| MichaelCT |
I would appreciate some help here. I know a comparably equipped Volvo (with dvd & NAV) is about $4k more, but aside from that, why would you point me toward the MDX (assuming you would).
I like the MDX NAV system better and it is a bit more spacious inside. Safetywise, I kind of like the idea of Volvo's rollover sensor that counteracts if it senses tipping (not just skidding). I also get the sense that it's gas mileage is a bit better even though it's listed as 2-3 mpg less than the MDX. Have seen complaints about this on this board.
Finally, what about reliability? I have heard some scary stories about transmissions here, not that the Volvo doesn't seem to have problems of its own. |
|
|
| ilovetocamp |
I don't know about the XC90 but I have owned Volvos and will not own another one. In the 70's they were great cars but since then they require too many repairs for me.
We love our MDX! |
|
|
| EXCALIBUR |
MichaelCT,
The MDX is an all-around proven mid-sized SUV. Mine is a 2002 and I have never had a transmission problem. For hauling, it is great. I helped a relative move an entertainment center across town today. Just folded down the second row seats, threw a few extra towels on the cargo floor for padding, and we had a $40,000 "make your own" U-Haul. The MDX also has the styling that I like. While I have seen the XC90, it does look a bit odd. YMMV, afterall this is acuramdx.org Good luck.:29: |
|
|
| JerryinTO |
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelCT
I would appreciate some help here. I know a comparably equipped Volvo (with dvd & NAV) is about $4k more, but aside from that, why would you point me toward the MDX (assuming you would).
I like the MDX NAV system better and it is a bit more spacious inside. Safetywise, I kind of like the idea of Volvo's rollover sensor that counteracts if it senses tipping (not just skidding). I also get the sense that it's gas mileage is a bit better even though it's listed as 2-3 mpg less than the MDX. Have seen complaints about this on this board.
Finally, what about reliability? I have heard some scary stories about transmissions here, not that the Volvo doesn't seem to have problems of its own.
My brother in law bought a 2004 XC90 demo. I was thinking about trading my wife's 2000 Caravan for the XC90 ( my car is a 2001 S60). I read the comparisons of the XC90 and the MDX in Consumer Reports. The MDX was recommended, the XC90 not. Why? The MDX has a better reliabilty, less depreciation and is bigger.
It also gets better gas mielage. I can attest to this. How? I picked my 2005 MDX today and put the cruise control on at 50 mph. The trip computer said I was getting about 9.0L/100 km, which is almost 30 mpg. My brother in law complains that he gets 16L/ 100 kms, which is NOT 30 mpg, it's a lot less.
The NAV system in the ACURA is a LOT better then the Volvo. I have the Nav system in both cars, and I am AMAZED at the ACURA version. It is voice controlled, something that will be VERY useful!! Especially when having 2 kids you get very hungry on road trips.
I would recommend you get the MDX. You'll be amazed how it rides. My wife said that it rides better than the Caravan; a lot like a car, NOT an SUV. Enough said.
J. |
|
|
| MichaelCT |
We've never had an SUV before, so naturally we're concerned with what we have heard in the past about rollover risk. I know the Volvo touts an anti roll system, but I'm not sure how much is marketing vs. something that could make a difference. I know both have the side airbags all the way back which is great just in case.
Also, really dumb question here, the Volvo has seatbelt 'pretensioners' in every seat, and the MDX does in the front. What exactly are these?
By the way, tested the MDX saturday and LOVED the NAV system. Amazing with the voice command. Also, encouraging to hear about the reliability - particularly with respect to the transmission. |
|
|
| BostonX |
| The only thing the Volvo XC90 has over the MDX is "snob appeal". If that's more important to you than value and reliability then go with the Volvo. |
|
|
| nightguy |
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelCT
We've never had an SUV before, so naturally we're concerned with what we have heard in the past about rollover risk. I know the Volvo touts an anti roll system, but I'm not sure how much is marketing vs. something that could make a difference. I know both have the side airbags all the way back which is great just in case.
Also, really dumb question here, the Volvo has seatbelt 'pretensioners' in every seat, and the MDX does in the front. What exactly are these?
By the way, tested the MDX saturday and LOVED the NAV system. Amazing with the voice command. Also, encouraging to hear about the reliability - particularly with respect to the transmission.
Pretensioners take up the excess slack in a crash. Like airbags they are one use items. Someone told me that some systems use a bolt fired through the mechanism to lock it in. I'm not exactly sure how it works.
Both vehicles have side curtain airbags all around, but side or torso airbags only in the front seats.
IMO the MDX is way more attractive than the Volvo. But I'm jaded. :)
Good luck with the MD....oops, your decision ! |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelCT
Safetywise, I kind of like the idea of Volvo's rollover sensor that counteracts if it senses tipping (not just skidding). I also get the sense that it's gas mileage is a bit better even though it's listed as 2-3 mpg less than the MDX. Have seen complaints about this on this board.
Finally, what about reliability? I have heard some scary stories about transmissions here, not that the Volvo doesn't seem to have problems of its own.
The main reason to buy an XC90 over an MDX is if you want the "kitchen sink" in safety. The MDX is a safe vehicle. The XC90 represents probably the most extreme approach to safety in terms of bringing more safety features to the table. But you give up a lot to get possibly only a small or moderate improvement in overall safety; thus it's too much of a tradeoff for many buyers.
You buy the MDX over the XC90 if you want a better overall vehicle, balancing safety, reliability, sporty characteristics, roominess, and value.
As far as safety goes, Acura does really well with established crash tests. However, while it's hard to make assessments without newer crash tests, the XC90 goes much further in safety areas that either aren't yet measured by public crash tests, or have just started to be. They include:
- The rollover stability control system (RSC) which is significantly more advanced than the MDX's VSA. Don't be fooled by the misleading "percentage likelihood of rollover" from NHTSA that seemingly favors the MDX over the XC90. That test has some extremely simplistic measurements and the XC90 has better measures against rollover.
- The XC90 has a highly reinforced safety cage that means its roof is less likely to crush in the event of a rollover. Rollovers can happen even with the most advanced stability control systems, especially if other vehicles or obstacles cause the SUV to trip and roll. The XC90's roll cage is highly likely to be stronger than the MDX's.
- As you pointed out, Volvo uses some of the higher price to put pretensioners in all seats. Pretensioners fire off at certain impact speeds (usually below airbag thresholds) to remove the slack in the seat belt and secure the passenger. The MDX only has them for the front seats, the Volvo has them for every seating position. Crash tests don't penalize the MDX for this -- because front crash tests only have dummies in the front seats where there are pretensioners.
- Volvo has been one of the first manufacturers to implement active head restraints and a seat design aimed at reducing whiplash injuries. While the XC90 and MDX haven't been tested, no Honda/Acura has earned more than a "marginal" in IIHS's new rear-end test, while every Volvo tested has earned a "good." No vehicle has earned a "good" without having at least active head restraints, something the MDX doesn't have. The XC90 uses the same active head restraint design as the sedans already tested by IIHS.
- Volvo manufactures their seats to be many times stronger (20x-30x) than the 40-year U.S. regulation on seatback strength requires. Thus they are less likely to collapse in a rear-end accident. The last time Honda bragged about seat strength, they were about 2.5 times the U.S. regulation, which some lawn chairs can pass.
- Volvo has integrated booster seats available if you have children, which are better for securing booster-age children than add-on ones.
- Some people don't consider xenons a safety feature, some think they make a vehicle safer by providing better illumination. The XC90 has factory bi-xenons available. The MDX, projector halogens.
I'm sure there are other safety features I haven't thought of. Some other considerations:
- The resale value of the XC90 isn't, yet, that bad at all. In fact, it's tops among SUV's by a recent ALG guide (I think it was ALG). The MDX used to be tops in that measure, but it's been around for a while. Plus the MDX is going to be redesigned either this year or next year, and the current gen's resale value won't get better.
- Reliability of the XC90 is the biggest turn off. Early indications are the 2004's were much improved over the 2003's, but it's hard to say what the 2005's will be like. Either way, the best Volvo has ever done with any of its vehicles in Consumer Reports is "average." The MDX, despite some transmission questions, is going to be way beyond it. Period. It is what it is.
- The XC90's T6 engine is poorly matched with its transmission. The result is that the vehicle does not have as much acceleration as it should, the mileage suffers, and the shifting feels funny. The MDX will be significantly quicker than the T6.
- The T6 also comes with a very poor feeling steering, IMHO.
- The T6 is being discontinued in a few months. The 2.5T is surprisingly robust for the lower end, and for real power, Volvo now has a very nice V8-powered XC90 that has a much better six-speed transmission, while only having slightly worse fuel economy than the T6.
- Some people make a big deal that the XC90 has a nicer interior than the MDX. While I think it has some advantage, I would hardly term the XC90's interior luxurious. It's typically Swedish sparse. The fake wood is dark and ugly. There's still too muchplastic in the center console. The MDX's interior isn't all there either but the difference isn't as pronounced as some XC90 fans will claim.
- The XC90 does come with some included scheduled maintenance, but it's mostly oil changes. You will save somewhat in the first few years, though.
- What'll kill you with the XC90 is if you keep the vehicle out of warranty and have to pay the high dealer labor rates, for gold-plated-priced parts. Volvo parts are expensive. Some Volvo fans try to say they're premium, rarer parts. But heck, in some parts of North America they're more expensive than Mercedes parts!
- Personally, I like the styling of the XC90 over the MDX. I think it's more distinctive, and fresher.
- I do like the fact that the front passenger seat of the XC90 can fold down for long items. It's rare that I've needed that, but it's sure helpful when you do want it.
- Volvo seats are, for most people, very comfortable. They're on the firm side, and some people hate how the active head restraints are not adjustable. But a lot of people find the seats excellent. Swedish brands seem to have this in common; my MDX's seats are fine, but my Saab's seats are great.
- Whatever you do, if you plan to keep your vehicle beyond the warranty period, don't buy an XC90 without the extended warranty.
- The XC90 has a better stereo in terms of headunit and speakers. But the MDX has XM radio and Bluetooth. With the XC90 you have to pay a hefty price for a dealer-installed hands-free phone setup. |
|
|
| G. COLTON |
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelCT
We've never had an SUV before, so naturally we're concerned with what we have heard in the past about rollover risk. I know the Volvo touts an anti roll system, but I'm not sure how much is marketing vs. something that could make a difference. I know both have the side airbags all the way back which is great just in case.
Also, really dumb question here, the Volvo has seatbelt 'pretensioners' in every seat, and the MDX does in the front. What exactly are these?
By the way, tested the MDX saturday and LOVED the NAV system. Amazing with the voice command. Also, encouraging to hear about the reliability - particularly with respect to the transmission.
Rollover is a problem only if you are not a good driver. Drive the vehicle within its design limits and there is no problem. The MDX has a wider stance than most and therefore has less of a tendency to tip when cornering.
G |
|
|
| shootist |
I picked my 2005 MDX today
Jerry- this was lost in the rest of the thread, but Congratulations!
MichaelCT- The MDX aslo has an anti-rollover feature called VSA (Vehicle Stability Assist) It is something like a super-traction control, and selectively applies brakes on certain wheels when it senses oversteer (tail swinging out) or understeer (front end plowing straight) . It works with VTM (Variable Torque Management), which applies power to selective wheels when it senses other wheels are losing traction.
A word of advice- don't overthink your purchase. They are both great cars, and many people love the one they own. We're not talking about the difference between a Ford Pinto and a Rolls Royce.
Another word- check out the XC90 forum to see what they're complaining about, if anything.
Word. |
|
|
| td284 |
Thanks wmquan for all that info!
I've been looking between the MDX and XC90 for awhile and it gets down to the little everyday things that made me lean to the MDX.
For all intents and purposes, the MDX is a very safe vehicle, even though the Volvo trumps it in a few areas. But Volvo has a unique fiber-optic radio system in the XC90 that is a huge problem for current owners to modify. That means no satellite radio or iPod capabilities or OnStar or Bluetooth. Check their forums, it's a huge complaint. Also the Acura Nav system is far superior, again in their forums. And because the MDX has been around longer, all those early kinks have been worked out and the newest models seem pretty trouble-free. The Volvo forums are full of lemon law claims and serious problems, even on 04s and 05s. Also, availability of service seems much more convenient for Acura (at least for me). And I need a third row, at least occasionally. The Volvo one is very tight, in fact it is much tighter all around inside. But I do like the look of the Volvo better and definitely the colors! (I wish Acura would add some new colors!)
It's hard to know how accurate forum info is since people with problems tend to be posters, but the overall tone of THIS forum is extremely upbeat compared to all the others I've checked. That says something. Thanks gang! :) |
|
|
| MichaelCT |
What improvements do you suspect they'd make in the next versions?
Also, more of a general question, if they Highlander and Lexus SUV's are successful, what do you think will happen to resale values if one buys a traditional gas SUV with the intention of holding for a while?
With respect to my original topic, this has all been helpful. Honestly, I like the look and comfort of the Volvo, but I think passengers would like the roominess of the MDX. I love the rear camera and top notch NAV system. I like Volvo's dual DVD LCD's, but don't like that the T6 is going to be discontinued. I know the 5 cylindar is a better value with better mileage, but it lacks some highway umph when it comes to merging. With the MDX, my gut tells me that I'll have fewer long-term costs and potentially problem. I guess it's boiling down to just trying to get the extra safety items out of my head and realize that both vehicles are really safe, and with the MDX, all passengers would be well protected in the event of a bad accident or rollover. Decisions, decisions... |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by G. COLTON
Rollover is a problem only if you are not a good driver. Drive the vehicle within its design limits and there is no problem. The MDX has a wider stance than most and therefore has less of a tendency to tip when cornering.
That isn't true. Driving within limits helps reduce rollover but it doesn't eliminate it. A lot of rollovers occur in accidents where the rollover is secondary to a triggering event.
The MDX has a wider stance that helps. But rollover happens, as evidenced by some of the rollover photos previously posted on this forum. |
|
|
| shootist |
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelCT
I like the look and comfort of the Volvo, but I think passengers would like the roominess of the MDX.
both vehicles are really safe, and with the MDX, all passengers would be well protected in the event of a bad accident or rollover.
Freak the passengers. Get what you like- let them buy their own! Those six year olds can always get a couple of paper routes! |
|
|
| nightguy |
quote:
Originally posted by wmquan
That isn't true. Driving within limits helps reduce rollover but it doesn't eliminate it. A lot of rollovers occur in accidents where the rollover is secondary to a triggering event.
The MDX has a wider stance that helps. But rollover happens, as evidenced by some of the rollover photos previously posted on this forum.
I agree. Especially if you get T-Boned in an intersection. |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelCT
... With the MDX, my gut tells me that I'll have fewer long-term costs and potentially problem. I guess it's boiling down to just trying to get the extra safety items out of my head and realize that both vehicles are really safe, and with the MDX, all passengers would be well protected in the event of a bad accident or rollover. Decisions, decisions...
Yep, that's pretty much it, IMHO. I'll always say the MDX is a safe vehicle, period. I just think the XC90 is an even safer vehicle. I really don't think you would see the same level of roof-crushing in a rollover in an XC90 as has been shown in some MDX's in threads here (I think there are four different rollovers pictured on this forum, two or three of which looked pretty bad from an anecdotal perspective). Granted that those photos are anecdotal, but I really doubt the MDX's roof strength compares well with an XC90.
But you do indeed lose things when you go for those extra safety features, and for many it's just too much.
With every safety improvement, there are "diminishing returns." Obviously human life should never be considered a diminishing asset. But it is true that every new safety improvement probably saves fewer lives and prevents fewer injuries than the previous ones. E.g. seatbelts are probably the most major vehicle safety feature (after driver behavior). Airbags help save more lives but not as many as airbags.
Thus I think the tradeoff is too great for some buyers, whereas it's an easy one for others. A lot of folks think the MDX is safe enough and has nicer gadgets, more room, better reliability.
It comes down to your priorities. It's a personal decision and there is really no wrong decision. Obviously this forum is very pro-MDX, as a Volvo forum will be pro-XC90. |
|
|
| td284 |
| As someone said on the Volvo boards, the XC90 is only as safe as the loaner car, since it's in the shop so much! |
|
|
| eRauL |
Looking to upgrade from my 01 MDX, I test drove XC-90 several months ago.
I decided to look for 03 MDX :-D
Several things:
* sit down on the driver seat and immediately noticed the pillar on the passenger side in my view. Man, that's some small windshield.
* no power w/o the Turbocharger
* slipped a little bit when I took it out of the dealership (I jackrabbit it on purpose)
* don't like the handling. Feels too high (narrower than the MDX, I guess).
* 3rd row optional? (I guess many feel the same way cause they make it free-upgrade now)
* terrible mechanism to fold and unfold 2nd row seats.
* that ugly black plastic bumpers can only go with black or silver exterior.
* the salesguy was rude, telling me MDX was a minivan. I told him XC-90 was based on a sedan!
* the PRICE, the unreliability of Volvo lately (it belongs to Fix-Or-Repair-Daily now). |
|
|
| morisato |
The XC90 was a vehicle I was considering as well when it came time to retire/shoot/kill my Audi A6 Avant (LOVE Audi interiors and quality, HATE the reliability). Having test driven the XC90 T6, I thought the power was adequate but not as fast as I expected. Knowing some people who are XC90 owners, it does seem that there are a fair number of reliability issues with the vehicle. One acquaintance actually had his "lemon lawed."
I think if you are only planning to keep the vehicle within the warranty period, it's probably worth serious consideration but considering the lack of reliability, I would be hesitant to recommend it if you plan on "driving it into the ground." Another thing, while the fuel economy on the MDX isn't the greatest, it was shockingly worse in the XC90 T6, as friends have told me that they are getting 12MPG in city driving.
For what it's worth, I hope this helps. |
|
|
|
