They have a few models rated at above average, so they're very reliable now.

Why did she have to pay for the A/C, she should have been covered.

 

 

She had only 37,000 miles on it, but the car was close to five years old. I called Audi USA, and they split the cost with us. But, it was $1200 out of pocket for my sister.

However, you are right that CR lists the Audi A4 as "average" which, in this day and age, is really not all that bad. Cars are pretty reliable right now so I think average is pretty good.

 

As for European brands, signs are pointing to an overall improvement. The Audi A3, A4, and A6 are now all above average or better, as are some or all versions of the BMW 3, 5, and 7 series.

 

Whoops! Wrong again....

The BMW three series wagon (which is what I would look at) is below average as is the case for most AWD Beemers.

Beemer 5 and 7 are both barely average, but only if you look in the last year. If you go back past three years, they degrade to well below average.

The same pattern holds true for Audi. The A6 was very reliable in it's first year after the redesign but within three years, it is "much worse than average." The A4 is reliable in the last two years, but within three years is again "much worse than average."

The pattern with these cars is OK reliability for a year or two after you buy it, and then big problems.

 

I could see that. I got interested in SUVs when I moved to Los Angeles. I have an older model Accord now and am really really tired of not being able to see what's in front of me, so I looked to something with some better ride height. I'm not a station wagon fan!

I'm going to miss the ride of a sedan, but I'm strongly considering getting a sports car to supplement the RDX.

 

they love it so much, that they're suing over it!

https://acurazine.com/forums/car-talk-5/jd-powers-who-makes-best-navigation-system-377208/

must have something to do with the lockout, because both Infiniti's and Lexus's are locked out while in motion.

Maybe they mis-titled the survey...it should be "Automakers most likely to be sued over locked out navigation features".

 

I realize this thread is probably about to be closed, but I've been away for a week or so and haven't had the chance to chime in. To start with, I'll admit that I'm biased towards Lexus and Acura and away from Infiniti.

The EX35 looks like a nice vehicle. If you consider it a wagon version of the G35 and leave the CUV label to the FX, it works. The interior looks like it has nicer materials than the RDX. Performance will probably be on par with the RDX. And Infiniti generally comes out similar to Acura in terms of customer service, nav system usability, etc.

That being said, I think the EX is overpriced. It will sell, but not as well as the G35/37. The horizontal shelf and analog clock, while Infiniti "signatures", just look silly and represent wasted space to me. And the lack of interior usability is a hallmark that carries over to the FX as well.

I won't fault anyone who buys an EX. Clearly, it meets needs they have. OTOH the RDX is a far better solution to my family's needs and I think it is superior in ways that count, at a better price. To each their own!

 

The performance, from Edmunds states that the EX already beats the RDX in nearly every performance aspect, and it's not even a sport, which should be coming soon along with the manual.

 

There is a good chance the EX prices will start where RDX ends with some overlap. Comparing value, features, tech, luxury, and "fun to drive factor", I'm sure you have to opt for the 3.5L EX for thousands more to equal the RDX's overall value across all categories. Add the Hondata reflash for $600 bucks and you are viewing the EX in the rear view mirror.

You could get a 2.5L I-4 stripped down EX starting around $34,000.

 

Its really silly to make conclusions based on numbers in EDMUNDS. For one thing, you're comparing a 4,100 pound vehicle to smaller vehicle that weighs almost 400 pounds less. All things being equal, the salomn times will also be faster for the lighter car, but the actual handling feel may not differ.

Now, I'm not trying to say the EX35 won't handle better than the the RDX. I wouldn't be shocked if it handled a lot better. However, making strong conclusions about anything other than the engines (in which case the EX35 clearly beats the snot of the RDX) on the basis of some stats in EDMUNDS is assine.

The EX35 could certainly prove to be the much sportier vehicle. But, we'll need a lot more to go on then comparing stats at EDMUNDS.com.

 

More like 3900, and the performance numbers say otherwise. The EX got through at 66 MPH, it also held the skid pad better, stops better too, and is much faster 0-60.
This coming from someone that makes reliability CONCLUSIONS PURELY based on CR.

 

The Hondata reflash still will never get close to the EX-V6, the TOV RDX is still .5 seconds behind.

 

Either way the EX out perform your CX-7 and Ford Edge in every damn way possible.

 

The 0-60 numbers I've seen put the EX and RDX both at 6.3 sec.

In addition, remember that Nissan is notorious for overinflating their HP and torque numbers, and for getting much worse than expected performance given the size of their engines compared to Honda and Toyota.

That being said, anyone who buys a sport-ute or wagon based solely on 0-60 times needs to have their head examined.

 

The RDX cannot do 6.3 from a dead stop, get your head examined.(see TOV numbers, it can do 7.8 from a dead stop)
It can do 6.8 with braking torque.
The numbers don't lie.

 

Please, it out does the competition and that's all that matters, but you know, the Jeep SRT8 smokes all.

 

Hey are we gonna get to throw a celebration when you get to your 500th post? That's quite the achievement for a "troll". Let's make it a roast!

$10,000+ more for a fully loaded EX in Canada vs the RDX Tech? That's quite a big leap. I can see it being a very nice alternative for X3 buyers though.

 

Right. So, I should ignore 1.3 million respondants, perhaps the most impressive reliablity data in existence in the world, and instead listen to what trolls like you think of reliablity, right? But, given that you own one of the least reliable vehicles in it's class, I can see why you would want to deny those data.

I'm sure Edmunds numbers are reliable. Over the years, they've jived pretty well with numbers from every other source (like MT, C & D, etc). I think we can believe their stats. The point, however, is that stats don't always tell the full story. Consider tests like the skid pad and slalom. Larger cars, even ones with superior handling, always do worse in those tests. So, to interpret as direct indication of handling ability is just plain stupid.

The EX is almost certain to be a lot faster (because it is lighter, with a much more impressive engine). Infinti also has a major edge of Acrua in terms of brakes (in general). So, I won't be surprised if it stops faster. I'll reserve opinion about handling and drive until a few sources other than EDMUNDs do actual tests.

Just for everbody's interest, the numbers the troll is talking about are as follows:

For EX:

0 - 60: 6.4
60 - 0 (brakes): 118 ft
Slalom: 66 mph


For the RDX:
0 -60: 6.8
60 - 0: 127 Ft
Slalom: 66 mph

So, to sum up, the troll is getting all bent out of shape about the EX being able to do 60 mph in a blazing .4 seconds faster. They're virtually a dead heat in the slalom (despite the inherent disadvantage to the larger RDX), and the EX hauls to a stop in a stunning 9 feet less. If we want to go with the troll's logic, and assume that numbers on EDMUNDS.com site tell us which is the better performing car, the only reasonable conclusion is a virtual dead heat.

I like how, above, Mr. Troll tries to convince use all that EDMUNDS numbers are the be all and end all. But, then when he is show that the numbers are not acutually all that different, he decides that they must be incorrect and trots out a new set of numbers instead.

 

I've narrowed my purchase down to the RDX or the EX 35.
I actually saw an EX 35 at a dealer that was a road and track test car. It looks nice , but I don't think I could justify paying $7000 more for it than the RDX.
Help me here, I have not driven any of these vehicles so I can't really compare them.
I do know that even with all of the bells and whistles that come with the EX , It doesn't look like it has rear privacy glass, what's up with that?
It also has a ugly orange info. display right in the middle of the cluster. and very little legroom in the back.
For all of you RDX owners , how is the 4 cylinder turbo?
At this point I'm leaning toward the RDX and I'm aout 10 months from purchasing.

 

The turbo is great so far!

 

No they don't. Check out Road and Track.

BTW, you would get a lot more respect for your opinions if you would show a little more respect for others'. We can politely and maturely discuss the pros and cons of different vehicles, but one key is to realize that the right vehicle for one person might not be the right vehicle for someone else. I'm sure the EX will make many owners very happy, just like the RDX makes me (and others here) happy.

 

No, are you effing kidding me, CrapR's PREDICTIONS are the end all!

 

You post is completely incomprehensible. I don't even begin to understand what you were trying to argue, talking about the X3, the brake-torque curve, etc. What does any of that have to do with the post, troll?

 

Amen. That is one issue that always gets me in these various car vs. car threads (and, I'm not even talking about posts from trolls like AP). There is always this implicit assumption that one car is the best for everybody.

