Is Premium Fuel ABSOLUTELY required in this vehicle or will the car take regular fuel?

 

If you have a gentle foot and never spool up the turbo, then you might be able to get away with regular gas. If the engine starts pinging with regular gas, then it will run more smoothly and get better mileage with premium.

 

here we go again with the premium vs regular... theres already been threads about this

 

I agree with porsherules911,if you dont
want to use premium then dont,no one is holding a gun to your head!!!

 

I agree. I'm beginning to wonder if the RDX forum should start a "Garage" section like the 3Gen TL has over there...

Put whatever gas you want to run in your RDX, but know that the recommended fuel for a turbo 4, per Acura, is premium fuel. If you so choose to run low grade fuel, you're sure to knock down the performance slightly and get worse gas mileage over that tank.

 

only premium on mine.

 

Some past threads on this:

https://acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1262
https://acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1201

Essentially, premium is recommended/mandatory for the vehicle. Don't buy a 30-35k auto, and skimp $0.20/gal on gas. That's called being a cheapass.

 

hmmm.... you call yourself maximaboy1, can I assume you have a Maxima? and possibly have not even bought the RDX?

Anyway, that was besides the point...

Like many have indicated here... Acura mandates the use of Premium fuel because the engine was designed to use premium fuel. Most if not all, turbocharged engines, are required to use Premiujm gas. Go check out the SAAB 9-3 Sports sedan, the subaru turbocharged WRX or legacy GT, and tell me if you don't find them mandating the use of premium fuel.

But anyway, use whatever fuel your heart feels like.... heck put water in it or just buy some wine from the liquor store that will really send your car flying (heck, wait, that would be too expensive for you), but if you do use wine, get Merlot...

 

Alrighty, here's the deal:

On average, I put in about 16 gallons of gas on a fill up. You take 16 x $.20 = $3.20/fill up.
If you fill up once a week (52 x $3.20 = $166.40).

The average movie (I'm sure a few people might be seeing Spiderman 3 this evening) = $10 a ticket (and if you're married or have a significant other you'll make that $20, if you have kids it's up to $35) then add drinks and popcorn and you're well over $50.

Most people have already gone out for dinner before the movie, so add another $25-$50 depending on your tastes.

Instead, you could have made it a Blockbuster nite and 1/2 gallon of mint chip ice cream from Safeway and saved $90. Approximately one-half of the price difference in gas from regular to premium.

Do that 2 times a year and you're golden.

I can think of many other ways to make up the difference in the price. If you're hurting for money, cut out luxuries in your life...not the car.

Quoting MAV328 from another great MPG post:
"But my point in the post was more towards the fact that there seem to be many posters here who freaks up and gets obsessed with trying to make the fuel economy of the RDX approach that of a CRV or even better, a CIVIC.
Yes, the gas prices are ridiculous, but we all didn't buy the vehicle when the gas prices were like 40 cents a litre right? And we all didn't buy the vehicle thinking it will run as cheaply as a CRV or CIVIC right? We all knew that it has full-time AWD and is not a light vehicle in itself right?"

That really sums it up.
Put the premium in the RDX! it will save you from future complications and will enhance you're experience (whether you notice it or not) and is better for the car.

 

Dammit, so if I have an RDX and fill premium gas, does that mean I can't see Spiderman tonight?

 

No Spiderman for you!!!

 

Dude... 91 octane costs 6% more than 87 oct and your gas milage will go up an easy 6% (1.5 mpg) by using premium fuel... there is NO cost benefit to using 87 octane in an Acura... Not to mention, your RDX will run much better for no additional cost/mi!!!!!

USE PREMIUM!!!!!!

 

I go for Premium fuel and Spider man.

 

+1

 

Ok I totally understand, you didn't budget in premium fuel when you bought your RDX, understandable, neither did I when I bought my CL Type S, but I totally figured out a way to counteract it... I don't do any oil changes! Since Ive stopped changing my oil, ive been able to afford premium! Its an awesome solution that I think someone like you would be interested in. Enjoy that new 30k+ Car!!!

 

Premium all the way. I wouldn't cut any corners by going with a lower grade if I knew it would limit the performance of the engine.

 

I have a TL actually...sold the Maxima a while back..I'm a 18 y/o whose parents are considering buying an RDX. I'm only asking because the TL's manual states there will be a decline in performance when regular fuel is used versus premium fuel...but the RDX is a turbo=higher compression ratio=possible true engineering requirement for Premium fuel to ensure maximum reliability/performance.

 

According to the manual, it states that you can use 87 or higher temporarily (if 91 is unavailable) but exclaims that long term use of a lower grade will lead to engine damage. All of the newer Acuras require 91 or higher. My 04 TL runs on 91. I had a co-worker who got lazy and put 87 on his 02 TL with the notion of saving a few bucks. Guess what - his engine was knocking like crazy and ran like crap. I'd just follow what the manufacturer says and save myself from future headaches.

 

Not a bad idea Presto... I assume you skip the filter change too???

 

Yup... fill up RDX with Shell V-Power 91, and watched Spiderman 3 yesterday at it's offical opening day.

