-September 2024 Special Lease Deals-
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
Acura RDX Real World MPG
Please report on your gas mileage in here. Include details like your city/highway mix, driving style, or anything else you think may help others compare their mpg to yours. Thanks!
0
Comments
Scott
2007 RDX with Technology Package
Nighthawk Black Pearl/Ebony Leather
I have an '06 MDX Touring with Nav & RES
I stopped by and gave the RDX a look.
Being a smaller engine and a lighter vehicle, I would expect the MPG to be slightly better than the MDX.
My drive from MA to IL and back gave me a wonderfull 23 MPG with an average 75 on the highway.
How you liking the RDX?
Happy with it so far?
I find the seats MUCH more comfortable than those in the MDX.
No technology package, black ext / black int.
I am extremely disappointed in the gas mileage. I took it to the dealership and they said that there is nothing wrong with the car, and the the gas mileage will improve after 1500 miles, but I really doubt that. The gas mileage isn't going to move up very significantly after another 700 miles.
Obviously there is something wrong with the design of the automobile, i.e. its weight. I drive slightly aggressively, but did so with my Honda V6 EX and got 24.5MPG average. Several other people on this forum have the same problem with their RDXs, i.e. the gas mileage is quite bad.
I would advise before buying this car to take the car home and drive it for 100-200 miles and see what kind of mileage you get. My wife and I are extremely disappointed in an otherwise great car and the ADDITIONAL gas costs are going to be somewhere around $2400 (also the car only takes premium gas).
Acura brought this design out too soon. There is something wrong which is causing this very low gas mileage.
I hope that this helps other people who are considering this car. I'm really sorry that this information was not available to me before purchase, but hopefully it will help someone else.
On the other hand, I wouldn't dismiss the dealer out of hand when he says mileage typically improves in Acuras.
For the first 2200 miles, my TSX averaged under 25mpg with a best tank of 29.78. Over the next 2800 miles, it averaged OVER 30 mpg in the same kind of highway-heavy driving. And I didn't see tanks over 35mpg until 7,000 and 12,000 miles. In the meantime, there have been more tanks over 33mpg than are worth listing here. (And all that from a car that started out, as I said, averaging under 25mpg off the dealer's lot.)
There really was HUGE IMPROVEMENT after the first @2000 miles. Give it some time.
Absolutely not true and I hate when dealers tell people this. :mad:
Yes, the car may improve slightly over the next 6 months, but don't necessarily count on it.
This occurs, for some reason, in all cars.
Take the owners on one specific model and ask them what they get for MPG.
Some are right on the money, some fall very short and some owners are lucky enough to get amazing MPGs.
Yes, this has a lot to do with driving habits, choice of fuel, tire pressure, phase of the moon's cycle, barometer pressure, monthly cycle, etc.... but there is no reason why your new RDX is getting 12.8 unless you're beatin the hell out of it.... which you shouldn't be doing yet anyway.(Break-in period)
My husband called the dealer and they said that they are telling all RDX owners to wait until 2000 miles before bringing the car in. When asked whether this was a problem unique to this particular car or in general, the general manager circumvented the question.
We love the car but really hate the gas mileage. My husband is furious, because he had heard that there were some issues with this car about the gas mileage and Don, our salesman said "I guarantee that you will get at least 19 on the highway". That guarantee doesn't mean much now.
We have a new baby and our budget can't really handle the unexpected cost of all this gasoline.
How is it that you can afford a $33,000 (non-Tech) or $36,500 (Tech) RDX, but you can't afford gas for it? C'mon, do the math ... If you drive 12,000 miles a year buying $3.00/gallon gas, the difference between 13.65 mpg and 19 mpg is $742. That's a small fraction of the RDX's acquisition cost.
And if the cost of gas was REALLY that important to you, why on earth didn't you buy a sedan?
A TSX, for instance, would (A) get better than 30 mpg on the highway (saving almost $700 a year compared to a 19 mpg RDX), (B) cost $5,000 to $7,000 less to buy in the first place, and (C) it would have cost less to insure.
If you're worried about "unexpected costs," I CAN guarantee you that your new child, not your new car, is going to be the major source. You didn't do yourselves any favors if you REALLY are budgeted so tightly that $700 in gas is going to break the bank for you.
