| Don |
| Came across some posts at the Odyclub.com website bashing the MDX for being "overpriced" and how it would be smarter to buy a Honda Odyssey instead. I found it quite amusing... Head on over to www.odyclub.com and look for the thread "Poor MDXers" in the general Forum (sorry, I haven't figured out how to post a link in my message yet). Don't get me wrong, I think the Odyssey is a mighty fine minivan and I am actually going to be putting down a deposit for the 2002 Ody with a RES (rear entertainment system with a flip-down video screen and DVD player). That's another 6-7 month wait :( I'm sure all you MDXers can relate to that! (the wait, that is) |
|
|
| gto-dave |
Oranges, Apples.
You go Don. Good job standing up for X'ers.
What a bunch of losers. They're over there cause they cant afford to be over here.
That's straight out jealousy!!!
I'm sure your Odyseeee's gonna be nice with all those goodies. |
|
|
| wmquan |
| You'd think Odyssey owners would be supportive of the MDX. MDX owners are usually quite supportive of the Odyssey. Most of us never hesitate to recommend one especially when someone needs the extra passenger space and cargo room. Oh well, to each their own, nothing to worry about. I wouldn't waste my breath posting against the opinions there. |
|
|
| JNanas |
Of course the Odyssey owners should be supportive of MDX owners, and vice versa.
They're both the same car, aren't they?
:D
(I'm only kidding, of course - but that one was all too easy....the flame war would be *ridiculous*) |
|
|
| wmquan |
Yep. They should gang up against ugly, unreliable, and underpowered German vehicles that try their best to look like minivans. :D
That was also too easy! |
|
|
| mdxwannabe |
| Don't let a few bad apples spoil the whole barrel.Their wives probably made them by the minivan and this is their way of speaking out.Just a bunch of p---- whipped guys. |
|
|
| MoDX |
| The Oddyssey is a great vehicle, but those of us here obviously preferred the MDX for a variety of reasons. As for trying to defend the MDX in an Oddyssey forum......well...there's as much point to that as there is in mud wrestling with a pig, you both get muddy but the pig likes it. ;) |
|
|
| AtlantaMDX |
Well, if I'd wanted a miniVAN, I'd have bought one! :)
Once a year my college fraternity has an Alum vs Undergrad mud football game and there's always a lot of smaq talk that goes on before the game (via e-mail). And one of the classic slams from an undergrad was, "You just have your wife come pick you up in your minivan so you can stretch your weak weary bones out after we trample you "..... :) too funny. |
|
|
| metmdx |
quote:
Originally posted by MoDX
The Oddyssey is a great vehicle, but those of us here obviously preferred the MDX for a variety of reasons. As for trying to defend the MDX in an Oddyssey forum......well...there's as much point to that as there is in mud wrestling with a pig, you both get muddy but the pig likes it. ;)
You hope !
;)
metmdx |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
I think I'll hop over to the www.acura-tl.com forums and do a little Odessy bashing:D
Or maybe I'll pull a Ken over there and be an MDX owner-basher;) :o :o
Seriously, the Odessy owners bashing MDXers is ALL about jealosy. There are many people who do hate SUVs, but there are many mini-van driving suv-wannabees:D |
|
|
| wmquan |
My father-in-law has said he'd willingly trade his Odyssey for our MDX. I'd bet he's not the only one, and I doubt if you'll hear many trade wishes going the other way.
That all said, the Odyssey is a great (though not perfect) minivan, and probably the best overall of the minivans (only other one I'd consider is the Sienna). |
|
|
| GCK |
| My wife still wants me to get an Odyssey. I do agree that it is a more spacious car and better suited for someone with lotsa kids. However, I just do not want to be a Minivan type of guy yet.... maybe, once you become a minivan guy, the jealosy creeps in ... Bash the MDX |
|
|
| JNanas |
William-
Ouch - that was pretty low..... of course, all kidding aside - I don't think of the ML320 as underpowered - check CR's 1/4 mile and mile times. Pretty much the same as the MDX (damn that VTEC).
As far as the Odyssey vs. MDX debate - c'mon, an entire flame war over one guy who obviously couldn't buy the MDX for one reason or another? Not worth it. You'd only add credibility to his statement. |
|
|
| A2MDXer |
quote:
Originally posted by Don
Came across some posts at the Odyclub.com website bashing the MDX for being "overpriced" and how it would be smarter to buy a Honda Odyssey instead. I found it quite amusing...
I think that getting a minivan is the smartest decision if you need the space and hauling capacity - so in that sense I agree that buying an Odyssey is smarter than buying an MDX. For some the Ody is a perfect choice. However, who wants to be smart and practical all of the time?:confused::D The MDX is the better purchase for me and I suspect nearly everyone on this board because it has many of the advantages of a minivan (not the lower price, of course) and yet is still fun to drive, semi-luxurious, better in foul weather, sportier, etc. Let them have the title of making the smartest decision, we will be happy with the better decision.:D :D |
|
|
| Mikel |
| Not that I am in any great hurry to buy a minivan (in fact, the wife REFUSES to get one), but if Honda had an AWD for the Odyssey it would have made the MDX much more difficult to justify. Fact is, because of the hide-away third seat, there cannot be an AWD Odyssey. |
|
|
| Robyjo |
quote:
Originally posted by JNanas
William-
Ouch - that was pretty low..... of course, all kidding aside - I don't think of the ML320 as underpowered - check CR's 1/4 mile and mile times. Pretty much the same as the MDX (damn that VTEC).
As far as the Odyssey vs. MDX debate - c'mon, an entire flame war over one guy who obviously couldn't buy the MDX for one reason or another? Not worth it. You'd only add credibility to his statement.
I don't know how many of you have seen the Matrix, but this is like that scene when Morpheus and Neo spar and Mouse goes and yells to everyone, "Morpheus is fighting Neo!!" and they all rush to watch the fight. :D
I guess the question is which one is Morpheus and which one is Neo?
The Odyssey is the best minivan you can buy IMHO....did you get that? MINIVAN
:rolleyes: Rob |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by Mikel
Not that I am in any great hurry to buy a minivan (in fact, the wife REFUSES to get one), but if Honda had an AWD for the Odyssey it would have made the MDX much more difficult to justify. Fact is, because of the hide-away third seat, there cannot be an AWD Odyssey.
Yes, it's a relatively artificial constraint because neither Toyota or Honda make AWD versions of their minivan. I'm not that hung up in the minivan image thing, and if there was an AWD Sienna or AWD Odyssey, I would have seriously considered it. They basically make the choice for us by not offering AWD minivans. I don't think Mazda sells an AWD MPV anymore. And I would not want a Chrysler minivan of any type, so that's out.
But, as you pointed out, an AWD Odyssey minivan wouldn't have one of the key features of the Odyssey. I'm not sure if it'd be relatively easy to adapt a Sienna to AWD though.
I don't buy that posted implication that traction control on the Odyssey gives you what you get with the AWD/VTM-4 in the MDX.
Can't beat access in a minivan, though. Those power sliding doors make things so much easier, especially loading kids into the second row. |
|
|
| A2MDXer |
quote:
Originally posted by Robyjo
I don't know how many of you have seen the Matrix, but this is like that scene when Morpheus and Neo spar and Mouse goes and yells to everyone, "Morpheus is fighting Neo!!" and they all rush to watch the fight. :D
I guess the question is which one is Morpheus and which one is Neo?
This may be a bit less exciting. Based on the number of posts, I think William would be Morpheus. |
|
|
| Foxbat |
quote:
Originally posted by wmquan
Yes, it's a relatively artificial constraint because neither Toyota or Honda make AWD versions of their minivan. I'm not that hung up in the minivan image thing, and if there was an AWD Sienna or AWD Odyssey, I would have seriously considered it. They basically make the choice for us by not offering AWD minivans. I don't think Mazda sells an AWD MPV anymore. And I would not want a Chrysler minivan of any type, so that's out.
But, as you pointed out, an AWD Odyssey minivan wouldn't have one of the key features of the Odyssey. I'm not sure if it'd be relatively easy to adapt a Sienna to AWD though.
I remember Toyota did make an AWD version of Previa minivan once. And the Mazda 4WD MPV is a crap from every review I read.
Foxbat |
|
|
| BarryH |
| You know what they say, "jack of all trades and master of none". An all-wheel drive minivan still isn't an SUV and it's a poorer minivan because of the weight and complexity added by the all-wheel drive system that makes it slower and less economical. The same thing applies to SUV’s with third row seating. They’re still SUV’s and the third row is best left for kids and the vertically challenged. While the MDX and Odyssey share certain lineage, they look different, drive differently, and are targeted at two separate audiences. It's like that Mitsubishi commercial where the minivan owner is paged in the gym that "there's a tan minivan with its lights on". Would you want to own the tan minivan? I for one wouldn't be caught dead in a minivan of any make even if they made one that overcame the laws of physics. I'm not putting down minivans, but comparing an Odyssey to an MDX, especially based on price alone, doesn't make sense. What difference does it make that the Odyssey is a "better value" if you didn't want a minivan in the first place? |
|
|
| octavian |
My wife has an Odyssey....I have an MDX.
Different vehicles. Different strengths. Different weaknesses. Different purposes. Different appeals.
Both outstanding vehicles.
Next topic, please. |
|
|
| s2ktaxi |
quote:
Originally posted by octavian
My wife has an Odyssey....I have an MDX.
Different vehicles. Different strengths. Different weaknesses. Different purposes. Different appeals.
Both outstanding vehicles.
Next topic, please.
Ditto! If one were clearly better than the other, I would not have both either... And if both are not good enough, the NSX or S2000 will do. |
|
|
| Dilbert |
Third that motion. My wife has the Ody, the MDX for me AND an S2000 for the both us.(see sig)
People ask us all the time if we own a bunch of Honda stock. No to that. Coincidentally, these cars were the best fit for our different needs. read, NEEDS. We have four kids, tow a boat, remodel the home, and go to the mountains often. Okay, the S2k is the toy. Sue me.
This thread was stemmed by someone who thought that because both vehicles are built at the same plant they must be too close to be different. There is only about a 6k difference and you get the Acura name/warranty/resale, AWD, better drivability, more luxo interior and more ground clearance. Not to mention the cool factor, but I'll leave the ego at the door.
I love all three and recommend all three.
Wee for me. |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by JNanas
William-
Ouch - that was pretty low..... of course, all kidding aside - I don't think of the ML320 as underpowered - check CR's 1/4 mile and mile times. Pretty much the same as the MDX (damn that VTEC).
As far as the Odyssey vs. MDX debate - c'mon, an entire flame war over one guy who obviously couldn't buy the MDX for one reason or another? Not worth it. You'd only add credibility to his statement.
Just a joke, no big deal. |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by Foxbat
I remember Toyota did make an AWD version of Previa minivan once. And the Mazda 4WD MPV is a crap from every review I read.
Foxbat
Yep, the Mazda AWD MPV was not good at all. It was replaced by another model of MPV, one that isn't available with an AWD version. As for the Previa, well, good thing the Sienna replaced it!
Toyota used to make more AWD vehicles. I still remember AWD Tercel wagons and I think Corollas. Now everything has to be an SUV, basically leaving AWD sedans and wagons to other manufacturers. Pity. |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by JNanas
of course, all kidding aside - I don't think of the ML320 as underpowered - check CR's 1/4 mile and mile times. Pretty much the same as the MDX (damn that VTEC).
Which CR are you looking at? The last full test they did of a 6-cylinder ML320 was of a '98, and the differences between it and the MDX are significant.
And the 2002 ML320 is 200 pounds heavier than the 2001 ML320 so I'm afraid it'll be even slower (not to mention the small extra weight of the ML's optional third row seat, which isn't put in the test vehicles). This all said, the ML320's power is adequate for driving around town. Just less power than an MDX or even an RX.
