I picked the 08 RDX Tech over the Land Rover LR2, and the new Saturn Aura, which is really an Opel, top to bottom. I preferred the LR2s exterior looks and AWD system and the Saturn's price, but the inability to have both a Nav and HIDs in the Saturn, and RDX's quicker acceleration won me over. I have not regretted my choice. But there is competition on the way in January that has me considering a trade-in possibility, although I won't do it without an extended test drive. Here it is:

http://www.jdpower.com/autos/article...udi-Q5-Preview

and

http://www.jdpower.com/autos/article...-Class-Preview

The Benz looks mighty good.

 

How the hell were you comparing the RDX to an Aura?

 

And the Plainsman is back....go ahead, please trade your RDX and go to another forum...hey, maybe the Q5 won't get spanked by a Honda Oddisey

 

I think the Audi and the Merc are nice but unless German reliability has improved I would stick with the Acura. I've had numerous reliability issues with the German cars. Although I have to say Audi's maintenance program which is part of the warranty program (4 yr/50,000 mile) was a very big plus.

 

My mistake. I meant the new Saturn Vue. The problem was no HIDs. I will never buy a vehicle that does not come with HIDs. The Outlook is the only Saturn that you can get with HIDs.

The BMW X3 is ugly, so I'm very interested in checking out this new Mercedes. Obviously, they are including the same engine in the compact MB SUV that comes in the new C350 and the E350.

 

The styling of the GLK is too bland. Looks like a upscale Cherokee.

 

That's exactly where I'm parked. If it's an Audi, Merc, BMW, I wouldn't even consider it. Acura's realiability was a HUGE part of my purchase decision. Why would I want to pay more to be able to drive back to the dealer more often?

Mike

 

I love my TT but if it weren't for the free maintenance during the warranty period I never would have bought it. I have yet to spend a dime on maintenance or repair but I have had to take it in 12-15 times in the past 3 years for a warranty repair for one thing or another.

 

Upscale Tiguan with a V6. (I question the assertion that the Q5 qnd Tiguan do not share platforms.) Cramped backseat with little cargo room.

I doubt they'll go out the door for less than $45k, and they'll be back often for exorcisms.

 

Tiguan doesn't even look like an SUV, in real life it just looks like a matrix type car (what ever they are called)

ugly too btw.

Q5 looks good, benz not feeling the subaru forester look.

Was looking at an Audi A4 B5 as a replacement for my prelude but after going to a site and reading the list of "common" problems, I just turned away. I haven't seen a list that rediculous i mean with honda's its usually rattling, this and that, these are major engine components failing!

right now got it narrowed down to Is250 vs TSX

 

I don't really get why more automakers are entering this market segment (small lux SUV's), it doesn't seem to be a big seller for any of the brands.

 

My point exactly. In the 2 years (next week) that I've owned my RDX, I've taken it in exactly 4 times....all for scheduled maintenance. Regardless of whether the repairs are free, it's still another freakin' trip back to the dealer, gas spent and time out of my day.

Mike

 

I like them all (Merc, Audi, EX35 etc.). The RDX would likely still be my choice because it's competition is more money. Now, if money was no object, I might lean to something German.

 

They didn't even include the RDX as a competitor(in the Audi link)! WTF?

BTW, that Benz, is 'one ugly m*therf***er!'

 

I've been researching other CUVs for a friend of mine who really likes my RDX. I feel Volvo S60 could be a good contender. Why isn't x60 not discussed as much? Any thoughts? But, I have to accept there is so much more choice now in the CUV market...and RDX still holds its place.

 

When you read about the new benz, there was dissagreement within the company about its styling and design, even tho its gone forward and going to be produced. I think the Benz is disgusting, r they serious with that interior. Reminds me of my dads volvo from like 1985. Horrible. Not to mention, it looks so CHEAP. That being said, theres no question its going to sell. It will probably sell well too. Benz has never had a truck like this, to fit under the ML and come in cheaper. I think well see alot of them, kinda like the people who buy the RX's and C classes...carries the name, not so much the price.

 

benz is nasty, q5 will probably do well, especially if reliability holds up

 

I don't know why some of you guys think the Benz looks "nasty" or "ugly." I think it's beautiful, although the shape is a little bit Forestor-like. The old Forester anyway. The 2009 is redesigned.

I find the Benz much more attractive than the Audi.


UPDATE: I went back and took another look. Maybe I was wrong. LOL. The Benz is kinda homely. But maybe it will look better in person than on a flat screen.

 

I like the Benz, although it looks a bit tall. Would look better with 1-2'' lopped off the greenhouse.

 

The Benz is designed to be a small and inexpensive G class imo. Will appeal to people that want a Benz logo. It doesnt make me vomit but it doesnt get me all giddy either. I think I prefer the Q but it also doesnt grab me and Audi/VW reliability is sketchy. If I were in the market for a SUV/CUV I would hold off until the new X3 and see what they do with it.

 

If the Benz only had the new Highlander I4.....

 

Audi did away with the free maintenance program last year.

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/02/27/a...s-maintenance/

but, that not withstanding, I agree with the poster above who made the point with regard to his own time. I own Acura instead of Beemer not just because of money - but because my time is so limited. I can't be driving the car to the dealer every morning.

 

I saw a video of some test driver beating the hell out of the Nurburgring in the GLK. One thing Mercedes has mastered is how to spiring a big heavy car. Ugly as it may be, I suspect it will slaughter all comers in terms of handling.

 

Weve had an Audi A6 and the only time it was at the dealer is when it was getting serviced. This is coming from people that haven't even owned one of the newer Audi's.

The platforms are not the same. Your claim /trash. if you want to go that route the Rdx is a prettied up Crv. the Rdx is not without it's problems either, have you looked at the problems/issues part of this forum?

 

if you note most all of those problems were on first model year productions, and early first model year productions...just an observation, i think the RDX so far has been remarkable with reliability. this is from someone with 40k and no major or mechanical issues to date. i did have a problem with two speakers and the drivers side courtesy light cover. I have not experienced the amp always on or suddenly dead radio problem and my car is an 07' build number 000975!

 

I was not aware of that buy they had it in full effect back in 05 when I bought it.

 

Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (VAG) platform nomenclature is decoded like this:

P=passenger, (Q=transverse engine, L=longitudinal engine), 1st number=size, 2nd number=generation.

So the PQ46 is a passenger/transverse engine, midsize, generation 6; also known as a VW Passat. The PL46 is a passenger/longitudinal engine midsize, generation 6; also known as an Audi A4. The two vehicles share the same platform. The Audi PL46 is modified for engine placement.

The latest version of this platform is the VAG PL/PQ48....generation 8 of the passenger midsize (P4) platform. The Tiguan is built on the PQ48 with a transverse engine and the Q5 is built on the PL48 modified for a longitudinal engine.

To differentiate the Q5 from it's poorer cousin, Audi marketing now calls the PL48 the "Modular Longitudinal Platform", same platform....new name.

The CR-V was originally built on Honda's Global Compact Platform (shared with the Civic) up to 2006. For 2007 the Global Light Truck Platform (Odyssey/Pilot/MDX/Ridgeline) was updated to the New Global Light Truck Platform. The first two vehicles released on the NGLT platform are the 2007 CR-V and the 2007 RDX. This gives both new vehicles the ACE body structure. While the RDX NGLT platform is modified and strengthened for power and SH-AWD, it is indeed a "prettied up CR-V".

Creating a new vehicle platform costs upwards of $1 billion. It is for more efficient to rename modified versions, and market them as new.

 

The ZIL platform nomenclature is also straightforward - the original 4RQ has evolved into the 4RQ2.

 

Subtle and witty, Bleu.

Well, maybe it's something in the Soviet water supply, or perhaps waiting 10 years for a Zaporozhet while Uncle Joe rolled phat and just a little "more equal" in his Zil......They be hatin'.

"I simply don't understand human behavior"

 

Yes. Anything to assist folks like Lexia in understanding manufacturer codex, I'm like right there.

Current events could indicate they have gotten over the Zappy and have focused on recent baubles like the Fiat 127, I mean Yugo. Could be the water supply plus some pie-eyed generals. Methinks they were aiming for the Ukraine but somehow turned left at Georgia. I am concerned for our friend Azzie.

 

Better take that outlook you got in before it catches on fire- one of the almost million vehicles GM just recalled. Whoops

 

I drove the GLK and it's a nice car overall. Not my thing as far as the looks but the technology beats the RDX. Not only is the navigation hard drive based but you can rip music to it, iPod/USB input in the glovebox, PC card input, dual screen DVD in the back and you can play two different movies/one movie one video game, etc. Plus you can have a 110 volt outlet in the back. It has rear AC/heat controls, you can fit two sets of golf clubs in the trunk, and it has 268 hp. Like the RDX, it will appeal mainly to chicks and gay men but it's still a nice car. Whether they will sell 20,000 per year is another story. That's what was projected for the RDX. 19" wheels standard, 20" wheels available and the ride is smoother than the RDX. Diesel is projected in 1-2 more years.

 

WTF?

 

I work at a mercedes benz dealer here in Long Island, Ny. I have to disagree that the GLK looks like a small G wagon; it has more of the GL styling just mini. Now the new 3.5 engine they use in the new C class is a beast, it has gobbles of torque, you could light up the tires all day with the traction control off. Hence the GLK will have a very nice power plant, and I think it will sell great because it is a benz and anytime mercedes puts out a cheaper vehicle in its line up people jump! When it comes to handling though I seriously doubt it will be better than the RDX I mean SH-AWD, all its missing is a cape! Anyways i'll let you guys know the real verdict as soon as I get my mits on one.

 

GLK drives great! Not a bumpy ride like the RDX. Suspension is aluminum not stamped steel like the RDX/CRV. Although on a modified C Class chassis I think it is smoother because of the weight. Still, I think the CUV market is small and people are rushing in because others are in there not sure if there's a lot of sales there.

The 3.5 is nice but I wish they put the 300 HP SLK motor in there.

 

troll is the best way to put it I think in answer to your question