When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Just returned from TN. 735.6 miles. A/C on most of trip. Average fuel economy was 30.6 mpg. FWIW, during the first 20 miles of the return trip, it was very early in the morning, traffic was light and I average 82-85 mph. The average fuel economy for that short period was 27.2 mpg (that includes perhaps 8 miles from "home" to the highway). Slowly for the rest of the trip, the fuel economy creeped up to 30.6 mpg, which implies I was probably getting 31+ mpg at 72-74 mph. I’m just relieved there are no inherent fuel economy problems with the RDX, at least the FWD RDX.
^ I can easily hit 28+ mpg for highway-only driving at 65-70 mph in my AWD RDX. So no MPG issues per se. But for the same type of driving I could hit 38+ mpg in my BMW 328i.
Had my 2020 AWD for about 35k miles now. It did start out with strangely low MPG, but improved over time as the engine was broken in. I would have thought with modern manufcaturing, the break-in period would not matter as much, but in the case of my 2.0, it took time. On the highway is were the poor mileage is most noticable for me. Generally travel 75-80 range, and when the hills hit, that little engine really relies on the turbo, which drives the MPG down in a hurry, generally 21-22. When I really scoot this thing will not produce more than 20 MPG. Around town 23-24 is normal with the required 91 octane.
At first, I have to admit, it was a let-down and thought maybe the new engine, 3.0T from the TLX? Might be a good fit. Overall, really like the RDX size, ride, and build quality - this is my 10th Honda/Acura product and own 4 right now.
I’m a bit disappointed in the mileage, too. But I like how it drives, the power is adequate for my needs in all situations I have been in and never felt power limited.
I get 15 mpg in San Francisco with pretty slow driving. I thought it would a closer the the advertised 22 city.
I bet you will get 21 rolling down a hill in San Fan. That is how I think Acura tested the cars GAS mileage. I also am disappointed in city driving getting around 14 to 16 max.
Light footed. Highway is good 28 to 30. I have a 2019 A-Spec.
I know there are people in here that don't care about gas mileage but all the RDX trims state 21 city and if you don't get close to that it's a plain lie.
They might work for Acura or are just the average consumer that likes to get ripped off. Bottom line is when you purchase a car you look at the epa sticker and it should be 1 or 2 miles off not 6 to 8.
The cost of gas equates into the cost of ownership. To me I looked and it and it was a lie on Honda's part.
And I don't fall for the we can't make it get better gas mileage we have 4 driving modes on it ,one can't be a de tuned on for city? Come on we live in the 21 centenary.
No one need sport and sport plus. I saw there is not much difference in the two modes.
If you want sport Plus use manual mode.
So stated in dozens of prior posts: EPA is comparison test……….if you drive similar to the drive cycle test, you will likely achieve similar MPG. If you live a large metro like San Francisco or NY, your MPG will suck compared to the window sticker numbers………as you very likely spend much more drive waiting instead of moving than the test cycle.
For real city driving a hybrid is ideal, but unfortunately Acura doesn't offer one. I think Lexus has a hit with the 2022 NX hybrid. Acura needs to do something quickly!
The EPA city rating is more for suburban driving rather than driving in large, congested cities.
We just got home from our first road trip in our 2021 Advance SH-AWD...Phoenix to central California & back. I was seeing 20-24 MPG on the trip computer, mostly 75+ MPH with the A/C going. Not really horrible but a bit disappointing. We would see close to 30 in our 2014 Tech in a similar situation. We get 18-20 MPG around town but we're rarely in stop & go traffic. The 2014 did a lot better in town. I'd like to see higher but we don't drive all that much so the fuel cost isn't a huge financial burden.
So stated in dozens of prior posts: EPA is comparison test……….if you drive similar to the drive cycle test, you will likely achieve similar MPG. If you live a large metro like San Francisco or NY, your MPG will suck compared to the window sticker numbers………as you very likely spend much more drive waiting instead of moving than the test cycle.
So again this city EPA is a big Lie. No city San Fan, LA. NY , etc has smooth sailing.
So unless you want to change the definition of a city this is total crap on Honda part and should be sued.
If I had known the real City EPA I would have chosen a different car / Suv.
Agree. Driving like a grandma in perfect weather with no traffic and no street lights should not be the advertised city mileage.
They need better realistic metrics.
Agreed. But I think on this one Honda submitted the EPA to the fed's and it was not checked by them.
I also drive like Grandpa, but a lot of red lights.
I get 16mpg in Sport +, 20mpg in Sport and 25mpg in Comfort.
Do you also change your driving style in each of the modes? You'd have to go from feather foot to lead foot to get from 25 mpg to 16 mpg with just a mode change.
Do you also change your driving style in each of the modes? You'd have to go from feather foot to lead foot to get from 25 mpg to 16 mpg with just a mode change.
I usually have my kids in the car so my driving is not too crazy. But yes, I use comfort mode as a game to see how high MPG I can get. I've seen 28 so far this week
I usually have my kids in the car so my driving is not too crazy. But yes, I use comfort mode as a game to see how high MPG I can get. I've seen 28 so far this week
You get 28mpg just after a fill up on ur odometer then it dramatically goes down.
Yea im gonna call bullshit your getting that with SH-AWD in city driving.
A little better in Philadelphia (12-13mpg) and I get about 27-28mpg at <70mph. About 25-26 at PA turnpike speeds (70-80mph).
HIghway I get 28 to 30 no issue there. City or I should say real city driving is piss poor, Hell my 92 LS 400 with and 8 cylinder gets better City gas millage and is heaver than this RDX.
The mpg is pretty bad but i had seen this prior to purchasing so i knew what j was getting into
If you have an extremely long commute the rdx isnt the car for you but i dont drive much BUT wanted a funner drive than my crv (that got great mpg) so it was a give and take
HIghway I get 28 to 30 no issue there. City or I should say real city driving is piss poor, Hell my 92 LS 400 with and 8 cylinder gets better City gas millage and is heaver than this RDX.
Agree. I am real surprised how low the city is. Don't remember what the window sticker said though. Hell, I'm 65...it's not like I drive when I was 25 so it isn't like I'm gunning it....and it's a 4 banger.
I have a question about MPG. Besides on 'Trip A or Trip B" trip meters, is there any way to see your MPG? It seems a little misleading to use the trip meters because if you reset these with any regularity the MPG is only relevant to that trip or last reset. I don't reset them that often, but...
I am used to just having an overall MPG meter than can be reset via a steering wheel stalk, but maybe thus is just Acuras way.
I have a question about MPG. Besides on 'Trip A or Trip B" trip meters, is there any way to see your MPG? It seems a little misleading to use the trip meters because if you reset these with any regularity the MPG is only relevant to that trip or last reset. I don't reset them that often, but...
I am used to just having an overall MPG meter than can be reset via a steering wheel stalk, but maybe thus is just Acuras way.
Get a little spiral notebook and write down the mileage and amount at each fill-up. Then you can do the math over a long period and probably get a more accurate answer. The mileage indicators on many cars are usually pretty far off, they're more of a rough indicator. Or I guess nowadays you can use the notes app in your phone...or there's probably an app for that.
Just returned from a 700 mile round trip - NJ to the Finger Lakes in NY and back. Fully loaded, A/C on most of time, mountains, 70-75 mph, averaged 28.9 mpg. That included a fair amount of slow driving up there and about 10 miles of extremely hard driving. Pure highway fuel economy was probably 30+ mpg. Not disappointed.
I did notice a massive disparity in instantaneous fuel consumption as it relates to boost. It seems this engine is very Jekyll and Hyde. When the engine operated under light boost, fuel economy was surprisingly good. However if I crossed “the threshold” and used moderate boost (no purple color on the boost gauge), it was like a light switch. Fuel economy immediately became dismal. There was no middle ground. Just boom! – good fuel economy to crap fuel economy. It makes me wonder how the ECU is programmed to control fuel richness as boost increases, as in the need to cool the cylinders. There was very little transition from good to poor fuel economy.
Changing subjects, when on the gas I found the 2.0T had more than adequate power. Watkins Glen Race Track is located on the very southern tip of Lake Seneca. For $30, the track lets drivers “Drive the Glen” in their regular road cars. My group consisted of about 9 cars. We entered the track behind a pole car (pick up truck), were instructed to not pass, maintain safe distance and drive 55 mph. We had three laps around the track. By the second lap we stretched out and as expected, we all floored our vehicles and nobody did 55 in the straights.
Here is my point. The vehicle in front of me was a Ford F150 with the 2.7T engine. (0-60 in 6.1 seconds with a 95 mph trap speed.) On the straights, my fully loaded RDX would easily run it down. My wife endlessly screamed “you’re getting too close!” I know I exited corners far faster than the heavy truck. But still, between 40 mph and 90 mph, this 2.0T had significantly more acceleration than the truck, which on paper has very similar acceleration.
On the subject of the RDX’s handling close to its limit, I thought steering input was excellent and the suspension very predictable. I’m FWD only, and the back end would slip out just a tiny bit on the harder corners. The front tires did NOT spin upon any corner’s exit. However, the slowest speed I entered a corner was perhaps 35-40 mph. At 40+ mph, its hard to spin the wheels.
Anyway, given the RDX’s decent highway power and the ability to deliver 30 mpg highway if driven prudently, I am very happy with it.
If I'd known you could Drive the Glen for $30 I might have done that when I was there last summer. Maybe if I go up there again I can do that - and give a SH-AWD perspective.
The track is pretty hard on the car from engine to brakes to tires. Even though it's fun, not sure I want to take a daily driver there. You probably go through a quarter life of brakes and tires with 1/2 day on the track. Pretty sure there's similar wear on engine and suspension as well.
The track is pretty hard on the car from engine to brakes to tires. Even though it's fun, not sure I want to take a daily driver there. You probably go through a quarter life of brakes and tires with 1/2 day on the track. Pretty sure there's similar wear on engine and suspension as well.
A VERY valid concern. I had my wife next to me with several suitcases/bags and a case of wine in the back. In no way did I think I was in an NSX or GT3. Because I caught up to the pick-up in the straights and had to maintain a courteous and safe distance from it, I had to back off early which gave me plenty of time to “slowly” brake before each turn. I was on the brakes well before I reached the 600ft, 500ft, 400 ft, etc. markers. The brakes never got that hot. No fade, no brake smell and absolutely no rotor-warp. It was absolutely a concern of mine.
Just returned from a 700 mile round trip - NJ to the Finger Lakes in NY and back. Fully loaded, A/C on most of time, mountains, 70-75 mph, averaged 28.9 mpg. That included a fair amount of slow driving up there and about 10 miles of extremely hard driving. Pure highway fuel economy was probably 30+ mpg. Not disappointed.
I did notice a massive disparity in instantaneous fuel consumption as it relates to boost. It seems this engine is very Jekyll and Hyde. When the engine operated under light boost, fuel economy was surprisingly good. However if I crossed “the threshold” and used moderate boost (no purple color on the boost gauge), it was like a light switch. Fuel economy immediately became dismal. There was no middle ground. Just boom! – good fuel economy to crap fuel economy. It makes me wonder how the ECU is programmed to control fuel richness as boost increases, as in the need to cool the cylinders. There was very little transition from good to poor fuel economy.
in the straights.
Anyway, given the RDX’s decent highway power and the ability to deliver 30 mpg highway if driven prudently, I am very happy with it.
It’s not any more complicated than gas engine turbo boost makes power and power requires a lot more fuel.
Turbo diesel can add boost ( air) without adding alot more fuel. Gasoline engines operate within a narrow air/fuel ratio range of approximately 12:1 to 15:1. (Yes, there a some lean burn technology in gas engines) Diesels can operate with a broader range as rich as 15:1 or as lean as 60:1, however, going richer than about 22:1 to 25:l produces heat, soot, emissions etc.
If you look at the numbers the 2.0T makes about the same power as the 3.5V6 (non turbo) and gets about the same MPG. Keep your foot out of the throttle the turbo MPG climb.
Remember the 1st gen 2.3T RDX got terrible MPG even less the V6 ………
Just returned from a 700 mile round trip - NJ to the Finger Lakes in NY and back. Fully loaded, A/C on most of time, mountains, 70-75 mph, averaged 28.9 mpg. That included a fair amount of slow driving up there and about 10 miles of extremely hard driving. Pure highway fuel economy was probably 30+ mpg. Not disappointed.
I did notice a massive disparity in instantaneous fuel consumption as it relates to boost. It seems this engine is very Jekyll and Hyde. When the engine operated under light boost, fuel economy was surprisingly good. However if I crossed “the threshold” and used moderate boost (no purple color on the boost gauge), it was like a light switch. Fuel economy immediately became dismal. There was no middle ground. Just boom! – good fuel economy to crap fuel economy. It makes me wonder how the ECU is programmed to control fuel richness as boost increases, as in the need to cool the cylinders. There was very little transition from good to poor fuel economy.
Changing subjects, when on the gas I found the 2.0T had more than adequate power. Watkins Glen Race Track is located on the very southern tip of Lake Seneca. For $30, the track lets drivers “Drive the Glen” in their regular road cars. My group consisted of about 9 cars. We entered the track behind a pole car (pick up truck), were instructed to not pass, maintain safe distance and drive 55 mph. We had three laps around the track. By the second lap we stretched out and as expected, we all floored our vehicles and nobody did 55 in the straights.
Here is my point. The vehicle in front of me was a Ford F150 with the 2.7T engine. (0-60 in 6.1 seconds with a 95 mph trap speed.) On the straights, my fully loaded RDX would easily run it down. My wife endlessly screamed “you’re getting too close!” I know I exited corners far faster than the heavy truck. But still, between 40 mph and 90 mph, this 2.0T had significantly more acceleration than the truck, which on paper has very similar acceleration.
On the subject of the RDX’s handling close to its limit, I thought steering input was excellent and the suspension very predictable. I’m FWD only, and the back end would slip out just a tiny bit on the harder corners. The front tires did NOT spin upon any corner’s exit. However, the slowest speed I entered a corner was perhaps 35-40 mph. At 40+ mph, its hard to spin the wheels.
Anyway, given the RDX’s decent highway power and the ability to deliver 30 mpg highway if driven prudently, I am very happy with it.
great write up n review
its one of the reasons that i leave the boost gauge on all the time not just sport plus and intercooler was my first mod .
cooling is the goal lol
i might swing up there for that. Last time i was on a track was when nascar flew me to the championship race and i was front seat with ryan blaney driving 100+ in a prototype gt350 and was $hitting my pants haha
It’s not any more complicated than gas engine turbo boost makes power and power requires a lot more fuel.
Turbo diesel can add boost ( air) without adding alot more fuel. Gasoline engines operate within a narrow air/fuel ratio range of approximately 12:1 to 15:1. (Yes, there a some lean burn technology in gas engines) Diesels can operate with a broader range as rich as 15:1 or as lean as 60:1, however, going richer than about 22:1 to 25:l produces heat, soot, emissions etc.
If you look at the numbers the 2.0T makes about the same power as the 3.5V6 (non turbo) and gets about the same MPG. Keep your foot out of the throttle the turbo MPG climb.
Remember the 1st gen 2.3T RDX got terrible MPG even less the V6 ………
Yes, the ideal stoichiometric ratio is 14.7:1 at sea level and can increase to about 12:1 under load and decrease to about 16:1 under very light load. But that range usually applies to naturally aspirated engines. Turbochargers add another angle to this. The stoichiometric ratio can increase to much more than 12:1. My question regarded the point in which that transition takes place.
Also, observed fuel economy for a 3.5 V6 (270hp) and a 2.0T I4 (270hp) can vary dramatically. Under light load, the 2.0T is better. Under light to medium load, the 3.5 and 2.0 are the same. But under medium to heavy load, the 3.5 is better! When driven hard, the turbo turns into a gas hog. The reason regards knock control. Here is one of many articles on the subject:
“Driven carefully, turbochargers do offer efficiency gains. But that efficiency can quickly disappear if you don't drive with discipline. A turbocharged engine turns into a fuel-hog under hard acceleration.