In the case of the EX35, some might prefer that sweet V6 whereas others might prefer the RDX because it is more roomy. Different strokes, for different folks...

 

Let me dumb it down for you, the 6.8 time you posted, is only acheviable by abusive methods(BRAKE TORQUE), the X3 does not post numbers higher than the RDX, but believe that it does handle better.
The RDX is 7.8 0-60.
The brakes are Fckn atrocious, talk about FADE and being unsafe.
It's pure stupidity that you think the RDX with AWD, 3900 LBS and 240HP can zoom through 0-60 in under seven seconds.

 

I know that it isn't apples to apples, but when comparing the RDX to an NA competitor, at least the RDX has the capability of dramatically increasing performance with inexpensive chipping - ie: hondata. I would expect for $595, you wouldn't get anything near the power increase with the same investment on the naturally aspirated competition.

Again, not a stock to stock comparison, but at least that's one advantage of a stock turbo powerplant.

 

You may want to rethink that. hondata achieves just as impressive numbers on all their reflashes of Honda/Acura vehicles. It not so much a turbo vs NA but more of how conservative Honda is when programming the ECU. They don't try to get all the performance they can out of the programming like Hondata does. Honda would rather reduce the strain on the engine for the long term reliability.

 

So I guess Road & Track, a magazine with far more heritage and automotive cred than Edmonds, is "pure stupidity"?

 

Pretty much all magazines launch with brake torqueing or clutch drops. I have three major mags with 0-60's under 7 seconds. It's published times. Plus, real racers talk ET's and trap speeds anyways, that is more of a measure of power to weight.

 

You know Iceman, you can either go with what you read, or you can go with what you know in your heart to be true. AP is just following his heart.

 

All very interesting, including the philosophical aside. After returning from a 1,000+ trip to the mountains of NC, my heart and experience tell me the RDX is one sweet ride.

There and back (the 'back' having around 500 lbs of extra cargo) I experienced NO problems with brake fade, and that was diving deep into some pretty twisted corners. The worst thing I can say is that I hate brake dust.

Brake-torquing the RDX is in no way abuse. I firmly believe Honda engineered a simple and effective launch routine because it works so well. The rpms go to about 2800, the turbo spools up 1/4, and when the brakes are released, it feels like a carrier launch. It helps to turn off the VSA.

A vehicle's performance can be affected by many factors which is why you will see the reputable reports include weather and track conditions. Turbos love cold, dense air. They go faster. They love higher-octane fuel. We get 93 octane around here.

An EX at any trim or performance flavor would not have been able to give me what the RDX delivered on the trip - zero loss of performance as the elevation increased and the ability to cram more cargo in for the trip back. Sure looks nice though and will be a great choice for many.

 

EDMUNDS got a 6.8 second time too. But, overall, I think it is funny how this troll screams foul when sources (like CR) get lousy times for his beloved Mazda, then screams that all published estimates for the RDX are incorrect. So, apparently all the published times for your vehicle are overestimates and all the published times for his car are underestimates.

In the end, I think you have to take 0-60 times with a grain of salt. I don't look at those times as telling us anything in an absolute sense. The EX35 and RDX both got times under 7 seconds with the exact same test methodology. That tells you that they are both fairly close in performance, which blows the troll's claim that the EX badly outperforms the RDX out of the water.

His participation in this thread started off with the claim that EDMUNDS.com numbers tell us everything there is to know about a car's performance. And, if we stick to those numbers, it looks like the RDX is very competitive with everything out there.

BTW, the major consumer test sources - ConsumerGuide, Consumer Reports, and some of the other web sources don't do clutch drops or anything of that nature. For those sources, the main issue is not seeing what a car COULD do under ideal circumstances, but assessing what it would be like to live with on a day to day basis under real world conditions. In other words, they just go from a dead stop and hit the accelerator. Give that, here are some times from CR:

0-60
RAV4 V6: 6.7 seconds
RDX: 7.4 seconds
X3: 7.9 seconds
Murano: 8.0 seconds
CX-7: 9.1 seconds


If you use the more aggressive numbers in EDMUNDS, you again get the RDX near the top and the CX-7 at the rock bottom:

EX35: 6.3 seconds
RDX: 6.8 seconds
CX-7: 7.7 seconds

What this shows is that the RDX outperforms nearly every vehicle in the class, with the exception of the RAV4 (which has that nice Toyota V6 and is a true bargain if you don't mind a crappy interior). I am willing to bet that that the EX will offer performance on par with the Toyota though, given less weight and a V6 that is equal in low RPM torque.

