C&D comparison, X3 over RDX and LR2

[mkaresh]

The July 2007 issue of Car and Driver includes a comparison test of the BMW X3, Acura RDX, and Land Rover LR2.

Their impressions of the LR2 matched my own: soggy handling and a bit slow (it's heavier than it looks)

They liked the power and handling of the RDX, but didn't think the turbo was suitable for off-roading and hated the ride quality

They gave the BMW the win because the ride has improved so much with the 2007 update, for the best ride/handling balance. Also like the six more than the Acura's turbo four, despite being not quite as quick.

[AzNMpower32]

Ooo finally someone tested the new X3. Was it a sport version or non-sport?

[mkaresh]

I don't have the magazine in front of me, but I think it was a Sport. Because they said something like, "Even though the ride in the Sport is okay, we still recommend the non-Sport."

I think the 0-60 was 7.0, half a sec behind the RDX.

[stangmatt66]

Awesome! I can't wait for my copy to arrive in the mail!

[r6girl]

Originally Posted by mkaresh

I don't have the magazine in front of me, but I think it was a Sport. Because they said something like, "Even though the ride in the Sport is okay, we still recommend the non-Sport."

I think the 0-60 was 7.0, half a sec behind the RDX.

actually, they tested one without the sport package. the pictures show the non-sport body work, and there's no m-badging on the steering wheel as there would be with the sport package.

[stangmatt66]

Originally Posted by mkaresh

I don't have the magazine in front of me, but I think it was a Sport. Because they said something like, "Even though the ride in the Sport is okay, we still recommend the non-Sport."

I think the 0-60 was 7.0, half a sec behind the RDX.

I'm glad BMW finally realized magazines didn't like the sport package equipped test cars they were giving out. I'm happy this comparison used a non-sport X3.

[trueX5er]

yay....seems they were lucky and got a late production model w/o the transmission problem.