Chronic Car Buyers Anonymous

anonymousposts · June 2004

It has come to my attention that I am not the only one who goes car shopping more often than I go clothes shopping. Anyone have any ideas why?

Maybe we can form a support group to talk each other out of continuing the madness.

zodiac2004 · September 2005

Am I the only one who thinks the 6-speed would be better suited to a higher-revving engine like a Civic or an Accord 4-cyl, rather than the Accord V6.

Is the Accord V6 with 6-speed costlier than the 5-sp auto ?

andre1969 · September 2005

like it would be overkill. Usually it's smaller, overmatched engines that tend to benefit from additional gears. I guess you could argue the 12-13 speed trannies that big trucks use, but when you consider the weight they have to move, they're probably still overmatched! For instance, I had two dump truck loads of gravel delivered last week for a garage/driveway I'm building. Each load was 14 cubic yards, and they told me a cubic yard is about 3,000 lb. So that's 42,000 lb just for the load, and then I'd guess the truck itself must weigh around 7 or 8 tons...

ghulet · September 2005

...for the Accord EX V6 6MT is the same as the automatic, $27,300 MSRP. Really, I'd just as soon have a manual, cloth 4-cylinder EX and save $5-6k, especially if it were my own money (either is a pipe dream at this point); I don't know where I'd use 245hp, except on rare occasion (and I'd get myself in trouble).

andre1969 · September 2005

for a new car, I'm actually thinking of a fairly basic Accord coupe! Nothing too fancy...4-cylinder, automatic, nice sound system, and a sunroof. But then, my latest C&D comes, complete with a fold out Charger centerfold, and I get lusty again!

Still, I'm going to hold out as long as I can. The last thing I want right now is a car payment. Plus, they ran into some problems in the construction of my garage, so I'm sure it's going to rack up the price. When they drilled the holes for the foundation, up from the ground came a' bubblin' something, but it wasn't crude, black gold, or Texas Tea!

durability05 · September 2005

I forgot one too, a used 1987 BMW 325 bought it in 99, too many worn out bushings, gave me a bad impression on BMW's.
So that makes it 18 cars total for me. We are taking a break for the next 4 years, even if the ZX4 is almost paid for. All our 3 vehicles seemed well suited for their driving duties, so they will not be replaced anytime soon. It was exciting buying cars almost every year, but we got two small kids to raise for the next decade and longer. Also sales tax over here is 7.75%, by my not buying as often I think I will save $10,000 in taxes over 15 years.

kyfdx · September 2005

Almost had to change your name to Jed...

michaellno · September 2005

Plus, I can't imagine Honda making more than a few thousand of these, so availability would be scarce.

I'm with you -- 160HP with a 5-speed might be all one needs. If only I could convince my wife to go along with me!

anon, since you seem to be the resident Honda expert, is there a difference in the EPA numbers for the V6 stick vs. auto?

robr2 · September 2005

...up from the ground came a' bubblin' something, but it wasn't crude, black gold, or Texas Tea!

Was it leaching field?? :sick:

andre1969 · September 2005

ironically, there's this really bad stank coming from the sewer that cuts diagonally across my property. Luckilly, it's way back in the woods, about 300 feet from the house and about 200 feet from the construction site, so I only smell it when I walk back there...it gets the dog really excited. But that has nothing to do with my drilling, thankfully. Basically, they just hit the water table, and 16 of the 18 holes they dug filled up with water.

My concrete guy has a county engineer lined up, hopefully coming out tomorrow to give us guidance on where to go from here, and what needs to be done to pass inspection. Hey, wait a minute...wasn't Mr. Kimball on "Green Acres" a county engineer? Uh-oh, I might be screwed! :surprise:

Oh yeah, there is an old septic tank in the yard, but it was disabled when the sewer came through back in 1978. I'm thinking (hoping) that the last of it has finally collapsed and been filled in. At least none of the dump trucks, back hoes, or tractor trailers that have been in my yard have hit it yet! :shades:

mark156 · September 2005

I have to ask, why do people want a six speed? By the time you are rowing through the gears, it's time to stop again. I'm sure my leg would get awful tired if I was in traffic!

My E430 and ML500 both have tiptronic.... so, I can "kinda" shift like a manual if I want and NO clutch!

Mark

corvette · September 2005

I'm not anony, but I'll reply anyway :P

I assume the numbers on the 2006 six-speed sedan will be the same as the 2005 six-speed coupe (the numbers were identical on the coupe and sedan for 2005):
Automatic 21/30
Six-speed 20/30
Looks like there's no discernable mileage advantage to the stick shift--nor is it cheaper to purchase, although it should be cheaper to maintain, if you don't wear out the clutch.

zodiac2004 · September 2005

IMHO the only reason to have 6-speed over 5-speed is to have a wider spread of gear ratios - lower first gear and a taller top gear. So you get better acceleration and better fuel economy.

If the ratio spread isn't greater the purpose is somewhat defeated.

kyfdx · September 2005

I agree... I'm always hoping that 6th gear will be a super-overdrive for highway cruising... but, almost without fail, it is the same ratio as the previous model's 5th gear...

I've never felt the need for another gear during acceleration with a 5-speed, but I've had lots of cars that I wish had another gear on top....

regards,
kyfdx
Host-Prices Paid Forums

lemmer · September 2005

I agree completely.

Doesn't the Corvette do it your way with an ultra low 6th? Maybe a Viper, too? Do any normal cars have a super-overdrive? (sorry I reused the complicated technical term "super-overdrive")

andre1969 · September 2005

that Honda uses in the Accord has two overdrive gears. 3rd gear is your 1.00:1 ratio (or "Direct Drive" as they used to call it in the old days). I think 4th gear is somewhere around 0.75:1 and 5th gear is around 0.52:1.

It has a fairly short axle though, of 4.44:1, so in 5th gear your OTGR (Overall Top Gear Ratio) is around 2.30:1. Fairly tall and loafy, but not "super tall". For instance, back in the late 70's and early 80's, bigger GM cars with 3-speed automatics often had 2.41:1 and even 2.14:1 axles. My '79 NYer has a 2.45:1 rear, and in '81 Chrysler switched all of their V-8 RWD non-police cars to tall 2.26:1 axles.

In the 80's, when 4-speed overdrive trannies started to become popular, family-type cars with the Chevy 305 usually had a 2.56:1 rear, while cars with the Olds 307 usually had a 2.73:1. Overdrive gear on that tranny though is 0.667:1, giving you an OTGR of 1.71:1 on the Chevy and 1.82:1 on the Olds engine. I'd imagine that would be considered pretty tall.

kyfdx · September 2005

...that the automatics have a higher final drive ratio, because if you need to downshift, all you have to do is press the accelerator..... So, the car never feels under-powered...

Alternatively, with a manual-shift that had the same final-drive, it would feel sluggish.... Not that I would care.... that is what a manual is for... to shift when you need it!!

andre1969 · September 2005

used to have a mid-90's Maxima with a 5-speed, and he griped about the gearing. He still gripes about it to this day because the axle in the 5-speed was different from the automatic, and got a bit less mpg on the highway. His rationale was that you buy a stick shift for improved fuel economy, so this was just "wrong" to him.

Oh, I should point out the guy's an engineer. And a bit of a hyper-miler. But still, how many people buy a Maxima with a stick for fuel economy? :confuse:

lemmer · September 2005

I don't buy a stick for fuel economy, but I expect it as a bonus. I think the guy is correct. It is just "wrong" for a stick to get worse economy than an automatic.

nippononly · September 2005

might be, however, that it is a lot faster accelerating than the automatic. Either way, I'll take the stick! :-)

I believe Honda's website gives the same mileage numbers for auto and stick for Accord V-6? And you get the extra sporty stuff on the V-6 MT for the same price as the automatic that doesn't have it.

I am with the crowd above though - with the gas prices this high, I would take the extra 5 points (rated 26/34) you get by going with a 4-cyl 5-speed, which is up 6 to 166 hp this year, BTW. :-)

I am VERY good at getting myself in trouble with fast cars. :-(
Gotta buy the slower model just to save the speeding ticket penalties.

gee35coupe · September 2005

"Gotta buy the slower model just to save the speeding ticket penalties. "

That's the main reason I think I'm gonna buy an Element over the G35 when the Ody lease is up. I can't keep my Civic in legal speed ranges. There's no way I'd be able to drive a G35 and keep my driviing privelege. They really are tempting me though. i saw a cammercial with $227 lease payments on the Gee. Why don't they just park one in my driveway and leave it?

qbrozen · September 2005

*sigh*
i'm going tonight to take delivery of an '03 Lincoln LS.
Giving up my Z.

