Acura MDX (pre-2007)

hopeitsfriday

Should have stated that fact earlier, If I know it was your wife's car, I would have recommended a RX also. Almost all RX are driven by female, it is the perfect car for a female. Small, reliable, just enough engine power, not manly and oh so cute. Unless your wife needs the third row seats or more power, why would she want a MDX? Its almost like asking her to choose between a miata convertible and a Monte Carlo SS.
If the only thing that bothers you about the MDX is the brake caliper clicking, then I would say Acura has one hell of a car on their hands.

rerenov8r

I am not just conjecturing on the MDX choices, I have been a fan of Acura for a loooong time and eagerly followed the MDX from the time that it was a concept car.

Acura has had many interviews where they have said that there initial mantra was "defeat winter" and the path they choose to go with the VTM has done remarkably well in that goal. The VTM has been slightly retuned, to offer a slightly less front biased torque split, but it is still NOT like the Audi style balance that works well in even dry/ high traction condtions.

The VSA is similarly something that can be 'tuned' with software to be more aggressive in its action. Personally I don't feel that the CR "moose miss" test ought to be the goal of the VSA, but if the Acura engineers are pressured in this direction I could envision a change to the software...

I realize that there are benefits to be had from an Audi style (or WRX style) torque split, but for the MDX that is not what Acura was after.
Similarly there are benefits to using a CVT. As the MDX received a substanstailly redesigned tranny for 03, the odds of a CVT seem remote.

The possibility of another SUV wearing the Acura "A" exists; that could be a "dual note" style hybrid that may be called the RD-X. Possibility of a CVT seems much higher in that vehicle.

The odds of "major" changes to the 04 is very remote -- there will probably be additional features added to stay competitive but the "overhaul" is not due until 2005-6. The changes that may happen this fall will likely be minor. Even the changes from the 2+ year out "overhaul" may be fairly minor -- this is Acura's most in demand vehicle!

In the meantime it sounds like you really want Acura to build the Murano -- you could buy that now...

sbcooke

And then some. I was able to plow though 12+ deep snow without a problem. Only had to use VTM lock once or twice, mostly for fun rather than need.

hopeitsfriday

Acura designed the VTM system not for heavy off road use, but for snow and foul weather. I am surprise that some of you question rather Acura can build a three Quaife or Torsen differentials--front, center, and back 4 wheel drive system. The technology is already there, I dont see why they cannot do it. But I do see why they choose not to do it, the VTM is the next generation of 4WD system, its lighter, faster and has less mechanical parts. With some further design and engineering, this type of electronic 4WD system will eventually replace the old fashion mechanical systems.

tprice

Looking for opinions on whether to purchase RES/DVD as original equipment or purchase portable system that can move from vehicle to vehicle, into a hotel room, onto a plane, sitting in an airport, etc., etc. Stopped at Best Buy and the associate that was helping me suggested that his preference would be the original equipment route - wireless heads sets, integrated into stereo system, less prone to problems. With the portable, could purchase extra screens and allow front seat passenger to view the DVD. Pro's and con's to either system so appreciate any comments! Want to wrap this up soon.

rerenov8r

I considered the RES, but it was priced like the "old days" of factory audio & the feature set is not that impressive.

Yes, it is slick looking, but for less money you could easily duplicate the installation. IR headsets are widely available. The factory RES is nothing 'special' -- even the integration into the "regular" factory sound system is something you can achieve with fairly common (to stereo shop guys) Blitzsafe & Alpine adapters.

I personally would not want the "roof mount" style screen -- I much prefer the monitors in the backs of the headrests -- one for left & right could be tracked down for about the same money as factory system.

For ultimate flexibilty (and even "time out" if the need arises...) I prefer a portable system. Use the money for Navi -- that is much harder to duplicate the integration & the opportunies to use GPS outsideof vehicle are (generally)less than for portable DVD...

sbcooke

Search back. I have posted before regarding the panasonic dvd-lv70. Absolutely fantastic.

It is a great portable unit. We put it on the center console folded back and use a plastic wire tie to hold it in place. Sound is good, no problems hearing it, we even sometimes hook it into the stereo for movies with a lot of songs.

We bring it into hotels or wherever we are staying. We cannot hook it up to most TVs in hotels (although the unit comes with all the cables), just due to the TV setup, although the kids watch it in the corner and we do our own thing.