The other point is that, with the exception of the slow-as-dirt Mazda, all the vehicles in this class offer performance that, just five or six years ago, would have been considered sports car-like. The fact that vehicles that are a big and heavy as the Murano and RDX are getting such excellent performance along with (relatively) decent MPG, says a lot about how far technology has come.

 

 

RDX
0 - 30 (sec): 2.4
0 - 45 (sec): 4.2
0 - 60 (sec): 6.8
0 - 75 (sec): 10.4
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 15.2 @ 90.4
CX-7
0 - 30 (sec): 2.4
0 - 45 (sec): 4.7
0 - 60 (sec): 7.7
0 - 75 (sec): 11.2
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 15.9 @ 86.4
So slow!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I love how your brag about the EX being able to badly outperform the RDX because EDMUNDS found the EX to be .4 second quicker. But, then on the other hand, the .9 second difference is not important when we are comparing the RDX and CX-7. And, btw, that "small" difference is actually 15%.

I also love how EDMUNDS.com tells us all there is to know about performance when we are talking about the EX35 . But, when we talk about the RDX, we have to ignore EDMUNDS, R & T, C & D, Motor Trend, Consumer Reports, Consumerguide and every other published source in existence but, instead, believe the number you got off of Vtec.net. But, as it turns out, you aren't even reporting their numbers correctly.

"another stock RDX we tested last year posted a best time of 6.9."

That is with "brake torquing." The 0-60 times for the CX-7 under those conditions, (according to EDMUNDS) is 7.7 seconds. So, with brake torquing, the RDX beats the CX-7 by almost a full second.

Without, brake torquing, estimates are generally in the 7.3 - 7.8 range (depending on the source) for the RDX - slightly faster the X3 and Murano under very similar conditions. CR did not use any such techniques and got hte numbers I reported earlier.

With the CX-7, times exceed 9 seconds, the kind of performance you get out the base CR-V, 4-cyl RAV4, and Hyundai Santa Fe. What great company your CX-7 keeps!

 

NA chipping will not achieve the torque/hp increase across the entire RPM band (real world driving usage) like chipping a turbo plant.

Regarding your comment about long term reliability, its pretty obvious that hondata doesn't sponsor your site.

 

Hondata is a member here at Acurazine, and I'd bet they'd tell you the same thing... If you look a the dynocharts for all the different reflashing that Hondata does for the different Acura's and Honda's you'd see the net gains are just as good for the RSX, Civic, and TSX. The S2000 reflash is a slightly smaller gain but thats probably due to a more aggressive tuning from Honda.

The RSX gains 12-20.
The Civic gains 15-25.
The TSX gains 29.
The S2000 gains 16.

 

Read my post again, and look at both the HP and Torque curves gains on all of these cars vs the RDX. Not just the peak HP.

 

Per A-P: "Acceleration Comments: Even with VSA off, wheelspin is not possible due to AWD. With the brake pedal pushed, the engine will only rev to about 2500 rpm and generate one-third of available boost. The RDX feels pretty soft in the lower revs, but at 4000 rpm with full boost, it wakes up. Turbo lag is evident." Looks like a cut & paste to me - not personal drive time.

The point being...? Honda gave us a launch program - it's great. I got wheelspin and then the wet-blanket VSA override. I turned it off. Still got wheelspin on surfaces apparently less perfect than A-P experiences in his(?) life, but no VSA nanny. It was fun! Wheelspin not possible because of AWD - sure.

My neighbor across the street had one of those V6 RAV4s. For 6 months. Loved the thrust, hated the ride, noise, driveability, interior and lack of space. Soon I will ask him to wipe his own drool from my RDX.

It's good that A-P modded his CX whatever, or even that Edge, but I'm wondering why he just can't get Acura from under his skin? Hmmmm?