Not a lot of people know this, but a strong case can be made that the first true luxury SUV was the original 1970 Range Rover.

If you accept that argument, then it follows that the first compact luxury SUV was the Land Rover Freelander. Although it was late coming to Canada, the car-based baby Land Rover first saw the light of day in 1997 — well before the BMW X3 (2003), let alone the still wet-behind-the-ears Acura RDX (2007).

Although the Freelander was a hit in most markets, it fizzled on this side of the Atlantic. So much so that the second-generation version acquired a new identity — LR2 — when it came to market last spring.

Surprisingly, the three aforementioned models are still the only contenders (though others are coming) in this compact-luxury sub-segment of the ever-expanding and endlessly fragmenting SUV universe.

Somewhat larger and much more premium than its predecessor, the LR2 is, on paper, far better equipped to compete against its natural-born rivals. Is that how it works out on pavement? That’s what we’re here to find out.

THE PLAYERS

In basic concept these are three peas in a pod — smallish crossover SUVs of about 4.5 metres in length, with unibody structures, car-based running gear, full-time all-wheel-drive systems and no pretensions to hardcore off-road talent.

Get into the details, however, and individuality begins to assert itself. For example, although both Europeans boast in-line six-cylinder engines, the LR2’s 230-hp, 3.2-litre unit is mounted transversely while the X3’s 3.0-litre is aligned fore-aft. Six-speed automatic transmissions are also common to the Euros, but on the Landie it’s standard; the BMW can be had with a manual gearbox instead.

While the Acura also places its engine sideways, said engine is a 2.3-litre four-pot, turbocharged to produce a competitive 240 horsepower and best-in-group torque. A five-speed automatic is the only transmission choice.

Perhaps you’re wondering why we haven’t yet divulged the BMW’s horsepower. Well, the BMW comes with two versions of the 3.0-litre “six”, and the base 215-hp 3.0i, which starts at $45,300 (same price, manual or automatic), would have fit perfectly in this comparison. Beggars can’t be choosers, however, and the only X3 automatic available was a 260-hp 3.0is, which base-prices for $50,900. As equipped, with metallic paint, M Sport Package and Premium Package, our X3 test sample weighed in at — pause for sharp intake of breath — $59,700.

In an ideal world, our LR2 and RDX samples would also have nailed the $45K mark. A base LR2 starts at $44,900, while $45,100 is the MSRP of the RDX in its more-expensive Tech trim level. However our LR2 test unit came with $2,175 worth of options, while the RDX was the base model which stickers for just $41,400. Oh well.

Does that make the Acura a serious value proposition? You bet. Even the base RDX has standard amenities that cost extra on the BMW and/or the Land Rover — significant ones such as leather trim, a six-CD in-dash changer, power sunroof, HID headlamps, and eight-way power driver’s seat adjustment.

For the same money as the Europeans’ base models, the Tech adds a navigation-system, back-up camera, Bluetooth compatibility and a multi-information display, most of which cost extra and some aren’t even available on the Europeans.

ON THE TRACK

The RDX value proposition extends beyond bells and whistles. The lowest-priced vehicle here is also the quickest.

A track-use conflict at our usual test venue stymied our usual full set of tests, but we did manage to run standing-start 0-100-km/h and kickdown 60-100-km/h tests — both of which the Acura aced.

Its 6.9-second 0-100 time trumped the BMW’s 7.5 seconds and trashed the LR2’s 9.0 seconds. And the Euro motors weren’t having a bad day: their times matched their makers’ claims.

Remember, too, that we had the “wrong” X3 — a base 215-hp would have been keeping company with the LR2 in the 0-100 dash, according to its factory-claimed 8.9 seconds.

ON THE ROAD

Track talent doesn’t always translate well to the road, but that’s not an issue with the RDX. There’s only a trace of lag when launching from rest. Efficiently partnered by the transmission, it always feels quick in every other driving situation.

