People always need to bitch about something. Let them for all I care. I'm sure Acura tried to get the most power and the most fuel economy they could.

 

.....where you come up with stuff like "hurling insults" when it is CRYSTAL CLEAR from my post that I was just trying to state some facts versus an "OPINION" that was stated . In the future PLEASE READ MY POSTS FULLY before making knee-jerk statements like that

......and FYI, my comparison of FACTS is far more apt, than mere speculation based on "gut feeling". The fact that the CX-7 is virtually identical in every respect (powertrain-wise) is an extremely valid point for comparison purposes.

 

.....that is simply put, not true. They would've gotten BETTER FUEL ECONOMY AND BETTER PERFORMANCE to boot, if they had used a 3.5 Liter V6 in this particular SUV application. You guys simply don't get it that this 4-banger is pushing a 4000lb SUV (which is is way less aerodynamic than a car) .....AND TO BOOT, is saddled with a power-sapping 4WD system!!!!!!!!!

....TAKE A LOOK AT ACURA'S OWN MDX FOR CRYIN OUT LOUD....HELLLLOOO!!!...that vehicle is 550lbs+ heavier, has a 3.5L V6 and gets pretty much THE SAME gas mileage as the RDX ......at least can you see the logic now??????

.....and yes, I keep BITCHING about this OVER AND OVER again (I've been saying this right from the time we were "speculating" about the powertrain) in the hopes that someone from Honda will be reading this website and WISEN UP and MAAAYYYBEEE sometime during it's mid-model year will finally get some sense and shove a V6 in there.....one can only hope ....even if it's a long shot, it's worth it!!

 

Actually, to be fair, we don't know that the powertrains are near identical. We don't know what the gearing is on the RDX, I don't think.

The only problem in the whole MPG discussion is the Rav4. That thing came out with performance (acceleration) and fuel economy that blew everything else out of the water. The rav4 has totally changed everyone's expectations in the compact SUV class, justified or not. And it will definitely change the expectations of Joe Consumer, and it does hurt the RDX.

Personally, I think the fuel economy is reasonable, no better than the competitors for the most part, and no worse. Yeah, I would have loved better fuel economy... but I'm not going to get it by going to a different vehicle (unless I want a RAV4).

 

Yes, there is a variance from the EPA figures, and it's for BOTH vehicles. The combined average EPA rating for the CX7 (18+24/2)=21mpg. The combined average EPA rating for the RAV4 is (21+28/2)=24.5mpg

As a PERCENTAGE of variation it is roughly about the same for both vehicles. In real world testing by C&D, the CX7 gets about 7mpg less (or 35% less) than it's combined rating of 21mpg. The RAV4 gets about 8.5mpg less (or 35% less) than it's combined rating of 24.5mpg .....so in the end the bottom line still remains that the turbo-4 gets worse gas mileage, WHILE, AT THE SAME TIME, GIVING IT'S OWNER SIGNIFICANTLY worse performance!!!!! (C&D got 0-60 in 6.3 secs for the RAV4 and 0-60 in 7.8 secs for the CX7) .....If you cannot see my point by this time, then nothing I say or do will open your mind to the actual reality!!

 

....I agree with you that we don't know for sure one hundred percent that the gearing etc. is identical, but what leads me to believe that the specs are very similar, is the fact that the EPA rating for both of them is virtually identical: 18/24 for the CX7 and 19/23 for the RDX. One can reasonably deduce from the figures that the CX7 in all likelhood has slightly taller gearing towards the 4th and 5th gears and the opposite for the RDX, since it's city number is better. I also understand that it's not quite simple as that, and other smaller factors, such as actual transmission losses etc. also contribute to a lesser extent.

Very true, that the RAV4 came out with stunning numbers, but I'm TOTALLY CONVINCED that this is due to the fact that the RAV4 has so much "excess" power, that the engineers were able to give it relatively "tall" gearing, so the engine is spinning at extremely low RPMs (especially in 4th and 5th). According to C&D at 70mph in 5th gear, the RAV4 engine is barely ticking over at 1900RPM......however, I still maintain that they could've done waaayy better in the RDX with a V6. The reason for my saying this is by looking at the CURRENT MDX. This is a Honda product that is 550lbs+ heavier and has a powerful 3.5L V6. It's 17city/23hwy is not that different than the RDX (a measly 2mpg less in the city and the SAME hwy number .....now is that reasonable to expect??....then what is the sense in going for the much smaller, lighter, and less powerful vehicle??..........and mind you, I expect the upcoming MDX to have slightly better mileage than the current one, whose technology dates back to the year 2000!!! ....maybe something like 18city/25hwy (if you look at the history of the Lexus RX 3xx, it has gotten more and more powerful and bigger, AND more and more fuel efficient AT THE SAME TIME, so one can expect the same to be true of the MDX, unless of course Honda does something crazy with it like put a turbo-4 there as well )

 

.....Honda's constant "lieing through their teeth" totally takes away all their credibility. If I remember one of Colin's early on posts, he had said that the likely REAL reason to put a turbo-4 in here was to differentiate this vehicle from it's bigger sibling, the MDX, and prevent the RDX from cannibalizing it's sales....now THAT was exactly right. THAT is, indeed, the reason for all of this. Not fuel economy, not handling.....and all the other BS they keep spewing out.

....What they want to do, is basically, push people like me into an MDX, even though I have ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR SOMETHING THE PHYSICAL SIZE OF THE MDX!!! (I'm single and drive by myself, most of the time).....and, unfortunately, it seems to have worked. If I'm getting a BLAZINGLY powerful V6 with stellar performance in the MDX, with similar fuel economy numbers to the RDX, can someone explain to me why I would even BOTHER with the RDX???? ......I can already envision the redesigned MDX's EPA ratings: 18city/25hwy

 

vic, stfu

You sound like a total moron. You do realize and understand that even though two cars have similar EPA ratings, doesn't mean that they will perform exactly the same, right?

You do realize that an I4 motor is lighter in weight than a V6, right?

Do you seriously understand all the things that go into the design considerations of a car? Do you understand how each of the different factors, such as weight, gearing, frontal area, drivetrain layout, and weight distribution affect the performance, handling, and fuel economy of a car?

You are so dead set on bashing the RDX, but have you seriously sat down and considered all the of the different variables? Have you genuinely thought about how a company, while still keeping their corporate message intact, can advertise a new vehicle that will appeal to their target segment without alienating long time customers? Do you even understand how the automotive industry works?

Seriously, you sound like a ranting idiot. STFU until you have sat down and thought all these things through thoroughly because right now, you really sound like you have no clue what you're talking about.

 

I had a MDX and never, repeat, never got better than 14 MPG in the city. I did mostly local travel and as hard as I tired, I got 13 to 14 mpg and that was using 93 gas!

 

Gee, there's a shocker!!!!

 

I had my MDX for almost 2 years and 30K miles.....and yes, the MDX does not give that great mileage in the city, but there are reasons for that (ultra low first gear, and VTM-4 constantly going in and out of AWD when accelerating from a stop). However, the MDX gave me great mileage in highway driving. I got 22-23mpg (or pretty much the EPA estimate) when cruising at 70mph on the highway. If you see my posts over at acuramdx.org, you will notice that I've posted results from several fuel economy tests I did which substantiate this.

Besides this, all vehicles, in general, have some variance from the EPA, depending on how they are driven. The CX7 (which is also a 4 cylinder turbo) is rated at 18city and 24hwy, and yet it gave only 14mpg when CAR AND DRIVER tested it in the real world. Pretty much what I got with my MDX in city driving. However, if I accelerated very conservatively and coasted as much as possible etc., I could manage around 16 to 17mpg in city driving with the MDX

 

The RAV4 failed to meet it's estimate by 8.5 mpg and the CX7 by 7 mpg. Which consumer would be more disappointed while filling up their tank?? Nobody gives a crap about the percentage - Toyota promised the moon and didn't leave the launch pad.
Bottom line, vicpai, is that if mileage is that important to you then you shouldn't be looking at luxury cars. May I suggest the Honda Insight.

