| msu79gt82 |
| The MDX sits third behind the Pilot and Highlander |
|
|
| DaleB |
Which means they really like the MDX best but can't justify a few more bucks spent for a luxury SUV with nicer styling as well as larger wheels.
Highlander s/b 3rd place. I think it's a nice vehicle, but no match for a better engine, a lower weight 4 wheel drive assembly, and more passenger room. |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
| I corrected my mistake:rolleyes: |
|
|
| DaleB |
| Thats even worse! :rolleyes: 3rd place...sheesh! |
|
|
| xcel |
Hi Msu79gt82 and DaleB:
___I think the X is hands down preferable in style and performance over either as far as enthusiast is concerned but the Pilot is wider, taller, larger inside, holds 8 uncomfortably ;), and is cheaper. Don’t forget the recommended Regular unleaded. As for the Toyota Highlander, look at its reliability and Consumer ratings in both Consumer Reports and Edmunds. There is still something magical about the Toyota/Lexus build quality over and above the Honda/Acura contingent. The Edmunds Consumer Ratings and Consumer Reports are bearing this out … If it was just a tad larger and had the 3rd row seat; I believe this vehicle would have taken CR’s title.
___When is my wife’s X going to get here :4:
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net |
|
|
| oceanMDX |
| I not sure I can agree that the Highlander is all that great. Compare it with the MDX at the NHTSA's web site under "comsumer complaints", and you will see what I mean. |
|
|
| xcel |
Hi OceanMDX:
___I have to look over the NHTSA site for the complaints but since I am not going to be purchasing a Highlander … You can follow Edmunds Highlander listing – CR’s = 9.5. Only the Sienna and Sequoia can match the Highlander in the Toyota brand. Looking at the Pilot listing – CR’s = 9.0. The X – CR’s = 8.6. The Car Buying issue of Consumer Reports showed the Highlander to be highly regarded with the infamous red circles in almost all of the reliability items looked at. The X on the other hand did not do quite so well. Honda has been falling faster than I had hoped according to these two sources no matter how unreliable we believe these sources to be …
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net |
|
|
| dakster |
Out of curiousity, how many of each vehicle has been sold? If you don't have that many vehicle out of the road, the complaints are going to be lower than a company with tens of thousands more on the road...
Not that I would *EVER* buy a toyota... |
|
|
| xyzzy |
I'm not surprised at all that CR put the Pilot ahead of the MDX. They typically put a larger emphasis on "bang for the buck" than on luxury. The things such as a slightly bigger interior, the 8 passenger seating, and the lower price would probably score big on their scale. Also, the Highlander is very nice and I can see why it scored the way it did. It's solidly built and rides great.
Chris |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
The article pointed out that the MDX was ~ $5K more expensive than the Pilot and if you thought the extra luxury was worth it then go for it.
They also admitted the Highlanders 5 passenger seating limitation and if you needed 7 seats then the Pilot/MDX was the way to go. |
|
|
| spacedoc |
If the Pilot had been available first, I probably would have bought one -- and been sorry. Equipped the way an MDX is (if all of the "standard" MDX items like memory seats were available), it would actually cost more! However, the basic Pilot has exactly the same basic functionality that the MDX does, and you can't get a basic MDX.
----------------------
2002 Touring, Mesa Beige, Manik side steps, body side moulding, ... everything but fender flares. |
|
|
| wmquan |
... even though the ratings are close.
Comparing the review of the 2001 MDX and the 2003 Pilot, the MDX actually had a higher score for front-seat comfort, while the Pilot had a higher score for controls and displays. I don't know about the former, but the latter was probably due to the MDX's climate controls.
However, where the Pilot clearly beat the 2001 MDX was in Emergency Handling. The MDX scored only a "below average" -- which, as SUV's go, is actually average. The Pilot, however, scored "average", which for an SUV in CR's scale, is quite good.
CR said of the MDX:
quote:
in the tight, fast turns of our track, however, the rear end swung out too easily.
Motor Week also noted the fishtailing behavior of the MDX's tail.
While CR said of the Pilot:
quote:
It was stable when pushed hard at our track. Maximum speed in our double-lane-change avoidance maneuver was fairly low, but the vehicle felt predictable and secure.
I think that Honda's softer tuning of the Pilot's suspension, while slightly reducing handling sharpness, actually helped the Pilot's emergency maneuver. This, along with the assistance of other tweaks that Honda probably made.
Now, that all said, CR's rating is based on the 2001 MDX. The 2003 has a revised suspension, as well as the all-important (as far as emergency handling goes) inclusion of stability control. I suspect that the 2003 MDX would perform significantly better in CR's test than the 2001 MDX, and probably complete the maneuver at a better speed than the Pilot. That is, of course, just speculation but it seems logical.
Another reason to buy a 2003 MDX over a 2002 MDX. |
|
|
| navybean |
| The pilot is really nice, would I trade it in and get rid of my MDX, no way! The highlander is for Grandparents, it sucks!!! |
|
|
| prairiedawg |
| I received my issue of Auto Week yesterday. In their synopsis of trucks/SUV's, they said the MDX is "head of the class" of the compact SUV's. |
|
|
| Hiker23 |
The fact that Consumer Reports, Edmunds, and other automotive resources list the MDX, Pilot, and Highlander at the top of their lists should not come as a surprise to anyone here. Obviously which one is # 1 depends on what you are looking for or who you talk to. All are considered well built, reliable, safe, etc.
We've all done our homework here (I'd say DaleB and Wmquan get extra credit) so it really comes down to what you need/want. I agree with others in restating that Consumer Reports definitely looks more closely at the "value equation" and reliability than say Edmunds and certainly more than a magazine like Car & Driver.
The goal for me is to have the MDX last around 10 years and I don't think that is unrealistic. For that to happen it needs to very reliable. In CU it is ranked as "above average" reliability and that is good enough for me. While the Highlander is may be ranked slightly better in reliability (I think its excellent, not sure though), personally it is just too bland for my wife and I.
Someone earlier mentioned that Toyota/Lexus still holds a slight advantage over Honda/Acura in terms of reliability. I would tend to agree. IMHO, where Honda/Acura hold their edge over Toyota/Lexus is sportiness, ergonomics, and arguably styling. Again, IMHO, Honda products are simply more fun to drive and have more logical and interesting interiors than Toyotas (though no match for the Germans).
Something reliable and something a little fun too..........any thoughts?
:4: |
|
|
| vicpai |
........my final three choices were limited to the '03 4Runner, Lexus GX470 and the Acura MDX, was DQR (as Honda calls it) - Durability-Quality-Reliability..........this instantly eliminated all other makes as possible contenders. (including some well engineered German vehicles such as the BMW X5, Mercedes ML, Volvo XC90, VW Touareg etc., which I might have considered otherwise)
On another note, more than the AGE (time period), I would realistically expect my MDX to last me at least 200,000 to 250,000 miles without any MAJOR component going bust (regardless of whether this mileage is accumulated over 5, 7 or 10 years). Only time will tell if the MDX is built to last. This is also one of the reasons I was concerned over the "transmission issue" (it's not just initial reliability, but LONG-TERM DURABILITY as well)
However, even though Toyota and Honda products are still far superior to other makes in terms of reliability and durability, they have definitely DECLINED in recent years and are just not what they used to be. This is certainly very very unfortunate.........but, oh well, I guess they have had no incentive to continue their obsession with PERFECTION, because the domestics and even overpriced German marques still don't even have a remote idea of how to attain the highest levels of build-quality that the Japanese marques have more than excelled at. |
|
|
| laborlitigator |
The PILOT looks like a bigger CR-V if you ask me. And most importantly, PILOT only has 9 cupholders compared to my MDX's 10.
YESSS!!!!!
