DCIANDREW

On Freeway driving I typically get 21 - 22 MPG on the MID at 75 MPH

For the heck of it today after a fill up and freeway driving only, I set my cruise at 65 MPH (yes it was very hard to drive this slow, and yes that was probably me slowing you down in the fast lane, man it takes forever to pass a semi at 65).

So my MPG was 28.2 using the MID for 48 painful miles.

FWIW

porsherules911

nice 28.2!

Last week when i filled up I drove with absolute minimum use of throttle on the highway and I managed to hit 27.

mav238

Yeah... the gas prices are really creeping up there... eh...

I guess that's why there are so many posts about what is the best fuel economy people are getting with their RDX's.

HWY fuel economy numbers are fine, but a majority of commuters actually drive in city traffic, and even for those that use the freeway, many of these freeways are congested during peak hours.

In any case, the RDX was designed as a turbocharged full-time AWD vehicle... I don't think the designer of the vehicle was thinking too too much about fuel economy. Although, she did design it to have fuel efficiency comparable to a larger displacement V6 engine with FWD. The latter implies that the fuel economy of the RDX is not, and WILL NEVER be comparable to a Honda Civic... IT WILL feel like it drinks gasoline at times , but we knew that going into buying this vehicle, right???

So question is: Why does it seem like everyone is "obsessed" with trying to see how far they can push the fuel economy numbers on their RDX?

Do I feel the "pinge" when I fill up the RDX?... of course, especially when I have my other car, the TSX, which is 25% more fuel efficient than the RDX. But I got the RDX for it's AWD capability, overall value in terms of luxury appeal, performance and reliability.
I could have gotten the CRV or the RAV4... which was as fuel efficient as my TSX.

So maybe for those, who are still trying to wring out the max. fuel mileage out of their RDX, maybe the CRV was a better choice? And it uses only regular gas as well!!!

Fishbulb

Actually, Acura touted the decision to use the turbo 4 to get V6 power with better fuel economy, and advertised that fact as a selling feature.

batman

I have found that 60-65 returns the best mileage. It was the same in my TSX. It just sucks ass going that slow when grandmas and soccer moms are passing you.

porsherules911

Not to be rude but I definitely am not obsessed by my fuel economy. To be honest, I have a heavy foot and therefore I only average 17-18 mpg per tank. In this particular case, I was just bored and wanted to see what the mpg would peak at.

I could not agree with you more. I don't understand people who always complain about the "bad" mpg that they are getting. You had to have some idea about the fuel economy before you bought the car and comon lets be real... obviously fuel prices are not going to be coming down... The reality is the Rdx gets similar fuel economy to all other cars in its class. If that is still unacceptable then I would have to say that you should trade in the car for a civic.

turboted

With gas prices as high as they are all of us are very sensetive about MPG. In California I filled my tank today and it was $60+. I fill my tank every 6 days on average. I love my RDX and my only compalint so far has been MPG, and I drive very conservativly.

Lrpba300

Yea, I agree. I think that people in general are stuck on that stigma called a 4-cylinder engine is suppose to get "great mileage"! You put it in an SUV that's almost 4k lbs., turbo it, make it AWD and guess what happens to mileage??
Oh by the way, you also get a fun handling, fairly fast, great sized luxury SUV!!

mav238

No matter how conservatively you drive the RDX, the vehicle has full-time AWD and is not a light vehicle. The CRV is real-time AWD, which means mostly FWD, until slippage occurs, which most times only in snow or sliush conditions... In the wet, I doubt the REAL-TIME system kicks in much... Hence the 10L per 100 km with regular gas...

It is going to be 18-19 mpg... one way or the other...

porsherules911

There is always carpooling or taking public transportation to compensate for the high gas prices.

I average about 4-5 days per fillup and yes it is $60+ but what am I going to do about it? I understand the fuel efficiency of these things and I'm perfectly fine with the mpg i am getting. As for high gas prices... yeah it does suck.. but I just deal with it and.. Make more money

F.Rizzo

RAV4 is faster AND gets better milage than the RDX

sasair

Slightly quicker, until you have to turn the steering wheel....

DCIANDREW

[QUOTE=mav238]Yeah... the gas prices are really creeping up there... eh...

I guess that's why there are so many posts about what is the best fuel economy people are getting with their RDX's.

HWY fuel economy numbers are fine, but a majority of commuters actually drive in city traffic, and even for those that use the freeway, many of these freeways are congested during peak hours.

In any case, the RDX was designed as a turbocharged full-time AWD vehicle... I don't think the designer of the vehicle was thinking too too much about fuel economy. Although, she did design it to have fuel efficiency comparable to a larger displacement V6 engine with FWD. The latter implies that the fuel economy of the RDX is not, and WILL NEVER be comparable to a Honda Civic... IT WILL feel like it drinks gasoline at times , but we knew that going into buying this vehicle, right???


It was juxt an experiment. I did it jsut for the sake of seeing what the results would be. The point I was trying to make is the difference of MPG based upon speed. It was a supprise to me that 10 MPH would be such a huge difference in MPG.

Now for me it is a reminder that if I want to save some $$ slow down. Even though I purchased this car and find it fantastic, it by no means allows me not to be concearned about how much money I spend on gas.

DCIANDREW

It was juxt an experiment. I did it jsut for the sake of seeing what the results would be. The point I was trying to make is the difference of MPG based upon speed. It was a supprise to me that 10 MPH would be such a huge difference in MPG.

Now for me it is a reminder that if I want to save some $$ slow down. Even though I purchased this car and find it fantastic, it by no means allows me not to be concearned about how much money I spend on gas.

mav238

I totally agree one should be concerned with how one might be wasting gas with excessive callous use of the gas pedal. In that same respect, I try to drive "normally" and only use the extra torque the turbocharger affords in situation where I had to pass a vehicle such as a slow moving truck etc.

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?

1092

You nailed it. Lets not forget the bone-head marketing folks for justifying the 4-banger around fuel efficiency.

bialkoni

I agree, If I rememeber the sticker on the RDX said 17mpg city 23mpg hwy.
So if you are driving 50/50 you should be averaging around 19-20mpg or so driving normally (butsometimes it is to much fun to kick in the turbo).
To me if you don't like the gas mileage you should not have purchased the RDX.
As far as gas goes nationally we are still a little behind the price from last year.

flar

The numbers on the EPA sticker were 19/23.
Given the 19/23 numbers on the sticker, I'd actually expect a little higher than 19-20 with a 50/50 mix, but...

Averaging 70% highway with fairly sedate driving I get around 17 mpg. With 50% city I get under 15 mpg. Fillling up and going on the highway directly from the station and driving around 65 I can barely get 21 mpg (up from under 20 when I first bought the car).
How could I have known that I would get the numbers I'm getting from the EPA sticker, or from Acura marketing the car as coming with a "fuel efficient" 4 cylinder? If I was able to get the 19-20 combined that you cite then I would think it was a little low, but still appropriate given the available evidence when I bought the car, but I'm not getting anywhere even close to those numbers.

And, I'm getting worse mileage than my last car (which got 20-21 overall and 25 or so on the highway) which had comparable EPA numbers (17/24), weighed almost as much (within 200 pounds), had 2 turbos with much less turbo lag than the RDX, did 0-60 well under 6 seconds and could pass anything on the highway with a slight nudge on the throttle in 6th gear. So, no, it doesn't sound like the mileage I'm seeing in the RDX is the "best one could expect" for this much performance...

porsherules911

That seems a bit odd... If I fill up and go straight on the highway for some cruising I easily average at least 24. Even last time I managed to peak at 27 but these roads were completely flat and in some parts downhill. So perhaps you are either stepping on the gas on the highway or going frequently uphill.

Most of my driving is 50/50 and I do enjoy using the turbo... y not right? Even with my "heavy" foot, I have yet to reach as low as 15 mpg. I usually average 17 with 50/50 depending on how much time I sit in traffic. So either you are like me and like using the turbo if not I would say that something is wrong with your engine.

flar

I commute on about 40 miles of highway (typically little traffic at the time that I do the commute). I've had a few occasions to fuel up before my return home. If I use cruise control on the highway that's flat (follows the bay with not much more than 50 feet variance over the 40 miles) I can get over 22, sometimes close to 23. If I use my foot, but drive mellowly it's usually just about 21, sometimes a little over. If I drive on the other highway that has lots of hills (both up and down, possibly about 500 foot variance in a couple of places) I can't even break 20.
15 is by no means abusing the turbo. My previous car had twin turbos and I used them quite well and got maybe 18 on my worst tanks. If I drive this car the same way I won't even get 15.

Clearly there is a lot of variance in the mileage that people are seeing, judging from the anecdotal evidence I've seen on here. For one thing, I can't imagine under ANY circumstances getting 27 out of this car - no matter how much I mellow out with cruise control. I'd have to be going downhill the entire time.

One thing that might contribute is that the MPG that the car reports is fairly optimistic. The closest reading I've gotten was optimistic by a little under an MPG. At higher MPG readings it seems more optimisitc. Was your 27 reading based on an odometer vs. gas pump calculation, or did you believe the number that the trip computer gave you?

batman

I have read on another site that the RDX runs very rich. This could explain the gas guzzling tendencies. From watching my MID, I get 6mpg from a dead stop and then it slowly climbs up. Right now I get 21 mpg. I have seen 27 but only for a short all highway trip.

porsherules911

I know others have said that the computer mpg seems a bit high maybe +1 mpg but when I calculate the miles driven with the amount of gallons taken in, it seems to work out fine. On one road trip i took, i averaged 23ish and after 16 gallons, I had driven aroun 370 miles. And if I'm not mistaken when the fuel light indicator comes on, then there is only 2 gallons of gas left.

minkl81

iTrader: (2)

RDX 19/23 mpg
MDX 17/22 mpg

i think people are sensitive with rdx's mpg because of its size and class. not much difference between much bigger MDX. honda should've put in v6 rather than turbo4. not much weight or gas saving compared to v6 engine.

porsherules911

only problem is a V6 wouldn't fit in the Rdx hence the reason for going with i4 along with a turbo.

flar

I prefer to use "how many gallons does it take until it won't take any more" as a measure of how much gas I've used. I think that's a pretty accurate way of gauging it, but it does have its pitfalls with variances in pumps. But, I pretty consistently see about +1 MPG on the MID so you'd think the variances would average out over a few tankfuls.

I think the light is supposed to come on with 2 gallons left, but I've never done any rigorous tests of that. I'd be inclined to believe your 23 MPG measurement. If your MID showed that at the same time, then maybe you're one of the lucky ones...

porsherules911

Yes i guess I am one of the more luckier owners Its funny because I was actually worried about the engine not too long ago whether or not it was sucking too much gas since I did use the turbo a lot after break-in and averaged only 18 mpg. But I never really went a whole tank in "fuel conserving" mode or in simple terms not flooring the gas. After taking it easy for a couple tanks, I was relieved to see my mpg avg well over 20 easily and I knew the engine was broken in nicely

optik_rdx

I think a lot of people bought the RDX who used to drive sedans and other cars that got better gas mileage than an AWD 4,000 lbs SUV. This combined with the $3+ gallon gas and people are trying to save some money on gas.

I got a speeding ticket last week for going 86 in a 55 (reckless driving in VA) so I'll be one of those grandmas from now on or I may lose my license. Sucks because I'd only had the car for about 2 weeks and I was driving on the open highway with no cars around me.

c_hunter

ah, that sucks. I got an 81 in a 55 ticket in VA and also flirted with the reckless charge, which would have been a misdemeanor and bad news for my driving record. I was able to throw myself on the mercy of the court and they knocked it down to simple speeding. And now I do drive like a grandma, never more than 7-10mph over the limit. It's a tough way to learn. I bet if more people knew anything over 80mph was reckless in VA, it would deter a lot of speeding.

optik_rdx

Yeah I'm hoping to have it reduced to a normal speeding ticket since I've never had a speeding ticket. Either way it kind of spoiled my feeling of just buying the RDX, but I guess I'll just have to be more careful in the future.

mav238

Been driving to work by leaving the house @ 6:30am, to avoid getting stuck for hours on congested traffic.

Vancouver traffic will always be congested, even if we live in the suburbs. But at least I don't just sit on the road, for like 10-15 mins waiting for the traffic to move or trickle along, by leaving for work early. Traffic is flowing at least; though still have to get past lots of lights...stop and go traffic unavoidable...

But thus far, achieved 11.5L per 100 km, with 80% city driving and 20% driving at 80 km/h on our Vancouver so called highways (that is the kind of speed we can get on those somewhat congested highways).

I think this is pretty decent for full-time AWD and the weight of the RDX.

Another thing I try to do is to anticipate slowing down, so that I am not rushing towards the car in front of me when the cars ahead are already slowing down or braking... What I find is that the less i try to unnecessarily slam hard on brakes, but rather adjust my speed accordingly to anticipate the driving conditions, it really does help with minimizing gas consumption...

Well, it has become a driving habit now to do that, so it is not stressful to put mroe attention to anticipative driving habits...

Pacer

Sucks right now, but it will get better in time so try not to let it cloud your new purchase. My gf is a traffic/defense attorney, so that's where this next thought comes from: Hire a traffic attorney and you can likely get your ticket knocked down some; I'd say you could get it voided altogether or knocked down to faulty equipment by paying double the fine and attending a "safety class" or whatever...but I don't know your local laws plus you were 20+ over the speed limit. Even so, there may be some leeway for you with an attorney on your side. Ask around to friends/work and see if you can get a referral to a good attorney who made someone else happy.

I don't advocate dangerous driving (I keep my speed capped at 9mph or less over the limit on highways and always drive within the limit in city), but you might consider getting a radar detector. I also got one of those 20-over tickets about 3 years ago. I didn't even realize I was going that fast, it was just a mistake, probably like yours. Never again. For that one, there was no bargaining.

I bought a "Steel Eye" detector at Costco for $99 a year ago; now the price has dropped to about $84...it is a cordless unit. Can run for 4 hrs+ off rechargeable AAs (AWESOME feature) and can be charged in-car with the lighter adapter. It has paid for itself more than a few times for me. There is really nothing you can do against laser, b/c once you're painted, you're busted and afaik there is no detector that can help there. But for K band which a lot of cops use, this thing is excellent.

To stay on-topic: Easing up on the throttle also nets better mpg.

mav238

wouldn't the cost of the attorney outweigh the cost of a ticket?

Tonia

You also have to factor in the cost of insurance after the ticket. Could very well make it worth it to hire an attorney or at least an initial consultation to see what they think of your case. Often an initial consultation is a nominal fee or no charge.

c_hunter

At least in VA, if you educate yourself a little bit, you can do OK in court. I saw a few people with attorneys and it didn't help them a whole lot, at least not more than the rest of us who were fending for ourselves. There are a finite set of rules and outcomes for a "reckless by speeding" charge in VA. I think the best option is to plead guilty and ask for some mercy. With a clean driving record, they are more inclined to be lenient.

evantec

On the sedan side, someone can make a similar argument that the TSX should have gotten a V6 because it weighs nearly as much as a TL. But then they'd have a harder time up-selling the TL if it was up against a V6 TSX.

I suspect the same thing with the RDX -- if it had a V6, they'd have trouble explaining the difference between that and the MDX.

Maybe the RDX's Turbo-4 winds up in the next TSX!

batman

Man I hate VA laws and the state-lite for that matter. People in my office have joked about not abiding by there laws because there are not a real state.

Lrpba300

Flar, I have to ask you, b/c you're always saying how poor the mpg is in the RDX compaired to the "last car you had"? What was it by chance?
Was it AWD(all the time), was it more areodynamic than the RDX, geared diff. diff. torque curve, etc. These all have an effect on mpg. I see your driving in S/F. Hilly area. I'm in C/S CO ...lots of hills PLUS high elevation. I'm happy w/ 17.5 around town in a 4k lb., AWD, turbo charged vehicle. My G35x had a v6 & got slightly better mpg, but not much. It was geared diff. & much lower to the ground. If Acura is the only manufacture to "fudge" on their sticker about MPG, then who's fooling who? The G35x didn't get what it was sticker rated either! But then again, neither were either of the MDX's I had. They got even WORSE mpg than the RDX! Now explain that one!

All driven in the same city, same gas, same style, same distances. It will very a lot for some vehicles.

XLR8R

From his description, I'm guessing Audi S-4, or some variant.

XLR8R

I think the engineers were looking for V-6 power with 4 cylinder weight for chassis balance, just as in other quick handling performance vehicles.

Then Marketing got a-hold of it and it didn't make a good sound bite. So they said "Tell 'em it's for economy; that's what gets peoples attention."

It was clearly a clueless decision, as anyone with an SUV Buyers Guide could have seen.

The marketers had to be embarassed by Toyota's 268 HP V-6 that gets 28 mpg in the Rav-4. But the Rav doesn't handle like an RDX....heavy V-6.

flar

It was an Audi S4 as someone already guessed, sorry I wasn't really trying to make a secret of that.

I was bringing this up (and focusing more on the attributes) because it seems that everytime the mileage question comes up someone always posts something along the lines that we should expect worse mileage because the RDX is (heavier, turbocharged, more powerful, driven more quickly, etc.), but the problem is that the various attributes that they name were just as much of a potential obstacle (or worse in some cases) for my S4 and yet I turned in better mileage with that car.
It was AWD, all the time, even more so than the RDX I believe - someone might know better but I believe that Audi AWD is less front biased than the RDX.

It was probably more aerodynamic than the RDX and gearing could have been a factor - those are good suggestions, but not the typical suggestions that are trotted out when defending the RDX. It was also a manual so I was more in control of the gearing.

I also believe the fact that the S4 was a turbocharged V6 instead of an I4 had something to do with it. It definitely had a really flat torque curve which is easier to achieve with a V6 than an I4. My impression is that Audi used the twin turbos on the S4 more to flatten the torque curve than to make more peak power. The high RPM of the torque peak on the RDX speaks to that.

But, all of these differences speak to the fact that "more power" doesn't necessarily mean "eats gas". There is efficiency of design and you can get huge power efficiently or you can simply design a system to dump in tons of gas (and air) to develop the power.
Yes, that is where both cars were driven. Same environment and I drove the S4 much more aggressively. While the aerodynamics of the RDX might explain its worse highway mileage, only the gearing/torque curve or the fact that it is a 4 rather than a 6 would explain the worse city mileage.

Also, the fact that some can get 24-25 on the highway has me wondering how. The only possible explanations I can see are that their readings are wrong (the MPG on the MID is not accurate and must be verified by pump calculations - mine are typically about 1MPG too high, others may be more off?) or that there is something wrong with my car, or ...

One last theory is that Honda designed the engine and transmission with a very specific driving behavior set in mind and it isn't necessarily "gentler is better", but "doing it just as they expect is better" and neither my throttle habits, nor the habits of my cruise control match that expectation...?
Both my '00 S4 and my '93 325i got better mileage than their stickers and I drove them very aggressively...