Sure wish I could get 400+ miles on a tank but that doesn’t seem feasible. |
I'm lucky to have a friend who is an expert engineer in energy-related industries, now retired, but remains a consultant for major energy/transportation companies.
His advice: Use premium synthetic oil. He uses Mobil One (0-20 unless recommended otherwise) in most of his cars. Use "Top Tier" fuel, especially if using regular grades. Top tier mostly impacts 87-89 levels where some companies restrict additives to premium (91+) grades. Use the recommended fuel...if manufacturer recommends premium, use premium. Efficiency (mileage and power) will be adversely impacted by lower grade fuel. Using regular might save money, depending upon pricing premium. There is no significant benefit using higher than recommended octane levels, as long as it's a top tier fuel. Avoid ethanol. The most common (10% blend) will reduce efficiency (mileage/power) 3-6%, depending upon application. Unfortunately there usually is a slight cost premium even considering the efficiency advantage. (My friend's cars total about $1.2 million, so not much concern for him) Ethanol blended fuels also have been the source of significant problems when used in older automobile engines, as well as most small "garden tool" motors (weed hackers, chain saws, etc.). Note: Ethanol free fuel availability can be found on "puregas.org" website...availability is becoming extensive in most states. Unfortunately states owned by the corn/ethanol lobby (i.e. Iowa, Illinois, California) have succeeded in restricting choice/availability. Ethanol began being sold as an environmental solution, long since debunked. Not even Al Gore continues to support ethanol. Now it's just a tax-fed money machine for the corn/ethanol industry and there related political contributions. IMHO. |
Originally Posted by GTF
(Post 16264393)
I'm lucky to have a friend who is an expert engineer in energy-related industries, now retired, but remains a consultant for major energy/transportation companies.
His advice: Use premium synthetic oil. He uses Mobil One (0-20 unless recommended otherwise) in most of his cars. Use "Top Tier" fuel, especially if using regular grades. Top tier mostly impacts 87-89 levels where some companies restrict additives to premium (91+) grades. Use the recommended fuel...if manufacturer recommends premium, use premium. Efficiency (mileage and power) will be adversely impacted by lower grade fuel. Using regular might save money, depending upon pricing premium. There is no significant benefit using higher than recommended octane levels, as long as it's a top tier fuel. Avoid ethanol. The most common (10% blend) will reduce efficiency (mileage/power) 3-6%, depending upon application. Unfortunately there usually is a slight cost premium even considering the efficiency advantage. (My friend's cars total about $1.2 million, so not much concern for him) Ethanol blended fuels also have been the source of significant problems when used in older automobile engines, as well as most small "garden tool" motors (weed hackers, chain saws, etc.). Note: Ethanol free fuel availability can be found on "puregas.org" website...availability is becoming extensive in most states. Unfortunately states owned by the corn/ethanol lobby (i.e. Iowa, Illinois, California) have succeeded in restricting choice/availability. Ethanol began being sold as an environmental solution, long since debunked. Not even Al Gore continues to support ethanol. Now it's just a tax-fed money machine for the corn/ethanol industry and there related political contributions. IMHO. The only thing I would add to that is in the case of the 2.0 4 cylinder turbo, Honda recommends 87 in the accord and 91 in the RDX. Dyno tests on the accord showed a slight boost in the power when using premium fuel vs 87. I'm thinking Acura just used premium fuel in their tests to be able to claim the higher power numbers and it's just about the same engine, so higher octane actually gets your Honda the Acura numbers. |
|
Ethanol free fuel availability can be found on "puregas.org" website...availability is becoming extensive in most states. Unfortunately states owned by the corn/ethanol lobby (i.e. Iowa, Illinois, California) have succeeded in restricting choice/availability.
Ethanol began being sold as an environmental solution, long since debunked. Not even Al Gore continues to support ethanol. Now it's just a tax-fed money machine for the corn/ethanol industry and there related political contributions. IMHO. __________________________________________________ ________ How much is this ethanol free gas ? It looks like all racing fuel in my area ( MA) |
Originally Posted by R. White
(Post 16264720)
...
How much is this ethanol free gas ? It looks like all racing fuel in my area ( MA) |
Originally Posted by R. White
(Post 16264720)
Ethanol free fuel availability can be found on "puregas.org" website...availability is becoming extensive in most states. Unfortunately states owned by the corn/ethanol lobby (i.e. Iowa, Illinois, California) have succeeded in restricting choice/availability.
Ethanol began being sold as an environmental solution, long since debunked. Not even Al Gore continues to support ethanol. Now it's just a tax-fed money machine for the corn/ethanol industry and there related political contributions. IMHO. __________________________________________________ ________ How much is this ethanol free gas ? It looks like all racing fuel in my area ( MA) |
Originally Posted by skarface
(Post 16264418)
"There is no significant benefit using higher than recommended octane levels, as long as it's a top tier fuel."
The only thing I would add to that is in the case of the 2.0 4 cylinder turbo, Honda recommends 87 in the accord and 91 in the RDX. Dyno tests on the accord showed a slight boost in the power when using premium fuel vs 87. I'm thinking Acura just used premium fuel in their tests to be able to claim the higher power numbers and it's just about the same engine, so higher octane actually gets your Honda the Acura numbers. Note I said "any significant" increase using higher than recommended octane rating. There could be very marginal increase as the timing approaches maximum allowed. Nothing to justify the price premium. Using premium in the Accord motor will not result in a 20hp increase. |
Heh come to California. E10 everywhere.. *crycry*
|
Originally Posted by R. White
(Post 16264720)
Ethanol free fuel availability can be found on "puregas.org" website...availability is becoming extensive in most states. Unfortunately states owned by the corn/ethanol lobby (i.e. Iowa, Illinois, California) have succeeded in restricting choice/availability.
Ethanol began being sold as an environmental solution, long since debunked. Not even Al Gore continues to support ethanol. Now it's just a tax-fed money machine for the corn/ethanol industry and there related political contributions. IMHO. __________________________________________________ ________ How much is this ethanol free gas ? It looks like all racing fuel in my area ( MA) Must be some kind of deterrent in Texas as well. Few and far between. |
I'm no mechanic either but after reviewing multiple reports from consumerreports and fuel.gov or whatnot. 87 might slightly affect performance and EPA but is considered neglible compared to the price you pay for premium. There is also NO reports of long term reliability as it does NOT damage the engine(government website). When asked Luxury automakers, they have also stated that premium MAY Dec performance and EPA but have never claimed that there will be any damages. This is all for cars where premium gas is RECOMMENDED and not REQUIRED. I believe it is also true that there are sensors that let's the ECU know what octane gas you are using for modern cars that calibrate accordingly, and I would be very surprised if the 2019 RDX doesn't have it. I do believe that luxury automakers who recommended premium say so, so that the driver gets the best experience possible with that car. The engine and turbo is derived from the type R and accord. I don't know how different the engine is from the accord but the accord is recommended for Octane 87. So people who are claiming it will damage these new turbos think again. Cars and the entire gasoline automotive industry have been around for a while and know what they're doing. If they really thought you NEEDED premium fuel they would make sure to let you know of it.
The times I would definitely use premium just to be sure is summer, towing, any sort of knocking. (You will know early on, a couple knocks won't damage the engine) Now why am I stating all of this? Because I'm the type of guy who will pay 50k for a brand new 2019 car but refuse to pay the extra for premium fuel if I don't have to. |
Originally Posted by MTD
(Post 16260647)
Ive onl;y had my SHAWD A-Spec for about 5 days, so its hardly broken in, but getting about 19mpg all-city in Sport and + modes.
