I have about 1200 KM on my new RDX... and I'm getting 11.7 L/100KM (20 MPG) average since new and I have seen as low as 9.6 L/100 KM (24 MPG) on the highway (yes, I was babying it...).

I averaging on the highway about 10.6 L/100 KM (22 MPG).

It seems to me that the EPA ratings are accurate.

You had me going for a bit until I realized you converted litres/100 km's to US mpg instead Imp mpg.

Turbocharged cars have very variable gas consumption figures... it really depends on how heavy your foot is... if you tend to spool the turbo up a lot, then gas consumption will go up... that is how turbos work, immediately force more air in when required, more fuel can be delivered instantaneously, = high fuel consumption...

But if you drive normally (not like a senior citizen), only use the turbo when absolutely necessarily (like overtaking on the freeway or pass an terribly slow moving car on a main road), I believe you will find the gas consumption a little less than what you expect.

Solidstate, how many miles do you have on your RDX? I drive through the North burbs, back and forth to work and I am averaging 18.5 to 19.2 MPG per tank. I have 3.5K and I noticed that after about 2,400 my milage increased to it's current level from 17.4 MPG.
The guys at my dealership (Muller in Schaumburg) have told me it can take up to 5K or so until the mileage settles down.
I don't whip around in the RDX so maybe I drive more conservative than you do in the same area. No need to meet any more of Buffalo Grove's or Arlington Height's finest than I already have.

I got the RDX Aug. 31 from Muller and as of now I have about 4300 miles on it. I only drive on the weekends and I have two other cars that I still drive often.

The point that some of us here are tryin' to make is even driving passively, the RDX seem a lot worst on MPG than rated. I don't consider myself to be an agressive driver, yet the MPG look worst than my other cars relative to their respective rating. When I first got my RDX the MPG was around about 19 MPG, now it's around 17 MPG. If I drive like an old lady I just may get the MPG around 18. I have to do a lot of coasting to get that. :what: My guess is it may be the winter gas blend because the low MPG started maybe in Oct - Nov..

I just got an oil change about two weeks ago and haven't driven it since, maybe things have changed. :wish:

I've only been stopped by Arlington Height's finest when they do that fake safety check sometimes coming off US90 on to Arlington Heights road. :D

Wouldn't Imperial MPG (as used in Europe) make it look even better? 10.6 L/100 KM is 26.6 (imperial) MPG.... Can you tell... I'm a metric guy :thumbsup:

Imperial mpg is also used by old farts like me. :yum: I hate metric, we have been screwed on our gas prices and speed limits ever since it came into force. Way back when for eg. gas would go up one cent a gallon, when they changed to metric it went up once cent a litre. That is 4.56 cents a gallon.

This weekend our gas went up and down and up from $1.10 per L to $1.07 per L to $1.11 per L this morning. The max to min change in two days is 44.56 cents per gallon.

I always convert my litres/100km's to imp mpg, hard to teach an old dog new tricks. Doesn't make it look any better it just makes it what it actually is. Much easier to remember how that compares to other vehicles I have owned over the years. I will sometimes convert to US mpg so that our American friends will know what I am talking about. :thumbsup:

I now have over 1400km's on our RDX. I am averaging 11.3L/100km. This translates (to my surprise) to 25 miles/Imperial gallon (20.81 miles/US gallon).

Here are the formulae for converting:
Imperial:
In Canada and Europe: 282.481 ÷ (insert value) L/100 km = MPG (Imperial gallon)
(for example, if you use 8 litres per 100 km, you'd be getting 282.481 divided by 8 = 35.3 mpg)

US:
The U.S. gallon is about 20% smaller than the Imperial gallon that is used in Canada and Europe, so a different formula is required. In the U.S.: 235.2146 ÷ (insert value) L/100 km = MPG (US liquid gallon)


To go the other way (MPG to L/100km)
In Canada and Europe: 282.481 ÷ (insert value) MPG (Imperial gallon) = L/100 km
(for example, if you get 35 mpg, then you'll use 282.481 divided by 35 = 8.1 litres per 100 km)


In the U.S.: 235.2146 ÷ (insert value) mpg (US liquid gallon) = L/100 km

Here is an easier way
 

Here are the formulae for converting:
Imperial:
In Canada and Europe: 282.481 ÷ (insert value) L/100 km = MPG (Imperial gallon)
(for example, if you use 8 litres per 100 km, you'd be getting 282.481 divided by 8 = 35.3 mpg)

US:
The U.S. gallon is about 20% smaller than the Imperial gallon that is used in Canada and Europe, so a different formula is required. In the U.S.: 235.2146 ÷ (insert value) L/100 km = MPG (US liquid gallon)


To go the other way (MPG to L/100km)
In Canada and Europe: 282.481 ÷ (insert value) MPG (Imperial gallon) = L/100 km
(for example, if you get 35 mpg, then you'll use 282.481 divided by 35 = 8.1 litres per 100 km)


In the U.S.: 235.2146 ÷ (insert value) mpg (US liquid gallon) = L/100 km[/QUOTE]


Nice work on the formula's but this is easier

http://www.sciencemadesimple.net/fuel_economy.php

Much easier! Thanks. I am a bit of a math freak - I usually have calculated the cost of a shopping cart, including tax, before I check out. :tomato:

OK, I'm now back to 20-22 mpg. :D All winter I was getting around 16 - 18 mpg if I drive like an old lady. I would say my driving is 35/65 city/hwy driving. I'm wondering if the temperature affects the MPG. The temp. has been around 50 degrees in Chicago and it seem my MPG is starting to improve to where it was in the Fall. Same driving style and gas and NO, I don't let it sit idle during the winter any more than I do during the summer.

Any thoughts?