MMike1981

Whats up. I bought the RDX after my Mazda CX-7 turned out to be a lemon in 9 months.

So far...this car is actually so much better than the Mazda. Although the Mazda was very fun to drive with better brakes, just about everything else is better in the RDX.

Major Gripe: My sunroof from day 1 when open bangs around and is lose. An Acura guy flew out to look at it and they are aware of a widespread moonroof rattle and dont yet have a fix for it. He believes it has something to do with the cables not tightening correctly and thus the roof is loose within the opening.

My tires werent balanced on delivery and it took 2 tries to balance, now they are perfect.

I have a rattle in what seems to be the upper right part of the dash, where the plastic may meet the windshield, its a constant tick/tap..after browsing this forum before posting, i noticed some members also have a somewhat related rattle.

Other than that...the car is awesome, performs better than anything ive driven and i think for the price theres no competition for this thing yet. The X3 is just way too overpriced..well see what the ex35 and the audi in development bring to the table.

Ive been in the Honda Family for over 11 years, owned multiple v6 acords, coupes, trucks, and TL's (starting with the Legend). Ive been used to Honda-isms like a pulling to the left (or right) basically in every honda ive owned, i hate the grade logic system but in the RDX it doesnt seem that bad. I have 3k miles on my truck so far and its very much reminds me of my previous cars. I wish the brakes were firmer and stronger to round out the performance of the car.

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/5656/acrs9.jpg

mau108

RDX is indeed a beauty, drives awesome, it does have the usual honda rattles but not bad coming from a CRV here.

Only grip with me is the fuel economy sucks balls for a 2.3L engine :P but meh.

Nyjumpman23

I would take it back to the dealler for them to fully inspect all the issues u claim.
it ain't rite to get a brand new car, and for that stuff to constantly occur.ya know?
I'm hopefully getting mine in 2 weeks.

MMike1981

o its been back, will be going back for the 5th time for the new sunroof install

Boon

I'm sensitive to rattles and stuff but my RDX is tight as a drum. Granted I only have 500 km on it.

I'd take it in to get looked at if you're not 100% satisfied. This is a "luxury" brand vehicle after all...which gives you license to be a little more picky about defects.

MMike1981

The loaner RDX is also very tight compared to my car, i was surprised as well because it had 13k miles on it. I have total faith that my dealer will take care of it, service has been very upscale to this point

Nyjumpman23

I'd get them to do a full fledge inspection w/ the car again if i were u, and tell him to give you a loaner for the time being.
Better to be safe, then to be sorry. Best of luck my friend.

AbovePrime.

While you are intitled to you opinon, I would beg to differ, the CX-7 although clearly not up to the performance standards of the RDX has better enginering over the RDX, The Ride, Better than the RDX's ride, even after the redo, The ground clearance, This thing sits too low to compete with ANYthing, its wagon , at 6.3, and 9.1, the CX-7 is much more SUV/CUV than the RDX could ever be.

Just to prove my point a real SUV(body on frame)
Ford Explorer - 8.2? I believe.
RDX-6.3
CX-7-8.1


Plus as the sales are showing, the CX-7 looks much better than the RDX, and the Price is right too. Of course this is subjective, but people prefer the CX-7's styling over the RDX.

What I cannot believe is that he CX-7 got negitive comments in some of its reviews about "plastic painted silver trim" when the RDX has the same exact thing.

Sorry to hear about your lemon, but your review is not a good one because you had a lemon.

CX-7 has a Six Speed tranny, the RDX only has five to shift through.
Which translates into,
Faster 0-60 times
Lower MPG
But the DISI has so much more potential than the I-VTEC, the Aftermarket seems non existant with the owners.

If the RDX was Jacked up to real SUV ground clearance, had what should be a Market Standard Six Speed auto trans, then it would be real competetion for the X3, CX-7, and Upcoming vehicles.

sasair

I feel pretty confident in stating that no mazda has ever been better engineered than any acura. maybe the rotary engine was a terrific engineering feat, but still not close.

I think the ride in the RDX 07 or 08 is far superior to the CX-7. I have one of the earlier 07s and I have aboslutely loved the ride. It couldn't have been any better. Its terrific on the roads of northern VA which are pretty good and smooth, but I also drive in NYC frequently where the roads are horrible, and I still love it. It is firm and gives you a very confident feeling of the bumps in the road. The only time I have driven my RDX on a road that I didn't like it was on an old gravel road where most of the gravel had been pushed aside over time and the hard packed dirt underneath was exposed and bumpy. That wasn't nice at all because of the very low speeds and the bumps.

Your comparisons of SUV/CUV performance are strange to say the least. I'm not even sure what point you were making with the explorer, RDX and CX7 ground clearances. CUVs are definitely not made for ground clearance. I don't think that people are looking for Ford Explorer clearance when they buy an RDX. It is clearly built for on-road peformance driving first. The fact that it does better in snow and inclement weather over most cars is just an added bonus. I think that acura hit the balance closer than most auto makers for on-road normal driving conditions compared to inclement weather conditions where extra ground clearance is required. I can still drive off a curb and not bottom out which is plenty of clearance for me.

I also do not think you can equate the sales to a better looking vehicle. A better comparison would be sale to price, but even that isn't tied to one another.

AbovePrime.

The ground clearance has MUCH to do with the performance, the lower center of gravity, less body roll, etc.. the point of the fact is the RDX has just about as much ground clearance as an Subaru wagon, how anyone calls the RDX an X3 Fighter is beyond me, The X3 sits higher, the RDX sits like a wagon, putting the car lower to the ground is hardly an Breakthrough in engineering, This and Extra Stiff suspension settings are the only reason why the RDX can out handle the X3, CX-7. The fact that Both of these manufacters Stayed with real SUV ground clearance, and tuned it to perform with higher centers of gravity, makes them BOTH engineered better.

The RDX sits too low to compare, put it at the same ground clearance as the X3 and the X3 will come out on top, the RDX would handle like a Murano.

The CX-7 rides better than the RDX on any day.

Boon

Oh man, I hope this thread doesn't degrade back into the RDX vs. CX-7 debate that raged on this forum a while ago.

Besides, we all know the EX35 is going to be superior.

just kiddin'.

....or am I?

sasair

You're obviously looking for a different ride than the RDX was built for. Because it rides softer and more cushy does not mean it is a better ride. What exactly do I need 8.2 inches of ground clearance for again?

AbovePrime.

For snow, the RDX is at a natural disadvantage, light flooding, I could go on but its just not a very fair match to compare the RDX to anything, it just sits TOO low.

Why exactly do you need something thats marketed as a CUV with Wagon ground clearance? This completely ruins the Advantage of a CUV, offering SUV utility, with Car like handling and ride. With the ground clearance, its a wagon, the ground clearance takes away from the utility part of the concept.

And I never said the CX-7 was more cushier so it rode better, the CX-7 is stable and firm without being jarring or too firm, they're no serious complaints about the ride.

sasair

I don't believe the concept of the RDX was ever to be a typical SUV concept like you are referring to. The utility part of the RDX comes with its storage capacity. If you want to call it a wagon then go ahead. Its still a CUV that drives with the handling and feeling of a car. That's what is was developed for. Just the term "crossover" tells me that the CUV class is any vehicle between a car and an SUV. I'd say it fits in just nicely.

Snow and light flooding? You are talking about inclement weather conditions that for the majority of the US happens maybe 1% of the time or less. I bought my RDX for the other 99% of the time.

AbovePrime.

Sounds like "wagon" to me, Not Crossover. The Idea of a CUV is to combine an SUV look, (Including Height, because if SUV's did NOT have the Height they would be wagons!) And car like handing, ride and MPG.

It fits in perfectly with Wagon.

Thats interesting how it only snows 3-4 days out of the year, and how 1 percent of Americans are affected by it.

JJog23

I would have to Disagree with you RDX looks nothing like a wagon. look at a rdx and than look at a audi a3 you tell me which is a wagon.

JJog23

The RDX is built to handle unlike the cx-7. Cx-7 handles more like a mini van!

Wagon uh? If the RDX is a wagon why would Motor trend rank the rdx #1 for Compact Luxury SUV. (Aug. 2007) If it was a wagon they would have said luxury wagon, right? I guess Motor Trend could be wrong.


Acura could have gave the RDX 8.1 ground clearance, but Why? That is why they sell the MDX with 8.2 . Also Why would you want 8.1 ground clearance do you plan on going Off-road with the RDX?

I don't think looks have to do with anything more like price!!!

I would have to Disagree with you RDX looks nothing like a wagon. look at a rdx and than look at a audi a3 you tell me which is a wagon.

JJog23

I Agree Sasair if Acura wanted the RDX to be a a typical suv they would have, then what would they do with the MDX?

JJog23

Ok if the audi A3 which is a wagon, right? ground clearance is 4.0 and the RDX ground clearance is 6.3 How Is the RDX a wagon? It's not. If I wanted a wagon I would have bought a Audi A3. So that would make the RDX a CUV.

AbovePrime.

OMG THE CX-7 handles like a mini van!fgidgfuhfshdgfhu OMG! They did NOT build the CX-7 to handle!! sfdjghsfh!!! OMG!

Please spare me the B/S and get your facts straight.

They sell the MDX primarily because it has 8.2 ground clearance

All news to me!

Just because they classify it as an SUV does not mean it is one, I mean look at those 4 door "coupes".

The Height of the RDX takes it into wagon territory and out of the SUV/CUV game

Sorry to burst your bubble but the A3 is a hot hatch NOT a Wagon.

The point is they wanted to have a super handler, and they could not pull off anything BMW or Mazda Or Porsche for that matter to do without dropping it below the SUV standard.

Lets look at a few Wagons and their ride height
Impreza-6.1 in.
Magnum-6.6 in.
Rondo-6.1 in.

I never said that the RDX should be a typical SUV, because thats not what a CUV is, but the RDX is no CUV, It's a wagon.

Btw if people dont like how it looks, it won't sell, and if the price is high it REALLY won't.

You're missing my point entirely.

JJog23

Ok, The Exterior height of the CX-7 is 64.8 w/o roof rails and the RDX Exterior height is 65.2. It looks like you keep calling the RDX a wagon. When it looks like the Cx-7 is shorter per the specs. looks like the cx-7 is the wagon with some ground clearance.

Also RDX looks nothing like a wagon. More like a CUV. Look at an audi a3 than look at the RDX!!!!!!!!!

AbovePrime.

It looks like a clump of sh*t to me, but thats not the point.

The point is Ground clearance!

The lower the car sits to the ground the Lower the center of gravity will be.

The Exterior height makes the RDX look like a tall wagon, Overall height only tells apart of the story.

JJog23

Mybad on the a3 you are right.

Next you are going to tell me that the 2007 A4 Avant wagon is not a wagon. The ground clearance on it is 4.2.

I see your point , but you don't see mine.

I also never said they sell the MDX for the ground clearance. You missed my point!

I have drove a CX-7 before and handles NOTHING like the RDX. More like a mini van.

AbovePrime.

You have clearly never driven a CX-7, It handles nothing like a minivan.

The performance difference in terms of handling is hardly so dramatic that the CX-7 is a bad handler.

The RDX sits two inches lower than the CX-7, lower the CX-7 and I will guarantee that the CX-7 will handle just as good if not better than the RDX.

The RDX has an Advantage, and its not SH-AWD, its the ride height!

The MDX is not an SUV by any means, its a CUV.

mau108

holy crap man, your talking about 2 bloody inches which is nothing. If you want ground clearance so badly just jack it up on springs (thats what ive seen people do with the CRV).

Acura's aren't meant for offroading, they are luxury vehicles. Your just bashing the RDX because its a vehicle you cannot afford, so your just making it feel better by bashing it.

go home.

AbovePrime.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA because I can't afford it?!!! GET REAL, JACKA$$.

My Audi A4

Mazda CX-7

HAD a MDX turned out to be the biggest POS.

Ford Edge SEL Plus with Vista roof and Navi

Spare me the I can't afford B/S.

IT's buttugly, I don't like the way it looks so I did not get one.

DISI has more potential aftermarket.

Who said the Acura was suppose to be built for offroading?

If you WERE to jack it up, there goes that handling!

Please if I needed to feel better I would go out a PURCHASE an X5 and murder every RDX I see.

SOME, not ALL of you Acura Owners really need to get off your high horse, last time I checked my EDGE costs thousands more than the RDX.

What was that?

I can't afford a 36K RDX?

Get real, and stfu a$$hole.

AbovePrime.

http://s234.photobucket.com/albums/e...nt=Saywhat.jpg

chipt911

Above Prime - You're on almost every thread bashing the sh-t out of the RDX. Who do you work for, Mazda, Toyota, Ford? What are your employers worried about if you think the RDX is so bad?

We're here to talk about the vehicle we own or lease; it's good points and bad points. It is clear you don't own an RDX so why are you on this forum so much?

AbovePrime.

Because I've owned an Acura MDX, And I like posting here. And I do not bash the RDX on almost every post. I'm hardly bashing it now, and last I checked you don't have to own one to post here.

MMike1981

OK buddy....WHOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA hold on.

I have had the (rare) chance to own both the Mazda 1st then the RDX. The Mazda, is not, and will never be, a better engineered vehicle. The Acura outhandles and outperforms the Mazda is everything but braking and ride comfort. The CX-7 was probably the most poorly engineered vehicle i have owned to date.

Cold weather conditions caused an avalanche of problems with not only my car, but many others as well. The DISI engine is so far from being compared to the VTECH; the fuel runs too rich, and mazda cant figure it out, IMRC valve problems, shutter valve in the engine gets stuck due to cold weather, the check engine lights (non-related to the gas cap), the poor manufacturing of this vehicle (weather seals that were redesigned mid-production, wrinkled materials, surfaces that scrached inside the car in under 500 miles , you can compare plastics but the interior plastics in the Mazda are not even close in quality - tranny problems/stuttering, gear hunting between 5th and 6th gear - turbo lag tsb's, detonation, extreme sensitivity to lower grade gases (i only used 93 and still had the car detonate and shut off twice on the highway) I could seriously go on and on and on and on about the Mazda hunk of shit. BUt dont come on this board and say that the RDX is not engineered as well...its so far the opposite you look like an idiot making that comment.

Comparing ride heights? both the RDX and MAzda were never meant to be a "true" SUV. In fact, the Mazda makes no claim about any off-road capabilities of the CX-7. The SH-AWD is in another stratosphere compared to the CX-7's AWD.

I could argue every inch of the Mazda compared to the Acura, since i dealt with that vehicle for almost a year. It is not, and will never be, an Acura quality product. The DISI engine, although great in theory...makes less HP at the wheels, runs extremely rough, and needs ideal conditions to operate without fault. The tubro lag in the Mazda compared to the RDX is unacceptable, the turbo burns out at highway speeds and the engine is a dead fish after 80 mph....ah im getting aggrevated again im not sure why i even replied to you but the day mazda makes a better product than acura is the day that acura does not exist.

MMike1981

this thread was never meant to be a RDX vs. 7 thread...

MMike1981

so you bought a 35k discounted to what? 29k American piece of shit?

AbovePrime.

OK buddy....WHOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA hold on.

I have had the (rare) chance to own both the Mazda 1st then the RDX. The Mazda, is not, and will never be, a better engineered vehicle. The Acura outhandles and outperforms the Mazda is everything but braking and ride comfort. The CX-7 was probably the most poorly engineered vehicle i have owned to date.

Typical Acura owner, thinking their car is better in every aspect and that any other car just does not compare.

Did you forget yours was a lemon? Something that happens with nearly every car made.

Cold weather conditions caused an avalanche of problems with not only my car, but many others as well. The DISI engine is so far from being compared to the VTECH; the fuel runs too rich, and mazda cant figure it out, IMRC valve problems, shutter valve in the engine gets stuck due to cold weather, the check engine lights (non-related to the gas cap), the poor manufacturing of this vehicle (weather seals that were redesigned mid-production, wrinkled materials, surfaces that scrached inside the car in under 500 miles , you can compare plastics but the interior plastics in the Mazda are not even close in quality - tranny problems/stuttering, gear hunting between 5th and 6th gear - turbo lag tsb's, detonation, extreme sensitivity to lower grade gases (i only used 93 and still had the car detonate and shut off twice on the highway) I could seriously go on and on and on and on about the Mazda hunk of shit. BUt dont come on this board and say that the RDX is not engineered as well...its so far the opposite you look like an idiot making that comment.

You sound like an idiot making a comment on a car that was a lemon, your CX-7 was not in any condition to be compared to ANYTHING.

Just by looking at the temple of Vtec's video you can see that Acura rushed to get this out to the market, the Ride dynamics were clearly something Acura did not pay attention to along with other KEY options.

The CX-7 blends a great ride quality with good handling.

The RDX clearly acheives its handling abilitys by having the car sit VERY low to the ground for a "cuv".

The RDX is an EXCELLENT handler, but the fact that they could not pull it off with the ride height of the competiors makes it seem like a rushed product.

Comparing ride heights? both the RDX and MAzda were never meant to be a "true" SUV. In fact, the Mazda makes no claim about any off-road capabilities of the CX-7. The SH-AWD is in another stratosphere compared to the CX-7's AWD.

SH-AWD is just a little overrated seeing as how the X3 can pull numbers very close without it.

Again, I never said that they were meant for offroading, but the RDX's ride height is too low to be considered anything like an X3 fighter, it sits up much higher and has more hurdles to overcome than the RDX, and still feels better than the RDX manly because its RWD, but cannot post some of the Track numbers that the RDX can.

I could argue every inch of the Mazda compared to the Acura, since i dealt with that vehicle for almost a year. It is not, and will never be, an Acura quality product. The DISI engine, although great in theory...makes less HP at the wheels, runs extremely rough, and needs ideal conditions to operate without fault. The tubro lag in the Mazda compared to the RDX is unacceptable, the turbo burns out at highway speeds and the engine is a dead fish after 80 mph....ah im getting aggrevated again im not sure why i even replied to you but the day mazda makes a better product than acura is the day that acura does not exist.

The Tech in the DISI makes it much more refined than the VTEC, People here have reported Vibrations in the steering wheel from the engine, sounds like its not as refined as you make it out to be.

The Aftermarket is very good and will open up VERY nicely for us, already we have intercoolers, intakes, exausts, etc.. that will put the CX-7 well up into the High Sixes. The DISI BEGS to be tuned for more HP.

It's rather intresting that you say the DISI runs out of steam, I never ever heard this ANYwhere in ANY of the reviews, but for the RDX some reviewers said it felt like it "ran out of steam" at high speeds. I personally feel my CX-7 Pull after 80, I was zipping all through the 5 with my CX-7 and never once did it feel anemic.

Did I forget your CX-7 was flawed in many ways?!

IT WAS A LEMON, IT CANNOT COMPARE!

Oh and don't worry, the days of Acura may be over unless they get some must have product besides the MDX and the TL.

Mazda has the RX-8 a refined piece with 4 doors, 5 star roll over ratings and can really seat 4! perfect 50/50 weight distribution and the rotary, and the CX-9 Which is currently beating the MDX all around for K's less, Mazda is not "shitty" as you may seem to think it is.

The speed three, and the regular three are at the TOP of their class.

Mazda Makes a DAMN good car.

AbovePrime.

Discounted? Please if you can get an EDGE SEL PLUS WITH Vista roof/Navi around here at a discount bigger than the rebate they are offering I would have GLADLY bought it, and please the EDGE is one Damn fine vehicle too, they are selling like HOTcakes. 29K? did you read the sticker? Thats 35K. lets really not get into Discounted Vehicles, Acura STILL can't sell the RDX even with the WHOPPER discounts they are offering.

XIS

aboveP - I think your parents thought you were a lemon too.

We agree with them.

AbovePrime.

I'm not even responding to that PERSONAL comment.

Boon

Seriously, can we move this over to another thread? I'm tired of hearing about people gripe about the RDX vs. whatever-other-car.

AbovePrime, I agree that anyone should be allowed to post on this forum (I did for a whole year before buying my RDX) but no one likes a guy who plays devil's advocate ALL THE TIME. A lot of your comments around the forum seem to be different variations of "I told you so" or "you're wrong".

Go onto the CX-7 and Edge forums and share the love with your fellow car owners. You can't keep coming to this site and telling us how much our RDXs suck in comparison.

sasair

Yes please keep it at least sort of on topic. no need at all for comments like that. If you aren't contributing to the thread then don't post.

AbovePrime.

Maybe you misread what I'm saying, I never said they sucked in comparison. I post on various Edge forums and the posts are just of the same caliber, it's just the way I post.

sasair

I may not agree with AbovePrime's comments, but they are welcome here. And so far, totally on-topic with the original post. If you don't like a particular poster then you can choose to ignore their posts in your account settings or just read on with everyone else.