The 3.6 six cylinder Outback is a nice car. I tested one two years ago. Now, even the six comes with the CVT transmission (not a fan of CVT). The 2.5 was a little sluggish for me. The Subarus will run forever. I love the built in crossbars that fold back when not in use.

 

The 3.6 is nice. But to me, for this type of car, I would prefer MPGs over speed. I kind of deemed the 3.6 motor as paying a premium for worse gas mileage. My parents rotate 2 2.5l limited, and my brother has a 2.5l limited. I drive them often. To be honest, for the size of the car, and the level of off-roadability you get from it, you wonder how it gets such good MPG. I joke and say there is a wizard under the hood. Just recently, fully loaded with 4 ppl, i did a round trip from NYC to Boston on just over half a tank, averaging like 32-33 MPG. think about that...i transported 4 people from NY to Boston and back, with all of our gear, for $8/head on gas. vehicle maintenance (under warranty) is like $100/yr. do the math of cost of ownership per mile on a full cargo size AWD hauler, and it is untouchable.

 

I'm with you on the Tucson. I'll have to go test drive it once it's out. If interior quality is somewhat up to par wtih the RDX, it'll take a heck of a discount from Acura for me to choose the RDX.

Discovery Sport with the options I'd like seems to be outside of my budget.

Rogue's engine and handling isn't quite up to par with the competition.

Outback's exterior styling seems to be trapped from the 90s. It reminds me of an old bubbly Ford Taurus.

 

Have you driven the 3.6 CVT OB any length of time? The CVT is a bit different than the 2.5 version and the 3.6's extra torque really makes this a great driving package, and I'm not a CVT fan. Instead of just droning along as you enter an on ramp under power, the 3.6/CVT-HD package pulls hard and smoothly with much less fan fare. It's also quieter and smoother and will still gather very good MPG when compared with other six cylinder vehicles in it's class.
sumoto

 

I think the Forester has surpassed the Outback in terms of exterior style. The Outback also has at least a foot of unnecessary length.

 

Gosh... you still haven't bought your car... I thought you wanted the Lexus a long time ago. May be things have changed. The outback seems to be a well appointed nice car but the styling reminds me of the reptile from Geico insurance advertisement .

 

Here's a chart that should help some of you in your decision. It's not model-specific, but it's good to know the general dependability of each brand.

 

^^wow really impressive on the Toyota products. I'm not surprised though. Until recently I had been driving their small 4x4 pickups over the last 25 years. Despite beating the living tar out them, nothing ever went wrong. Can't wait to check out the NX when I return to the states later this summer.

 

I'm currently cross-shopping between these models, all fully loaded. I'm a techie, and I love gadgets. Cars are gadgets in my eyes, so I look for every option available when I shop for new cars. We like comfy cars but I don't want to sacrifice handling all together.

2016 RDX Elite
- pretty nice styling, pretty good ride, pretty good handling, pretty quiet, pretty good... everything else just about.
- Requires premium gas (is this true?)
- Android Auto support not even on the horizon.
- top-view monitor not available
- Adaptive cruise control is supposed to work ok on low speed driving conditions - is this true? Others can only claim on higher speeds.
- Auto dim side mirrors. Nice.
- No panoramic sunroof? Is this true?

2016 Lincoln MKC
- Nice exterior style, very good ride, very quiet, comfy seats. Interior style is not great though, especially the finishes between the driver and the passenger.
- Very good performance with 2.3 EcoBoost
- This adaptive suspension works (to me). Has the soft spring along with adjustable dampers. I noticed the differences quite easily. I have an option to go between super comfy to pretty good handling.
- Android Auto support update compatible with 2016 model.
- Top view monitor not available.
- Auto dimming side mirrors. Nice.
- Adaptive cruise control only works on higher speeds.
- LED lights lit gracefully/gently all over the place as you approach the car. Call me a geek, I like it.
- No way to drop down the rear seat from the back. Really, Lincoln?
- Passenger seat has full 10-way power controls including the lumber. A big + for my wife.
- Auto parallel park feature. Will see if this becomes useful in some situations.
- Controls high beam automatically depending on incoming traffic. Could be nice.
- Foot triggered hatch. Nice.

Murano Platinum
- Love the styling inside and out.
- Interior is NOT practical. Looks great but not much places to put stuff between the driver and the passenger.
- CVT seems fine to me. Slightly different, but I can certainly live with it.
- Ride is very nice. But handling suffers a bit - acceptable but not great.
- No Android Auto support.
- Top view monitor! Yeah. And with 4 cameras, you get to see all kind of views not possible with other cars.
- Side mirrors tilt on reverse. Nice.
- Again, adaptive cruise only works during high speed conditions.
- No lane departure warning and no lane keep assists.
- You can bring rear seat UP from the rear, there's a motor for that!
- Bulky. Both myself and my wife are small and we are empty nesters so we don't need the extra bulk.

Currently, I'm tilting towards the MKC despite its weaknesses. RDX and Murano is about even in my book at the moment.

Did I miss anything?

 

For the 2016 RDX:

The Acc automatically stops working when your speed drops below 22 MPH (35 KM/h).
You are supposed to use premium fuel; however, I have heard anecdotal information that some people use regular or mid-grade.
Honda just announced Android Auto for the Accord so it should eventually make its way to the RDX.
There is no panoramic sunroof.
Easy to drop down the rear seats from the back.
Passenger side mirroe tilts on reverse.
Has siri eyes free if you have an iphone.
Has SMS text message function.

Please note that I am in the USA so this is for the American version; not the Canadian version.

 

I did not know the RDX had this function. Thanks!

 

You can make either the driver side or passenger side mirror tilt down (depending on which mirror you select) but not both at the same time. This feature has been present at least since 2013 for the current generation car. Don't know about the earlier first gen model .

 

Dependability is important, of course, but as I've argued in the past, dependability doesn't necessarily translate to customer satisfaction. The rank of manufacturers in the 2015 JD Power APEAL study (score out of 1,000):

1. Porsche 874
2. Jaguar 855
3. BMW 854
4. Mercedes-Benz 853
5. Audi 852
6. Land Rover 843
7. Lincoln 842
8. Cadillac 838
9. Infiniti 835
10. Lexus 831
11. Mini 825
12. Volvo 825
13. Acura 810
14. Hyundai 809
15. Volkswagen 806
16. GMC 804
17. Ram 803
18. Buick 801
19. Ford 798
20. Kia 798

INDUSTRY AVERAGE 798

21. Chevrolet 797
22. Mazda 796
23. Scion 796
24. Dodge 795
25. Chrysler 788
26. Subaru 788
27. Honda 786
28. Nissan 786
29. Toyota 781
30. Jeep 763
31. Mitsubishi 755
32. Fiat 749
33. Smart 683

Lexus did OK, although being bested by Lincoln, Cadillac and Infiniti has to be a surprise to many. Toyota, on the other hand, didn't fare so well. I can't say I'm surprised ... Toyotas might be reliable, but as a rule they're pretty boring, and they are lagging behind the Europeans, Koreans and domestic brands in technology.

For the record, the top three compact premium crossovers are as follows:

1. Porsche Macan
2. BMW X4
3. Audi Q5

 

Yep, my 2008 has mirror tilt on the passenger side, when you put the car in reverse. Haven't tried selecting the driver side mirror to see if it works.

 

Mercedes GLC

 

Wow the GLC seems to be a nice vehicle but I presume is much smaller than RDX inside and will probably cost upwards of 40K. With looking for someone who wants to downsize but go upscale.

 

The Volvo XC40 with the 240/250hp 4cyl engine would bridge that gap nicely...IF we can ever get it to the States

 

I agree and you should look at the 15+ outback since they have redone the interior.

The fit, finish and quality is easily on par with the RDX and thankfully Acura updated the 16 as the 15 Outback with the Eyesight package was actually more luxurious and even has (brake) torque vectoring.

Considering the outback was cheaper even when fully loaded, its easily the best value now in this segment.

 

Very true. Volvo missed an opportunity with the current V40. At least the next gen V40 and/or XC40 has been confirmed for US sales. It might disappoint some to learn it will share it's modular platform with Geely. I think it's safe to assume it will definitely disappoint some if it's assembled alongside its Geely platform-mates in China.

 

I'm a fan and past owner of Subarus although can't agree on this one.The 2015, 2.5 and 3.6 O/B's left me unimpressed. I gave both(Limited's) of them lengthy test drives and even compared to the 2015 RDX, I'm certainly not standing in line to purchase one. While I have not drove or even sat in a 2016 RDX, I can't imagine it being anything less than slightly better than the 2015 item. JMO
Sumoto

 

I fully agree with this post .

 

I'd buy an XC60RD over an RDX in a blink, more expensive but well worth it.

 

Interesting. My sister in law has a 2015.5 xc60 T6 (302 hp) and she would swap it with my wife's 2016 RDX in a blink of an eye if she could.
First world problems.

 

HA - have any of you taken the time to fill out any of those surveys JD Power sends out after you buy a new car? I can't take any of their results seriously. The questions are horribly worded, and the results will be all over the board. I just got one a week or so back after buying our new RDX, there were at least 10 questions asking about the spacing between the gas and the brake pedals!! I completely agree with Consumer Reports who said the biggest issue with most cars are users are too stupid to figure out where the button is they're looking for. The more tech in a car the worse its going to fair on the surveys because there are too many morons out there not willing to spend a little time learning before they bash a new system. Oh, sorry for the attitude, I'm a network administrator and deal with idiots all day.

I leased a '16 RDX AWD Advance and I honestly don't think there's a better choice in its class; bang for the buck. My only complaint after almost 3 months is the vent reflection in the window, but I'll get around to blacking those out as soon as I get some free time.

 

My '16 Advance next to the NX

 

^^Fabian43, your RDX is looking good. If I could wish, Acura - tone down the bulbous tail lights and add some sweet exhaust pipes. But I do like the wider looking profile compared to the NX. The RDX is a damn nice ride! Congrats!

 

I've driven both the NX and RDX and for my money, I'll go with the RDX. Now count me weird although I feel the 2015 RDX is a cleaner design than the 16's, especially in specific colors. Oh well.....
Sumoto

 

I have been in my friends Pathfinder. As far as I'm concerned it is more less a minivan than an SUV. I would have preferred the older exterior styling but the corporate bosses decided to go for a softer look and I believe killed its "mojo".
If you can get past the looks and are wanting a 7 seater, it is a great vehicle.

 

Would you mind elaborating on why you would choose the RDX over the NX? How would you compare the drive experiences? I'm planning to buy one or the other by the end of the year. Similarly equipped, it seems that the prices are very close. Thanks!

 

Based on this survey (https://acurazine.com/forums/second-...uy-rdx-934965/), most people will choose the RDX for its Honda/Acura reliability, value, styling, and its V6 engine. Granted, it's a small sample and a biased one at that (Acura RDX Forum), so take it with a grain of salt.

 

I could tell that that for me, I couldn't get past buying a 4 cylinder car. Yeah, turbocharged...blah blah blah, but I needed a 6 cylinder. Mind you, you would think that doesn't matter...but I drive back and forth on one of the country's rudest highway...not only will my RDX punch through the mess, but I can also leave the offenders in my dust, provided that I have a clear lane to do so.

I see that NX going after those who are upgrading from a CRV or Rav4...those tend to be the folks that like 4 cylinder SUVs...

 

My 2010 RDX is a 4 cyl turbo and has ample power (240 HP). The big difference for me between the NX and RDX is the size. The NX is smaller and therefore has less rear seat room and less cargo space.

 

Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Hyundai, KIA, Lexus, Volkswagen, they all have a 2.0 DI turbo in one model or another. The V6 is better than a 4 is no longer a valid argument. The turbo 4's might give up a bit out of the hole but more than make up for it in the low to mid range by producing ample amounts of torque. That's the range where I spend the majority of the time.
The Honda V6 while somewhat dated technologically speaking is a good motor that revs out nicely but it's not the smoothest when in VCM mode. I think that's an acronym for Vibrates Considerably Mode.:wink:

 

All very true. Your Sorento is a perfect example ... finding somebody to recommend the V6 over the turbo four is in that car is very difficult. If they improve the V6's output and refinement, then the V6 would likely be my preference, but as it stands now the turbo four is the better, more modern engine.

If, as speculated, the new 4-cylinder turbo makes its way to the RDX, I have a feeling a lot of RDX owners will change their opinions on cylinder count.

 

No doubt they will. And Honda being Honda, they will have one of the best examples of the technology when they get around to releasing it.

 

The getting out of a hole bit is pretty much why I wanted a 6. If I ever find myself in snow, I can just turn off that traction control and call it a day. (I'm from NJ and live in MD...I do visit Jersey on occasion and the probability is high I will be in NJ for the holidays...I care more about that than torque [for now at least...]

I concede heavily that my automotive knowledge is dated...especially when I have a 6 cylinder car that has the same gas mileage (slightly less) as my old 4 cylinder car. However, I do owe it to myself to learn more about today's engines and how they differ from cars my father would be more familiar with.

 

thats true for my 08 accord V6, but there were huge improvements in the current version '13+ and from early reviews for the 16 pilot it is imperceptible. I will never go back to a 4cyl and if i go german in the future it will be an inline 6 maybe.

 

Never say "never". Go out and test drive a new Volvo XC-90 with the 2.0 turbo 4 cylinder engine. It has 316 HP. It blew me away that a vehicle that heavy had great performance. Little by little, Volvo will be phasing out the 3.0 turbo 6 cylinder.

 

You are definitely right. BMW 228i as well. Always officially underrated in power number, their I4 turbo at 240 hp and 255 tq. Marvelous engine with virtually no lag.

Even a lighty-tuned and modded turbo RDX I4 will blow you away if you have not driven it before. Torque beast!

 

i like the xc90 from a design perspective for sure, but that's way more than i would ever be willing to spend on a people mover. I remember building one out to the 60s quite easily and would far more likely end up in the current mdx or a pilot if i needed something that size. If honda/acura eventually moves to only T4s then sure...but until then i am a 6cyl+ guy. I spent enough time in my younger years with 4cyl and short of a hot hatch type car or roadster like the miata, I won't be going back anytime soon.