| kchaz |
I've been doing my research like most people and have decided that after my lease is up on my Isuzu Rodeo, I'm getting an MDX. (I like the sound of that) :D I've read all the comparison tests and my only issue with the MDX is the braking performance. In their last comparison test (Jan 2003), Car and Driver has the MDX last in the 70 - 0 braking test taking 200 feet to stop from 70 mph even though it's the lightest (@ 4,520 lbs) in the group. The average for the group of 7 vehicles tested was 184 feet with the best performer stopping in 170 feet. The only other category the MDX did not score at or above the average was in the skidpad test at 0.74g (third lowest).
The article did praise the MDX for its brakes and suspension which leads me to believe the problem was the tires used on the MDX. At 235mm the narrowest in the group.
My question(s) is, would a wider tire improve the braking performance of the MDX? Has anyone tried using a wider than standard tire/wheel package on their MDX and did it improve the braking performance? |
|
|
| jatharp |
| I've always thought my MDX stopped really good compared to the Chevy Blazer I used to have. That thing you had to throw out an anchor to stop it!! |
|
|
| ndahbar |
| Ignore C&D's figures, I have seen numerous other road tests in other publications with 184 (and below) ft to stop 60-0 and that's with 2001/2002 MDX. The 2003 has dual-piston calipers up front so if anything should be even better. Who knows wassup with the 200 figure they got, but I am sure it brakes better than most SUVs. Esp. with only 4500 lbs to stop. Simple physics. Yeah the 235 is kinda narrow but shouldn't make too much diff. As u can see the Volvo had similar tires in that test. |
|
|
| cmdpm |
i am also very concerned and worried about this braking distance. i did choose the MDX for its performance after all. in all due respect to ndahbar, even though shorter stopping distances have been reported elsewhere, still under the specitfic conditions of this comparison ( road surface, humidity, temp, etc. ), it is a real number, and it is not good compared to the competiton.
how can braking distances be improved, short of changing the calipers and rotors at big expense?
can we get higher friction brake pads?
incidentally, the tire width and compound is definitely a factor in braking distance, but there are many factors including brakeswept area, rotor size, number of pistons, quality and strength of the caliper, cable type, etc.
can anyone share some effective solutions with us?
thanks,
chris |
|
|
| renov8r |
...tire SIZE sound be pretty much irrelevant. The actual TIRE compound should be all that matters ( in practice that ain't necessarily so, as tires that over heat and turn into SMOKE upon braking aren't behaving theoretically, they are burning up, and in the REAL world that prevents braking too...)
Anyhow, the actual panic stop distance IS kinda long, and has come in other tests too (though C&D did seem longer than most). Could you shorten with different tires? Maybe, it'd be alot of trouble to try out the different compounds of the various manufacturers. Factor in ride and wet handling and you'd have a multi-month test project on your hands.
In REAL WORLD driving the MDX braking is more than OK, not life threatening, probably not EYE BALL POPPING to most folks, but definitely acceptable. The upgraded calipers on the 03 prevent any concerns about overheating the brakes. In braking that is NOT at the absolute limit you really won't feel cheated... |
|
|
| ndahbar |
Yeah I was thinking about that too, equal variables for the competition, so if MDX got 200 ft then it's inferior yes? Sounds like it. And dual-piston calipers won't mean better distances per say, more likely better wear performance and definitely lower susceptiblity to overheating.
A 911 Turbo has been quoted to sto 60-0 in 99 ft. That's 1/2 the distance required by the MDX according to C&D. Gosh, that just sounds awfully too wacked!
For those with 2003 MDX's and with their break-ins done, do us a favor and go 60mph somewhere deserted and SLAM on your brakes till u stop. Report your experiences. :2: |
|
|
| y2ks2k |
Well, I have not owned my MDX long enough to really know yet but I can tell you this.
The TLs's major flaw is the worst brakes I have ever owned in a car. Our brakes are warping and wearing on some of our cars in 15K miles of normal aggressive street wear. My MDX breaks do not look all that different from the ones on the TLs. I can say that the MDX brakes seem to be a lot better feeling then my TLs's. I am indeed worried about the future brake function on my MDX because I don’t think Honda has remedied the situation. I mean.. geez... the TLs brakes are almost pitiful. I could step on my S2000's brakes and throw a passenger out of the car if I wanted to ( :) if they did not have their seat belt on). The 03 I own could be more susceptible to this problem, especially if they did not upgrade them when they gave the car 20 extra hp… which really was the flaw with the TLs, they did not upgrade them from the TL-P model. |
|
|
| ndahbar |
Y2KS2K,
You are absolutely right. Park a TL (Type S or not doesn't matter) next to a 3-series Bimmer for example. WHOA! Major difference eh?! Hey man, wel all get what we pay for, sorry. Don't kid yourself: A 3-series Bimmer has better components than a 28K TL...
Anyway, as for MDX, two things stand out to me. First, the 2003 model has dual-piston calipers up front, and second, it's designed to tow stuff that's the weight of the MDX itself, so I am sure the brakes will be plenty fine for you for a long time. I would not expect TL performance from the brakes (or lack thereof).
While we're on the subject of brakes, the most impressive thing about the BMW X5 were the brakes. Holy smokes Batman, did u see those front rotors?!! They are 13.6 inches in diameter. The rears are like 12.6 I think. Now that is awesome. You get those on the 3.0 as on the 4.4. |
|
|
| y2ks2k |
quote:
Originally posted by ndahbar
Y2KS2K,
You are absolutely right. Park a TL (Type S or not doesn't matter) next to a 3-series Bimmer for example. WHOA! Major difference eh?! Hey man, wel all get what we pay for, sorry. Don't kid yourself: A 3-series Bimmer has better components than a 28K TL...
Id maybe admit to the brakes, but all of those "better" components according to car and driver give the 330 a lower lateral G and a slower slalom. the 330 comes stock with wide 17-18 inch rims with ZR rated tires and the TLs pulls higher numbers with crappy thin 17" inch all weather R rated tires. Thus really not saying much for the 330. Once we put a similar setup on our TL.. The handling comes alive.
To bad a similarly equipped 330 goes for 15K more. |
|
|
| ndahbar |
...but let me tell you, believe me, the dynamics of a 3-series far exceed any TL, let alone that it's FWD. What do I mean exactly? Well, we are talking about dynamics near and AT the limits (which are higher in BMW, believe me). It's sooo neutral and controllable, I was mesmerized by a 1999 (new body, E46) 328i 5-spd sedan w/o sport package and 16 inch wheels, 205 width tires. UNREAL. Nevermind the sport package ones.
You cannot compare really, yes I know it's like 15K more with the full options, a 330 that is, but what an experience, the best outside of the Porsche realm. Try to drive one HARD and see. The feel of the chassis, suspension...awesome. TL Type-S is very nice, but no 330. Try it, I cannot convince u in this forum.
Now the X5 and MDX are closer to each otehr in terms of road feel and dynamics. this is ESPECIALLY true of non-sport package X5s. Test drive one, and then test drive one with sport pack. Difference? LOL ---> NIGHT AND FREAKIN DAY!
PS: FYI, the 3-series BMW's have some engineering details about them unknown to the vast majority of the masses that are just awesome. Little things here and there. The money went somewhere, believe me. Rip off is Benzes, not BMWs. |
|
|
| cmdpm |
the MDX was designed to accomodate a wider range of customer than the vw touareg. in other words, acura played it safer by not making the brakes more powerful than what they thought the least performance-minded MDX buyer would be able to live with.
still, the MDX is supposed to be a more sporty car-like suv and should have had shorter stopping distances, IMHO.
in an emergency situation, i want to be able to stop better than the car in front of me.
regardng the BMW issue....what makes BMWs special is the connection that BMW engineers have created between the car, the driver and the road. it is not easy to describe- it must be experienced. this is something that no other car manufacturer in the world (excluding ferrari, porsche, etc.) has been able to recreate. the numbers that BMWs put out on the road i.e. 0-60, slalom time,etc. are not always the best. it is the intangibles that make BMW cars so special.
is it worth the extra $$$ ? if i had the extra $$$ for a BMW and the crazy insurance, the answer would be YES!!!
chris
:7: celebrate life! |
|
|
| ablatt |
Would the Honda Pilot have the same brake stopping characteristics as the 2002 MDX?
And, by the way, the 2003 Range Rover, Car and Driver's best luxury sport-utility vehicle has a 70-0 stopping distance of 190 feet. |
|
|
| presten |
I think people are putting way too much value on the size of discs and number of pistons, etc. As long as there is enough brake effect to lock all four wheels or activate the ABS system on a panic stop, then the braking distance is related to other things such as tire width, tire compound, temperature and a very important point...weight transfer.
Now if you want to talk heavy brake use such as long grades, towing and racing then the overall size and capacity of the brakes make a huge difference.
Those who feel that the brakes are poor should try a simple test...drive 60 or 70 on a dry flat (and wide) road and make a maximum effort and I mean maximum effort brake application. If the ABS does not activate, you are not pushing hard enough! To make the test valid, you must hit the brakes hard enough to get the ABS to work. Now ask yourself the question...did the brakes work well enough to engage the ABS on all four wheels? Get out and look carefully at the skid marks...there should be evidence of all four of the wheels moving in and out of the sliding mode as the ABS functions. If so, than the brakes are big enough for a single high energy application. If the braking distance is longer than is comfortable, then some of these other previously mentioned factors must be the major contributors. Now it is also possible that the ABS is not calibrated properly and not allowing maximum effort but on my car the skid marks showed good performance.
Now I am not suggesting that the brakes on the MDX (or any car) should be sized just to handle one panic stop but for measuring stopping distance in a test that is all that is necessary. I seem to remember that one of the car magazines used to do a test where they would do ten panic stops in a row from a fairly high speed and then measure the pedal pressure, stopping distance and fade difference from the first to the tenth stop. On a test like that, the big systems like on the BMW, Corvette, and the like will certainly shine. |
|
|
| y2ks2k |
quote:
Originally posted by ndahbar
...but let me tell you, believe me, the dynamics of a 3-series far exceed any TL, let alone that it's FWD. What do I mean exactly? Well, we are talking about dynamics near and AT the limits (which are higher in BMW, believe me). It's sooo neutral and controllable, I was mesmerized by a 1999 (new body, E46) 328i 5-spd sedan w/o sport package and 16 inch wheels, 205 width tires. UNREAL. Nevermind the sport package ones.
You cannot compare really, yes I know it's like 15K more with the full options, a 330 that is, but what an experience, the best outside of the Porsche realm. Try to drive one HARD and see. The feel of the chassis, suspension...awesome. TL Type-S is very nice, but no 330. Try it, I cannot convince u in this forum.
Now the X5 and MDX are closer to each otehr in terms of road feel and dynamics. this is ESPECIALLY true of non-sport package X5s. Test drive one, and then test drive one with sport pack. Difference? LOL ---> NIGHT AND FREAKIN DAY!
PS: FYI, the 3-series BMW's have some engineering details about them unknown to the vast majority of the masses that are just awesome. Little things here and there. The money went somewhere, believe me. Rip off is Benzes, not BMWs.
hmmm.. I think you listen to the marketing segment of BMW a little to closely. My boss drives a 2000 M5 and is the treasurer of the local BWM club. I am a member and we both visit the track (PIR) on many occasion. I see every BWM made driven on the track all the time. I used to spank every single on of them with my S2000 on a regular occurrence (I was running only 2 seconds behind even the M5/C5 Z06 times). I've seen 330's and M3's pushed to their limits and I’m not as impressed as you are. I have also been in a few around the track and I can tell you that the FWD TLs with the proper setup which includes brembo brakes, 18" ZR rated tires and performance springs (which just about equal the stock setup of a BMW 330) is a machine on the track... You speak highly of the 330 as a machine that is almost a dream. I would suggest you take a few laps in the 330Ci then take a few laps in the S2000, you will never look back... I once made a 70 year old racer trainer crap in his pants. He'd been racing for 55 years and even then would take his cart out in the race division when it was their turn. He was babbling on like he was 17 years old again. His exact statement was "I've been doing these BWM, Porsche and Audi race club days for years and I’ve never been in a car that feels like this on the track”.
I think you need to spend some more time in a TLs, especially with someone who knows how to drive one. Acura chose to go more Lux/sporty with the TL. The car was rated by Car & Driver as the quietest car made while driving at 70 MPH. This of course is done by giving the car thin 17" rims and all weather R rated tires, I can tell you right now, these tires utterly suck for performance. Most owners immediately swap out for 18" 225/40 ZR rater wheels/tires. The TLs also rides to high, give it performance springs and about an inch drop and the handling increases exponentially. The point of this is that the TL with this already stock inferior performance items still handles better then the 330 (as tested by Car & Driver a few months back). With a similarly equipment that the BMW offers already, the TLS dominates it in handling.. yet its still FWD… Really, the only reason why the 330 is rated better is the simple argument of FWD Vs RWD. They will never rate the TLs higher even though it really is superior… |
|
|
| Number 6 |
they're "hangar queens"...
i've had 2 and i'll never buy another. i did like driving them but either the build quality or the design is lacking. things were always breaking, i had more "check engine" lights than i care to recall... all in all, not very impressive for the price. |
|
|
| ndahbar |
S2ky2k,
You are comparing an S2000 to a 330?????!!!! S2000 is made for a single purpose only, track use. Of course you will whip butt. I bet you are a better driver than those in their Corvettes and what not.
About the other post as well, you're right, they certainly did have their fare share of electrical problems, but not anymore. They certainly make the best engines for the money (yet Honda is the best from Japan in that respect). They certainly have the best suspension compromise and they look great. I can't imagine 3-series Bimmers doing poorly on racetracks....even in stock form. |
|
|
| cmdpm |
y2ks2k,
do you know how changing to brembos on the TLs (or MDX as i may consider in the near future) affects the abs or the vehicle stability assist system?
obviously i am concerned that it may affect these systems (abs and vsa) interpretation of the data from the more effective braking setup.
regards,
chris |
|
|
| y2ks2k |
quote:
Originally posted by cmdpm
y2ks2k,
do you know how changing to brembos on the TLs (or MDX as i may consider in the near future) affects the abs or the vehicle stability assist system?
obviously i am concerned that it may affect these systems (abs and vsa) interpretation of the data from the more effective braking setup.
regards,
chris
I don’t myself but if you visit the TL boards there are discussions about this that you can pick up on. |
|
|
| y2ks2k |
quote:
Originally posted by ndahbar
S2ky2k,
You are comparing an S2000 to a 330?????!!!! S2000 is made for a single purpose only, track use. Of course you will whip butt. I bet you are a better driver than those in their Corvettes and what not.
yup, I’ve heard more then one 3 series owner over the years spout off about how the car is the perfect blend of every thing that’s performance on a car. But the fact is that it is nowhere near this and if one wants to look at a true sports car there are a LOT of better true performance cars out there like the S2000 and many others much better. |
|
|
| donsev |
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) |
|
|
| ndahbar |
Donsev,
First of all, yes, you are right, I should never have brought up the 60-0 and 70-0 numbers to "compare them" since I am WELL aware of the momentum differntial of a car that weighs 4500+lbs going just 10mph more.
Second, and more importantly, FANTASTIC post! Your future posts will be on my radar from here on in. :cool: |
|
|
| Jon |
| its'g German engineering compared to Japanese engineering.......the fact is, Germans have better craftsmanship. I have been in both, The Bimmer has way better craftsmanship. |
|
|
| ndahbar |
quote:
Originally posted by y2ks2k
yup, I’ve heard more then one 3 series owner over the years spout off about how the car is the perfect blend of every thing that’s performance on a car. But the fact is that it is nowhere near this and if one wants to look at a true sports car there are a LOT of better true performance cars out there like the S2000 and many others much better.
Y2KS2K, I think you'll enjoy reading what I have to tell you now. After driving my buddy's S2000 around town and the highways recently...I can WHOLEHEARTEDLY say I now know what you're talking about. HOLY SH*T what a car. In fact, after the Ferrari F355, I think it was the most fun car I've ever driven. In fact I enjoyed it more than the Boxster (which is a fabulous car).
I still say BMW 3-series, even lowly models (can't get them here, just overseas) like the 4-cylinders...I mean comparing them to their competition, just blow them outta the water.
But oh man, what a car that S2000. Chassis MORE solid than any convertible I've been in, bar none...and the best clutch/shifter feel ever. Torque was never a problem either. This car can cut the quarter mile @ 100mph with a good launch, so UHM for the naysayers, I say go look up online how many cars can do 1/4 mile STOCK at 100mph and list them. Then drop your jaw as to how little the number of stock cars out there can do this (and how exotic most of them are that can!).
Super job Honda...most definitely the engineering powerhouse in Japan as far as I'm concerned.
Hopefully the 2004 S2000 with the 2.2L won't be any less sharp or frentic. Cuz that's what it's all about. |
|
|
| Fabvsix |
| Y2KS2K: I second that. I have a 01 CL Type S with O3's, comptech sways and I'll take them on too ! Put a supercharger, headers and you've got one nice machine.......:2: |
|
|
| jurincie |
quote:
Originally posted by ndahbar
This car can cut the quarter mile @ 100mph with a good launch, so UHM for the naysayers, I say go look up online how many cars can do 1/4 mile STOCK at 100mph and list them. Then drop your jaw as to how little the number of stock cars out there can do this (and how exotic most of them are that can!).
Well since you asked..... My 10 year old Corvette with an automatic transmission can. It is bone stock and doesn't even have the performance gear ratio (it has 2.79). It is just shifting into 3rd as you cross the finish line. I ran it when it was about a year old and it ran 13.95 at 101. Not bad for a 350 cubic inch V8 in a fairly large car with 10 year old technology. It gets about 20 MPG around town and the low 30's on the highway.
Now as for chassis stiffness - I would rather not compare that......
It actually never was what I would consider water tight either...... |
|
|
| xcel |
Hi Donsev:
___Might I add my accolades to your well researched post above as well? It does sound like the X-Terrains are a problem on the braking side of the equation. The X’s Center of gravity during the panic stops is probably not helping either given some of the discussion about actual Front to Rear weight distribution vs. the posted weight distribution being more out of balance in comparison to many other SUV’s. I also wonder if the caliper shift (brake click) doesn’t hurt the X’s performance by a few feet also? Now that would be an angle to get them to fix that problem, wouldn’t it ;)
___And to go a bit OT ... All that being said, snow traction with the somewhat thinner X-Terrains tires is probably the best in the business by comparison? Unfortunately, it would be in all of our best interest to receive better braking performance over snow traction given what most of us drive on even in inclement weather with the plows/salt/sand and any other pavement cleaning techniques most see during those brief periods when it is actually snowing and the roads are not entirely clear.
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net |
|
|
| DaleB |
quote:
Originally posted by xcel
Hi Donsev:
___Might I add my accolades to your well researched post above as well? It does sound like the X-Terrains are a problem on the braking side of the equation. The X’s Center of gravity during the panic stops is probably not helping either given some of the discussion about actual Front to Rear weight distribution vs. the posted weight distribution being more out of balance in comparison to many other SUV’s. I also wonder if the caliper shift (brake click) doesn’t hurt the X’s performance by a few feet also? Now that would be an angle to get them to fix that problem, wouldn’t it ;)
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net
Can you expand on how the weight distribution of the MDX would limit braking performance compared to other SUVs?
I thought part of the 03 changes involved pushing the distribution even closer to 50/50 which should not detract from braking performance.
And as far as cg, does not the MDX have a lower cg in the interest of even better stability? |
|
|
| xcel |
Hi DaleB:
___Just look up some of Wmquan’s past posts on the weight distribution possibly being stated incorrectly for all model year X’s. The CG idea is not a comparison number to other SUV’s nor did I mention it in regards to stability of the X which is highly rated in the case of rollover. I only mentioned the CG because it rises when brakes are fully applied as the X’s rear end rises vs. the front end that is diving as mentioned in Donsev’s post above. I can’t explain how much it would effect the X given I do not entirely understand the dynamics or reasoning myself. I am just mentioning the X’s F/R weight distribution problem and the CG being shifted may effect X owners more in comparison to other SUV owners like the X5 which if I remember correctly was within .5% of being 50/50.
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___Waynegerdes@earthlink.net |
|
|
| donsev |
Wayne,
Thanks for the feedback but I can't provide any quantitative information on how the weight distribution and center of gravity might effect the MDX's braking performance. Certainly one could try to do a statistical analysis of the weight dist./CG against braking distance and see if there is a strong correlation but my guess is that the net effect is relatively small. If anything, the MDX's relatively low CG might cancel out its relatively high front weight distribution affecting the front end loading during panic stops but that is a wild guess.
Remember, most performance articles reiterate that "it's the tires, stupid" (pardon the tone). And while Honda products do consistently score on the low end of their class for braking performance, their consistency and pedal feedback are usually highly praised. In addition, keep in mind that while the MDX braking is certainly not as good as the class leaders in its segment, in recent Consumer Reports reviews, its 60-0 stop was only a couple of feet longer than the Odyssey and was several feet better than the 2004 Sienna. |
|
|
| ndahbar |
Hondas and Acuras need better tires...better tires...Hondas and Acuras need better tires....better tires....
We should make a song about this. :D |
|
|
| bb123 |
I disagree - first, Hondas and Acuras need better brakes. I have owned 8 Honda/Acura products over the last 14 years. ALL of them had substandard brakes. The new Accord V6 takes around THIRTY feet more to stop than a $30,000 Mercedes C240 even though they wear the same tires.
Oh yeah, half of the 8 Hondas/Acuras had to have their rotors turned before the pads were replaced because they were warping. |
|
|
| NSXBill |
All this comparing of MDX's brakes to 3-series brakes to TL's with big tires and wheels...could only be on the MDX site! LOL
My .02:
MDX ('03) brakes are just fine for what it is. To handle better or brake better, I'd have gotten an X5. Tires and pads will certainly help, but with trade-offs. MDX brakes are exactly what I expected.
There is something wacky going on with 3-series brakes. Like someone else said, its hard to explain. They are excellent. I do have to clean my wheels once a day tho.
An S2000 is a great small sports car...a motorcycle on 4 wheels or a big, really fast go-kart. Except for the engine probs, Honda really hit the mark. They are great track cars, fun to drive on the street with the top down, look good, and are a good value.
Comparing a fixed-up TL to a stock wheeled-and-tired...and spring-and-shocked......and braked 3-series is apples and oranges. Sorry, but I don't buy that the TL is in anywhere near the same league as a 3 (stock to stock...and I'm talking 325 sport, not M3). I drove a TL around quite a bit (not an S with Brembos) and was not impressed (sporting-wise) compared to the 3. The TL is still a great near-luxury Japanese sedan that's a great value.
Now I'm going to get in my NSX and drive home, clean the brake dust off of my E-46 (3-series) sport sedan wheels, and take my family to dinner in our '03 MDX which has never seen the dealer for problems (unlike the 3) since we bought it.
Cheers,
Bill |
|
|
| ndahbar |
Yeah seriously, I know this is an MDX site, but what the heck, I'll say this anyway: You can't compare the TL chassis with a BMW's. Suspension is better at keeping things controllable as you reach the limits of traction. Steering feel is vastly superior, and there is just more feeback in a BMW than ANY other luxo/mainstream car make.
I for one have seen on the street in person what Integra GSR's, TL/CL Type S's, Honda Preludes, and the high-end Civics and even Accords can do, and I'm dumbfoundedly impressed (which is why I hold Honda in the highest engineering regard vs the other Japanese companies), but sorry, I've done things in BMW's, even with all-season tire setups, that just cannot be approached by anything else in their class. Not even Benz/Audis with manual trannies.
Having said that! I drove different X5 setups for a good period of time. X5 4.4 with sport pack, 3.0 with sport pack, 3.0 w/o ... and let me say, the X5's without the sport package were TERRIBLE. Oh my goodness, I could NOT believe the difference.
So slap on those 19 inch wheels/tires from the X5 4.4 sport package (that is 2000/2001 .... I think in 2002/2003 they became 18 inch with all-season tires...people complained too much about crap snow traction even though they figured they should be INVINCIBLE due to AWD and the BMW name) on an MDX and we'll see how much better it is. I would expect when I upgrade mine, handling and braking will be MUCH improved. |
|
|
|
