Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Acura RDX Real World MPG

steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
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!
«1345

Comments

  • smaslinsmaslin Member Posts: 2
    Only gone through two tanks of gas but so far I'm getting 19.6 mpg. On both tanks I compared the mpg from the computer to that computed at the pump; both where very close. Best mileage to date was 21.5 mpg during an 80 mile highway loop from MD to VA at 70 mph.

    Scott
    2007 RDX with Technology Package
    Nighthawk Black Pearl/Ebony Leather
  • scottm123scottm123 Member Posts: 1,501
    That's odd.

    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.
  • alexbharrisalexbharris Member Posts: 4
    I have driven 800 miles on my RDX and am averaging 12.8 MPG.

    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.
  • jrynnjrynn Member Posts: 162
    12.8 sounds low. Perhaps something is going on with your particular car.

    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.
  • scottm123scottm123 Member Posts: 1,501
    "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."

    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)
  • bettyybettyy Member Posts: 2
    My husband and I just got back from a drive to Toronto, total roundtrip drive was 1136 miles, we received 13.65 MPG in our new RDX, using 93 octane.

    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.
  • jrynnjrynn Member Posts: 162
    Before you dump all over your salesman -- ESPECIALLY if you had reason to worry about the RDX's mileage "issues" -- take a moment for introspection.

    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.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    People's experiences vary widely, but my minivan didn't start consistently getting "ok" mileage until around 7,000 miles and the mpg kept improving well beyond 10,000 miles.

    $700 would just about pay my car insurance for both my vehicles for a year.
  • scottm123scottm123 Member Posts: 1,501
    And forget the cost of the vehicle.
    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.
  • jonnyinsacjonnyinsac Member Posts: 6
    I do live in Sacramento so there are no hills. About 70% of mileage is freeway. Are you all driving up hills all the time? The RDX does eat some gas but if you are getting 13mpg that is horrible. Even if I am a lead foot I still get better than that on flat land, maybe 15-16mpg. I too am disappointed in the gas mileage so far however I did get over 22mpg on a freeway run going about 75mph.
  • bettyybettyy Member Posts: 2
    Before you dump all over your salesman -- ESPECIALLY if you had reason to worry about the RDX's mileage "issues" -- take a moment for introspection.

    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.
  • flatsflats Member Posts: 44
    A recent RDX review from USAToday stated "The test vehicle's trip computer showed 16.2 mpg around town, 20.5 mpg in 550 miles of mixed driving, mainly in hilly terrain." If you drive as much as you claim, keep good records on your fuel economy as the weeks go by. Hopefully it will slowing increase as time goes on. 13.65 mpg is rather anemic, even a Hummer gets better mileage. My current Acura (non rdx) was rated at 22/30, yet I get 26/34 on a regular basis. Hang in there. Please let us know if it improves, and hopefully other owners will share they mileage as well. Best wishes.
  • simbadasimbada Member Posts: 1
    Road and Track, latest issue, they got 13 MPG on the RDX.

    :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.
  • persewallpersewall Member Posts: 1
    "With the RDX, Acura seems to have simplified its navigational system, but getting around to enjoy it won't be cheap due to low gas mileage and its premium-fuel appetite. " - USA Today

    "(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!!!!!
  • mazdaman65mazdaman65 Member Posts: 12
    Our RDX now has a little over 200 miles. The first tank got 18.6 MPG...that was about 100 highway miles and 100 in-town miles. That is not great, but not as bad as some have experienced. I'm hoping it improves as the engine "breaks in". That is about the same mileage as the '00 Mazda Millenia that we were previously driving.

    We have been pleased with the vehicle, our first venture into the a luxury line.
  • ccacpccacp Member Posts: 117
    Hello Everyone, to my surprise the Acura Canada window sticker for the RDX has an EPA rating of 23/30 mpg. There is no way that I think this car will attain those numbers ! How could they even venture to post those numbers when Acura USA has 19/24 on their window stickers !

    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 !
  • teledatageekteledatageek Member Posts: 23
    How come you posted the same thing in at least three different places?!
  • edwardsfedwardsf Member Posts: 190
    I am confused by your post. First, if the person drives the average miles, I believe the person drives over 12,000/year. If they commute, it is well over that. Also, gas prices will rise (energy growth in China and India is exploding and the curve for petroleum has peaked). So the average over 5 years will probably be more like $4/gallon. This is putting these folks in at around $2000/year, not $700.

    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 . . .
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Hybrid by itself would have been an expensive proposition. Actually, the very first Acura RDX prototype was a hybrid (190 HP 2.4/I-4 + two in-wheel electric motors for additional 60 HP).

    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).
  • cwatt998cwatt998 Member Posts: 3
    We have 1200 miles on our not-tech and are averaging 22 mpg. Seems to get 22 when running at 80 mph and closer to 25 or 26 at 60 mph. Love the handling and engine performance.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Now, 25-26 mpg at 60 mph will change a lot of perception. Keep us updated as you add miles.
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    Are you talking about the instantaneous MPG reading? That can be misleading. There's no way to get a good average at certain speeds unless you reset the trip computer at that speed, drive for a while (at least several hundred miles) and then record the average before slowing back down. Even then, it's not realistic because you need to get the whole acceleration/cruise/decelleration cycle in there. SO citing numbers at certain speeds is of limited use.

    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.
  • cwatt998cwatt998 Member Posts: 3
    We have a non-tech so I don't get instantaneous mileage. My average has been 20 not 22 as I said in the first line.
  • phastphil1phastphil1 Member Posts: 24
    I am an Acura Salesperson, and I just delivered a RDX/Tech to a city 125 miles away. I averaged around 68 mph and the fuel economy reading was 22.8 mpg. To those people getting 11 to 15 mpg, I would look at driving habits. I have customers that were not getting good mpg out of there MDX,s until my service department showed them how driving styles greatly affected mpg. On our demo model RDX I reset the mpg meter for each test drive, and the variance of readings directly corresponds to how happy the drivers foot is.
  • kawillkawill Member Posts: 1
    I have to say that the car is really nice, but the gas mileage is SOOOOOOO bad.

    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.
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    I think this emphasizes an important point about the MPG -- nobody can say for sure how their driving compares to other folks and the related effects on gas mileage, but you can make valid comparisons to other vehicles you own(ed) if your driving style is more or less consistent. So in that sense, I would be pretty disappointed in 12MPG too. Unfortunately, you can't really figure this out until you own the vehicle for a while and drive it a lot!

    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.
  • mazdaman65mazdaman65 Member Posts: 12
    Can these engines be "tuned" to get better gas mileage? I have heard that NASCAR engineers run their engines at varying degrees of "leanness" for better mileage, but sacrifice horsepower. I don't know nothing 'bout no engines, so please enlighten me. Thanks.
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    The ECU can certainly be programmed for all kinds of different performance/economy modes. Subaru is doing that in their turbo models for 2007, with a knob that selects among three different engine modes (one of which is "intelligent" aka "economy" -- it boosts gas mileage by a couple MPG). Previously, third party tuners have offered ECU upgrades with similar options.
  • jrynnjrynn Member Posts: 162
    It's not necessary to "tune" an engine to improve gas mileage, and providing automatic transmissions that offer "sport" and "normal" modes that make a performance/economy trade-off is nothing new -- car manufacturers have been doing it for years. It's as simple as using different default shift points. The "sport" mode shifts at higher rpms, with the result that the driver gets closer to the car's peak horsepower & torque ratings (for the RDX at 6,000, and 4,500 rpm, respectively) but pays the price in lower fuel economy. Conversely, a driver who shifts at lower points in the rpm range in "normal" or "economy" mode sacrifices some performance but gains in fuel economy.

    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.
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    I know what transmission sport modes are, and that's not what Subaru's SI-drive is. I think it was pretty clear in my post that I was referring to tuning the ECU maps, not the transmission.

    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.
  • perry6270perry6270 Member Posts: 1
    800 miles:

    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.
  • mazdaman65mazdaman65 Member Posts: 12
    Our 2nd tank of gas got 19 MPH...just as advertised. This was all "city" driving, if you can call a town of 10,000 city driving. ;)
  • howie53howie53 Member Posts: 1
    I was very interested in the RDX until I saw the gas mileage results. I thought I would check it out anyway and called the Acura dealer where I had purchased my TSX. When the gave me the numbers for my trade (TSX) and no discount on the vehicle I began looking at other cars.

    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.
  • bbydadbbydad Member Posts: 58
    congratulations on your purchase howie. i was actually thinking about buying a TSX up here in the Northeast. Did you have a hard time with it in the snow? I thought it would be OK since it is front wheel drive and my car now is a rear wheel drie. But maybe I should go for an AWD.
  • patentcad1patentcad1 Member Posts: 69
    400 miles on my new RDX (base, no tech pkg). 19-20mpg in mixed driving. The car does get 22-23mpg hwy, 16-18 city, pretty close to the EPA estimates. And Acuras are well known for ticking up 1-3 mpg in fuel economy once the engines break in. My TL did (2004). All this sturm and drang over this car being a gas guzzler is rather preposterous if you compare it to other AWD wagons and small SUV's. See the November issue of Consumer Reports which compares cars like the Volvo XC-90, BMW 325ix wagon, Subaru Outback, etc. The SUV's average 15-16mpg overall, the small AWD wagons about 20. I'm getting closer to 20mpg so far. With performance that blows most of those cars away (closer to a Porsche Cayenne than a Volvo XC-90). For less money.

