gfd1182

I test drove the Rdx tech 2day at DCH Acura in Montclair, NJ. I did push the car it drives great didnt really push it on the turns so i cant say how the sh-awd handles. The bad thing was the paddle shifter was broken it didnt allow me to shift up so i had to drive in Auto mode.

Did anyone lease a tech package rdx?
if so how much?

rdxsteverino

The up paddle shifter was also broken on the RDX I test drove in Downey, CA. My concern level just picked up one notch. Anyone else see a weakness with the RDX paddle shifters?

fast1

I wonder if the shifters are 'conveniently' broken by staff members so the test drivers aren't beating on the car too much.

gfd1182

I dont think the dealer would purposely break the up shifter. They might be a flaw in them

schuchmn

I'll ask the silly question -- are you sure you had the gear selector set to "S" and not "D"? I believe you can downsift but not upshift in "D".

rdxsteverino

In my case I know the up paddle shifter was broken for two reasons:
1) I could shift using the down paddle shifter after getting into a higher gear in non-sports mode.
2) The up paddle shifter was loose compared to the down shifter. It appeared to have been slightly torqued off its mounting.

ArthurKnight

Yes, you can upshift in "D".

RSXster

My Father is in the market for an RDX and he drove a Carbon Gray w/ Tech package. For a daily driver he has a 2005 Subaru Outback 2.5XT 5speed (0-60 in 6sec wagon) and he said that the RDX had very little lag, relatively quick for the class, and the SH-AWD handled extremely well for its class. The Navi and Paddle Shifts impressed him a lot as this will be a car for my mom to drive full time (hense no manual - she so lazy haha) and as a car for them to drive on 4.5hr drives from NY to NH once a week to our vacation house.

My mom wants Nighthawk Black Pearl (reminds me of my RSX days...tho i had desert silver metallic) RDX w/ Tech. I will let you guys know if they lease or buy and what the details are.


_____________
05 WRX 276 whp, 263 lb-ft

hondaveetec

Can anyone else clarify or have experienced seeing that their test-drive RDX/the RDX paddle shifters are broken?

this is very odd...

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

I finally got around to driving the RDX this past Saturday. There were a number of things that I liked about it and a number of things I felt like could be improved. The one that I drove was a non-tech package version with the full body appearance package (front skirt, rear diffuser, and sport running boards). The car also had the wood interior trim package and gold emblem package.

Initial impressions

I really like the way the RDX looks. Its clean and simple, but aggressive. The look is not a major standout in the marketplace, but it is very well done, IMO. The interior is nicely laid out and very pleasant to sit in.

Exterior

Like I said, I like the look. The lights in the front and rear are similarly shaped and very nicely executed . I don't feel like the lack of LEDs in the rear detracts any from the functionality of the lights and probably helped in simplifying the look of the rear lighting elements. The wheel arches help character the flanks really well and give the car an aggressive stance. The other folds and elements in the sheetmetal give the car good character without looking overdone like on the BMWs.

If there is one thing that I didn't like, it was the wheels. They are almost too plain for the look of the car. In pictures this was not as noticeable, but in person, they don't do enough for the overall look. The optional 19s really are a must.

Interior

I love this interior. The RL style gauges are excellent, easy to read, and well laid out. Driving position is excellent for a tall vehicle, giving a combination of that commanding view and a good feel for the center of gravity of the vehicle. All the storage is amazing and the center console armrest storage locker is impressively massive.

Material quality is top notch and there were no noticeable hard plastics anywhere to be found. Everything is well laid out and the seats are immediately familiar as they are similar to the ones in my TSX. The new steering wheel looks great and is impressively thick. I like the thickness of the rim so much more than the steering wheel in the TSX.

The non-tech package stereo is decent, though not quite as good as the TSX one in terms of sound reproduction. It does get much more volume though, which I'm sure some people will like. It appears that the new CD changer plays MP3s and WMA files. The aux jack is right on the faceplate for the CD changer instead of being hidden in the armrest as on the TSX.

