| hockeyplayer |
| The more I see the new Lexus, the more I like it. What is with the Volkswagon vehicles winning comparisons like this? I will admit, the MDX is starting to look outdated when it comes to interior looks and appointments. Still by far the best value for the dollar though. Why doesn't these comparisons factor resale value into the equation? That would handicap the Volkswagon to no end. |
|
|
| vicpai |
| ........don't give too much "weight" to the Navigation System. If they did, the MDX would be PERENIALLY at 1st Place, and nobody would ever be able to de-throne it ;) |
|
|
| mauigrl721 |
| Yeah, just got my hands on that article last week....I, too, was a little disappointed with the X's place, but C & D obviously doesn't know the X like we do;) JK! I agree with you, vicpai, that they did not consider the Navi very carefully. Also, the Lexus is almost $10 grand more than the MDX!!! Oh well, third is still a great feat in a field of 8!:4: |
|
|
| tigmd99 |
Let's hope that the MDX won't just be known for having the best Navi system...don't fall into the same trap as the Infiniti Q45, which is now known ONLY for it's Gatling headlights.
Vic, let me guess, you really like your Navi. :) |
|
|
| cmdpm |
i'd like to share some thoughts and observations with my fellow MDXers, after reading the article...
based on the needs of most of us, the MDX still has many virtues including:
1. sophisticated, lively and fuel-efficient V6/5-speed tranny
2. reasonable curb weight of approx. 4400 lbs.
3. 1 and 2 combine to give very good acceleration/performance with reasonable gas mileage
4. no-brainer reactive 1,2,3 or 4 wheel drive as the situation demands
5. 3rd row seat, with flexible seat arrangement or large cargo capacity
6. quite possibly the most sophisticated navi available
6. acura/honda engineering, reliability, relative msrp value and real world resale
some compromises that acura chose are:
1. less than top notch luxury,i.e. fake wood trim and lack of dual front climate controls, and others that have been mentioned in this web site
2.relatively low tow ratings and medium use off-road capabilities, but in acuras defense these "limitations" were based on their engineers observations of what most recreational families really need in the real world
i respect both lexus and vw but the lexus' 3rd row is not as practical the vw does not even offer a third row and both are at least $10,000 more costly. in addition, both are much heavier and need v8s. as a matter of fact the vw weighs more than 1100 lbs. more than the MDX. this will have a major effect on gas mileage on the road, although most who consider the lexus or vw wont really care much about that.
my bottom line is that i respect lexus and vw ( and bmw and volvo-although both got whipped by the MDX) especially since these companies will motivate acura to continue improving the MDX, but i still think that for many people, especially all of us on this web site, the MDX RULES!!!and blows away the competition IMHO...
:9:
LONG LIVE the MDX and all MDXers,
chris :29: |
|
|
| mauigrl721 |
| Well said, cmdpm!!:4: |
|
|
| Casique |
Other than not taking price into consideration, there is a difference of 10K between the X and the Lexus, the article does not take RELIABILITY and resale into consideration (VW)!
Yes, the Lexus is great for 10K more, I agree! A 55K MDX would be wonderful too.
However, the 54K VW, face it, is a VW with its tipical reliability and resale issues!:1: |
|
|
| Fireblade6 |
VolksWagen apparently sent a BIGGER check to C&D this year for the SUV comparison...
HAHAHAAH just joking. |
|
|
| DUBYA123 |
| I read that article, I really dont get it though, the vehicles at 1st and 2nd were barely off the market when they wrote that, I like the adjustable suspension with the VW and the power of the GX, but X5 and the MDX deserve to be either #1 and 2, thats just my opinion |
|
|
| Casique |
DUBYA123
Not to change the subject, but, how do you like the Tornado? Did it make any difference in power and or fuel economy? Thanks.:1: |
|
|
| ndahbar |
Just was glancing through my old collection of car mags and found this Automobile one. They had a 2001 MDX article. Quote from it:
"During a VTM-4 demonstration in Colorado last winter where the MDX was stacked up against the M-class, X5, and the RX300, the MDX emerged the clear winner. In several inches of fresh snow on top of packed snow and ice, the Acura felt far more natural to drive and provided the greatest degree of safety and control, helped no doubt by its wide track and relatively narrow tires. And on some extraordinarily dusty, hilly, potholed, loose-gravel roads through Belize's (south america) Cayo district, the MDX seldom lost its composure".
Of course the 2003 is even better in terms of road feel under all conditions, plus the dual-piston calipers up front...
Anyway, for the money the MDX can't be beat. SOmetimes these car mags make it sound like the MDX is deficient in features and amenities. HARDLY so. Heated seats and mirrors, reverse-tilt mirror, memory seats, 8-way power front seats, dual A/C compressors and dual heat cores, steering wheel controls, in dash 6-cd changer, cassette player and an awesome nav (even the 2001/2002) when you get the touring pack, roof racks, fog lights, 3rd row seats, separate climate controls for those in the 2nd row, many cupholders, 3 power outlets, 4wd lock, cruise control, need I go on?
Ok so what is left out is electronically control height of suspension and dual-zone climate control. Oh and xenon lights. Well, those 3 things (plus bigger tires/wheels) would raise the MDX price by AT LEAST 2-3 grand I am sure. So now we're in Touareg territory, whihc you can get with a V8 (an awesome one too sourced from the bad-a$$ mofo of a car, the Audi A8).
Heck, the only thing that beats the MDX in on-road driving dynamics is the X5 (well discount the Porsche SUV and possibly the Touareg right now as they are not available for some time in the future in North America). Sure the X5 is great to drive, but even in 3.0L guise it's got poorer gas mileage, is a little heavier, AND has 16 cubic ft of trunk space with the 2nd row up! Geez, the MDX has 15 with the THIRD ROW up !!! Can we say, no contest in that category?
I'd say case closed. If u desperately need a car right now and can afford 55K+ get a nicely optioned X5 4.4 or GX470 (if u like the hedious rear end) or the Touareg when it's out in 7-8 months. Otherwise, MDX clearly is on its own, no doubt. Oh and that NAV...oh my. |
|
|
| nytflyt |
Let’s see these magazine road testers put 5 adults and 2 children in one vehicle for a ride to the local DQ and see who wins.
Earl |
|
|
| Casique |
quote:
Originally posted by nytflyt
Let’s see these magazine road testers put 5 adults and 2 children in one vehicle for a ride to the local DQ and see who wins.
Earl
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Real life!:1: |
|
|
| hammerX |
| Now that's what I would love to read. Reality. :2: 2003 SS MDX - cdn model - res,back up sensor,Husky all weather floor mats |
|
|
| Casique |
| Too bad they did not post the 0-60 times....?:1: |
|
|
| TopDog |
I think that the MDX was the clear winner! For me and my family, fuel economy, interior space, driver comfort are more important than pure offroad ability (I may keep my Pathy or buy a Jeep for that!). The bigger V-8s were offset by the extra weight and fuel economy was dismal at best for the VW.
The 4 Runner plays in the same price class as the MDX moreso than does the Lexus. With these magazine shootouts, you need to look at what is important to you and rank them in your own order. |
|
|
| tigmd99 |
TopDog,
Well, 4Runner is only a Toyota...it is not a luxury brandname. Acura MDX is priced somewhere between the 4runner and GX, but since it's a luxury brandname, it is more competitive with the Lexus. |
|
|
| ndahbar |
Ok. I was looking at a C&D test of the new Accord sedan. V6, automatic. Also I have a Motor Trend test of the new Accord COUPE. V6, manual.
C&D says they got a braking distance for 70-0 of 209 ft for the auto V6! WHAT?! That sounds awfully long. Then Motor Trend gets a mere 127 ft from 60-0. Ok, 10mph slower, but please! 82 ft differential?!