My RDX now has about 1000miles (1600kms) on it and the last tank showed 23mpg (10.3L/100kms), same driving situation, mostly city and rural low speed highways, Sport and Sport +, 91 gas. So in my case, fuel economy is getting better. Wife is doing a few longer highway commutes this weekend, so I'll be sure to report back in a few days. |
To get accurate MPG, we have to divide gallons of gas filled against miles driven per tank. The car’s (not just Acura) readings are notorious for inflating MPG. My current RDX (2016 Advance) reliably shows one MPG higher on each tank of gas than the actual MPG I get. This has been true for many of my other cars too. |
My mileage is averaging 21.3 MPG which up form 19 MPG.
|
We just took a 350 mile trip and while able to maintain highway speed for 100 miles...got 28.5 mpg; however, we entered heavy intercity traffic and a couple bad accidents which created long, stop and go delays’ so total trip mpg was 26.2 mpg Advance Model FWD total miles driven: 468 miles drive mode: Comfort looking forward to those break in numbers :) |
Originally Posted by romer
(Post 16268067)
To get accurate MPG, we have to divide gallons of gas filled against miles driven per tank.... IMO, for a single fill up, the car is calculating closer than I can because I don't do what's necessary to get accurate numbers - while the car is measuring fuel flow vs miles driven using consistent measurements. |
Advance AWD Mostly Comfort, some Sport. Auto-start/stop enabled but rarely came on. First tank using miles traveled and gallons refilled put me at 22.2 MPG across a wide range of driving of conditions (city, congested freeway, 78mph runs as well as idling while playing). The trip computer had 23.2. Per the comments above I’m sure this is close. I noticed for 55-60mph the mpg is very good (27+) but once I’m over 70 it drops to 24. I’m really impressed with the highway mpg TxLady got! Maybe a strong tailwind? ;) I refilled with 91 octane. I’ll see what I get next time around. Overall this is about what I expected. |
Originally Posted by Fury63
(Post 16268365)
Advance AWD Mostly Comfort, some Sport. Auto-start/stop enabled but rarely came on. First tank using miles traveled and gallons refilled put me at 22.2 MPG across a wide range of driving of conditions (city, congested freeway, 78mph runs as well as idling while playing). The trip computer had 23.2. Per the comments above I’m sure this is close. I noticed for 55-60mph the mpg is very good (27+) but once I’m over 70 it drops to 24. I’m really impressed with the highway mpg TxLady got! Maybe a strong tailwind? ;) I refilled with 91 octane. I’ll see what I get next time around. Overall this is about what I expected. Tailwind? We think there may have been a slight one going...not on the way back. We were maintaining between 65 and 73 mph when we got the 28.5mpg during the first leg of our trip (we will always use high octane fuel). As soon as the traffic became stop and go, we noticed the numbers dropping slightly, as one would expect. We also never got out of Comfort mode and there was a couple of times a fast excel from 65 to 80 was needed to pass and my husband was very pleased at how quickly she picked up...absolutely no lag. |
Originally Posted by MI-RDX
(Post 16268356)
And to get accurate numbers you have to insure that you fill the tank to exactly the same level every time you fill. The only way to insure that is to fill at the same pump, park in exactly the same position, insert the pump nozzle the same amount and stop filling when the pump automatically shuts off (and hope that between fills no adjustments or maintenance was done to the pump that would affect it's operation). Anything else and you're just 'guestimating'. Over time (as in many fill ups) the errors will tend to work themselves out but there is no way calculating mileage on a single tank will be correct unless you're extremely lucky.
