BobBass

This was a "Compact Sporty SUV" comparo and they rated the BMW X3 one point higher followed by the RDX, Q5, SRX, Sportage, and Edge.

Actually, the WHOLE Sept. issue covers a lot of interesting products and would be a worthwhile acquisition.

Here's the report on the 2013 RDX:

Road Test V6 AWD
The redesigned RDX is a major improvement over its stiff-riding and unrefined predecessor. Though the new one doesn't push the envelope in styling, handling or interior quality, it's benign, comfortable, and easy to live with. One high point is its smooth, powerful V6, which, combined with its six-speed automatic transmission, manages a very respectable 22 mpg overall. Handling is sound but not especially agile-even the larger MDX is sportier-and the ride is a little stiff. Controls are unusually simple but interior ambiance is rather plain-Jane for a supposedly luxury-class vehicle. Nevertheless, the RDX proved competent all around, and it comes well equipped for the money.

The Driving Experience
Ride comfort and noise: Ride compliance is much improved but still nothing special. Road bumps tend to punch through with stiff, rubbery impacts, and frequent small body motions make the ride busy. Oddly, the Honda CR-V, the RDX's lower-priced cousin, rides much better. The RDX's highway ride is OK, but still a little stiff. The cabin stays fairly quiet, with less wind and road noise than in most Honda products, but tire and road noise remains noticeable.

Handling: The RDX returns sound and secure handling but it's unexceptional overall. In routine driving the steering responds promptly and body lean is well suppressed. But if you up the ante even a little it becomes clear that the RDX isn't made for spirited driving. The steering is reasonably weighted but lacks feedback. A turning circle of over 40 feet is nothing to brag about, either.

When pushed hard at our track, the RDX quickly reached its cornering limits with lots of body roll. It plowed -- ran wide -- early on and the body rocked, giving the sensation of the rear jacking up. It ultimately managed a decent speed through our avoidance maneuver but inspired little confidence.

Powertrain: The sweet-sounding, 273-hp, 3.5-liter V6 feels smooth and responsive, delivering plenty of reserve power and effortless acceleration. However, the front wheels can spin rather easily on slick pavement before power transfers to the rear wheels. Fuel economy averaged an impressive 22 mpg on premium, better than some four-cylinder rivals.

The six-speed automatic transmission shifts smoothly but some downshifts are a bit slow, and this gearbox isn't as refined as the eight-speeds now found in some competitors. Steering-wheel paddles allow for simulated manual shifting. Given all of the available power, the RDX's 1,500-pound towing limit is rather unambitious and is less than many rivals. [THEY MANAGED TO EKE OUT A 6.6 sec. 0-60 TIME]

Braking: Overall performance was very good but stops were a little long on wet pavement.

Headlights: The standard halogen low-beam lights have good distance, while high beams shine further. Both have very good intensity. A distinct cutoff at the top of the low-beam pattern reduces sight lines on hilly roads.

Inside The Cabin
Driving position: Drivers will find generous space all around, with a wide range of adjustments available from the driver's seat and the tilting and telescoping steering wheel. The view out is good to the front and sides but thick rear roof pillars and a smallish rear window impede the view to the rear. Large door mirrors help; their dual lenses to sweep the blind spots don't add much to the view. The standard rear-view camera helps out when parking or backing up.

Seat comfort and access: The front seats are very comfortable -- well shaped and firmly padded with unobtrusive seatback bolsters providing good lateral support. The powered lumbar adjustment was welcome, too. Three adults can fit in the rear without much crowding and the cushions are well shaped and set high, affording a good view out. Foot room benefits from a flat floor. Access is easy, front and rear.

Controls and gauges: Instruments are a model of clarity -- brightly backlighted and easy to read. Controls are simple and straightforward. Most knobs and buttons are large and legibly labeled but the on-board computer is a bit fussy.

Interior fit and finish: The cabin is neatly finished but not exactly upscale. While door panels and dash top are padded and the leather seat stitching is attractive, the carpeting is thin, the front roof pillars are covered in hard plastic, and none of the storage cubbies are lined.

Cabin storage and cargo room: Cabin storage facilities are generous with deep console bins. Cargo volume is moderate -- a bit less than in the CR-V by our measurements. The rear seatbacks are spring-loaded and fold down easily to make more cargo space. A temporary spare tire stows beneath the trunk floor.

Safety Notes
Safety belts: All seats have lap-and-shoulder belts. The front pair has pretensioners and force-limiters.

Air bags: Side air bags protect front occupants and curtain air bags extend to the front and rear. Sensors withhold deployment of the front passenger seat's front and side air bags if they detect a child-sized passenger or if the seat is unoccupied.

Head restraints: Front seats and outboard rear seats have adjustable, locking head restraints that are tall enough to protect an adult even when lowered. The second-row center restraint must be raised to protect an adult in a rear crash.

Crash-avoidance systems: Electronic stability control, traction control, antilock brakes, and brake assist are standard. Also, the headlights come on automatically with the windshield wipers.

Driving with kids: It may be tough to secure some rear-facing infant-seat bases using safety belts alone. LATCH attachments work better, but either way, you may need additional bolstering in the center seat to achieve the proper recline angle. The two outboard top-tether anchors are on the seatbacks; the center one is on the ceiling.

Reliability
We expect reliability to be better than average, according to our latest subscriber survey.

Tested model: 2013 4-door SUV AWD, 3.5-liter V6, 6-speed automatic
Major options: None.
This road test applies to the current model year of this vehicle.

Sculldog3

Don't remotely understand the comments on the ride -- I feel the road is very composed, and you "hear" bumps seemingly more than feel them. Not stiff at all...very strange.

MGP999

I agree with about 90% of this review Scully, the ride is a bit stiff and busy during some of the quicker maneuvers (esp. compared to a car) but I don't agree with it having effortless acceleration from a full stop. These are my two main issues with this CUV.

BobBass

It just shows how subjective "ride" is. I took a test drive in the new RDX and was impressed with the ride. It's certainly "tighter" than my '08 RX400h but not objectionable and I appreciated how much better it handled yet still rode nicely.

weather

^^^ that is why I wish car reviews would focus on stating the facts only and not go into these subjective impressions.....all they do is bias the consumers. No two people are the same so why do people try and make a decision on what someone says what really matters is how the vehicle feels to you. A good example is comfortable seat....What is comfortable to me is very different to another (weight, height, back conditions all affect this).....The same with audio. No two ears hear the same thing. I can give my opinion on whether I like the audio system or not but I would never expect someone to make their decision on what I hear, what I feel or what I think.....Now facts are facts and that is what helps consumers make an informed decision in my opinion.

TampaJack

So true! I feel that the world would be far better off if there were no professional critics. I'd much rather read the thoughts of you, Weather, and others on this board.

hawkeye62

I have little confidence in what consumer reports says about anything. Even on simple things such as lawnmowers and refrigerators they often get the facts wrong and stress features that mean nothing to me. All I use from Consumer Reports is a starting point for what is available.

Jim

mrgold35

I can see them including the Q5, SRX and X3 with the RDX. Not sure why the Kia and Ford were there? They all might be close in price; but, pretty far apart in demographics.

I don't think if you are looking at a Q5 or X3 and you think to yourself "I can get a fully loaded Ford Edge Sport with 22in rims for the same or less money".

I think I would rather see the MB GLK and/or the Volvo XC60/XC70 instead of the Kia or Edge. If you include the Kia and Edge, you might as well include Mazda, Chevy, Honda, Hyundai, Jeep, Land Rover, Mitsubishi, etc... You know someone going to write into Consumer Reports to complain about not including their Toyota Rav4 V-6 sport in the testing.

TampaJack

Yeah, and perhaps to rule out some choices that have serious shortcomings.

But I guess it's tough to be in their position. They have just a few hours to evaluate a product that consumers will use for many years. The Honda brand has proven over decades to build products that buyers use and love for a decade or more. That should be at least 50% of any practical review! But there's no way for CR or any reviewer to offer anything but very short-term impressions, which by definition are highly subjective and actually not very useful. It's so much better to hear the thoughts of actual consumers. Cheers to the Internet!

BobBass

"CR" only added the Sportage and Edge as "lower-priced alternatives." They are listed in a separate category at the far end of the "compare" specs chart.

Their overall ranking & scores for ALL tested "Compact Sporty SUVs" is:

1. BMW X3 - 80
2. Acura RDX - 79
3. Infiniti EX - 78
4. Audi Q5 - 77
5. Cadillac SRX - 72
6. Volvo XC60 - 70
7. MB GLK350 - 66
8. LR Range Rover Evoque - 58
9. LR LR2 - 52

That is followed by a separate section for the lower-priced alternatives.

For me, the value of CR's testing is that they give more "real world" results than most car mags. When they list acceleration and MPG figures, seems to me they are more achievable by the "average schmo" like me, not some hot-dog writer for the major car mags. And, in the annual car issue there are always the owner's repair charts showing actual experience of subscribers. Those results almost always match my experiences with models I have owned.

I wouldn't make a car selection SOLELY based on their reviews, but their results are surely something to factor in.

TampaJack

Thanks Bob. Good points.

The results look darn good for the RDX. That's pretty good company in the top 4!

musty hustla

The RDX review wasn't exactly glowing. I wonder what put the BMW over the top.

Thanks for sharing Bob

BobBass

Hard to say for sure, but when there's only a one-point difference, seems to me the score for whatever "aspect" of a vehicle's characteristics that is most important to you would be the determining factor.

If straight line acceleration is a priority, the RDX wins hands down with a very impressive 6.6 sec. 0-60 time. However, "CR" gave it a rating of "one level less than average" in "emergency handling" AND "cargo area."

If you don't want to follow the fuel recommendation for premium, get the Caddy. But, you pay a price in "predicted reliability."

If long wheelbase is important, the other three are 111" as opposed to the RDX at 106". This probably contributes to its average ride score. (My RX400h is 107" and somehow Lexus was able to give it a relatively smooth ride for an SUV. It actually rides better than the newer generation model with a longer wheelbase because they changed to rear suspension design and some other stuff on the new one.)

The chart makes for a very interesting read.

Hugh 27

Very hard to fault much of that. Ride could be better; the steering is vague; and the handling just mediocre. I don't think the engine is that terrific, but it's solid. The gearbox is also fine; it doesn't need 8 speeds.

I also think the level of luxury is higher than he suggests.

Overall, a pretty fair review, and many of the dynamic criticisms of the handling etc. just are not that relevant in this class. The braking and traction issues are a bit of a concern, but I'm not worried.

I'm happy with our RDX so far. You just have to realize it's not a sports car and it not on the level of the X3 for driving.

BlackDogRDX

I think CR's verdict is one none of us really are arguing with; that the RDX is comfortable, well appointed, quick, and (hopefully) reliable - and it's a good value for the price. It's not claiming to be an RX (couch on wheels) or an X3 (a BMW) but it does everything asked of it rather well.

Over 5000 miles in and I've never once had any glimmer of buyers remorse.

Sculldog3

Picked up the Consumer Reports today, and it is a little curious on some of their comments. Cherry picking a bit perhaps, but....

X3:
-- "..uneven pavement provides quick side-to-side motions."
-- "...when the four-cylinder engine is idling, it emits a noticeable diesel-like clatter from it's direct fuel injection."
-- "..some misaligned panels and wide gaps are evident."
-- "..the driving position can be a bit narrow, and the console pushes against the right knee."
-- "Some controls are frustrating."; "...the iDrive multicontroller system remains complicated."; "..there is no dedicated radio-tuning knob."; "A rear-view camera should be standard but isn't."; "..controls tend to be somewhat complicated."
-- "Two or even three adults can fit comfortably in the rear."
-- "there is a stop/start system that shuts the engine down....but it sends a shudder through the car when it restarts."

RDX:
-- "..RDX reached it's cornering limits quickly, with lots of body lean." "...rocking motions from the body."
-- "The sweet-sounding 273-hp, 3.5 liter V6 feels smooth and responsive, delivering effortless acceleration."
-- "The cabin is neatly trimmed but not exactly upscale. Although the door panels and dash top are padded and there are attractive stitching details, the carpeting is thin, the front roof pillars are covered in hard plastic, and none of the storage bins are lined." [editorial comment: lined with what exactly?!?!?]
-- "Drivers will find generous space all around, with a wide range of adjustments available from the driver's seat."
-- "Gauges and controls are straightforward, but navigating through the onboard computer menus can be too much of a fuss."
-- "Three adults can fit in the rear without much crowding."
-- no mention of the cylinder deactivation or any driveline implications for the RDX.

So..I understand and expect that BMW's will handle better, it's sort of who they are fundamentally...ultimate driving machine and all... They have always focused on weight distribution, and the X3 has a 49/51% front/rear bias, while the RDX is 59/41, and that 245 extra pounds up front probably is much of the difference, along with concerns perhaps with the RDX donor roots. Not sure, but think the X3 is 3-series derived, so it had better handle better than a stretched/tweaked CR-V!!!

But...have to guess most people won't be driving a small CUV/SUV as if it was a sports car. And the handling seems to be what pushed the X3 over the edge. For most other categories, it seems that the RDX has the upper hand -- more comfortable for the driver, straightforward controls, Acura level fit and finish [even if the storage pockets are unlined!], world class engines (it's what Honda truly does, even more so than BMW, they excel at engines from lawn mowers to private jets), smooth and powerful performance, cost savings, etc.

As for performance...
-- RDX is 6.6 versus 7.3 for the X3, a fairly significant .7 second difference. After-market tuners would kill for a .7 increase in 0-60 time.
-- Avoidance manuever course is 53mph for the X3 versus 51, also in fairness pretty significant.
-- 15.2 quarter vs 15.8 quarter, again this is another big gap -- the RDX is some 50 feet/3+ car lengths ahead if my math is right.
-- X3 stops 130/138 from 60 in the dry/wet, 2 and 6 feet better than the RDX. X3 wins, wonder if tires contribute?
-- RDX is listed as 285 pounds lighter, that and an extra 33 extra horses leads to a power to weight advantage for the RDX, and the better speed, even factoring in that the X3 is running an 8 speed.

So the kicker for me is the value/reliability consideration. Tried to price an X3 so that it is similar to the RDX AWD w.Tech Package. Tough task since some of the BWM packages do add more items, but take a base X3 with the turbo four, add the tech, convenience, premium sound, and the premium packages and the MSRP is nudging towards 49,000.

I'm happy with the 6-7K that I seem to have saved, and I'm guessing 10 years from now I'll be even happier as the Acura keeps purring along!

TampaJack

Informative post, Sculldog. Thanks for taking the time to put it together!

Rocketsfan

Sculldog3,

One thing I noticed about the glovebox was that it's just a plastic box (same with the armrest/console from what I recall). There's no feel of "thunk" to it (lol, no idea what else to call it). No heft. Also, the inside of my 3G TL is lined with a cloth material - I think that's the type of lining they're talking about. They're probably referring to a more cheapened feeling with the plastics. The only real advantage to the lining I can think of is possibly less rattle if you put stuff in there. Other than that, I'm not sure.

There are aspects of the car that I think justify the near-$40k price (design is good, engine is probably a damn good engine, ergonomics are pretty good from the brief time I drove it), but there are other aspects that just don't scream "luxury". The hard plastics in several areas, lack of adjustable rear vents, etc. For some, it matters, for others, it doesn't mean a thing.

BTW, the value/reliability proposition is exactly why I like this and most other Acuras. Right now, I'm waiting to check out a new Cadillac ATS. These are the only 2 cars really on my list now. With the ATS and even moreso with BMW's, Audi's, MB's, by the time you option them with the common things you'd want, their prices seem to balloon up. With Acura, it's basically "here's what you get for this price - like it? Buy it. Don't? Tough, that's all we're giving you." And I really don't mind that with a few exceptions.

Anyway, all-in-all, I think you may have pretty much nailed why Acura buyers buy Acuras.

hawkeye62

Me too. I found the same price difference with Lexus, Audi and Infinity. To get everything I have on my AWD Tech I would have to pay 6-7K more. Although, they all include stuff I don't want, there is no way to get the stuff I do want without adding some expensive package.

Regards, Jim

BobBass

Sculldog,
EXCELLENT SYNOPSIS!

Thanks for taking the time.

Sculldog3

"One thing I noticed about the glovebox was that it's just a plastic box (same with the armrest/console from what I recall). There's no feel of "thunk" to it (lol, no idea what else to call it). No heft. Also, the inside of my 3G TL is lined with a cloth material - I think that's the type of lining they're talking about. They're probably referring to a more cheapened feeling with the plastics. The only real advantage to the lining I can think of is possibly less rattle if you put stuff in there. Other than that, I'm not sure."

Rocketsfan: I'd agree on the rattle, but depending on the cloth, could be a pain to keep clean. Plastic at least can be wiped down pretty easily. Also, while I won't use it this way, looks like the front door pockets were designed to accomodate a bottle/drink, so over time stuff will spill/leak, and that cloth could be more of a pain then it's worth.

Colorado Guy AF Ret.

Well, you guys have done a great job in analyzing what CR had to say about "our RDX." I just finished reading every word from the CR report. It's what I had been feeling all along. I'm very much the car guy....I get 5 auto mags a month....plus other's.....including CR. And this RDX is my 30th new vehicle....60th total so far. I know...some of you know that.....some don't. No bragging or anything like that. It's just a fact. Oh, I recounted the Hondas I've owned and it's 10. In another thread I had an "issue" with someone trying to force his ideas on Hondas on someone and was backing that up with his owning I think it was 3 or 4 Hondas. Anyway...you learn a lot by being lucky enough to have owned so many by one manufacturer. And, also by owning many cars/trucks/suv's from other car makers.

I have felt for a long time that we all made a great choice. And, as I've said before....somewhere here.....that all of us will find something we'd change....and that's pretty much true of any vehicle we would buy.

But, what we are getting for the price......the excellent Acura track record of reliability and the normally excellent resale value....and the relatively reasonable costs for upkeep.....the Acura is the #1 choice. That 1 point "win" by the BMW means nothing to me. WE WIN...by getting a great vehicle, at thousands less than the X3.....and % wise, at the 3 yr. residual value mark...the Acura will be worth more. And we will have paid less to maintain our vehicles. And I see that the X3 does not have a back up camera as standard!

BMW's are notorious for not having great long term affordable upkeep costs. And they have more problems per vehicle than does the Acura. Yes, they may handle a little better and the weight bias is better. I must admit I'm not crazy about the 59/41 weight balance issue with our RDX's.....but, then again, I'm not taking it to the track! And, I've pushed it somewhat in the on/off ramp curves and it does fine. And I love the engine. Same as in my '12 Accord Cpe. Great fuel mileage and plenty of get up and go.

Speaking of the engine issue. Here's something ironic I found with the comparison between the X3 and the RDX.
The RDX dropped a 4 cyl. turbo engine in favor of a much better V6 engine that gets better mileage and is quicker, smoother, etc.
The X3 dropped the in line 6 that has been a staple in many BMW's over the years....and those straight 6's are great engines. And what did THEY do??? They dropped their I6 for a turbo 4 cyl!!!! I thought that was ironic. AND....it appears BMW made a mistake with that. The I6 was a better engine...is a better engine.

And just let me clarify something about Consumer Reports. They are the largest independant, non-profit ratings company there is. They don't have " a dog in the hunt"...and will go after any product IF they find it's not meeting expectations of the public.

And, I belive it was TampaJack that said something about they only have the cars for a few hours...etc.....

Well, here is a fact. They BUY every product they test!! They OWN each vehicle for the time they feel they need to test them. So, just to set their record straight....they don't just play with them for a "few hours" and then give them back. Since they own them....I'm pretty certain they spend more than just a few hours with them....don't you think???

I don't ever rely on just one source of testors, examiners, car mags, etc. I read everything I can find....and then do a hands on before I decide what to buy. But, "history" with a companies quality and years of proven quality and owner's comments about a certain vehicle does go a long way.

I may be able to buy many cars or SUV's, but, if they are going to be a pain in my butt....and cost me too much just to own them at the 2 or 3 yr. point....then they are not worth my time.

My next Acura will be the MDX...for traveling around the country. It's a great vehicle with some nice goodies and safety features that the RDX doesn't have. Love the RDX.....the MDX is just.....more....better for being on the road around the US.

Even if my RDX blew up tomorrow....I wouldn't beat myself up for buying it. It was/is a great choice. Even the better vehicles have issues sometimes!! LOL!!!

Great job everyone. This Gen 2 is without a doubt...in my opinion...a much better SUV than the Gen 1 was.
And, I know the Gen 1 owners will or may not agree....but, a true car guy that has owned many vehicles of all kinds......thinks it is...and that's me.

MODERATORS: Sorry so long....and to all of you.....but, this was a great topic and many folks on here really took quite an interest.

gbriank

If you want lined cubbies, head over to any crafting store (Michael's, Hobby Lobby, etc) and pick up some felt or other lined/sturdy fabric. Then, snag some 3M double sided tape (get the clear thin stuff)....and START CUTTING and SHAPING. Sets you back $10, but gets you the same effect as what is in the RL.

robuckj

As gbriank suggests, felt and double-sided tape may work. If you look around you may be able to find self-adhesive felt, sold for lining drawers or putting on the bottom of a vase or box so it won't scratch your furniture, and gain an advantage over just taping it in. However, as an earlier reply said, it could be the devil to keep clean. I've got some and might try to use it to line just the bottom of the cubby where the iPod goes.

On Google, I found out the old cubbies had been "flocked" --a fibrous coating was electrostatically applied when the part was made, using special equipment. All my old Hondas had fuzzy, "flocked" coin trays for instance, but I guess they've stopped doing that.

TampaJack

Just for the record, I meant that rhetorically. I was comparing CR (and any professional reviewers for that matter) to actual owners who drive a car for weeks, months and years. I can understand being a big CR fan, but I tend to take them with a grain or two of salt. I put more stock in the thoughts and observations of posters on this board.

Colorado Guy AF Ret.

I never said I was a "big fan" of CR. I just stated what they are about....and I've said here emphatically....when I research I read everything I can find from whomever...and then compile and then judge....and then check the "item" out myself.....and then.....decide.

But, again, saying that they spend a few hrs. doesn't do them justice....when I don't think you really knew they own the vehicles.....they own ALL items they test.
And much of their review heavily involves surveys of ACTUAL OWNERS and their feedback. Just like you said you like. This site is certainly not the only place to get info.

They do a comprehensive survey of the owners who drive the vehicles they report on.

So, you don't care for them....that's fine. I am just pointing out fairly what they do as opposed to some other's.

Fair enough?

TampaJack

I hear you, and indeed CR puts more work into reviews than most, that's for sure.

As I wrote earlier, I didn't mean literally "a few hours".

I'm familiar with their policy about buying the cars they test and why they do it that way. But ownership is irrelevant to the validity of a review, at least to me. I've known people who owned a car for just a few days before changing their mind. Heck, I've even heard of someone who's owned more than 60 cars in his life! (smile) Surely CR resells them or returns them immediately after their reviewing process.

As for their surveys of actual owners, I am a little skeptical as to their diligence. I was at an airport a few days ago and looked through CR's car rating issue. The new RDX was rated in owner satisfaction as AVERAGE! Who did they talk to? My wife, who is the primary driver of our RDX, absolutely adores it. And I mean adores it. Which means that someone else would have to be extremely disappointed in order to bring the rating down to average.

I just can't believe that out of all the different brands and models of cars out there, the satisfaction of new RDX owners is right smack in the middle. That just doesn't fit with all the owner feedback that I've read. Honda/Acura is known for having happy loyal owners. Am I missing something?

tires38

I am a relatively new user of the RDX and with 400 miles I can say its a beautiful ride. What I am surprised - and maybe it will improve with driving - is the mileage - I have averaged 19 with city and highway although the highway portion is half of the total driven miles. I filled up with 91 octane and will track it to see what it does over time.

aks1972

I am on my 3rd full tank now and I am happy with the mileage. What I am noticing is that the mileage u get is very dependent on the way u drive. Keep an eye on the "current mileage display" and u should see it go up or down based on what u are doing.

So far I have done a 140 mile highway trip - average speed 55 and I got 31mpg during that bit.

I am using the RDX for daily commute (mixed highway and city), but I live in SF Bay area. Highway speeds here are between 20-40 during commute hours and city is even slower as u have a stop sign or a turn every few seconds.

My overall for commute driving is around 23-24 with an average speed of 32. It goes without saying that I don't floor it at stop lights etc.

Thanks

Mikey Dallas

FYI, I put my owners manual at the bottom of the main cubby. It fits snug, and cushions my CDs. Also leaves extra room in my glove box for other things.

Colorado Guy AF Ret.

TampaJack......a week ago you "thanked" Skulldog3 for his write up and the time he took, etc, etc.......and it was based on what he extracted from CR!!! But, when I bring it up and talk about it....you totally want to dismiss CR....that they're "interviews" of RDX owners is somehow skewed and you basically don't believe in them. Fine. But, stick to what you believe.

Folks here.....RDX owners.....do you just think they might be our fellow RDX owners that they are interviewing?? Did they go to Mars to interview? Just doesn't make sense to me that Skulldog3 got it OK....and I was somehow way off base.

I complimented everyone on this sight for their observations and insight...and spelled out exactly how I go about making decisions.....and it certainly wouldn't be just what was said on here only. My wife loves her RDX also. If you knew anything about CR....they are tough on any product. They don't average the results of interviews to come up with their basic rating. A product may be missing one ingredient that we may not consider...but, they do....and that will feed into their decision making. But, they do that to ALL products that compete against the one they are writing about. So....my point....they are hard on ALL the "similar" SUV's they are reviewing.

So, if you want to dismiss them for their interviews of RDX owners....then I guess you have to dismiss all of us...RDX owners. That includes yourself!

I KNOW you'll want the last word....and you can have it. I made my point.

BobBass

TampaJack - the car rating issue you saw surely must have been referring to the 2012 RDX, not the 3rd gen. 2013. That is usually the April issue so the 2013 rating is 7 months away.

CR online also has a section where you can look up OWNER'S reviews. It's always an eye-opener to read what the average owner has to say about their vehicles. FYI, there are NO 2013 reviews and only one for the 2012. I won't bother to cut & paste it here.

TampaJack

That's what I first thought, too, but the review mentioned the RDX was redesign. Sure sounded like the '13 model. But I only had a minute or two to look at it before rushing to my flight.

TampaJack

Rats, this is getting personal, and I really didn't mean to start something like this.

You are a valuable poster on this board and I've read each and every one of your posts since I've joined. If I haven't thanked you in the recent past, I should have.

So I'd like to maintain a healthy forum relationship. I've seen you react strongly to certain posters, and I would rather not be one of them! That's not why I'm a member of this forum, and a fine forum it is.

The important thing is that both you and I - and both of our wives - really like the RDX a lot. That alone should make us allies.

JOE COOL

the september issue consumer reports did report on the 2013 rdx.
it lost a tie for first place by a single point to bmw x3.

on page 3 of that issue it also stated that if you purchase the rdx over a the x3 you would save $7,900.00 and get comparable performance. the test compared a $$44,595. bmw against a $36,605. acura.

although many here might not agree with each individual point the writer made,the overall score was very impressive. as a result i would think that more potential buyers will be going in to acura dealerships to check out the new rdx.

with high gas prices influencing buyers, bmw 23 mpg 4 cyl, 240 hp, and acura 6 cyl,273 hp, 22 mpg also came in at the top two spots for fuel economy.

gbriank

Still not sure how the RDX and X3 can be considered in the same category. They're two totally different vehicles when it comes to driving dynamics, performance and price. Don't get me wrong, the X3 is an awesome vehicle...but for the price, you could get an MDX and still have money left over for a trip! I was helping a friend this past weekend to do what I call the "test drive extravaganza". We've went out and drove every vehicle in the Compact Luxury Crossover category. EX35, RDX, XC60, X1, X3, etc... I think the RDX was the winner with the Tech package, but there will be a wait to get a better deal. Me thinks Christmas or New Year's eve would be the best time to pull the trigger.

TampaJack

Thanks, JoeCool, for the clarification about the CR review. That makes more sense. I feel a little more charitable toward them now!

Thanks, gbriank, for the test drive extravaganza report. It's reassuring. I had planned just such an extravaganza but we fell hard for the RDX and bought it the same day after driving only one other vehicle (Q5). Though we knew that we'd save some money by waiting a few more months, the pain of waiting was worse than the pain of paying the extra money. Plus, they had the exact one we wanted (silver moon, ebony interior, base model) on the showroom floor. Heck, even at full price (which we didn't pay but it was close), the RDX is a great deal.