Wow... awesome movie, love the fact that there is only one bad guy, Venom, while even the Sandman has a decent heart. Also, cool to see Harry Osborne in his heroic role as a super strength high gadget hero, helping Spiderman fight his enemies. WAY BETTER than parts 1 and 2.

 

Actually as soon as I figured out this great idea I took the filter out and sold it to my friend, CHA CHING $$$ More saving money!

 

Seriously. If gas is more of a concern than performance, I'd opt for a Prius, Corolla or Civic Hybrid.

There's pretty much tradeoffs with every vehicle purchase since the perfect car will never be made. Look at what you value most and then make the decision if it is the car for you. People still buy other SUV's that consume way more gas than the RDX. You think they're gas-guzzling character stopped people from buying those types of SUVs? Trying to mix in performance with excellent gas mileage is such a tough task for car manufacturers these days.

 

man, i had mixed reactions about the movie. could have been the obnoxious people in the theater but i thought the movie was so frickin corny with the acting but anyways back to the topic at hand:

i'm just sick of the people complaining about gas prices. sure it's now $3.69 for me to fill up, there's not much that can be done unless the gov't steps in. Unfortunately, they always go up in the summer and they'll never be the same price as they were last summer. I just wanted to show a comparison that there are things that can be easily cut out if ur hurting for money on gas, but then you shouldn't have ever bought the car.

 

Actually, I do feel Acura has been a little misleading with claiming "excellent fuel economy" from just having 2.3L in 4 cylinder displacement.

The engine itself, the K23A model, @ 2.3L, should be pretty good at fuel consumption, if used in either the ACCORD or TSX, in it's normally aspirated format.

But add turbocharging, and plus the generally rather heavy light truck body, well... the fuel efficiency of the 4 banger is removed from the equation...

 

They should have said it has excellent fuel economy considering the vehicle is a 4000 lb vehicle with full time awd and a turbo.

 

If the RDX had the Rav4 V6 engine, it would be the perfect car.

I see no advantage to the turbo vs. a well sorted v6.

 

I totally agree... In this case, a i-VTEC 2.8L highly tuned V6 engine, tipping say 240-250 HP, would probably return similar gas consumption. Plus the driveability would probably be better, less surges during acceleration.
But I guess, they wanted to portray the RDX as a "smaller" SUV, and thus probably thought having a V6 might make people move to the big brother MDX instead.

Hmmm... maybe a ON-DEMAND SH-AWD??? or REAL-TIME SH-AWD???
That should make fuel consumption more efficient.

 

I'll take the turbo 4 over the V6 everyday. My last car was a Honda Pilot and u know that thing had a very nice refined V6 under the hood. Great engine but it does not compare to the turbo 4 in terms of fun factor. Now obviously some people will prefer to just have a refined V6 smooth engine while others like myself enjoy the turbo 4. Just my 2

 

LMFAO..... Well said

 

An NA 2.8 litre engine won't put out the torque needed to move a 4000 lb vehicle, regardless of the HP it can be tuned to provide. A 3.3-3.5 displacement would be much more suited.

Regarding your comments on the possibility of "real time" SHAWD, the whole beauty of the current system is that it is always on, is that it is always ready, and always effective. They should really rename "reactionary" AWD, with "too late" AWD.

 

I wouldn't throw away the notion of an engine with 2.8L - 3.0L displacement moving a 4000lb vehicle. I think you are still stuck in the old school of high displacement > 3.5L to supply high torque.

Car makers nowadays can really work out some fine wizadry in their engines, without turbocharging to improve torque and HP. In asia, where engine displacement rarely go above 4.0L , have SUVs like the BMW X5 fitted with the venerable 3.0L inline six that adequately move that beast, although not real fast, but it will not need to feel like it is struggling to "tow" that beast.

As engine technology advances, with new materials and innovative intake/timing/fuel injection advances, your statement of needing at least 3.5L to move a 4000lb vehicle will not be true much more.

As for your "too late AWD" comment, if it is that bad, Toyota and Honda would not introduce it in their small SUVs, like the RAV4 and CRV.
Yes, the full-time AWD has it's beauty of enhancing the driving system and overall handling traits of the vehicle. But even the full-time AWD is not a life-saver in any real sense, try pushing the limits of physics, by going through a tight corner at a speed that generates enough momentum to break free the traction forces, ... see ya... EVEN WITH FULL-TiME AWD like the SH-AWD

my pont about the idea of having real-time AWD system was simply to address the notion of improving gas mileage, like that in the CRV.

Well, you never can underrestimate the guys at Honda, they may yet come out with a true SH-AWD with REAL-TIME engagement that makes it close to the full-time AWD. Like I said, it is just an idea I am putting out there...

 

Name one naturally aspirated engine under 3.3L that puts out equal torque to the Rav4 V6, or Turbo 4 on the RDX. You still need displacement to put out lb/ft, unless you have FI. Your point about "future" advances regarding engine technology and AWD systems are about as relevant to the discussion as suggesting a flux capacitor addition and comparing the truck to the USS Enterprise.

We're discussing and comparing current offerings in the here and now, not "ideas that you're putting out there" that don't exist in any form or format.

 

I already mentioned to you that the BMW X5's in asia, do not have the 4.4L displacement, but simply use the 3.0L engine. It was sufficient to move that beast which I am sure is not lighter than the RDX.
That is not an "idea", but rather somethiing that is already in application. The 3.0L engine while not having the 260 lb/ft torque, is sufficient to move that X5 adequately. Were it not the case, would BMW use it? It may not move the X5 as authoritatively or as rapidly as a 4.4L engine, but it can still move that > 4000 lb X5.

Why is a real-time SH-AWD system future future distant idea? They already have the REAL-TIME 4WD system in the RAV4 and CRV, I don't think it is a distant technology to make a REAL-TIME SH-AWD system; point is, would HONDA consider doing it for various reasons.

Seems like you have an issue with being told that your point is not the be all end all.

You do have your point regarding current use of high displacement providng gobbles of torque to authoritatively move a heavy vehicle. Like those heavy caddies that garnish 0-60 times of 5-6 secs.

I NEVER said that a well designed and tuned 2.8L or 3.0L engine can accelerate a 4000 lb vehicle as well as a 4.4L engine, but it should be able to provide adequate torque to move that 4000 lb vehicle around with no issues. Again, clearly proven by cars that are in use in asia and europe, where high displacement engines are not popular due to costly gasoline and insurance costs (that rise with displacement of engines).

It is only a discussion of opinions and ideas, calm down... stop behaving like a spoilt brat and get all hyped up defending your "all correct knowledge".

 

A big reason the RAV4 gets better gas mileage than the RDX is that the RAV4 is 500 pounds lighter in weight. All those high tech and luxury features in the RDX add weight and significantly reduce gas mileage.

Yes, Acura could have used a lower-performance more efficient engine in the RDX and they probably will if they sell the RDX in any other country. In the USA, where gas prices are subsidized by the federal government, most consumers don't mind low gas mileage, especially in "luxury" vehicles.

 

Settle down there, scooter.

You began by telling me that displacement to provide torque was "old school thought". And now you're getting into semantics regarding "adequate".

What you seem to be continually missing is that my point isn't about "adequate" torque, its about equivalent torque. A 2.4L CRV makes "adequate" torque, for some, anyway - but that doesn't disprove my point that you need displacement or FI (or an electric motor) to make torque equivalent with the class of vehicle that the RDX competes in.

Now go back to your Star Trek, and ask chief O'Brien how you can work some dilithium crystals into your next post. I'll save my future replies for someone who doesn't wear spock ears on weekends.

 

Hehe, good old internet flame war

 

Oh.. don't beam away yet, Capt. Kirk or was it Scotty... whatever...just one of those wannabe heroes...

I didn't disagree with your point about needing displacement to put out the 260 lb/ft for current technology... in fact, i didn't debate over that point...

Read my previous posts in this thread... I said a well designed and tuned 2.8L or 3.0L six cylinder engine can put out an equivalent of 240-260 HP <--- HP!!! not torque....
I also did not say it would haul the 4000 lb vehicle as authoritatively as a 3.5L or greater engine. My point was directed at possible ways to get equivalent fuel economy as the turbo 4 @ 2.3L, and yet not have those turbo surge type of driving experience that some may not like.

I will have a talk with your Commanding Officer in charge of your space fleet, and recommend a retraining on reading and observational skills, and also a mind-opening retraining.

Spock out...

 

I disagree, a V6 would add at least a couple hundred pounds, throwing off the near 50/50 balance and decreasing performance.

 

Your argument is pointless, as the issue is not about simply throwing in any engine that can "move a 4000 lb vehicle". The POINT is finding an engine that a) can put out the numbers of the turbo-4, b) WEIGH no more than it (not going to happen) and c) provide the same or similar powerband.

You said it yourself: "It may not move the X5 as authoritatively or as rapidly as a 4.4L engine, but it can still move that > 4000 lb X5."

The point is KEEPING the performance. Otherwise, you could throw in a N/A I-4 that puts out 170ish HP and still "move".

If you wanted an SUV for TOWING purposes and not a thrilling driving experience, perhaps you should have bought something else? The RDX is VERY purpose-built - for driving enthusiasts that a) want a thrilling, sporty, technology-packed ride, b) want to haul 4-5 people + GEAR and c) understand that all this performance and flexibility must come at a price (slightly decreased fuel efficiency, premium gas).

There's simply no way you're going to get a consistent 25 mpg out of a 4,000 lb vehicle without using either using a gas/electric hybrid engine (thus adding 8k-$10k to the price) OR a deisel engine (which you would then complain about the noise and difficulty in locating a gas station w/ diesel fuel).

 

Ok, so you're saying you want a car with less power/acceleration - you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either you have a car with an engine putting down 240HP/260ft/lb or you don't. Swapping in a V-6 with comperable numbers WOULD require a higher displacement engine, thus adding weight and unbalancing the vehicle, not doing much for your gas mileage, and making it feel like more of a boat. Just drive the MDX...

There are plenty of lower powered options out there.

I have to ask - did you even test drive the RDX?