|
Well, actually I think the review was quite allright. What really surprizes/upsets me is the fact that some information in his review is incorrect. I think I brought a similar point last week when the AutoFile review was discussed.
You would think that after a car has been out for almost 8 months the reviewers would be a little more knowledgeable. After all, there are a number of people who would base their decision "to buy or not to buy" (maybe even "to go see the car or not to go see the car") on such reviews. All this makes you wonder if other points that he brings up can be trustworthy.
Also, I am once again surprized at Acura/Honda Motors who, one would think, should go out of its way to make sure that such well known reviewers as Daniel Heraud will get their info straight.
For example, he states the car is sold w/o any options.
He also states that both rear rows of seats are uncomfortable because the backs are too straight. Duh, they recline!!! In his opinion, the front bucket seats are much more comfortable. :) I guess he did not spend much time on this web site... |
|
|
|
| Didn't seem lukewarm to me, either - he rated it better than the average SUV in every catagory except "budget", and I can't see why he rated it so low there. |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by vip9
I guess he did not spend much time on this web site...
Probably spent more time on the website than in the car. |
|
|
|
If you look at the gravitas of the pros:
"Pros
1. Sober and classic look
2. Roominess for 7 occupants
3. Brilliant performance levels
4. Powerful, efficient and balanced brakes
5. Ride comfort feels more automobile than SUV
6. Storage bin in the baggage compartment (ok, all are weighty except this one) "
and then the nits of the cons:
"Cons
1. Rather uncomfortable rear seats (see comment below)
2. Terribly slow windshield wipers
3. Cheap-looking plastics (see comment below)
4. No access handles up front
5. Ridiculous compact spare tire "
1. Rather uncomfortable rear seats:
"Seats: The front seats are much more comfortable than the rear benches. The middle bench's cushion is too short, whereas the rear seatback is too straight" I have to laugh every time I read this comment in a review (several reviews have said the same thing). REVIEWERS, PLEASE TAKE NOTE, THE REAR SEAT BACK ANGLES (both rows) CAN BE ADJUSTED - THEY HAVE SEVERAL RECLINE SETTINGS. PLEASE READ THE OWNERS MANUAL BEFORE WRITING YOUR REVIEWS!
3. Cheap-looking plastics:
"Quality/Fit/Finish: Although the construction and finish are worthy of praise for the quality of their execution, the plastic materials look ordinary, while the leather and wood trim look downright fake" ummm, Daniel, the wood trim IS fake!
Sorry, I also had to include this quote for our BMW, Mercedes, and Subaru 4WD brethren:
"Technology: The MDX integrates one of the most modern developments in terms of all-wheel traction..." ;)
|
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Crem de la SUV
Didn't seem lukewarm to me, either - he rated it better than the average SUV in every catagory except "budget", and I can't see why he rated it so low there.
I guess his idea of a "budget-SUV" would be Kia Sportage. :)
Well, to tell you all the truth (not that I am complaining), but $500/month after a heafty (30%) down payment is a substaintial chunk of any family's budget (unless your name is Bill Gates or alike...)
If I paid $100 a month instead, maybe I would be more willing to "turn a deaf ear" more often. |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by donsev
...Sorry, I also had to include this quote for our BMW, Mercedes, and Subaru 4WD brethren:
"Technology: The MDX integrates one of the most modern developments in terms of all-wheel traction..." ;)
Donsev, if you think his other lines are full of BS, why would you jump all over this one???
None of "modern technology" helped Mitsubishi Montero in CR tests! :(:(:( |
|
|
|
I guess I was discouraged by the report card - that's what I deemed 'lukewarm'.
For example:
****
Budget -
Price/Equipment: The MDX's relatively lofty price is justified by its high technology and exhaustive list of standard equipment and luxury amenities. 5%
****
5%? That's a tad unreasonable, isn't it? OK - it ain't cheap, I'll grant you that. But you're supposed to be gauging *VALUE*. Specifically, versus similarly equipped vehicles. Two major reasons I didn't go X5 - one, was the lack of interior space. Two - moolah. The 4.4 similarly equipped to the MDX was a whopping 10-12k more.
How about
****
Insurance: The MDX's insurance premiums are quite reasonable. Insuring an Acura SUV costs only a little more than a Blazer or Durango, and a lot less than a BMW X5 or Mercedes-Benz ML320. 35%
****
Uhh - hello? 35%? It's got practically the same premium as a Durango, and you're rating it 35%? Do you have to get free insurance with the car to get a passing grade?
****
Depreciation: Over the long term, the MDX should not lose resale value as quickly as some of its rivals which are a lot more fuel thirsty. 30%
****
This one threw me for a loop - one of my reasons for getting this damn car was the resale value. I'm not one to sell my cars - but if you're going to drop $40k+ for a depreciating asset, then it might as well depreciate SLOWLY, not drop like a rock like JacqueAsser's Ford Exploder.
