| ndahbar |
Well, the ML320 is no more. New engine, 3.7L V6, with 232 horses at 5750 and 254 lb-ft torque @ 3000-4500. 2003 MDX makes 260 horses at the same rpm, while just as much torque, and it's .2L smaller and revs higher and is more fuel efficient, and I bet sounds better under acceleration.
As for pricing, base MSRP is 37K. The advantages are that there is headlight washers, bi-xenons optional, genuiune wood.
But u can't have your cake and eat it too: For example if u want the xenons that an extra 875 bucks. Ouch. The premium BOSE sound system is $1250 ALONE. And u are complaining about the cost of the Touring package??? There are no steering wheel controls at all, and the NAV is inferior (albeit improved in this new generation of it) and it weighs 300 more lbs.
Well, building my own on mbusa, w/o xenons or sport package (same options as on MDX, but it has coupla extra liek power-folding side mirrors) came up to be $44.5K. So a coupla grand more, and without the RES either. |
|
|
| stumpie |
quote:
Originally posted by ndahbar
Well, the ML320 is no more. New engine, 3.7L V6, with 232 horses at 5750 and 254 lb-ft torque @ 3000-4500. 2003 MDX makes 260 horses at the same rpm, while just as much torque, and it's .2L smaller and revs higher and is more fuel efficient, and I bet sounds better under acceleration.
As for pricing, base MSRP is 37K. The advantages are that there is headlight washers, bi-xenons optional, genuiune wood.
But u can't have your cake and eat it too: For example if u want the xenons that an extra 875 bucks. Ouch. The premium BOSE sound system is $1250 ALONE. And u are complaining about the cost of the Touring package??? There are no steering wheel controls at all, and the NAV is inferior (albeit improved in this new generation of it) and it weighs 300 more lbs.
Well, building my own on mbusa, w/o xenons or sport package (same options as on MDX, but it has coupla extra liek power-folding side mirrors) came up to be $44.5K. So a coupla grand more, and without the RES either.
Agree with your findings. Just sold my 2 yr old ML320 and am glad to be in the land of more reasonable pricing - both for cars, options and accessories. Have counted over 15 areas where the MDX is superior so far, from things as simple as not being able to turn off the interior lights to major items like power, noise, etc. Used my warranty countless times over the 2 yrs of ownership, and this was on the '00 year model, the one that was supposedly cured of the headaches the ML series encountered the first two years of it's existance. |
|
|
| wmquan |
Well, the xenons in the ML are an extra-cost option, but at least they're available for the vehicle, unlike the MDX (Acura are you listening?). And the ML's xenons aren't just xenons, they're bi-xenons. I can't believe that Acura has let the MDX come this far without adding a factory option that has been available in all of its competitors.
You can buy an ML at substantial discount, unlike the MDX. So the price difference is not as dramatic. Obviously the quality will not be as good as the MDX. While the ML is much more reliable now than in the earlier years, it is in its sixth year yet still struggles to reach an "average" rating in Consumer Reports. It's become a bad joke for a lot of owners, and has almost single-handedly brought down MB brand quality in surveys. Even owners of 2002's report a lot of niggling little issues.
Sadly, the ML's Bose stereo is significantly better than the MDX's except for the fact that you can't have a true in-dash CD changer (damn thing is in the back, not even in the glove compartment). The sound is simply better. The ML's Bose also has the AudioPilot noise-cancellation technology to alter the volume based not just on speed but actual noise, cool feature.
The ML still has a better 4WD system than the MDX, better braking (based on standard tires), a better implementation of stability control, better towing capability, generally more comfortable seats, some more luxury features ("full" leather as opposed to inserts, leather that isn't surface-dyed like the MDX, auto up/down all windows, etc.) and has more safety features (e.g. side curtains).
But the MDX has significantly more passenger and cargo room, rides more comfortably, is more reliable, has better fuel economy, is less polluting, has a better nav system and better ergonomics in general, has better resale value, is still quicker (the ML's have gotten quite heavy), and, IMHO, is much better looking than the ugly ML. Comes down to your priorities. |
|
|
| kishino |
| You guys forgot to mention the really cheezy looking $1,800 option third row seats. I went to look at the ML while shopping for the MDX, and saw the third row seat and the price and walked out the door. Also the ML just looks too much like a mini van. |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by kishino
You guys forgot to mention the really cheezy looking $1,800 option third row seats. I went to look at the ML while shopping for the MDX, and saw the third row seat and the price and walked out the door.
