Things I Dislike About my RDX
11-30-2007, 04:59 AM
#41
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mlb11
Unfortunately, I do not see any cited studies in your response ThePlainsman? This is just an opinion piece with no evidence.
So your main argument is that because much of the US receives more hours of daylight during the winter it is unnecessary to have DRLs? I don't think this holds much credibility since in the long nights of high latitude winters you would not rely on DRLs anyway, but headlights.
Of course the reverse would be true in the summer when the large amount of daylight in high latitude locations would create conditions where DRLs are used more than lower latitude locations. In addition, lighting conditions in Scandinavian summers are similar to lower latitudes because of a much higher sun angle (when compared to winter sun angles).
Lower sun angles might create a somewhat darker condition in the higher latitude locations in winter; however, this difference would only be experienced over a few months. The studies providing evidence of the safety factor of DRLs were of the entire year.
Finally, in reality, this is a petty discussion over an important safety improvement. I will not respond further unless you can substantiate with statistical, unbiased, scientific evidence your argument about DRLs not leading to improved safety.
So your main argument is that because much of the US receives more hours of daylight during the winter it is unnecessary to have DRLs? I don't think this holds much credibility since in the long nights of high latitude winters you would not rely on DRLs anyway, but headlights.
Of course the reverse would be true in the summer when the large amount of daylight in high latitude locations would create conditions where DRLs are used more than lower latitude locations. In addition, lighting conditions in Scandinavian summers are similar to lower latitudes because of a much higher sun angle (when compared to winter sun angles).
Lower sun angles might create a somewhat darker condition in the higher latitude locations in winter; however, this difference would only be experienced over a few months. The studies providing evidence of the safety factor of DRLs were of the entire year.
Finally, in reality, this is a petty discussion over an important safety improvement. I will not respond further unless you can substantiate with statistical, unbiased, scientific evidence your argument about DRLs not leading to improved safety.
Second, GM, Mercedes Benz, and other companies were forced to adopt DRLs in Canada. To save money - not to save lives - they didn't want to have to produce cars for the U.S. market without DRLs, so they just left them in (and extra 50 bucks for the companies too) and arm-twisted the NHTSA with evidence as bogus as GW Bush's evidence on WMDs in Iraq in order to make the NHTSA do what GM wanted. Like Bush with Congress, it worked. They bought it hook, line and sinker.
Follow the money trail. It's as simple as that. If there is money to be made by forcing DRLs on the American public even though they are more of a hazard than a help, then GM and other companies will do what they have to do to arm twist a government agency into a specious case about safety as justification.
There is no evidence that DRLs have saved lives in America. None.
11-30-2007, 06:03 AM
#42
Lizard King
You are being a plain tool trying to argue this point with uneducated opinions and not facts..
The evidence is that you see someone with them on before you see someone without them.
Period.
Simple... even for plain ole simpletons!
You have no leg to stand on... None.
The evidence is that you see someone with them on before you see someone without them.
Period.
Simple... even for plain ole simpletons!
You have no leg to stand on... None.
11-30-2007, 09:18 AM
#44
Burning Brakes
Originally Posted by XIS
You are being a plain tool trying to argue this point with uneducated opinions and not facts..
The evidence is that you see someone with them on before you see someone without them.
Period.
Simple... even for plain ole simpletons!
You have no leg to stand on... None.
The evidence is that you see someone with them on before you see someone without them.
Period.
Simple... even for plain ole simpletons!
You have no leg to stand on... None.
Obviously, the Plainsman is very much against DRLs... either aesthetically, or just don't like to get laws shoved down his throat.
But Mr. Plainsman... the law is the law... You go to any country in the world, and you will find laws that you don't like or agree with... but it is still the law as legally instituted there...
I totally understand your sentiment about the DRLs... But think of it this way... where are you seated when you are driving... behind the steering or sitting in front of your bumper? In the former, which I hope is where you sit while driving, you can't see the DRLs working... in the latter, you can definitely see it...
So you are complaining about something you can't see while driving... Are you upset with how other people view your RDX from the outside while you are driving, and may be the DRLs make your car look geeky?
Relax... if you can't see it, "it isn't there..."
11-30-2007, 11:28 AM
#46
Burning Brakes
Originally Posted by mav238
I would agree that DRLs are an added component of safety on the road. But that's JMHO.
Obviously, the Plainsman is very much against DRLs... either aesthetically, or just don't like to get laws shoved down his throat.
But Mr. Plainsman... the law is the law... You go to any country in the world, and you will find laws that you don't like or agree with... but it is still the law as legally instituted there...
I totally understand your sentiment about the DRLs... But think of it this way... where are you seated when you are driving... behind the steering or sitting in front of your bumper? In the former, which I hope is where you sit while driving, you can't see the DRLs working... in the latter, you can definitely see it...
So you are complaining about something you can't see while driving... Are you upset with how other people view your RDX from the outside while you are driving, and may be the DRLs make your car look geeky?
Relax... if you can't see it, "it isn't there..."
Obviously, the Plainsman is very much against DRLs... either aesthetically, or just don't like to get laws shoved down his throat.
But Mr. Plainsman... the law is the law... You go to any country in the world, and you will find laws that you don't like or agree with... but it is still the law as legally instituted there...
I totally understand your sentiment about the DRLs... But think of it this way... where are you seated when you are driving... behind the steering or sitting in front of your bumper? In the former, which I hope is where you sit while driving, you can't see the DRLs working... in the latter, you can definitely see it...
So you are complaining about something you can't see while driving... Are you upset with how other people view your RDX from the outside while you are driving, and may be the DRLs make your car look geeky?
Relax... if you can't see it, "it isn't there..."
11-30-2007, 12:46 PM
#47
Alpha Geek
Originally Posted by ThePlainsman
This is the platform that will save GM.
Re your original post.....If you bought an RDX for gas mileage, you bought it for the wrong reason. show me a turbo that gets great gas mileage.
Also....If you're having problems with XM presets...RTFM.
11-30-2007, 01:14 PM
#48
Burning Brakes
Originally Posted by lumpulus
LMAO...Nothing can save GM.
Re your original post.....If you bought an RDX for gas mileage, you bought it for the wrong reason. show me a turbo that gets great gas mileage.
Also....If you're having problems with XM presets...RTFM.
Re your original post.....If you bought an RDX for gas mileage, you bought it for the wrong reason. show me a turbo that gets great gas mileage.
Also....If you're having problems with XM presets...RTFM.
My old 2003 SAAB 9-3 2.0t turbocharged sports sedan, returned decent fuel consumption ~ 10 L per 100 km mixed city/hwy driving. But that was if I kept my lead foot off the pedal, and drive leisurely. Even with spirited driving, I was getting about 11L per 100 km.
I think the main issue with the turbocharged RDX is the weight and full-time AWD system. The turbo is always spooling to generate the torque required to move the RDX briskly. Although the RDX is not super heavy, but it is a CUV with full-time AWD drivetrain components which does weigh quite a bit, and not a small size car.
That said... if I drive sanely, I get about 12.5 L per 100 km, which is not great, but not bad either for a turbocharged CUV. You can't compare it with the CRV and RAV4, as they have "real-time" drive systems which only engages all 4 wheels when required, thus less "frictional impact" on fuel economy. Plus their engines (4 cylinder ones) are not turbocharged. On the other hand, their V6 engines get around 11.5-12L per 100 km, similar to the RDX.
11-30-2007, 02:15 PM
#49
Alpha Geek
Notice you said "REASONABLY fuel efficient" 
I totally agree you can get decent mileage from just about any engine, but forced induction is to enhance power, not to promote fuel economy, which it does quite nicely in the RDX's case. My point was the RDX is NOT an economy car, and whoever bought one thinking they would get better than average mileage didn't do their homework.
I totally agree you can get decent mileage from just about any engine, but forced induction is to enhance power, not to promote fuel economy, which it does quite nicely in the RDX's case. My point was the RDX is NOT an economy car, and whoever bought one thinking they would get better than average mileage didn't do their homework.
11-30-2007, 03:38 PM
#50
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by cwepruk
LOL at The Plainsman.
Yes, legislating DRL's is 100% identical to the WMD argument.
Yes, legislating DRL's is 100% identical to the WMD argument.
DRL'S ARE NOT THE LAW!!!! And neither were WMDs for that matter. The similarity is bogus evidence brought out to convince people of their position.
MAV238, DRLs are not the law, not in the USA.
Just follow the money trail. In the USA, it started with GM a company most of you loathe. If you didn't, you wouldn't buy Acuras. DRLs cause more accidents than they prevent. And they're dangerous in foggy situations because when DRLs are on your tailights are not on.
11-30-2007, 03:55 PM
#51
Pro
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Age: 45
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Yes, having DRL's is dangerous, because not having them would mean your tailights would be auto on in fog?
There are stats from numerous countries indicating their benefits yet you ignore it and call them dangerous.
please, grab one
There are stats from numerous countries indicating their benefits yet you ignore it and call them dangerous.
please, grab one
11-30-2007, 04:06 PM
#52
Drifting
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Age: 46
Posts: 2,548
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
Originally Posted by ThePlainsman
DRLs cause more accidents than they prevent.
Nice baseless claim there. Your stupidity is approaching dangerous levels. We wouldn't want any one actually believing your drivel.
My advanced apologies to the mods for being derisive, but seriously, look at what he's saying.
12-01-2007, 01:14 AM
#54
Instructor
Only a complete idiot would not understand how DRL's improve safety in vehicles. This same idiot would probable not wear a seat built and disconnect the airbags. Hey, why even turn the headlights on when it's dark. Turn signals, who needs turn signals? 
P.S. If you dislike your RDX so much, crash it into a wall, collect the insurance and buy something else.
P.S. If you dislike your RDX so much, crash it into a wall, collect the insurance and buy something else.
12-01-2007, 03:51 AM
#55
Burning Brakes
Originally Posted by ThePlainsman
DRL'S ARE NOT THE LAW!!!! And neither were WMDs for that matter. The similarity is bogus evidence brought out to convince people of their position.
MAV238, DRLs are not the law, not in the USA.
And they're dangerous in foggy situations because when DRLs are on your tailights are not on.
MAV238, DRLs are not the law, not in the USA.
And they're dangerous in foggy situations because when DRLs are on your tailights are not on.
Huh????? Driving in the fog with DRLs????? That is not what they were meant for. DRLs are for normal daylight, hence "daylight running lights", COMPRENDO???!!!!
In the fog, you use your low beam driving lights, and if available use fog lights.....
DRLs = DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS and NOT FOGTIME RUNNING LIGHTS!!!!!!
This is incredible! You, Mr Plainsman, are incredible!!!!!!
12-12-2007, 02:36 PM
#57
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tsk Tsk Tsk. Like I said, DRLs are not the law in the United States and there is reason they aren't--they do not save lives. You socialists can brag all you want about studies in other countries, northern countries like Canada. This is the US of A. I'm still waiting for one of you to produce the evidence that shows they are an essential safety item in THIS country.
12-12-2007, 03:14 PM
#58
Intermediate
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Jackson, MS
Age: 39
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by creativeguy
The reason that a Saturn (or any other GM/Ford/Chrysler) has auto headlights, auto wipers, cooled seats, Onstar, coffee maker, laser lights, etc. is because those are cheap and easy add-ons that dazzle the customer and take attention away from the shortcuts they took on the design and engineering.
When was the last time you saw an American car commercial that told you to buy this car because it was the fastest, best handling, best engineered car you can buy? Most of the GM and Ford commercials I see these days tell me to buy the car because it has a cellphone built in (onstar) or a Microsoft (dear god!) created stereo system because they don't want to tell you that the car still has a solid rear axle and drum brakes.
I'd much rather give up superfluous accessories for a well designed/engineered/assembled car that will last 20 years if I want to keep it that long. I can guarantee that you won't have your Saturn in 20 years.... or even 10. ;)
When was the last time you saw an American car commercial that told you to buy this car because it was the fastest, best handling, best engineered car you can buy? Most of the GM and Ford commercials I see these days tell me to buy the car because it has a cellphone built in (onstar) or a Microsoft (dear god!) created stereo system because they don't want to tell you that the car still has a solid rear axle and drum brakes.
I'd much rather give up superfluous accessories for a well designed/engineered/assembled car that will last 20 years if I want to keep it that long. I can guarantee that you won't have your Saturn in 20 years.... or even 10. ;)
You can guarantee? Everyone welcome God to the board.
12-12-2007, 07:10 PM
#60
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by bgriffin
Ever heard of the Cadillac CTS? It was the 2008 Motor Trend Car of the Year and it is in the final 3 (with the Chevy Malibu and Honda Accord) for North American Car of the Year. Also, Buick is tied with Lexus for the most reliable brand. That's right. Buick is ahead of Honda and Acura. Btw, Honda has finally made disc brakes standard on all Accords instead of putting drums on the DX and LX models.
You can guarantee? Everyone welcome God to the board.
You can guarantee? Everyone welcome God to the board.
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/2...a500aa04d9.htm
Not saying GM's is bad, I'd say they are the best of the "big 3". I like alot of the GM cars (I so want the G8 to release! that thing is sex on wheels)
Its a funny video, enjoy it thoe.
12-13-2007, 09:02 AM
#61
Intermediate
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Jackson, MS
Age: 39
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mau108
http://videos.streetfire.net/video/2...a500aa04d9.htm
Not saying GM's is bad, I'd say they are the best of the "big 3". I like alot of the GM cars (I so want the G8 to release! that thing is sex on wheels)
Its a funny video, enjoy it thoe.
Not saying GM's is bad, I'd say they are the best of the "big 3". I like alot of the GM cars (I so want the G8 to release! that thing is sex on wheels)
Its a funny video, enjoy it thoe.
12-13-2007, 09:18 AM
#62
Intermediate
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Jackson, MS
Age: 39
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That streetfire guy had me laughing the entire time. I'm willing to bet he tortured that car in the previous 12k miles. It sounds like he blew a rod which would explain why he couldn't go over 70mph. I hope GM bought the car back, but every manufacturer has a few bad cars. Anyone ever heard of a couple companies called VW and Mercedes-Benz? Those are probably the worst cars out there, but who cares... we drive Acuras.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
snorf
2G RDX (2013-2018)
429
11-04-2019 06:44 AM
rockyboy
2G RDX (2013-2018)
46
01-25-2016 06:00 PM
andysinnh
2G RDX Audio, Bluetooth, Electronics & Navigation
1
09-05-2015 11:38 PM