Explaining the abnormally high consumption of a turbocharged engine under high load takes us into some interesting areas of engineering. To perform properly (and not destroy itself) an engine must mix air and fuel in a precise ratio. The perfect air/fuel ratio is about 14.7 parts of air to one part of fuel. This is known as a "stoichiometric" ratio, which ensures a chemically complete combustion event. If you introduce more fuel than necessary, you create a "rich" mixture, and part of the fuel passes through the engine unburnt, wasting gas and creating extra pollution. A lean mixture, on the other hand, saves fuel, but makes the engine run hotter.
A turbocharger changes the picture. As the pressure in the combustion chambers rises, you run the risk of "knock". Knock is destructive, but is easily prevented by computerized engine control systems that monitor fuel flow and cylinder in real time. If your engine is on the verge of knocking, the computers have an instant fix: they shoot extra fuel into the cylinders to cool things down. As you can imagine, this hurts fuel economy. But it does help your engine last.
With a turbocharger, hard acceleration results in extremely high cylinder pressures. In response, the fuel system shoots in plenty of extra fuel - and there go your fuel savings.”
Heat control. ECUs over inject fuel to cool the cylinders under boost. Knowing all turbos over inject fuel at some point to control knock, at what level of boost does the RDX’s ECU inject the extra fuel? Does it start at only moderate boost compared to heavy boost in other turbos? If done in the name of engine safety, is Honda playing it too safe? Or, are other cars not safe enough? Does moderate driving for most people cross that threshold in the RDX but would not cross it in, for example, a Lincoln Corsair? Might that explain why the Corsair is more fuel efficient for many "enthusiastic" drivers.
And at whatever level of boost the ECU starts to over inject fuel, how graduated or tapered is that change? Based on how quickly the RDX's fuel economy changes at medium boost, it appears like very little graduation. Below that threshold, economy is very good, but just above it a little, fuel economy is bad.
This is all speculation on my part. Just a theory based on observation. Simply searching for an explanation for why the 2.0T is very fuel efficient up to a point, after which it becomes a gas hog, while others don't. What defines that point? What changes so much?
... Does moderate driving for most people cross that threshold in the RDX but would not cross it in, for example, a Lincoln Corsair? Might that explain why the Corsair is more fuel efficient for many "enthusiastic" drivers.
Recent weekend trip to NJ. 2020 SH-AWD A-Spec. I had the pleasure of fighting metro-NYC traffic both ways, which certainly gave the gas mileage a nice hit, but that's life. Most of the speed was 70-75MPH traffic permitting. I can see why people complain about the infotainment system. Of the four times I plugged my phone in, twice I had issues with connectivity to Apple CarPlay. Anything above 75MPH and I saw a noticeable decline in gas mileage. In fact, on the way down, we were way ahead of schedule (thought traffic was going to be worse) so I set the cruise to 72MPH for a good chunk of the trip.
Recent weekend trip to NJ. 2020 SH-AWD A-Spec. I had the pleasure of fighting metro-NYC traffic both ways, which certainly gave the gas mileage a nice hit, but that's life. Most of the speed was 70-75MPH traffic permitting. I can see why people complain about the infotainment system. Of the four times I plugged my phone in, twice I had issues with connectivity to Apple CarPlay. Anything above 75MPH and I saw a noticeable decline in gas mileage. In fact, on the way down, we were way ahead of schedule (thought traffic was going to be worse) so I set the cruise to 72MPH for a good chunk of the trip.
Before this, the car was getting 21.1MPG.
Neither myself nor anyone of the dealership personnel driving the RDX we spoke with ever reached that MPG. I'd guess it is possible with driving gently and not pushing the acceleration, but we were lucky to get to 19.5 and usually averaged 17.5.
We dumped the 2020 RDX SHAWD Tech and it's tinny sounding engine, crap MPG, busy transmission, and noisy jittery ride for an 2020 MDX SHAWD Tech with a 3.5 and consistently average 22 all around and break 26 on the highway running about 80 in comfort. It also doesn't have that confounding abomination of an infotainment system.
05-17-2021, 04:48 PM
(pun intended)
