gingerman

I drove the RDX, Mazda CX-7, and the Subaru Outback today. I know the Outback doesn't seem like a competitor, it is actually very similar in size, price, and comfort.

Here is what I thought, the RDX is the quietest, handles the best and has the best quality interior materials and design. The only thing I don't like is I am 6 foot 3 and the leg room was snug even with the seat all the way back. For example I could just get the passenger side glove box open when sitting there, but not far enough to get my hand inside it.

The Mazda definitely has more turbo lag, is a little nosier, and the interior is not up to Acura's standards. Brakes seem stronger then RDX, and I could get the tech package with NAVI and the keyless starting at the same price as a non tech RDX.

The Subaru Outback LL Bean rides a little softer than either the CX7 or the RDX, the non turbo H6 engine is smooth but a little soft in the low revs for a 6 cyl. The interior is very well finished, and has plenty of room to stretch out.

The differences between the cars are supprisingly small, and probably only noticable in back to back drives like I did today.

I am leaning towards the RDX (non tech) though it is at the top of my price range if I can pick one up for invoice price as people are talking about in this forum I tiink it will be a great buy.

c_hunter

You should also drive the Outback XT -- it is more directly comparable to the RDX in terms of interior styling and the turbo motor. It handles better than the LLB model, and has firmer seats. I have one (an 05) now, and am also looking at the RDX. I like the RDX for it's handling and overall style/coolness, but the Outback XT gets slightly better gas mileage (similar power and acceleration) and is a lot better in terms of utility. The Outback is narrower than the RDX by about 4", so you feel that in the seating area -- it's a bit cramped for some people. It is about 8-10" longer than the RDX, however, which makes the interior cargo space a bit longer and more usable (can fit my skis in the Outback but not the RDX). I also like the Outback's one-step fold flat rear seats a lot better than the RDX.

Pricewise, you can get the Outback XT for about $1000 under invoice in most places -- say $29K for a 5AT model. The Legacy GT wagon is also worth looking into -- its handling is more inline with the RDX -- and it's about $1K less than the Outback XT.

I am having a hard time deciding if I should trade my XT for the RDX -- I like both vehicles a lot, in different ways. As usual, the ideal vehicle for me would have features of both! With some additional financial incentives, however, the RDX starts to be more compelling.

newteez

If you are looking for cargo space and fuel economy the Outback may be the way to go, however performance, handeling and acceleration you should consider the RDX. I agree the front driver/passenger room is a little snug, Acura made the rear seat room extra large but seemed to make the front space for drivers and passengers in the 6ft and under range. As far as storage is concerned the RDX can accomidate 2-3 passengers with luggage but definitely not 4 passengers/luggage for a one week trip.

One concern to consider is the engine and transmission reliabilty of the Subaru, I used to own a Legacy GT Limited, while it was a great car near the end of its life cycle (70,000 mi) the car had a hard shift, had oil leaks and was in constant need of brakes. From other Subraru owners I talked to this was a common problem with the 2000 model year.

If you do decide on the RDX the extended warranty will be a great investment and will only tack on appx. 1000-1500 onto the price.

JD

dsjolley

I also looked at the CX-7, Outback XT and the Nissan Murano before selecting the RDX. Overall, I think the RDX outperforms them all in a number of ways. I think the Subaru is a good vehicle, but is in a different class. The CX-7 seemed like a fine car, but I was not wowed by it. The Murano drove well, but you have to get a V-6 to get the same performance levels, and the front dash seemed vast to me.

gingerman

Thanks for the input guys. I have been reading about the RDX on the vtech.net forums as well. Some guys there seem to think that the sales of the RDX are so sluggish that it may depreciate faster than normal, and if Acura cancels it in 4 years that the resale will be in the trash. I guess time will tell but it sure is off to a slow start for a new near luxury model. My other issue here is fuel economy, which is covered in other threads. The CX7 has the same problem, and I know this is related to peoples driving habits and not being used to a turbo engine. Turbos use a lot f fuel when the boost is up, and it drops to a normal level when the boost is off. I will comment on this in the fuel economy forum as well.

As for the Murano, it gets very expensive fast when you start adding option packages. Though a good deal may not be out of the question. I owned a Nissan in the past and it was one of the best cars I have ever had. I also am very fond of my current Infiniti G35 sedan, also made by Nissan.

I apprecite your input, and still have not made a decision. But I am not in a hurry, I have a 04 Mazda 3S to sell first anyway.

zznalg

The Outback XT is probably better for rough road/off road driving. I drove it on a very rough dirt road and it did great. I liked it a lot and would have bought it if the seats were comfortable for my back. It seemed very solid and good on the hwy. I bought the RDX because it fit my back and was great on the road. I figure it will be a least good enough on rough roads but not off-road. It's nicer inside and has a more upscale image. So far I'm very pleased with the RDX. Didn't drive the Mazda because the reviews were not impressive.

c_hunter

That's about right. The Outback XT has a lot more ground clearance (about 8.7" if I remember right) and much more suspension travel than the RDX. While the Outback is not an off-roader, it handles rough roads, rutted trails, and deep snow quite well in my experience, and is great on the beach too. But those capabilities translate into worse on-road handling than the RDX.