some good things for a change!
Ok now, my age is on my posts under my avatar, & I don't know yours, but it sounds like you've been around for some time. Do you remember what Grumpy Jenkins did w/ a small block Chevy engine in his day? I do!
Ok, next. You went by a magazine for the compairisons for the mileage between an MDX & the RDX. Mine is real world. My '03 MDX, when I traded it in was getting 14.5-15.5 mpg (that's w/ about 12k miles on it!). MANY HERE have said that after about 6-8k miles on their Acura's, that the mileage goes up. If I'm getting 16.5- 17.5 mpg now, it should be about up to Acur's ESTIMATED mpg after the break-in period.
Next. What's the purpose of a smaller SUV/CUV? If I don't need to seat 6-7 people, or carry that much stuff, seating for 5 is plenty!! I love the smaller vehicle. It's perfect for me. It may not fit your needs, but that doesn't mean that Acura/Honda didn't blow it, make a mistake. It just isn't a fit for you!

I know all about enviroment. You talk of cold weather. Well, we can go from a day of 76, (yesterday) to a blizzard of 18" of snow, (2 weeks ago) & we also have an ALTITUDE of over 6400 ft. where I live. You don't think that has something to do w/ my mileage #'s??

We have lots of Subarus here also. I don't care for them, but they have a great place for mileage / AWD purpose, just not for me!

One last point here also. The $48k MDX's were all that were on the lot when I was looking at the RDX. I just couldn't see paying that extra money for the MDX w/ worse MPG, (by the Acura sticker!) I didn't even see paying the $4k for the tech package on the RDX. It's stuff I don't need or want to pay for. So the price I started dealing w/ was $33,665. That is a great price for what you get on the RDX. That's my opinion on it is & I'm stickin' to it!

Lrpba300

Thanks for that point. It shows that Acura's (& I'm sure all others) increase MPG's after the break-in period.

DNPhotography

100% agreed with you

Lrpba300

Thanxs DN!! Nice photos of your white RDX, by the way!

CJW

I live in an affluent neighborhood and I'm beginning to see a lot of CX-7 and RDX cars. What I've noticed is that the RDX is usually being driven by females. It seems to be a comfortable wagon for rich women who like shopping.

The CX-7 is always being driven by a male, which makes sense. This crossover or sport SUV is much more of a man's car. I think that's the basic difference between them.

crazymjb

I live in an affluent neighborhood, on my street(block, I live on a dead end intersection thing, not a culdesac, just a bunch of streets sort of meet here) the "nice" cars are: S80, ES330, Acura TL (ours), Saab 93 2.0T, ML320, Tuareg v8(loaded up, used to be a LC), E3204Matic, Audi A6 quattro, this is amont about 15 houses. Their are some cheaper cars to, but their are quite a few in the upper bracket.

In my neighborhood I am yet to see an RDX or a CX7, their are probably at least twenty 1st and 1.5 Gen MDXs though, still no 07s.

As far as the CX7 being a mans car, I have to laugh at that... The RDX is more "sporty" and IMO, looks 100 times better, more so on the inside... The CX7 may also be a good car(haven't driven it), but I'd much prefer an RDX. As a Man, if I wanted to get an CUV to get an SUV in that price range to help my self esteem I'd probably get a Grand Cherokeen SRT-8 or Trailblazer SS. However, a Legacy GT Spec B is 4K cheaper than the RDX, and that thing is nice, as is the TL-S(but I really would like AWD).

Mike

jhwu

Uhh, yeah, and in our "affluent" area, the X3 is still mostly driven by women even though it's more sporting than both the RDX and CX-7. What point are you trying to make again?? I like how you are trying so hard to justify your CX-7 purchase now... a few pages ago, I thought "good for you for picking the CX-7 based on your own criteria and budget". Now, it just seems like you are trying to validate your choice by making comments that don't make any sense. The RDX is more sporting than the CX-7 according to all the reviews out there, so again, not sure what point you are trying to make.

Maybe in "AFFLUENT" areas, most people buy BMWs and Acuras because they present more of a luxury snob appeal than a Mazda. Seriously, I love Mazda cars and I will still state the CX-7 is a TERRIFIC value compared to our RDX, but most people do not consider Mazda an entry level luxury brand. Sorry, just the way it is.

Digits

Making comments like this takes away your credibility. It's apparent you're only here to fan flames.

crazymjb

It is noted that our friends at Acura may have left a few things out of what is supposed to be entry level luxury, that said, I don't see any problems with the "value" of the car. The mazda is 33K equally equipped as a tech RDX, at least as far as MSRP is concerned. What you get with the RDX is ELS, a dual flow turbo(regardless of what you critical testers think, it is a large improvement), and the following which of course, are a matter of opinion:

This:


vs Mazdas:


I still insist Acura takes the cake on most interiors.

However most important is the SH-AWD, which is a deal breaker on pretty much everything else for us.

The CX-7 is a nice car, but it is not as nice an RDX. That pretty much is the end of the story.

Mike

elgage44

just got a quote for $34k even on a tech RDX. For the price, the decision between a CX-7 and RDX is easy for me. As most agree, both are "nice" but the real difference for me is the interior -- overall design and better quality feel plus a few cool gadgets. Very tempted now to get the RDX at 34k...

jaobrien6

I normally agree, but I think the RDX is the worst interior Acura's come out with in a while. I'm not saying I hate it, but i think it's so-so. I love the interior in the TSX, TL & RL... I haven't seen the new MDX yet in person, so I can't judge that, but the pics look great. The RDX, however... eh.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

So you're saying that women prefer the sharper handling, better appointed, better driving car while men prefer the one that looks most like a phallus?

crazymjb

I believe that would be correct

He just prefers the RDX and is feverishly trying to back up his purchase of a CX-7.

Mike