Refinement is another matter. As four-cylinder engines go (and this one does GO!) the RDX’s turbo’d 2.3-litre is pretty smooth and never unduly loud. Here, however, it’s up against a pair of in-line sixes — inherently the smoothest configuration known to man.

In terms of what you feel — or more to the point, the vibrations you don’t feel — both sixes deliver. Where they differ is in their acoustics. The X3 engine is really, really quiet. For some tastes, that may even be too much of a good thing. (It’s also quiet enough to let you hear a hint of gear whine that might be masked in a car that was noisier overall).

Aficionados of engine music may prefer the LR2, which lets more of the classic ripping snarl of a straight-six reach your ears.

The X3’s role as an isolation chamber is furthered by the conspicuous absence of tire noise. Despite relatively busy gearing (2,800 rpm at 120) the X3 is closer to silence in cruise mode than its longer-legged competition (2,500 and 2,300 rpm at 120 for the Acura and Land Rover respectively) in which you hear more of the tires’ passage over pavement.

Not only do the RDX’s tires report back the tarmac’s texture, they also transmit more slap and crack over surface scars. The X3’s suspension is no less stiff than the RDX’s, but the ride is more livable because impacts are felt more than they are heard.

Most of the time, the LR2’s ride is palpably the smoothest — you could almost call it plush. On occasional really severe surface breaks, however, the Landie’s suspension seems to get caught with its guard down, and the impact crashes through.

Given the LR’s softer suspension, it’s paradoxical that its steering is absolutely pin-sharp. We’d normally call that a good thing, except that in this case, unintended minor steering inputs can induce little rocking body motions. Smooth progress demands a deft hand on the wheel.

That combination of sharp steering and soft springs also means the LR2’s body is quick to tilt as you enter a turn, which does not inspire great confidence. Once you get past that point, however, the body takes a set and the Landie can carve a curve better than you’d think. As SUVs go, its handling and grip are perfectly respectable.

Its competitors, however, go beyond the norm. The BMW was even equipped with a Sport suspension/tires package. Its body motions are far more tightly controlled than the LR’s and its low-profile 50-series tires grip harder.

Yet, not that much harder. A quick scan of the specs reveals why; despite their more aggressive profile, the X3’s Pirellis are modestly H speed-rated (the other’s tires are Vs) all-seasons, not the summer performance tires we’d expected. Hence also the X3 steering that, despite firm effort, was the least precise among these cars and disconcertingly numb in feel. Despite its rear-wheel drive bias, the BMW understeers, and like the LR’s, its stability-control system cannot be completely shut off.

That leaves the Acura the surprise handling winner. Its steering isn’t quite as precise as the LR2’s but it’s good enough, and it’s correspondingly free of the LR’s potential twitchiness. As well, the RDX has the most aggressive tires, the least mass, the widest track and the lowest build. The clincher, however, is its Super-Handling all-wheel drive, which really does work as advertised. In Sport mode, with VSA off, you can feel the super-SH working, imparting a neutral, rear-wheel drive feel to the handling. The steering takes on more effort, and there’s ample seat-of-pants feel.

In short, this is an SUV that's not just OK to drive sportily, but fun to do so.

The RDX is also, however, an SUV with even fewer off-road ambitions than the European pair. Yes, the AWD system can redistribute torque to ensure optimum traction on slippery conditions. But there’s no special underbody protection, and minimum ground clearance is only 159 mm (6.25 in) compared with, say, the LR2’s 210 mm (8.3 in).

The Europeans aren’t hardcore boonie bashers either — no low range, no diff locks — but they do both have off-road oriented features like four-wheel traction control and Hill Descent Control. The LR2, clearly the most off-road-ready of the three, adds LR’s proprietary Terrain Response system with driver-selectable modes to suit different types of terrain.

AT THE WHEEL

One feature that these three do all share with real off-roaders is the ability to tailor a lofty, command-of-the-road driving position. That’s especially true of the LR2, though our longest-of-thigh driver would have liked more thigh support; the LR2’s seats’ side bolsters were also singled out by wider-bodied testers for being rather confining.

Traditional British idiosyncrasies are largely absent from the LR’s cockpit, though the thin metallic-look bars on the wheel hub that function as horn buttons are a bit odd. Other minor niggles include rather cluttered speedo markings, too-small PRNDL indicator, and the initially daunting array of centre-stack buttons and knobs (though in fact they are clearly marked and logically arranged).

Alone in this trio the LR2 does not have a centre-armrest/storage box between the front seats; instead, fold-down armrests are attached directly to the seats where they will always be in the right place.

Interior trim materials were not widely praised, but the Landie’s audio was rated the best of the three.

More than one tester questioned the odd reflector-type trim on the BMW’s seats, with one unkindly adding, “M-Sport stuff is plain cheesy... on par with a Shelby Dakota.” The positioning of the auxiliary audio input facing the rear seats was also a sore point.

Otherwise, there were few complaints at the wheel of the German car. The gauges are small but readable, there are no visibility issues, and the driving position can be adjusted anywhere from tall-in-the-saddle to low-slung sporty.

Kudos, too, for an HVAC system that lets you adjust the temperature of the face-level air separately from the floor — a great idea that still seems to be exclusive to BMW.

Older eyes will probably have the easiest time with the RDX’s big-and-bold electro-luminescent gauges, as well as with audio and HVAC controls sited quite high on the dash, their settings displayed on a screen at the top of the centre stack. The biggest knock against the RDX’s cabin execution is its inordinately loud blower fan.

Younger tastes will likely go for the Acura’s high-tech interior design motif, with bright-metal trim pieces in place of the others’ faux-wood accents. Emphasizing its sporty persona, the RDX also has wheel-mounted shift paddles — down on the left, up on the right — for manually shifting the transmission. Yet down-to-earth practicality is also well served by a huge lockable storage compartment between the front seats.

The RDX’s practicality doesn’t stop there; it also has the biggest cargo hold, back seats up or down. The BMW matches the Acura — and beats the LR2 — for undercover cargo space behind the back seats, but in max-cargo mode its backrests merely flop down, and the resulting extended deck is far from flat.

In the other two, the seats fold wagon-style, the backrests level, and the tipped-up seat bottoms creating a bulkhead to keep cargo back where it belongs.

Passengers? The BMW has the best rear-seat headroom, but in most other dimensions it’s the tightest, with a rear bench that’s scooped out into a pair of buckets that deter three-abreast seating. The LR’s rear bench is best for a threesome, but the most rear-seat legroom is found in the RDX.

CONCLUSION

If you buy into the concept of SUV as sports car, the RDX is a no-brainer. Sure, it’s a little rougher around the edges (ride and engine buzz), and it wouldn’t be the best choice for, say, a trip to the cottage in winter. As well, its tow rating is less than half those of the other vehicles.

But it costs thousands less than the competition, and on pavement even the up-level version of the BMW can’t stay with it — neither in a straight line nor along a winding road. Yet it sacrifices nothing in interior space or utility.

BMW builds simply wonderful cars, but it’s harder to make a case for the X3. It’s not as athletic on pavement as the Acura, nor as capable off-pavement as the Land Rover. It’s not the best choice, either, if maximum people and/or luggage space are a priority. And it’s expensive.

Then again, it’s the only one here that’s available with manual transmission. It also can tow a bit more than even the LR2. Above all, it has that wonderfully polished powertrain. That alone may be worth the premium you pay for this prestige nameplate.

Still, as one of our crew noted, “If I wanted a sports car I’d buy a sports car…” or at least a sporty wagon like BMW’s own 3-series Touring. Dare we suggest that a sporty CUV is perhaps the answer to a question nobody was asking?

Which leaves the Land Rover coming up the middle as the best alLRounder. The LR2 hits a sweet spot between comfort, utility, refinement and off-road potential. And to our own surprise as much as anyone’s, we felt good at the wheel of this vehicle.

By not trying to be something that it isn’t, the Land Rover ends up the best at being what it is supposed to be.