jaobrien6

It all depends on your priorities and what you're looking for. Someone else would say: "Are you kidding? I can get a Rav4 with a V6, AWD, better gas mileage, and lots of goodies like heated leather seats, dual zone climate control, moonroof, etc. and save $2k? Why in the world would I buy an RDX?"

1092

Even though some people want to fully vette the RDX strengths and weaknesses in this forum, some regulars don't want to recognize positions that could challenge the value of the RDX. You make valid points.

simplesimon

Why would you buy an RDX? Given those priorities, I'd say you shouldn't. As for priorities, I agree with you, and that has been my point. A number of the posters here definitely seem to prefer the Rav because of the power and mileage, and the Rav would be a great choice for them, although I've yet to hear anyone rave about the appearance of it. As for my priorities, the RDX will have more power than I will need, and as far as the mileage, about 4 years ago I loaded up on Canadian oil and gas stocks, so I have all bases covered. If the price of oil goes to $100 a barrel I make more money, and even if gasoline goes to $6 a gallon I will be ahead of the game. If the price of oil drops to $40 per gallon, the price of gasoline will drop enough to make the RDX milage just fine with me. Don't get me wrong I'm not gloating, because it was a lucky guess. I have read a number of writeups by people that have driven the RDX and described the experience as like driving a sports sedan. I have never seen the Rav ride described like that. Most of all, I plain don't like the appearance of the Rav. Still looks like a shoe box to me, and the interior just doesn't appeal to me. If I didn't get an RDX I would wait to see what the CRV is going to look like. It will have all the power I need, and for those concerned will have better mileage than the RDX, as well as costing less. My next choice would be a Lexus RX350, followed by the Infinti FX35. But not a Rav.

vicpai

.....which 4 cylinder vehicle makes 280bhp???.....my 2000 LS 400 is rated at 290bhp @ 6000RPM and 300lb.ft. @ 4000RPM see specs below. Besides, while horsepower is significant, the GOBS OF low to mid range torque is what really tells the story!!!

http://www.edmunds.com/used/2000/lex...647/specs.html

vicpai

.....That same magazine, Car and Driver tested a MAZDA CX7, which has a virtually identical powertrain to the Acura RDX (it is so identical, that it is almost scary: both have a 2.3L turbo 4; 244bhp vs. 240bhp, 258lb.ft. vs. 260lb.ft; both are within a hair short of 4000lbs in weight) .....and what fuel mileage did they get?? 14mpg .....granted they drove this vehicle hard too, this is indicative of what one can expect of an RDX, which is lower gas mileage than a RAV4

vicpai

....extoll the virtues of the RAV4, but to set the record straight in an UNBIASED manner. I don't consider myself a "fan" of anything, as I think of things like that as being beneath my intelligence. Yes, I am partial to car makers like Honda and Toyota, not because I'm a "fan", but because I RESPECT them for the high quality, ultra-reliable vehicles they produce and their dedication, in general, to perfection. Even there, I prefer Honda slightly because of their superiority in "handling prowess" and their perfectly executed interiors, with the latest truly USEFUL techonogy. I was initially in the market for the RDX (as I've explained many times before). However a huge misstep by Acura with the powerplant, which has not only resulted in mediocre performance, but very subpar fuel economy as well, simply cannot be ignored. (although, in all honesty, I must clarify that I'm neither in the market for a RAV4, because like you said it does not have the level of luxury I'm looking for. Eventually I've settled on getting the redesigned Acura MDX again, because I'm getting much much more in terms of a V6 engine, refinement etc. etc. ....and best of all NO GAS MILEAGE PENALTY over the RDX)

According to Honda, fuel efficiency was the main reason for going with a 4 banger, and I ask WHERE THE HELL IS THE FUEL ECONOMY THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT??????? To show how bad it actually is, this is the exact same city fuel economy and one mpg worse highway, than that of a Lexus RX 350 AWD rated at 19/24 ....and BTW, the RX is 200lbs heavier AND has a 270-horse V6 to boot!!!. .....Bottom line is, if I'm going to sacrifice something (a V6), then I should get some benefit. That's why I ask where is the 4-cylinder-like fuel economy they constantly keep harping on????

