Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Acura MDX (pre-2007)
This discussion has been closed.
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
BTW, NHTSA.ORG did side impact testing on the MDX. Demonstrating the real reason why I am putting up with all this crap.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/announce/press/pressdisplay.cfm?year=2002&filename=pr06-02.html
The NHTSA rollover rating is controversial because it is only a static factor based on the height of the vehicle's center of gravity and measurements of the width and length of the vehicle. The MDX probably has a relatively low center of gravity and of course is wide. Thus the measurement is useful in discussing the general physical propensity of the vehicle to roll over.
It doesn't account for dynamic factors, such as the suspension tuning which might contribute to rollover. And NHTSA says, "the Rollover Resistance Rating, however, does not address the causes of the driver losing control and the vehicle leaving the roadway in the first place," which is where stability control (and, more importantly, good driving techniques!) can prevent rollovers. NHTSA does think that stability control can help reduce rollovers.
Press release:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/announce/press/pressdisplay.cfm?year=2002&filename=pr06-02.html
I've seen one more extreme case where the owner had to trade-in his vehicle (I think he got a Wrangler?). I think others have tried to find the proper height/cushion angle/back angle, and others have used some orthopedic supports and/or higher-end sheepskin covers to address the issue.
You're not getting enough outta the lumbar adjustment itself? Is it moving @ all?
Is it worth keeping your MDX from being dented by the cars?
However, the running boards do seem to help prevent rocks and gravel from coming up and scratching the bottom part of the doors. While the front mudguards help, there's often still some debris that the running boards seem to help with. This will of course vary based on your driving conditions.
The Acura body side moldings, sold as an accessory (ugh), and self-installable (so one should buy them from a discounter like hondacuraworld.com), may help in some cases, but not in others -- there's that variation in door heights and shapes again.
The most effective ding protection is "defensive parking," usually done by going to a less popular side of the parking lot, edging up beside a curb to protect one side and put more space between you and the vehicle on the other side, etc. If it's a non-family-oriented parking area (e.g. a business), best to stay on the passenger side of another vehicle. Avoid coupes which have long doors. Also avoid minivans in family-oriented parking lots (restaurants, stores) where careless kids can scratch the vehicle. If there's a regulation spot next to the disabled spot, it's a good one to take (the regulation spot, not the disabled one).
While the MDX is wide, we were doing this well before we got the MDX to our previous, relatively narrow vehicle. I hate dings.
pjbijoy - there is a TSB for something re: the driver seat shifting on the rails, esp on turns and start/stop. does it feel like an old-fashioned manual seat that's not quite "in the clicks"? I don't know what the Px is, but I do know a TSB exists for that. FYI, rattling noises from either set of rear seats are commonly from the seatbelts whacking the C or D pillars, or the center seatbelt not properly connected in the roof-mount.
I do usually agree with you--and I really do like your posts here--but I continue to disagree with you on the value of stability control. What the MDX needs--as I've said many times before--is a Quaife differential up front, not stability control. (This would allow torque to be shifted between the two front wheels, in addition to what the VTM4 does--shift torque front to back and between the rear wheels.) Just look at the March 2002 issue of Consumer Reports, where it says (p. 56), regarding the stability control system of the Acura 3.2TL, "...it was difficult to keep the car on course." Presumably a stability control system for the MDX would be similar to the one on the 3.2TL and just as worthless. Instead of using brakes to destroy torque, we should be transferring torque where it's needed.
Transpower
2001 Acura MDX, Granite Green, Touring+Nav, 22500 miles, no problems
There are some good honest dealers that don't want to be black listed. A few bad cookies doesn't mean all are bad.
Acura isn't probably aware of the problems at it's dealers.
My Honda dealer routinely get survey's regarding customer satisfaction.
Speak your mind.
Actually, the specific problem that Consumer Reports described was in spite of having stability control, and likely not because of it. The phrase you provided was immediately preceded by "even with stability control ..."
The Acura VSA, as implemented on the TL-S, is probably not very aggressive, and as such was unable to correct some of the emergency handling deficiencies in the TL-S. Also, the TL-S is extremely front-heavy and the weight distribution contributed to the problems.
Let's look at it this way: CR tested the MDX and found its emergency handling only "below average." They said that the MDX at "its cornering limits" "fishtails easily, compromising its emergency handling. Electronic stability control would likely help."
If Acura added a bad VSA system to the MDX, then yes, I agree, it'd be pointless. But a well-tuned one could reduce or eliminate the fishtailing and improve the MDX's emergency performance.
When Toyota added VSC (their version of stability control) to the Land Cruiser, it went from a "poor" in emergency handling to a "below average."
I think that when Lexus added VSC to the RX300, its emergency handling performance also improved, perhaps from "below average" to "average" (don't have the issues with me right now).
Properly implemented, a stability control system doesn't have to interfere much with driver enjoyment. Hopefully if and when Acura adds VSA to the MDX, it will be a good balance between fun and safety so one gets the benefits (if not total) of both worlds!
Stability control is an inexorable trend. Pretty much all of the MDX's competitors have it. While there may be some overdone marketing hype, its benefits have been acknowledged through independent testing like that of Consumer Reports, and government study by the NHTSA. Even the new Camry has it, and I'll bet the Passat gets it soon (and its W8 variant and its Audi big brothers have it).
A Light off-road event in Southern New Jersey! Come enjoy the trails!
-mike
Here's my Honda stories.
I had encounter one dealer for a Honda (Capitol Honda in Stevens Creek) as few years back. I was looking for a car with my brother. They had one LX Accord. The sales did give us a test drive. Then we asked to negotiate. He said take it at that price or leave it. So we told him to keep it for himself.
Another story I have was at Fremont Honda in '96. I called the fleet manager for an EX Accord matching an ad special from another dealer in Gilroy. (I stated the price to him already and he said he can match it w/o problems.)He told me to just come on it and look for a salesperson.
So I did and the asst. manager said that (he is in charge if the fleet manager is not there) he does not match it or talk about it. So wasted my time and left.
On Monday, the fleet manager asked why I did not buy the car. I told him those people there are jerks and can't even follow what they promise.
I think the place may have changed management now.
Richard Colliver
Exec. VP
1919 Torrance Blvd.
Torrance, CA 90501-2746
ph: 310-783-2000
fax: 310-783-3900
not sure if it does any good.
http://www.acuramdx.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2856&highlight=Canadian
Hope this helps! If you search on the keyword 'Canadian' on the MDX.ORG site, you'll find plenty of valuable info.
thx.
I'm comparing this with my most recent cars (Mazda 626) but also with several Mercedes that I had in the 80's.
I'm not sure about body types. I'm 6'2" 230#, so I don't know how it 'fits' for small people. I'm pretty sure it would be comfortable for taller, but maybe not for wider. The side bolsters limit the space for your butt and thighs. It is just right for me, but someone larger in those areas might not like it.
BTW, I like the 2nd row seats and could ride in the 3rd row for short trips, although getting into the 3rd row is difficult for tall people.
- Conrad
Does anyone know or have seem the tests on a website or an autoshow?
Did it fish tail a whole lot or slightly?
How does the MDX compare to a Full size SUV like the Toyota Sequoia (4x4 Limited Edition) one?
I just placed an order for that Motorweek show #2001 at: http://www.pbs.org/mpt/motorweek/
I hoping to see if they show how it performs at the test.
Here is a link to Motorweek's test:
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2001a.shtml
"With average stops from 60 of 132 feet, our drivers noticed a tendency for the rear end to step out slightly, causing the need for a bit of correction."
They also said:
"same ... in runs through our low speed slalom ... due most likely to the soft springs ... and the MDX's healthy 4,328 pound curb weight. But out on the road, that softly sprung suspension pays big dividends. As the MDX offers a ride that rivals the best mid-size sedan."
Another reason is that the MDX's weight is biased heavily toward its front end. A properly implemented stability control system would help prevent the stepping-out.
CR said:
"Though it handles well in routine driving, the MDX loses grip too easily when pressed to its limits."
And also:
"When pushed to its cornering limits, though, the MDX fishtails easily, compromising its emergency handling. Electronic stability control would likely help."
Hopefully Acura will add a well-implemented VSA system for the 2003 model. Basically one shouldn't push the MDX (or, for that matter, any SUV) to its limits since it invites some problems. So long as you don't drive like a madman, you should be okay most of the time. Most of the time = some emergency cases when you might be more apt to fishtail (e.g swerving very quickly, especially in bad weather).
Personally, I wouldn't panic about the MDX on this. But it is a factor in decision-making.
I had the seat raised, which seemed to also tilt the front up a little. By lowering the front, they are now more comfortable. In fact, now they're fine.
With the heavier weight of SUV's and other factors, they do tend to fare worse than smaller sedans, and thus will score relatively lower with CR's scale. I believe most sedans score average or above average in CR's Emergency Handling test.
It does make reading the rating a bit confusing, since if one takes it at face value there can be an assumption that the majority SUV's score average and plenty more score above average (when in fact there are very few SUV's that score above average in CR's test). This is not an excuse for the MDX's overall "below average" score, as it is on the lower end of that overall average score across SUV's, and it is certainly lower than what many consider to be the MDX's immediate competitors.
I feel that the statistics that Consumer Reports generate are quite accurate. However, interpreting statistics is usually the issue. An example are crash test scores, which are more comparable across vehicles of similar weights. E.g. a 2,800 lb vehicle that scores "Good" in the IIHS test probably isn't as nearly as crashworthy as a 4,200 lb vehicle that scores "Good" in the test.
A problem, though, is that there are plenty of folks who cross-shop. E.g. some folks will shop an MDX against, say, a Subaru Outback H6 VDC. Thus they would rather see an emergency handling score that contrasts the two, and it'd be confusing if the MDX scored an "average" in emergency handling and the Outback H6 VDC did the same thing. Whereas with the score distributed against all vehicles, they would see that the Outback actually does somewhat better than the MDX in emergency handling.
So while it is apples and oranges, there does indeed need to be a way to compare the differing vehicles. There are indeed some sedans that have emergency handling worse than some SUV's, at least in CR's test. A buyer with class-specific scores might wrongly assume that because it's a sedan, it's inherently better than a particular SUV.
Now I'm going to go off on some assorted tangents ...
That is indeed what's wrong with some crash test scores, and to a degree an issue of the crash testing itself. Since the scores are for vehicles of comparable weight, just because a sedan scores "good" on a test, doesn't mean it's AS good in a collision with a heavier SUV that is also rated "good". Unfortunately there is a lot of anti-SUV sentiment that wouldn't support a more real ranking (plus they would also cite that the heavier SUV is going to cause a lot more damage to the smaller vehicle, which is often a valid point -- crash compatibility can't be fully interpreted by pure weight, of course).
This brings up the much larger question about what is safe and what is unsafe for a vehicle overall, and that's one of the toughest things to do. There's the interrelationship between all safety aspects of a vehicle, passive or active. IIHS crash tests, NHTSA front and side crash tests, EuroNCAP crash tests. Rear side airbags, side curtains vs. dual-chamber air bags vs. sausages, etc. How does one say that one vehicle is "safe" vs. another vehicle? If a vehicle lacks XYZ but has ABC, which vehicle is safer?
To some degree that is also affected by the abilities of the driver and the conditions he or she usually drives in. E.g. some experienced drivers will trade off stability control (if they have to) for better crashworthiness because they're confident in their ability to not respond the wrong way in an emergency avoidance situation. (Please note that this is not an excuse for Acura not putting VSA in the MDX, but I don't think one can call the MDX an unsafe vehicle because it doesn't have VSA -- but it definitely is somewhat "less safe"!)
Evaluating safety is really tough. Besides the driver, who usually rides in the vehicle? Some vehicles have better child protection measures (e.g. built-in booster seats). Is the vehicle thus safer overall for a person, given other safety measures?
Personally, I weigh tested results (crash test scores), specified features (airbags, stability control, childproof locks, etc.), as well as manufacturer history when I consider if a vehicle is safer than another vehicle.
I think the MDX is very safe. I think it's safer than a Jeep Grand Cherokee because of its significantly better crash test results and, frankly, the manufacturer history (which is, at least recently, better with Honda/Acura than Jeep). This despite the fact that the JGC has a better drive system for bad weather (then again, I don't live in the snowbelt and that would affect my assessment somewhat).
Then again, I don't believe the MDX is as safe, overall, as a 2002 ML320 or a Volvo XC90. This despite the fact that the MDX performed slightly better in the IIHS crash test than the ML320 -- I think the ML320 is, overall, somewhat safer because of other features (besides stability control, more airbags, overall construction approach, and longer history of manufacturer commitment as well as manufacturer innovation).
Curiously, though, back when I was shopping for an MDX, I couldn't get true child seat tether anchors for the ML320 (which are now standard because of U.S. law, and can be retrofitted as well). The ML320 also wasn't available with childproof locks (which are standard now and can be retrofitted). That of course reduced the "safety factor" somewhat for our situation, though now it's a moot point.
Bottom line is that we all buy degrees of safety, as opposed to "safe" and "unsafe" vehicles. We buy vehicles with a certain actual, and a certain perceived quality of safety based on our individual needs and wants, balanced against other attributes of the vehicle. If we didn't, we'd all drive around in armored personnel carriers.
A problem, though, is that there are plenty of folks who cross-shop. E.g. some folks will shop an MDX against, say, a Subaru Outback H6 VDC. Thus they would rather see an emergency handling score that contrasts the two, and it'd be confusing if the MDX scored an "average" in emergency handling and the Outback H6 VDC did the same thing. Whereas with the score distributed against all vehicles, they would see that the Outback actually does somewhat better than the MDX in emergency handling.
IMHO, if in the comparison you cited above, for the sake of argument,the Outback was given a 4 rating and the MDX was given a 3 rating but in comparison, most other SUV's of the same weight class as the MDX were given a 1 or 2 rating out of a possible rating of 5, the shopper could then see that the Subaru had slightly better handling, but the MDX was better handling than most other SUV's of the same size and weight and perhaps slightly above average as compared to all other vehicles combined. The consumer could then make up his/her mind as to which vehicle to purchase based on the overall attributes of both vehicles, outside of the handling aspects, that best met their needs.
Anyway this whole safety issue leaves me cold. I believe any reasonable person would agree that all vehicles produced in the last five years are vastly safer then their counterparts 10 or 15 years earlier. If you want to be 100% safe, don't drive! As my stepfather (who was a auto mechanic) once told me "the greatest safety factor is the nut behind the wheel". I don't think that has changed and it will always be true.
Cheers,
Johnnyreb
I agree to a point that safety is an interesting blend of diminishing statistical returns vs. benefits. That is, as each safety improvement is added, it probably prevents fewer injuries and fatalities than previous improvements. Thus, the statistical return of the benefits of safety are getting smaller and smaller as major advances have been made in seat belts, airbags, etc.
As the bar gets raised, safety designers find other ways to decrease the injury/fatality rate with new innovations, even if that decrease yields a relatively lower number than previous changes.
However, all health and life is precious, and while we could all stay home, we won't, we want our cake and eat it too. Thus, we make our own decisions in how much, statistically, we're willing to compromise our safety in exchange for other things.
I value safety in a vehicle, but I won't trade off "everything" to get an increasingly diminished "safety percentage" advantage. Though I am willing to trade off quite a bit, and that has probably changed at different points in my life. "Everything" being defined as practicality in a vehicle, cost (I can try a huge home equity loan and try to buy an MB S500 and its great safety features but obviously am not going to do it). We all make our decision points when we purchase a vehicle. I don't think most folks say "I'm going to buy an unsafe vehicle," I think most think "this vehicle has the safety level I want and the other stuff too."
I'm sure some bean counters out there have broken this down into pure marketing statistics, and that guides some company's decisions on safety.
Sorry, I didn't mean to preach. Just the way I feel. You are free to agree or disagree.
Cheers,
Johnnyreb
Even worse, there are still folks who don't come close to properly protecting their children in the correct restraints. There was a 20/20 (I think; one of those TV newsmagazine programs) episode that showed some really horrible practices (no doubt blown a bit out of proportion, though).
To be fair, I've been negligent in not taking an advanced collision avoidance course. There are good ones out there, and they teach a lot of good things.
Yes... I see those suicidual manics on the road weaving back and forth in their SUV or car everyweek or every other day when driving.
It's an accident waiting to happen (where those highway patrol when you need them). So having a SUV/truck like structure is probably more safe that a family car if one become involved in an accident.
Btw, I ordered that Motorweek video because I want to see how bad the emergency handling is like. It's worth that $25 ($19.99 + Shipping & handling). Honda/Acura will eventually master the VSC for the MDX and release it but the question is when or is that an option.
Since tires determine are a very important factor in safety and performance, did the articles mention that?
As far as the Motorweek test goes, you can judge for yourself on the video. To me, during the braking, the MDX's tail stepped out slightly -- quite slightly. As Motorweek said, it was easily correctable.
On the slalom run, which is a pretty twitchy course, the MDX's tail did step out more significantly. I don't think it was every near out of control but it definitely was a swing-out of the tail as it rounded the slalom cones.
Obviously one doesn't run slaloms every day. On the other hand, the tests were run under excellent traction conditions (the MDX posted an excellent 0-60 number), and emergency handling is usually under poorer road conditions where a fishtail could be more pronounced, perhaps seriously so.