As for the Highlander- - just doesn't give me a rise!
___________________
Herbert Tan
Ground Zero, NY
2000 BMW 323
2002 Acura MDX - Brown/Saddle/Premium |
|
|
| Hiker23 |
I wonder if the "proposed" decrease in realibility of Honda and Toyota is attributed to the fact that they are now built outside of Japan, that the cars are more complex (electrical systems), or that automakers now figure people are keeping their cars less than 6-7 years.
A combination of all 3?:eek: |
|
|
| DaleB |
quote:
Originally posted by Hiker23
I wonder if the "proposed" decrease in realibility of Honda and Toyota is attributed to the fact that they are now built outside of Japan, that the cars are more complex (electrical systems), or that automakers now figure people are keeping their cars less than 6-7 years.
A combination of all 3?:eek:
If you have another make like a domestic, and it has problems, you might think, gee, I should have got a Honda. You don't think, I should have got a Honda but they have problems too. What problems Honda may have will seem minor when you keep bringing your TrailStomper in for warranty work every month or so.
Underlying all of this could be some cutting of corners, especially in today's economy. Not as many quality checks, or less stringent requirements on suppliers, etc. etc.
Quality costs mucho dinero. So I would not be surprised if things are not done quite as well as before. But against the competition, you could still be on top.
And don't give me the 'quality actually costs less in the long run' lecture.
In a down economy, with pressure building, the decision-makers can become very short-sighted. |
|
|
| srpbep |
I believe that "something" is going on. It could be:
** Economics [cost cutting].
** Culture change [decreased emphasis on quality].
** Increased complexity.
** Rush to market.
** Other stuff [????].
** Combination of the above.
I really don't know how to sort this out but something is different. There are signs of "quality differences" that just weren't there in the past [personal observation]. Examples include:
** MDX weeping mirrors -- Acura had to know before the 1st MDX was shipped [assuming they washed the preproduction models]. Even if they didn't wash them, they HAD to rain test the design!
** "Cheap speakers" on the MDX. Really NO EXCUSE on the Touring [had expensive audio upgrade]. A couple of dollars more would have made such a world of difference in the sound.
** Poor radio reception on the MDX. Heck, our 01 Accord is far superior. The Camry loaner we got from Acura was MUCH better. The current loaner, a POS Chevy has got better radio reception.
** NAV problems [black screens] persisting for 2+ years without a fix on TL, CL, MDX, etc.
** Pilot "door scrunch" -- Acura had to know before 1st Pilot was shipped.
** Pilot "leather stretch" -- Acura had to know before the 1st Pilot was shipped.
** Pilot paint problems [really unbelievable].
** Trans problems on the 4-speed autos AND allowed to persist.
** Trans problems on the 5-speed autos AND allowed to persist.
** Troubles [numerous] on the Ody.
I am not saying Honda is bad, just observing that these aren't the things that gave Honda the "Honda reputation". Seems to me that they are letting things "go out the door" that in the past they would not have done. Also, seems to me that they are slow to correct problems once they occur [this could be cultural issue = would have to admit the problem in order to fix it].
Soooo ... not sure what is going on, but I do sense a change. |
|
|
| Hiker23 |
I've changed my mind.......I'm going with a Daewoo!:p
Seriously though, I whole-heartedly agree with DaleB & srpbep. Honda and Toyota are not what they use to be, but they are still the best deal in town. Ultimately there is nothing we can really do about it - besides not purchasing their cars.
It reminds me of the old business story where two executive are hiking through the woods and the come across a bear. One executive quickly goes to his backpack, pulls out a pair of sneakers and begins to put them on. The other executive begins to laugh and says "Why are putting those sneakers on? You can't outrun a bear."
The 1st executive looks up and says, "I don't have to outrun the bear.... I just have to outrun you." :bonk:
That's what Honda & Toyota are saying now..... |
|
|
| srpbep |
Hiker23,
That was put nicely.
Being in front is a good thing but is there any business reason to forgo profit to win by a mile when yards is good enough? |
|
|
| xcel |
Hi Srpbep:quote:
… when yards is good enough?
___Except that our yet to arrive 03 X better give us a minimum of 264,000,000 trouble free yards or else!
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net |
|
|
| srpbep |
xcel,
Did you use excel to do that calc? [sorry, simply couldn't resist].
Out of curiosity, how did you come to settle on 150K miles [vs. say 125, 175, or 200]? |
|
|
| xcel |
Hi Srpbep:
___No, I had to use Wolfram Research’s Mathmatica :D
___In my own mind, most should only have had to repair/replace 2 to 3 sets of front brakes, 1 or 2 A/C recharges (possibly new seals), a water pump, timing belt, third set of tires, possibly a new thermostat, 1 muffler, new set of shocks, and some minor body work from all the dings and chips the vehicle will have received over 8 – 12 years of daily use in that 150,000 miles. I would call these items minor and mostly trouble free miles but a new transmission, head gasket, blown engine, torn up VTM, hubs/wheel bearings, busted tie rods, busted stabilizer bars, shorted electrical components, flaky engine controls, separated leather seams, body work falling off … etc. would be items I would call major. Every vehicle I have ever owned has given me > 10,000 miles/$1000 spent on initial purchase and with the X, that would mean closer to 350,000 miles. I don’t think I will come anywhere close to that as my wife would divorce me for having to drive a 20 year old car ;) but at least give me the 150,000 trouble free and we would have received some value with a $3000 - $5,000 residual. The X is a losing proposition right off the lot in this regard but a losing proposition with this much luxury makes the depreciation much more palatable :4: at least to my better half anyway!
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by laborlitigator
The PILOT looks like a bigger CR-V if you ask me.
I see more Pilots on the road than I do MDXs! |
|
|
| mdxxxx |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
I see more Pilots on the road than I do MDXs!
Come to think of it. I'm also beginning to see more Pilots than MDX's! :4: |
|
|
| srpbep |
xcel,
I should have figured it was "Wolfram Research’s Mathmatica", I'm truely sorry for not knowing!!
Anyway, was a cute post ... made me stop and 'pute.
:29: |
|
|
| gokings55 |
| A Highlander is a great car if you want a sedan that gets low miles per gallon. I say that becuse sitting inside a Highlander feels just like sitting inside an Accord or Camry. Maybe the volume of the interior is greater, but in terms of useful space, you have a four door sedan that is a gas guzzler. |
|
|
| srpbep |
Ouch ... that was a bit critical of the Highlander.
We looked at it but decided an RX300 made more sense than a loaded Highlander. We liked the vehcile, just liked the Lexus more.
It was a tough call for us -- 2002 RX300 vs. 2002 MDX. What we liked better about the RX300 was the ride, quieter, and fit/finish/materials.
If the 2003 MDX lives up to the Acura hype, then I suspect that the decision would have been a lot easier. As I understand it, Acura has improved the ride, made it quieter and improved the interior [at least somewhat].
Anyway ... just my opinion ... :13: |
|
|
| DaleB |
I have 3 fundamental objections to the Highlander.
One is the 4WD version is optional, and the necessary hardware adds 300lbs to the vehicle.
No 3rd seat option.
And lastly, lots of nickel & diming going on with the options list.
But for overall ride quality, construction, interior quality I think it is commendable.
Also like the exterior finish and choice of colors.
While not quite the performance machine of the X, it is far from underpowered. |
|
|
| xyzzy |
I've said it before on the Pilot forum, but I'll say it again here. If the Pilot had not been created I would be driving a Highlander right now and would be perfectly happy. We didn't need the third row (although it could come in handy a couple times a year) and I'm after the versatility (fold down seats, etc.) more than the overall space. The Highlander rides great, has plenty of power, and is built very solid.
Chris |
|
|
|
