Revised Gov MPG 17-22
02-28-2007, 11:40 AM
#41
10th Gear
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Age: 47
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ower than expected MPG
I was dissapointed to find my first tank of gas was about 14 MPG... given I had my foot in it. The next tank I drove like an old lady and still only got aoubt 17 MPG, and much of that was on the high way. I live in CA. I wonder if all the additives they put in the gas here is affecting it.
02-28-2007, 01:20 PM
#43
Instructor
Join Date: Sep 2006
Age: 43
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by flar
There's a theory Fetchin - I'm in CA too and not getting very pretty mileage... 
02-28-2007, 02:05 PM
#44
Intermediate
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: California
Age: 57
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those of you in CA what brand of gas are you using? I get better mileage when I use Chevron compaired to Arco and Valero.
Weekly I have been driving out to a job site, last week I took my sweet ol time (used cruise control at about 70-72 and did old man driver from the stops, you know the kind I'm talking about) and the MID had me at 23.9. Yesterday drove it how I felt like (no crucise control 75-76) and got 21.5. Same gas both trips. This trip is 108 miles round trip with 70 miles of freeways and the rest country roads with a fair amount of stop signs.
Weekly I have been driving out to a job site, last week I took my sweet ol time (used cruise control at about 70-72 and did old man driver from the stops, you know the kind I'm talking about) and the MID had me at 23.9. Yesterday drove it how I felt like (no crucise control 75-76) and got 21.5. Same gas both trips. This trip is 108 miles round trip with 70 miles of freeways and the rest country roads with a fair amount of stop signs.
02-28-2007, 05:35 PM
#45
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Arlington Heights
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by flar
(Edit - scratched my question about which type of gallon - I see you were discussing liters vs. US gallons above already...)
Also, my mileage as shown on the dash is at least 1MPG higher than the real MPG - usually more.
And there are reports on both sides of the coin that I've seen here - some drive aggressively and get decent mileage - others drive sedately and get bad mileage (or drive aggressively and get even worse mileage). It makes me wonder if there isn't a bug in the engine management that has given the cars 2 different personalities...
Also, my mileage as shown on the dash is at least 1MPG higher than the real MPG - usually more.
And there are reports on both sides of the coin that I've seen here - some drive aggressively and get decent mileage - others drive sedately and get bad mileage (or drive aggressively and get even worse mileage). It makes me wonder if there isn't a bug in the engine management that has given the cars 2 different personalities...
03-01-2007, 09:54 PM
#48
07 RDX White w/tech
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Florida
Age: 61
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After almost 3 months I've been getting an average of 20-21 mpg. 70%city 30 %hwy.Living in a warmer climate and fewer hills may increase mileage & driving "lightfooted" as well. However I do wish I could take advantage of the RDX's power without always worrying about blowing the gas out the exhaust 
I feel Honda will offer its new clean diesel in the RDX in 2009.
My perfect RDX will get 25city-30hwy with a clean diesel, and only 2WD. (4wd should be an option)
I feel Honda will offer its new clean diesel in the RDX in 2009.
My perfect RDX will get 25city-30hwy with a clean diesel, and only 2WD. (4wd should be an option)
03-02-2007, 05:52 PM
#49
boostin'
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Age: 44
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just broke 1500 miles, and I'm still at 16 mpg for the whole 1500, and I'm at only 15.3 mpg for the tank of gas I'm on now. I don't completely baby it, but then again I pretty much just drive normally w/ nothing close to being lead-footed. I'm about 50/50 city/highway. This just isn't impressive! I'd say this is my main complaint w/ the RDX, otherwise, I'm happy w/ everything else!
03-02-2007, 09:13 PM
#50
Safety Car
Originally Posted by wolfeman314
Well, again the RDX brochure quotes 57/43. Road and Track confirms this, as well. (warning: link is a pdf)
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...data_panel.pdf
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d...data_panel.pdf
Honda says 57/43, which is probably where R&T got it from...this is the official press release. This link and others like it are a wealth of info on the RDX. With this, you could write your own magazine article.
http://hondanews.com/categories/766/releases/3464
03-04-2007, 11:47 PM
#51
Cruisin'
Join Date: May 2006
Age: 67
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recent MPG in Snow
I just got back from a ski trip in central Oregon (Mt Bachelor) with a ski cargo pod on top and all with "winter gas".
