It's just amazing that people argue about handlings on SUVs. Isn't that an oxymoron? I think CRV or Honda HRV probably have better handling than RAV4, but we are talking about on-road handling.

And why can't a 240 hp (assumed) RDX outrun a V6 RAV4? I am not saying the RDX is going to be faster for sure, but do we have the spec yet? Do we know the gearing of the RDX, and its weight? What if it's lighter than RAV4 and have a shorter final gear? If 0-60 is all you care about, the lighter car with the shorter gear ratio may probably have a better chance to win that.

And I have to disagree that, given the same car with the same engine, the AWD model with have an advantage over the non-AWD one on drag race. AWD may give you a slight advantage at take off, but after that 0-20 maybe 30 mph, the weight penalty will show.

Can't Toyota just develop a small cross-over vehicle based on the Japan Caldina GT (at least 250 hp with the MR2 engine, AWD based on torsen differentials)?

LMAO! You guys were going on and on about how nice the new Rav4 is in another thread, and how Toyota is moving in the right direction... but when Lexus comes out and says they may make an SUV based off of the Rav4, people lose it.

I'd like to see some drawings and specs before I make up my mind... but as a younger Lexus owner, I'd love to see a Lexus that I can go into the dealership and afford... seeing even the IS is getting very expensive. However, they would have to do it RIGHT in order to not trash the Lexus name... but I'm not too worried... they've done a great job in the past.

I've seen countless I4 turbos with 240hp with a better 0-60 time... most are DSMs which I can't stand... but still. Otherwise, I agree with everything you said. Lol.

the new RAV4 is nice, but I will not buy one. Because there's no rear bumper. I will not put any family or friend in that optional 3rd row seat.

Lexus has three SUVs already, still not enough? I guess all they care is sales, look at them three SUVs and four sedans and only one convertible. They really need a coupe and a roadster(SC430 has the back seats).

Speaking from experience, you are correct on the drag race scenario. The difference between the RX300 FWD and AWD versions is .2 in the 1/4 mile, with the AWD being slower, assuming both stock and equal other added extra weight, and tire pressure equal. The FWDs will spin upon launch, and that has helped my AWD RX300 win every time against an SUV at my track, even ones that clock a faster ET, since I have a faster reaction and a faster 60 foot.

I agree with you in withholding judgment. All of our beloved Lexus vehicles can thank their roots to Toyota vehicles.

Your favorite brand has the worst SUV built, the QX56 and the FX 35/45, so they are RIGHT behind them, and could tie, with the downmarket CX that may come.

Lexus never chases sales as stated in press releases. THey simply build incredible cars that the market loves and sales come. NEver have they offered a sub 30k car or an I-4 car, like your favorite brand.

I bet you if this truck comes out, watch how fast the doubters will change there tune

CRV doesnt have handling as good as RAV4, not even old Rav4. There is not an single SUV comparo that has been done in past 6 years that Rav4 was not called absolutly the best on road driver :-).

Why is an V6 with 270hp better choice than I4 turbo with 240hp in suv? Many reasons, such as instant response, smooth action, lots of torque and power anywhere in rpm range. Especially in an luxury vehicle, it is a no brainer. We got info abotu new Mazda CX, with I4 turbo and Rav4 outperforms it in every possible way, including power and significantly better mileage. No matter what they say about turbo lag, there is always turbo lag in production vehicle.

And actually, Rav4 has always been similar to Caldina, eh, it has always been an Celica with AWD, with multilink suspension.

Is there any speculation why Acura would not want to supercharge the RDX?

My 02 Rav4 takes corners way better than a stock GS400. It just feels tighter and more secure.

Sorry but this is exactly Acura's issue. You can argue the Toyota Rav-4 is better or even or just slightly worse than whatever the RD-X is. It WILL have more power and more cylinders than the RD-X, no matter what.

So Acura again, battling what should be Honda territory. This is now redundant.

Is there enough size difference between the RX and Rav4 to justify such a model? I know the RX would probably be redesigned by the time a Rav4 based SUV would make it to market but even then...I wonder how they would justify that size/engine wise. Funny how the RX used to start at like 32K and now the base price is about 6K more. I know there's a lot more car now than there was in the first gen but I think that Sick also brought up a good point. The RX is bigger and more powerful than the X3 and still competes with it on the basis of price. I'm betting that the RD-X will probably be starting in the high twenties though, a good 10K or so below the RX.

I guess in some ways I could see an SUV below the RX, and then again maybe not. I think that some sort of IS Sportwagon would be a better idea. I know that the sales of the last SportCross wouldn't exactly influence Lexus to build another one but the whole last IS in itself wasn't exactly popular. They could go the R-Class/Audi Allroad route and base it on the IS platform, toughen up the sheetmetal, give it more ground clearance than the sedan but not as much as the RX and maybe an adaptive variable suspension and AWD or something. IX 300 and IX 350? Then again, would that eliminate the need for the rumored GS-based crossover wagon? Who knows...this whole thread is just speculation so theres my two cents.

Michael