rt test in magazine

[chris56]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4330508.html?nav=RSS20&src=syn&dom=yah_buzz&mag=pop

intresting that they offer now a three-position windshield..
..what i wanted ..
chris

[BumbleBee]

Thanks for the article!

[Lamonster]

They may have been a little too critical in some areas but they printed what they felt. I don't think the motor is as taxed as they think it is, you just have to get use to running it.

[BLACK WIDOW]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4330508.html?nav=RSS20&src=syn&dom=yah_buzz&mag=pop

intresting that they offer now a three-position windshield..
..what i wanted ..
chris

I really like the RT concept; However, the down side to the RT will be the engine. I am not saying that the engine isn't adequate, or that it is some kind of a dog or anything else negative; I'm just saying that if you are going to run with the big dogs like the Goldwing or the BMW you better get on their playing field engine wise. I know how most of my Goldwing friends think and they are very proud of that big smooth powerful 1.8 L engine that will deliver 40-45 mpg (on 87 octane) with 2 up and fully loaded at 70-80 mph, with enough reserve power to embarrass most anything on the road. I know BRP has the engines that will compete or even top the competition. I think that is to come later and before the Goldwing crowd or BMW riders see that; There won't be any mass changes made to the RT. I think that power with good economy is a strong selling point even if some say you don't need it.nojoke IMHO!



Michael:doorag:

[Lamonster]

I really like the RT concept; However, the down side to the RT will be the engine. I am not saying that the engine isn't adequate, or that it is some kind of a dog or anything else negative; I'm just saying that if you are going to run with the big dogs like the Goldwing or the BMW you better get on their playing field engine wise. I know how most of my Goldwing friends think and they are very proud of that big smooth powerful 1.8 L engine that will deliver 40-45 mpg (on 87 octane) with 2 up and fully loaded at 70-80 mph, with enough reserve power to embarrass most anything on the road. I know BRP has the engines that will compete or even top the competition. I think that is to come later and before the Goldwing crowd or BMW riders see that; There won't be any mass changes made to the RT. I think that power with good economy is a strong selling point even if some say you don't need it.nojoke IMHO!



Michael:doorag:
:agree:
More power is a good thing but it is what it is at this point and it wasn't that long ago that a 750cc was the biggest motor you could get. If we're taking a vote I would vote for more power in the RT and the RS. :2thumbs:

[BLACK WIDOW]

:agree:
More power is a good thing but it is what it is at this point and it wasn't that long ago that a 750cc was the biggest motor you could get. If we're taking a vote I would vote for more power in the RT and the RS. :2thumbs:

Yes, I remember those days well. I had one of the first Honda 750/ 4's back in the 70's. I thought I had bought a rocket.:D Couldn't keep chains on it though.nojoke

Michael:doorag:

[MarkLawson]

I really like the RT concept; However, the down side to the RT will be the engine. I am not saying that the engine isn't adequate, or that it is some kind of a dog or anything else negative; I'm just saying that if you are going to run with the big dogs like the Goldwing or the BMW you better get on their playing field engine wise. I know how most of my Goldwing friends think and they are very proud of that big smooth powerful 1.8 L engine that will deliver 40-45 mpg (on 87 octane) with 2 up and fully loaded at 70-80 mph, with enough reserve power to embarrass most anything on the road. I know BRP has the engines that will compete or even top the competition. I think that is to come later and before the Goldwing crowd or BMW riders see that; There won't be any mass changes made to the RT. I think that power with good economy is a strong selling point even if some say you don't need it.nojoke IMHO!



Michael:doorag:

I have a GL1800 & it has plenty of power, not doubt. I only wish that it got the gas mileage you referenced. Depending upon the type of riding I'm doing (in town running around, steady 55 mph or 75-85 mph two-up and pulling a trailer) I'll get anywhere from low 20's to low 40's. I usually average around the low 30's. Generally, when you start going above 70, if you can listen carefully, you'll almost hear what sounds like a toilet flushing above the engine as it drains your fuel tank. I've always guessed it's something like 1 mpg less for each mph over 70.

[Firefly]

A bit clueless I would say they are--- hardly requires 'deep pockets' compared to what else is on the market.

[3wheeldemon]

...if you can listen carefully, you'll almost hear what sounds like a toilet flushing above the engine as it drains your fuel tank...

Is it not the sucking sound of motorcycle manufacturing jobs going to Japan and Canada? :roflblack:

I agree with you and BLACK WIDOW (minus the MPG), the engine and transmission of the 1800 is amazing. But Honda is letting a big market wide open by not adressing the three-wheel market (I don't think third-party conversions are endorsed by Honda). The RT has two big advantages over any other trike: the two wheels up front drives safer and more enjoyable that the traditional trikes and the vehicle is designed from scratch as a three wheeler with full manufacturer warranty (only this year HD offered a full HD trike).

PS: the review sounded pretty objective to me, thanks for posting the link!

3WD

[BLACK WIDOW]

I have a GL1800 & it has plenty of power, not doubt. I only wish that it got the gas mileage you referenced. Depending upon the type of riding I'm doing (in town running around, steady 55 mph or 75-85 mph two-up and pulling a trailer) I'll get anywhere from low 20's to low 40's. I usually average around the low 30's. Generally, when you start going above 70, if you can listen carefully, you'll almost hear what sounds like a toilet flushing above the engine as it drains your fuel tank. I've always guessed it's something like 1 mpg less for each mph over 70.

I don't know about pulling a trailor, but never got any mileage in the 20's and usually in the 40's. The only sound I ever hear at 70 mph is the purr of that 6 cyl engine.:D

Michael:doorag:

[BLACK WIDOW]

A bit clueless I would say they are--- hardly requires 'deep pockets' compared to what else is on the market.

Like my grammy used to tell me.----Ya gets whach ye pay fur, son.:D

BTW--I love my Spyder and since I have had it the Wing sits in the garage.nojoke