Why SHOULDN'T I buy an MDX........ (1 Viewer)

[DavidMich]

Well, I am planning on picking up one of these on Friday. I opted for the Touring Package with Acura's Navigation system. I went with the black exterior with the tan leather interior.
Can anyone tell me why I shouldn't buy it? I researched VERY carefully, and nothing, I mean nothing, seems to be able to touch it in terms of features, ride, power, and room, for the same money. Not the X-5, not the M class from Mercedes, and certainly not the Lexus RX300.
Tell me what you think, I value your opinion.

 

[NickSo]

No complaints here! Its been winning praise and comparisons since it came out, great car from what i've read!

 

[Jared_B]

Because the Bimmer is better in every way that you didn't list (and one that you did).

In all seriousness, the MDX is what I would consider the only competition for the X5 - the RX and ML shouldn't even be considered. For the price, you get an amazing assortment of features in the Acura.

 

[Dennis Reno]

Great vehicle, do not hesitate! My wife has had hers for about nine months, no problems at all. Best vehicle we have owned. I would love to get one for myself, but I don't know if I can really justify having two of 'em!

 

[Robert McDonald]

A wonderful vehicle, but last year we bought a V-6 Highlander over the MDX for a couple of reasons: the Highlander was about $7k less, and we didn't need AWD, but did want vehicle skid control which wasn't offered on the MDX (don't know if the newer models offer it now). It would be nice to have the third seat, but we figured we would only use that very rarely. They both drove very nicely, had comparable power (Highlander was 220 hp vs. 240 hp for the MDX, I believe, but MDX was heavier). I think the MDX has scored higher in the crash tests than the Highlander (which tests were not out when we bought ours, as that may have made a difference); personally don't think you could go wrong with either.
For your information here are 2 discussion threads from Edmunds.com:
Mercedes-Benz M-Class, Acura MDX, Lexus RX 300, BMW X5, SUV
Highlander v. MDX

 

[DavidMich]

Thanks for the replies!!
I considered the X-5, and it does drive great. However, it had less horsepower, less room, and I would need to spend more than $7,000 more.....just to get it to the equipment level of the MDX.
Regarding skid control, the MDX does have it standard. In fact, it employs variable torque management to all four wheels combined with anti-lock braking at all four wheels. All of this is controlled by several computer sensors at the wheels, control shafts, and suspension pivot points. They all work together with the computers controlling the engine, throttle, etc.
I think I will go ahead with my plans.....
I can't wait!!

 

[Jared_B]

David, comparing the HP figures will get you nowhere. The X5 matches the MDX in acceleration, even with fewer horsepower. You shouldn't go solely on the manufacturer's claimed HP numbers. That’s just another reason why real experience with a vehicle is always best.
(as a side note; methinks acura generally overstates their HP numbers)
All of your other points are very valid, and they're sacrifices one must make in pursuit of the ultimate driving machine!
My advice to people is always figure out what your priorities are, then weigh each vehicle accordingly. You might still have to make sacrifices, but at least you'll be close to what you really want/need. David, I'll expect to see pics of your new wheels very soon!

 

[DavidMich]

I did drive the Beemer. I did love it. It just wasn't what I wanted to pay. If it was a little bigger on space, and had all of the features that the Acura had, then I would have bought it. Honestly, though, the acceleration is very close. A toss-up in my book. Maybe the MDX just FELT faster, or maybe the X-5 was smoother, therefore felt slower. I don't know......

 

[PatrickM]

David, I'm going through the same thing right now trying to determine what mid-size SUV to get for my wife. I'm not going to buy until this time next year so I'm looking at the new Volvo XC90 as my prime target at this point.

The thing I don't like about the MDX is it doesn't have what Volvo calls Dynamic Stability Traction Control or what Audi calls ESP which basically means stability control.

If you drove the X5 3.0 I can imagine you'd find the MDX faster. The 4.4i is more of a comparison to the MDX in terms of straight line speed.

The MDX is a heck of a value though. You get a lot for the money. You probably can't go wrong buying one.

Patrick

 

[Jared_B]

If you drove the X5 3.0 I can imagine you'd find the MDX faster. The 4.4i is more of a comparison to the MDX in terms of straight line speed

On what basis, exactly? The X5 3.0i matches (or nearly matches, depending on the source) the MDX in acceleration (each around the low 8 second range for 0-60). The X5 4.4i does 0-60 in 6.6-6.8 seconds, again depending on the source. I fail to see how the 4.4i is a better comparison to the MDX, acceleration wise.

 

[AviTevet]

Don't buy it because it's an SUV! They're annoying to other drivers. You can get the same or more space in a Subaru, VW, or Volvo wagon, and get better gas mileage, and get a better 4wd system (Volvo uses a modified VW system), and get a better ride, and get better power (those Volvos are fast!).

Or if you want real dynamics, there's an X5 4.6is that has huge tires and a really powerful engine... .84g on the skidpad, 0-60 in under 6 seconds, 70-0 in 164 ft (5 ft shorter than a 911 turbo), etc. It's as carlike as an SUV gets.

 

[MikeM]

Umm....because for about $30,000 LESS you could have THIS car , and be a true Pimp!

Just kidding, the MDX is nice, but then again, you could always hold out for the Honda Pilot and save about $10 grand. Or truly break the mold, and not get an SUV.

 

[Brian Perry]

I looked at both the X5 and MDX and ended up with a Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland, which is their top of the line. Other than the lack of a navigation system, it has everything the other two have, and is probably just as capable. I don't know about the X5 sound system, but the one in the Jeep blows away my other car (BMW 528i).

Having had it for about four months, I don't regret the decision at all. IMHO the Jeep looks better than the Acura--I like the MDX's rear but not the front "beak." I'm just hoping that the reliability holds up (my last Jeep was kind of a dog, but I had bought it used).

 

[Dan Mackowski]

The new Honda Pilot is suppose to be built on the MDX platform. If you like the MDX, test drive the Pilot. It should be cheaper than the MDX.

 

[DavidMich]

First of all, I don't give a *$#&^%!!! about the other drivers, and how much it may or may not annoy them. If someone is angry because of too many SUVs on the road, I must ask......WHY????
Is it because they can't afford one?
Is it because they use too much gas????
(Most are VERY fuel efficent these days, except for the super large behemoth class....)
Is it because they are not environmentally friendly?
(Many are now Low Emmission vehicles, and this MDX is an ULTRA low emmission vehicle)...
It's not my fault that you are safer in a bigger vehicle when involved in an accident, either.
On the wagon issue:
I must disagree, that the station wagons have as much room as this MDX. I am pretty sure you cannot put a 4' x 8' sheet of plywood (FLAT) in between the wheel wells of one of the wagons.....never mind the fact that overall weight capacity is less on the wagons, too.
After reading the specs on the MDX....I saw where they rate the towing capacity as 45OO pounds for a boat, and 3000 pounds for "other" trailers. They also said that this is a "real" figure that includes the vehicle loaded down with 5 passergers and the cargo space filled with "gear" (as they call it).
Many manufacturers will state towing capacity based on empty vehicles. Then you must deduct (from the towing capacity) the weight of occupants and gear.
I would like to see a wagon with only 5 or 6 inches of ground clearance can do..........
I respect your opinions, no matter how different from mine they may be......I guess that's why they make different models for different people....
In reagards to the PILOT:
Not a bad vehicle.....however, I do not like the styling one bit. It is intentionally short of features to keep it below the Acura. The interior doesn't look near as cool as the Acura, either.
The back window does not open, and you cannot get a sunroof with it. (A must for me!!!) The wheels are smaller. The fit and finish is lacking when compared to the Acura. I am sure that was intentinoal, as well.
There are also few more things that I can't think of right now, that differ it from the MDX.
I did consider it, but ruled it out after careful consideration.

 

[Jared_B]

My thoughts exactly David. SUV hating seems to be just a fad anymore (how ironic). Nobody can produce any real, valid reasons why SUVs shouldn't be on the road. Manufacturers have been proactive regarding most of the criticism that SUVs got several years ago.
The complaints about rolling over, handling, mileage, pollution, bumper height, and safety have all been addressed in the vast majority of trucks/SUVs that are built today.

When are you people going to realize that the SUV is the most versatile vehicle made? Anymore, they really are just beefed-up wagons, which are very versatile themselves.

 

[DavidMich]

You are right on the money, Jared.
In fact, ever since the Ford Explorer/Firestone debacle, SUVs are now more safer than ever. Manufacturers are currently addressing the consumers demand.
The current trend is toward more utilitarian vehicles, or "cross-over" vehicles.
I have a good friend of mine that says:
"I just don't like ANY SUV."
When I ask him why, he just says "I just don't like them"
Again, no good reasons given.
He just bought a minivan. My bet is, if it was sportier, and looked nicer, he would have still bought it. After all, most minivans, in comparison, are very close to SUVs in terms of creature compfort and room. Typically, they just lack in off-road capability.
Wouldn't a minivan with 4-wheel drive be considered a SPORT-UTILITY vehicle?

 

[Max Knight]

I beg to differ with the statement that most SUVs are very efficient. Current numbers indicate that mileage is not that great (listed city/highway, numbers taken from www.fueleconomy.gov, all vehicles listed are 2002 MY):
X5 (3.0) 15/21
X5 (4.4) 13/17
MDX 17/23
Explorer 4wd 6 cyl manual 16/20
Explorer 4wd 8 cyl auto 14/19
None of these are the HUGE SUVs, which get awful mileage. Given, some of these are ultra-low emission, but that just means that for any given gallon burned a lower level of emissions is generated compared to a non-ultra-low emission vehicle.
Most wagons and non SUVs (even AWD) get closer to 20 mpg in the city.
Subaru Outback Wagon (auto) 22/27
BMW 525i Sport Wagon 19/27
Ford Taurus wagon 6 cyl 4 valve auto 19/26
I'm not saying don't get an SUV, but if you are don't delude yourself into thinking that you are driving a fuel efficient environmentally friendly vehicle.
And let's all remember who most of our oil comes from these days.

 

[DavidMich]

The MDX's 17/23 is very close to the mileage quotes of the wagons above. Considering it is MUCH heavier, has more room, etc.
A trade-off of only a few mere miles per gallon, it's a very minimal sacrifice. Driving style would make more of a difference than that.
I just can't see myself driving a wagon.
:b

 

[Aurel Savin]

SUV hating seems to be just a fad anymore (how ironic). Nobody can produce any real, valid reasons why SUVs shouldn't be on the road.

I knew this thread was going to turn into an SUV / car debate when I saw the title You asked for it David
My take on the whole SUV thing is ... to each his own ...
But as a driver of a regular coupe in NYC, I must say the SUV craze has reached it's peak.
Stuck on the highway sometimes and looking around me I am surrounded by more and more SUV's. The main problem I have with them is visibility. You just cannot see around them ... this makes for the most dangerous situations ...especially in heavily congested areas.
I realize if you have one this is not your problem ... but I think this is the main issue with them. Other drivers do not feel safe around them! ...at least I do not!
Personally, I do not think it is a money issue or fuel economy (i do agree that they have good fuel efficency latley).
If I was to ever buy an SUV for it's main intended purpose (off-roading, towing) I would get a Jeep, Range Rover or a Hummer ... ones that were made for that purpose IMHO. The rest are just sedans on a higher platform
Most people I think are afraid to get even a chip from a rock on the paint of their truck they just paid $50K for ... let alone take ot off-road ..come on guys .. fess up!