Acura RDX

[regfootball]

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, 2006 by regfootball

[Cory Wolfe]

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...

[regfootball]

my wet dream was always to get an ATC 350x but I never got one.

[regfootball]

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, 2006 by regfootball

[siegen]

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, 2006 by siegen

[Sixty8panther]

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.

[regfootball]

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.

[regfootball]

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!