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.
Is that measured or reported? If it is actually measured then it is amazing. I had an A4 2.0t for 2 weeks and I got 32.0 mpg on a 99% highway 250 mile road trip at 65-70 mph. It was reporting 36mpg but I filled at the same pump and it was actually getting 32 mpg, which is still very good. My Sienna used to do the same thing - reported 24mpg and the best it did was 18-20mpg. Anyway, the rest of the time I got 29.4 mpg on my usual commute where I get 25.5 in the RDX (@3000 miles with 87 octane). It certainly gets better fuel economy than the RDX but I did not see the dramatic difference you did and I found it was consistent with the EPA estimates in both cases.
Both. I have calculated it myself several times to compare it to what the car says and it's always been right there.
I will say that to get the high end MPG that I quoted I have messed around with coasting more which makes a big difference. If I didn't "try" to improve my MPG than it is closer to 30-32 MPG
Also the Audi does require premium and that does help improve MPG.
Also the Audi does require premium and that does help improve MPG.
Originally Posted by horseshoez
Actually no, urban legend.
Meh, I think you're both right. Depending on engine mapping and type, there maybe a verysmall efficiency gain when higher octane is required. But it's likely so small it won't matter. The true benefit, as we all know, is resistance to pre-ignition.
Meh, I think you're both right. Depending on engine mapping and type, there maybe a verysmall efficiency gain when higher octane is required. But it's likely so small it won't matter. The true benefit, as we all know, is resistance to pre-ignition.
Here again, I need to level set everybody. The grade of the fuel has absolutely zero impact on Pre-Ignition; no fuel can stop that issue once it starts. What higher AKI grades of fuel do have an impact on is detonation.
Here again, I need to level set everybody. The grade of the fuel has absolutely zero impact on Pre-Ignition; no fuel can stop that issue once it starts. What higher AKI grades of fuel do have an impact on is detonation.
A correct distinction. My point was only that there actually could be a very small efficiency gain with higher grade fuel in engines that require it (high compression, turbo). But, it so small you'll likely see more or less efficiency gains between gasoline brands/additive packages. It's splitting hairs, but not incorrect.
A correct distinction. My point was only that there actually could be a very small efficiency gain with higher grade fuel in engines that require it (high compression, turbo). But, it so small you'll likely see more or less efficiency gains between gasoline brands/additive packages. It's splitting hairs, but not incorrect.
One other point which might need to be made is the higher the AKI of the fuel, the lower potential amount of energy per unit of fuel. The thing is, the additives which increase detonation/knock resistance actually decrease the burnable hydrocarbons by a commensurate amount.
One other point which might need to be made is the higher the AKI of the fuel, the lower potential amount of energy per unit of fuel. The thing is, the additives which increase detonation/knock resistance actually decrease the burnable hydrocarbons by a commensurate amount.
Yes, what ethanol taketh away, other premium additives try to put back. Maybe they succeed, maybe they don't. The devil is in the actual proprietary blend. The net result is not worth much from an efficiency standpoint; any loss or gain is largely ancillary to the engineering focus.
I wasn't referring to Ethanol; any fuel, regardless of whether it is E0, E10, E15, or even E85; the higher the AKI, the lower the specific amount of power in any given unit of fuel.
I wasn't referring to Ethanol; any fuel, regardless of whether it is E0, E10, E15, or even E85; the higher the AKI, the lower the specific amount of power in any given unit of fuel.
I think you're flat out wrong. I'm fairly sure that (ethanol aside) all gasoline has the same amount of energy by volume. The ability to resist knock does not imply more potential energy.
To chime in on my own experience, I've done the exact same drive (Toronto --> Ottawa --> Toronto, via 407/115/Hwy 7) multiple times in my Accord 2.0T 10AT (exact same power-train as a FWD RDX) and Ive achieved EXACTLY the same numbers overall using premium and regular. 42 MPG at an average of 55 mph. Premium gas affects the amount of power available, but, from my observations, has no affect on the amount of gas used in low throttle situations.
I think you're flat out wrong. I'm fairly sure that (ethanol aside) all gasoline has the same amount of energy by volume. The ability to resist knock does not imply more potential energy.
To chime in on my own experience, I've done the exact same drive (Toronto --> Ottawa --> Toronto, via 407/115/Hwy 7) multiple times in my Accord 2.0T 10AT (exact same power-train as a FWD RDX) and Ive achieved EXACTLY the same numbers overall using premium and regular. 42 MPG at an average of 55 mph. Premium gas affects the amount of power available, but, from my observations, has no affect on the amount of gas used in low throttle situations.
Flat out wrong? Really? Clearly you need to get some education.
Ad hominem attacks are ugly. Attack the points, not the person.
Anyway. I actually learned DURING MY EXTENSIVE EDUCATION that gasoline has the same energy content regardless of octane. That was, admittedly, a long time ago. I'd be very willing to be proven wrong here.
I wasn't referring to Ethanol; any fuel, regardless of whether it is E0, E10, E15, or even E85; the higher the AKI, the lower the specific amount of power in any given unit of fuel.
I mentioned ethanol as it's often added to gasoline to increase octane. As you mentioned, this additive reduces energy per unit. I don't know if all aromatic additives reduce energy density. Many are certainly hazardous in other ways. Proprietary components are added to compensate for this. (More or less). But that's secondary to the engineering focus when blending premium gas.
Bottom line for me, it's just not something people should consider when choosing premium or lower grades. Efficiency isn't a factor that matters in a meaningful way.
40 miles is not long enough to get an accurate rating. One time on a trip from Tahoe to Sacramento I got crazy good MPG, but that’s because it was all downhill....
40 miles is not long enough to get an accurate rating. One time on a trip from Tahoe to Sacramento I got crazy good MPG, but that’s because it was all downhill....
I have had 28mpg over 200 miles but that's about the best I have done so far. That was a round trip so any downhill was cancelled out.
The one I posed was from north of Trenton to just south of Philadelphia 90% highway @65mph. It was actually still going up and did cross 30mpg but I drove like a goober after I picked up my son in sport+ so it's nowhere near that now.
I think the car gets decent MPGs at 65 mph. But it's just so damn hard to keep it at that speed!
I have to use cruise or I creep up to 85mph. It is so smooth and quiet in comfort mode that cruising at extra-legal speeds is too easy.
My issue is that I like to mat it when I have a merge. If I could stop that I would be at 28mpg with 80% highway. Just doing that 2 times a day drops me down to 25-26mpg. I'll make that trade.
Are you going downhill with a strong tail wind? Seriously, is this an AWD and are you focusing heavily on your driving behaviour? Just driving normally, as we do in any of our other vehicles, we are seeing 18.5 -19 mpg mixed. Same driver, same routes as the former Buick Enclave we had that got 18 and was 8 pax and massive.
I use cruise control more and more to maintain a proper speed.
I started doing that in my 535 when I found myself doing 80 when it felt no more than 65. It has since become a habit to pick the speed I want and then set the cruise there.
Are you going downhill with a strong tail wind? Seriously, is this an AWD and are you focusing heavily on your driving behaviour? Just driving normally, as we do in any of our other vehicles, we are seeing 18.5 -19 mpg mixed. Same driver, same routes as the former Buick Enclave we had that got 18 and was 8 pax and massive.
It is a 2020 SH-AWD Advance with 87 octane and just over 3000miles. There are four things that got my fuel economy up:
1) Use the throttle so it shifts at 2k or less in all gears. It took me a week to get good at this and to realize that I was actually accelerating fast enough for normal driving without exceeding 2k rpm. This was the biggest change in my driving behavior and required due to the insanely low 1st gear (and second to some degree). It's how I drive now so I don't think about it. Before this, I was driving it and it was shifting at 3-4k rpm and I never realized it because I keep it in comfort and the engine is smooth and the car is quiet. I estimate that this change added 10% to my overall fuel economy from the local driving bump.
2) I use cruise as much as possible. If I am on the highway or a back road I'm usually on cruise. This required no change in behavior other than pressing the button. I don't use lane keep assist because I hate it.
