Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Hyundai Veracruz vs Audi Q7 vs Acura MDX

2»

Comments

  • Why would Hyundai not want to put its "better, nicer" options in the veracruz that is coming to the "NA" market. If they want to break the "lingering perceptions" than they should make their cars nicer, its that simple. Once they stay that way (nicer) for a while then people will start to warm up to them it just takes time. BMW wasnt always considered a luxury brand, but they began to make a nicer product and eventually people realized it.
  • joe97joe97 Posts: 2,248
    Agreed, although at the same time, Hyundai has continued to make quality and reliablity its top priorities. Bring those features would not be hard at all for Hyundai, as they are all available. Based on what I have read and saw, Hyundai is taking one step at a time, the company is not rushing things, this will frustrate some perspective buyers but it should Hyundai in the long run.

    By the way, the Veracruz will reportedly have a starting price in the US just under 30K, so I take that as $29,995 :)
  • 07xle07xle Posts: 177
    By the way, the Veracruz will reportedly have a starting price in the US just under 30K, so I take that as $29,995

    That would be a good way to limit the US sales.

    The Santa FE starts at $20,945. No way the base Veracruz is going to list for $9,000 more!! At most, maybe $4,500 more.

    The CX-9 starts at $5,285 more than the CX-7. The vehicle difference between the Veracruz and Santa FE is small compared to the difference between the CX-9 and CX-7.

    The CX-9 and Saturn Outlook start at $29,630 and $27,990 respectively. They are both larger vehicles!!!!
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    The Santa FE starts at $20,945. No way the base Veracruz is going to list for $9,000 more!!
    Is that Santa Fe with I-4 or V6?
  • 07xle07xle Posts: 177
    Like, dah the I4.

    The same comparison as the base CX-7 that has the TURBO I4.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Do you think people looking at Santa Fe I-4 would be comparing it to Veracruz? I don't see why anybody would. These people would just have different priorities. A case on this can be made between base CR-V (about $20K) and base Pilot (about $27K).

    CX-7 IS turbo/I-4! Clearly the intent is to compete with V6 (and other turbo/I-4) powered vehicles.
  • joe97joe97 Posts: 2,248
    Both engines for the Santa Fe are V6s.

    As for the pricing RE: Veracruz, I cannot confirm whether the speculation is correct. I will try to get more information.
  • Uhh...i know you guys are just trying to make a point...but, your title says q7 and mdx, and, somehow weve gotten to hyundais and mazdas... :confuse:
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    I don't know where the conversation about Mazda and the Santa Fe came from, but Hyundai Veracruz is in the title.
  • rick2456rick2456 Posts: 320
    The question is, what can your Audi Q7 do, that my Veracruz can't? Nothing, ...well except cost twice as much. If one has the money to blow on toys, more power to them. I for one prefer to have the same capability at half the price (or less).
  • I have had an MDX for 8 years and looking for a new 7 seater that drives more like a car than a truck. I have narrowed it down to an Audi Q7 and Buick Enclave. have tset driven both...problem is Audi seems to have more trouble and a higher price. Enclave seems more "reliable" but is a GM so a little cautious. Any thoughts??
  • 1. Is new AUDI Q7 2011 premium-base + NAV pkg worth it? vs Acura MDX Tech-pkg with a 4K difference?

    - Note Acura has higher HP 300 hp vs Q7 272 HP but AUDI has Higher Torque with new Turbo/SuperCharger (T) engines with 8 Tras

    2. Is it true I have to spend 3K every 10-15K miles to change tires/break-pads/sensors for Q7 and not for MDX/BMW-X5? Audi's reliability issues?

    Any thoughts & inputs are highly appreciated for experienced audi-lovers!
  • I've got a 2008 Audi Q7, and based on reliability I'd reccomend the Acura. I have no experience with the Acura, but it's got to be better then the Audi. Mine has been in the shop for a bunch of things, had to replace tires at 19k miles, blind spot system module needed to be replaced, MMI has had glitches and been update three times already, electrical system is out of whack, to many to list.
  • I never had an Acura so can't really say anything on that but I have a 2008 Audi Q7 and I am very happy with it. I am now at 42K miles and have not yet replaced the tires or brakes. It did have some electrical problems but were repaired within warranty. Oil changes are done every 10K miles which is great. I also have a 2009 infinity G35 XS and that one needs its oil changed every 3,5 K miles so I 'm at that dealership every 2 months. I've heard people having prob;ems with the 2008 Q7 but I really haven't had many problems with it.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    No question, MDX, NOT the Audi.

    There appears to be no easy answer to the problem of improving the abysmal safety record of FWD on an adverse condition roadbed. But everyone seems to keep trying. Now we have all these new pre-emptive F/awd systems, seemingly adopted throughout the FWD manufacturing industry.

    You can either have one of these, mostly obsolete, reactive F/awd systems, TC activation ONLY once wheelspin/slip is detected, AFTER THE FACT. Or you can have one of these new Pre-Emptive F/awd systems that always default to the rear drive coupling mode under low speed acceleration and/or when turning, even on the most highly tractive roadbed that exists today.

    Any experienced 4WD owner will tell you that it is not a good idea to have the "center diff'l" locked, front and rear drives coupled, on a highly tractive roadbed. Doing so will often result in pre-mature failures of driveline components due to the stresses, HEAT buildup, arising from driveline windup and/or tire scrubbing.

    The Acura MDX engineers have seemingly addressed this issue more adequately than elsewhere by switching from the old VTM-4 F/awd system to the newer SH-AWD system. The earlier MDX's had an unusually high transaxle failure rate.

    Ford, with 10 years or more of driveline failures of this type on the Escape and Mariner F/awd system, is now trying out a water cooling method to combat all these premature driveline failures with Pre-Emptive F/awd in the 2011 FWD -F/awd Ford Explorer. The driveline STRESS will still be present but hopefully without the gear tooth OVER-heating and subsequent failures that would otherwise occur.

    Tire wear due to inordinate tire scrubbing in turns might well still be an issue.
  • wwest,

    I am not sure i understand your reply.

    New 2011 Audi Q7 has AWD so as MDX SH-AWD

    and Safely Ratings of Audi 2011/2010 Q7 is much better than MDX

    Are you saying Audi doesnot have AWD? just have FWD?
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Rather than be negative on the Audi I was being POSITIVE on the MDX. Yes, Audi has some sort of F/awd system, yours to decide if it justifies not buying an MDX.
  • goldsuvgoldsuv Posts: 51
    To add to wwest's points, here is a good video comparing the 2 awd systems.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJZxVefta68
  • thanks wwest , the youtube vd is confusing b/c looks like audi's EDS was not turned on while driving up the hill (just open diff T quatro was on)
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    That's quite possible. On my '01 RX300 if I do not disable TC, Traction Control (and by default VSC), the RX's engine gets so thoroughly dethrottled that no forward motion can be attained.

    That will be true of almost ALL "reactive" F/awd systems. "Reactive" systems that use TC are really "one-wheel-drive" systems the instant any wheel or wheels slip. Loss of traction on a FWD or F/awd vehicle is such a great threat to life and limb traction must be restored URGENTLY, SOP.

    So to make the RX or the Audi even look as if some effort is being made to climb that slope the nanny's MUST be disabled. Strange, isn't it. But that's why so many of these vehicle's have a TC "off" switch.

    The SH-AWD system is unique in many ways, the majority of engine torque can be automatically routed to the rear leaving LOTS of front traction to be allocated for directional control. Then if needed up to 80% of that rear torque can be routed to any one of the two rear wheel. No torque stear nor plowing/understearing with an SH-AWD system.

    Bottom line...If the majority of engine torque must remain on those front drive wheels, leaving little to no traction for directional control, then a compromise MUST be made, KILL the engine torque.
2»
This discussion has been closed.