When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I have only driven the CX5 a couple of times at a ride-and-drive events at a car show but I remember it being a fun car to drive, vaguely reminiscent of point-and-shoot Civics. But the short seats were a turnoff. I could learn to love the front end, just like I have done with all the Acuras we have owned over the last 10 years,
Oh yeah, those seats on the CX-5 are tiny - the same applies to the CX-9 as well. Both have very short and narrow bottoms. The first gen CX-5 has a more natural bucket style that fit me a lot better but the current model's seat gives me a wedgie every time I sit in it and I can't get it to fit me properly.
The X3M, and Macan are better looking than the RDX by far. The XC40 looks better from the front, but not as good from the rear. Overall though, the XC40 is a pretty sharp little vehicle.
The X3 M, or even M-sport, is definitely a hotter looking car, and even moreso than the Macan.
But I give way more credit to the X3 designers, because they did it without sacrificing utility. The X3 in any trim has a very good size cargo bay and interior packaging, including a backseat suited for adults. The Macan is an "SUV" but it has vastly reduced cargo space compared to it's distant Q5 cousin. Much easier to design when you give up on those fundamental raisons d'etre.
Does the Jeep Wrangler count? The 4-door is only 1 inch or so longer than the RDX. If not, the 2-door version is definitely short enough to qualify. Both look fantastic, especially in Rubicon form. Admittedly, this is in a totally different class, but I still think it looks better than all of the "SUVs" that have been mentioned thus far, especially since it's a real SUV and not a crossover.
Does the Jeep Wrangler count? The 4-door is only 1 inch or so longer than the RDX. If not, the 2-door version is definitely short enough to qualify. Both look fantastic, especially in Rubicon form. Admittedly, this is in a totally different class, but I still think it looks better than all of the "SUVs" that have been mentioned thus far, especially since it's a real SUV and not a crossover.
To continue my (somewhat friendly) disagreement with your posts.... I don't like the look of the Wrangler. In fact, I am sick and tired of it. It is a left over remnant from WWII. Jeep hangs on to that styling with minor changes year after year....and yet they sell like hotcakes. Not because of their looks, but because of their off-road capabilities. The only Jeep I think has any decent looks is the Grand Cherokee, and it is getting long in the tooth also (being updated for 2021, I think)...and it is much much longer than the RDX.
To continue my (somewhat friendly) disagreement with your posts.... I don't like the look of the Wrangler. In fact, I am sick and tired of it. It is a left over remnant from WWII. Jeep hangs on to that styling with minor changes year after year....and yet they sell like hotcakes. Not because of their looks, but because of their off-road capabilities. The only Jeep I think has any decent looks is the Grand Cherokee, and it is getting long in the tooth also (being updated for 2021, I think)...and it is much much longer than the RDX.
Well, the Wrangler is the 911 of off-roaders. You can't mess with its looks. I'm not into off roaders but I think the current generation looks pretty great.
I'd say it has a timeless look to it, similar to the 911 that you mentioned, Minis, G-Wagen, etc. Different strokes for different folks, but I like the modern-retro look. Cars like the FJ Cruiser, first generation Ford GT, and Dodge Challenger look great to me.
While I would like a Macan, I think the RDX front end is prettier than the blunt blah front end of the P-car.
even the top end GTS model wears the same face, albeit different fog light cover.
also, Wranglers are super cool looking! can't wait to see the Bronco's on the road!!
I have zero percent in purchasing a new vehicle now and or in the future.
But it's cool to window shop!
interesting point about the CX-5's seats, Ive never driven one. and i'm assuming the lack of power would turn me off, although I think they are now turbo'd
I have zero percent in purchasing a new vehicle now and or in the future.
But it's cool to window shop!
interesting point about the CX-5's seats, Ive never driven one. and i'm assuming the lack of power would turn me off, although I think they are now turbo'd
The base 2.5L is pretty weak (though perfectly fine for daily driver use for 90% of people) but the turbo is fast - faster than the RDX actually (though it doesn't feel it).
The base 2.5L is pretty weak (though perfectly fine for daily driver use for 90% of people) but the turbo is fast - faster than the RDX actually (though it doesn't feel it).
The Dynamic Pressure turbo is effective. Lack of power is not a factor in 2.5T.
I feel like a should have researched the CX5 more. They’re very popular in my neighborhood and I’m sure there’s a good reason for that. I’ve heard the interior is good, and I looked up the cargo stats the other day and it’s the same as the RDX (though I think the interior isn’t as roomy).
I feel like a should have researched the CX5 more. They’re very popular in my neighborhood and I’m sure there’s a good reason for that. I’ve heard the interior is good, and I looked up the cargo stats the other day and it’s the same as the RDX (though I think the interior isn’t as roomy).
Most definitely smaller, and that was the singular deciding factor for me. The CX-5 was where I started in my process, and it's a terrific option if you can fit comfortably in the smaller cabin and don't need a larger box behind you. The materials and build quality are Germanic. (Infotainment is comically dated, but functional as far as it goes)
If they still offered a CX-7 sized vehicle, I'd probably be on the Mazda forum now.
To continue my (somewhat friendly) disagreement with your posts.... I don't like the look of the Wrangler. In fact, I am sick and tired of it. It is a left over remnant from WWII. Jeep hangs on to that styling with minor changes year after year....and yet they sell like hotcakes. Not because of their looks, but because of their off-road capabilities. The only Jeep I think has any decent looks is the Grand Cherokee, and it is getting long in the tooth also (being updated for 2021, I think)...and it is much much longer than the RDX.
Don't kid yourself....the Wrangler also sells on looks. There are a lot of people that like the old school boxy styling and the look of pure utility. The new Bronco is also going to appeal to the same crowd.
I happen to own a new Grand Cherokee and I think it looks fantastic, but it's definitely not the boxy look that some people prefer.
While I would like a Macan, I think the RDX front end is prettier than the blunt blah front end of the P-car.
even the top end GTS model wears the same face, albeit different fog light cover.
also, Wranglers are super cool looking! can't wait to see the Bronco's on the road!!
Macan is bought for the way it drives, not for the looks. If a car drives well, even if horrendously ugly, its looks will develop a cult following. The interior of the Macan is actually quite nice, much better than the RDX IMO.
I think the Macan is a great look as well. On the outside at least. The interior...well if you never look down at the shifter it's great, but someone should tell their designers that just because there's empty space doesn't mean you need to fill it with buttons.
Sad to say but that instantly took the Macan off my short list. Makes me want to puke every time I see it.
I think the Macan is a great look as well. On the outside at least. The interior...well if you never look down at the shifter it's great, but someone should tell their designers that just because there's empty space doesn't mean you need to fill it with buttons.
Sad to say but that instantly took the Macan off my short list. Makes me want to puke every time I see it.
It does look busy but all they have done is relocate buttons from the center dash. Using them involves taking your eyes completely off the road which IMO is where the problem is. That is, it's not the looks but the usability that I have an issue with.
I dunno...I think it's the best looking small SUV out there. I'm not even a fan of green, but this thing looks fantastic.
The green is novel and all that, albeit a tad loud IMO, and the overall design is conservative (typical of VAG across their lineup). I would not call it the best looking by any measure. IMO, Stelvio and Levante beat it hands down.
For me, the RDX is a tale of two angles. From the front and side profile, it looks fantastic. Aggressive, sharp, and well-proportioned. But from the back, it's a bit of a snooze. There's not a whole lot going on back there in terms of angles or shapes, and it kind of remands me of the bland HRV rear end.
So for overall appearances, I like (in no particular order)
Alfa Romeo Stelvio
Porsche Macan
Jag F-Type
Volvo XC40
X3 (in M guise)
Lexus RX (F-sport)
Honda CRV - Touring (2019 Version)
Toyota Highlander (Platinum-2020)
Toyota 4Runner (Nightshade SE)
I think the Macan is a great look as well. On the outside at least. The interior...well if you never look down at the shifter it's great, but someone should tell their designers that just because there's empty space doesn't mean you need to fill it with buttons.
Sad to say but that instantly took the Macan off my short list. Makes me want to puke every time I see it.
The Germans like their buttons, lol. That's okay with me because I'm not a fan of the way everything headed with almost no physical buttons, instead relying on touchscreens. The Tesla Model 3 is horrible int that regard, Maybe I'd eventually get used to it, but for now I'll keep my buttons.
Macan is bought for the way it drives, not for the looks. If a car drives well, even if horrendously ugly, its looks will develop a cult following. The interior of the Macan is actually quite nice, much better than the RDX IMO.
The green is novel and all that, albeit a tad loud IMO, and the overall design is conservative (typical of VAG across their lineup). I would not call it the best looking by any measure. IMO, Stelvio and Levante beat it hands down.
I actually like the current Grand Cherokee's styling. I probably like it because it's relatively unchanged since 2011. It's given me a chance to warm up to it.
The current model looks very timeless, kinda makes you forget about that 2005-era GC mistake.
I actually like the current Grand Cherokee's styling. I probably like it because it's relatively unchanged since 2011. It's given me a chance to warm up to it.
The current model looks very timeless, kinda makes you forget about that 2005-era GC mistake.
It's low risk styling and similar to the Range Rovers.
It's low risk styling and similar to the Range Rovers.
It's understated styling. That's the kind of look I like. I generally don't like the kind of styling you see from companies like Lexus or even Hyundai lately. Too many hard angles and swoopy lines all over the place. I guess the RDX falls into that camp as well, but somehow it seems to work better. These are my two currently daily drivers and they both share the same type of understated styling, but to me they are the best in class as far as they way they look:
It's understated styling. That's the kind of look I like. I generally don't like the kind of styling you see from companies like Lexus or even Hyundai lately. Too many hard angles and swoopy lines all over the place. I guess the RDX falls into that camp as well, but somehow it seems to work better. These are my two currently daily drivers and they both share the same type of understated styling, but to me they are the best in class as far as they way they look:
Yes, that's the right term. Awesome cars & garage. Looks like you have OCD.
Those cars look pretty good, but I think a lot of it is due to the new-ish trend that modern cars adopted of having a really snub nose for "aggressive styling," in contrast to how manufacturers used to try to make aerodynamic cars by giving cars a thin and narrow and pointed nose. The RDX has really nice lines, in my opinion, although I know some reviewers say it looks too cartoony. One thing I will say is that it definitely breaks out of the mold of generic SUVs, which even a lot of higher-end SUVs fall into. I also like the RDX grille with the "giant" Acura logo. The diamond grille looks really sweet (but is hard to clean very well).
07-22-2020, 04:24 PM
