Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Lets assume MDX does 0-60 in 8 sec. and X5 0-60 in 8.5 sec.
Accelaration = delta velocity / delta time
Accelaration (A) = (V2-V1) / (T2-T1)
Distance = (V1 * T2) + 0.5(A * (T2 square))
MDX: Accelaration = (60mph-0mph) / (8 Sec.-0 Sec.)
Accelaration = (60mph-0mph) / (8 Sec.-0 Sec.)= 8.638 miles / ( hour * sec )
Accelaration = (8.638 * 5280 feet/mile)/(3600 sec. / hour) = 12.67 ft per sec. square
Distance = (V1 * T2) + 0.5(A * (T2 square)) = 0 + 0.5(12.67)(8)square = 405.44 ft
X5: Accelaration = (60mph-0mph) / (8.5 Sec.-0 Sec.)= 7.059 miles / ( hour * sec )
Accelaration = (7.059 * 5280 feet/mile)/3600 sec. / hour = 10.35 ft per sec square
Distance = (V1 * T2) + 0.5(A * (T2 square)) = 0 + 0.5(10.35)(8.5)square = 373.89 ft
A difference of 31.5 Feet, about three car length.
Shortly after moving up to the 01, I took it to a shop with a 4 wheel drive dynamometer to find the truth.
If the two dynamometer "driven" rollers were uncoupled, then the torque distribution initially measured 90/10 F/R. After a few moments (uncoupled) then the VC would stiffen enough that we could measure about 75/25 F/R.
In the testing it appeared that the torque distribution "might" be 50/50 with the two, front and rear, dynamometer driven wheels coupled (locked together) but in truth there seemed to be no way to actually determine the "high traction" ratio.
Not that it actually matters.
Most of us buy AWD for circumstances wherein the traction coefficient is adverse.
Incidentally, what you are doing is calculating the average acceleration and using it to determine the speeds and distances. We know acceleration is not constant (different torque curves, driver reflexes, etc.) but it's a good place to start.
Whether it's good enough to draw conclusions within plus or minus 7.5% (30 feet compared with 400 feet) remains to be seen.
tidester, host
Last night I took a test drive in the FX45, and to start out with the salesman said he would drive first. I thought this was kind of weird, but I soon found out why. He told me to hold on, then the first thing he did out of the parking lot, while taking a sharp 90 degree right turn onto the street from a dead stop, was to mash the accelerator to the floor. This was very impressive, and clearly you could tell immediately that this vehicle is not only very powerful, and handles extremely well, but is also very much rear wheel drive torque biased. When I took the wheel shortly thereafter, my initial impressions were confirmed, as was my contention that you should never buy a demo vehicle. <g>
Anyway as I think you know I've placed an order for an RX 330 which will be my wife's primary vehicle, and will replace her '98 A4 which has given us six years of really great service. With the RX, because we wanted the NAV system in combination with the Performance Pkg, we had to place a special order and it will be 90-120 days before it arrives.
Meanwhile, I unfortunately was involved in a multi-car accident with my '01 Audi allroad, and even more unfortunately I was told a couple of days ago that it will be totaled after it became apparent that there more damage to the engine than it first appeared, requiring replacement. The insurance company has been more than fair, and will give me $38,443 on Monday - not bad for a 2 1/2 year old car with 34,000 miles that cost about $45,500 new. So this led to my car shopping, and today I agreed to some very favorable terms on an '03 FX 45, which I hope to pick up Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. Never thought we would own two SUV's (cross-overs ?) at the same time, but that's the way it's going to work out. I will really miss the Audi, but the power of the V8 in the FX, plus that good-old RWD torque bias, should help me get over it pretty fast. ;-)
Purchased my first Lexus, a 92 LS, within a few days.
Accelaration = (60mph-0mph) / (8 Sec.-0 Sec.)= 8.638 miles / ( hour * sec )
Wait, 60/8 = 7.5, not 8.638? That would make the distance difference 21.89 feet, which is less than a car length and a half, not three car lengths.
And, as discussed here, acceleration is not constant. After all, both the MDX and X5 took the same amount of time to get to 30mph. To review Car & Driver's times:
MDX / X5 acceleration in seconds
0-30: 2.7 / 2.7
0-60: 7.8 / 8.1
Even though their 0-30 times were the same, there is a chance that one vehicle was ahead because of the difference in shift points. However, it probably wouldn't be large. Let's assume they're pretty neck-and-neck. That would means that the main distance difference is in the 30-60 portion of the 0-60 tests. That was 5.1 seconds in the MDX, and 5.4 seconds in the BMW.
If we compute the distance difference using friday's formula, and (somewhat incorrectly) assume that acceleration from 30-60 is linear (just to get some numbers to play with).
Acceleration (A) = (V2-V1) / (T2-T1)
Distance = (V1 * T2) + 0.5(A * (T2 square))
MDX:
Acceleration (A) = (V2-V1) / (T2-T1)
Acceleration = (60mph-30mph) / (5.1 Sec.-0 Sec.)
Acceleration = 30 / 5.1
Acceleration = 5.8824 miles = 8.6275 feet/second square
Distance = (V1 * T2) + 0.5(A * (T2 square))
Distance = (30mph * 5.1) + 0.5(8.6275 * (5.1 square))
Distance = 153 + 112 = 265 feet? (not sure about this part; is it really 30 * 5.1 or does that number get adjusted?)
X5:
Acceleration (A) = (V2-V1) / (T2-T1)
Acceleration = (60mph-30mph) / (5.4 Sec.-0 Sec.)
Acceleration = 30 / 5.4
Acceleration = 5.5556 miles = 8.1482 feet/second square
Distance = (V1 * T2) + 0.5(A * (T2 square))
Distance = (30mph * 5.4) + 0.5(8.1482 * (5.4 square))
Distance = 162 + 118 = 280 feet? (not sure about this part; is it really 30 * 5.4)
Difference = 280 - 265 = 15 feet = 180 inches
Difference = 0.954907161803713527851458885941645 of an MDX car length or
Difference = 0.979858464888405008165487207403375 of an X5 car length
It's even less than a car length if you add a bicycle rack to the back and a bull bar to the front.
It's quite possible that the MDX acceleration pattern gives it a slight edge beyond the linear acceleration rate used in the formula above. So perhaps it is a full car length and even a few extra inches! Whoohoo!
My point is that half of a second in 0 - 60 is alot more significant than most people thinks. 0-60 is a very important test because those are typical highway merging speed. From a dead stop and going on to a highway, I would say gaining 19 ft on to the on ramp and highway is a big advantage for any car.
Of course around here, you can still merge onto the freeway without having to come to a dead stop for 5 minutes.
Steve, Host
They've put metered on-ramps on a number of roads around Seattle, so you get onto the highway from a stop. Of course, one reason for those lights is because traffic is dense. That makes a full 0-60 sprint quite dangerous and foolhardy. A more controlled acceleration to 60 is really more typical of stop-to-merge. Thus, claims of superiority with close 0-60 times are rather dubious in these cases, and not real-world. So 30-60, 40-60, 50-70 are probably more valuable for those situations.
Anyways, the point was to prove that a fraction of a second in 0-60 does matter unlike some people think. I believe we have proven that to most of the readers on this board.
Edmunds numbers look pretty shaky -- they show a 0-60 for an X5 4.4 at 7.5; C&D shows 6.6! I'm beginning to think Miss Daisy rides along on the Edmunds test run -- or maybe Edmunds just needs to find people who can DRIVE.
Another poster questioned why someone would choose an X5 over a 330xi sport wagon -- there is no 330xi sport wagon. And the 325xi sport wagon is seriously tight in the cockpit vs. an X5; might be okay if you're a dwarf but otherwise unacceptable. Really it comes down to a 5 series or an X5 and then road conditions become the deciding factor.
Seriously, if you want to "prove" something you'll have to quit making up facts and assuming things that aren't true anywhere but Planet Honda. Serious proof would involve either actually getting out and driving the vehicles or a simulation like the cartest2000 simulator which takes gearing, horsepower, tire diameter and even drag into account. But I seriously suggest forgetting about -- if it makes you happy drive it.
If you have read the formulas carefully, you would have seen that I did not assume that acceleration is constant, what I did was took the average acceleration from 0-60 mph, and I also fixed that miscalculation pointed out by wmquan on my second post.
BTW, Edmunds' numbers are always a little conservative, but it is consistent across the board. C&D's numbers are always faster than Edmunds, C&D listed the 02 MDX with 20 less HP than the 03 at 0-60 in 7.9 sec.
learn2fly - Relax dude. This discussion will run its course in due time...and I rather enjoyed the go-carts and physics lesson. This is critical information that everyone should take into consideration when shopping for a new vehicle!
The folks at Motor Week usually pull pretty fast times. A 2001 MDX (somewhat lighter than the 2003, but with 20 less HP) was clocked 0-60 in 7.6 seconds, and the quarter-mile in 15.9 seconds @ 87 mph. In a separate test (possibly under somewhat different conditions), they clocked a 2001 X5 3.0i 0-60 in 7.8 seconds, and the quarter-mile in 15.8 seconds @ 89 mph.
What I like about comparos like the one Car & Driver did is that the vehicles were clocked under much more similar conditions.
A better comparison to the X5 may be drawn with the Infiniti FX45. The FX45 is certainly more than a tenth of a second faster than the X5 3.0i, at a similar price (MotorWeek listed 0-60 as 6.3 seconds). Actually has somewhat more cargo space (such as it is, still not comparable to true mid-sized SUV's). Probably better reliability than an X5 too.
fedlawman -- the 330xi is a nice sedan but just as tight for the driver as the 325xi wagon. Trust me, if you live with nice weather the 5 series is the answer as a people hauler.
quan -- you are correct. For the most part I find the numbers to be junk; you don't drive numbers. Since there is so much variation (including temp, humidity and altitude) its wise to at least use a single source doing a comparo.
Of course, if you buy a 3 series or even the X5, people hauling is not one of your top priorities. That's where the MDX steps in...
The FX has great numbers but I have yet to see one in person as Infiniti dealers are rare around here. Had it been around a couple years ago I might have considered it although I'm not a fan of its styling.
Yes, cargo space is lacking when compared to other SUVs, but with the seats folded down it's been good enough for my occasional trips to Home Depot.
I'm sure the FX45 is a stellar performer, but as you know, it's not always about 0-60 for many of us. The X5 sold me on its styling, performance, handling, passive and active safety, added ride height, AWD, and overall feeling of solidity and control. Plus a few nifty features such as PDC and rear sunshades. It's been reliable thus far, and the maintenance program doesn't hurt either.
I think Infiniti's design philosophy is to try to "wow" you with their radical designs at first, but unfortunately, after a couple of years (if not sooner), they fall out of fashion. I mean, name a single Infiniti model that had been memorable in a good way. I can't. IMHO of course.
No, wait, sorry, it just looks like the FX.
You know, I remember back when I used to take my car to the racetrack. At the 1/4 mile point, a 1/2 second difference used to translate to about 2 car lengths. So how a 5-car length difference appears at 60mph for a 1/2 second difference defies logic.
510 - the Japanese BMW 2002...still a winner at SCCA events.
Maxima - historically, V-6 performance at a 4 cyl Accord price since the 80's.
Pathfinder - since the 80's, one of the best SUV's on the market.
Sorry about that. There were too many posts posted over the weekend, therefore didn't bother reading alot of them.
I like the way the BMW looks inside and out much better than the MDX. It really comes down to 2 things-Cargo space and price. The MDX is bigger and less expensive.
But here is the real problem. If you price out an Acura with navigation its 41,000. There are no discounts. The current lease on this for 39m/12000miles, zero down, tax in payment is about $670/month.
I can get a BMW with auto,prem,cold,clim, nav, heated steering, park distance, for $47,550. This is with a discount. The lease on this for 36m/12000miles, zero down, tax in payment is $712. Also, I get an additional $1000 rebate from BMW car club of america since I currently own a BMW and would be buying another. If I factor that in the lease becomes $680 per month. Also the MDX was a 39 month lease not 36 which is another plus in the BMW column.
So there you have it. I can get an X5 slightly better equipped for about the same price as the MDX touring with Nav.(The X5 has a 61% value after 3 years as opposed to the MDX which is 57%. This makes the BMW lease better. Money factor is about the same.)
Is the cargo space in the MDX so much better that I should go with that if I can get the X5 for the same money? (Actually a little less.)
Looking for honest opinions. Thanks...
When I was looking for a SUV, it came down to those two as well, the XC90 being in 3rd place. When pricing it for purchase, and where I am, there is very little room for negotiation for the X5, the X5 was about 7 to 8 thousands dollars more than the MDX.
I think I am going to go with the BMW. But I am a little worried about the cargo space.
Is the cargo space in the MDX so much better that I should go with that if I can get the X5 for the same money?
It isn't that it's "so much better," it's whether or not it matters to you. It comes down to how you use your vehicles to carry items. The MDX has nearly 50 cubic feet behind the second row, while the X5 has only 16, IIRC. The X5's may be enough if that's your routine load (similar to a decent-sized trunk), and you can fold down the seats for some more room. Whereas the MDX will swallow a Costco shopping cart full of items along with kids in the second row.
Still, the X5 is quite acceptable for a lot of buyers, especially if they're okay with the cargo room.
You may want to visit both dealerships again just to check out the cargo spaces of both vehicles and visualize how you're going to use the space.
Now I know why you consider the MDX "sporty."
Anyway when it did start on sunny days, it was a pretty good driving car, for its day and for the money it cost anyway, but it must be said that the bodies on those things were just terrible. Mine got very rusty, with major holes in the fenders and at the bottom of the doors, before it hit its fifth birthday. After completely wasting $500 on some body work (the holes reappeared in about 6 months) we finally sold it and bought the Pinto (just kidding).
P.S. My first car ever (used) was a '67 BMW 1600 which I bought at 72,000 miles - paid $900 for it and drove it until the odometer hit 120,000. Somewhere in there the entire exhaust system went out, and it cost more to replace it all then I had paid for the car. Let's just say that both BMW and Datsun (Nissan) have come a LONG ways since those days!
Back in 1989, I competed at Solo II events with my '86 CR-X Si (modified D, thanks to Jackson Racing cam, headers, and exhaust). There was a guy who ran a moderately tuned 510 with racing slicks who consistently ran the fastest, or second fastest times of the course. He was a heck of a driver and his Datsun was sweet!