CR-V vs CX-7 Commercial

[cmdavis3rd]

Just curious if anyone else has seen the new CX-7 commercial in which the lady is trying to return the CR-V to the Honda dealership. Finally, Mazda is doing a good job comparing feature to feature and value for value.

I have a mixed reaction to comparing it to the CR-V since there is such a price difference. The value is there for what you pay but you can get into an entry CR-V for 20k where as the CX is 24k. I only compared the two fully loaded since that is what I bought, again, I feel the value was there for a 31k (or cheaper with the S-Plan) over the Honda.

I would like to see them go after the Murano (in my opinion soft floaty suspension, weak brakes, CVT only trans) or the Acura RDX.

Not trying to start a flame war based on opinion, just more interested in if anyone else has seen the commerical and had the same opinion on their ad campaigns. Ads are much better now than in years past.

[offset_98]

Honestly, the CX-7 is nice...but its no RDX and to a degree...no Murano either. The CX-7 is best left to dog it out with the CR-V, RAV4, Santa Fe, Outlook and upcoming Vue.

[mikey1981]

Honestly, the CX-7 is nice...but its no RDX and to a degree...no Murano either. The CX-7 is best left to dog it out with the CR-V, RAV4, Santa Fe, Outlook and upcoming Vue.

i disagree. its drives better than both, and isnt that a main reason why we buy our cars? luxury is luxury, but the interior of the murano is gross and the rdx has the lux but at the same time, the RDX still isnt.....a lexus (interior/quality wise)

the fact is, the cx-7's price makes it hard not to compare it to more costly suvs (nissan, acura) and cheaper honda's and toyotas where u get more bang for the buck with Mazda.

say what u want about the SH-AWD, the lux interior of the acura, the mazda drives better & looks better. yea u can get a crv for low 20's but that is a bargain basement not even full alloy rims - at 24k u cannot go feature for feature with the cx7 it wins in almost every category.

i have not seen the commercial, but sales figures will also say that the Mazda has been Acuras bully taking away sales. Almost every single person on this board and on other internet boards shoped the RDX directly with the Mazda, and then maybe the murano if they didnt like either product. To deny that the 7 hasnt been a major player in this new niche turbo small suv category is a little blind, lets face facts here: for MOST of us, when we shop a car, the bottom line is price, and when u shop an apple to an apple and one costs more than the other, its pretty hard not to save the money and buy almost the same thing and in some ways the cheaper apple is better. The acura to, i would say, a regular customer, just may not warrant the bigger price tag. Interiors are subjective to a point, and it just may be that the Acura doesnt have enough to make people jump up to the product.

i just do not buy the "the mazda is no acura" theory. I know some members on this board say the mazda is no acura, all im saying is besides the interior, WHY NOT?

[Shaz]

eah, I've seen the commercial and I'm proud to be an owner. The CRV doesn't stand a chance with the CX7. The CRV's front grill irks me...it's like a Cheshire cat grin/smile. I almost considered the Murano and a friend mentioned the CX7 and I didn;t look back.

[Killer]

i disagree. its drives better than both, and isnt that a main reason why we buy our cars? luxury is luxury, but the interior of the murano is gross and the rdx has the lux but at the same time, the RDX still isnt.....a lexus (interior/quality wise)

the fact is, the cx-7's price makes it hard not to compare it to more costly suvs (nissan, acura) and cheaper honda's and toyotas where u get more bang for the buck with Mazda.

say what u want about the SH-AWD, the lux interior of the acura, the mazda drives better & looks better. yea u can get a crv for low 20's but that is a bargain basement not even full alloy rims - at 24k u cannot go feature for feature with the cx7 it wins in almost every category.

i have not seen the commercial, but sales figures will also say that the Mazda has been Acuras bully taking away sales. Almost every single person on this board and on other internet boards shoped the RDX directly with the Mazda, and then maybe the murano if they didnt like either product. To deny that the 7 hasnt been a major player in this new niche turbo small suv category is a little blind, lets face facts here: for MOST of us, when we shop a car, the bottom line is price, and when u shop an apple to an apple and one costs more than the other, its pretty hard not to save the money and buy almost the same thing and in some ways the cheaper apple is better. The acura to, i would say, a regular customer, just may not warrant the bigger price tag. Interiors are subjective to a point, and it just may be that the Acura doesnt have enough to make people jump up to the product.

i just do not buy the "the mazda is no acura" theory. I know some members on this board say the mazda is no acura, all im saying is besides the interior, WHY NOT?

Honda/Acura resale value, long term cost of ownership, initial quality is still rated much better than mazda. Sorry...that's just the way it is.

[Killer]

eah, I've seen the commercial and I'm proud to be an owner. The CRV doesn't stand a chance with the CX7. The CRV's front grill irks me...it's like a Cheshire cat grin/smile. I almost considered the Murano and a friend mentioned the CX7 and I didn;t look back.

apples/oranges.

[wesmonster]

I think comparing a CX-7 to the RDX or the Murano is based on what type consumer you're aiming at. We like the practicality of a crossover but wanted a 'sporty' car, something fun to drive. Test driving the CR-V was closer to a Toyota Highlander, solid, well built, but not something you'd want to drive fast down a twisty road. I think if you compared feature-for-feature you'd be surprised at what the CX-7 comes standard with. One of the features my wife wanted in our new car was a V-6, she was shocked to find out that after buying our CX-7 it was a turbo four! The Murano V-6 motor was nice but the CVT tranny doesn't give you any sense of 'speed', and the ride was the worst thing we test drove (except for an FJ Cruiser). Choppy, soft, disconnected, like the rear spring rates didn't match the front. And the Mazda was one of the most inexpensive cars we looked at. Zoom zoom zoom indeed!

[HeavyH20]

Well, when I was considering vehicles, it was between the Murano and the CX-7. I never even considered the CR-V. As for quality, recent defect reports indicate the Mazda is on par with Honda.

http://mazdanews.com/node/view/414

[mikey1981]

Honda/Acura resale value, long term cost of ownership, initial quality is still rated much better than mazda. Sorry...that's just the way it is.

what u said is true, but has nothing to do with the vehicle itself but more to do with the branding.

[Killer]

The branding is all about the car. Honda has a LONG HISTORY of making top notch long lasting high quality autos. It has EVERYTHING to do with the "Vehicle Itself".

Brand names do not make quality...the car makes the brand name.
I own both...Mazda and an Acura. Both great cars. But history drives resale and market.

[HeavyH20]

Yes, and personal experience which, in my case, means avoiding Honda like the plague. Every one of the Honda's I have been exposed to through ownership by acquaintance has had some rather serious problems develop on Honda vehicles. Of course, that was only 11, so that is by no means a huge sampling.

But, Mazda is certainly never had the image of prestige brand based on quality or reputation. They are moving to change that with some of the newer vehicle releases aimed at the enthusiast. This in turn, enhances the brand. They have been making some good strides in the past few years.

[mikey1981]

The branding is all about the car. Honda has a LONG HISTORY of making top notch long lasting high quality autos. It has EVERYTHING to do with the "Vehicle Itself".

Brand names do not make quality...the car makes the brand name.
I own both...Mazda and an Acura. Both great cars. But history drives resale and market.

ok, again, ill reiterate my argument, i understand what it is you are saying, what im saying is vehicle vs vehicle, im not talking resale value, or longevity, im talking CX-7 VS RDX suv vs suv here; ride, performance, std features, etc etc, which in my understanding, when most vehicles go head to head in auto mags, reliability and resale is taken into consideration, but does not make one vehicle BETTER than another when they are driven head to head. Which i guess to the reg person, when they see Toyota they associate the same values, resale, will last forever etc but Edmunds ranked the MAzda #1 over the long standing, solid value history of the Rav4.

Your argument seems to be, since its an Acura - the car will have higher resale and less problems, thus, the RDX is better than the CX-7. Which, if you were estimating which car was a better value to the consumer in the long run, maybe the Acura would be a better choice if that is ur prime goal when buying a car, but, thats not what i am talking about here.

I came out and said the 7 drives better, and at the bottom line is cheaper and almost the same product at the point of sale as the Acura, which is why i think the 7 in some ways is a better alternative to the Acura. And, if you are leasing, resale, longevity and etc (if ur plan is to only lease) dont play into the argument at all. What you are left with is price vs price and what ur money gets you.

i too, have owned 12 Honda/Acuras since 1997, and so have numerous people in my family.

[Killer]

Perception man...perception.

[lisevolution]

This is my deal with this argument... The CX-7 appears to be a better deal on paper when compared to the RDX but for a technology freak like myself it gets much more complicated.

I actually didn't think the interior in the Acura was any better than the Mazda. I liked the seating position and location of everything better in the CX7 than the RDX. I felt like I was sitting in a truck with Acura where the mazda made me feel like I was driving my gf's 6.

Now as far as the tech goes, there are certain unforgivable issues I'm having with the CX7... no bluetooth which is minor, install a parrot kit for under $400 and you have that feature, but the killer for me is no I-Pod adapter for the tech package and then to not have MP3 cd ability is just crazy. The acura comes with both of these standard and has the option for the Acura link I-pod adapter so you can control via steering wheel/radio controls.

I think the closest competitor to the CX7 that no-one has mentioned is the new Outlander from Mitsubishi. Anyone on here drive one? I did and came away very, very impressed. V6 so no premium needed, paddle shifters, handles well, comfortable, supportive leather seats, auto leveling xenon lights, led tails, 18" wheels and an available albeit tiny 3rd row seat. Now in terms of tech, hard drive based navigation, 30 gig of memory for Music storage, DVD audio and video playback ability, Rockford fosgate stereo with sub woofer in rear stealth box, bluetooth and ipod integration. The car literally has everything and it undercuts the CX7 by a significant amount. I was quoted $29K pre-tax fully loaded. The biggest issue with the outlander is the re-sale and reliability issue, but it does come with a better warranty than the mazda and the power delivery is smooth where my experience with the CX7 was a little lag in the system, not as bad as my MSP but noticeable. Just my .02 though.

I'm having a very difficult time deciding which way to go. If the CX7 had the bluetooth and ipod it would be a simple decision, but it doesn't and who knows if/when an Ipod integration will happen for the tech package. I was literally hours from buying an 04 FX35 w/nav on Friday and then pulled out because the dealer got shady and started adding $1200 cost for the satelite radio he said it had when I was negotiating the purchase price up front. Now I'm torn about if the RDX is worth the extra 5K over the CX7 and then if the CX7 is worth the extra 5K over the outlander!

[mikey1981]

good luck, i too shopped the rdx against the 7, spending fridays n sat's driving them head to head back n forth. I liked the 7's dash, it was simple and i liked the piano black finish of the GT. on test drives, the SHAWD was minor in my decision, add to that i most likely wouldnt even push the truck that far to where the SHAWD would be advantagous vs the MAzda AWD system. it came down to what drove better, what I would like to get into everyday, looks of the vehicle. Yes the Mazda didnt have BT or an iPod jack, but in the end, there are ways around those issues. I had a smile on my face after driving the 7 a few times, the Acura was just too bland in mostly every respect.

[Mazda3]

Honda/Acura resale value, long term cost of ownership, initial quality is still rated much better than mazda. Sorry...that's just the way it is.

Depends what counrty we're talking about.

[lisevolution]

good luck, i too shopped the rdx against the 7, spending fridays n sat's driving them head to head back n forth. I liked the 7's dash, it was simple and i liked the piano black finish of the GT. on test drives, the SHAWD was minor in my decision, add to that i most likely wouldnt even push the truck that far to where the SHAWD would be advantagous vs the MAzda AWD system. it came down to what drove better, what I would like to get into everyday, looks of the vehicle. Yes the Mazda didnt have BT or an iPod jack, but in the end, there are ways around those issues. I had a smile on my face after driving the 7 a few times, the Acura was just too bland in mostly every respect.

That's kind of how I'm feeling about the Acura. I think the biggest thing is the I-pod and having to use an RF adaptor to get it to work...Overall the RDX is just a tad bit bland to me. On the flip side, in the fall we'll be seeing the EX25/35 from Infiniti the Q5 from Audi, a new Highlander from Toyota etc. I know I'll love the curves and shape of the EX as the pictures I've seen are just plain sexy, takes the existing FX to the next level. Appearance wise the CX7 has the RDX by a mile. The acura is just plain, and as I said, the interior was just plain bland. Yes the blue dash is nice and the leather is a tad bit nicer but not really that much nicer

[vbbuilt01]

then to not have MP3 cd ability is just crazy.

Very good comments, but I have a teeny, tiny disagreement. Both the standard OEM head unit and the upgraded Nav unit in the technology package play MP3 CDs. (yes)

Vince.

[mikey1981]

That's kind of how I'm feeling about the Acura. I think the biggest thing is the I-pod and having to use an RF adaptor to get it to work...Overall the RDX is just a tad bit bland to me. On the flip side, in the fall we'll be seeing the EX25/35 from Infiniti the Q5 from Audi, a new Highlander from Toyota etc. I know I'll love the curves and shape of the EX as the pictures I've seen are just plain sexy, takes the existing FX to the next level. Appearance wise the CX7 has the RDX by a mile. The acura is just plain, and as I said, the interior was just plain bland. Yes the blue dash is nice and the leather is a tad bit nicer but not really that much nicer

good luck in the hunt....seems like our thoughts were the same regarding the Acura

[lisevolution]

The fact that it does play MP3 cds makes it much more intriguing now that I know that. Just goes to show how little the sales people actually know about the products they sell! I work in people sales, being a recruiter and I make sure I know every possible tidbit of info about my candidates because otherwise I lose deals and $$$ which my pocket doesn't like nor my clients!

My biggest thing with the CX-7 is that I'm jumpy... I may just decide to lease it instead of finance it because I have a feeling at the end of 3 years I'll want something different! Also leasing it will most likely allow me to keep my MSP a tad bit longer so I can continue with the performance itch

[vbbuilt01]

That's kind of how I'm feeling about the Acura. I think the biggest thing is the I-pod and having to use an RF adaptor to get it to work...Overall the RDX is just a tad bit bland to me. On the flip side, in the fall we'll be seeing the EX25/35 from Infiniti the Q5 from Audi, a new Highlander from Toyota etc. I know I'll love the curves and shape of the EX as the pictures I've seen are just plain sexy, takes the existing FX to the next level. Appearance wise the CX7 has the RDX by a mile. The acura is just plain, and as I said, the interior was just plain bland. Yes the blue dash is nice and the leather is a tad bit nicer but not really that much nicer

OMG, I just checked out the Infiniti web site and looked at the EX...the interior is positively stunning! WOW! Of course, it's TOTALLY out of my league....definately out of my budget. (headshake

Vince.

[1Sleepy93]

How about someone find the commercial and link it? I think that was the original topic of this thread.

Oh and I'll take a Mazda over a Honda or almost any other manufacturer for that matter. :p

[lisevolution]

yeah, got a little off topic there, sorry!

[Killer]

Depends what counrty we're talking about.

Please elaborate.

[mikey1981]

getting back to the commercial, it only makes sense for Mazda to go after the CRV or the RAV - thats the meat of the market. It could obviously attack the RDX or Murano, but there isnt much revenue there. Even tho the 7 is a step up from the Honda, CRV's sell in upwards of 20k units a month, thats where the $$ is.

[Mazda3]

Please elaborate.

In Europe a major study has just declared Mazda the most reliable brand. I'm not up to speed with resale numbers from Europe, but that has to have an impact. In Canada the Mazda product is higher regarded than in the US as well. The Mazda 3 is the number one car in Canada for resale value. The Acura TL takes a big kick in resale here, I expect the RDX to have similar resale to the TL. I would go out on a limb and say the CX-7 will beat the RDX in resale, but I think beacause the CX-7 outsells the RDX 10 to 1 in Canada the extra availabilty will probalby make it about equal.

The CX-9 is certainly the equivalent of the MDX and the new 6 will be very competitive with the TL even though it is a class down from the TL.

That's the point Mikey was trying to make. Saying "a Mazda isn't an Acura" doesn't hold the same weight it did 5 years ago and it holds even less weight in Canada/Europe than in the US.

[tdf2001]

Well, when I was considering vehicles, it was between the Murano and the CX-7. I never even considered the CR-V.

When I looked into replacing my Ford Explorer Sport, I seriously considered only the Murano and was ready to talk shop with the dealership. Hours before I discovered the Mazda on the internet, went to take a test drive and decided to buy the Mazda that day.

I believe these cars can be comparison shopped, simply because I did.

[Killer]

In Europe a major study has just declared Mazda the most reliable brand. I'm not up to speed with resale numbers from Europe, but that has to have an impact. In Canada the Mazda product is higher regarded than in the US as well. The Mazda 3 is the number one car in Canada for resale value. The Acura TL takes a big kick in resale here, I expect the RDX to have similar resale to the TL. I would go out on a limb and say the CX-7 will beat the RDX in resale, but I think beacause the CX-7 outsells the RDX 10 to 1 in Canada the extra availabilty will probalby make it about equal.

The CX-9 is certainly the equivalent of the MDX and the new 6 will be very competitive with the TL even though it is a class down from the TL.

That's the point Mikey was trying to make. Saying "a Mazda isn't an Acura" doesn't hold the same weight it did 5 years ago and it holds even less weight in Canada/Europe than in the US.


I think I will just agree to disagree here. I mean you are now comparing the 3 to the TL! (bang)

[mikey1981]

I think I will just agree to disagree here. I mean you are now comparing the 3 to the TL! (bang)

yea, only for resale value and im sure nothing else. i dont think he was intending to say the 3 is a better vehicle.

[cmdavis3rd]

Gonna knock out a few responses here, bear with me.............


i just do not buy the "the mazda is no acura" theory. I know some members on this board say the mazda is no acura, all im saying is besides the interior, WHY NOT?

I agree here. Compared to what Mazda was putting out a few years ago, the new Mazdas, esp. the CX7 and 9 are light years beyond where the were in terms of near everything. Fit, finish, quality, features, and many more. I will need to find the quote, but the current CEO said that he wants to be on par with Lexus and Acura in terms of quality, reliability and a few other things. People though I was crazy to pay as much as I did for a Mazda but when they saw it they all thought I put a Mazda badge on some other vehicle. They were very impressed and though it was work evey penny.

--------------


How about someone find the commercial and link it? I think that was the original topic of this thread.

Oh and I'll take a Mazda over a Honda or almost any other manufacturer for that matter. :p

I searched a good bit last night and couldn't find it. If someone can find it, please post a link to it.

--------------


When I looked into replacing my Ford Explorer Sport, I seriously considered only the Murano and was ready to talk shop with the dealership. Hours before I discovered the Mazda on the internet, went to take a test drive and decided to buy the Mazda that day.

I believe these cars can be comparison shopped, simply because I did.
I totally agree. When we were search for an upgrade for my wifes car we had been looking at the FX35/45, the Murano, and Lexus RX330. I knew about the CR-V but I can't have a honda in the driveway.

We happen to see the CX-7 commercial with the hikers in the woods and the guys listens to the road and, well, you know the rest. It took a little bit to get to a dealer to look at one. Once we/she saw it she knew it fit the style that she wanted. We compared the value of the CX-7 with what we wanted [crossover platform, navigation, leather, quality interior, HIDs traction control, and many more] and the CX-7 was a better value. Plus, I get the SPlan so that really helped.

Anyhow, maybe it was the way we were shopping, but for reasons beyond the no Honda in the driveway thing we didn't even consider the CR-V. We compared the vehicles in a higher price range. Maybe that was because we were willing to spend a bit more to purchase the vehicle.

Maybe with the commerical Mazda is trying to pursuade those that didn't want to spend the extra 3-4k that the value is there and a step up from the Honda to the Mazda is a good choice.

[HeavyH20]

I have to agree. We looked at the Lexus 330, FX 35 and even the MDX before in addition to the Murano before we picked up the Mazda. It was such a good value, it was hard to resist.

[Mazda3]

I think I will just agree to disagree here. I mean you are now comparing the 3 to the TL! (bang)

I was using the 3 as an example of Mazda's resale in Canada. Giving an example of how Mazda is in higher regard here than the US. The Mazda 3 is the number one selling car in Canada this year, its not even close to number one in the US. The TL is two classes of car above the 3, so I wasn't comparing the two. There are no used CX-7's so I had to use a different example to make my point.

[koala]

In Europe a major study has just declared Mazda the most reliable brand.

Well, here in Canada, the CX-7 has been the least reliable vehicle I have ever owned. And I've had two F-150's, so that's saying a lot. (hi)

[koala]

I was using the 3 as an example of Mazda's resale in Canada. Giving an example of how Mazda is in higher regard here than the US. The Mazda 3 is the number one selling car in Canada this year, its not even close to number one in the US. The TL is two classes of car above the 3, so I wasn't comparing the two. There are no used CX-7's so I had to use a different example to make my point.

The reason the Mazda3 is the best selling car in Canada is due to the price of our automobiles. It's an issue we've always had (and always will, unless our dollar reaches parity / they actually decide to adjust our prices downward, OR the US vehicles adjust upward and then we'll see both countries selling tons of Mazda3's)

The average mazda3 sells for around 22k. If you look at what costs 22k in the US, you have many more high(er) end vehicles to choose from.

[Killer]

Well, here in Canada, the CX-7 has been the least reliable vehicle I have ever owned. And I've had two F-150's, so that's saying a lot. (hi)

Ouch.(nuts)

[cruzdreamer]

Saw the commercial....CR-V as a competitor was a little surprising.....CX 7 has an easy win over that. Comparing to a Murano, new Outlander and Rav 4 is more like it. I like the look of the Murano 2nd but it has a harsh ride and interior is so-so and it costs more. Outlander is better restyled but still not the quality and ride of a Mazda. CX 7 seems to be the best value and most fun and has the best styling for your dollar! Zoom, Zoom!!
P.S. I love Acura's but the RDX on the outside just doesn't do it for me....looks small and smashed!

[AWmustang]

I pulled up next to one of those outlanders and it sure seemed a lot smaller than the 7. More like a competitor to the Forester.

[vbbuilt01]

I pulled up next to one of those outlanders and it sure seemed a lot smaller than the 7. More like a competitor to the Forester.

IMHO, Foresters and Outlanders look like station wagons, not CUV or SUVs. (yupnope)

Vince.

[GL-1970]

P.S. I love Acura's but the RDX on the outside just doesn't do it for me....looks small and smashed!


I checked out the RDX after buying my CX-7 to see if I'd made a mistake, and while I found the interior was excellent, I cannot get over the styling of the body. It's one ugly thing, IMO. All these creases and weird body panels. Hard to put my finger on. Pricewise, in Canada, they are very close. The CX-7 GT AWD w/o Tech was $37,000 and the base RDX $41,000.

Haven't seen the CR-V commercial, infact have only ever seen one CX-7 commercial - with the flying duck garden-thing. Come-on marketing ...

[Mazda3]

Well I don't see the CRV being competiotn for the CX-7, I do see the benefit to Mazda to compare them in the Canadian market.

The top line CRV EX-L lists at about $36,500 including freight, PDI and block heater. The CX-7 GT AWD with everything except NAV lists at about $39,900. The CX-7 is twice the vehicle in every area (except gas mileage) for only $3k more and its $10k less then a Murano. So for value purposes I guess the comparison is relevant.

[mikey1981]

its all about value and bang for buck - now if mazda could only make a commercial that doesnt make me want to shut the tv off, the zoom zoom and the lame song need to go, quick.

[blkcherimika]

its all about value and bang for buck - now if mazda could only make a commercial that doesnt make me want to shut the tv off, the zoom zoom and the lame song need to go, quick.

Keep your eyes peeled. Mazda's new CX-7 commercial (launched this week) is right on target. It depicts a couple in a Copper Red Mica sweetie choosing a long, twisting road over the short, straight one - to the same destination.

Exactly!!

[Killer]

again..it is called perception of value. Which is a very personal thing.

[Mazda3]

again..it is called perception of value. Which is a very personal thing.

I hear what you're saying. I was just stating that the perception of value of the Mazda product line is higher in some countries than others. Mazda is still not regarded as high as Acura, but the gap here has closed considerably over the last 5 years.

[Psychobroker]

I feel the value was there for a 31k (or cheaper with the S-Plan) over the Honda.

I would like to see them go after the Murano (in my opinion soft floaty suspension, weak brakes, CVT only trans) or the Acura RDX.
.

Not gonna win that fight when the base RDX is selling for ~$30k and RDX w/ Tech are going for ~$33k.

You'll have a better shot against that slushbox of CUV - the Murano.

[Psychobroker]

i disagree. its drives better than both, and isnt that a main reason why we buy our cars? luxury is luxury, but the interior of the murano is gross and the rdx has the lux but at the same time, the RDX still isnt.....a lexus (interior/quality wise)

the fact is, the cx-7's price makes it hard not to compare it to more costly suvs (nissan, acura) and cheaper honda's and toyotas where u get more bang for the buck with Mazda.

say what u want about the SH-AWD, the lux interior of the acura, the mazda drives better & looks better. yea u can get a crv for low 20's but that is a bargain basement not even full alloy rims - at 24k u cannot go feature for feature with the cx7 it wins in almost every category.

i have not seen the commercial, but sales figures will also say that the Mazda has been Acuras bully taking away sales. Almost every single person on this board and on other internet boards shoped the RDX directly with the Mazda, and then maybe the murano if they didnt like either product. To deny that the 7 hasnt been a major player in this new niche turbo small suv category is a little blind, lets face facts here: for MOST of us, when we shop a car, the bottom line is price, and when u shop an apple to an apple and one costs more than the other, its pretty hard not to save the money and buy almost the same thing and in some ways the cheaper apple is better. The acura to, i would say, a regular customer, just may not warrant the bigger price tag. Interiors are subjective to a point, and it just may be that the Acura doesnt have enough to make people jump up to the product.

i just do not buy the "the mazda is no acura" theory. I know some members on this board say the mazda is no acura, all im saying is besides the interior, WHY NOT?


Have you even driven the RDX? At least sat inside one?

The only reason why CX-7 and RDX owners were cross-shopping the two were because of their relatively close price ranges for a fully-loaded CX-7 GT w/ AWD vs. the RDX.

The comparisons truly cease after that.

I drove the CX-7 several times, put it through its paces on sharp turns/corners, acceleration, etc, just to make sure I wasn't making a mistake on the RDX. 4,000 miles into it, I'm very, very happy with the Acura, which - in my opinion - simply delivers the most value between the two.

Yep, I'm happy with my decision.

[Killer]

I hear what you're saying. I was just stating that the perception of value of the Mazda product line is higher in some countries than others. Mazda is still not regarded as high as Acura, but the gap here has closed considerably over the last 5 years.
(drinks)

[cliff0529]

Not gonna win that fight when the base RDX is selling for ~$30k and RDX w/ Tech are going for ~$33k.

You'll have a better shot against that slushbox of CUV - the Murano.

To be fair, you're comparing the MSRP of the Mazda to the (assumed) negotiated price of the Acura. We got our CX7 Sport w/ Tech Package for just under $24k OTD. We don't have the leather or some of the other features that the GT has, but we actually prefer the cloth seats. It gets to hot here in the south, the leather sticks to you during the summer and it really doesn't get cold enough here in the winter to make not having the heated seats a deal breaker.

So I'd say that value wise, the CX7 wins. If you want the prestige of owning an Acura or a Lexus and the plush interior then more power to you. Thats your choice and no one can knock you for it. I just don't see how anyone can claim that the RDX is a better value than the CX7 when in real world situations it costs about $6-7k more OTD.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that having bluetooth, trip computer, Ipod jack and slightly nicer interior appointments doesn't make up the $7k difference, some of that is being paid for the Acura name. Which like I said, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Heck, I've got an Italian motorcycle that stacks up pretty evenly to a Japanese bike that costs 25-30% less. I know I can't argue the value point. I don't think you'll ever be able to argue that a "luxury brand," such as Acura, Lexus, Infiniti, Ducati (motorcycle), etc. is a better value than a more common brand.

[Mazda3]

Have you even driven the RDX? At least sat inside one?

The only reason why CX-7 and RDX owners were cross-shopping the two were because of their relatively close price ranges for a fully-loaded CX-7 GT w/ AWD vs. the RDX.

The comparisons truly cease after that.

I drove the CX-7 several times, put it through its pases on sharp turns, acceleration, etc, just to make sure I wasn't making a mistake on the RDX. 4,000 miles into it, I'm very, very happy with the Acura, which - in my opinion - simply delivers the most value between the two.

Yep, I'm happy with my decision.

I think your figures are just a little off.

The RDX w/tech pkg is $7000 more than my CX-7 GT AWD in Canada. The "selling" prices are the same spread. There are no big discounts or rebates on either of these in Canada. On top of that the lease rate is 2% higher on the Acura and the resudual value is 2% lower, you heard right the residual value is lower on the Acura.

Anyway the end result is that the 4yr lease on the Acura is about $210/mo more.

Sorry, but anyway you slice it there's no where near $200 a month more value in the RDX.

[Psychobroker]

To be fair, you're comparing the MSRP of the Mazda to the (assumed) negotiated price of the Acura. We got our CX7 Sport w/ Tech Package for just under $24k OTD. We don't have the leather or some of the other features that the GT has, but we actually prefer the cloth seats. It gets to hot here in the south, the leather sticks to you during the summer and it really doesn't get cold enough here in the winter to make not having the heated seats a deal breaker.

So I'd say that value wise, the CX7 wins. If you want the prestige of owning an Acura or a Lexus and the plush interior then more power to you. Thats your choice and no one can knock you for it. I just don't see how anyone can claim that the RDX is a better value than the CX7 when in real world situations it costs about $6-7k more OTD.

Sure, a base/sport CX-7 will cost less than a RDX, but as the saying goes, you get what you pay for. I was comparing the OP's CX-7 GT w/ AWD to a base or even Tech RDX. $30k-$31k after negotiations is about right for the CX-7 GT w/ AWD & Tech; I have a quote sitting on my desk as I type this. Whereas, the RDX w/ Tech is going for ~$33k. That's only ~$3k more...

I am trying to compare "apples to apples" here. Well, as close as one can get. I say this because the RDX w/ Tech still comes with the following advantages over the CX-7:

- SH-AWD (standard, purpose built, and much more sophisticated than the unit the CX-7 borrows from the 6)
- Higher quality interior materials i.e. leather used, plastics, seat bolsters (not bias, just a fact)
- ELS DVD-Audio 5.1 Stereo System - truly unbelievable
- Steering wheel mounted paddle shifters
- STANDARD AUX jack with available Acura Music Link (uses Navi screen)
- Dual zone automatic climate control (not sure about the CX-7)
- Voice recognition & voice activated commands (audio, climate control and navigation)
- HandsFree bluetooth link (not available on the CX-7)
- Superior Navigation System
++ Satellite based
++ Destination Database (i.e. restaurants, gas stations, lodging, amusement, etc - all with addresses, phone numbers, etc)
++ Real time traffic updates
++ Zagat Reviews
++ Voice or dial operable WHILE driving (no need to stop; no other system like it)



I guess what I'm trying to say, is that having bluetooth, trip computer, Ipod jack and slightly nicer interior appointments doesn't make up the $7k difference, some of that is being paid for the Acura name. Which like I said, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Heck, I've got an Italian motorcycle that stacks up pretty evenly to a Japanese bike that costs 25-30% less. I know I can't argue the value point. I don't think you'll ever be able to argue that a "luxury brand," such as Acura, Lexus, Infiniti, Ducati (motorcycle), etc. is a better value than a more common brand.

