A-Spec and Advance Std. features!!
05-18-2018, 02:02 PM
#121
Yes, premium fuel specified in owners manual
The following users liked this post:
HotRodW (05-18-2018)
05-18-2018, 02:05 PM
#122
Instructor
Take this with a grain of salt but a commenter on youtube said he seen a 2019 Advance model at a local dealership and that sticker price was $45,500. He also said that MPG was 21 city and 26 highway.
I don’t know how much I trust that person because that $45.5k seems low. But if it really is rated at a dismal 21 city and 26 highway then that’s just awful. What’s the point of moving to the 2.0T and 10AT then?
I don’t know how much I trust that person because that $45.5k seems low. But if it really is rated at a dismal 21 city and 26 highway then that’s just awful. What’s the point of moving to the 2.0T and 10AT then?
05-18-2018, 02:10 PM
#123
I'm guessing the RDX will have four different mileage ratings:
RDX FWD/FWD A-spec
RDX SHAWD/SHAWD A-spec
These are the ratings for the 2018 model:
AWD: 19/27/22
FWD: 20/28/23
Right now the class leaders are (AWD) - all of these have start/stop tech too:
Q5: 23/27/25
X3: 22/29/25
XC60: 22/28/24
I guess we'll know soon enough what model the 23 combined rating is for.
RDX FWD/FWD A-spec
RDX SHAWD/SHAWD A-spec
These are the ratings for the 2018 model:
AWD: 19/27/22
FWD: 20/28/23
Right now the class leaders are (AWD) - all of these have start/stop tech too:
Q5: 23/27/25
X3: 22/29/25
XC60: 22/28/24
I guess we'll know soon enough what model the 23 combined rating is for.
05-18-2018, 02:18 PM
#124
Instructor
The funny thing about previous VTEC engines, it seems regular was the tune for the Hondas and premium was turned for the Acura line. So if you used premium in a Honda VTEC did you increase HP? Yes and no. Dyno tests over the years showed increases most of the time in the four banger normally aspirated in particular.
That all said, compared to new Infiniti variable compression engine this new 2.0T Honda engine is not that efficient (IMO & some experience). My 2.0T accord sport front drive is rated at 32 HWY while the Audi A4 Quattro is rated at 34 HWY. Think about that a moment. A 7 speed dual clutch with AWD rated at 34, a 10 speed with FWD rated at 32. How did that happen? I wonder if the 2.0T craze is more about lighter, torque curve, emissions, potential highway economy at the expense of longevity.
My experience is I an exceed 32 mpg on highway all day long 65-75 range. Just be aware that high torque 2.0 turbos beg to be driven hard and spirit city driving will surprise folks. RDX AWD at 26 rating seems perfectly in line given higher weight, higher drag and AWD over the Accord.
My other car is BMW X1 which has noted turbo lag while I really find the Accord 2.0T more linear.
That all said, compared to new Infiniti variable compression engine this new 2.0T Honda engine is not that efficient (IMO & some experience). My 2.0T accord sport front drive is rated at 32 HWY while the Audi A4 Quattro is rated at 34 HWY. Think about that a moment. A 7 speed dual clutch with AWD rated at 34, a 10 speed with FWD rated at 32. How did that happen? I wonder if the 2.0T craze is more about lighter, torque curve, emissions, potential highway economy at the expense of longevity.
My experience is I an exceed 32 mpg on highway all day long 65-75 range. Just be aware that high torque 2.0 turbos beg to be driven hard and spirit city driving will surprise folks. RDX AWD at 26 rating seems perfectly in line given higher weight, higher drag and AWD over the Accord.
My other car is BMW X1 which has noted turbo lag while I really find the Accord 2.0T more linear.
05-18-2018, 02:25 PM
#126
Recommendation: Unleaded premium gasoline, pump octane number 91 or higher
Use of lower octane gasoline can cause occasional metallic knocking noise in the engine and will result in decreased engine performance.
Use of gasoline with a pump octane less than 87 can lead to engine damage.
Use of lower octane gasoline can cause occasional metallic knocking noise in the engine and will result in decreased engine performance.
Use of gasoline with a pump octane less than 87 can lead to engine damage.
05-18-2018, 02:26 PM
#127
For my wife's 17 RDX and my 14 MDX it recommends 91 but every car person has always told me 89 is fine (since 91 is near impossible to find). Does anyone with more knowledge than me know if that's the case with a turbo or will I absolutely need to go with 93.
05-18-2018, 02:39 PM
#128
Pro
For TDI engines, I would always use the highest octane available.
05-18-2018, 02:53 PM
#129
Instructor
Somehow Mazda's 2.5T, maintains 310 ft-lb of twist on any Octane with superior HP using 93 octane. All in how the computer manages and optimizes. I do know from experience of 3 years of BMW 2.0T, 89 Octane is the sweet spot and perfectly fine in all regards.
I tried premium, no ethanol in my 2018 Accord Sport 2.0T (87 specified) and noticed increased fuel economy and greater pull (at least in my mind for spending $.40 extra per gallon).
A 23 combined rating is not that hot given the new Infiniti VC which is 27 combined. New RDX features more fun over frugality IMO.
I tried premium, no ethanol in my 2018 Accord Sport 2.0T (87 specified) and noticed increased fuel economy and greater pull (at least in my mind for spending $.40 extra per gallon).
A 23 combined rating is not that hot given the new Infiniti VC which is 27 combined. New RDX features more fun over frugality IMO.
05-18-2018, 02:55 PM
#130
- Manufacturing cost reduction vs 6 cylinders.
- Higher EPA ratings (not necessarily real-world).
- Packaging advantages.
- Improved torque where people feel it.
05-18-2018, 07:11 PM
#132
Drifting
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: New Yorkie, Hudson Valley
Posts: 3,001
Received 1,024 Likes
on
714 Posts
Well, I personally wouldn't risk it. On p. 515 of owners manual it says:
Recommendation: Unleaded premium gasoline, pump octane number 91 or higher
Use of lower octane gasoline can cause occasional metallic knocking noise in the engine and will result in decreased engine performance.
Use of gasoline with a pump octane less than 87 can lead to engine damage.
Use of lower octane gasoline can cause occasional metallic knocking noise in the engine and will result in decreased engine performance.
Use of gasoline with a pump octane less than 87 can lead to engine damage.
But since it definitely seems to be the same engine/tranny as the Accord, and the Accord calls for regular, and has marginally lower power numbers, I really wonder if regular would really be at all detrimental in everyday driving.
Accord with Regular: 252 HP, 273 Torque.
RDX with Premium: 272 HP, 280 Torque.
which is a very slight torque bump and a larger HP bump, which indicates a less steep fall off at higher revs, since they each make similar HP at 5250 revs, 273 v 280, a difference nobody would feel.
Last edited by Madd Dog; 05-18-2018 at 07:19 PM.
05-18-2018, 08:19 PM
#133
Instructor
I too wonder about the tuning and the use of premium vs regular. Premium fuel is some kind of industry method to extract more money from those who can afford it. Yes with some performance gains but it seems premium is liquid gold when I am traveling on the interstate.
By the way, the 2.0T is way too powerful for the average front wheel drive car. My Accord Sport simply cannot get power to the ground, so I have learned to be moderate until up to speed and then go like a rocket. The 2.0 is no slouch in regular. Cannot wait to see actual experience MPG in the RDX AWD.
By the way, the 2.0T is way too powerful for the average front wheel drive car. My Accord Sport simply cannot get power to the ground, so I have learned to be moderate until up to speed and then go like a rocket. The 2.0 is no slouch in regular. Cannot wait to see actual experience MPG in the RDX AWD.
05-18-2018, 08:53 PM
#134
Drifting
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: New Yorkie, Hudson Valley
Posts: 3,001
Received 1,024 Likes
on
714 Posts
I too wonder about the tuning and the use of premium vs regular. Premium fuel is some kind of industry method to extract more money from those who can afford it. Yes with some performance gains but it seems premium is liquid gold when I am traveling on the interstate.
By the way, the 2.0T is way too powerful for the average front wheel drive car. My Accord Sport simply cannot get power to the ground, so I have learned to be moderate until up to speed and then go like a rocket. The 2.0 is no slouch in regular. Cannot wait to see actual experience MPG in the RDX AWD.
By the way, the 2.0T is way too powerful for the average front wheel drive car. My Accord Sport simply cannot get power to the ground, so I have learned to be moderate until up to speed and then go like a rocket. The 2.0 is no slouch in regular. Cannot wait to see actual experience MPG in the RDX AWD.
I love the turbos. The replacement for displacement is forced induction.
Last edited by Madd Dog; 05-18-2018 at 09:00 PM.
05-19-2018, 10:07 AM
#135
Instructor
My spousal unit loves her 2nd Generation X1. 30k trouble free miles and nice small cute ute. Happy wife=Happy life among other things.
BMW is a leasing company and prices are inflated as are the residuals. Everything is $500 more. Paint, heated seats, and the list goes on.
Acura packaging value will heat up competition this summer with Q5 and X3 expecially. How the BMW engine consistently rates high EPA mpg baffles me (29 hwy X-3 AWD)
In my experience the 2.0T BMW if efficient.
BMW is a leasing company and prices are inflated as are the residuals. Everything is $500 more. Paint, heated seats, and the list goes on.
Acura packaging value will heat up competition this summer with Q5 and X3 expecially. How the BMW engine consistently rates high EPA mpg baffles me (29 hwy X-3 AWD)
In my experience the 2.0T BMW if efficient.
05-19-2018, 02:42 PM
#136
Yes, as far as I know. And, this is the BEST leather used in RDX's. Milano Premium leather....soft, looks amazing, feels great, etc.
The A-Spec has two interior colors....red and black. The seats have a faux suede inserts that look amazing. The headliner is done in the black faux suede.
I doubt the Lexus has better leather than this new RDX. Same for my '18 TLX A-Spec...white/red....great Milano leather.
The A-Spec has two interior colors....red and black. The seats have a faux suede inserts that look amazing. The headliner is done in the black faux suede.
I doubt the Lexus has better leather than this new RDX. Same for my '18 TLX A-Spec...white/red....great Milano leather.
The softness of that leather sticks with me to this day. It was just that good.
Not going to lie...getting a bit worried now that we won't get to do the A-Spec and advanced together in Canada like we can do with the TLX. Emailed my rep to let me know...will see what he says. I don't know what I would do if i couldn't since my favourite things about the car are the sporty exterior and red interior of the A-Spec and all the tech of the advanced. I'm not sure i'd love the car nearly as much if I had to just choose one! Hopefully he can give me an answer so I can calm down!
1: The 2018 model had a 3.5l V6 and weighed more (iirc) and had a archaic (by today's standards) 6 speed auto and yet is rated at only 1mpg less city but 2 mpg more on the highway. This 2019 RDX has a 2.0l 4 cylinder and 10 speed auto and just barely gets better city MPG than the old model?
2: Yes in comparison to other vehicles in the class with a 2.0T and 7/8 speed autos it still gets worse mileage. The X3 has true 50:50 full time AWD and is RWD based and still manages to get 29 MPG highway. with the RDX being FWD based it has less drivetrain loss and thus should be more efficient.
3: Hitting EPA estimates is rather difficult as it is, but when you have small displacement turbo engines, fuel economy drops SIGNIFICANTLY if you try and use the available power. In 2013 Hyundai redesigned their santa fe sport and replaced the 3.3l/3.5l V6 with a 2.0T and dropped the vehicle weight by 200 pounds. So when people first bought the santa fe after trading in their older models, the Hyundai forums were on fire with people complaining that they were getting much worse fuel economy with the 2.0T. The reason being they were trying to drive their 2013's like they drove their 2012 and under models. Turbo 4's do not like being pushed at all or fuel economy suffers dramatically.
4: Personally speaking it's 2018 and 21 city for a compact crossover is simply unacceptable to me not to mention the dismal 26 highway. The 10 speed auto should be able to keep the engine revving at around 12-1300 RPMs on the highway and without turbo activation. So why is that number so low? It's not like SH-AWD sends more than 5-10% to the rear in steady state cruising. I'm more put off by the 26 highway than I am the 21 city because theoretically that 26 represents a rather low cap.
I'm not the type of person who will pick one car over the other because of a 1-2 MPG difference, to be honest MPG is usually my last concern when buying a car. It's just disappointing to me to see 21 city and 26 highway when there is a lot of competition that gets better numbers. From a value perspective the RDX is most-likely priced very well, so in the grand scheme of things what is 1-2MPG if you are saving 5-10K and getting the same if not more features?
05-19-2018, 03:04 PM
#137
Trust me on this one, the leather on top Level Lexus models (the semi-aniline leather) is BY FAR much much nicer than anything Acura offers. I remember going to the Lexus showroom and sitting in some top level RX's a few years ago (My cousin also owns a 2010 RX ultra-premium II = top model) with the semi aniline leather and holy crap it was amazing. It was literally like touching butter. The highest quality leather I have ever touched in my life.
The following users liked this post:
RDX10 (05-20-2018)
05-19-2018, 09:37 PM
#138
Pro
Sorry..made an error. The R19 is just a normal designation for "radial 19". The Conti. Cross Contact LX Sport SSR....IS the run flat version. Again, NOT on the RDX's
Run flats are falling out of favor...esp. at BMW. Ride too hard, poor tread wear...when damaged rarely able to fix. Many dump them and put on conv. tires. Infiniti is still going with run flats, but, I hear they are leaning like BMW has
been. Many buyers just take them off and put on conv. tires on their Infinitis.
Run flats are falling out of favor...esp. at BMW. Ride too hard, poor tread wear...when damaged rarely able to fix. Many dump them and put on conv. tires. Infiniti is still going with run flats, but, I hear they are leaning like BMW has
been. Many buyers just take them off and put on conv. tires on their Infinitis.
05-19-2018, 09:52 PM
#139
Pro
Trust me on this one, the leather on top Level Lexus models (the semi-aniline leather) is BY FAR much much nicer than anything Acura offers. I remember going to the Lexus showroom and sitting in some top level RX's a few years ago (My cousin also owns a 2010 RX ultra-premium II = top model) with the semi aniline leather and holy crap it was amazing. It was literally like touching butter. The highest quality leather I have ever touched in my life. My 2007 MDX Elite had premium leather (though not sure if it was milano because I know for sure the 2010+ MDX elites feature milano but the 2007-2009 models had upgraded leather compared to the lower levels) and it was not even half as nice.
The softness of that leather sticks with me to this day. It was just that good.
I am very worried about this. I don't hate the look of the Elite model, however I really like the look of the A-spec and trying to convert an elite to an A-spec down the line is going to be very hard with all the A-spec goodies. The reason I think we might not see an elite-A-spec model is because for the first time they are offering 16 way seats and since in the states you cannot get the 16 way seats in red, it would mean they would only offer it in black and I guess they opted to cut it out.
Exactly. Agreed.
This is why I am so shocked by those numbers. Very disappointing.
So looks like those numbers may actually be accurate. Yikes. We all know how hard it is to hit EPA numbers in NA engines, let alone these turbo 4's which produce dismal numbers when pushed even slightly.
Sure, the reason I think it is awful is for numerous reasons:
1: The 2018 model had a 3.5l V6 and weighed more (iirc) and had a archaic (by today's standards) 6 speed auto and yet is rated at only 1mpg less city but 2 mpg more on the highway. This 2019 RDX has a 2.0l 4 cylinder and 10 speed auto and just barely gets better city MPG than the old model?
2: Yes in comparison to other vehicles in the class with a 2.0T and 7/8 speed autos it still gets worse mileage. The X3 has true 50:50 full time AWD and is RWD based and still manages to get 29 MPG highway. with the RDX being FWD based it has less drivetrain loss and thus should be more efficient.
3: Hitting EPA estimates is rather difficult as it is, but when you have small displacement turbo engines, fuel economy drops SIGNIFICANTLY if you try and use the available power. In 2013 Hyundai redesigned their santa fe sport and replaced the 3.3l/3.5l V6 with a 2.0T and dropped the vehicle weight by 200 pounds. So when people first bought the santa fe after trading in their older models, the Hyundai forums were on fire with people complaining that they were getting much worse fuel economy with the 2.0T. The reason being they were trying to drive their 2013's like they drove their 2012 and under models. Turbo 4's do not like being pushed at all or fuel economy suffers dramatically.
4: Personally speaking it's 2018 and 21 city for a compact crossover is simply unacceptable to me not to mention the dismal 26 highway. The 10 speed auto should be able to keep the engine revving at around 12-1300 RPMs on the highway and without turbo activation. So why is that number so low? It's not like SH-AWD sends more than 5-10% to the rear in steady state cruising. I'm more put off by the 26 highway than I am the 21 city because theoretically that 26 represents a rather low cap.
I'm not the type of person who will pick one car over the other because of a 1-2 MPG difference, to be honest MPG is usually my last concern when buying a car. It's just disappointing to me to see 21 city and 26 highway when there is a lot of competition that gets better numbers. From a value perspective the RDX is most-likely priced very well, so in the grand scheme of things what is 1-2MPG if you are saving 5-10K and getting the same if not more features?
The softness of that leather sticks with me to this day. It was just that good.
I am very worried about this. I don't hate the look of the Elite model, however I really like the look of the A-spec and trying to convert an elite to an A-spec down the line is going to be very hard with all the A-spec goodies. The reason I think we might not see an elite-A-spec model is because for the first time they are offering 16 way seats and since in the states you cannot get the 16 way seats in red, it would mean they would only offer it in black and I guess they opted to cut it out.
Exactly. Agreed.
This is why I am so shocked by those numbers. Very disappointing.
So looks like those numbers may actually be accurate. Yikes. We all know how hard it is to hit EPA numbers in NA engines, let alone these turbo 4's which produce dismal numbers when pushed even slightly.
Sure, the reason I think it is awful is for numerous reasons:
1: The 2018 model had a 3.5l V6 and weighed more (iirc) and had a archaic (by today's standards) 6 speed auto and yet is rated at only 1mpg less city but 2 mpg more on the highway. This 2019 RDX has a 2.0l 4 cylinder and 10 speed auto and just barely gets better city MPG than the old model?
2: Yes in comparison to other vehicles in the class with a 2.0T and 7/8 speed autos it still gets worse mileage. The X3 has true 50:50 full time AWD and is RWD based and still manages to get 29 MPG highway. with the RDX being FWD based it has less drivetrain loss and thus should be more efficient.
3: Hitting EPA estimates is rather difficult as it is, but when you have small displacement turbo engines, fuel economy drops SIGNIFICANTLY if you try and use the available power. In 2013 Hyundai redesigned their santa fe sport and replaced the 3.3l/3.5l V6 with a 2.0T and dropped the vehicle weight by 200 pounds. So when people first bought the santa fe after trading in their older models, the Hyundai forums were on fire with people complaining that they were getting much worse fuel economy with the 2.0T. The reason being they were trying to drive their 2013's like they drove their 2012 and under models. Turbo 4's do not like being pushed at all or fuel economy suffers dramatically.
4: Personally speaking it's 2018 and 21 city for a compact crossover is simply unacceptable to me not to mention the dismal 26 highway. The 10 speed auto should be able to keep the engine revving at around 12-1300 RPMs on the highway and without turbo activation. So why is that number so low? It's not like SH-AWD sends more than 5-10% to the rear in steady state cruising. I'm more put off by the 26 highway than I am the 21 city because theoretically that 26 represents a rather low cap.
I'm not the type of person who will pick one car over the other because of a 1-2 MPG difference, to be honest MPG is usually my last concern when buying a car. It's just disappointing to me to see 21 city and 26 highway when there is a lot of competition that gets better numbers. From a value perspective the RDX is most-likely priced very well, so in the grand scheme of things what is 1-2MPG if you are saving 5-10K and getting the same if not more features?
05-20-2018, 06:27 AM
#140
Exactly why they should have gone with the DI 3.5. Would have been a lot better setup. 2.0T's are going to be highly stressed when they are used in the manner folks are used to with the "archaic" 3.5l in the current gen RDX. Gas mileage will be abysmal. Mark my words, folks will be complaining like mad over the crappy MPG once the new RDX hits the streets.
With that being said, yes you are 100% right. I anticipate the forums will be on fire with complaints about 19mpg city being the best folks can manage. Like someone mentioned above, their accord is fwd only and has a 10 speed auto and is transverse engined obviously and yet rated at 32mpg highway while the audi A4 has a 7 speed dual clutch and is AWD and longitudinal engined and yet rated at 34mpg highway. That is really telling to me. That 2.0T is thirsty.
05-20-2018, 07:19 AM
#141
You are correct. BMW still relies heavily on run-flats. Other than their electrics and pure M models, I I'm not aware of any BMW's that do not come standard with run-flats. Mercedes, Audi and Cadillac have expanded the use of run-flat tires, too. Run-flats have improved, but they still come with compromises and BIG price tags.
05-20-2018, 07:25 AM
#142
I’m going to wait to complain until I actually have something to complain about. That is, I’m going to withhold judgement until I see documented and proven problems with the car in real world driving.
I will have plenty of time for that, plus maybe taking one out on a test drive, before I decide to buy in ~5 months.
i actually don’t give s rat’s tail what BMW or MB or Audi is doing right now. Yes, it’s good to compare who’s ahead in the very expensive and unsatisfying trying to outdo each other game, but I’ll leave that to people who have fun doing that.
I’m not one who gets a special kind of thrill because I’m lined up at a light and people might think, “ooh look at him and his bad self and his 3- or 5-series...”. Ha ha! (The Acura RDX is in the same general atmosphere and it is a very excellent car, going by my ‘17 Advance and people-I-know’s experiences.)
As far as mileage, the way I look at it is...at this point, if you’re that worried about it, go buy a Leaf. Or a Tesla? I’m saying we’re already paying for premium gas, so you better have gotten used to putting out in exchange for all the other reasons you’re attracted to a car like this. Or, get a Honda, Toyota, or Nissan. They’re perfectly good cars when it really comes down to going from point A to point B and a few tech and comfort goodies thrown in, right?
My opinion only...you think what you want to think. 😀👌🏼👍🏼
I will have plenty of time for that, plus maybe taking one out on a test drive, before I decide to buy in ~5 months.
i actually don’t give s rat’s tail what BMW or MB or Audi is doing right now. Yes, it’s good to compare who’s ahead in the very expensive and unsatisfying trying to outdo each other game, but I’ll leave that to people who have fun doing that.
I’m not one who gets a special kind of thrill because I’m lined up at a light and people might think, “ooh look at him and his bad self and his 3- or 5-series...”. Ha ha! (The Acura RDX is in the same general atmosphere and it is a very excellent car, going by my ‘17 Advance and people-I-know’s experiences.)
As far as mileage, the way I look at it is...at this point, if you’re that worried about it, go buy a Leaf. Or a Tesla? I’m saying we’re already paying for premium gas, so you better have gotten used to putting out in exchange for all the other reasons you’re attracted to a car like this. Or, get a Honda, Toyota, or Nissan. They’re perfectly good cars when it really comes down to going from point A to point B and a few tech and comfort goodies thrown in, right?
My opinion only...you think what you want to think. 😀👌🏼👍🏼
05-20-2018, 08:36 AM
#143
Instructor
Practical perspective I appreciate it. I do think Acura deserves scrutiny to sort thru the hype of this "turning point for the company". So we have a fun forum to bounce all that around. Calming down--The new RDX is a looker but the only Acura C.Reports even recommends at this point is the former RDX and that is due to reliability issues of the brand. Transmission is not a strong point of the brand.
Not a matter of money (IMO) to buy gasoline. I think we all expected more engine tech and resulting mpg. in a 2019 car with 10 gears. The QX50 VC engine is impressive (27 combined mpg in AWD) but I drove it and it may be efficient but is not that exciting (CVT ruined a nice new engine). The X3 2.0T is impressive and results in 29 highway EPA rating and may be the best all around SUV in this segment (IMO) if you stay away from option packages.
Acura high on value equation but MSRP pricing will last a while until new car people demand is satisfied. You can get decent discounts on Audi and BMW.
The new 2.0T is quite a nice engine. Too much engine for Accord Sport (at times) but entry fee with discounts (military included) was only $26,500 for a $31,500 MSRP car. I am confident the mpg experience of the new RDX will be a weak spot. I have not doubt if will be fun to drive in every case.
Game changer would be the lovely 2019 RDX with an engine rivaling the QX50 when put with a ten speed and not the Nissan corporate CVT. Just what I am thinking right now.
Not a matter of money (IMO) to buy gasoline. I think we all expected more engine tech and resulting mpg. in a 2019 car with 10 gears. The QX50 VC engine is impressive (27 combined mpg in AWD) but I drove it and it may be efficient but is not that exciting (CVT ruined a nice new engine). The X3 2.0T is impressive and results in 29 highway EPA rating and may be the best all around SUV in this segment (IMO) if you stay away from option packages.
Acura high on value equation but MSRP pricing will last a while until new car people demand is satisfied. You can get decent discounts on Audi and BMW.
The new 2.0T is quite a nice engine. Too much engine for Accord Sport (at times) but entry fee with discounts (military included) was only $26,500 for a $31,500 MSRP car. I am confident the mpg experience of the new RDX will be a weak spot. I have not doubt if will be fun to drive in every case.
Game changer would be the lovely 2019 RDX with an engine rivaling the QX50 when put with a ten speed and not the Nissan corporate CVT. Just what I am thinking right now.
The following users liked this post:
birdonamission (05-20-2018)
05-20-2018, 08:39 AM
#144
Drifting
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: New Yorkie, Hudson Valley
Posts: 3,001
Received 1,024 Likes
on
714 Posts
I truly wonder how accurate the EPA numbers are when it comes to turbos.
My car was rated at 17 city, 26 highway, and 20 combined.
I rarely update my ongoing mileage numbers, but as long as I have at least 1,000 on that session, I always see 25mpg. On pure highway trips, I get 28-29, and my typical speed is 10 mph over the limit, sometimes 15 over.
So much depends on how much boost you are using that I think EPA numbers have even less real world driving meaning than in the past.
My car was rated at 17 city, 26 highway, and 20 combined.
