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.
I normally get around 22 in everyday, suburban driving. Worse when it is cold.
I have about 100 miles now on my Aspec and getting around 17 mpg in all city driving. Hoping it gets better with time but I'm thoroughly enjoying the vehicle.
I have about 100 miles now on my Aspec and getting around 17 mpg in all city driving. Hoping it gets better with time but I'm thoroughly enjoying the vehicle.
Keep in mind, modern vehicles typically improve their fuel economy over at least the first 20,000 miles; at only 100 miles your engine is far from being broken in.
My gas mileage is all over the place. The highest ever was crossing northern New Mexico when it was doing better than 32 MPG. Flat road, 65-70 MPH, very steady speed. Around when I live its very hilly and people drive fast so its more like 80MPH racing around up and down hills and I only get 24-26. Around town driving sensibly I get 20-24 with 22 being common. If I start getting the heavy foot in faster traffic during rush hour it can drop.
After nearly a year of driving this car I would say speed and acceleration have the biggest impact on your economy,. but then that is the case for all vehicles. My '17 CR-V did much better but then the RDX likes to have fun and take off faster and that costs us fuel. I can't complain at the numbers. After all, its my driving style that impacts the economy the most. The car can do well if driving correctly and moderately.
I noticed something while driving around in the city today; the transmission downshifts at low speeds in a way that prevents me from getting the most roll when I'm coasting. It seems like it downshifts from 3rd to 2nd just under 20 mph and again from 2nd to first at about 12 mph. This takes a lot of energy from the car, which then I need to add back to actually move forward. In my previous Honda I could coast quite a bit without the transmission downshifting noticeably. I'm wondering if this is one of the reasons for the low city MPG that some people (including myself) are seeing, especially in real city driving instead of just suburban driving.
I noticed something while driving around in the city today; the transmission downshifts at low speeds in a way that prevents me from getting the most roll when I'm coasting. It seems like it downshifts from 3rd to 2nd just under 20 mph and again from 2nd to first at about 12 mph. This takes a lot of energy from the car, which then I need to add back to actually move forward. In my previous Honda I could coast quite a bit without the transmission downshifting noticeably. I'm wondering if this is one of the reasons for the low city MPG that some people (including myself) are seeing, especially in real city driving instead of just suburban driving.
I've actually noticed that recently as well. There's a lot more 'engine braking'/downshifting when I try to coast up to a light or see traffic up ahead. I don't know how much this impacts fuel efficiency or if it'll sort of work itself out once the break-in range is over, but it definitely changes driving behavior versus my previous car.
I noticed something while driving around in the city today; the transmission downshifts at low speeds in a way that prevents me from getting the most roll when I'm coasting. It seems like it downshifts from 3rd to 2nd just under 20 mph and again from 2nd to first at about 12 mph. This takes a lot of energy from the car, which then I need to add back to actually move forward. In my previous Honda I could coast quite a bit without the transmission downshifting noticeably. I'm wondering if this is one of the reasons for the low city MPG that some people (including myself) are seeing, especially in real city driving instead of just suburban driving.
Originally Posted by wmkim
I've actually noticed that recently as well. There's a lot more 'engine braking'/downshifting when I try to coast up to a light or see traffic up ahead. I don't know how much this impacts fuel efficiency or if it'll sort of work itself out once the break-in range is over, but it definitely changes driving behavior versus my previous car.
This is one of the conundrums faced by the programmers of modern automatic transmissions; the two main options are, 1) have the transmission downshift through the gears as the vehicle slows, or 2) allow for maximum coast by keeping the transmission in a higher gear and/or decouple the torque converter at some point. The former will allow for virtually instantaneous throttle response when the driver slows from say 50 to say 8 mph, and then applies throttle to speed back up. The latter allows for slightly better fuel economy at the expense of throttle response when the driver gets back on the gas before coming to a full stop.
That makes sense. But I would think there should be a way to differentiate between braking and coasting situations. If they invest so much in Engine Start/Stop which provides such a little return, it seems worth doing some extra work on this problem.
I get about 23-24mpg, mostly highway, usually around 75mph (with traffic flow). It's what I expected - I used to get 26ish in my Subaru Legacy 2.5 limited under the same conditions and driven the same way. At 55-60mph the RDX can get 26-27mpg but that would make you a hazard on the PA turnpike. I suspect that it will probably get to 24mpg after some break-in but I'm not expecting any better than that. The Subaru got 18mpg in the city so 15mpg in the city is what I would expect for the RDX.
I just did a little half hour drive around our town of 5,000 in North Central, Wisconsin It's 20 degrees out. 2020 tech awd Set in Comfort mode. Average mpg over 15 miles was 28.5. Nobody Rides your butt in a small town and I stayed out of the turbo and left the transmission upshift at right around 2000 RPM. Out on the county roads running 62 miles an hour with the cruise control on I usually get right around 28. I can live with it, but I really can't figure out how come my 2018 Highlander AWD with V6 would knock off 30 doing the same. My summer fun car is a 2019 Camaro SS with the 455 horse Corvette engine. That thing is in 10th gear by 55 miles an hour and then it shuts down 4 cylinders and easily knocks off 32 MPG cruising around the county roads. Pretty crazy when your economy car has 455 horse..lol.
Why you gatekeeping what real world gas mileage people are getting with their RDX.
Advertise MPG is useless if you gotta drive like a granny on flat surfaces with no traffic lights to reach it.
The sticker MPG is not great, but in a lot of cases you do get what it says. Advertised MPG is not useless, its meant to give you information before you purchase the car.
The EPA regulates the test cycle for cars to calculate their MPG. Its a very strict drive cycle that is clearly laid out by the EPA and all car makers must follow it. Some cars can be made to get better economy than what shows up on the test. Our 2015 Honda Fit is rated at 36 MPG highway but normally gets more like 44 MPG driven at 65-70 miles an hour on a flat road. Same for its city mileage, it beats the EPA test data.
As for my RDX, its a crap shoot. I drove several hundred miles through Northern New Mexico and did my personal best, about 32-33 MPG on the Interstate at the legal speed limit. Here at home we have hills and I am normally trying to get somewhere so it drops down to 26 to 28 highway (we don't recognize speed limits here, we see them more as "guide lines" which are optional).
One thing I know for sure after driving this car from one side of this country to the other for the past year: Biggest factor in the economy of this car has been my right foot and top speed I chose to drive. If I want it to do well I can make it happen. If I want to play, drive fast, take off in a hurry, etc., that costs me gas money. Its all been up to me and how I use that right foot and how fast I want to get there.
Another factor sometimes comes into play. People remember their "favorite car" that did so great on fuel. Sometimes they forget all the low numbers it produced most of the time and tend to recall their best ever MPG for that car. Seen that happen way too many times. Same person will remember the LOW numbers on the new car they are being critical of. Its human nature I guess.
Maybe next year's turbo boost light Should be changed to an icon of a wallet. The more you step on it, the more the dollar bills appear to fly out of it?
I'm averaging 20.12 mpg using regular fuel over my first 5,680 miles. I track it on an app, but it pretty much matches the onboard fuel reading.
My calculated mpg and the on board fuel mpg are withing 0.1mpg. I have never had a car accurately report the fuel economy. My Sienna was 3-4mpg high consistently, the Subaru is 2-3mpg, amd my wife's Outback is 1.5-2mpg high.
The fuel gauge is also close to true from the first half of the tank to the second half of the tank. My Subaru is terrible at this - 300miles to half tank and then about 100miles on the rest.
Fwiw... My RDX MPG indications are spot-on with actual miles and gallons also. My 2018 Highlander was also spot on. My 2019 Camaro fun car is always 5% too high.
I'm getting near a 1k miles and fuel economy has gone up more than I expected with some minor changes. I'm used to the throttle so I can drive so it shifts at 2k rpm for light to light stuff like I did with my Subaru, using cruise now, going to 65-70mph instead of 70-80mph, and switching to comfort mode because I like it better. My 80% highway driving is getting me close to 25mpg from the 23mpg. Oh yea, I have been running Sunoco 87 swill since the dealer tank, which was probably 87 as well based on my off the record chat with the service tech. I will run 91 at some point to see if make any difference - I seriously doubt it but I will try it. I was going to run 91 but I could not find a compelling reason do it other than the word premium.
I would say the biggest difference between the way I drive my advance my friend (who has the same RDX in a different color) I'm willing to use a light foot most of the time and he is not. I noticed his 1-2-3 shifts are frequently at 3-4k rpm and he is at 75-80mph vs my 2k shifts and 65-70mph. He is getting 19-20mpg with a similar, although shorter, commute and I'm already 5mpg better (he has 14k miles and I have 1k). If you are getting crappy mpg and are willing to use a lighter foot then you can do quite a bit better by keep track of when it shifts and dropping your highway speed a few ticks. If you don't want to granny drive it then it will get you what it gets you.
I think it may hit 26+mpg after a complete break in for my daily driving. I only ring it out once a day on the on-ramp so I literally granny drive it 99% of the time.
Running 91 Oct around town I'm averaging 21.5. On the highway its worse. Driving around the mid-atlantic I'm getting 20 mpg traveling at speed of 70-80 mph. Its tough to figure out if its the under-sized engine, poor aero, mileage gauge manfunction, or this thing just does not like going 75-80. Had a TL sedan with a 3.7L that had much better mileage and our current honda Pilot beats the RDX in most every way.
One issue is when the fuel gauge reads 0 range, there is still 2 gallons in the tank. Have about 6k miles, maybe in time things will improve.
2019 Advance w/ 14K miles
91-93 octane
Comfort mode
Highway mostly for 200 miles
Traveled from Long Island NY to Harrrisburg last weekend with two adult passengers. Very little traffic both ways and averaged 55-70+ mph for the trip. Averaged about 27 mpg.
I've been getting at best 18.5MPG in pure "city" driving... No hills, no traffic, long stretches on straight roads at 35-45MPH, no additional weight, and very gentle driving in comfort mode, anything other than that I get 17-17.5MPG, I'm at an elevation of 3000ft. In pure highway driving, mostly straight I've eked out from 27-28MPG under ideal conditions.
Purchased the RDX with tech pkg a couple of mos ago. Have 3k miles on it now, and have had issues with the brakes grinding, as well as WAY less than expected MPG. I burn only premium fuel, and get around 19 in town and 21(tops) on the hwy. I am not a maniac or a lead foot. My Audi A6 3.0 got 34 MPG on the hwy with 340 HP and 0-60 in 5 seconds....... SOMETHING ain't right here!
I live in North Central Wisconsin where it's cold and I sometimes even let my car warm up in the garage for 8 to 10 minutes. I haven't reset my odometer for quite a while and I looked at the other day and I had 800 miles on it and my average was 24 MPG. Awd tech package... probably 30% driving around town and 70% out on the rural highways at about 63 miles an hour.
There are some issues with my 2020 RDX adv that are annoying but I'm on the opposite end of the complaints about fuel economy. I'm kinda impressed how good it is. I'm at about 2,000 miles and 26.0mpg with 70-80% highway. I seriously doubt it does higher than that. Regardless, I am very happy with the mpg I'm getting.
For comparison, my 2016 Legacy 2.5 (100k miles) gets 28.0mpg driven the same way. When I have my wife's 2011 Outback (80k miles) I get 25.0mpg.
There are some issues with my 2020 RDX adv that are annoying but I'm on the opposite end of the complaints about fuel economy. I'm kinda impressed how good it is. I'm at about 2,000 miles and 26.0mpg with 70-80% highway. I seriously doubt it does higher than that. Regardless, I am very happy with the mpg I'm getting.
Any chance that all of the roads you drive on are downhill?
Just kidding. That's about how much I get with 100% highway in sport mode AWD. Is yours AWD too?
Any chance that all of the roads you drive on are downhill?
Just kidding. That's about how much I get with 100% highway in sport mode AWD. Is yours AWD too?
Yup. AWD but I’m in comfort 99% of the time. I use sport + twice a day on two on ramps I like. The rest of the time I try and get it to shift at 2k ish rpm with an extremely light foot. I commute from Philly to Trenton every day so I’m at 65-70 mph and I try and stick to off hours when I can so cruise as much as I can.
Other than to try it once, I don’t use sport. I like the sport + when drive like a yolo.
Should get better after first oil change due to initial break in molly stuff
That's what the dealer told me as well. The first oil is much thicker to provide the proper coating. Also, the dollar difference over time for a few miles to the gallon, really doesn't add up to much.
Yup. AWD but I’m in comfort 99% of the time. I use sport + twice a day on two on ramps I like. The rest of the time I try and get it to shift at 2k ish rpm with an extremely light foot. I commute from Philly to Trenton every day so I’m at 65-70 mph and I try and stick to off hours when I can so cruise as much as I can.
Other than to try it once, I don’t use sport. I like the sport + when drive like a yolo.
Philly to Trenton, God help you! Summer must be really tough with shore traffic.
If you want good gas mileage stay out of boost. Boost = lots of extra fuel, it’s a turbo car you know? So set your turbo gauge to be on every drive mode, and keep it from turning red. I wish they would of included an eco “mode” that keeps gas mileage high while sacrificing power, they could still add it, and they should, Honda has it in their CR-Vs and it does make them slower and less zippy, it adds to your gas mileage by killing the throttle response
Philly to Trenton, God help you! Summer must be really tough with shore traffic.
I go PA turnpike, Rt. 1 or Rt. 13, then 95 north, and I stick to off-hours as much as possible - it's actually not that bad because I avoid the shore traffic.
I'm new here. I currently drive an Accord Touring 2.0T with the same engine, same transmission and a lot of the same tech. I'm looking at a fully loaded RDX for our family. My car before that was a 2015 BMW X3 2.0T xDrive.
There is one major factor in FE that no one has mentioned. A turbo car needs 15-30 mins, depending on temperature, to reach it's optimal operating conditions. If you do a lot of shorter trips, it's going to suffer. First thing in the morning, especially in the winter here in Toronto, I get less than 20 mpg no matter how gentry I drive. Later in the day, once fully warm, the same driving nets me 23+.
The drag from the taller car, the added weight and the optional AWD system (which is NOT designed for fuel economy!) are clearly taking a significant toll here. In my Accord 2.0T, I can get 35 mpg on the highway doing 75-80 mph and 40+ doing 55-60mph. Let's remember though - that AWD system is better than what you get on anything short of a performance-model German CUV. Even the base system in the X3 and Q5 have nothing on SH-AWD and it's mechanical rear torque vectoring. The new X3 30i doesn't come with a proper rear diff any more, even with M-Sport and all of the performance boxes ticked - you have to get the vastly more expensive M40i. SH-AWD is the real deal, and a huge reason why I am almost certainly going to choose the RDX over the X3 (in 2015, I went the other way, cause that 2nd gen RDX drove like a minivan).
Originally Posted by DrMTF
Purchased the RDX with tech pkg a couple of mos ago. Have 3k miles on it now, and have had issues with the brakes grinding, as well as WAY less than expected MPG. I burn only premium fuel, and get around 19 in town and 21(tops) on the hwy. I am not a maniac or a lead foot. My Audi A6 3.0 got 34 MPG on the hwy with 340 HP and 0-60 in 5 seconds....... SOMETHING ain't right here!
My Accord can do 0-60 in 5.3 (at least according to Car&Driver's 40k mile long term test final results) and gets 36+ mpg. Sometimes 40+. On regular fuel. BUT - it's not tall. And you're Audi's "Quattro" system (unless it's one of the upgraded/performance models) is just a fancy traction and FE oriented center diff and doesn't have the performance orientation that the RDX's SH-AWD has. If all you're after is traction, SH-AWD is a bit of a waste, but if you like to hustle around corners, it's definitely worth it's fuel cost!
I'm new here. I currently drive an Accord Touring 2.0T with the same engine, same transmission and a lot of the same tech. I'm looking at a fully loaded RDX for our family. My car before that was a 2015 BMW X3 2.0T xDrive.
There is one major factor in FE that no one has mentioned. A turbo car needs 15-30 mins, depending on temperature, to reach it's optimal operating conditions. If you do a lot of shorter trips, it's going to suffer. First thing in the morning, especially in the winter here in Toronto, I get less than 20 mpg no matter how gentry I drive. Later in the day, once fully warm, the same driving nets me 23+.
The drag from the taller car, the added weight and the optional AWD system (which is NOT designed for fuel economy!) are clearly taking a significant toll here. In my Accord 2.0T, I can get 35 mpg on the highway doing 75-80 mph and 40+ doing 55-60mph. Let's remember though - that AWD system is better than what you get on anything short of a performance-model German CUV. Even the base system in the X3 and Q5 have nothing on SH-AWD and it's mechanical rear torque vectoring. The new X3 30i doesn't come with a proper rear diff any more, even with M-Sport and all of the performance boxes ticked - you have to get the vastly more expensive M40i. SH-AWD is the real deal, and a huge reason why I am almost certainly going to choose the RDX over the X3 (in 2015, I went the other way, cause that 2nd gen RDX drove like a minivan).
My Accord can do 0-60 in 5.3 (at least according to Car&Driver's 40k mile long term test final results) and gets 36+ mpg. Sometimes 40+. On regular fuel. BUT - it's not tall. And you're Audi's "Quattro" system (unless it's one of the upgraded/performance models) is just a fancy traction and FE oriented center diff and doesn't have the performance orientation that the RDX's SH-AWD has. If all you're after is traction, SH-AWD is a bit of a waste, but if you like to hustle around corners, it's definitely worth it's fuel cost!
Hmmm, I've had three turbocharged cars over the years and NEVER have I noticed they take longer to warm up compared to a comparable normally aspirated car; in fact, they often seem to warm up quicker. I'm curious where your information is coming from.
If you want good gas mileage stay out of boost. Boost = lots of extra fuel, it’s a turbo car you know? So set your turbo gauge to be on every drive mode, and keep it from turning red. I wish they would of included an eco “mode” that keeps gas mileage high while sacrificing power, they could still add it, and they should, Honda has it in their CR-Vs and it does make them slower and less zippy, it adds to your gas mileage by killing the throttle response
My turbo indicator goes red whenever I accelerate at all. Violet when I ease up on the gas. You can mitigate it but I don't know how you can prevent it entirely.
You want 1-2 mpg more? Leave the car in Comfort mode ALL THE TIME. Shifts sooner and lowers the RPMs. I can't be bothered. I'm not looking to squeeze every drop out of it. That big knob on the console is there for a reason - it's meant to be used and I use it a lot. When I'm cruising on the highway, I'm in Comfort mode. All other times, I switch to Sport and occasionally Sport+. If I don't like what the tranny is doing, I slap a paddle. Sometimes, even during moderate acceleration, the tranny doesn't upshift and the RPMs go up for no apparent reason.
Comfort mode + a light foot and I'm currently getting 27.3mpg on Lukoil 87 (see below). That is with 90% highway, 60-70mph, and cruise used liberally. With my usual commute it will end up at 26-ish with my driving style.
I tore around this weekend like a yolo in sport and sport +, may have seen triple digits several times, about 50% highway, and got 16.8mpg. It was worth it.
The CX5 comparison only really works on the surface (compact suv vs compact suv). In practice, the RDX has more usable passenger room, is nicer, etc. If the CX5 really suited your needs, well, you should have bought one. You should also beware of comparing your real world MPG to Mazda's EPA rating - many cars underachieve those ratings.
This is true. CX-5 is a much smaller vehicle; it's a large hatchback really.
The HP quoted by the OP is also wrong. The 2.5T in the Mazda is rated at 227 w/regular and 250 w/premium. Just getting the numbers right. It has a ton on torque, but at higher spin.
I really liked the CX-5 and would have bought it if it was a CX-7 in size. Great car, just small for me.
This is true. CX-5 is a much smaller vehicle; it's a large hatchback really.
The HP quoted by the OP is also wrong. The 2.5T in the Mazda is rated at 227 w/regular and 250 w/premium. Just getting the numbers right. It has a ton on torque, but at higher spin.
I really liked the CX-5 and would have bought it if it was a CX-7 in size. Great car, just small for me.
Exactly how I felt about the CX-5. Great car but just a little too small for me. Also, the one I tested was louder and more unrefined than I wanted.
On about a 40 mile stretch of highway, I get the car up to speed and reset the trip. No hills, no traffic and maintain speed right around 65 mph (+/- 2). Comfort mode, never dropping out of 10th gear. Light on the throttle at all times.
I figure that's just about the maximum ideal mpg of the vehicle.
01-02-2020, 01:33 PM
