Sedan to compact crossover
09-16-2015, 01:43 PM
#1
Sedan to compact crossover
In the future I am thinking about making this change. I drive tlx and think I may get rdx in the future. Has anyone moved from driving a sedan to a compact crossover?
What are the pros and cons.
What are the pros and cons.
09-16-2015, 01:55 PM
#2
Now that we have that out of the way...
You gain:
Visibility
Space
Poor weather drivability (unless you're coming from AWD)
More ground clearance
You lose:
Gas mileage
Handling
Sedans are usually easier to park
09-16-2015, 03:49 PM
#3
I recall driving a family members jeep Cherokee and always felt like I was going to tip over.
This was in 2000 or so and would imagine it's better now.
I guess I would have to test drive them in a few years and keep handling in mind.
Thanks for the tips
This was in 2000 or so and would imagine it's better now.
I guess I would have to test drive them in a few years and keep handling in mind.
Thanks for the tips
09-16-2015, 03:59 PM
#4
Handling is very car like - just not sports car like. Think about your last mid-size rental (Malibu, Fusion etc) vs your current TLX.
09-17-2015, 08:00 AM
#5
mrgold35
I usually drive a vehicle that supports my lifestyle. I drove sedans and coupes for years; but, recently made the transition to CUV/SUVs. When the kids were younger (and smaller); the sedan was good enough for shorter vacations, weekend Costco/grocery or other errands, and weekday commuting. As the kids got older and bigger; our lifestyle started to move more towards skiing, longer/further vacations, sports activity, more school participation, and biking. The TSX wasn't cutting it no-more or any other sedan of any size.
In the last 12 months I've been to LA, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Denver, El Paso, Houston, and Jacksonville, FL, most for sports related travel (Track&Field mostly with a vacation or two sprinkled on top). You might not get the full benefit or appreciate the advantages of having a CUV if your lifestyle is more sedan related.
In the last 12 months I've been to LA, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Denver, El Paso, Houston, and Jacksonville, FL, most for sports related travel (Track&Field mostly with a vacation or two sprinkled on top). You might not get the full benefit or appreciate the advantages of having a CUV if your lifestyle is more sedan related.
09-17-2015, 08:41 AM
#6
The advantages of a crossover far outweigh any disadvantages vs a sedan:
-You pay a similar price but you get much more car
-You are more likely to survive in a car collision due to more mass alone
-Way better road visibility. You can see farther and wider
-You can carry more stuff
-The cabin is more spacious and comfortable
-Higher ground clearance, easier to avoid road hazards and road kill
-Bigger tires, better on rough terrain and smoother driving on regular roads
-Wayyyy easier to drive in the winter, especially with all wheel drive and 6 cylinder power. Countless times during winter storms going up hill in a crossover, I drove by sedans that got stuck
-Easier to get in and out of the vehicle since the seats aren't low like in a sedan
-There's a reason the first cars made by Ford (Model T) were similar to crossovers in stature
-Bigger headlights and tail lights
-Crossovers, when designed right, look more elegant vs their sedan counterparts.
-Many more things but those are just off the top of my head
-You pay a similar price but you get much more car
-You are more likely to survive in a car collision due to more mass alone
-Way better road visibility. You can see farther and wider
-You can carry more stuff
-The cabin is more spacious and comfortable
-Higher ground clearance, easier to avoid road hazards and road kill
-Bigger tires, better on rough terrain and smoother driving on regular roads
-Wayyyy easier to drive in the winter, especially with all wheel drive and 6 cylinder power. Countless times during winter storms going up hill in a crossover, I drove by sedans that got stuck
-Easier to get in and out of the vehicle since the seats aren't low like in a sedan
-There's a reason the first cars made by Ford (Model T) were similar to crossovers in stature
-Bigger headlights and tail lights
-Crossovers, when designed right, look more elegant vs their sedan counterparts.
-Many more things but those are just off the top of my head
09-17-2015, 09:13 AM
#7
mrgold35
The advantages of a crossover far outweigh any disadvantages vs a sedan:
-You pay a similar price but you get much more car
-You are more likely to survive in a car collision due to more mass alone
-Way better road visibility. You can see farther and wider
-You can carry more stuff
-The cabin is more spacious and comfortable
-Higher ground clearance, easier to avoid road hazards and road kill
-Bigger tires, better on rough terrain and smoother driving on regular roads
-Wayyyy easier to drive in the winter, especially with all wheel drive and 6 cylinder power. Countless times during winter storms going up hill in a crossover, I drove by sedans that got stuck
-Easier to get in and out of the vehicle since the seats aren't low like in a sedan
-There's a reason the first cars made by Ford (Model T) were similar to crossovers in stature
-Bigger headlights and tail lights
-Crossovers, when designed right, look more elegant vs their sedan counterparts.
-Many more things but those are just off the top of my head
-You pay a similar price but you get much more car
-You are more likely to survive in a car collision due to more mass alone
-Way better road visibility. You can see farther and wider
-You can carry more stuff
-The cabin is more spacious and comfortable
-Higher ground clearance, easier to avoid road hazards and road kill
-Bigger tires, better on rough terrain and smoother driving on regular roads
-Wayyyy easier to drive in the winter, especially with all wheel drive and 6 cylinder power. Countless times during winter storms going up hill in a crossover, I drove by sedans that got stuck
-Easier to get in and out of the vehicle since the seats aren't low like in a sedan
-There's a reason the first cars made by Ford (Model T) were similar to crossovers in stature
-Bigger headlights and tail lights
-Crossovers, when designed right, look more elegant vs their sedan counterparts.
-Many more things but those are just off the top of my head
Trending Topics
09-17-2015, 10:15 AM
#8
That's one of the reasons why I stick with crossovers. I would only get a smaller car as a second vehicle that's for fun (say like a c7 corvette stingray).
When I was driving in Dallas, there was a donut spare on the hwy I didn't see until the last second and it was too late to change lanes or swerve to avoid it because of heavy traffic. I was able to just drive right over it in my MDX. Unfortunately, the sedan behind me (that was following too close) wasn't so lucky.
09-17-2015, 11:13 AM
#9
The advantages of a crossover far outweigh any disadvantages vs a sedan:
-You pay a similar price but you get much more car
REALLY? How do you figure that?
-You are more likely to survive in a car collision due to more mass alone
Uhhh, let's compare apples to apples, shall we. The 2016 RDX weighs between 3700 and 3900lbs depending on configuration. The most recent TL weighs between 3700 and 4000lbs
-Way better road visibility. You can see farther and wider
You can't see "farther and wider". You can see over sedans which is an advantage
-You can carry more stuff
Depends on the car
-The cabin is more spacious and comfortable
Compared to what? A Civic? Is it more spacious or comfortable than a S class Mercedes? The Passat has far more interior room and is just as comfortable - at a lower price.
-Higher ground clearance, easier to avoid road hazards and road kill
Correct, but the higher ground clearance also comes with a higher center of gravity
-Bigger tires, better on rough terrain and smoother driving on regular roads
While the stock tires are marginally larger (29 inches vs 27 for the average sedan), that translates into 1 inch of extra sidewall. Any increase in comfort provided by the higher sidewall is easily offset by suspension differences
-Wayyyy easier to drive in the winter, especially with all wheel drive and 6 cylinder power. Countless times during winter storms going up hill in a crossover, I drove by sedans that got stuck
Hoo, boy. Where do I start? Winter traction is a function of tires. AWD helps but there are plenty of sedans with AWD. I've seen countless SUVs sitting in a ditch because the driver "had an SUV and could go anywhere"
-Easier to get in and out of the vehicle since the seats aren't low like in a sedan
Depends on the two compared vehicles
-There's a reason the first cars made by Ford (Model T) were similar to crossovers in stature
You're kidding, right? At 13 you should be in what? 6th grade? Is that what they teach nowadays? Early cars were based on horse buggies. Are you saying that the RDX is a horse buggy?
