Obviously, RDX owners place sport and utility over fuel efficiency as driving priorities, or this would be a CR-V or even Prius forum.

So, how much value do you place on the RDX qualities of safety, utility and performance vs fuel economy and emissions? (Bear in mind that the RDX is a Top Safety Pick, achieves better economy than 65% of the SUV fleet, and is an Ultra-Low-Emissions vehicle.)

At what price would gas have to stabilize for you to replace the RDX, and what would you replace it with?

 

As long as you lay off the turbo, the RDX gets decent gas mileage. I've been average 20mpg for mostly suburban commuting. On the highway, I can get 27mpg (for a full tank of gas) by using the cruise control. I think you can make a claim that the RDX saves on gas usage if you compare it to other luxury SUVs like Infinity or Lexus or BMW.

 

How are you going to tell someone to lay off the turbo when the car only gets most of its power from the turbo...haha

 

I get identical economy from mine. I'll take that answer to mean you wouldn't replace at any fuel cost.

 

I am considering a Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT-8. 420HP, window sticker says 11/14 MPG

 

I long for the days of when gas was $1.25.

I wish they'd hurry the hell up with some of that Iraqi oil.

 

oh to answer your question I'd get a hyrdogen fueled car... until we run out of water.

 

I don't have an RDX but this is an interesting topic so I'm chiming in. Gas this summer is expected to sustain around $3.40 for regular, so probably around $3.60 for 91/premium. I plan on riding my motorcycle to work as frequently as possible during the summer since it gets ~50 mpg when ridden... sedately. My TSX gets around 20mpg in the crappy traffic light and stop sign infested commute to and from work.

Honestly, if I had a garage and there was a reasonably priced electric car that was a step up from from the modified golf carts available today, I'd consider buying one just for the work commute. My commute is only about 15 miles each way with maybe an additional 15 miles of driving for lunch and what have you so a car with a 100 mile range per charge would work just fine. If only they could get that Tesla roadster down to something like $15 grand.

 

if you bought this car and or any other kinda turbo'd vehicle, i would say that MPG is prob the last thing you care about.....we care, but i look at it like an added perc to sports car like performance and hauling stuff around....i think if mpg was in single digits, then i wouldnt have bought this car..it would have been a vette or a porsche...but in no instance would mpg make or break a deal, at least for me. it would just have to come with the correct territory ie 500HP or somethin

 

luckily, water isn't the only source of hydrogen around. Infact, a much larger portion of the world's hydrogen supply remains unbound in the air. It is, however, a moot point unless fuel cell technology is refined and made economical.

 

I'll answer my own question. I bought the RDX to meet specific transportation requirements.

In order of importance, the highest level of:

1. Safety
2. Utility
3. Reliability
4. Snow capability
5. Driving fun
6. Fuel economy
7. Clean emissions

for the lowest price.

Using this guide, there is no other vehicle presently marketed, which satisfies 1. through 5. better than the RDX. Improving on Economy and Emissions comes at too great a cost to Safety and Utility.

I have considered getting a Honda Fit to perform run-about duties, when RDX utility and snow capability aren't required. The go-cart handling, and Vette-like avoidance maneuver speed offsets some of the lesser impact protection.

But if the Fit was used 10k miles/year (half the RDX driving) it would save 285 gal/year. Gasoline would have to cost $10/gal for 5 years to justify the Fit purchase price of $15000. (It's the same flaw in the Prius argument...again.)

#@$!-it. I think the Fit is really cool, but I can't justify getting one!