October 31, 200619 yr I'm impressed, it's the first time I ever seen you say anything good about a Honda, see what a difference it makes to see the product in person as opposed to jumping to conclusions based on internet photos 210604[/snapback] my Honda ATC 110 was well made, had great plastics, and handled well but in the final analysis it lacked torque like all hondas do i still wouldn't buy a nice CUV if it only makes 13.2 mpg and costs 10 grand too much, and i want 6 cylinders too Edited October 31, 200619 yr by regfootball
October 31, 200619 yr Wait... Honda ATC 110? You're talking about an 80's three-wheeler? In that case, my Honda Sportrax 300EX had more torque than I ever needed, and moreso than any other ATV I've riden, excluding my cousin's Raptor 660... but thats double the engine, for all the more torque it had over mine. Also, it was the most reliable thing me or my parents have ever owned. So far, my 170k Millenia is the second most reliable. Weird. But, Ah... I miss my 300EX. Anyways, back to the RDX...
December 13, 200619 yr Edmunds RDX test Non perfetto EPA fuel economy estimates are 19 city/23 highway but those figures are a bit optimistic. We averaged 11 mpg a citta and 17 a l'autostrada but we were admittedly heavy-footed. The turbo boost is just too much fun to drive conservatively. Please note: The RDX drinks premium 91 octane gasoline. like spinal taps says, ours goes to ELEVEN. SAD! FRICKING SAD! Edited December 13, 200619 yr by regfootball
December 13, 200619 yr Edmunds RDX test like spinal taps says, ours goes to ELEVEN. SAD! FRICKING SAD! 226954[/snapback] Dude, didn't you already post a link to that same comparison a while back? Sure if you are heavy footed with a turbocharged vehicle you're going to get poor mileage. Turbo's drink up the gasoline when you're driving around WOT in boost all the time like the editor's undoubtedly were. Edit: Oh, I'm sorry, it was Variance who posted it 3 months ago here. Edited December 13, 200619 yr by siegen
December 13, 200619 yr Hood prop on a luxury car. :rotflmao: 194846[/snapback] In the past I never gave this all that much thought Fly, but I am starting to agree with you... if my 1984 Datsun econobox can have 2 pneumatic prop struts on its hood than there's absolutely no excuse for a 2006 Infiniti or 2007 Acura SUV.
December 13, 200619 yr In the past I never gave this all that much thought Fly, but I am starting to agree with you... if my 1984 Datsun econobox can have 2 pneumatic prop struts on its hood than there's absolutely no excuse for a 2006 Infiniti or 2007 Acura SUV. 226975[/snapback] an 11 mpg compact luxury suv with prop rod.
December 13, 200619 yr Dude, didn't you already post a link to that same comparison a while back? Sure if you are heavy footed with a turbocharged vehicle you're going to get poor mileage. Turbo's drink up the gasoline when you're driving around WOT in boost all the time like the editor's undoubtedly were. Edit: Oh, I'm sorry, it was Variance who posted it 3 months ago here. 226963[/snapback] oops, thought it was a new test, it was on edmunds front page. 11! ours goes to 11!
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.