    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 : ).
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    Thanks for the report -- it's good to hear a positive one for a change -- but at least have a little sympathy for people getting 12-13mpg who are NOT driving the vehicle hard. I would be quite dissapointed if that were me!
  • patentcad1patentcad1 Member Posts: 69
    That's just the thing. I don't buy this 'not driving the vehicle hard' stuff. That's VERY easy to do with a turbo. Driving it easy means keeping the revs under 4000 95% of the time. And that's not too hard to do if you can read a tachometer. Unless there is some staggering difference between individual RDX units there's really no other explaination. I'm also very confident that lower octane fuel than 93 will SLAM the fuel economy on this car - and I have my reasons.
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    The thing is, I can whale on a similar turbo powered vehicle and never do much worse than 18mpg (it's about 3700 lbs and can hit 60 slightly faster than the RDX). So at best, the RDX is a serious gas pig in spirited driving, compared to similar vehicles. 12-14mpg is seriously crappy no matter what the scenario. But I do believe the people who say they are going easy on the throttle, especially if they are trying for better 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.
  • patentcad1patentcad1 Member Posts: 69
    This is all car weenie static fellas.

    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?
  • patentcad1patentcad1 Member Posts: 69
    One other point: just about ANY large car will get 10-14mpg if you continuously hammer on it. How often will an average driver really mash their gas pedal during their regular driving? <10% of the time. 20% of the time if they need anger management classes. Any more than that and they fall into the reckless aggressive driver category. Just something to consider.

    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.
  • idridr Member Posts: 4
    I agree that it is not driving style b/c soooo many have posted that it has to do with the way individuals drive but I like many others drive the same as my other cars and consistantly have not gotten better than 15 mpg! I'm driving the same and I'm also filling up and calculating the amt of gas and milage driven in both my cars. Therefore, the car just drinks gas like no tomorrow.

    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!
  • patentcad1patentcad1 Member Posts: 69
    I suppose we can agree that it's one of two possible reasons:

    &#149; 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.

    &#149; 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.
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    Actually, it's fairly typical for the first tank from the dealer to give poor average MPG because of a lot of zero MPG idle events experienced by the vehicle during inspection/delivery. This is almost a universal observation (which many people erroneously attribute to "break-in"). If you are serious about recording MPG on that first tank, fill it up immediately and reset the trip meter. Otherwise, don't even record that data.
  • patentcad1patentcad1 Member Posts: 69
    >>it's fairly typical for the first tank from the dealer to give poor average MPG because of a lot of zero MPG idle events experienced by the vehicle during inspection/delivery. This is almost a universal observation (which many people erroneously attribute to "break-in"). If you are serious about recording MPG on that first tank, fill it up immediately and reset the trip meter. Otherwise, don't even record that data.<<

    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....
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    If you're getting a lot worse mileage than what many owners are reporting, and without being aggressive, it would be a better idea to ask Acura about it. If even automags that usually flog the vehicles (more so if they are designed to behave like RDX) can report better mileage than what many are claiming is their experience, its a problem worth investigating. I see no reason for RDX in the hands of a casual driver to get that kind of mileage.

    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.
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    Did you reset the trip meter? That would have started the MPG average over (there will be an average tied to each trip meter).

    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....
  • shaolingolfershaolingolfer Member Posts: 28
    Can owners report their gas mileage based on real calculation using paper and pencil. Majority of the trip computer is definitely not accurate and over estimated. Reporting the computer display 25-26 mpg running 60mph really not telling me much at all.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    That would be true. The trip computer in my TL is definitely reading slightly (but less than 1 mpg) higher than my calculated mileage. But trip computer is still good enough for a decent estimate. Even manual calculation is not going to be 100% accurate.
  • patentcad1patentcad1 Member Posts: 69
    My trip computer just told me 19.4mpg. Actual was 18.6 mpg (combined driving) for the last tankful. I think that equates to 17-18 city, 22+ hwy. I think the car will improve when it breaks in. That's very competitive for most SUV's/AWD wagons of this type. Mostly slower. The RAV 4 does better, but who wants a RAV 4? The RDX is far nicer in a variety of important ways.

    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.
  • c_hunterc_hunter Member Posts: 4,487
    MPG is important to many people, and in a variety of ways. And just think how much more you'd like the RDX if the gas mileage were better -- it would be something to brag about rather than defend! If nothing else, it would be a positive aspect of the vehicle instead of being a neutral to negative aspect for some (and an open question for others).

    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).
Sign In or Register to comment.