| mgtr |
| How in the world did CR rate the Pilot above the MDX? I have only seen the summary info, not the full report or ratings, but I would think you have to be brain damaged to reach this conclusion. Now, I understand that many do not think that the MDX is worth $8,000 more than the Pilot, but to say the Pilot is better???? Please. |
|
|
| saloveku |
| well, by your tagline - anything worth doing is worth doing to excess - shows your bias. and that is not a bad thing but CR obviously thinks there is even better value in the Pilot based on cost, depreciation rates, etc. I'm on your side and disagree with CR entirely. But what do we know? |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by mgtr
How in the world did CR rate the Pilot above the MDX? I have only seen the summary info, not the full report or ratings, but I would think you have to be brain damaged to reach this conclusion. Now, I understand that many do not think that the MDX is worth $8,000 more than the Pilot, but to say the Pilot is better???? Please.
I don't think they were saying the Pilot is better but perhaps a better value, at least from their perspective. The Pilot does have about 8 cubic feet more cargo room (mostly vertical) and room for 1 more little person in the 3rd row as well as an adjustable 2nd row, so one could make the case that it has a little bit more utility as an SUV, while the MDX has a little bit more sport, at least from the point of view of styling. Not sure if CR was rating the the '04 MDX with the side curtain airbags, which are very important from the point of view of safety??? OTOH, the Pilot might have scored marginally better in CR's emergency maneuver test despite the VSA. Some of the options available on the MDX might not be as highly valued by CR but they are well priced in moving up to the MDX package if you want those options. Both are great cars and great values IMHO. |
|
|
| Dale MDX |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
I don't think they were saying the MDX is better but perhaps a better value, at least from their perspective.
CR doesn't consider value for the dollar in their rating order. Sometimes they will denote a "best buy" based on price and performance. (But I've never seen this with cars). If dollar value was a criterion, the cheapest would almost always win, unless it had big problems. But the BMW530i is their highest rated vehicle ever, which is good evidence that cost isn't being considered.
Handling, Braking, and a slightly bigger cargo area appear to be the major factors that influenced rating the Pilot over the MDX. The Nov. 02 issue rates the Pilot EX. The Sept 03 rates the MDX Touring. The following table was created based on the areas CR ranked with their colored bullets, which I converted to a 1 to 5 scale. MDX's number is first, followed by Pilot:
Acceleration: 4, 4
Transmission: 5, 5
Routine Handling: 4, 4
Emergency Handling: 2, 3
Braking: 3, 4
Ride: 4, 4
Noise: 4, 4
Driving Position: 4, 4
Front Seat Comfort: 5, 4
Rear Seat Comfort: 4, 4
Access: 4, 4
Controls and Displays: 4, 5
Interior fit and finish: 4, 4
Cargo Area: 3, 4
Predicted Reliability: 5, 5
There may be other areas that go into their ratings besides the above. They probably don't weight all areas equally. |
|
|
| blackx |
Forget the Pilot - look at the trend! Last year the MDX was 5th in a list of 24. This year the MDX is 10th in a list of 28. This is what happens when you ignore the same problems year after year. How long has the gas tank thump been part of their design? How many years have the brakes clunked when you change directions? How long has the sun roof squeaked? How long has the exhaust droned?
How many years should a luxury SUV have the same problems? If Acura sits on their butts much longer, their position in that list is going to be somewhere below the Jeep Grand Cherokee! |
|
|
| Dale MDX |
All vehicles will naturally go down in the ratings as the years go by, as long as progress is still being made in the industry. The MDX is now most of the way through its model cycle. New models frequently are better than older models. When the MDX is redesigned, it will jump back up to the top, or near it. That is, unless Acura messes it up somehow.
quote:
Originally posted by blackx
Forget the Pilot - look at the trend! Last year the MDX was 5th in a list of 24. This year the MDX is 10th in a list of 28. This is what happens when you ignore the same problems year after year. How long has the gas tank thump been part of their design? How many years have the brakes clunked when you change directions? How long has the sun roof squeaked? How long has the exhaust droned?
How many years should a luxury SUV have the same problems? If Acura sits on their butts much longer, their position in that list is going to be somewhere below the Jeep Grand Cherokee!
|
|
|
| perk |
Perhaps that is true, but I also note that MDX gets "much better than average" rating in every category except body integrity. Even the often-maligned transmission didn't suffer in the ratings. So I'd say that MDX looks pretty good in the objective ratings.
By the way, what does "body integrity" mean? |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by perk
By the way, what does "body integrity" mean?
Shakes, rattles, and ... |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by Dale MDX
Handling, Braking, and a slightly bigger cargo area appear to be the major factors that influenced rating the Pilot over the MDX. The Nov. 02 issue rates the Pilot EX. The Sept 03 rates the MDX Touring. The following table was created based on the areas CR ranked with their colored bullets, which I converted to a 1 to 5 scale. MDX's number is first, followed by Pilot:
Acceleration: 4, 4
Transmission: 5, 5
Routine Handling: 4, 4
Emergency Handling: 2, 3
Braking: 3, 4
Ride: 4, 4
Noise: 4, 4
Driving Position: 4, 4
Front Seat Comfort: 5, 4
Rear Seat Comfort: 4, 4
Access: 4, 4
Controls and Displays: 4, 5
Interior fit and finish: 4, 4
Cargo Area: 3, 4
Predicted Reliability: 5, 5
Better emergency handling I've heard before, but CR rates the Pilot's braking higher also? That's new to me. |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by robrecht
Better emergency handling I've heard before, but CR rates the Pilot's braking higher also? That's new to me.
In their test of a 2003 MDX Touring, it went 60-0 in an "unimpressive" 151 feet. In their test of a 2003 Pilot, it went 60-0 in 143 feet.
I've checked CR's on-line reviews for their scoring of the 2003 MDX first and the 2003 Pilot. What I found is different from the ratings in the previous post (maybe they've been updated?). So I've tried re-entering them, with changes underlined. MDX first, Pilot second.
Acceleration: 4, 3
Transmission: 5, 5
Routine Handling: 4, 4
Emergency Handling: 2, 3
Fuel Economy: 1, 2
Braking: 3, 4
Ride: 4, 4
Noise: 4, 4
Driving Position: 5, 4
Front Seat Comfort: 5, 4
Rear Seat Comfort: 4, 4
Third-row Seat Comfort: 4, 5
Access: 4, 5
Controls and Displays: 4, 5
Interior fit and finish: 4, 5
Cargo Area: 3, 4
Predicted Reliability: 5, 4
So according to CR, the MDX was better in acceleration, driving position, front seat comfort, and predicted reliability. The Pilot was better in emergency handling, fuel economy, braking, third row seat comfort, access, controls and display, interior fit and finish, and cargo area. This assuming I've typed everything in correctly.
Thus, it can't be any surprise that CR rated the 2003 Pilot slightly above the 2003 MDX. I don't think that their selection is "brain damaged." Rather, their rating is quite practical, which is what I would hope to see from CR. On the other hand, I'd sooner expect the possibility that a driver's enthusiast publication like Car & Driver would rate the MDX higher using their criteria.
No doubt that the MDX has a number of other advantages over the Pilot, but most of them are more emotional than practical (e.g. complaints about the column-mounted shifter, boxier styling, etc.). There's nothing wrong with buying a car with the heart as well as the head, of course. Just that I don't fault CR for rating it with their heads. |
|
|
| DaleB |
| What gives with the fuel economy? What do they rate an Envoy, etc. , 0? |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by DaleB
What gives with the fuel economy?
In their 2003 MDX testing, they got an overall average of 17 mpg. 11/26 mpg in their city/highway testing, 21 mpg in their 150-mile trip.
In their 2003 Pilot testing, they got an overall average of 19mpg. 13/27 mpg in their city/highway testing, 23 mpg in their 150 mile trip. |
|
|
| DaleB |
| Must have leadfoots if they can't break 14 in the city. Probably not fully broken in either. |
|
|
| dham |
Dale said...
Must have leadfoots if they can't break 14 in the city. Probably not fully broken in either.
===============================================
No kidding! Mine is still in the "breaking in" stage, and I'm getting 16+ mpg in the city...and without being worried about mileage (in other words, not accelerating gingerly from each stop). |
|
|
| pelucidor |
| It's sad that CR thinks the Honda has better fit and finish than the Acura. I have never sat in a Pilot - maybe they are right... |
|
|
| mgtr |
| Well, sir, I have sat in a Pilot. I would not call it uncomfortable, but I sure wouldn't want it in my den as a sitting and reading chair. However, the MDX come pretty close to a den chair. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by wmquan
I've checked CR's on-line reviews for their scoring of the 2003 MDX first and the 2003 Pilot. What I found is different from the ratings in the previous post (maybe they've been updated?).
Has anyone accounted for the differences in the ratings posted by DaleMDX and wmquan? Different model years??? |
|
|
| wmquan |
No, the dates of the on-line reviews correspond to the dates that Dale posted.
Not sure if he's getting the scores out of the magazine itself (I have copies upstairs but am too lazy to dig them out), or from the website. I grabbed them from the website and I think I typed them in correctly. |
|
|
| mogur |
CU always fully breaks in their vehicle before testing and they tend to drive lightly if anything. Based on the mileage that I and my wife get on our X, their numbers look right on.
quote:
Originally posted by DaleB
Must have leadfoots if they can't break 14 in the city. Probably not fully broken in either.
|
|
|
| DaleB |
quote:
Originally posted by mogur
CU always fully breaks in their vehicle before testing and they tend to drive lightly if anything. Based on the mileage that I and my wife get on our X, their numbers look right on.
Seems to be on the low side for polls we've have on the forum. Plus, do you think it is fully broken in?
I have seen my mileage improve after 10K. |
|
|
|
