For me I want a car with "catlike" reflexes. Oldsmoboi, were you to be given a choice of your ultimate current car my guess is you'd buy a CTS or some other really loaded car. Were money not an option I would take a Lutus Elise. We all have different choices. The Honda of the Era did drive/handle MUCH better than the Olds.

The Accord didn't get a V6 until 1995.

I have a CTS now.... for another 2 days. While I do like the car, I'm tired of the ride over the terrible terrible roads here in Western PA. I'm replacing it temporarily with a borrowed 1996 Roadmaster Estate that I'll drive till I leave for Germany. Once I'm over there, I have no idea what I'll get.... I have my eye on a CTS 2.9 litre diesel, but the BF likes the Astra Twintop.

If I were shopping for a car today I'd be looking for 1996 Fleetwoods.... if I bought new, I'd go either DTS or Lucerne.

Real world 30 is baseline for cars I want...

But my Chrysler Concorde did an Amazing 26-29, usually got about 28. Mostly semi rural driving, but still pretty good for a midsized car.

My Safari van eats fuel like an aircraft carrier, however. I have to use a tape measure and a calculator to get actual fuel economy.

Chris

Concorde? Midsized?

Real world 30 is baseline for cars I want...

But my Chrysler Concorde did an Amazing 26-29, usually got about 28. Mostly semi rural driving, but still pretty good for a midsized car.

My Safari van eats fuel like an aircraft carrier, however. I have to use a tape measure and a calculator to get actual fuel economy.

Chris

When we took the Intrepid across country (4,100 miles or so round trip) we averaged 27-29 mpg going anywhere between 75-100 mph. LH cars got impressive real world mpg. For comparison the best highway mileage the Cobalt managed was 32mpg.

Concorde? Midsized?

It, like the rest of the LH models were technically a large car but was often cross shopped and compared with midsize cars.

When we took the Intrepid across country (4,100 miles or so round trip) we averaged 27-29 mpg going anywhere between 75-100 mph. LH cars got impressive real world mpg. For comparison the best highway mileage the Cobalt managed was 32mpg.

It, like the rest of the LH models were technically a large car but was often cross shopped and compared with midsize cars.

Yeah, they seemed to be about the size of a LeSabre or Bonneville, I think.. Intrepids, LHSes, Concordes and 300Ms were my favorite rental cars from '99-04. I used to get them several times a year at the Columbus and Pittsburgh airports..

It, like the rest of the LH models were technically a large car but was often cross shopped and compared with midsize cars.

Why, I don't know. They had the Stratus/Sebring for that.

My wife had an Intrepid (see the sig), and in no way was that car a midsize. To compare it with one would be as dumb as comparing the current CTS to... oh, never mind.

Why, I don't know. They had the Stratus/Sebring for that.

My wife had an Intrepid (see the sig), and in no way was that car a midsize. To compare it with one would be as dumb as comparing the current CTS to... oh, never mind.

It says dead, what happened to it?

I think it's because the 2nd gen LH cars were very good, better than the second gen Cloud cars, and were priced competitively with midsize cars, and were fuel efficient. I test drove a `02 Stratus before buying my Intrepid. It looked nice on the outside, but the interior was ugly, cheap and blocky. The door panels flexed a lot and the materials were crap. It's steering was also kind of numb, not are accurate and as connected to the road as the LH cars. Plus it cost more.

Edited February 29, 200818 yr by Dodgefan

It says dead, what happened to it?

I think it's because the 2nd gen LH cars were very good, better than the second gen Cloud cars, and were priced competitively with midsize cars, and were fuel efficient. I test drove a `02 Stratus before buying my Intrepid. It looked nice on the outside, but the interior was ugly, cheap and blocky. The door panels flexed a lot and the materials were crap. It's steering was also kind of numb, not are accurate and as connected to the road as the LH cars. Plus it cost more.

She bought it in June or July '05 with 142K on the clock, just because she needed transportation while she was student-teaching.

While we were in college, the water pump died, and we found out that the camber on the front tires was off and the car leaked oil. I told my wife (then fiancee) that we would probably be replacing her car after we got married.

Fast-forward to September '06. Her car blows a radiator while she's at work. I get it towed to a shop, and they replace the radiator and thermostat, but can't figure out how to get the engine fan to work without the A/C on. I drive it home (a mile) and the car overheats AGAIN, even with the A/C on. We didn't have the funds to take it anywhere else to figure out how to fix the fan, so I declare the car dead.

Then our apartment complex tows the car because it had expired Virginia plates on it (we never went to the MVA to transfer her title). No, we haven't tried to get it back either.

She bought it in June or July '05 with 142K on the clock, just because she needed transportation while she was student-teaching.

While we were in college, the water pump died, and we found out that the camber on the front tires was off and the car leaked oil. I told my wife (then fiancee) that we would probably be replacing her car after we got married.

Fast-forward to September '06. Her car blows a radiator while she's at work. I get it towed to a shop, and they replace the radiator and thermostat, but can't figure out how to get the engine fan to work without the A/C on. I drive it home (a mile) and the car overheats AGAIN, even with the A/C on. We didn't have the funds to take it anywhere else to figure out how to fix the fan, so I declare the car dead.

Then our apartment complex tows the car because it had expired Virginia plates on it (we never went to the MVA to transfer her title). No, we haven't tried to get it back either.

That sucks, the first gens were troublesome...although I would like to have a Vision at some point, just for fun.

That sucks, the first gens were troublesome...although I would like to have a Vision at some point, just for fun.

I don't think I knew anyone who had a Vision. I had a friend who had (and I think still has) a first-gen Concorde, though.

I don't think I knew anyone who had a Vision. I had a friend who had (and I think still has) a first-gen Concorde, though.

There's one down the street from me, guy's had it for years and drive it everyday. They were regarded as the sportiest of the first gen LH series.

I think the Concord/LHS required a nautical license. They were more barge than midsize car.

Unrealistic like expecting an SUV that does 0-60 in 6.3 seconds to get amazing 20+ MPG? :AH-HA_wink:

The Mercedes GLK Bluetech hybrid does it in 7.3 seconds and gets 40 mpg US.

I think the Concord/LHS required a nautical license. They were more barge than midsize car.

Except they handled very well, better than some smaller cars did/do. They drive like smaller cars, which is part of the appeal. The LH models were larger than midsize cars, but priced on par with many of them, and drove better than many of them. They still drive beter than the current Camry.

Edited February 29, 200818 yr by Dodgefan

The Mercedes GLK Bluetech hybrid does it in 7.3 seconds and gets 40 mpg US.

And is going to cost how much?... :AH-HA_wink:

Diesel-hybrid is a great powertrain for an SUV, however the price premium is going to be considerable. The RDX might receive the 2.2L turbo-diesel soon, although the TSX is likely going to be the first Acura to get it. It wouldn't be as fast as the turbo-gas motor, but will get much better mileage and have plenty of torque down low so that it won't feel much slower. Honda could incorporate IMA with the turbo-diesel hybrid, but since they didn't with the turbo-gas I doubt it will ever happen. Plus the price of the RDX would be prohibitive for most people. And a diesel-hybrid compact SUV from Mercedes would probably be around $5k more than a diesel-hybrid RDX (considering the price difference between MDX and ML350). A $45-55k compact SUV is going to be a pretty niche market, even for Mercedes.

The Mercedes GLK Bluetech hybrid does it in 7.3 seconds and gets 40 mpg US.

Unfortunately, the GLK is going to be painfully ugly, though..

Unfortunately, the GLK is going to be painfully ugly, though..

I don't find that ugly. The X3 and RDX both have an odd look about them, and that is no different. It's just a different look that people will get used to.

Gotta love that picture though. How long are those tires going to last on rocky ground? Let alone those rims... lol

The Accord didn't get a V6 until 1995.

I have a CTS now.... for another 2 days. While I do like the car, I'm tired of the ride over the terrible terrible roads here in Western PA. I'm replacing it temporarily with a borrowed 1996 Roadmaster Estate that I'll drive till I leave for Germany. Once I'm over there, I have no idea what I'll get.... I have my eye on a CTS 2.9 litre diesel, but the BF likes the Astra Twintop.

If I were shopping for a car today I'd be looking for 1996 Fleetwoods.... if I bought new, I'd go either DTS or Lucerne.

My bad on the V6 thing...and yes I can appreciate the ride quality loss on roads in Western PA. I live in Ohio.

Astra is one of the cars I really like. Good luck in Europe.

Didn't know you'd found another BF, glad to see things are working out for you after things went wrong with the previous BF.

Chris

Except they handled very well, better than some smaller cars did/do. They drive like smaller cars, which is art of the appeal. The LH models werelarger than midsize cars, but priced on par with many of them, and drove better than many of them. They still drive beter than the current Camry.

EXACTLY, EXACTLY, EXACTLY!

The Concorde was an amzing car. They very well met my bias towards a nice handeling car. Several of my friends who drove my Concorde said something like...man this car handles!

Chris

EXACTLY, EXACTLY, EXACTLY!

The Concorde was an amzing car. They very well met my bias towards a nice handeling car. Several of my friends who drove my Concorde said something like...man this car handles!

Chris

Yes, I remember several nice drives on my favorite back roads in Ohio's Amish country in a 300M.... another trip I went to a wedding in SW New York (on the PA line) and had a black LHS...I thought it handled quite well for a large FWD sedan on the twisty back roads..

I am not a fan of Mercedes, although the new S-class looks good, the C-class and GLK are okay, they are better than the twin eyedrop headlights on the E-class, the E-class has a really old geezer look to it.

The GLK hybrid will probably cost between an Enclave and a Tahoe hybrid, and Mercedes has a much better image than Chevy or Buick. People are willing to pay for the Mercedes badge. There are a lot of baby boomers who's kids are gone and are downsizing, and there are the younger professionals with 1-2 kids or none at all, that will buy smaller cars and SUVs. Being environmentally friendly is becoming a big thing for businesses and individuals, it's the trendy thing to do. People will pay for a "green" luxury car or "blue" in the case of Mercedes.

the RDX is already overpriced with a gas turbo 4, i don't see us having to wait for the diesel version to come out to find that out.

The Mercedes GLK Bluetech hybrid does it in 7.3 seconds and gets 40 mpg US.

and costs......?

and costs......?

Not Announced Yet. $50k maybe?

the RDX is already overpriced with a gas turbo 4, i don't see us having to wait for the diesel version to come out to find that out.

It's not overpriced.

It's not overpriced.

It's actually allot of vehicle for the buck, I actually like it!

This just in! Import Humpers Agree, RDX not overpriced!

This just in! Import Humpers Agree, RDX not overpriced!

There are 5 RDXs in my work parking lot..I see quite a few of them around..the price seems competitive.

Depends on what you want. RDX and RL rank really low on my personal choice list, but someone obivously likes them. Why, I'm not quite sure...

Chris

get the CX-9, same yourself some money and fuel consumption in a better vehicle!

just looks like a facelift....

I dunno, but when I saw it, all I could think was "Chrysler Sebring"

This just in! Import Humpers Agree, RDX not overpriced!

dude get over yourself! The SRX starts three grand more than the RDX I don't see you complaining about that.

dude get over yourself! The SRX starts three grand more than the RDX I don't see you complaining about that.

But the SRX is a size bigger than the RDX. It's more along the lines of the MDX.

dude get over yourself! The SRX starts three grand more than the RDX I don't see you complaining about that.

and has a real V6 that doesn't need to wind to 4,500 rpm just to get to peak torque, and it's a foot longer.... yet gets the same gas mileage...

and then there is the interior that doesn't look like it came from an Accord....

Ditto on the SRX.

Chris

get the CX-9, same yourself some money and fuel consumption in a better vehicle!

Stop with the constant freaken Mazda comparisons!

and has a real V6 that doesn't need to wind to 4,500 rpm just to get to peak torque, and it's a foot longer.... yet gets the same gas mileage...

While the SRX is more comparable to the MDX, I have to say that the 2.3L turbo in the RDX does not suffer from Mazdaspeed-itis. That is it isn't an on/off power delivery. You don't have to "wind to 4,500 rpm" to get moving. The turbo is a variable flow turbo, with a considerable powerband. The engine produces more torque than most V6's as well (including the 3.6L V6 in the SRX).

Edited March 3, 200818 yr by siegen

Why isn't the SRX getting the DI?

dude get over yourself! The SRX starts three grand more than the RDX I don't see you complaining about that.

Don't forget AWD. The AWD SRX is $6,380 more than the RDX, and around the same price as the MDX.

and has a real V6 that doesn't need to wind to 4,500 rpm just to get to peak torque, and it's a foot longer.... yet gets the same gas mileage...

Be sure that you are comparing the AWD SRX to the AWD RDX. I do not believe the AWD SRX gets the same mileage as the RDX, likely 1-2mpg less. The SRX is also about a half second slower 0-60 and 1/4 (as tested by C&D). Of course the real comparison is the MDX and SRX.

While the SRX is more comparable to the MDX, I have to say that the 2.3L turbo in the RDX does not suffer from Mazdaspeed-itis. That is it isn't an on/off power delivery. You don't have to "wind to 4,500 rpm" to get moving. The turbo is a variable flow turbo, with a considerable powerband. The engine produces more torque than most V6's as well (including the 3.6L V6 in the SRX).

The RDX does produce 6 more ft/lbs, but takes the engine spinning at 4,500 rpm while the SRX hits it's peak at 2,800 rpm.

My next car has a redline of about 5,000 rpm, has 70 more ft/lbs of torque, 20 more horsepower, gets the same city mpg, gets 4 more better on the highway, while weighing 600lbs more, seating 8, and having a 5,000lb. tow rating..... and it was designed in 1990.

There is simply no replacement for displacement.

Why isn't the SRX getting the DI?

I assume because the SRX is going bye-bye when the BRX comes out?

The RDX does produce 6 more ft/lbs, but takes the engine spinning at 4,500 rpm while the SRX hits it's peak at 2,800 rpm.

My next car has a redline of about 5,000 rpm, has 70 more ft/lbs of torque, 20 more horsepower, gets the same city mpg, gets 4 more better on the highway, while weighing 600lbs more, seating 8, and having a 5,000lb. tow rating..... and it was designed in 1990.

There is simply no replacement for displacement.

You're being very daft, which is not like you. I'm not even going to comment on your car vs suv comparison. Do you have a dyno chart for the SRX I can use?

There is simply no replacement for displacement.

I know that's a charming phrase that's been around for ages.....especially charming for those fans of the muscle-car era......but it's a phrase that's hardly applicable in today's times.....

I think you're being pretty close-minded in this argument and don't realize that spouting stats in this case doesn't tell the whole story.

I've never driven an RDX so I can't comment on how it compares to an SRX......

But I'll tell you this.....there are many times (most times) that I don't feel lacking for ANYTHING when I'm driving the A4 with the 2.0T compared to the CTS with the 3.6L. In fact, in the midrange, alot of times, the 2.0T feels torquier than the 3.6L. I'm not sure the difference in curb weights, but C&D got 0-60 in 7.2 secs for this current gen 2.0T Quattro....and 6.9 secs for a CTS 3.6L manual. So in outright grunt, they are close. But I average 7mpg MORE in the 2.0T in comparable mixed driving (25mpg versus 18mpg.)

My point is....there's way more to how a powertrain works in any particular car than what we can ascertain just by spouting specs, or torque peaks, or whatever. I'm sure my A4 is helped by the addition of the 6-speed manual, whereas the CTS would probably be a better car with the automatic. I'm sure an automatic CTS will walk all over an automatic 2.0T. Maybe not. I don't know. But I know we can't ascertain that just by looking at the specs pages in a brochure. I never thought this Audi would be so agreeable to drive compared to the CTS with a HF V6.....that was until I lived with them both.

I think we are just blessed to have so many choices out there in the marketplace.

I assume because the SRX is going bye-bye when the BRX comes out?

It is believed that the SRX will die off in favor of the BRX (which I see as a dressed up Vue, how awful)

Why Cadillac would replace a premium rear drive chassis in favor of a front drive, front heavy, chassis from the company with dent resistant doors makes no sense to me.

Interestingly enough, the SRX is the most awarded vehicle in Cadillac's 106 year history.

It is believed that the SRX will die off in favor of the BRX (which I see as a dressed up Vue, how awful)

Why Cadillac would replace a premium rear drive chassis in favor of a front drive, front heavy, chassis from the company with dent resistant doors makes no sense to me.

Interestingly enough, the SRX is the most awarded vehicle in Cadillac's 106 year history.

Well, it appears Cadillac is moving away from it's original heading of being GM's brand to take BMW and Mercedes-Benz head-on.....and is falling back towards a Lexus and Acura competitior.

(Not even Lexus....it doesn't appear we'll have a V8 premium sedan to compare with the LS.....or even the GS.)

Stop with the constant freaken Mazda comparisons!

earth to seigen

Mazda = more interesting vehicles at a much more realistic and attractive price. honda / acura is getting punked my mazda and quite honestly deserves to be.

when honda steps up to the plate to create an entire vehicle experience to justify its acura pricing structures, then we can talk

tsx = nice jetta (GLI even beat the tsx in a c/d comparo) new mazda5 more interesting then new tsx fer sure

tl = nice accord

rl = ?

rdx = cx7 with a chicky interior

mdx = not quite a cx9

Edited March 5, 200818 yr by regfootball

You're being very daft, which is not like you. I'm not even going to comment on your car vs suv comparison. Do you have a dyno chart for the SRX I can use?

You're defending a brand spanking new Honda 4cylinder that gets worse mileage with less power in a lighter package than a 16 year old GM pushrod V8 that is easily quieter and smoother..... and I'm being daft?

Please.... what great advancement has Honda fielded here that is worth the money Acura is charging for the RDX? I'm not saying the RDX isn't good... I'm just saying that it is overpriced for what you're getting and the engine isn't all that and a bag of chips.

I know that's a charming phrase that's been around for ages.....especially charming for those fans of the muscle-car era......but it's a phrase that's hardly applicable in today's times.....

I think you're being pretty close-minded in this argument and don't realize that spouting stats in this case doesn't tell the whole story.

I've never driven an RDX so I can't comment on how it compares to an SRX......

But I'll tell you this.....there are many times (most times) that I don't feel lacking for ANYTHING when I'm driving the A4 with the 2.0T compared to the CTS with the 3.6L. In fact, in the midrange, alot of times, the 2.0T feels torquier than the 3.6L. I'm not sure the difference in curb weights, but C&D got 0-60 in 7.2 secs for this current gen 2.0T Quattro....and 6.9 secs for a CTS 3.6L manual. So in outright grunt, they are close. But I average 7mpg MORE in the 2.0T in comparable mixed driving (25mpg versus 18mpg.)

My point is....there's way more to how a powertrain works in any particular car than what we can ascertain just by spouting specs, or torque peaks, or whatever. I'm sure my A4 is helped by the addition of the 6-speed manual, whereas the CTS would probably be a better car with the automatic. I'm sure an automatic CTS will walk all over an automatic 2.0T. Maybe not. I don't know. But I know we can't ascertain that just by looking at the specs pages in a brochure. I never thought this Audi would be so agreeable to drive compared to the CTS with a HF V6.....that was until I lived with them both.

I think we are just blessed to have so many choices out there in the marketplace.

again, I think there is something wrong with your CTS....

I'm not saying the RDX 4-cylinder isn't good... I'm saying that it is out performed buy a 16 year old GM pushrod V8 in both mileage and power....... one or the other then fine... but the fact that it loses both contests and is 16 years newer is unacceptable. I'll guess the LT1 wins on NHV as well simply due to the 4cylinder v. V8 comparison and the fact that the LT-1 is one of the smoother V8s out there.

You're defending a brand spanking new Honda 4cylinder that gets worse mileage with less power in a lighter package than a 16 year old GM pushrod V8 that is easily quieter and smoother..... and I'm being daft?

Please.... what great advancement has Honda fielded here that is worth the money Acura is charging for the RDX? I'm not saying the RDX isn't good... I'm just saying that it is overpriced for what you're getting and the engine isn't all that and a bag of chips.

The RDX is priced very well considering the level of equipment you get. At $33K, it's cheaper than both the LR2 and X3, and it comes standard with heated memory 10-way power leather seats, dual zone climate control, Bluetooth, Xenon headlights, paddle shifters, SH-AWD, variable vane turbo geometry, DVD surround sound, IIHS top safety pick, etc.

The RDX is certainly quicker than a 16 year old Roadmaster - 0 to 60 in 6.3 seconds - and gets better fuel economy in spite of AWD and an aggressive final drive (19 mpg, combined, versus 17 mpg, combined, according to the 2008 EPA procedures).

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp?id=9189

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx2008f....nField=Findacar

Edited March 5, 200818 yr by empowah

again, I think there is something wrong with your CTS....

I'm not saying the RDX 4-cylinder isn't good... I'm saying that it is out performed buy a 16 year old GM pushrod V8 in both mileage and power....... one or the other then fine... but the fact that it loses both contests and is 16 years newer is unacceptable. I'll guess the LT1 wins on NHV as well simply due to the 4cylinder v. V8 comparison and the fact that the LT-1 is one of the smoother V8s out there.

But...it's still apples-to-oranges.....

It's an almost-useless argument to be having.....comparing the two......

Now you want to debate the merits of the RDX with it's powertrain versus, say, a BMW X3 with the inline-6....? Okay that's a constructive argument to have.

Well, it appears Cadillac is moving away from it's original heading of being GM's brand to take BMW and Mercedes-Benz head-on.....and is falling back towards a Lexus and Acura competitior.

(Not even Lexus....it doesn't appear we'll have a V8 premium sedan to compare with the LS.....or even the GS.)

Did you forget that BMW is in talks to sell engines and transmissions to both General Motors and Fiat?