| noel |
Hi Everyone,
Well, I've owned my 2007 MDX for 3 months now and here are my observations up until now.
1. I'm very pleased with the handing on smooth roads but not on unpaved roads.
2. Somewhat disappointed in quality of fit of interior trim even though dealer has resolved most issues. I guess I expected better from Acura!
3. Now the biggie: Quite disappointed in performance! Car is rated at 300HP but acceleration is mediocre at best and torque is non-existant by my standards. I find myself shifting the trans manually, something I thought I'd never do but still find performance very lacking. How do the rest of you feel, is it just me? |
|
|
| rai |
new cars do have to break-in and should feel stronger after 2-3 months. Some cars more-so than others.
the MDX is not so bad for a 4400 lb cars. The tranny is not the quickest to downshift which hurts a lot. I could be on the HW doing 60 in 5th gear and if I floor the gas it takes about one second to shift down. It should be a fraction of a second.
I didn't find shifting the car manually helped that any. What I mean is you still have slow shifts but you can keep the revs up more with manual mode but if you do that you will get worse gas mileage.
On top of that the MDX should have a 6 or 7 speeed tranny (IMO) which would help. But shift speed is my biggest complaint something a company like Honda should have down by now. |
|
|
| LionSpeed |
| I've heard, the performance would be much better after the first oil change. Another experience for myself is lack of correct PSI in the tires. Lastly perhaps or rather hopefully you'll learn to accept it is in fact just a SUV. |
|
|
| dj-mdx2 |
| You need a Turbo Cayenne if you're expecting that kind of performance from a family hauler, with moderate off-road capability at that. The 4.8 X5 is another alternative. But for the price difference, I'd rather get a small sporty car like an S2000 or Miata or an Infiniti G if you want spirited driving. |
|
|
| noel |
quote:
Originally posted by dj-mdx2
You need a Turbo Cayenne if you're expecting that kind of performance from a family hauler, with moderate off-road capability at that. The 4.8 X5 is another alternative. But for the price difference, I'd rather get a small sporty car like an S2000 or Miata or an Infiniti G if you want spirited driving.
I don't expect Turbo Cayenne performance. My big complaint is lack of torque. I drove 4 V8 powered Jeep Grand Cherokees prior to buying this MDX, the last one being the high output V8. While I will admit openly that they have no where near the refinement or handling of the MDX they had loads of bottom end torque. I guess I just miss having that low end grunt and passing power on the xway, which I feel is sadly lacking in the MDX. |
|
|
| rai |
I really don't think it's lacking in TQ. It's got 275-TQ which is most of any normally aspirated V6 SUV.
Is is behind the V8s? Yes thats obvious.
It's NOT a V8
it's 3.7L V6 NOT 5.7L V8 anyone expecting as much TQ as a big V8 is not living in the same world as I am. |
|
|
| noel |
quote:
Originally posted by rai
I really don't think it's lacking in TQ. It's got 275-TQ which is most of any normally aspirated V6 SUV.
Is is behind the V8s? Yes thats obvious.
It's NOT a V8
it's 3.7L V6 NOT 5.7L V8 anyone expecting as much TQ as a big V8 is not living in the same world as I am.
Yes, it is a different world and one I'm not used to. Having a difficult time adapting to the limits of V6 power. Perhaps with time, I'll get used to it but right now, I must admit I miss that low down power of a throbing V8, time will tell? |
|
|
| highcountrymdx |
Driving a finely tuned Japanese car is way different than driving a typical American machine. The Japanese engines depend on rpm to move out. No such thing as bottom end torque. On you vehicle the torque peaks at a breath taking 5000 rpm.
Keep your foot planted, and the rpm in the upper reaches of the tach, and it will perform very well. Still and all. not like driving an American V-8 where you have instantaneous torque right at throttle tip in.
Different sort of beast, completely. |
|
|
| m500 |
| Its definitely missing the torque coming from my ML500 which I traded in for MDx. I find myself in 3rd gear when going up hill or just casually passing on a slight upgrade freeway. I never have to downshift on my ML500. This is just trying to keep up or maintain my speed at 70mph. But its still a good trade off for a more reliable vehicle and that familiar VTEC music from HONDA. |
|
|
| Mike_TX |
It's worth pointing out that the V-8's in those ML500's and HO Cherokees get pretty abysmal gas mileage along with that torque, so you pay a price for it.
You may or may not care about that, but Honda/Acura works at delivering good performance along with good mileage. You'll adjust to it and soon find the X scoots around pretty well.
.
. |
|
|
| noel |
quote:
Originally posted by Mike_TX
It's worth pointing out that the V-8's in those ML500's and HO Cherokees get pretty abysmal gas mileage along with that torque, so you pay a price for it.
You may or may not care about that, but Honda/Acura works at delivering good performance along with good mileage. You'll adjust to it and soon find the X scoots around pretty well.
Hope you're right.
Thanks,
.
.
|
|
|
| rai |
There is a common saying "there's no replacement for displacement' which is not entirely true.
Performance is not all about TQ. For example my S2000 has about 138-TQ (or so) and F1 cars have around 170-TQ (but 700hp+ at 19,000 rpms)
Not everything is TQ, things like gearing and tranny and engine speed are as important.
It's too bad (IMO) the MDX has a slow shifting tranny because that is one easy way it would be able to use the HP it makes in the high RPMs.
As it is, the MDX is fine especially when you are pushing it so it's revs are pretty high. But when you are loafing around in the bottom half of the rev range you will miss the extra displacement and TQ. |
|
|
| m500 |
quote:
Originally posted by rai
There is a common saying "there's no replacement for displacement' which is not entirely true.
Performance is not all about TQ. For example my S2000 has about 138-TQ (or so) and F1 cars have around 170-TQ (but 700hp+ at 19,000 rpms)
Not everything is TQ, things like gearing and tranny and engine speed are as important.
It's too bad (IMO) the MDX has a slow shifting tranny because that is one easy way it would be able to use the HP it makes in the high RPMs.
As it is, the MDX is fine especially when you are pushing it so it's revs are pretty high. But when you are loafing around in the bottom half of the rev range you will miss the extra displacement and TQ.
Yes, not everything is about TQ number but its determine on Power to Weight ratio. :cool: On your S2000 or F1 with that superb power to weight ratio TQ number is just right. But on something Heaving like a SUV, the more TQ is better since the power to weight ratio is bad compare to ultra light weighted cars. |
|
|
| gmc74 |
My Excursion had 310 HP and 425 ft lbs of tq, but it wasn't that fast
:D |
|
|
|
