I posted this in a different thread, but thought it was worthy of discussion on it's own - I think this is THE factor that will seal the doom of the 2009 RL (which I otherwise like a lot).

http://www.motortrend.com/features/..._rl_first_look/

The RL's fuel-economy ratings check in a bit lower for 2009 at 15 city/22 highway.

According to Motor Trend, the 2009 RL will not only have the MPG in the class, it will also have fuel economy that is worse than some mid-sized SUVs. In fact, the MDX will get the same city MPG as the RL.

 

I'm surprised at those low highway mileage figures. I drove up to Maryland yesterday and back to North Carolina today. I averaged 24.7 miles per gallon in 95% highway/5% city driving. One would not think the 3.7 liter motor would drive down highway gas mileage to 22 mpg with the RL maintaining essentially the same weight and aerodynamics. Anyone have an explanation for the difference?

By the way, the RL is the sweetest car I've ever owned at quickly moving from 75 mph to 90 mph for quick passing moves. A sweet, sweet car for long distance driving.
wstr

 

X 1000 This is an awesome car for distance driving AND for those quick passing moves.

Back on topic, that reported mileage sucks.

 

Yes those numbers surprise me too. Maybe it is like the TL that says 26 Hy but gets 29-30 at 70? Shoot, the new G8 comes in at 15/24 and it has 361hp/385torq on regular and weighs 4,000 lbs??? A small V-8 is in the works (rumor from dealer) and it may help? CAFÉ may change all…

 

Upon trading up from the 2004 TL to the 2006 RL, my only source of dissatisfaction was going from 24 to 20 mpg average (in horrendous L.A. stop-and-go freeway driving of course). Drop that by another 20% and it would really suck. In obstruction-free traffic the current RL gets 24+ and on long road trips it pushes 30.

There is no way in hell I would buy a car that gets less.

 

First, let's keep in mind that those are the numbers reported by MT. They could be incorrect.

Also, via the new EPA calculation methods, the 3.5 engine had 16/24. So, the 3.7 dropping the MPG Done to 15/22 is not a huge drop. I do think its going to be hard to move these vehicles if the figures hold up.

Its not only the weight of the car that is culprit (most likely) but also the fuel eating SH-AWD.

And, btw, I still love the RL and would like to own one. I just can't see myself in that much of a gas guzler though.

 

I'm sure a 6 or more speed AT would help MPG.

 

I think this MPG stuff is getting overblown. In the current RL, with its 16/24 estimates, I get about 19 mpg in city/local driving, and upwards of 28 mpg on strictly highway trips. I don't think a difference of 1 or 2 mpg is going to affect sales of this car one way or the other. You know what you're getting when you buy a reasonably heavy AWD drive. A trade-off in mpg.

 

I'm going to respectfully disagree. First, I think informed drivers like you - who have reasonable expectations - are not always typical. That is, lots of potential owners will walk into a showroom and be shocked at the MPG. Imagine that you are salesmen on the Acura showroom floor, and you have an MDX and RL next to each other. What will you say when the potential buyer looks up and sees that the imposing MDX gets the same city MPG as the RL?

Second, I think the real issue is competition within the class. It is not just the fuel economy a vehicle gets, but how it stacks up against others in it's class. The M35 (which I see as one of the main competitors for the RL) also gettings poor fuel economy. But, most of the other vehicles in the class do quite a bit better. And, in fact, Consumer Reports found that the 2007 RL got the poorest few economy in the class (compared against Infiniti M, Lexus GS, BMW 5, M-B E-class, etc). Now, the problem is even worse.

Third, I think there is enough focus on fuel prices and economy in America right now that cars with poor MPG are going to have trouble selling. I think this is part of the reason the pre-MMC RL did not sell well (and note that sales for other fuel inefficient vehicles - like the M35 - have fallen off badly in recent months).

 

I'm going to disagree again. I think that among luxury sedan buyers, gas mileage is probably somewhat far down the list of requirements. Lets not forget that we're talking about a difference of 1 or 2 MPG here. Hardly, the huge red flag that it's being made out to be.

 

I have trouble believing you can take the same engine out of the MDX, put it in an RL, and get worse mileage. That just makes zero sense. The MDX is heavier, less aerodynamic and has the same general drivetrain as the RL.

That just doesn't hold up in terms of the laws of physics.

.
.

 

It's gotta be the grille...the MDX grille is aerodynamic and the new RL grille isn't....did I mention that I think it's because of the grille?

 

I thought EPA estimates on the 08 MDX were 15 city/20 highway!

 

Good point, gavine. :wink:

 

According to Motor Trend, the new EPA MPG figures for the RL will be 15/22.
For the MDX, it is 15/20. So, the two vehicles are the same in town, where aerodynamics doens't matter as much. On the highway, the sleeker RL gets 2 MPG better.

Why the different isn't greater (because the MDX is heavier), I don't know. But, its not hard to believe that the EPA figure for the 3.7 L RL is 15/22 given that the MPG for the 3.5 L was 16/24.

 

Don't kill me guys, but Honda's press release report's higher EPA than MT:

http://corporate.honda.com/press/article.aspx?id=4412

16/22

 

You guys have probably already seen this article about EPA fuel mileage reductions caused by changes to testing parameters.

http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center-article_153/

It says cars with higher mpg would be affected to a greater degree than lower fuel mileage cars. So I guess the big SUVs will see a smaller percentage decrease than fuel efficient sedans.
wstr

 

Fuel Economy Ratings (City/Highway/Combined)

2008 RL:
16/24/19

2009 RL:
16/22/19

Volvo S80 3.2 AWD:
16/24/19

2008 M35x:
16/22/18

2008 Audi 3.2 Quattro:
17/25/20

Cadillac STS V6 AWD:
17/26/20

Lexus GS350 AWD:
18/25/20


The RL would no doubt benefit from a 6-speed auto and VCM, but for those of us who do mainly city driving, the RL is still a good choice IMO. Keep in mind, these are only EPA estimates. You can beat these numbers depending on your driving style. Still, those overly concerned about fuel-economy probably never seriously considered the RL or it's competitors to begin with.

 

One thing to keep in mind is that all those vehicles are available in FWD or RWD form. If you are like me, and you live in warm climate, you would get better fuel economy with one of the RL's competitors.

P.S. Thanks for taking the time to look up all these numbers.

 

Here's an add on to the MPG discussion. I had an 05 RL for a month and then traded it for a new 07RL. The 05 got 21 city and 25 highway. The 07 gets 18 city and 22 highway. I have no explanation for the difference but I check it at every fill up and it's accurate. Love the car, don't care about the mediocre MPG.

 

The EPA changed their gas mileage rating system between 05 and 06. They also changed their horsepower rating system, which is why the 05 is rated at 300hp and the 06-08 are 290hp.

I presume the MID calculations were updated in 06 to follow the new guidelines?

 

Just a nit...

...While the EPA did change the way they test and calculate mileage ratings, the SAE are the ones that changed the horsepower/torque measurements...Don't know how, or if the MID algorithms were changed. Theoretically, MID is using observed data, not calculated based on artificial test loop data.