dewey22

Consumer Reports 'reports' low owner satisfaction among RDX owners. I'm curious what contributors to these posts would say to two simple questions:

1. If you had to swap the RDX today for another SUV, what would be your choice?

2. Would you stay with the RDX when all is said and done given price and other considerations?

MMike1981

1. Q5 - that is the benchmark in the segment, total luxury, every amenity, handles as good with a much better ride; its worth its price (i also love the new mdx)
2. No, when I sell im out (pending a successful competitive overhaul). I've been with Acura & Honda so long & have grown tired of their spoon-feed vehicles (complete lack of real options and bare bones accessories make any model indistinguishable from another) a running board or a roof rack is standard fare for even an economy-ish brand vehicle, they dont cut it. If Acura did a Type R or some sort of performance/up scale model, now were talking.

overall, love my RDX, fun to drive, fun power band, handling at its best. Downsides are scattered all over the board so not going to dwell on them here.

brizey

1. I don't think I'd ever want to own the same car twice, no matter how much I liked it. For us normal middle class types, you only get maybe 10 to 15 daily drivers if you are a responsible consumer (no new car every two years). But if I try to suspend that, I would at least consider the RDX. I am not really into the luxury items that others feel are missing from the RDX--just not important to me. If anything, I want even more performance. Right now, none of the alternatives offer enough of a performance bump to warrant the higher asking prices. That could change with a turbo X3. I guess what I really want is an RDX with 300+ hp. RDX Type-S sounds about right. But I'll be checking X3 lease prices when the new one comes out--assuming it lives up to its performance potential--even BMW drops a turd now and then.

2. When I bought my RDX in 2007, nothing was even remotely close to it in terms of a performance/feature/price/reliability envelope. No regrets.

Edit:

I think the low satisfaction score is from the...uh...can't say it nice...dumb people who don't like the relatively harsh ride. Maybe they got tricked by a sales person that only let them drive on glass smooth roads? It's OK to not like the ride--but really stupid to buy the car anyway then complain about it. Fuel economy hurts some, too, but again, if you can read an EPA sticker...

So if you are smart enough to notice the ride quality when on a test drive (basically, remain conscious during the drive) and can count to numbers in the 20's, you are unlikely to be surprised by any aspect of the RDX.

LuvMyTSX

^ You're probably at least somewhat right on the satisfaction score. When test driving, you really need to pay attention to everything about the car. I think a lot of people are just excited and/or overwhelmed by being in a new car, so they don't pay very close attention to things. MPG, you wouldn't notice on a 10 minute test drive, but if you look at the sticker, it's right there. Shouldn't be a surprise. Another problem - a lot of dealers take you on such a short test drive, and usually on a planned route, so you may not have time to notice certain characteristics, especially if driving on smooth surfaces.

I was happy to have an RDX as my last loaner when my TSX was in for repairs, so I got a nice long 2 day test drive, so I could really see the pros and cons. It reminds me a lot of my 1G TSX in a lot of ways, and maybe that's why I don't find the suspension harsh. I find it softer than my TSX, maybe because of the tires. All I know is that the harsh ride of my TSX has been grating on my nerves the last year or two, and the RDX I had was noticeably softer over the potholes. So I don't think it's bad in that respect, but it all depends on what you're expecting and what you're used to from your current vehicle.

While I'm tempted by the Q5 and A4 avant as replacements for my TSX, I'm also wary of their reliability. Both have nice styling, but price and reliability are certainly concerns for me.

XIS

The Q5 does look nice, but there is no way I would pay 10-15K more for 'a more refined interior', softer ride, lesser sound system and handling and far less 'fun to drive' factor.

I love my RDX and there is nothing out there in its class that would replace it for me (unless I found enough cash laying around to get a Cayenne turbo)

MMike1981

lesser sound system - now that is funny. have you HEARD the B&O? not a shot in hell does the els, especially the 1st gen in the RDX remotely compare to it.

its not just about a more refined interior - its about the overall packaged product. RDX leaves alot to be desired, so, as the OP said, considering price, 10k more may not be worth it to some or all people, but if im staying in the category of small CUV's 10k is worth it to provide what the RDX lacks in many areas. Im not sure where you are getting your information from but have you driven the Q5 - have you driven one w/suspension settings??? its ride is far better because its such a solid daily driver yet puts up the same numbers the RDX does. Same ends, much better means.

We have a Q5 (and an A5) in the family, and i couldnt disagree more with your quick assessment, but thats just my opinion based on day to day comparison driving. The RDX sure is fun to drive, but it feels like a go-kart compared to the Q5's moves.

MMike1981

and to me, satisfaction scores are about as pointless as JD Powers initial quality reports. People will give a low score for WHATEVER reason, and, the sample size is only limited to those that actually do report whatever score, and on top of that, i dont have any data, but im sure those who need to output their NEGATIVE FEEDBACK to some sort of source will have no problem doing it (we all want someone to bitch to!)

stoxxsp500

tough day in the mkt today but i always look forward to driving my rdx and this forum... to answer the question since ive only had the rdx for a few months

a) i test drove the comparables - X3, GLK, Q5, CR-V... Do I have buyer's remorse? No, coz for me it was value for money to get the RDX -- I do agree though that Q5 and GLK have much better "everything", in general - but I cant justify paying 5-10k more. I also value reliability and CR rates Q5 unrated and I don't know if CR ratings for GLK is indicative of future results since it's been only 1 yr and the ratings for the C350 wasnt good (Which is the engine of the GLK). I have only one vehicle now and I value reliability so I ended up with the RDX. My 2nd car? I'll see what happens in the next few years in terms of reliability and see if I "trade up" for either of the GLK or Q5. If reliability becomes above average for Q5, I'm more than willing to shell out that extra $ for it.

2) Given price and other considerations, Mike said it correctly - RDX is great value for price. Someone posted if RDX will be overhauled in 2013 - and it might be (and I'll try to find out mid June when I speak with Honda Mgmt/Investor Relations) so that might make me stick to the brand/model

Hope this helps. FYI, Sales for RDX upped a bit in May to ~1.5K units, not that great but better than first 4 mos.



2)

stoxxsp500

[quote=stoxxsp500;12070045]tough day in the mkt today but i always look forward to driving my rdx and this forum... to answer the question since ive only had the rdx for a few months

a) i test drove the comparables - X3, GLK, Q5, CR-V... Do I have buyer's remorse? No, coz for me it was value for money to get the RDX -- I do agree though that Q5 and GLK have much better "everything", in general - but I cant justify paying 5-10k more. I also value reliability and CR rates Q5 unrated and I don't know if CR ratings for GLK is indicative of future results since it's been only 1 yr and the ratings for the C350 wasnt good (Which is the engine of the GLK). I have only one vehicle now and I value reliability so I ended up with the RDX. My 2nd car? I'll see what happens in the next few years in terms of reliability and see if I "trade up" for either of the GLK or Q5. If reliability becomes above average for Q5, I'm more than willing to shell out that extra $ for it.

2) Given price and other considerations, Mike said it correctly - RDX is great value for price. Someone posted if RDX will be overhauled in 2013 - and it might be (and I'll try to find out mid June when I speak with Honda Mgmt/Investor Relations) so that might make me stick to the brand/model

Hope this helps. FYI, Sales for RDX upped a bit in May to ~1.5K units, not that great but better than first 4 mos.

XIS

DVD A - even though they are hard to find, there is no better sound... Yes - I have the first generation and put in a Queen or Yes DVD and crank it and THEN talk.

Not sure what all it leaves to be desired. Maybe a better purse holder for you? j/k! You surely are not saying it handles better. All your credibility would be lost as you blow that smoke up our collective ass...

I love it's power and handling, and as soon as I get my Hondata reflash next week and some new rubber, I am going to be driving around with a chubby for a while!

I am not an audi hater by any means. They are just not worth 15K more to me... Yes - drove one and am still infatuated by the little A3 and if it had a bit more room for baseball and hockey bags and updated the front a bit, I would like it even more.

Oh, lets not forget to factor in reliability history... 30K / 40 months later and I have had a battery replaced under wty... that is it.

MMike1981

ok well uhhh
1. i have never stated it out-handled the RDX - what it does is ride MUCH BETTER WHILE PROVIDING THE SAME LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE and much better throttle response = much better driving mechanics, even tho the numbers are very similar, the Q5 gets it done without the go kart feel and its road manners are something the RDX has no answer for. no need to even light a flare. The RDX does not compete, at all, with the level of quality, design and materials in the Q5. really no need to call it a purse holder....the RDX is a honda. nothing wrong with that, but get serious.

2. DVD-A is about as pointless as a floppy disk these days - DVDA is basically as good as the B&O system - so ur comparing a superior format & processing to normal sound lol and id say the B&O on its own matches DVD A pretty close, so yes, there is about ZERO comparison between the 2

3. where are you getting a 15k difference. An RDX TECH stickers for 38, a Premium Plus WITH NAV, B&O, and rear side air bags stickers for 47. ??????????????????? Making it completely comparable to an RDX tech. that is not 15k, that is at most 9 MAYBE 10k, and what you also are GAINING is 3500lb towing capacity (more than dbl the Acura) and the SAME mpg if not better. yea its 10k - but calling apples apples they are just not similar products imo other than performance numbers. and honestly, you are getting features that ARE NOT available in the RDX. Those things may be hard to justify an additional 10k for, as is apparent here, but to others like myself, i hate acura for telling you what you can and cant have. let me decide, offer a panoramic roof in all your cars and let the buyer get it if they want it. Acura cuts its cost out of its whole lineup by limiting options and configurability, every car is cookie cutter, which is fine for cost reasons but stupid when ur spending 40k on a car - yes we all drive RDX's, but its no different than everyone driving accords and CRV's - they are all the same. Id spend a bit more money to have a different model than you. I like that. Makes it personal.

this post is about what alternative you would drive. We have a Q5 in the fam, and after driving it and spending time with it, when i get back into my RDX, its like stepping out of first class into coach. Maybe there is no value to that for some - no problems here.
4. judging from your response and not answering any of my question, you really cant compare something you havent driven nor used on some sort of basis other than a 10 minute test drive (which you hadnt stated you even took one of those). Whats troubling is people making outright opinion and comparisons to things, at least on their face, they have no working knowledge about at all

not hating on the RDX, but it remains in the place its always been, a great value...10k buys you a superior product, im not saying its going to be as reliable (i guess ill find that out) but reliability aside, the RDX has no game to bring other than its performance/handling. If you seriously believe otherwise, thats cool with me i dont care, but thats not being fair to yourself. I love my RDX, but in no way is it a better product than a Q5, but thats what 10k gets you.

brizey

MM-I agree with you for the most part, but this is where I disagree. You cannot separate price from product. I think the RDX is a better product because it is $10k cheaper. I find the extras that the Q5 has to be largely extraneous.

Don't forget, every dollar extra you spend is marginal--it comes out of your "extra" money. So price is effectively not linear--it is superlinear. Look at any real demand curve--they curve down as price increases. So the Q5 has to be more than 25% better to justify its price. I just don't see it.

XIS

Just fyi - Here is where I got my numbers:

We will use sticker like you suggested, even though I paid about $4500 under...
RDX Tech - 38K (actually $37,620 + 860 desitnation)

q5 prestige $48,450 (already over 10K)
picking the paint color I want $ 475 (nuts)
skipping rear side a/b
S-line (instead of Luxury) $ 2,150

copied from their website:
Your Audi Q5
3.2 FSI® Prestige with six-speed Tiptronic® transmission and quattro®
Base MSRP $ 48,850 Options price $ 2,625
Destination charge $ 825
Price as Built* $ 52,300

Ok - not 15k... It is actually $14K


Looking forward to my Hondata fe-flash. That should help me get over what you call the RDX having 'no game to bring other than perfomance / handling" Wait - that means it will have even better performance than before - so scratch that.