I don't trust the 70-0 of 200 ft they got for the MDX anymore. I want to see at least a few more tests and their results before anyone can tell me the MDX has inferior brakes in any way. |
|
|
| ndahbar |
Slight correction. 6-spd models have 11.8 discs up front, 11.4 in the rear. Automatics get 11.1 and 10.2 in the rear. Also the automatic gets 16 inch tires, whereas the coupe V6 gets 17 with higher performance rubber.
But still! 82 ft?! Even though it's 70-0 vs 60-0? Still, awfully too much. |
|
|
| tigmd99 |
| Well, unfortunately, MDX very average braking distance is well documented in many magazines. I think Consumer Reports reported long braking distance also. Remember that, in C&D, the '01 MDX got 206 on a previous comparo. Their results are pretty consistent. |
|
|
| donsev |
This is the text of my post from this thread ;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a good article from Car and Driver on automotive brakes; Shedding Light on Fading Brakes.
It is a comparative review of aftermarket brake kits for the Suby WRX with baselines against the stock pads and Hawk replacement pads. The article focuses on brake fade but the principles are wholly applicable to the discussion on the MDX braking performance and answers most of the above questions.
Some sample quotes:
quote:
Our objective here was primarily to test brake fade, not stopping distances. Assuming a brake system is properly balanced, strong enough to lock a wheel, and not yet hot enough to fade, the stopping distance is largely a function of tire traction, not brakes. Think of it this way: All brake systems, stock and aftermarket, are able to activate the ABS, so how could a stronger brake shorten a stop? Eric Dahl, a brake engineer from Brembo, put it this way: "Don't expect the brake kits to stop you sooner, but expect the 20th lap to feel like the first."
quote:
All these kits replace only the stock front brakes. That's because front-heavy production cars such as the WRX rely on the front wheels to do about 80 percent of the braking. When you apply the brakes to slow the car, the braking force is exerted on the pavement at road level. The center of gravity of the decelerating car is roughly 20 inches higher. As a result, the load on the front tires increases, while the load on the rear tires is correspondingly decreased. Since tire traction is almost directly proportional with load, most of the braking force is allocated to the front tires, where traction is plentiful. Since the rear brakes play such a small part in this, there would be little gain in upgrading them.
quote:
Brake pads have a huge effect on both pedal feel and fade. Pads are designed to operate in predetermined heat ranges. For example, a pad made for the demands of racing — and the subsequent intense heat that is generated — might not perform well when "cold." Conversely, a pad meant for street use — one that has to work well when it's cold as well as when it's moderately hot, without squealing — could lose effectiveness once it's punished on a track. There's no such thing as a pad that works perfectly at every temperature. Since street pads have to work when they're at minus-30 degrees, they tend to give up performance at higher temperatures
Now, when looking at the braking performance of the MDX as conducted by automotive reviews, you have to look at three issues; 1)How good is the dry braking performance of the tire that it is is shod with, 2)What is the size of the contact patch (i.e. tire width), and 3)How does it compare to other vehicles.
Unfortunately, there is no definitive answer to the first question. I have not found a comprehensive review (ala Consumer Reports) that has assessed the dry braking performance of the Michelin Cross Terrain. And also unfortunately, the best anecdotal evidence that we have shows (at first glance) the Cross Terrain dry braking capabilities to be subpar. In the Car and Driver article "The Bradsher Bunch", the two worst performing tires in the 70-0mph test were Michelin Cross Terrains, even though they were on the two lightest vehicles (Acura MDX, and GMC Envoy). But, to be fair to the Cross Terrains, almost every other vehicle in that test was wearing "higher performance" rubber. Also, they were wearing wider (sometimes MUCH wider) tires, which leads to the next issue - contact patch.
