We had 2nd and 3rd gen Rx. Then we got the a 2017 GX. I also test drove 4RX. For me, once I switched to the GX, I do not want to go back to RX anymore. It just drives different. I don't care about the techs so I'm fine with what the GX offers. For my wife, as a passenger, she loves the GX but she does not want to drive it because it feels big. She still wants the RX. It's interesting to see the specs compared between the two. I'm surprised to see those numbers as well. However, we need to see the cubic numbers. I think this is where it makes the GX feel larger inside not just taller. A quick Google search shows when seats are folded, we have 56.3 in the RX vs. 64.7 in the GX according to cars.usnews.com. It's best to test drive and check out yourself. They are both great vehicles. Just different.

 

My 16 NX has better acceleration than RX, which I love. Especially in Sport Mode.
17 RX is boring but nice at times for change from NX for smoothness.

 

I have to disagree. I had the NX as a loaner a few times. The NX is a slug. Even the 3RX is far quicker than the NX. The NX engine was pushing pretty hard when I went WOT. The only thing the NX has over the RX is agility for the obvious reason.

 

While I know that 0-60 times don't tell the whole story, according to Lexus' own specifications, the NX AWD 0-60 time is almost a full second (.9 second) faster than the 0-60 time for the RX350 AWD.

 

NX= 7.2/7.0
RX= Debated here last year. Alex on Auto claimed 6.5. C&D said 6.9. Members here claim to get low 7s

http://www.lexus.com/documents/broch...h-Brochure.pdf

https://www.clublexus.com/forums/rx-...-60-times.html

 

I am off the red light (stop) quicker 98% of the more than car next to me in the NX, I think due to turbo & torque.
Wouldn't even try to beat the car next to me with the RX, due to transmission mapping.

 

The 0-60 specs provided by Lexus are usually on the conservative side. For example, Lexus has the ES 0-60 time at 7 seconds, but independent testing usually yields results around 6 seconds.

My point, however, is not to say the the NX has more power or is faster than the RX. Instead, it is to say that, considering that the numbers are fairly enough and that many testers come up with the NX being a bit faster than the RX in 0-60 times, calling the NX a "slug" compared to the RX just doesn't seem to be an appropriate description.

 

my apologies, I didn't mean to convey it that way. I had the NX as a loaner a few times. I floored the pedal a few times on the NX, the better word is unrefined. It was a bit rough and the engined pushed pretty loud. I floored the RX as well...its far more refined. The ride is smooth...almosted muted. As expected, the vehicle felt heavy. The shifting of the 8 speed was a bit much.

As for my slug comment, it does sound harsh. I don't mean to offend those who have a NX/RX. It's relative when one refers to fast. Some people here in the past noted to other luxury CUV/SUV competition, its lags a bit to their peers. My other cars in my stable are European sports cars which "feels" faster. I'm sure the RWD, torque and gearing attributes to this.

 

Just curious, in the same class as the RX is there an SUV with slower 0-60 times than the RX??

 

RX is one of the slower ones hence my complaint it should have more HP considering the overhaul in 2016. Some members here replied with snippy comments

Competitor wise, I believe the Infiniti QX60 & Buick Enclave is a tad slower

 

Interesting points of view in this thread. To me it’s real simple: do you want a car or a truck? RX is a car - a unibody design. The GX is a truck - body on frame. I bought a GX over the RX because my garage has held nothing but trucks for decades. The last car I owned was an 87 Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera station wagon. That critter put me off cars for good. Very happy with my GX.

 

I drive a 14 Gx, wife drives a 16 Rx. I like both.