siegen

An SM600 to be exact. If you just want to see/hear it, go into the video until there's about 1:20 left (it counts down). Gotta love the Malibu ad (with last gen Accord in the background). :AH-HA_wink:

Every car looks goofy from that angle. I think the rear end sticks out a little too far.

Why exactly did it win?

Right... and the G6 doesn't look like a disproportioned jelly-bean. About the only thing you could nit-pick on the Accord if you really were looking for something to complain about would be the grille, and even then at least it doesn't look feminine like the G6. The Accord coupe does everything a coupe should do better than the G6. Now if you want to compare the G6 to the Solara, then you might have something.

What I meant was doing all three things at once. Each thing as itself is not astonishing. I take it the rear axle eats into the 3rd row seat room quite a bit... Whelp, time for GM to go unibody! :AH-HA_wink: :AH-HA_wink:

To add to my point, road and track compared the TL-S 3.5L to the IS350 and G35 3.5L engines (both DOHC, the GR engine being much newer as well). They found the TL-S engine to be "by far the smoothest" and that it "revs effortlessly, providing seamless power delivery from idle all the way to its 6800-rpm redline."

They drove it 40% city, 60% hwy, and it returned 19.3mpg (a bit lacking from the 21/22 rating). It's only 887 miles, which isn't nearly enough to get a good idea of what the vehicle will achieve over its lifetime, but that hasn't stopped you from criticizing the RDX's test-drive mileage. :AH-HA_wink: For towing capability, passenger hauling, and mileage, there is nothing equal to the Tahoe hybrid, except maybe a diesel minivan.

Your point? 5-60 is less in the X3 as well. Here are C&D's times, which are slower than R&T, but unfortunately R&T hasn't tested an X3. RDX 0-60: 6.5s 5-60: 7.0s X3 0-60: 7.0s 5-60: 7.5s Luxury features add weight, and the RDX weighs a lot more than the Forester and likely much more than the new Forester as well. But just for the heck of it, here are C&D's times for the Forester: Forester 0-60: 5.9s 5-60: 7.3s Not surprising that it's faster, being 600 lbs lighter and lower profile. But that 5-60 time doesn't seem quite as impressive, maybe Subaru needs to work on their low-rpm turbo response.

R&T tested the RDX at 6.3 second 0-60 and 14.8 second 1/4. About as fast as the 3.5L RAV4, but then the RDX will run circles around the RAV4 in the handling department. And more importantly, the RDX is faster than the BMW X3, which is its intended competition, not the RAV4 or CX-7. It also handles better despite the Michelin Pilots that Honda loves to put on all their vehicles. If the RDX were 10 grand cheaper, you would just have a CR-V. The RDX has many luxury features and is a complete package. It is priced just right, but it fills a very small niche so it won't have as many buyers as the economy crossovers. I think you're confusing a good buy with a purchase made mostly based on perception and image. The luxury features and quality of luxury features that you buy for the money presents an incredibly good value in any Acura. Using an older engine design and a cheaper drivetrain layout makes offering more features all the easier. Unfortunately Acura will need to make some big strategy changes soon, as the formula that they've held to for over 20 years doesn't quite work anymore.

So what exactly are you arguing? That the RDX must suck regardless of performance data because Honda has no production turbo experience? Or, a V6 would be preferable to a turbo-4 regardless of who built it? Because a turbo-6 in a large Explorer doesn't sound like it's going to be amazing or anything better than a V8. But then since it has a snazzy name like EcoBoost it must be awesome.

We've been over this before and you didn't learn. You have yourself said that auto journalists often achieve poor mileage because they're incredibly rough on the cars. If you read the RDX review (I have posted quotes from it before but won't waste my time now), they took the RDX onto mountain roads and were probably spending much of their time at WOT. If the RDX achieves 13mpg at full throttle then I'd say that's pretty good wouldn't you? How do you think they drove the Escalade? Do you think they drove it in a similar fashion? Not if they value their lives. I'm going off of what real people have posted on fueleconomy.gov and what I've read on forums, and the RDX achieves high teens, even low 20's in real world normal use. That is normal for this vehicle, and is right inline with what the X3 and CX-7 get. Honda's V6 engines achieve average peak performance, that is true. But like I said above, peak performance isn't all there is to an engine. And you know this, but refuse to concede any point for whatever reason. How do Honda's 4cyl engines lack torque? Care to compare a 2.4L Honda 4cyl to a 2.4L 4cyl from any other manufacturer? They achieve equal or better torque given an equal comparison. I don't care to track down dyno charts so here are really quick numbers: Accord 2.4L 161TQ @ 4300rpm (177hp model) 162TQ @ 4400rpm (190hp model) Malibu 2.4L 160TQ @ 4500rpm G6 2.4L 156 TQ @ 5000rpm CR-V 2.4L 161TQ @ 4200rpm VUE 2.4L 161TQ @ 5100rpm The only 2.4L's that made more torque @ GM required Premium fuel.

What a useless bed. A real truck like the Tundra would fit the whole snowmobile with the tailgate closed.

Say no to bump jumping!

Acura's response is nothing out of the ordinary. What do you expect them to say? They are naturally working on it behind the scenes. They know where they are and where they want to be. We aren't talking about Toyota here, who are undoubtedly full of themselves at this point. You DO understand there's more to a powertrain than just its peak power or torque output. The 11 year old SOHC J V6 still gets exceptional fuel economy while delivering equivalent power through the whole rev range, and doing so very smoothly and quietly. And it's inexpensive to produce compared to a DOHC V6. Lack of V8's in production cars means they have no exceptional engines then. Or maybe they choose not to produce V8's (or V10's) for other reasons. Because they certainly don't have any problem producing some very for non-production use. What's all the talk going around about Cadillac using more V6's and less V8's? You're still whining about the RDX achieving high teens for mileage? Give it a break. It gets the same mileage as the AWD CX-7, while being considerably faster and packed with luxury features. SH-AWD can bias torque between front and rear wheels, and transfer up to 70% of torque to one rear wheel. In addition, it can overdrive a rear wheel to increase rotation, which is not something a purely mechanical system could do.

I would hope they do so knowingly. But then there are the people who buy a Toyota thinking "wow, Toyota makes like 85% of their cars here, omg!". But that isn't so much a problem with our economy as it is with deceptive marketing. There are the people who refuse to buy American due to bad experiences in the past. Just because GM is back on track now doesn't mean all those people are going to warm over right away. It takes time, and until then we can't expect consumers to buy a different vehicle other than what they want merely to support our workforce. Our government needs to step up and get tougher on international trade. The problem is, it's going to drive the cost of goods up (at least in the short term), and with most people being short-sighted that isn't going to go over very well. So how does one fix the problem?

Why should some random person have to consider what you pay in taxes when they make a vehicle buying decision? You are not the only one being taxed. When I fill up my car at the gas station, I don't call the people who drive up in SUV's and trucks @ssholes because their excessive use of gas is affecting how much I pay for gas in my economy car.

$6 trillion trade deficit, where did you get that number? When it comes to a product that is produced nearly identically both overseas and here, I think it is not a bad idea to pay a little more for a U.S.-made product. But when it comes to cars, where the product itself is not the same, not buying American is not wrong; it is in fact, American, as we are free to choose. You can blame our government for not doing a great job balancing our trade, but you can't blame consumers or foreign automakers.

D'oh! (as the liftgate falls on them) I don't believe Toyota sold 600k '04, '05, and '06 Sienna's, did they? They sold 160k in 2006 and 2005. Unless they sold 280k in 2004, I don't see how that works.

It's probably also a result of the owner preferring to drive the Bimmer most of the time :AH-HA_wink:

An extreme understatement. I would be hard pressed to find something more bland and boring anywhere, even at toyota.com. Comments like these are not uncharacteristic of a troll. Comparing the CR-V to this turbocharged Forester is similar to comparing a Lancer to an Evolution. Many previous attempts have been made to show how much more muscular and nimble the Forester is than the CR-V, and have shown obviously (and not something anybody needed convincing of) that the Forester is designed with a different purpose in mind. And besides, the CR-V has more character in just a few inches of its oddly grille-adjacent headlight than the new Forester does on the entire front end. I liked the old Forester, and I liked last year's Impreza. Subaru is blanderdizing their entire lineup, and it's a shame.

I highly doubt the wires run directly under the foot wells. They probably run along the side like they do in all of their cars they've ever made. The water would likely leak through the carpet and to the side, then get into the tunnel where the wires run. Why it would be any different in these 34,000 cars I don't know. Perhaps the wires aren't sheathed like they should be.

Dealerships from all makes vary greatly in customer service, they are privately owned after all. If he calls Honda directly he will be taken care of. My local GM dealership (and nonlocal dealership) are just as bad as you describe, although I'm sure there are good ones out there.

Most PC towers are hideous, including that one (no offense :AH-HA_wink:). I would love to find a nice case similar to the Power Mac case. Lian Li makes a nice one, the V600B, but it isn't functional enough. There is an imitation Power Mac case available by a noname brand, but it is extremely poor quality. If only Lian Li made the V600B in a regular size mid-tower configuration. Btw, I use a highly modified Cooler Master C5. Yes. They in fact have dual-quad core systems. Go price them up.

Do you use IE and is that how you received the virus? Or did you open an executable file? Chances are if your program detected that one virus, there are likely many more, plus other malicious software. Acquire an XP-SP2 disk and start over, it is the only way to get rid of it all completely. Once you have a clean install, use Firefox or go through the tweaks to disable IE's problems (MS calls them "features"). And above all, stop lookin at the porn!!

I am hesitant to fully accept Ethanol. I am planning on doing a report on it for my Biology class, and I'm going to focus on the emissions side of Ethanol. As of right now, I have only heard various sources loosely quote that Ethanol burning has close to as harmful emissions as gasoline. I hope I can find solid evidence on it either way. I don't see internal combustion engines as the future, regardless of if they're burning hydrogen or ethanol. Electric motors seem to be more effective for the size and weight. Think about it, electric motors have only seen real widespread use in cars for less than a decade. Imagine if they had 100 years of development and full market implementation.