Battery life is a true 5 hours. We also have a portable DC outlet converter so we can plug it into the car.

The only drawback is that the 3rd row cannot see it. Although that plays right into the other nice feature of a portable unit, we only use it on long trips so there wouldn't be anyone back there (most likely). So on short trips we don't have the kids pointing at a screen and demanding a DVD because it isn't in the car. Not that we would give in, just much less stress :-)

gotribe

Just returned from first long trip in the new MDX, runs great, lots of room, MAVI and DVD are terrific, about 21 mpg at about 70mph average speed. Noticed one thing though. At the recommended 32psi all around tire pressure, vehicle is just a little too sensitive to steering inputs. Nothing major by any stretch, and perhaps its just me, but when I slightly changed the pressure to 32 front and 30 rear, the MDX feels more stable and better planted, especially in windy conditions. Anyone else notice this? Its hard to imagine 2 psi makes that much difference but I can feel it.

hopeitsfriday

2 PSI can make a world of difference, especially on the highway. I usually pump my tires on the MDX to 35 in the summer and 32 in the winter. Sometimes even 30 in the winter.

transpower

I checked around to see if any existing vehicle had three Torsen or Quaife differentials. No, but the Hummer 2 has a Torsen in front and a Torsen in back. Most Audi models have a center Torsen, as does the Toyota 4Runner and the BMW X5. The Hummer 2 has a lockable center differential so both front and rear receive 50% of torque; in non-locked mode, the transfer case sends 60% to the rear, 40% to the front. I would prefer a Torsen in the center, which could be set up to allow 70% or more to front or rear as the situation requires it. Anyway, I'm planning on keeping my 2001 MDX until such time as a vehicle is available with three Torsen/Quaife differentials or some technological equivalent.

Transpower

wmquan

Audi had a vehicle with three Torsen differentials at one time. The problem is that they were heavy, and thus hurt fuel economy, and were also quite expensive.

Most of the market has moved to using braking-based traction control to manage traction between the left and right wheels of the same axle. The center differential can be Torsen, VC, etc. and may be lockable. While the traction control management systems are "only" effective for 99% of typical driving conditions, they save considerable weight and are relatively simple to implement.

The 2003 MDX uses the VSA system to manage the front axle. It doesn't need three Torsen or three Quaife differentials.

rerenov8r

In that even Audi no longer uses more than a single center Torsen diff -- in fact this chart suggest that only their heaviest car, the 90-94n Audi V8, even had two Torsen diffs-- the small Audis rely on Haldex system:

http://www.ibiblio.org/tkan/audi/usmodels.html#qgen

transpower

Thanks, rerenov84, for the chart; it clearly shows how elastic the marketing term "quattro" really is. Of course having three Torsen differentials would add to the weight of the vehicle, but how much? If that really were the issue, they could be made out of magnesium or titanium alloys. I just don't feel comfortable having the vehicle put the brakes on for me, which is all that "traction control" and "VSA" does; I'd rather have the vehicle automatically route the power to the wheel(s) with traction. In the best of all worlds, I suppose a vehicle manufacturer could offer both choices, thereby satisfying both Wmquan and myself.

Transpower

rerenov8r

...control a wheel that is not doing what everybody wants it to do.

When you are driving, even in a high performance off road sort of manner, a spinning wheel is not going to behave the way you want it to -- it will litrally be out of control.

If a properly implented VSC system uses the brakes to prevent that "out of control" situation, this is a good thing. It is not something to fear, any more than a differntial that directs power to wheels with grip is something that should evoke a "friend or foe" reaction...

It is NOT like the VSA will say "oh no, you are going too fast -- that is not allowed" it only helps the wheels do what your inputs to the steering, accelerator, and brake pedal are trying to accomplish BUT the traction limits won't completely allow...

wmquan

Yes, for traction management on an open axle (like the 2003's front axle), the only braking that is occuring is preventing the freely spinning wheel from freely spinning. That basically "forces" the power to the wheel with traction.

It's not braking a wheel with traction. Also, these systems usually do not "clamp down" on a spinning wheel. E.g. you don't see your wheel suddenly freeze as the brakes are applied. Rather, the brake is "pulsed" so the spinning doesn't stop, but simply is reduced and moderated. So that there's enough to get power to the other wheel on the open differential.

So in effect, the vehicle is truly routing power to the wheel with traction.

The concerns most people have is the last step in traction control, where it begins to reduce throttle when it feels that you're so out-of-control that just braking one side of each differential, or routing power forward/back, isn't doing the trick. That is, of course, highly dependent on how the system is tuned. And on some vehicles you can turn this aspect off or significantly reduce it (which is often helpful when offroading).

transpower

Using the brakes as in traction control or as in a vehicle stability system wears them out faster. (And according to the current issue of Consumer Reports the system in the 2003 MDX is not that good, anyway.) In my previous vehicle I had traction control, and my brakes wore out twice as fast as the brakes in my MDX (which doesn't have traction control or vehicle stability assist). Using the brakes routes the power indirectly to the wheel(s) with traction; using the differential(s) routes the power directly to the wheel(s) with grip.

Transpower

wmquan

Let's keep the VSA part of this discussion separate from the traction control for the sake of argument, as traction control does not automatically = VSA.

I highly doubt if a traction control system will wear out the brakes twice as fast as a non-traction control system (as implied in the previous message). Unless you're constantly causing the traction control system to engage, they're not active that often.

I don't doubt that there is some extra wear on the brakes upon engagement. But I doubt if it's excessive.

But look at it this way. I could get a vehicle with a front and/or rear Torsen differential, or one that manages left/right traction with braking. In the less than 1% of the time that traction control engages, the braking is 99%+ as effective as having the Torsens.

But with the Torsens, I pay a significant weight penalty for the 100% of the time I drive the vehicle. 100% of the time, I would lose out on extra power for acceleration, and on fuel economy. With the braking-based traction control system, I get the full power potential of the vehicle without a big weight penalty.

This is one reason why Audi's with Torsens only use them for the center differential. Adding more Torsens would just make them too heavy, too weak, and too expensive.

hpfish10

I am about to buy 03 MDX, with silver exterior color, and debating between ebony or quartz interior. My concern is the ebony will absorb more heat than quartz, but ebony is better in not showing stain. Any comments? Thanks.

ukkonen7

To: hpfish10,
Concerning the Ebony interior, we have an o1 MDX with the ebony interior and heat has not been an issue. The dual air has kept the interior very comfortable. The heated seats have been an unexpected plus during the winter months.

Our selection of ebony was mostly esthetic due to the contrast between the silver and dark surfaces. We prefer the contrast. The black will show the dust particles easier.

Good luck......

transpower

Actually a vehicle equipped with one or more Quaife or Torsen differentials would perform better. (Click here for a link to Quaife America.) It's dubious that there would be any drop in fuel economy, but if there were it would be fractional.

For better fuel economy, a CVT would definitely help, considering that the Murano (with a CVT) gets 20 to 24 MPG vs. the MDX's 17 to 23 MPG. A Diesel-Electric hybrid would help even more.

Getting back to the Hummer 2 for a moment:
What's especially odd about this 6200 lb vehicle is the lack of a Diesel engine and the lack of a DVD navigation system. Isn't that ridiculous? Also ridiculous is the huge spare tire in the cargo compartment which eats up most of the space.

Transpower

wmquan

If "perform better" means accelerate faster and have better MPG, then that's not true.

Torsen differentials are known for being heavy. Quaife differentials aren't so much lighter. If you had Torsens on both front and rear axles you'd get noticeably lower gas mileage and it would indeed hurt your acceleration. Look at the 4motion Passat and how much weight it gains over a 2WD Passat -- with most of that weight invested in a single, center, Torsen differential. The acceleration and gas mileage gets compromised. If you were to add Torsens to the front and rear, the vehicle would be a dog. Sure, it'd be able to extricate itself out of a ~0.01% situation, but it'd be a dog 100% of the time you drive it.

Adding a CVT would offset some of the weight, but a CVT would also improve performance in a non-Torsened, non-Quaifed MDX.

hopeitsfriday

The Murano has higher gas mileage than the MDX mainly because of its smaller size and lighter weight, other small factors might be the CVT or less horsepower. A fully optioned MDX is almost 600 pounds heavier than a Murano. That is 15% heavier than the Murano. That is the same reason why auto manufacturers are going away from Torsen differentials, their added weight just do not justify its slight advantage.

transpower

I e-mailed both Torsen and Quaife about the weight of their respective differentials. Haven't heard back from Quaife yet, but here's the information from Torsen:

"Torsen is approximately 30% - 50% heavier than an open differential and does vary by application. Typically a Torsen weighs around 23 lbs."

So, assume an increase of 40%. If the Torsen weighs 23 lbs, the open diff. would weigh 16.4 lbs. Therefore the weight penalty would be 6.6 lbs. The curb weight of a 2001 MDX is 4387 lbs. The EPA rating is 17-23 MPG, so let's say 20 MPG on average. Therefore, assuming a direct correlation with vehicle weight, the fuel economy of an MDX with a Torsen in front (replacing the open diff.) would be
(4387/4393.6) x 20 = 19.97 MPG, or a drop of only .03 MPG. Wow, I think I'll take that to have the traction advantage of the Torsen (or Quaife).

Transpower

wmquan

Don't believe everything the manufacturer tells you. I'm sure a real Torsen differential weighs more than 23 lbs. That number may simply cover the gears but not the complete assembly around it.

Let's see if the Quaife rep tells you about overheating problems that some owners have reported.

sbcooke

What is with these torsen diffs? Are they just viscous as opposed to mechanical? How does this relate to improving the MDX?

Would just a regular LSD up front just resolve all of this? I had a LSD in my old Nissan Altima SE 5 speed and it caused a lot of torque steer under hard acceleration.

wmquan

The 2003 MDX doesn't have this problem (in the eyes of many but not all). The front axle has its traction managed by VSA, which will brake one of the wheels if slippage is found in the other. Since the differential is open, that gives the wheel with traction some power and the vehicle can extricate itself.

The debate seems to be centered over whether that's more than enough or would the MDX benefit from having a Torsen or Quaife differential. Torsen differentials are mechanical differentials that automatically send torque to the wheel with traction, through a pretty clever gear arrangement.

http://www.amghummer.com/features/Torsen/Work/torsen_works.htm

transpower

According to Ralph Hollack of Quaife America, a Quaife differential for a Honda Civic or VW Golf would only weigh 12 lbs. (He couldn't give me a weight for one for the Ford Explorer, which would be closer in size to one for the MDX if they ever get around to producing one for the MDX.) So it seems that there would be little, if any, weight penalty in using a Quaife.

To answer sbcooke: the reason for this whole discussion is to point out that in an ideal 4x4 SUV the torque developed by the engine is routed front to back and side to side to each of the four wheels in accordance with their individual traction. The 2001-2002 MDX routes torque front to back, and side to side in the rear, but not in the front. The 2003 MDX uses traction control to indirectly route torque side to side in the front. It's simply been my opinion (expressed for several years now) that the MDX would be improved by having a Quaife or Torsen in front, thus meeting the standard of the ideal 4x4.

Transpower

sbcooke

Thanks...I am confused by the VW/Audi part of this...because I thought they used viscous coupling to route power, not mechanical?

hpfish10

I plan to add wood steering wheel to my new MDX. Will it be too hot to touch after parking under the sun? Leather will somewhat absorbing hand sweat, how will the wood handle sweat?

sbcooke

I was referring the the VW/Audi center coupling.

Also...After reading that link, it seems like Torsen offers a reasonable alternative to adding a locker to a 4wd vehicle? Why do most 4wd discussions revolve around either a LSD or locker and not these Torsens? What is the disadvantage?

tprice

Have one in a year and a half old RX300 and love the look. The only issue we've had is that it has gotten fairly dinged up from keys, etc. The finish is thick so it hasn't gone through to the wood - just feels a little rough in spots. Again, love the appearance. Also, have not noticed it being too hot to touch. Like so many things it comes down to personal preference.

popejohn

I noticed that someone with a black/black MDX said interior heat isn't a problem. FWIW, I had a black/black Acura Legend and said never again. I live in the metro D.C. area where it doesn't get beastly hot for that many days, but the car got really hot inside - melted audio tapes.

sbcooke

I found this on Torsen.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/differential8.htm

Apart from one wheel coming off the ground, it seems like it offers as good if not better than a standard LSD.

petercounihan

Acura has informed me that my car has met PA lemon law requirements due to a series of failed transmissions. My research and theirs does not agree as to the value of usage. Can anyone recommend a PA attorney with experience dealing with Acura?

sbcooke

What are your issues with your MDX? How much usage and what is Acura offering? I don't know any attorney's however people on this board may be able to help with resources to properly assess and prove the value of your vehicle.

carfollower

The car has 24,000 miles on it and is now on its third transmission. It is not clear that they failed from the same fault. Acura wants a usage charge of $8,800. PA law holds that the usage charge is the lesser of 10% of purchase price or a mileage charge (one lawyer's web states that the state uses 10c/mile). Even if the 10% factor was used, it would amount to $4,500 which is considerably less than $8,800.

sbcooke

Also...you should recoup some "lack of usage" fee. Back and forth to the dealer...hopefully in an adequate loaner is a pain.

I know you had back luck with your MDX, however I don't think it would be a mistake to try another? Perhaps the dealer will trade you up to a new 2003 for a really good deal to avoid the whole process?

What PA dealer? If you were to trade up, people on the board may be able to suggest another dealer to switch to once received for maintenance and service.

fndlyfmrflyr

Looked at the PA lemon law. IF you took the car in for the transmission problem before 12,000 miles or one year from purchase, which ever occurred first, you should qualify for the 10% of purchase price or mileage usesage, which ever is least.

Like the CA lemon law, PA says you go back to the first time and miles when the problem that results in a repurchase or replacement was reported in order to determine the use charge.

Example of how useage deduction can be determined: miles of use at the the FIRST time problem reported divided by 120,000, times the purchase price = useage deduction. This is a straight percentage of the purchase price based on 120,000 miles as the no major problem design life of the vehicle.

There may be more of the PA law than I saw online that deals with situations that occur during the warranty, but after the first year/12,000 miles.

Is Acura trying to claim your transmission problems are three separate problems rather than what it really is: faulty transmission?

I heard a couple of hundred lemon law cases in CA and during the hearing the manufacturer could only suggest what they considered a fair repurchase amount. I was under no obligation to use their suggestion.

wmquan

Here's an article on another system that claims 2004 changes:

http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=133702

donx

wondering that with the 3rd row added to Toyota Highlander 2004, MDX might have serious competition from Toyota/Lexus (RX 330 doesn't have 3rd row seat). The Limited version of Toyota Highlander 2004 might compete with MDX?

fndlyfmrflyr

Only if one is counting seat belts. The MDX is a more luxury oriented vehicle.

donx

What about build quality and long term value? Also the 3rd row legroom of Highlander 2004 is better than MDX (30.2 vs 29.3 inches), which can make 3rd row passengers more comfortable.

glxwagon4mo

Its true that people looking at the MDX might look at the 04 Highlander or 4Runner - not unlike those that already cross-shop the MDX against "baby brother" Pilot. But I suspect that most people who start out looking at the MDX will still end up with Acura for several reasons:

1) The luxury moniker of Acura - this generally means better service eg Acura loaner cars for service, etc.

2) Safety - I'd be skeptical about the safety of the third row occupants in the new Toyota's -I saw one picture of the seats down in the 4runner and there did not appear to be any space between the back glass and the top of the headrest! I'm wondering if the new third rows have been "shoehorned" into the cargo area due the demand for these seats lately. Plus Toyota must have realized they were losing Highlander sales to the Pilot (a more direct competitor to the Highlander). Acura at least claims internal testing for 3rd row occupant safety in rear end collisions upto 35 MPH.

3) I'm not sure a ~1 inch difference in legroom will be noticable. The seats are already cramped for most adults.

I think most will agree that the reliability of the Acura/Honda products are comparable to Toyota/Lexus. You'd be hard press to state that one company has a definite edge over the other!

Just my 0.02

George

donx

That's good point, with the introduction of side curtain air bag for MDX 2004, I think it is way much safer sitting in the 3rd row seat of MDX. I still haven't made up my mind whether to by 2004 MDX or Highlander, but better safety is obvious for MDX and I might end up with buying a MDX, especially in Canada (where MDX was build) the price is much cheaper than US.

mhenderson1

I see that wieck.com is displaying the new 2004 Acura MDX. Very minor body changes. But, I do like the rear brake lights. I'm wondering if there is a retrofit kit to place on my 2003 MDX.

03lxv6

Acura at least claims internal testing for 3rd row occupant safety in rear end collisions upto 35 MPH.

Hello George,

Where did you see this? And what kind of object is used at what height to do this rear-end testing. Because we all know how the height of contact matters.

wmquan

This is as a complete a list as I was able to compile from looking at www.acuranews.com

Powertrain:

265 horsepower @ 5800 rpm, up from 260
253 lb-ft torque between 3500 - 5000 rpm
Dual exhausts (which provides the add'l power)

Exterior:

New die-cast flangeless aluminum wheels for Touring

New front fascia, with an integrated chin spoiler and satin chrome finish

Projector beam halogen headlights

New rear fascia with new taillights and satin chrome finish

Dual exhaust tips

Windshield is now acoustic glass

Layer of Thinsulate added to side mirrors to reduce wind noise

Magnetic melt sheets for more noise reduction; covers virtually the entire floor as bonded material, instead of asphalt or other materials

Rear window washer now uses a spray-type nozzle instead of the previous jet-type; supposedly increases water flow

New colors: Aspen Pearl White, Burnished Bronze Metallic

Interior:

New roof console made from Tricot material, with moonroof controls, lighting for driver and front passenger, and Homelink

Grab handles on door are now covered in leather

Woven pillars

Power-adjustable driver's seat lumbar support (Touring only)

Ambient foot lights and welcome illumination (subtle pale blue light from footwells and shifter column come on with the headlights)

Backlit meters with ambient blue lighting

Wood and leather shifter and escutcheon

Brushed metal-look trim on instrument panel

"Upgraded" Acura/Bose audio system (Touring only) -- 225 watts (up from 200), with new tweeters, new high power neodymium magnets in the front and rear doors for higher output and a "stronger and deeper bass," higher power rear twiddler

"Softer and more flexible" leather seating surfaces

Right portion of second row travels 40% more forward than before, for easier access to third row.

Safety:

Side curtain airbags for all three rows

Rollover sensor will trigger side curtains in a rollover, at speeds depending on the rollover rate

Other:

Tire Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS)

tprice

Looking for feedback on installing an aftermarket trailer hitch. We are suppose to take delivery of 2003 MDX in the next week or so (i.e., build date was Friday, 9/5). The extent of my need for a trailer hitch is for a bike rack ( 3 bikes) that I've been using on an Expedition. Two different dealers have told me that I will void warranty with respect to the power steering pump and transmission if I have ever have problems with either and am found with an aftermarket hitch on the vehicle - regardless of whether or not I have used it for towing. In talking to a reputable aftermarket shop they say that it is scare tactic for $ purposes but that Acura could not void the warranty as suggested by the dealer. Anyway, dealer wants $900 for hitch installed (w/transmission and Power Steering coolers)- their retail is $1,299 so say they are giving me a deal. The aftermarket store will install a Class III/IV hitch for $250 (w/o the coolers). Again, all I need the hitch for is the bike rack so $650 is a lot for nothing unless I'm creating potential warranty problems! Any experiences with this issue?

Also, how much of "hit" or up charge would be reasonable at this point if I wanted to roll my current deal forward to an '04 - trade would be year older/getting model year newer MDX with few extra features, etc. (e.g., + a percent or two, etc.)? Just curious since getting to be out at very tail end of 03's. Planning to take a final look at Lexus GX470 before the new MDX comes in but pretty certain will stick with MDX. Like the fold flat rear seat, rearview camera, etc (+ hard to justify the $10K extra in MSRP - though deals would make it more like $7K difference with deeper discount on GX).

rerenov8r

Look the WEASEL in the eye and tell 'em you are not A FOOL.

You can purchase the OEM package from www.hondacureworld.com for $550. It is not BRAIN SURGEY to DIY.

If they charge a REASONABLE price for installation of the factory trailer towing package (which includes the hitch, coolers, hardware, wiring, reciever & cover) it MIGHT be 2 hours of shop time. That should cover the rather involved (but not particularly skill demanding) removal of the front bumper cover to access the front of the raditator to install the coolers, connecting coolers and refilling coolant & PS fluid & the bolting up of the hitch in back.

If the dealer realizes it is either "make a little" or "make NOTHING" they will likely cut their price to something that is fair -- they obviously cannot compete with the $250 uhaul hitch, but I would suggest $600--700 is do-able...

sbcooke

Buy a hitch and do it yourself. It only takes about 20 mintues to install. You will need a socket set and torque wrench.

Another option would be to buy the kit from hondacuraworld and have a local shop do the work for you. $900 is a lot for the purchase and install. That is about $400 in labor they are charging.

I did the hitch only for my bike rack. I got one from hiddenhitch.com. Most hiddenhitch's are really hidden (on other vehicle types), I was a little disappointed though, it isn't really all that hidden. I think for the MDX the drawtight hitch is better looking.

My dealer said that as long as I didn't tow, I wouldn't void the warranty. So no towing package for me.