Handling / Performance are the reasons why I bought it!!!

roversix

bought the RDX for more room... just a nice suprise that it's no slouch in acceleration.

As an alternative? Hands down I'd get inside an Infiniti EX35 and see what that is about... apparently there's not enough room in there to justify buying that vs a G35/G37 sedan (from nissan/infiniti forums).

I've heard it might as well be a G wagon / hatch... all the performance awesomeness with rear wheel drive but without the convenience of a compact utility vehicle... very harsh criticism; much like some for the RDX.

XIS

yes - infiniti is very small.. check it out.

It is more 'luxurious' and I think it out performs both the RDX and Q5....

EX35 Journey AWD $37,400
297 hp
intelligent AWD
push button ignition
17 or 18" wheels
Leather / maple
Bluetooth
Premium package w/ 18" wheels $ 2,250
Destination $ 865
skipping everything else
total $42,665



10K LESS than the Q5
4 k more than the RDX... If I didn't coach baseball and have kids that also play hockey, I would be a little interested in the EX35... But it is about the size of a small VW Bug with a hatch. Way too small...

OhRDX

1. Q5 hands down if I wasn't paying for med school.

2. Great car for the money.

i hae extra money to spend and would have for the Q5. In fact it will be what replaces my RDX. Only reason I got was RDx was timing, year from Now Q5 it is.

And it will look great parked next to my Audi wagon.

XIS

Ha - I'd rather get a base Porsche Cayenne for almost 5K less than the Q5....

MMike1981

maybe you just dont read posts all the way thru or dont give them the attention they deserve, I QUOTED PREMIUM PLUS NOT PRESTIGE - quoting prestige in the Q5 the RDX isnt even on the SAME PLANET let alone possibly comparable.

IM DOING STICKER VS STICKER - not what 'you paid' for your RDX vs the Q5 STICKER what kind of comparo would that be lol. I gave the benefit of the doubt TO ACURA quoting at 38 when its actually a bit higher, and quoted the Q5 HIGHER than the actual sticker which is just under 47 including destination.

please keep this apples apples because if not there is no point in trying to compare.

MMike1981

if you go down the list of STANDARD equipment in the premium plus (you dont even have to include the nav) you will quickly see where the Q5 draws its line in the sand..ill just point out 12-way drivers seat, panoramic roof, rear hvac, reclinging/adj 2nd row seats, not to mention the powerplant...im not saying because its more money = better product, far from it, its more money because you are getting so much more. What you need to realize is that the 10k takes what the RDX either has and makes it what it should be, or adds to what it does not offer. Everything is improved or better, or simply avail in the Q5 and not in the RDX.

Ive said it a million times on this board, imo - i do NOT think they compete against eachother, yes the price difference is more than marginal but product against product, save for the performance, please go thru the Q5 specs and then see what you think. The nav display & 40 gig HD alone i mean, cmon people. I OWN MY RDX but i know when to say uncle. and also, im not trying to throw the RDX under the bus, i love it for what it is.

MMike1981

and BTW - you take out the nav pkg 3k+, you are dealing with a FULLY EQUIPPD ANIMAL in the premium plus dress for around 43k. audi gives you their stock display which is probably better than Acuras nav display and certainly 100% improvement on the black/white honda display. So when i get to that point and say ok, if you forgo the NAV in the audi (but still retain the B&O), and compare it to the NAV RDX, we are now dealing with 5 grand n change. Makes that decision real questionable to me, even tho i still think they arent being cross shopped, but if im a buyer in the CUV market and dont want the size of a Q7/MDX but ok to spend 40k, im prob not shopping the RDX off the bat.

XIS

I don't care what you quoted.. I could compare the bottom line RDX with the top of the line Q5 and make the number even bigger, but instead I compared the top of the line for both models. 14K+
Like I said, Sticker vs sticker...maybe you just dont read posts all the way thru or dont give them the attention they deserve

ADD

We have an EX35 and a RDX in our household. The RDX is my wife's car and I drive the EX35 and we love them both. As mentioned above, the EX35 is more luxurious and drives more like a BMW. The RDX is a bit larger inside and feels more like a SUV. Each meets different needs so it's hard to compare. But, in my opinion, if you have kids, either would be cramped when hauling them and all their assorted stuff.

R*D*X*

The only reason RDX owner would swap their RDX to another CUV is if they found a better looking CUV in the market...... But most Audi owners swap their car to another brand becuase of BAD EXPERIENCED" owning an Audi!!!

R*D*X*

Liking the Q5 is very easy... but owning it is very scary !!!!!

pickler

im 95% satisfied with my RDX and that 5% unsatisfaction is because of its steering feel. but if i were to buy an alternative (which i wont) it will be the infinity ex35. that car is perfect in every way.

MMike1981

lol and i could have quoted the bottom line Q5 and the RDX tech..wtf is your point? thats right, you dont have one other than saying they are 14k apart
---
im as unbiased as it gets, i had a lemon 2007 RDX, as far as im concerned, you either get a good car or a bad one, its the luck of the draw, so i dont give nearly as much weight to reliability as I used to.

XIS

lol?
wtf my point is ... I said sticker, you said do didnt care what I 'paid' and I quoted STICKER vs STICKER
tiMMe to pull your head out of your ass

yep... 14K. That IS my point. It is not worth 14K more. It is over priced for what you get and the RDX is a deal for what you get.

Keep telling yourself you don't give weight to reliability and one day (when you are at the shop with your audi) you might believe yourself.

corduroygt

Thankfully I got the last year of the RDX while it still looked good. I don't see anything in the market that can replace it ATM, only the Q5 is close but its much heavier and more expensive. For my needs, the RDX is perfect, it's just got the right amount of luxury and equipment. I wouldn't buy a new RDX because it's ugly now.

still would very much like to see the now defunct Accord V6 hybrid engine in the new RDX.

MMike1981

First, acura bought back my 07 RDX because the ceiling fell apart. MAZDA bought back my lemon CX-7. ive spent enough time at the shop and without a car to know that im buying what i want before what is reliable from here on out. Total downtime between the mazda and acura equates to over a 1/2 of a year all the while im making payments and driving beater. if audi comes in under that, itll be less than what ive already been put thru with either acura or mazda.

Second,
my head is not the one that needs pulling. lets walk u thru this again. (hopefully you will read it)

this whole thing began with my quote of a premium plus q5 which appears to be, if at all, 'competition' to the RDX. It has comprable equipment and more equipment than the RDX. That starting price was around 42. I added the equipment necessary to match NAV & upgraded stereo, and air bags of the RDX TECH. that brings it to around 47k. I quoted the sticker of the RDX TECH at 38k. You countered and claimed that "We will use sticker like you suggested, even though I paid about $4500 under..." (implying that the RDX price was higher than what 'you paid' . Then, "q5 prestige $48,450 (already over 10K)
picking the paint color I want $ 475 (nuts)
skipping rear side a/b
S-line (instead of Luxury) $ 2,150" ???????????????????


In order for you to get your 15k (now 14) disparity, you have to quote the PREESTIGE trim level, with much more equip than any RDX dreamed of (making it not comparable), and then, chose to ADD the S-line pkg, decking out the Q5 as far as it could go. Your logic is that now this is the top of the line fully loaded Q5 vs the top of the line RDX tech. NO, fail.

14k? sure i could load up a 3 series and call it 50k too but that is not the cost of the vehicle, you are being completely unreasonable with the cost of the Q5. Did you add every single option on the RDX to make it even (right down to the OPTIONAL leather shift knob?) i mean, what you are saying makes no logical sense: ADDING THE S LINE PACKAGE - why? and that being the case, then upgrade Acura rims to the 19's w/tires or it stops being a fair, real comparison (that adds over 3k to the 38) and the RDX is now close to 42k. I could really go on and on, but its apparent from all of your posts that you dont give a shit nor care, but ill still write it anyways, you wont read it and if you do, will tell me its still 14k and im an idiot. im fine with that.

your 14k is laughable and you have turned this thread from being about an objective comparison into subjective nonsense. all the while never having driven the Q5 or made any sort of comparison but preaching off a computer like you actually know. I could have compared the base Q5 then done up an RDX TECH w/19 inch rims etc (because that is essentially what you have chose to do in the reverse)

i could could care if hondata makes the RDX perform even better - thats wholly irrelevant to anything said here (and another $600 of course)

XIS

I am not going to read and try to re-analyze your spew above. I stand by what I said in my first post on the subject:

The Q5 does look nice, but there is no way I would pay 10-15K more for 'a more refined interior', softer ride, lesser sound system (ok/comparablesound less the DVD-A) and handling and far less 'fun to drive' factor.



peace out

pound sand

MMike1981

lol you never did in the first place which is why you are 100% incorrect and inaccurate with your statements.

shivaswrath

yeah, so, umm, I actually read your post MMike and agree - the discrepancy isn't THAT large. . .

I considered Audi's when deciding on my 2010 RDX, but because of the local Acura dealer providing discounted/free service (I put on 20k miles of driving a year, so adds up fast), coupled with the RDX's reputation on reliability and residual value, went with the Acura. . .

Curious that your '07 RDX gave you that many issues - but then again, first model years are always prone to problems as they iron things out. . . .another reason I didn't chose the Q5, as it just came out and will probably continue to be sorted out. . .

MMike1981

I was having rattles in the headliner directly above the drivers seat, further investigation yielded a busted weld/something not welded so metal pieces were clanging off eachother sounded like someone was hitting the roof witha sack of coins not sure how else to describe it lol

stoxxsp500

since we're on the subject of Q5 here. i noticed that they're finally bringing 2.0T engine for Q5 in Canada. it will certainly be cheaper than the 3.2 engine. hence price differential vs rdx goes down... reliability maybe improves too (A4 seems to be most reliable audi model). so, what's the downside here? engine is turbo so i presume similar fun factor. seems like RDX will be creamed next year by the Q5 (if not already so with pre-ordering). again i love my current rdx, but it seems like Q5 has it "right" marketing wise for next yr. what does acura have to counter? more price drops hopefully?

so, mike your price diff might even be less (most likely $5k or less based on your computation) and might swing me to buy a Q5 next year for our 2nd car. let us know how reliability holds up for your Q. thanks!

ductman

I am one of the Q5 former owners with a scary experience, great driving vehicle as long as it runs, my Q5 was repurchased due to multiple transmission issues,when I got the buy back I ran real fast, who wants to live at the dealership even if it is under warranty, one option everyone forgot, with the Audi, a check engine light is a no cost option!

corduroygt

Dare I say it, 2011 Grand Cherokee also has the good sharp lines, low price and lots of equipment for about the same price as the RDX and gets 23 mpg. I bet even the V8 would only get 1 mpg less than the dismal RDX and provide much better performance. Shame it's made by Chrysler.

Samdog-1

The Q5 is a top performer and very cool. Its cousin the Tiguan, is a roomier GTI. But spotty VAG reliability makes them both a dangerous bet. I just wouldn't risk my (or other peoples) money. I've been burned before.The RDX is still my favorite but a VERY CLOSE second is the Mitsubishi Outlander GT. Yes it's a little down on power and torque and the cabin materials are a bit below standard. But the suspension and handling, great looks, Infinity sound, top reliability and near identical AWD system have me staring longingly:

Samdog-1

MMike1981

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...mparison_tests

Id be a little hesitant there - i think the mitsu is in a much different class, with questionable quality, even in GT dress.

brizey

Have you ever driven a Grand Cherokee? While the SRT version probably handles pretty well, the rest of the line up is absolutely not performance oriented. The acceleration from the V8 is no better than the RDX (despite the fact that people around here seem to think more cylinders are better because the number is bigger), and they handle like a barge. I had one for a rental once when I was getting a car fixed in an accident. I hated it.