CPT

I have done a fair amount of research on this and have come down to this choice: wait for the RDX in August or early September or buy a 2006 RAV-4 Limited 4x4 V6 now. I currently lease a 2002 CR-V which I love but am looking to upgrade with more power, comfort and performance without sacrificing too much on the mileage side. I am looking to buy this time around so resale value is important. I am worried about the RDX's ultimate ticket price -- doesn't sound like much bargaining going on and if the out the door price is $35K that is $6/7000 more (especially with Toyota dealers looking to move the 2006's). The question is whether that will be worth it. Wonder if anyone else has done the comparison and what they decided. Thanks.

mrdeeno

I doubt anyone has done a comprehensive comparison since the RDX isn't out yet. Why not just wait until the RDX is out and then decide (a couple more months?). The Rav-4 isnt' going anywhere, so you're not losing your chance, and the deals may be better for an '06 if you wait until '07 models are out anyway.

And further, if you're looking to buy, unless you plan on selling in 4-5 years, why so worried about resale value? The toyota at least has historically been popular and will have decent resale. Acura's usually have good resale, but they are not as consistent as Honda or Toyota resale. The RDX being an Acura and an SUV, it'll most likely have decent resale.

hondamore

I'll echo mrdeeno's comments - wait until the RDX is out, drive both, buy the one YOU like better. If cost is a major factor in your decision, you could even wait for the new CRV to come out - it will likely be a step up in power and comfort from your existing CRV.
Also, if you can wait, it is likely that there will be deals to be had on RDX's by the spring (this is just a guess based on experience with other new models that usually command full MSRP for the first 6 months or so). Good luck.

CPT

Thanks for the suggestions. I guess I should have mentioned my CRV lease is up in July. I can carry it over under the same terms for up to six months but I am feeling a little like I am throwing money away. (Also worried that interest rates will keep going up.) Still willing to do it if the RDX is worth it. Am I wrong to conclude that with the new CRV coming out, the RAV-4 getting great press (especially the V6 which is number 1 in Consumer Reports) and the new Mazda CX-7 coming out that perhaps Acura dealerships wont be in as strong a bargaining position on the RDX? Guess I am thinking about the TL where dealers were able to markup with impunity.

CPT

Oh, and I should have stated my reason for wanting a good resale...I like driving a new car every 4 or 5 years. Hoping to have something that holds its value so that I perhaps have some equity to play with on a trade in.

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

If you're looking for something that will hold its resale, I wouldn't bother worrying about the CX-7. Mazda's resale values have been pretty weak.

As for the Rav-4 and the RDX, it's hard to say right now. If the RDX shows the same kinds of resale values as the MDX, then it should easily surpass the Rav-4.

Also, if you only want to drive the car for 4 years and you're this concerned about resale value, why not just lease it? This way, you lock yourself into a residual so even if the car ends up being a dud in resale, you don't get stuck paying for it. A zero down lease will allow you to only pay for the portion that you actually drive and you can up the mileage to meet your driving requirements. Since you're one of those people like me who doesn't hang onto a car for a long time, this might be a route you should consider.

Colin

Does it stand to reason that if there is little or no barganing on a new RDX, and this continues for some time, that resale values will stay high? Because this is an all new model, they'll probably "guess" at residuals based on MDX performance. This should help out lease customers.

ozwaldo

I'm a current 1997 CR-V owner that just rented a new RAV-4 for 3 days. Granted it was not the V6, but I found it lacking "soul". It was very nice, but not anything special. Driving home in my CR-V tonight I decided that I still like it better, the ride is not as smooth, but it has more road feel and seemed just as peppy, but overall more comfortable. I am still looking forward to a RD-X test drive someday....

simplesimon

We also own a 97 CRV, and it has been a great little car. My wife is going to cry when we get rid of it. We have put a deposit on an RDX. We will take a chance on it.

CJW

I tested the Toyota RAV4 V6 4WD, Hyundai Tucson V6 4WD and Nissan Murano AWD last weekend. The Murano was too big and lush for my tastes and about 38k with the options I wanted. The Tucson is a very good small SUV but on the freeway the V6 was course and noisey. It had to strain when passing, just not enough power for the weight it has to carry. I don't want to get stuck with an underpowered SUV.

On the other hand... the RAV4 V6 drives like a bat out hell. It is strong and fast in every situation, overpowered, in fact. I like everything else about the car and so does Consumer Reports. The gas mileage is better than the RDX and it takes regular, not premium, AND the price is about 28, 29k.

I'll wait to test drive the RDX next month, maybe even wait to try out the new Honda CR-V, but right now the Toyota RAV4 4WD V6 is the one to beat.

orbitwhite

I am considering between the RDX, RAV4, and CX-7. I am a casual consumer, but I wish the RDX and RAV4 could switch engines! Give the RAV4 and CX-7 4-cyl turbos so the RDX be the obvious choice with that great V6 engine. I think the RAV4 V6 engine outperforms and is more fuel economic/efficient than the RDX, all are important. I just feel more comfortable with a basic V6 engine than a 4-cyl turbo in terms of reliability.

But back to reality. The RDX is a fantastic looking car, has great features and luxury, and good performance at ~$30-$35K. The RAV4 is a good but bland looking car, has better performance, more fuel efficient/economic, and cost less. My practical side is saying RAV4

simplesimon

No question Toyota has done a great job with the Rav 6 cyl. engine. But for me that's where it ends. I usually keep a car for 5 years, but can't see me driving the Rav that long. The appearance turns me right off. But I'm sure it will be great transportation.

DHCLK06

I believe that it has been stated before that the RDX and CRV share a platform. Those of you that were given the opportunity at an auto show to sit in an RDX, how would you compare it's interior space to that of the CRV? My wife just bought a '06 CRB and I'm not liking the legroom.

DHCLK06

I believe that it has been stated before that the RDX and CRV share a platform. Those of you that were given the opportunity at an auto show to sit in an RDX, how would you compare it's interior space to that of the CRV? My wife just bought a '06 CRV and I'm not liking the legroom.

phirenze

I sat in the RDX at the NY auto show and it didn't feel all that roomy to me in the back (I'm 6 feet) although it did have more legroom than the CRV. Based only on the styling and the specs on paper (haven't driven either), I would probably go with the V6 Rav4 - seems like a better value.

You should never rush into buying a car though and I would def wait until you drive the RDX to make a decision. Personally, I doubt even the best case test drive with the RDX could justify the extra $4-6k.

CJW

I sat in the RDX at the NY auto show as well. I'm 6 ft but found it to be fine, front and back. Of course people were hanging all over me so it wasn't the best atmosphere to judge. The RDX looks moe like a wagon than a SUV and I'm not that crazy about the looks of the RAV4 either. However, I'm less concerned about appearences for a SUV because it is a SUV.

I look forward to test driving the RDX but even if it comes out on top there's still the fact that they're asking a steep price. I won't pay 37k for a small SUV/wagon...

simplesimon

This is just my opinion, but it seems a lot of people were expecting to buy an RDX in the same price range as cars such as a CRV or a Rav. This just isn't going to happen. The RDX has standard features that aren't even available as options on these lower priced cars. These are totally different cars. If you are looking for straight value than the RDX isn't the car for you. After all the cheapest car available will get you from point A to point B. No one needs a BMW or a Lexus, etc. I would love to buy a Lexus for the same price as an RDX. Comparing the RDX with other cars I just don't think it's overpriced. Maybe they are all overpriced. A good used car probably offers better value. As I stated this is just my opinion.

CPT

Thank you all for a great discussion. I know that a RAV-4 isn't the RDX and it isn't an apples to apples comparison. The question has always been is whether the RDX worth an extra $5K or more. I'm still not convinced it is.

simplesimon

Only you would know what you are prepared to spend the extra dollars on. This is purely a personal choice. If you have x number of dollars to spend, that's what I would stick with. Get the best car you can find for that price or less. No use drooling over cars that are priced beyond what you are prepared to pay. I would never try to talk someone into a car they can't really afford.

vicpai

...I too was in the market for the RDX!!. It was the perfect size (I hate large vehicles), and fantastic alternative to the current MDX I owned. Secondly, I simply love Acura interiors (electronics and gadgetry), and their Navigation systems are the best, BAR NONE, OEM or aftermarket. Now, although I was intially against the 4 banger that they touted, I decided to give it a chance because of the "high efficiency" hype they kept throwing at us. I thought that if the turbo 4 was close to a V6, in it's quietness and NVH (noise, vibration and harshness) characteristics, it might be worth considering for it's so called "efficiency of a 4 cylinder with V6 power" ......Now they come out with the mileage figures, which are, in one word, LAUGHABLE .....simply ridiculous.....so you guys used a 4-banger so you could get 19city and 23 hwy?????? ....are you friggin kiddin me?? ...... That's the same highway mileage as Acura's own much much heavier and larger 7 passenger 6 CYLINDER MDX for cryin out loud!!!

