| loriem |
When we dropped off my MDX at the dealer today we looked at the RDX. It doesn't seem to have good mileage.
Does anyone know why? It is smaller and has a smaller engine then the MDX so I thought it would be better with mileage. |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by loriem
When we dropped off my MDX at the dealer today we looked at the RDX. It doesn't seem to have good mileage.
Does anyone know why? It is smaller and has a smaller engine then the MDX so I thought it would be better with mileage.
The RDX is too heavy for a regular, smaller 4-cylinder engine. So Honda turbocharged the 4-cylinder. Thus the engine puts out more power than a normal 4-cylinder engine, but it also burns more gas.
And while the RDX is physically smaller than the current MDX, it's actually only about 13% lighter than the MDX!
IMHO, Acura should have put a V6 into the RDX. |
|
|
| eurohazard |
I think the turbo has a lot to do with it.
Take a 90's Corvette vs. a 90's Supra Turbo..........
Similar performance numbers, but the bigger engine Corvette got better gas mileage, in both EPA ratings and real world. |
|
|
| loriem |
| Thanks! Too bad because I was hoping it would be better on the mileage! |
|
|
| mrlegend |
Lot of people are wondering the same thing. It's a turo 4 cyl. I think it has to work to hard and they should have used a six, which will not fit! In addition, I think it's to expensive. Doubt I'll buy either it or another MDX. Might go for a CR-V but it might be underpowered.
Here is a lot of discussion.
http://rdx.acurazine.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2 |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by mrlegend
http://rdx.acurazine.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2
Thanks for the link. Found this interesting thread:
http://rdx.acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=294
Motor Trend's comparo had the RDX beating out a RAV4 Limited and a Mazda CX-7.
But the RAV4 was almost a full second faster from 0-60 (6.4 seconds compared to 7.3 of the RDX), 1.6 seconds faster in the quarter mile -- and has better fuel economy than the RDX, and does so on regular gas. Also stops 10 feet shorter than the RDX.
Obviously the RDX trumps the Toyota in handling. The two vehicles have very different purposes, that much is obvious. |
|
|
| loriem |
| I have to say - it was nice looking. |
|
|
| JerryinTO |
I'm just back from a trip from Toronto to Virginia Beach, almost 3500 kilometers ( 2,000 miles). The worst gas mileage I got was 17 mpg while driving around in Virginia Beach. The best was 23 driving from Washington D.C to Virginia Beach. Overall, 21 mpg, which I think is very good for a vehicle of the size and weight.
Jerry |
|
|
| carguy1234 |
quote:
Originally posted by mrlegend
...Might go for a CR-V but it might be underpowered.
Here is a lot of discussion.
http://rdx.acurazine.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2
For roughly the same price, you can get a RAV4 with ~100 more horsepower, 0-60 times more than 3.5 seconds faster, and basically the same gas mileage as the CR-V. And lots of room - much more than even an RDX
You'd have to be pretty die hard Honda to pick a CR-V over the new RAV4 I think. |
|
|
| mrlegend |
It's all just speculation at this point anyway. 07 CR-V has not been tested yet that I know of. My main point is that Honda/Acura seems to be chasing some of their supporters either away or down market with their new pricing structure.
If I thought a little SUV was worth $40,000, I would have bought an X5 when I got my MDX. As others have said, for Acura's new pricing catagory, I'll have to look elsewhere.
Actually, with our current cars, we aren't even close to really being in the market.
quote:
Originally posted by carguy1234
For roughly the same price, you can get a RAV4 with ~100 more horsepower, 0-60 times more than 3.5 seconds faster, and basically the same gas mileage as the CR-V. And lots of room - much more than even an RDX
You'd have to be pretty die hard Honda to pick a CR-V over the new RAV4 I think.
|
|
|
| vicpai |
quote:
Originally posted by carguy1234
For roughly the same price, you can get a RAV4 with ~100 more horsepower, 0-60 times more than 3.5 seconds faster, and basically the same gas mileage as the CR-V. And lots of room - much more than even an RDX
You'd have to be pretty die hard Honda to pick a CR-V over the new RAV4 I think.
.....many a times in supposedly intelligent earthly beings!! :eek:
.....YES, in the case of a CRV what you've said generally holds true except for price. The V6 RAV4 is several thousand more than a fully loaded CRV (24K vs. 28.5K similarly equipped). In addition to that the REAL WORLD prices are even further apart, because you can pick up a CRV now for significantly below invoice, making the actual difference around 6K or so. However a person buying an RDX over a RAV4 V6 Limited would have to be a mentally retarded individual, no matter how good the RDX looks, and no matter how many interior amenities it has. Simply put it is a grossly underperforming worthless piece of crap. :28:
In short:
you get HORRENDOUS, NON-LINEAR, POWER/TORQUE form the crappy turbocharged 4-banger. Temple of VTEC ( www.vtec.net ) dynoed this vehicle and has the power and torque curve posted on their website. One can see that, instead of a NICE, BROAD, FLAT, MESA-SHAPED torque curve over the RPM range (which a V6 would've provided), it is very jagged, and abruptly reaches it's peak. The curve is VERY STEEP till a little over 3000RPM, substantiating the gutless feel of the engine at low to moderate RPMs.
Next, as an added bonus, you get a nice noisy engine with the inherent norelco-vacuum-cleaner raspy, thrashy, sound of a 4 cylinder engine. Add some more noise into the equation from the whine of the turbo (Wasn't this supposed to be a friggin LUXURY vehicle??? .....hellloooo...duh!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: )
.....and finally, here is the KICKER! :rolleyes: ....for putting up with all of the above negatives, YOU GET ONE MORE TO BOOT, OR YET ANOTHER BONUS, IF I MAY SAY :rolleyes: : absolutely pathetic, horrendous, subpar FUEL ECONOMY, which is WORSE than many LARGER, HEAVIER 6-cylinder SUVs.
I'll say it again: anyone who buys the RDX, really has to have their head completely examined, including Motor Trend who rated this vehicle #1 in their comparo. Maybe they were bribed....oooh, how surprising! :rolleyes: |
|
|
| loriem |
Sounds like there is a lot to think about with the RDX. I was just disappointed about the mileage on it.
Right now, I'm driving a loaner TSX, which has been fun - while my MDX is getting fixed. |
|
|
| BLEXV6 |
quote:
Originally posted by vicpai
.....many a times in supposedly intelligent earthly beings!! :eek:
.....YES, in the case of a CRV what you've said generally holds true except for price. The V6 RAV4 is several thousand more than a fully loaded CRV (24K vs. 28.5K similarly equipped). In addition to that the REAL WORLD prices are even further apart, because you can pick up a CRV now for significantly below invoice, making the actual difference around 6K or so. However a person buying an RDX over a RAV4 V6 Limited would have to be a mentally retarded individual, no matter how good the RDX looks, and no matter how many interior amenities it has. Simply put it is a grossly underperforming worthless piece of crap. :28:
In short:
you get HORRENDOUS, NON-LINEAR, POWER/TORQUE form the crappy turbocharged 4-banger. Temple of VTEC ( www.vtec.net ) dynoed this vehicle and has the power and torque curve posted on their website. One can see that, instead of a NICE, BROAD, FLAT, MESA-SHAPED torque curve over the RPM range (which a V6 would've provided), it is very jagged, and abruptly reaches it's peak. The curve is VERY STEEP till a little over 3000RPM, substantiating the gutless feel of the engine at low to moderate RPMs.
Next, as an added bonus, you get a nice noisy engine with the inherent norelco-vacuum-cleaner raspy, thrashy, sound of a 4 cylinder engine. Add some more noise into the equation from the whine of the turbo (Wasn't this supposed to be a friggin LUXURY vehicle??? .....hellloooo...duh!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: )
.....and finally, here is the KICKER! :rolleyes: ....for putting up with all of the above negatives, YOU GET ONE MORE TO BOOT, OR YET ANOTHER BONUS, IF I MAY SAY :rolleyes: : absolutely pathetic, horrendous, subpar FUEL ECONOMY, which is WORSE than many LARGER, HEAVIER 6-cylinder SUVs.
I'll say it again: anyone who buys the RDX, really has to have their head completely examined, including Motor Trend who rated this vehicle #1 in their comparo. Maybe they were bribed....oooh, how surprising! :rolleyes:
Umm, tell us how you really feel:eek: . However, I think Acura may have made a mistake with the RDX, but until I see one in person, I will not be able to speculate. When I went to pick-up my MDX last week, there was no RDX, but the salesguy who sold it to me seemed unconvinced about this vehicle, that he had just spent all day learning about. Acura could have 2 stiffs now, the RL and RDX. |
|
|
| BLEXV6 |
quote:
Originally posted by loriem
Sounds like there is a lot to think about with the RDX. I was just disappointed about the mileage on it.
Right now, I'm driving a loaner TSX, which has been fun - while my MDX is getting fixed.
I had a TSX once as a loaner and was extremely impressed with it. If I didn't have a family, I would consider it. |
|
|
| loriem |
| I like it too but I need my MDX right now. |
|
|
| colemanpc |
quote:
Originally posted by vicpai
.....many a times in supposedly intelligent earthly beings!! :eek:
.....YES, in the case of a CRV what you've said generally holds true except for price. The V6 RAV4 is several thousand more than a fully loaded CRV (24K vs. 28.5K similarly equipped). In addition to that the REAL WORLD prices are even further apart, because you can pick up a CRV now for significantly below invoice, making the actual difference around 6K or so. However a person buying an RDX over a RAV4 V6 Limited would have to be a mentally retarded individual, no matter how good the RDX looks, and no matter how many interior amenities it has. Simply put it is a grossly underperforming worthless piece of crap. :28:
In short:
you get HORRENDOUS, NON-LINEAR, POWER/TORQUE form the crappy turbocharged 4-banger. Temple of VTEC ( www.vtec.net ) dynoed this vehicle and has the power and torque curve posted on their website. One can see that, instead of a NICE, BROAD, FLAT, MESA-SHAPED torque curve over the RPM range (which a V6 would've provided), it is very jagged, and abruptly reaches it's peak. The curve is VERY STEEP till a little over 3000RPM, substantiating the gutless feel of the engine at low to moderate RPMs.
Next, as an added bonus, you get a nice noisy engine with the inherent norelco-vacuum-cleaner raspy, thrashy, sound of a 4 cylinder engine. Add some more noise into the equation from the whine of the turbo (Wasn't this supposed to be a friggin LUXURY vehicle??? .....hellloooo...duh!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: )
.....and finally, here is the KICKER! :rolleyes: ....for putting up with all of the above negatives, YOU GET ONE MORE TO BOOT, OR YET ANOTHER BONUS, IF I MAY SAY :rolleyes: : absolutely pathetic, horrendous, subpar FUEL ECONOMY, which is WORSE than many LARGER, HEAVIER 6-cylinder SUVs.
I'll say it again: anyone who buys the RDX, really has to have their head completely examined, including Motor Trend who rated this vehicle #1 in their comparo. Maybe they were bribed....oooh, how surprising! :rolleyes:
I'm with you. I went down to the RDX Turbo Bash at Acura. Checking the RDX out, I was unimpresed with cargo room, unlike the CRV. At the same time, the mileage numbers are poor, and the price is too high.
Like the X3, good luck with that one. If a manufacturer can tell themselves it fits an urban life-style, that's cool. But it won't sell to anyone other than the style-concious.
Right now, my MDX, A/C off, going the speed-limit (and that's a huge factor), consistently beats EPA estimates - I can get 25MPG easy.
If I were looking at the RDX, I'd be hard pressed - other than status symbol - to find a reason to buy it over the RAV4. |
|
|
| Teledatageek |
quote:
Originally posted by colemanpc
I'm with you. I went down to the RDX Turbo Bash at Acura. Checking the RDX out, I was unimpresed with cargo room, unlike the CRV. At the same time, the mileage numbers are poor, and the price is too high.
Like the X3, good luck with that one. If a manufacturer can tell themselves it fits an urban life-style, that's cool. But it won't sell to anyone other than the style-concious.
Right now, my MDX, A/C off, going the speed-limit (and that's a huge factor), consistently beats EPA estimates - I can get 25MPG easy.
If I were looking at the RDX, I'd be hard pressed - other than status symbol - to find a reason to buy it over the RAV4.
Well I might get bashed here, but.....
I have a 2003 MDX that I drove for a little over two years until I got an FX35 and the MDX went to the wife.
While I love the FX35, I hate the terrible NAV system and the lack of bluetooth integration (I have a 2005).
I test drove the RDX today and frankly thought it was terrific. The power band felt smooth, it handled great, and of course the technology (including the NAV) was great. The mileage figures do seem a bit lame but they are more than my FX, (not by much I grant you). I've only owned one other turbocharged car and that was the 1989 Probe GT. When the turbo kicked in on that front drive car, you knew it!
Anyway, I am very seriously looking at trading/selling the FX and jumping into an RDX. |
|
|
|
