elgage44

If the RDX got reasonable MPG I would have bought one already. Most auto mags are reporting mid teens for a 2.4 liter 4 cylinder? The 2007 MDX with a 3.7 liter V6 is EPA rated higher than the RDX! I will probably wait for the 2008 RDX unless another vehicle catches my eye. Hopefully they will have resolved the MPG issue and possibly added driver's side power seats and auto-dimming rearview mirror as standard as they should be already. I bought my TSX in the first model year and I regret it.

Boon

Elgage, you pretty much summed up my feelings after reading the boards the past two weeks. This is just me, but the mediocre (not terrible) MPG coupled with the slightly high price tag and lack of a few "luxury" amenities is just enough to keep me on the fence waiting to see what else comes along. I can deal with pineapple on my pizza but I'm not touching one with mushrooms and olives on it too.

I want to love the RDX but now also considering the slightly-cheaper 2007 Subaru Legacy GT....I'll lose the cargo capacity of the RDX, but the handling is just as good/fun and pretty much all the features are there (minus bluetooth but you get a power passenger seat...no "real-time" traffic data in Canada in either car). The new SI-drive system would also give me the ability to turn on/off the "sportiness" when I want to conserve some gas.

diamondpearl_

Like your dealer told you, gas miliege will get better after couple thousand miles.
It is same deal for any cars.
I have put 1000 miles and I get about 17 mpg.
It is turbocharged car and you should not expect a gas saver.

Digits

For those getting lower gas mileage than others, are you using 10% ethanol gas? I just filled up at the pump and noticed a sticker on the pump saying the gas was 10% ethanol. Some articles I've read indicate that fuel economy with ethanol is not as good compared to gasoline.

Any experts have info to share on this subject?

Also, does ethanol have an impact on a turbo engine? Is this mentioned at all in the RDX owner's manual?

Colin

Ethanol contains less BTUs of energy than gas and will probably reduce fuel economy. Interestingly, alcohol should have a cooling effect that should reduce detonation, but there are a lot of people more knowledgable that I in this subject.

(anectdotal evidence follows) I know that I am getting about 1 mpg less on average with E10. This translates into about 5-7% less fuel economy.

As for the post regarding warranty denial if you're not using 92, I have never heard of such a thing happening, but I suppose Acura is within their rights since they spec a fuel grade.

dragontea

17 Mpg for me mixed driving. accelrate smoothly and try to not have the turbo kick in... use turbo when needed and that should help... just got my car couple days ago

ArthurKnight

I try to accelerate smoothly and not to let the turbo kick in...but this lead foot of mine makes it difficult....

jaobrien6

Actually, no...

RDX: 19/23
2007 MDX: 17/22

I'll admit there isn't much difference, but it's false to say the MDX is rated higher than the RDX.

I would be incredibly surprised if the 2008 RDX was rated at anything other than 19/23. For next year, you should expect maybe a power passenger seat, not a revised drivetrain with better fuel mileage.

Madison3

After 500 miles, the fuel consumption has improved slightly on my RDX to 19 mpg based on the on-board computer. This is with a change in driving style where I use more manual shifting while in D, and more use of S on the Interstate.

cina

Picked up the RDX late Tuesday and did a round trip from just north of NYC to just south of Washington DC. Starting with < 100 miles on the odometer. On pure highway segments it looked like I was getting 23.5 mph. The trip down, almost all highway, 22.7 mpg.

snorton48

Three different car magazins in mixed driving got 13, 16.5 and 18.5 MPG. Did not break down city/freeway.

jaobrien6

Car magazine observed fuel economy is worthless... most of them beat the hell out of the car doing 0-60 runs, quarter mile runs, general hard driving, etc. I would always expect to get better mileage than they do. The only thing it's good for is comparing 2 cars as tested by the same magazine. Assuming that they beat on the 2 cars equally, if C&D gets better mileage in one car, you can expect that car might get better real world mileage.

cina

My 1st 600 miles on the car - two people in the car - 22.5 mpg - mostly highway

snowboard1

I have about 1000 miles since I picked the car up lat monday. Mostly highway 22.5

snorton48

I think the subie drives great. Much faster than the RDX. It lacks most the of fun tech goodies however. Primitive nav is optional, no bluetooth, no voice commands, no camera.

Teledatageek

Much faster? Really? I really don't know, just curious.

jaobrien6

The subies are really fast once the turbo spools up... If you're doing a clutch-dump launch, yeah, it's gonna be a lot faster. However, check out the big difference between C&D's 0-60 and 5-60 times... the rolling start reflects a lot more of what you'd see in normal driving.

Zero to 60 mph: 5.3 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.8 sec

(this is for the spec.B, but it's the same drivetrain as the regular GT).

amypinseattle

ok...I filled up.

It was 220 miles I had driven and it took 15 gallons - I had about a fourth of a tank left.

This was about half stop and go driving and half 50-70 mph.

However, I don't think the dealer had it full when I picked it up...or at least not as full as I normally fill my cars.

I hadn't even hit 30 miles and the guage was off the F.

Also, we sat with the car running for 15+ minutes the night I picked it up while they showed me a few things.

I've found I have a tendancy to drive EVEN faster. Not a good thing. I've NEVER had a speeding ticket, but that may change in my near future!

brix

I know this if off-topic, but yeah, especially watch out with the sport mode enabled....I got a speeding ticket on my RDX test drive.

Tonia

I don't mean to laugh, but when I got in the car for my test drive the salesperson said that they had insurance on the car, but the speeding tickets were all mine. I was thinking yeah right - who gets ticket on a test drive then we went on some smaller roads and before I realized it I was over 60 in a 45 Good thing there were no cops around.

ArthurKnight

I crossed 1k this weekend but wanted to share the data I've gathered so far. I'm hoping it'll improve.

9/11/06 - 16.978 gallons with 269.3 miles on the trip meter (cost me $54.99 in case anyone was wondering)
9/16/06 - 17.048 gallons with 270.9 miles on the trip meter (cost me $53.17)

Seems to be consistant but I'm hoping to push 300 miles and get myself closer to 20 mpg. These figures push me under 16 mpg but my MID is telling me I'm around 16.7.

snorton48

0-60 is in the mid six second range per most magazines. Drive it and you'll see. After some lag it shoots forward like a rocket.

2skipowder

I got 17.8 mpg on the first tank. This included a lot of idling at the dealership and showing the features to friends. Also included were one week of in town driving and a 150 mile trip to the coast and back. On the way back I chose a twisty road and had some real fun with the SH-AWD but not too deep into the turbo. I finally got the average up to 18 mpg as we cruised back into town. I am sure I could get much better milage if that Turbo was not so much fun. Can't wait for some snow in the mountains to test the SH-AWD in the snow!

ArthurKnight

Again, are you guys with 17+ mpg using your AC much?

dennarda

My first tank of gas went quick. I was getting ~16-18 MPG highway and ~13 MPG city. I am on my third tank, and I am getting ~22-24 MPG highway. I haven't checked my city milage since. This is with AC on constantly (daily highs where I live hae been in the upper 90's).

snowboard1

My long term average has been 20.9 for about 1200 miles with AC on auto. Last night I drove to DC no traffic about 70-75 mph. I reset one of the trip computers and it was 24.6 for 135 miles traveled from my house to my girlfriends in DC. It was 24.9 but dropped when I go off the highway for a couple miles.

As far as the magazine articles, if you drive the car hard , with a bunch of all wheel drive full throttle starts you could probably get it to 10MPG. This is the same for my Honda s2000 it can be good on the highway or worse than an escalade driven hard!

darth62

The point with the car mags is not the absolute milage the report, but rather the comparitive milage. EDMUNDS reported 12 MPG which is probably a serious underestimate of what hte RDX can do. But, the fact that they reported much better milage for similar vehicles (like the RAV4 with the V6) is disturbing. At the very least, this pattern suggest that the RDX is a lot less fuel efficient than it's rivals - at least before the engine is broken in properly.

I know I'm going to wait on my purchase until I'm convinced that the MPG figures will be decent.

SolidState

I don't know how anyone can get below 15mpg. I don't think I've seen anything worst then 16mpg since I got my RDX. I typically get 18/24 mpg but even with 18/24 I think that is a little low, it could be because of the AWD. I don't use A/C.

I have a 1995 Isuzu Rodeo and in the 11 years, I've had it I've never gotten below 16mpg in 2WD, 20mpg on a good day. In 4WD I did get 13 mpg but there was a lot of snow and it was worth it.

Speaking of snow it would be nice to see how the RDX handle Winter driving.

Boon

I've been reading on this forum and some others and while some ARE reporting some "bad" numbers (11-12mpg the worst I've seen) there are more than enough owners out there who counter with numbers in line with the EPA.

Moreover, I've been researching the Subaru Legacy GT...also a 4-cylinder turbo-charged engine...and guess what? The mileage sucks. The CX-7...even slighty worse. I guess it's just the nature of the turbo-beast. You sacrifice mileage for fun.

Now, given Acura's clientele...a little older and a little more refined...they might have wanted to consider a modified V6 for the RDX as an option. But hey, isn't that what the MDX is for? I'm convinced now, more than ever, that Acura stuck to their mission statement and created a fun sporty crossover that gets decent mileage. Let's say you get 16-17mpg...somewhere between the good and the bad. That's still better than the 14-15mpg the Legacy GT drivers are getting...and that car is 500 pounds lighter!

K, I'll get off my soapbox now. But for me, this issue won't be a factor any longer in my purchasing decision.

Madison3

My car's calculated mileage seems to be right on the money with the EPA estimates. After the first 1000 miles, it showed 22.5 mpg. The last couple of hundred miles leading up to the 1000 was highway driving (Sport shift, A/C on, highway speeds typically at 70 mph) so overall I think I fit the EPA estimate of 19/23.

dragontea

On average getting 14.5 l/100 km or 16.7 MPG after 1300km or 800 miles. mixed 60/40 of city and highway...

amypinseattle

So my second tank had a lot more stop and go driving due to traffic. I noticed the turbo kicked in much more frequently than my first week of driving.

I didn't use my AC much - maybe three times and one of those was to defog the front windshield.

The gas used for the 255 miles was 76 Premium - 91.

What I find interesting is the cumulative MPG check for the car recorded it as 16.8 MPG, but it was really 18.2 MPG. So reporting the information based on what the car is reporting vs. computing it each fill up may not be accurate.

dragontea

Have you set up the "Trip A" to auto reset the fuel consumption meter every time you fill up? I have but I don't know if it will vary from manual computing

slo007

Now that's scary!!

amypinseattle

yep

Texas

As stated in post # 16, besure to use same station and same pump to help assure fill ups are as close to same level as possible....found that to make a real difference....good luck, as everyone is stating MPG will improve as engine breaks in...Oh, first oil change, recommend Mobil One (walmart/sams) or Amsoil, that should help...

slo007

Same pump? I never thought of that... do you also make sure to drive on the same lane on the road every day?

Seriously, I don't think one will ever encounter the same amount of traffic day in and day out. You guys are getting a little paranoyed about mpg.

Jeb

Question for the experts out there:
I remember some time ago, before I bought my last car, that I was told I should try to drive the first few hundred miles on the highway at reasonable speeds rather than mostly in stop and go traffic in the city. Is that true? Is it better to "break in a car" in a certain way to improve long-term performance and/or mileage?

scott06512

I have a good rounded city/hwy drive and I'm averaging 21+ according to the computer and my own pencil math (gallons/miles) at fill ups. I've averaged as low as 13mpg while I was still in the "wow this has power" stage of driving

darth62

Depends on the engine. But, with every Honda product I've had, I've been told that the most important aspect of the break in is to avoid keeping the car at a very constant speed for a long period of time (like a long trip on the highway).

I did that with one of my Accords. Bought it, and then drove it to Florida the very next morning. That car gave me 80,000 trouble free miles with great MPG and performance.

The very next Honda I drove in hard stop and go traffic for the next week or two after purchase. Again, years of trouble free miles with great MPG.

End result is that I think you'll be OK whatever you do.