Autoweb likes the RDX, said it's very well put together, but the combined fuel mileage they achieved was reported at just 16mpg! I don't understand why this car is so thirsty, that's F-150--Tundra mileage! I would like to get one, but 16 combined mpg. leaves me thinking about the wad of fuel slips I'll be carrying! Thoughts?

Taken from Autoweb:
The benefit is a significant boost in horsepower and torque, combined with improved fuel economy. The turbocharger on the RDX, which is connected to a modified version of the TSX’s 2.4-liter inline four cylinder, increases horsepower by 20 percent and torque by 60 percent, while still providing estimated fuel economy of 19/23 and a LEV-II - ULEV emissions rating. That’s great – on paper – but paper estimates never saved a tree, and our short drive registered fuel efficiency of just 16 mpg.

 

This point has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads, but suffice it to say that test drive mileage with plenty of pedal mashing is not going to be anywhere close to EPA numbers NOR the mileage that real world drivers can expect. Case in point, a recent Car and Driver test of the RAV4 got 16 mpg in a car that whose EPA rating for combined driving is 24.5 mpg. The interesting point in the mileage that Autoweb achieved is that it is exactly the same as the RAV4 which has significantly better EPA numbers. Maybe this will silence some of the RDX's critics who have been flogging the RAV4's better EPA mileage numbers in their incessant bashing of the RDX.

 

[QUOTE=hondamore]This point has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads, but suffice it to say that test drive mileage with plenty of pedal mashing is not going to be anywhere close to EPA numbers NOR the mileage that real world drivers can expect.

Have you ever driven a turbo, they magnatize your foot to the juice pedal, therefore, mashing the "go pedal" becomes a normal aspect of driving! You need to spool a turbo, this entails pressing the accelerator more then you would on a non-turbo car!
I doubt grandma could drive a turbo without a heavy foot; they are purposely designed for performance, what planet are you from anyway? Real world drivers will most likely get worse mileage wringing out all the perfromance they can out of it's potent 2.3 liters, otherwise there is no point in driving a turbocharged 4 cylinder!

 

Some day you'll understand that not all drivers have the same driving habits that you do. I owned a Supra Turbo in the late 80's and early 90's and consistently achieved mileage numbers that exceeded the EPA estimates (or in my case the Transport Canada estimates). Test driving a car involves REPEATED 0 - 60 runs, very fast cornering etc. that SHOULD constitute much more aggressive driving than making the daily drive to work and the grocery store. The RDX can not be lumped in with all other turbo powered cars - it is a 4000 pound luxury SUV and not a sports car.
By the way, I'm from the planet earth - you should visit some day.

 

I completely agree Hondamore! It is pretty ridiculous when people quote test mileage and expect it's going to reflect real world driving. At least Car and Driver mentioned that they were pedal mashing on the Rav4. Of course, Autoweb should have mentioned this also. I think it would be much better to wait for some everyday mileage numbers from actual owners before jumping to any conclusions. if the mileage is going to be the deciding factor for anyone.

 

Also, Hondas are usually much closer to EPA figures than Toyotas.....

 

Guys, let's face it, driving this thing the way you will (to have fun) will cause you mpg to approach if not equal those in this test drive. Same with the CX-7. Both are heavy with overworked engines. Al least Mazda put a 6-speed in the CX-7. This is a great car for Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, not North America. Oink oink.

 

I agree with Zircon that the mileage of the RDX isn't something to jump up and down about. However, the point that I was making earlier was that all 240+hp AWD SUV's are getting around the same mileage in real world tests, so the poor mileage noted in the article should not be a condemnation of the RDX itself, but rather of all heavy, luxury feature loaded sport utility vehicles. The automobile manufacturers keep making more and more SUV's because that is what North American consumers want. This gluttony on the part of consumers should be where those who vent their rath at the RDX's poor mileage should be directed.
P.S. The CX-7 you mentioned only got 14 mpg in it's Car and Driver test drive, so according to this very early information, the RDX is actually the much more economical of the two when it comes to mileage.

 

Hey Honda more,

Since the CX-7 is currently on the market, I've read some real world fuel economy testaments which are quoted


Just so ya know :p

 

Edmunds or C/D got something like 14mpg in the CX7. That is scary with premium fuel prices. I like the turbo idea but they put the wrong engine in (for today's fuel prices). They should slip in that cute 2.2L diesel from the Euro Accord and voila; high mpg and fun to drive.

The last thing I would do is follow the reviews where the bozo quotrs the EPA listings instead of measured results - there can be a huge difference here.

 

Actually I think 16 mpg isn't bad for pedal mashing. My daily commute usually consist of city driving/pedal mashing on my 06 TSX and I remember the last tank I got about 17 mpg average....

 

I echo that. . . in all city aggressive driving I get anywhere from 15 to 17mpg on my EX-V6 Accord sedan.

 

how are you liking your ex v6... i know off topic j/w pm me? hehe