Acura.com has updated RDX info.

 

acura.com says EPA mileage is in at 19/23

was Acura's original estimate 19/24 ??

 

Soon they will tell the truth. Anyone who boots these vehicles will get begin to receive Exxon Christmas cards. Acura = driving like a 90 year old: this does not seem to fit well. However a 2.2L turbo diesel would be awesome.

 

19/23? That kind of sucks. What are the competitor's mpg?

 

Mazda CX-7 BMW X3Infiniti FX35

 

Utility/Safety sections have been updated as well.

 

Others...

Nissan MuranoToyota RAV4

 

Please consider that giving mileage estimates rounded off to the nearest MPG is prone to some aberrations. That is, if two very similar vehicles (the RDX and CX7 for example) get test mileages of 23.499 and 23.501, one is reported as 23 MPG and the other 24. The RDX's mileage is as expected for an AWD SUV. The only mileage star in the list above is the RAV4 which weighs in 300 pounds lighter than the RDX. Being 300 pounds lighter usually means that something is missing in soundproofing or features or the safety cage. (As Colin mentioned, the ACE safety cage adds a couple of hundred pounds to the RDX's curb weight.) Comparing the crash test results may confirm this. That said, kudos to Toyota for the mileage numbers on the RAV4 - my guess is that once you drive the two, the RDX's vastly superior handling will more than make up for the mileage difference. Those who are mileage conscious can always look into the new CRV which is the RAV4's natural competitor.

 

Agreed. It needs to lose about 250 lbs.

 

Thanks everyone for listing competitors' MPG. I been looking at the Rav4 so no wonder I thought 19/23 sucks. But it seems like other competitors are about the same.

 

myself is looking for a SUV to replace TSX, also found Lexus RX to be 4-500lb lighter than MDX. seems like Lexus RX 350 weight in equally to the RDX... now, how did Lexus do it?? i would also say RAV4 mileage sounds too good to be true... i don't think it's possible to achieve that high MPG...

 

Edmunds says it gets 19MPG, so I guess realk world test does not come close to what toyota says.

http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...ticleId=108153

 

FWIW, the CX-7 review on Edmunds says:
Also, Car & Driver observed the CX-7 at just 14 mpg, 4 under the 18mpg EPA estimate. The magazine tests do a lot of hard accelerating and braking, so of course they'll get worse mileage.

 

I was at a Mazda dealer pricing out a Miata, and the saleswoman was trying to convince me to get a CX-7. It is nice to sit in but has a smallish back seat. While I think it looks better than the RD-X, and am looking to replace my wife's crv, I can't believe that the CX-7 gets somewhere between 14 and 16.6mpg on super. That is brutal - much lower than the Nissan, which Mazda claiims is the real target.

 

Don't forget, whenever someone like C&D or Edmunds posts observed mpg, it's almost always noticeably lower than real world mileage because they are flogging the vehicle pretty hard during the tests. If you check out the mazda forums, initial owners of the CX-7 are posting mileages between 17 and 23 for a tank of gas. The 17 was city exclusively, from an admitted lead-foot, and the 23 was mostly highway. So far, I have a feeling the 18/24 is reasonably accurate for the CX-7.

 

Wow, this doesn't get better MPG than the TL (20/29)? Jesus. What's the point of the four cylinder then?!

Joe

 

The TL weighs 400 lbs less, doesn't have AWD, and is more aerodynamic. Would you really expect the RDX to have better gas mileage, even with a 4cyl?

 

wow...some people just do not realize what impacts fuel mileage...there's a little more to it that just the number of cylinders...

 

Does TL's lack of a turbo also make a difference?

 

Definitely. IMO, the turbo on the 4 offsets the extra 2 cylinders in the TL. And that's reinforced by the mpg of all the V6 competitors to the RDX.

 

I guess not. We're not all car experts like you. I wasn't thinking of the AWD aspect of it, so that part makes sense.

Joe

 

Quake: Don't let the blind allegiance of these folks get to you. The RDX was and is a marketing blunder of the highest degree. $37K for 18MPH if your lucky (Turbo or Not) after positioning "efficiency" as the reason for the Turbo was stupid.

 

Quake,
The fuel economy has created some heated discussion so far, as you can already see. Hope you didn't take offense to my post, none was intended.

1092,
Not everyone who disagrees with you is blindly loyal to Honda. I agree that stating at NAIAS that efficiency was the reason for the turbo 4 was misleading, and the fact that the acura website still refers to the "excellent fuel economy" is also misleading. But let's be honest, the fuel economy is competitive, just not "excellent." List out all the AWD competitors with either a turbo 4 or a v6 with better gas mileage. The Rav4. That's it. That's the only vehicle out there with a comparable amount of power, from either a turbo 4 or a v6, that can beat the RDX. (note: I'm leaving out all the NA 4-cyl competitors, because they don't offer the same level of performance, and have much less power). People were/are disappointed because the "excellent fuel economy" comments raised expectations.

Also, 18MPG at best? Why do you say that? I've owned 2 acuras (integra and TSX), and both have gotten fuel mileage very close to their EPA estimate, and I don't drive like a grandma. In fact, both of my cars have always beaten the EPA highway mileage if i drive 100% highway with the cruise on. I bet you'll be able to hit mid-20's on the highway with the RDX.

BTW, just so you know where I'm coming from, at this point, I don't know if I'm going to buy an RDX, 'cause I'm not a big fan of the styling, and am waiting to see where the final price falls, exactly.

 

I wanted to edit my post, but I must be an idiot today, 'cause I just don't see the "edit" link.

I forgot the RDX came in at 19/23, not 19/24... so my statement about the Rav4 being the only one that beats it isn't exactly true, but I think me point that the mileage is competitive, while not being excellent, is still true.

 

I really hate fools like you who don't have a damn clue about the rest of us and yet act like you know how we think.

 

Ouch...I guess you agree with the strategy of Acura then. Hate is such a strong word. Enjoy your RDX.

 

Obviously, 1092, you know more about marketing automobiles than the guys who run Honda - a company that has seen 10 consecutive years of growth in sales and profit. Allow me to quote and article from April of this year: "Honda today announced profits fo $1.9 billion for the quarter ended March 31st. Sales increased over 20 percent compared to the same quarter a year ago, and profits doubled. Honda's so-called operating profit - profit generated by its regular business operatons - was up 38 percent. For the 2005 fiscal year end - also March 31st - Honda reported a total profit of $5.2 billion - a 23 percent rise compared to 2004. Sales rose to a record 3.4 million vehicles. On Tuesday, Nissan reported modest earnings, with a slight decrease in sales due to a lack of new models. Meanwhile, Ford reported a loss of $1.2 billion and GM announced a loss of $323 million."
The individuals running Honda must be real morons.

 

Never said I knew more than them. Just said this positioning was poorly done. Basic marketing 101 is all about setting expectations. They set a poor one.

P.S. - I own 2 Acuras (2001 MDX & 2006 TL). There is no better car value out there in terms of relaibility and user satisfaction in my book. I was very excited about the promise of the RDX, but I was sold on their statement of "fuel efficiency" and disappointed in the mileage and stats enough that I took my deposit on RDX and applied it to a new TL. So, contrary to our exalted Moderator, I am not the curmudgeon it may seem.

 

I believe the point that you are missing, 1092, is that 19/24 MPG is good mileage for a 4000 pound, AWD SUV with 260 ft lbs of torque.
The SH-AWD weighs more than regular systems but the handling difference is substantial. The ACE body structure of the RDX is heavier than others but the crash test results will be amazing as a result. The little extras and the superior fit and finish of the RDX is why it will be more expensive than others, but for those who enjoy driving, the extra cost is worth it.

 

We just have different views and needs. From my view, I would have preferred at this mileage point a V6. If they had said a 4 cyl/Turbo would give 24/29, it would have been easier sell to what I was looking for. Not missing anyone's points, just was looking for a small SUV to compliment my MDX with better mileage. And wouldn't it be nice if it was an Acura? Good thing was that if I can't get that requirement, I changed my view and bought a TL sedan because of all the good reasons to buy Acura. So, if I was the Product Manager for the RDX I would say "shit", but if I was the VP of Sales, I would say "good, we still had brand value that kept 1092 in the Acura family."

 

Does the word pedantic mean anything to you...there are those of us on here who took marketing 101 and we neither need nor want to a mini refresher course.

 

Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for book learning and formal rules: a pedantic attention to details.

Feel free to put me on Ignore (as I've done with you/Phile) and go find a life. I wasn't the ony one who had this opinion.

 

I come here thinking that there is new information and instead I read your garbage. Here's a novel thought: instead of suggesting I put you on ignore, why don't you actually stay on topic and cut the education lessons from the act. Thanks

 

 

This is going downhill fast. What was that you said fast1? New information on acura.com? Well, I'll have to go check that out.

 

And I always thought moderators were supposed to be neutral and not start fights.

Joe

 

Agreed. I freqently get 3 or 4 mpg higher than EPA rated on my '97 and '05 TL. Same with my '03 TL (now sold)