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
Hyundai Veracruz vs Audi Q7 vs Acura MDX
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Anytime
I haven't driven either one so I can only look at the data, but the MDX seems to be a very luxurious bargain in comparison if you like the look. The Q7 is a pretty slick looking vehicle.
The Veracruz looks to be in a similar league in Korean form from an interior standpoint, but I'm sure it can't quite hang with these two in the performance department. I'm sure the NA version will be watered down as far as interior appointments though. I think people in NA are still not sure about paying up to $40k for a Hyundai.
Sorry about the sarcasm. I was feeling sassy. :P
Not that they cannot be compared, but they do have different missions in life.
It's not really comparable to either group. It's something in between for those who do not need it for any other reason than for it's looks, prestige, and seating for 7. The Acura does all that for less.
I take exception to your statement that the Q7 is underpowered. Did you test one? The MDX is not underpowered either, you just have to work it a little more to get the power.
Don't get me wrong, I love those 2 vehicles. One gives me more features at a better price, the other more exclusivity and a better interior. The performance difference is so minute between the 2 that it is the driver who is going to make the difference. And on that point, I am not concerned. :shades:
If all we wanted is a practical SUV with good interior space, we would all be driving Pilot's.
Since when did the Pilot become a good alternative for anything in 2007. It's unattractive , underpowered, not very efficient, heavy for its size, and 3rd row space is marginal at best. There are so many better alternative now. Sorry about the rant... I know you were just making an example.
Back to the VeraCruz, it looks nice but I am not sure about how "sporty" will be the drive. Resale value is also an issue. I once owned a 2001 Santa Fe, top of the line, very nice the first 3 years but everything started tho fail on the fourth. Maybe the eastern Canada climate has something to do with it. Resale value was very poor.
I road tested the new Santa Fe 3.3L and while nice, it is not very exciting to drive.
For me, the MDX, the XC90 (current drive) and the Q7 are still in the race...
That being said, I think that the NA Veracruz will be a better comparison to the Honda Pilot anyway(although the current Pilot stinks). I don't think that the NA market will get all the gadgetry and interior quality that the Korean market gets just because there are a fair number of people's with unfounded attitudes like yours. A luxury brand is in the future for Hyundai, but I don't know when.
I said it compares more with the Pilot in the NA market. The Korean Veracruz has more options available than NA will ever get, because of the lingering perceptions of Hyundai in NA. It starts at $33k over there, and comes standard with a very nice, powerful diesel engine that gets wonderful gas mileage. I wish they would bring that motor here.
By the way, the Veracruz will reportedly have a starting price in the US just under 30K, so I take that as $29,995
That would be a good way to limit the US sales.
The Santa FE starts at $20,945. No way the base Veracruz is going to list for $9,000 more!! At most, maybe $4,500 more.
The CX-9 starts at $5,285 more than the CX-7. The vehicle difference between the Veracruz and Santa FE is small compared to the difference between the CX-9 and CX-7.
The CX-9 and Saturn Outlook start at $29,630 and $27,990 respectively. They are both larger vehicles!!!!
Is that Santa Fe with I-4 or V6?
The same comparison as the base CX-7 that has the TURBO I4.
CX-7 IS turbo/I-4! Clearly the intent is to compete with V6 (and other turbo/I-4) powered vehicles.
As for the pricing RE: Veracruz, I cannot confirm whether the speculation is correct. I will try to get more information.
- Note Acura has higher HP 300 hp vs Q7 272 HP but AUDI has Higher Torque with new Turbo/SuperCharger (T) engines with 8 Tras
2. Is it true I have to spend 3K every 10-15K miles to change tires/break-pads/sensors for Q7 and not for MDX/BMW-X5? Audi's reliability issues?
Any thoughts & inputs are highly appreciated for experienced audi-lovers!
There appears to be no easy answer to the problem of improving the abysmal safety record of FWD on an adverse condition roadbed. But everyone seems to keep trying. Now we have all these new pre-emptive F/awd systems, seemingly adopted throughout the FWD manufacturing industry.
You can either have one of these, mostly obsolete, reactive F/awd systems, TC activation ONLY once wheelspin/slip is detected, AFTER THE FACT. Or you can have one of these new Pre-Emptive F/awd systems that always default to the rear drive coupling mode under low speed acceleration and/or when turning, even on the most highly tractive roadbed that exists today.
Any experienced 4WD owner will tell you that it is not a good idea to have the "center diff'l" locked, front and rear drives coupled, on a highly tractive roadbed. Doing so will often result in pre-mature failures of driveline components due to the stresses, HEAT buildup, arising from driveline windup and/or tire scrubbing.
The Acura MDX engineers have seemingly addressed this issue more adequately than elsewhere by switching from the old VTM-4 F/awd system to the newer SH-AWD system. The earlier MDX's had an unusually high transaxle failure rate.
Ford, with 10 years or more of driveline failures of this type on the Escape and Mariner F/awd system, is now trying out a water cooling method to combat all these premature driveline failures with Pre-Emptive F/awd in the 2011 FWD -F/awd Ford Explorer. The driveline STRESS will still be present but hopefully without the gear tooth OVER-heating and subsequent failures that would otherwise occur.
Tire wear due to inordinate tire scrubbing in turns might well still be an issue.
I am not sure i understand your reply.
New 2011 Audi Q7 has AWD so as MDX SH-AWD
and Safely Ratings of Audi 2011/2010 Q7 is much better than MDX
Are you saying Audi doesnot have AWD? just have FWD?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJZxVefta68
That will be true of almost ALL "reactive" F/awd systems. "Reactive" systems that use TC are really "one-wheel-drive" systems the instant any wheel or wheels slip. Loss of traction on a FWD or F/awd vehicle is such a great threat to life and limb traction must be restored URGENTLY, SOP.
So to make the RX or the Audi even look as if some effort is being made to climb that slope the nanny's MUST be disabled. Strange, isn't it. But that's why so many of these vehicle's have a TC "off" switch.
The SH-AWD system is unique in many ways, the majority of engine torque can be automatically routed to the rear leaving LOTS of front traction to be allocated for directional control. Then if needed up to 80% of that rear torque can be routed to any one of the two rear wheel. No torque stear nor plowing/understearing with an SH-AWD system.
Bottom line...If the majority of engine torque must remain on those front drive wheels, leaving little to no traction for directional control, then a compromise MUST be made, KILL the engine torque.