acura1972

hi guys, interesting posts here... i am at a similar dilemma actually -- but on a different level as well... i look to own an rdx for at least 5-7 yrs... my concern is that if i buy a 2010 rdx, the depreciation will take a bigger hit (relative to waiting for a 2011 or the 2012 major redesign)... what are the advantages and disadvantages of buying the 2010 RDX considering that it, i think, will have a major redesign in 2011/2012? i dont have a car now and am looking to make my first purchase of an acura (i used to own hondas, toyotas, mitsubishis, mercedes, etc -- but these were all in asia -- have never owned a car since the late 90's when i moved out to study/work from state to state)...

MMike1981

if you are intending to own for that length of time, i cant see depreciation to even matter?

after 7 yrs...what are you really looking to get out of it, not only would a 2010 be followed by a redesign, but the hypothetical 2012 will be redesigned as well, it the RDX is even around in 2016/17

anyways, im sure uve thought of this already, but imo i just dont see a depreciation concern at all

blitzjb

I bought a 2010 for my wife to replace a 2004 Pathfinder. She loves it!

wrestrepo

I really don't understand the dilemma. As MMike said, the 2010 will be redesigned in the next 7 years, probably twice (every 3 years), so the depreciation wont matter much. What's the other option then? 2009?
Although the 2010 has many improvements you need to evaluate if they are worth your money....for me? not really, my 07 seems fine, although I wish for memory seats.

acura1972

hi guys, many thanks for your inputs... sorry i wasnt more clear as to what i was comparing... i might be crucified for saying this but here goes: i was essentially comparing the 2010 rdx with the 2010 mb glk - i recognize this is an acura forum ... while i like both cars, the glk is a very new model... i like the handling and sporty feel of the rdx... but the rock solid feel of the mb (road vibration is very minimal)... where i am not sure is if i would maximize my $ more for a purchase if i buy a newer model (eg. 2010 GLK which is not due for a major redesign anytime soon vs 2010 rdx)... but seems like if i plan to buy (not lease/finance) it and use it for 5-7 (or even 8) yrs,your inputs say "it doesnt matter"... am i correct to assume this? [as an aside, would you guys know if the rdx will have a major redesign in 2011 or 2012?] many thanks for your insights!

MMike1981

if thats the case, Q5, without question. but, if your intention is on longevity, i dont think there is any choice other than an RDX. just not going to get the long term reliability in the german makers.

either way tho man, you are dealing with such a long period of time that you WILL sustain at least 1 redesign in any model you buy.

weird post. not sure i understand where u are coming from totally.

wrestrepo

Look at the facts....
The RDX came out in 07 and didn't receive a "major" re-styling until 2010. I would think that at the next one there will be a greater change since this time only very little (substantial) things changed.
The GLK is (IMO) a gorgeous car (most people disagree with me). I have not driven it, but sat in it and didn't like it. It felt very cheap to me, definitely not what I thought a Benz would feel like.

http://mybenzguy.com/2008/12/glk-hands-on-20/#more-174

That link is a silly comparison, made by Benz, of some items that are relevant and some others that are not between the cars. Keep in mind that this is for the first generation RDX.

A true side by side comparison of the RDX and the GLK has not been made yet.

People will say that the RDX is more reliable, but I don't think that there is enough info about the GLK to substantiate that.

mic43

I think saying any german is less reliable than the acura is not fair as it would be a japanese vs euro stereotype...you could do the same thing with a turbo vs non-turbo stereotype and say the germans are more reliable

furthermore, if you're keeping it for 7 yrs an extended warranty would cover you, so reliability isn't really an issue

if prestige is what your after, obviously the acura can't touch the germans...i showed a group of friends a pic of my acura and of the GLK...they were guessing the benz cost in the mid 40k range and the acura was in the mid 20k range...in reality I would have gotten a benz with 4motion basic for 34,500 w/free trip to europe/euro delivery vs the acura for 33,000 and no free trip

if you want superior handling, try the X3 and Q5 too---much nicer interiors than the acura but those two are also somewhat more expensive (though the audi is standard with leather and sunroof)

Try the infiniti EX35 too- its got a 4000 dealer rebate plus 750 infiniti cash back right now for the 09s----much cheaper than the acura but much nicer inside and 297hp engine w/no turbo lag and a rear bias AWD

don't bother with the new cadillac SRX or lexus RX if you want speed- but they are incredibly quiet and smooth

I personally would get the Q5 if I were you- i thought it was the best combo of everything...the reason I went Acura was because the Audi dealer had a waitlist for the Q5 at the time and i needed a car ASAP

creativeguy

If you like the 2010, just buy it. Significant changes are not likely to occur for at least 2-3 years. At that time, I really believe that the RDX will be canceled. It was a great car for me (just returned my 07 lease), but was nowhere near the sales expectations of Acura. A new entry SUV may be on the way in a few years, but likely won't resemble or be called "RDX".

big1128z

Acura seems to make a major model change every 5 years. The RDX was introduced in 2006 so a new model should be on sale starting in late 2011. With the RDX being the first compact SUV Acura ever made, I think they were just dipping thier toes into the compact SUV segment to see how it felt. I would expect to see Acura take all of the negative coments from customers during this "trial" and wrap up a complete new design package that will make the model more appealing to customers. I would expect most, not all, of the features on your GLK that your looking at to be applied to the next major model change. Acura / Honda has their own version of most of the features on the GLK on the RL, thier prototype car. If customers like it on the RL it will most likely be passed down to the next RDX. Not to mention that it will most likely be more of a bang for the buck than the GLK.

gungho_15

I bought a 2010 and absolutely love it! I think its the nicest looking RDX yet!

MMike1981

dont agree. as much as id like to see acura pass down features in the TL and even RL...which ive constantly littered this board with, it wont happen. If it does happen, the price will go way too close to the MDX, there would have to be a restructuring within the line up. Acura is not going to sell any RDXs at 40k or over when you have the MDX and ZDX in that territory.

I do however expect significant improvements but the level of features and lux is going to stay within the TSX/entry level range.

Carbon2008RDX

To be honest, the RDX has more than enough lux features for me. Seriously, I don't need auto headlights (how hard is it to turn on the headlights when it gets dusk out?!), don't need rain sensing wipers (same thing, how hard is it...), backup camera (don't need it..period.) I like a good HVAC system which the RDX does have, I like heated seats which the RDX has, I like good comfortable seats which the RDX has, and a good engine/drivetrain/sports feel, which the RDX has.

MMike1981

for 35-38k, it better have auto headlights (which it does now + other additions) there are certain things that cars need to have in the mid 30's range which separate them from cheaper competitors. The RDX for the most part is well separated from the CRV

MMike1981

....ive always said the RDX should have more options not so much more std equipment. to play with the big boys the rdx needs more available things at the decision of the buyer, acura gets to keep costs down by not offering much equip while at the same time giving you what they consider to be a bit more than what you would essentially expect

wrestrepo

Even if you have warranty (unless is bumper to bumper), reliability matters. Let's say that you don't have to spend a penny, you still need to deal with taking the time and bringing the car to the dealer and have them find and fix the problem.

Free trip? Don't you have to get your a55 over there on your own?

I think that you are the only person that believes that the X3 is still relevant in the segment. The interior, reliability and performance are no match to any of the other vehicles in the category. As for the Q5 you are talking about lots of money...go to their website and make your own, you'll see.

EX35....please...



I agree with you and think that the next model will not resemble what we have today. However, I think that the RDX will survive based on the new direction that the brand is going (greener), they will need a small SUV.

Huh? I am not sure what you mean....the first model year was the 2007 and they just happened to re-fresh/design the lineup.

No-one needs most of those luxuries, the thing is that you are expected to get them at the price level that the RDX is at. Let me make an argument for those items...
Auto-headlights are needed when you have daytime running lights, and your dash is illuminated, that's why you find people driving with lights off at night, because they just don't know....not everyone is a "good driver".
Rain sensing wipers are great, period; there is no distraction from driving to adjust the speed/time of wipers.
Heated seats...The RDX gets a C+...the passengers' back is not heated, the rear seats are not heated. You can say that you don't care because you always drive, but that would not make it better, would it.

acura1972

thanks for the post guys... i hear ya all... based on comments, it doesnt seem to matter if i intend to buy it and drive it at least 5-8 yrs... and rdx's reliability is par excellance frm what i gather... one poster mentioned there will be no rdx in 2 yrs or so... is that a high probability? coz if it is, wont securing spare parts be an issue? and how diff would that be (eg. no rdx) from what GM (?) is now doing with Pontiac (?) - eg kill the brand... that makes it all the more tougher to sell or trade in in 5-8 yrs as there's no RDX anymore? -- hope you could enlighten me on this... many thanks...

RomeoDeltaXray

Don't buy anything brand new if you are concerned about depreciation. If you buy one a year or two old, you could save $5-10k+.

ac328

I am also in the market for the RDX. I only want to lease it though. We are currently shopping for replacement for leased Mazda, we also have a 2008 TL.

Have test driven the RDX, Q5, Lexus RX350, VW Tiguan.

RDX seems to best value up here in Canada, lease rates and residuals are good, and dealers willing to, well, deal.

RX350 is expensive but very nice, not as sporty (as you might expect). Dealer here wants MSRP though.

Q5 is best truck by far if money is no object. Only two Audi dealers in my city and both want above MSRP. Plus 4 month wait (not a prob for me but could be for someone who needs car soon).

Tiguan is OK, driving position is very odd, dash feels too high and steering wheel is also too high even at lowest tilt setting. Trunk is also fair bit smaller than RDX, although backseat is nice. Vw dealers here aren't very good either. Nice features though (touchscreen stereo even without Nav, rain sensing wipers, adaptive headlights, huge sunroof like Q5).

RDX Pluses:
- Nice interior, huge centre console. Much better than X3 we had for three years.
- Great passing power (260 lb ft!)
- Flat floor for rear passengers.
- Good-sized trunk relative to car's overall size.
- No reprogramming of TPMS system needed for winter tires, just like our TL
- 2010 backup camera works very well.

Minuses
- Turbo lag off the line is noticeable.
- Panoramic sunroof would be nice.
- No rain sensing wipers. Our Mazda 3 has these, you would think Acura would be on top of this (annoying that TL doesn't have them either).

So we are leaning towards RDX in the new year as bext overall combo of price and features, on 3 year lease.

TSX69

I saw 1 in the wild this past weekend. It was on the opposite side of I40 ... so roughly 5 lanes & a median apart but that grille was still unimstakeable coming @ you. Acura definitely will achieve brand identity ... for better or worse w/ the power plenum.

I doubt that I need a new car in the next year but when the RDX gets the 6 speed & hopefully Acura's other latest features ... I may consider it.

acura1972

hi ac328, do you post in rfd as well? anyway, i share your views more or less. for me, rdx vs glk were the only competing cuv's... q5? i didnt even bother as i got turned off by the salespeople's arrogance...

quick question to acura owners/mechanics -- is the awd system similar/same as the crv's? if so, does this statement below have any merit?

"I do not agree that the Honda CRX is a worthy competitor. The Honda AWD system has the front and rear axels deliberately revolving at slightly different speeds and that speed difference is accommodated by slipping clutches which eventually wear out — that is a red flag and reliability issue for me."

Lemme know if this is just a bunch of... thanks!!!

wrestrepo

I think that you are comparing apples and oranges...although no-one is "safe" from being x-ed, that's not the case with Acura. Pontiac will no longer exist as a brand, but there are a lot of compatible mechanical parts with the sister cars from GM. When the RDX ceases to exist, or is replaced by a new model, Acura will still be there and for what I understand they have a legal mandate to provide parts for the "oldies"

I am still confused about your overall confusion
You want to buy a car, and are wondering whether the RDX is a "good buy" or are you wondering if there is something "better" out there?

wrestrepo

Not the same system, although the RDX is somewhat front bias, and you must be talking about the CR-V, right...

ac328

Yeah I am in RFD as well.

GLK apparently has good lease offers, haven't test driven it yet. Very high residual from what I hear (but high interest rate too from what I saw on website, so who knows). Still more $$$ than RDX, some cool features RDX doesn't have though.

Audi dealer wasn't arrogant, however since the dealers in Canada can sell every single one they can get at or near MSRP you can understand the attitude.

MMike1981

Q5 is the best of everything, GLK is pretty good too, but the ride & performance is not on the level of the RDX (if ur into the sport aspects of the segment) RDX is still a decent value, and its test numbers HOLD UP against the Q, formidably, so if the drive is your main concern the RDX is still a good choice, however, its out-shined just about everywhere else....if u spend about 5k more, you are getting ALOT more vehicle in the german offerings, the EX35 is pretty solid too, but juts cant compare it for space/functionality of everything else, its basically in its own segment

I can understand that there is a big difference to some or most between 37 & 42k, but if ur gonna do 37k on an RDX tech...i reallllllllllllly invite you to compare your money to other cuv's

the RDX even with its "refresh" shows its age....if ur in this market right NOW, id look to something else, the other offerings have much newer & advanced technology, and the designs are alot more attractive...to me, with the 2010 refresh, the RDX lost its timeless-traditional look from the 07-10 imo

big1128z

I would expect that the next gen RDX (2012, sorry my count was off, they went on sale in 06 but were 07 models) will follow the one push start system that many other manufacturers are carying over to as well. RL has this and my TL Tech has this system and its pretty cool, very convienent especially in wet weather when your in a hurry. As for the TSX entry level range. IDK man, I agree it will be the lesser in price of the 3 SUV's offered but build quality will always be the same since the unit is built on the same assembly line as the TL. I expect that the price would be the near the same just slightly higher due to inflation. When 09 TL was introduced the base price increased compared the exiting 08M.

acura1972

hi wrespo, thank you for your comments... yes am planning to buy a new cuv... right now, it's really just rdx vs glk -- as for my confusion, yes, am confused as ever...

i want a cuv that will be reliable considering i plan to use it for at least 5-8 yrs... at the same time, i hear people say in this post that if you're spending 37k, might as well go for the germans at 42k given the technology they provide... [i am willing to buy (im buying in cash) either so long as it's "worth it" - eg you pay more but you get more -- what i dont want is to be "duped" into buying a cuv that isn't "worth it"/overpriced]

i know there's no perfect car so im kinda choosing what would suit me best... based on my experience in the dealership as well as my test drive, it came down to rdx (fun) and glk (solid as a rock! - in a good way)... unfortunately, no reliability experience on glk whatsoever so im going in "blind" on that front... would i be happy with either one, yes i would... am i willing to spend 42k? yes... but is it worth the 42k? i dunno coz i dont really know if the GLK has $5k more features/advanced technology and if it'll be good to drive for 5-8 yrs with less headaches to the dealership (relative to RDX)?

let's just say i want the best "value" cuv amongst the 2... my value is defined in the following criteria: a) reliability (as much as i like driving, i despise driving to have it constantly repaired , b) depreciation (but most of you have said if it's 5-8 yrs, who cares?)...in short, im fine with either...

on a separate note, i also read that the rdx is a "gas guzzler" (relatively speaking) -- however, if i look at the "Fuel economy" ratings on each of their sales brochures, it seems like RDX is still more fuel efficient than the GLK... am i right to take this as truth? or is the RDX really that much of a fuel consumer (eg. everyone is complaining about RDX's fuel but then i see in the brochures that GLK consumes more - and yet not many complain about the GLK's fuel consumption)

finally, thanks for helping me clarify on the durability of the AWD system, it wasnt my post, i just cut and pasted some comments ive read from some online auto magazine.... [cant say im not doing my research -- maybe im doing too much reseach!]

thanks a bunch guys!

princelybug

iTrader: (16)

Yes.

acura1972

yikes! i rambled too much, but ill do an edited version:

yes, im wondering if the rdx is still a "good buy" considering it might not exist in 2012 (as some have said) and yes, am wondering if the glk is a "better buy" compared to the rdx? [eg. i am willing to pay extra for the GLK if it is a "Better buy" since it's a newer model with newer technology]... however GLK will not be a better buy (for me) if i have to bring it to the shop much more often than the RDX for repairs (eg how much more often? say 20% more often is my limit - takes away from the enjoyment of the car if i have to keep bringing it for repairs)...

wrestrepo

Well, what can I say...get whatever you LIKE better. Think about that....a long term commitment to a car, better like it....

Pricing of the cars is really really different. While with the RDX you get two options, and just a few accessory options, the Benz need to be build up by adding packages to an already higher base price. I would advise you to build it in a way that you can compare apples to apples. Now, on the flip side, you may be okay with less than what the RDX gives you, and you can definitely get "less" with the GLK. i.e. leather is a premium....

Reliability ratings for the GLK are not out, but don't all the Benz use the same hardware? 4-matic and the 3.5 engine? You should get a pretty good idea from looking at the ML or C class (which is the car that the GLK is based on).

I am one of the people who thinks that the RDX is a guzzler. The only reason you would get a smaller (than the competition) engine is to save on fuel. Well, the 4cyl turbo doesn't save anything on fuel, so there is really no point in having it over a more refined 6 cyl that every other competitor, except CX7, offers. Fuel economy is in par with the class.....

So you narrowed down to the GLK and RDX....Nobody can predict the future, whether or not the car will exist or how often you will take it to the shop....so go and have some fun, get the one you like the most and forget about all the other stuff!!!!

acura1972

wrestrepo, thank you for your patience in helping out... ive overanalyzed this already and taken too much of you guys' time -- ill stick with gut feel/like.

wrestrepo

talking to the stay at home dad that craves "adult" interaction, even if it comes through a screen and from an unknown person.....

ac328

First-year GLK reliability has been excellent according to Consumer Reports, surprising for a Benz.

RDX reliability has consistently been rated above average by CR.

MMike1981

yea - the models based off the new c-class platform have been pretty reliable...

corduroygt

I bought my RDX b/c it was 32k. As mike said, if the dealer wasnt willing to deal below 37, I'd pay a bit more and get something that's real luxury. The plastic dash always reminds me that I'm not in a premium vehicle, but that's ok since I didn't pay a premium price for it. It's just a really loaded, and more sporty driving version of the CRV, and costs only 5k more than it.

wrestrepo

Or you can get a 211mph Bravus V12 GLK......
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/11/7...n-ugly-or-a-b/

SinCity

I'm typically a Benz guy and I still need to get over the boxy shape of the GLK. If I had the chance to do it over again, I'd cross shop the Q5 and GLK. When the RDX came out, it was tops in it's segment.

ac328

Yeah even the interior is boxy and angular! Just sat in one last week.