Yep, for those who want the third row, the ML becomes even more expensive. It has that fold-to-the-side option, not unlike the GX470. Thus it eats up cargo room if it's in there, but can be totally removed.
The only saving graces are that the third row access is easier than in the MDX, and that the third row is relatively full-sized (with good headrests) and the second row can move forward slightly -- giving the third row some more leg room but of course tightening up the second row. It's also full leather, not vinyl like the MDX's. Though if you stick kids way back there you probably WANT vinyl there! |
|
|
| dleasman |
All mercedes, that I am aware of, have the engine size in the model number. So, a ML350 should have a 3.5l in it as my ML430 has a 4.3l (now replaced by the ML500 w/5.0l). The new ML350 has a 3.7l, which makes no sense. Seems to me that they changed their mind on the engine after the marketing had been done. Figures...
Either way, Mercedes is scrapping their current ML design in two more years. They have had endless problems with this model line, as I can tell you first hand.
Can't wait to get a reliable vehicle again, meaning, my new MDX.
-Dana |
|
|
| ndahbar |
Yeah the BOSE in the ML is quite nice, it has the subwoofers under the front seats. Way cool! :cool:
As for the 4wd system, er...I have read the contrary, the MDX has a superior one. In fact the MDX system is not only better (proactive instead of REACTIVE) but it weighs 2/3 the ML's system.
As for the stability system (VSA in Acura, ESP in Benz) why do u say ESP is better? In fact virtually all articles I've read pound on Benz for making ESP way too intrusive. As for VSA I have never come across anyone having something negative to say about it. They do exactly the same thing, and they both have an on/off switch.
Too bad the MDX doesn't have side-curtain airbags, although it did get best-ever front/rear/side impact test ratings, so that's as good as it gets anyway. If your "SUV" experiences a roll over or flies off a cliff like in a Wild West movie...err...chances are, you and your passengers are screwed anyway, airbags or not. :eek:
The ML sport package greatly enhances its looks. Albeit at a high price. The ride in the ML, even the ML500 which I test drove, is most certainly inferior in every way to the BMW X5, as a comparison. As for the 2003 MDX, I have no idea since mine hasn't arrived yet. :p |
|
|
| Mike_Platini |
In Canada, real leather seats in ML 320 and ML500 are optional, not standard. If you want REAL, then you have to pay around $Can 4,500 more.
:cool: |
|
|
| dleasman |
I would have to say that the All Wheel Drive system on the ML is far beyond the MDX... Don't get me wrong here, I would rather drive the MDX any day of the week. But the MDX's strengths are NOT in it's AWD system. This is definately where BMW and Mercedes shine. I have had my ML430 in some pretty ugly terrain where I would never consider taking an MDX. But who really needs this kind of off road ability anyway? I will be more than happy with an MDX for a few years.
Did I mention how stupid the layout of the controls and the nav system are on the ML?
-Dana |
|
|
| navybean |
| I believe the MB has had much more time and experience in developing the four wheel drive system. I beleive the MB system is way better than the MDX but here in SoCal, it is more of a status symbol to have a SUV than actually having a SUV that can go offroad. My wife and I got daring one time and hopped a curb in our MDX and I was wondering at the time if our MDX would make it in that offroad situation!!! But when we were looking around for a SUV we noticed the MB was just a rip off with the ugly mini van shape. We are happy with our MDX for the time being. Still haven't used the third row seat though.:1: |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by navybean
I believe the MB has had much more time and experience in developing the four wheel drive system. I beleive the MB system is way better than the MDX but here in SoCal, it is more of a status symbol to have a SUV than actually having a SUV that can go offroad. My wife and I got daring one time and hopped a curb in our MDX and I was wondering at the time if our MDX would make it in that offroad situation!!! But when we were looking around for a SUV we noticed the MB was just a rip off with the ugly mini van shape. We are happy with our MDX for the time being. Still haven't used the third row seat though.:1:
Agreed. Only a very small percentage of MDX / ML owners actually off-road, and neither will conquer the Rubicon.
Isn't it ironic that the MDX is more genetically related to a minivan (being that it is partly based on the Odyssey), and the ML is a true truck (ladder-on-frame), but yet it's the ML that looks more like a minivan with its homely styling? |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by ndahbar
As for the 4wd system, er...I have read the contrary, the MDX has a superior one. In fact the MDX system is not only better (proactive instead of REACTIVE) but it weighs 2/3 the ML's system.
The MDX is proactive in that in certain situations it will send up to roughly half the torque to the rears. That, along with the VTM-4 lock mode, makes it more proactive than, say, the Realtime AWD in the CR-V. However, the ML always sends half the torque to the rear wheels, so it never has to wait for slippage to occur, or anticipate it. In fact, that makes the ML more proactive because it's always doing it.
Also, the MDX distributes much less torque to the rears when the vehicle is decelerating, because of the design of VTM-4. On an ML, whatever torque is still available continues to be distributed to all wheels. Plus the MDX's AWD is really only designed for short periods of engagement, else you get serious overheating in the rear clutches. That's probably one reason you have to get the VTM-4 fluid changed. The ML's 4WD system requires no such maintenance and is always AWD, all the time.
The MDX's AWD system weighing less than the ML's is a bit of marketing hype. When Acura makes that comparison, they are including the ML's transfer case. The MDX doesn't even have a true dual-speed transfer case (no low-range), so it's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison! If you subtract out the ML's two-speed transfer case (which isn't totally fair either), its system is actually lighter than the MDX's! Chalk that one up to marketing BS.
This all said, the MDX's AWD system is more than adequate for most of the situations people will throw at it. And neither vehicle is going to run the Rubicon; I'm talking 4WD/AWD more for the bad weather conditions most ML/MDX buyers buy SUV's for, and not for offroading.
quote:
As for the stability system (VSA in Acura, ESP in Benz) why do u say ESP is better? In fact virtually all articles I've read pound on Benz for making ESP way too intrusive. As for VSA I have never come across anyone having something negative to say about it. They do exactly the same thing, and they both have an on/off switch.
Too bad the MDX doesn't have side-curtain airbags, although it did get best-ever front/rear/side impact test ratings, so that's as good as it gets anyway. If your "SUV" experiences a roll over or flies off a cliff like in a Wild West movie...err...chances are, you and your passengers are screwed anyway, airbags or not. :eek:
I do agree with you that the ML's ESP is probably tuned too intrusively; they have to make the trade-off between being more intrusive to help the less experienced drivers, and being so unintrusive that people can get into more trouble. Only time will tell how good the MDX's balance is -- I would suspect that based on other VSA vehicles, it is very unintrusive, and hopefully not too unintrusive (e.g. at some BMW events, they've demonstrated how the TL-S's VSA seems to engage too late to help out in certain situations).
That said, MB's ESP is better than Acura's VSA because it is a "full-range" stability control system. Both VSA and ESP will activate if the vehicle is, say, performing an emergency maneuver under throttle and the ECU detects a skid.
However, in a situation where braking is beginning to activate, VSA disengages totally in favor of ABS, whereas ESP continues to operate and will even "invert" ABS at specific wheels. What this mumbo-jumbo accounts for is the other situation where stability control can save your hide -- you're taking an off-ramp in bad weather, and you start slowing down, but the vehicle starts to skid. With VSA, it will relent full control to ABS which will just try to stop you, and not do anything about your skid. With ESP, it will let ABS run but will also pulse the brakes more on the wheels intended to brake the skid.
Thus, I think that VSA is only half the stability control system that ESP is, sadly. Not totally surprising -- MB co-invented ESP with Bosch and they have a lot more experience with it.
quote:
Too bad the MDX doesn't have side-curtain airbags, although it did get best-ever front/rear/side impact test ratings, so that's as good as it gets anyway. If your "SUV" experiences a roll over or flies off a cliff like in a Wild West movie...err...chances are, you and your passengers are screwed anyway, airbags or not. :eek:
Yes, the MDX should get side curtain airbags. While they are somewhat less necessary on a higher-riding SUV, that same characteristic makes side-impact crash tests somewhat suspect on this class of vehicle. A taller SUV like an MDX (or an ML) tends to do very well in the NHTSA side-impact test because of the test conditions. NHTSA uses a barrier that is roughly the size of a Corolla to hit the vehicle. Usually that means that the collision forces are transmitted relatively low and thus the injury measures taken at the chest and pelvis are also low. That doesn't invalidate the MDX's excellent 5-star side-impact rating, but it doesn't invalidate the benefits side curtain airbags would bring.
IIHS claims to be working on a side-impact test that simulates a more real-world instance where you get t-boned by an equally tall SUV. The rumor has it that some vehicles which do well today with the NHTSA-sized barrier will not fare as well with the higher barrier.
Anyway, these are all some pretty fine details, and I will reiterate that I still think the MDX is the better package. I've already outlined some of the pluses/minuses of both vehicles above, and I myself chose an MDX over an ML320 back in 2000. But I do think the ML has some very good characteristics that I hope Acura will incorporate into future generations of the MDX. And I also hope that the next-generation ML, due next year, in 2004 as a 2005 model, will also take a lesson from the RX300 and MDX, along with hopefully better quality. |
|
|
| stumpie |
WMQUAN -
Most excellent recap and logic. Having owned both, I'm in complete agreement. The overarching issue, or sometimes not asked question with SUVs has always been: U goin off road? If not (90% or more), then tailor your SUV purchase toward other capabilities.....and if the most often alternative to offroad is Road, then the MDX becomes, IMO, the design and price-point to beat when choosing your trusty steed. |
|
|
| caedgewo |
| I may be wrong but if you read the fine print of the side impact crash tests you will see that they don't include head injury! Why I don't know! I was hit on the drivers side by another car (teenager) and my head hit the side window of my Acura. Luckily, just a cut no major damage. It amazes me that Acura doesn't provide a curtain airbag as an option at least. It bothers me even more that Honda requires you to buy the V6 EX model of the Accord before you can get a curtain airbag (option). What if I wanted to buy a 4 cylinder for my nephew, but wanted the best safety equipment available. Again I may be wrong but Toyota doesn't do that to their customers. If you want airbags you can get them on any model. Now they don't offer curtain airbags on all vehicles but they don't make you buy the most expensive model just to get them if you don't want the rest of the stuff. I have owned a couple of Honda's and one Acura and I am getting tired of how they handle things. Time to start looking at Lexus and Toyota. If someone at Honda does read this, FIRE !!!!! the idiot(s) that comes up with the options packages. They are going to cause you to loose a customer. |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by stumpie
WMQUAN -
Most excellent recap and logic. Having owned both, I'm in complete agreement. The overarching issue, or sometimes not asked question with SUVs has always been: U goin off road? If not (90% or more), then tailor your SUV purchase toward other capabilities.....and if the most often alternative to offroad is Road, then the MDX becomes, IMO, the design and price-point to beat when choosing your trusty steed.
Stumpie, thanks for the feedback. You having owned both makes you a good source of info on this. I also considered a 2000 ML long and hard before buying a 2001 MDX. I had heard that MB had made large quality improvments. In hindsight, and as you discovered, the "large" is relative since the vehicle was in such poor shape to start off with. The 2000 still had its issues though some of the really huge ones were resolved by sometime in the first third of that model year (e.g. the infamous fuel pump that some folks blame on American gas -- er, the vehicle is launched first in the American market -- deal with it!). I also think that many MB owners are simply more accustomed to going in frequently.
I also think that an MB is much better done with a solid dealership behind you. Some folks have that benefit, other folks have pretty poor service departments (that was my concern; the closest and most convenient has a lot of bad experiences posted about it, and the other is only middling and is inconvenient to get to). A good service department knows about the vehicle's design weaknesses and can keep an eye for problems.
E.g. apparently the hose clamps are substandard ("a known problem"), and a good service department regularly checks them and if necessary, replaces them when you come in for service. Left to your own devices, they can fail and leave you stranded. On the Internet, MB owners are encouraged to check them, ouch. That's not something that will help the (probable majority) of owners who are not on the Internet.
Thus if you have an excellent MB dealer (and some, not all, will give you wonderful MB loaners), you're in much better shape with an ML.
I do think the 2002 ML added a very large number of improvements (e.g. side curtains) but now the vehicle is getting very late in its cycle, even for the welcome power addition of the ML350's engine. The 2002 is very good and I would have considered that even more closely than the 2000 I looked it, had it been available at the time.
Now, I'm sure that as the MDX ages, other new introductions will hit it too -- e.g. now with the GX470, the upcoming RX330 and Touareg, and in 2004, the ML replacement. Just the nature of new car cycles! |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by caedgewo
I may be wrong but if you read the fine print of the side impact crash tests you will see that they don't include head injury! Why I don't know! ... It bothers me even more that Honda requires you to buy the V6 EX model of the Accord before you can get a curtain airbag (option).
You're absolutely right. NHTSA's side-impact test does not have a head injury sensor on the dummy, just chest and pelvis injury measurements. The full-frontal test does measure head injury, but not the side test.
One reason is borne out by EuroNCAP's testing, where they do measure head injury. After going through a couple of dozen vehicles, the pattern I've noticed indicates that most of the time, the head injury in the normal side impact test is no worse and usually better than the injury to the lower parts of the body. Why? Because EuroNCAP's barrier for side tests is relatively small, though it may be slightly larger than NHTSA's.
To simulate a higher injury, EuroNCAP runs the pole test, which simulates one wrapping oneself around a tree, more or less (a surprising percentage of side impact injuries are not two-car accidents, I'll try to dig out the article). Those do tend to cause head injury if there's no side curtain airbag.
Again, IIHS's side-impact test, which they're still developing, may be the answer. They'd use a barrier to simulate something like an SUV hitting you. On a sedan, that will likely cause serious damage to the dummy's head especially if there's no head protection. On a taller SUV, it should at least distribute more injury to the chest and possibly the head too.
quote:
Time to start looking at Lexus and Toyota.
I too am uncomfortable with Honda forcing you to buy the top-of-the-line accord to get the side curtains. To be fair, though, I don't know if that should send you into the arms of Toyota. The new 2002 Camry (without side airbags) yielded a shocking 2-star driver's side-impact rating in the 2002. Sure, a side airbag would have helped, but a vehicle shouldn't have to rely on the airbag to make the results half-decent.
Toyota claimed it was an anomalous test but I am very suspicious; they don't discuss a lot of their design changes. A 2003 Camry without side airbags tested with three stars, very close to 4, which is better but still a bit short of what a newer model should have. You have to wonder if Toyota skimped on the side-impact construction!
Toyota has kept mum if they actually made a design change for the 2003's. But I wouldn't be surprised. IIHS had tested the Corolla, and while it had a Good result, it wasn't a Best Pick. As is their option under the IIHS testing procedure, Toyota made a design change to the Corolla in middle of a model year, and then it was re-tested for Best Pick designation. That kind of on-the-fly change makes me nervous. It shows that the manufacturer didn't do its homework when designing the vehicle in the first place.
FWIW, Honda claims the new Accord will get 4-stars side-impact without airbags, and 5-stars with airbags. That's quite good though there are a few sedans (e.g. a Legacy) that gets 5-stars without side airbags. |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by Mike_Platini
In Canada, real leather seats in ML 320 and ML500 are optional, not standard. If you want REAL, then you have to pay around $Can 4,500 more.
:cool:
They're optional in the U.S. as well! The base price of the vehicle is actually low, but the higher prices quoted around here almost always factor in the necessary packages like the leather most people get. So it's still more expensive than the MDX, no doubt. |
|
|
| ndahbar |
Wmquan,
Great post. Thanks. I didn't realize a few of those details you mentioned on the 2 4wd systems in the discussion. Well to be honest, the only time I could think of when you'd need torque going to all the wheels at medium to high speeds (when the MDX doesn't do it) is on a racetrack. Which none of us will do... !
The 2 of the 3 official "modes" the VTM-4 can do that during which torque is sent to the back are: 1- you press the lock button (low speed only, of course) and 2 - under acceleration as long as vehicle is below 18mph ( I think that's the number?) That's good enough. If you are travelling 40mph and you press on the gas and there is slippage, it will send torque to the rear, whereas the ML already is doing so, therefore yeah there could be situations where the ML is more stable/safe for a split second? Do *I* personally care about that? No.
As for the VSA...I don't understand what you said about it. How could the system just rely on ABS to stop a vehicle when it's skidding if it has yaw sensors, gas pedal position sensor, and all that funky stuff that the Benz has? I say this for BOTH skidding in a straight line, AND while cornering.
In a straight line, VSA would use ABS (regulating it front/back as deemed appropriate, just like the ESP) AND it would control the engine output. In a skid, the yaw sensor is what makes the brakes (and engine output) manipulations (by comparing driver input to actual vehicle behavior/direction), so what's the diff? :confused: |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by ndahbar
Well to be honest, the only time I could think of when you'd need torque going to all the wheels at medium to high speeds (when the MDX doesn't do it) is on a racetrack.
...
As for the VSA...I don't understand what you said about it. How could the system just rely on ABS to stop a vehicle when it's skidding if it has yaw sensors, gas pedal position sensor, and all that funky stuff that the Benz has? I say this for BOTH skidding in a straight line, AND while cornering.
A good example of a non-racetrack condition is if you're cruising along a snowy road at 25-30mph. You can't engage VTM-4 lock at this speed. So if while you're cruising, you hit a bad patch and the front wheels slip, the VTM-4 has to "react" by sending torque to the rear. The vehicle will slip slightly before the rears kick in. Again, probably not enough to cause problems which is why I said the MDX AWD system is adequate for most situations. On other systems, though, like the ML's, there is already power going to the rear so in this scenario, the vehicle will probably slip very little if at all.
Regarding the VSA, it is my understanding that it will disengage the skid control feature when any braking is started, and even before ABS engages. I guess Honda (and Toyota, whose VSC has the same limitation and has been documented by knowledgeable dealers on Edmunds Townhall) decides to give priority to the ABS system in case the brakes lock. Thus in that situation, VSA simply doesn't react to any input it is getting from the yaw sensors, throttle, and steering to correct the skid (but please note the next paragraph). So if you're braking, and the vehicle starts to skid, VSA will not intervene to counter the skid.
Please note that when you are braking, it is still possible for traction control to engage and cut power. VSA is built on top of ABS + traction control + skid control components (it uses ABS and traction control systems as well as its own components). It's just that (as I understand it) the skid control (what most people understand stability control to be) is unavailable when you are braking -- but ABS and the power cut-off feature of traction control are still at your disposal.
Apparently the German systems (and Volvo's) do not do this and continue to have skid control active even while braking.
A good way to try this behavior yourself is to attend one of those BMW driving events where they often bring something like a TL-S and/or an IS300 for comparison purposes.
Usual caveats ... VSA, ESP, etc. are not panaceas. They are only effective to the extent that there is some traction on the tires. It will not save your bacon if there is too little wheel grip, thus they should not inspire overconfidence. |
|
|
| tigmd99 |
My view:
VSA/VSC/etc. usually detect a slip BEFORE the driver is aware of it. Therefore, it will intervene "subconciously". It will make small corrections even before the driver is aware that the car has drifted.
With regard to braking and slipping at the same time, i do NOT see the point of having skid control on WHILE braking.
For example, if you're exiting the highway at high speed onto a ramp, and your car slides, the MAIN concern at this time to slow the car down. At this point, you have one or more wheel withOUT traction. Let's just say that the driver is aware of slipping and put on the brakes. At this moment, you want the car to slow down or stop. So, what matters MOST at this time is applying brake to the wheel with MOST traction. So, what does that mean??
Well, MDX and most other SUVs have ELECTRONIC BRAKEFORCE DISTRIBUTION (aka EBD). In the situation above, this system/computer will send brake power to the wheel with most traction to slow your car down. ABS will then pump these wheels WITH traction.
If VSC was still engaging, then it will REALLY confused the computer...it is sending brake power to the wheel(s) with most traction (via EBD)...YET, those wheel(s) with traction may NOT be the wheels needed for skid control!! So, what is more important?? Two scenerios:
1. Trying to slow down while cornering with braking power going to the wheel to control the skid, which may NOT be the wheel with traction. Therefore, it is useless! Your car is NOT slowing down because braking power may be diverted to wheels withOUT traction; or
2. Trying to slow down while cornering with braking power going to the wheel with MOST traction via EBD and ABS.
Well, i prefer scenerio #2.
What do you guys think? |
|
|
| wmquan |
If the stability control system is properly attuned, it can provide the best of both 1+2 and offer an alternate situation 3. The problem with scenario 2 is that in the extreme situation explained, you might be declerating at a faster rate than 1, but you're also liable to spin, possibly out of control, and possibly into the ditch or into the oncoming traffic lanes. If that happens, you're better off with #1!
One point to keep in mind is that stability control braking is not "clamping down" or totally releasing braking on wheels. It's a modulation, pulsing the brakes many times a second.
Yes, worse case if there is only one wheel with traction, ESP can't do much. In fact, it will not attempt to brake the other wheels to counteract the skid because it knows those wheels have no traction! Thus it does not make the situation worse.
However, it's much more likely that you have two or even three wheels with traction. ESP's ECU doesn't get "confused," it knows which wheels don't have traction, and it knows that ABS is activated to stop the vehicle. If it thinks that modulating (pulsing) the braking on one of the two or three wheels will stop the skid, it will try to do that. It will not make the situation worse, however, as it knows you are trying to stop, so it will temper its braking activity to balance with the braking.
In most situations, they are not as worse case as (1) above -- a lot of ML owners have taken that slippery curve, braked, and noticed the ESP triangle flashing, and noticed their vehicle staying in line while still decelerating. And, as you mentioned, even before they noticed any slipping. That's another reason to applying stability control while braking -- it can correct any mild skidding even before the driver notices it, and panics and hits the brakes!
Whereas you may recall a discussion on Edmunds when a guy landed in the ditch because he took a slick curve too fast, hit the brakes on his VSC-equipped vehicle, and skidded and lost directional control -- because VSC immediately disengaged. If VSC had been active, it might have prevented that particular accident, though of course we do not know all the parameters of that scenario.
In fact, the later generations of ESP are designed to work seamlessly with Brake Assist (both forms). These ESP enhancements are intended to avoid the situation you described. I'd suspect that Toyota hasn't yet evolved VSC to work through all the scenarios, hence their limitation and why VSC cuts off while braking. That all said, I'm sure that eventually Toyota will upgrade VSC and you'll be able to get VSC benefits while braking as well. |
|
|
| renov8r |
...when I look at the "stuff" on the ML350 I really start to want to like this vehicle.
Then I look at the vehicle "unadorned" and it instantly becomes too small and too unattractive...
Conversely, when I consider the MDX I really like even the base vehicle, and like the options available. However I do feel somewhat 'cheated' by Honda's lack of HID's, curtain airbags, and other little things they could get out of any 'parts bin'...
I suspect that is why demand remains so strong -- no other vehicle has gotten so much of the "basics" right. This also points to what other manufacturers will be doing in their "next attempt" and the ML350 is destined to have a very short life... |
|
|
| tigmd99 |
WM,
Good points...however, there is a lot of assumption, including how smart ESP CPU is. You either have ESP on or off...there is no in-between. ABS w/ EBD is either working or not. I just don't see how you can have ESP AND ABS/EBD working at the same time, even when you have 3 wheels with traction. One must be dominant over the other...1 or 0 (in computer terms). They counter each other in a sense.
Thanks. |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by renov8r
...when I look at the "stuff" on the ML350 I really start to want to like this vehicle.
Then I look at the vehicle "unadorned" and it instantly becomes too small and too unattractive...
Conversely, when I consider the MDX I really like even the base vehicle, and like the options available. However I do feel somewhat 'cheated' by Honda's lack of HID's, curtain airbags, and other little things they could get out of any 'parts bin'...
I suspect that is why demand remains so strong -- no other vehicle has gotten so much of the "basics" right. This also points to what other manufacturers will be doing in their "next attempt" and the ML350 is destined to have a very short life...
Agreed. I really like some of the individual components of the ML, but I don't like the overall package as much. That's why vehicle purchase decisions are so complicated! The MDX isn't necessarily the best in many particular categories, but in those categories it does things well or very well. That's been the theme of a lot of reviews on the MDX.
The ML is destined for an eight-year model cycle. It's actually been out since 1997! The replacement will be out in 2004 (as a 2005 model). It should be very interesting, though I would not go near it the first year (and possibly not even the second).
One cool feature I saw on a C-class but I'm not sure is available on the ML is "tunnel mode." E.g. you're driving around with your windows down a bit, and your climate control running. You head toward a tunnel (or you get stuck behind a truck full of manure!), and you want to turn your climate control to recirculate and close your windows. On the C-class, you press recirculate for more than a second or two, and it not only switches on recirculate, it also closes all the windows.
Another cool feature I liked on the C, and I think that the M-class may have it, is that the seat memory also handles the steering wheel position (which can tilt or telescope). And when you take the key out of the ignition, the steering column tilts up to give you more room to get out. Cool small features, when looked at individually.
Then again, we make fun of VicPai when it seems like he'd buy an Acura just to get the Navi! |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by tigmd99
WM,
Good points...however, there is a lot of assumption, including how smart ESP CPU is. You either have ESP on or off...there is no in-between. ABS w/ EBD is either working or not. I just don't see how you can have ESP AND ABS/EBD working at the same time, even when you have 3 wheels with traction. One must be dominant over the other...1 or 0 (in computer terms). They counter each other in a sense.
Thanks.
Thanks Thai. I do know that at least ESP's ECU is pretty smart, but then again, there's been a lot of time for MB, Bosch, and Continental-Teves to refine it.
It may help to consider that braking forces can be moderated, and the scenarios where ESP works is when you are braking, even before ABS detects lockup and actuates, or EBD is invoked. E.g. even if you have traction on only two or three wheels, the amount of braking force can be varied -- e.g. soft braking vs. hard braking and all the points in between. Thus, the braking effort is actually not binary, but analog. Obviously there is a limit, of course.
So, ESP can actuate and help by supplying different levels of braking force to different wheels to try to counteract the skid. It thus does not terminate your attempt to brake, it simply augments your braking by varying the braking force to try to correct the skids. E.g. trying to get the best of both worlds -- helping you brake, but helping you maintain directional control.
I agree with you that under such a scenario, ESP may degrade the overall braking effort somewhat. It makes sense since it may reduce braking force on, for example, the inner rear wheel in a corner. That is one of the compromises of stability control -- it doesn't want you to spin out of control, so it will affect overall braking.
In the same manner, ESP can actually make your slalom times slower because it may scrub off some speed while applying braking effort. That's one reason some Audi/VW owners turn off ESP in some situations, so they can "have fun." |
|
|
| tigmd99 |
WM,
We're not talking about ESP effects BEFORE the driver realizes the skidding...VSA/VSC does that also.
We're talking more about when the driver DOES realize the skid and put on the brakes. In those instances, i want all my braking power to go to the wheel(s) with traction...no where else! And this is what ABS + EBD does. I do not want skid control to interfere and diverts braking power to the other wheel(s) that have no traction. That kinda defeats the purpose of EBD.
In that case of the Toyota SUV skidding off the road, like you said, there is simply too many parameters to consider.
Thanks for responding. |
|
|
| ndahbar |
| VSA is inactive if u apply the brakes???!!!! Are u sure?! Sounds awfully screwey to me. That can't be right. Since the system USES the brake system to re-stabilize the vehicle (along with engine ignition adjustments) it just doesn't make any sense that it does not perform adjustments while the brakes are being applied. :confused: |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by tigmd99
I do not want skid control to interfere and diverts braking power to the other wheel(s) that have no traction. That kinda defeats the purpose of EBD.
Thanks Thai. We've come full-circle now and we can agree to disagree. I understand your desire for all braking power to go to the wheels with traction.
ESP/DSC/DSTC proponents (all those systems are full-range) will say that if you are hard-braking, directional stability is as important as pure braking performance. For example, if you only have three or two wheels with some traction on a slippery surface, and you put full braking force on them, that can make the skid much worse, especially in the case of a heavy SUV. That's what often causes spin-outs -- it's sometimes better to "power through" the curve than it is to try to slam on the brakes.
But if one does brake hard, the aforementioned proponents say that it's worth it to sacrifice a small amount of stopping power to try to keep the vehicle from spinning out of control. |
|
|
| tigmd99 |
Yeah, i guess there are two views to everything!
However, if you have no traction to a wheel, it really does not matter what you do to that wheel. You can apply all the braking power to that wheel, and it would do no good.
And if a few wheels do have "some" traction, then EBD will give "some" braking power to those wheels. Remember, ABS came out to HELP you steer AND brake out of trouble.
Well, good discussion anyway. Thanks. |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by ndahbar
VSA is inactive if u apply the brakes???!!!! Are u sure?! Sounds awfully screwey to me. That can't be right. Since the system USES the brake system to re-stabilize the vehicle (along with engine ignition adjustments) it just doesn't make any sense that it does not perform adjustments while the brakes are being applied. :confused:
It is confusing, isn't it? This is based from what I've read, observed in various places, too bad I don't have everything at my fingertips.
Perhaps, if you have enough desire and time, you can email Acura and ask if the current version of VSA in the MDX still corrects skids when you press the brake pedal, and/or when ABS is engaged?
I do know that manufacturers constantly update their stability control systems so it is entirely possible the MDX's VSA is better. However, I haven't seen any statement yet that Acura has improved VSA. But it's not the type of thing the web sites go into much. It gets super-arcane after a while, as you can see! |
|
|
|
