Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Right. And I accept the 18-22mpg on get on my RDX. For a car that's considerably bigger (passenger space, cargo room is slightly smaller) and 400 lbs. heavier yet similar in performance. Sounds about right to me.
I came VERY close to buying an Outback XT. I bought the RDX despite my aversion to SUV's. Two days before I was to take delivery on a new XT I spoke to two owners who had owned XT's for 1-2 years. I asked them how they liked the car. When people ask ME how I like my TL I usually reply 'best car I've ever owned'. These two people replied 'hem, haw, it's a bit too small'. That underscored by biggest fear about the Subaru vs. the Acura. And the RDX actually out handles an XT, which isn't what you'd expect. That SHAWD is something special for sure.
At the end of the day room for my family/comfort on long trips became more important that 5 extra cubic feet (the difference in cargo space on the Outback over the RDX) and 2 extra mpg. Those new Subaru Outbacks are gorgeous - but in my estimation they're not quite on the level of auto schwag with an RDX. Very subjective of course. I was quite impressed with the XT Limited in every way - but too damn narrow. The RDX has 3-5" more shoulder room. When you have an 80lb Golden Retriever who wants to go EVERYWHERE with you, that's a factor : ).
Thrilled with the RDX so far. But the XT was a nice car. Hard decision, but very comfortable with the Acura. Hope your XT makes you happy!
The XT is a fairly refined and nicely styled car inside and out, but the RDX is a bit nicer all around (schwag is the word), and the RDX's handling is notably better. I attribute much of the handling to the suspension differences between the vehicles -- RDX is tuned like a sport sedan, while the XT is tuned for ride and has a lot of suspension travel. I am mixed on the SH-AWD -- in my opinion, it simply corrects the understeer tendencies due to the RDX's fwd-biased drivetrain. If the XT had a better suspension, it's rwd-bias would probably negate the need for SH-AWD. Actually, the Legacy GT wagon is probably a better comparison to the RDX in terms of handling.
In terms of acceleration and MPG, the RDX and XT are very close -- close enough to not matter so much (assuming EPA MPG numbers for both vehicles). MSRP pricing is similar, though the Outback can easily be had for $1000 under invoice. Until RDX pricing loosens up, it is effectively a more expensive vehicle even when you consider the extra schwag.
My remaining nitpicks with the RDX are the short cargo length behind the rear seats and behind the front seats when rears are folded -- roughly 8" shorter than my XT both ways, and the AWD system. Being reactive, I know the RDX's AWD system won't be as tenacious in snow or offroad as the proactive system on the XT. Neither of these nitpicks matter for my everyday driving, but as ski season approaches, cargo space and deep snow capability are on my mind. That's where a few $K off the RDX price would really sway me!
Last night I threw my RDX into a wet corner in heavy rain @ 45 mph and waited for the rear end to break loose - it started to for .5 second - and the SH AWD kicked RIGHT in and sucked the car back on track. You gotta love that computerized AWD technology. I don't think it will be too long before you can by an RDX for $2K or more off list price. Oddly the techno package car is hotter - and that's because people want bluetooth and Nav. I have that on my TL - and it's actually more important to my wife. Perfect, because she inherited the TL. Now she holds the schwagest car in the office title @ her company : ). Again, @ $33,500 the base car is the deal - and if you can buy it for <$31,500 it's a steal in my opinion.
So if you do local urban/suburban driving with a heavy foot, this car is a bit of a gas hog. But it does even out when you drive more moderately/cruise on the hwy. It will be interesting to see how this shakes out over the first year. I suspect at the end of the day this is a 19mpg car most of the time. And I hear the old CRV - a car with far less power/weight etc - is a 21mpg car in the long run from a couple of owners. So all things considered that's not unreasonable.
I agree. We got a 2005 CRV last year and my wife is already drooling over the RDX. I calculate the milage at every fill up and we have consistantly gotten 25mpg(mixed) and 29mpg(mostly highway) in our CRV. The RDX has the same motor but with turbos so why the 10+mpg hit? It should be getting at least 25mph on the highway and 22mpg mixed. 14-16mpg will keep us waiting until they get it right. The 300+hp V8 FX45 gets better milage for crying out loud.
Here's where perception and reality diverge completely. Comparing a 3700 lb. CRV with 160 hp to the RDX's 3900lb 240 hp configuration you would expect an mpg 'hit'. But it's NOT 10mpg. I'm averaging 19mpg in mixed driving, so it's much closer to 5 mpg. Another long time CRV owner I personally know regularly averages 22mpg, not 25 mpg. So driving habits are a major factor in all of this, and they vary wildly. The FX 45 'gets better mileage' - oh really? Does it? Back that up with REAL WORLD observations and you'll see that's probably hooey. Consumer reports recently compared a bunch of similar cars from the Audi Q7 and FX-THIRTY five to the Outback VDC and A4/BMW AWD wagons. They all averaged 15-21 mpg in mixed real world driving. So the RDX is towards the upper range of similar vehicles and essentiall better handling/faster than just about any of them.
Here's an interesting aside: in trying to determine the fuel economy on my new RDX, I started to ask about two dozen people what the average mpg on their personal vehicle was. How many seemed to really know? 2 or 3. So I'd say 90% of the world doesn't really know what their car gets for fuel economy. They're mostly guessing. I'm not.
I got the RDX to be a save energy---but considering the gas mileage I might have opted for the bigger car.
rdx is only ugly, but very good engine .
tidester, host
All things considered: roof rack, unbroken in car - I think the RDX will average about 20+ mpg when all things are said and done. Which for a small high performance SUV (and it remains an SUV) - is actually quite good. Compare it to the REAL WORLD mileage Figs from other AWD wagons and SUVs. None of them are exactly fuel efficient like sedans and coupes can be.
I still take it off when I'm not hauling stuff.
I noticed that on another trip that was mostly flat for 60 miles on the freeway, I could get 19.5 mpg doing 68 mph average. On that same stretch, my Mercedes gets 26 mpg @ 80 mph and the Porsche gets 27 mpg @ 80 mph. It's a good thing I was driving at night or I'd get run over by the other California drivers by driving that slow!
So does going 65 mph get me the extra 5 mpg that others are getting? That's crazy!
I've been working on cars for about 30 years and I can't see how Acura could have messed up the RDX's engine/weight combination so badly - unless they didn't test the RDX that well in the real world. Once you hit a hill of any sort on the freeway, the mpg dives down to well under 10 mpg when you try to maintain the same speed. No amount of break-in will solve that problem, especially when you consider that modern-day Japanese engine manufacturing basically delivers a broken-in engine to the consumer. It's not like the old days when the engines were rough and burned a lot of oil at break-in.
Cross over THIS Acura. Well, OK, with the handling it crosses over something. Fun to drive. But still a sport ute no matter how you slice it. This is a shock to people? Not me.
• The curb weight of 3900 lbs is quite light for a small SUV. Consider: the new Ford Edge weighs more than 600lbs MORE. The RDX is an AWD small SUV. Yet it's only 400lbs heavier than my FWD Acura TL. That doesn't seem unreasonable.
• The car goes 0-60 in 6.3-7.3 secs (depending on which major magazine road test you believe). How much more power could the car have? What's wrong with that power to weight ratio? The only SUV's I could find that are faster are the Rav 4 (6 cylinder, slightly faster, but the handling blows) and $50K-$80K Porsches, Mercedes and Audi SUVs. My car cost $33K.
• Despite this the RDX still gets 15-22mpg. Which for the type of car it is, isn't bad.
You want fuel economy? Get a Honda CR-V. It has 90 less HP, a far simpler AWD system, rides better, has more cargo space and might suit the style of some of the hand wringers here. I'll be carving up my local Hudson Valley roads in my RDX with a big smile on my face. Oh yes, the little mpg computer readout will NOT be showing on my speedo. I'm resigned to 17mpg, maybe moving up to a combined 19mpg when I do more hwy driving. I can live with that. You want to get REAL? Start comparing that to most of the SUV's out there. They're worse.
The consumer expectations for the mpgs on this car seemed based on unrealistic assumptions and comparisons to non SUVs. In fairness any negative buzz is exacerabted by the turbo's tendency to guzzle gas if you have a perpetually heavy foot or drive in very tight city/urban driving environments all the time - much more so than a naturally aspirated car might.
My guess is the weight is coming from the RDX's incredible rigidity. The car is built like a tank. I'd trade off an extra 100-200lbs for that any day. To really get the mpg's up on the car you'd have to address the drivetrain. At the end of the day would it really make that much difference? I dont' think so. The RAV 4 gets maybe 2-3mpg better fuel economy than the RDX with more HP. Too bad Acura couldn't squeeze THAT motor into the RDX, eh?
The problem with smaller engines is that they have to work harder and it is a known fact that turbo engines are not really fuel efficient when reving and boosting high. Good examples of smaller vs. bigger is the 2.5l vs. 3.0l X3 or the 2.4l vs. 3.5l Rav4. Both engines get similar mileages.
Having said this, when I kick the Rav4 around town I will get sub 20 mileage too according to the trip computer. You need to cruise in 5th to get 25 MPG or better.
Still looking for a nice car for my wife. Guess the RDX is out of the picture.
That said, I was looking at reported mileage by owners of various vehicles, and here is what I found:
RAV4 V6/4WD
EPA Rating (City/Hwy/Combined): 21/28/24 mpg
Reported (City 80%): 16.0 mpg
Reported (Hwy 74%): 24.6 mpg
CRV I4/4WD
EPA Rating (City/Hwy/Combined): 22/27/24 mpg
Reported (City 83%): 20.3 mpg
Reported (Hwy 80%): 27.9 mpg
The reason I bring this up is to point out how meaningless EPA estimate has become. On spec sheet, it would appear RAV4 V6 is about as good as CR-V I-4 (or RAV4 I-4), but then, where are the results?
Patentcad1, it will be nice if you and other RDX owners will sign up to share mpg numbers on the fueleconomy.org website. The website lacks important details like miles driven, average speed etc, but still provides the best real life numbers.
Generally 16-18mpg. I live in a very hilly semi rural area and mostly drive the car locally. As soon as I factor in substantial hwy driving that will start going over 20-21mpg. The car seems to get 21-23mpg on the highway if I drive 65-80mph using the cruise control. My car has the factory roof rack (I currently only have the side rails on) which probably costs me 1mpg or so, more when the Thule rack is strapped on.
My general impression is that if you live in a typical suburban area with a fair bit of hwy driving you may be happy with the RDX mpgs (the car will probably average close to 20mpg under those conditions). All that depends on your expectations. The RAV 4 is a nice car, but would I want a car that gets a few mpg more and give up the RDX's wonderful mojo? Not me.
On the other hand the RDX is a stiff riding car to be sure. Not for everyone. Really loving the car so far. Drove my 2004 TL the other night (which has a much softer ride). The TL is really faster. But I like the RDX cabin/driving experience more after two months. Talk to me a year from now. But the car is doing what I need it to. Swallows up my road bicycle with BOTH WHEELS ON with the seats folded down. Really suits my lifestyle. I'm the guy they wanted to sell this car to. I feel like I got an SUV and didn't give up that sporty handling/drive that I liked in the TL. The RDX actually feels sportier to me (even though it's a bit slower). The whole SH-AWD/great handling/turbo/paddle shifter thing really works for me.
It would appear there aren't enough customers like me out there. Oh well : ).
By the way, I've read a few reports about body panel issues on RDX's. My car seems excellent (no rattles, etc.). Tight as a drum. No issues so far.
I don't think Acura missed the mpg mark on the RDX. Bigger SUV's are generally even worse on gas. Some of the competition may do 10-20% on mpgs - but they're all considerably slower and can't handle like an RDX. Life is a series of compromises. The RDX is just another. By the way, my RDX mpg is almost identical to my pal's Audi All Road (4000 lb. AWD A-6 based wagon).
Maybe Honda can improve the mpg before they drop SH-AWD into the next TL/Accord.
However, boxy vehicles like RDX and MDX aren't going to return as good mileage. Remember, its not in the turbo, its in the amount of power one uses. It doesn't come for free. Turbo in RDX is delivering as much or better torque than a 3.5/V6, can't expect it to deliver fuel economy of a 2.3-liter engine.
To provide a perspective, BMW 328xi Coupe is 231 lb heavier than 328i Coupe (3582 lb versus 3351 lb). Or you could compare these three:
Acura RDX - 3968 lb (EPA rated: 19/23 mpg)
BMW X3 - 4067 lb (EPA rated: 16/23 mpg)*
Infiniti FX35 - 4268 lb (EPA rated: 16/21 mpg)
The Acura is 100 lb lighter than X3 (* 2006 model), and 300 lb lighter than FX. All three vehicles seem to offer similar interior volume, although FX is larger on the outside. BTW, the FX is also rated worse than the much larger Acura MDX (17/22 mpg).
Yeah, the competition is also heavy (with some notable exceptions in the 3600 lb range) but that doesn't mean Acura couldn't have done better.
Usually, in platform sharing the "Bottomend" vehicles suffer in terms of weight. TSX would be a classic example, sharing platform with RL, as would be looking at a car like 350Z which shares platform with likes of Infiniti FX/M at the heavier end. If RDX were based off MDX platform, I suspect it would have been even heavier, unless it already is.
I can't convince anyone. I can only tell it like I see it. If the car sucked, I'd be here telling you. It doesn't. It rocks. Which is essentially what most of the road tests have said. But nobody on the Internet seems to believe it. Go figure.
If folks are going to get uptight about a couple of MPGs, then the car is not for them.
All things considered, that's fine in my view. Better than I expected.
The car really does OK on the hwy, where it seems to get 20-23mpg unless you go 90mph. Then around town it's more like 18-19mpg if you drive conservatively, 16-18 if you don't, and 15 mpg if you hammer the crap out of the car. The worst I've done on a tank is 15.5mpg, and I was driving the car locally in sport mode with the paddle shifters for most of that tank. You're not going to drive the car like that much of the time, and it's likely that you'll be doing some hwy in addition to your local driving. If you do it's a car that will deliver 20mpg+ in mixed driving. If you don't do hardly any hwy driving you're mostly going to get 17-18mpg.
It ain't no Prius, but that's better than most SUVs in real world driving, and actually fairly reprentative of similar cars like the CX-7. Except the RDX blows most of those other small SUV's or crossovers into the weeds on a performance basis. So pick your poison. The ride could be plusher, some don't like the interior, yada yada. I'm happier with my RDX every day. Glad to hear it's safe, glad to hear Honda came out with some aggressive financing. Add a better lease program and the car will sell.
Here's something to consider.
Many people who select the RAV4 V6 over the I4 do so because they intend to use the extra performance. They carry more passengers or cargo, travel in more hilly terrain, etc.; or it fits better with their more aggressive, fun-loving driving style.
Even those without prior intent will end up using the added power. For example, they can pass in tight situations without the annoying wait for larger gaps in traffic. Plus the added power is seductive.
The I4 drivers, on the other hand, are likely to be more frugal. In addition, aggressive tendencies are constrained by the vehicles' performance. They can't accelerate as much, even when they want to.
This means that RAV4 V6 owners overall are driving harder - higher loads, accelerations and speeds - than CR-V I4 or RAV4 I4 owners. Hence the larger discrepancy between the EPA and owner-reported fuel economy numbers.
