c_hunter

I fretted about the gas mileage too, but after owning an RDX for 3-4 weeks, my MPG is totally inline with the 19/23 ratings. I have actually gotten 24-25mpg on a couple all-highway legs, but never gotten worse than 19mpg. My conclusion is that driving style has a lot to do with the MPG. I hot rod around in my S2000, but drive the RDX quite calmly, with only occasional dips into the throttle for merging, passing, etc. The vehicle seems to get the best MPG when cruising on country roads in the 45-55 mph range. It tapers off at lower and higher speeds.

I do agree that a V6 would have been a better marketing choice for the vehicle. Why? Because those of us who are happy with the turbo-4 would still have been happy with a V6, and then the vehicle would appeal to the other folks who are not interested in the turbo-4. I am fairly certain that a medium-size V6 would have been a good engine choice with similar MPG. That hypothetical V6 likely would have had lower HP or torque than the turbo-4 (remember that a turbo engine is equivalent to a much larger displacement normally aspirated engine in this regard) but would probably still be adequate.

All that said, I find the current turbo engine to be quite good myself. I have owned numerous turbo-4 vehicles in the past, so maybe I am just comfortable with that type of engine. It is giving me power when I need it, it's delivering good fuel economy, and is relatively smooth and refined for a turbo-4.

c_hunter

You may have been noticing the SH-AWD. Depending on how you apply throttle in a turn, you may feel it carry the back end through the turn. I have been experimenting with this, and it's pretty cool -- you can apply throttle in a turn to erase understeer. It takes some getting used to and I am still getting a feel for it.

orbitwhite

Thanks, I strongly agree with your thoughts. I really like the RDX and since I live close to an Acura dealer, I have test drove it a few times. I think the RDX is a great car and value, but I have hesitations with the turbo 4. I would have bought the RDX with confidence if it had a 6-cylinder engine even if it under performs the turbo 4. I heard that Infiniti will announce a CUV in April at the New York auto show. I'm going to wait to see what the 2008 RDX brings and what Infiniti might offer before making a decision.

flar

I'm not sure that a V-6 would have had worse mileage. I came from an S4 - a 2800 lb. twin turbo V6 with around 250 hp and a 17/24 rating. I never got a tank worse than 18 MPG even with all city driving and I drive very aggressively, on the throttle and squirting through traffic a lot. It's only about 200 lbs lighter with similar horsepower and a worse city mileage rating, but the engine was strong and built for this performance.

My RDX has trouble averaging over 17-18 in mixed driving and I drive it a bit less aggressively as I'm getting used to it during breakin. If I drive more in the city the mileage goes south of 14-15 MPG.

My impression is that the 4 cylinder is only up to the task being asked of it if you push it incredibly hard - way past its natural performance envelope and the efficiency of an engine tanks if you get outside its natural range. This doesn't mean mashing on the throttle - these cars are drive by wire so a gentle nudge gets translated into pushing the engine a lot via the DBW system so that it "feels" peppy to the driver. In order to avoid pushing the engine you have to really watch your right foot so that the DBW doesn't decide to impress you. The V6 in the Audi was more naturally up to the task and wasn't being pushed as much, even in spirited driving. It also had a DBW throttle, but it had to abuse that relationship a bit less as the V6 was stronger on its own.

In the end, the 4 cylinder may have gotten them 1 more MPG on the highway than the V6 in the MDX, but only if you put it on cruise control and pray. A V6 would have given them better overall mileage under a wider variety of operating conditions and the owners would not have to be so careful with their right feet, but might not have looked good on the EPA sticker. Actually I wonder if the V6 in the MDX might not get similar or better mileage than the 4 since the RDX is quite a bit lighter than the MDX and the MDX already got within 1 MPG EPA rating of the RDX.

Personally I was disappointed with the EPA ratings on this engine, but figured it would at least live up to them and now I'm sorely disappointed in how it works in practice.

wavshrdr

I am a big fan of turbo cars. I have a fully modded WRX in the garage. I have had numerous turbo'd Audis and finally stopped buying them to get the TL. I just never figured out why they actually went with the turbo 4. I don't see where it bought them any improved efficiency over a good V6. Perfect case for that is the Rav4 V6. It out accelerates the RDX and gets better mileage. To me that is having your cake and eating it too.

The turbo 4's lack of pull and no compensating increase in mileage is the reason I ultimately passed on the RDX. I liked a lot of other things about it even if it had sort of "chunky" styling. It just never seemed to have the very good low end grunt the Audi and VW turbo motors have AND it lost the good top end pull Acura (and Honda) is known for. I really wanted to like it and tried it numerous times before finally passing on it.