IMO, for a single fill up, the car is calculating closer than I can because I don't do what's necessary to get accurate numbers - while the car is measuring fuel flow vs miles driven using consistent measurements. |
|
Originally Posted by romer
(Post 16268436)
My simple point is that if the car’s count is inflated, the only way to know is to tally it each fill. It’s not complicated. With my current RDX I began checking each tank after I first tried and saw the difference. For over a year of doing the math each fill up, my actual mileage was less than the car’s computer on every tank. Sometimes it was more than one mpg lower. Sometimes less than one but always, without fail, checking the math was more accurate than relying on the dashboard and the dashboard always overstated the mpg. No need to get the gas at the same place, at the same time of day, with the sun shining, wearing sunglasses, to get the more accurate reading. The cars computer measures fuel flow directly through injector on time (knowing the rated fuel flow) and the miles driven as reported by the revolutions of the wheels (which can be affected by tire diameter as a function of inflation pressure). This is a very simple calculation for the cars computer to do. Unless you subscribe to the the conspiracy theory that the car inflates the MPG to make the owner happy--what if it got out that Acura purposely programmed the computer to round up fractional miles and round down fuel used in order to inflate MPG? It would be class action lawsuit and damage to Acura's reputation. When you calculate your MPG by hand, you have the same possible error in miles driven due to tire inflation so that cancels, then you have possible errors at the pump calibration (these are supposed to be certified by the state regulatory agency, but how often do they check?), you also have auto shutoffs that don't always shutoff at the same consistent point (it's basically a low tech mechanical pressure sensing system), I know many times the pump will shut off a few seconds after I begin to squeeze the trigger because the fuel splashes against the gas tank filler pipe and some gas is sucked into the sensing hole, or if you hold the end of the pump nozzle tight against the fill pipe it restricts the air flow into the sensing hole and again premature shutoff. In both of the cars I regularly drive, I have used the technique where I fill the tank carefully so that I can actually see the fuel in the fill pipe (not recommended for several reasons) and checked against the computer and was always within 1/2mpg for both a 2002 Lexus and a 1997 BMW. The most accurate way to measure MPG is with a auxiliary wheel (looks like a bicycle wheel) attached to the vehicle and a calibrated container of fuel plumbed to the fuel pump. I don't know if they bother with that anymore, my cousin described it to me when he used to work at the GM tech center in Warren, MI. Now I think all the car manufacturers estimate their MPG and let the EPA do the testing for the official numbers. Just my two cents - YMMV:rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by romer
(Post 16268436)
My simple point is that if the car’s count is inflated, the only way to know is to tally it each fill....
The only way to accurately determine the amount of fuel used would be to install a device between the gas tank and the engine to meter the actual amount of fuel used. To demonstrate how critical an accurate measurement is consider the following: 250 miles @ 23.5MPG = 10.6383 gallons 250 miles @ 22.5MPG = 11.1111 gallons The 1 MPG variance is the result of a difference of only 0.4728 gallons of gas - less than 7 8 oz. cups (or roughly 5 cans of beer/pop/soda). Stated differently, a measurement difference equal to just 1 can of beer would result in a MPG calculation differing by 2/10 MPG. This is over a 250 mile driving range - for shorter distances the measurements are even more critical. Many automotive writers like to do 100 mile road trips for their MPG 'testing'. In that scenario a 12 oz. (1 can of beer) measurement error would result in a 1/2 MPG difference in the calculation. And that's why I put more faith in the calculation done by the vehicle versus anything I (or anyone) can do at the pump. |
I have tracked my gas mileage as long as I have owned a car. My current car is a 2012 TL SW-AWD. As of late it has seem more in town driving, so the gas mileage is really suffering. Just to go along with car estimate vs calculated, I thought I would show 10 recent fill-ups:
Calculated Car estimate 19.9 19.9 20.8 19.9 20.8 21.0 19.0 19.5 23.3 22.5 21.0 21.4 19.6 19.6 20.4 20.2 19.6 19.4 19.4 19.4 I am not precisely consistent on fill-ups of always stopping when the tank shuts off, but I also don't try to fill the gas tube up either. Billy Sorry for the formatting. The site didn't like the table I pasted in and I had to edit the two lists. |
I guess I do appreciate the information from this thread, but, lets be honest, people aren't buying RDX because of MPG. This thread should be about posting your driving experience versus mpg. I feel like I'm on a Hyundai Ioniq Hybrid forum where everyone is giddy about posting their MPG.
Blah! lets talk about the awesome RDX driving performance :rave: instead of <insert elevator music> "MPG". :fluffy: Wake up and live a little, damn people |
Sounds like you should start a thread on it |
Originally Posted by Notte
(Post 16268519)
I guess I do appreciate the information from this thread, but, lets be honest, people aren't buying RDX because of MPG. This thread should be about posting your driving experience versus mpg. I feel like I'm on a Hyundai Ioniq Hybrid forum where everyone is giddy about posting their MPG.
Blah! lets talk about the awesome RDX driving performance :rave: instead of <insert elevator music> "MPG". :fluffy: Wake up and live a little, damn people With all due respect, why are you thread bombing? This thread is about MPG, so naturally, we are going to debate aspects of real MPG, which can be difficult due to the newness of the engine (pre-break-in). MPG goes to Total Cost Of Ownership. Bad MPG can also be a sign of a mechanical problem. MPG is also directly related to driving style, diving mode, city vs highway, etc. I am very interested in buying a 3G RDX, so I want to know everything about the car that I can - and a Big Thank You to all the current owners who take the chance on a first model year redesign and help identify problems for Acura to fix. I think that Acura should add an ECO mode where the turbo boost profile runs less boost so that when you don't care about 272HP, you can get an easy 30+ MPG on the highway say driving across miles of straight flat highways, knowing that when you get to some twisting mountain roads you switch back to Sport+ and have a blast. It's all about improving the car in all aspects. |
Originally Posted by ednigma
(Post 16268665)
With all due respect, why are you thread bombing? This thread is about MPG, so naturally, we are going to debate aspects of real MPG, which can be difficult due to the newness of the engine (pre-break-in). MPG goes to Total Cost Of Ownership. Bad MPG can also be a sign of a mechanical problem. MPG is also directly related to driving style, diving mode, city vs highway, etc. I am very interested in buying a 3G RDX, so I want to know everything about the car that I can - and a Big Thank You to all the current owners who take the chance on a first model year redesign and help identify problems for Acura to fix.
I think that Acura should add an ECO mode where the turbo boost profile runs less boost so that when you don't care about 272HP, you can get an easy 30+ MPG on the highway say driving across miles of straight flat highways, knowing that when you get to some twisting mountain roads you switch back to Sport+ and have a blast. It's all about improving the car in all aspects. |
Originally Posted by Notte
(Post 16268706)
What is thread bombing? I'm pretty sure I just stated an opinion about the thread. RDX is much much more than mpg and its easily felt when driving it. Afterall, it has some NSX inspirations to drive home this SUV is about performance first. :zoom:
My apologies to the rest of the posters for adding to the noise level. |
Thread bombing is very common on forums. Someone creates a thread about how they like something such as Expresso color interior. and others feel compelled to express that the think the color looks like baby crap... such is forum life
|
Originally Posted by Notte
(Post 16268519)
I guess I do appreciate the information from this thread, but, lets be honest, people aren't buying RDX because of MPG. This thread should be about posting your driving experience versus mpg. I feel like I'm on a Hyundai Ioniq Hybrid forum where everyone is giddy about posting their MPG.
Blah! lets talk about the awesome RDX driving performance :rave: instead of <insert elevator music> "MPG". :fluffy: Wake up and live a little, damn people Since I started this thread, I thought I’d comment on reason and purpose...and it is because I am very interested in the finished out gas mileage. The RDX is amazing and fun to drive and I’m pleased we picked it over her competition; but face it, in today’s world, gas economy can not be ignored. |
In the Chicago area where I buy 95% of my fuel, premium is about .70 to .80 more per gallon. When reg gas is $2.67 a gal. Premium represents about a 30% increase. So yes, I’m interested in both mpg and acceptability of less than premium. I’ve used 89 octane in my 2013 RDX for 6 years and over the last 7400 miles have averaged 24.5 mpg. Mostly non rush hour suburban driving. It has absolutely all the power I need and has run perfectly with no repairs needed except a new battery at 5 years and that was by choice. Can I afford premium? Sure, very easily could spend a few hundred more a year. But I was able to retire at 59 and have my house paid off by being frugal. So, bottom line, I appreciate these discussions. So if all one cares about is the drive.....skip the thread. |
Originally Posted by geocord
(Post 16269573)
In the Chicago area where I buy 95% of my fuel, premium is about .70 to .80 more per gallon.... Damn, and I thought it was bad here with 'only' a 60 cent premium on premium. <---Bad pun :facepalm: |
Originally Posted by MI-RDX
(Post 16269579)
Damn, and I thought it was bad here with 'only' a 60 cent premium on premium. <---Bad pun :facepalm:
|
Not sure if you guys have a Thornton's near you, but I have found they have the smallest differential between 87 octane and their premium (91 octane), and that difference if consistently 40 cents. If you get a free rewards card you also automatically get 3 cents off per gallon and I usually get a weekly email to double that to 6 cents off a gallon.
As for my new RDX, I have 300 miles on it so far with about half on the highway and have in city and I am getting 21.0 MPG and that is not with my usual more aggressive driving. I know there is a break in period so I am hoping it will go up a bit more. |
Costco in my area, the difference is also about $0.60, but its between 87 and 93 octane. I don't think I've seen a car (non exotic or special hi perf engine) require 93 octane. My summer car, a 97 BMW M3 with aftermarket engine program only specifies 91 octane minimum. Maybe the difference would be less for 91 octane. Then again the nearby Kroger sells a midgrade 89 octane, so mixing 93 and 87 might be simpler
|
The Gas Buddy app is good for finding the least expensive premium fuel. I found one station not too far from me where 91 is only 30 cents over 87. The station I usually went to is 70 cents higher so while they may be competitive on 87 all bets are off with 91+. |
So I have had my new RDX for about a month and just went over the 1000 mile mark today and I have averaged 19.7 MPG with about 75% city driving and 25% highway driving in comfort mode all but a couple times. I have to say I was hoping for near 21 mpgs with this ratio. I reset my trip meter on a drive out of town this afternoon and had to drive in a construction zone going 55 and that is the only time I have seen the MPGs cross 26. When I was out of the construction zone and went another 30 miles at 75 to 77 mph the average dropped to about 22.4. It seems the only way to get the true highway miles is to go between 45 and 55 mph which is not too realistic for most US highways.
Is anyone else getting better MPG with highway or city driving? I am not gunning it really and have probably driven more calmly than usual. :) |
Originally Posted by TLMDXRDX
(Post 16280185)
So I have had my new RDX for about a month and just went over the 1000 mile mark today and I have averaged 19.7 MPG with about 75% city driving and 25% highway driving in comfort mode all but a couple times. I have to say I was hoping for near 21 mpgs with this ratio. I reset my trip meter on a drive out of town this afternoon and had to drive in a construction zone going 55 and that is the only time I have seen the MPGs cross 26. When I was out of the construction zone and went another 30 miles at 75 to 77 mph the average dropped to about 22.4. It seems the only way to get the true highway miles is to go between 45 and 55 mph which is not too realistic for most US highways.
Is anyone else getting better MPG with highway or city driving? I am not gunning it really and have probably driven more calmly than usual. :) |
Originally Posted by Fury63
(Post 16280186)
Comfort mode and premium fuel? |
Originally Posted by TLMDXRDX
(Post 16280185)
So I have had my new RDX for about a month and just went over the 1000 mile mark today and I have averaged 19.7 MPG with about 75% city driving and 25% highway driving in comfort mode all but a couple times. I have to say I was hoping for near 21 mpgs with this ratio. I reset my trip meter on a drive out of town this afternoon and had to drive in a construction zone going 55 and that is the only time I have seen the MPGs cross 26. When I was out of the construction zone and went another 30 miles at 75 to 77 mph the average dropped to about 22.4. It seems the only way to get the true highway miles is to go between 45 and 55 mph which is not too realistic for most US highways.
Is anyone else getting better MPG with highway or city driving? I am not gunning it really and have probably driven more calmly than usual. :) |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:33 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands