When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Just returned from a 700 mile round trip - NJ to the Finger Lakes in NY and back. Fully loaded, A/C on most of time, mountains, 70-75 mph, averaged 28.9 mpg. That included a fair amount of slow driving while up there and about 10 miles of extremely hard driving. Pure highway fuel economy was probably 30+ mpg. Not disappointed.
I did notice a massive disparity in instantaneous fuel consumption as it relates to boost. It seems this engine is very Jekyll and Hyde. When the engine operated under light boost, fuel economy was surprisingly good. However if I crossed “the threshold” and used moderate boost (no purple color on the boost gauge), it was like a light switch. Fuel economy immediately became dismal. There was no middle ground. Just boom! – good fuel economy to crap fuel economy. It makes me wonder how the ECU is programmed to control fuel richness as boost increases, as in the need to cool the cylinders. There was very little transition from good to poor fuel economy.
Changing subjects, when on the gas I found the 2.0T had more than adequate power. Watkins Glen Race Track is located on the very southern tip of Lake Seneca. For $30, the track lets drivers “Drive the Glen” in their regular road cars. My group consisted of about 9 cars. We entered the track behind a pole car, were instructed to not pass, maintain safe distance and drive 55 mph. We had three laps around the track. By the second lap we stretched out and as expected, nobody did 55 in the straights.
Here is my point. The vehicle in front of me was a 2020 Ford F150 with the 2.7T engine. (0-60 in 6.1 seconds with a 95 mph trap speed.) On the straights he floored it and my fully loaded RDX would easily run it down. My wife endlessly screamed “you’re getting too close!” I know I exited corners far faster than the heavy truck. But still, between 40 mph and 90 mph, this 2.0T had significantly more acceleration than the truck, which on paper has very similar acceleration.
On the subject of the RDX’s handling close to its limit, I thought steering input was excellent and the suspension was very predictable and well controlled. I’m FWD only, and the back end would slip out just a tiny bit on the harder corners. The front tires did NOT spin upon any corner’s exit. However, the slowest speed I entered a corner was perhaps 35-40 mph. At 40+ mph, its hard to spin the wheels.
Anyway, given the RDX’s decent highway power (30 < 90 mph) and the ability to deliver 30 mpg highway if driven prudently, I am very happy with it.
I bought my 2017 Tech used last September with 40k miles. I disconnected the battery in February so the vehicle could learn my driving habits. The gas mileage has steadily improved as I drive more. I'm over 22 mpg (cumulative) since disconnecting the battery. I was at 19 before.
Hummmm, there may be some improvement after 10k ish miles. It's still me driving, same roads, same loads, etc. I'm 26-28mpg mostly highway now without trying very hard.
I may have posted that that there is little break-in improvement earlier but I may have been wrong in this case.
Just returned from a 700 mile round trip - NJ to the Finger Lakes in NY and back. Fully loaded, A/C on most of time, mountains, 70-75 mph, averaged 28.9 mpg. That included a fair amount of slow driving while up there and about 10 miles of extremely hard driving. Pure highway fuel economy was probably 30+ mpg. Not disappointed.
I did notice a massive disparity in instantaneous fuel consumption as it relates to boost. It seems this engine is very Jekyll and Hyde. When the engine operated under light boost, fuel economy was surprisingly good. However if I crossed “the threshold” and used moderate boost (no purple color on the boost gauge), it was like a light switch. Fuel economy immediately became dismal. There was no middle ground. Just boom! – good fuel economy to crap fuel economy. It makes me wonder how the ECU is programmed to control fuel richness as boost increases, as in the need to cool the cylinders. There was very little transition from good to poor fuel economy.
Changing subjects, when on the gas I found the 2.0T had more than adequate power. Watkins Glen Race Track is located on the very southern tip of Lake Seneca. For $30, the track lets drivers “Drive the Glen” in their regular road cars. My group consisted of about 9 cars. We entered the track behind a pole car, were instructed to not pass, maintain safe distance and drive 55 mph. We had three laps around the track. By the second lap we stretched out and as expected, nobody did 55 in the straights.
Here is my point. The vehicle in front of me was a 2020 Ford F150 with the 2.7T engine. (0-60 in 6.1 seconds with a 95 mph trap speed.) On the straights he floored it and my fully loaded RDX would easily run it down. My wife endlessly screamed “you’re getting too close!” I know I exited corners far faster than the heavy truck. But still, between 40 mph and 90 mph, this 2.0T had significantly more acceleration than the truck, which on paper has very similar acceleration.
On the subject of the RDX’s handling close to its limit, I thought steering input was excellent and the suspension was very predictable and well controlled. I’m FWD only, and the back end would slip out just a tiny bit on the harder corners. The front tires did NOT spin upon any corner’s exit. However, the slowest speed I entered a corner was perhaps 35-40 mph. At 40+ mph, its hard to spin the wheels.
Anyway, given the RDX’s decent highway power (30 < 90 mph) and the ability to deliver 30 mpg highway if driven prudently, I am very happy with it.
I though only the first gen and third gen RDX had a turbo?
...so driving my recently acquired 2018 Tech around the city for the past two months, I was getting 14.1L/100km (about 17MPG US) in the city on 91 octane. My previous Volvo S60 which heavier with a 3.0L turbo that I drove aggressively on 87 octane, was around 11.5L/100km (20.5MPG US) in the city. I found this a little bit disappointing... especially when I'm taking a hit on premium fuel these days at $1.68CAD/litre (just over $5.00USD per US gallon).
What I realized, is that my driving needed to change. I don't have to drive any less aggressively when accelerating, but I needed to treat the throttle on the RDX differently when cruising in the city... which so far has brought the consumption to somewhere between 11.5L/100km and 12.5L/100km (19MPG US)... which is more acceptable.
It's possible that I miss that turbo "grunt" and I'm digging into the gas pedal to (unsuccessfully) get that feeling. I'm keeping the fuel-consumption display running in real-time so I can literally "train" myself to drive the car more efficiently... which feels like a neverending piano lesson... but whatever.
It's possible that I miss that turbo "grunt" and I'm digging into the gas pedal to (unsuccessfully) get that feeling. I'm keeping the fuel-consumption display running in real-time so I can literally "train" myself to drive the car more efficiently... which feels like a neverending piano lesson... but whatever.
I am in no rush. Hell, its an everyday driver SUV. Want to go fast, get a fast car and you can easily live with 20 L/100 km and feel good about it.
I keep an accurate fuel log for all my vehicles; comes from my flying days.
This past summer...
Highway: 7.7 L/100 km and sometimes as low as 6.6 L/100 km.
City with lots of short trips of 20 km max: 10.6/11.1/11.8 L/100 km.
Winter with warm-ups while sweeping the snow off and lots of short trips: 12-14 L/100 km.
I am in no rush. Hell, its an everyday driver SUV. Want to go fast, get a fast car and you can easily live with 20 L/100 km and feel good about it.
See... I came from a 0-60mph in 5.5 second car, that weighed more, had 75ft-lbs more torque at 2800 less RPM's... and I drove it like a lead-footed jackass in the city for 11.5L/100km on 87 octane.
Now I'm feathering the gas pedal like a frickin' ballet dancer just to barely get the same figures with premium fuel... maybe it's aerodynamics, maybe it Maybelline... who knows??
Last edited by PintoMusic; 11-10-2021 at 01:26 PM.
See... I came from a 0-60mph in 5.5 second car, that weighed more, had 75ft-lbs more torque at 2800 less RPM's... and I drove it like a lead-footed jackass in the city for 11.5L/100km on 87 octane.
Now I'm feathering the gas pedal like a frickin' ballet dancer just to barely get the same figures with premium fuel... maybe it's aerodynamics, maybe it Maybelline... who knows??
Well there is a big difference between a turbo engine & naturally aspirated engine. That power difference at low RPMs is probably why you're using more gas, because you're using more throttle.
See... I came from a 0-60mph in 5.5 second car, that weighed more, had 75ft-lbs more torque at 2800 less RPM's... and I drove it like a lead-footed jackass in the city for 11.5L/100km on 87 octane.
Now I'm feathering the gas pedal like a frickin' ballet dancer just to barely get the same figures with premium fuel... maybe it's aerodynamics, maybe it Maybelline... who knows??
Ahhh, I even take it easy with the Porsche and I usually get around 11-13 L/100 km on public roads. I am rarely 20 kph over the limit. I get all these clowns on my butt in a straight line...till we get to the 270 degree on-ramp to the highway. Then at the end of the on-ramp, where are they as I am merging...some tiny spec in my rear view mirror. LOL
Really the track is where the fun is. I spent 3 days with Porsche on the track and had a ball. Simply incredible to reach 1.3G on performance street tires in the curves and almost 1G on a damp/wet track. Who would have thought?
In the summer months, I average 25 on 89-octane with a mix of highway and city driving. Ohio winter-driving I still get 20 to 22 on average. FWIW I can average 27/28 on the highway. I'm driving a 19' RDX A-Spec with SHAWD with almost 70k miles. Been a great vehicle, fun to drive!
Originally Posted by 17rdx
I recently got a 2017 RDX in January and have 1100 miles on the odometer. My MPG is about 13.9 (for mostly city driving). I think this is very low compared to the 20 MPG advertised on Acura's website. I'm pretty light on pressing the gas and brake. Also, I don't even turn the A/C on. I heard that resetting the ECU would raise the MPG. Is that true? Any recommendations? Thank you
In the summer months, I average 25 on 89-octane with a mix of highway and city driving. Ohio winter-driving I still get 20 to 22 on average. FWIW I can average 27/28 on the highway. I'm driving a 19' RDX A-Spec with SHAWD with almost 70k miles. Been a great vehicle, fun to drive!
Of course that is a completely different vehicle that is not in the model year range of this thread.
And the 1st and 3rd gen are 4-bangers with a turbo. The 2nd gen is a 3.5L V6...thank God.
I bought a 2017 RDX late in 2020. I wanted the V6 specifically.
When looking I took out a CRV (can't recall year) and it was totally gutless. Turned out it was a NON-turbo 4 banger.
Started looking up the specs on the newer RDX and discovered the Turbo 4 produces 272 horsepower (SAE net) at 6,500 rpm and 280 lb. -ft. of torque (SAE net) from 1,600 to 4,500 rpm.
The 3.5L V6 naturally aspirated gave 279 hp @ 6200 rpm Torque 252 lb.-ft. @ 4900 rpm
I'm an old gearhead and worked on a lot of cars/engines over the years.
I have trouble getting my head around the idea of getting almost as much horsepower, and more torque out of a 2.0L engine vs a 3.5L engine is potentially problematic.
Getting 1 HP per Cubic Inch is/was always good performance.
The V6 is 213cid so it's already producing 1.3hp/cid.
The T4 is only 122cid so it's producing 2.23hp/cid.
That seems to be just looking for trouble when it comes to long term reliability, although I know they seem to be holding up pretty well so far.
Of course that is a completely different vehicle that is not in the model year range of this thread.
Back on topic, I'm getting a lot better mileage on my 2017 RDX Tech than 17RDX had reported.
I live N/E of Toronto but make several trips a year down to our cottage near Cooperstown NY. ~375 miles each way.
I'm getting around 20mpg each trip. It's mostly highway driving but I do NOT have a "light" foot.....
I often settle in behind a BMW (speedometers are an optional extra apparently) and shadow them at speeds a tad higher than posted.
I bought a 2017 RDX late in 2020. I wanted the V6 specifically.
When looking I took out a CRV (can't recall year) and it was totally gutless. Turned out it was a NON-turbo 4 banger.
Started looking up the specs on the newer RDX and discovered the Turbo 4 produces 272 horsepower (SAE net) at 6,500 rpm and 280 lb. -ft. of torque (SAE net) from 1,600 to 4,500 rpm.
The 3.5L V6 naturally aspirated gave 279 hp @ 6200 rpm Torque 252 lb.-ft. @ 4900 rpm
I'm an old gearhead and worked on a lot of cars/engines over the years.
I have trouble getting my head around the idea of getting almost as much horsepower, and more torque out of a 2.0L engine vs a 3.5L engine is potentially problematic.
Getting 1 HP per Cubic Inch is/was always good performance.
The V6 is 213cid so it's already producing 1.3hp/cid.
The T4 is only 122cid so it's producing 2.23hp/cid.
That seems to be just looking for trouble when it comes to long term reliability, although I know they seem to be holding up pretty well so far.
I'm an old gear head as well and I honestly don't understand your concerns. A few points:
High specific outputs have been around for a long time and when properly engineered, there is no correlation between output and longevity.
Over the last 50 years I've had large displacement low revving NA engines, small displacement Turbo engines, and high revving small displacement NA engines, all with similar peak power levels, and have noticed no discernable differences in reliability.
Why is it you think high specific outputs are detrimental?
I'm an old gear head as well and I honestly don't understand your concerns. A few points:
High specific outputs have been around for a long time and when properly engineered, there is no correlation between output and longevity.
Over the last 50 years I've had large displacement low revving NA engines, small displacement Turbo engines, and high revving small displacement NA engines, all with similar peak power levels, and have noticed no discernable differences in reliability.
Why is it you think high specific outputs are detrimental?
FWIW, it's mostly "me" and hangups from much earlier times when it comes to how much you can get out of an engine.
I've built and blown up engines in the past. But that's because I was pushing them beyond the design limits of SOME parts of the engine.
If they were only designed for a maximum of 300 HP, and you take an engine already producing that and stuff a blower on top.... you could blow the bottom end out of the engine if the pistons, rods, crankshaft and main bearings aren't up to the job.
Going through that right now with an old Triumph Spitfire 1500. There is a lot I can do to it to get HP well above the factory levels. Above even the UK/Euro ratings. But you can't push it much past 100 hp because it only has 3 main bearings.
(Which would be just slightly above 1 HP/cid.
There are other ways to get more power but I'm not looking for quite this big of a job.
In the case of the RDX, I realize the I4T is designed from the ground up to produce that amount of power. Meaning they should be reliable.
Turbo bearings used to be an issue "back in the day" but I don't hear/see many complaints nowadays about them. Suggesting a much better lubricating/cooling system was developed.
09-23-2021, 09:38 AM