I'll still have 4 cars on the stable .... for now. This is mostly a money move. The LS is cheaper (go figure). If money is still a problem down the line, I'll have to sell the volvo.

qbrozen · September 2005

I feel the 350Z needs those 6 gears. could it do with 5? I'm sure it could. Just need to increase the size of the first 5. As it is, though, that 6th gear is necessary for decent mileage when cruising at 45 mph and over. I have gotten an average of 25 mpg since owning it, which I think is pretty good for the performance you get.

And as far as shifting too much ... only if the engine is too whimpy for a 6-speed. A car like the Z has plenty of torque that I am able to keep it in 3rd gear through most traffic jams (as long as i don't have to come to a complete stop).

hammen2 · September 2005

It is just "wrong" for a stick to get worse economy than an automatic.

But, as automatic trannies get more speeds/more R&D, and better TCM tuning, you'll find that, not only do they perform better than a stick (no missed shifts/shifting too early or late), their mileage is also getting better, to the point, in some cases, where they are in the same neighborhood as the manuals... there is still the weight penalty of an auto, but no clutch to replace.

Wonder if we'll see autostick or tapshift replace the manual alltogether? Wouldn't surprise me. But that would probably be available only on the top-end models (i.e. like Pontiac did with the last GTP), rather than the base/low-end models...

--Robert

stickguy · September 2005

test drove a TSX 6 speed at lunch today (one more toe in the water..). Drives real nice, but it is geared shorter than it needs to be. Engine has plenty of torque that it doesn't need to be wound out to keep up with traffic.

I found myself at least one gear higher than I would expect to be most of the time, and shifting at 4K rather than 3K just because the engine revved up so quickly. I believe the top gear RPMs were about the same as my 5 speed maxima was, about 2600-2700 @60. Much shorter than really needed for comfortable cruising.

IMO, the TSX gearing could be dropped at least 10% and it would still be quick and fun, but more relaxed and economical too.

I agree that 6th should be a cruiser gear. If I need to accelerate quick or hit a big hill, I can drop down to 5th. I buy a stick, so I must not mind shifting, plus the way it is now you whift all the time around town anyway!

As nice as the TSX was, if I decided to get something like that, I would probably save the 5K+ and get an Accord EXL 4 cyl 5 speed. Pretty much the same powerband up to 5K (which I rarely exceed anyway), but taller gearing and better mileage, and darn near all the same goodies.

That is, if the new CIvic doesn't push all my buttons for 18K, but there would still be those features missing (XM built in, power seat, etc.).

zodiac2004 · September 2005

Don't you get the feeling the manufacturers don't really want to improve fuel mileage. C'mon, 2700 rpm @ 60 mph in a 6-speed is a little too much.

Maybe they are trying to promote their hybrids by lowering the mileage of the gas only cars.

michaellno · September 2005

Well, the way I see it, Acura is the "luxury/sport" division, while Honda is the "everyday" division, so it doesn't surprise me to find out the TSX is geared a bit shorter than the Accord ... same engine, but tuned differently (200HP for the TSX vs. 166 (!) for the Accord).

When I had my Accord ('93 DX with a 5-speed, 125HP), I never felt it didn't have enough get up and go, even here in Colorado.

My Focus cruises at 70-75MPH at about 3100 RPM's on the tach; the wife's VUE, OTOH (V6 with a 5-speed auto) does the same speed at about 2200 RPM's.

andre1969 · September 2005

does sound a bit excessive, for top gear! FWIW that's about what my NYer would pull if I forced it to stay in second gear at 60 mph! Of course, that's a totally different breed of car from something sporty like a TSX, but still, I'd think that 6th gear would be an economy gear anyway. Might as well use those extra gears to get a good blend of power AND economy.

