siegen

I'll wait until Version 3.1 comes out, and they have all the bugs fixed. I hope it doesn't crash as much as Windows....

My point is, they are going to drive the RDX more sportingly than the Escalade. If they tried to take the Escalade around twisties or a mountain road it would probably flip over. There's a difference between being heavy on the throttle taking off from each steet light, and being at WOT constantly coming out of every apex. If you option out the CX-7 to the price of the RDX, they will actually be very similarly equipped. Except with the RDX you're getting a better AWD system, a better sound system, better driving dynamics, a luxury nameplate, and other goodies. If you compare a BMW X3 to those two, you will quickly see it lacks a lot of features that the RDX and CX-7 have standard, and is more expensive at the same time. It is common for luxury brands to get more money out of the same thing, except with Acura, you are actually getting your money's worth. Plus the RDX has a better warranty and isn't a Ford.

Again you're missing the point. How did the testers drive the Escalade? I have a feeling they were not as aggressive with it at the RDX.

Can you stop using giant bolded letters? And also stop it with the double standard. Do you think your buddy drives his Avalanche like the mag reviewer drove the RDX? Does your buddy drive WOT through twisties or do several 0-60, 1/4 runs to see how fast his vehicle is? You said yourself test drives are not a good source for the MPG a vehicle will actually get, and that a magazine should review the car for at least 10,000 miles to get anything worthwhile out of the MPG information. Quote from the Edmunds article: "we were admittedly heavy-footed. The turbo boost is just too much fun to drive conservatively." It starts at 33k. And isn't the Escalade just a tarted up Chevrolet SUV? Except it doesn't do anything better. At least the RDX performs, handles, and looks better than its lesser sibling.

Full Article

They would have probably done fine with a V6, but it would have taken up more room and required a larger engine compartment. This is based off of the CRV, so a 4cyl was the best option. Plus, the economy isn't bad, just look at the BMW X3. Luxury cars almost always get less mileage than their regular counterparts, even if they don't weigh much more. They have a lot more electronic goodies and other things (like SH-AWD) that suck up power and mpg.

Let's not compare real world mileage to EPA estimates. Everyone will experience different results in different climates with the same car. Saying certain cars hit certain mpg always is not accurate.

This is a nice looking car. A little toned down from the Concept. I think they hit the mark right on. That interior is very nice too. I'm sure they will have a Top Gear episode before long with this in it. They will probably complain about how it isn't faster or much faster than the last model. I think Honda could have used a 2.2L in it with 220hp quite easily, and probably should have.

Sounds like they have a nice V6 on their hands. Can't wait until Honda replaces their J-series V6 line, which is outdated and SOHC. This makes the J35 look bad.

"Luxury enjoyment give you successful feeling." "5-speed Mamual Transmission" "Warm-toned Inner Decoration Up-part with weak color" Edit: this gives me a great idea. Make a program that takes random words in the English language and puts them together in a sentence. I will call the program... "Speak Engrish how Chinese do!"

The TL interior makes the STS-V interior look like it came out of a base model Silverado. And this is comparing a studio STS-V shot vs a real life TL shot. STS-V TL Edit: I found a better pic of the STS interior. I can't believe Cadillac put that other one on their website, it looks so depressing. STS

Close. The Type S is rated at 19/28. Better mileage and 31 more HP than the 3.6L CTS engine. Just for reference the RL, with essentially the same engine, but AWD and 400lbs higher curb weight, gets 18/26. I would like to see the 3.7L engine put into the RL, tuned to 310hp or so. Breathe some more performance into that thing. You can almost bet on that for the redesign. But if they do, they better make the 3.5L engine standard, or maybe even the 3.7L for a Type S model. The AWD system will add quite a bit of weight.

I was thinking about this, the TL-S does not compete with the CTS-V at all, but instead competes with the CTS Sport model. Look at it like this: 2.8L CTS base model - 3.2L TL base model 3.6L CTS Sport model - 3.5L TL Type S model If you compare prices, they are very similar as well. So no, the Type S is not Acura's answer to the CTS-V. I don't think Acura needs to worry about it either, as it's probably a small percentage of the total CTS sales. Maybe they aren't literally going "ouch", but if you compare the features and specs offered at each price point (the CTS has a lower base MSRP, but comes less equipped), you'll find the TL offers quite a bit more at the same price.

I was comparing the current base model 06 TL to the current CTS. I don't think Acura was targetting the CTS-V with the TL Type S. The CTS-V comes with an engine almost twice the size of the regular CTS, and a price tag almost double as well. The Type S is only a small amount faster and more expensive than the base TL by comparison. Although that isn't saying they won't get compared to each other. The Type S will probably hold its own, but is no match for a V8 RWD car that weighs about the same.

The current TL already offers a lot of car for the money, and this update is supposed to add even more features. I doubt a Pontiac would be cross-shopped with this often, let alone steal sales from it. Btw, has anybody here compared the TL to the CTS (features, price, mpg, etc)? All I have to say is ouch for Cadillac...

Also Variance, all these Edmunds Evalutions you've been posting, I wasn't going to say anything, but it's spelt Evaluation :AH-HA_wink:

So get the base model, which has nicer rims IMO. And in black: Looks a lot better and classier than the current BMW 3, as well as most of its competition.

You know what I see? Harsh lighting, flash, no tripod, probably compact digital camera taken picture compared to professional studio picture. Not a very good comparison.

Can you stop generating imaginary worlds where only the things that matter to you are important? It's getting really annoying to have you posting these long paragraphs in every other thread that contain nothing more than uninformed opinions. When will you learn that a car is more than the sum of its parts? (or in your case, more than just the engine size or what looks good to you).

But what if you only have to fix it half as often? And don't forget Honda now has a longer (5 year vs 3 year) powertrain warranty compared to Chevrolet.

I'm not quite sure what I'm looking at. I thought they were targetting valet and limo drivers? :AH-HA_wink:

Can you give some sources for all these facts?

More for their money? Can you back any of this up, maybe show how those other vehicles offer more for the money than the CRV? Other than a little bigger engine (offset by worse fuel economy). Last time I checked the Vue and Escape both have smaller less powerful 4 cylinders than the CR-V with worse mileage ratings (best of both worlds?), yet I don't see you complaining about them. Is it because they have a V6 option? What percentage of "cute-ute" buyers do you think opt for the V6 option in these vehicles? Isn't the reason these people are buying these vehicles (crossovers, cute utes, whatever you want to call them) in the first place is to get away from the fuel-hungry bigger SUV's? The XL-7? You're joking right? I think you need to come to your senses.

You're missing my point. My point is, you can't compare a Tahoe to an RDX because they were probably driven very differently during their reviews. The RDX probably observed bad mileage during their test for the same reason C&D got 16mpg in their test drive of the RAV4. Which would be very aggressive driving during the test. Reg just likes to point out the bad numbers whenever he can, it's doubtful he even reads the articles, just scans them for low numbers. The title of the article is probably "RDX does 80-lap time trial on Laguna Seca", in which case 13.8mpg would be extremely good. :AH-HA_wink: