Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Acura RDX Real World MPG

245

Comments

  • patentcad1patentcad1 Member Posts: 69
    >>I accept the 20-25 MPG I get on my Outback XT<<

    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!
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    You hit the nail on the head with the XT -- it's a narrow car, sized for the Euro and Japanese domestic markets. Many American buyers (myself included) think it's too small inside. I don't so much mind the front seat space since my wife and I are both in good shape and fit well (and dual zone climate control keeps her content), but the rear seats are tight in legroom. Fortunately, I don't often have passengers back there, and the ones I do carry have even smaller cars! The Outback line is definitely narrow for it's class. It's very similar to our TSX in size, which is the Euro/Japan Accord. Both are noticeably smaller than the American Accord.

    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!
  • patentcad1patentcad1 Member Posts: 69
    I'm with you on the shorter RDX cargo area. Noticed that while comparing the cars. In the end the passenger space/comfort swayed me on the RDX. Off road? To my wife if it's not on her GPS, it's 'off road' - which is essentially mall/ski area parking lots. As for cargo - nothing a Thule rack won't solve. Mission accomplished. My RDX is fully Thule'd as of last weekend. A touch of wind noise perhaps but nothing the satellite radio or my iPod won't drown out! I attached the Thule load bars to the Acura factory roof rack and lost the factory cross bars (they look sleek but are a huge pain to reconfigure from bikes to skis to a cargo pod, Thule is WAY easier).

    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.
  • patentcad1patentcad1 Member Posts: 69
    After the last tankful I filled up - and started hammering the car a bit in local driving. *BOOM* right down to 14.5 mpg average on the computer. But tomorrow and Sunday I'll be doing some short highway trips (total of 175 mile or so over two days) and the mpg's will probably bounce back to 19mpg by Sunday. By the way hammering this car is BIG FUN!!!

    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.
  • suvguy2005suvguy2005 Member Posts: 19
    "I do think Acura could have done a better job on the powertrain, since other vehicles manage it. It doesn't matter what class of vehicle; if competitors can get equal or better performance and better MPG, that tells me Acura could have done better too."

    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.
  • patentcad1patentcad1 Member Posts: 69
    >>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.
  • stuh1stuh1 Member Posts: 1
    We have had our RDX for 1 1/2 weeks. I was concerned about MPG. We put 800 miles on it the first week. On a trip from Philadelphia to the Berkshires and Vt. we averaged 25.8 MPG. We used cruise control and speeds were between 50-65 mph. The overall MPG for the whole trip was slightly under 23 MPG. The car is comfortable, handles well and is fun. All of the gagets in the tech package are easy to use . We find new functions every time we play with the buttons.
  • patentcad1patentcad1 Member Posts: 69
    For every heavy footed person whining about the RDX's 'poor' fuel economy, how many happy campers are there like the one above getting 23mpg with 25+ on the hwy? They don't post on the Internet much...
  • mountsnowmountsnow Member Posts: 2
    I have 3400 miles on my RDX and i'm disappointed at the mileage (18.6mpg overall). My MDX (just turned it in) gave me 18.2mpg overall at the same mileage (yes I keep track of this stuff).

    I got the RDX to be a save energy---but considering the gas mileage I might have opted for the bigger car.
  • mountsnowmountsnow Member Posts: 2
    RDX--I'm geeting a tad over 24 on the highway---but I was with the '03 MDX also.........
  • patentcad1patentcad1 Member Posts: 69
    Anyone who sees 19 city 24 hwy on the EPA sticker who is disappointed @ 18.6 mpg overall may not be familar with this trend with 95% of the SUV's on the market. Tough to get great fuel economy (particularly around town) from any SUV with AWD. 23-24mpg on the hwy isn't really too bad...
  • mdrdxmdrdx Member Posts: 2
    i got 22mgp at 55mph and 19mgp at 75mph on hwy. no complaints on mgp ;) . i drive a bit agressive and keep tire pressure at 32psi :shades: .
    rdx is only ugly, but very good engine :D .
  • patentcad1patentcad1 Member Posts: 69
    My RDX is beeuuuuteeeful. I wonder what's wrong with yours?
  • jere2jere2 Member Posts: 5
  • tidestertidester Member Posts: 10,059
    Congratulations! Be sure to post your mileage as soon as you have numbers. :)

    tidester, host
  • patentcad1patentcad1 Member Posts: 69
    By the way all my mpg experience on this car - generally 16-19mpg is with a Thule roof rack. I'd say you can easily add +2mpg to that once you subtract the significant NON aerodynamic roof factor. I'll take the rack off soon and let you know. I'd anticipate going to 18-20mpg+ immediately once the roof only has the side rails from the Acura roof rack instead of a Thule rack, fairing and bike carriers....

    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.
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    In my experience, smaller streamlined vehicles take the most hit from roof racks. Wagons and SUVs take less of a hit because their drag is already high. With a large separated base flow and wake on most wagons and SUVs, the roof rack is very much a secondary factor. MPG on my last 3-4 wagons has not been impacted by the rack, not to the point I can measure it. However, racks have impacted MPG on coupes and sedans I have owned, sometimes significantly.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Interesting insight - my minivan only got hammered about 1 mpg on a long road trip I did with a 17' foot canoe on top of 78" wide rack.

    I still take it off when I'm not hauling stuff.
  • patentcad1patentcad1 Member Posts: 69
    I did an informal survey of cycling enthusiasts on a cycling forum and the consensus is that roof racks lead to a 2mpg+ reduction in fuel economy - more when bicycles are being carried on the roof too...
  • exmechanic1exmechanic1 Member Posts: 1
    I have no idea how some people are driving their RDX's, but they must be babying them to get 25 mpg! My Mercedes E320 gets 23 mpg on my route to work (combo freeway and city), my Porsche C4S gets 19 mpg on the same route, and my RDX with 1200 miles on it gets 16.5 mpg also on the same route. It makes no sense why the smallest engine gets the worst gas mileage!

    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.
  • patentcad1patentcad1 Member Posts: 69
    The curb weight of 3900 lbs and the tall (read non-aerodynamic) SUV shape may have something to do with this. This car is an ESSS UUUU VEEEE boys.

    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.
  • patentcad1patentcad1 Member Posts: 69
    And this notion that Acura 'messed up' with the power to weight ratio on the car is based on WHAT?

    &#149; 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.

    &#149; 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.

    &#149; 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.
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    The RDX is 400 lbs heavier than a CR-V EX-L AWD and 300 lbs heavier than the Rav4 Ltd V6 AWD. Given that the vehicles are more or less the same size, I think the extra lbs on the RDX are certainly open for criticism. There are a few extra luxury features, perhaps more sound insulation, the SH-AWD system, and the turbo/IC on the RDX that probably contribute to the extra lbs. But it still is a porker (and one could criticize the engine choice and AWD system if they really are so heavy). But all of the new luxo crossovers are overweight for some reason. I would love to talk with one of the auto engineers and see where all the weight is coming from. It certainly doesn't "flatter" the concept of the CUV...
  • patentcad1patentcad1 Member Posts: 69
    The RDX is heavier than the lightest vehicles in its class, but substantially lighter than the heaviest (probalby the Ford Edge @ 4500 lbs). The RDX is closer to +200lbs over the RAV 4 (not +300) by the way. I think it's +225 or so.

    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?
  • carlitos92carlitos92 Member Posts: 458
    I wouldn't use the Edge as a baseline for comparison for ANYTHING in its class; it is by far the fatty of the bunch, and apparently a fine example of how NOT to build a crossover. It's not far off the weight of my old 4x4 F-150 which handled like, well - a truck. Consider all the airbags and leather you want, the Edge needs a crash diet if it is ever gonna be the benchmark for American crossovers.
  • xpanderxpander Member Posts: 1
    I have the Rav4 V6 AWD with 3rd row, that probably adds another 100 lb to it and my worse mileage was 23 MPG. On the interstate I can get 27+ MPG. Hardly the 2-3 MPG you are talking of.

    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. :cry:
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Small engine or large, turbo or normally aspirated, fuel economy is directly affected by power that is being used. Nothing is free, power certainly isn't.

    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.
  • patentcad1patentcad1 Member Posts: 69
    Here's 1900 miles of real world experience with my new RDX on mpg:

    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).
  • garyw4garyw4 Member Posts: 4
    I gotta wonder how efficient Acura's SH-AWD system is. AFAIK, none of their SH-AWD vehicles gets very good mpg. So combine a small turbo engine that's always working, plenty of weight and an inefficient drivetrain...

    Maybe Honda can improve the mpg before they drop SH-AWD into the next TL/Accord.
  • pommipommi Member Posts: 7
    Today I just test-drove a loaner RDX Tech from the local Acura dealership, on mostly freeway, and very light-footed at 75-85mph: 20.6 mpg. I had the feeling to get a bit better gas mileage when using S mode and paddle shifters, vs the automatic. Gas mileage quickly went into the single-digits on the trip computer when accelerating. Just cruising on the freeway should probably comes out at 20-25mpg. If it weren't for the worse gas mileage compared to my A4, I'd be buying an RDX in an instant.
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    I think the SH system is very heavy, which doesn't help. They are primarily using SH-AWD to compensate for the understeer dynamics of the FWD configuration, but you pay for it in weight. Any time you take a FWD platform with a transverse engine and turn it into an AWD vehicle, the packaging gets inefficient and the weight shoots up. If Honda is serious about AWD vehicles, they need to develop a new platform. Only then would they truly see the overall benefits of AWD. Right now, I'd say it's a wash -- you have to trade light weight to get good handling. Can't have both.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    What vehicle(s) are you comparing them to? Acura RL has surprised quite a few people with its mileage. Although rated "only" 18/26 mpg (do people still believe in EPA estimates?), it has been easy to beat the estimates. Even magazines are reporting reasonably good overall mileage with that car.

    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.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    SH-AWD is no heavier than competing AWD systems. In fact, it might be one of the lightest, at an estimated 220 lb. And I don't see how transverse layout w/AWD would result in more weight and worse packaging compared to longitudinal layout. Audis, Infinitis and BMWs aren't quite light weight either.

    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).
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    My point is that the RDX would almost surely be lighter if it was not based on a FWD platform with a transverse engine. Nothing about that drivetrain orientation is beneficial in AWD applications -- it only contains penalties. And if it was relieved of the FWD bias with its inherent understeer, the need for the "SH" aspect of the AWD system would go away in large part. I think the RDX would be a better, simpler, lighter vehicle if it started with a clean sheet of paper platform -- not being limited by Honda's reliance on FWD platform engineering.

    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.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Honda has CR-V which is about 400 lb lighter, also FWD/AWD set up. OTOH, RWD based X3 is heavier than RDX. So, I don't see your point as being valid. I am sure Acura did as much weight trimming as possible, but features, chassis engineering (for ride/handling quality etc, all add weight). Even BMW 325xi wagon (2006 model) tipped the scale at 3800 lb.

    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.
  • patentcad1patentcad1 Member Posts: 69
    All of this hand wringing over the mpgs of a small SUV seems to be a red herring to me. It's costing Acura sales, keeping people out of a car they'd generally love, and it might have kept me away too - except I NEEDED a car within a week when my wife's car was totaled. So yes, I overpaid - by $1500-$2000 or so - but in a way I'm glad, because after two months in the RDX it's the coolest overall vehicle I've ever owned. Loving the drive, handling, utility, SH-AWD - and the car gets 17-18mpg around town and 21-22mpg on the hwy. Which may be less than what I hoped for, but is essentially identical to the Volvo Cross Country wagon it replaced. The Acura is WAY more fun to drive, has considerably more advanced safety features and has a nicer interior. The Volvo did have a nicer ride (softer). But I'll trade that fot the incredible handling/performance the RDX delivers. Just a pleasure/blast to drive. Thule rack equipped, this car can handle just about all my utilitarian needs. It even will tow my motorcycle on a trailer in the future if I ever decide to do that. That is all I personally need. I'm an urban cowboy with bicycles, skis and a motorcycle, not a Ford Expeditiion dude with a 25' boat to tow. You know, a guy who would purchased an AWD station wagon back in 1998. They don't really make those anymore, do they? Besides Volvo I mean.

    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.
  • mazdaman65mazdaman65 Member Posts: 12
    I'm right there with you on loving this car. I'm not a big car guy, but I can't wait until the weekend when my wife lets me drive it. While we won't use the RDX to pull or haul stuff, it is a nice combo of a luxury car and SUV.

    If folks are going to get uptight about a couple of MPGs, then the car is not for them.
  • patentcad1patentcad1 Member Posts: 69
    I'm writing this from Virginia (I live in NY, we're here for Thanksgiving weekend). The RDX got 22.4 mpg on the trip down - that's with 3 people (my wife and I and our 13 year old daughter), all our stuff (the back was full) our 80lb. dog and a full Thule rack with a road bicycle strapped to the roof. At speeds of 65 to 80mph.

    All things considered, that's fine in my view. Better than I expected.
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    22 mpg is not bad at all, especially considering the load. Hope you're enjoying the visit (I live in Williamsburg VA).
  • patentcad1patentcad1 Member Posts: 69
    Here's my take on RDX mpgs after two months, 2500 mi:

    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.
  • calhoncalhon Member Posts: 87
    "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?"

    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.
  • cadreamncadreamn Member Posts: 56
    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.

    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.
  • sssfegysssfegy Member Posts: 132
    "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"

    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.
  • beliasbelias Member Posts: 316
    Just an fyi if it hasn't already been mentioned, but I thought I read somewhere that the EPA estimates will change for 2008 to better reflect "real-world" numbers. However CAFE standards will still rely on the old method of calculation. The kicker is that the "revised" EPA numbers are supposed to be 15% to 30% LESS than what is currently stated. Ironically, the hybrids are the ones to suffer the most (i.e. closer to 30% than 15%). So, a car posting 15/20 mpg could be revised to something like 13/17 or 11/14. Considering that the RDX is estimated at 18/23 (I may be incorrect on that, but I believe that is what I saw), we can expect to see a conservative recalculation of the EPA to be 15/19. My guess is that, from what others have already mentioned as their real-world driving experiences, the 15/19 mpg is actually lower than real-world numbers, but at least our expectations will be properly set!
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    The RDX is officially rated at 19/23.

    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.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    I have a feeling Honda/Acuras will be among the least affected by EPA rating changes. While I couldn't beat EPA estimate in an RDX while it was with me but it was close, and the overall trip computer reading (had to be mixed driving) was over 20 mpg.

    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.
  • jhufferjhuffer Member Posts: 2
    Here's one for the record books. we purchased a '07 Honda Odyssey on 11/4/2006. got 13mpg city/ 19 hwy. the User Interface was way too confusing. Hated that thing. the tranny was extremely sluggish (you had to wait 3-5 sec from shifting into drive from reverse for it to think about responding and moving. After 18 days I complained to the dealer-no response-so proceeded to American Honda--no help there either.

    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! :cry:

    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!
  • stathisstathis Member Posts: 32
    I just bought an RDX (base model, $32.6K). I got about 15.9 mpg, 50/50 city/hwy. (my BMW 540iA V-8 did 17 mpg and I was flooring it!)
    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
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    I don't think there is a significant break in effect on MPG, however, I would recommend that you fill the tank and reset your odometer to start a fresh MPG average. New cars typically undergo a lot of idling and low speed driving during prep and delivery. This is likely biasing your average down. If you want an accurate track of the MPG, reset the odo and start with a fresh average that covers your typical driving style.

    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
  • stathisstathis Member Posts: 32
    It is getting better already. 3rd tank gave 21 mpg overall (50/50 city/hwy). So it is improving rapidly, and I am much more optimistic now.
Sign In or Register to comment.