terdonal

Still shaking my head over the comment that the RDX dash reminded her of the new Honda Civic.

schuchmn

Personally, I think your own test drive is the true test.

CJW

I agree with Motor Trend, which gave the RDX 3 stars and the CX-7 4 stars.

newteez

Someone brought up the motor trend article and now I feel a little down , no way should my RDX look like a Zoom , Zoom, Zoom car. But if you look quick the front end and side views of the car are very similar, who ripped off who. The main difference is the interior, in my opinion the Mazda product has always had a thrown together look to it, while Acura has done an excellent job in creating a comfortable interior.

But as mentioned time will tell as to which model will succeed.

JD

jaobrien6

Ok, we get it... you like the CX-7... got anything new to add?

dom

They both have speedometers.

crazymjb

Besides the keyless go, I don't see how the CX-7 is any better. Sorry.

Mike

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

I agree with the TWO results from TWO leading magazines which show that RDX won TWO comparisons against TWO competitors, the CX7 and Rav4.

dennarda

I am not sure where you are getting your stars from, but in the Dec 06 Motortrend the RDX beat the CX-7 in the categories of Engineering, Performance, and Safety. The CX-7 won on design, interior, and value.

neo1738

Umm more info just released...the RDX is on the IIHS top 13 safest cars for 07 while the CX-7 is not.....and would u really put a price on saftey?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/11/20/...ars/index.html

mvwood

which is funny, considering my wife and I stopped looking at the CX-7 because of the design and the interior, while we LOVE the design and especially the interior of the RDX.

Kid bros were over and saw the wheels on the weekend and said they like it way better than my dad's '03 MDX. Sleek futuristic interior, with the blue lights and all, and the exterior looks like a proper modern car, rather than trying to be all space age like the CX-7.

As for value, if by value they mean cheaper then I would agree. Otherwise, I certainly wouldn't. By themselves, racing stripes on the seats would destroy thousands of dollar of value IMO.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

yea, design wise, both exterior and interior, IMO, are really based on personal preference. But the quality of the interior, you can feel it, but may still be subjective. On the other hand, engineering, technology, performane, and safety, these can be quantified and rated without much problem. As for as value goes, I really think both represent great value. The CX7 might seem more "valuable" because of its lower price tag. But then the RDX offers you so many features for just US$33000, to me, just the SH-AWD is worth the extra $$ already.

kylem

It's easy to win when the CX-7 wasn't even tested (yet). I suspect it will get a similar top rating as it has in other tests.

CJW

The RDX gets the edge when it comes to material, refinement and tech package, though I'd say the CX-7 isn't far behind. The CX-7 handles and performs more like a sports car which is what won me over -- that and it was seven thousand dollars less.

Do you want a luxury SUV or a sporty SUV?

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

As I've mentioned many times already, the RDX is even more sporty when it comes to handling due to its SH-AWD which can virtually eliminate most (I won't say all, that's too dangerous to say) understeering and oversteering. And as you've seen already in those comparison tests by MT and C&D, the RDX outhandled every one in handling tests. So I would call the RDX a sports luxury CUV.

As for the price, it's $7000 more if you are talking about the tech package, but if you are only talking about the one without it, then the price difference is around 10%. And even so, the RDX still has more standard features than the CX7.

schuchmn

Well, fascinating question. My last car was a BMW 330xi. When I stepped out of the CX-7 and back into the BMW, the difference in handling response and feel seemed huge to me. The transition from the RDX to the BMW was nowhere near as big. So, to answer your question, I wanted and got both

CJW

I don't agree. The turbo on the CX-7 is tuned to deliver power from get-go. Test the two back to back and I think you'll see the Mazda was designed for sport. The RDX has a big car ride, very similar to a luxury car.

c_hunter

I have to think you have not driven an RDX. It has an extremely stiff ride, in fact it's too stiff for many people. To the point where it bobs over some road irregularities rather than soaking them up. It's about as far from a big luxury car ride as you can go.

priggly

Which has the smoother and less stiff ride, the CX-7 or the RDX?

Which vehicle is quieter at highway speeds?

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

The turbo on the RDX is tuned to deliever more torque than hp, in fact, more so than the CX7, and with amount of torque, accelerating at low rpm is easy for the rdx. And the torque I am talking about in the RDX is low end torque. at 1000rpm it's already making 140lb/ft of torque. At 2000rpm, it's making close to 230lb/ft. Do the math and you can see that's almost 90% of maximum torque at 2000rpm. I don't know about the CX7, but what I am trying to say is, the RDX is also "tuned to deliver power from get-go."

As for being sporty, many people here have already discussed about that based on their own experience, the reviews and rankings from various car magazines, as well as its technical specifications. Once again, let me emphasize the following point (which I think is my 2nd or 3rd time saying this): The CX7 AWD system is borrowed from the mazda 6 mps. That sounds very nice indeed. But one must realize that the system in the 6 mps comes straight from the Volvo S40. The MPS doesn't transfer any torque to the rear wheels at all during normal driving. The system only intervenes by engaging the clutches when slippage is detected. On the other hand, the RDX's SH-AWD transfers 10% to the rear wheels under normal condition. And just like the CX7, when slippage is detected, more torque is transferred to the rear wheels. But the SH-AWD goes one more step, it can vary torque between the rear wheels, and this simply enhances the handling of the car. So which is more sporty, I have a clear answer myself. But I guess sporty doesn't have the same meaning to everyone.

CJW

Who cares that the Mazda CX-7 AWD comes the 6? The Acura RDX SH-AWD comes from the RL. So what? Honda and Acura share technology, as do all other carmakers.

When you push the CX-7 you are literally thrown back against your seat. That doesn't happen with the RDX which I would say delivers smooth acceleration. Its all in the test drive. Push the two and I think you'll feel the difference.

Skeandhu

I'm not sure about that... I'd driven both pretty much back-to-back and found the power delivery on the RDX (along with the handling in general) to be much more satisfying. (ie: quick, fun, nimble, better acceleration, etc.). The Mazda and Acura dealerships were also within 1km of each other, so the test routes were very similar.

The RDX, at least to me, has a much more "sportier" feel than the CX-7... It is a luxury, sport-SUV

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

I care. and I am pretty sure car enthusiasts would care about the origin of the systems. To me, a system used in a Volvo vs a a system similar to super ayc and acd is important.

And many people have already talked about their test drive experience already, and I would say most people feel the RDX is more sporty.

crazymjb

Well put it this way. It is a fact that the AWD system in the RDX is better. It is a fact that the power delivery is quicker and smoother in the RDX. If you like turbo lag(the lag than vroom) from the CX-7, than yes it's better. However, I think most prefer the simple lower numbers and smoother power delivery of the RDX. You can't argue with numbers. The RDX is faster and handles better.

Mike

CJW

The RDX is slightly faster but handles more like a luxury car. That's not just my opinion, Motor Trend has come to the same conclusion. It is not a crossover SUV but rather a luxury wagon.

The CX-7 looks, drives and performs more like a sports car. I find it fun to drive which to me is more important than satisfying to drive.

You are right about the turbo lag on the CX-7, however, it is greatly diminished if you drive the CX-7 in manual mode. It doesn't bother me but I agree it is a drawback.

c_hunter

I really have a hard time classifying the handling/ride of the RDX with luxury in any way. It is most definitley sporting in the BMW sense. The Lexus RX-350 has a luxury ride -- it is a lot more comfortable and smooth than the RDX or CX-7.

Skeandhu

Maybe I missed that part of the Motor Trend comparo (found HERE ), but a couple of quotes from that article that seem to favour the RDX as "more sporty":

Last para, page3:
Can't be "King of the Twisties" without excellent feedback and sports-car like response...

2nd para, page 4:
They indicate that the Mazda has a "sporty feel", yet are saying that the Acura appears to have better feel and handling. Someone can correct me if I've misinterpreted the quote above.

Page 4:
I respect your belief the CX-7 to be "sportier" in handling and in looks, my opinion differs in that I find the RDX to have sportier handling and looks. Motor Trend seems to split as they find the Mazda to be sportier looking, while the Acura has a more sport-sedan feel...

schuchmn

Well, the comparative performance numbers don't quite bear that out. Look at the Motor Trend comparison test that was cited in earlier posts. What makes this test better than most of the others is that the RDX, CX-7, and RAV4 were tested at the same time by the same drivers.

Don't just look at the 0-60 speeds. From 0-30, the CX-7 is 0.2 seconds quicker, so it will feel faster right off the line and that's important. It's a dead tie at 0-50, but beyond that, the Acura is faster. But that's at the test track. The number that would be more important in everyday driving is 45-65 passing time and there the Acura is a full second faster.

The fact that the CX-7 is quicker slightly faster in the 0-30 range doesn't surprise me because that agrees with my subjective feel of the cars. To me, the only performance disappointment in the RDX is its softness off the line. This may be a matter of the VTEC engine as much as the turbo -- any VTEC I've ever driven needs revs to really get going.

While this is important, to my personal driving style, the acceleration at higher speeds is more important. The RDX is 0.7 mph quicker in the 50-60 range, 0.5 seconds in the 60-70 range and 1.0 seconds in 45-65.

Anyone else's style and tastes may differ from mine, but if I had to choose between 0-30 time and 45-65 time, I'd go with the 45-65 passing speed.

crazymjb

Again... Fact RDX handles better and is faster than the CX-7. Looks are subjective, and while the RDX is a tiny bit on the bland side, it doesn't look like a turd complete with skid marks on the two interior seats.

Mike

rdxsteverino

Although I'm not a fan of the CX-7 - Ouch.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Man you made one of the best posts here. You made your comments with quotes to back you up. Nice work! How I wish I am as good as you are!

dennarda

When I first purchased an RDX, I would have defintely given the CX7 props for its exterior looks. In fact, in my opinion at the time, that was the one place where the CX7 had the edge. However, I have already grown tired of the CX7's "dramatic" looks and the RDX lines have grown on me. I have noticed this with a few Honda/Acura products. Another example is the Honda Ridgeline which I found downright offensive when it first came out but now find it to be one of the better looking trucks on the road. Anther vehicle that shared the quick aging character of the CX7 was the Taurus of the 80's and 90's (one example http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/ov...d&model=Taurus ). When these first came out they were particularly sleek, but in less than a years time seemed more awkward than cool.

CJW

On page 102 of the December issue, Motor Trend says this in their sum up about the RDX...

"Mimics BMX too closely, resulting in a harsh-riding tall sports sedan."

On page 132 they say this in their sum up about the CX-7...

"Consider the CX-7 if the "sport" side of the SUV equation is what's most important to you."

crazymjb

I'd have to see it in context. That would, however, completely contradict all they said earlier, as well as their numbers.

Mike

jhwu

Aren't these the little 2 sentence blurbs from the SUV buying guide edition of MT's magazine? I'm pretty sure I read it. That's how you are basing the 3 star versus 4 star argument, eh??? Again, it just sounds like you are having some fun w/ everyone here. IT's pretty obvious even based on these comments, that being closely compared to the BMW X3 is pretty telling proof on the sporting nature of the RDX.

I don't even think the same person wrote all these little buying guide blurbs, so it's not really a good comparison as I think these are just comments based on whoever wrote them.

dennarda

I agree with you, I think CJW knows that his comments are out of context and inaccurate (I still don't know where he got his "3 stars" from). I thought perhaps he had gone away as of Skeandhu's excellent post. Notice how CJW never rebuts any of the comments made by others in reference to the MotorTrend article but just keeps posting random bits and pieces without context/reference/or accuracy? No doubt you could find reviewers that liked the CX-7 more than the RDX (for instance Ann Jobs over at msn.com) however the MotorTrend article does not assert that the CX-7 is better.

jhwu

The 3 stars were the ratings directly from these little blurbs in the SUV buying guide. They gave the RDX 3 stars and the CX-7 4 stars, but again, who knows who wrote the blurbs and how they determine the stars from (comfort, handling, price, mileage, bang for the buck, and etc....).

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

I agree with you. CJW doesn't seem to read the posts completely. I mean several people have real and actual quotes from MT's comparison. And several of us also talked about the technical aspects of the two cars and explained the superiority of the RDX in those areas. It seems like he skipped all of that.....

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Exactly. And IMO buying guides are for consumers that are not too into cars while the "real" car magazines are for enthusiasts.

CJW

I read the posts about MT comparing the RDX with the RAV & CX-7. My response is that MT has changed their view on the RDX. This is quite common. First impressions often change after you've put some real miles on the car.

That was then, this is now.