Do you envision you'd have the same opinion with a 2007 TL v. RDX? - my understanding is that 2007 has same engine a bit softer ride and upgraded gadgets to be comparable with RDX (except for memory seats a few other items.) I'm considering both (with Nav/Tech) and have only had brief test drives so far. Conscious of the obvious differences in MPG, utility, etc. - but curious about longer term fun-factors. FYI I like a sporty ride - coming from a 1997 Audi A4 quattro MT. Need AT this time (but hoping to retain some manual "feel" with steptronic shifting, etc.) and more backseat room. Also looking at BMWs (328xi, X3 3.0si) but think 328xi backseat may not provide enough "more space" - I recall you may have been a former BMW owner too? Thx.
I wuld not put the CX7 in the same sentence regarding performance. They are both neck to neck, and the bggest difference in numbers is the stopping power of the CX7 over the RDX, and plus it does not scream "Japanese" on styling, great CUV, but not to be best value in class.
I have about 600 miles on mine, with about 80% highway / 20% city driving. So far I am getting right around 22mpg, which I am very pleased with (slightly better than my previous car). I got 23mpg on a ski trip last week, almost all highway miles.
I have been at 24+ mpg over 7K miles in my TL with 55-60% city driving, and actually went 431 miles on 14.2 gallons on a highway at ~70 mph recently which is better than EPA estimate. I believe it is rated 28 mpg on highway, but my calculations shows 30.3 mpg and the trip computer was also at 30 mpg. (I have observed a 0.5-0.7 mpg difference between my own calculations and trip computer).
My 1998 Accord was rated 23/30 mpg, and it is very easy to get 32 mpg at ~70-75 mph. I get 26 mpg in it with 50-60% city driving.
Ten weeks to the day I am back at the dealer to see what can be done to get me out of it.... They eventually came back with an offer of putting us in the RDX with no money out of my pocket. We had just purchased 3 new hondas within 7 months--no more cash (2 Fits and an Odyssey). Keep in mind I wanted the MDX '07 Sport/Tech package when we got the Odyssey because of price. Guess what--I am paying the price of the MDX with my Pontiac neg equity and not driving the MDX like I wanted--GO FIGURE!
In spite of the no power lift gate, no driver memory seat, no auto on headlights (pontiac had that) and my Bluetooth phone won't work with it--at least the mpg is better and it is a very very fun car to drive. I get 18.5 in town and 20.5 hiway. I have 575 miles on it. hey beats 13! the price on the RDX tech package with the protection package was $33611 add to that my double negative equity of $15000 from the Odyssey and I am at the price of the MDX I wanted. OUCH!!! :sick:
I just have to keep it LONGER than I have it financed for! Normally I do. However, if they get a 07 MDX sport/tech in the used car dept....I am there--especially if it is White or RED! My RDX-White is beautiful!
15.9 mpg is indeed very low, but I will wait until after the break-in period as others mentioned here.
The fact that the break-in period makes a big difference on fuel consumption is not a positive sign. It may denote that major friction has to be overcomed during the first couple thousand miles or so.
I was surprised a bit to see the recommendation in the owner's manual to slowly break it in. Most newer cars have no such requirement.
Also, the need for synthetic oil (Mobile 1) is another indication that the engine is ultra-sensitive. What's the cost for an oil change?
'07 RDX base, Grey-bronze on black, Los Angeles,CA
My RDX has been giving 20-25mpg right from the beginning (very first tank was 22mpg). I have 1700 miles on it now. I do mostly highway driving (80%).
All the new cars I have owned have a break in period; in fact, I don't know of vehicles that don't have a break in period, do you? Normally you are supposed to go easy on the engine and brakes, and avoid traveling at constant speeds for too long.
Apparently the Acura dealers charge about $65 for an oil change on the RDX. If you do it yourself, the cost is about $26 for the oil and the filter.
Craig