-Bigger headlights and tail lights
Lighting is set by regulation. The size of the vehicle does not affect the required light output.
-Crossovers, when designed right, look more elegant vs their sedan counterparts.
What is the sedan "counterpart" to the RDX? How can a sedan look like a SUV without being a station wagon?
-Many more things but those are just off the top of my head
-You pay a similar price but you get much more car
REALLY? How do you figure that?
-You are more likely to survive in a car collision due to more mass alone
Uhhh, let's compare apples to apples, shall we. The 2016 RDX weighs between 3700 and 3900lbs depending on configuration. The most recent TL weighs between 3700 and 4000lbs
-Way better road visibility. You can see farther and wider
You can't see "farther and wider". You can see over sedans which is an advantage
-You can carry more stuff
Depends on the car
-The cabin is more spacious and comfortable
Compared to what? A Civic? Is it more spacious or comfortable than a S class Mercedes? The Passat has far more interior room and is just as comfortable - at a lower price.
-Higher ground clearance, easier to avoid road hazards and road kill
Correct, but the higher ground clearance also comes with a higher center of gravity
-Bigger tires, better on rough terrain and smoother driving on regular roads
While the stock tires are marginally larger (29 inches vs 27 for the average sedan), that translates into 1 inch of extra sidewall. Any increase in comfort provided by the higher sidewall is easily offset by suspension differences
-Wayyyy easier to drive in the winter, especially with all wheel drive and 6 cylinder power. Countless times during winter storms going up hill in a crossover, I drove by sedans that got stuck
Hoo, boy. Where do I start? Winter traction is a function of tires. AWD helps but there are plenty of sedans with AWD. I've seen countless SUVs sitting in a ditch because the driver "had an SUV and could go anywhere"
-Easier to get in and out of the vehicle since the seats aren't low like in a sedan
Depends on the two compared vehicles
-There's a reason the first cars made by Ford (Model T) were similar to crossovers in stature
You're kidding, right? At 13 you should be in what? 6th grade? Is that what they teach nowadays? Early cars were based on horse buggies. Are you saying that the RDX is a horse buggy?
-Bigger headlights and tail lights
Lighting is set by regulation. The size of the vehicle does not affect the required light output.
-Crossovers, when designed right, look more elegant vs their sedan counterparts.
What is the sedan "counterpart" to the RDX? How can a sedan look like a SUV without being a station wagon?
-Many more things but those are just off the top of my head
The RDX is a fine vehicle with many good features and may be one of the better values in the category, but you really need to lay off whatever you are smoking if you're an adult, or focus your energies on school if you really are that 13 year old that everyone here suspects you are.
Last edited by ceb; 09-17-2015 at 11:17 AM.
09-17-2015, 12:51 PM
#11
No reason why it wouldn't. Current regs require ever increasing mpg and the current gas prices have nothing to do with that.
The following users liked this post:
justnspace (09-17-2015)
09-17-2015, 01:08 PM
#12
One example of a sedan counterpart to the 2016 RDX is the 2016 ILX. Look at these two cars and you will see.
The RDX outweighs most sedans.
You can see farther by virtue of your crossover being higher.
The higher ground clearance raises the center of gravity but the RDX has advanced stability features to help prevent rollover.
The RDX outweighs most sedans.
You can see farther by virtue of your crossover being higher.
The higher ground clearance raises the center of gravity but the RDX has advanced stability features to help prevent rollover.
Sigh. You really just don't understand, do you. See my comments in bold above.
The RDX is a fine vehicle with many good features and may be one of the better values in the category, but you really need to lay off whatever you are smoking if you're an adult, or focus your energies on school if you really are that 13 year old that everyone here suspects you are.
The RDX is a fine vehicle with many good features and may be one of the better values in the category, but you really need to lay off whatever you are smoking if you're an adult, or focus your energies on school if you really are that 13 year old that everyone here suspects you are.
09-17-2015, 02:36 PM
#14
One example of a sedan counterpart to the 2016 RDX is the 2016 ILX. Look at these two cars and you will see.
The RDX outweighs most sedans.
You can see farther by virtue of your crossover being higher.
The higher ground clearance raises the center of gravity but the RDX has advanced stability features to help prevent rollover.
The RDX outweighs most sedans.
You can see farther by virtue of your crossover being higher.
The higher ground clearance raises the center of gravity but the RDX has advanced stability features to help prevent rollover.
The problem is that you make these off the wall statements that are not factual and try to pass them off as fact. The truth is, you know little about cars. That's fine. You want to pass yourself off as an expert. You're not.
The following 3 users liked this post by ceb:
</p>
09-17-2015, 03:13 PM
#16
Does the RDX look like a Model T? They are both based on a horse buggy so I guess they do. That would make the Model T the first Crossover - but how can you have a Crossover if you don't have cars and the corresponding SUVs?
I guess we'll have to wait for rocky to set us straight.
The following users liked this post:
justnspace (09-17-2015)
09-17-2015, 03:18 PM
#18
The 2016 RDX front fascia is based on the 2016 ILX. The RDX looks better because all the details need not be compressed into a small area like the ILX.
Examine the Ford Model T carefully--look at the ground clearance and tire size relative to the size of the entire vehicle. The stature is like a crossover/SUV rather than a sedan.
Examine the Ford Model T carefully--look at the ground clearance and tire size relative to the size of the entire vehicle. The stature is like a crossover/SUV rather than a sedan.
Yeah. What was I thinking? But if they both look alike then how can one look better than the other?
Does the RDX look like a Model T? They are both based on a horse buggy so I guess they do. That would make the Model T the first Crossover - but how can you have a Crossover if you don't have cars and the corresponding SUVs?
I guess we'll have to wait for rocky to set us straight.
Does the RDX look like a Model T? They are both based on a horse buggy so I guess they do. That would make the Model T the first Crossover - but how can you have a Crossover if you don't have cars and the corresponding SUVs?
I guess we'll have to wait for rocky to set us straight.
09-17-2015, 04:31 PM
#20
The 2016 RDX front fascia is based on the 2016 ILX. The RDX looks better because all the details need not be compressed into a small area like the ILX.
Examine the Ford Model T carefully--look at the ground clearance and tire size relative to the size of the entire vehicle. The stature is like a crossover/SUV rather than a sedan.
Examine the Ford Model T carefully--look at the ground clearance and tire size relative to the size of the entire vehicle. The stature is like a crossover/SUV rather than a sedan.
The following 2 users liked this post by ceb:
hand-filer (09-17-2015),
justnspace (09-17-2015)
</p>
09-17-2015, 08:22 PM
#22
09-18-2015, 10:27 PM
#24
But price wise the RDX is closer to TLX than ILX. Therefore you get less technology in RDX versus a sedan.
The utility of crossovers is only for those who need it. For others sedans are still better to drive. Of course general crash results tend to favor SUV/ crossovers.
09-23-2015, 11:58 AM
#25
I am definitely intrigued by the compact crossovers
Hopefully they will become more fuel efficient
I hope future rdx will have 8 speed transmission and also bring back superior handling all wheel drive
Hopefully they will become more fuel efficient
I hope future rdx will have 8 speed transmission and also bring back superior handling all wheel drive
09-23-2015, 12:48 PM
#26
I'm averaging around 9.6 L / 100 km. I'm really happy with the fuel efficiency
09-23-2015, 12:48 PM
#27
I'm averaging around 9.6 L / 100 km city driving. I'm really happy with the fuel efficiency
09-23-2015, 08:57 PM
#28
Burning Brakes
. The car is rated for 19 city, 28 hwy and 22 combined. You are not getting anywhere close to 24.5 city.