My Intrepid hits 2700 rpm in top gear round 81 mph (at least, doing the math...I know it hits 2000@60, 2500@75, and 3000@90)

paulhuang · September 2005

I currently own a 98 Maxima GXE 5-speed and feel that 5th gear could/should be taller. There is no reason why my car should get worse highway fuel economy than the automatic :mad:

The electronic governor kicks in at 112 MPH on my car (came with S-rated tires) and that is about 5500 RPM in 4th gear, 1K short of redline. I can have all the fun I want in gears 1-4 and have a tall 5th gear for fuel economy. Even a SE with a governor of 130 MPH still doesnt need 5th gear to be so short. Too bad Nissan didn't feel that way.

qbrozen · September 2005

but both of you guys are comparing vehicles with bigger engines to those with smaller ones. Due to the forces keeping a car from maintaining its speed, a certain amount of torque and horsepower are necessary to keep a car moving. A 4-cyl, low-power engine just can't keep a car cruising at high speed at low rpms.

Can some of these cars keep their speed at a lower rpm? Sure. Could a 100 hp 4-cyl keep its cruising speed at the same rpms as a 400 hp 8-cyl? Not likely.

andre1969 · September 2005

on your cruising speed and how much weight you have to move. For instance, if you had a 3000 lb car that you wanted to move along at 60 mph, then I'm sure a 100 hp 4-cyl would be able to do the same amount of revs as the V-8. It doesn't take much horsepower to do that. For instance, my Intrepid's 2.7 is only pulling 2000 rpm@60, and this is an engine that barely has any hp at the lower rpms. Now it would need to downshift if I needed to accelerate fast, or if a steep enough hill came up, but crusing along at a steady speed is no big deal.

And a TSX with the 2.4 has just as much hp as my '00 Intrepid, although it has about 24 less ft-lb of torque (166 versus 190). So it has 87% of the torque. And 93% of the weight (3230 lb versus 3471, according to Edmund's). So I would think that a TSX would be able to get by with a taller top gear, to give you better fuel economy in certain situations. You could always downshift if you needed the power.

andre1969 · September 2005

the Accord with a 4-cyl and 5-speed automatic will loaf along at around 2200-2300rpm@75 mph. So will an Altima with the 4-cyl/4-speed automatic. So I think that's an indication there that you really don't need a lot of power to hit your "typical" cruising speed.

stickguy · September 2005

also isn't "low powered". The brochure has an output graph, and it is putting out about 90% of peak torque from around 2K, so it really could have a taller 6th gear.

I experiment by seeing how it pulls from lower revs (say 1800K in top gear, which may be around 40 mph). If it pulls strong, it doesn't need to be running like a sewing machine at 60 mph.

My tC is a worse offender. The 2.4l Camry motor is basically a torque lump, but they have it geared like a Miata. No way i heck it needs to be turning 3K at 66 MPH. You could drop the revs at 75 by 1,000, and it would still never need to be downshifted to pull hills or pass.

corvette · September 2005

So will an Altima with the 4-cyl/4-speed automatic.

It's been a while, but I could have sworn it was higher than 22-2300 rpm at 75. 2700 maybe? Anyway, for whatever reason, Nissans and Mazdas as a whole get worse fuel mileage than Hondas and Toyotas. The highway rating on the 4cyl/4-speed automatic Altima is 29, compared to the Accord and Camry's 34 (the Camry/Accord have an extra gear in the automatic). The Mazda6's mileage is nothing to write home about, either. You can make the same comparison with similar results among the Civic, Corolla, Sentra, and Mazda3.

When I had a (gasoline) Volkswagen, people always asked if I got good mileage. From what I can gather looking at the fueleconomy.gov site, the only thing that VW has produced in the past two decades that got "good" mileage compared to its competitors are their diesels.

I have only driven an automatic TSX, which felt slow, although it probably wasn't objectively slow. The interior was kind of chintzy.

andre1969 · September 2005

I'm pretty sure it was below 2500. Reason this sticks in my mind is because I remember test-driving an '02 Altima, and thinking how eerily quiet it was at higher speeds. I remember looking down and noticing that it was revving lower than my Intrepid at 75, so that would put it below 2500 rpm.

Too bad Nissan didn't give the 4-cyl a 5-speed automatic. The 3.5 V-6 has a 5-speed auto, and it gets 30 on the EPA's highway cycle! 1mpg BETTER than the 4-cyl! That ain't right! :mad:

You want to hear a REALLY bad case of over-revving, though? My buddy's '98 Tracker, with a 1.6 4-cyl and 3-speed automatic, pulls something like 3500 rpm at 55 mph! No wonder that thing always sounds like it's going fast, even when it isn't! 55 mph sure SEEMS a lot faster in that thing than it does in my battlecruisers! :surprise:

It gets horrible highway mileage, too. I doubt if he could break 25 mpg.

bumpy · September 2005

is about what my Accent does. It likes hanging those rpm's, being a 1.5L SOHC 4-banger. My '92 SE-R pulls around 3000 rpm at 60 mph, but the SR20 is basically loafing along then. :shades:

On the other hand, my GMC with a 4.10 rear end also pulls around 2700 rpm at 60 mph. :sick: Unlike the Hyundai, the 351 V6 doesn't like that high revving at all, and exacts its revenge at the gas station.