I think they definitely blew it with the powertrain just like they did on the RL. I was shopping the RL and TL and ended up with the TL even though I really wanted AWD. I just couldn't get past the lack of punch in the RL and that at that price point it should have either a turbo'd V6 or a V8 and some sort of engine management to drop cylinders to improve mileage like the Honda van did. It was supposedly top of the line Acura tech and didn't incorporate the cylinder cut-off features. The TL and the MDX are helping out Acura's bottom line but most of the other models are not very well focused on their intended market.

Nabbs

Do you guys ever spend money and not spend hours trying to justify it? I mean come on people these discusions are border-line psychotic. You know how I bought my RDX? We went in to have my RL serviced, saw the new RDX and my wife said she liked the boxiness look of it. Within a few weeks I had the RDX. Completely an impulse buy. You want to know what else? Everytime I drive it I don't sit there staring at the fuel gauge trying to figure out my exact mpg, and then grit my teeth and shake my fists at Acura for not having the same rating as done by the EPA. I bought this car to not think about, it's a throw-away car: one that does not require any thinking about. That's it's beauty.

I don't care if Acura sales are up or down, or anything. I paid cash for the car, reading tea leaves has as much to do with ownership of my car as the price of tea in china.

In sum: start a new sub-forum so all the noobs can ask about what they should pay for their new car. I swear this is like a re-enactment of Lewis Black's "if it hadn't been for that pony I never would've had those 2 years of college." Any more of these circular discussions and I think I'm going to light my RDX on fire.

c_hunter

You probably shouldn't spend a lot of time on internet automotive forums then; they are made for people who like to talk/write about their cars and discuss them (hence the whole format and routine in case you haven't noticed ). All of the examples you cited are quite popular on the forums I visit. I think some people like thinking/talking about cars as much as driving them!

Personally, I would not want to own a car I didn't think about -- at that point, car ownership would be like appliance ownership to me, and that's not very exciting. On a side note, I know people who do get excited about their appliances and participate in web forums about them, and *that* seems nuts to me. We all must have a different tolerance level for this kind of thing.

wavshrdr

That's why people would often buy the last gen Camry's and the Taurus, they were appliances and not much more. They should have had Maytag written on them. Once Ford dropped the SHO it was all downhill. Toyota finally figured out that real thrust sells, hence the new high HP motors in the Rav4, Camry and Lexus range.

The RDX would be a great candidate for one of Honda's clean diesels; good torque and excellent fuel economy. This would give me the best of both worlds with good power and excellent economy. It would finally have a decent range. I've talked to people here locally and in the cold they are getting about 12-14mpg. You don't go far on that tiny tank with that mileage.

Danbury

Stay calm Nabbs..... this post is beginning to sound like Lewis Black simulating a nervous breakdown or rant over recent trends and cultural phenomena!
BTW...... I'm still waiting for you to post your new pics on your "traded my RL" thread.

sasair

What did you expect in a sales number thread? If everybody bought their vehicle for the same reason you did this place would be very boring and nobody would have to make any comments at all. The beauty of this place is the differing opinions and unique situations that everyone has.

Nabbs

I'm taking the car downtown today (going to the apple store and NYU) so I can definately do that!

Ok, I'm a little more calm -- took a 6 hour test at the FBI FO Friday and I'm still zonked.

I love to discuss the RDX, but the whole guessing about what is going to happen is a bit much. The same thing happens on the Corvette boards in regards to the 2008 C6 or even the rumored "Blue Devil". Nobody really has any solid information, so they speculate and guess. They say things like "GM is obviously trying to compete with x." Yes it's great to speculate -- but there is no real way of knowing, so they try and try to make oppinion fact.

Maybe the RDX will be discontinued, or maybe Acura will launch a new strong ad campaign, or maybe Acura will re-design the RDX for 08 and drop/add certain options. It's all a big crap shoot. But life is short, you can keep waiting for a certain price, or you can go out there and just pull the trigger and get on with your life

Btw, I finally got that little RDX up to 100mph! IIRC 100mph has the motor spinning around 3K -- which is really nothing! The car feels solid and planted and surprisingly the steering becomes more nimble as the speed increases! The car did not feel sluggish, and the brakes were pretty solid. Additionally, the RDX did tracked straight over uneven pavement. Of course best of all was that the car passed my "in-law test" which consists of both of my in-laws in the back sitting comfortably and not noticing that I was cruising at 80-85mph

-N

Bostonbr77

Fotunately Nabbs, very few people are like you. For allot of folks on this forum, the purchase of a new RDX was a major event. The questions, comments and yes, even statistics are very enlightening. If you find something boring, or not in your interest...simply do something else with your time. Don't get into trying to council others on what you believe is important.

Rusty

Nabbs

Rusty --I am an ex-Masshole, so I take your 'tude in stride (I lived in Fenway). Nobody is saying it isn't a major purchase. But what does this stuff matter after the purchase is made? If 08 has a totally different features, how many people are going to trade up? I bet the average buyer is into this RDX for at least a 2-3 years. So again, how do extending discounts effect you or me who have already purchased? Are we all going to root for Acura to boost sales in the spring? Perhaps you are right about trying to ram my values down anyones throat. I chose to spend my time enjoying the car, and not thinking about if I could've gotten a better deal or if I waited there would be x available. It's a moot point at this junction. Like I said, life is short, enjoy what you have now.

-N

Danbury

It doesn't; but for those of us who haven't purchased this is a valuable thread. It's also a popular thread with over 1K views. Actually I got my best info from you Nabbs, ddrn, JayCT and GreezWop. The comments you four provided will save me a lot of time and I appreciate that.
Also from Taxachussetts...... and not once have I missed it.

Nabbs

I will say this: I love the RDX! It's one of the most fun cars to drive! Honestly! I even enjoy tooling around town in it more then I do the Z! It really has a unique look and just a ton of usability. Today we went from the UWS (where we live) down to NYU (where my wife works), although we were thinking of garage parking -- I found a spot right across from her work. With the rear camera I was really able to parallel park with confidence! The location of the rear camera is angled so you can actually tell how close the car behind you is -- this is done by angling the camera ever so slightly so that you can see the top clip of the bumper, thus providing you with a reference point. Overall, everytime I drive this car I am more and more impressed with it. Driving it in Manhattan, it absorbs potholes quite well, however, the suspension can get a little jarring (I even spilled some of my Snapple). However the seats are really some of the best supporting seats I have ever come accross. This car is really very very very versitile! I think you'll find it is even more useful then your TL, and will really enjoy driving it. The best way to avoid the harsh suspension is just to not fly over badly paved roads.

Really a great car!

PS -- it was freeing out today, so I didn't get a chance to snap any pix of the car in it's urban element, but I will. This is really a great city car.

Danbury

Nabbs, You know what? If you don't get that FBI job; you'd make a great Acura salesman! Thanks for the feedback.
Actually, when I flipped the rear seats down in the showroom, I thought they felt a little cheesey (on some type of wire hinges) so I'm glad to hear you liked the lumbar support of the drivers seat.
According to the Nabbster philosophy..... Who cares about the rest of the passengers anyway? :-))

Danbury

Nabbster, Do you really expect me to believe that your digital camera froze up? More likely you were warming up in McSorley's while your wife ran all your errands. I have a feeling that your RDX knows it's own way from PJ Clark's uptown to McSorley's downtown.
You get a second chance to provide us with the Big Apple snow pics. <- Nabbs

Nabbs

Will definately get some pix! In fact, I'll even leave the camera by my bag tonight!

No FBI job for me, just doing certification stuff for my contractor status.

Get it Danbury, you won't regret it! And don't listen to those froo-froos who say tech is for girls! Real man use nav!

-N

Danbury

Oh..... I'm not even considering a Base model. I have "nav" on my TL and like my credit card.... "I wouldn't leave home without it." I think I'm going to miss my touch screen though b/c I can simply touch a "previous destination" while I'm driving.

TMQ

I agree with a lot of the points made here - RDX would likely have better sales if V6 were used. The fact that Toyota's Rav4 has it makes the RDX look pretty bad (whether on paper or real world), especially without some obvious advantages in mpg. A point made by an editor on TOV is that the turbo probably also dictates the front end design quite a bit (front end design isn't great IMO).

I feel that Honda/Acura planned the powerplant all wrong - at a time point that they want to make Acura more upscale. They should have stuff the turbo into CR-V as an option to fight Rav4, and as an option to the lighter TSX. Have a strong V6 to face off with X3. Really want to show off the turbo technology in Acura's higher end cars? Add it to the V6, not an inline 4.

This is not to say that people who have RDX made bad choices. Everyone buys things for his/her particular reasons. Owners may feel defensive with comments like this, but the comments are directed to the car and the car maker.

1092

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ON! They blew it. From the day the concept came out, I was in love with the RDX. I have a TL and an MDX and was excited about the thought of a MDX-like TL replacement without the need for a third row. They had me even at the price point originally planned, but then they threw in the 4 banger turbo. Now, if they do a 2008/2009 V6 mod., I'll be back. I wonder if that Acura Product manager that was interviewed at release is still with the company. He missed the market.

ostrich

I also agree that if the 2008 would have a V6 option, it would really boost the RDX sales numbers! Even more ironically, it might give better fuel economy too....

Personally, I think that having the 4 cyclinder turbo is great, as I am not particular about having a V6 at all. However, the poor fuel economy thing is the ONLY thing that is keeping me from getting an RDX.

c_hunter

I have been getting around 21-23mpg in mixed driving with a highway bias, which is not bad at all. It's slightly better than my previous vehicle which also had a turbo-4, and the one I had before that which had a 6-cyl.

wavshrdr

I too likely would have bought the RDX if it had a 6. Instead I bought a competitor that had a 6. Same thing with the RL. I would have bought the RL if it had a V8, instead I went with the TL.

By the time, if ever, Acura gets around to putting a 6 in it, there will likely be a lot of other interesing choices in the market. I was almost a guaranteed sale for another Acura but the turbo 4 didn't do it for me, especially at that price point. Take 10k off it, and I'd look past the 4 banger but when I was looking at about 40k for a RDX with Tech, tags and tax, I really didn't want to have the 4 cylinder that didn't exactly overwhelm with its power output. It would have been a great motor for the CRV but not for the RDX.

If Toyota could do a V6, why not Acura?

flar

My speculation is that they were focused more on how close the RDX and MDX were and didn't want to leach sales from the MDX to the RDX. RDX vs. the competition was less of a factor in that particular decision (probably because the RDX has virtues that knock the competitors off of the table).

If both had a 6 then they might have had trouble selling the MDX - as it turned out, maybe they should have been worrying more about the opposite effect?

Again, just my speculation...

wavshrdr

I could almost buy that argument and I thought about it as well BUT when they are trying to go head to head with the X3 AND the MDX is a much bigger vehicle with 3rd row seats, it looks more like they were aiming at the Mazda CX7 which does almost everything the RDX does for less $$$.

This might be the same flawed logic with the RL as in why did they drop in a
V6 and not a V8.

The MDX appears to be targeted more at the bigger families and those that might actually want to tow something. If a V6 RDX COULD have stolen sales from the RDX it likely would have taken more from the competition. I am still trying to figure out who Acura was aiming at with this car. I was hoping for a best in class vehicle but I think they missed their mark there. Obviously the people who bought them feel differently but the RDX's continue to languish at the dealers so obviously I am not the only one who feels this way.

The TL was a homeroom and I've loved mine. The RL was a single and I think the RDX will be another bunt for them in the sales department. The MDX was definitely a homer as well.

wifecar

I was worried about 4 cylinder weakness and turbo lag, and would have bought RDX in 6 if it were an option, but having driven it a few times when wife wasn't driving it, I can honestly say I find it to be very quick and very powerful going up steep hills in my area. When I tested the CRV, there was no question it was underpowered, but not the RDX. I just love driving it for its power, quickness and great handling.

mlb11

I agree with wifecar. I also have a v6 accord coupe and although it is powerful and quick, after driving it and then the RDX, I think the RDX feels more powerful. I think it is the amount of torque generated by the RDX. On the vtec vids, they mention that they tested the torque on the RDX and got 260 lb-ft at the wheels which means it is likely generating 280 lb-ft and over 250hp. There is a very slight turbo lag, but once boost is high, the RDX pulls better than the v6 accord coupe. The only complaint I see in the 4 cyl is that it is a little noisier when accelerating (not cruising). Other than that, I cannot find fault with Acura's choice of engine or design/engineering of the car. The gas mileage could be a concern, but in reality, it still sits around 20mpg (city/hwy mix) which places it ahead of most CUVs and its power and handling puts it in the lead.

I also drove the new CR-V and it is a very nice vehicle (about as quiet on the interior) but of course isn't in the same league with regard to performance, std equipment, and interior style. However, if you can't get past the lower gas mileage and don't mind a peppy but not powerful 4 cyl., this would be a good choice. The only curiosity for me was that the RDX was only about $10 a month more to lease than an EX-L CR-V which made the decision even easier.