Last edited by hand-filer; 09-23-2015 at 09:01 PM.
09-23-2015, 10:04 PM
#29
about switching from a Sedan to a Crossover. In no particular order, my top 3 pros and cons are...Pros:
- Off-road capability is vastly improved over a sedan, mainly because you have higher clearance. It's also easier to maneuver in curb abundant areas without worrying that you're going to scratch your cars skirt or scrape the rim.
- Being slightly elevated gets your a better view of traffic around you.
- More storage space to haul things around. The fold down rear seats in a sedan can't really compare to the cavern you get when you fold down the rear seats in a crossover.
Cons:
- Body swing is substantial when taking 'spirited' turns and going on / off highway ramps.
- Fuel mileage is typically not as good because crossovers are typically heavier.
- Curb appeal isn't as nice. Not matter how many ways you slice and dice it, a lot of people look at a crossover as a glorified minivan lol.
09-23-2015, 11:41 PM
#30
Your figures such as 19 city are in the archaic imperial system of miles per gallon. I was using systeme internationale (SI) units that are the global standard which is L and km. I've been getting mostly below 10 L / 100 km fuel efficiency which is incredible for a powerful V6 engine. The 2016 RDX is a truly advanced driving machine!
09-24-2015, 12:01 AM
#31
Burning Brakes
You're on a Forum where 90% of the members are in the US. They don't give a fuck about SI. And you are still full of shit.
Your figures such as 19 city are in the archaic imperial system of miles per gallon. I was using systeme internationale (SI) units that are the global standard which is L and km. I've been getting mostly below 10 L / 100 km fuel efficiency which is incredible for a powerful V6 engine. The 2016 RDX is a truly advanced driving machine!
The following 2 users liked this post by hand-filer:
Flipster23 (09-24-2015),
snorf (09-24-2015)
09-25-2015, 10:36 AM
#35
09-25-2015, 11:04 AM
#36
Pro
Are you saying that if Acura rates the car for 19 MPG city, that it jumps to 24.5 MPG if you drive it in Canada and fill it with liters of gas and drive it on roads with speed limits posted in KpH. I drive on Canadian roads and my mileage has ranged from 8.7 to 12.4 L/100 over the 20 fillups since I purchased it. If I convert that to the archaic method it is 26.9 to 18.9 MPG. It seems to be pretty close to what Acura has advertised.
Last edited by RDX-Rick; 09-25-2015 at 11:06 AM.
09-25-2015, 04:21 PM
#37
09-25-2015, 04:23 PM
#38
I saw what he did but he found it unfathomable that I was achieving 9.6 L / 100 km. I'm using 91 Octane fuel and driving around 70 km/h average. Also deliberately not gassing or breaking too hard. This is a super efficient vehicle.
Apparently you didn't see what hand-filer has done. He has used some technology ( or maybe he used his brain) to actually convert the 9.6 L/100 from the SI system to the archaic imperial system that is still used in southern North America.
Are you saying that if Acura rates the car for 19 MPG city, that it jumps to 24.5 MPG if you drive it in Canada and fill it with liters of gas and drive it on roads with speed limits posted in KpH. I drive on Canadian roads and my mileage has ranged from 8.7 to 12.4 L/100 over the 20 fillups since I purchased it. If I convert that to the archaic method it is 26.9 to 18.9 MPG. It seems to be pretty close to what Acura has advertised.
Are you saying that if Acura rates the car for 19 MPG city, that it jumps to 24.5 MPG if you drive it in Canada and fill it with liters of gas and drive it on roads with speed limits posted in KpH. I drive on Canadian roads and my mileage has ranged from 8.7 to 12.4 L/100 over the 20 fillups since I purchased it. If I convert that to the archaic method it is 26.9 to 18.9 MPG. It seems to be pretty close to what Acura has advertised.
09-25-2015, 06:10 PM
#39
09-25-2015, 06:16 PM
#40