I went to acura's website and read over the rdx, i liked almost everything about it except for the gas mileage, are those specs preliminary? I hate to believe that it could be that bad, because of the turbo maybe? My mother wants to get rid of the lexus RX300 but now were thinking twice, maybe we'll opt for the MDX Hybrid when it comes out.

 

The gas mileage specs are preliminary based on Acura's own testing and are not the EPA numbers. I would expect the EPA numbers to be much higher since their test methods are so far removed from reality...

 

I've found EPA numbers to be quite accurate, especially on my TL-S. And I agree, the RDX gas mileage numbers are quite dismal.

 

Are you and your mother married?

 

uh... no, im not from west va.

 

oh...

 

Do I hear banjos playing in the background?

 

I really don't understand why people bitch about fuel economy in luxury cars. Gas is just an operating expense. People really need to consider the total cost of ownership before they purchase. You wouldn't buy a condo if you couldn't afford the condo fees would you?

The MDX hybrid will definitely be more expensive than the RDX. If the goal is to save money, you'll never be able to offset the cost difference in fuel savings.

 

Good Point Dan. A few of the members saw the gas mileage and opted out of the RDX and right into a TL for better gas mileage??? Why would you expect an SUV to get better MPG than a car? Even the CRV can't beat a TL for real world mpg with its 156hp 4cyl. If they are so concerned with mpg than buy a Civic! If you need high mpg and leather then Honda makes a great Accord 4cyl for you - 34mpg hwy!!

 

So in order to have a nice interior you must therefore have shit gas mileage? I don't get it.

 

No, you're just not allowed to bitch about gas prices when you're paying $40K for a car.

Worse, it makes even less sense to bitch about fuel prices, then pay more for a hybrid just to "save gas".

If a Civic or Fit got 10mpg it would probably be an issue. Those cars are meant to be affordable. The assumption when you buy a luxury car is you can afford to keep it running.

 

heh, I guess. Seems like for 40K you should be more able to bitch about things, though. At any rate, Honda/Acura should set the benchmark for power/efficiency and right now they don't.

 

Same old story...a 18/24 4 cylinder at a $36K drive out price is not a value. It is not the sole reason to opt-out, but it could have been easily solved with a V6 at 20/29 from the TL. If not, then it may prove out to be the worst product introduction in Acura's history. And before you all flame me, let me state that I hope I'm wrong because, conceptually I was really hoping Acura would at least throw a V6 in. Hell, even the RAV4 has a V6...

BTW, I am one of those who opted-out of RDX interest and bought the TL.

 

I wouldn't hold my breath for an MDX hybrid...

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=115344

 

I couldn't disagree more! I'm not surprised by a 4 cylinder. You are correct that it is the "same old story" because this is what Honda does - compete with the competition with a smaller engine.

 

You forget that the RDX also has fuel mileage killing AWD + way more weight than the TL so I really doubt that the J32 motor from the TL would be able to get the kind of mileage it gets in the TL when installed in the RDX.

 

It is silly to compare fuel economy numbers between a sports sedan and an SUV. Sport-utes have a lot more frontal area and are usually a lot less aerodynamic which means they have "a lot more air to push".

 

You beat me to it... I agree. not to mention the engine does not have as much torque. It will interesting seeing a japanese car that has more torque than horsepower....

 

Not really that interesting...

the current generation CR-V & element has 156hp / 160 ft-lb, along with a whole myriad of other "Japanese" cars that have more torque than HP.

It's a rarity for Honda, but not for all Japanese cars.

 

...go back to the show introductions and see them again. You can see Acura reps beat the "efficiency" drum to death. They claim to have gone the 4-banger/turbo combo route to enhance fuel economy ....and to quote an Acura rep seen on a video at www.vtec.net , he says: "we could have chosen to use a 3.5 liter V6, but instead chose to go the 'intelligent' route and go with a turbocharged engine to get great peformance and great fuel efficiency at the same time" ....look at the numbers and you can see that this is nothing but a crock of sh*t ....anyone with half a brain can see that this is a bunch of absolute marketing BS. .....and if we're talking efficiency let's talk Toyota RAV4

Last time I checked it's an SUV

Last time I checked it's got 4WD

Last time I checked it weighs within a couple of hundred pounds of the RDX

Last time I checked it has a far more powerful and refined, smooth, quiet TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY HORSE V6 that does 0-60 in 6.3 secs

and equipped with the optional tow package the RAV4 V6 can tow up to 3,500lbs (a feature significant for any SUV ), while the RDX can only tow a "non-SUV-like" 1,500lbs, which is ludicrous .....someone made a ridiculous statement above, that you should not buy an SUV in the first place, if you're looking for good gas mileage. ....Then, for that SUV mileage penalty shouldn't you have at least a decent towing capacity, which is one of the more important functions of an SUV??

....and, besides everything mentioned above, the RAV4 is actually a hair larger in size to boot!!....and what does it get in comparison to the pathetic gas mileage of the RDX?? A whopping 21city and 28 hwy .....how do you think it achieves this figures?? The answer is simple. The V6 has so much excess power, that at 70mph it's barely ticking at 1900RPM in 5th overdrive, proving that a V6 would've actually been the better choice, rather than "milking" every ounce of power from a 4-banger, that is simply not suited for this particular SUV application.

While I was deadly against the use a 4-banger in an SUV, I was willing to give the RDX a fair shake, when they came out with decent performance numbers, thinking that it made sense getting good gas mileage in this $4/gallon era of gas prices!!. .....however, these mileage numbers are simply PATHETIC for a lack of a better word. Even for a V6, these numbers would be just "average" for a small SUV!!

....and I completely disagree with above posters that the EPA numbers will be much higher. If the EPA numbers do end up being much higher, I will be the first one to retract my statements and buy one of these. In all likelyhood they will probably be, maybe, ONE mpg better on the EPA, if that.

....While, IMO, the RDX's styling is DROP DEAD GEORGEOUS with wheels that are "to die for", this simply isn't enough to justify going for it for some of us. I also agree that the RDX does have a fantastic interior going for it, with the best Navigation system in the universe (OEM or aftermarket), and a sound system simply unmatched anywhere, OEM or aftermarket, but for me, at the end of the day this will also be available in the new upcoming MDX, which will have a 300bhp V6. Yes, I have owned the current MDX, and don't like the physical size of the MDX (it's too big), but that is a compromise that will have to be made since I'm almost sure the regular MDX's mileage figures will be VERY VERY CLOSE to that of the RDX (something like 18city/24hwy)....and it will do this with a 300bhp V6!!. The MDX hybrid, of course, will be a whole different story.

 

pretty passionate about this, huh vicpai?

It's not even the RAV4 having a V6 that slightly annoys me to see the RDX without one, but it's that Honda licenses its 3.5 V6 to GM to put in the Saturn Vue! I understand that was just for Honda to get into the diesel swap with GM to gain footage in Europe, but still...

 

I stand corrected, I should have said Honda.... Nissan has a number of vehicles as you mentioned...

 

What Diesel swap? When that deal was made I thought I heard GM was simply buying the engine, there was no trade involved.

 

YES! You get it. Acura Marketing screwed up big time. Their is no relationship to efficiency with these numbers. For them to call this differently says they don't have a clue as to matching product value to reality of the numbers. Poor Acura RDX Product Manager.

 

Well, it's not like they could come out and say "we delibertly put the 4 cylinder in just ot irritate those on acurazine.com.... additionally we needed to separate the RDX from the MDX or else why would people got the the more expensive vehicle."

 

No, they can't do that... but to say it's for efficiency, when it's clearly and obviously not for efficiency, is just as obnoxious. I'm not sure what they *should* have said, but to claim it's for efficiency is just a lie. Maybe talk about the weight savings, and how that should help improve handling?

 

*ducks* or throw a V8 in the MDX to differentiate them

 

 

Yeah, they could have stated handling balance as the primary reason for the 4 cylinder. However, with the current gas prices, I'm not surprised to see them talking about effeciency though. I am optomistic hat real world figures will be better than if they put a V-6 in there. I feel that you can drive the turbo 4 harder with less penalty than pounding on a V-6. (this is just opinion, no real facts here)

 

It was an engine swap deal...Saturn got the Honda 3.5L while Honda got diesel technology for the European market from Isuzu (?), which is somehow related to GM. But the deal was more beneficial for GM; Honda has since developed its own diesel engines for the European market.

 

Dont forget the use of Onstar

 

They PROMISED "Fuel Efficiency" and underdelivered. I would have preferred that if they could not deliver they should not set unrealistic expectations. That is why Acura marketing has failed in this launch.

 

Oh my god, this sounds like theTSX i-pod thread...... It's all a relative term isn't it. I'm conviced that you can "pound" a 4 cylinder turbo with less fuel penalty, than driving the same way with a V-6. How much fuel economy can you expect from a 4000 pound SUV?

 

Fixed

 

You missed the point. The Marketing folks at Acura should have said that we'll give you a 4-cyl turbo, BUT expect the fule economy to suck. These guys blew it on the basics of consumer marketing...The underdelivered on the market expectations and the "efficiency" expectations they used to generate the early buzz. Now, if they would have said, we'll give you a 6 Cyl with better fuel efficiency and you don't have to break in our first, unproven Turbo, then they might have some credibility.

 

I know you're exaggerating to make your point, but I think its a bit futile to charge at this windmill. Seriously, given the choice of powertrain, what would you have them say?

Don't get me wrong, I've already agreed with with many on this. the fuel effeiciency is nothing to brag about. i feel they should have stated improved handling as the reason for the Turbo.

 

Just thought I'd throw out a random MPG observation. A coworker just got a 2006 PT Cruiser GT, and I happened to see the window sticker sitting in the car still. A 3300 lb FWD PT Cruiser GT, with a turbo-4 that puts out 230 hp and 245 ft. lb. is only rated at 19/26. Doesn't make the RDX seem so bad.

 

Let's talk FACTS:

CAR AND DRIVER tested the Mazda CX-7 (the powertrain is so identical to the RDX that the similarity is SCARY), and they tested a LIMITED V6 AWD RAV4. Now like I said, both the RDX and CX-7 have a 2.3 liter turbo-4. Both of them produce virtually the same hp and torque (244 vs. 240 and 258 vs. 260), and both have a 5-speed. Not only that, both are within 30lbs of each other's weight as well . Now Car and Driver drove both vehicles hard, according to their respective writeups. They then, gave their "observed" real world fuel economy. The CX-7 returned 14mpg and the RAV4 returned 16mpg ......what more proof do you need???? .....case closed.

....there is simply no denying that from a fuel economy standpoint the RDX is simply put "premium gas sucking pig" (like a poster said in another thread) .....like the saying goes, "you can put lipstick on a pig.................."

 

Why don't we wait for Car and Driver to do a full test of the RDX and give a mileage number to compare rather than hurling insults based on a rather dubious assumption.

 

The EPA ratings (that started this whole mileage debate regarding the RDX) rate the CX7 at 18/24 and the RAV4 at 21/28. The fact that Car and Driver obtained 14 for the CX7 and 16 for the RAV4 by driving the cars as hard as many of their future owners will, tells us that the EPA numbers are prone to errors. That said, the fact that the RAV4 numbers are especially poor relative to their EPA ratings may help the public make a more informed decision on these vehicles based on real-world testing.