..........

[misterjay]

......

[Shark]

If you are looking for speed look elsewhere. If you are looking for a stock reliable 60-62 mph ski then this might be for you.
Also if you ride in the chop a lot this ski is not for you. It doesn't handle any type of chop well whatsoever. If you are looking for good fuel economy this might be for you.

I think I covered most of the points. If it was for me, I wouldn't buy it. Unless if I was buying it for a really good price like $2500 and I would still think about it.

[misterjay]

If you are looking for speed look elsewhere. If you are looking for a stock reliable 60-62 mph ski then this might be for you.
Also if you ride in the chop a lot this ski is not for you. It doesn't handle any type of chop well whatsoever. If you are looking for good fuel economy this might be for you.

I think I covered most of the points. If it was for me, I wouldn't buy it. Unless if I was buying it for a really good price like $2500 and I would still think about it.

Thanks for that ) Hes looking for 4200 Euros = 5 550.3 U.S. dollars

[Shark]

Way too much, pick up an Rxp for around that price and you won't be disappointed.

[misterjay]

Way too much, pick up an Rxp for around that price and you won't be disappointed.

Good Info, thanks again ....

[Mark]

But it is possibly the best looking ski ever...

[supermac]

Go with the honda.
Much better mileage and they are super reliable with very basic maint.

[misterjay]

Go with the honda.
Much better mileage and they are super reliable with very basic maint.

I've heard a few horror story's about them giving trouble and being unreliable, like I said I know nothing about them, VERY smart looking ski all the same whats the top speed from an all stock 12 X and whats the fuel consumption like, is it a THIRSTY ski ?? I'm so used to my VX being super economical on juice .....

[supermac]

The hondas are excellent when it comes to real world fuel economy. All the horror stories are related to neglect and improper care. Honda has a minimal maintenance schedule compared to anything else.

[Shark]

If kept stock, yes they are very reliable and very fuel efficient. Only thing you would need to do is oil changes, gas and maintain the Wastegate/turbo to make sure it doesn't stick. Now do any modification and you will start having headaches.

[VinceC]

They are very reliable and great on fuel. Minor bolt ons will get it to about 66. The biggest drawback in my opinion is that your feet are always wet. The footwells are always full of water.

[misterjay]

They are very reliable and great on fuel. Minor bolt ons will get it to about 66. The biggest drawback in my opinion is that your feet are always wet. The footwells are always full of water.

66 mph I can live with, I'm used to 52-54 on my VX so that sounds sweet as for wet feet that's all part of the fun plus my neoprene socks and Yamaha boots can keep me warm, I'm used to being freezing in the Irish Sea anyway !! Need more info guys, how many hrs are these engines good for if you look after them ?? what are the problems if there are any ?? oil filters and so on, how much am I looking at ? what are the intervals between oil changes and changing the oil filters ? I change my VX around every 25 hrs even though Yamaha recommend every 100 hrs . The ski I'm looking at has 108 hrs on it, I know that's nothing on a VX they can go for 2000 plus hrs more info please )))))

[supermac]

1000+ hours on either version easy.
I wouldnt be suprised to go 2000+.

The turbo turns 1000 less rpm and has less valve spring tension which should reduce the time between servicing the valve lash. The turbos should last at least 2000 hours if not murdered from abuse. The NA is a bit more forgiving from abuse in that it doesn't have a turbo, but gives up alot when it comes to power and fun factor.

Should you ever want to modify it, I offer parts to help do so with stock levels of reliability.

though fragile, the turbo is far far more reliable than any supercharged ski.

[misterjay]

1000+ hours on either version easy.
I wouldnt be suprised to go 2000+.

The turbo turns 1000 less rpm and has less valve spring tension which should reduce the time between servicing the valve lash. The turbos should last at least 2000 hours if not murdered from abuse. The NA is a bit more durable in that it doesn't have a fragile turbo, but gives up alot when it comes to power and fun factor.

Should you ever want to modify it, I offer parts to help do so with stock levels of reliability.

though fragile, the turbo is far far more reliable than any supercharged ski.

Sound advice, thanks for taking the time to post its very appreciated. Just in relation to the ski that I'm interested in like I said it has 108 hrs on it, so that would be considered as LOW hrs by Honda guys ? assuming that the ski is in good order. I've put my Ski up for sale so I will see how that goes hopefully it will sell fast, then I'm in the market for the Honda ! I'll keep u posted, Thanks again .....

[CelticCrew]

Make sure you test ride it and it gets a true 60+mph. This will tell you if the turbo is working or not. Use a real gps to test it - not the speedo on the Honda which could be faulty. Get a picture of the turbo too. Search my posts on pwctoday if you want to see the turbo problems I had. Most of these problems can be avoided if you spray CRC 656 on the turbo after each ride.

All PWCS has issues. Hondas will be a lot faster than the VXs. It will use a little more fuel but considering the extra 100+ccs and a turbo that is to be expected.