I know why he rates like this though - it's his rating methodology. He figures out boundaries for values (like MPG rating - could be anywhere from 10 to 40 MPG, where 10=0% and 40=100%, and anywhere in between is linearly rated).
That system sucks. You're basically saying that if a crx can get 40 mpg, it gets a 100% rating, and the MDX deserves a 30%? Did he ever consider that to lug all my family and crap around, I'd need 3 CRXs, thus reducing my MPG rating? |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by vip9
For example, he states the car is sold w/o any options.
He's based in Quebec. In Canada, the MDX IS sold without options (except for dealer add-ons), so that's probably why he thought this. It's basically the Touring Model w/o navigation. Cdn $47000 + $950 Dealer Prep. This works out to approx. $32K U.S. Of course, we get killed by Sales and GST taxes (In Ontario you pay 15%)..... |
|
|
|
I wouldn't take Daniel Heraud's report card too seriously. I have a large car buying guide (300+ pages) written by him from a few years ago. In this guide he provided a detailed report card for every car/truck model available in the US & Canada for 1995. As is the case now, he used a strange grading scale for some of his report card categories. For example, there were some categories in which it was nearly impossible to find a score lower than 75% (even for a Hyundai Excel or Geo Metro!). There were other categories in which it was difficult to score higher than 60%. It was obvious he was not grading on a bell curve for each of the categories.
I like some of Daniel's observations, but I take many of his opinions with a grain of salt. For example, he rated the 1995 Maxima as the best new auto design for that year (even though many others have said that the previous generation Maxima was the better driver's car). I think he said something about the 928 being more of a "true" Porsche versus the 911. Oops! He also seemed to be biased against many of the Honda/Acura models, such as the Legend, Prelude, and Civic. I found it ironic how he complained that the Prelude was not offered with a 6-cylinder engine (what was wrong with the VTEC 190hp model?), and yet he gave very good performance marks to the Celica ST with its excessively weak 110-hp engine!
By the way, this book was also my first exposure to how differently some cars are delivered in Canada as opposed to the U.S. Since Daniel is based out of Canada, he listed some car models that were not available in the states, especially some lower-cost versions of European cars that I had never seen before!
|
|
|
|
Gripes, gripes gripes!!! Everywhere I turn some so-called expert is finding nit-picks about the MDX. Not as quiet as the RX; not as nimble as the X5; not as good off road as the Montero; leather not as good as the Mercedes; not as economical as the Explorer. Not this and not that!!! Yet, every single one of them is hard pressed to find a better overall SUV. X5, RX300, Montero, ML, Durango, Explorer? NOT!!!
One gets the feeling that only perfection would suffice.
You gotta admit however,the slow wipers were a first. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: |
|
|
|
Though like the Edmunds review, it's hard to tell, this time because of Dan's organization of information. His scoring has always confused me.
Look at it this way: in his overall scoring, the X5 gets 71%, the MDX 69%, the M-class and RX300 68%, the QX4 67%. Not that I think the QX4 is only 1% below an M-class or RX300, but maybe that puts it in perspective.
I sort of agree with his observation about rear seat comfort. Not about the reclining part, but the general fact that I find (to my back and tush) the second row a bit flat and short and not very cushioning. He said:
"The middle bench's cushion is too short, whereas the rear seatback is too straight and there is not enough legroom all the way at the back. Furthermore, the padding is firm, and both lateral and lumbar support are dearly lacking."
I don't think he's complaining that you can't recline the seatback, just that the seatback itself has little contouring (shape) in it.
He also noted less agility on the slalom course than the X5, not surprising.
But his positives are all very strong for the vehicle, while the negatives, IMHO, are not as significant; he just has to mention some positives and negatives, not necessarily equally weighing them. |
|
|
|
I think putting five vehicles all within a bracket of four percentage points tells the reader that this guy doesn't have any significant preference among them.
If five students all ended the year with these kind of marks, they would be perceived as five "C" grade kids. All similar, with barely passing grades.
These five vehicles do not fit this profile. Crappy review. |
|
|
|
How does the MDX do in it's class at fuel economy?
Fairly well, if not the best (17/23).
How did he rate it, gradewise? - 35%
That's ridiculous. Now, if you read the fine print, you'll understand he's not comparing apples to apples. He's giving a relative range (from 10 to 40 MPG, let's say) and then grades versus the range.
Thus the 35%. I don't know about you - but that's the stupidest grading system I've ever seen. Does the MDX handle like a Porsche 911? I seriously doubt it. So why grade the one against the other? Does the Porsche get low marks for cargo space? |
|
|
|
