Teledatageek

3rd fillup since purchasing = 19.6MPG.

Mainly rural two lane driving. Jumped on it a bit since I made it past the 600 mile point with this tankful.

acurardx

Just finished the 3rd tank, the last tank has been 12.2 L per 100 KM = 19.3 MPG.

95% city.

RAVE

I live in CT and I average around 18 in city driving. I'm averaging about 21-24 in the highway.

NemoUmbra

Been getting around 12.0-12.5 L/100km or 19-20 US mpg in city in somewhat rush hour traffic in the hilly portion of Calgary. Haven't done any highway driving yet so can't speak for that.

Madison3

We've done 2000 miles now, and the display shows an average of 22.8 miles per gallon.

neo1738

2k on mine now and cruise control just highway 24.9mpg City average just over 19mpg.
Definitely an improvement over when I first got it.

newteez

I have 600 miles on mine and have been averaging around 18.9 miles per gallon, One question I have is although it is an 18 gallon tank the car reads empty after about 16 gallons. What have you been getting for an overall range per full gas tank. The MPG gauge as mentioned in this thread adjusts so much that it does not give a true reading. A range to empty gauge, (Not featured on the Base RDX) has been very helpful for me in my previous cars.

Thanks

JD

snorton48

How much improvement?

bobq

Date Miles Gals Calc Display Avg MPH
09/28/06 218 12.8 17.0 16.5 ?
10/07/06 275 14.1 19.5 19.3 ?
10/17/06 259 13.9 18.6 19.4 25
10/26/06 250 13.3 18.8 19.5 24

PANG-S2

I got 1800 miles on the RDX so far and I noticed around town I'll get on the average of 18-19mpg. When I take it for a long drive to Oklahoma City or Dallas with 95% highway miles, the best I can get so far is 21-22mpg. Thats with me, my wife, and our two kids. Auto AC on all the time and highway speed between 75mph-85mph.

Well be taking a 2 weeks vacation for my sister wedding and to see our families on the 1st of November, and we're driving the car from Lawton/Ft.Sill, Oklahoma to Los Angeles, San Francisco, back down to Las Vegas and back to Lawton. I'll keep you guys updated on the milage per gallon during our trip.

CL-SSS

I average at least 20 to 22 mpg, mix of city and highway driving. You just have to know how to drive it, and don't smash the gas down all the time.

omgacuralol

averaging 16-17mpg all city.....not driving too hard.

EDIT: according to the in car computer. I will calculate manually next fill up.

neo1738

That is improvement from the 16-17 city and 21 highway when i first got it. And according to the owners manual it reads empty because it considers the last 2 gallons "reserve" gas.

snorton48

My new RDX has only 550 miles on it. Our weekend trip was 500 miles, up and down the Sierra (7200 ft). Around 85% freeway driving, averaged 22.3 MPG.

wavshrdr

I have been seriously considering the RDX but I am truly concerned about fuel mileage. It isn’t that I can’t afford it but the limited range really sucks. In addition I hate to be funding any more terrorists than we already do through foreign oil purchases.

The demo I drove had a ton of turbo lag. Combined with the abysmal fuel mileage and I don’t know if it is worth buying. I was looking for something that would sort of replace my TL but be a better winter car but the RDX isn’t looking real good. To put the mileage in perspective on the RDX, my gigantic Ford Excursion towing a 5,000lb boat at 75 mph gets better mileage than most of you are reporting on RDX’s.

My absolute WORST tank of fuel was 17.9 mpg and best on a highway was 29.8 mpg. It is a diesel but it also weighs twice as much as the RDX. I don’t even want to compare the mileage with my TDI VW which has a lot more torque than the RDX and isn’t exactly lightweight at 3200lbs.

I am sort of thinking that Acura is running the fuel injection on the rich side so as to prevent warranty issues in the case some idiot does run low octane fuel in the car.

To further put the mileage into comparison about how terrible it truly is, my Audi allroad (with Quattro AWD) with the 2.7 T (twin turbo) motor was a much heavier car and with a bigger motor never got as bad as mileage as many of you are reporting and I drove it pretty aggressively. It was even older technology compared to the RDX motor. What is the point of going with a smaller tubo’d 4 cylinder if you don’t get any better mileage than you would have with a 6 cylinder and the thing weighs as much as a little tank. I just don’t see the logic here. This motor isn’t exactly smooth compared to my TL.

I had such high hopes for this until I drove and started reading about the mileage. It should have been far better than the MDX and the Rav4 with a comparatively big V6 smokes in acceleration with no lag and it gets better mileage. Maybe a reprogramming of the ECU would be in order. I may have to bail on the RDX and seriously look at the CX7 which has remote start and some other pluses over the RDX. Not to mention Mazda is more tolerant of mods than Acura has been in my experience.

jaobrien6

You know the CX-7 doesn't get better gas mileage, right? They're almost identical according to the EPA, most of the magazine tests have reported worse #'s in the CX-7 than the RDX, and on the CX-7 forums, people seem to be posting about the same numbers as i've seen here.

c_hunter

I felt that way at first, and agree with many of your points. I seriously think Acura could have done better on vehicle weight and the powertrain. Plenty of other competitors have. One significant handicap is that the RDX is a FWD-based platform with a transverse engine. Any time you extend that arrangement to AWD, the packaging is just not going to be efficient at all. It's somewhat of a kludge in my mind. A ground-up dedicated AWD design should have a symmmetrical drivetrain. Unfortunately Honda is heavily invested in FWD platforms and they stuck with what they knew how to do.

All that said, I think the RDX is capable of good gas mileage if you pay attention to your right foot. Namely, avoid boosting the turbo. The poor MPG under heavy throttle may be a consequence of that variable geometry turbo boosting early (a pity it doesn't completely erase lag at the same time).

On several of my RDX test drives, I used the two trip meters (each with an average MPG function) to get an idea of real world gas mileage. I repeated the same driving with my current vehicle to make a direct comparison. And I found the RDX wasn't much different than my Outback XT. In mixed driving, it would get MPG in the low 20s. For highway driving, about 24MPG. For agressive city driving (which I rarely do) about 16-17MPG. So while I can't endorse the RDX's gas mileage as great, it's at least no worse than my current vehicle when driven similarly.

killer52

Hey wavshrdrt you better do more than look at the CX-7...drive it and you will know why buyers are paying the xtra ~$6K for RDX. Mazda lots are loaded with every color and option packaged CX-7 you could possibly want in multiples of each. No comparision in my view. BTW both get about the same mpg on premium fuel. If mpg is the issue buy the doggy RAV4 V-6. Me...I prefer the fit, finish and refinements that the Acura brings and when comparing it in it's own class, is a bargain compared to the X3, and when the pricing drifts down...RDX will be my choice.

terdonal

Only had mine for a week and and half but have about 900 km's on it. Travel 100 km's a day but travel early in the morning with light traffic most highway and some city going in. Coming home rush hour all the way, heavy traffic mostly city, suburban roads, some heavy stop and go highway. I am running between 22.5 mpg to 26.5 mpg on the fill ups. This is an imperial gallon not a US gallon and it is not that much less than my auto TSX.

I do pay attention to my right foot but I am not afraid to use it either. Will see how it goes as time progresses. Not nearly as bad as I was anticipating from some of the posts on this forum.

darealest1

Very good point. I agree. I do a lot of city driving in my cl-s6spd and if you're in a lot of stop and go, it really can suck the gas in the v6. Whether you're in i4 or v6, if you engage vtec regularly on the high cam profile, you will use a lot more gas for certain, so your aggressiveness has a lot to do with it ,even on the highway

darealest1

So what did you think of the sh-awd overall since you had a chance to really test it out?

darealest1

good luck on that one!

wavshrdr

Drove the RDX again. I like it but I can't see paying 7K more for it than a CX7. Mileage during my test was in the 14-15mpg range. According to the computer (which is very accurate on my TL) I was getting about 20-22mpg at 70mph vs. 33-34 on my TL. Driven agressively this thing will be in the low teens.

The particular one I drove was their demo model which had several thousand miles on it so the motor should be starting be broken in. My TL mileage went up about 10% from new to now. Even if the RDX went up 20% it would still be pretty poor.

The more I drive the RDX, the better a deal the MDX looks. I drove the MDX and if the RDX is worth 7k more than a CX7(not to me though) then the MDX is worth 15k more than the RDX. The thrust is immediate and the engine is so much smoother. Mileage during my test drives was better on the MDX than the RDX. So much for the smaller "fuel efficient" motor.

I want to like the RDX and it was my first choice going in. The poor mileage and turbo lag would definitely keep me from buying it now. They should have took the Rav4 route and dropped in a V6. That thing will easily smoke a RDX in acceleration under normal circumstances. Only way I think the RDX would even stay remotely close to a V6 Rav4 is if you brake torque the RDX to build boost off the line to launch it hard.

I am beginning to believe that Acura turned out a few test models with the boost turned up a bit as every RDX I've now driven doesn't feel anywhere near a sub 7 second 0-60 car. For the money they want it should have had a V6 for more refinement. I can excuse it on the CX7 as it costs a bunch less. The chassis feels good but the motor lets it down. It is RL part 2 for me. My local dealer was anxious to move one as they are not moving off the lots and they have a LOT of them. The MDX is flying out the door. At 32-33k WITH the Tech package I might be interested but at 37k I think I'll cross it off my list. I can buy a CX7 with the Tech package, towing, and other stuff for 32k out the door. The RDX with Tech will be pushing 40k out the door.

At this point I probably won't buy either of them and drive the MDX again or look at a different Toyota or Lexus. At this point why have a small tiny truck and get crappy mileage with it when I can have something with more room and tow my boat if I wanted to.

coldcase

How did turbo lag compare with your Outback?

c_hunter

It is about the same -- I was expecting the RDX's variable geometry turbo to eliminate lag from all the marketing hype, but it's about the same as the Outback with its regular fixed-geometry turbo. However the Outback's H4 engine is a little ballsier feeling at low RPM, so the lack of boost is less noticeable. Not a huge difference either way, but the RDX does feel weaker before the boost comes on.

The RDX engine feels smoother under heavy throttle, which is what I expected -- a Honda inline 4 always feels smoother than a Subaru H4! Though people who like a more throaty, rumbly sound/feel to the engine may prefer Subaru.

jhwu

All turbos will have some lag (despite what manufactures would love to tell you!)... all in all, it's not too bad. The RDX's is similar to my old Passat 1.8T's lag which is not bad. I know a lot of people really wants a V6, but I guess I really like surge of power with a turbo engine. Makes it more exciting to me anyways. I think Honda's "official" stance is that a V-6 won't fit in there, but who really knows??

Back to the discussion:

Chicago City Mileage = ~15mpg (1 mile each way commute for my wife and in general, driving in downtown Chicago equates to a lot of sitting around. Her previous 2002 Suabru Impreza 2.5Rs often did much worse than the suggested EPA ratings too. I would say, 18-20mpg for her old car.

Highway Mileage = 24.5mpg with no traffic at around 65mph. With light to moderate traffic, it drops down to 20-23mpg.

Jim

newteez

In some ways I agree with you the milage isnt that great but neither is any vehicle in this category using premium fuel.

I am averaging around 19 mpg after 1200 miles. The thing that gets me is the range per tank wish they put in a 21 gallon tank since 270 - 280 miles per tankfill of gas sort of stinks.

As for the turbo lag, it is very evident between 1st and the start of second gear, however if you use the paddles and ride out first gear, you can really take advantage of the turbo and greatly reduce the lag, but, as mentioned above your gas milage will suffer.

I think it is still a great value though and believe that we will get a true performance car (V6 and turbo) in the coming years. If you look under the hood there is plenty of room to fit the engine and with the cars stance and handeling it will be an ideal platform for Acura to build a CUV supercar.

JD

wolfeman314

For what it's worth, I achieve similar numbers in my Accord EX-V6, which promises something like 21/29. All city driving and I'm sitting at 16mpg, all highway 25mpg, and a nice mix gets me 20mpg. So, either my driving habits are a bit too aggressive or everyone's expectations of the RDX are too high because I find your mileage stats to be comforting.

neo1738

IDK about anyone else but it seems these engines may be hit and miss. Some get great mileage, some very poor, and others like mine, pretty much what Acura promised. I'm not an expert but do most other 1st yr engines fluctuate like this?

crazymjb

No... It is the driving styles that are fluctuating.

Mike

omgacuralol

I think it REALLY depends on how much you use the turbo. Is it true that the EPA city figures are done at something like 20mph? If so that would basically be no turbo use, and I can see how they would get higher numbers than many here are experiencing. Doesnt seem like a great way to get "real world" estimates though.

Madison3

No, they go through a test schedule / driving profile:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

even though the average turns out to be about 20 mph.

Edited to add where the 20 mph can be seen in the EPA test schedule.

sasair

Turbo use isn't based on speed. I could cruise at 70mph and not use the turbo.

The EPA estimates are also done on a dyno so there is no wind resistance or elevation change. They also measure through emmisions not through actual fuel usage.

There certainly isn't anything "real world" about the EPA estimates.

Madison3

I would only use EPA estimates to compare between car models when shopping (if fuel economy is important as a buying criterion), and to compare expected fuel spend for cars I own.

For example, the 2000 CR-V that I used to drive is rated at 22/25. I would then expect that I would use up 0.008 more gallons per mile all else being equal.

But that's just me.

ACitygal

I had a tsx06 it start very low then went to from 13 to 18 mpg i live in the city I got the Rdx in Sept and its 13mpg its bothering i hope it changes soon .....

Cary

Hey all, I have had my RDX for a little over a month. I have monitored this board since approximately the 2nd day after purchase. I didn't believe I should make any remarks till about 2k miles. Well here we are at 2k miles.

The fuel consumption of this vehicle caught me by surprise; I expected better from Acura(still do). Still I must say my RDX seems to be doing better than others on this board. I have never reset my mileage, and it is averaging 17.5 mpg. this is with an average speed of 33 mph. 600 of it's miles were driven at 85-90mph.

Please note I never use the sport mode; I know that this mode will burn the gas like theres no tommorrow. This mode I believe is for short durations, like when you must annoy RX330's and such for a few stoplights.

I admit that I love the feel of the turbo, and my RDX dips into it often.

acurardx

I just tried 2 hrs freeway drive. It is 9.5 L/100 KM, and my city drive has been 12.3 L/100 KM. So, it is pretty close to what it states on the sticker !

DNPhotography

my mpg is low. i dont know about the rest of you but i cant stop boosting lol

desiflava04

i have a 06 TL n city and highway combined i get 19....

RAVE

I have about 7k miles on mine now. It looks like all around driving is 20-21 mixed hwy/city. It you take it easy, meaning, not gunning it and not breaking so much I get aroun 24-25 in the freeway.