3) I dropped from 75-85mph to 70mph as my max highway speed. So the majority of my highway driving is on cruise at 60-70mph. This was actually the first thing I tried and I saw a 10% increase just from dropping 70mph from 75mph. Probably a 20% improvement from when I was doing 85mph.
4) I turn off auto/start stop when I turn the car on and only use it I am approaching a light that I am going be at a light for a while. I doubt this helps much but I am using it about once a day. I do not object to auto start/stop but I want the default to be off and the button to turn it on when I want.
A combination of those changes got me from 21ish mpg, which I was OK with to a relatively stable 25-26mpg (roughly 20% improvement). I do wonder how high it will go after the full break in period because after this week of commuting with 80% highway I am sitting at 27.1mpg (but there may have been less traffic). Honestly, I could probably get 28mpg if I did not floor it twice a day in sport+. It literally drinks gas if you poke the turbo even a little.
I think I am going to try 91-94 octane for a couple of tanks to see if it does anything. I doubt it will do anything but I'll give it a try.
It is a 2020 SH-AWD Advance with 87 octane and just over 3000miles. There are four things that got my fuel economy up:
1) Use the throttle so it shifts at 2k or less in all gears. It took me a week to get good at this and to realize that I was actually accelerating fast enough for normal driving without exceeding 2k rpm. This was the biggest change in my driving behavior and required due to the insanely low 1st gear (and second to some degree). It's how I drive now so I don't think about it. Before this, I was driving it and it was shifting at 3-4k rpm and I never realized it because I keep it in comfort and the engine is smooth and the car is quiet. I estimate that this change added 10% to my overall fuel economy from the local driving bump.
2) I use cruise as much as possible. If I am on the highway or a back road I'm usually on cruise. This required no change in behavior other than pressing the button. I don't use lane keep assist because I hate it.
3) I dropped from 75-85mph to 70mph as my max highway speed. So the majority of my highway driving is on cruise at 60-70mph. This was actually the first thing I tried and I saw a 10% increase just from dropping 70mph from 75mph. Probably a 20% improvement from when I was doing 85mph.
4) I turn off auto/start stop when I turn the car on and only use it I am approaching a light that I am going be at a light for a while. I doubt this helps much but I am using it about once a day. I do not object to auto start/stop but I want the default to be off and the button to turn it on when I want.
A combination of those changes got me from 21ish mpg, which I was OK with to a relatively stable 25-26mpg (roughly 20% improvement). I do wonder how high it will go after the full break in period because after this week of commuting with 80% highway I am sitting at 27.1mpg (but there may have been less traffic). Honestly, I could probably get 28mpg if I did not floor it twice a day in sport+. It literally drinks gas if you poke the turbo even a little.
I think I am going to try 91-94 octane for a couple of tanks to see if it does anything. I doubt it will do anything but I'll give it a try.
I congratulate you on your dedication to a task. If you see value in this driving process, great; it's certainly not for everyone, however.
But it does beg the question of why you bought this car if economy was so important that you'd have to drive it this way? This engine is clearly biased toward power over economy, and performance is very much a feature of this model.
I congratulate you on your dedication to a task. If you see value in this driving process, great; it's certainly not for everyone, however.
But it does beg the question of why you bought this car if economy was so important that you'd have to drive it this way? This engine is clearly biased toward power over economy, and performance is very much a feature of this model.
Economy is a factor but as long as it was going to cross 20mpg it was fine with me. The other cars I was looking at were not going to do any better.
I think, at this point, I just want to see how high I can get it.
I found I get better economy by NOT using the cruise control. But, this makes sense where I live, lots of hills! I pick up a little speed going down (the cruise would have slowed it down) but then going up the other side I will keep slowly easing off the gas (which the cruise would not do). In over fifty years of driving and a technical career in the industry and powered by a human brain I know how to make the engine more efficient than a computer that is only interested in holding a set speed.
As for economy, yes we all would like to get the best we can but really, if fuel economy is on the top of your list you get the CR-V. My CR-V 1.5 Turbo would easily do 28-32 MPG on the highway. But honestly, did you really buy an RDX to get great gas mileage? I did the numbers and realized that compared to my CR-V the RDX would cost me about $200 a year more to drive than the CR-V based on fuel usage. Is it worth $17 extra a month to enjoy your RDX ? I think so...
I am in the camp that if the car can get close to the advertised mpg, then why not adapt my driving to help the car do that? I think of it as a small game to play when I drive casually...
RDX requires very clean throttle control to get good city mpgs. By that I mean just-enough throttle to keep the needed speed, and release the throttle as soon as not needed. Especially in 1-2 gears, as described by fogdoctor.
Cruise control uses too much boost to keep speed on inclines, so will hurt mpg when there are many short climbs in the route.
Idle stop really helps mpg from dropping when the car sits idling for more than one minute.
And if RDX can be lowered by an inch, the hwy mpg will improve greatly.
My car is at the dealer getting several things looked at so I have had a SH-AWD tech package loaner for a while. So far - It gets significantly better fuel economy than my advance model. What are people in the tech package getting? I have driven about 100 miles and I'm at 30.1mpg. I'll measure it at the pump when I have to fill it before returning.
My car is at the dealer getting several things looked at so I have had a SH-AWD tech package loaner for a while. So far - It gets significantly better fuel economy than my advance model. What are people in the tech package getting? I have driven about 100 miles and I'm at 30.1mpg. I'll measure it at the pump when I have to fill it before returning.
Trim level doesn't impact mpg. Tech SH-AWD here and I get 20-22 mpg with suburban driving. With highway-only driving, I get 26-27 mpg.
My car is at the dealer getting several things looked at so I have had a SH-AWD tech package loaner for a while. So far - It gets significantly better fuel economy than my advance model. What are people in the tech package getting? I have driven about 100 miles and I'm at 30.1mpg. I'll measure it at the pump when I have to fill it before returning.
I have never gotten near 30 in my Tech. Everyday suburban mileage is 21-22. Highway tops off at 26 when I keep it under 70 on flat roads.
My car is at the dealer getting several things looked at so I have had a SH-AWD tech package loaner for a while. So far - It gets significantly better fuel economy than my advance model. What are people in the tech package getting? I have driven about 100 miles and I'm at 30.1mpg. I'll measure it at the pump when I have to fill it before returning.
Unless there's something seriously wrong with our RDX, the only way a 20 RDX Tech got that kind of mileage is if you were being pushed or pulled, it was downhill, or it had a massive tailwind. Even Acura Client Services has told me they're seeing high teens average in their company cars and have innumerable owners reporting the same. This is consistent with what the dealership service manager is seeing; 21-22 on his '20 RDX demo and he admits he babies it to get that and he drives 95% highway. The district manager from Acura said he averages 19 on his company car which is consistent with what we've seen over 4K miles and we're massively disappointed. We have only seen 21 on the highway, and as soon as we returned to suburban driving it quickly began decreasing, leveling at 19.
Comparison: Same long ride taken 6 weeks apart, 500 miles r/t. RDX got 19.1 with 2 passengers totaling 260 lbs and overnight bag. Second trip a 2017 Toyota Tacoma Double Cab v6 6pd auto/4WD in 2RWD mode with 4 passengers totaling about 600lb and about 250 lbs of cargo, and the Tacoma achieved 21.8 mpg.
Same driver. Same amount of traffic. No attempts to optimize mileage, just drivin'...
Dealer said "there are no warning lights, and we see the same MPG, so it's operating as designed".
Unless there's something seriously wrong with our RDX, the only way a 20 RDX Tech got that kind of mileage is if you were being pushed or pulled, it was downhill, or it had a massive tailwind. Even Acura Client Services has told me they're seeing high teens average in their company cars and have innumerable owners reporting the same. This is consistent with what the dealership service manager is seeing; 21-22 on his '20 RDX demo and he admits he babies it to get that and he drives 95% highway. The district manager from Acura said he averages 19 on his company car which is consistent with what we've seen over 4K miles and we're massively disappointed. We have only seen 21 on the highway, and as soon as we returned to suburban driving it quickly began decreasing, leveling at 19.
