Considering the RDX
Thread Starter
Intermediate
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
From: North Carolina
Instructor
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 105
Likes: 12
From: Canoga Park, CA
With that, I would be going for the MDX. RDX is a nice car but the SHAWD alone in the MDX is reason enough to choose the MDX, especially with your more active lifestyle.
Good luck!
Thread Starter
Intermediate
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
From: North Carolina
Thank you, one big benefit for the RDX is the gas mileage as well. The difference between 20/28 and 16/21 is pretty big especially when using premium gas.
2014 RDX AWD Tech
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 4,197
Likes: 356
That's true too. But we all would be more happy if you could somehow strike a deal with the current generation MDX (2014+) in whatever trim that works out for you. That way you'll get the SHAWD as well as good gas mileage.
Thread Starter
Intermediate
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
From: North Carolina
yeah the trick is going to be finding this gen in my price range which is going to take a miracle me thinks.
Instructor
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 105
Likes: 12
From: Canoga Park, CA
The real advantage of the 3rd gen is in highway driving. Honestly, the mpg calculations in my 3rd gen is a bit generous (2 mpg more) vs my manual calculation. Around town, I'm averaging around 16 mpg (MID says 18 or 19mpg).
My wife's RDX is averaging around 24 mpg (70% freeway / 30% city) but like mine, it's a bit off by 1 or 2 mpg as well.
I would assume you don't like Subaru's? Their SUV has good AWD system and respectable mpgs as well. But yes, it's not an RDX or MDX.
Thread Starter
Intermediate
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
From: North Carolina
That's true. The 2nd gen MDX mpg sucks. Although, driving around town exclusively, there wouldn't be much difference in mpg between 2nd gen and 3rd gen, a little bit better with the RDX.
The real advantage of the 3rd gen is in highway driving. Honestly, the mpg calculations in my 3rd gen is a bit generous (2 mpg more) vs my manual calculation. Around town, I'm averaging around 16 mpg (MID says 18 or 19mpg).
My wife's RDX is averaging around 24 mpg (70% freeway / 30% city) but like mine, it's a bit off by 1 or 2 mpg as well.
I would assume you don't like Subaru's? Their SUV has good AWD system and respectable mpgs as well. But yes, it's not an RDX or MDX.
The real advantage of the 3rd gen is in highway driving. Honestly, the mpg calculations in my 3rd gen is a bit generous (2 mpg more) vs my manual calculation. Around town, I'm averaging around 16 mpg (MID says 18 or 19mpg).
My wife's RDX is averaging around 24 mpg (70% freeway / 30% city) but like mine, it's a bit off by 1 or 2 mpg as well.
I would assume you don't like Subaru's? Their SUV has good AWD system and respectable mpgs as well. But yes, it's not an RDX or MDX.
Burning Brakes
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 886
Likes: 338
From: Merrimack, NH
I moved from a '13 MDX to a '15 RDX AWD Tech about a year ago and can offer a few observations:
- The '13 MDX was the final year of the previous generation. It was built very solid, had a ton of usable room inside, and could handle anything I could throw at it.
- The '13 MDX was abysmal with gas mileage. My average of the 20K miles I had it (never reset trip B) was 17.3 MPG. My normal driving is rural with 30-40mph average speeds, with only a bit of stop-and-go and some highway. The BEST mpg I got with that MDX was 25 on one trip after I had the tires aired to 39 psi after taking a uhaul trailer from boston to NYC (without the trailer heading back, tires still aired up). It drove like a buckwagon that way but the mpg's were good. Normally, however 20-21 mpg was the best I could muster on the highway.
- The '13 MDX drove a lot bigger than it was. That sucker is WIDE in terms of wheel track width. It's very stable on the corners because of this wide stance, but after trying to manuever this on the rural roads narrowed with snowbanks on the side, I was getting tired of riding up on the edges.
- The '15 RDX is surprisingly roomy inside for 5 passengers - but the storage in the back is much smaller than the MDX. For me with only 1 kid left at home, I can fold 2/3 of the rear seat down and haul what I need. But if you need to seat both front and back seating rows, the rear is much smaller. But the RDX handles very well, is nimble, and is much quicker than the MDX was. Definitely more fun to drive
- The '15 RDX has MUCH better gas mileage. My Trip B lifetime MPG's after nearly 10k miles is at 23.8. Same driving patterns as the MDX. But as you can see, over 6 mpg better on average. And it's noticeable on the highway. I can average 25-26 mpg's in all conditions, and have actually gotten as high as 31 mpg on a tempered highway run of 100 miles where I kept the speed below 70. Never have I had a tank that had an average of under 20, even in the winter time.
- The '15 RDX is not built as solidly as the MDX was. You can tell it's based on the CR-V platform, and you hear bumps and feel bumps more than the MDX. And there is a bit more road noise. If you want a "luxury" feel the MDX will be more to your liking. But the RDX is by no means a rattle box or does it have a non-solid feel. It's just if you drive the cars back-to-back, the difference in this regard is apparent.
Many have talked about the SH-AWD in the MDX vs the regular AWD in the RDX (in this thread and countless other ones on the forum). There's no doubt the SH-AWD, when you push the vehicle to the limits on turning and hitting the loud pedal, adds to the traction and the "fun to drive" quotient. But in terms of traction in the snow/ice and even in mud, There's not enough of a difference for me to regret my decision to move to the RDX. Granted, I outfit my vehicles with winter tires/rims since I live in NH and drive lots of back roads and dirt roads. But with similar (and proper) tires, either vehicle will do what you need.
Hope this helps give you more info. I really am happy with my decision to move to the RDX, since for me it was the right vehicle for my usage, and the benefits outweigh any trade-offs, as listed abovel.
good luck - andy
- The '13 MDX was the final year of the previous generation. It was built very solid, had a ton of usable room inside, and could handle anything I could throw at it.
- The '13 MDX was abysmal with gas mileage. My average of the 20K miles I had it (never reset trip B) was 17.3 MPG. My normal driving is rural with 30-40mph average speeds, with only a bit of stop-and-go and some highway. The BEST mpg I got with that MDX was 25 on one trip after I had the tires aired to 39 psi after taking a uhaul trailer from boston to NYC (without the trailer heading back, tires still aired up). It drove like a buckwagon that way but the mpg's were good. Normally, however 20-21 mpg was the best I could muster on the highway.
- The '13 MDX drove a lot bigger than it was. That sucker is WIDE in terms of wheel track width. It's very stable on the corners because of this wide stance, but after trying to manuever this on the rural roads narrowed with snowbanks on the side, I was getting tired of riding up on the edges.
- The '15 RDX is surprisingly roomy inside for 5 passengers - but the storage in the back is much smaller than the MDX. For me with only 1 kid left at home, I can fold 2/3 of the rear seat down and haul what I need. But if you need to seat both front and back seating rows, the rear is much smaller. But the RDX handles very well, is nimble, and is much quicker than the MDX was. Definitely more fun to drive
- The '15 RDX has MUCH better gas mileage. My Trip B lifetime MPG's after nearly 10k miles is at 23.8. Same driving patterns as the MDX. But as you can see, over 6 mpg better on average. And it's noticeable on the highway. I can average 25-26 mpg's in all conditions, and have actually gotten as high as 31 mpg on a tempered highway run of 100 miles where I kept the speed below 70. Never have I had a tank that had an average of under 20, even in the winter time.
- The '15 RDX is not built as solidly as the MDX was. You can tell it's based on the CR-V platform, and you hear bumps and feel bumps more than the MDX. And there is a bit more road noise. If you want a "luxury" feel the MDX will be more to your liking. But the RDX is by no means a rattle box or does it have a non-solid feel. It's just if you drive the cars back-to-back, the difference in this regard is apparent.
Many have talked about the SH-AWD in the MDX vs the regular AWD in the RDX (in this thread and countless other ones on the forum). There's no doubt the SH-AWD, when you push the vehicle to the limits on turning and hitting the loud pedal, adds to the traction and the "fun to drive" quotient. But in terms of traction in the snow/ice and even in mud, There's not enough of a difference for me to regret my decision to move to the RDX. Granted, I outfit my vehicles with winter tires/rims since I live in NH and drive lots of back roads and dirt roads. But with similar (and proper) tires, either vehicle will do what you need.
Hope this helps give you more info. I really am happy with my decision to move to the RDX, since for me it was the right vehicle for my usage, and the benefits outweigh any trade-offs, as listed abovel.
good luck - andy
Thread Starter
Intermediate
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
From: North Carolina
I moved from a '13 MDX to a '15 RDX AWD Tech about a year ago and can offer a few observations:
- The '13 MDX was the final year of the previous generation. It was built very solid, had a ton of usable room inside, and could handle anything I could throw at it.
- The '13 MDX was abysmal with gas mileage. My average of the 20K miles I had it (never reset trip B) was 17.3 MPG. My normal driving is rural with 30-40mph average speeds, with only a bit of stop-and-go and some highway. The BEST mpg I got with that MDX was 25 on one trip after I had the tires aired to 39 psi after taking a uhaul trailer from boston to NYC (without the trailer heading back, tires still aired up). It drove like a buckwagon that way but the mpg's were good. Normally, however 20-21 mpg was the best I could muster on the highway.
- The '13 MDX drove a lot bigger than it was. That sucker is WIDE in terms of wheel track width. It's very stable on the corners because of this wide stance, but after trying to manuever this on the rural roads narrowed with snowbanks on the side, I was getting tired of riding up on the edges.
- The '15 RDX is surprisingly roomy inside for 5 passengers - but the storage in the back is much smaller than the MDX. For me with only 1 kid left at home, I can fold 2/3 of the rear seat down and haul what I need. But if you need to seat both front and back seating rows, the rear is much smaller. But the RDX handles very well, is nimble, and is much quicker than the MDX was. Definitely more fun to drive
- The '15 RDX has MUCH better gas mileage. My Trip B lifetime MPG's after nearly 10k miles is at 23.8. Same driving patterns as the MDX. But as you can see, over 6 mpg better on average. And it's noticeable on the highway. I can average 25-26 mpg's in all conditions, and have actually gotten as high as 31 mpg on a tempered highway run of 100 miles where I kept the speed below 70. Never have I had a tank that had an average of under 20, even in the winter time.
- The '15 RDX is not built as solidly as the MDX was. You can tell it's based on the CR-V platform, and you hear bumps and feel bumps more than the MDX. And there is a bit more road noise. If you want a "luxury" feel the MDX will be more to your liking. But the RDX is by no means a rattle box or does it have a non-solid feel. It's just if you drive the cars back-to-back, the difference in this regard is apparent.
Many have talked about the SH-AWD in the MDX vs the regular AWD in the RDX (in this thread and countless other ones on the forum). There's no doubt the SH-AWD, when you push the vehicle to the limits on turning and hitting the loud pedal, adds to the traction and the "fun to drive" quotient. But in terms of traction in the snow/ice and even in mud, There's not enough of a difference for me to regret my decision to move to the RDX. Granted, I outfit my vehicles with winter tires/rims since I live in NH and drive lots of back roads and dirt roads. But with similar (and proper) tires, either vehicle will do what you need.
Hope this helps give you more info. I really am happy with my decision to move to the RDX, since for me it was the right vehicle for my usage, and the benefits outweigh any trade-offs, as listed abovel.
good luck - andy
- The '13 MDX was the final year of the previous generation. It was built very solid, had a ton of usable room inside, and could handle anything I could throw at it.
- The '13 MDX was abysmal with gas mileage. My average of the 20K miles I had it (never reset trip B) was 17.3 MPG. My normal driving is rural with 30-40mph average speeds, with only a bit of stop-and-go and some highway. The BEST mpg I got with that MDX was 25 on one trip after I had the tires aired to 39 psi after taking a uhaul trailer from boston to NYC (without the trailer heading back, tires still aired up). It drove like a buckwagon that way but the mpg's were good. Normally, however 20-21 mpg was the best I could muster on the highway.
- The '13 MDX drove a lot bigger than it was. That sucker is WIDE in terms of wheel track width. It's very stable on the corners because of this wide stance, but after trying to manuever this on the rural roads narrowed with snowbanks on the side, I was getting tired of riding up on the edges.
- The '15 RDX is surprisingly roomy inside for 5 passengers - but the storage in the back is much smaller than the MDX. For me with only 1 kid left at home, I can fold 2/3 of the rear seat down and haul what I need. But if you need to seat both front and back seating rows, the rear is much smaller. But the RDX handles very well, is nimble, and is much quicker than the MDX was. Definitely more fun to drive
- The '15 RDX has MUCH better gas mileage. My Trip B lifetime MPG's after nearly 10k miles is at 23.8. Same driving patterns as the MDX. But as you can see, over 6 mpg better on average. And it's noticeable on the highway. I can average 25-26 mpg's in all conditions, and have actually gotten as high as 31 mpg on a tempered highway run of 100 miles where I kept the speed below 70. Never have I had a tank that had an average of under 20, even in the winter time.
- The '15 RDX is not built as solidly as the MDX was. You can tell it's based on the CR-V platform, and you hear bumps and feel bumps more than the MDX. And there is a bit more road noise. If you want a "luxury" feel the MDX will be more to your liking. But the RDX is by no means a rattle box or does it have a non-solid feel. It's just if you drive the cars back-to-back, the difference in this regard is apparent.
Many have talked about the SH-AWD in the MDX vs the regular AWD in the RDX (in this thread and countless other ones on the forum). There's no doubt the SH-AWD, when you push the vehicle to the limits on turning and hitting the loud pedal, adds to the traction and the "fun to drive" quotient. But in terms of traction in the snow/ice and even in mud, There's not enough of a difference for me to regret my decision to move to the RDX. Granted, I outfit my vehicles with winter tires/rims since I live in NH and drive lots of back roads and dirt roads. But with similar (and proper) tires, either vehicle will do what you need.
Hope this helps give you more info. I really am happy with my decision to move to the RDX, since for me it was the right vehicle for my usage, and the benefits outweigh any trade-offs, as listed abovel.
good luck - andy
Advanced
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 79
Likes: 27
That's honestly a big factor (maybe if it didn't only take premium)
Premium is "recommended" not "required".
I use regular for around town and fill up with premium on road trips as I do find that I can squeeze out a couple of extra mpg.
Premium is "recommended" not "required".
I use regular for around town and fill up with premium on road trips as I do find that I can squeeze out a couple of extra mpg.
Thread Starter
Intermediate
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
From: North Carolina
Burning Brakes
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 886
Likes: 338
From: Merrimack, NH
I've not yet tried it on the RDX, since the price of premium keeps dropping (near $2/gal around here), so I have not been inclined to roll the dice. I did try regular a couple times on the MDX and you could feel the difference with normal acceleration - it was much happier on Premium...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
bsprinker
2G RDX (2013-2018)
8
Jan 31, 2016 02:16 PM
alexl.wilson
2G RDX (2013-2018)
7
Jan 8, 2016 11:02 PM