MMike1981

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...c60/index.html

Audi first....Benz last

imo..the way the article reads....i think MT would rank the Audi or RDX 1st with the EX somewhere in the top 3. the others dont write up that well, they love the ride/chassis of the GLK etc but hate the steering and basically unathleticness overall, cant say i disagree there.

this article is a new model comparo - hence no showing of the RDX, EX, X3 etc.

the RDX still looks like it would stack up well, altho given the new models, many options/equip would def be missing against the competition now.

imo...if the RDX had adj drive settings like the audi (or adj susp like the MDX) that would really put the RDX over the top..throw in some more lux features...id feel right at home buying an RDX update in 11 or something like that

MMike1981

and....side to side...the Q5 & RDX looks strikingly similar....a family member just bougt the Q5, and i was by it over the weekend, parked next to eachother, i missed doing a picture comparo, sometime in the future, but very VERY similar on appearance in person.

cwepruk

Yeah, the Q5 rear view really reminds me of the RDX. It looked smaller inside to me. I wish MT would have let an RDX in the comparo since it did win their last one (C&D typically lets the previous winner against the new competition).

I don't think the RDX could compete with a Q5 overall, but it would be nice to see how it fit it, then compare it to the 2010 refresh changes.

scryana

I love the Q5. I just couldn't justify the extra 10K difference. Plus, the aftermarket parts is just so expensive. If I could buy a car all over again (bought my RDX in March), I think I'd buy an RDX again. Its my fav CUV.

brizey

The RDX is still ~$10K less than other premium CUVs. Sure it is missing a few goodies, but certainly not $10K worth.

None of the magazine comparos factor in price properly. For example, in Car and Driver it is only 20 out of 240 points. Which basically makes the comparison worthless to any real consumer.

bgillette79

I agree that Price should play a much larger factor.

Even just looking at MSRP of $37000 for the tech.

To get the same "stuff" that the RDX has the BMW, AUDI, MB and even the INFINITI are all $5000-$15000 MORE.

And for all that money you don't get MORE than the RDX...you get the same.

That's why I want to be an RDX guy....now the question is an 09 now or a '10 in 4-6 months....

scryana

33K base for the RDX is a actually a lot IMO. The build of the car is nice - I usually judge a nice car by the sound of the thud when you close the door but there are just too many plastic peices on the car and lack of attention to the small details that warrant the car to be in the same level as the bmw's, audi's and lexuses of the world. Love Acuras (2nd one in my family) and love my RDX (I'd buy it again) but seriously, I wouldn't call it a luxury vehicle as the others. Luxury maybe compared to the RAV 4, or CRV, or any of the interiors (save escalade) of the american cars, but build quality needs to exist as well as image of being more than just a High end Honda before it gets considered luxury. By the same token, Volvo? I mean, since when are volvo's considered luxury. Price of that xc maybe, but image and build quality, i dunno.

my humble 2 cents - and like I said, I love my RDX and I'd buy it again - just can't compare the car

brizey

I judge build quality by reliability statistics and the German brands lose that one. I view a high end Honda as a superior product to a BMW or Mercedes. Quality and value matter to this middle class shopper, and the German brands come up short on both counts.

Samdog-1

Let's face it. No one equates a 4 cylinder with "luxury".

When Acura first announced the RDX they said it was among the first of many to come in the new upscale compact CUV class. Aside from the X-3, Acura was in the first wave of these vehicles and they must have known that most would have V6s. Other than for fitment, the turbo four is a puzzling choice in a "luxury" class.

But look at only MT's hard test numbers from the 2008 comparison: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...son/specs.html
and the 2009 comparison: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...c60/specs.html

The RDX is the only 4 banger in either test -- and the only 5 speed. It is some 20 to 30 HP down from every entry except the LR2. Yet in 0-60 it clocks every V6 tested (6.5). It clocks them all in 45-65 passing. It ties for second in the 1/4 mile; 1/10th behind the Q5. It is second in Lateral Accel and third in the Figure Eight -- and by very small margins.

Yet it's still mid-pack in utility such as interior and cargo space.

The RDX is the lowest price (as tested) vehicle -- by some $3000<LR2 to $7000<MKX to $11000<Q5. But it will share the high reliability honors with the Lexus.

Add it all up and it doesn't seem like Acura was targeting the "luxury" market. It looks more like they were thinking of "sport compact" kids who grew up and couldn't put the baby seat in a slammed Civic....or couldn't pull into the company lot with a big-ass wing and potato-launcher fart pipe.

Screw luxury -- I'd still buy the RDX again.

MMike1981

yea i dont think its at all possible to put RDX and luxury in the same sentence, so it will forever be the good value bargain do everything well cuv. pin it next to a tier 1 vehicle, it shines on the road, but thats about it. I dont think Acura was ever tagging the RDX in the lux market...its basically a CRV type S more or less (imo)

what im really all ?????? about is since when does Audi start putting stickers on their entry level cars that are heavier than BMW, Benz....and get away with it? remember what the A4 used to cost, just a design year or 2 past? wtf is going on with Audi, i mean, i used to consider them a good ALTERNATIVE german brand, now, they are all alone with most of their pricing. I dont buy it. I dont think their cars are worth close to their stickers (not like many cars are) but still, Audi, for now, to me, is the least practicle choice out of the premium market (also wondering when Audi entered the true "premium" status, but i guess i missed that boat)

The car mags seem to toss Audi's stickers out the window...like in the awd sedan comparo in C&D, they just throw out adding the 's-line' pkging like its a 2 dollar option to a 4 door that is no better than anything else on the market, while approaching 50k...just absurd money for Audi's these days.

Samdog-1

CR-V Type S. That's great...and I think you're on to something.

Honda sees these new upscale CUVs coming. They trick out their new Global Light Truck platform, but the street-fighter performance just doesn't go with the "suburban Mom" image of the CR-V -- might even damage that greenish, oh-so-friendly, "let's go antique shopping" thing they've got going with the CR-V. Ditto with the price.

But put it in the Acura demographic where the killer instinct is stronger and it's a natural.

brizey

Audi, BMW, and Mercedes all have sold gobs and gobs of 4 cylinder cars. How many 2 liter turbos has Audi sold? A million? Remember the 318? The C230 was a four cylinder as well.

MMike1981

what may have worked is this: (samdog-1) Let's face it. No one equates a 4 cylinder CUV over 30k with "luxury".

takers?

cwepruk

I don't want to get into it again, but it still seems crazy that Acura developed a one off turbo 4 just for it's CUV, then uses it's 3.5/3.7 V6 in everything else including the TSX now. If ANY car was a candidate for this engine, the TSX is it.

I don't really see a cost savings when you need to develop a new engine, turbo, plumbing, intercooler, etc. instead of just taking a 3.5 V6 that you produce like mad give it 260-280 HP which is just as competitive, if not moreso, than the competition.

MMike1981

well, i guess it makes zero sense now, but the RDX development started what, in 04? 05?...im sure that the outlook for the turbo in the BRAND was different, and may have even been applied to some honda models back then, but the market changed up big time in 07, 08 etc....and i think any thought of putting the engine somewhere else was killed....but in 05, 06, id find it hard to beleive that this engine was not destined to land in other models when it was being developed.

if i knew the TSX was going to have this engine, and possible AWD, thered be one in my garage.

cwepruk

That is what I don't get with Acura. Having a "Type-S" across the board would be a win.

It's been since it came out that the TSX was praised as a good all around car with it's main shortcoming being FWD and limited power. An AWD SH with a 2.3T would be perfect. It would definitely keep it out of the TL territory by not offering a V6. As it sits now, I don't see why anyone would by a FWD TL over a V6 TSX. It would also make it (way) more competitive with the A3's and A4's of the world.

On that same note, a 3.5V6 in the RDX would make it more competitive with the X3, Q5, etc. and I really doubt there is a cost issue.

Also, if the turbo really gave a fuel economy advantage, I'd be all for it. C&D had a little comparisions between turbo 4's, direct injection vs normal 6 cyls in similar vehicles. Basically a dead heat.

It was something like 328 vs A4, Murano vs CX-7 and E55 vs 550.

MMike1981

yea...well alot has changed in a very short amount of time, i never considered any MPG claim of a turbo worth anything, always thought it was a quick marketing ploy, anyone with 2 brain cells that touch would put 4,000 pounds, truck, turbo, and AWD together, and would hopefully arrive at the conclusion that mpg will not be "good" lol

as for the type s across the line, wed all wish for that, i think alot of us have talked about it on here, i know i have, but, hopefully at some point in the future acura will get serious with their options, packaging, etc etc and offer a type s all the time

right now, a V6 TSX makes the TL pointless & overpriced, imo.

corduroygt

I doubt I could have gotten any of those CUV's for $32k well equipped with Nav.
RDX is a great deal for what you pay, I frankly don't really see the need to pay more for a CUV, add a couple minor features to the RDX, and the 3.5 engine which is likely cheaper anyways, and it'd be just about perfect. NO, THE SUSPENSION DOESN'T NEED TO BE ANY SOFTER!