2020 RDX SH-AWD Very Low mpg
#441
Instructor
#442
Three Wheelin'
MPG is one of the main reasons why I did not get an RDX even though the size is perfect for what I am looking for. But I am now at 95% Philly stop and go every few inches traffic so decent city MPG is one of the top items for me.
The following users liked this post:
Midi Man (08-01-2024)
#443
Racer
IF it's the AWD then why does the MDX get better MPG in the city? Verified by loaner I had. I hated the RDX with all the issues I had so glad I dumped it.
Got a 2022 RX 350. everything works. like it should . MPG 16 to 17 Real NYC MPG 33 highway.
Bigger car, better ride.
Got a 2022 RX 350. everything works. like it should . MPG 16 to 17 Real NYC MPG 33 highway.
Bigger car, better ride.
Long Answer: Internal combustion engines are about heat expansion. To produce a certain amount of power, the engine must produce a certain amount of heat, (of which only 35-38% gets converted into work.) To produce a certain amount of heat, the engine must burn a certain amount of fuel. To properly burn that fuel, the engine needs certain amount of air (stoichiometric ratio of about 14:1).
To create a given amount of heat, each cylinder in a 4-cylinder engine must produce 50% MORE heat than each cylinder in a 6-cylinder engine. Under boost, that creates an immediate problem. Each cylinder can get too hot, which at a minimum contributes to knock, and if it progresses, can lead to Low Speed Pre-Ignition and damage internal parts.
To help reduce this very rapid spike in cylinder temps under boost, the ECU is programmed to over inject fuel. That fuel, being the same temperature as the gas tank, rapidly cools the intake charge. The ECU might lower the stoichiometric ratio to 12:1 or less under heavy boost. That means the engine burns MORE fuel than required during periods of moderate to heavy boost and decreases the engine’s efficiency. The more boost a turbo uses, the less efficient it becomes, due to the need to over inject fuel to cool the cylinders.
Naturally aspirated engines don’t have to worry about the same excess heat problems and can maintain a proper stoichiometric ratio under heavy throttle. Under moderate to heavy load, like in city driving, NA engines get comparatively better fuel economy than a turbo-4 of equal power. Turbos only shine under lighter loads, like highway travel. Overall, the V6 is a better engine. Your Lexus RX 350 has an excellent V6 engine. When mated to a non-constant AWD system, it easily explains your observed 33 mpg highway fuel economy.
Changing subjects slightly, Acura’s constant AWD system seems to constantly add a little resistance to the entire drivetrain, even with highway driving. It seems to be enough added resistance that it requires just enough extra boost in "normal driving" to cross over into the “over inject” mode and eat into fuel economy. The FWD only model seems to remain below that threshold in normal driving. The FWD RDX and the older Accord Touring use the same 2.0T engine and 10A transmission. That Accord weighs about 3,450 pounds versus 3,750 pounds for the FWD RDX and has a drag coefficient of about .29 versus .32 for the RDX. The 2.0T Accord is rated at 35 mpg at 75 mph verses my observed 32 mpg at 75 mph for the FWD RDX. If you remove the SH-AWD system from the equation, the mileage numbers makes sense.
Perhaps another question to ask is why didn’t Acura’s EPA rating show better fuel economy for the FWD model. That question aside, even if drivers hypermiled in the AWD RDX, they might reach the EPA numbers. That is not right.
#444
Latent car nut
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Southern New Hampshire
Age: 68
Posts: 7,860
Received 2,013 Likes
on
1,413 Posts
To create a given amount of heat, each cylinder in a 4-cylinder engine must produce 50% MORE heat than each cylinder in a 6-cylinder engine. Under boost, that creates an immediate problem. Each cylinder can get too hot, which at a minimum contributes to knock, and if it progresses, can lead to Low Speed Pre-Ignition and damage internal parts.
To help reduce this very rapid spike in cylinder temps under boost, the ECU is programmed to over inject fuel. That fuel, being the same temperature as the gas tank, rapidly cools the intake charge. The ECU might lower the stoichiometric ratio to 12:1 or less under heavy boost. That means the engine burns MORE fuel than required during periods of moderate to heavy boost and decreases the engine’s efficiency. The more boost a turbo uses, the less efficient it becomes, due to the need to over inject fuel to cool the cylinders.
- Intercooling: a boosted intake charge at a given temperature will rise no higher than an unboosted intake charge at that same temperature, assuming of course the compression rations are the same.
- Compression Ratio: In cases where a manufacturer sells the same basic engine in both naturally aspirated and boosted, the boosted engine typically has a slightly lower compression ratio.
- AKI fuel ratings: When comparing two engines of similar output as outlined above, the V6 may well be able to run on Regular 87 AKI fuel and still yield full power, the boosted I4 engine will virtually always need 91-93 AKI fuel to yield full power.
The following users liked this post:
HotRodW (07-31-2024)
#445
IF it's the AWD then why does the MDX get better MPG in the city? Verified by loaner I had. I hated the RDX with all the issues I had so glad I dumped it.
Got a 2022 RX 350. everything works. like it should . MPG 16 to 17 Real NYC MPG 33 highway.
Bigger car, better ride.
Got a 2022 RX 350. everything works. like it should . MPG 16 to 17 Real NYC MPG 33 highway.
Bigger car, better ride.
There are two premium automakers who committed to skipping hybrids during the transition to all-electric power ... Genesis and Acura. Genesis has now admitted they were wrong and are working on launching a series of hybrids as I write this. Acura remains hushed on the topic. But I have to think they're working on something other than EV's. The ZDX just isn't the draw they were hoping for, and making it a lame duck model hasn't helped. I just hope the hybrids, if they come, aren't simply carried over from Honda unchanged in any way.
The following users liked this post:
Midi Man (08-01-2024)
#446
Three Wheelin'
They need hybrids.
There are two premium automakers who committed to skipping hybrids during the transition to all-electric power ... Genesis and Acura. Genesis has now admitted they were wrong and are working on launching a series of hybrids as I write this. Acura remains hushed on the topic. But I have to think they're working on something other than EV's. The ZDX just isn't the draw they were hoping for, and making it a lame duck model hasn't helped. I just hope the hybrids, if they come, aren't simply carried over from Honda unchanged in any way.
There are two premium automakers who committed to skipping hybrids during the transition to all-electric power ... Genesis and Acura. Genesis has now admitted they were wrong and are working on launching a series of hybrids as I write this. Acura remains hushed on the topic. But I have to think they're working on something other than EV's. The ZDX just isn't the draw they were hoping for, and making it a lame duck model hasn't helped. I just hope the hybrids, if they come, aren't simply carried over from Honda unchanged in any way.
Last edited by anoop; 07-31-2024 at 12:05 PM.
The following users liked this post:
Texasrdx21 (07-31-2024)
#447
I think it's a combination of engine and transmission, probably more the transmission. But that said, if you look on fuelly.com there isn't that drastic of a difference between AWD and FWD observed mpg.
I agree and was a big fan of hybrids until I started to seriously consider the NX 350h as a replacement for my 2019 RDX. At current gas prices and for normal usage, the math just doesn't add up. Hybrid is more of a feel good rather than a real money saver. At 12000 miles a year/20 mpg you need 600 gallons a year. At $6 gas (I'm in CA and price is closer to $5 right now), it's $3600 a year. If I get to 40 mpg, I save $1800 a year. If I can get the hybrid at no additional cost, I'll take it. Otherwise, I see it mostly as a "feel good" technology rather than a money saver.
I agree and was a big fan of hybrids until I started to seriously consider the NX 350h as a replacement for my 2019 RDX. At current gas prices and for normal usage, the math just doesn't add up. Hybrid is more of a feel good rather than a real money saver. At 12000 miles a year/20 mpg you need 600 gallons a year. At $6 gas (I'm in CA and price is closer to $5 right now), it's $3600 a year. If I get to 40 mpg, I save $1800 a year. If I can get the hybrid at no additional cost, I'll take it. Otherwise, I see it mostly as a "feel good" technology rather than a money saver.
The following 4 users liked this post by HotRodW:
#448
Three Wheelin'
For some of us, burning less fuel isn't just about saving money. The best hybrids also perform better. Having better performance while simultaneously reducing my carbon footprint has real value to me, and I'll gladly pay a premium to get it. Conversely, a vehicle as thirsty as something like the MDX Type S has little chance of earning a spot in my garage unless performance is next level because it is so thirsty. It's just who I am.
The ones that perform better are the plug ins and then you have the inconvenience of plugging in and the inconvenience of gassing up. They also are typically the worst when it comes to reliability.
For me, mpg is one consideration along with styling, how it drives, overall value, etc. I place a high enough value on it that I strongly considered the NX, but when looking at value, styling, handling, space, I just couldn't justify it over the RDX. Plus the local Lexus dealer is lousy and wanted over MSRP.
I am not at all motivated by performance and the Type S has never looked like a good value to me. The only thing I would care about in the MDX Type S is the air suspension, but I wouldn't want to pay for all the other stuff just to get that.
The following users liked this post:
HotRodW (07-31-2024)
#449
Fair enough if it does something for you.
The ones that perform better are the plug ins and then you have the inconvenience of plugging in and the inconvenience of gassing up. They also are typically the worst when it comes to reliability.
For me, mpg is one consideration along with styling, how it drives, overall value, etc. I place a high enough value on it that I strongly considered the NX, but when looking at value, styling, handling, space, I just couldn't justify it over the RDX. Plus the local Lexus dealer is lousy and wanted over MSRP.
I am not at all motivated by performance and the Type S has never looked like a good value to me. The only thing I would care about in the MDX Type S is the air suspension, but I wouldn't want to pay for all the other stuff just to get that.
The ones that perform better are the plug ins and then you have the inconvenience of plugging in and the inconvenience of gassing up. They also are typically the worst when it comes to reliability.
For me, mpg is one consideration along with styling, how it drives, overall value, etc. I place a high enough value on it that I strongly considered the NX, but when looking at value, styling, handling, space, I just couldn't justify it over the RDX. Plus the local Lexus dealer is lousy and wanted over MSRP.
I am not at all motivated by performance and the Type S has never looked like a good value to me. The only thing I would care about in the MDX Type S is the air suspension, but I wouldn't want to pay for all the other stuff just to get that.
The following users liked this post:
anoop (07-31-2024)
#450
Burning Brakes
In Cali with the weather and charging infrastructure - I'd go Tesla Model Y Performance or 2024 Highland Model 3 Performance. Less expensive than a RDX with subsidies and unmatched performance (makes the RDX feel super slow - including the MDX Type S). But thats just me - I like performance with any energy type. However - I'd skip plus in Hybrid - what a pain in the @ss to not only fuel up - but also have to plug in to charge the battery separately. A pure Hybrid makes more sense.
Last edited by Texasrdx21; 07-31-2024 at 02:50 PM.
The following users liked this post:
Midi Man (08-01-2024)
#451
Three Wheelin'
In Cali with the weather and charging infrastructure - I'd go Tesla Model Y Performance or 2024 Highland Model 3 Performance. Less expensive than a RDX with subsidies and unmatched performance (makes the RDX feel super slow - including the MDX Type S). But thats just me - it comes down to $$$.
#452
Instructor
Short Answer: A V6 is more efficient in city driving.
Long Answer: Internal combustion engines are about heat expansion. To produce a certain amount of power, the engine must produce a certain amount of heat, (of which only 35-38% gets converted into work.) To produce a certain amount of heat, the engine must burn a certain amount of fuel. To properly burn that fuel, the engine needs certain amount of air (stoichiometric ratio of about 14:1).
To create a given amount of heat, each cylinder in a 4-cylinder engine must produce 50% MORE heat than each cylinder in a 6-cylinder engine. Under boost, that creates an immediate problem. Each cylinder can get too hot, which at a minimum contributes to knock, and if it progresses, can lead to Low Speed Pre-Ignition and damage internal parts.
To help reduce this very rapid spike in cylinder temps under boost, the ECU is programmed to over inject fuel. That fuel, being the same temperature as the gas tank, rapidly cools the intake charge. The ECU might lower the stoichiometric ratio to 12:1 or less under heavy boost. That means the engine burns MORE fuel than required during periods of moderate to heavy boost and decreases the engine’s efficiency. The more boost a turbo uses, the less efficient it becomes, due to the need to over inject fuel to cool the cylinders.
Naturally aspirated engines don’t have to worry about the same excess heat problems and can maintain a proper stoichiometric ratio under heavy throttle. Under moderate to heavy load, like in city driving, NA engines get comparatively better fuel economy than a turbo-4 of equal power. Turbos only shine under lighter loads, like highway travel. Overall, the V6 is a better engine. Your Lexus RX 350 has an excellent V6 engine. When mated to a non-constant AWD system, it easily explains your observed 33 mpg highway fuel economy.
Changing subjects slightly, Acura’s constant AWD system seems to constantly add a little resistance to the entire drivetrain, even with highway driving. It seems to be enough added resistance that it requires just enough extra boost in "normal driving" to cross over into the “over inject” mode and eat into fuel economy. The FWD only model seems to remain below that threshold in normal driving. The FWD RDX and the older Accord Touring use the same 2.0T engine and 10A transmission. That Accord weighs about 3,450 pounds versus 3,750 pounds for the FWD RDX and has a drag coefficient of about .29 versus .32 for the RDX. The 2.0T Accord is rated at 35 mpg at 75 mph verses my observed 32 mpg at 75 mph for the FWD RDX. If you remove the SH-AWD system from the equation, the mileage numbers makes sense.
Perhaps another question to ask is why didn’t Acura’s EPA rating show better fuel economy for the FWD model. That question aside, even if drivers hypermiled in the AWD RDX, they might reach the EPA numbers. That is not right.
Long Answer: Internal combustion engines are about heat expansion. To produce a certain amount of power, the engine must produce a certain amount of heat, (of which only 35-38% gets converted into work.) To produce a certain amount of heat, the engine must burn a certain amount of fuel. To properly burn that fuel, the engine needs certain amount of air (stoichiometric ratio of about 14:1).
To create a given amount of heat, each cylinder in a 4-cylinder engine must produce 50% MORE heat than each cylinder in a 6-cylinder engine. Under boost, that creates an immediate problem. Each cylinder can get too hot, which at a minimum contributes to knock, and if it progresses, can lead to Low Speed Pre-Ignition and damage internal parts.
To help reduce this very rapid spike in cylinder temps under boost, the ECU is programmed to over inject fuel. That fuel, being the same temperature as the gas tank, rapidly cools the intake charge. The ECU might lower the stoichiometric ratio to 12:1 or less under heavy boost. That means the engine burns MORE fuel than required during periods of moderate to heavy boost and decreases the engine’s efficiency. The more boost a turbo uses, the less efficient it becomes, due to the need to over inject fuel to cool the cylinders.
Naturally aspirated engines don’t have to worry about the same excess heat problems and can maintain a proper stoichiometric ratio under heavy throttle. Under moderate to heavy load, like in city driving, NA engines get comparatively better fuel economy than a turbo-4 of equal power. Turbos only shine under lighter loads, like highway travel. Overall, the V6 is a better engine. Your Lexus RX 350 has an excellent V6 engine. When mated to a non-constant AWD system, it easily explains your observed 33 mpg highway fuel economy.
Changing subjects slightly, Acura’s constant AWD system seems to constantly add a little resistance to the entire drivetrain, even with highway driving. It seems to be enough added resistance that it requires just enough extra boost in "normal driving" to cross over into the “over inject” mode and eat into fuel economy. The FWD only model seems to remain below that threshold in normal driving. The FWD RDX and the older Accord Touring use the same 2.0T engine and 10A transmission. That Accord weighs about 3,450 pounds versus 3,750 pounds for the FWD RDX and has a drag coefficient of about .29 versus .32 for the RDX. The 2.0T Accord is rated at 35 mpg at 75 mph verses my observed 32 mpg at 75 mph for the FWD RDX. If you remove the SH-AWD system from the equation, the mileage numbers makes sense.
Perhaps another question to ask is why didn’t Acura’s EPA rating show better fuel economy for the FWD model. That question aside, even if drivers hypermiled in the AWD RDX, they might reach the EPA numbers. That is not right.
MPG alone was not the only reason I dumped the car. I had a lot of issues with the display and cracking in the sunroof.
Yes the RX 350 is rock solid. the engine is fantastic. What I really love is just that everything works and city MPG is good enough. Maybe Acura should have done there AWD system with a switch to make it front wheel drive only in the city. But I don't think that would have helped the MPG>
#453
You bring up some interesting points. I know MPG is an estimate and I would expert it to be off maybe one or two MPG but not as far as it was. It's a shame that the RDX is hyped so much and really doesn't live up to the hype at least for me. What kills me is everytime you see a Acura commercial with the RDX they are driving it like a NSX and really we all know that the car is to top heavy to do that safely.
MPG alone was not the only reason I dumped the car. I had a lot of issues with the display and cracking in the sunroof.
Yes the RX 350 is rock solid. the engine is fantastic. What I really love is just that everything works and city MPG is good enough. Maybe Acura should have done there AWD system with a switch to make it front wheel drive only in the city. But I don't think that would have helped the MPG>
MPG alone was not the only reason I dumped the car. I had a lot of issues with the display and cracking in the sunroof.
Yes the RX 350 is rock solid. the engine is fantastic. What I really love is just that everything works and city MPG is good enough. Maybe Acura should have done there AWD system with a switch to make it front wheel drive only in the city. But I don't think that would have helped the MPG>
I'm very close to pulling the trigger on a 24 RDX to replace my 21 TLX, my one concern is having regrets about the mileage.
#454
Three Wheelin'
A FWD driving mode would make a lot of sense. When you're sitting in stop in go traffic or driving doing heavy city driving, SH-AWD is pretty useless.
I'm very close to pulling the trigger on a 24 RDX to replace my 21 TLX, my one concern is having regrets about the mileage.
I'm very close to pulling the trigger on a 24 RDX to replace my 21 TLX, my one concern is having regrets about the mileage.
#455
May be wishcasting though....
#456
Three Wheelin'
There's going to be variations hence the YMMV caveat. But if you're buying the car hoping to be at the high end there's a good chance you'll be disappointed. Go in assuming mpg is going to be bad and buy only if you're OK with that.
The following users liked this post:
mantan (08-03-2024)
#457
Instructor
A FWD driving mode would make a lot of sense. When you're sitting in stop in go traffic or driving doing heavy city driving, SH-AWD is pretty useless.
I'm very close to pulling the trigger on a 24 RDX to replace my 21 TLX, my one concern is having regrets about the mileage.
I'm very close to pulling the trigger on a 24 RDX to replace my 21 TLX, my one concern is having regrets about the mileage.
The fact alone that the RDX only has GDI and not Port and GDI is a real downer. I don't know where you live but the City MPG in real City driving is really poor. I can expect it to be off by 1 or 2 MPG but not like I was getting driving very conservatively. Very light on the throttle. Even snow mode didn't help.I think it has to do with that stupid turbo always spinning.
The following users liked this post:
mantan (08-04-2024)
#458
And keep hoping that a hybrid RDX makes an appearance down the road.
#459
Burning Brakes
Thank you! This is outstanding advice. I'm probably going to pass on the RDX because I'm already concerned about the mileage. I love my 21 TLX. The residual on it in only 23k. I can keep my powder dry for something that I love rather than getting into something I'm a little lukewarm about.
And keep hoping that a hybrid RDX makes an appearance down the road.
And keep hoping that a hybrid RDX makes an appearance down the road.
Plus, with all the recalls and inferior reliability these days - if you have a good vehicle that runs well - keep it till you find what you want (and is not the 1st year of a new model - not refresh - been there, done that nightmare - never again).
The following users liked this post:
ESHBG (08-05-2024)
#461
Instructor
#463
Burning Brakes
I would agree on the city and combined number, but you can squeak out 25-26 MPG on the highway with flat terrain, no wind and speeds below 71mph. Otherwise, this number are way to aggressive in regular norm daily driving conditions. Heaven forbid you are in traffic, hilly terrain or a head wind. The SHAWD is great - but it's the combo of a thirsty 4 turbo and not very efficient.
None of this would be a big issue of petrol was below $2 gal. Even electric rates are climbing for EV at home and supercharging stations - as it all comes from coal or gas to produce that energy too.
None of this would be a big issue of petrol was below $2 gal. Even electric rates are climbing for EV at home and supercharging stations - as it all comes from coal or gas to produce that energy too.
#464
Suzuka Master
My combined is 22-23 with a mix of city and highway. Its whats in the sticker. Did you hope car will beat the sticker before buying it? Or are you suggesting Acura cheated on MPG numbers? That is not likely, this is a strict test and penalties for cheating are substantial
Last edited by russianDude; 08-05-2024 at 09:06 AM.
#465
Instructor
My combined is 22-23 with a mix of city and highway. Its whats in the sticker. Did you hope car will beat the sticker before buying it? Or are you suggesting Acura cheated on MPG numbers? That is not likely, this is a strict test and penalties for cheating are substantial
#466
My combined is 22-23 with a mix of city and highway. Its whats in the sticker. Did you hope car will beat the sticker before buying it? Or are you suggesting Acura cheated on MPG numbers? That is not likely, this is a strict test and penalties for cheating are substantial
#467
Resurrected Drummer
Texasrdx21, Around my neck of the woods, a 22 MDX Advance with low Mileage < 25K or so,there are a few at $45 to 48K + . True a few months ago , I saw circa $50K for comparable cars In Exellent condition like mine. I haven't considered a 22 or later RDX to replace my MDX (I just executed the lease extension for 6 months). I will look at the new 25 RDX when it comes out for consideration. But if there is not a real boost in MPGs over the MDX, or they dumb down the HP or engine, I would pass for the time being. There are rumblings of a 25 RDX Gas/Electric Hybrid.
#468
Burning Brakes
Texasrdx21, Around my neck of the woods, a 22 MDX Advance with low Mileage < 25K or so,there are a few at $45 to 48K + . True a few months ago , I saw circa $50K for comparable cars In Exellent condition like mine. I haven't considered a 22 or later RDX to replace my MDX (I just executed the lease extension for 6 months). I will look at the new 25 RDX when it comes out for consideration. But if there is not a real boost in MPGs over the MDX, or they dumb down the HP or engine, I would pass for the time being. There are rumblings of a 25 RDX Gas/Electric Hybrid.
#469
Suzuka Master
sources for your information that penalties not strict?, also I dont see any evidence that Acura lied.
#470
Burning Brakes
#471
#472
Three Wheelin'
I get a reasonable 21-22 mpg in mostly suburban driving without really trying to optimize (i.e. I leave the engine running the heat to keep the AC going if I'm just sitting in the car in a lot checking messages). I'm not thrilled but I know I can do better if I cared enough to optimize.
This is not the car to buy for the mpg. It's among the worst right from the sticker. German cars tend to underrate a lot of things include HP and mpg so I think that makes a lot of people disappointed when they go from German to Acura/Infiniti which don't pay much attention to mpg.
This is not the car to buy for the mpg. It's among the worst right from the sticker. German cars tend to underrate a lot of things include HP and mpg so I think that makes a lot of people disappointed when they go from German to Acura/Infiniti which don't pay much attention to mpg.
#473
Three Wheelin'
Smart move IMO. No one buys a mid-size SUV with some performance to be super efficient. Other options out there right now, Honda CRV Sport Touring Hybrid, Hyundai Tucson Hybrid Limited to name two. Both I drove, friend have and were super nice. Plus they both average 36 mpg - which is a far cry from my 20 mpg over 25k miles.
Plus, with all the recalls and inferior reliability these days - if you have a good vehicle that runs well - keep it till you find what you want (and is not the 1st year of a new model - not refresh - been there, done that nightmare - never again).
Plus, with all the recalls and inferior reliability these days - if you have a good vehicle that runs well - keep it till you find what you want (and is not the 1st year of a new model - not refresh - been there, done that nightmare - never again).
#475
Three Wheelin'
Rdx steering feel is definitely better than bmw and Audi. I don’t have experience with Porsche. I think it would be better but requires $$. In terms of weight balance and taking curves I think the rdx is good enough but definitely bmw and Audi are better there. But it will out do Toyota/lexus for sure.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post