The first half of the last tank was mostly country driving with 70% on packed snow at ~45 MPH and an outside temperature of ~22 degF and at altitudes from 4000 to 6000 ft. The MID registered 19.7 MPG.
The second half was the trip home to Portland with speeds more in the 65 - 70 MPH range and one 4000 ft pass. On this portion the tank average gradually rose to 21.5 MPG by the time I got home.
In normal city 50/50 driving I have been getting ~19 MPG and when I am having fun with the turbo it drops down to as low as 15, but using the Turbo is fun!
It would be nice to get better mileage, but this is still a great car.
The first half of the last tank was mostly country driving with 70% on packed snow at ~45 MPH and an outside temperature of ~22 degF and at altitudes from 4000 to 6000 ft. The MID registered 19.7 MPG.
The second half was the trip home to Portland with speeds more in the 65 - 70 MPH range and one 4000 ft pass. On this portion the tank average gradually rose to 21.5 MPG by the time I got home.
In normal city 50/50 driving I have been getting ~19 MPG and when I am having fun with the turbo it drops down to as low as 15, but using the Turbo is fun!
It would be nice to get better mileage, but this is still a great car.
03-05-2007, 06:29 AM
#52
Safety Car
Turbo vs V6
Originally Posted by acurardx
I notice RDX has almost the same MPG (if not better) as its same size competitors (including Lexus RX350 which is supposed to be the best gas economy in class).
So, I don't understand why most complaints I heard about the RDX is gas mileage. Maybe people are comparing it to the CR-V gas economy (if they used to own CR-V)
Actually, if most of your driving are local, the difference is very small even comparing to CRV.
So, I don't understand why most complaints I heard about the RDX is gas mileage. Maybe people are comparing it to the CR-V gas economy (if they used to own CR-V)
Actually, if most of your driving are local, the difference is very small even comparing to CRV.Assuming that the new turbo engine is like other Honda engines - 1 can expect better mileage w/ age.
03-05-2007, 01:07 PM
#53
Former 07 RDX Tech owner
Originally Posted by TSX69
From what I can tell, most people are disappointed in the MPGs bc it is a turbo 4 cylinder - which is supposed to get better mpgs than an equivalent V6. If the RDX got the same #s w/ a 6 cylinder, I am sure there would be less complaints.
Assuming that the new turbo engine is like other Honda engines - 1 can expect better mileage w/ age.
Assuming that the new turbo engine is like other Honda engines - 1 can expect better mileage w/ age.
While I agree that people would be less likely to complain if Acura had not marketed this car as having a turbo 4 for efficiency (when in fact it isn't producing much efficiency at all) and instead gave it a "V6 for performance", I'd go further and be willing to bet that a V6 with similar HP/torque ratings would, in fact, have gotten better mileage than this turbo 4 and pulled stronger to boot with a flatter torque curve.
A turbo is a great way to boost power when you need it, but this setup needs to dig deep into the turbo just to get me on the highway without people honking at me and then to maintain speed if the highway isn't perfectly flat. "Power on demand" is somewhat misleading when you need it in everyday sedate driving...
03-05-2007, 06:04 PM
#54
haole kama'a-ina
Though not everyone appears to be getting the expected economy, it could be worse. Consider these vehicles (all with V-6):
Suzuki Grand Vitara: 2.7 V-6 185 HP 184 Tq 19/23 MPG
Kia Sportage: 2.7 V-6 173 HP 178 Tq 19/23 MPG
Ford Escape: 3.0 V-6 200HP 196Tq 18/23 MPG
Hyundai Santa Fe: 3.3 V-6 242 HP 226 Tq 19/24 MPG
Saturn Vue: 3.5 V-6 250 HP 242 Tq 19/25 MPG (note: Honda engine)
The RDX enjoys significant HP and Torque advantages over these V-6s with nearly identical EPA fuel economy. (Admittedly, the Honda 3.5 would probably have made a good choice if it would fit, and not throw off the 57/43 distribution even more.)
I have been getting 19 mixed and 23 to 24 hiway economy since we bought the RDX and now that we are up to about 2500 miles the last tank full averaged 20.4 mixed driving. Others are reporting increasing economy as the miles > 2500. Don't give up yet.
