Real MPG
#41
Back to mileage...My Darling(who employs the 'straight from gas to brake to gas' style of driving) managed to score under 20mpg average during a typical trip around Austin. I'm sad to see that for the first time since our average usually hangs around 21 with mixed driving. In fairness, the A/C has been crankin' for the past few weeks; but I dare say the driving style is likely to blame. The 0-65mph highways around town don't help.
I figured some of my smooth highway cruising would even things out, especially since 'her' average must have been calculated over just a few miles with plenty of 'standing/running'. NO, the readout has not budged in over 4 days of mixed driving. I didn't note the odo reading at the last fill-up, so I have no idea what the actual mileage should read...but I'm pretty bloody sure it's NOT 16.3 with 50% highway miles over the last few days. I've got over 1000 miles before the next service; but I might need to get this checked in the next week. I'm going to try the old school MPG calculation after today's fill-up. Strange...very strange.
#42
Speaking of My Darling, she drove the RDX a fair amount during our move of the last three/four weeks...leaving the vehicle running while she was unloading(WAY over 100 degrees here in early August!). I considered this when I saw the average MPG readout of 16.3 !!!
I figured some of my smooth highway cruising would even things out, especially since 'her' average must have been calculated over just a few miles with plenty of 'standing/running'. NO, the readout has not budged in over 4 days of mixed driving. I didn't note the odo reading at the last fill-up, so I have no idea what the actual mileage should read...but I'm pretty bloody sure it's NOT 16.3 with 50% highway miles over the last few days. I've got over 1000 miles before the next service; but I might need to get this checked in the next week. I'm going to try the old school MPG calculation after today's fill-up. Strange...very strange.
I figured some of my smooth highway cruising would even things out, especially since 'her' average must have been calculated over just a few miles with plenty of 'standing/running'. NO, the readout has not budged in over 4 days of mixed driving. I didn't note the odo reading at the last fill-up, so I have no idea what the actual mileage should read...but I'm pretty bloody sure it's NOT 16.3 with 50% highway miles over the last few days. I've got over 1000 miles before the next service; but I might need to get this checked in the next week. I'm going to try the old school MPG calculation after today's fill-up. Strange...very strange.
#43
Dang, I'd love to get 30+mpg...
I don't drive my RDX too much, occasionally I will commute to work (<5 miles one way) but some days I don't drive it at all. It's still fairly new, and other than the trip back up to Seattle (bought the car in Portland, OR), it's gone probably less than 75 miles on the freeway.
Just took my first long road trip from Seattle, WA -> Spokane, WA -> Coeur D'Alene, ID. 15 miles of city driving on the tank before the drive out. I got 333 miles before the light came on, about ~24mpg. Almost entirely 70-80mph the entire trip w/AC on, 4 passengers and a full (but light) load in the back.
The tank back got 350 miles before the light, so just pushed me over 25mpg. This time was driving 60-70mph the entire trip.
This was a little surprising to me, I thought I'd hit 28+mpg easy. But then again, I did have almost a full car of passengers and luggage.
My previous car was a 2009 Subaru Impreza 2.5i sedan stick shift (NOT a turbo WRX) and it really didn't do much better. With just my usual city driving, got under 20mpg and at my best, driving solo on the freeway, got close to 28-30mpg. I'll take having a bigger, more powerful, taller, roomier RDX over the Impreza any day. I do wish the RDX had a bigger tank, surprised to see it at only 16. My Impreza was nearly a full gallon bigger in a 2.5liter 4-banger.
I don't drive my RDX too much, occasionally I will commute to work (<5 miles one way) but some days I don't drive it at all. It's still fairly new, and other than the trip back up to Seattle (bought the car in Portland, OR), it's gone probably less than 75 miles on the freeway.
Just took my first long road trip from Seattle, WA -> Spokane, WA -> Coeur D'Alene, ID. 15 miles of city driving on the tank before the drive out. I got 333 miles before the light came on, about ~24mpg. Almost entirely 70-80mph the entire trip w/AC on, 4 passengers and a full (but light) load in the back.
The tank back got 350 miles before the light, so just pushed me over 25mpg. This time was driving 60-70mph the entire trip.
This was a little surprising to me, I thought I'd hit 28+mpg easy. But then again, I did have almost a full car of passengers and luggage.
My previous car was a 2009 Subaru Impreza 2.5i sedan stick shift (NOT a turbo WRX) and it really didn't do much better. With just my usual city driving, got under 20mpg and at my best, driving solo on the freeway, got close to 28-30mpg. I'll take having a bigger, more powerful, taller, roomier RDX over the Impreza any day. I do wish the RDX had a bigger tank, surprised to see it at only 16. My Impreza was nearly a full gallon bigger in a 2.5liter 4-banger.
#44
Dang, I'd love to get 30+mpg...
I don't drive my RDX too much, occasionally I will commute to work (<5 miles one way) but some days I don't drive it at all. It's still fairly new, and other than the trip back up to Seattle (bought the car in Portland, OR), it's gone probably less than 75 miles on the freeway.
Just took my first long road trip from Seattle, WA -> Spokane, WA -> Coeur D'Alene, ID. 15 miles of city driving on the tank before the drive out. I got 333 miles before the light came on, about ~24mpg. Almost entirely 70-80mph the entire trip w/AC on, 4 passengers and a full (but light) load in the back.
The tank back got 350 miles before the light, so just pushed me over 25mpg. This time was driving 60-70mph the entire trip.
This was a little surprising to me, I thought I'd hit 28+mpg easy. But then again, I did have almost a full car of passengers and luggage.
My previous car was a 2009 Subaru Impreza 2.5i sedan stick shift (NOT a turbo WRX) and it really didn't do much better. With just my usual city driving, got under 20mpg and at my best, driving solo on the freeway, got close to 28-30mpg. I'll take having a bigger, more powerful, taller, roomier RDX over the Impreza any day. I do wish the RDX had a bigger tank, surprised to see it at only 16. My Impreza was nearly a full gallon bigger in a 2.5liter 4-banger.
I don't drive my RDX too much, occasionally I will commute to work (<5 miles one way) but some days I don't drive it at all. It's still fairly new, and other than the trip back up to Seattle (bought the car in Portland, OR), it's gone probably less than 75 miles on the freeway.
Just took my first long road trip from Seattle, WA -> Spokane, WA -> Coeur D'Alene, ID. 15 miles of city driving on the tank before the drive out. I got 333 miles before the light came on, about ~24mpg. Almost entirely 70-80mph the entire trip w/AC on, 4 passengers and a full (but light) load in the back.
The tank back got 350 miles before the light, so just pushed me over 25mpg. This time was driving 60-70mph the entire trip.
This was a little surprising to me, I thought I'd hit 28+mpg easy. But then again, I did have almost a full car of passengers and luggage.
My previous car was a 2009 Subaru Impreza 2.5i sedan stick shift (NOT a turbo WRX) and it really didn't do much better. With just my usual city driving, got under 20mpg and at my best, driving solo on the freeway, got close to 28-30mpg. I'll take having a bigger, more powerful, taller, roomier RDX over the Impreza any day. I do wish the RDX had a bigger tank, surprised to see it at only 16. My Impreza was nearly a full gallon bigger in a 2.5liter 4-banger.
#46
I recently got a 2014 AWD RDX I currently have about 500 miles o it and my MPG meter has been hovering around 16. 90% of my driving has not been on highways but the car is advertised as 19 city/27 highway so I am still well below where I should be. When I drive, I constantly keep my eye on the mpg meter and am very cognizant of my driving habits. I try not to accelerate to quickly and do a good amount of coasting, especially into red lights and stop signs. It's not fun driving this way and I am getting crappy MPG so it's all for nothing.
Could there be something wrong with the car?
Could there be something wrong with the car?
#47
Yeah, you only have 500 miles on it. That's only like 2 tanks of gas total give it more time. Usually they get better mileage as you break the engine and seals in. Also maybe it's hilly in your area, that will affect mileage too as well as sitting in traffic.