Now you are comparing apples and oranges. A CX-7 Sport is not in the same class or price range as a base RDX. The only CX-7 variation you can really compare to the RDX is the GT w/ AWD and Tech. Otherwise, the differences between the two are far too much to call them "competitors".

If you're in the market for a CX-7 GT w/ AWD and Tech, then it would serve you well to check out the RDX. If you're not looking to spend $30k-$33k on a CUV, then sure, the sport or touring CX-7's are GREAT.

I love the CX-7, but it just didn't do enough for me, which is why I went with the RDX w/ tech.

[Psychobroker]

I think your figures are just a little off.

The RDX w/tech pkg is $7000 more than my CX-7 GT AWD in Canada. The "selling" prices are the same spread. There are no big discounts or rebates on either of these in Canada. On top of that the lease rate is 2% higher on the Acura and the resudual value is 2% lower, you heard right the residual value is lower on the Acura.

Anyway the end result is that the 4yr lease on the Acura is about $210/mo more.

Sorry, but anyway you slice it there's no where near $200 a month more value in the RDX.

Do you have the tech package? Your post doesn't state either way.

In any event, I live in the states and the spread I quote is the truth.

townhall-talk.edmunds.com links:

RDX prices paid: http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f0e58a8!make=Acura&model=RDX&ed_makeindex=.f0e58a8

CX-7 prices paid: http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f0b4369!make=Mazda&model=CX-7&ed_makeindex=.f0b4369

RDX vs. CX-7: http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f100b40/135

autoweek review: http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070427/FREE/70425008/1007/FREE
(I posted a reviewr/rebuttal )

Remember, to be fair, you really cannot compare the base RDX to anything but the CX-7 GT w/ AWD. Tech pricing is about $3k each vehicle, but Acura's package provides much more than Mazda's. However, for argument's sake, just consider them equal.

[Psychobroker]

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2007/mazda/cx7/100692672/optionsresults.html?action=2
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2007/acura/rdx/100773236/optionsresults.html?action=2

Edmunds TMV for a CX-7 w/ AWD, Tech & Sirius: $31,521

Edmunds TMV for a RDX w/ Tech: $34,713

That's a $3,200 difference. USD of course. I paid $33,600+ t/t/l for my RDX. Value between the two is much higher for the RDX, especially when it's only $3,000 more.

[Mazda3]

It does seem the spread is closer in the US than Canada. I assume you paid cash? How do the lease programs compare? Like I said in Canada anyway the payment difference is huge on a lease. Acura is very arrogant with their lease programs.

I have the feeling the actual selling price of the CX-7 will come down in the US in the near future which will make the gap more like the canadian gap.

[Psychobroker]

It does seem the spread is closer in the US than Canada. I assume you paid cash? How do the lease programs compare? Like I said in Canada anyway the payment difference is huge on a lease. Acura is very arrogant with their lease programs.

I have the feeling the actual selling price of the CX-7 will come down in the US in the near future which will make the gap more like the canadian gap.

Actually, that's the price regardless of purchase vs. lease. I ended up leasing because it made more fiscal sense to me. The money factor I got was .00141, which is the equivalent of a 3.38% APR, and a residual value of 53% on a 15k mile/year 3-year lease. Not bad IMHO

Acura/Honda's "Superpreferred" (>790 FICO) money factor is now .00108, or comperably a 2.59% APR. Pretty good, if you ask me.

[koala]

I think your figures are just a little off.

The RDX w/tech pkg is $7000 more than my CX-7 GT AWD in Canada. The "selling" prices are the same spread. There are no big discounts or rebates on either of these in Canada. On top of that the lease rate is 2% higher on the Acura and the resudual value is 2% lower, you heard right the residual value is lower on the Acura.

Anyway the end result is that the 4yr lease on the Acura is about $210/mo more.

Sorry, but anyway you slice it there's no where near $200 a month more value in the RDX.

I agree with you on the value... there was no way an RDX was worth the extra money, even though it's a better vehicle.

To top it off they wouldn't discount the RDX much, where-as my CX-7 was discounted quite well... so the spread became much larger.

[Psychobroker]

I agree with you on the value... there was no way an RDX was worth the extra money, even though it's a better vehicle.

To top it off they wouldn't discount the RDX much, where-as my CX-7 was discounted quite well... so the spread became much larger.

Do tell, what were the price differences?

[Mazda3]

Actually, that's the price regardless of purchase vs. lease. I ended up leasing because it made more fiscal sense to me. The money factor I got was .00141, which is the equivalent of a 3.38% APR, and a residual value of 53% on a 15k mile/year 3-year lease. Not bad IMHO

Acura/Honda's "Superpreferred" (>790 FICO) money factor is now .00108, or comperably a 2.59% APR. Pretty good, if you ask me.

The Acura has a 6.9% lease rate here with a 42% residual on a 4yr 24km/yr lease. The CX-7 is 4.9% with a 44% rsidual on a 25km/year lease which really amplifies the price difference.

[Psychobroker]

The Acura has a 6.9% lease rate here with a 42% residual on a 4yr 24km/yr lease. The CX-7 is 4.9% with a 44% rsidual on a 25km/year lease which really amplifies the price difference.

Yep, not very good. it makes no sense that Acura's giving a lower residual.

[Killer]

These are touchy threads...no? (rofl2)

[cmdavis3rd]

These are touchy threads...no? (rofl2)

Agreed. Honestly, I am surprised name calling hasn't begun. This is actually a very mature forum. Probably going to eat my words for that. I have been a member of the RX7Club.com since 2001 and man since the early days of that forum I felt like I was dealing with a bunch of High Schoolers. Still do. :p

[Mazda3]

These are touchy threads...no? (rofl2)

Everyone involved is very "strong" in their opinions :D

As long as it stays civilized a little healthy debate is ok once in a while.

[Psychobroker]

These are touchy threads...no? (rofl2)

I don't see us as being touchy, just debating is all (peep)

[koala]

Do tell, what were the price differences?

MSRP on the RDX tech pkg in Canada - $46,775 (incl dest)
Discount... from what I was being quoted, "maybe $500"
(for reference, invoice on the RDX is $42,930)

CX-7 MSRP (loaded, bose, keyless, moonroof, navi) - $42,735 (incl dest)
What I paid - $39,417 (invoice) + wear care (I can turn it in with bald tires, cracked windshield, door dings, scratches and it wont matter) + tax

net (cash) difference on the two is roughly $6500.. plus 1.9% lease rate for 24 months on the CX-7 (which is what I did), versus 5.9% on the acura... means a payment difference of (about) $500 a month.

[wongster]

Very good comments, but I have a teeny, tiny disagreement. Both the standard OEM head unit and the upgraded Nav unit in the technology package play MP3 CDs. (yes)

Vince.

hmmm mine doesnt play mp3 cds... i remember reading somewhere here that it was random that some people can play mp3 cds, and some cant play mp3 cds.

[Mazda3]

hmmm mine doesnt play mp3 cds... i remember reading somewhere here that it was random that some people can play mp3 cds, and some cant play mp3 cds.

The ones with the NAV system play MP3's.

[mikey1981]

Have you even driven the RDX? At least sat inside one?

The only reason why CX-7 and RDX owners were cross-shopping the two were because of their relatively close price ranges for a fully-loaded CX-7 GT w/ AWD vs. the RDX.

The comparisons truly cease after that.

I drove the CX-7 several times, put it through its paces on sharp turns/corners, acceleration, etc, just to make sure I wasn't making a mistake on the RDX. 4,000 miles into it, I'm very, very happy with the Acura, which - in my opinion - simply delivers the most value between the two.

Yep, I'm happy with my decision.

well, i guess if u read some of my first initial posts, where i said ive test driven the rdx about many mant times, back to back with the 7, then that should answer the have i ever sat in one before remark. u make it sound like the RDX is a lexus on the inside - it isnt, not even close. At the time i owned my 04 Accord V6 2 dr and i felt like i stepped back into it in the RDX. Silver trim everywhere, same buttons, shared materials, ive been in the Honda family for over 14 years and the RDX was no premium cabin compared to the CX7 and my loaded Accord. There was no "sport", it obviously stives for the luxury feel, but i felt like i did in my crv, propped up in the seat like i was driving a truck, not a sport wagon. the acura isnt worth the extra dough, especially the base model. period. If you, however, are really going to drive the truck like a rally car and use the SHAWD, then that sure is a benefit, but for most regular driving the SHAWD is more or less a great tech toy for no reason. DVD- Audio, im sure most people dont even know how to create a dvd (super audio disc) to even utilize that. but thats just an assumption and i could be dead wrong. Im not sure why you think the ELS is stunning compared to the Bose in the 7, in the front seats of the 7 the sound is superb, I jacked the XM radio up to around 38 on my test drives in the RDX and it sounded awful (base model), i played a few cd's too, and it was great, but to truly get the good system u need to move into the tech package which adds the wattage and sub.

thats great ur happy with ur decision, and if u have read many other posts on the board, i basically paid cash for a lemon Mazda, i kind of regret not buying the RDX. the mazda is still a better value and i could have bought either.

ur exactly right on the comparison shopping price wise. Most people shopped the RDX because on paper, the RDX was exactly the same vehicle as the MAzda, and most consumers probably wanted to know what was up, and cross shop just like any purchase we make, and i bet many people who bought a GT loaded with NAv could have easily gotten the RDX if they wanted to, price warranted the decision and the Acura wasnt worth the initial 5-7k price gap when it first came out. Now since they arent selling well, and the gap has closed to within maybe 3k, 2k, that is more realistic for the RDX and probably would have swayed me more. The Acura still looks like a short bus and has nothing in terms of road presence. and my initial thought was if im gonna buy something that is 35k+ tax at least look expensive.

[HeavyH20]

The Acura RDX is nice, no doubt. But, as with all car decisions, logic is usually backed into to somehow justify an illogical decision based on taste and learned values. The Acura certainly has more brand recognition as a premium label versus Mazda. For some, this value is worth the extra money. I did not get the NAV package to make my my CX-7 GT about $2500 less than fully loaded, but, even so, at less than $26,000 it was much less than the $31,000 for the RDX w/o the technology package. I opted for the CX-7.

[Psychobroker]

...but thats just an assumption and i could be dead wrong.

Yep, pretty much all your assumptions make you dead wrong. Why don't you counter each and every one of the advantages I laid out for you?


Im not sure why you think the ELS is stunning compared to the Bose in the 7, in the front seats of the 7 the sound is superb, I jacked the XM radio up to around 38 on my test drives in the RDX and it sounded awful (base model), i played a few cd's too, and it was great, but to truly get the good system u need to move into the tech package which adds the wattage and sub.

LOL your assumptions keep digging a deeper hole. I have one thing to say about Acura's ELS system (tech package): DVD-Audio, which, of course, you probably know nothing about since you think it's all about wattage and subs (an OEM one at that? hah). DVD-Audio = 5.1 surround sound. CD-Audio = 2-channel stereo sound. And let me tell you, there IS a big difference. Read about it here, then come tell me what you think: http://www.elssurround.com/ELS_surround.asp

By the way, Who told you satellite radio sounds as good or better than CD quality? At least, I assume that's what you're comparing it to. Just because it's digital doesn't mean it's the best. Sat radio signals are compressed quite a bit, reducing them to MP3-quality. Better than FM? Sure. Better than CD? Nope. DVD-Audio? lol no. 38 on the volume control? That's WAY too loud anyway...I'm sure your Bose system sounded just as distorted when cranked up to a level that could kill the elderly.

Although, I must say I have yet to hear any distortion/rattles from my speakers up to low 30's.


I kind of regret not buying the RDX. the mazda is still a better value and i could have bought either.

Funny how, in one sentance, you say you regret not buying an RDX, then try to justify your decision, then move on to convincing yourself you made the right decision. It's even funnier when compared to your total BASHING of the RDX in your first paragraph.

Look, you feel strongly about the CX-7, and I agree, it's a great car. It just didn't deliver enough for it's $31k price tag (GT/AWD/Tech), which was the low end of my price range. The RDX was only $2,500 more (yes, in actual prices), and was a no-brainer to me.


The Acura still looks like a short bus and has nothing in terms of road presence.

100% your opinion. Appearance is subjective. There's just as many RDX owners that feel strongly about the appearance of their RDX vs the CX-7.


and my initial thought was if im gonna buy something that is 35k+ tax at least look expensive.

And my thought could have been - if I'm going to pay $31k for a car, it had better not be a Mazda. Psst, the CX-7 doesn't "look" expensive anyway...who fed you that lie?

[Killer]

Everyone involved is very "strong" in their opinions :D

As long as it stays civilized a little healthy debate is ok once in a while.

(agree)

[wongster]

i actually was considering the rdx, but what really swayed me to get the cx-7 is the exterior.. imo the rdx exterior looks so ugly, even my gf didnt like the exterior...... been driving my cx-7 since august.. and still loving it.. i am starting to see more and more cx-7 everyday driving to work now, where in august i prob only saw one in like 2 weeks...

[mikey1981]

yo phsycho -

1. never assumed XM was supposed to sound "digital", sound as good as a CD, or even come close to a CD. Those words were never written. What i was saying was that the XM sound sucked. What i was inferring, was that the power coming out of the radio for XM didnt cut it. Never assumed anything that i didnt write. and, with the volume on 38, the stereo was soft. regardless that it was close to "max", it was still soft. When my bose is on 40 (it has alot more head room after 40, too), its crystal. I have a small recording studio in my home, and for arguments sake, i like to leave technical talk out of this internet chat. It tends to confuse the lay person.

Thanks for barely elaborating on the ELS system, tho, to each their own, its hard to even find a DVD Audio disc, and alot of people (inlcuding even those who like to call themselves tech-savy) had no clue as to what dvd audio is and/or that they even had that capability in their car. And, in order to take advantage of such capability, the DVD better be a prof. mastered disc & recording. It really makes no sense for people who use iTunes and the linke to take a digitally condensed track and try to make a 5.1 disc out of such compressed formats. Most people dont download in .Wav formats, and im not even sure you can download from iTunes etc in .Wav format. At least in a .Wav - u would have a more uncompressed recording that will sound better if you attempt to make some dvd audio yourself. Again, im leaving many technicalities out of this, DVD Audio is great, but just like the SHAWD - if you arent using it how it is meant to be used, its more or less meaningless. What matters is the master recording and to all the people dl'ing music and making cd's, dvd audio really wont make ur digital dreams come true unless you are producing and authoring DVD Audio - (Steinberg Wave Lab is a great tool)

Your intent to make my remarks sound foolish is pretty good tho, however, i tend to disagree. I like to write in a more commen sense approach when it comes to cars, you want to negate some of the premises ive written about by saying go blow for blow by the points YOU think the RDX is better. I chose to stick to one big feature that sets the RDX apart from the 7; SHAWD. after that, these cars are almost identical on paper.

I knew alllllll about the ELS, we have a TL and a new RL in the family.

if you are taking my comments as BASHING the RDX, ur approach is wrong. Its comparison talk. I stuck to price and features. Im not convincing myself of any decision ive made - given what ive gone thru with Mazda id much rather bought the Acura, put up with the stuff i didnt like in the car, but gain the better reliability. No bashing here.

WHo fed me that lie? hmmmmmmmmmmmmm about every single person who thought it was a new lexus, every valet, every client who comes in and goes what the hell is that parked in front, every person who stops you at the market, at the mall, at the store to ask what it is, the list can really go on and on and im sure other posters can back me up on that one. People are attracted to the 7, the RDX - altho looks are subjective, does not play the part of a premium truck. its forgettable. Sounds like you are stuck in the land of buying things for name-sake (if I'm going to pay $31k for a car, it had better not be a Mazda) You should tell motor trend that, who just ranked the Mazda over the new (cha-ching) MDX

[cruzdreamer]

Wow....lots of talk about this topic....civilized as it should be....both cars have advantages and it's a matter of personal preference and what you want in a vehicle for your $$. Again for me, I like the exterior of the CX7 and it's price and as far as reliability, Acura will win, but you have to pay for that....which is good and worth it ....reliability is extremely important. Price did it for me and exterior styling. Have not driven the RDX though so not sure what the differences are there. Both cool, worthwhile vehicles.(spin)

[lisevolution]

I happen to agree with Mikey1981 in terms of these two vehicles. I have been cross comparing these to vehicles for the last month and still have yet to make my decision on them. I'm leaning towards the CX7 and here's why, yes the Acura's interior appointments are nicer in touch, but the actual physical appearance and driving position in the CX7 to me were more in line with the type of vehicle I am trying to buy. In the RDX I felt like I was sitting in the drivers seat of my gf's old Mountaineer with a very upright position and the seats were not all that comfortable despite the better leather quality.

In terms of the audio again the Acura on paper has the advantage though the only thing to me that's crazy for the CX7 not to have is an Ipod link of some type whether it be an Aux line or a true link outside of that I can get blue tooth with voice recognition added for under $400 via aftermarket so that's not worth the $5K difference that RDX has. In terms of the DVD-Audio, I think I own one if that and that is the only place I found the acura to sound better. I was thoroughly disappointed with the quality of the sound in the RDX in every other medium. It sounded underpowered and quite muddy. I've been involved with car-audio for over 10yrs, and home audio for about the same time including spending time working in professional studio's and doing production in my own home studio. I'm not saying the Bose in the Mazda was lights out either, but the sound reproduction was much more acurate and tight at any volume than the Acura was. Bottom line you can do much better than either by going to the aftermarket but my goal at this point in my life is to limit the amount of extra's I put into a car in that space as I have another vehicle for my car audio enthusiasm.

Driving wise I felt like the Acura's turbo was constantly searching for it's boost point where the mazda was a tad bit smoother. Handling wise about on par for everyday driving and I'm not going to be pushing either vehicle to the point where I'm going to find it's limits though I'm sure the acura would be more performance tuned based on it's handling bias but again they felt so close during standard driving that the advantages are a moot point. Appearance wise the CX7 makes a statement, the RDX unless you spend the money for the underbody spoilers 19" wheels and roof rack looks like a tad bit nicer CR-V albeit without the smile in the grill... just my thoughts though and I still may end up with the Acura over the Mazda but these are my impressions at this point.

[Psychobroker]

yo phsycho -

Thanks for barely elaborating on the ELS system, tho, to each their own, its hard to even find a DVD Audio disc, and alot of people (inlcuding even those who like to call themselves tech-savy) had no clue as to what dvd audio is and/or that they even had that capability in their car. And, in order to take advantage of such capability, the DVD better be a prof. mastered disc & recording. It really makes no sense for people who use iTunes and the linke to take a digitally condensed track and try to make a 5.1 disc out of such compressed formats. Most people dont download in .Wav formats, and im not even sure you can download from iTunes etc in .Wav format. At least in a .Wav - u would have a more uncompressed recording that will sound better if you attempt to make some dvd audio yourself. Again, im leaving many technicalities out of this, DVD Audio is great, but just like the SHAWD - if you arent using it how it is meant to be used, its more or less meaningless. What matters is the master recording and to all the people dl'ing music and making cd's, dvd audio really wont make ur digital dreams come true unless you are producing and authoring DVD Audio - (Steinberg Wave Lab is a great tool)

Instead of trying to elaborate on it myself, I gave you a link directly to the creators of the ELS system. I figured you'd appreciate it more than me just trying to explain it or saying "mine's better than yours" crap.

re bold: You're right, it makes no sense to try to turn a compressed track into 5.1 quality sound. Is it even possible? I've said it before - you get what you pay for. You want to pay $.99 per song from iTunes? Great, so do I, but I know it'll have it's drawbacks. it will be compressed for speedy download purposes and fall short of CD-quality, let alone DVD-quality. It's pretty simple. DVD-Audio is starting to catch on, just like CD's did back in the early 90's. As such, they're becoming more and more available. You can buy them online at sites such as:

http://www.cduniverse.com/browsecat.asp?style=music&cat=1028&cart=345527143&cat2=221&mode=top

http://www.musicdirect.com/products/category.asp?category=70

http://www.towerrecords.com/Music/D...rmat=DVD+Audio& <--- Tower Records

http://www.quadraphonicquad.com/ <--- good info

Most are now being released in CD+DVD-A DualPacks, which is really the BEST way to buy music. You get a CD for your "other" car, walkman, ripping to MP3, and a HiRez DVD-A for your Acura and home surround system. Hopefully, this will become the standard, then everyone will be happy.

Also, it's not like they cost THAT much more than a CD, but the quality difference is IMMENSE. Have you listened to a DVD-Audio disc?

You want to create your own DVD-A's? Ok, but you have to start with HiRez, uncompressed data anyway. You can't take a MP3 file and "add back" the missing channels. It doesn't work that way. BUT, you CAN buy DVD-Video discs and use an extraction/creation tool to make your OWN DVD-A's. For example, there's a program call "DVD Audio Extractor".....load your dvd into your computer and the program will show you each audio track on the disk. Select the tracks you want, click next and "direct stream demux". You then save each dts song to a folder on your computer. Then burn just the audio to a dvd. The files are small enough you could fit about 90 songs on one dvd. Did I need to produce or "author" my own content? LOL no.

What happened to BUYING music on a freakin' CD/disc? You just bought a $28k-$30k car...you can't afford to buy CD's? If you can, you can pay a couple extra bucks to get a DVD-A/CD DualPack. Your argument is pointless.


Your intent to make my remarks sound foolish is pretty good tho, however, i tend to disagree. I like to write in a more commen sense approach when it comes to cars, you want to negate some of the premises ive written about by saying go blow for blow by the points YOU think the RDX is better. I chose to stick to one big feature that sets the RDX apart from the 7; SHAWD. after that, these cars are almost identical on paper.

Wow, where to start...I thought I laid out every advantage in my previous post? SHAWD was but one of those things. And yes, I DO feel it working during everyday driving - for example, taking the 710S - 91E interchange, I can push it into the turn and FEEL the rear right wheel push me through and keep me stable. Driving the twisties on PCH, Kanan Dume Rd, or many others, I FEEL SHAWD working. I don't need to drive carelessly, wrecklessly, or more importantly, above the law to FEEL it working. There's reasons WHY CanadianDriver reviewers love the RDX: http://www.canadiandriver.com/testdrives/07rdx.htm and its SHAWD system: http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/pw/acura_awd.htm.

I am posting these links so you can actually READ them. If not, you're just being ignorant to the facts.



if you are taking my comments as BASHING the RDX, ur approach is wrong. Its comparison talk. I stuck to price and features. Im not convincing myself of any decision ive made - given what ive gone thru with Mazda id much rather bought the Acura, put up with the stuff i didnt like in the car, but gain the better reliability. No bashing here.

Your "comparison talk" comes from 100% bias for the CX-7. Comments such as:

"he RDX was no premium cabin compared to the CX7 and my loaded Accord."

That is your opinion. It is not a fact. It IS a fact that Acura used higher quality interior materials than Mazda. I am sure most here who have truly compared the two can agree to that

"There was no "sport", it obviously stives for the luxury feel, but i felt like i did in my crv, propped up in the seat like i was driving a truck, not a sport wagon."

Again, your opinion. Did you TRY to adjust the seat height down? Eh, probably not. Perhaps you just like putting your biased spin on everything.

"the acura isnt worth the extra dough, especially the base model. period."

Opinion is fine, but this is PURELY a subjective comment. A $2,500-$3,000 price difference between the two cars is nothing when already spending $30k+ on a CX-7 GT/AWD/Tech. Remember, you simply CANNOT compare a Sport CX-7 to even a base RDX - they are apples and oranges, target different market segments, and aim for different competitors. The ONLY similarities are turbo-4 CUV. That's it. Would you consider a Dodge Neon SRT-4 as being similar to a Subaru STi? I wouldn't, but I bet you dollars to doughnuts the SRT-4 *cough* Neon *cough* owner will say they are competitors (lol). Sure, each one comes with a turbo-4 engine, 4 doors and 4 wheels, but that's where the comparison ends. Of course, testers, magazines, and consumers will compare them together because they share some similar traits. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME CAR, that is for sure.


If you, however, are really going to drive the truck like a rally car and use the SHAWD, then that sure is a benefit, but for most regular driving the SHAWD is more or less a great tech toy for no reason. DVD- Audio, im sure most people dont even know how to create a dvd (super audio disc) to even utilize that. but thats just an assumption and i could be dead wrong.

Truck? I don't know about you, but my RDX handles much more like a sports car than the 3 CX-7's I've driven. I've not had to TRY to use the SHAWD, it just does it's thing. One of the coolest parts about the RDX w/ Tech is that it comes with a multifunction display that can display, among many other things, exactly how/when SHAWD distributes power - to each wheel. Example:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/Psychobroker/RDXmultifunction.jpg


WHo fed me that lie? hmmmmmmmmmmmmm about every single person who thought it was a new lexus, every valet, every client who comes in and goes what the hell is that parked in front, every person who stops you at the market, at the mall, at the store to ask what it is, the list can really go on and on and im sure other posters can back me up on that one. People are attracted to the 7, the RDX - altho looks are subjective, does not play the part of a premium truck. its forgettable.

Sure, and that big Mazda seagull/M/whatever on the back doesn't tell people what it is? Again, your OPINION about the RDX' appearance is 100% subjective. Personally, I feel the RDX is MUCH more striking, yet much more SUBTLE, than the CX-7. It doesn't scream "look at me!", and I LOVE that about it. My opinion - I prefer SUBTLETY and RARITY over pretentiousness and flamboyance. I'm guessing other RDX owners feel the same way.


Sounds like you are stuck in the land of buying things for name-sake (if I'm going to pay $31k for a car, it had better not be a Mazda)

I could have felt that way, but the determining factor for me between the two was overall driver/driving experience. The RDX w/ Tech gave/gives me an abundance of things and technology, whereas the CX-7 GT/AWD/Tech left me feeling empty, like it had been tossed together, not purpose-built.


You should tell motor trend that, who just ranked the Mazda over the new (cha-ching) MDX

You mean the CX-9 vs. the MDX? I don't believe this is www.mycx9.com, is it? Who cares about either one? Neither are in my segment - nor yours - so stay on topic. To help you BACK on topic, I'll give you this tidbit, strait from Motortrend:


Despite a sporty feel and Mazda's Active Torque Split AWD--also borrowed from the MazdaSpeed6--the CX-7 just didn't have the same level of dynamic composure as the Acura. It also lacked the RDX's wrought-from-billet structural rigidity.

SOURCE: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suv/112_0610_crossover_comparison/conclusion.html

[Killer]

That's gonna leave a mark.(flame2)

all kidding aside, lets keep it cool guys.(hippy)

[mikey1981]

no mark left, you didnt add anything that was already not said. You just regurgitated everything. my remarks about the DVD audio you just spit back out. you proved my point even more so - u cant make dvd audio out of itunes songs, so basically unless you are buying a true dvd audio disc there is no sense in having the drive in the car. dvd-audio catching on? quite the opposite, along with Super Audio, these players have been on the market for quite some time and yes they are far superior, take a stroll thru ur nearest electronics store and ask another person what dvd audio is or super audio. matters zero in todays consumer market.

do you really think i am a village idiot? you think i didnt adjust my seat? i cant even carry on this conversation. but, you must have taken a nice chunk of time especially including a picture of the , wow, dash ! ;)

im not bias, my car has been in the fucking shop for 3 months, and more and more i think Mazda is shit. But ill talk comparison all day, and i call it as i see it. Again, good for u with ur bluetoothed out RDX...im glad you enjoy it so much, but ur just as biased in your opinions as any other owner.

and yea i was talking about the 9...because of your too expensive MaZda comment and you get what you pay for, the mazda 9 product is cheaper than the ACURA and got ranked better. I am on topic. Nicequote from motor trend, i could quote car and driver and edmunds in support of the 7, but im not going to, so whatever. whoopidy do rdx.

[Mazda3]

I think the horse is dead here.(deadhorse

Back to the actual thread topic or we'll have to lock it down.

[Dalton]

Japanies did a funny track competition.

There where:

1. Mitsubishi Pajero/Montero
2. Honda CR-V
3. Mazda CX-7 (yippy)
4. Lexus RX400h (Toyota)
and last but not least

5. Porsche Cayenne Turbo (2thumbs)

What happened -> well you can check out here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWKPyJuMT9I) (drive)(drive2)(wrc)(drive2)

[Psychobroker]

Japanies did a funny track competition.

There where:

1. Mitsubishi Pajero/Montero
2. Honda CR-V
3. Mazda CX-7 (yippy)
4. Lexus RX400h (Toyota)
and last but not least

5. Porsche Cayenne Turbo (2thumbs)

What happened -> well you can check out here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWKPyJuMT9I) (drive)(drive2)(wrc)(drive2)

LOL that's great :)

As for Mikey - we can go round and round on this. I won't bother anymore. You just don't get it.

To Mazda3 - I am done, sorry for ruffling any feathers :)

[Mazda3]

Japanies did a funny track competition.

There where:

1. Mitsubishi Pajero/Montero
2. Honda CR-V
3. Mazda CX-7 (yippy)
4. Lexus RX400h (Toyota)
and last but not least

5. Porsche Cayenne Turbo (2thumbs)

What happened -> well you can check out here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWKPyJuMT9I) (drive)(drive2)(wrc)(drive2)

Funny stuff!!!

With the exception of the Porsche of course the CX-7 really spanked the others.

[Alpha Wolf]

yes too may people trying to force a result from their own info...


Just some comments.

Keep in mind taste is personal and individual as are what we each need or expect out of a vehicle.

Personnally I was not out for a all out luxury SUV with tons of trick gadgets.

Secondly I find both the Acura and Lexas to be FRUGLY... You may love their looks and that is fine. I just cannot spend money on a car I think is FRUGLY.

Cost is an issue. I do not want to spend $4,000-$7,000 on gagets! I realize that some buyers have to have the bragging rights as to the number of features offered and who has the most techno car etc.... That is your option. For me the Touring model had what I wanted.

The Lexus has no headroom period... It was axed from the list the moment my head hit the roof...

I like firm seats...
I like firm suspension
I liked paying $27,600 for my Touring CX7

I then installed dual headrest DVDs/Game Consoles for kids.

I am happy.

I did not buy the Acura though we did look at them and the Lexus among others. Yes the Acrua has a more plush interior. To me that was not worth the cost. Some value their name and want a more plush ride. I am not one of them.

Be happy with what you bought. I am...

Drive more whine less...

(yes)

[mikey1981]

LOL that's great :)

As for Mikey - we can go round and round on this. I won't bother anymore. You just don't get it.

To Mazda3 - I am done, sorry for ruffling any feathers :)

agree to disagree - u dont get it either bro.

[Killer]

I think the horse is dead here.(deadhorse

Back to the actual thread topic or we'll have to lock it down.

(werd)

[1Sleepy93]

That vid was pretty sweet! I'd like to see the CX with the same size/weight rims and tires as the Porsche and see what happens then.

[lisevolution]

Finally saw this commercial over the weekend, I also saw the new Mazda 3 commercial. Good to see mazda taking direct shots at competition whether we think they're in the same class or not.