I have been researching new cars for a while now. I've been driving a 2005 Hyundai Tiburon and I want to get something nicer. I will be finishing grad school so I figured something in the 30k price range would be reasonable (while I could probably afford more, I don't really want to). I had pretty much decided on trying to find a used 2013 RDX tech FWD (moving to a warmer climate so don't need AWD and don't want to pay the premium for something I don't need). Why a CUV and not a car? I play hockey, I am a goalie, so I need a car that can fit my gear in the trunk. I can do it in the tiburon while folding the back seats down, but I don't want stinky goalie gear directly behind me. I have considered a lot of the non premium and more premium models and narrowed it down to a few:

Audi Q5: Out of my price range with the options I want. I also am not sold on buying one used as maintenance can be a major hassle and everything has to be done at the dealership

2015 RDX: If there is a refresh, are the extra features worth the extra $$?

Lincoln MKC: Meh, looks like a Ford Escape + $5000. Although it starts lower than the RDX, becomes more pricey with the options I'd want

New Lexus CUV: The RX350 is too big and pricey, the new one might be just right but no idea what it will look like or price range.

Which brings me to the 2014 Jeep Cherokee. For around 35k I can get all the tech features from the RDX, ventilated seats, panoramic sunroof, a comparable v6 and it can tow 5000lbs (moving with a trailer hitch is so much easier).

Has anyone else cross shopped the cherokee and the RDX? My dad has a grand cherokee and although he hates the gas milage and he has had a few minor issues, he has always bought jeeps.

 

My husband and I looked at the Grand Cherokee and the RDX before buying the RDX. I'd have to say for a young, active sports involved man, the Jeep would seem more appropriate.

We love the RDX, but it's more like a larger car than a rugged hauling vehicle. More aimed at young families or older people. We are older and like the RDX's lower door entry and simpler controls. The base having fewer digital buttons, etc. than the Jeep.

But if we were just getting out of grad school I'd think the Jeep might be more appropriate. Just my 2 cents.

 

^ yeah the Jeep has a fairly high entry point...

 

I was disappointed by the maximum rear leg room in the Jeep. Could just be that I didn't have the patience to fine tune the front seat because the salesman was a sleezeball, but I found there was more "big guy in front, big guy in 2nd row" room in the RDX. (I had to word that carefully haha).

That said, I liked the look of the Jeep a lot and you getting a high trim level will make it look even better. And you'd be getting the new transmission while it had the 5 speed auto when I looked.

 

The biggest issue with Jeep is Chrysler. Chrysler does not have SUV under its name badge so you have to buy from Jeep. Jeep is not a luxury badge. Acura is a luxury name badge. If just looking at the vehicles and what you get for your money the Jeep wins but driving down the road people see an Acura and associate it with a luxury badge while there are Jeeps with the smaller engines that are inexpensive.

Chrysler has an issue since they are comparing the new 200 to the Accord, Camry, Sonata, and Fusion instead of the ES, TLX, MKZ, Q50, and 5 series. If Chrysler competes with Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai does that mean Dodge competes with Scion? Chrysler should probably take the Cherokee / Grand Cherokee and make them into a 400 and 500 line similar to what Ford / Lincoln have done with the Fusion, Taurus, and Escape to the Lincoln MKZ, MKS, and MKC.

I like the Jeep and will test drive it when I am ready to shop. A fully loaded Cherokee Limited with a few options is MSRP $38,900. The current top of the line RDX has an MSRP around $40,000. If you figure the extra features offered in the Jeep are available in 2015 on the RDX and cost $3000-$4000 more than the current Tech trim then your RDX costs about $4000 more than the Jeep. The RDX has a better engine (few more houses and 20 more torque) with similar gas mileage when compared to the 6 cylinder Jeep engine. With Acura you will get free loaners and an extra year of the basic warranty. My guess is if you quantify some of the service bells and whistles then the Acura only costs $1000-$2000 more.

 

actually it's

Displacement: 220 cu in, 3604 cc
Power: 290 hp @ 6400 rpm
Torque: 260 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm
hauling Curb weight: 4987 lb
for Jeep

and

Displacement: 212 cu in, 3471 cc
Power: 273 hp @ 6200 rpm
Torque: 251 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm
pulling Curb weight: 3840 lb
for Acura

Both have SMPFI

Acura's price range is 36-40K vs. Jeep at $30,190 - $52,190

This is due to Acura offering only 4 choices FWD with or without Tech and AWD with or without tech. Jeep offers a crap load of choices thus the large price range.

As I remember Jeep has always been about utility at the lower end and comfort at the high end. nothing has changed.

The Jeep is noticeably slower and overall comparable on the inside in terms of quality. At least they don't have anything reminding you it is actually a dodge on the inside

 

Interesting no one has mentioned this....

 

Acura is a sorta' kinda' not quite a luxury car brand.

 

I have a 2013RDX,It will be a year old next month(31K miles) I just leased a 2014 Cherokee limited for my wife, it was a month old Tuesday. I am very impressed with the Cherokee, we have the Tech Package, it is truly impressive. We do have the 6 cylinder (took what was in stock) so far mileage has been poor ( barely 20 MPG) wife does very few miles, so I am not too concerned.
Yes I was/am concerned about Chrysler reliability, time will tell. I feel the interior or the Jeep is a bit nicer than the Acura, ride is very good,it is not as large as the RDX in cargo area. Snow capability is excellent, I can't compare it to the Acura, as mine is FWD. For my high mileage use few mileage is very important, I do enjoy driving the jeep to the gas station on weekends.

 

I currently drive a 2012 Jeep Grand Cherokee and I curse that thing everyday! I am currently saving for the down payment on the RDX! I have electrical issues with my jeep (radio, key fob, etc.), the transmission is just terrible, and I have had several instances where it just wouldn't crank (related to key fob). Of course it is past the warranty (39,000 miles currently). It has TERRIBLE get up and go because it is such a large car! Gas mileage is as expected, but it is good to haul the boxer puppy! I will be nervous to put her in the RDX. I'm 24 so I don't worry about the RDX vs. Jeep for a younger person.

On another side note we have almost wrecked the jeep so many times because it is so high centered!

 

I personally like the look of the Cherokee, and am semi-interested in the Trailhawk trim.

One thing that would worry me though is the 9 speed transmission ....

 

Just out of interest is Jeep putting V6's or inline 6's in their vehicles?

 

1hp I believe it is a 3.2L pentastar V6. I assume it has similar valve deactivation technology as the acura engine as the EPA numbers are almost identical although I have't read up extensively on it.

 

The newer Jeeps are very nice inside as far as fit & finish. Top notch materials used, and the "Limited" and "Overland" trims have lots of bells & whistles. Very comfortable ride. Now the bad news........the V-6 is a slug on performance. This vehicle is heavy, but can do towing duty if that is what you want. The V-8 I loved on the test drive, and they discount them pretty heavily, but the mileage is awful on the V-8's. They do use regular gas which lowers the cost per mile. After owning the RDX (with the non-functioning rear shocks) I am thinking maybe I should have bought the Jeep. The RDX V-6 will out perform the Jeep though. The Lexus RX350 is more money, but as they say, "you get what you pay for". The RX is almost the same dimensions as the RDX. It is about a $6K leap over the RDX, but they do have many more features as standard over the RDX (and working shocks).

 

I'm not a Jeep expert, but I get the sense that some people are talking about the Cherokee and others are talking about the GRAND Cherokee -- BIG difference.

 

I would not compare a regular Cherokee to an RDX as they are not really competitors in terms of price, that's why I put up the grand Cherokee in price. In reality that model competes with both the RDX and MDX in price... and in terms of initial impressions, both are similar quality wise..

BTW the Cherokee Limited entry is 28K and change that's about $7K less than and RDX not to mention that it only (as of 2014 today) comes with an I4

http://www.jeep.com/hostc/bmo/CUJ201408/models.do?

 

I priced it with v6, luxury package, panoramic sunroof and trailer hitch. I didn't feel like I needed the tech package.

Re: Cherokee vs Grand Cherokee - I am looking at the newer Cherokee, the smaller one. Grand Cherokee/MDX are bigger than what I want. My dad complains frequently about gas mileage and I have no reason to have a car that big. I know the MDX has similar EPA numbers to the RDX, but the two screens is kind of a deal breaker.

Re: RX350 - My stepmom has one, she likes it. I haven't seen an RDX in person yet (I will probably test drive this summer) but the RX350 is very close to the size of my dad's Grand Cherokee. I also think an extra 6k is more than I really want to spend at the moment. If I was going to spend the extra $$ I'd probably lean more towards the Q5.

 

I tried to select V6 and it would not let me :/

 

http://www.jeep.com/hostc/bmo/CUJ201...2TG/summary.do

Its in the last section of options under powertrain. I priced Nav, Luxury package, sunroof, v6, FWD (moving to warm climate) came in 34,265.

 

It will be interesting to see in the next few months if the car publications / websites do comparisons of the RDX vs the Cherokee, Santa Fe Sport, MKC, NX, and others in the 180-184 inch length SUV class. My guess is this will not happen until the summer when all the new vehicles are out.

In the past they gave the nod to the RDX over the Q5 because of what you get for your money with the knock on the RDX being that Acura was not offering some of the newest tech features. With Audi launching the Q3 this year I think the Q5 redesign is next year.

 

Reliability of the Jeep would scare me.

 

Would never touch any Chrysler vehicle ....reliability/resale is awful ... BTW, isn't this really FIAT now ..what a step up....

 

They may do a comparison but it probably wouldn't include the Hyundai. Lexus, Audi, Caddy, Acura, Infiniti, BMW, Lincoln, Mercedes etc...yes, as they are all luxury or premium brands. They wouldn't include mainstream brands like the Hyundai, Ford, Chevy etc. They just don't mix em up like that from past history.

 

That's what pisses me off. Acura used to offer a good value for a luxury vehicle, and now their cars are decontented and expensive ($36k for an RDX with no HIDs or fogs? Stupid Acura). We're in the market for a ~$35k SUV for my wife, and I really have a hard time going with the RDX given the stuff it doesn't have (I won't pay ~$3k+ for the tech package when I don't need nav). If it feels out of date and lacking in equipment TODAY, how's it going to feel in 4+ years when she's driving it?

My wife has had several Jeeps in the past, and when I look at what's available on the new Cherokee versus what the RDX comes with, it's no contest. And I would say, at least here in Chicagoland, Jeep carries about an equally "upscale" image; plenty of well-off people here chose and love Jeeps. And the reliability question is always valid, but I've been having BT and rattle issues in my TSX, so I'm not so sure Acura deserves its sterling reputation either. And, given the level of old-ass tech Acura is using these days, they damn well oughta be able to make it reliable!

 

we looked at the jeeps 3 times I didn't care for the suspension & the v-6 was a total slug that didn't get good mpg. I love the looks inside & out. their trim has come a long way in the past few years but resale value is still LOW. the rdx is a little striped down but I liked the engine & I added cooled seats ,a real subwoofer & a nice wood kit to the dash for $2100. at a grand total of $39000 it is still a lot cheeper than the Cherokee summit we were looking at for $56000

 

You're confusing "Cherokee" with "Grand Cherokee" (a common mistake in this thread).

A loaded, and I mean loaded Cherokee tops out around $36-37k, and has stuff the RDX doesn't (panoramic roof, built in remote start, butt chillers, more sophisticated AWD, etc).

 

sorry yes I was. we did also drive the smaller Cherokee. it was noiser inside & I didn't know you could get butt chillers. I love the front end on them looks good. sun roof in florida sucks I hate the heat coming thru them 10 months out of the year so that's not a selling feature for me. it had a smaller v6 than the grand also a 9 speed I think??? it was a little faster than the grand but still no ware close to the rdx . can you tell my wife is a speed freak. she wanted a mdx awd advanced tech I didn't want to spend $60k on another car my gmc was $62k in 2012 im tapped out. look on you tube they had some videos of shifting problems in the new trans.

 

Based on the reviews the new Cherokee is a winner. Having said that, the Cherokee forums will make for interesting reading in about 6 months time when owners will have had time to properly evaluate their experiences with them.
My friend bought a 2012 Grand Cherokee 3.6L (mid trim level) about 6 months ago. It's on the third set of rear shocks to correct clunking noises! They are manufactured by Sachs as are the RDX shocks. What irony!

 

You are correct on the engine displacement and cylinder configuration, but the engine does not benefit from cylinder deactivation. Jeep uses aerodynamics (active grille shutters, less frontal area and underbody aero kit) combined with an efficient 9-speed auto to garner higher EPA ratings. Don't expect it to do as well as the RDX in the real world though ... it will rarely if ever see 9th gear, and it has a lot of mass to move around. Note that the Trailhawk, which in my opinion is by far the coolest looking version, doesn't have the grille shutters and aero underbody bits. Add slightly different gearing, all-terrain tires and a taller ride height, and the EPA ratings drop down to just 18/25. Most owners aren't even seeing that.

 

A reasonable concern. After all, problems with the transmission programming did result in an extended delay in the Cherokee's release. Many early owners have also had to have the transmission reflashed to correct a number of issues. Hopefully it all boils down to programming. Although I don't believe it's been officially confirmed, the consensus is that Acura will be using the same transmission in the TLX and other future Acuras. You can bet the new tranny will make its way to the RDX - possibly as soon as the mid-cycle refresh.

 

^^ and maybe on the RDX Hybrid too, that would make sense to put a 9 speed tranny and combine with a Hybrid to get the best fuel efficiency....

 

6 spds are more than enough to get decent city and hwy milage... BY FAR the biggest thing you can do to get great milage is

1. Keep your foot out of it
2. keep the idling to a minimum
3. use the recommended fuel

on my 2002 CLS you are in 5th by 47mph.... and I average around 23-25 mixed (winter, summer) This mileage has been consistent for the 134K that the car has...

with the 2014 RDX, I average around 22-23

My father's Taurus averages about 23.5 and that is literally a 2 ton car being pulled by (IMHO) a small engine 3.5L 263hp

 

Consumer Reports did not give the Cherokee a high rating. The article did mention potential tweaks for the 2015 version. If looking to buy a 2015 RDX and comparing to the Cherokee you may want to see what tweaks are being made for the Cherokee.

http://www.automobilemag.com/feature...sumer-reports/

 

I saw that, I've also been looking at the santa fe sport. I think the winner might be a 2013 RDX tech and just get the nav head unit replaced with something that can flash my smartphone nav on the screen.