FWD transmissions force designers to make some choices: optimize the gearing for fuel economy or performance. There's not enough room in the transaxle case for really tall overdrives or really short 1st or 2nd gears, so they have to make the choice in the final gear and give up one or the other.

andre1969 · September 2005

my '57 DeSoto should be doing around 2400 rpm@60 and around 3000 rpm@75. It has 8.55x14 bias ply tires that have a diameter of 28.1 inches. The standard rear in the Firedome was a 3.31:1, although I'm sure there were optional ratios.

I always thought that was fairly short for a rear end in a car like this, but I've heard that the Hemi is an engine that does like to rev. Plus, they weren't all that concerned about fuel economy back then

ghulet · September 2005

...........Due to the forces keeping a car from maintaining its speed, a certain amount of torque and horsepower are necessary to keep a car moving. A 4-cyl, low-power engine just can't keep a car cruising at high speed at low rpms.

I dunno, qbrozen. While I had a '90 Mazda Protege LX (125hp DOHC, 5-speed manual), turned like 3200rpm at 70mph, quite annoying, my ex had an '84 Accord (~100hp, 5-speed manual) that absolutely loafed, something like 2000rpm at 70mph. Clearly, the Pro had a lot more power on tap all over the rev range, and you had to downshift the Accord if you wanted to pass rapidly, but I'd rather have that with at least the option of quiet and decent mileage. The Pro drove me nuts on the highway. Long and short of it, hardly any power is needed to keep a car cruising at higher speeds once it gets there.

.

nippononly · September 2005

funny example of shifting perspectives: first time I ever drove the TSX I thought "adequate power down low, zings once you get the revs up". But the last time I drove one, I had just stepped out of a test drive of the A3 - 40 more lb-ft available from 1500 rpm on - and the TSX felt like it had the torque of a wet spaghetti noodle (which is to say, not much!).

I think that car needs to stay revving to maintain that "power at the drop of the hammer" feeling, although perhaps the gears are too closely spaced.

Now consider this: the '06 Accord V-6 MT. SAME price, 20% MORE power, 25% MORE torque, SAME FUEL ECONOMY RATING, slightly bigger and less sporty, but with most of the doodads the TSX has (as long as you can learn to "settle" for the Honda badge!). The Accord V-6 is sporty enough that if it were me I would leave behind the somewhat low-torque TSX, and for the same money pick up the Accord.

ghulet · September 2005

corvette · September 2005

I may be thinking of the approximate RPM at 91 MPH, which was the maximum speed you can set on the cruise control... (Which was actually 87-88 after correcting for speedometer error.)

anonymousposts · September 2005

can pull 80 @ 3000 RPM. At that speed you can easily pass slower traffic without downshifting. If someone is in front of you trying to block traffic you can throw it in 3rd and it will give you a good amount of oomph for passing in a hurry. In normal driving it's really not necessary to take it above 3000 RPM when driving and/or shifting. Keeping it below 3000RPM also make it a gas-miser. Add to that the comfort of the heated and power driver's seat, XM radio, sunroof, dual-zone climate and you have one awesome car for $22,000.

With that said though I still like that new Civic.

stickguy · September 2005

pricing is now out. Looks like about 18.8k for an EX 5 speed stick. I think that at MSRP that is about 4K below an Accord EX cloth.

Now just need some supply so I can combine a decent discout with the (supposed) high resale of a tC and I might have to pull the trigger.

Then I can drive my wife nuts complaining that I should have gotten the Accord since it is biger, etc....

One thing I ain't getting is a Camry. I have a loaner today (brand new LE 4 cyl AT). Real quiet and smooth/isolated, but it almost puts me to sleep with the isolated driving experience and numb steering. Frankly, not much different than the '05 Impala I drove last week, but the seats were a little better.

qbrozen · September 2005

Are you sure about that 2k rpms at 70?? I've NEVER had any car do that. I have 2 5-speed automatics in the driveway now (one V8 and one v6) and both of those cruise at higher rpms. My Z in 6th at 70 even cruised higher (around 2700, i believe).

Of course, in addition to power being a factor, also gearing, aerodynamics, and tire size can affect how easily a vehicle can maintain its speed.

Was the accord able to maintain its speed uphill? For instance, in my old '87 4runner 5-speed, I couldn't get up the Verazzano bridge without downshifting, or else I would steadily loose speed even with the pedal pinned to the floor. the 116 hp 4-cyl, 30 inch tires, and horrible aerodynamics all played a part in that vehicle not being able to maintain speed in high gear.

jcat707 · September 2005

The V6 Explorer goes 2K at 70. Or at least the 03 that I have driven and ridden in countless times does.

andre1969 · September 2005

that my old man's '03 Regal would do around 2000 rpm@70. At least, it's only doing around 1600 or so @60. Of course, it's also got a relatively large engine. And I'm sure my old LeSabre and Monte would be pulling around 2000 rpm@70, if that, although they wouldn't be able to hold overdrive on a long hill. If you got a good running start and to up to 85+ before you hit the upgrade (the speedos pegged at 85) you might be able to make it up a long grade with enough momentum so that the tranny wouldn't have to downshift, and only losing a little speed.

My '79 NYer would only be doing around 2100 rpm@70. That's also a bit of a sweet spot for it, since it hits peak torque around 2400 rpm, so it has no trouble taking the long grades without having to downshift. It only has a 3-speed though, no overdrive. In fact, I don't think it would downshift at that speed, no matter how hard you stomped it. Although downshifting it to second at 70 mph would still ony put it to around 3,000 rpm.

ghulet · September 2005

.......but I know that Accord always felt docile and quiet, even at relatively high speeds. But since it was low on power, I'm sure you had to downshift to get it to make any 'real' power, including going up hills, etc. I'm sure the low gearing was one of the main factors in its stellar gas mileage, though. Lemme do some research and get back to you on the RPMS/MPH thing. It also helps that those second-gen Accord sedans (his was a base '84, IIRC) only weigh 2337 lbs (compared to a modern Accord DX at 3058). Oh, and it had 86hp.

michaellno · September 2005

I owned an '85 Accord LX hatchback when I got out of college. I used that 86HP to get me from California to Michigan and back on vacation once. I don't remember what kind of RPM's it had when cruising, but I do remember that the best mileage we got was just over 43MPG, heading west on I-40 in NM. I know it was downhill; I wonder if it was downwind as well?

andre1969 · September 2005

my college buddy's '80 Accord hatchback, which I think had a 1.6 with like 72 hp, and a 3-speed automatic, was actually pretty quiet at highway speeds. That thing died way back in 1989, so my memory's a bit fuzzy on it and I don't remember what kind of revs it pulled. However, we went to Busch Gardens in it once, and I drove it. Got up to 80 mph on some interstate stretches, and while it took awhile to get there, it didn't seem all that loud. And it wouldn't keep up on a long hill, unless you got enough of a running start.

I have a feeling that it was revving pretty high, but because it was a fairly smooth, sophisticated engine for the time, it didn't draw too much attention to itself. Didn't really squeak or rattle, either. My '80 Malibu would've had less engine noise at 80 mph, and been much more responsive, but let's not talk about the squeaks and rattles!

bobst · September 2005

We got our 2005 EX Accord 5-sp stick with cloth interior for $20700 OTD in March. That included the Virginia 3.1% sales tax and a couple options (2 extra keys, mud flaps, pin stripe).

bobst · September 2005

We have a 2003 Acura RSX with a manual 5-sp. The higher prices S version has a 6-sp.

I looked at the gear ratios in the sales brochure. The 5-sp and 6-sp have the same gear ration in first gear. The ratio of my 5th gear is the same as the ratio of the 6th gear in the 6-sp.

Therefore, gears 2,3, and 4 in my tranny are replaced by gears 2,3,4, and 5 in the 6-sp tranny. Sounds kind of silly to me.

I can see the point of a 6th gear with a tall ratio for a car that goes over 120 mph. That doea not include me and my precious little RSX. What a neat car!!!

Chronic Car Buyers Anonymous

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles