FX, X3, and RDX are not SUVs, they are perverted oxymorons.

 

Then neither is the Rav4, Murano, MDX, RX350, X5, CRV, Edge, Highlander, and every SUV based on a car chassis

 

No, at least these, especially the MDX have a large cargo capacity, while X3 and FX couldn't carry as much crap as a compact sedan.

 

How do say the RDX has above average reliability when it has an all new turbocharged 6? Just because its a honda? Every other car brand seems to get no reliability rating when its a new platform because basically they dont really know.

 

the RDX has a turbocharged 4-cyl.

I too dont know how they came up with the conclusion that the rdx is above average since it barely came out.

 

except that Rav4 is pretty sporty... now you get to decide when does it matter :P

It matters in your favorite brand, but it doesnt matter in Rav4 :-).

 

I would think that CR is big on reliability, so i really dont imagine them reccomending car that they dont consider reliable. That would pretty much go against everything that CR stands for.

Besides, not even the germans like the X3. It just lost to Rav4 in last month's Autobild.

 

The category is 'sporty SUVs'. Why would they not be stiffly sprung!?

Of course to CR anything that doesn't ride like a Camry is stiff.

Comparing vehicles like the X3 with facelifted interior and the FX35 and the RDX to the SPARTAN cheap Rav4 makes no sense. I guess without reading the article and how they scored them, I can't figure it out.

OK, I'm talking about DRIVING fun, not playing with the stereo. This category is SPORTY SUVs after all.

 

Because it's Honda and they automatically assume Honda and Toyota will be reliable no matter what questionable factors are in the design and yet to be proven.

My dad recalls back when he was much younger - I wanna say 30-35 years ago, consumer reports was absolutely IN LOVE with the VW Rabbit. I mean no matter what came out the Rabbit was the absolute best car in its class, and reliable beyond question.

I think we can all look back and kinda laugh at that assessment. CR isn't infallible - they have their biases just like everyone else, and so do their readers, whom they commonly limit their polling to.

 

I wouldn't say that until I'd tried stuffing one. I had a 2-door 1996 RAV4, and it was truly amazing how much stuff I could put in it with the back seats down.

 

Yeah, with the back seat down you can carry some cargo, but you lose the back seat.

 

I like to read Consumer Report as just another guideline. They're way too conservative for me. I'll take the 73 point Infiniti FX, pay a little more for the V8, and have a little fun in my life.

 

The X3's cargo area is by no means small. It is quite deep without the seats being folded down. More than enough cargo room for the Home Depot type like me The BMW X3 is the only vehice in the bunch that corners better than the competion and many cars including every Lexus ever made. When cornering in an suv, your natural instinct is to put your foot over the brake to go slowly around a corner/curve. In the BMW x3, it begs to be driven hard in the corners/curves.. No body roll at all, compliant suspension, and you can drive with confidence. The X-drive system is amazing.. It makes this vehicle stick like glue to the road. It feels/drives no different than a 3 series sedan/coupe, but does cost more than the 335.. I test drove the other vehicles except the Mazda C7, and none of them drove like the X3. The controls in the X3 are simple to use. Here is a pic of the controls in mine.

 

I bet 3 series wagon has more cargo space, and handles better, and has better acceleration.

 

That was true of the 2-door RAV4, but not the 4-door, and probably not the other compact SUVs.