schuchmn

Someone help me out here. Why does anyone care what MT thinks or what R&T used to think or what C&D might think later? These are magazines-- they don't think anything. They have editors and writers all of whom may have different opinions on any given topic on any given day.

I've said this before, I'll say it again, and I swear it'll be the last time I say it on this thread. The only thing magazine test reports are really good for is to help you decide which vehicles you want to test drive. Ignore the conclusions and ignore any ratings or rankings -- these are arrived at by people who may not have your wants, needs, and tastes. After your test drives, the only opinion that matters is your own.

I'll bet that no one here will even attempt to answer the question I asked above. And, with all due respect, my opinion is that people who argue over which is a better vehicle based on test reports and spec sheets avoid thinking about the real questions -- What do I want? What do I need? -- and fail to understand that someone else's wants and needs may be different.

OK, end of ranting and raving.

jaobrien6

I don't know why some people don't seem to understand this.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Yet I still can't find that article anywhere. And even if what you are saying is true, car and driver is still ranking the RDX in first place.

Anyways, many of us have mentioned countless times that this is an Acura forum. If you like your car, good for you and enjoy it, and talk about your pride and happiness in owning it at a Mazda forum. What you are doing here is making you look ignorant and you are not showing any respect to the fellow acura owners here. By ignorant I mean that you seem not reading our reasons and explaination as to why we think the RDX is a better vehicle (at least for us). I understand that this is a forum and you do have the right to post a comparison. However, IMO the comparisons we make here are only for our reference and to help each other decide which car to buy. This is not really the place to share your happiness or arguing about how much better your CX7 is. I am sure most of us would like to know the differences between the RDX and CX7, but not to the point where you are virtually bashing the RDX, again, this is a RDX forum, and by bashing on it, you are showing respect to us.

CJW

Geez, a little criticism and you guys go to pieces. Listen, I own a 2006 Acura TSX. That's why I come to this forum. I came very close recently to buying a RDX so naturally I'm going to express my opinions on a CX-7 thread.

I've actually said many nice things about the RDX -- I've said many times it is more refined then the CX-7 -- but I've also raised what I believe are some valid points about the price and design. I've also mentioned drawbacks to the CX-7, such as turbo lag. You guys need to stop taking it all so seriously. Its just a car, after all.

crazymjb

While that is true, it is factually incorrect that the CX-7 is sportier, so that should be defended.

Mike

schuchmn

Second the motion.

schuchmn

Why?

schuchmn

Why is this not the place for these posts? Obviously people are cross shopping these two cars and come here looking for factual information as well as subjective opinions. This is exactly the place for those posts. If you take an opinion different than yours as a personal insult... well, I can't help you there. My only advice would be that if you don't like what's going on in this thread, don't read it.

And, just for the record, I test drove the RDX and the CX-7, liked the RDX better (as did my wife), and bought it. I have over 3000 miles on my RDX and haven't regretted my choice at all. What does that say about the CX-7? Nothing other than the fact that the RDX suited me, personally, better.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

No no, that's not what I mean. As I've said, comparisons in forums are great, they help us decide which cars to buy. But sometimes it feels like (not just to me, but to many people here) some people are just being ignorant. Of course, not everyone would feel the same way as I do, as everyone has a different personality. And some comments in this thread are misleading and I just like to correct these (which is exactly what a forum is for right?)

And yes, I do agree that choosing a car is really based on your own personal preference.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

I guess the reason why people "go to pieces" is because they don't think your "little criticisum or what you are saying is correct.

I understand that the CX7 is a very nice car too and to me, it's definitely a bang for the buck vehicle, and I've said that numorous times too. I mean Mazda is putting in some good stuff into the car from the Mazdaspeed 6. And I do agree that the price is very attractive.

It's jus that most people here have a consensus that the RDX is a more sporty vehicle when compared to the CX7. That's all. And for people who really like cars, they can tell the differences. Of course, if you consider a car, is simply a car, then yes RDX doesn't make as much sense as the CX7.

schuchmn

"Sporty" is in the eye of the beholder and people seem to not always mean the same thing when they use the term. I think that's the source of a lot of disagreement as people will argue about which vehicle is sportier while having different criteria in mind. I suspect that if anyone were to offer a definition of "sporty", there would be endless debate on what the word really means.

This reminds me of a debate that ran for a while on a photography forum. It started when someone argued that a camera that had recently come on the market and touted as a professional camera by the manufacturer wasn't really professional. So the debate raged over what really constituded a professional camera. After a while, someone suggested that a professional camera was a camera used by a professional photographer. And then, of course, there was no agreement on just who was and wasn't a professional photographer! In the end, of course, it never really mattered. Cameras are tools used by different craftsmen for different purposes. The only issue is deciding, based on the cameras themelves, which tool is right for which craftsman.

Anyone want to try giving a strict definition of "sporty", spercifying all of the criteria and exactly how those criteria are measured? Should make for interesting discussion.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

I agree with you. Sporty is a very general term indeed.

I guess generally, when we say a car is sporty, it usually means that it's biased more to performance, handling, driving involvement rather than comfort.

Then to say which car is more sporty, it's comparing things like the steering feel, bodyroll, behaviour at the limit, responsiveness, communication between the car and the driver, and a lot more. And like you've said, comparing these will lead to more debates and it will be tough to come to a consensus as to define which car is sportier.

I can understand why people say CX7 is sportier than RDX. People have different taste. Some people think that mustangs and camaros have great steering feel and I have seem people who consider the camry as sporty.

dennarda

I would generally agree with this, however I do not think that having comfort would mean you do not have sportiness. I guess no one has pulled it off yet, but I hold out hope.

I would say their are a few imperical measures of sportiness to add to the mix.
Skip-pad tests (higher numbers = more sporty)
0-60 time (lower is more sporty)
1/4 mile time (lower is more sporty)

even though I do not think their is an offical measure of these qualities...
amount of understeer (lower is more sporty)
body roll (less is better)
amount of oversteer (lower is more sporty, although I will likely get disagreement on this one)


additionally a more subjective quality would be the amount of road feedback (ie the ability to "feel" the pavement while driving). The better the feedback, the more sporting the character.

I am not sure even all of these would tell the whole story though.

seevemonka

You want a "sporty" car with descent qaulity of ride, there is nothing better than a bmw. As far as the cx-7, this is a nice car but it is not a luxury car.The rdx is a luxury sport wagon/suv.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

I guess the previous BMW 5-series is a pretty good example of a sporty car that has great ride comfort. Also it has a nice looking exterior. It feels and looks classy in every way to me.

Basically, sporty to me means fun to drive. A not-so-fast car such as a Mazda Miata is a great example. How I wish there are more of such fun to drive cars (yet affordable) here in North America.

So anyways, I agree with you. Some people like to measure sportiness in terms of performance numbers. Some people prefer other "qualities" such as body roll, steeriing feel and feedback, etc. And some (or should I say most?) people would want both at the cost of $$ (as for now I can't think of any new car that does 0-60 in less than 5 seconds yet cost less than $30000 and be fun to drive at the same time).

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Trust me the RDX is pretty sporty too, if not sportier than the BMW.

seevemonka

I agree. I own a 2006 bmw 325 sport. My lease is up next year. I will be seriously looking at the rdx. If acura keeps up the low finance rates, when I am ready to buy, I will probably be driving a rdx. I am leasing right know,which is how bmw sells cars. I would like to own next time and keep it for about 5 years. I perfer The Rdx over the x3. I need more interior room and comfort. The Acura RDX would fit the bill.

schuchmn

I love this! This is the second post trying to define "sporty" and we disagree already!

BTW, I'm not laughing at anybody here -- nothing said so far is wrong or silly. But I just think it begins to make clear that "sporty" is a much more subjective quality than some of us might have thought.

Not only are most of the criteria subjective, but there's a whole 'nother level of subjectivity that's implied but not stated directly. Since not every car (or, possibly no car) will meet all of the criteria, it becomes a subjective choice as to which of the criteria are more or less important to any driver. Would you say a car with less steering feel but a better 0-60 time is more or less sporty? Would you accept a car with more body roll if the skidpad speed was higher?

I could go on and on, but I think the point is made so I'll stop.

CJW

Since we're talking about SUV or CUV, sporty really does become more subjective. I think the CX-7 performs and handles more like a sports car which was the intent. Acura says the same about the RDX but after test driving it I felt it was slanted more towards luxury. The Honda guys were too preoccupied with the BMX X3, I think.

My prediction is that Acura will quickly redesign and retune the RDX to copy the CX-7. These changes will take place for the 2009 model.

Fishbulb

What changes exactly would you have Acura make to copy the CX-7? Lower grade plastic and a healthy dose of turbo lag?

If they were to take the luxury out of the equation, the RDX would be marketed under the Honda name, not the Acura nameplate.

Skeandhu

I also hope the don't try to mimic the CX-7 styling. Although looks are very subjective, I'd take the RDX body style over the CX-7 any day...

c_hunter

The only problem I have with the discussion is that I don't think the RDX is really in the luxury camp. It's not any more "luxury" inside than the CX-7. The RDX Tech has a lot of high-tech gizmo features, but that is for geek appeal and also does not fall in a luxury category to me.

I think the RDX is sporty in the same sense that BMW X3 is sporty. Which means the ride/handling balance is biased towards handling, so you get a slightly stiff ride. Power is more than adequate. But neither the RDX or the X3 is very "luxury" to me. They clearly tried to make the vehicles feel like sports sedans. The CX-7 on the other hand, has a slightly more comfortable ride in my opinion.

There is no doubt the CX-7 is one of the sportier CUVs out there, but I would put it a small notch below the RDX and X3 in overall sport-vehicle rankings -- I think it's a sporty CUV rather than a sports-sedan that looks like a CUV (RDX, X3). If anything, that would broaden the appeal of the CX-7. More than one person has complained about the stiff ride in the RDX and X3, and they may be too sporty for many people.

F.Rizzo

They already do. It''s called the CR-V.

acurardx

I definitely see a lot more CX-7 in Toronto than RDX. Almost once a day but I hardly see other RDX except my own. I guess the finance rate really makes different.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Your first paragraph makes some sense to me as, like others and I have already said, sporty can be a broad term and some people even consider camry sportier (certainly not me).

But your 2nd paragraph is really....what word should I use.....surprising I guess. I don't see how or why Acura will quickly redesign the RDX to copy the CX-7.....that would mean a little bit sportier CRV with an Acura badge.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

So from your first paragrah, I don't really get your definition of what a luxury vehicle is. Correct me if I am wrong, but does that mean to be a luxury vehicle, it must be something like the MB S class, or a Maybach, or BMW 7 series, etc? Because honestly speaking, I don't see how the interiors of the 3 series, C class, or A4 are more luxurious than let's say...an Acura TL or TSX. Yet, these cars are called "near-luxury sedans." So I guess what Im trying to say is, should they call cars such as the RDX and X3 as "near-luxury SUV?" Or, this has already been implied with the term, "CUV," meaning near-luxury sports sedan crossing over with SUV?

Sorry, but am I making this too complicated?

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Btw, I think Acura is really just doing its job. Acura has always been perceived as a more performance and technology oriented brand right?

CJW

My prediction that the 2009 RDX will look more like Mazda's CX-7 is based on their recent history of following the Germans. I believe Acura needs to come up with their own unique designs if they seriously want to compete with BMW, Audi and the other upscale brands.

Fishbulb

This makes no sense. What German vehicle does the RDX emulate? I'd say that, as a package, RDX is probably one of the most unique designs that Honda has ever come up with.

I just don't see why Acura would want to downgrade the RDX to look and feel more like the CX-7. It doesn't make sense to decontent the car on a premium nameplate.

c_hunter

Nah, that is nuts CJW. Acura has been pursuing, and continues to pursue, variations of the softened-edge styling theme, which the RDX shows quite a bit of. The chevron grill is a key element, along with the tail lights. The CX-7 follows Mazada's theme extablished with the RX-8 and later used in the Miata, with large grill openings and emphasized wheel wells and arches. Too very different looks. I find the Acura look to be more chiseled and high-tech, and the Mazda look to be more cartoonish.

I see no reason for Acura to start emulating Mazda's unique design. For one it would be a ripoff, for another it would not suit Acura's image. Other than the RL, Acura's current styling is quite good in my opinion. Besides, the most the RDX is going to get at the mid-model upgrade are minor cosmetic changes -- they would not be making major changes. The RDX has many flaws, but the styling it not one of them to me.

crazymjb

CJW, I love how you keep insisting the CX-7 is sportier, and it feels sportier, and Acura will try to emulate that, etc. For the last freakin' time, NUMBERS PUT THE RDX BETTER IN SPEED AND HANDLING. NUMBERS buddy, lat gs before it breaks, hitting certain speeds...

As far as styling, they aren't going to re-do all the sheet metal in 2009 to make the RDX look like a turd.

Mike

seevemonka

The cx7 is UGLY!!! So is the cheap looking interior.

acurardx

To me, I would either take the Rav4 for cheaper price, better gas mileage or take the RDX for luxury and better performance, rather than taking something in the middle (CX-7) --> not good gas mileage or price yet not luxury either

CJW

Design wise, the RDX is a knockoff of the BMW X3. Don't think so? Park a RDX next to one and walk around it. Acura makes very good cars, but they too often follow what others have already done.

RDX is faster than the CX-7 and the RAV can smoke them both. However, what I'm talking about is the look and feel of a sports car. That's where CX-7 stands out.

F.Rizzo

My sentiments exactly.

And for those of us that are image conscious (I admit it) "Mazda" does not cut it.

..

crazymjb

They all look like CUVs, the CX-7 just looks like it was forced out of somethings rear.

AGAIN, I have no idea what you are talking about in terms of sporty feel... RDX Handles better, and IIRC has a stiffer ride. FACT FACT FACT




Yes, your CX-7 does look different:


Mike

CJW

Pictures speak louder than words. The CX-7 has a sleek, sporty look. Far more impressive than the other two, which ,on the whole, are probably better made cars. The RDX looks like the 2005 RAV4 almost as much as it does the X3...

mvwood

I've still not seen one since we got ours a month ago.

acurardx

I have seen and compared the X3 on the road many times, but I just can't see what the similarities you and others are talking about ??? not the front , rear or sides ??? Anyway, you can say they are both mid size SUV/CUV. This is for sure the same :P

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Ok I guess CJW means these similarities between the X3 and RDX, and I agree too:

- 4 wheels, both are alloy wheels, not plastic
- they both have ABS
- both are more expensive than CX-7
- both are sportier and more luxurious that CX-7
- both look better than a CX-7
- both have 4 doors if not counting the back door
- both have a steering wheel
- both have power windows and locks, etc
- both have AWD

man, and the list goes on and on...now I really see how RDX is "copying" the X3....oh wait....I think many cars have the above things too right?