Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Hyundai Veracruz vs Audi Q7 vs Acura MDX

bosi77bosi77 Member Posts: 37
in Hyundai
Comparison of 7 passenger luxury ( yes hyundai included) SUV's
Tagged:

Comments

  • quattroporte12quattroporte12 Member Posts: 178
    uhhh...how about Hyundai NOT included...
  • arumagearumage Member Posts: 922
    Audi Q7 now comes complete with a psychologist and a years supply of Viagra to help you rationalize why you spent all that extra money. :)
  • quattroporte12quattroporte12 Member Posts: 178
    uhhhh...good one...?? :confuse:
  • arumagearumage Member Posts: 922
    Thanks. I aim to please. ;)
  • quattroporte12quattroporte12 Member Posts: 178
    Yea no problem... :D
    Anytime ;)
  • guyfrguyfr Member Posts: 55
    Did you road test the Q7?
  • quattroporte12quattroporte12 Member Posts: 178
    Yea EXACTLY! thanks guyfr... :)
  • arumagearumage Member Posts: 922
    The Audi Q7 looks great, and I'm sure it's a performer and a very luxurious vehicle... but to get close to the performance on the Acura, you'd have to go for the V8. Even with the V8, Edmunds couldn't get near the 7+ second time Audi said it should get. They got 8.3 seconds which is only fractionally quicker than the MDX if at all. Then there's the difference of the gas mileage and price. A fully loaded MDX is $48-49k whereas a similarly equipped Q7 is atleast $7-8k more expensive.

    I haven't driven either one so I can only look at the data, but the MDX seems to be a very luxurious bargain in comparison if you like the look. The Q7 is a pretty slick looking vehicle.

    The Veracruz looks to be in a similar league in Korean form from an interior standpoint, but I'm sure it can't quite hang with these two in the performance department. I'm sure the NA version will be watered down as far as interior appointments though. I think people in NA are still not sure about paying up to $40k for a Hyundai.

    Sorry about the sarcasm. I was feeling sassy. :P
  • dhamiltondhamilton Member Posts: 878
    The Acura isn't in the same league as the Audi as far as interior quality is concerned. On price, yes, the Acura is still the bargain of the bunch.
  • arumagearumage Member Posts: 922
    I'm sure fit and finish are a dead heat so I'm assuming assuming you mean plastics and leather? I just guess my taste isn't as discerning. I guess I just look for comfort, features, and reliability, and Acura certainly has Audi whipped in reliability. Not that either of those two cars are in my price range or that I would get them if they were so I guess I'm just arguing for the sake of argument. :P
  • varmintvarmint Member Posts: 6,326
    The MDX and Q7 are not in the same class on several counts. The MDX is a mid-size and the Q7 is supposed to be a full-size rig along with the Navigator, Escalade, and others.

    Not that they cannot be compared, but they do have different missions in life.
  • arumagearumage Member Posts: 922
    But the Q7 fails in that mission in several ways. It manages to get the weight of a full size SUV and performance, but it lacks interior space. Despite it's size, it only 88 cu. ft. of storage, just under 5 cu. ft. more than the 2007 MDX and 1 cu. ft. more than the Veracruz. It tows over 2,000 lbs less than the Navigator and Escalade. While I'm sure the chassis dynamics are much better than it's domestic competitors, it is in fact underpowered for its bulk.

    It's not really comparable to either group. It's something in between for those who do not need it for any other reason than for it's looks, prestige, and seating for 7. The Acura does all that for less.
  • guyfrguyfr Member Posts: 55
    What the MDX won't give you is exclusivity. Soon enough, everyone and his brother will have one. When you pay 20K for an Accord, it is OK to see your car at every street corner. At $40-50K it is nice to have some exclusivity.

    I take exception to your statement that the Q7 is underpowered. Did you test one? The MDX is not underpowered either, you just have to work it a little more to get the power.

    Don't get me wrong, I love those 2 vehicles. One gives me more features at a better price, the other more exclusivity and a better interior. The performance difference is so minute between the 2 that it is the driver who is going to make the difference. And on that point, I am not concerned. :shades:

    If all we wanted is a practical SUV with good interior space, we would all be driving Pilot's. ;)
  • arumagearumage Member Posts: 922
    I'm not saying it's underpowered for me, but Cadillac offers over 400hp. The 300hp in the MDX goes much farther due to it weighing nearly 1000lbs less than the Q7. I guess exclusivity doesn't go very far for me. It's better than buying a BMW 3-series. I guess that is what excludes me from the luxury car market. (Well, that and my mortgage payment. I can't live in my car. :) )

    Since when did the Pilot become a good alternative for anything in 2007. It's unattractive , underpowered, not very efficient, heavy for its size, and 3rd row space is marginal at best. There are so many better alternative now. Sorry about the rant... I know you were just making an example.
  • guyfguyf Member Posts: 456
    There is less than 500 lbs difference between the MDX and Q7.

    Back to the VeraCruz, it looks nice but I am not sure about how "sporty" will be the drive. Resale value is also an issue. I once owned a 2001 Santa Fe, top of the line, very nice the first 3 years but everything started tho fail on the fourth. Maybe the eastern Canada climate has something to do with it. Resale value was very poor.

    I road tested the new Santa Fe 3.3L and while nice, it is not very exciting to drive.

    For me, the MDX, the XC90 (current drive) and the Q7 are still in the race...
  • arumagearumage Member Posts: 922
    Actually it's 600lb difference. The MDX put up pretty poor numbers as far as cornering in the review in the recent motor trend, but the Q7 didn't do all that much better. The Santa Fe did very well in there as well, but I agree that it's not that exciting to drive. I also test drove a new Santa Fe, and it was very smooth though. The Veracruz should be a big step up, mostly because it is a big step up in price too. I still doubt that it will be that sporty, but it will have a pretty good power to weight ratio. It is only 4162lbs in FWD trim. That's 500lbs lighter than the MDX. It'll only have about 265hp though.
  • quattroporte12quattroporte12 Member Posts: 178
    Yeah but...its a hyundai...I just dont think the interior design and quality will be the same and i dont think it will be engineered as well...I just see it competing more with the...Honda Pilot or Subaru Tribeca...but i guess if hyundai wants to TRY and move up market...who knows...mabie in 50 years theyll be equal with audi and acura...i just dont think they are there yet..
  • arumagearumage Member Posts: 922
    You're not seriously pulling the "But it's a Hyundai" schtick. Audi has a great engineering staff, don't get me wrong. They're just expensive to buy and fix... and you WILL have to get it fixed. Reliability just isn't in Audi's vocabulary.

    That being said, I think that the NA Veracruz will be a better comparison to the Honda Pilot anyway(although the current Pilot stinks). I don't think that the NA market will get all the gadgetry and interior quality that the Korean market gets just because there are a fair number of people's with unfounded attitudes like yours. A luxury brand is in the future for Hyundai, but I don't know when.
  • quattroporte12quattroporte12 Member Posts: 178
    Hey, i never said Hyundai was BAD, i just said it wanst as NICE as audi. Yea you get an audi fixed every now and then, but i think its worth it...It just depends on what your looking for in a car. The q7 has character, something you will never (atleast right now) get in a hyundai. That doesnt make it bad, it just makes the car a nice, versatile, somewhat boring car. If thats all you want, the Hyundai is a great car! And if your not in the market for an mdx or a q7, then why are you going on and on about a hyundai vs these cars anyway...? You said yourself it competes better with the pilot.
  • arumagearumage Member Posts: 922
    By character, I think you mean exclusivity. I don't think the Veracruz is all that boring of a design when compared to the Q7. It would be even nicer if they rounded it off a bit more at the back like the Q7, but then the 3rd row would be uncomfortable for someone taller, like the Q7.

    I said it compares more with the Pilot in the NA market. The Korean Veracruz has more options available than NA will ever get, because of the lingering perceptions of Hyundai in NA. It starts at $33k over there, and comes standard with a very nice, powerful diesel engine that gets wonderful gas mileage. I wish they would bring that motor here.
  • quattroporte12quattroporte12 Member Posts: 178
    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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 177
    Like, dah the I4.

    The same comparison as the base CX-7 that has the TURBO I4.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member 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 Member 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.
  • quattroporte12quattroporte12 Member Posts: 178
    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 Member 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 Member 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).
  • neildmd1neildmd1 Member Posts: 3
    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??
  • austinaudiq7austinaudiq7 Member Posts: 3
    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!
  • terpsfan67terpsfan67 Member Posts: 1
    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.
  • mariuszkamariuszka Member Posts: 6
    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 Member 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.
  • austinaudiq7austinaudiq7 Member Posts: 3
    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 Member 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 Member 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
  • austinaudiq7austinaudiq7 Member Posts: 3
    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 Member 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.
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles