Largely thanks to BMW, many Americans who do not work for Detroit automakers are finally waking up to the fact that premium vehicles do not have to be monstrous. So it stands to reason that, just as BMW's 3-Series has spawned a slew of imitators, BMW's X3 compact SUV might as well. (Never mind that the X3 hasn't sold terribly well.) Honda has usually been quick to react to market trends, so it should come as little surprise that Acura recently introduced the first of these, the RDX.

The RDX is based on the forthcoming, fully redesigned 2007 CR-V. The CR-V's handling, though nimble for an SUV, is hardly that of a legitimate BMW alternative. Its acceleration, though adequate, is hardly thrilling. And its interior ambiance suggests rugged utility, not luxury. Can Acura's version warrant comparison to the BMW X3, to date the only compact SUV suitable for a racetrack? (SUVs never feel like sports cars. But I've taken a performance driving course in an X3, and to my surprise it acquitted itself well.) The Acura will also face competition from below in the form of the recently introduced, not-quite-luxury Mazda CX-7. How does it stand up against that sporty crossover? I took one for a test drive to find out.

Update: I test drove the RDX for a second time after driving the MDX. I had only one other person in the vehicle this time, an excellent salesman who was about half the size of the first drive's salesman. This plus a better route left me with a more favorable impression of the RDX. I have raised my rating from three stars to four.

Styling

I've always found Acura's midsize SUV, the MDX, a bit of an eyesore. The short wheelbase and long overhangs do not make for pleasant proportions. The lengthy but vertically pinched nose looks especially odd.

The RDX is a much more refined design. (Note: the photo on this page is of the concept, not the production vehicle.) The larger wheels have been pushed much closer to the corners and fit much more tightly within the wheel openings. As a result, where the MDX appears ungainly the RDX appears hunkered down and ready for action.

The RDX's body suggests a sleeker, more powerful previous generation Toyota RAV4. The riskiest aspect might well be that the styling is too clean and lacking in distinction.

Some exterior panel fits were poor, a problem I've also noticed on the current Honday Odyssey. The front fenders were much higher than the hood, and the gaps between the fenders and hood narrowed towards the front end of the vehicle. The effect resembled an overbite--this RDX needed the services of an orthodontist.

Any doubts as to the RDX's upscale mission are dispelled by the interior. The interior styling, which strongly resembles that of other current Acuras, is both upscale and sporty. The X3's interior has been criticized as overly cheap in places; the RDX's won't be. I especially like the thickly padded door panels and the seats that look as if they might have been lifted out of Honda's S2000 sports car. I've often wished for prominent shoulder level bolsters. Here are some in an SUV. Materials are a couple cuts above those in Mazda's somewhat similar CX-7.

Accommodations

You sit higher relative to the instrument panel in the RDX than in Mazda's CX-7. As a result, you're more clearly piloting an SUV while driving the Acura, but you're still close enough to the road to retain some of the feel of a car. Visibility is good forward. Those who like to glance over the shoulder before changing lanes will encounter wide rear pillars. Suggestion: properly adjust the mirrors and use them.

I already mentioned the front seats' appearance. They perform as good as they look in terms of both comfort and support. I want these seats in my car.

The rear seat is merely okay. It's positioned higher off the floor than that in the CX-7, and thus provides better thigh support and forward visibility. However, just as the MDX is not as roomy as the related Honda Pilot, the RDX is not as roomy as the Honda CR-V. There's a decent amount of room in back, certainly more than in the BMW X3, but the Honda can surprise in this area.

Cargo volume is competitive. For a nearly flat floor the cushion must be tilted forward before folding the rear seatback. The CX-7's rear seat folds more readily--all you have to do is pull a couple handles in the cargo area. But the resulting floor isn't nearly as low or level.

On the Road

To motivate the RDX, Honda developed its first mass production turbocharged gas engine, a 2.3-liter four good for 240 horsepower at 6,000 rpm. In the past, Honda has demonstrated the ability to create a top tier engine in its first at-bat. Does its first turbo demonstrate how all turbos should be done? The brochure suggests as much, promising "road-scorching power," "virtually no turbo lag," "impressive torque right off idle," and "eye-opening response."

Sorry, but it just isn't so. Plant your right foot from a dead stop, and nothing much happens for a couple of seconds. Sure, the RDX accelerates, but no eyes were opened by the experience. Perhaps the 4,500 rpm torque peak, high for a turbo engine, should have been a clue?

Over 20 or so miles-per-hour the engine feels stronger and more responsive. Keep the engine speed over 3,500 and you will encounter little lag, but this is true of most current turbos. When driving along a curvy road in the RDX (or the CX-7, for that matter), you must continually plan your power needs in advance.

Even when the boost is up, the RDX rarely feels thrillingly quick. The road can rest easy; it's not going to be scorched by this powerplant. It's no VW FSI 2.0 turbo, which truly suffers from virtually no lag and impressive torque right off idle. Overall, the feel of the RDX's engine is just a bit better than average as turbos go and not terribly far off that of the engine in the Mazda CX-7 (though the Honda engine does sound more refined).

This engine is rumored for the next-gen TSX. Maybe the sedan's lesser curb weight will help.

Perhaps because it was toting less weight, the engine felt less laggy and more powerful during my second test drive. Still, I'd much rather have a normally aspirated V6, such as the 3.5 offered in the MDX. The X3 is powered by BMW's famed sixes, which respond to throttle inputs must more readily and precisely than Honda's turbo four.

Small shift paddles adorn the RDX's steering wheel. Tap one to upshift, the other to downshift. The transmission responds in a reasonable amount of time, though not nearly as or as instantaneously as VW's DSG. But then, no conventional automatic upgraded to permit manual shifting provides the ultra-quick responses and connected feel of the DSG. My main beef with nearly all such systems: why are the paddles or buttons mounted to the steering wheel, where they can be very difficult to locate in turns? Mount them to the column, please!

The RDX's standard all-wheel-drive system shoots power to the outside rear wheel to sharply limit understeer. Understeer should be minimal regardless, as the RDX has a 52/48 weight distribution. Other Hondas tend to be much more nose heavy. In practice, the handling is very competent but less than exhilarating in around-town driving. Body lean is well-controlled, the steering is well-weighted, and the chassis generally feels tight and responsive, at least when compared to other SUVs. But the driving position is too high to be sporting, and the RDX, though technically a good performer, simply does not beg to be hustled through the twisties. Push it hard, and the trick all-wheel-drive system works the promised magic. Throttle-induced oversteer is even on the menu. But in casual to moderately aggressive driving there's little special here. From the feel behind the wheel I would never have guessed that the weight distribution is so even. As in the CX-7 and most other cars these days, there could be more feel through the wheel.

The RDX's ride is well controlled, with not even a hint of float, yet provides the smoothness and quietness people expect from a premium brand vehicle. It's not as cushy as an RX 350, but it rides much more like the Lexus SUV than a BMW X3. There's just a bit of the jiggling that usually plagues high-riding vehicles, and it's faint.

Acura RDX Price Comparisons and Pricing

Base to base, with a $1,400 adjustment for its extra features, the RDX runs about $6,300 less than a BMW X3 fitted with 18-inch wheels. Typical. On the other hand, a comparably-equipped Mazda CX-7 runs about $4,000 less, but adjusting for the Acura's additional features cuts this margin in half.

Prices change frequently, and the above differences will vary based on feature levels. To quickly generate these and other comparisons with the specific features you want, visit my Web site, www.truedelta.com. (It’s the only site that provides true "apples-to-apples" price comparisons.) TrueDelta's page for the Acura RDX:

http://www.truedelta.com/models/RDX.php

Last Words

Perhaps predictably, Acura has fielded a compact SUV that, though clearly not just a rebadged Honda, cannot quite compare to a BMW in terms of performance but excels in terms of interior appointments and features. Have I mentioned how much I love the seats? Pity the turbo four cannot fully deliver on the brochure's promises and that the chassis doesn't feel all that lively unless you push it quite hard. Ultimately, the RDX isn't quite as much for drivers as for the feature-loving value buyers that Acura has traditionally catered to. This is about perfect for most buyers in this segment. But I'd also like to a see a Type-S with quicker steering and sharper chassis responses for driver's who appreciate such things.

A note on Acura RDX Reliability

I cannot practically cover reliability within the context of this review. However, many people are interested in such information, so I've started collecting my own data. Results, once they are available, will be posted to my site, www.truedelta.com, with updates every three months.

Unlike other sources, TrueDelta will clearly identify what difference it will make if you buy an RDX rather than another vehicle by providing "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats (among others). You will be able to specify the number of years, annual miles, and types of repairs to include in Acura RDX reliability comparisons.

Before I can report results, I need data on all cars--not just the RDX--from people like you. To encourage participation, those who help provide the data will receive free access to the site's reliability information. For non-participants, this access will cost $24.95.

For the details, and to sign up, visit www.truedelta.com.

A link to this website and alphabetized links to my other vehicle reviews can be found on my profile page.

If you're a member, and you want to receive an email when I post a new review, click here.

Some of my reviews of related vehicles:
BMW X3 review
Mazda CX-7 review
Toyota RAV4 review