 

.....afford to buy a luxury vehicle, does not mean that I'm willing to throw my money at a vehicle, whose maker justifies that they're giving me a 4 cylinder engine for the "efficiency of a 4 cylinder" to quote the manufacturer's exact words, when that's NOT TRUE AT ALL. Why will I pay a boat load of cash for something that neither gets me great performance (0 to 60 in 7.5-8.0 secs??), nor any "efficiency" to show for it??? On the contrary, I'm saddled with all the other "negative baggage" that comes with 4-bangers, such as worse NVH attributes etc. (Consumer Guide and a couple other reviews have already stated that while the powertrain is very good for a 4 cylinder, it's not as smooth, quiet or "flexible" as a V6.)

To be honest with you, I would be waaaayyy more infuriated with the 7 mpg less that the CX7 gives, than the 8.5mpg less with the RAV4. When I think how the RAV4 can ROCKET me from zero to 60 in 6.3 secs, I'm not going to be so bothered that I'm getting 8.5mpg less than promised. However, if I was a CX7 owner (at least an intelligent one), then I would be wondering why I'm paying so much at the pump when this piece of cr*p barely "manages to get the job done", with it's crappy 4-banger.

Also can you explain what the point of going with the RDX over the upcoming MDX, would be, if I'm basically going to get the same gas mileage, but with significantly WORSE performance and NVH attributes that come with a 4-cylinder engine??? .....Yes, I'm single and would love a smaller vehicle, but one of the advantages of going smaller should be signifcantly better fuel economy, especially with gas prices likely to hit $5/gal in the near future, and the fact that I put over 25K miles on my vehicles in a year.

 

vicpai, go out and buy your precious RAV4. If all you care about is mileage and straight line acceleration, I'm sure you will be more than happy with it. However, please respect that many of us hanging around the RDX forums have our priorities in different areas, such as handling, feature content, and superior luxury. I doubt I'm in the minority here wishing that you would just stop posting the same comments over and over again. As everyone can see this is my first post, and vicpai, you are the reason. Enough with your comments . . .

 

Since when is 0-60 in 7.x "barely managing to get the job done"? Until just a couple of years ago, no SUV, other than probably the 5.9L Jeep GC could do that. Now it's completely unnacceptable performance? I drove a cx-7... I thought the performance was perfectly adequate. In fact, it's just as fast as your MDX with the "blazingly powerful" v6 (found numbers online of around 7.8 and 7.9 for the current MDX).

How about because you want to save $7k on the car? I'm guessing the MDX is going to start in the vincinity of 40k, since the old one started at what, around 37k? And who knows how much more for the tech package. So you can get a smaller, lighter, more nimble vehicle with probably about the same acceleration (you're not gonna see the MDX pulling sub-7 second 0-60 runs), probably about the same gas mileage, but you saved about 7 grand on the vehicle... sounds like a good reason to me.

 

...is pretty evident from the fact that you make stupid statements without knowing what you're talking about. HAVE YOU EVEN READ MY POSTS?? .....I've made it plenty clear, not once, but several times that I AM NOT IN THE MARKET FOR A RAV4, EITHER (I've just used this an example to illustrate why a V6 would've been a better choice for the RDX )

I've said several times on here that the upcoming redesigned MDX, which I'm planning on buying, makes a lot more sense to me, and I've given my reasons for my logic. Most people over at www.acuramdx.org agree with me, some of whom wanted to move to a smaller SUV within the Acura family, but don't see the point of doing so anymore, except for the fact that the RDX is priced lower. However for the lower price you get A LOT less as well, in virtually every way!!!

 

ugh, if you're so welcome at acuramdx.org, why don't you just stay over there.

 

I don't understand the logic...you guys expected a smaller version of the new MDX for thousands less? And again, where exactly does the RDX fall short? Just because it doesn't have a V6? Are there other reasons that aren't just pure conjecture at this point?

Some of you people don't make sense...

 

The CX7 does 0-60 in 7.8 secs (which is almost 8 secs).The RDX is expected to generate similar figures, but I'm willing to wait, and give the RDX it's full due until there is a full test. However, I'd be truly surprised if the performance were significantly better than that. ....and yes, a few years back this was good performance for an SUV, but by today's standards it is very "mediocre". The CURRENT MDX also does it in 7.8 secs, but it's technology dates back to 2000, so it's not at all a fair comparison. According to Acura's press release, and I quote them: "the 2007 MDX will have the most powerful V6 in it's class with segment leading performance"....reliable sources say that it will feature a 3.7L V6 with horsepower in the 300 range and torque somewhere around 280lb.ft. With these sort of numbers, I'm willing to bet anything that zero to 60 times will be in the mid six second range or, more than likely, even better. Performance is not the only benefit of the V6. I'm willing to bet anything that the MDX's V6 will be a ton smoother and quieter, while having a more "flexible" power and torque curve in the entire RPM range. To quote Consumer Guide, in the thread posted in the RDX discussions: they say that while the turbo-4 feels strong in the city, highway passing power is unimpressive. (of course, no matter what anyone says, one can only be sure of this after driving test driving the vehicle, so I'll reserve final judgement after driving one)

