The idea of starting with a CR-V, affixing some Acura badges, and calling it a BMW X3 competitor struck me as, well, I'll use the word "unrealistic." It's not that I'm over-the-top in love with the X3 or anything, but I simply didn't see Honda pulling this one off. After all, the X3 begins with a 3 Series. The CR-V starts with a, um, Civic. But I took the RDX home last night, and on my way I made a quick detour along Mulholland Drive. Suffice to say, I was wrong.
Let's begin by noting that the RDX has some of the best seats I've experienced short of a full-on luxury sedan (S-Class, 7 Series, etc.). They manage to be both comfortable and highly supportive during canyon runs. Credit the large, meaty bolsters that cradle you without being intrusive, plus the just-right level of overall cushion firmness. After reveling in the seat comfort for several seconds I finally got down to actually driving the car. As expected, there is a slight bit of turbo lag at low speeds, but certainly no worse than the CX-7, and better than most Saab's I've driven recently. Even better, the engine remains very smooth and refined once the turbo boost hits and the tach screams toward the 7,000 RPM redline (not really surprising considering the company behind the engine design). I also like the gauges themselves, which are standard Acura (blue-and-white numbers with red needles) and effective at communicating information while also imparting a soothing sense of well being. The RDX provides solid, broad power from the 2.3-liter, 240 hp engine and it's almost deceptive at how quickly the vehicle gets up to legal speeds -- and beyond (invest in a radar detector if you don't already have one). The five-speed tranny is also quite good at picking gears, though the paddle shifters on the steering wheel allow for full manual control.
If there's a failure in terms of interior design it occurs in the center stack. Acura not only put the climate controls above the audio controls (always a no-no considering which group, typically, sees more action) but they use this two-tier effect that almost hides the audio controls under a sort of "shelf" in the dash. Add to that the relatively small buttons and dials on the head unit and I found myself squinting to see the control labels and pawing to find the buttons (it was either that or take my eyes off the road for too long). However, this is somewhat balanced out by superb storage options (the center console is HUGE and offers several internal configurations) along with typically Honda-like weightiness to the controls, giving them a sense of quality.
But the best surprise came when driving the car on Mulholland, where the Super Handling All-Wheel drive kept the car buttoned down and easily directed, transitioning from understeer to four-wheel drifts at just the right moment. Steering feel still isn't up to BMW standards, but it's weighty and precise, making it very effective nonetheless. Acura gets bonus points for providing a visual indicator of exactly what SH-AWD is doing at any given moment (though when you're driving in such a way as to really want to see this information you probably shouldn't be looking at the gauge cluster...). More bonus points for a an effective voice-recognition system (I used it for changing radio stations and adjusting the cabin temperature, and it was nearly flawless).
When I did some research to see how the car stacks up to the X3 in terms of interior space, fuel mileage, features and, finally, price, the RDX didn't just look competitive, it looked superior unless you absolutely have to have that trademark BMW steering (which plenty of people do, and I don't blame them). However, what I learned during my research is that if the RDX is a value-oriented X3, the Mazda CX-7 is a value-oriented RDX. The Mazda doesn't have the RDX's impressive list of high-tech luxury features, but comparing performance and interior specs shows the CX-7 to line up nicely. Add in price and it appears Mazda is doing to Acura what Acura is doing to BMW. This is a comparison test waiting to happen...
By rsholland
on August 23, 2006
09:26 AM
Counterpoint:
• I don't care for the styling, especially from the front, but that's subjective. I'm sure many will disagree with me here on that.
• This vihicle has almost zero utility, at least in the traditional sense. Ground clearance is around 6" so gravel roads is about as far off-road as you dare to go.
• Towing? It's not even mentioned in the RDX brochure. Since it's based on the CRV, I figure on around 1500 pounds. Karl, could you confirm that via the owner's manual? As a point of reference, I believe the BMW X3 can tow 3500 pounds and the turbo Forester can tow 2400 pounds. I'm not sure about the CX7, but my guess is 2K or better.
• For $33+k to $37+K there are other choices that I'd put my money down on.
I see it as another tall station wagon that handles pretty well, and is quick. I guess that's okay if that's what you're looking for.
By editor_karl
on August 23, 2006
10:00 AM
Towing is indeed at 1500 pounds, but I would comment that I, for one, have towed something about three times in my 20 years of driving. I'm sure it's more of a factor for some people, but me? I'm never even aware of a vehicle's towing capacity.
The real advantage the RDX has over the X3 is the amount of high-tech luxury features you get for $37,000. Many of these features aren't available on cars like the Forester at any price, but if you're a buyer who looks at voice-activated climate control like I look at towing capacity, this aspect won't mean anything to you, either.
One thing is certain -- they've sliced the crossover market at thin as an Arby's roast beef sandwich, and you can pretty much get whatever flavor you want these days.
By tsgeisel
on August 23, 2006
11:23 AM
"This is a comparison test waiting to happen..."
It's too bad you don't know anyone who could do such a test. :-)
Actually, though, perhaps a column or article on just what is entailed in the process of testing would be interesting. And how that changes between a first drive, a full test and just how do you decide what vehicles get long-term tested anyway?
I can't be the only one interested in the behind-the-scenes stuff.
By rsholland
on August 23, 2006
12:46 PM
I had my trailer hooked up to our Forester just two days ago, as I had to help move my daughter into her grad school apartment. Over the next few months I'll be making 10+ trailer trips to the county landfill with leaves, so for me the towing aspect is important.
Yeah the definition of "SUV" is really being tested these days. I would call the RDX an "SuV." I'm sure it's great at what it was designed to do, but it doesn't fill my needs.
By editor_karl
on August 23, 2006
12:48 PM
We've been wanting to put together an article on just those issues for some time, but I can tell you that comparison tests are largely based on two things:
1. Segments with a lot of activity (new products, redesigns, etc.)
2. Availability of press vehicles
We often have no control on number 2, but number 1 is clearly true for the $25,000-$40,000 crossover segment.
By hondacura4
on August 23, 2006
02:06 PM
Is this RDX the base or does it have the tech package? If its the tech then obviously you havent tried the ELS DVD audio system which is actually better than the ELS in the TL, which we all know is one of the best out there. And as far as styling goes just about every Honda/Acura looks better in person, and the RDX is no exception.
People buying this type of SUV would never consider towing anything anyway so I dont think thats important. I find that most mid/small SUV drivers only use their SUV's for commuting anyway. Acura geared this vehicle toward big city metrosexuals who want the driving position of an "SUV" but offer sport sedan/carlike handling. In this case the RDX succeeds.
Ive driven a X3 3.0, my younger brothers loaner car while his 2002 330 coupe was...ahem....in the shop. It was very solid, typical BMW suspension tautness, steering was excellent as was the inline 6. The suspension was harsh though on rough surfaces. Overall a good vehicle but extremely exspensive for what you get. A simularly equipped X3 would cost thousands more than a top of the line RDX tech pkg.
The RDX is nice and will make a great vehicle for some but it just doesnt standout in my eyes. I do think the entry level crossover/SUV segment will grow tremendously over the next few years, so the RDX should meet its sales targets.
By editor_karl
on August 23, 2006
02:24 PM
Ours had the tech package, but even with my 100-mile commute I felt like i was barely scratching the surface in terms of all the things it could do. Plus, I mostly listened to talk radio while driving it, so the 10-speaker audio system's capabilities were totally missed by me (oops!). But when I read the system's specs I figured it must sound great. The full test will go live soon, and it will hit on all of the car's features.
By roar02ram
on August 23, 2006
02:31 PM
I have to agree w/RSHolland in saying that the front end is too pointy. Given the slim number of other manufacturers who have taken this horizontal approach to front-end SUV styling, I think a lot of people agree. Why Acura did it again w/the RDX (they did it w/the original MDX, too) is beyond me.
But anyway, way to point out the crossover segment's status now Karl. Let's not forget the Murano & FX35, which are both right around this price point as well, should a comparison test be scheduled. They predated these vehicles, after all. I'd put my money on the CX-7 when it comes down to it, though. It's the most attractive of the bunch to me, and it matches the more expensive vehicles on performance, while beating them on price, even if it can't match their feature count.
By navigator89
on August 23, 2006
02:55 PM
I'd say you should wait for the Lincoln MKX, and then hold a comparison test of the MKX, FX35, X3 and RDX. That should be interesting because each of them is good at its own thng. The Infiniti has the best styling IMO and plenty of power, the Lincoln is pretty luxurious and offers that neat sunroof and plenty of power, the Acura offers plenty of gadgets and the BMW has great handling. Leave the CX-7 out as it isn't a premium nameplate and is a lot cheaper than an RDX.
I really dig the RDX's interior and gadgets, but I dont like the styling at all. Too many weird lines in strange places. However I prefer it over the X3 which looks even worse. The rear taillights look so mismatched, and the cabin sucks.
I'm also waiting to hear impressions about the MKX.
By 1487
on August 23, 2006
02:58 PM
There is no need to compare this to the CX-7 because the interior of the CX-7 makes it seem like a lower class of vehicle. If the RDX has a typically Acura well crafted, high quality interior than there will be no contest. The interior the CX-7 is basically the same quality as teh 3, but the CX-7 is considerably more expensive. Add to that the CX-7's odd styling and you have your winner. Fortunately for the unattractive RDX, the CX-7 set the bar pretty low in terms of styling.
By autoboy16
on August 23, 2006
04:12 PM
"We've been wanting to put together an article on just those issues for some time, but I can tell you that comparison tests are largely based on two things: "
When ever you choose to do the comparison test, try to include the
Cx-7/Mkx for the test. Also the X3 is getting freshened for 2007 (checkbmws website: www.bmwusa.com) so this test is going to get/be COMPETITIVE!
I♥Comparisons!!
-Cj ☺
By tsgeisel
on August 23, 2006
05:17 PM
An idea for the next comparison test: "All vehicles with an X in their model name."
By carlitos92
on August 24, 2006
01:16 PM
"Fortunately for the unattractive RDX, the CX-7 set the bar pretty low in terms of styling."
Uh, that's SUBJECTIVE... and the majority out there does not agree with you. But to each his own... Whichever flavor we all lean towards, automotive press websites and publications are about to get real fun with comparisons on this booming segment.
FYI, the towing rating on the CX-7 for all trim levels is 2000 lbs.
By trjnflip
on August 24, 2006
03:35 PM
Karl, I think you might want to double check your source in regards to the RDX being based off the CR-V chassis. I remember reading that the RDX uses a modified European Accord rear suspension. I'll try to find the source for you.
By editor_karl
on August 24, 2006
04:08 PM
We went around and around trying to confirm what the RDX was based on. Ultimately I went with two indicators:
1. A Honda/Acura person who basically said, "Of course Honda/Acura hate it when you say one car is basically a revamped version of another car...but the RDX is a revamped version of the CR-V."
2. A lot of spec/component analysis. Very few specs (weight, length, width, wheelbase, etc.) are identical between CR-V and RDX, but ALL of them are very close, and many of the components (suspension, steering, brakes, etc.) are also identical.
As usual, there are plenty of perspectives on what constitutes "shared platform" and the OE's will always land on the "no, no, this is a totally unique platform" side of the equation (no manufacturer rep wants to admit a Honda and Acura are basically the same car underneath). But in this case I think it's clear they are "closely related."
By navigator89
on August 24, 2006
05:46 PM
Hey Karl here's another great crossover comparison test idea.
Midsize, V6, 3rd row crossovers
Suzuki XL7
Toyota RAV4
Hyundai Santa Fe
Mitsubishi Outlander
GMC Acadia/Saturn Outlook
Subaru B9 Tribeca
By hondacura4
on August 24, 2006
06:45 PM
I drove a CX-7 2 weekends ago as my sister and her husband are Mazda freaks, she has a Mazda3 wagon and her husband has the MazdaSpeed Miata and the AWD/turbo MazdaSpeed6. Chassis wise its ok and although I havent driven the RDX yet, Im betting it has better driving dynamics than the "zoom zoom". I did handle well but I was exepecting more from it. I didnt care for the steering either.
As for looks the CX-7 looks better in pictures but its less attractive in person. The RDX on the other hand is different. It doesnt look great in pictures but in personit looks much better. The CX-7 is the victor on exterior styling though.
What Im worried about is gas milage. With the V6 RAV4 getting like 29 MPG and the RDX with less power getting 23-34ish (as Honda states) makes me wonder about it as I was expecting better milage from the turbo 4.
By autoboy16
on August 25, 2006
01:05 PM
"Hey Karl here's another great crossover comparison test idea."
On fords future options list for the Edge, they have added a 3rd row of seats. I guess if enough people pick them, they will become an option.
Also, take Rav4 off of the lis t-too small- and add Pilot and highlander. That twst will be smokin'!
-Cj☺
By tbone12
on February 1, 2008
01:28 PM
I currently own a TSX and it seems a lot of TSX owners are wanting to trade up into an RDX (from what I've read out there). I loved the RDX, but the interior materials did appear somewhat cheap to me. I'm not a fan of using painted plastic AND real aluminum next to each other. The RDX is really nice, but I think it can be improved. I think the headlights need to be more narrow (like the TSX headlights) and I was able to actually push the front and back bumpers in a bit, so the build quality didn't seem to be all there. I like a solid feel on the bumpers and all around. The backseat seemed really flimsy. But, driving the car was great! I really like the SH-AWD. The dash was the most attractive of the other Car based SUV's I've looked at. As for the radio, I rarely push the buttons on my TSX and have gotten used to using the steering wheel controls for all radio functions, so hiding those buttons below the HVAC controls makes sense. They should make the buttons more modern looking though and not look like an afterthought.
Here's my problem. I really like the RAV4 Sport V-6 and the upcoming VW Tiguan (both better in light off-road duty). But, the Toyota has a terrible interior in terms of materials (I love the storage in it). I anticipate a nice upgrade soon though, judging by the success of the new RAV4 V-6. The Rav4 Sport and the Tiguan get high 20's MPG, while the RDX is 19 hwy (if you drive it with a light foot).
I'd love to see an RDX, Toyota RAV4 Sport V-6, VW Tiguan comparison. Obviously, it won't happen until this summer when the Tiguan hits showrooms, but these are all good cars that will have similar buyers. I want performance, while having space for camping gear and AWD for peace of mind. The RAV4 is the only one that can lock the center diff, which is a good option in case you need to get out of a rut.
I'll wait a year to see what updates these three make.