On the subject of comparing the 2 vehicles, I disagree with the "flying economy" versus "flying first class" comparison. I would say its more like "flying first class" with the RDX and "flying business class" with the RAV4. Yes, it's a step down in terms of luxury, but not that HUGE of a step. A fully loaded-to-the-gills RAV4 Limited V6 is available with leather, heated seats, automatic climate control for driver and passenger, 440W JBL high end sound system, and even a DVD rear entertainment system and a third row seat. That's not something you'd call a basic form of economy transportation!

.....and so you will find a number of people cross shopping these vehicles, and the purpose of this debate is to highlight the differences. For people like me, a fancy brand name means NOTHING. Brand loyalty also means NOTHING. I will give my business to a manufacturer that gives me the better product (and I also understand that "better" is a relative term and means different things to different people). .....and besides, it would be ironic to bring up brand "catchet" as a justifiable difference, because I have always heard the so called "Acuraphiles" constantly belittle BMW, Mercedes and Lexus buyers for being "brand snobs" ....so I don't think it would be wise to bring that point up here, or it would be a case of "the pot calling the kettle black" ......and BTW, this is also the reason I bought my MDX, because, for a similar price I was getting a far far far superior vehicle than one wearing a "three pointed star" on it's hood

Colin

Easy there, you never said what year LS400 you had, but the original ones only had 250. Yup, 250 hp out of 4 liters. I drive an S2000, so it should come at no surprise that I don't see torque as the most important thing in a car! I do love that saying that "my lugnuts need more torque than you Honda makes.....

Colin

If Acura revamped their marketing to focus on the lighter weight of the 4 cylinder and the corresponding improvement in weight distribution AND thus better handling, would the 4 cylinder "bother" you less?

simplesimon

According to Honda, fuel efficiency was the main reason for going with a 4 banger, and I ask WHERE THE HELL IS THE FUEL ECONOMY THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT??????? To show how bad it actually is, this is the exact same city fuel economy and one mpg worse highway, than that of a Lexus RX 350 AWD rated at 19/24 ....and BTW, the RX is 200lbs heavier AND has a 270-horse V6 to boot!!!. .....Bottom line is, if I'm going to sacrifice something (a V6), then I should get some benefit. That's why I ask where is the 4-cylinder-like fuel economy they constantly keep harping on????

On the subject of comparing the 2 vehicles, I disagree with the "flying economy" versus "flying first class" comparison. I would say its more like "flying first class" with the RDX and "flying business class"

You make my point. You don't like the RDX. Fair enough. What I don't understand is why you continue to visit and post your reasons for feeling that way. You have every right to do so, but I just don't know why you would bother. As I said I have never gone to a Rav forum to express my dislikes of the Rav. As for the comparison of first class and economy, that was obviously an exageration to make a point. I have nothing against Toyota. My truck is a Toyota, not exactly a status symbol, and my second choice in a car would be a Lexus RX350. The RDX may well be a lemon. Time will tell.

CL6

The RAV4 and the RDX are different cars aimed at different people. Does anyone compare a RAV4 with an X3?

simplesimon

My thought's exactly.

CJW

Actually Edmunds compares the RDX to the RAV4 in their review...

hondamore

This debate is a little like asking a large group if they prefer Pepsi or Coke.
I'll repeat my earlier comment - drive both a few times and then buy the one you like better.
The point I believe that many RDX "supporters" are making throughout this thread is that the little extras that are not available in the RAV4 (HID headlights, 18/19" wheels, Steering wheel mounted controls, XM stereo, HomeLink, Nav, bluetooth, voice activated commands etc.) and the RDX's superior interior, put the RDX in a different "class" than the RAV which makes comparing the two vehicles based on price and mileage alone a moot point. That said, both are SUV's and consumers are free to cross-shop whatever they like. By that standard, however, people could be on the RAV4 forums asking about cross-shopping the RAV4 with the Hyundai Tucson.
Regarding the posters repeatedly extolling the virtues of the RAV4 (and/or "bashing" the RDX) , you have to realize that doing so on an Acura forum is akin to wearing a Yankees jersey and hat in Fenway Park - don't expect others to applaud your actions and don't be surprised if others take exception to your viewpoint.

CJW

Yankees and Redsoxs? Are you kidding me? Its a car, not a baseball team.

I'm not anti-Acura. Some of my best friends own Acuras. Why, I even own one myself. Its a silver 2006 Acura TSX w/Navi which I bought this year.

I think the question is will the 2007 Acura RDX stand up to these comparisons? I don't have brand loyalty; you have to earn my business with each purchase. The Hyundai Tucson is actually a good little SUV but I think the RAV is clearly superior. It also costs more so that makes sense. The Acura blind faithful think the RDX is superior to the RAV and it costs more. However, since the RDX isn't out yet I think a debate along these lines is valid. You guys all need to lighten up.

CL6

If Edmunds told you to buy a Yugo, would you?

There are not many cars like the X3/RDX. The RAV4 has three rows, is not a premium brand. Apples and oranges.

And why does everybody whine about the EPA estimates. They're no good anyway. Everyone knows that. Plus the RDX isn't out yet.

jaobrien6

I absolutely agree.

jaobrien6

Edmunds didn't tell anyone to "go buy a Rav4." They compared it to the RDX, because they know that people are going to cross shop the vehicle. When you do a vehicle review, one thing you can do is compare it to likely competition. And that's all Edmund's did.

I totally disagree. First of all, yes the Rav4 is available with 3 rows, but the third row is brutal, and basically not worth it. The vehicle almost exactly the same size as the RDX... just 'cause someone at Toyota decided to cram a childseat into the cargo area doesn't put it in a totally different class. Second, premium brands mean nothing to many people. Just ask all the people who start the TSX vs. Mazda6 vs. Legact GT threads over on the TSX forums. Also, head on over to the Lexus, Infiniti, BMW, Audi, etc. forums and see what they think of your premium Acura. I repeat what I said earlier: People are going to cross-shop a $30k Rav4 with a $32k RDX (and with a $32k CX-7, for that matter), whether you think they should or not.

Well, both Acuras I've had ('97 Integra and '04 TSX) have gotten very close to the published city and highway mileage.

P.S. So I don't get labeled an Acura hater, I have a '97 Integra and '04 TSX, and love them both. I'm looking to replace the 'teg with something bigger with AWD (so I don't have to chain up anymore when going skiing), and I'm anxiously awaiting the RDX. But I'm willing to consider other vehicles too. As CJW said: "you have to earn my business with each purchase."

hondamore

A point to be made in the RDX's favour over all other AWD SUV's is the SH-AWD system. My experience with the RL has been that the SH-AWD is equal to or better than other systems at transferring power to avoid wheel slip and maintain traction AND, most importantly, is vastly superior to any other system when it comes to improving handling both on dry pavement and on wet or snowy roads (I've had plenty of experience with bad road conditions up here in Canada) . Some posters who are cross-shopping AWD SUV's gloss over this fact and don't seem to give this technology the prominence it deserves when comparing the RDX to other AWD vehicles. Once we all get the chance to experience the sweet handling of the RDX, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. When you get your test drive of the RDX, be sure to push the limits handling-wise to fully appreciate the SH-AWD. That smile on your face and the little "Wow" you mutter under your breath when you exit a corner is what the SH-AWD is all about.

CL6

I'm looking at the specs. for the RAV4. I don't see a navigation system as an option on Toyota's website. I don't see a surround sound stereo as an option. I don't even see good looks as an option. You can compare a Hyundai to a BMW (Hyundai does when they claim more room than a 5 Series) but it doesn't make it so. I see the RAV4 as being with the CRV maybe, not the RDX.

Sure, people compare 'regular' brands with premium ones. But the people who do not understand the concept of a premium brand do not drive premium brand cars. They sort of sort themselves out nicely that way.

Don't plead ignorance on the EPA estimates not being close to actual miles. Cars don't get the EPA most of the time because the way the cars are tested has nothing to do with how they're really driven.

The RDX might suck. I haven't driven it yet so I can't answer that question. I'm sure some people will compare the RAV4 and the RDX and not see them as being very different. A lot of people probably voted for Dukakis or McGovern, too.

simplesimon

I think what we need is a cross shoppers, not to be confused with cross dressing, forum so that people that are only interested in the RDX wont have to keep reading about how some other make has more hp or costs less or gets better milage, etc. I think we are all aware that the Rav is a few thousand dollars less, has more hp, and get's better milage. Anyone who doesn't know this by now must be living under a rock. People who can't make up their minds could compare to their heats content on the cross shoppers forum and leave this forum to those who are only interested in the RDX. I don't want to come to an RDX forum to read about the Rav or the CX7 or the X3, etc. I just want RDX news. I am capable of going to other forums myself.
Just for fun I looked at the Rav forum on Edmunds, and guess what? Rav owners are reporting that their new Rav's are not without problems.

CJW

The thread title clearly says "RDX vs. RAV4 (V6)". All you have to do is not look at this thread if you don't want to read about the RDX compared to another SUV.

BTW - Nixon beat McGovern and went on to become the first President to resign in disgrace. Bush Sr. beat Dukakis and then became a one term President because he broke his "read my lips" no new taxes pledge.

1092

According to Honda, fuel efficiency was the main reason for going with a 4 banger, and I ask WHERE THE HELL IS THE FUEL ECONOMY THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT??????? To show how bad it actually is, this is the exact same city fuel economy and one mpg worse highway, than that of a Lexus RX 350 AWD rated at 19/24 ....and BTW, the RX is 200lbs heavier AND has a 270-horse V6 to boot!!!. .....Bottom line is, if I'm going to sacrifice something (a V6), then I should get some benefit. That's why I ask where is the 4-cylinder-like fuel economy they constantly keep harping on????

You get it. Unfortunately, you'll be labeled anti-RDX when you have done nothing but point out a valid comparison point.

Count Blah

You're talking about interior options. You'll also find a difference in exterior styling, AWD system, handling, NVH, etc. If those things aren't important to you, buy the RAV4.

simplesimon

[QUOTE=CJW]The thread title clearly says "RDX vs. RAV4 (V6)". All you have to do is not look at this thread if you don't want to read about the RDX compared to another SUV.

Ya got me there. I guess it's like an accident scene, or a fire, you can't help looking and when you do you are upset. They say this is why car races are so popular. I will no longer open this thread, but leave it to those who don't like the RDX and really have no intent to buy one. Since the RDX arrived at it's first car show there have been posters here complaing about it. Some complained about it's cheap look. The interior was crappy, with a cheap appearance. Funny thing is the pro writers that have actually driven the RDX have commented on the good look of the interior. As soon as those comments died down, it was the price, and the HP, and the mileage, over and over. The HP isn't going to change, the price will be too much for some, and the mileage wont be good enough. I will concede the Rav is probably better "value" for those that are just looking for that. My recomendation to those is, buy a Rav and move on because the Rav is what it is and the RDX is what it is.


Goodbye

phile

That was one of the benefits they were looking for in deciding on the turbo instead of the V6; they're shooting for an overall package...fuel economy, performance, etc. A V6 from the current Honda family probably would be just as fuel efficient, but it would probably add even more weight to the RDX, which would in turn affect performance.

jaobrien6

So where do I fit in? When I shop for a car, I look at premium and non-premium brands and pick what I think is the best car for my $. The last 2 cars I bought were Acura's, because I recognize the value that Acura provides. But that doesn't mean my next car will be an Acura, I'm willing to keep an open mind. And I reiterate my point about premium vs. non-premium being rather subjective... you feel very strongly that Acura is premium brand, but many people would disagree, and classify Acura as entry-luxury, or pre-luxury (I've seen those terms in automotive press, not just fanboy forums). So who's right? But does it even matter? I don't drive an Acura 'cause I feel a need to drive a premium car, I drive one because I really liked the overall package best, of all the cars I looked at.

Hey, almost every car i've driven has gotten pretty close to the EPA mileage... usually I see slightly lower than EPA in the city, and higher than EPA on the highway. Everybody is all hot these days about changing the EPA testing 'cause it doesn't reflect real world driving. Well, in my experience, it does okay. And I've polled friends and family (not exactly a scientific poll, I realize), out of curiousity because of all the stories about mileage these days, and they almost all get close to EPA estimates. I don't know what else to say.

jaobrien6

exterior styling = completely subjective. And IMO, the RDX is no beauty queen. I'm one of those who was in love with the concept, but not as wowed by the production version, mostly 'cause of the extremely busy front end.

AWD system = I will definitely concede this point

Handling = I expect you're right, but I haven't driven the RDX, have you? Yes the reviews have said it handles well, but we have to wait and see.

NVH = Again, I haven't driven the RDX, but every toyota product I've ever driven has been quieter than its honda counterpart. The Corolla was quieter than the Civic, Camry was quieter than the Accord. My Integra is loud as hell, and my TSX isn't exactly super-quiet. Every lexus I've been in (ES, GS, RX) has been extremely quiet.

jaobrien6

I'm willing to give this a rest, 'cause I don't think we're making any headway.

However, I wanted to state that my point all along was not that the RAV4 was a better option than the RDX, but simply that the RAV4 is an *option*. Some people seem to have already decided that the RDX is the best choice out there, but none of us have even driven it. The RAV4 has it's flaws, and so does the RDX, and so does every other vehicle out there.

Count Blah

I admit I was basing my NVH comment on a post I read here about what you could expect in the RAV4 when it's 300-400 lbs lighter.

CL6

[QUOTE=jaobrien6]Hey, almost every car i've driven has gotten pretty close to the EPA mileage...QUOTE]


If you drive like this then you should:

The current city test is 11 miles and consists of 23 stops, with an average speed of 20 mph and about five minutes of idling. The 10-mile highway test includes no intermediate stops, minimal idling, and an average speed of 48 mph. Do you average 48 mph on the highway?



In addition, A/C is not used, all the windows are rolled up and no other accessories are used.

jaobrien6

I know what the test parameters call for, and I realize that it's not a good representation of normal driving habits, but the fact remains that most cars I've driven get very close to their EPA estimates. Maybe it's luck, maybe car mileage doesn't actually vary that much based on driving style (I don't really believe that), I'm not sure how to explain it.

My 'teg (daily driver) is rated at 31 or 32 highway... with cruise control on, I can get 34-35 mpg going 80 mph. Around town, I usually get around 24 (compared to a 25 EPA estimate). I would characterize my driving as moderately aggressive, I'm not drag racing away from every light, but I definitely don't drive like a grandma.

My experience tells me to expect that a car will get close to the EPA estimate, regardless of why that happens to be the case. Your experience apparently tells you otherwise.

vicpai

[QUOTE=CL6].....correct, you have not said what they do with the obtained results. After the EPA gets the results for a particular vehicle, the highway number is then REDUCED by 22 PERCENT and the city number is REDUCED by 10 PERCENT to compensate for real world conditions. This is how they arrive at the final numbers and then become the published EPA figures!!

see epa website (last paragraph) "adjusting estimates"

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml

jaobrien6

I didn't realize that... that probably helps explain why I've seen real world results that align reasonably well with the EPA estimates.

CLSter

I just noticed this thread - I have been shopping around looking at the RAV-4, CX-7 and the only thing I liked about the CX-7 was the brakes. As for the RAV-4 well this is a light duty, small SUV and looks really doesn't factor into the equation for these vehicles for me. The RAV-4, V6 Sport I drove was really surprising - decent handling, excellent power and comfortable. My biggest gripe was the weak headlights. I also checked the RAV-4 forums and they are getting combined mileage of anywhere from 20-24MPG up to 32MPG on the long highway rides -not bad at all. The CX-7 is getting much less than that (it weighs more than the RAV).

As for the NAV issue: I am always seeing great deals on portable GPS/NAV units so that is not an issue either. Most OEM car NAV units I have used have been overpriced disappointments with sketchy, expensive updates.

I think I will be getting a RAV in the fall, I don't think I would want to deal with a turbo 4 in a vehicle like this - especially when the 6 does more and will likely be more reliable with better overall efficiency.

hondamore

Some of the mileage numbers on the RAV4 sites will be for 2WD versions and some numbers will be for the 4 cylinder models, the highest numbers you mention are likely the 2WD/ 4 cylinder versions. Such a vehicle is up to 700 pounds lighter than the RDX and puts out 166 horsepower - its mileage is irrelevant in a discussion of the RDX.
The lower numbers you mention (20 mpg combined) is likely the loaded up V6 version that is being cross-shopped with the RDX. These numbers are likely similar to those the RDX will get (while weighing in 300 pounds heavier and being loaded up with all of the features that luxury buyers covet).

CL6

Yes, I did read that the EPA estimates are revised downwards. However there has been major lobbying for many years to completely revise those estimates. I have heard from very few customers that the MDX gets close to its EPA estimates. My Acura does not get its EPA estimates unless I am doing straight highway mileage with cruise control. Everybody agrees the EPA estimates are nowhere close to accurate for hybrids.

Edmunds seems to agree with me:

http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fuelec...3/article.html

Notice the box at the bottom that says "EPA" and "Edmunds."

Furthermore if you look at any Monroeny sticker you'll see, in tiny letters, that even the EPA hedges. The Acura RSX, for example, says "23" in town but in fine print the EPA says it could be as low 19 or as high as 27.

My point is that everybody quotes EPA estimates as the bible but they are basically a joke from my experience.

caron

I'm in the exact same situation - my lease is up on my TL and I'm trying to decide between the RAV4 (v6) and the new RDX. I test drove the RAV4 and have the following to say about it:

PROS
1) Price is right - less than 30K
2) Nice body
4) Good cargo space compared to others in its class
5) Good gas mileage - takes regular

CONS
1) Need to get the Limited to get a nice interior (even then, it still doesn't have all the features that Acura has)
2) Seems overpowered; too much power for the car (yet a V4 is too little)
3) Not as smooth as the Acura TL I have (I've been spoiled). However, not sure what the ride will be like with the RDX.

My practical side is saying - go with the RDX. But I don't want to regret it if the RDX comes out and I love it. So, I decided to extend my lease for another month, test drive the RDX and look at the pricing, then compare it to the RAV4 at that time. We'll see then.

jaobrien6

I definitely agree with this.

As for the rest, I can only say that I rely most heavily on my own experience. The edmunds article you link to is interesting, because it appears to be long-term testing mileage, not mileage achieved during a short test (which is always awful because they really beat on the car). But even so, I don't know how the cars were driven, whereas I know how I drive my cars. If I continue to drive different cars, and continue to get mileage close to EPA estimates, I'm going to continue expect a car to live up to it's EPA mileage. Maybe that's naive of me, but it hasn't failed me yet.

CLSter

Sigh, thanks for the patronizing attitude - I am well aware of what a V6 is and what options are what for these vehicles - here look for yourself:

http://rav4world.com/

And specifically the thread entitled: Gas Mileage-V6

unlemming

Hmm..Although EPA estimates (what's that word mean, again? estimates?) are not writ in stone, they do provide a very controlled testing environment in which to make comparisions between vehicles. That's the real value of the EPA estimates; though I too generally exceed the average numbers (the big ones) on the stickers. Except in the NSX .