All other things being equal, braking traction will increase proportionally to the size of the contact patch adhering to the road surface. Also, all other things being equal, the contact patch will increase proportionately to the tire width. Thus, with a properly calibrated braking system, wider tires will stop the vehicle shorter than narrower tires. Almost every other SUV of comparable size to the MDX wears wider tires. In the "Bradsher Bunch" review, the Aviator and Envoy wore 245s, the Touareg, Discovery, and BMW X5 wore 255s, the GX470 even wore 265s. The only other vehicle equipped with the MDX's narrow 235s was the Volvo XC90 (which to compensate, was wearing Pirelli Scorpion Zeros). This undoubtedly contributed to the MDX's 200 feet 70-0mph stopping distance which was 16 feet longer than THIS test average of 184. But how does that distance compare to other cars.
Since many people are replacing family sedans with SUVs, how does the MDX's dry braking performance compare to those more traditional cars. In the Car and Driver family sedan comparison Concealed Carry the 70-0MPH braking distance average was 203 feet. This is with bread-and-butter family sedans weighing over 1000lbs LESS than the MDX. The MDX's stopping distance is better than the Chevy Impala LS, the Dodge Intrpid SE, the Ford Taures SEL, the Honda Accord LX V-6, and the Hyundai XG350. And within 9 feet of the class leader Toyota Camry SE V-6.
In a comparison of SPORT SEDANS (Waiting for a Bimmer Beater ) the MDX's stopping distance is within 9 feet (96%) of the distance required of all but two cars; the Acura 3.2TL Type-S require 192 feet, the Audi A4 required 194 feet, the Infinity G35 required 191 feet, and the Volkswagen Passat 4Motion required 191 feet. Only the BMW 330i and MB C320 stopped in less than 190 feet.
So if you wish to improve the dry braking performance of your MDX (to beyond sport sedan levels, and at the expense of foul weather performance) simply replace the tires with wider, "grippier" tires - that's what the other SUV manufacturers have done.;)
But just as important as braking distance for a safe driving experience (perhaps more important) is braking feel - and many automotive reviews comment very positively on the good linear feel of the MDX's brakes (C&D "Bradshers Bunch";
quote:
Steering was precise, the brakes unfailingly predictable
(PS: be VERY careful when comparing braking distances performed at DIFFERENT SPEEDS. Braking distances will increase dramatically going from 60MPH to 70MPH. In the recent Motor Trend review of family sedans, in which MT does a 60-0MPH test, the average was 130 feet versus the 203feet @ 70-0MPH) |
|
|
| navybean |
quote:
Originally posted by Fireblade6
VolksWagen apparently sent a BIGGER check to C&D this year for the SUV comparison...
HAHAHAAH just joking.
Oh my I hope not, becuase when we purchased our MDX, it was because the MDX had won one of these car of the year things:eek: |
|
|
| ndahbar |
Donsev,
Excellent post. And you are right, I shouldn't compare 60-0 and 70-0 numbers since I know VERY well the momemtum differential between just 10mph for a 4500 lb mass.... :cool: |
|
|
| twosomeca |
quote:
With these magazine shootouts, you need to look at what is important to you and rank them in your own order.
That is absolutely true. The VW and Lexus are not even on my radar scope. I give the MDX the blue ribbon for interior space and appointments (i.e., bells and whistles), while I give the X5 the performance/handling victory. To us, price is important as well as the functionality of the vehicle for the non-driver. That's why things like the DVD and rear plug-ins are important for us in this type of vehicle. If I could get an X5 for the MDX price with many/most of the same appointments, I wouldn't be sitting here talking to you guys right now. One of the things that I like about the MDX is the third row of seats. This surprises me. Normally, I wouldn't even think about a third row because that normally means mini-van territory (e.g, windstar)...YUCK, but the MDX third row is so transparent if you don't use them, it simply amounts to a great additional feature should you ever need them! I would probably just keep the third row folded down most of the time. You guys have a nice little SUV there! :1: |
|
|
|
