Howdy, Stranger!

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

2007 Acura MDX First Drive

Karen_SKaren_S Posts: 5,095
edited March 2014 in Acura
Are you considering a new MDX? Check out our First Drive and post your comments here.

First Drive: 2007 Acura MDX

Edmunds Manager UGC Click on my screen name to send a personal message. Need help navigating? Check out Getting Started in Edmunds Forums.
Need help picking out a make/model, finding inventory, or advice on pricing? Talk to an Edmunds Car Shopping Advisor



  • Overall, I thinks it's a nice looking vehicle and will most certainly be of good quality and reliability. It doesn't however have the grace and chicness of the new Q7 even though Acura blatantly copied the Audi rear end.
  • I think the new MDX is just in time, I think with all the standard features that it is a much better buy than anything in its class in terms of standard features and of course price. Looks like I will buy one.
  • Overall, the 2007 MDX looks good and the performance and more luxurious features are welcome. My main gripe is the reduced size of the rear panel window. Now just a triangle shape, I suspect it will make the 3rd row passengers (i.e. my kids) claustrophobic. Will have to see it at the showroom. Very happy with our 2002 MDX, and will likely replace it with this model.
  • "The Technology package features Acura/ELS Surround Sound. That means six channels of information contained on a DVD-audio disc can be played through its 10-speaker, 410-watt system. Until you've experienced one of these systems, you can't begin to understand how amazing it sounds."

    I used to have a TL. While the DVD-Audio discs do sound great, unless something has changed, it seems like a dead technology, with very few discs available (despite continued hype about how "that's going to change...""
  • it's for design. if you had a bigger rear panel the overall vehicle would look larger. but with more metal and less green house it makes the vehicle look smaller and more athletic.
  • I've always liked what Honda does. This looks like a very promising update, long over due IMHO. I can't wait to see it in person and test drive. Now that we're finally ready to purchase a 3 row seat vehicle, I want to compare how comfortable that is compared to others (yes, I know its mainly for kids and that is who'll use them in my case). Since we keep our cars on average for 8 yrs this is an investment. I just wish they had a different grill. I hate the GMC drilled aluminum look :cry: .
  • scottm123scottm123 Posts: 1,501
    Hopefully for your needs, the back seat has gotten bigger.
    My '06's third row is barely large enough for 2 leprechauns.
    (And then there's no room for their pots of gold in the remaining cargo area.) ;)
  • As a curent 03' Touring owner with 87k flawless miles, I was eager to see what Honda would do the next time around. it appears that they have a improved in the areas most needed (Interior, tighter handling, very competitive power) while not abandonin the core characteristics that made the MDX a hit in the first place.

    The styling is evolutionary in a good way. Much more sporty but still as elegant as the first gen. I could do without the gaudy grill but the styling is typical Honda "unoffensive".

    It'll sell well just like the first one did. Excellent effort.
  • we recently lost our 06 inifiniti fx35 in an auto accident...just a month after buying it. :sick: so now we're out shopping AGAIN for a suv. we didn't go back to infiniti b/c, to be honest, we weren't thrilled with 3rd row, price, and the ride was terrible. what a surprise. :surprise: this time around, we put a deposit down & we're waiting (between the 17th & 31st) for our new MDX with tech & entertainment pkg. we'll end up paying MSRP for it, but even at MSRP it's still got the lowest price in it's class, best options/technology, and the styling has really improved. it's a nice car...not as nice looking as the q7, but at $10K less than a similiarly equipped q7, the acura looks just fine. can't wait. :)
  • I did my own "first drive" when the '07 MDX arrived at my local Acura dealer today. I was very impressed! It's quick, agile, well-mannered, responsive, and well-appointed. Feels real solid and strong. The front panel is quite busy with controls and buttons, but I'm sure one could get used to that. Can't think of anything negative to say about it. Looks like they've really done their homework with this one! It's a BMW X5-killer:)
  • jrynnjrynn Posts: 162
    It sounds as though Acura's engineers corrected the first-gen MDX's major flaw, if it now drives more like a BMW and less like a Honda Odyssey.
  • susanw6susanw6 Posts: 32
    I am interested in a midsize SUV with 3rd row and have been considering the new MDX and the Lexus GX470. I was leaning toward the MDX because of the better gas mileage, but when reading further, it seems that the MDX requires Premium gas, where the GX takes regular unleaded. If this is true, it completely negates the 2-3 mpg more that the Acura gets over the Lexus. Any comments? Is the premium requirement true? :cry:
  • habitat1habitat1 Posts: 4,282
    Any comments?

    Yes, you are being penny wise and pound stupid.

    Both of these are very nice vehicles. But they are quite different as we found shopping a year ago. The 3rd row of the GX is a huge pain in the butt. For anyone that intends to alternate between using the third row seat and using two rows with significant cargo capacity, you better be prepared to detach and lug those fold up seats in and out of the GX. On the other hand, the V8 in the GX would be a better choice for hauling 5 or fewer people and a 5,000 lb. boat or trailer. You better think harder about how you are going to use the vehicle, because from a functionality perspective, they are very different. My wife would have taken the Volvo XC90 V8 over the GX when it comes to third row use/flexibility - and it's a pain compared to the MDX.

    Lamenting :cry: that the MDX uses premium gas and the GX uses regular when both vehicles cost upwards of $45,000 is more than a little silly. In the real world, our MDX gets 23-24+ mpg on the highway and our neighbor's GX gets 18-20 going downhill downwind. That's a 20%+ difference, way the heck more than the difference in gas prices. But even that's a silly comparison. You can get a perfectly nice Honda Pilot (uses regular) and save $15k+/- over the GX in price. That's enough gas to take you halfway to the moon.

    Seriously, get the vehicle that suits your needs and preferences and forget about which pump you will need to pull up to. Or if you really are pained by an extra 15-20 cents a gallon, buy the Pilot, spend $5,000 on an upgraded wood, leather and stereo job, and then send me half of your remaining savings as a consulting fee. I need it for premium gas for my 911, damn Porsche. ;)
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    Getting back to the First Drive...

    I just reread the Edmunds review and came across something odd. At the end of the article, the author lists "drawbacks". (Every article should include something critical, however insignificant.) The first sentence lists two.

    "If there are drawbacks to the 2007 Acura MDX they are its grille and price."

    I can certainly understand the grille being an issue. It's got a love/hate thing going on.

    However, when the issue with pricing is revealed, this is what the author has to say...

    "Considering base MSRPs of a comparably equipped BMW X5 3.0i, the Porsche Cayenne and the Volvo XC90 V8, we think the MDX is priced just right."

    So, lemme get this straight. Being priced "just right" is a drawback? If that's true, my price-o-meter needs a serious recalibration. I've been going about this all wrong.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    The story also complains that "Honda and Acura are notorious for implying that there are no options on any of their vehicles" so maybe that's a way of saying the base is priced right but few will settle for the base trim and when you add the Nav or entertainment system the price balloons?

    I visited family last week. My sister learned for the first time that Acura was a Honda product. :blush:
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    Get Walton in here. He's got sum 'splainin to do. :shades:
  • susanw6susanw6 Posts: 32
    Habitat1, you need to relax. We're all veeeery impressed that you have a Porsche!
    I don't pay consulting fees to people who spew their unsolicited opinions, namely recommending a Honda Pilot over a Lexus, when I never asked for the advice. And no,it is not silly to take into account the cost to fuel a car these days when gas costs are higher than they have ever been. It is just smart shopping to consider all things when making a $50k purchase, so there are no surprises.

    Perhaps "Porsche owners" don't need to be smart shoppers.
    As far as the cost for gas, in my city Premium costs an average of $.30 more per gallon, not 15-20, as you indicate. At about $6.00 more per fillup, and the fact that I travel 50 miles per day it is something to consider.
    I am not towing anything, nor loading lots of cargo. The third row is simply a convenience for neighborhood children, carpooling, etc.
    So you see, Porsche-man, both cars suit my needs and preferences. Why don't you tone down the name-calling a bit!
  • susanw6susanw6 Posts: 32
    See my reply a few messages below......
  • my3rdrxmy3rdrx Posts: 167
    Don't feel bad ~ my office manager, who has had both a Honda Accord and Odyssey for years, didn't know Acura was a Honda product either!
  • varmintvarmint Posts: 6,326
    First, premium fuel is required for the 2007 MDX.

    Moving on... You have every right to be concerned with whatever aspects of the car are most important to you. Some people cannot buy a car they consider ugly and will sacrifice safety for style. Some will sacrifice style to get the most practical car. Others will sacrifice practicality to get the best mileage.

    To each his own.

    Having said that, if your expected usage does not include towing nor hauling lots of stuff, why an SUV? (I assume you're not off-roading, either.) :confuse:

    I mean, a Honda Odyssey, Toyota Sienna, or Town & Country will haul those nighborhood buddies far more effectively, safely, and get 5-10 mpg better mileage on regular dino juice. Each of the three vans I listed can also come pretty well loaded.

    My assumption, and I could easily be wrong, is that you prefer to avoid the mommy-mobile stigma of a van. That's fine. Image is a valid concern.

    And you've also got a valid concern regarding operating costs. At your prices, the additional cost for premium would be $312 per year.

    Obviously, on-road performance is not an issue or you wouldn't be considering that particular Lexus.

    At this point, Habitat's suggestion of the Pilot makes a whole lot of sense. Put aside his frank manner for a moment and you'll see that you could save both the $312 AND roughly 10-12 THOUSAND dollars by going with the Pilot.

    If costs and image are really that important to you, then this is a good option. Or, you've got to clue us in on what your other priorities are.
  • Varmint and Habitat1 are right on the money.

    Susan, Why are we even talking about regular and premium gas when you want to buy a $50K vehicle. If you are so worry about spending $$ on gas, take the bus. I am sorry but when you are buying a vehicle in this price range, you should be looking for several things such as styling, features, performance, utility, convenience, etc. AND DEFINITELY NOT GAS MILEAGE OR REGULAR VS. PREMIUM.

    Check out the Pilot and you will realize that you are getting a great car for the money and....Oh, it runs on regular gas. Wow that is the deal of the century.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    I have to side with Susan. I won't buy an inkjet printer because I know the consumable costs are more that I want to pay. So I paid more for a used laser printer a while back and have enough toner to last a decade. $300 savings on gas almost pays for a year of car insurance here.

    My3rdrx, my sister did own a Civic years (decades?) ago but your office manager really has no excuse at all with both in the garage. :shades: I guess that means that the Acura, Lexus and Infiniti "rebranding" worked though!
  • susanw6susanw6 Posts: 32
    Dear Habitat1, Varmint and lo ball 88,

    Are you all Honda salesmen? Major stockholders in Honda? Your assumption on the van thing is correct. My hubby and I don't want the soccer-mom type vehicle. He is a tall guy and needs lots of leg room. Thats why the Volvo XC90 and Audi Q7 didn't work. We're also the rare couple that actually keeps both cars in the garage, so we don't want a giant SUV.

    We currently have a Lexus ES 300 and have enjoyed the luxury and terrific customer service. Since we want an SUV with the 3rd row, the Lexus GX seems like a good choice.
    All the hype surrounding the new MDX has piqued our interest. I like its car-like drive, but I like the look of the Lexus better. Although the Pilot may meet the need for 7 passengers, we prefer something more luxurious. Both the Lexus GX and MDX vehicles meet our needs for passengers, luxury and comfort.

    When considering which vehicle to choose, isnt it standard practice to "compare"?! Doesn't Edmunds compare like vehicles side-by-side? Thats what its all about. I didn't mean to stir such contoversy, just clarify the gas requirement, as a feature of comparison. Over the course of a 4 year lease, as I am considering, the gas difference could be $1200. (more if gas prices rise).All other things being equal, I'll choose the car that costs less to operate. If I loved the MDX so much more than the Lexus, it may not matter, but (now don't hate me for saying this), I don't.
    Thanks for all the advice!
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    just clarify the gas requirement, as a feature of comparison. Over the course of a 4 year lease, as I am considering, the gas difference could be $1200. (more if gas prices rise).All other things being equal, I'll choose the car that costs less to operate.

    I'm curious about your calculator. Based on EPA estimate, MDX is rated at 19 mpg, and GX470 is rated at 17 mpg. Over 48K miles, MDX is expected to consume 2526 gallons of gas, and GX470 is expected to consume 2824 gallons.

    At $2.20/gallon for 87-grade and $2.40/gallon for 91 (or 93) grade, we're looking at MDX saving you a whopping $200.

    How did you manage to get $1200? BTW, if gas prices were to rise by 50%, GX470 will burn $500 more of your dollars.

    BTW, doesn't GX470 also use premium grade? Per EPA website, it does. That makes your case, even worse.
  • There is no sense in talking about gas anymore. Susan will find out that all (I believe) luxury brands will require premium gas. Good luck Susan in finding a luxury car that recommends running on regular.

    As for printers, Steve, inkjet are basically disposible equipment. The price is so low on the injet printers, why buy replacement cartridge, just chuck it and get a new one. Laser printers are a different story.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    I try to drive them forever (printers and cars). :shades:

    You may be interested in the Regular vs Premium gas - what's the consensus? and What about fuel types & gas mileage? discussions. Lots of cars recommend premium these days but not that many seem to require it. Maybe someone will have the energy to go survey a few luxo-SUV specs and let us know. :blush:
  • gene00gene00 Posts: 113
    First, premium fuel is required for the 2007 MDX.

    Premium fuel is not required for any newish vehicle with electronic ignition. The computer will automatically retard or advance the timing to adjust for the speed that the gas ignites. Regular gas could slightly degrade your performance (not a consideration for anyone except drag racers), and could reduce your gas mileage (would have to test to know for sure). You won't hurt the engine by running regular in an MDX unless it knocks (which is very doubtful). The most economical choice is to always run regular in your car and if you think it's too slow, or is getting much worse mileage than expected, try a couple of tanks of premium to compare.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Trying to figure that out isn't even worth it. At 12K/year, $2.40/gallon ($2.20/gallon for regular), the difference would be $10/month. Hardly anything considering we're talking about $45K vehicles.
This discussion has been closed.