So my 2019 RDX sh-awd has 52,000 miles on it. Maintained exactly to the specs of the maintenance minder. Tires are always about 34 psi, rotated, balanced and aligned every 5k miles. Only used Premium and toss in Seafoam about every 5 tanks. Air filter is spotless. I see people doing tunes to improve performance. However, how about a tune to get decent mileage???? Without a heavy foot and I’m Comfort mode, it get like 16 city and maybe 23 hwy. considering it is premium, that is just about as shitty as our 2014 Pilot that takes regular and much heavier with a V6 and meaty tires. This doesn’t keep me up at night but I’m just surprised that these don’t get a little better mileage. Anyone find any mods that do anything other than only driving downhill? Lol

 

It all depends on where and how you drive. The more you are in the "turbo" spool up land - the more gas it will drink.

In the city during the super cold and snowy winters - I got between 14-17 mpg (short trips and stop and go). On super hot sunny days (100+ degrees), 1300+ mile road trip on the freeway in rolling terrain, speed at 72mph, tires at 38psi cold, clean air filter, sport mode, regular gas and slick ceramic coated paint/windshield - averaged 27.4mpg. Using the smart cruise helps a lot. Premium fuel does not equate to more MPG's, more HP as the computer sets the parameters for that.

My lifetime average is 21.5mpg. Not great, but not terrible either. The SHawd hampers great mpg, but it's purely amazing in rain and snow.

 

One of the cons of the RDX is its lousy mpg. According to fuelly, average mpg for 2019 RDX is ~21 mpg combined across 88 vehicles (this means all variants FWD, AWD, A-spec, etc.) which is below the EPA estimate which is around 23 or 24 combined.
https://www.fuelly.com/car/acura/rdx
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymo...cura_RDX.shtml
I average 20 or 21 mpg in mostly suburban driving. If I leave the engine running while sitting in the car to keep it cool, that number easily drops to 17-19.

Just stop looking at mpg and enjoy the drive. If you care about mpg, the right car to buy is NX hybrid or RX hybrid, but you will be making other compromises most notably $$.

 

Yowsers!

According to fuelly, my GLS is just about the same as the RDX!

https://www.fuelly.com/car/mercedes-benz/gls450

 

Yeah I can't quite understand why the RDX is as bad as it is. Like there has to be some other reason as to why it is this bad. I know SH-AWD is a thirsty system but still. Is there something they did that is drastically wrong. Is it the 10AT?

 

I get 25-26MPG on highway with sh-awd. Thats about what you get with turbo suv type of cars

 

I get about 25 mpg combined city/highway on the X3 and I live about 30-45 min outside of NYC.

 

It's not the 10AT. If it were, the FWD models would get poor fuel economy too, and they don't.

 

"You gotta pump those numbers up. Those are rookie numbers in this racket."

 

HA! 34 is too soft for my liking. 38-39 is much better, and less rolling resistance on the highways. Good MPG comes with a light right foot and on the freeway staying under 72mph. Above that number, the less than efficient aero #'s, sitting up high and full time AWD (SHawd) will consumer more petrol. However, all that is a minor issue - as the traction and safety of the SHawd is amazing.

 

Not from the 4-cylinder Germans. They tend to do that well (or better) in mixed driving.

 

Rumor has it going to 0-20 oil will improve gas mileage a bit if you are not already on it. IMO...whether the RDX gets 19 MPG or 23 MPG doesn't matter to me. If you can afford the RDX, you can afford a few extra dollars a year for gas IMO.

 

While true, you normally don’t get that great financial health by being wasteful…

 

Not 100% true. There has to be some “wastefulness” in everything. However, compared to a EV which values and demand have plummeted - that’s massive depreciation is more significant than a few less mpg.

Sweet spot - hybrid, and keep you vehicle or anything else for years to have better financial health.

 

The dealer markup makes it less of a slam dunk.

 

how much better for similarly powered turbo 4?

 

You might have missed this...

 

In this declining, high interest rate, lots filling up economy - would never pay a mark up! Believe me, prices will come down and markups are going to be obsolete for dealers who want to move inventory and stay in business.

 

BMW X3 2022 xDrive with 2.0L lists city/highway 21 / 28 @248 HP (9% less HP)
Acura RDX SHAWD city/highway 21/27 @ 272 HP

Individual experiences and MPG vary. When I am driving 60-65 on highway without traffic, it gets to 27-28 MPG

 

IMO the highway numbers are easy, seeing as I live In the city and not on the highway, that is irrelevant to me. My 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee V6 can easily get 1000-1100kms on the highway at ~120kms/hr. With a 24.6 Gallon fuel tank that's ~28.5-30.3 MPG, in a 5500 pound (loaded with people and stuff - 4875 empty -) full time AWD SUV with a healthy sized 290Hp 3.6L V6. So your 28MPG in a 3800 pound SUV with a 2.0L and running mostly FWD on the highway is actually pretty disappointing.

That aside, I think a lot of us here are more concerned with city fuel economy. The Jeep gets about 17MPG city...again better or equivalent to what mostly everyone here is getting.

For a more equivalent comparison, the Q5 is rated at 23 city and in the few hours of driving the 2019 S-line loaner like it was stolen the fuel gauge did not move an inch while delivering almost a second faster 0-60 and having less Hp and Tq than the RDX. Don't get me wrong, I like the RDX a lot, hence having it at the top of my consideration list, but the fuel economy leaves a lot to be desired.

 

BMW typically meets or exceeds EPA estimates whereas Acura struggles to meet it.

It's well known BMW will underate their engines so that could explain some of it. Either way, they're similar spec'd cars w/very different real-world fuel economy.

 

Acura RDX SHAWD is a “full-time system”, always working and not FWD bias. What’s a couple of MPG when you have superior traction in any weather? Want MPG, go look at a hybrid SUV. Mpg with any non hybrid suv will get inferior mpg - period.

 

Below was taken in my wife's GLC300. This is mixed driving (note the average speed), and my wife is no absolutely no hyper-miler. If she's going, she's not going slow. Her previous car was a Q5 2.0T returning similar results, with highway driving easily returning 30+. I had a first generation X1 and consistently saw about 26 in mixed driving.



I don't monitor the mileage in my GLE, but I did track it on its first road trip. The GLE450 is a big, heavy SUV with turbocharged inline six, EPA rated 21/26. The meat of this trip was spent with the cruise set at 78 mph. Doubting the numbers myself, I did manually calculate the mileage, and it was spot-on.

 

I got about 25 mpg on a long road trip for the GLS450. Not sure if that was helped by the MH 48V battery but I'm sure it didn't hurt.

I always thought one of Acura's biggest mistakes was giving up on the Sport Hybrid models, just when the industry was starting to get used to it!

 

· As Texas stated, Acura’s SH-AWD constantly drives all four wheels. It is never just FWD. The “German” AWD systems can drive just the front wheels until it senses wheel-slip and then quickly (milliseconds) redirects some power to the rear wheels. Acura’s SH-AWD system is always in a state of parasitic drag (spinning drive shafts, half shafts, differential units, powering clutch packs, etc.). It contributes to what is probably THE best AWD system for handling on the market today, but at the expense of fuel economy.

· Plus, an SH-AWD RDX weighs in at 4,070 pounds. It is kind of hefty. That will hurt city mileage. (The FWD only RDX is about 270 pounds lighter.)

· Lastly, turbos are NOT fuel efficient under load. They are very fuel efficient under light boost. But as boost increases, it's fuel efficiency quickly becomes much worse than a larger V6 of equal power. The more you use the RDX’s performance, the more you pay for it at the pump.

 

Always active, yes, but still primarily driving the front wheels when cruising (up to 90% as I recall). Unlike entry level FWD-based torque-on-demand BMW's and Benzes, the X3 and GLC AWD systems are also always active, primarily driving the rear wheels first. (The GLC's permanent 4Matic defaults to 45% power front/55% power rear.) Only the Audi Q5's quattro with Ultra is primarily FWD when additional traction isn't called for. (The SQ5 still uses real quattro permanent AWD).

One of the best FWD-based AWD systems for sure, although no longer the only torque-vectoring transverse system. But because Acura's system starts with a transverse layout, there's more weight on the front of the vehicle, so handling will always be short of optimum. When not under power, there is no torque-vectoring to help the vehicle turn, so I believe Acura brakes the inside rear wheel to help minimize understeer typically found in front-heavy vehicles. Similarly, RWD-based models that don't have true torque-vectoring hardware often use braking to emulate torque-vectoring when powering out of turns. In short, thanks to technology there are a lot of very good AWD systems out there.

 

FYI: I'm here looking for gas mileage discussions because my highway MPG has dropped about 10-12%. I'm still getting mid-20's in the city and 30 mpg on the highway. Mine is a 2016 RDX AWD Advance package with 97K miles. So, the gas mileage you're getting - at least in my experience - is poor.

 

If I'm driving on a highway without traffic I am never doing only 60-65!

 

me neither, but fuel economy gets worse when you doing 80mph. The manufacturers know how to get better MPG numbers by creating unrealistic conditions to get better MPG on a paper

 

It is full time but I meant the Jeep is near 50/50 F/R always. The RDX is capable of sending almost 100% just to the front wheels, while yes still parasitic, it is going to be using a lot less fuel than a full time system that is not capable of sending almost all power to the front. Don't get me wrong, I have been and will always be the first to praise SH-AWD. I live in a very very northern city in Canada and have extensive experience with SH-AWD in ice and snow. I'm just saying it is inherently more fuel efficient to run vs a full time 50/50 system by virtue of being able to send almost all power to the front wheels during steady cruising.

I don't need to go look at a Hybrid for MPG, I'm not looking for 30MPG+ city, I'm looking for the advertised 21MPG that the A-Spec SH-AWD is supposed to be getting, not the 13-16MPG most people here are seeing. You're creating a strawman argument by stating I need to go hybrid if I want fuel economy. There are ways of doing both acceptable performance and fuel economy without Hybrid or EV. My 2009 Veracruz with a honking 3.8l V6 was seeing around 13-15 MPG city before it randomly died, there's no reason a vehicle weighing hundreds lighter, with an engine nearly half the size, and 15 years of aero, mechanical, and technological updates should be doing the same. That's all I am getting at.

 

13-16 mpg, you must do a lot of stop and go in traffic? Cold weather also hampers mpg. There are a lot of factors that go into city mpg. EPA numbers are in a controlled environment - not typical for most of us. Using the start/stop feature helps a bit too - though I hate that thing.

Haven't got less than 27mpg on a 1300 road trip in the summer, nor wore than 14mpg in -10 degrees, snow and super short trips. Not even my Mini JCW got better than 21 in the city, and it was 1/2 the size. BTW - my life time overall is 21.5 mpg over 21K miles, so thats not so bad for the performance and capability of the RDX IMO. On par with other SUV's similar size (non hybrid).

 

Was that in Comfort or Eco mode? Eco on long highway slogs actually helps quite a bit.

 

A mix of both. When semi-autonomous driving was on, it was on Eco.

 

Don’t think I have taken mine out of Sport mode in a very long time. To me it shifts better, more responsive “go” pedal and steering has more weight to it.

My MPG have only gotten better with miles - best was 27.4 for 600 miles in rolling high terrain in high 90’s on a sunny day - cruise set to 72-73mph, AC on 68, tires at 38 psi cold, cruise on and regular gas.

City driving, let her coat to the stoplights - as there is virtually zero engine breaking and us the start/stop feature. A light foot will get you 19-21 mpg.

In the 1st 14k miles my MPG was lower, but as she broke in and loosened up, the MPG’s went up. Changing the engine air and cabin air filters every 9-12 months helps too.

 

Although it lacks torque vectoring I like the Smart AWD system in my Lincoln. It can split the torque at 100% front during normal driving, 20-80 under hard acceleration or 50-50 on low traction surfaces.
It does a complete disconnect of the rear drive shaft under normal driving conditions.
4,400 pounds, 335 HP, 380 lb/ft of torque and consistently does 25-29 MPG at 65-70 MPH. No idea why the RDX is so thirsty.

 

BIG difference in my 73mph vs 65mph in terms of MPG’s. 65 is probably 9%-15% more efficient.

 

Does "zero engine breaking" only happen in Comfort mode? This is the equivalent to ECO for the Germans, I think.

 

it’s more the transmission tune in a modern automatic - regardless of mode, there is not much engine breaking.

 

There's quite a bit of engine braking in Sport mode of my X3 (to the point of being annoying when making slow maneuvers like parking in a lot).

My car really only glides/coasts in ECO PRO mode.

 

My Mileage numbers are calculated. Probably is a bit too ambiguous.