Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    EnergyEngineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    24

    Question FX HO vs R-12X All Around Performance Comparison

    What is the overall performance comparison between the Yamaha FX-HO and Honda R12X? Performance, Rough Water Handling, Reliability, Fuel Consumption, Ski Weight, Rider Weight Capacity, Storage Room in the Ski, Cost of Ownership etc.?

    Thanks for the input,

    EnergyEngineer


  2. #2
    AWA MEMBER
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Currituck, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    4,616
    +1
    247
    Honda R12X has poor rough water ride, and is not 2 up friendly......and parts are expensive......I owned a 2005 it will run 61 in stock form 1 up 175lb rider......it gets about 8mpg but runs on 91 or better fuel......common problems the Honda have are they are slow, exhaust manafolds rott out, turbos are extremely expensive, and the ECU's are known to get hot and fail.....hope this helps for honda ownership exp.

  3. #3
    EnergyEngineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    24
    Is the f-12x any better in rough water? Overall is the Honda a reliable machine? The MR-1 engine in the FX HO is claimed to be very reliable. Can the ECU problem be avoided by running a free flow exhaust to keep the engine temps down?

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Brick Township, New Jersey, United States
    Posts
    168

    FX HO vs R-12X All Around Performance Comparison

    Your comparing one of the highest selling pwc of all time to one that had a more limited run. The r hull is almost like a slightly bigger 90's 3 seater so it's real playful but not the best for big surf or 3 up riding. The engines are pretty bulletproof but the turbo and waste gate actuators were made from iron and if not soaked down with silicone spray especially in saltwater they tend to rust up really quick. But since there numbers were so much lower parts are harder to find and probably more expensive.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Aliso Viejo
    Posts
    951
    +1
    75
    You are on the right track with MR-1 if you are looking for performance and reliability without a turbo or SC. It is probably the highest actually it is THE highest performance NA engine of its size. It's only 1050cc and performs nothing short of 1500cc engines that were made at its time. You can't go wrong with FX HO...Parts are readily available on ebay and its a proven ski in terms of reliability.

    All you have to do is find one that has been well maintained.

  6. #6
    AWA MEMBER
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Currituck, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    4,616
    +1
    247
    Quote Originally Posted by EnergyEngineer View Post
    Is the f-12x any better in rough water? Overall is the Honda a reliable machine? The MR-1 engine in the FX HO is claimed to be very reliable. Can the ECU problem be avoided by running a free flow exhaust to keep the engine temps down?



    The F does a little bit better, but its a really wet ride.......the ECU issue is because the Hull temps get really hot from the turbo......they dont make exhaust or any aftermarket help........if you buy a Honda......don't plan on doing much to it.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    JAX
    Posts
    5
    I can only address the cost of ownership question but, I'll add my two cents as well. I've looked for an FX HO for the past month, a little longer, and all of them were what I considered to be overpriced, BUT, they sold. There's something to be said for buying something that is well, and currently supported as it is. Honda elected to get away from the PWC business and I think the resale value speaks to that. So buying an FX HO going in should result in a better resale value on the other end. Regular fuel is a real benefit, and in my personal opinion, so is the normally aspirated engine. I like the Honda, don't get me wrong, but as has been suggested, the turbo and waste gate can be problematic if not completely and thoroughly maintained. That said...I'm in the process of purchasing an 07' F12x because I found what I think is a good one at a good price. IF I could have found an FX HO in similar shape and price...I would have bought it instead. Oh I do know F12X owners who claim excellent fuel economy however.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Quickness difference 2008 FX HO vs SHO
    By skeeterzx225 in forum Yamaha PWC Performance (4-stroke)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-23-2009, 04:56 PM
  2. 09 FX HO vs SHO
    By inothome in forum Yamaha PWC Performance (4-stroke)
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-01-2009, 12:27 PM
  3. '08 FX HO vs. '08 SHO
    By jwafer21 in forum Yamaha PWC Performance (4-stroke)
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-03-2008, 12:30 AM
  4. FX HO Vs. FX HO cruiser
    By Islandtime in forum Yamaha PWC Performance (4-stroke)
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-26-2007, 06:13 PM
  5. FX HO Vs. FX HO cruiser
    By Islandtime in forum Yamaha Open Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-25-2007, 07:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •