Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Acura MDX (pre-2007)
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://www.highwaysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0113.htm
Press release:
http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2001/pr091101.htm
Congratulations to the great MDX design team!
Transpower
The MDX did fine. I knew there was a boat behind me but the MDX felt strong. Going uphill the transmission never really got past 4th gear. Braking was fine and even.
I still think, absent of whatever IIHS thinks, that the ML320 is the safer vehicle, because of accident AVOIDANCE.
The best way to survive an accident is not to have one. When the NHTSA is considering making VSC (ESP) standard on all SUVs, Acura is making it a nice marketing piece for all those in 2003 or 2004 MY. No thanks.
Besides - I'd like to see a side-impact on the MDX. My thinking continues to be that those very light doors will not do much to protect, and the absence of side curtain airbags means a side impact would be tragic on an MDX.
I hope none of you ever have to test any of the features I mention above.
However, there's more to accident avoidance than VSA. There are many, many variables to accident avoidance. E.g. stronger acceleration is itself a measure of avoidance because it gives the driver better power to execute highway passing safely.
Even something as mundane as steering-wheel-mounted audio controls help prevent accidents by reducing driver distraction. Indeed, driver distraction probably causes far more accidents than the lack of stability control.
Even high visibility is a strong accident avoidance measure.
Also, VSA will not prevent many offset frontal crashes, where the MDX's excellent crash test scores should substantially reduce the risk of injury. Again, the MDX should have VSA, but it isn't a magic bullet.
As far as side impacts go, the MDX will probably do quite well with the NHTSA side impact test. Acura has predicted it will earn top scores, which indicates they designed the vehicle to withstand side impacts well. Acura also predicted the MDX would earn top scores in the IIHS crash test, and was correct, so I have no reason to doubt them.
Bottom line, sometimes you cannot avoid an accident, no matter how good a driver you are, or what measures you have. It's nice to know that with the MDX, the IIHS has shown that there is a lower risk of injury than many other vehicles.
Of course - you'll remember I was looking into one before I plopped down the money for the ML320, and there were no crash tests of which to speak on the MDX, proof positive that although they do mean something to me, it's the company's commitment to safety that matters. MB has always been about safety, more so than Honda/Acura - although not to say that either vehicle manufacturer doesn't care about safety.
No doubt the next-generation ML320 will have improvements in its crash test scores. I suspect that IIHS will have to begin raising the curve for its grades so everyone doesn't end up near the top.
Unfortunately, the sad part about this is that they simply can't raise the curve, because some new SUV's from manufacturers like GM are still bringing up the rear in crash test results. Note how the IIHS press release says that Ford is making enhancements to the Explorer to help it perform better in an offset frontal collision. Better than what? Wonder how that makes current owners feel?
When vehicles roll over, many times the roof will cave in, not so with Mercedes and Volvo. Mercedes also publishes videos of testing to prove this.
The MDX appears to do well in a frontal crash, but given's Honda's history, will probably not offer much protection in other types of crashes. This along with the lack of a stability program, onboard sos system, relatively small tires, no air curtains, etc. don't make a system that is safe as the Mercedes.
Historically, Honda vehicles haven't done as well in the IIHS test, but the three most recent Honda/Acura vehicles have all done well -- the Odyssey, the Civic, and the MDX. The Civic is in fact currently the best performing vehicle in its IIHS test class, and the MDX is the second-best, so some good engineering is at play here.
So hopefully Honda/Acura has been making a stronger commitment to overall safety, and not just for the crash tests. But these models are of course relatively new so a full history hasn't been built on them yet. As far as other types of crashes, though, there have already been some pictures of some rear-end collisions where the MDX held up extremely well, though that is not a scientific basis.
As it is, the IIHS test covers one of the most (the most?) common collision scenarios. It's certainly a lot more scientific and methodical than endless theorizing. It's comforting to know that the MDX protects its passengers very well, essentially tied at the top of its class with the BMW X5.
IIHS study:
drew_ "Pontiac Aztek" Sep 15, 2001 2:41pm
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
I had been wondering if rear-end collisions are the most common, though they're probably statistically less likely to cause injury than some other collisions as those numbers point out.
Those stats demonstrate that the offset frontal crash tests are indeed important, and more so than the full-width frontal crash tests done by NHTSA.