The stats have spoken for themselves. So what good would a test drive do?? .....So, from a wise and practical standpoint it would be plain foolish to get the RDX. I've written off this vehicle and will be getting the upcoming redesigned MDX, which my gut says will be rated roughly around the same as the RDX for fuel economy. Maybe even a tad better using new technologies ...like 18city and 25hwy. I still get to have my Acura interior and Nav system and all the other goodies, AND I get a blazingly powerful, quiet and flexible V6, with no mileage penalty. For me, the only negative compromise I will have to make, will be the larger size of the vehicle (which to most other people would be looked upon as a significant BENEFIT)

....That said, you forgot the most important and significant reason to go for the RAV4 over the RDX. It has a wickedly powerful V6 that per Car and Driver's test results (Jan '06) does 0-60 in 6.3 secs and at the same time, with its rating of 21 city and 28 hwy puts the RDX's fuel economy to absolute shame, considering that they estimate the RDX's turbo 4-banger to have 0-60 times in the mid to high 7 second range. Yes, the RDX does have a significant advantage in the interior luxuries and "goodies" department, but IMO, the "nuts and bolts" mechanical advantage the RAV4 has far outweigh the luxury items.....and a fully-loaded-to-the-gills RAV4 LIMITED is not THAT far behind in the luxury dept either. While the JBL premium sound system may not hold a candle to the 410 Watt Elliot Scheiner system, and there are some invaluable goodies like bluetooth, and an amazing Nav system on the RDX, the mechanical "nuts and bolts" advantage of the RAV4 outweigh the luxury aspect, IMO (you can always install Alpine's excellent NVE-N872A aftermarket Nav system which is virtually identical to the RL factory version)

vicpai

.....and lease figures are very very attractive, then it might be worth looking at a RDX, despite the negatives I've mentioned above!!

unlemming

I drove the RAV4 and it's got good power, no question. But the features and styling are lacking. IMO, the ONLY thing the RAV4 has over the RDX is fuel efficiency...which is understandably a big deal to some (me included). This is of course before driving an RDX.

Colin

I wonder..... if I stand on the throttle at EVERY occasion, really pound the snot out of the car. Would the RDX turbo 4 or the RAV V-6 use more gas? I'm guessing the Six. Anyone else want to speculate?

unlemming

Since the RDX weighs more I'd say the RDX would use more gas. The RDX would probably be more fun while doing it, though .

phile

I would say the RDX, too. Doesn't the RAV-4 also make do with direct injection and a 6-speed, both of which helps to improve fuel economy?

vicpai

.....and I'm not speculating either. I've done an actual and very comprehensive test comparing a VW Passat 1.8 Turbo and My LS 400 V8 on 2 trips. One LA to Las Vegas and one Las Vegas to LA.

It's actually the other way around:
If you drove the RDX "very very judiciously", then it may give economy on par with RAV4. OTOH, if you drove the snot out of them, then the turbo's gas mileage would DROP LIKE A STONE. That's exactly what happened on my test. At 80-90mph my LS 400 on the freeway on the Las vegas to LA and back trip, the big 4.0L V8 with it's gobs of power would barely shift out of overdrive 5th gear, spinning at a very leisurely 2100RPM or so, even when hitting grades. OTOH, the turbo 1.8L 4 banger in the VW was CONSTANTLY shifting, sometimes up to 2 or 3 gears and revving MADLY up to 4000 or 5000RPM to maintain the 90mph, AND ESPECIALLY WHEN HITTING GRADES!!!. I did another short test at 2 am in the morning for about 95 miles on a freeway near my home at a constant 65mph, and the VW turbo gave slightly better gas mileage than the LS 400

BTW, EPA ratings for both vehicles were as follows:
LS 400 18city/25hwy
VW Passat 1.8T Turbo 22city/30hwy

you can see complete details of my full test here:

https://acurazine.com/forums/showthr...ghlight=passat

it's only common sense that a 4 banger pushing a 4000lb SUV with a large frontal area through the atmosphere, and saddled with a power-sapping SH-AWD system would have to have very "short" gearing that makes the engine rev at very high RPMs, sucking gas in the process .....and that's the reason for the dismal fuel economy, plain and simple!!

vicpai

.....the RAV4 is a measly 300lbs or so lighter than the RDX. That's hardly a weight difference. that's the weight of 2 average sized adults for cryin out loud. The REAL reason, (and I've said this MANY MANY MANY times over and over again) is because they chose to use a 4 cylinder engine, which needs to rev real high to be able to move this heavy SUV. The RAV4 with it's V6 engine, on the other hand, with it's tons of excess power, is running at ultra low RPMs in 5th overdrive most of the time.

I will however totally agree with your earlier comment regarding styling. The RDX is, IMHO, one of the most beautiful vehicles EVER. It's nothing short of drop dead georgeous .....it's unfortunate that this beauty is only skin deep

vicpai

.....direct injection and dual VVT-i, which gives it the amazing power. However, it has a 5-speed auto. What really improves the fuel economy is the tall 4th and 5th gears. According to Car and Driver test figures, the engine is barely ticking over at 1900RPM at 70mph in 5th gear.

Colin

Vic, I don't share your pessimism on the 4 cylinder and I don't belive that the LS400 makes "gobs of power" Heck, it only makes 10 hp more than my car with twice the displacement.

Interestingly, I have a similar "real world" example that has different conclusions. Running the S2000 on a road coarse that needs wide open throttle through 4 gears on the main strait (roughly 120 at the braking point), I would get about 15 MPG. My buddy following me in his Corvette (the 400 hp one if I remember correctly) could not stay close enough in the twistys to pass in the straight, ended up averaging 9 MPG for the same 20 minute session.

If you can believe it, I've never had anything BUT 4 cylinders!

20R - 2.2 liter in a '80 Celica
4A - 1.6 in a '84 Corolla
3S-GE - 2.0 in a '87 Celica GT-S
4A-GZE - 1.6 Supercharged in a '88 MR-2
3S-GTE - 2.0 Turbo in a '93 MR-2
B18 - 1.8 VTEC in a '94 GS-R
F20C - 2.0 VTEC in a 2000 Honda S2000
F22C - 2.2 VTEC in a 2005 Honda S2000

If I liked SUVs, the RDX would fit in perfectly alongside some pretty noteworthy Japanese 4 cylinders.

CJW

I've driven some peppy 4 bangers, including a 1999.5 Audi A4 1.8 turbo (with an aftermarket chip to boost the hp to 200), 2003 Saab 9-3 210hp turbo and now our 2006 Acura TSX 205 hp. They've all been very good engines, especially the Saab, but you can't compare any of those fine machines to the power of my 1997 Nissan Maxima's V6.

The V6 RAV still has the edge over the RDX especially when you factor in price. I wonder if the 2007 RAV will be better packaged than the 2006 models..

hondamore

Although they are not exactly proportional, a 10% difference in weight can result in a 10% difference in mileage. The RAV4 also has the benefit of publishing mileage numbers of its base models (ie. base 4 cyl. and base V6) but when you add opitons like sunroof, side and curtain airbags, leather, 18 inch wheels, etc. etc. some of its weight advantage and subsequent mileage advantage is lost. Unfortunately, the mileage numbers of the loaded up versions aren't published anywhere.
Edit: Acutally, Car and Driver tested the loaded version and got 16 MPG (albeit they probably drove the car pretty hard.) It will be interesting to see the mileage Car and Driver gets during their RDX test drive. My gut feeling is the actual mileage will be closer to the RAV4.

unlemming

Cruising on the highway mashing on the gas in the city are pretty different conditions. Both engines would be revving high in this situation for relatively short periods of time. I understood that to be the situation posed, I could be wrong (wouldn't be the first time ).

If you've ever been in a regular 4 cylinder before with two extra people you can feel the difference (I sure could in my 4 banger Accord).

I would much rather see a small displacement lightweight V8 with more intelligent VCM than the Pilot V6 has..so I'm far from a defender of the 4 banger choice.

CJW

It must be said that the RAV4 V6 takes REGULAR GAS while the turbo 4 in the RDX will require PREMIUM GAS. Factor that into the equation..

Colin

Wait a minute.... you mean there's another kind of gas? I've only known premium since 1987!

simplesimon

I don't quite understand why a number of posters come on to an RDX forum to ex tole the virtues of the Rav. I'm sure most RDX fans are aware that the Rav has more HP, gets better mileage, while using regular fuel, and sells for less than the RDX, it's no secret. But they also believe that's where it ends. It reminds me of flying. You can fly first class or economy. Either way you will arrive at the same time. If I wanted to fly economy I would buy a Rav. I want to fly first class (my choice). I wouldn't even think of going to a Rav forum to try and convince Rav believers that the RDX is better. What's the point, other than to start a debate? I don't even know why these cars are being compared. They are different cars, that appeal to totally different buyer's. The Rav is a fine little car, but of no interest to me. I don't intend to race my RDX, and the mileage difference between the two isn't enough to worry me.

hondamore

Well said!!
Refinement, luxury, convenience, class, cutting-edge technology and performance are purchased with the heart and soul and not strictly the logical mind. We'd all be discussing the features of our new Honda Fit's if mileage and cost were the main criteria for our car purchasing decisions. The Fit gets 33 city and 38 highway MPG - should we all rush over to the RAV forums to tell people that the RAV is a gas-guzzling pig?

jaobrien6

Because I can get a fully loaded Rav4 for just about $30k, and a non-nav RDX for ~$32k, according to rumours. If I'm in the market for a small SUV, I'm going to compare them, and I'm also going to consider a Subaru Outback... Why? 'Cause it also will run me about $30k. I know I want to spend in the low $30's, max... and I want to look at everything that I can get for my dollar that has AWD and more space than an average sedan. And then Ii'm going to weigh the pros and cons of each vehicle and decide what suits my needs best. Heck, I'm going to look at the new CRV, too. If it meets my needs, and I like it, why not save a few grand?

I'm not on this website 'cause I'm an RDX believer, I'm here 'cause I'm very interested in the RDX. I'm definitely not head over heads in love with a car I haven't even seen in person, much less driven. And I'm willing to believe that another car out there might suit my needs better, and other people might feel that way too.

CJW

Calm down. I fly first class all the time... and I'm not anti-RDX anymore than I am pro-RAV. However, I do think a comparison of the two SUVs is worthwhile. I didn't start this thread but I do think you guys are missing the point. I just want to make an informed decision. In fact, I haven't decided on the RAV or the RDX, but I admit I'm leaning to the RAV. As I've said previously, I'm waiting to test drive the RDX before I lay down my cash.

Do you really think the difference between the RAV and the RDX is the same as flying coach and flying first class? I think a fully loaded RAV stacks up against the RDX pretty well, though clearly Acrua has the technology edge. But... Is that enough? Is that worth the difference in price?

I bought a 2006 Acura TSX because I felt it was the best choice, but I wouldn't say the Audi A4 or the Subaru Legacy, two models I was considering, were like flying coach. I plan to test drive a RDX but Acura has to really come through for me to fork over 37k in this very competitive market.

unlemming

The RAV interior is nice, don't get me wrong, but it's no Acura interior. It's not in the same league, even the manufacturers will acknowledge that fact. CRV is a better comparison to the RAV if you want to compare "class". Acura might not be "first class" and Toyota might not be "Economy class" but it's a valid comparision nonetheless. Navigation is not even available in the RAV (stateside), that's enough right there to turn off a lot of buyers. Rumor has it the CRV will have Navi too.

Then again, I'm biased and in general I like Acura interiors more than anything else out there.

simplesimon

"Because I can get a fully loaded Rav4 for just about $30k, and a non-nav RDX for ~$32k, according to rumours. If I'm in the market for a small SUV, I'm going to compare them."

Hey, when you put it that way, the RDX sounds like even more of a bargin.