True, but for the 7 additional K, I'm getting a lot more. For starters, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY AND SIGNIFICANTLY, I'll get a much more powerful, smoother and quieter V6 with the base vehicle. Other things like 8-way power passenger seats, memory seats etc. are added bonuses too. I understand that if PRICE were the main deciding factor, and the RDX's price was your maximum budget, then your reasoning is absolutely correct, but for me purchase price is not a factor, but I still want to be able to justify to myself, what I'm getting for the additional money. The MDX will supposedly come in 3 versions (base, tech and "elite"), with tech having similar stuff to the RDX's tech package (Nav, upgraded audio etc.). Like you said, the price difference will likely be 6-7K for base vs. base and tech. vs. tech. In other words my tech package MDX will be 6-7K more than a tech package RDX.

I agree with the "smaller, lighter, more nimble" part....actually that's music to my ears.....but not at the expense of what I CONSIDER to be lackluster performance by today's standards. .......and like I've said, I will cut my right arm off, if the REDESIGNED MDX does not get at least sub-7 sec 0-60 times, with 300bhp on tap. Logic simply does not lend credence to the fact that, the new redesigned MDX with the 300bhp "segment busting performance" (to quote Acura), is going to do 0-60 in the same 7.8 secs as the current one with it's now oboslete 253bhp powertrain!!!..The MDX will be at least ONE FULL SECOND quicker, and in all likelihood, even significantly better than that.

 

....We expected a smaller version of the MDX (don't care about the thousands less part.....purchase price is not the issue, at least for me). Some of us want a smaller SUV, not because of price, but because of the benefits of a smaller vehicle: BETTER MANUVERABLILITY, MORE NIMBLE, WAAYYY MORE EASIER TO FIND PARKING SPOTS in super-crowded crazy places like L.A. (where I live), BETTER FUEL ECONOMY, etc. etc. etc. .......However, just because we want a smaller vehicle does not mean we are willing to make compromises in the PERFORMANCE, COMFORT or LUXURY areas. That's why we're buying an ACURA, not a HONDA .....and price should'nt even be an issue.

....If the RDX came with a nice "meaty" 3.5L V6 that screamed from 0-60 in less than 7 seconds, while giving me the benefits of a nice SMOOTH, QUIET, FLEXIBLE engine that only a 6-cylinder can give (even if it meant losing a very very small teeny weeny bit of handling), I would've JUMPED and been FIRST IN LINE to buy the RDX. THEN, even the subpar fuel economy would'nt have bothered me because I'm getting SOMETHING in return for it. I WOULD EVEN BE WILLING TO PAY A COUPLE GRAND MORE than the current price if they gave me a V6. I'm sure there would be others willing to pony up the extra dough as well.

.....and that's the reason I keep saying what I say. Maybe Honda will see all our bitching and give us a V6 model (the J35) sometime during the mid year model change......or at least the next gen RDX

 

You could end up being right, but we barely know anything for sure about the MDX, it's all conjecture and/or rumours. And at this point, none of us have driven the RDX. I think it's a little early to be either this disappointed in the RDX or this excited about the MDX.

Just my opinion, I guess. I don't think we're gonna agree on this one.

 

RDX-S with a J35 engine? I think many here would be happy with a J32 engine, those guys are just about bulletproof reliability-wise given their experience in the 2G and 3G TLs.

 

Why is a V6 so important? I don't understand this mentality that somehow because it doesn't have a V6, it doesn't measure up? The I4 makes as much power as a V6 would and the SOHC J35 is not likely to see an improvement in fuel economy.

And honestly, even the current MDX doesn't 0-60 in sub 7 seconds so why would you have this unrealistic expectation for the RDX.