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.
What kind of MPGs are people getting with the turbo 4 with AWD? I've seen 8 mpg, 14 mpg, and some saying they were able to get EPA estimates driving steady on the highway. Seems like highway driving should be fine but I wonder how bad it can get in the city. Thanks!
If I go for the 19 RDX, it will be our work commuter and around town errand vehicle. I can still get 18.5-20 mpg combined with my 1st Gen RDX with about a 50/50 mix. In my 08 RDX, I never got below 17 mpgs in the city and never got above 22 mph on the hwy at +75mph. I would like to know real world mpgs and mix of city/hwy driving also.
Since Acura went out of the way to get class leading horsepower, I am not surprised that the gas mileage is not that good. I would have preferred lower HP and higher MPG.
Since Acura went out of the way to get class leading horsepower, I am not surprised that the gas mileage is not that good. I would have preferred lower HP and higher MPG.
I would have preferred another engine option, a more MPG friendly scaling down the HP to around 220ish and dare I say CVT. The honda accord put out this type of engine options and not sure why Acura couldn't offer similar to cater to more audiences. We all know Acura targeted the Germans with this new RDX and they wanted to be HP/torque king ( excluding Quadrifoglio) and they achieved it.
The real world MPG is worrisome especially with premium gas prices increasing lately however most buyers in this segment won't care. There will be many potential buyers that will care and Acura will lose them to competitiors
On fuelly.com, the average mpg people are getting is 27.4mpg, based on 100000 miles. The car is rated at 26mpg combined. I'd imagine the real world mpg of the RDX should be around 23-24mpg. YMMV though.
Since Acura went out of the way to get class leading horsepower, I am not surprised that the gas mileage is not that good. I would have preferred lower HP and higher MPG.
I agree. Originally when the new RDX was announced a hybrid was suppose to follow several months later after the gas version. The salesman on my test drive stated it was scraped at the last moment. This was probably the killer for me. In this new world of EV, plug in hybrids and hybrids hard to believe that Acura would come out this winner except only 21 mpg city. After my 8 mile test drive the trip A showed 12 miles. My 8 miles was half highway and half city and mpg showed 10.
I imagine that RDX you put 8 miles on has spent a lot of time idling AND it has 12 miles on it! Kind of expected. I average over 24 on my 2013 RDX and that is a mix of about 70% surbuban driving and 30% highway. Honda products usually meet or exceed epa numbers unless driven like you stole it. I use mid grade and have since new. Premium gas in Chicago area runs from .70 to $1.00 a gallon more than regular. Shell is .40 to .50 more for mid grade so that is what I buy and I don’t feel I have ever suffered any performance issues. Car is 6 yrs old and absolutely no problems. A guy down the street from me has a 2013 RDX also and he has used regular since new. Also no problems.
I imagine that RDX you put 8 miles on has spent a lot of time idling AND it has 12 miles on it! Kind of expected. I average over 24 on my 2013 RDX and that is a mix of about 70% surbuban driving and 30% highway. Honda products usually meet or exceed epa numbers unless driven like you stole it. I use mid grade and have since new. Premium gas in Chicago area runs from .70 to $1.00 a gallon more than regular. Shell is .40 to .50 more for mid grade so that is what I buy and I don’t feel I have ever suffered any performance issues. Car is 6 yrs old and absolutely no problems. A guy down the street from me has a 2013 RDX also and he has used regular since new. Also no problems.
Do you think these new turbo engines require the premium gas? I know the new CR-V is a 4 turbo as well but that does not require premium gas.
Acura engineers, who designed the engine and warranty it for 6/70 say it’s ok to run 87. 91 is recommended for top performance. I asked the Acura rep at the Chicago auto show if it was ok to run regular 87 and he was very quick to say it was perfectly fine but you would slightly better performance with higher octane. I know Mazda has a 2.5 turbo that uses regular or premium and I believe Fords turbos are similar. I hardly believe Acura would warranty them if it hurt the engine using lower octane. It would be easier just to Require premium if they had doubts.
My 2010 says 91 is recommended. I have run 89 with zero issues over the life of the car. Consistently get 25-28 MPG. But that engine is NA..I'm not so sure with the turbo. This questions comes up A LOT. And the answer is if you can afford the car, spend the little extra money to by the best gas. I don't think running 87 or 89 would hurt the engine, but you might suffer in MPG. I highly doubt going down to 89 would have a big effect though. General rule of thumb is if it doesn't say "REQUIRED", it's ok to run below 91, but MPG might suffer hence offsetting the money saved buying cheaper gas.
Personally I would have no problem sticking to 91, it's just hard to find. So now you're talking a jump to 93. From what I've read, going above the recommended fuel type doesn't have a benefit so then I'd literally be throwing money away if I used that.
Just went through the first tank of gas and I am assuming the dealer used premium to fill it.
The wife got 18.8 mpg hand calculated which looks to be about 1 mpg under the optimistic computers.
Lots of idle time at dealer during walk through and at home desperately trying to figure out this TTI system so mpg should improve.
Confession, I am not helping the mpg. Have not had this much fun in a vehicle since our 86 300ZX.
When I have mine I imagine I'll have it in comfort more often than not and on the highway I have a very light foot (cruise around 70 MPH or ) so I imagine/hope that I'll be able to get pretty good mileage more often than not.
I expect the the large differences between the Accord 2.0 and the Civic Type R 2.0 do not exist between the Accord 2.0 and the RDX 2.0. Eventually, a magazine will compare the two engines and will tell us if they are really much different. I personally think that the Accord has lower power based on regular gas use more than anything else.
Here https://jalopnik.com/heres-exactly-w...ivi-1820164645 Jalopnik shows how the Accord and the CTR engines are very different. Eventually, it will come out how the Accord and RDX engines are different, if at all.
Just went through the first tank of gas and I am assuming the dealer used premium to fill it.
The wife got 18.8 mpg hand calculated which looks to be about 1 mpg under the optimistic computers.
Lots of idle time at dealer during walk through and at home desperately trying to figure out this TTI system so mpg should improve.
Confession, I am not helping the mpg. Have not had this much fun in a vehicle since our 86 300ZX.
Agreed. When i approached the new RDX, i was hoping for fuel efficiency and power and only the latter rings true. If you want suv with fuel efficiency, look elsewhere. If you want the Fun-factor with performance then buy the new RDX hands down.
Agreed. When i approached the new RDX, i was hoping for fuel efficiency and power and only the latter rings true. If you want suv with fuel efficiency, look elsewhere. If you want the Fun-factor with performance then buy the new RDX hands down.
Since this is my brides drive and she is the most conservative driver I have ever seen, it will be interesting to see what she can coax out of this setup.
She was constantly getting mid 30s in her CRV going back and forth to work in the metromess traffic.
I'll start driving it like I own it and not like I stole it.....sometime in the future.
I drove the MDX and new RDX Advance AWD back to back yesterday. Drove both in all the modes. I get excellent mpg with my current RDX but I could foresee not doing as well with new RDX. The turbo torque and sound along with driving dynamics would prompt me to drive a lot more aggressively. Would be fun but not sure I want that. I would probably get used to it and go back to my more sedate ways. I’m still on the fence between the two. I actually didn’t care for the nav all that much on the RDX, it seemed kind of bland and I think I like the square screen a little better than the slime rectangular screen. Interface was a little strange. I didn’t play with it too much but just trying to enlarge or reduce scale seemed difficult. My present nav is just an easy turn of the dial. Will definitely have to spend some time in the new RDX before making up mind.
Since Acura went out of the way to get class leading horsepower, I am not surprised that the gas mileage is not that good. I would have preferred lower HP and higher MPG.
if concerned, look at the Honda Crv, much less expensive, regular fuel, much better fuel economy. The RDX gets rather good fuel economy compared to vehicles a few years back...for example my 2004 auto 2wd TSX , 200 hp so close to the CRV, uses premium fuel and gets approx. Nearly identical EPA fuel economy to the ASpec with awd, much higher hp etc. The TSX when pushed will also use much more fuel.
Just went through the first tank of gas and I am assuming the dealer used premium to fill it.
The wife got 18.8 mpg hand calculated which looks to be about 1 mpg under the optimistic computers.
Lots of idle time at dealer during walk through and at home desperately trying to figure out this TTI system so mpg should improve.
Confession, I am not helping the mpg. Have not had this much fun in a vehicle since our 86 300ZX.
No one will be getting best mileage now....all engines are new & will improve efficiency (& power) after few thousand miles.
Best gas to use on this RDX is recommended 91.....going to 93 will not produce a measurable benefit.
Unless you live in Iowa, Illinois, California (i.e. any states owned by the corn lobby or ethanol lobby)....look for Ethanol-free (E0) gas. Since there is about 4% greater btu per gallon, there will be a power / mileage improvement of 3% to 6%, depending upon the engine tune and diagnostics.
See: puregas.org
for list / location of E0 gas by state.
First not apples to apples however, the BMW 2.0T is an impressive engine that deserves to be considered against the RDX. In X3 form, it is rated at 29 mpg highway. In me former gen X3 was a very efficient powertrain.
I simply drove my wifes X1
the speed limit on my mostly expressway commute this morning in the AWD X1 with AC off. I also use no corn in my fuel (a great food product however). 42 mpg out of neighborhood, onto highway and side streets to work. Not bad.
The initial RDX observations scare me somewhat as 30-31 mpg per tank is what I am getting now in my simple BMW X1
I do hope the 2.0T breaks in better. My 2.0T Sport Accord can do mid 30's on a trip but with 500 pounds and SH-AWD there will be impacts.
My 08 RDX combined mpgs improved when I added Hondata reflash by 1 mpg combined. It jumped up another 1/2 to 1 mpg combined when I added the larger TMIC from ETS for around 19-20.5 mpg combined (depending on my lead foot). Other folks with 1st Gen RDXs got a mpg boost when they added the down pipe that replaced the 1st Cat with a pretty big volume restriction right after the turbo. I haven't seen the 19 RDX turbo to see if it has the same double CAT design with the restriction? Might get the same mpg benefits along with hp/tq bump if those aftermarket add-ons are available down the road for +19 RDX?
I was really expecting the 19 RDX to be rated around 29-30 mpgs on the hwy with the 10AT+2.0T combo.
First not apples to apples however, the BMW 2.0T is an impressive engine that deserves to be considered against the RDX. In X3 form, it is rated at 29 mpg highway. In me former gen X3 was a very efficient powertrain.
I simply drove my wifes X1
the speed limit on my mostly expressway commute this morning in the AWD X1 with AC off. I also use no corn in my fuel (a great food product however). 42 mpg out of neighborhood, onto highway and side streets to work. Not bad.
The initial RDX observations scare me somewhat as 30-31 mpg per tank is what I am getting now in my simple BMW X1
I do hope the 2.0T breaks in better. My 2.0T Sport Accord can do mid 30's on a trip but with 500 pounds and SH-AWD there will be impacts.
Just wondering, is that the 2015+ X1? If so, my understanding is that its xdrive system operates in FWD mode in normal condition, and the rear wheels only get power when needed. This would definitely improve fuel economy compared to SH-AWD.
In my experience with small displacement turbos (VW 2.0T, Audi 2.0T, BMW 2.0T and M-B 2.0T), the city and mixed driving results tend to consistently fall short of the EPA estimates - sometimes dramatically so. It's only on long highway slogs that they get anywhere near their published ratings, and even then the results were mixed. Our Q5 was a superstar on the highway, easily exceeding its official rating by 10% or more at just under 80 mph. Impressive considering its full time quattro AWD. My X1 (first gen xDrive), on the other hand, never approached the EPA ratings even under the most ideal conditions. To my surprise, my Lincoln's turbocharged V6 nails its 17/24 rating, and it does so on any octane rating. Smoother and torquier than any turbo 4-cylinder, it would be a fantastic engine for the RDX. It gives me hope for what an RDX Type S could be.
Filled it up this morning and the wife got 22.3 mpg, all city, hand calculated. She drives very conservatively. She hads named it though, its "The Rocket".
She drove a CRV prior to the new RDX.
Filled it up this morning and the wife got 22.3 mpg, all city, hand calculated. She drives very conservatively. She hads named it though, its "The Rocket".
She drove a CRV prior to the new RDX.
22.3 for all city is pretty good. I never get above EPA estimate in city so maybe this is a good sign. I'm usually able to exceed EPA estimates on highway though.
Filled up again this morning and the wife got 23.3 mpg, all city, hand calculated.
its smooth, fast, quiet and handles very well. Need to try some better sources than Sirius XM to see just how good the music will sound.
You say “hand calculated” which can be way off especially on only a couple of fills due to several factors. What does the mpg read on the car. I’ve always my RDX to be very very close to actual?
You say “hand calculated” which can be way off especially on only a couple of fills due to several factors. What does the mpg read on the car. I’ve always my RDX to be very very close to actual?
i have found the Honda computers to be a bit optimistic on the mpg. Our last CRV was 1-2mpg high and my current 2017 Ridgeline is about the same.
Hand calculating the mpg can certainly be off on any given fill up but will give an accurate picture over multiple times. Either way, I'm pleased with the results.
The computer showed 23.8
06-02-2018, 11:27 PM
