XLR8R

For those of you who believe the RDX fuel economy is inadequate, I'm trying to identify the CUV/SUV that does significantly better.

It must have AWD with 240 hp and 260 lb-ft tq , and offer a significant improvement over Consumer Reports instrumented test of 18 average and 25 highway.

By significant, shall we say, 2 mpg better: CR test of 20 avg and 27 hw. That's a savings of 83 gal/year @ 15000 miles, or about $275.

Let's generously spot the contestants some power: minimum 230 hp and 250 tq.

Starting with the obvious:

Toyota Rav 4, V6: 22 avg and 29 hw is exceptional as is 269 hp, but 246 tq doesn't cut it. Additionaly, the AWD is much more front biased.

GM Outlook/Acadia, etc: 275 hp and 251 tq is right there, but 16 avg and 24 hw, is significantly worse.

Infinity FX35: Bests the RDX at 275 hp and 268 tq but falls short at 17 avg and 24 hw, and the EPA numbers are much worse than that.

About 20 more CUVs achieve equal economy, but are down on hp and tq by as much as 70. That is like getting 70 free hp in the RDX!

I'm sorry, unless you want to spend 8 years of gas dollars on a hybrid, I can't seem to find a comparable vehicle that does significantly better than the RDX.........

Wait, wait, we have a winner:

Dodge Magnum R/T AWD: no CR numbers, but EPA shows 15cty/17avg/22hw, compared to the RDX EPA of 17cty/19avg/22hw.

OK, so without the height, technically it's not even a CUV, and yes the cty and avg economy is significantly worse but, WTF........340 hp! and 390 lb-ft!

Hurry, I hear they're cancelled.

oasis3582

RAV4 is your answer. Throwing it out because of 14 lb-ft of torque is silly.

catnippants

I agree completely. 246 is unacceptable, but 251 is? Would ANYONE be able to tell the difference? As it is, the RAV 4 has a much higher tow rating.

From my perspective the RDX only wins over the RAV 4 because of comfort and technology...if you're not into that, the RAV 4 wins hands down.

Mike

mau108

^ and looks :P RAV4 aint a looker.

and its not designed to take corners like the RDX, but I believe the RAV4 is a versatile truck good for those that need to haul shit and want to keep mpg down.

Do any of the vehicles mentioned above have the ability to shutdown cylinders when the power not needed? Much like the chryslers. Buddy of mine picked up a 08 Chrysler Aspen and it has this.

H1K1F1

And safety. The RAV4 isn't an IIHS top pick. The RDX is. End of story.

Patronus

Yeah, my list STARTED with www.iihs.org 's top picks. If it did not make that list, it did not make mine.

wwest

To improve FE all that needs to be done with the RDX is to open, fully open, the turbo wastegates unless the gas pedal is depressed RAPIDLY and/or beyond the 2/3's point.

To improve FE and performance use i-VTEC to implement the Atkinson cycle. Use DFI, Direct Fuel Injection, which would allow a compression ratio of ~12:1 and then as boost rises delay the closing of the intake valves such that the "effective" compression ratio changes to 8.8:1 with FULL BOOST.

Twin turboes.....AND a flat torque curve.....

XLR8R

246 is LESS than 250 and 251 is GREATER. (I'll wait while you do the math.)

Once a minimum acceptable testing figure is established, it must be adhered to. This is how all auto reviewers assign scores to vehicles. How many times has a vehicle won a comparison by just a few points?

Before you point out that I broke this rule with the Magnum; that was added for a (very small) degree of humor.

The point is that RDX fuel economy is very competitive.

Forget the give-away on engine power.

If anyone can name a CUV/SUV with at least 240 hp / 260 lb-ft, and a comparable AWD system (at least 50/50 split, at any speed) that bests the RDX by 2 mpg average and highway, let's see it!

oasis3582

Haha, so you pick an arbitrary set of criteria that only a very small subset of vehicles fit into - of course the RDX is going to win. Your bias set it up that way.

Look, I love my RDX and would never in my life buy a RAV4. But there is no debating that Toyota coaxed out the absolute best FE of any automaker in the segment. I think we all need to remember that for Honda's first turbo, the end result is a damn nice one, regardless of any downsides.

VeNeNo

iTrader: (1)

I concur... Rav4 V6 is great ride best in FE in segment, but can't compare if the bells and whistles are important to you RDX wins up and down the whole board (bang for your buck).

XLR8R

Arbitrary???

Fuel economy is a result of horsepower, torque, and drivetrain versus the mass (weight) being propelled. I left out vehicle weight to allow for a wider range of choices.

For the same reason, I left out IIHS scores and Bluetooth availability. (Though both are personal requirements.)

Toyota did an admirable job with the Rav (I considered one carefully, myself) but the torque is lower, and rear drive disengages above about 30 mph. It is not a comparable AWD system.

VW 4Motion or Audi Quattro, with a performance oriented 50/50 split, would be comparable. As would Subaru AWD or Mitsu's system on the Evo.

XLR8R

By the way, EPA on the AWD Rav V6 is 19 cty and 26 hw. Many people seem to think it is higher (perhaps confusing it with the 2WD).

In CR economy it bests the RDX by 4 mpg avg, or about 152 gal/year @ 15000 miles.

oasis3582

I know, but a lot of the pro-turbo argument is that turbo applications should be able to obtain better economy out of a 4 than a NA 6.

vrflyer

RAV4 & Highlander's "AWD" system by far one of the worst out there - enough said...

H1K1F1

All criteria are arbitrary in some way and bias underlies all tests, despite claims to the contrary. Even the people at consumer reports have biases.

XLR8R

It does.

Consider these AWD V6s that all achieve the same 18 mpg avg as the RDX:

Hyundai Santa Fe 3.3----------------242 hp--226 tq
Hyundai Tuscon/Sportage 2.7------173 hp--178 tq
Suzuki Grand Vitara 2.7--------------185 hp--184 tq
GM Equinox/Torrent 3.4--------------185 hp--210 tq

The K23A1 bests these NA V6s by as much as 39% MORE hp and 46% MORE tq, using the same amount of fuel. That is 39% and 46% greater fuel efficiency from a turbo 4.

These V6s cannot match the RDX economy AND have less power or torque:

Hummer H3 3.7-------------------------242 hp--242 tq----14 mpg avg
Jeep Wrangler 3.8---------------------205 hp--240 tq-----15 mpg avg
Dodge Nitro 3.7------------------------210 hp--235 tq----16 mpg avg
Mitsubishi Endeavor 3.8--------------225 hp--255 tq----17 mpg avg
Honda Pilot 3.5-------------------------244 hp--240 tq-----17 mpg avg
(The last 3 are not even weighed down by off-road gear.)

Granted, the high tech V6s in the Nissan Xterra, Saturn Vue, Kia Sorrento, Mazda CX-9, Subaru Tribeca, Ford Edge, Ford Taurus X, Cadillac SRX, and Infiniti FX35 have an edge on the RDX in horsepower, torque or both but none can match the RDX economy.

Only the Rav stands alone as the economy champion and we have discussed it's shortcomings.

Conclusion: The K23A1 turbo-4 in the RDX application DOES extract more efficiency from fuel than almost all V6s.

oasis3582

I agree and see your points, but there are only two things I would add for consideration:

1) The downside to the I4-T is premium fuel req't of course. That adds a small chunk to overall fuel costs.
2) I personally hold Honda to a higher standard than I would for Kia, Hyundai, GM, etc. Again, I love my RDX (powertrain especially), but I do think they can do better in this area.

darth62

The point is that you choose the cutoff of 250 because, concidentally, the RDX falls a bit above that and most other cars in the class fall a bit below that. However, the difference between the torque that the RAV4 makes and your 250 cutoff is pretty meaningless.

And, the RAV4 might have slightly less torque than the RDX but all that torque is available in a much more linear fashion, making the car a lot more drivable.

The RDX is a much better looking vehicle, handles a lot better, has a much nicer interior, and more bells and whistles. But, it does not offer the excellent fuel economy/power tradeoff of the the RAV4.

XLR8R

And so the open question remains....

Patronus

What we need here is a curve - plot torque vs. economy on a scattergram, plot a best fit curve through the data and look for the outliers. Only then will we really be able to tell the power vs. economy tradeoff of the RDX.

Oh, and we should not plot any turbo diesels because that would totally blow away any gasoline powered vehicles in this tradeoff (half tongue in cheek, but true).

I'd do it if I had the data and time...

MMike1981

this thread is rediculous. lol

the rdx fuel econ is what it is. to say its good is a stretch. for the performance it offers coupled with how the shawd is full time active, it gets good numbers for what it does.

i dont understand how some of you guys get high 20's or even crack 25. my only suggestion is find the accelerator because getting 25+mpg in this truck youd have to be coasting everywhere, on top of which, its just not meant to be driven like that or as some people say "off the turbo". this truck has balls, drive it. if ur having fun and pulling close to 20, how can we complain. i certainly cant, love every second i drive it.

i get about 15/16 city and 21 highway. a coast up to NH from my house ill avg 23, i cant get the car above 24, just not possible going 65 on a highway.

18/25 is NOT the avg for this vehicle. no way.

XLR8R

Consumer Reports instrumented testing showed 18/25, and my own experience is 17 to 18 driven hard and 27 highway.

Driving style creates obvious variables in average economy -- too many for a useful number on A-zine to be less than a 5 mpg spread.

However, one area where all RDXs should be nearly identical, is cruising on a flat level highway. An unloaded RDX maintaining 65 mph at a steady rpm should yield about 27 mpg. Height above sea-level may account for some variation, but this is what most should be getting.

As everyone doesn't seem to be, perhaps there is a problem with some vehicles.

MMike1981

no problems here, and i had both an 07 AND an 08. 27 mpg would be unheard of, in both of them. I also had a loaner RDX which i drove for almost a week. identical mileage. so thats 3 RDX's, 1 08 and 2 07's with identical mileage.

some of my work involves long distance trips with an empty car. even with the instant mpg on the mid, and my mind totally focused on getting extreme mpg (which ive only done maybe 3 times because its an exercise in futility), its never gone over 23.8. maybe gas quality is different where you live? maybe the air is diff vs sea level difference. who knows, but in no way will i get 27 or expect to get 27, but congrats to you

mvwood

and let's face it, many of us (myself included) are not getting NEARLY the numbers claimed in the EPA, and the variance between what I'm getting (without the led foot I would have thought necessary to get it) and what I have been told to expect is significantly larger than the typical over-state in EPA numbers.

And make no mistake, I love the car, just this sort of gerrymandered disingenuous "proof" hits a sore spot with the economist in me.

MMike1981

this whole thread/test makes no sense. the contenders the guy picks don't even make sense.

it should be Murano, CX-7, X3, EX35, and possibly the Tribeca...i dont know where these specific engine numbers came from unless u just chose the criteria yourself, in which case, thats just stupid because then its really a no-fail no ones gonna beat the RDX test, thats what your remarks shape this up to be.

ill be the first to admit, i love my rdx, but when the toyota v6 gets BETTER mpg with higher HP and honest to god ALMOST the same TQ, thats damn good. then you look at the cx-7 which basically has the same REAL WORLD numbers as the ACURA... the acura may have a 1 -2 mpg step on the mazda along the line w/better performance. i think if u stripped away the SHAWD and made it a real time system like some of its competitors then the mpg would actually be the stated epa estimates or pretty close.

the intent of the thread was to show that the rdx afterall had pretty decent mpg numbers, the fact of the matter is that there are BETTER mpg numbers from higher output engines. and again, i think if u take away the shawd, then its a diff ballgame, but then wed also lose our good on road performance.

why would anyone care what the Acadia gets vs the RDX, 2 totally different vehicles. if we are going to match mpgs, they need to be in the same category, not just similar engine specs. hell we could line up a tacoma or a tundra and a v6 camry and see what happens

vrflyer

You guys keep comparing SUV's against CUV's, 2-dif cars all toghether, just drop it...

XLR8R

Oh all right then, I'll initiate "Godwin's Law" proceedings:

Anyone who disagrees with me is obviously a brown-shirted Nazi.

There, that should do it.

sl_33

Many years ago, a friend of mine purchased some sort of gas guzzling pickup loaded to the hilt with every feature you can imagine. Someone asked him about how he could afford the gas for it and the answer was simple.....if you can afford the car, you can afford the gas.

In my opinion, same goes for the RDX. If I was concerned about fuel economy, I would have purchased a Prius or at least something that doesn't suck up Premium. I have no idea what my RDX averages on fuel because I never check it. Don't get me wrong....I'm all for saving a few bucks on gas when I can, but you have to realize going in that you're buying the RDX for performance or features or whatever and not because you're going to be worried about an extra $10 a week on gas. If you can afford $35k for a car, I hope you can afford a few dollars to keep it fueled up, otherwise you're shopping out of your league. Isn't this how the whole mortgage crisis got started?

H1K1F1

Well, that's the problem. There's no widely-accepted criterion for distinguishing SUVs and CUVs. Hell, Infiniti and Acura call the EX35 and RDX SUVs in some of their print materials. To, me they're little more than AWD 5 door hatchbacks. And, to me, that's a good thing!

As an alternative to HP and TQ, it could be interesting to include mean 0-60 and 5-60 times from a set of magazine and web site road tests.

MMike1981

exactly.

-----
i think i was a bit harsh in my last reply...sorry man!

wwest

I would own an RXh today had they not gone for HP/torque rather than FE. But life is full of compromises so I still have my '01 AWD RX300. But when the Mercury Mariner Hybrid gets VSC......

sl_33

But very few of us buy a vehicle with only one criteria in mind.

--

True enough. And obviously fuel economy is a consideration in any vehicle purchase. But I still contend that the typical RDX buyer is not out looking for optimum fuel economy. It probably doesn't even crack the top ten items in most buyers' criteria. So what if some other vehicles in its class get a little bit better mileage? You're still talking about a difference of maybe a few hundred dollars a year....and if a few hundred dollars a year makes or breaks you, then you should probably be shopping for an entirely different type of vehicle. It may be interesting to see if the Lexus or whathaveyou is better or worse on gas, but it certainly doesn't make me wish for a second that I had purchased a different car.

You bought a turbo. Use it and stop worrying about the cost of gas everytime you hammer down on the pedal.

XLR8R

Somewhere along the way my original point became obscured and was morphed into hand-wringing over fuel economy in a turbo-boosted performance vehicle.

For clarity, here is my point:

The RDX is perceived as somewhat inefficient now. Apparently some reviewers expected CR-V economy and early advertising contributed to that. But the RDX is as efficient and mostly more efficient than anything similar to it in the broadest sense: power, drivetrain and body style.

Beyond the very small field of RDX direct competition -- and broadly into the realm of any people mover that generally qualifies as a tall wagon, cross-over, SUV type thing with 50/50 AWD -- there is no vehicle that matches the RDX power and returns significantly better fuel economy. Quite a few are significantly worse.

Morehp

Oh so true!

KraZy007

I'm VERY disappointed with the fuel economy. My 911 with a 3.6 liter flat six gets better mileage. Weird.

heffergm

How can anyone, having bought the vehicle, claim disappointment over the fuel economy and not expect people to think them a complete moron?

There's a big sticker in the window of every new vehicle. It rather clearly states that in EPA testing loops, observed mileage for City and Highway driving were 17/22.

So aside from admitting you can't read and shouldn't be buying a new car at all, what did you expect, that the EPA figures were blatant lies and everything would be great because your 4 cylinder turbocharged 4000lb car really COULD get 30mpg?

I'm convinced this country is going to hell in a handbasket, and the current mortgage situation goes a long way towards proving it. People being upset over fuel economy figures they were told to expect before buying the car cement it.

catnippants

Ehem....speaking from the moron's perspective, I suspect that many folks bought the car anyway, even though the fuel eco numbers were lower than they wanted to see. Not liking the numbers doesn't necessarily mean they went into the purchase with their eyes closed, and it sure as hell doesn't make them a moron.

Turn the question around....is anyone HAPPY with the fuel economy they are getting? I suspect several people would say 'for the performance I get and compared to other vehicles in it's class, yes'....but if you ask them if they would have liked to have seen more, I suspect they'd also say yes. I still say in this day and age, we should be able to tweak more eco out of a 4 banger turbo, and it should run fine on regular gas...

Mike

MMike1981

would i like to see more...... um, NO.

perfectly happy all the way around.

its really plain and simple, people's expectations are alot diff than reality. and, if gas was cheaper like closer to 2 bucks, this argument prob wouldnt even hold 1/2 the weight it does.

i think this situation is present because gas prices went so high and people expected more mileage for the money they were spending. alot of the argument has to do with return on investment. you spend close to 50 at the pump, guess what, you are going to want more MPG. but, flip it around, if you spent 30 bucks to fill this truck up, i think it would be a different story because 30 bucks is possibly more justified by the performance the RDX returns.....which brings back to some of our original points: if you are buying this truck, which is an Acura, a higher tier brand, its in the mid $30's bracket, why are people still bitching about fuel econ? it comes with the territory. acura has always liked premium fuel, and its a premium brand. theres a great model that gets good MPG - the CRV (which still gets about the same or LESS than a toyota v6) this is the option to the people who are more economical and have less cash to spend.

the fuel econ the rdx gets is damn good for what it does. to demand more from the powerplant, yea you could, but whats the point? to gain 1 maybe 2 more mpg? if we are talking 5+ gains, thats a different story...but everyone complaining about 1, 2, 3 + mpg who really cares if you average 22 or 24 on the highway...if you DO care, THAT much, then maybe this truck just wasnt right for you in the first place.

heffergm

So again.... they bought the car KNOWING what the numbers were. Complaining about it after the fact is so lame I can't begin to contemplate a method of measuring said lame-ness.

It's the same thing as going to buy a widget. Let's say our widget burns gasoline for some purpose. The widget is advertised as using X gallons of fuel over Y period of time. There's a big sticker on the side of the widget to this effect, with a caveat of about 5% variance up or down depending on various factors (wind speed, ambient temperature, and how many frogs are croaking in the amazon at any given point in time).

Now if someone reads that declaration of consumption, buys the widget, and THEN bitches about how much fuel it uses, they most certainly ARE a moron. If better consumption was that important to them, they should have shopped around for different widgets, because there's certainly not a lack of choice.

schen72

I'm averaging 22 MPG according to the MID, which I think is just fine for a 4000 lb vehicle with AWD. What's the problem?