Just out of curiousity, did EuroNCAP begin offset frontal crash testing first, or did IIHS?
(Off-topic, I read the posts preceding the referred message to understand the context. With all the tragedy this week, I had forgotten that the Aztek didn't do well at all - marginal overall. That's really too bad, though not surprising.)
I've had 2 different family friends roll over their trucks - one a Honda Passport - not good.
The IIHS does a good job of testing frontal impact, which, as has been mentioned previously, isn't the most common type of accident.
For my money, I think a track record is more important than a few crash tests - and the record on the ML320 is stellar. In a few years, I would possibly consider an MDX (if they beefed up the interior and added VSA).
There's something else to be said about being an innovator versus a follower - in an MB, I get the product of a company that innovates around safety, not just replicates and improves on what everyone else is doing. Not that there's a huge difference - but who knows what little MB gadget will save my life.
I was thoroughly impressed with Brake-Assist, the capability of the car to recognize fast braking, and power assist the process to bring the car to a halt faster. All too often in NYC stop-and-go traffic, you find yourself with too little room between yourself and the next car, and only a split second to apply the brakes. As a test, I slammed on the brakes during my ML320 test drive, and was IMPRESSED at the short stopping distance.
Dunno what CR tested with regards to the MDX, but moving at 30 MPH with an emergency braking procedure, I saw a signficant difference between the ML320 (which stopped on a dime, practically) and the MDX (which lagged, despite the strong feel of the brake pedal).
Another question would be the strength of the roof - although I don't wish it on anyone, it'll be interesting to see the first MDX rollover accident pictures.
Though I am curious to your statement, that you held off on the MDX because of Drew's rollover pictures ("Reason I held off on MDX - Drew's rollover pictures") (and actually, I sent you the link to Drew's rollover pictures, which are impressive). You had previously stated that you didn't get the MDX because it didn't have stability control and/or you didn't like the treatment at Acura dealers you visited in the NY area. Have you changed your story again? ;-)
The IIHS crash test is a significant safety test, and it does indeed reflect many of the injuries (serious ones, too) that are inflicted in accidents. Indeed, I remember you saying that the X5 "tested incredibly well" in the IIHS test, and "that was one HELL of an IIHS performance it gave." Using your own statements, it's safe to say that the MDX did very well in the IIHS test, and it is quite significant when it comes to vehicle safety.
Accelerate, then pretend you just saw a line of traffic up ahead that slowed down a lot. You can't stop in time in your lane even at full braking, but if you swerve left, you'll have more space to slow down but there is still traffic there. Swerve while braking hard.
I'm curious what would happen. Seriously. I'll tell you what I think should happen theoretically after you post the results...
I haven't heard of any MDX rollovers yet, so maybe the wider is better design is really better. It should be interesting this winter because there are finally enough MDX's on the road for one driver to do a whoops....
The MDX lost out on safety to the 2002 ML320. I felt there were too many extra safety features in the ML320 the MDX couldn't match (or couldn't perform as well).
Why did customer service factor into the decision?
Because I was thoroughly impressed by the 2002 ML320's. I wasn't as impressed with the 2001 MY.
If, *IF*, the Acura dealer I visited back in July hadn't been such a jackass, I most likely would have bought the model he had on the lot (which, was about $500 over MSRP, but I would have had a summer's service out of it, and I really wanted a new car for last summer).
Thankfully, as to script, the Acura dealer was a complete jerk, I walked off the lot in anger, and I'm in line for my ML320. But if he hadn't been such a poor salesman (and excuse for a human being) I would be driving an Acura today.
However, the MY2001 ML320 had these features, yet you chose the MDX over it (and would have taken one had the dealership been better)? Did you not consider the MY2001 ML320's ESP, rollover crush resistance, Brake Assistance, and MB's commitment to safety enough reason to buy the MY2001 ML320?
The MY2002 ML320 adds side curtains, which are definitely nice to have but not essential in a high-riding SUV (else a lot of pre-2002 owners would be trading up; Drew had some excellent posts on why side curtains in an SUV weren't as critical as other safety measures). EBP is a good 2002 feature but the braking was good before.
Thus, MY2002 isn't a large leap forward in M-class safety. So the MY2001 ML320 should have been enough for you if safety is the reason you got the ML320 over the MDX.
First off - there are Honda people, and there are non-Honda people. When I first found forums and reviews of the MDX, most of the ones claiming it's excellence were of Honda fans. I don't count myself amongst that crowd - I have a Honda Accord, purchased by my wife before I met her, which I consider to be the bane of my existence. After only 80k miles, it has cost well over $1500 in repairs, and it's rotted out exhaust will see at least another $400 go down the toilet. My best friend's Accord wasn't as lucky - it's transmission kicked the bucket at around 55k miles, but luckily, under an extended warranty. I find the leather to be cheap as well as the controls, with a gaudy push-button like quality to them.
But, I figured, form follows function - the credo of engineering. The reliability behind the ML320 of 98 and 99 were questionable, although improved in 00. I had no info on 01 as yet, so I had to assume that it would be the same as 00, and I'd have to pass on the 320. Also - ride and appearance, both fixed up quite a bit in 02, lagged behind the RX300.
Crash test results of the MDX didn't sway me. I felt the vehicle was not as sturdily constructed, having taken a look at both of the vehicles very closely. Lighter weight does add to the MDX's excellent mileage capabilities, but it does detract from safety. I hope to God the engineers didn't shave off a few pounds by going light on the roof support.
As I went on in my search, safety mattered more and more, and I decided if safety was what I wanted, I should buy a MB. It was only after 02's improvements, such as rear-seat AC, bi-level Xenon lighting (without necessary sport package), and some exterior upgrades, that I saw the MB as a clear winner over the MDX.
Personally - if I didn't care about cargo space, the search would have ended with the RX300. I think the Highlander has every right beating the MDX, as the interior of the MDX is *sorely* lacking for a luxury vehicle. For a fancy Accord, maybe. But to compete with Lexus and Mercedes, hardly.
I think ultimately, Acura relies on current Honda/Acura owners, who will put up with their shenanigans, and don't mind the interior looking the same as a $25k Accord.
Yep, the MDX is lighter, and it's a unibody construction (some of the lower weight is offset by its larger size, of course). The lighter weight didn't adversely affect the IIHS crash test, in which the MDX excelled. That means that Acura engineers designed it properly in this regard (lighter weight but still strong). Hopefully that good engineering design for safety extends elsewhere, but only time will tell.
BTW, if you say that you would buy the RX300 over the ML320 if it wasn't for the cargo space, does that mean that rollover crush resistance and other incremental safety features of the ML320 aren't as important as what you find more attractive in the RX300 over the ML320? FYI, Drew also has some ugly pictures of RX300's with their roof pillars crushed after a rollover. He also has some disquieting X5 photos too.
While one might ask "how could you not get the extra safety" there are always other priorities at play. The MDX has certain advantages over the ML320 that may factor into one's priority list, just as the ML320 has some of its own advantages.
I purchased a 2001 MDX over a 2000 ML320 because I thought the MDX was a safe vehicle (though the ML320 still has an edge), and because one of our other priorities was a ride comfortable enough for us to live with on an everyday basis (please keep in mind that ride comfort is extremely subjective). The ML320's we drove had what we interpreted as a rather harsh ride with some rocking motions and some serious jolts. Please note that the 2002 ML320 may make this a bit better, though the truck construction (with its pros and cons) is a factor here.
Other factors in our MDX decision included its noticeably better acceleration (probably slightly more so now that the 2002's have gained a couple of hundred pounds). Also the lingering concerns over ML reliability (Consumer Reports have the 2001's now as below-average, though the scores have improved much from where they were before). Another factor was that the Acura service department in our area was a known, excellent quantity, while the MB dealership service departments in our area were/are questionable. Looks came into play too; I'm not crazy about how the ML320 looks (even with the 2002 facelift), and my wife dislikes it more (but probably not enough to disqualify it).
Would we repeat the decision again? Hard to say, as the MY2002 ML320 does have some improvements that addresses some of our older concerns (heck, so does the RX300), and the reliability has hopefully gotten better and maybe our local dealerships are better now (though I doubt it).
At the time we ordered the MDX, it hadn't been released yet so we knew when we'd be getting one (we got the first one our dealer delivered to a customer). I daresay that if we went shopping today and didn't want to wait, or if the dealership wanted to rip us for above MSRP, we'd definitely go with the ML320. Otherwise, the decision would be tougher, made a bit more complex by the fact that the MDX had a slightly better IIHS crash test score than the ML320.
But that's all academic as we don't have to make that decision today, and all vehicle purchase decisions are made at a point in time.
Best of luck in everyone's purchase decisions! So long as you do your homework, you can't go wrong!
I'm comparing equivalently equipped models, and giving extra points to the Highlander for being cheaper.
All said and done, I'd say my ML320 ran about $1500 more than the MDX - but factor in included maintenance over 4 years, and better depreciation, and it just about breaks even. What hurts the MDX in the value arena is the MSRP pricing. The M-class sells at closer to invoice.
As for one item that William mentioned - the quality of the local Acura dealer. I tried about six of the local Acura dealers in NYC - what a complete nightmare. I actually wrote letters to Acura regarding the p___-poor service I received; no response. I figured that if I ever had a serious problem with my expensive new SUV, I'd have nobody to stand behind it.
Look at it differently from the MB perspective - all customers have had nagging little problems - but nothing their dealers weren't eager to fix. There are some nightmarish posts on the Acura board, specifically by a poster going by the name of BellTeck, who has been fighting for months to have a very faulty lemon of an MDX replaced.
That's not to say that a company won't have it's share of lemons. It's how they make lemonade that's of concern to me.
With regards to my RX-300 comment - yes, William, preface that statement as well. Before I became a safety nut, the RX300 would have been great. When I saw Drew's rollover pictures, it was immediately ruled out.
The X5 - great car. Not an SUV in my book, as it holds less than a passenger car. But if you want to do some fancy driving in a tall sedan, you'll have a blast in the X5.
Of course, as you've found out, it's "included maintenance*" (note asterisk). Only pays for oil changes when the computer says to bring it in (and I understand you distrust it because you think the intervals are set to favor lower cost for MB dealerships, so you said you'll be doing some of your own oil changes at your own expense). Doesn't include brake pads, which some ML owners have complained wear out quickly. BMW's included maintenance is much closer to being real included maintenance.
Obviously none of the MDX maintenance is free, no doubt, and Acura maintenance isn't cheap either. But most U.S. MB dealers charge $200 for an FSS-A service, which is basically a diagnostic plus oil change. Nearly $400 for an FSS-B service. I know you don't plan to necessarily keep your ML320 for beyond the warranty period (where you get included maintenance), but I was worried about what the costs would be after the warranty.
The $1,500 price difference you cite is using adjustments you've personally made for features. Of course, others may value those adjustments differently and come up with a much more significant price difference. But you're right, Acura needs to eventually get the price under MSRP at its dealerships.
Funny you should mention Bellteck's problems. Since I have an interest in how the local MB dealerships are doing, I've read some very negative accounts about my local MB dealership being able to accommodate its customers, and it hasn't been pretty. And believe me, there have been some ML owners who have had trouble getting their lemons replaced too. I guess it's a regional thing, some brands have stronger dealerships in some areas, not in others. I'm sure you've read the complaints about some MB dealerships not being able to fix problems, too.
I do agree with rihoops and you though. The base MDX (which I know you had placed two separate orders for on two occasions) is a better dollar value in terms of content. A similarly equipped (to the base) ML320 doesn't come as close, even with adjustments.
A similarly equipped Highlander goes for about $32k depending on market, so it's about $3k cheaper than the MDX. The $3k gets the small third row seat, some better performance, and some more passenger/cargo room, and a few luxury items not available on the Highlander. The Highlander will probably have better reliability. If you need the third row seat, any comparison is moot because you can't get one with the Highlander.
Consumer Reports' rating apparently doesn't factor in the third row and somewhat better performance. Sure that level of Highlander has VSC, but curiously enough the Highlander did not score higher than the non-VSA equipped MDX at emergency handling.
Unless you absolutely NEED an SUV, why are you buying one?
In my case, I do need an SUV, preferably one with a low gear, as I need to both tow my boats, and run over some rough terrain occasionally. A good laugh - the incline to my driveway is almost 30 degrees (making snow entrance an exhilirating experience).
But you are 110% right - and I would gone with the Audi AWD wagon over the SUV if I could have.
I do think the Honda version of the MDX will represent a good value though. Even though I'm no fan of Honda, I think the Honda version will be a good competitor for it's space. I think once the hype around the MDX dies down (it is a first MY run), it'll be a better value as well (as the disparity between invoice and MSRP is significant).
But for quite a few buyers, yourself included, the RX300 doesn't have the cargo/passenger room.
Thus, please name a better base value in a safe SUV with a third row than the base MDX at $35k. Buick Rendezvous? Mitsubishi Montero? Ford Explorer? Mercury Mountaineer?
Also think the Highlander will be a good competitor at the 'base' level (of $35k).
I doubt they've done anything w/ the roof collapsing on rollovers...
Please remember I said base value in a *safe* vehicle with a third row seat -- that also rules out the Highlander just like it rules out the RX300.
Besides reliability, safety is even more of an issue with an Explorer. I'd imagine the IIHS should have released crash test results for it with the last roundup (where the MDX scored "Best Pick"), but instead the press release has this *very* curious statement:
"The Institute didn't test the new 2002 Ford Explorer along with this group of vehicles because structural modifications intended to improve its offset crash test performance are scheduled for later this year. The modified Explorer design will be tested when it becomes available."
Okay, so Ford is "improving" the vehicle to do better in the crash test. Uh, how bad is the current 2002's that people have bought or are buying? And how much "improvement" will there be?
Perhaps when it gets the promised stability control that'll improve its safety, but since stability control won't prevent some crashes, it had better do at least "Good" in the crash test. Jury's still out on that and Ford's making no promises.
And, if you're talking about what you can buy today, it's neither here nor there -- you can't get stability control on the Explorer yet, and I'd bet the current models do not do well in crashes, given the statement above.
I wonder how much of the safety advantage of wagons are offset by the SUV's placement of passengers higher, where they're less vulnerable to crashes (particularly side impacts). Obviously engineering both static stability (wide track, suspension that's not too soft) and dynamic stability (stability control, pneumatic suspension) can help substantially reduce the rollover risk. Of course, some of that damage is inflicted by other SUV's (I've no desire to see this forum become an SUV/anti-SUV debate, of course).
Obviously cargo room comes into play. You can only load so much into a station wagon, and once you go past the beltline, the cargo itself can become dangerous to the passengers inside. And the wagons don't offer the forward-facing third row that vehicles like the MDX, Rendezvous, ML320, etc. do. The ones that do have a third row have a rear-facing seat which is inconvenient and perhaps questionable in terms of safety.
Finally, it's sort of like AWD minivans -- there are less good options. In the SUV market you get fierce competition between Acura, BMW, Lexus, MB, Toyota, Ford, GM, Chrysler, etc. But there are relatively few AWD minivan choices. There are more AWD wagon choices but to me they all have their own issues, though many of them are quite excellent.
I happen to really like the Passat 4Motion wagon, an excellent vehicle. The Subaru Outback VDC is also very good, but doesn't offer side curtains (which, while not essential in a high-riding SUV, are to me essential in a lower-riding sedan/wagon). The E-class wagon with 4matic is a wonderful vehicle, but it's also substantially more expensive than an M-class. The Audi's and Volvo's aren't cheap either, and the latter has had a lot of reliability woes recently.
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
Audi All-road is having problem? Heck nothing with German pedigree is reliable I guess. Looked at X5 closely but bailed out after the Aux fan burned up 3 houses, good dealer returned my deposit. The ML, well I heard they have too much problem on MY 99 through 2001 so no go there. MDX is a little too plain, IMHO.
Saw an allroad today. "Interesting" vehicle, to say the least. I was surprised how much trim it had on the exterior, unless it was the owner's accessorizing at work.
hpia4v2: The worse of the ML reliability and build quality problems were the '98's and '99's. CR says the 00's were below average, but much improved. No compiled numbers yet on 01's.
The X5's woes have been disappointing. For reliability, the clear choice is the RX300 (also the QX4).
But I still prefer the MDX over it. I'm glad you're enjoying your new MDX.
Only you can decide what's best for yourself. The MDX is a great, enjoyable vehicle and should serve you well. If there's a significantly cheaper vehicle that can serve you nearly as well, that's always a consideration too. Good luck!
However, it's good to see the results of the recent iihs safety report.
I see a lot of Progressive Insurance vehicles moving around town. 100% of them have been Ford Exploders.