I rarely update my ongoing mileage numbers, but as long as I have at least 1,000 on that session, I always see 25mpg. On pure highway trips, I get 28-29, and my typical speed is 10 mph over the limit, sometimes 15 over.
So much depends on how much boost you are using that I think EPA numbers have even less real world driving meaning than in the past.
Last edited by Madd Dog; 05-20-2018 at 08:43 AM.
The following users liked this post:
birdonamission (05-20-2018)
05-20-2018, 08:44 AM
#145
Practical perspective I appreciate it. I do think Acura deserves scrutiny to sort thru the hype of this "turning point for the company". So we have a fun forum to bounce all that around. Calming down--The new RDX is a looker but the only Acura C.Reports even recommends at this point is the former RDX and that is due to reliability issues of the brand. Transmission is not a strong point of the brand.
Not a matter of money (IMO) to buy gasoline. I think we all expected more engine tech and resulting mpg. in a 2019 car with 10 gears. The QX50 VC engine is impressive (27 combined mpg in AWD) but I drove it and it may be efficient but is not that exciting (CVT ruined a nice new engine). The X3 2.0T is impressive and results in 29 highway EPA rating and may be the best all around SUV in this segment (IMO) if you stay away from option packages.
Acura high on value equation but MSRP pricing will last a while until new car people demand is satisfied. You can get decent discounts on Audi and BMW.
The new 2.0T is quite a nice engine. Too much engine for Accord Sport (at times) but entry fee with discounts (military included) was only $26,500 for a $31,500 MSRP car. I am confident the mpg experience of the new RDX will be a weak spot. I have not doubt if will be fun to drive in every case.
Game changer would be the lovely 2019 RDX with an engine rivaling the QX50 when put with a ten speed and not the Nissan corporate CVT. Just what I am thinking right now.
Not a matter of money (IMO) to buy gasoline. I think we all expected more engine tech and resulting mpg. in a 2019 car with 10 gears. The QX50 VC engine is impressive (27 combined mpg in AWD) but I drove it and it may be efficient but is not that exciting (CVT ruined a nice new engine). The X3 2.0T is impressive and results in 29 highway EPA rating and may be the best all around SUV in this segment (IMO) if you stay away from option packages.
Acura high on value equation but MSRP pricing will last a while until new car people demand is satisfied. You can get decent discounts on Audi and BMW.
The new 2.0T is quite a nice engine. Too much engine for Accord Sport (at times) but entry fee with discounts (military included) was only $26,500 for a $31,500 MSRP car. I am confident the mpg experience of the new RDX will be a weak spot. I have not doubt if will be fun to drive in every case.
Game changer would be the lovely 2019 RDX with an engine rivaling the QX50 when put with a ten speed and not the Nissan corporate CVT. Just what I am thinking right now.
The following users liked this post:
idgystinks (05-21-2018)
05-21-2018, 09:23 AM
#147
Instructor
2.0T experiment. You may tire of my 2.0T observations but since I drive one everyday, I have some credibility I hope. Today since my Accord Sport is broken in so to speak, my 25 mile commute was made a little fun. Mix of highway (70 mph) and a few expressways (50 mph).
Last week when I drove like a more mature person it yielded 41 mpg on said commute. Today no surprisingly I yielded 31 mpg. EPA rates 32 highway which seems to be the trend for current testing methods. My trip computer has shown one of the better when I calculate at the pump (within 1 mpg)
The 2.0T has a lot of potential in AWD mode. I loose traction at 25 mph in 10 Speed Sport) due to impressive torque curve. AWD will harness this engine fully and SH-AWD had better made it fun-at a cost of course.
What would mpg be in RDX on same commute? 41 careful (Accord) , 31 spirited (Accord) could be around 31 Careful and 22 Spirited with RDX. If highway steady could be around 30 mpg in real life I would be happy with new RDX.
Last week when I drove like a more mature person it yielded 41 mpg on said commute. Today no surprisingly I yielded 31 mpg. EPA rates 32 highway which seems to be the trend for current testing methods. My trip computer has shown one of the better when I calculate at the pump (within 1 mpg)
The 2.0T has a lot of potential in AWD mode. I loose traction at 25 mph in 10 Speed Sport) due to impressive torque curve. AWD will harness this engine fully and SH-AWD had better made it fun-at a cost of course.
What would mpg be in RDX on same commute? 41 careful (Accord) , 31 spirited (Accord) could be around 31 Careful and 22 Spirited with RDX. If highway steady could be around 30 mpg in real life I would be happy with new RDX.
05-21-2018, 11:46 AM
#148
Drifting
Regarding gas mileage of the new RDX, Honda/Acura products very often exceed their EPA numbers in real life, as shown above. My wife's 2.4 6MT Accord (9th Gen) is rated at 34 highway. But in non-winter weather, it's as easy as falling off a log to get that car into the 40s on the freeway. Not sure how that will work with the 2.0T, but early indications seem to suggest that 2.0 Accord owners are not having difficulty surpassing the EPA number for that car/engine.
The following users liked this post:
birdonamission (05-22-2018)
05-22-2018, 08:51 AM
#149
Regarding gas mileage of the new RDX, Honda/Acura products very often exceed their EPA numbers in real life, as shown above. My wife's 2.4 6MT Accord (9th Gen) is rated at 34 highway. But in non-winter weather, it's as easy as falling off a log to get that car into the 40s on the freeway. Not sure how that will work with the 2.0T, but early indications seem to suggest that 2.0 Accord owners are not having difficulty surpassing the EPA number for that car/engine.
05-22-2018, 12:33 PM
#150
Hello World
I would strongly suggest using diesel in a TDI engine!! LOL
But seriously, that's a very good idea for a turbocharged direct injected engine. High octane fuels are cleaner. They are probably more refined. Which is good for the combustion chamber (less carbon deposits) on the long term.
But seriously, that's a very good idea for a turbocharged direct injected engine. High octane fuels are cleaner. They are probably more refined. Which is good for the combustion chamber (less carbon deposits) on the long term.
05-22-2018, 01:35 PM
#151
I would strongly suggest using diesel in a TDI engine!! LOL
But seriously, that's a very good idea for a turbocharged direct injected engine. High octane fuels are cleaner. They are probably more refined. Which is good for the combustion chamber (less carbon deposits) on the long term.
But seriously, that's a very good idea for a turbocharged direct injected engine. High octane fuels are cleaner. They are probably more refined. Which is good for the combustion chamber (less carbon deposits) on the long term.
VW and Audi are infamous for their carbon buildup in the 2.0T engine. If Octane was a precursor of cleanliness that wouldn’t be the case since that engine requires premium.
Last edited by RDX10; 05-22-2018 at 01:38 PM.
05-22-2018, 02:09 PM
#152
False. Octane has nothing to do with gasoline cleanliness. It does however have to do with the gasolines resitance to ignition under compression, hence why many turboed cars and premium cars with performance engines require premium. Some companies (shell) do put extra cleaning additives into their premium gasoline, but that’s an additive and has nothing to do with the inherent octane rating.
VW and Audi are infamous for their carbon buildup in the 2.0T engine. If Octane was a precursor of cleanliness that wouldn’t be the case since that engine requires premium.
05-22-2018, 02:49 PM
#153
Instructor
Got this attachment from my Local rep. Applies to Canada I imagine since I am in Ontario. Looks similar to what has already been posted. Looks like we are in the same boat as our american friends in terms of not being able to pair the A-spec with the Platinum Elite package.
05-22-2018, 02:57 PM
#154
Got this attachment from my Local rep. Applies to Canada I imagine since I am in Ontario. Looks similar to what has already been posted. Looks like we are in the same boat as our american friends in terms of not being able to pair the A-spec with the Platinum Elite package.
- Base 19"
- A-Spec 20"
- Elite 19"
- Elite Platinum 19"
US?
- Base 19"
- A-Spec 20"
- Advance 19"
05-22-2018, 03:00 PM
#155
I was curious about what this means for the different wheel designs too. Maybe I won't end up with those uh... undesirable wheels that we've mostly seen so far.
05-22-2018, 03:08 PM
#156
There are four lights!
Got this attachment from my Local rep. Applies to Canada I imagine since I am in Ontario. Looks similar to what has already been posted. Looks like we are in the same boat as our american friends in terms of not being able to pair the A-spec with the Platinum Elite package.
The following 3 users liked this post by mcrompton:
05-22-2018, 03:13 PM
#158
Me too. It does however have the vent seats and 16 speaker stereo which I wanted. I wear polarized glasses and Ive read you cant see the HUD with those types of glasses on.
05-22-2018, 03:17 PM
#159
There are four lights!
So, I have no idea if the photos they use in that confidential launch guide corresponds to the trim. If Canadian Elite models do get those wheels, I could live with them as they look a lot nicer than what our Amerifriends are getting on their Advance models.
05-22-2018, 03:21 PM
#160