I must say that I was not impressed with the optional wood trim package. It covers a lot of the silver trim with an incredibly fake looking dark plood that even my gf noticed as being fake. Also, I am disappointed that the non-tech package version of the RDX appears to have lost some of the functionality of the MID, which I was not able to find buttons to operate. This is really quite irritating as that is one of the things I enjoyed the most about the 2006 TSX.

Driving Impressions

This car is impressive. It is immediately obvious that it is well sprung and well damped and the SH-AWD really keeps the car on the line. The new turbo drivetrain is very impressive and gives the car lots of torque while on boost. However, there is indeed a noticeable moment of turbo lag, but it really only comes into play when launching from a standstill. In all other conditions, the turbo lag was not noticeable at all because of the variable flow turbocharger. Power is readily available throughout the rev range and seems to build until the turbo boost cuts out near the top of the rev range. The transmission is excellent and provides solid shifts in Sport mode while providing clean, bearly noticeable shifts when left in Drive. I am not a huge fan of the paddles and would prefer the addition of the gates to allow for shifting via the shifter in conjunction with the paddles.

The handling is impressive. For a nearly 4000 pound vehicle, the car is impressively flat and clean in moderate cornering. The SH-AWD is definitely doing its job because it clearly holds the vehicle on the desired line. Compared to the CX-7 I drove at the ZoomZoomLive event, the RDX is definitely the handling champ. It feels nimble with immediacy to the turn-in that was definitely lacking in the Mazda, though not nearly and quick to respond as the TSX. Keep your foot in the power while going around a corner and just allow the SH-AWD to sort out the details allows you to carry a ton of speed into corners that seemed to upset the AWD system in the Mazda. This is one phenomenally handling SUV.

The steering feel, which is one of the areas that I value a great deal in any car I drive, was a little light. I could notice a substantial difference in the steering weighting between my TSX and the RDX. However, the steering was very precise and I could easily position the RDX where I wanted to put it. Center of gravity felt like it was right between the butts of the two front passengers.

Final Impressions

The RDX is a fantastic vehicle for its segment. The quality is there, the handling is there, and the gadgetry is there if you're willing to shell out the money. It clearly differentiates itself from the competition with its handling prowess and will not appeal to people looking for a softly sprung family hauler. However, as a well handling SUV for someone who enjoys driving but needs the extra space for their mountain bikes and other active lifestyle equipment, I could see how the RDX will sell well.

Final note is that I would probably not get one of these myself. I just cannot get used to the size, which only really became noticeable to me while parking. However, the drivetrain is very impressive and I am definitely looking forward to seeing that in the TSX in the next iteration.

batman

Nice write up. Which dealer? Radley's website says they have 8 non-tech.

Teledatageek

Have to say I was impressed all the way around. I thought the power curve was pretty nice, a bit better than my FX35. Seemed quicker to me than the FX but I don't think that really is the case based on numbers. The navigation system was great with the voice commands (much better than our '03, MDX). Felt a little bumpy/stiff but not unlike my FX35. Stereo system was fabulous.

So, I'm interested enough to explore the possibility of trading in the FX35 (2005). Dealer said they have already sold and delivered nine and are trying to get more for buyers. Typically selling at MSRP, but have done slight deals for mucho repeat customers. Of course they reference Kelly Blue Book as the trade in value bible. My brief look suggested that they lop off 10%. So, the initial offer would likely be my FX35 with Tech Pkg (23K miles) + $10K

So, my questions to anyone who would like to help.... Does the deal outlined seem fair? (Given NY has 8% sales tax, that has to be factored in on a trade vs. outright sale as that could likely cut in half the advantage of private sale). Not that I think anyone has driven the RDX in snow yet, any thoughts on if the Acura SH-AWD system would be better than the FX35's? I haven't been very impressed with the snow handling of the FX and haven't really had a rough winter to push it either. I don't think dry condition handling would be that much better than the FX. Of course my big issue as always been the crappy Infiniti NAV system and while I've thought of getting an aftermarket one, it's not the way I want to go. It would also be nice to get integrated bluetooth.

Other than obviously it costs money... any other pro/con's in making a move like this?

Thanks in advance!

rdxsteverino

Two offsetting considerations here:
1) RDX's SHAWD should be superior to the FX in snow
2) FX's 7.6" minimum ground clearance has an edge over RDX's 6.3" clearance in moderate to deep snow. If you don't often find yourself in moderate to deep snow you'd be better off with the RDX.

crazymjb

SH-AWD is currently "the" system to beat. Coupled with the VSA wheel slippage is virtually impossible. Though as far as snow handlign many of the new full time systems are very good, including ATTESA. The RDX does have low ground clearance for an SUV, but with a good set of tires it should do perfectly fine in snowy conditions. The FX and RDX are close enough in specifications that if there is too much snow for one, it is likely to hold true for the other.

Can the navi system in the RDX translate speach to text (i.e. Can one say their street name)?

Mike

Teledatageek

Yes the Navi in the RDX is full speech recognition. It was the first thing I checked before leaving the parking lot. It takes a few steps but it was right on the money. Good thing since there isn't a touchscreen as in my MDX (FX isn't touch either).

Teledatageek

I did a little research on the standard tires for the FX vs. the standard tires for the RDX on Tirerack. A lot of griping about the FX tires and how bad they are in the snow, I didn't find a lot of history about the RDX's but there were a couple of good comments for wet road driving.

Last winter was relatively mild here and I didn't get the FX until the end of February, 2005. So, haven't seen much snow, but when I have it hasn't inspired much confidence as compared to our MDX.

wargor

Also test drove the RDX. Just as a comparison I own a 04 TL and have also tested the TSX. My wife and I were really looking forward to this car. After driving it and really checking out the interior I must admit that I am turned off to this car. I'm fine with the exterior of the car and it's handling. What I am not happy about is the interior. I admit ahead of time that this is no TL or TSX nor is it in the same market. Saying that, for $35000 the interior was a big turnoff for me. They are little things but enough to just bother the hell out of me. First off only the driver side is power. The passenger side is manual. What's up with that? Also, no automatic dimming rearview mirror????? I am use to looking somewhat straight ahead on all other Acura models to see the time, temp, and whatever else they have to put up there. Also, there wasn't too much space in the rear seat. It has the same Navi unit as the TSX so that's nice. I also like the rearview backup camera. I think with all the Acura's now that this should at least be an option.

I haven't been in the Honda mid SUV's or the Toyota. I just personally think that you get more for your money in a cheaper TSX or TL. If you want to be higher up and have a turbo 4cyl then I guess go for it. I'm just giving another point to look at as well.

Teledatageek

Interesting.... I actually thought the interior was great and this is coming from a FX35 and an MDX. I want an SUV as I like the higher up seating position that it provides. I don't ever see myself driving a car full time again. I agree about the mirror and passenger seat, but no biggie for me there.

crazymjb

Yea, the mirror(option we would get) and seat(especially the memory seat) are let downs, but IMO the interior is very nice and expensive looking.

We have an 05 TL with nav, and while some parts of it are nicer, they cost about the same(especially 6 months from now), and the RDX was no real let down IMO.

Mike

TorontoTL

Coming from a 2004 TL I have to say I quite liked the styling of the interior. I was disappointed by the lack of memory driver's seat and power seat for the passenger. That would be about it for the interior in terms of dissappointments. I really think that the tech package should have included the above as well as the auto dimming mirror and the smart key.

TJDenver

I was looking into the RDX for a while too and decided to wait for a better version of it or better RAV4 Sport to come out. I have a TSX and love it. I just want AWD and a bit more space for camping and biking. I rented a Rav4 Sport on trip a while back and loved it. Amazing engine and great space! The interior needs some updating for it to be my everyday car (I don't care much about the back seats - it'll be for my dogs, but the front seats and the dash need to have a better design and materials). I believe with all their sales and more people comparing it to the RDX, that Toyota will soon improve the interior options on the Rav4 Sport. I can wait another year or so. Also, VW is coming out with their Tiguan (aka mini Toureg).

So, here is where I'm at. I almost bought a RDX, but the dealer wouldn't negotiate, so I decided to wait for a better version of it, a better Rav4 Sport v-6 and the Tiguan to come to market.

The Tiguan might be too small. But, it seems to fill the areas that concerned me with the RDX. I wasn't sure about owning the 1st turbo car for Honda. The RDX system might be questionable in snow and light off road duty. And I felt the RDX interior is pretty cheap for an Acura. I don't like the fake metal mixed with the real aluminum. The plastic fake metal will likely rub off in a few years (like on the Nissan's). The back seat seems very flimsy and cheap and I don't like the aluminum strips on the dash that are angled. I would much prefer the same aluminum strip design from the TSX.

On the exterior, I feel the headlights should be more narrow, like the TSX lights. Instead of bug-eye looking. And the bumpers can actually be pushed in, not feeling as solid as the TSX bumpers. The attention to detail just didn't seem to be there.

But with all these concerns, I still almost bought one because from the drivers seat, I looked beyond these issues. It does drive very nicely and feel like a sports car. Which is what I am looking for in a small SUV.

From reading the car magazines, this is the fastest growing segment, because most buyers want an SUV with a "fun to drive" feeling.

The RDX has questionable gas mileage for a small SUV. The Rav4 Sport gets 28 hwy. The Tiguan should be upper 20's too. The Tiguan is a VW, so the reliability will be a concern (I told myself I'd never own a VW or Audi). I've had many friends who had bad Audi's and VW's. Are they getting better yet? So far, the Tiguan looks great, has good write ups for light off roading and seems to fill the concerns I have with the RDX. It should be bigger than the Rabbit, but if it looks too much like a lifted Rabbit, then it will be back between the RDX and Rav4 Sport. Yes, I am looking at the base RDX and top versions of the Rav4 Sport and Tiguan. I have no need for all that tech gadgetry. My price range is lower $30's.

SinCity

If the Tiguan already came out, it would have been a tougher choice between the RDX and Tiguan. I had a 07 GTI that had zero issues other than a busted DV valve from running APR Stage II (21.5 psi peak). The Tiguan will have better aftermarket support with their 2.0T corporate engine. But, the Tiguan will only excel if it comes out with DSG.

MMike1981

Audi, Subi, and Benz may have something to say about that

nut854

TJDenver, be extremely careful when purchasing a VW. Reliability is still awful. I know from experience. This is why I may switch to Acura.

I'd also be very hesitant in looking at a new model since there are no consumer reports ratings yet. I waited a year to learn that the RDX's have good reliability ratings in the '07 models. I'd pull the trigger and buy one if it wasn't for the reported poor fuel economy.

Patronus

Second that. I traded in my 06 Audi on an RDX because of the electronics problems it was beginning to have. I don't have enough money or patience to own a VW/Audi outside of warranty.

On the poor RDX gas mileage...do the math. It may be a matter of a couple hundred dollars a year different compared with a car like a CR-V or RAV-4, depending on how much you drive.

scottRDX

Hey there TJDenver,

I'm going to assume that you are from Denver, CO. judging by your user name. I would like to address some of your concerns about the RDX.

First, SH-AWD along with VSA and ABS, does great in the snow. My car rides on the stock Michelin all season tires and it feels very safe and stable in snowy and icy conditions. Ok, so you don't want to take the RDX offroad though, it just doesn't have the ground clearance.

Second, I highly recomend you talk to the folks at Courtesy Acura on S. Broadway. Or maybe you already have, but if you haven't, stop by and see them. They were very low key and were great to work with. I got more than $3000 off the sticker plus 3.9% financing, with no back and forth bs. I can't imagine they wouldn't negociate especially when new car sales are down so mauch right now.

Third, I agree the interior feels a little cheap, but so far, everything has held up really well.

It all comes down to your personal preference, but I wouldn't want you to make a mistake by buying a VW. believe me, I know from experience, my wife bought a VW Jetta, and I wanted her to buy a TSX. Now I'm crossing my fingers and praying nothing goes wrong with it. Anyway, good luck with your purchase.

-Scott

vincethe1

too lazy to read the whole thread but even if the up-shift paddle is broken, there's a way around it.

if you want to squeeze out every last rpm in the engine b4 shifting up, leave it in S, and just before you reach redline, throw it back in D so it'll upshift, then put it back in S and wait for the next gear.

TJDenver

Thanks for the info. I am going to wait until the Tiguan comes to market (to do side by side comparisons), but I am very wary of owning a VW. More so now after reading your posts. I have had three friends who had A4's and had very bad experiences. One friend owned two different A4's and they were both very bad experiences. He kept thinking they improved from the last model and finally learned his lesson after each one spent more time in the dealer garage than his own. I'm not a fan of the Tiguan dash design. It still uses black & white gauges and turn knobs for HVAC controls. The RDX has a more modern look all around and has a sportier profile.
So, if the RAV updates their interior this summer, it will be on my want list. The plastics and the radio are very unappealing. I wish Toyota made an upmarket Sport model (I want the sport suspension and larger wheels on the Limited model, but that isn't available on the RAV).
In their current forms, the RDX is top on my list. I'll see if any updates are made by September and then make a final decision.

Any current RDX owners have issues with turbo boost at wrong times? Any close calls in rush hour traffic? Or are these situations just exaggerated by the car mags? I have read about situations where people were driving slowly in grocery store parking lots or in rush hour and the RDX just wanted to take off. Is this really a smaller issue than they make it out to be? I am picturing myself slamming on the brakes in rush hour after the turbo kicks in at the wrong time.

Scott - thanks for the info on Courtesy Acura. I got my TSX there. I was pleased with the buying experience, but liked the service at Mile High Acura more. Mile High didn't negotiate as low as Courtest did on the TSX. Neither went much below sticker on the RDX last summer. I'll head over there this summer when I'm ready to buy.

XLR8R

Reliability has been very good. The turbo is well designed for oil flow and post operational cooling, with a convection-flow water jacket.

The RDX does very well in snow, but I would hesitate to take it off-road, with a sport suspension and 5.5 inches of ground clearance -- Acura has NEVER indicated that the RDX is meant for even light off-road duty -- yet the magazines continue to flog it through the trails and complain that it's no Jeep. Strange...they don't have the same expectations for an X-3 or FX???

The interior may have a little too much plastic, but assembly is very good. My last VW SUV had a superb interior...until the genuine wood cracked and the soft-touch materials all peeled off the buttons. (The replacement buttons all peeled again.) There is one thing no one does better than VW/Audi; their 5 level seat heaters are the best there is!

The RDX has quite the sports car feel. The steering in particular is very communicative and reminds me of an Evo. The seats are superb for comfort and well bolstered for lateral holding.

RDX economy is compromised by the Super Handling torque bias -- a worthwhile trade. Real-world highway cruise is not too bad though at 27 mpg.

Look at most of the other AWD cute-utes, all with less torque (Vue Redline, Torrent GXP, X-3, Santa Fe) and you'll see similar EPA numbers. The Sorento has equal torque and equal EPA numbers. The FX-35 has more torque and worse numbers. The Rav4 with V6 and AWD gets 26 highway, not 28, largely due to full-time FWD bias. Still, that's very good -- it puts the Toyota V-6 in a class by itself.

The Tiguan will no doubt be a nice driver with excellent fit and finish, but you may as well move your own stuff into the Service waiting room -- you'll be living there....

XLR8R

I had precisely the same issue with the Rav. I even considered buying the Sport wheels for a Limited, but that still left the softer suspension. Plus, the Limited forces one into the pointless third-row seat.

After one year with the RDX, we have never experienced unexpected boost. One would have to be rather a bone-headed, non-intuitive driver to use the throttle so carelessly.

The RDX does have some turbo-lag, and Mom's minvan may take an initial lead on you leaving a light. You have to plan for boost build-up, but then the power is a smooth rush. The turbo is designed for handling acceleration, not launch acceleration.

neo1738

when it comes to boost if you have ever driven a turbo car you should have no problem. if not give it about 20min of stop and go traffic and you'll be accustomed...at least i was!

TJDenver

Thanks for all the great answers. I am tempted to go pick one up now. I still want to see and drive the Tiguan before I make a final decision, but it's just for comparisons at this point. I don't think it'll be nearly "athletic" or fun to drive as the RDX.

flar

Take this comment with a grain of salt - keep in mind that not everyone gets that figure. There are some of us who are unable to break 21-22MPG on a flat highway at 65 in light traffic with the cruise control. There is some discrepancy in the mileage figures that owners see. Go up to 75 and the figures drop below 20MPG. This is real MPG measured at the pump - the MID gauge is always at least 1MPG optimistic.

XLR8R

Having been on A-zine for over a year now, my (thoroughly unscientific) analysis of the anecdotal evidence would indicate that most people are getting 25+ mpg pure highway. This also matches Consumer Reports instrumented testing of 25 mpg on the highway.

I drove a 500 mile trip through the Allegheny mountains at 55-70 mph, with 3 people and luggage, and got 25.2 mpg (24 if you like, accounting for computer bias). On 2-lanes at 45-50 mph, I get 27-28 mpg. When you do pump calculations are you measuring pure highway miles?

If you are on cruise control on level flat highway, the instant readout should give a fairly stable indication of actual mpg. (or reset the trip after you are on the highway).

Identical engines driving identical platforms should not have such wide variations. I wonder if your car has a mechanical or computer problem?

schen72

I agree with this assessment. On the flat highway, the MPG is quite good. It's the city that kills the MPG. I am now getting an avg of 21 MPG, according to the trip computer. My 08 RDX has 1500 miles on it.

flar

I haven't been very active on these forums for a few months, but when I was active last spring and summer it seemed (to my unscientific statistical analysis) there were quite a few others who could not get that kind of mileage as well.

Also, the prevailing sentiment seemed to be leaning towards those who were getting lower mileage "must be driving more aggressively" - which tends to restrain further discussion. I know that I dropped trying to explain my situation after a number of run-ins with people who kept asking me questions that implied that I hadn't done much analysis of the problem or didn't understand how things worked and so I must be mistaken. It just got old after a while.

Did you measure the computer bias on this trip? Have you measured your computer bias on other trips? How often?

For reference, I calculate my real MPG on every fill up and have a pretty large set of data to understand the bias of my particular sensor.

I don't have a lot of data in that speed range, unfortunately, but around here those aren't highway speeds unless you want to get run off the road. ;-)

I've measured lots of tankfuls over the 20K life of my RDX under a wide variety of conditions and the error is consistently around 1MPG. Most of my tankfuls have been under 20MPG, though with only a few data points where average over the entire tank was >20MPG. Many of my under 20MPG tanks are at least 85% highway driving, though not on cruise control.

That's pretty much what I've used and the MID readout has only rarely (on a couple of occasions) read more than 24MPG which is liberal. I've only had one case where it read more than 25MPG and that was descending a mountain in Southern California (I played with minimizing the throttle and got it to report >40MPG over a 25 mile downhill section, an interesting diversion, but not indicative of my typical highway mileage, or my mileage under controlled flat-land conditions).

I agree, but since the MID shows 22 MPG if I stick to just a highway with the cruise control it would be hard to get any kind of investigation launched there since that is too close to the official numbers.

One potential source of a "computer problem", though - the RDX has a drive-by-wire throttle with a throttle map. Many of these systems "learn" (is that true on the RDX? I couldn't find any documentation on it) so perhaps some cars learn behavior which limits their gas mileage compared to others? On the other hand, driving on a flat highway with cruise control shouldn't be a case that would be modified much by a learning algorithm (though, perhaps I should say a well-sorted learning algorithm?).

And, even if one buys into the "no car will get its rated numbers if you drive it aggressively" - that conflicts directly with my first hand experience with my last 2 or 3 cars each of which consistently returned better than its rated mileage even while driving 80MPH on the highway - hills or not, and always wanting to "make the next light" in the city. I'm an ex-autocrosser and those cars were driven (ahem) "well". I'm much more mellow now with my RDX and now I can't get the rated numbers...?

XLR8R

I did often when the car was new -- at your prompting, actually -- and found the computer to read between 1/4 to 3/4 mpg higher than raw calculation. It was consistent enough that I stopped doing it.

The 25.2 from the 500 mile trip is MID. I did no raw calc, but allowed the 24 in recognition of your findings.

I can certainly see how they might balk at this complaint, however there may be a note in the EPA guide worth addressing:

So a legitimate expectation exists that your unloaded, well maintained RDX should achieve about 27 on a level highway (as many do).

I'll see what I can find.

Agreed, my C5 Corvette was rated at 29 highway and I routinely could achieve 34.5 with 2 people and luggage at 70 mph.

grooks1

I was at the Chicago Auto Show recently and spent a few minutes looking at the VW Tiguan. The displays didn't get too detailed on price but I got the impression the vehicle will attempt to compete with the CR-V and RAV4.

I liked the seats and interior space but have never been impressed with VW's dash layouts (just a personal preference). The cargo area looked a little smaller than the RDX but again the more accurate comparison may be CR-V and RAV4.

If the Tiguan can come with VW's turbo diesel then it may be an interestiong option for that price point.

TJDenver

I saw the Tiguan at the Chicago Auto Show as well. It definitely doesn't use the luminiscent speedometer, but has an attractive front end.

I felt the same way. I loved the outside, but as I looked at the inside, it wasn't as large as the RDX. They squared off the year compartment, so there wouldn't be exposed wheel wells in the back and it took away a lot of space.

The pricing is supposed to be between $24K - $34K. It's going to be priced a few thousand more than CR-V and Rav4.

If you're interested in the Tiguan, you need to wait until the 2010 model. VW is bringing their turbo diesel in the 2nd year, along with their off-road option that is offered in Europe. The off road option allows the driver to hit a button and it locks the center diff and allows the gearing to crawl in a very low gear.

I would never buy a new VW model in the first model year. Too risky. Let them get the quirks out in that first year.

Apparently, the Tiguan won't have great performance. I've read to expect about 10 seconds 0-60 times. The 2.0T might reduce this a bit to upper 9 seconds, but still well below the market.

The speedometer has a blue background which is kind of cool. On the RDX speedometer, it has a Mini feel to me when driving it (the speedometer seems so big). The speedometer is almost in your face too much. I could probably get used to this. I do kind of like the Tiguan traditional look with tach on the left and speedometer on the right. I have a TSX and prefer that dash to the RDX one.

The good points on the Tiguan are the higher ground clearance (a bit more than the RDX), rear seat has many options (slides for and aft and the back has many different seating positions). There are rear vents for pets and people. RDX has none. I like how the rear bench slides for and aft about 6-inches. This allows more rear leg room when needed, or more storage behind the rear seats, when needed. The stock wheels are much better than the RDX's. Although, the RDX does have the upgrade option to get those X-3 look alike wheels, which are cool.

The Tiguan has a breadcrumb option on the Nav that allows you to use it off road in off the path areas. Who would be lost off road in a Tiguan though?

Also, the Tiguan has the optional sky view sunroof. Opens about half the roof.

Yeah, I've read a lot about this car and am comparing it to the RDX myself. I have looked at the Rav 4 Sport, the RDX and the Tiguan. I decided I won't buy a VW, due to too many electrical and mechanical problems (just look at any VW or Audi in any Consumer Reports magazine, they're all blacked out). The Rav4 Sport is larger, allows you to lock the center diff and has a better performing engine (0-60 times), but lacks on the interior (where you see the car everyday).

My decision has been the RDX. I will likely get those optional wheels after the first year. I really do not like the stock wheels in the RDX. It has the best engine and good reliability. I will get the base model. I just wish they would have added a cubby hole where the stereo controls are on the tech model. Instead, Acura placed a black cover here and it looks just like they slapped a cover here. It would be a good storage area for CD cases or other items. On the base RDX, the stereo controls are near the joystick knob on the center of the dash, which makes more sense than having them at the bottom of the center stack.

MMike1981

I would never, ever, purchase a VW/Audi. lease only.