Suzuki Grand Vitara: 2.7 V-6 185 HP 184 Tq 19/23 MPG
Kia Sportage: 2.7 V-6 173 HP 178 Tq 19/23 MPG
Ford Escape: 3.0 V-6 200HP 196Tq 18/23 MPG
Hyundai Santa Fe: 3.3 V-6 242 HP 226 Tq 19/24 MPG
Saturn Vue: 3.5 V-6 250 HP 242 Tq 19/25 MPG (note: Honda engine)
The RDX enjoys significant HP and Torque advantages over these V-6s with nearly identical EPA fuel economy. (Admittedly, the Honda 3.5 would probably have made a good choice if it would fit, and not throw off the 57/43 distribution even more.)
I have been getting 19 mixed and 23 to 24 hiway economy since we bought the RDX and now that we are up to about 2500 miles the last tank full averaged 20.4 mixed driving. Others are reporting increasing economy as the miles > 2500. Don't give up yet.
03-05-2007, 10:14 PM
#55
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Arlington Heights
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 737 Jock
Though not everyone appears to be getting the expected economy, it could be worse. Consider these vehicles (all with V-6):
Suzuki Grand Vitara: 2.7 V-6 185 HP 184 Tq 19/23 MPG
Kia Sportage: 2.7 V-6 173 HP 178 Tq 19/23 MPG
Ford Escape: 3.0 V-6 200HP 196Tq 18/23 MPG
Hyundai Santa Fe: 3.3 V-6 242 HP 226 Tq 19/24 MPG
Saturn Vue: 3.5 V-6 250 HP 242 Tq 19/25 MPG (note: Honda engine)
The RDX enjoys significant HP and Torque advantages over these V-6s with nearly identical EPA fuel economy. (Admittedly, the Honda 3.5 would probably have made a good choice if it would fit, and not throw off the 57/43 distribution even more.)
I have been getting 19 mixed and 23 to 24 hiway economy since we bought the RDX and now that we are up to about 2500 miles the last tank full averaged 20.4 mixed driving. Others are reporting increasing economy as the miles > 2500. Don't give up yet.
Suzuki Grand Vitara: 2.7 V-6 185 HP 184 Tq 19/23 MPG
Kia Sportage: 2.7 V-6 173 HP 178 Tq 19/23 MPG
Ford Escape: 3.0 V-6 200HP 196Tq 18/23 MPG
Hyundai Santa Fe: 3.3 V-6 242 HP 226 Tq 19/24 MPG
Saturn Vue: 3.5 V-6 250 HP 242 Tq 19/25 MPG (note: Honda engine)
The RDX enjoys significant HP and Torque advantages over these V-6s with nearly identical EPA fuel economy. (Admittedly, the Honda 3.5 would probably have made a good choice if it would fit, and not throw off the 57/43 distribution even more.)
I have been getting 19 mixed and 23 to 24 hiway economy since we bought the RDX and now that we are up to about 2500 miles the last tank full averaged 20.4 mixed driving. Others are reporting increasing economy as the miles > 2500. Don't give up yet.
Also, I would like say "Congratulations" to the owners getting 19 or better MPG. I would love to get similar MPG but I consider myself to be a passive driver already but I have to drive extra passive like an old lady to barely get 18 MPG with 50/50 (city/hwy). On my other cars, I get expected MPG.
03-11-2007, 09:26 AM
#56
10th Gear
Join Date: Mar 2007
Age: 50
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I averaging on the highway about 10.6 L/100 KM (22 MPG).
It seems to me that the EPA ratings are accurate.
03-12-2007, 10:11 AM
#57
Three Wheelin'
Originally Posted by sbradley
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.
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.
03-12-2007, 11:50 AM
#58
Burning Brakes
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.
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.
03-12-2007, 03:38 PM
#59
Intermediate
Join Date: Dec 2006
Age: 65
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
03-12-2007, 05:15 PM
#60
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Arlington Heights
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JoeinILL
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.
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.
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.
03-12-2007, 05:20 PM
#61
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Arlington Heights
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JoeinILL
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.
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'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.
03-12-2007, 07:54 PM
#62
10th Gear
Join Date: Mar 2007
Age: 50
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by terdonal
You had me going for a bit until I realized you converted litres/100 km's to US mpg instead Imp mpg.
03-12-2007, 08:09 PM
#63
Three Wheelin'
Originally Posted by sbradley
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
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.
03-13-2007, 09:21 AM
#64
Cruisin'
Join Date: Mar 2007
Age: 64
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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
03-13-2007, 09:27 AM
#65
Three Wheelin'
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
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
03-23-2007, 07:13 PM
#67
Racer
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Arlington Heights
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I'm now back to 20-22 mpg. 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?
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?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
