Yumcha

And I'd argue the FX50 is the best CUV.

Personal opinion. Personal taste. The reality is: up to the buyer to do their homework and match the car to their requirements...and reliability these days with this market is a toss-up. I think pretty much most (except Land Rover) are pretty much on par in quality and reliability.

But, hey...that's just me.

dr150

Gotta love those X3 runflat tires. Half the life expectancy of a normal tire, expensive to replace and prone to injury much more than a normal tire. The boards are filled with complaints about the tires. Get a flat, replace all four. Boom, $1000.

I've had friends go through 2-3 sets within 6 months. Ridiculous!

Any cost savings in reliability (if there was one) is out the door....just on these silly tires!

Plus, the ride is unpleasantly harder due to these tires and you don't get a spare in the back. Try acquiring such a tire in the mid-boonies. Heck, they're hard to acquire in a normal store!

When I test drove an X3 recently, the engine blew on the road. LMAO. Where's that vaunted reliability CR gives it? I never take too much stock in what CR says on anything as I've been bitten too many times on too many products, from cars on down. You gain much more intel on forums like these than CR for sure!

Opus360

Agreed.

One thing about reliability. One can divide it into two major areas: reliability that leaves stranded on the side of the road, and reliability that makes the car drivable, but something isn't quite right (for example, rattles in a car, alarms). German cars in general have a lot of those latter problems.

corduroygt

That's not a CUV, it's a higher class, competing with the MDX, Q7, X5, ML, Touareg, Cayenne, etc.

While that's probably true for the first 3-4 years of ownership, I'd say Japanese brands definitely have better long-term reliability than the Germans after that.

corduroygt

Official sources for this unsubstantiated BS?

That must mean all X3's have horrible engines, right? You also did not drive the N20 engine, which is what we're talking about here.

Nope, only a handful of enthusiasts populate these forums and they are not a valid sample. If we were, Acura would have kept the turbo engine and SH-AWD for the 2013 RDX.

pickler

i have never hated any cars i have driven and i dont think i ever will. with the exception of a 1993 ford taurus which had a 3.5l v6 with only 140hp! that was just junk. i'm a car enthusiast, and i believe a car enthusiast does not hate cars because of them being made by a specific company. i posted the consumerguide photo as a guideline to prove RDX's reliability. i have never owned a car so reliable, i have brutalized this car with modifications, wrong engine fluids, ecu hacks and list goes on...but this car is sill kicking 290 ft-lb torque at the wheels. and im sorry no car in the competition can give you that much torque for $37k. there are so many posts here that i disagree with that i don't have neither the time or the mood to respond to. however i would like to clear up couple things. The bmw X3 is not garbage, and in my opinion superior to the audi in terms of dynamics. The new N20 4-cylindar turbo kicks in more low end torque and horsepower than the audi could ever achieve. Not to mention its handling and reliability. However i have to say the previous N54 turbo 3L inline 6 cylinder engine was smoother and much more powerful. But the new 30+mpg highway mpg with the 2L is a great compromise. I like audi/vw cars but not enough to ever own one because of high cost of maintenance. for me reliability is at top of my list when shopping and so i am not likely to ever purchase a VW for the time being.

silverrevlis

Ahh, I see what you did there, both japanese brands....and the german brand did no harm to ya. I wish there was a way we could meet back up after your Q5 is 2 years out of warranty then see the story then. Actually, in regards to the reliability of any german car, Q5 or X3 once they are out of warranty, that's a very expensive dice game for repair costs. Balling out of control on repair costs once your warranty expires is a luxury feature I choose not to afford....god speed!

Khanyam3

I couldn't agree more

Opus360

Time to re-access Q5 vs RDX now that several of us has driven it. RDX that I drove was a FWD.

My impression:

Ride: RDX seems softer at low speed while the Q5 seems a bit stiff. At high speed, the Q5 seems more steady, not that the RDX wasn't, but Q5 was impressive at highway speed.

Acceleration: both appear to be similar

Steering: Q5 has the edge, the steering felt sharper with better feedback. RDX steering was quick as well and responsive, but felt short on feedback.

Noise: hard for me to tell as the road conditions were different. What do you think?

Interior fit and finish: Q5 seems to have higher quality leather and interior finishing.

Controls: RDX is much much better. Controls were intuitive, while simple things required several steps for the Q5. However, there was not rear vent for the RDX, an obvious sign of cost cutting.

Seat comfort/space: Driver side felt similar. Passenger side on the RDX has no height adjustment, a rather disappointment in my view for a car at this price. Rear area - more spacious for RDX, while Q5 has more of an upright position. Big center tunnel in Q5 is the major downside. So, each has its plus and minus.

Driving position/visibility: Q5 drivers seats high, while RDX seats low. Q5 visibility to rear is really poor. RDX D pillars were thick and blocked view to the rear, thought slightly better than Q5. Navigation camera system on Q5 has park assist guide (steering guide) while the RDX has an almost 180 degree wide angle view, which is very helpful.

Cargo area: Bigger for RDX with lower loading high.

Front and rear access: Front access seems easier with RDX. Rear access, door does not seem to open as wide as needed. I am not sure on the Q5.

Spare tire: somewhere between and donut and a full-size for RDX. What was it for the Q5?

SDCB

I noticed your post on the Q5 board and responded there. I think you are right on almost all of your points. The RDX was faster than I thought it would be. With having to pay full sticker right now though on the RDX, there isn't such a big price difference between the two.

corduroygt

2013 RDX vs 2013 Q5 depends on how long you plan on keeping your vehicle.
If you're going to replace it after the warranty period, get a Q5 all the way, If you're going to drive it for a good 6-8 years, get the RDX.

Opus360

There wasn't a Q5 vs RDX trend in the Q5 board, so I started one. Also, I prefer to get opinions from both groups to avoid bias as much as possible.




I prefer to keep cars until they drop dead. German car repairs does worry me.

SDCB

"There wasn't a Q5 vs RDX trend in the Q5 board, so I started one. Also, I prefer to get opinions from both groups to avoid bias as much as possible."

I'm the same as you! It is hard to get a balanced opinion. I think that both cars are very good and both have their strengths and weaknesses. To me the Q5 is a bit mor luxurious, looks a bit better and has a bit more prestige. The RDX is much better than the prior generation, costs a bit less than the Q5 and will probably be a bit more reliable.

theART

Since it's CUV usable space is super important, otherwice I'd get a sedan and not a 4x4, Q5 has few major drawbacks when compared to RDX:

- it has a lot less space in back seats
- it has the drive shaft bump, and it's huge, seating 3 adults in the back is very hard, unless they are 5' tall
- much less space in the trunk
- Audi has one of the worst reliability in the market (not an issue if sell before warranty expires)

SDCB

I went back to the Audi dealership to test drive a Q5. I had looked at them before, but not driven one. I just drove the RDX, so I had a frame of reference. I brought my 25 year old son along with me on both drives to get his opinion.

After driving the Q5 and spending some time in it, I decided to go with the Q5. My son commented that the RDX was a very nice car, but the Q5 was better in every way to him. I had to agree with him. The look and feel of the car, both outside and in was significantly better on the Q5. I went with the Premium Plus 2.0t.

The Acura dealers here in San Diego won't take anything less than sticker, for the time being. I got $1,500 over KBB for my Corvette and a good discount on the Q5, so my guess is that I got a much more elegant and attractive car for less than I would have to pay today for an RDX. Also, the Q5 has many features that aren't even offered on the Acura.

I really wanted to go with the RDX, but I feel like I did the right thing getting the Q5. We'll see how it does on the reliability side.

buzzdsm

Sounds like the right thing to do in your situation.

Opus360

Thanks for the feedback. Was there any part that was significantly better for the Q5 or RDX?