Comparison: Same long ride taken 6 weeks apart, 500 miles r/t. RDX got 19.1 with 2 passengers totaling 260 lbs and overnight bag. Second trip a 2017 Toyota Tacoma Double Cab v6 6pd auto/4WD in 2RWD mode with 4 passengers totaling about 600lb and about 250 lbs of cargo, and the Tacoma achieved 21.8 mpg.
Same driver. Same amount of traffic. No attempts to optimize mileage, just drivin'...
Dealer said "there are no warning lights, and we see the same MPG, so it's operating as designed".
Wow! I would have to flog my RDX to death to get the mileage to drop down to the teens! Under normal highway driving I normally see 25 to 28 (not speeding) and have seen over 30 MPG on a 200+ mile drive across New Mexico (70 MPH on the Interstate). I get shocked if the car drops down to 24 MPG when I am heavy on the gas driving with traffic up and down the hilly Interstates here in the KY area. I get over 20 MPG average in city driving.
My personal experience has been your right foot is the key to economy. You don't have to "drive like an old lady" to get decent mileage but you do have to use common sense and a little restrain. My RDX likes to boogie and when she boogies she drinks heavily. There is a price for every vice I guess. If I want to play with this car I expect to pay for it. But mileage in the high teens? Never have I see that on the highway, ever.
I just finished a trip of a few hundred miles and noticed the trip odo was on from the last trip or two. I had 21 something as an overall average. That’s with a good bit of in town driving, spirited mountain driving, and 80 mph highway speeds. Not all that bad, considering I’m not babying it at all.
I've had several turbo cars dating back longer than I'd like to admit, and they all are thirsty when boosting frequently to both provide the power but also extra fuel to keep the cylinders cool. I get it, and am conscious of driving them to have fun within limits. We usually get close to posted MPG in winter, depends on how cold it gets, and almost always at or over the highway figures. We've never seen even 23 when cruising on the highway for any sustained period. My daughter's V6 AWD Cherokee returned 24.1 on that same 500 mile route. This was almost all highway driving at speeds 65-75.
It's not just me though, dealership and Acura are having the same experience. I am dumbfounded that my Toyota truck beat it handily. I'm literally bewildered and disappointed.
BTW, if we're rushing it and it's below freezing out - definitely not flogging still - it'll routinely get 17-17.5 around suburbia. The 19.xx is average interstates/suburia.
I agree with Hans. I drive about 80% suburban, and the rest 75+ MPH on the AZ freeways. Here's my current tank average. '19 Advance FWD. My lifetime average which includes a bit more Freeway, maybe 25% Freeway, is 26.97 (calculated) over the 17,000+ miles. Very satisfied based on my expectations. Summer here in the desert (May-Sept) is 100% A/C use and the mpg drops about 1.5 MPG on each tank. My worst tank average was 23.17 MPG.
Here's our read out. i am wondering, perhaps a bit cynically, if there's been a software update similar to the 1.5 Civic/CRV engine which pushes it to warm up more quickly to avoid oil dilution that's affecting our '20.. We have temps in the 30's still in mornings in the Northeast. My wife drives conservatively, and in all her prior cars always hit the numbers which were all much larger 7/8 pax AWD SUV's that got about what this compact is getting. We thought we'd reduce our carbon footprint from those vehicles but are in the same boat with a much smaller vehicle. It doesn't make sense that even Acura in CA are seeing numbers like ours but a few here aren't. We're not talking a small variance, these are WAY off.
2020 Tech AWD and do usally 19.5-20mpg average after full tank. 75% highway. Wish it was better. Tires are pumped up to 38psi. Will be trying full synthetic oil on this second oil change. Were at 9700 miles right now
very first tank 19.3 MPG. Not great, coming from an Audit TDI that averaged 28. but several factors influence early tanks, in particular the first one...Actual miles on the tank is sort of an unknown as it wasn't under my control, second new engines are tight as they are still breaking in.
03-11-2020, 11:10 AM