$700 would just about pay my car insurance for both my vehicles for a year.
People agree on the cost when they take into account what they are getting for their hard earned money.
I drive almost 30,000 miles a year.
I dropped a great amount of money on an MDX cause if I spend that much time in a car, I wanted to treat myself to something nice.
That does not mean however, that I wanna drop $50- into the tank every 2.5 days.
I got rid of my V8 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited and it's 15.8 MPG and bought the MDX.
My 45 minute MDX test drive gave me a reading of 17.9 MPG.
My new '06 MDX is getting anywhere between 20-24.
If I was getting 12 in the MDX, I'd be screaming mad too, even though I was able to afford the car itself.
How is it that you can afford a $33,000 (non-Tech) or $36,500 (Tech) RDX, but you can't afford gas for it? C'mon, do the math ... If you drive 12,000 miles a year buying $3.00/gallon gas, the difference between 13.65 mpg and 19 mpg is $742. That's a small fraction of the RDX's acquisition cost.
And if the cost of gas was REALLY that important to you, why on earth didn't you buy a sedan?
A TSX, for instance, would (A) get better than 30 mpg on the highway (saving almost $700 a year compared to a 19 mpg RDX), (B) cost $5,000 to $7,000 less to buy in the first place, and (C) it would have cost less to insure.
If you're worried about "unexpected costs," I CAN guarantee you that your new child, not your new car, is going to be the major source. You didn't do yourselves any favors if you REALLY are budgeted so tightly that $700 in gas is going to break the bank for you.
Thanks for your comments.
First off, the car cost less than that and we got $14k for our trade-in.
Secondly, we don't drive 12,000 miles. We put about 26,000 miles per year on our car. That's the reason we wanted the Acura, because we can put a lot of mileage on it and it'll keep going (Honda reliability).
Thirdly, the difference isn't between 13MPG and 19MPG, it's 13MPG and 23MPG since most driving is highway.
Fouthly (is that a word?) premium gasoline (that's what the RDX requires) around here isn't $3, it's about $3.09.
Lastly, given the above, the difference in cost is about $3000 per year.
Now, perhaps you are a rich guy, and that's great, but we have to earn an additional $5k gross to take home an additional $3k for gasoline. That $5k put into our 401k plan over the next 18 years would pay for the kid's first two years of college.
Finally, I think that the salesman should not make stuff up. I am not "dumping on my salesman", rather I am stating that he should stick to the facts - great car, but really horribly bad gas mileage.
:lemon:
I test drove it and afterwards saw the Road and Track article, it's a very nice car, but with that gas mileage I'm staying away.
Very shocked at Honda. What's the point of the 4 cylinder if the gas mileage is that bad? That was supposed to be the selling point of the turbo, i.e. lower weight, etc. Clearly hasn't worked out that way.
Maybe they'll fix it for 2008.
"(In the RDX) we could not break 13 MPG" - Road and Track
"Acura says, adding that a steady diet of subpremium can lead to engine damage." - USA Today
My RDX is getting about 12 MPG on the first three tanks of premium fuel.
I hope it improves soon! Our dealer told us that premium was "optional". It's not!!!!!
We have been pleased with the vehicle, our first venture into the a luxury line.
On top of that, one of the cars that was on display outside was UNLOCKED ! Dealerships in Quebec, Canada are closed on Saturday and Sunday and thus the lot was unsupervised ! I could clearly see the package to activate the Navi !
I opened the door, locked the door through the central mechanism and left still surprised at these 2 findings !
What do you think about the MPG numbers being so different !
Also, while many people do not care about emissions, others do. The more you burn, the more you pollute - especially in SUVs, which get higher emission allowances from EPA (because, of course, all those contractors driving SUVs have to carry around bags of mortar). Honda advertises incessantly about being so good at gas mileage and indeed, has several hybrids. Why can't they use the Accord hybrid engine in the RDX? Probably because of about $700 in profit . . .
IMO, 3.2/V6 with 260 HP/240 lb-ft would had been a nice choice, albeit at the expense of torque (the turbo delivers upto 260 lb-ft). But, 2.3 turbo has its promises, and we should see in next TSX too! (at least as a trim level, if not a standard engine).
As an example, my Outback XT shows instaneous MPG around 30 at sustained highway speeds of about 65mph, and I can average at that speed for a long distance to show MPG in the high 20s. But my overall averages are always 20-22 (maybe 24 on a long hwy trip). Acceleration, going up grades, etc, will drop the instantaneous MPG into the low teens or single digits. Any stop and go or idling mixes in a lot of zero MPG weightings. And that's what drags down the overall average even though it looks good on the highway at moderate speeds.
I am still skeptical about the RDX's gas mileage, and hope to see people keeping track of their gas mileage for every tank, and tell us what kind of driving it was. That's the best kind of real world data. So far, the numbers I have been seeing are dissapointing.
We have had our RDX for about three weeks, we like the handling and interior quality, and the look of the car, and the car does really start to move after about 30 mph.
However, like many others have said this thing just absolutely eats gasoline. We were getting about 27 MPG on our 1998 Lexus ES300, and we are now getting 12 MPG on the RDX with the same type of driving.
We are disappointed to say the least! If this doesn’t improve I’ll be super p.o.’ed!
I don’t think it’s our driving style either, because we have never, ever had this kind of gas mileage on any of our other cars. Maybe there’s a defect? We should have read the Road and Track review (13 mpg) before buying this car, but we really liked the test drive and got carried away.
We thought we were getting a “deal” at $700 off list, now we feel like we were taken for a ride. The dealer said that they were selling them as fast as they were getting them in, but there are now five vehicles sitting on the lot unsold, so I think that that was misleading.
My local dealer has 7 RDXs in inventory, but they also told me they were in demand a few weeks back. I think it's classic dealer "talk" to pressure the buyer.
And, especially with manumatic engines, you don't even have to rely on the manufacturer to provide an automatic transmission with two or more modes. You can choose your own shiftpoints.
Subaru already had a transmission with sport and economy modes (since at least 2000, maybe longer). For 07 they are adding an SI-drive knob to turbo models that controls the ECU throttle mapping. In the intelligent mode, SI-drive actually goes with a very conservative ECU map that reduces throttle response and power somewhat to improve economy. The two sport modes go in the opposite direction for faster throttle response and more power. With drive by wire, you can do stuff like this, which goes far beyond transmission modes.
70% - I-280 (Rolling hills freeway - no traffic)
10% - I-880 Bay Bridge and US-101 (flat stop-and-go)
10% - SF city (stop-and-go)
10% - CA-1 Golden Gate Bridge and beyond (rolling hills stop-and-go)
Variable stop-and-go traffic from above combined with...
rolling freeways @ 65-70 mph (low-mid 2K rpms) = 20.7 mpg
rolling freeways @ 70-80 mpg (mid-high 2K rpms) = 19.3 mpg
I would assume, based on these numbers, if going 60 mph on cruise control, flat land, and wind in your back, one can probably achieve 22-23+ mpg.
I ended up purchasing a new VW Passat 3.6 4Motion with all options but Nav. The dealer gave me what I expected for the trade and 5,600 off the sticker. It isn't a SUV but my objective was AWD living in the northeast.
I'm trying to figure out why that doesn't rock, but it's not happening. So I'll just enjoy my car in the meantime while everybody else wrings their hands over this.
By the way, I can understand how all this negative buzz on Internet Forums and from heavy footed road testers has potential buyers scared away. Almost scared me off. I'm very glad now it did not. The RDX may be the most shwag car I've owned and the list of cars I've had in my driveway includes a Lexus GS300, BMW 540i, Mercedes, a Porsche, 2004 Acura TL, etc. Very hard to convey the overall coolness of this car in a brochure, test drive, showroom walkaround or TV commercial. You'd have to live with it for a few days.
It's a 3900lb. SUV with a potent turbo motor. Not a Toyota Tercel. So get serious about the fuel economy expectations already. 20mpg isn't bad at all. And that's what I'm getting. I have to drive to Manhattan tomorrow. I'll take my Honda MOTORCYCLE (ST1300). That gets FORTY mpg : ).
I don't agree that octane is going to have a major impact on fuel economy, but if you have a theory let's hear it. Generally, the ECU will retard the timing a bit when the octane is lower than needed. The net result is slightly less power (sometimes not even noticeble) but it shouldn't impact MPG much, if at all.
I believe 91 octane is the recommended fuel for the RDX.
Bottom line: I saw, I bought, I drove, I'm happy. Make your own decision based on the fact that 85%+ of the people who actually OWN the car seem to be getting 18-20mpg. I'm one of them. I can't speak to the other 15%. I'm NOT one of them.
All this will wash out over time if it's car magazine road tester hooey (and that's what it seems to be). As for lower octane fuel banging the mpg on this car, I'm fairly convinced that the dealer filled it with 87 octane fuel. Why? Because after half a tank I filled it with 93 and the trip computer mpg readings (which seem astonishingly accurate on this car) SUDDENLY went from 15mpg to 20mpg. Gee I wonder how THAT could have happened?
These road test writers are on crank. Some from of car weenie amphetamine. And they think all their readers are too. That's the best part.
I think there are too many people who are having the same exact issue to dismiss the fact that this car does not give great gas milage. My friend has a Navigator and he get about the same gas milage as my RDX!
• Acura is building $35K cars that vary wildly from unit to unit in engine performance. Some of the cars (like mine) do fine, and others are enormous gas guzzlers. All with the same hardware, quality control, engine management hardware/software etc. If this is the case then a significant percentage of these vehicles are severely defective. That would be a first for Honda. Or any Japanese manufacturer to my knowledge.
• 20% of the people driving this car are heavier footed than the other 80% - and apparently don't realize it. I think that's the obvious explaination, particularly given the way turbos can suck gas if you stomp them a bit too hard. The RDX isn't the only car that exhibits that trait. My assistant's Mitsubishi Evo (what a great car) does the same thing. He says the car gets 23-26 mpg when he goes easy and 15mpg when he hammers the car. And part of this also seems to be unrealistic expectations regarding fuel economy in a 3900 lb SUV.
You decide. Many of you seem to have done that already. Not really my problem since I'm getting close to 20mpg (what I expected to get when I bought the car).
Your move.
I'd agree - but this was VERY odd. I mean, you fill up the tank with 93, start driving away and within minutes the trip computer that was saying '15mpg' is saying '19mpg'? We only spent about 10 mins. with the car idling at the dealership.
Regardless, the car is now getting 19-20mpg in mixed driving, so I'm satisfied. And Acura motors DO break in. I expect to get 20mpg+ after 3000-5000 miles or so. We'll see of course....
Yes, I have seen Impala dip into 7-8 mpg range (instantaneous mileage) during acceleration, but if it stayed there consistently, it would be nothing but a sign of an issue.
On my car, the type of driving you do right after resetting the trip meter sets the initial MPG, and it's interesting to watch it go up/down from there (usually goes down slowly). It's awesome to see an initial 25 MPG, but it almost always crawls back down into the 21-22 mpg range. Maybe I ought to have a lead foot leaving the gas station to get a low initial MPG, then watch it go up for a change....
Practical schmatical. If I wanted something THAT practical I would have purchased something else. I wanted some SPORT/luxury along with the utility. The RDX is a great vehicle. I think the owners are going to LOVE this car and that the word of mouth will eventually help sell it.
I do think Acura could have done a better job on the powertrain, since other vehicles manage it. It doesn't matter what class of vehicle; if competitors can get equal or better performance and better MPG, that tells me Acura could have done better too. For instance, the RDX is very heavy for it's size -- I have to think they could have improved weight. It's a real porker.
I accept the 20-25 MPG I get on my Outback XT since it's fast and fun to drive. And I didn't even mind the gas costs until the recent spike in prices. The major downside to the gas mileage for me has been limited range with the 16.9 gallon fuel tank. It's a hassle when I have to stop for extra fillups on ski trips, especially when crossing mountain ranges where gas stations are few and far between. Little aspects like that are an annoyance, never mind whether it's practical!
But I'm in no position to complain -- I traded a much more practical vehicle for the XT, and knew it going in. Unfortunately the RDX is a teeny step in the wrong direction for me -- slightly heavier, slightly slower, slightly worse MPG, slightly less capable AWD. I was hoping for my next vehicle to improve in all those areas (obviously unrealistic).