Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Acura RDX Real World MPG

15678911»

Comments

  • patm70patm70 Posts: 20
    edited August 2012
    Just took a trip from NY to NC 600 miles each way. Trip down took ten hours only stopping for gas fill up/bathroom break. Mostly traveled between 60-70 mph on I-95 and I-85. Divided gallons put in at fill ups into mileage traveled and averaged slightly more than 28 miles per gallon. Gas is cheap in NJ and VA so put in premium. Regular was $3.13 a gallon on Aug. 7th near Gordonsville, VA!!
    Was very pleased with mpg of my six cylinder 2013 RDX AWD (Non Tech) which replaced a four cylinder 2008 Honda CRV AWD which got similar mileage on that same trip. Great car for a long trip-quiet engine, smooth ride on those big Michelins and comfortable leather seats. The car is a winner!!
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,950
    Glad to hear. That's real decent MPG. I'm about 95% final on my decision to get one.
  • "Glad to hear. That's real decent MPG. I'm about 95% final on my decision to get one. "

    Go for it! Just picked up our FWD with Tech on Friday. Drove through a blinding frog-strangler yesterday and the RDX handled it nicely. Thought I might need the AWD of the XC60 we swapped in. So far, so good. I'm sure there will be times I'll miss the turbo-boost of the T6 in the Volvo, but getting on the highway with the RDX shows it has plenty of power! Missing a couple of 'things' from the Volvo, but DW is giddy about the Tech pkg!
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,950
    Yeah, I'm still going back and forth(with myself) over the fwd vs. awd thing. I've had a SUV with AWD and 4wd both hi and lo. I've had it ten years in the Chicago area and have never actually driven in 4wd hi or lo. Have used the AWD a couple of times each winter but even then it just prevented a little wheel spin, not really got me through huge piles of snow. Also have a rwd pickup with v8 that I feather around in the winter and really don't even have a problem with that. They clean the roads pretty quick around where I live. So I'm kind of leaning towards just getting the fwd and saving some upfront costs and and long term maint. costs and gaining 1 mpg. Everyone around here seems to take for granted that any SUV/CUV will automatically have at least AWD but I personally think it's overkill 99.9% of the time so resale is a consideration.

    On those really bad days I just work from home. :D
  • smarty666smarty666 Posts: 1,503
    I have a 2013 RDX AWD. It only has about 2k miles on it currently, so I'm hoping this gets better as the car ages, but overall, I've been disappointed with the mpg.

    Some background on my car/driving habits:
    * always fill up with Shell 93 Octane
    * almost 80-90% highway driving for both work and around town. I live in a rural area so very little stop and go traffic.
    * keep tire pressures cold at 35 PSI

    I've been consistently getting 22mpg avgs per tank with one 23 mpg avg on a tank. That is the best I've been able to do. With the large amount of highway driving I do, I was hoping for 25mpg per tank, especially its rated 27mpg highway and Acura touted the RDX as best in class fuel economy. I've had other CUVs with avgs per tank at 21-22mpg so this is no better. I hope with time I can get up to my goal 25mpg per tank.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 14,154
    just crossed 1K on our 2013 AWD. Did a trip from Philly to Albany NY area this weekend. Got (per the computer) 29 on the way up, and 28 on the way back. Coming back included a 1 hour long traffic jam, and both ways had some local roads in the middle.

    overall, got about 27.5 including a couple of days running around the back country in NY.\

    around town, depending on if it is real short hop (city) or with a little local highway mixed in, we have had a tank in the 17s (mostly stop and go) and a couple in the 22 range.

    so, with mostly highway, 25 overall seems quite reasonable.

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (when daughter lets me see it), 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again), and new Jetta SE (son's first new car on his own dime!)

  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,950
    1st tank of gas = 24.6 on computer. Will track miles/gals in addition but since I don't know how they topped it off on the first fill I won't try to do the computation myself until I get about 3 fills. Then I'll see how it compares to the computer. Driving was about 70% surburban/stoplights etc and about 30% expressway. No rush hour bumper to bumper at all.
  • Had the RDX almost 4 months, but hadn't gone on any trips of more than 50 miles. Hard to get a feel for highway mileage like that. ;) Finally, a Dallas road trip with a bit of local driving and 75mph expressway showed 27,6 mpg for the trip. Not too bad, considering the driver(not me) is known for the 'straight from the accelerator to the brake' style of driving. We had been getting 21-22mpg in our overall driving which includes quite a bit of 60mph expressway between stop lights. I'm sure a lighter foot on take-off could improve that mileage a bit, but we're satisfied so far. BTW, I use 87 octane, top tier fuel the majority of the time with the occasional top-off of 93 whenever the mood strikes. I've not been able to perceive a change in performance or mileage based on octane used. This mileage is 10% better overall and about 20% better highway mileage compared to our '10 Volvo XC60 T6 we swapped. I miss the smooth turbo a bit; but, we're very happy so far. :)
  • lego34lego34 Posts: 5
    edited February 2013
    Thank you for your fedback. may i ask you, The general cost of the volvo t6 is it greater than rdx? and the reliability? I am considering both volvo and acura. Thank you
  • Reliability was good for our XC60 for 3.4 years and 56k miles except for the propensity to eat batteries. We were on our third Volvo battery at trade-in(all were covered by Volvo).

    It's not quite fair to compare the price of the T6 with the RDX since it's a 300hp turbo AWD. You could work the numbers to compare apples to apples; but I generally feel the Volvo runs a solid 10% more than the RDX. The 3.2 Volvo is less powerful than the RDX, so it's hard to make a direct comparison.

    I'm driving a '13 XC60 T6 loaner right now...the C70 is at the dealer for some software updates(I think). It still fits like a glove. A fair bit heavier than the FWD RDX and it feels it. The RDX is just so easy off the line; BUT, that 300hp T6 puts a smile on your face! ;)

    Please note that the 2014 model year for the XC60 is a 'refresh'. Not a lot of drastic changes(Volvo doesn't do that mid-stream); but worth noting that late summer will bring the 'updated' version.

    I'd look for a 10% loss in mileage with the Volvo...either engine...and it could be a touch more than that. We averaged just over 19mpg overall for the 56k miles in the XC. Close to 6k miles on the RDX and were averaging between 22-23. BUT...Volvo pays for your scheduled maintenance through the 30k check(not cheap at the Volvo dealer).

    The Acura doesn't have a few items that are either standard or optional in the XC...Rear seat vents, 12v plug in cargo area, flat cargo floor, BLIS, adaptive cruise, etc. That explains some of the difference in price; but also means you CAN'T get them on the RDX. I miss some of them a bit; but it was not a deal-breaker for us. We're very happy with the RDX, as we were with the XC60. If the Volvo re-fresh had come a year earlier, who knows if I would have even 'gone looking'.
  • Thank you for your point of view. I am looking for the q5 base but any option even if color increase the price alot. Like the rdx look like more practical.

    I love the t6 but the gaz milage and to maintain it might be hight
    q5 handling is great but to maintain it might be hight

    rdx look like between what about the cost of acura?
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 14,154
    took our 2013 AWD on a trip from NJ to NC and VA. About 1000 miles all together in 4 days.

    overall, got about 27.5. Best leg (philly to NC) was 28.5 per the TC. And that included a lot of 770-75 on 95, then 75-80 for a long stretch below Richmond (middle of nowhere, and a SL of 70. I liked it!)

    some running around mixed in, but easily able to beat the EPA on straight highway runs, and speed does not seem to matter all that much (must be the cylinder deactivation kicking in).

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (when daughter lets me see it), 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again), and new Jetta SE (son's first new car on his own dime!)

  • bankonebankone Posts: 44
    Can you use #87 gas on RDX or MDX?
  • lucien4lucien4 Posts: 55
    Lots of debate on that especially since Acura says now premium 'recommended' instead of 'required'. Consider though money savings are very low so why bother for a vehicle of this cost.

    According to RDX manual (similar for MDX):

    "Unleaded gasoline with a Pump Octane Number (PON) of 91 or
    higher is recommended.

    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."
  • drjcool1drjcool1 Posts: 44
    So as a practical matter does anyone notice any real drop off in performance when using regular gas? It was my understanding that you can use regular and unless you are a real automotive officionado you really can't tell much of a difference when using regular vs premium.
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 14,154
    I did a 600+mile trip this weekend. Ran premium on the way up, and midgrade (with a couple of gallons of regular mixed in to top it up) on the way back. I noticed no performance difference. Was still a hotrod, tons of power, and did not hear any knocking. So if it dialed the power back, I did not miss it. Plus, I probably did not go over 3K RPM, so most likely, the area that you would notice I never got near!

    in terms of MPG, on the trip back (Boston to Philly), a little local then mostly highway, with a few stops for traffic jams, the TC (which is usually high but no more than 1/2 gallon in MPG) after 320 miles was 30.2. And that was running normal speeds (65-75 mostly). so if the lower octane hurt MPG, I did not see it (that was a record for that long a run of mixed driving).

    2013 Acura RDX (wife's), 2007 Volvo S40 (when daughter lets me see it), 2000 Acura TL (formerly son's, now mine again), and new Jetta SE (son's first new car on his own dime!)

  • Haven't posted in a while...DW, who is known for her 'straight from the gas to the brake and back' style of driving, took a 400-mile trip in the sweltering central Texas heat...resulting in a TC reading of 29+ mpg. This includes the above-mentioned 'spirited' driving style and about 10% in-town driving, fairly loaded with either people or antique-store items.

    AFAIK, we've only used 87 octane for the past few months, showing around 20-21 avg mileage and the 29ish for the trip. We did have the odd TC reading that was stuck on 16.3 for a week or so, so I wouldn't bet the farm on its accuracy. Closing in on 11k miles and the second service visit.
15678911»
Sign In or Register to comment.