jinx

i averaged abt 21.9MPG on my 300+ miles trip.

turboted

Nice! How may total miles do you have? Did you run the AC?

MJ-bos

My first 700 mile trip (started when the car was almost brand new- about 220 miles) averaged 20.2.

Same trip, started at 3000 miles, averaged 21.9.

No complaints!

Stevenm

9500 miles approx 20 mpg 90 % hwy and country roads

jinx

hey turboted,

i started my trip when my odo read 3500 miles.
i did not turn on the AC but was running on HEATER.

Vanilla_Gorilla

How does 20 to 21 MPG sounds good? Especially on a 4 banger? My '05 TL, which you all know is a 6 cylinder with 270 hp, and it gets 32 to 33 on a 30+ mile trip. I average 24 to 27 with mixed driving. You guys are crazy for thinking 20 to 21 MPG is good. In addition, my lifted 4x4 GMC Sierra will get 17 to 18 MPG on a 300+ mile trip. Which my GMC weighs 3600 lbs. Get real guys!

p.s. And I did have the pleasure of running around in an RDX loaner from my local Acura dealer, which i must admit, was kinda fun with the turbo. but its my TL for life...all the way!

omgacuralol

The RDX weighs over 3900 lbs.....

lumpulus

I call bull on this, unless you push the TL with another car.

The RDX is not supposed to be a gas milage champ, and for the way most people drive them, I'd say 20mpg is pretty good.

My G/F averages 23-25 with her RDX and she drives pretty fast. I get 22-24 with my RL and I drive very fast.

737 Jock

Rural central Pa to rural NJ. 75 miles mostly highway with long stops at lights on the outskirts of Baghda...er, I mean Philadelphia: 25 mpg (generally falling terrain).

Return trip (generally rising terrain) 22.5 mpg.

BTW, 4WD or AWD mechanisms require more energy, ie. fuel to operate the rotating mass. The payoff is increased traction over 2WD.

jinx

Vanilla_Gorilla,

we are not comparing TL Vs RDX.we are here just to compare fellow RDX owners MPG.
by the way, wat ru doing in RDX forums, u shud be in TL forums.

Vanilla_Gorilla

Sorry, typo...6300 lbs.

Vanilla_Gorilla

Call it, i have the trip meter to prove i am getting 25 MPG on a mixed tank right now. And i have been as high as 34.

Vanilla_Gorilla

For some reason they had this topic on the front page...sorry for intruding on your little party here.

porsherules911

34 mpg? damm is this driving downhill with the car in neutral? haha highest ive ever seen is 23 so far

rpeete

So far I am getting 20mpg with my RDX on a 40mile drive to work (mostly highway driving).

In my old 2001 TL, I was getting 25mpg for that same drive. But on longer drives (e.g. 150+ miles) in the midwest (meaning no major hills), I have gotten 32-34mpg. So the TL can do it -- if your speed is constant via Cruise Control.

lumpulus

That's proabaly exactly what he did. all it takes is 1 mile and you can get that on the trip computer.

black label

If you are using the automatic climate control, the AC turns on automatically. You have to hit the "AC" button to turn it off regardless of whether you are heating or cooling the car. They run the AC to help de-humidify the cabin.

HenryFL

According to fueleconomy.gov the 2007 GMC Sierra gets 15-19hwy RDX according to same site gets 19-23 with 21 mpg all around. even if the MPG were the same, you will never find me in a pickup truck!

Vanilla_Gorilla

WHy? Is it to hard to get in to a real 4x4 in your skirt?

Vanilla_Gorilla

Do i have to post a picture of my trip meter with 200 miles and an MPG of 25? You just dont get it. WHy pay the same amount as a TL for less car (All around)?

porsherules911

Are you talking about 25 mpg on your TL? Regardless everyone is going to have their own opinions. Clearly you believe that the Rdx getting around 20 mpg is pathetic. I personally am fine with the mpg. Obviously I knew what i was in for since this isn't a sedan or coupe. And how can you compare a TL and Rdx when they arent even in the same class? I for one have driven both cars and both cars are sweet cars. But the Rdx in my opinion is way more fun to drive and the handling is superb. If people can't stand the fuel mileage they are getting, then seriously consider getting a more fuel efficient car.

737 Jock

Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe the TL (which is a great car) has an open front differential with traction control. Like most cars this is essentially one wheel drive. Even if it has a limited slip like the Civic Si, it is still Two Wheel Front Drive with the inherent performance limitations.

SH-AWD induces oversteer and tucks the nose on early apex throttle and must be experienced to be appreciated. No FWD car, however competent, can do this.

This handling prowess, in addition to extraordinary dry/wet traction (and of course the ability to get around in snow that would strand cars) comes at a price...it uses more fuel.

Check other mid-size SUVs with similar power and you will see that only the Toyota Rav-4 V-6 has significantly better economy, and that is because the rear normally freewheels. It is driven for slip assistance only and unlocks above 20 MPH.

Others from Hyundai, Suzuki, Ford, Kia, Jeep deliver RDX economy with paltry HP(170 to 200).

Enjoy your TL, they are sharp cars.

gubby

I am getting about 26.9 mpg (imperial) or 22.4 mpg (US) on over 4,000 km. I drive 70/30 highway/city and about 60/40 open road/rush hour.

mav238

only 2 days old, @ 11.1 L per 100 kms

or 26 mpg (US)

or 31 mpg (Canada imperial)

Mixed driving of : 50% city (flat roads), 30% hwy (@ 80 km/h). 20% steep hill road driving

kenjr

I took a 400 mile round trip from Austin to Dallas so ~ 80% highway driving and averaged a little better than 20mpg with less than 500 miles on the car. I stayed around 75-80 most of the way with some speed up for passing and such. I'd say on average I'm getting about 18mpg so far as most of my driving is in town.

