corduroygt

From Car and Driver:

Another interesting tidbit gleaned from the order guide is the appearance of a new Q5 model equipped with a 2.0-liter TFSI engine for 2011. It’s likely the newer 211-hp EA888 engine, which develops 258 lb-ft of torque, and it too will be paired with the eight-speed automatic. With less weight, more torque, and better fuel economy than the 3.2 V-6, we’ve found the 2.0T to be a better match for the A4, and we expect the same to be true with the Q5.

The 2.0T is about $5k cheaper than the V6 on the A4, it's lighter, actually fuel efficient compared to the RDX engine, develops the same amount of torque, so unless you're driving your RDX past 5-6k rpm, you won't notice the power difference, and it'll have an 8-speed AT. This would be a good competitor to the RDX, especially with the lower price tag.

Only thing that's not as good as RDX would be reliability but if you're one of those who trade your car after the warranty is up, it looks like a good replacement.

loulinjai

This is really good news to me. I test drove the RDX two years ago and I found the drivetrain to be somewhat noisy from the turbo (I know....some of you really like this...but that's just my opinion), but the RDX handled excellent.

I will be looking for a CUV in a year or two and I really like the the Q5 as well. I dont' really like the 3.2 V6 based on reviews, might be my next car!

Crashore

1- the better gas mileage of the q5 will never offset the cost of maintenance and repairs

2- the joy of driving this marvelous machine will never offset the agony of waiting on a hot highway for a tow truck to come...or the weeks of driving a loaner base model subaru for weeks waiting for the q5 to be repaired

These observations come from owning 2 audi's...but I don't begrudge anyone for choosing differently from me

mrgold35

I love the look of the Q5; but, the cost for the vehicle to be loaded exactly like the RDX was way too much. I think V-6 and I-4 will be the norm in the furture with options to turbo/supercharge to up the power. The RDX is actually ahead of its time compared to other CUVs. Acura just needs to figure out how to make a 6AT or 7AT across the entire line-up.

ductman

I am not an RDX owner but an Mdx owner, I had a Q5 that was repurchased due to multiple transmission issues, warranty doesn't mean crap if you have to live at the dealership, yes, this was my 2nd one and they were both pieces of crap, hate to see what the out of warranty costs are and by the way the " check engine light" is a no cost option.

elcheapo

let's bash the q5 time! LOL. seriously though, in my quest for a new cuv then i obviously compared it with the q5 - was unimpressed given a) price and b) salesperson couldnt answer my question directly on reliability. i guess there's some data points here to prove my hunch now.

MMike1981

Re Reliability: if ur leasing, there really is no comparison. if ur buying, completely different story. yes you can have the same problems on a lease, but at least you are not tied into an expired warranty nor owning the vehicle. yes, even in a lease you can experience the same problems that would drive anyone crazy (i lived with a CX-7 sitting in dealer service for about 5 months while driving a shit rental, as well as a lemon'd RDX) but if i were in the leasing market, i would without question lease a Q5 over an RDX any day of the week.

re Overall Decision: The RDX just about matches it on a purely performance basis, but besides that, the Q5 is premium in every other category. and of course, you will be paying more money in either scenario, but this is where i really dont see the RDX as competition for the up market small CUV's, other than performance, there really is no comparison because the RDX is in no way a premium vehicle as compared to Q5, GLK, EX, or even Volvo. Thus, in the end you do get what you pay for, a great deal with a ton of equipment thrown in the plug the gaps. But if you are literally comparing the product as a whole, i fail to see how the RDX matches anything but performance to the Q5. In reality, i would never blow 50k on a small CUV, about 40k would be my limit no matter what brand, maybe 42, having said that, if i were over 42k on a vehicle the size of an RDX, i would move up and buy an MDX without question, regardless of size. The new MDX is a pure winner.

pickler

the 8-speed multi-tronic AT is crap and so is the 2.0t engine. driven it on the A5 and the car constantly lagged and the spent way too much time deciding which gear to drop into. i cant imagine how worst that will perform on a heavier car.

pickler

ps. the 2.0t isnt that bad just that its an awful combination with the 8sp at

MMike1981

lol dude the A5 engine is beautiful what r u talking about

sj993

I thought the A5 with the 7AT was pretty nice. It was kinda weird having a 2.0t and 7AT but it definitely moved in a hurry.

OhRDX

....and look what APR has been able tot do with that same engine in the A5.
http://www.goapr.com/products/ecu_up...sivl_long.html

234hp and 333tq. amazing especially when peak torque is at ~2200 rpm.

for those that tdon't know about APR, they are pretty much the best in aftermarket Audi/vw tuning. they run flawless.

guytdt

Well, if Q5 is too expensive then you can go with 2011 Kia Sportage. Offer more features than RDX and cheaper. Still have the LED DRL as Q5 though.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/07/01/2...road-test-uvo/

SinCity

Agreed. I had an APR Stg II on my '07 GTI. I find the engine in the RDX too "buzzy" in comparison to the VW 2.0t.

SinCity

My range on the next CUV will also be between $35-42k. The VW 2.0t motor is nice, but I still prefer something with 6 cylinders. The RDX turbo motor is "buzzy."