BLEXV6

I guy I work with just purchased the Q5 with the 2L Turbo, Navi, Panoramic Sunroof, no reverse camera.

I am a very satisfied RDX owner, so much so that I enjoy it more everyday. I have the Tech Package.

Anyway, the car is just beautiful, inside and out. Amazing Mags, grey colour and the interior is very nice, much nicer than the RDX, Big thick steering wheel, nice aluminum accents on the dash board, I don't like the steering wheel as much and the engine is a bit noisier. The panoramic sunroof is quite neat.

In CDN dollars, it is about $10,000 more, with less equipment. Is it $10,000 nicer, I don't think so.

I understand why people get it though as it has that wow factor. That said, reliability is important to me as well.

Still happy with my RDX.

imnuts

The price was the big reason we didn't look at the Q5 when shopping for new cars. They are very nice from the times I have been in one or looked at them, but we couldn't justify the cost for what we would be getting, at least not at this time. I would agree though that the 2.0T engine isn't the quietest. They have improved it since it first arrived in 06/07, but there's only so much that can be done.

kirkland715

if i was leasing i would go with the Audi. Long term the RDX is the better buy imo.

Dimcorner

Same boat here. Considered a used Q5 vs RDX but even those when optioned the same were more expensive than the RDX. I was heavily rooting for the Q5 (I sold the S4 I had for the RDX) but the price difference was not worth it for just a family car.

BlackDogRDX

The deciding factor on the RDX for me was substantially more 2nd row room. If you can fit in a Q5, the Audi lease is very tempting but if you're buying the Acura reliability is a big deal.

imnuts

Reliability is less about the brand/model and more about the owner. If you don't maintain a car, it's going to have problems regardless of who made it.

BlackDogRDX

I think that would be obvious. If you have a leadfoot you shouldn't expect to get to 300k without putting some serious work into the vehicle. All drivers being equal I would much rather have a Honda/Acura at 100k than a VW/Audi. And I loved my VW at 100k.

Dimcorner

The amount of maintenance for my 130,000 mile S4 was WAY more than my old 110,000 mile Accord and I'm counting everything from oil changes to wheel bearings and window guides.

In the Audi I purchased in 2007 and sold in 2013.

Timing belt/water pump/thermostat
F-hose
Tie-rod ends
Front suspension bushings
2 Turbos (started dentist drilling, this was not cheap!)
Ignition control module
Driver window guide
headliner sag
rocking driver seat guide
valve cover gasket
2nd ignition control module
Inner passenger CV boot
thermostat died again (it's behind the timing belt so it had to come off again)
Outer driver CV boot
coolant temp sensor
passenger wheel bearing
Outer passenger CV boot
driver window guide (again)
Fuel filter (which on top of the tank and you have to be a magician to get to)
Center drive shaft bearing
2 motor mounts

HOWEVER.... If I owned my own house and this was my third car I would SOOOOO do it again!

geocord

All I can say is.....OMG. That was in only 6 years?? The 10 yr old Infiniti I traded in on the RDX had two actual repairs over it's lifetime and together they totalled less than $600. Granted I only had 98k miles on it but jeeeesh.

Dimcorner

Yeah it was just annoying things that would pop up. Car was awesome and I drove it from Miami to Boston and back twice (got to play in the snow with the AWD!) but without a house and garage, working on it was very inconvenient (apartment parking spot).

Joe Las Vegas

You guys need to race to see if the 2.0L turbo can keep up with the V6.

Dimcorner

Unless the gearing for the RDX sucks... The RDX should kill it.
RDX weighs less AND has a +50hp advantage.

From looking around the interwebz the RDX 0-60 is 6.1 vs the 2.0T Q5 @ 7.0

Minge

I am an Audi fanboy but feature to feature the rdx was the clear choice. To get the Audi they way I wanted it was 52k sticker..not in the cards. The rdx has a better motor rear seat comfort and decent cargo room and fit and finish is decent. To me the rdx all wheel with tech package is. A better value then a loaded up q5 and this is coming from a guy TNT wanted the Audi to win.

BLACK RAVEN

The Q5 is a joke. Even watch the little couple. Perfect for midgets. options or not, no room compared to RDX.

imnuts

The Q5 has 1" or less difference in front and rear head, shoulder, and leg room, and even has more front and rear head room than the RDX. The cargo volumes are also within 10% of each other. I'd hardly consider that no room.

BlackDogRDX

At the end of the day an RDX can comfortably haul 4 6' adults (or put a child seat behind a 6'5" adult) and a Q5 can't. If the Q5 could I would have bought one.

fleuger99

I've purchased and owned two Audi A6's and while the cars for the most part were good the several dealers here in the Boston area were so bad they made the ownership experience terrible. The final straw for me was the lack of Audi customer care interest in helping me with one of the dealers that made me sell the car and I'd never touch another Audi product as long as I live.

When shopping for the RDX I test drove the Audi Allroad and really liked it, although it was under powered, I could not buy it because I knew the wonderful experience waiting for me from the dealers and Audi.

Dimcorner

I would really like the All road if it was based of the larger A6. However even the A4 based one is hella expensive!

fleuger99

It's in the same price range as the BMW 3-series Sport Wagon although the BMW engine is far superior both performance and fuel consumption wise.

Nemesisenforcer

The salesman of Mark motors Ottawa ON told me once: you will be driving a German car and a brand name like Audi. After 100K Kms it is acceptable to spend $2-3K a year to maintain this car.

Lets see: the design advantage of German cars IMHO are less now a days compared to 10 years ago. Everyone gets bored from their car after 5 years. If one would like to use the vehicle as a comfortable utility vehicle boredom is bearable. But if you are paying huge money for maintenance on a car that you feel like changing is questionable. Of course this goes to those wishing to keep the car beyond 5 years.

If you plan on keeping the car less than 5 years go for Audi or BMW. Fun to drive cars.

HotRodW

It is well known that the Germans underrate their published horsepower numbers. The Q5 and allroad's 2.0T most definitely generates more than the 220 HP you'll find specified in the brochure. But more importantly, the engine makes a generous amount of low RPM torque to make it feel stronger than the numbers suggest. It's this torque that allows the Q5 to get off the line quickly, and in fact it will out accelerate the RDX to 30. Having both the Audi 2.0T (Q5) and BMW 2.0T (X1) in the garage, I can attest that the BMW engine is stronger (numbers also underrated), but it is not substantially more fuel efficient. In fact, our Q5 is capable of notably better gas mileage than the X1 cruising at 75 to 80 mph.

I like the RDX a lot -- almost bought one myself in fact. Depending on your definition of value, it can be an outstanding value. But Audi's don't cost more just because of the badge on the grille or where they are manufactured. There is also a difference in content. The standard ZF 8-speed auto and Quattro AWD are both substantial (and costly) upgrades over the Acura's powertrain offerings, and yet the window stickers are probably closer than you think. When you start piling on options, the Audi has so many available features you can't even get on the RDX, it's no surprise the price can be pushed thousands beyond a loaded RDX's.

http://www.edmunds.com/car-compariso...atorId=8676156

I won't pretend to claim that the Q5 will be as reliable as the RDX, but I will say that in 35,000 miles, I have only seen my dealer for the free oil changes.

fleuger99

I'm not talking about published specs, I'm talking about driving both vehicles. I cannot talk to the X1, I drove both the 328 sport wagon and the allroad. The sport wagon pulled much harder and longer than the allroad, it was very easy to feel the difference. Fuel Mileage wise, I was comparing the published specs. Again, I have no idea what the X1 does, I was comparing the sport wagon and Allroad.

Price wise, there is a big difference. The MSRP for the RDX with Tech Pkg is $40K on the head. I was able to get it for $37700. Compare than to an Allroad with Nav and you're talking $45K, that is a Prem Plus model with Nav pkg. I'd say $5K is significant price difference.

Dimcorner

I don't know about you but a Q5 in my neck of the woods is priced around $43k (premium plus with Navi as the ONLY extra option). An RDX AWD w/Tech can be had for $38. For some the $4-5k difference might not be a lot but for me it was. That and the back seat space on the RDX was sweet. I love the Q5 interior but the options that I really wanted (Nav and HID) put it out of the price range for me.

wildeklave

For the BMW owner, how do you compare the X1 to the RDX? I like both but fear the X1 may be too small in the backseat and trunk. I think it is on the same chassis as the Mini Countryman.

HotRodW

The allroad is simply overpriced. Audi added a suspension lift and fender flares to the A4 avant and felt they could charge a $3,000 premium. Big marketing gaffe there. More importantly, the allroad starts $3,400 north of the the the Q5, which most will consider to be the RDX's closer competitor.

HotRodW

Sounds about right for my area, too. But again, it's not exactly apples-to-apples. There is the aforementioned quattro and 8-speed, plus things such as bi-xenons, panoramic roof, MMI, google maps, fully adjustable passenger seat, rear HVAC vents, etc. Lots of little (and not so little) things that add up. Many people are fine without the extras in exchange for a lower cost of entry. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I am not necessarily criticizing Acura, because the strategy seems to be working just fine. I'm just pointing out the differences, and for some people those differences matter. I have often claimed that I would probably be driving an RDX myself if Acura had just kept the SH-AWD.

HotRodW

The RDX and X1 are quite different. The current X1 (E84) is built on the previous 3-Series chassis, but it will share a FWD-based platform with the Mini when the next model debuts in a couple years. For most BMW traditionalist, the X1 gives them old school BMW driving dynamics with a little more utility. Think of it as a last generation 3-Series wagon/hatch with a more modern powertrain. For a BMW, it is a pretty remarkable value - assuming you use caution when checking the option boxes.

The backseat is much tighter than the RDX. It's livable, and two adults can sit back there in relative comfort if the front seat occupants aren't too tall. The car sits lower with a lower roofline, so entry and exit isn't as easy as in more conventional crossovers, either. The trunk/cargo area is small, but still larger than a conventional hatch. The published capacity is something like 15 cu ft, but the rear seatbacks can be adjusted more upright to increase capacity without folding down the seats. If interested, you will find several posts from me on the X1 in the following thread.

https://acurazine.com/forums/2g-rdx-2013-2018-404/where-all-rdxs-how-many-red-864074/

danmangto

The Audi horsepower numbers are not underrated. It is what it is. The only way to prove otherwise would be a dyno test of the engine power. The RDX has faster acceleration than the 2.0 Q5 at all speeds and it's engine is quieter/more refined. You need the 3.2 in the Q5 to really compare apples to apples which is slightly faster than the RDX.

Remember, you can take the Acura RDX to your Honda dealer for all maintenance to save some $$.

Yes, the Audi does have more options. But the RDX is still the cheapest Luxury brand SUV in this size category with GPS.

As for content, I will take a normally aspirated V6 (RDX) anyday over a turbo 4 cyl (Q5)in both terms of refinement, linear power delivery and reliability.

HotRodW

Unless you're an Acura engineer, I see no need to get so defensive. If you search you should have no trouble finding dyno results showing approx 200 HP at the wheels. Factoring in drivetrain losses, the engine is definitely generating more than 211 HP. That was the old engine of course. The 2014 engine has seen a small power bump.




I couldn't find one source that compared or tested both the RDX and Q5 2.0T, but MT tested the RDX and the similar allroad. The allroad hit 30 in 2.1 seconds, the RDX accomplished it in 2.4. The Q5 has a couple hundred pounds on the allroad, but it also has a slightly more powerful engine.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...t/viewall.html

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...que/specs.html


The 3.2L V6 has been discontinued - replaced with the supercharged 3.0. Sorry, but as good as the Acura V6 is, it can't keep up with that engine. It does slot nicely between the two, however.

Here's some interesting reading if you really believe that published horsepower numbers "are what they are".

http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/t...no-tested.html

http://www.automobilemag.com/feature..._dyno_results/

imnuts

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on Acura v. German competitors. So far, I haven't really found anything that is huge that I dislike on the Acura compared to my experiences with Audi/BMW/VW vehicles. However, there are a lot of little things that I feel the German's do better. While some may not think the cost is justified, there are many that do.

I would rather have had the Q5, but we wanted to get a small SUV, and something that was almost exactly what we wanted for options/features and within our price range. The Audi (BWM and VW too) didn't fit the bill on the price range unfortunately.

Stump

In my neck of the woods the price is $46.1k vs the $37K i paid...

danmangto

I'm not being defensive. Please show proof that the Q5 2.0 horsepower rating is under-rated by Audi? We could say the same about any other car. Some car mfg have over-rated and been caught. Dyno ratings are diff, as you mentioned, they show horsepower at the wheels, not at the flywheel. I don't know anyone who would bother dyno testing their passenger base 2.0 SUV, LOL! Most dynos aren't set up for all wheel drive cars, just front/rear drive. I have done plenty of dyno testing of my performance cars over years before and after mods. My GTO is currently at 400horse at the rear wheels after some mods. it was 350horse stock.

The Q5 with the optional 3.0 engine is rated at 6.0 seconds 0-60 from the Audi mfg website. The RDX with the standard 3.5 V6 is running about 6.2 in most auto magazine tests. Sorry, thats pretty close to the Audi in terms of performance. Please don't tell me the the Honda 3.5 can't keep up with the Audi.. 6.2 vs 6.0 seconds is very close. Yes the Audi is slightly faster. You have to pay nearly $3k more to get the optional 3.0. The 2.0 is not as refined/smooth/linear power delivery as the std 3.5 in the RDX, that is a fact.

HotRodW

The dyno runs I posted were completed on a Mustang AWD dyno. Why would somebody dyno an SUV? To get a baseline number before applying an aftermarket software tune. 'Before' and 'After' numbers are critical if you intend to sell a power upgrade. Even if it were possible to "cheat" the numbers, the tester would have had nothing to gain by doing so. Just the opposite in fact.

I'm not surprised that Audi's website shows a 0-60 time of 6.0 seconds. But it also shows the 2.0T does it in 7.0 secs, and there is plenty of documentation showing that even the older, less powerful version of that engine was quicker than that in testing. Actual test numbers of the 3.0T will soon be available. We'll see how it does in the real world.

HotRodW

I forgot to add, if you reference the Motor Trend comparison, you'll notice that the Audi had a significantly higher weight to horsepower ratio (18.3 lbs/HP) than the BMW (15.8 lbs/HP) or Range Rover (16.6 lbs/HP), and yet it matched the BMW's performance numbers and handily outperformed the higher powered (on paper) Rover. Going purely by published ratings, that simply doesn't compute. The Car and Driver comparison between the 3-Series and A4 yielded similar results, where the 211 HP A4 and 240 HP 3-Series both ran neck-and-neck with the Volvo's 300 HP T6. You'll also notice that at just 1.8 sec (!), the A4 beat both competitors to 30 by .2 seconds. With 211 HP???

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...que/specs.html

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...mparison-tests

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...ison-tests.pdf

Dimcorner

All I'm seeing from the car & driver comparisons is that the quattro helped the A4 launch and with 8 gears it helps level the acceleration a little vs the Volvo. I also can conclude that the A4 probably has a smaller turbo in comparison because it runs out of air quicker but has noticeably less turbo lag.

What happens in the next 40mph (0-100 test)? Audi lost it's launch advantage and low gearing advantage to the Volvo AND the BMW. This tells me the Audi shot out quick to about 30mph (and by quick I only mean by about a door lenght) but by 60 the volvo and the bmw caught up and are quickly passing it.

So my conclusion is that the A4's 211hp is just about that. Very little turbo lag because you get good torque early. If you were to say they are under-rated I would say at MOST maybe 5hp, and you can chalk that up to engine variances.

I'm not anti Audi BTW, like I have said before I owned an S4 and will more than likely get back into another Audi later on.

BlackDogRDX

The Audi/VW numbers seem to bounce around a lot but the "official" ones do seem to be under-rated. I have a good friend with a '12 GTI and he's found stuff published online listing the 0-60 anywhere from 7 flat down to about 6.1.

Dimcorner

That tells me either people can't drive or have different testing conditions (weather, track stickiness, worn tires, etc). Unless you stick different cars on the same dyno on the same day you really can't say about engine under-ratings.

How do people automatically come to the conclusion of under-rating from 0-60 numbers? I mean I'm sure after the Mazda deal the manufacturers started being more conservative, but to me +/- 5 is within variance.

OMG the dyno showed I have 215 instead of 211! ALL 2.0T MUST BE UNDER-RATED.

Now if that dyno showed 220 AVERAGE for a few 2.0T's and 240hp AVERAGE for 328i's then I'll believe it.

HotRodW

5 HP? How do you explain the 30-50 and 5-70 acceleration times? I suppose that's the AWD, too? No, that can't be it ... how about the gearing? Or maybe it's the turbo? There's gotta be SOME reason other than the logical conclusion than the engine is simply underrated.

Not that it matters, as I'm sure most have already drawn their own conclusions, but here's some more interesting reading for those that think the whole under-rating thing is BS. If you search you will find there are plenty of articles out there on the topic.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/28/r...is-underrated/

Dimcorner

I don't think under rating is BS, but you can't claim under-rating using acceleration times across different brands of car.

What if BMW ALSO under-rates their cars? (see edmunds dyno test of the 328i, 240 WHP). This then nullifies using acceleration times to gauge HP because you don't have a true base value. (ie. say Audi under-rates by 15hp and so does BMW, then your acceleration rates between the cars would be almost the same as if they both didn't under-rate)

Again, I'm not saying they don't do it, I'm saying that using acceleration times is REALLY REALLY bad way to gauge something as small as HP under-rating. Why do you think when magazines add mods to the car they dyno it instead of running it down the track? You might get a head wind, or temp change and suddenly the $500 exhaust you paid for that gave you a dyno tested 8hp nets you a sudden 0 in the 1/4 mile because you encountered a 10mph gust of headwind. Maybe you had less gas in the tank. Maybe the 1st run cleaned out your plugs so you now have a nice spark going.

I can't stress it enough, acceleration times are NOT good for measuring small HP changes.

imnuts

More gears can help acceleration, but it can also hurt it. Each time you shift, you are no longer accelerating. More you have to shift, the more wasted time there is speeding up. Now, it will let you have lower gearing at the bottom and higher gearing at the top to keep fuel economy and still get good acceleration, but gearing alone isn't going to make up a huge power difference. AWD also may help at the launch, but it will hurt you after that due to more drive train drag, giving you less power at the wheels. If the power numbers were truly accurate, then the Audi should have been an afterthought by 60 mph, much like the Infiniti turned out to be. While I could see a +/-5% variation in reported power numbers, an extra 5% in HP or Torque wouldn't be enough to keep the A4 in the game.