I'm taking another road trip from Austin to Houston tomorrow, but my guess is it will be very similar. I've heard that until you get 4-6k on the car you really don't see the mileage improve much.

v831

Fairly impressive numbers.

mike624

Are you guys basing your MPG numbers solely on the car's trip computer? I've always wondered how accurate they are -- I have a sneaking suspicion that trip computers artificially inflate MPG numbers to make owners feel better...

I'm in the market for an RDX and fully appreciate that if MPG is a major issue I should look elsewhere... That said, I'm curious if anyone is computing their mileage the old-fashioned way, i.e. reseting the tripodometer at fill-up and then dividing the miles driven by the number of gallons put in at the next fill-up...

-Mike

grooks1

There was a similiar thread to this one about a month ago and some people had calculated the MPG manually and were showing the trip computer was 1 MPG higher than the manual calculations.

This isn't the most fuel efficient car. Seeing it has turbo and AWD, it was about what I expected when I purchased this vehicle.

mav238

The MPG numbers as calculated by th computer is about right +/- 1 mpg.

Currently, I am at 11.7 L per 100 km, which equals 24.5 mpg (Canada) and 20 mpg (US).

This would be about 80% city driving (congested vancouver traffic + driving up this 3 km hill road everyday), and 20% HWY (not much of a HWY really, travelling at 80 km/h on average with intermittent stop and go as well).

My wife's TSX gets about 11.0 L per 100km, equals 27mpg (Canada) and 22.4 mpg (US), with similar driving situations.

So, some difference, yes, but actually I am pretty impressed with the RDX gas consumption, given it has full-time AWD, and the TSX does not. Also, my RDX only has 150 miles on it currently.

I also don't drive the RDX like a jack-rabbit at traffic lights, or constantly seeking to pass somebody in heavy traffic. Those situations will certainly increase my gas consumption in the long run.

porsherules911

Cannot agree more. You have to realize what kind of car your getting and the performance factor. Turbo and full time AWD is going to eat up fuel (PREMIUM) so if you are strictly looking for good fuel mileage I would not recommend this car for you unless you can sacrifice a little bit for performance. And its not like the Rdx gets poor mileage because most of the other cars in its class get similar mileage and none are more fun to drive than the Rdx

saaricom

My 3rd week with the RDX I calculated milage via gallons and trip odo. @ 19.5 for day to day driving for a full tank. I drive 75% city traffic / 25% hwy

I am happy with those numbers per my driving fun!

Animagix

In town driving for me (which is a red light every friggin block) mileage hurts. I've gotten as low as 14mpg but, as high as 24-25 on a highway cruise. I'm learning how to drive the car because its' my first turbo and have gotten better mileage around town every time. Taking off really hurts (even when staying out of boost) I stare at the insta-mileage and see two bars while taking off from a dead stop. This happens very very often in brooklyn or anywhere else in new york's five boroughs.

gubby

My last fill up I had gone 583km and filled up with 58.2L of fuel. That works out to about 10.01 L/100km, or 23.5 mpg (US) 28.22 mpg (Cdn). This is acutally better than my trip computer average.

mvwood

I have never gotten more than 400km in a tank.

Almost all city, but still. Usually like 350-380.

and what I can't figure out, is that my wife is much less of a "push the turbo" type driver, but every time I get in to drive after she's been on it for a while, the mileage is worse than before.

Can't quite figure out what she's doing...

mav238

I assume much of this is freeway driving???


If not, your RDX (in particular, yours only), is better than the RAV4 or CRV, which I seriously find it hard to believe.

RDX have full-time AWD, while RAV4/CRV have "real-time" AWD = only comes on when needed. Thus that's how the latter two CUVs get their excellent fuel consumption numbers.

Otherwise, you must be driving down hill most of the time, with no need for stepping the gas. But what goes down, must come up... right?

jinx

nice mav238

gubby

I don't think my experience is better than the CR-V! The CR-V is rated at 10.2 L/100km and 7.3L/100km by Transport Canada and the RAV4 is rated 10.1 and 7.4 respectively. You can check these facts out in the auto section at msn.ca. My average experience is only marginally better than the worst (i.e city) experience of either of the two vehicles you mention.

Now, let's look at the RDX itself. It is rated at 12.5 L/100km (city) and 9.3 L/100km (highway). I do about 40/60 city/highway driving, so if you apply that ratio to the ratings you get 10.54 L/100km which is not so far off my experience.

Now let's apply my driving mix (see above) to the CR-V and RAV4: CR-V- average 8.46L/100km, and RAV4 8.48L/100km. Both of these are better than my 10.01 L/100km. Remember, in metric the lower the fuel efficiency number the better. Since 10.01 is greater than 8.46 or 8.48 my fuel efficiency is worse than the vehicles you noted. Your assertions do not make sense.


mav238, please check your facts before disputing member claims.

1bythesea

Daily commute of 70% hwy/30% city 17 miles one way...mpg average 22.5. This is just a tad better than my '05 V-6 Highlander Limited under same conditions-22.2 mpg average. Have yet to go on an extended interstate trip but expect to average 25-26 mpg with cruise and hopefully while running the air. This would also compare to the HL, however, the RDX is by far much more fun to drive!