TSX69

Driver's Seat:
Comparing Acura, Infiniti AWD CrossOvers

2013 Acura RDX AWD Tech vs. 2013 Infiniti EX37 Journey AWD: When price and passenger room are not a big concern.

Price: Acura, $40,315 as tested, no options; Infiniti, $49,200 as tested ($41,000 base price).

Conventional wisdom: Oooo. Ahhhh.

Marketer's pitch: The Acura is "built for the size of your life." The Infiniti is "the ultimate personal expression."

Reality: Some oooage and ahhage will occur.

The challenge: Say you have 40 grand (more or less) to blow on a nice all-wheel-drive crossover. You don't need a lot of space and you want a name that's going to make the neighbors at least look up from their iPhones when you drive past on the cul-de-sac.

Acura and Infiniti may not be the competitors 1 thinks of immediately, but the 2 luxury brands from long-standing Japanese carmakers (Acura comes from Honda and Infiniti from Nissan) offer crossovers at about the same price point. The vehicles go in dramatically different directions from there.

This week, we'll get to know both crossovers from the inside, and next week get underneath and take them out on the road.

Inside: Both Acura and Infiniti bathe their owners in understated elegance. Buttons and shifters don't "click"; they glide like fancy silver knives through gently whipped butter. Soft leather surfaces abound, and I'm sure the cows were honored to sacrifice their lives for such a worthy afterlife.

The Infiniti's simple elegance won me over. The RDX dashboard and door panels suffer from Acura Overdesign Syndrome. The many curved lines inside the RDX intersect so many times that it ends up looking like a shar-pei.

Perfect temperature: The always roasted Mr. Driver's Seat and the lovely but chilly Mrs. Passenger Seat are the ideal test couple for dual-zone heating.

The Acura heats like most other vehicles, and I could feel her 81-degree sauna seeping into my 69-degree comfort zone. But the Infiniti's graciously dual-curved dash places the heater vents inside the curves, helping keep the temperatures on their own side. (Yes, the seat heater wars devolved; at 1 point, Sturgis Kids 1.0 through 4.0 had to say, "Don't make us make you turn this car around.")

Friends and family: Perhaps I exaggerate. Surely, no family would put all 4 versions of its offspring together in the backseat, especially when 3 are adult children like the Sturgis Kids.

In fact, even 3 is kind of brutal, especially in the Infiniti. The EX37 begins life as a rear-wheel-drive vehicle, and thus inflicts center humpitis, which is the pain in the ankles and knees 1 gets from sitting atop Mount Driveshaft.

The Acura also offers more headroom and foot room for passengers. Still, even the Acura is surprisingly tight up above, considering how much taller it is than the EX37.

Cargo: The Acura also carries more people's stuff. Behind the rear seat, it offers 26.1 cubic feet of space, while the Infiniti has just 18.6.

Infotainment: The RDX offers Acura's standard setup, with white-letter stereo readout underneath the LCD display. But the stereo information also shows up on the LCD, if desired. Still, it's light years behind Cadillac's latest offerings - and even Ford's. It's like the difference between my old LG flip phone with the QWERTY keyboard and the iPhone.

Still, Infiniti should be commended for picking the best of olden days. 2 knobs positioned just underneath the LCD screen at the left and right were instantly recognizable. I knew the left 1 was for volume and the right for tuning the radio (or XM, here in the 21st Century). Every stereo system should be this easy.

But the EX37 gets points off for the pretty silver analog clock with hash marks for every 5 minutes. When your life revolves around traffic on the 2s (or the 1s or the 4s), approximate is not close enough.

Premium sound? Both sound systems were well above average. But I'm never impressed with a "premium" sound system that doesn't have a midrange adjustment, just bass and treble. Neither crossover offers this 3rd adjustment. It really misses out on the full range of sound without it.

Next week: How the vehicles compare on the road.

TSX69

Driver's Seat:
Acura, Infiniti AWDs Square Off for Road Test

2013 Acura RDX AWD Tech vs. 2013 Infiniti EX37 Journey AWD: When price, passenger room, and driving excitement are not big concerns.

Catching up: Last week, we compared prices, features and interiors of the RDX and EX37. This week, we take them for a spin.

Similar prices, different vehicles: Buy a bare-bones Acura RDX 2-wheel drive, and the power comes from the front wheels. A cheaper EX37, however, drives only the rear. So from the bottom up, these 2 crossovers travel different paths.

Under the hood: The Acura offers 273 horsepower from its 3.5-liter V6. The acceleration is a delight; my notes include the scrawl, "This Acura really kicks."

A larger 3.7-liter V-6 differentiates the 2013 EX37 from the previous EX35 (3.5 liters). The engine produces a rocking 325 horses for speed aficionados. Yet because the Infiniti tips the scales at a beefy 5,024 pounds, it's more lethargic than the comparatively lithe 3,852-pound Acura.

Getting in gear: The EX37's power is transferred through a 7-speed automatic gearbox with shift capability, while the RDX has just 6 gears.

Though I have to say the shift capability does not translate into shiftability. It's just not all that fun to row through the gears in some vehicles, and the EX37 is 1 of them. And don't get me started on steering-wheel paddle shifters like those offered in the RDX. Click. Wow. I shifted. Snore.

Sturgis Kid 4.0, age 12, notes that the EX37 always sounds like it's going fast, so the hum of the exhaust note is nice. The Acura is a more sedate soundtrack.

On the curves: The handling in the Acura is crisp and has good feedback from the road, but it's not extremely sporty. The EX37 is even a bit more mundane. That surprised me because the RDX stands a full 4 inches taller than the EX37. But the Infiniti's extra weight makes a difference.

Neither had the taut steering of, say, the Mazda CX-5 or the Volkswagen Tiguan crossovers.

Driver's seat: Driver comfort in both vehicles was phenomenal. Gauges are easy to read; controls are thoughtfully designed and easy to reach.

Night shift: The lighting available to EX37 occupants throughout the vehicle is helpful and not too bright. But people searching for cargo in the rear at night will need a flashlight: The tiny light on the door offers little assistance, and the searcher can eclipse what little illumination it offers.

The RDX's lighting did the job for passengers as well as cargo hunters.

Technology: The AroundView Monitor that drew my raves in the review of the Infiniti JX35 comes as part of the $3,050 Infiniti EX37 Premium Package (which also adds navigation, larger LCD monitor, Bose premium sound, advanced climate control, and more). The AroundView's 4 fish-eye cameras and software almost give drivers a Google Earth view of the vehicle when backing up.

Acura has a backup camera, too.

I spent my time with the EX37 during Hurricane Sandy, and I learned that this (and probably every other) camera system needs a feature added: a drier/defroster. Water on the camera renders it almost completely ineffective, though Infiniti's little sonar wave drawings, which change color depending on an object's distance, adds a fail-safe.

Fuel economy: The Acura RDX posted just under 24 m.p.g. I observed about 22 m.p.g. in the EX37. The mileage was recorded in a mix of highway and suburban driving. Feed both vehicles premium only.

Where/how they're built: The Acura comes to us from East Liberty, Ohio, while the Infiniti hails from Tochigi, Japan. Both vehicles get above-average marks in Consumer Reports reliability testing.

In the end: Lovers of the tried-and-true who need a real back seat would find the Acura a more rewarding purchase, while people interested in pushing the envelope and not carrying passengers or cargo might find the EX37 a better choice. Me? I don't find enough delight in either to not save almost half my money and get a Mazda CX-5.

But if I had to have luxury from these makers, I'd go for the Acura TSX wagon or spring for the Infiniti JX35.

boogerdood

with the internet, i guess grade schoolers can be car reviewers now.

JohnIsaac

i guess grade schoolers can be car reviewers now.





-----------------------

We Know Your Expectations for Star Wars Seasons 1-6 DVD Films, We Reach It

musty hustla

grade schoolers can be car reviewers now.

DavidHuet

Interesting that the reviewer would pick the Mazda CX-5. It almost makes you wonder if this is a Mazda troll plugging the Mazda. The CX-5 is a nice CUV that handles well, but it is grossly under powered (I drove one). So, choose the Mazda if you drive like my grandmother and eat my RDX dust when I fly by you.

As far as the EX-37, it is not in the same class as the RDX. The EX-37 is a smoke screen i.e. it is a G-37x hatchback (I also drove it). It has no cargo room and is almost as low as the G-37. Not a CUV IMO.

2013 RDX Silver Moon AWD Tech

XIS

The EX37 is a much more refined and powerful vehicle... and looks 10x better than the new boring CRV...uh, I mean RDX.

Mazduh? Might cost a few grand less but holds no resale value whatsoever....

If you have 3 kids, get the RDX. If you are more concerned with driver and passenger comfort and the driving experience, get the EX

geocord

Passenger comfort? Maybe one passenger in the right front seat but try wedging a couple of adults in the rear seat. It's ridiculous and so is the storage area. Drives great with great power but you pay for that with terrible MPG. I love Infiniti as a brand but for the market the RDX is addressing it doesn't fit the bill. As far as looks go, that is very subjective. I think the RDX is a much handsomer vehicle. The shape works for the FX but the EX just looks way too busy and I hate the turn signals down low in the bumper.

XIS

personal opionion but the RDX appearance is bland as hell compared to Infiniti.

As far as back seat - again, if you are more concerned with people riding in the back than the people riding up front, I would get a RDX.

I ride in the front seat.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

The reviewer gotta get his numbers right......5,024lb is probably the gross weight of the EX37, not curb weight.

weather

I agree with you 100% that appearance is a personal opinion, and while I fully respect yours, for me, I find most Infiniti designs odd looking. The whole Nissan/Infiniti signature language these days are just going way wonky, especially the parent company (Nissan)...Leaf, Juke, Versa to name a few. While I know that the Infiniti brand seems to have a good appeal, I just can't handle their interior design and their curves and bulbous rounded lines just don't turn me on at all. Again, not trying to be disrespectful, as you said, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

DavidHuet

If someone only cares about the drivers seat comfort and driving performance, then I wonder, why buy a CUV? If you want performance and only care about the comfort in the driver's seat, then buy a sports car. The EX may have good performance, but it is missing the "Utility" part of the equation.

And yes, looks are a personal opinion, and I also do find the EX odd looking. The RDX is not going to win any beauty contests, but at least it looks like a CUV.

And comparing the RDX to the CRV is just completely wrong. While they do share some mechanical aspects, there is no comparison in performance, handling, noise, etc. That is like saying that the EX is just a Nissan Rogue with lipstick.

weather

OMG...finally someone who agrees with me! With the exception of BMW and Mercedes, all other high end vehicles are the upscale division of their parent company! Like you said....Infiniti/Nissan, Audi/VW, Lexus/Toyota, Acura/Honda etc. Can we please stop with this nonsense that Acura is a souped up Honda. YES...we know that Honda builds Acura!! Just like Toyota builds Lexus. (Rant over)

XIS

I know it is a different engine, but you can't deny the body similarities.

I know they are different. I had one for 4+ years before I traded her for the EX. At least the Gen 1 RDX didn't look like a crv...

XIS

It isn't a motorcycle. It does have utility. I haven't been limited in what I carry any differently than when I had the RDX. I can still get 4 people and two hockey bags and sticks, or 5 people with one hockey bag... Just like when I had the RDX. And yes - I do agree it is like a sports car with a hatchback.

Drive the two and then decide. There is a pretty significant difference.

Don't think I am slamming the RDX. I am not. I loved mine (look at some of my older posts) but needed something with a little more power, refinement and appearance.

geocord

It's pretty clear where you're coming from. You call the RDX ugly and nothing but a CRV clone. One statement totally subjective and the other totally misinformed. Few have slammed the MDX for it's looks it's very difficult to tell the difference between the MDX and the new RDX unless you really look close. Looks nothing a CR-V. I hate the looks of the CR-V but love the looks of the RDX.

I had an Infiniti for 10 years and loved it. The first vehilce I looked at and tried to like was the EX. But after two auto shows and two extended test drives I just couldn't justify it as a CUV. It may be great for you, just as the former RDX was. However, for the vast majority of people looking for a CUV the EX isn't practical enough. You may be able to squeeze a couple of adults in the back seat as you say but if would not be OK for any time/distance. The storage may be good for YOU, but it is not for most people. Acura discovered that there were not enough people that wanted a "sports car CUV" so that is why they drastically changed the RDX. The RDX does not try to come off as a "drivers car" by any means. It's a CUV.

The EX is heavier, much lower to the ground, has more HP/Torque(reached at much higher RPMS I might add) so it should drive faster and handle a little better. But for the size of the vehicle it has very poor MPG, it's interior is cramped, it's center console intrudes on the drivers knee and the storage is about 30% less. It's a great driving car and I like the dash but I just wish Infiniti had combined the EX and the FX into one vehicle that is a size inbetween the two. If so, I might have bought one. The FX was just too big and too expensive for my tastes and sucks gas even more than the EX.

HotRodW

Actually, I think what Acura discovered is that there were not enough ACURA customers that wanted a "sports car CUV". The success of the newly launched X1 indicates that there is indeed a market for a small, sporty crossover/wagon/hatch/all-in-one thingamabobby utility vehicle - even one with limited space. (TUV? Did I just discover one of the few acronyms not yet applied to utilities?)

geocord

You may be correct in the "Acura customers" assumption but the X1 certainly is not a competitor to the RDX. I, like you, am not quite sure what the X1 is but it does seem to be similar to the EX except that it is a lot smaller. It's pretty much the same size as the Juke. It seems like BMW has a model for everybody though. They just keep coming 1,3,4,5,6,7, X1, X3,X5 and all the M's etc etc. I don't think Acura can or wants to be something to everyone. It's just not their business plan.

boogerdood

The CRv and rdx have very different looks. Weird that you would make such a comment.

HotRodW

Whether direct competitors or not, the X1 and RDX are being cross-shopped by plenty of potential buyers - myself included. The funny thing about the CUV market is that, unlike sedans, people tend to widen the acceptable range in terms of size. The X1, X3, EX, XC60, RDX, MDX, Evoque, Q5, allroad, A3 and Outback were all on my list. The pending Q3, Forester XT and Lexus NX would have made the list too if I had been willing to wait another year. I'm guessing the X1 must not be as small as you think, because it is substantially larger than the Juke, and really not much smaller than the EX and Evoque. The X1 does sit low, however. I equate it to an Outback version of the WRX if Subaru were to build one, (which they should do by the way).

Al Bundy

I recently just bought my RDX and I looked at the Infiniti EX (have owned 2 Infinitis). I really liked the optional "Around View Monitor" camera. It allows you to see from a bird's eye perspective all around your car. It was a pretty impressive feature.

However, I really didn't like the styling of the Infiniti EX, even with the factory 19's. It looked too much like a station wagon than a SUV ish type vehicle. To be honest, it looked like it was designed for women. No offense. And with its smaller size, cargo capacity, etc., coupled with the poorer gas mileage, I passed on the Infiniti. And also, released in 2008 like its sister car, the G37, I think it's also due for a redesign in the middle of next year...

geocord

I looked at(on-line) the X1 but I could hardly say I actually cross-shopped it. I really don't think that many RDX buyers did either. But that is only my opinion. Do you have any real data that indicates that people that buy CUVs widen their search much more than those buying sedans, or is that just your assumption because you did it? I haven't seen or read anything that would make me think that but if you have some info maybe you could share it. In fact, in reading these forums and Edmunds forums I don't recall ever seeing anyone mention that they cross-shopped the X1 with the RDX. Plenty of X3 comments though.

You're right about the Juke, it really is smaller but the EX is somewhat heavier and bigger than the X1 also. The X1 is really a nice(and niche) vehicle but a lot of the same reasons the EX came off my list also applied to the X1. One big reason I like the RDX, Q5, X3 size vehicle is the ride height and storage capacity and the EX and X1 are a lot lower in both of these areas than these and the others in the class.

HotRodW

I have no way to quantify my claims ... just information gleaned from far too many hours spent on multiple forums trying to get some insight from actual owners. I can't say how many RDX owners cross-shopped the X1, but I can tell you that there are plenty on the X1 forums that shopped the RDX and its competitive set - including the X3 which is what led several to a test drive. For some, the X1 is the perfect car. I can't make that claim, however. It's a far different car than the RDX, and is full of compromises for me. But it is sufficiently sized, if barely, and is a lot of fun to drive. In that way, it's similar to the EX, but with far better gas mileage.

geocord

I haven't really frequented any X1 forums(don't really know what I could add to their discusions) so I can't speak to that. But, like I said, I didn't really see anybody mention the X1 on the RDX, Q5, X3, etc forums that I researched in making my buying decision on the RDX.

BTW, how is your MPG on your X1? Is yours the 4 or the 6 cyl?

HotRodW

I have the 2.0 turbo with AWD. My worst tank was 25.0, best tank was 29.2. I'm averaging a little over 27 to date in a little more than 5,000 miles. (Most of my highway driving is done between 75 and 80.) Despite the switch to winter fuel blends, my mileage has actually been trending upward. I attribute that to a combination of engine break-in and LRR winter tread. Some X1 owners are claiming to get mid-30's on the highway. Maybe they're driving the speed limit or below, which is easy to do since the speedometers read about 5mph high. Maybe they got lucky with an ultra efficient engine. Or maybe they're just full of sh!t. I've never understood why people feel the need to exaggerate fuel economy.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Isn't it normal that the X1 2.0 gets mid 30's on the highway since it is rated at 34mpg on the EPA hwy cycle? It also makes sense after looking at the vehicle weight, size, and frontal area.

HotRodW

Some owners are claiming to get well into the 30's, but I haven't come close. Part of the issue is my cruising speed of 75-80. (Most highways in my area have a 70 mph speed limit.) Those that are doing better are probably cruising at a lower speed. (Even slower yet if you factor in the speedo calibration.) I have an M Sport, and the staggered wheels with performance tires probably weren't helping before I removed them. Still, I have never owned a vehicle in which I couldn't achieve the EPA highway rating. It could still get better for me with additional break-in and the switch back to summer fuel blends in a few months, but I would be shocked if I ever hit 34 based on what I've seen so far. I wish I were doing better, but I don't think anything else on my list would have me averaging 27 mpg at this point. And certainly nothing that's this much fun to drive.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that at 4,000 miles I had enough of the Auto Stop/Start and had it disabled. (Actually, it's now set to default to my last setting, which of course is "off". The standard setting defaults to "on" at the start of each trip.) I also refuse to use the EcoPro mode, which retards throttle response and maximizes the efficiency of the HVAC in the interest of gaining one or two tenths of a mpg. The car is far more drivable without the nannies, and I haven't noticed any change in fuel economy.

geocord

That's good mpg. I'm getting a little over 23 avg on the RDX and I drive about 80% city/suburban and 20% hwy. My hwy driving is at about 65-75. I haven't seen a drop off with winter blends either but that could be for the same reason you mention, engine break-in but I do have fewer miles than you.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Interesting to know that the auto stop/start and eco mode didn't do anything to your mpg!

HotRodW

Well, they didn't do much. They had to have had some effect. The ASS (has there ever been a more fitting acronym?) would certainly make a difference with a lot of stop-and-go driving. I expected EcoPro to have a more dramatic effect on highway driving, but the difference was negligible. (The computer tells you how much gas you've saved, and it wasn't much.)

geocord

I think the EPA on your X1 is 22/33 so 27 avg still seems to be very good with the "nannies" turned off. I have read that A.S.S. on the BMWs were not as seamless as some and they allowed the dealers to program them to default off. I'll shift to neutral in heavy traffic stops sometimes but I guess I'm too old fashioned to like my engine shutting down.

danmangto

Agreed.. I owned a 2010 EX35.. it was a nice vehicle.. but,it's very cramped, the backseat legroom is a joke, 28.5 inches? The new for 2013 RDX has far more room, you can actually comfortably seat an adult in the backseat or fit a rear facing car seat without having the front seat passenger to sit nearly on top of the airbag. Another thing is the same commute that I got 18mpg in the EX, I get 23mpg in the RDX. Big diff, 5mpg. Sometimes I would get as low as 15mpg in the EX. Power is the same 0-60 and 1/4 miles times. EX did drive a little sportier, but at the lack of no backseat and cramped. For me the Infiniti had higher insurance.

danmangto

The front seat is slightly cramped in the EX as well, esp the legroom that is robbed from the big tunnel for the rear drive.
I'm not fan esp of the rear of the EX.. I owned one. Why no factory tint? All the other small SUV offer it...

danmangto

Agreed. Might as well just buy a G37X which unlike the EX actually has a usable backseat that adults can sit in. EX has worst in class legroom.

danmangto

yes, a few coworkers used to make fun of my EX35, calling it a station wagon.. oh well.. LOL!

danmangto

The all new RDX looks nothing like the CRV that it's based on.. If anything it looks like the MDX. A smaller version.

The EX37 is dated... it came out as new (EX35) back in 2008... They will be either cancelling it or doing a full redesign soon I hope...

Sorry, the 3.7 Nissan engine is anything but refined...for what they charge. I just drove a 2013 G37X.. that is pretty loud/not that refined for a car that can sticker over $45k... The Honda 3.5 is more refined and gets better gas mileage.

Performance wise, the New AWD RDX is the same or faster 0-60 and 1/4 mile then the AWD EX35 was. Thats pretty impressive since the RDX has 24 less hp than EX35. EX37.. not sure.. I'd would assume that is faster than RDX.. it should be with nearly 60 extra horse.