#48
Should be 18/28 city/hwy for mpg
I have almost 5k and 4 months on the 2013 FWD RDX and like most I get 18mpg during city driving with mild acceleration on flat roads with normal stop light activity. If there's heavy traffic it would probably be more like 15 mpg.
For the highway, stay at 70mph or below and the car can acheive 31+ mpg if driven at least 15 miles without traffic. Take it to 75 mph and I doubt you'll see the rated 28mpg.
For the highway, stay at 70mph or below and the car can acheive 31+ mpg if driven at least 15 miles without traffic. Take it to 75 mph and I doubt you'll see the rated 28mpg.
#49
Drove from Austin to Houston on Friday afternoon.
spouse, 2 kiddos and stuff piled high that it blocked my rear view mirror.
Filled up with 87oct right before leaving via Hwy290 and arrived in Houston with 30.7mpg on the iMID. I averaged 65-70 mph with about 6,000miles on the odo, ambient temp was 97deg, quite humid and negligible wind.
spouse, 2 kiddos and stuff piled high that it blocked my rear view mirror.
Filled up with 87oct right before leaving via Hwy290 and arrived in Houston with 30.7mpg on the iMID. I averaged 65-70 mph with about 6,000miles on the odo, ambient temp was 97deg, quite humid and negligible wind.
#50
With almost 4K and a lot of city driving, I get 23.5 mpg city and 32 highway in a 2014 RDX AWD. We have a lot of hills and bridges in Pittsburgh. I thought I would see around 18-19 city and only 28-29 highway. Closer to 3K is when I noticed a change in the mpg. I have been running Exxon Supreme 93 octane.
For those concerned with the fuel mpg, allow the engine to break in. You will see a difference soon enough.
For those concerned with the fuel mpg, allow the engine to break in. You will see a difference soon enough.
#52
Went to Greenville and back (80 miles one way) and averaged 30.5 @ 72mph. Hilly terrain, 93 oct with 5200 miles on the odometer. Last time I did this trip is was on 87oct and hit 29mpg @ 64mph average.
#53
EPA on the 2wd models is exactly the same. On the 4wd versions the RDX get's one better city and the same hwy. So the MDX is NOT getting better MPG. The MDX weighs a lot more and the direct injection helps it get about the same mpg as the RDX. I agree that the DI engine would up the MPG in the RDX to an even better place. However, I'm just a little leery on the long term stability of the these direct injected engines especially since I plan on keeping my RDX for the long term! Time will tell. Hopefully, by the time I need to replace my RDX the DI engines will have had time to work out any bugs if necessary.
#54
The only long term issue I've seen thus far with direct injection engines is carbon buildup on the intake path. Without direct injection, you have the fuel spray to clean this off, but you don't have that with direct injection. I don't know of anything else really that affects reliability. While it isn't as broadly used, it has still been around for a while, though only really became popular recently with the MPG race and trying to lower emissions.
#55
The only long term issue I've seen thus far with direct injection engines is carbon buildup on the intake path. Without direct injection, you have the fuel spray to clean this off, but you don't have that with direct injection. I don't know of anything else really that affects reliability. While it isn't as broadly used, it has still been around for a while, though only really became popular recently with the MPG race and trying to lower emissions.
If it's been around, why hasn't it been used more? Is it more expensive to build or is it hard to get right? Seems like if it was just as cheap to build and reliable they would have starting using it sooner and more. I'm not that knowledgeable on the technology but I do wonder why, if something seems great on the surface, it isn't in widespread use already.
#56
It's more expensive. You need a high pressure fuel system. The reason it wasn't widely used in the past is mainly due to the cost difference and demand as far as I know. There was no real need for it before. You wanted more power, you added displacement and cylinders. In general, people didn't care that much about fuel economy or the environment. Now, everyone is very conscious of both. Primary concern tends to be fuel economy, and the better that is, the more environmentally friendly it is.
#57
It's more expensive. You need a high pressure fuel system. The reason it wasn't widely used in the past is mainly due to the cost difference and demand as far as I know. There was no real need for it before. You wanted more power, you added displacement and cylinders. In general, people didn't care that much about fuel economy or the environment. Now, everyone is very conscious of both. Primary concern tends to be fuel economy, and the better that is, the more environmentally friendly it is.
#58
Dang, I'd love to get 30+mpg...
I don't drive my RDX too much, occasionally I will commute to work (<5 miles one way) but some days I don't drive it at all. It's still fairly new, and other than the trip back up to Seattle (bought the car in Portland, OR), it's gone probably less than 75 miles on the freeway.
Just took my first long road trip from Seattle, WA -> Spokane, WA -> Coeur D'Alene, ID. 15 miles of city driving on the tank before the drive out. I got 333 miles before the light came on, about ~24mpg. Almost entirely 70-80mph the entire trip w/AC on, 4 passengers and a full (but light) load in the back.
The tank back got 350 miles before the light, so just pushed me over 25mpg. This time was driving 60-70mph the entire trip.
This was a little surprising to me, I thought I'd hit 28+mpg easy. But then again, I did have almost a full car of passengers and luggage.
My previous car was a 2009 Subaru Impreza 2.5i sedan stick shift (NOT a turbo WRX) and it really didn't do much better. With just my usual city driving, got under 20mpg and at my best, driving solo on the freeway, got close to 28-30mpg. I'll take having a bigger, more powerful, taller, roomier RDX over the Impreza any day. I do wish the RDX had a bigger tank, surprised to see it at only 16. My Impreza was nearly a full gallon bigger in a 2.5liter 4-banger.
I don't drive my RDX too much, occasionally I will commute to work (<5 miles one way) but some days I don't drive it at all. It's still fairly new, and other than the trip back up to Seattle (bought the car in Portland, OR), it's gone probably less than 75 miles on the freeway.
Just took my first long road trip from Seattle, WA -> Spokane, WA -> Coeur D'Alene, ID. 15 miles of city driving on the tank before the drive out. I got 333 miles before the light came on, about ~24mpg. Almost entirely 70-80mph the entire trip w/AC on, 4 passengers and a full (but light) load in the back.
The tank back got 350 miles before the light, so just pushed me over 25mpg. This time was driving 60-70mph the entire trip.
This was a little surprising to me, I thought I'd hit 28+mpg easy. But then again, I did have almost a full car of passengers and luggage.
My previous car was a 2009 Subaru Impreza 2.5i sedan stick shift (NOT a turbo WRX) and it really didn't do much better. With just my usual city driving, got under 20mpg and at my best, driving solo on the freeway, got close to 28-30mpg. I'll take having a bigger, more powerful, taller, roomier RDX over the Impreza any day. I do wish the RDX had a bigger tank, surprised to see it at only 16. My Impreza was nearly a full gallon bigger in a 2.5liter 4-banger.
In my highway driving, it results in a 10-15% mpg improvement. Find stations near you: http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp
Bet you'll go over 30 mpg with it, easy.
good luck,
woody
#59
EPA on the 2wd models is exactly the same. On the 4wd versions the RDX get's one better city and the same hwy. So the MDX is NOT getting better MPG. The MDX weighs a lot more and the direct injection helps it get about the same mpg as the RDX. I agree that the DI engine would up the MPG in the RDX to an even better place. However, I'm just a little leery on the long term stability of the these direct injected engines especially since I plan on keeping my RDX for the long term! Time will tell. Hopefully, by the time I need to replace my RDX the DI engines will have had time to work out any bugs if necessary.
The only long term issue I've seen thus far with direct injection engines is carbon buildup on the intake path. Without direct injection, you have the fuel spray to clean this off, but you don't have that with direct injection. I don't know of anything else really that affects reliability. While it isn't as broadly used, it has still been around for a while, though only really became popular recently with the MPG race and trying to lower emissions.
"While it isn't as broadly used,"
If it's been around, why hasn't it been used more? Is it more expensive to build or is it hard to get right? Seems like if it was just as cheap to build and reliable they would have starting using it sooner and more. I'm not that knowledgeable on the technology but I do wonder why, if something seems great on the surface, it isn't in widespread use already.
If it's been around, why hasn't it been used more? Is it more expensive to build or is it hard to get right? Seems like if it was just as cheap to build and reliable they would have starting using it sooner and more. I'm not that knowledgeable on the technology but I do wonder why, if something seems great on the surface, it isn't in widespread use already.
It may help to run synthetic oil and an oil catch can on a DI car.
#60
"The feedback from owners of the new MDX seem to show it gets better mileage than RDX owners report. With minimal reports on Fuelly.com it looks like both cars are too close to call."
Haven't seen seen or heard anything "from owners" that it's getting any better than the RDX. Where are you reading or hearing this? I would say "too close to call" is exactly what the EPA numbers suggest.....they are virtually the same with the RDX AWD getting just a tad higher. Still, very good since the MDX is bigger and heavier. If I needed the extra space and wanted to spend another 7 grand or so I would look at the MDX. But for my purposes I like the size and nimbleness of the RDX.
Haven't seen seen or heard anything "from owners" that it's getting any better than the RDX. Where are you reading or hearing this? I would say "too close to call" is exactly what the EPA numbers suggest.....they are virtually the same with the RDX AWD getting just a tad higher. Still, very good since the MDX is bigger and heavier. If I needed the extra space and wanted to spend another 7 grand or so I would look at the MDX. But for my purposes I like the size and nimbleness of the RDX.
#61
"The feedback from owners of the new MDX seem to show it gets better mileage than RDX owners report. With minimal reports on Fuelly.com it looks like both cars are too close to call."
Haven't seen seen or heard anything "from owners" that it's getting any better than the RDX. Where are you reading or hearing this? I would say "too close to call" is exactly what the EPA numbers suggest.....they are virtually the same with the RDX AWD getting just a tad higher. Still, very good since the MDX is bigger and heavier. If I needed the extra space and wanted to spend another 7 grand or so I would look at the MDX. But for my purposes I like the size and nimbleness of the RDX.
Haven't seen seen or heard anything "from owners" that it's getting any better than the RDX. Where are you reading or hearing this? I would say "too close to call" is exactly what the EPA numbers suggest.....they are virtually the same with the RDX AWD getting just a tad higher. Still, very good since the MDX is bigger and heavier. If I needed the extra space and wanted to spend another 7 grand or so I would look at the MDX. But for my purposes I like the size and nimbleness of the RDX.
https://acurazine.com/forums/3g-mdx-2014-2020-414/real-world-mileage-mdx-2014-a-891219/
#62
Just to add my data point, in my first measured tankful (with about 800 miles on the clock) I calculated 25.3 mpg, essentially identical to the display reading of 25.2. This was mostly in-town driving, although not much stop-and-go, and maybe 1/4 highway.
Since the display seems to be very accurate, I'm sure I'll be able to hit >30 on highway trips.
One funny thing - I find myself driving with a lighter foot when the mpg display is staring at me. (I'll need to shut if off for more, er, enthusiastic driving. )
Since the display seems to be very accurate, I'm sure I'll be able to hit >30 on highway trips.
One funny thing - I find myself driving with a lighter foot when the mpg display is staring at me. (I'll need to shut if off for more, er, enthusiastic driving. )
#63
For my second tracked tankful, I took a long drive consisting of about 2/3 highway, some two-lane "country" roads and a bit of the city. Returned 28 by the display and 28.3 calculated.
I didn't do an extensive study, but by watching the display, it seems the best mileage I attained (besides going downhill, of course) was on those traffic-free two-lane roads at about 45 mph or cruising on flat sections of freeways below 65.
Gotta say I'm pretty happy with the mileage - and with the fact that the display seems to be very accurate (unlike other vehicles I've had).
YMMV.
I didn't do an extensive study, but by watching the display, it seems the best mileage I attained (besides going downhill, of course) was on those traffic-free two-lane roads at about 45 mph or cruising on flat sections of freeways below 65.
Gotta say I'm pretty happy with the mileage - and with the fact that the display seems to be very accurate (unlike other vehicles I've had).
YMMV.
#64
From my experience with previous cars the RDX MPG calculator has come the closest. For me it's off by about .3-.5 MPG too high vs fill-up calculation. Compared to other cars who were off > 1 MPG this is pretty good.
#65
Three fillups for me and very pleased with the mpg gauge accuracy. Not sure if it'll break me of a 30-yr habit of manually calculating! So far, my calcs show me averaging about 25mpg on 75% freeway without traffic at 70mph+. My driving includes some steep hills to get home, plus my tendency toward spirited driving. True, the gauge tones it down somewhat as I compete to better my results.
My '10 Prius routinely differed from the computer by 3% to 6%. I'd think like, yay, 50mpg! Then it would translate closer to 47.
My '10 Prius routinely differed from the computer by 3% to 6%. I'd think like, yay, 50mpg! Then it would translate closer to 47.
#66
Three fillups for me and very pleased with the mpg gauge accuracy. Not sure if it'll break me of a 30-yr habit of manually calculating! So far, my calcs show me averaging about 25mpg on 75% freeway without traffic at 70mph+. My driving includes some steep hills to get home, plus my tendency toward spirited driving. True, the gauge tones it down somewhat as I compete to better my results.
My '10 Prius routinely differed from the computer by 3% to 6%. I'd think like, yay, 50mpg! Then it would translate closer to 47.
My '10 Prius routinely differed from the computer by 3% to 6%. I'd think like, yay, 50mpg! Then it would translate closer to 47.
#68
#69
Computer is showing 17.5mpg average after 3k miles or so. My wife drives it locally at least 95% of the time so I am not surprised. She also idle a lot during hot days.
To give some perspective she got 17.x mpg in a V6 Rav4 as well. The average rose to 21.5mpg in the same Rav4 after I started driving it. Although to be fair my drive is at least 50% highway.
To give some perspective she got 17.x mpg in a V6 Rav4 as well. The average rose to 21.5mpg in the same Rav4 after I started driving it. Although to be fair my drive is at least 50% highway.
#70
Pretty much similar results here. I noticed that I hit the 30+ mpg mark on the highway one time but I was going very easy on the right foot to see what I can accomplish. I too use 89 octane gasoline most of the time. I go to 91 when I am pulling a trailer.
#77
Just for one more approach, we made a 400 mile trip this weekend, 90% interstate with speeds of 75-80mph when traffic allowed; but also some congestion along the way with speeds dropping below 60. About 10% of that was 'local' traffic with a bit of stop and go, access roads, etc. Looks like the overall mileage was 28+mpg on 87 octane fuel. For a true value to value comparison, 'premium' fuel would have to return an additional 3mpg average to make it a wash. As I've mentioned in other threads, at 1500 gallons per year between the two vehicles, I'll take that $600 difference and put it toward a payment or car insurance. In this Acura and a half-dozen Volvos, I've not been able to demonstrate an increase in mpg that corresponds to running higher octane fuel, be it 89 or 103. I will bump up the octane if I'm headed toward our mountain house or running fully loaded(hasn't happened in years), Just my two cents.
#79
By the bye, for the Costco shoppers among us, Costco is showing a much increased 'potion' of cleaners in their fuel, much more than the minimum required. This may open another door for saving a few bucks on 'premium', since that grade is usually even cheaper relatively, as compared to branded stations around here.
#80
Good point...unfortunately it's pretty much a full 40 cents/gal higher here in central TX. For those penny pinchers who want to run 91 around here, they could blend 89 and 93...at least in theory.
By the bye, for the Costco shoppers among us, Costco is showing a much increased 'potion' of cleaners in their fuel, much more than the minimum required. This may open another door for saving a few bucks on 'premium', since that grade is usually even cheaper relatively, as compared to branded stations around here.
By the bye, for the Costco shoppers among us, Costco is showing a much increased 'potion' of cleaners in their fuel, much more than the minimum required. This may open another door for saving a few bucks on 'premium', since that grade is usually even cheaper relatively, as compared to branded stations around here.