Next step for me is to bring the wife to drive both the RDX and Q5. It will be her car, so she should be comfortable with the choice. Currently, dealers in my area (Philly suburbs) want sticker prices too. They did say in a few months, they will have room to negotiate.

SDCB

To me, here is what I liked better on the RDX vs the Q5:

1. It has a bit more storage room.
2. It may be a bit more reliable, although it is usually the luck of the draw.
3. You get 2 more years of warranty on the engine/tranny.

On the Q5:

1. I think it looks better and seems to have better build quality overall, both inside and out.
2. The steering/handling/ride, felt more solid to me.
3. I like the LED running & brake lights and the panaramic moon roof, with power shade.
4. The leather seemed to be a better quality and looks great with the wood and brushed aluminum trim (vs painted plastic)
5. The back seat has its own temp/blower setting and reclining seats.
6. It has power folding/auto dimming side mirrors.
7. It has a hight adjustment for the power rear hatch.
8. It's HID's are self leveling.

With little difference in price, the Q5 won out for me. Hope this helps.

markrogo

Reliability is an aggregate. Yes, it's luck of the draw for one person, but Acura > Audi on that score. The data doesn't lie.

As for price, I guess some of you can buy your Q5 for thousands off?

In my market, it's $4500 difference.

SDCB

Price was a key for me in the decision. On the RDX, I was willing to overlook a number of shortcomings, for a $4k difference. But with the exceptional trade-in value that I got, along with the discount on the Q5, I couldn't rationalize taking what seemed to be quite a few significant advantages to the Audi.

Most of the poor reliability ratings on the Audi were tied to a poor water pump that was only in the 3.2L V6 and had nothing to do with the 2.0T engine, with 8-speed transmission. I'll keep my fingers crossed that my Q5 is reliable and if not, that the warranty covers me.

weather

I agree with what you are saying 100%....numbers don't lie and statistically speaking, Acura has a better record. That being said, Lemons exist in every brand and Acura is not immune to that. That being said, I am not a risk taker and like to stack the odds in my favor

If I lived in a city that had a large network of high end dealers, I would take the risk too and lease a vehicle while making sure I only have it while its under warranty. However, I live in a smaller city and the closest Acura/Audi/Lexus/BMW dealership is over 1.5h away. I can't afford to have my car towed and inconvenienced that way. As a result, I continue to rely on the Honda/Acura name and decided to put my name on a 2013 RDX AWD tech. It should be here near the end of the month.

Opus360

I agree with your opinion. As far as the panoramic moon roof, I am a bit apprehensive about it. I am bit concern with the long term rigidity and accident potential - no metal frame over the roof. Granted, almost all cars over $30,000 came with sunroofs.


Reliability is definitely the strongest argument for the RDX.


Sounds like availability of service will be major issue for you. For me, both Acura and Audi are about 20 minutes away. The next farther Acura and Audi are in the same town too.

BTW, the BMW X3 now showed up at BMW USA website. I have considered the X3, and it is #3 on my list behind RDX and Q5.

SDCB

I completely understand. If I were in your location, I would feel the same way as you do. I think that they are both very nice cars and neither one is a bad choice.

meesr

Most Audi dealers are not negotiating much off at all on current stock or orders. I'm guessing the Acura dealer are doing the same on the new RDX.

markrogo

A 2.0 Premium Plus Q5 with the pushbutton start is $4500 more than the RDX -- assuming both are not discounted.

Anyone who sees the gap as smaller is either (a) rationalizing not getting Premium Plus on the Q5 or (b) getting a discount on the Audi.

Opus360

Acura dealer flatly told me no discounts for the first few months, then they will start discounting it. I would have to guess "few" is subjective, depending on how much interest they get and how much RDX they get from the factory.

Based on my discussion with Audi dealers, discount for order is around $1500 off MSRP. This will depend on your location...I have heard more and heard less.

jfarabaugh

Was told the same thing....but ended up with 1k off after pushing

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

The fact that the OP went with the 2.0T makes a huge difference in price too. Apple vs apple, the Q5 3.2 starts at $43k - $7k more than a RDX AWD. The 2.0T is an impressive engine with more than enough torque to make up for its 60hp deficit, so it's understandable that some people would prefer the 2.0 model as the extra power isn't really needed unless you are passing on the highway. Looking at it this way, the Q5 2.0T, along with its heavier discount, is certainly a very attractive package - as long as you can overlook the fact that it doesn't have a V6 under the hood.

SDCB

As I have just tested both and coming from my Corvette, which had quite a bit of power, from my prospective both the Q5 2.0T and RDX felt very good and like they had the right amount of power for the car. I was really amazed at just how smooth and powerful the 2.0T felt on the road, as I have not driven such a small engine for many years.

Opus360

Does the 2.0T get less discounting? When I test drive the Q5, the manager said they can do more discounts on the 3.2 V6. Also, they only had one 2.0T in stock versus several of the 3.2.


That's great. I'll remember that when price negotiating.

MMike1981

SDCB - smart final decision. As you observed, when comparing price on the Premium Plus, even spending whatever you were quoted on the RDX; the RDX is pretty off pace from the Audi in that, at least from what has been noted for quite some time, there is much more vehicle in the Q5 - either by features many of which are not available on an Acura, quality in both build and fit/finish, materials, driving experience (especially compared to the 2013 RDX) etc. The "smart" luxury by Acura should be changed to "stripped" luxury. The tech awd RDX that goes over 40k - its only smart to spend a few more thousand and get a much more luxurious, loaded and nicer vehicle with features that do not exist with Acura, and get the luxury that an owner deserves over the $40k mark. I do not think there is anything smart about the RDX level of luxury, to me, theres absolutely nothing in the 2013 that distinguishes it from a TSX, its not even on the level of trim in the TL. Everything Acura added to 2013 has existed in many other vehicles for years, including some of their own models.

When the RDX starts to be discounted at a few thousand off 40k, I think it will be a solid alternative for those looking to stay within the 1st gen pricing as much as they can. As of now, the RDX sticker is too steep to justify itself against much out-classing competition. I think it will still remain a solid step up from a CRV, an alternative to a Murano, and good competition for the RX. Right now, I believe what the 2013 RDX shows is just how much more the X3 and Q5 offer, for now at just a few thousand apart. As it is, the base model Q5 (w/standard quattro) is practically identical to the base 2013 RDX AWD price.

As far as the V6 vs 2.0t - its essentially a mute point. The 2.0t delivers almost the same exact performance, either in acceleration, smoothness, power - which is what Audi has achieved across its whole line up and how amazing their turbo powerplants are, just no need for a V6 really. Acura tried but could not deliver on the MPG/smoothness department, and even with its V6, retains a 1500 lb towing capacity.

Enjoy the Q5 - its a great truck.

HotRodW

I think it's safe to say you're correct. While some Q5 owners continue to claim the superiority of the 3.2, most seem to prefer the 2.0T when driven back-to-back. The four cylinder turbo offers more torque with better punch off the line. It also has the vastly superior ZF 8-speed auto, while the 3.2 still uses the older 6-speed. Tuning the 2.0T is relatively affordable, so additional power is within easy reach. Plus the 3.2 has a reputation for DI carbon build-up. The 2.0T isn't perfect - there is some turbo lag, and some owners have oil consumption issues. Some customers purchased the V6 simply to get the S Line package not offered on the turbo four here in the US. What all that adds up to is more demand for the 2.0T on the pre-owned market.

It does look like significant changes are in store when the updated 2013 Q5 hits dealerships late this year. Rumor has it the 3.2 is being replaced by the marvelous supercharged 3.0 V6 from the S4 (aka 3.0T), albeit in a reduced state of tune. And while most agree the 2.0T already makes more power than the specs suggest, another rumor says Audi is considering a power bump in response to BMW's impressive new 2.0 liter turbo four. With Audi's improvements for the Q5, BMW's new 2.0T X3, and the GLK's updates including ultra efficient diesel option, the very good RDX is about to get some stiff new competition in the lux/near lux crossover market.

SDCB

The 2.0T engine in the Q5 has a timing chain.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Hmm..I think you are over exaggerated a bit. I'm not going to say whether the RDX is better or Q5 2.0T since it's really up for debate. I just feel you are a bit unfair to the RDX.

Audi is famous for its materials and building quality, no doubt. Acura is great but definitely not at the same level as Audi. My friend has a Q5 3.2 with the S-line package. With the 20" wheels, its ride is on the firm side. However, he uses 18" wheels for the winter and the ride is much better. I haven't sat in the new RDX yet, but I find that the old RDX is about as comfy/firm as the Q5 with 20" wheels. Since the new RDX is supposed to be more comfortable, I'd imagine it's not far behind a regular Q5 in terms of ride comfort. Performance, I'd only focus on peak performance, not city driving. After all, if you are in the city, even a CR-V has enough power. With that said, the RDX is no doubt the faster car. The bottom line is that the Q5 2.0T is a mid 15's car, while the Q5 3.2 and RDX are high 14's cars. Yes, these aren't race cars but we are after all, talking about performance.

Features, it's true, Audi offers a bunch of features that are simply not available on the RDX such as Audi Drive Select, panorama roof, and adaptive cruise control. However, base RDX vs base Q5 2.0T, the RDX has things such as memory seats, power tailgate, moonroof, homelink, heated seats, etc. I don't think the RDX is as "stripped" as you think it is. In fact, the base Q5 2.0T is less well equipped than the RDX.

The RDX tech is at $39.4. It's over $40k with destination charge, and it will barely be over that mark anyway. At that level, it's well equipped like the Q5 2.0T premium plus with navi, which is at $44k. The major advantage for the Q5 here is the panorama roof. Then again, keep in mind the RDX has the edge performance wise.

The 2.0T is a great powerplant, it's very smooth for a I4 too. But I'm not sure why you think the RDX could not deliver on the MPG/smoothness department? A V6 is smoother than a I4 to start. For fuel efficiency, ignoring the fact that Car and Driver got lower real world mpg in the 2.0T model than the 3.2 model (19mpg vs 21mpg), the 2.0T is rated at 20/27mpg. The RDX AWD is rated at 19/27mpg. That's a difference of 1mpg in the city according to EPA. If the RDX isn't delivering in the mpg department, despite its 60 extra hp, then I don't think the Q5 2.0T is that much better...is it?

In short, both Q5 and RDX are great choices in their segment. If you want to spend $40k, then you will have no choice but to choose the Q5 2.0T premium plus with no other options/packages or the RDX AWD tech. The RDX has better performance, a V6, navigation system, premium sound system, and arguably better reliability. The Q5 will have panorama roof, better interior, and arguably a better badge. To me, neither is better than the other by a huge margin and it's more about personal preferences.

MMike1981

what im saying is...is the RDX @40k n change is NOT worth it, and it IS worth it to spend a few more thousand and buy a much more well equipped nicer vehicle (or get an MDX). If anything, I would buy the RDX in base trim, maybe AWD at best. After that, its just not worth the change, just like the ILX/TSX pricing. Any logical decision must tell you to spend the extra 2500 or so and buy a TSX. Same goes for the RDX in AWD Tech trim, at that price point, its in too deep with the big boys.

-you also missed my comparison between powerplants or i was unclear - i was stating that Acura could not deliver the smoothness and MPG with the TURBO, NOT the new V6.

Altho I do not own the 2013 RDX, I own a 2008, as well as a Q5. Everything SDCB noticed is true, unbiased, and basically wholly accurate, and also what I had reported on this board for years. It is what it is.

MMike1981

Highly debatable, as the RDX does NOT have rear HVAC, 8 speed tranz, standard AWD (quattro), rain-sensing wipers, LED tails, more power seat configurations (12-way driver AND passenger); the standard equipment on the BASE PREMIUM Audi is not available on the RDX. Just moving up to the premium plus adds more non available equipment. So I guess in any trim, it depends on what you want in the shopping cart, not really as much as what may be "less well equipped" I consider the Audi standard equipment much more equipped, especially rear HVAC, the tranz, and more importantly, standard quattro across all trims etc. Also, your base RDX equipment is incorrect, the power tailgate is part of the tech package, and the Premium Plus trim includes everything the RDX has @ 40k except a navigation system. So, for a few thousand more to get NAV and the exceptional B&O sound system, the RDX is truly outclassed, im not overstating. The only thing that may remotely worry any of the competition is the thrust of the RDX V6 with reported low 0-60 and good quarter mile times, however, the lateral grip is in the higher .70g range and the steering is terrible. Cant wait for a comparo, last i checked the 2.0 t lat G's are somewhere mid .80's. So, not sure where you are coming up with this "better performance" rhetoric - there hasnt been a comparo yet and I dont think any serious testing by any professionals has been done yet on the RDX. All i know is that the steering is god awful, there is too much body roll and its nothing like the 1st gen, which only means it certainly has LESS performance, and the Q5 arguably OUTPERFORMED the 1st gen. So, i dunno...please refer me to any tests that you may have seen, thanks in advance.

SSFTSX

RDX is definitely faster car even Q5 with 8 speed auto. 2.0T good for rolling start but at higher speeds it will lose out to V6. see they are identical untill 45mph. but Q5 is rapidly falling behind at higher speeds.
and RDX 64.6 mph slolam run is the top for 8.1 inch ground clearance vehicle still better than standard Q5. and RDX acheived 22mpg in Edmunds. that is the highest of any V6 CUV.
Thats without Acura implementing DI/Earth dream V6 in RDX.

http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...di-q5-20t.html
Test Results:

Acceleration
0-30 (sec): 2.5 (2.9 TC on)
0-45 (sec): 4.3 (5.0 TC on)
0-60 (sec): 6.8 (7.6 TC on)
0-75 (sec): 10.2 (11.2 TC on)
1/4-Mile (sec @ mph): 15.1 @ 90.0 ( 15.6 @ 88.8 TC on)
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 6.5 (7.2 TC on)




http://www.insideline.com/acura/rdx/...full-test.html
Track Test Results
Acceleration, 0-30 mph (sec.) 2.7
0-45 mph (sec.) 4.3
0-60 mph (sec.) 6.5
0-60 with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) 6.2
0-75 mph (sec.) 9.4
1/4-mile (sec. @ mph) 14.7 @ 94.0

MDX with same ground clearance like current RDX can achive 62.2mph.
http://www.edmunds.com/acura/mdx/2010/road-test.html
The SH-AWD proved itself by helping the MDX weave through the slalom at 62.2 mph and rail around the skid pad at 0.84g

superblast

EVERYONE has bias whether they want to admit it or not.

SDCB

Actually my bias was for the RDX, because we have had such good luck with our Infiniti's. I wanted another Japanese car. I also liked the slightly lower price and expected reliability of th Acura. After driving both, back to back, that's how it looked to me. Have you tested a Q5? To me it is really much more car in many ways.

They are both good cars, but the RDX just feels like an upgraded CRV and the Q5 feels like a luxury car.

MMike1981

Straight line acceleration to be expected, but with the small 2.0t powerplant just tenths behind, it just goes to show how solid the powerplant really is...You left out the RDX getting smashed on the skidpad, worse braking distance, additionally, the Q5 had a quicker slalom speed with traction control on, respectively. Lets not leave out the unfavorable facts.

Q5
Braking
30-0 (ft): 31
60-0 (ft): 119

Handling
Slalom (mph): 62.6 "Off" (62.3 TC dynamic)
Skid Pad Lateral acceleration (g): 0.83 (both)

RDX
Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.) 33
60-0 mph (ft.) 128
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) 64.6
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) ESC ON 62.1
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) 0.79
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) ESC ON 0.78