# Help me choose an SUV (cross-over)



## Frank Rizzo (Aug 2, 2003)

Dood. The longer I own the RDX, the more I like it. It started out as a temporary vehicle, and now we are going to keep it for a while.
Some random RDX thoughts:
Today I smoked a new 328 and an E46 330 with the RDX.
The RDX fun factor is great, so if you ever want to actually have a good time it's there to help you out!! 
To duplicate the level of stuff in the RDX w/tech with an X3 it will be north of $50k, but it does not have the same dynamics as the BMW.
My RDX has 20k miles on it now, and like i've told you before I genuinely beat it like a rental car daily. Not one squeak, rattle or problem. No unscheduled service visits. 
It has a lot of wind noise on the freeway and the interior looks a little cheap. 
I'm averaging 16MPG, but I'm on the boost a lot because it's so much fun. The voice activated NAV and live traffic is amazing, everything else I've seen is a joke compared to Acura.
The super duper stereo is really only so-so, as are most car stereos these days, DVD-A is not worth anything.
I've spent about $500 on service so far - mostly due to the Mobil 1 and I take it to the dealer.
It makes a great daily driver for an urban environment, you sit above the traffic a little bit, and it's low key.
If I had it to do all over - I'd get another - or an Infiniti EX.


----------



## hts (Dec 19, 2001)

i'm gonna try to make time to test-drive the ex tomorrow. my guess is that it will be so-so, but real-world mileage will exclude it from further consideration. the more i'm thinking about it, the more i'm leaning toward the highlander hybrid or maybe vw diesel, although methinks the diesel would be better for long hauls, and most of our driving is stop/go. the rdx is all about performance. 16mpg the way you drive is probably an accomplishment.


----------



## Hawkeye16 (Aug 1, 2007)

My ex just got a 2007 Hyundai Santa Fe Limited and it is a very nice car for the price!

I personally love the Infiniti FX45 :thumbup:


----------



## Frank Rizzo (Aug 2, 2003)

goodkarma said:


> the rdx is all about performance. 16mpg the way you drive is probably an accomplishment.


Possibly my new sig.


----------



## cjwheeling (Jan 26, 2006)

former230 said:


> I know the brand name might be hard to get over, but the new Hyundai Sante Fe is very nice. Might not exude as much luxury as you are looking for, but these are very nice, especially when you consider the warranty and the deal you can get on them.
> Otherwise, I would agree the CRV is the way to go considering your criteria.
> Good luck!


Agree with the Hyundai Santa Fe. Get a one year old used one, as their depreciation is pretty severe. C/D raves about them.


----------



## jw (Dec 21, 2001)

goodkarma said:


> Infiniti EX35 (planning to drive this week; may be too much performance)


Just drove it the other day. :thumbdwn:


----------



## hts (Dec 19, 2001)

why the :thumbdwn:? too small?


----------



## jw (Dec 21, 2001)

goodkarma said:


> why the :thumbdwn:? too small?


Yeah, it was super cramped. I can't imagine getting anyone into the back seat without having the front seats all the way forward. And the rear area was tiny. You might be able to fit a toy poodle in there and a sack of groceries. Not much else. The power was not impressive and the seats felt smallish.

One of the good things about the car was the price point. But then...

For around the same money you could get a MDX. My wife has one and loves it. She's already decided that will be her next lease after the current one runs out.


----------



## Scotes (Jan 12, 2002)

I know you said you didn't care much for anything American made but I drove a Ford Edge a couple of weeks ago and was pretty impressed compared to the CRV, RDX, Tribeca, and CX7.

Drove the Edge after we went with a 328i but had I driven it before hand we would have seriously considered it.


----------



## hts (Dec 19, 2001)

so I don't mean to put it down, but what specifically was it about the edge that you liked? the mileage looks crappy, the interior/dash is the typical cold/bland/fleet rental ford taurus we've seen since the mid-90's--i'm just not seeing it. i do see some innovation, which is nice, but nothing on their web site that would deter me from the cr-v at this point. i drove a highlander hybrid today and wasn't all that impressed with it either, especially not for $45k. i wish the acuras (rdx/mdx) got better mileage, as i'd really like to like them, but their mileage is the sucketh.


----------



## Scotes (Jan 12, 2002)

CR-V was a matchbox car, pick up was anemic, interior bits looked and felt cheaper than cheap, and the handling fet very non-responisive. The Subaru Tribeca drove like a boat - nice pickup, plenty of space, and the interior bit seemed nice but it just like like I was driving my dad's old F150. CX7 - just felt and drove cheap. RDX - best of the bunch we drove at the time though only my wife drove it - from the passenger seat if felt like it drove nice but... 4cyl turbo... eh.

Mind - I drove all of these after getting out of my 530i/5sp so everything is going to be relatively crappy.

I only took the Edge for a short test drive on a whim a few Saturday's ago and the interior felt decent and nicely laid out, handling was softer than an x3 but not sloppy like the CRV, CX7 or Tribeca, and throttle response was crisp and linear - better than most everything I had test driven (including the x3) in the last few months.

Mileage on the Edge I thought was pretty good compared to the other vehicles in its class. Though generally unimpressive I wasn't offended by the interior - compared to the others I thought the RDX was the only one better and the Edge had some nice touches like the reclining rear seats, panorama roof, and the easy fold down seats. I personally like the exterior styling but I think they could do with a little less blingy chrome all around.

For just under $40k loaded (awd, sync) I thought it was a pretty nice package that I would give a second look to had I driven it before deciding to go with the 328i. Not saying it is definitely a keeper but I think it is definitely worth a drive as I was really expecting it to be a POS and it surprised me.


----------



## hts (Dec 19, 2001)

i don't have a real problem with anemic (as long as it doesn't pose a safety hazard). in fact, in my research on the toy highlander hybrid, it has an 'econ' mode (you push a button to activate) that essentially retards the flow of gas to the engine in order to improve mileage. the vast majority (90%) of our driving is stop-and-go around n virginia. our priorities again are safety and mileage. i'm also thinking about checking out the mercury mariner hybrid, although the styling (interior/exterior) do nothing for me.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

SUV and gas economy are contradictory terms. The former emphasizes sport and utility at the expense of weight. What's wrong with a sedan?


----------



## hts (Dec 19, 2001)

she likes the additional visibility afforded by sitting up a little higher than most sedans. and the vehicles we're looking at really aren't true SUV's (body-on-frame) but rather unibody cross-overs, not meant for off-roading. in fact, we're still torn between 2wd (better mileage) and awd (marginally better handling in snow/rain).


----------



## Mr. The Edge (Dec 19, 2001)

cx-9


----------



## iversonm (Nov 15, 2004)

I'd vote for the X3 as well. We replaced an Odyssey with one as well; my wife quickly become a Bavarian car bigot like me. 

I'd suggest a Thule or Yakima roof rack and pod for long trips. We can carry a tremendous amount of gear in ours.


----------



## iversonm (Nov 15, 2004)

goodkarma said:


> she likes the additional visibility afforded by sitting up a little higher than most sedans.


+1 This is a requirement for my wife as well.


----------



## hts (Dec 19, 2001)

cx-9 is bigger than we need, although i did just check out the cx-7 on mazda's web site. the mileage isn't what i'd like it to be (undoubtedly due to the 244hp turbo-4), but the safety ratings are 5's across the board, and the consumer reviews on edmund's are all overwhelmingly positive. that, and the fact that i can get a top of the line GT for under $30k (prolly closer to $26 after negotiation) are all positives. not sure about resale value.


----------



## hts (Dec 19, 2001)

If there weren't a single badge in the CR-V's cabin, you'd still know who makes this SUV. The five-passenger layout has been completely redesigned for the 2007 model year, but the interior is inherently Honda: cool, modern design, tight gaps and seams, excellent build quality, simple, elegant layout. For the first time, this sport/utility (now much closer to the crossover side of the spectrum) also comes with an optional navigation system.

Despite the exterior's extreme visualmakeover, mechanical changes are conservative. The 2.4-liter four-cylinder engine gained 10 horsepower and one pound-foot of torque and is now backed solely by a five-speed automatic--so long, manual transmission. Real-Time 4-Wheel Drive, essentially an all-wheel-drive system, provides all-season traction. Emissions and fuel economy have improved: The LEV II ULEV Honda is rated at 22-23 mpg city and 28-30 highway. Dimensions changed little, but the spare tire is relocated underneath, which shortens the overall length by three inches. Also affecting the rear end is a new overhead cargo door, replacing the old side-hinge unit, and the picnic table, once a standard feature of the cargo area, is gone.

On the road, the new CR-V is quiet, handles well, and is tossable in turns, but left everyone wanting more off the line. There was only one vehicle slower than the CR-V in this group, and that was the old-school live-axle Wrangler. The Honda's 9.9-second run to 60 was a mere 0.1 second faster than the previous generation's, it finished the quarter mile only a hair faster than the old CR-V and stopped from 60 in a foot shorter distance.

Should Honda have given the new CR-V more oomph to stay competitive with the likes of the V-6-powered RAV4, or did it make the sage move by keeping it a value-minded crossover with excellent fuel economy? The CR-V has matured, and its personality has changed, but it'll be up to Honda fans to decide whether that's a good thing.

From MT's 2007 Sport/Utility of the Year Review

http://www.motortrend.com/oftheyear/suv/112_0612_2007_suv_of_the_year/2007_honda_crv.html


----------



## Ugly Bear (Dec 27, 2006)

iversonm said:


> +1 This is a requirement for my wife as well.


It always fascinates me when "sitting higher" in SUV is considered safer than not rolling over when avoiding a crash in a sedan or wagon. :dunno:


----------