Here's food for thought, if we're going to cite CR. Their 2000 ML430 (V8 engine) was 7.9 seconds 0-60mph, 4.8 seconds 45-65mph, and 16.3 seconds for the quarter mile. CR tested an MDX and it was 8.0 seconds 0-60mph, 5.1 seconds 45-65mph, and 16.4 seconds in the quarter mile.
Not too shabby at all! Obviously the ML430 has more torque and is better at towing heavy loads. But I think for "power" the MDX is much more comparable to a (very expensive) ML430 than an ML320. With this and the X5 4.4i, MB's given up on the ML430 and upgraded it to the ML500 (nice power in that vehicle, though quite pricey).
So, praise that VTEC!
Check the C&D luxury SUV roundup for more comparisons of power. The tests were run on a slow track, slowing everyone down, but the vehicles were all tested simultaneously. |
|
|
| JNanas |
William-
You got me - I stand corrected. The numbers I was looking at turn out to be those of a 430. The difference in the MDX-320 was the to-be-expected 15% (HP difference, 240 to 215).
Of course - you won't get me saying I like VTEC. I hate my Honda Accord for that reason. There's some hesitation due to VTEC which I absolutely cannot stand, and which can't be overcome unless you rev the engine up immediately past 3k RPM. That was one reason why I didn't find that much fault in the 215HP of the 320 versus the MDX. In the craziness that is NYC traffic, having a hump at 3000 RPM is a real pain in the butt. |
|
|
| wmquan |
John, thanks for the response. FWIW, the tuning of the MDX's engine and its VTEC is quite different than your relatively older Accord. E.g. there's more low-end torque in the MDX than there is in a number of other, older Acura and Honda products. That certainly helps with city driving.
However, I do agree that VTEC is overused a bit too much in Honda marketing, especially since its competitors make use of variable valve timing as well. A case where marketing decided to really focus on an engineering aspect.
This past holiday weekend was a good demonstration of the MDX's acceleration for us. We used it to pass a number of vehicles on single-lane-each-way mountain passes, while traveling up-mountain. Our old Integra LS, while no slouch, always made us nervous as it took a while to build up the passing speed and get by the other vehicle, all the time worrying about whether or not a vehicle would appear around a curve, coming toward us. No worries with the MDX; it just breezes by the other vehicles that are doing 55-70mph. Low-end grunt is important, but so is high-end acceleration. |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by JNanas
You got me - I stand corrected. The numbers I was looking at turn out to be those of a 430. The difference in the MDX-320 was the to-be-expected 15% (HP difference, 240 to 215).
I'm afraid it's more than 15% in actual results, because besides the engine HP difference, the 320 is significantly heavier than the MDX. (Sorry for being so anal-retentive, but I'm really detail-oriented and like good numbers.)
To illustrate, and since we've been citing acceleration times, I may as well be complete with the CR numbers for all three vehicles previously cited. Again, I suspect the '02 ML320's numbers will be worse than what is illustrated below because it's more than 200 lbs heavier, and tests don't include the third row seat (probably would be another 4%-5%).
I also included 0-30 times which shows more of the lower-speed performance.
My apologies for the funky formatting below, didn't know how to overcome the extra spacing.
Vehicle Tested
|
0-30
|
0-60
|
45-65
|
1/4 Mile
|
'98 ML320
|
3.6
|
10.0
|
6.6
|
17.7
|
'01 MDX
|
3.0
|
8.0
|
5.1
|
16.4
|
'00 ML430
|
3.0
|
7.9
|
4.8
|
16.3
|
|
|
|
| kenyee |
It's funny how most men (and some women) would say "I wouldn't get caught dead in a minivan"...almost like it is some testicle castrating event to be caught driving one ;-)
Some refuse to look at them even though they are the best choice because of the #people they carry and the cargo they carry SIMULTANEOUSLY. Once you have two kids and you have to carry parents around, it seems like the logical decision. It's even more amusing when they bash the MDX because it is mostly based on the Odyssey (even sharing some of the quirks like the gas tank slosh noise).
As for the ML, yep, slower to 60. Also slow in traffic if you're using to Japanese gas pedals. The first 1" or so seems to be tweaked for off-roading where you have to finesse it. If you mash it, it moves decently in the city. A comparison of 0-60 numbers is pretty meaningless if that's what you want to talk about, William. You have to add 0-30, 20-40 and torque curves if you want to talk about moving in the city. I'm just saying that there are other factors.
However, that being said, the MDX does drive more like a car and feels more nimble. That's good and bad for some people. |
|
|
| Robyjo |
Morpheus and Neo, (William and John)
Should we bring up the ML55?
Rob ;) |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by kenyee
A comparison of 0-60 numbers is pretty meaningless if that's what you want to talk about, William. You have to add 0-30, 20-40 and torque curves if you want to talk about moving in the city.
Sigh ... I did add in 0-30 numbers. I'd put in 20-40 if CR had tested for and published them. The numbers were in response to the statement that the quarter-mile times were comparable.
Yep, a comparison of 0-60 numbers are meaningless when taken by themselves. There are more numbers than that. But while low-end torque is certainly important (and the MDX is no slouch here either), one can't forget the importance of passing power at higher revs. That's my point. Even city dwellers hit the freeway once in a while.
Here are Car & Driver numbers, which do include 5-60 and 30-50 times. I doubt if the 20-40 numbers would be much different. Plus 2002 ML320 numbers will probably be worse than the tested 2000 ML320 numbers below, because of the 200 lb weight gain for 2002, plus the fact that the test was without the third row seats in place. The Car & Driver test was performed on quite a slow track, but at least all vehicles were tested simultaneously.
Again, I apologize for the excess spacing below.
Vehicle
|
0-30
|
0-60
|
0-90
|
1/4 mile
|
5-60
|
30-50
|
50-70
|
2001 MDX
|
3.0
|
8.4
|
19.8
|
16.6@83mph
|
8.8
|
4.0
|
5.7
|
2000 ML320
|
3.4
|
10.3
|
22.2
|
17.5@79mph
|
10.6
|
4.8
|
7.4
|
|
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by Robyjo
Morpheus and Neo, (William and John)
Should we bring up the ML55?
Rob ;)
Suffice it to say, the ML55 is a faster vehicle ;D |
|
|
| kenyee |
The 50-70 difference seems the most meaningful, meaning if you have an ML320, don't race an MDX or X5 on the highway ;-)
That would explain why the ML430 folks have always said they have added oomph when passing on the highway and when towing. It'd also be interesting to see what would happen if you downshifted both into 4th first.
The city speed (.4sec) difference is largely irrelevant at 0-30.
And to put things in perspective, check out the speeds of my 12yr old 1988 Acura Integra LS (some 1500+ lbs lighter). 0-60 was 9.7sec IIRC. "Woefully underpowered"? Well... |
|
|
| JNanas |
It's interesting you guys mention all this, in a topic marked 'MDX-bashing at Honda Odyssey forum' - since one of my reasons for picking the ML320 over the MDX was that the ML320 was an actual *truck*.
Low gear - crawl feature - transfer case - the whole bit. 99.9% of SUV America won't need truck features in their SUV (so then why aren't they buying something *other* than SUVs? Got me). I do - the boat, the tons of crap I like to bring around with me (sometimes exceeding the cargo capacity of most of the pseudo-SUVs, the RX300 being the most flagrant violator).
Although I had a bunch of other factors as well - I didn't find it fair to nitpick over some of the comparisons, since the MDX isn't really a truck (hence the luxury tax MDX owners pay).
Is that to say it's any less vehicle, or that people who don't need truck features shouldn't buy an SUV? Hey - it's your money. Buy a big polka dot winnebago if you want, that's fine by me. If companies can make cars that look like SUVs and people like them, more power to them. When I sat down and thought about it though, I figured I'd have more luck dropping my boat in the water with an ML320 than an MDX. |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by kenyee
And to put things in perspective, check out the speeds of my 12yr old 1988 Acura Integra LS (some 1500+ lbs lighter). 0-60 was 9.7sec IIRC. "Woefully underpowered"? Well...
Exactly. I considered our '95 Integra LS somewhat underpowered as well. Especially in instances of highway passing where we wanted some more "oomph," as you put it. However, the same generation Integra (a '96 tested by CR in its 9/87 issue) also posted slightly better acceleration numbers than the '98 ML320 they tested, though obvously the Integra didn't perform in the class of the MDX. You had to go a step up beyond the LS.
I'm afraid "woefully" is your own implied adverb; I certainly didn't and wouldn't say the ML320 is "woefully underpowered." Not sure where you pulled the "woefully" out of. Peculiar. |
|
|
| zzdawg |
Yes, I like the fact you can select low lowrange on the ML's transfer case which increases the torque 2.6 times through all gear ranges (top speed is limited to about 50mph). This allows my buddys and I to drop off a boat on a very steep ramp without any problems. This boat ramp is little used as most vehicles have a hard time with it and usually have to have help getting their boat out of the water.
quote:
Originally posted by JNanas
It's interesting you guys mention all this, in a topic marked 'MDX-bashing at Honda Odyssey forum' - since one of my reasons for picking the ML320 over the MDX was that the ML320 was an actual *truck*.
Low gear - crawl feature - transfer case - the whole bit. 99.9% of SUV America won't need truck features in their SUV (so then why aren't they buying something *other* than SUVs? .... ....When I sat down and thought about it though, I figured I'd have more luck dropping my boat in the water with an ML320 than an MDX.
|
|
|
| kenyee |
quote:
Originally posted by wmquan
I considered our '95 Integra LS somewhat underpowered as well.
...
I'm afraid "woefully" is your own implied adverb
I'm surprised your '95 had that problem. I thought their power boost w/ the the new engine fixed it (mine had the old Civic CRX Si engine in it). I didn't have problems w/ it on the highway or on the street; it actually felt like a go cart, especially when compared to a Camry or Pontiac 6000 (our other family cars). If you stuck passengers in it, it would be lacking in power. I also thought the lack of power was because I had an automatic. I swore I'd never get an automatic w/ a 4 cylinder engine again after that experience.
No clue where I got that "woefully" stuck in my head. Sorry. Seemed like something that belonged in your tongue in cheek post ;-)
Now for a tangent:
As for the power, just wait until you feel the full effects of the misguided media and politicians. They had a story a few months back talking about teens losing control in "high powered cars" (cheap play on the other phobic "high powered rifles" phrase that makes people foam at the mouth ;-) so they could get support for politicians who want to limit the power of cars. They had a huge deal about this when I visited Canada not long afterwards when they kept televising an idiot Integra driver who jumped a hill, lost control and crashed...politicians there are pushing for regulating car power... |
|
|
| wmquan |
| Despite the politician rants, power is something that seems to be making a comeback nowadays. E.g. even the basic family sedan seems to be getting steady improvements in net power (most notably the Altima, but even the 4-cylinder Camry has a bit more, and the 4-cylinder Passat gained 20 horses). Most enthusiasts will consider that a good thing (and use it responsibly). Hopefully the trend will continue. |
|
|
| kenyee |
quote:
Originally posted by wmquan
Despite the politician rants, power is something that seems to be making a comeback nowadays.
That's exactly what politicians don't like. Regulating the innocents in the name of trying to get a few of the guilty who refuse to follow the law anyways is normal nowadays. Most people will just go along with it because they're willing to give up a bit of their freedom, choice, etc. so they can erroneously "feel" safer.
Too bad... |
|
|
| MK23666 |
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Foxbat
I remember Toyota did make an AWD version of Previa minivan once. And the Mazda 4WD MPV is a crap from every review I read.
Foxbat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Yep, the Mazda AWD MPV was not good at all. It was replaced by another model of MPV, one that isn't available with an AWD version.
Well ... ya'll are partially right. The early AWD MPVs didn't sell well here but they sold pretty well over in Asia. Probably due to the Rallye Sports being so popular there. Altho AWD MPVs aren't sold in the States, they are still being built and sold in Asia and I think Australia and New Zeland too. |
|
|
| MK23666 |
| :o Seeing how I can't just yet afford my very own MDX:( I have decided to trade in the ol' faithful CR-V and get the new 2003 MPV. :) For about 10K less than a comparably equipped MDX I get a reasonable facsimile except for the glaring lack of AWD and about 60 horses. :3: I like the sporty look of the (2000s and up) MPVs and think to myself that if Acura ever got their hands on an Odessey they would have given it the flare of the MPV. |
|
|
| DUBYA123 |
| Mini Vans slap the coolness right out of your mouth |
|
|
| wmquan |
Wow! This is one of the older threads on the system, brought back to life "for the next generation."
Looking back at this thread, it's funny what difference a couple of years make.
- The Odyssey of the time was revealed to have the vulnerable Honda transmission that could fail at a higher rate than normal. The 2001-2002 MDX has nowhere near the same failure rate, and the 2003 had a new design.
- The Odyssey now has much better, AWD competition in the new Toyota Sienna. However, the new Sienna is quite expensive.
- JNanas has all but disappeared from the message boards. He was one of those contending for "most posts before buying/not buying an MDX," but I think Wayne (xcel) and VicPai beat him. He started out here being totally pro-MDX, bashing the ML320 mercilessly. But then he switched and bought an ML320 and bashed the MDX, heh.
- zzdawg test drove the MDX several times but ended up buying an ML320, and I believe came back in troll form to bash the MDX.
- The ML320 got heavier and heavier each year. MB must have known it was underpowered, because for 2003 the ML320 was dropped and replaced with the more robust ML350. Despite the numbering, it actually went from a 3.2 liter engine to a much bigger 3.7 liter one.
- And, of course, the new MPV is a much better minivan than the previous one.
- Now we're seeing all sorts of SUV, minivan, wagon, etc. crossover-type vehicles (e.g. Pacifica, FX, etc.). |
|
|
| ndahbar |
quote:
Originally posted by Don
Came across some posts at the Odyclub.com website bashing the MDX for being "overpriced" and how it would be smarter to buy a Honda Odyssey instead. I found it quite amusing... Head on over to www.odyclub.com and look for the thread "Poor MDXers" in the general Forum (sorry, I haven't figured out how to post a link in my message yet). Don't get me wrong, I think the Odyssey is a mighty fine minivan and I am actually going to be putting down a deposit for the 2002 Ody with a RES (rear entertainment system with a flip-down video screen and DVD player). That's another 6-7 month wait :( I'm sure all you MDXers can relate to that! (the wait, that is)
Uhm...ODDESEY IS A FREAKIN' MINIVAN!!! A MINIVAN! ONE THAT REALLY LOOKS LIKE A FREAKIN MINIVAN! 'Nuf said. |
|
|
| Taiwanese |
My wife is driving a 95 MPV. We take care of the van like a baby.(Routine oil change, sevice, timing belt.........)
But........
upper radiator hose broke at 70,xxx miles
my ex 91 Accord hose didn't break until 120,xxx miles
Radiator had a big crack causing the van had to be towed at 90,xxx miles.
my ex 91 Accord radiator had a small hole at 140,xxx miles and I CAN still drive to my repair shop
Maybe the newer MPV is better. But I think Mazda just use cheaper components for their cars. I would stick with Honda or Toyota.
$0.02 |
|
|
| MK23666 |
I kinda agree with you there. The earlier Odys looked more like an Accord wagon on roids and wasn't all that bad looking to me. :4: The next generation became more like a minivan but with Honda flair. :( (The next version should be better looking)
The new MPVs are to me more in the vein of what the early Ody was but with what it should have had in the first place ... sliding doors. :rolleyes:
Should have my MPV by the end of the month. :D (When you squint the front and rear ends kinda put to mind the MDX, especially the pentagonal grill ... a major factor in my getting it instead of an Ody) :2:
2000 and up MPVs are rated as one of the top minivans by Consumer Reports and Consumer's Digest. Reliability is above average these days. |
|
|
| greatscot |
| Also had an MPV, worst vehicle I ever had, alignment problems all the time, always causing tire damage, in the shop a lot. Got rid of it PDQ, swayed me away from Mazda altogether. New ones might be better but I'm not willing to expirement with my hard earned dough. |
|
|
|
