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
Take a test drive on Sequoia, then make your decision.
If, for example, you paid $35,000 for your MDX, then you probably paid somewhere between $2500 and $3000 in sales tax...money you won't get back on your trade.
Now buy a Pilot for $30,000 and you'll pay between $2000 and $2500 in sales tax.
Your $5000 savings went to your state and local government!
Thanks
I am currently waiting for my MDX to come in, while I still want it, the real issue is what the TMV is. I am just afraid of paying too much for what I am getting, not that I am getting an inferior product.
Is this worth $3000(+) difference? Maybe? today the MDX is the only vehicle of its kind. In December, the Pilot will be competing with the MDX. I imagine interior materials will be different (Acura TL vs. Accord). Not huge, but maybe enough?
You can buy so many other (and in my opinion better) SUVs out there for far less money, and without taking it in the shorts. I have dealt with Acura in the past and they are arrogant. Masters of price gouging on everything from the original car to accessories to warranties to parts and to service costs. My son was looking at an RSX a couple months back and not only was it marked well above MSRP, one of the costs on the sticker was for dealer installed mud flaps - at $175.00!! Unbelievable.
I have puchased many new vehicles in the past decades. I don't mind the dealer making a reasonable profit, that is of course necessary. But, even if you negotiate a deal at dealer invoice cost or below, somehow someway the dealer will always find a way to stick it to you. They cry the blues, but laugh all the way to the bank.
Those wanting an MDX would be advised to wait out for the 2003s models, prices by then will be lower and many people will be trading in their '01s and '02s. There will be plenty of used ones around, especially the ones that have all the problems.
In fact, the amount of problems for a vehicle of this price range should be a major embarassment for Acura. And the "rushed" production causes even more problems. Awhile back I went through and counted up all of the MDX problems that people had been talking about. There were over 40, and these are not all little things, there are some true annoyances. Very few SUVs out there have this kind of track record. Even Jeep, known in the past for being problematic, has been almost problem-free for later 2000, 2001 and 2002.
Aside from the rotors (a problem on almost all SUVs), there are hardly any complaints for defects, build quality, annoyances or poorly designed features. Even the new 2002 Explorer, with its bad press, really has been problem free. Bad liftgate glass and a few tire blemishes is about all.
But the MDX defect list is amazingly long. The wind noise alone kills it for me. And they still didn't solve that issue for 2002. Unbelievable! I have owned several Honda's in the past and they were perfect, from one end to the other, fit and finish, great resale, problem-free. Looks like greed got in the way of Acura, that is pretty apparent.
ONE reason, and only one: "profit" - so the dealer can add those items themselves and make a ton of money off of you. That way Acura can give the dealer the vehicles at a very high price, leaving the dealer very little mark-up which is then made up on those accessories and extended warranties.
Very simple, it works like this -
1. Acura gouges dealer 2. dealer gouges customer
It makes sense to me that the less changes you make in your production line, the higher the quality and lower the cost.
- Conrad
I would rather have just a few trim levels, vanilla, chocolate and strawberry.
As far as defects, I think there have been less, not more. If you have been looking at the forums on other first year SUVs, you should have seen very long lists of defects (and recalls). I really wanted a Mazda Tribute. (I told myself I could save $15000 and still get as good a vehicle, but it isn't true.) It has been plagued by problems and has several design flaws. I've carefully noted the complaints on this forum and in reviews, and I think most of them have been addressed in the 2002 model.
I just took delivery (Wed.) on my Redrock Pearl touring. We just have 250 miles on it, but we like it more than any of the many cars we've had (MB, Volvo, Acura, Honda, Mazda). The driver's seat is very comfortable; the passenger seat is less comfortable. The weeping mirrors have been fixed. We didn't hear any wind noise at all at 60mph and only a little at 75 (not as much as Mazda 626, which I consider quiet). Headlights seem perfectly aimed and very bright. (I know a lot of you want HID lights, but I hate to have them in my eyes, so I don't want to do that to other drivers.) So far, no THUMPs or THUDs, but I'll keep looking for those noises. (BTW so far 22MPG - almost all interstate.)
I had downloaded most of the TSBs for the MDX and checked the new one to make sure they had been applied or were unnecessary because they were fixed in the 2002 design. I couldn't find anything amiss. BTW, the only recall issue I found was the seat belt wiring. Contrast that with 6 serious safety recalls on the Tribute/Escape in the first 3 months. I think the 2001 MDX was an excellent 1st year vehicle, and they seem to have fixed the minor flaws in the 2002. It meets my needs very well, and, although I would like to have paid less, after a year of shopping and comparing, I don't think there is a better value for under $40,000. (I don't want a bigger engine, and my wife and I like the same temperatures, so I don't want to pay for split temp controls.)
-Conrad
I forgot sales tax, but it's only 3% here, so that'd be $900.
As for seating, I believe the 3rd row of the Pilot is wider than the MDX. Even if it wasn't, it will have three seat belts and therefore I can seat 3 kids if needed.
The initial price difference could be $8,000 ($27,000 vs. $35,000 for both base models). Paying $8,000 less for the same vehicle less some luxury upgrades that I don't need. That still seems to make sense.
Your only case seems to be the dealer mark-up. That's created by Honda's ability to produce cars for much less than they're worth. They choose to pass that on to the dealer. The cost has little to do with what a car is worth. Take GM, do it's inflated labor costs and inneficient engineering and production make their cars worth more? Of course not.
Your also ignoring supply and demand. Since there's still waiting lists for new vehicles, there's still a shortage. That's not the conditions that will lead to rapid depreciation.
Trading your new car after one year is not very smart. Try to keep it for at least 5 years to minimize tax loss.
At 23k miles, this civilized work horse has only a few minor problems (TSB items). Not a perfect car but you probably won't be able find anything close to it at this time.
I agree with Tloke that due to the high profit dealers are making on these vehilcles a LARGE amount is LOST on the first day of ownership, much more than for many other SUV's.
And it won't be long before the "waiting lists" are a thing of the past. I would guess before this model year is out you will be able to find plenty of MDXs. Of course, the dealers will still play it like a tight market and stiff you for whatever they can, something Acura dealers are very good at.
It's fine if you have money to waste, as buyers are throwing away $5000-$6000 at the minimum the minute they buy an MDX. This is NOT a $40k vehicle, but rather a cheaply made $30k "enhanced" minivan, that's all. The amount of problems this vehicle has had is unacceptable for a vehicle that cost twice what a normal car costs.
Losing the tax paid can't really be used as part of the argument as that's the case on any new car purchase once you've driven off the dealer's lot. If you don't like that, buy used.
starting problems? more details please. is it not cranking? cranking and not turning over? slow cranking? etc.
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
It's not Lexus RX300 quality, however. But it is, in the vehicle's first year, certainly better off than many other SUV's that have mature model cycles.
The Toyota Sequioa did cross my mind. My wife however didn't like it. She said its too big for her and I kinda agree with that. She's petite and after all she will be the one driving this vehicle.
Why am I not surprise!
#1
I have two MDXs available. . .
Thank you once again for your offer. I am sorry but I cannot accept it. The MDX was sold within an hour of my emails going out. For the MSRP.
I truly wish you the best of luck finding a dealer to sell you an MDX for less than MSRP. I would like to hear from you when you do. :-) I'll tell you. . .I have employees and dealer family members that have paid sticker. That's just how it works when a vehicle is in high demand.
Thank you for writing back.
Amy
Her second reply :was!!!!
If it were up to me. . . :-)
Seriously though. . .My parents purchased a MDX last year. They waited 4 mos and paid MSRP. I've worked here for 5 years too so it's not like I'm just a little guy on the totem pole (Not the littlest anyhow).
You may own an MDX one day. Dealers will be willing to discount them when the begin building up on the lots. That day will come some day. We just hope it's not too soon. But, don't let principle get in the way of owning such an awesome automobile. Purchase a BMW Suv at a discounted price and you will still pay more. . . plus have less cargo and people space and higher maint. bills. Same with the little Lexus and the Mercedes. Acura has a niche right now. There is nothing on the market that has as high quality, cargo, ride. . .I could go on and on. . .all at a reasonable price. You wouldn't be interested in the MDX if this wasn't the case. :-) Again, don't let principle get in the way.
JACK807
AS BUYER'S THE ONLY THING WE HAVE IS OUR PRINCIPLES! WE HAVE TO HAVE THEM FOR US AND ALSO FOR THE MONEY HUNGARY DEALERS. I WILL PURCHASE AN MDX ON MY TERNS NOT THE THEIR'S... I AM THE GUY WHO WILL BE WORKING FOR ACURA FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS PAYING OFF THE MDX. IF I HAVE TO WAIT TILL 2003, NO PROBLEM!
Have a great night. Hope to hear from you again.
Amy
Absolutely, do not pay the excessive price for accessories some (not all) dealers are charging. I highly recommend www.hondacuraworld.com. Tim, who is the parts manager for an Acura dealership (they also have a Honda dealership) has built his Internet business on the strength of his service and integrity, and a LOT of MDX owners have purchased from him and are thrilled. His prices are good, and usually include free shipping.
Tim has the Honda/Acura OEM accessories, of course, but he also has some non-Honda/Acura ones that are interesting. E.g. he has the FormFit front air deflector, which some folks like better than the one Acura offers for the MDX (the latter is a dark translucent green; the former is black, and just looks different).
Most accessories can be self-installed. Some of them are no-brainers. I can't believe the nerve of some dealerships that are gouging the price of stuff like the cargo cover or cargo tray, and adding a high labor cost to the installation to add insult to injury (obviously the cargo tray is a no brainer and the cargo cover is extremely simple to install; pop two plastic covers off, put in the cover assembly!).
Looking forward, with the pilot hitting the market, I bet you may get your price towards the end of the year? Maybe. By the end of the year, if they add a new motor, you will be in the same position. The Pilot is giving the MDX serious competition at a lower price, I think this will (and almost does today) adjust the fair value to a little less than MSRP, maybe $2000 less?
Good luck, but at this instant, without anything cheaper giving serious competition, it is unlikely to change. Honda/Acura is deifinitely playing their hand well.
It doesn't have the horsepower of the MDX, but everything else is there. Anyone considering these cars should test drive it.
For those who like its utililty and value the $10K difference, especially w/ GM card points, it is in the running, but interior materials are a far cry from the others mentioned.
i think gm is trying to define 'ugly' twice on the same platform. all you gotta wonder is how much tiger gets paid for each commercial.
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/summary_midsuv.htm
But you're right. It's up to the individual buyer, but I wouldn't go near a vehicle that didn't score at least a "good" in the tests. Not when there are so many others scoring at least that high, leaving the even more safety conscious to look beyond the simple "good" scores.
Definitely not in the same class or real competition as any of the others mentioned above.
I have also found the Rendezvous materials to be comparable to those in the MDX. The Buick does lack the fake wood trim which adorns the MDX's interior, but one could add it for $200 if so inclined. Lexus and Mercedes do have nicer materials than the Rendezvous, but then, the MDX is also a step or two below those cars.
The Buick rides smoother and quieter than the MDX, in exchange for somewhat less precise handling and more body roll.
The bottom line is that the Buick has it's pros and cons, just like the MDX and the others. If the RDV isn't what you're looking for, that's fine. It is, however, a strong contender in this segment and should not be dismissed without a look.
Actually, you stated the issue quite succinctly. Without even taking a look, you are willing to dismiss a terrific vehicle because of it's heritage. I might remind you that, using your logic, you could dismiss the MDX for it's four year old minivan roots and also the RX300, which traces it's roots back to the 3.0L Toyota Camry.
When my wife and I were car shopping, we considered all of the SUV's up to about $40,000. After test driving and examining all of our choices (MDX, Trooper, Montero, Mountaineer, ML320, etc.), we chose the Buick. It's not perfect. It simply had the right combination of strengths and weaknesses for me and my family.
If you are shopping in this segment for a near-luxury AWD family vehicle, why not include the Rendezvous too? You just might like it. I know I did.
As for the interior, my *opinion* is that it is not up the MDX level of quality and ergonomics. the ML/X5/RX300 interiors are a notch above the MDX in material quality IMHO (again, my opinion).
It wasn't just the upward moving of the steering column.
True, the dummy did not "sustain injuries" in the 40mph test. But when IIHS computes the overall safety score, it factors not only dummy injury but how well restrained the dummy was, and what happened to the safety cage. That is because IIHS feels that such factors can come into play in other collisions (e.g. at a higher speed).
IIHS felt that the scores for the structure/safety cage and the dummy restraints were of sufficient concern to score the Rendezvous only "acceptable." In the test, the dummy was not well controlled, the driver's seat pitched forward, and there was "moderate" intrusion into the footwell and the dash. Yes, there again was no injury measured to the dummy but it doesn't take an IIHS scientist to see the logic of how a stronger collision could cause more problems.
It's up to the individual buyer to decide when purchasing the vehicle.
For myself, no, I won't even look at a vehicle that does not score a "Good" or above when there are plenty of choices around. Right now there are so many mid-sized SUV's that score that well that I'd rather be get the extra margin of safety. I'm sure for those who don't have the same criteria that the Rendezvous is a definite option to explore.
Would you consider the Mercedes ML320? It was rated as "Good" and a "Best Pick", even though "moderately high neck forces indicate the possibility of injury"
The Lexus RX300? Again a "Good" score and a "Best Pick". During it's crash, "the driver footwell was torn open by intruding structure".
The Rendezvous didn't demonstrate either of these alarming tendencies, yet you would consider them and not the Buick? And what about side impacts, oblique impacts, rear impacts, etc? How about rear seat passengers? It takes more than a crash test to know if a vehicle is safe.
You also stated, "I'm sure for those who don't have the same criteria that the Rendezvous is a definite option to explore."? Do you think Buick owners value safety less than Acura owners simply because the MDX scored higher on a test?
By that reasoning, BMW X5 owners would never consider the MDX because they don't have the "same criteria" either. The X5 outperformed both the Rendezvous and the MDX in the IIHS test.
The X5 also bests the MDX with such safety features as daytime running lights, side airbags with head protection, and a superior on-pavement AWD system. Oh wait, so does the Rendezvous...never mind.
We can debate the relative strengths and weaknesses of each car until we're blue in the face. The bottom line is people should buy the vehicle that best suits their needs and/or wants.
My original point was (and still is) that if someone is looking for a near luxury AWD SUV and considering the MDX. They are missing out on a great car if they don't check out the Rendezvous too.
I don't know if it is snobbery or what, but your reaction to the notion that the Rendezvous competes with the MDX was both immediate and severe.
I shopped the MDX and the Rendezvous for about a year before making my decision. I test drove them both, back-to-back, several times. They were my two final choices. Although I liked the MDX interior slightly more (it's a little warmer and cozier) and I preferred it's sporty nature, to me the Buick won with it's nicer quieter ride, more solid body structure, and courteous professional dealership. The $28,000 price tag was icing on the cake.
As far as looks, safety, and versatility/features go, it was a wash. They both look like funky, hybrid minivans, both haul a ton of people and stuff in comfort, and both have all the goodies anyone could want. And despite some of your comments, they both offer a high degree of active and passive safety features, and afford occupants a high level of safety and security.
I think I've been clear that the "Good" score I consider the most important is the overall score. I won't even look at a vehicle that does not score an overall "Good", or overall "Good" with a "Best Pick" designation.
"You also stated, 'I'm sure for those who don't have the same criteria that the Rendezvous is a definite option to explore.'? Do you think Buick owners value safety less than Acura owners simply because the MDX scored higher on a test?"
No. I think Buick owners either have their own interpretation of the test or don't consider the safety an issue with an "acceptable" score. Hey, if one wants a safety level above "Good"+"Best Pick" they can stay at home. Plenty of people buy vehicles with lower than "acceptable" scores. And plenty of people won't settle for "acceptable."
"The X5 outperformed both the Rendezvous and the MDX in the IIHS test."
Yes, the X5 did outperform the MDX -- by a very small margin that is not apparent without going past their basic grading system, and into various supporting numbers. The MDX was still an overall "Good" and a "Best Pick". Thus I think one can say the X5 "very slightly outperformed the MDX in the test." Whereas I think one can easily say that the MDX significantly outperformed the Rendezvous.
Yes, it does take more than a simple crash test to indicate that a vehicle is safe. That's why I'd consider a vehicle like the ML320 you mentioned to be much safer than the Rendezvous, despite the "acceptable" individual category score for head/neck injury.
Frankly, I don't feel that GM engineers enough safety into their vehicles. The Aztek and Rendezvous were based on GM's minivan platforms which had performed poorly in crash tests. They received some benefit from some modifications. But manufacturers know what it takes to engineer safety into their vehicles for such well-known tests as the IIHS offset crash test. The test is quite relevant as it demonstrates some of the tendencies of the vehicle in a fairly common crash type.
The fact that GM produced vehicles (the minivans) that did poorly in the test, then created versions of them that only score marginal and acceptable (Aztek and Rendezvous respectively), demonstrates that their commitment to safety is not as strong as other manufacturers. They are willing to trade off that extra margin of crash safety for something else.
The Odyssey, upon which the MDX is based, scored "good" overall from the start, and Honda/Acura improved it to a "Best Pick". That's a better commitment to safety. That said, I don't think Honda/Acura's safety commitment is quite as large as BMW's, and certainly not as large as MB's and Volvo's, but it's significantly ahead of GM's.
So yes, this can imply that the vehicles (Aztek and Rendezvous) will not do well in other types of collisions as well.
Manufacturers like GM who produce vehicles that don't do well in the test always scream that the tests are not real-world and don't reflect other crash scenarios. Yet when the vehicle does perform well, they trumpet the scores in the print and television ads. One can't have it both ways. I think for GM and other manufactures who are having trouble making the grade, it's time to put up or shut up.
I'll disagree with that, but I probably can't change your mind. My original position is that I wouldn't go near a vehicle that didn't score "good" in the tests. My fault in not saying "good overall" I suppose, but I don't think this comment was immediate nor was it severe. In fact, I think I was defending the Rendezvous because Ken accidentally lumped the Aztek's score and the Rendezvous's score together.
It's not snobbery to simply think that one vehicle is better than the other in a measure that one may have as a high priority. It's one's opinion, and if the reason for the opinion is based on a quantifiable, scientific measure like an IIHS crash test, I hardly think it's "snobbery or what." I'm sorry you feel that way.
I obviously place less value on the validity of crash tests than you do, and agree that some folks may place these scores higher on their priority list than others.
In retrospect, I should not have grouped you with some of the other posters here that jumped on me regarding the Rendezvous. Although I don't agree with your opinion, I won't deny that it is intelligent and informed.
I actually never lumped them together. I was just pointing out that they are based on the same platform (not that many people are aware of it) and I'd be worried that the Aztek had such a bad score. I called the Rendezvous' score negative because I agree that anything less than Good is not-acceptable *to me* (just like William). I keep posting in my msgs that it's *my* opinion and *my* priorities (safety was #1 in my list and I even went as far as to find collections of real-life crash pics before purchasing since the IIHS test is just a single data point).
As for "snobbery", when does opinion get converted to "snobbery"? Sounds like name calling to me. I personally find it insulting because I don't even wear any jewelry or designer clothing; I shop for quality first and buy thing like quality denim shirts, sweaters etc w/o any name brands. But if it has a name on it and the price isn't too far above what I think it's worth, I'd buy it. It's my own sense of value and again *opinion*.
WRT the Rendezvous being a something people should look at, I still stand by my opinion from before. Yes, if price is an issue, you don't mind the interior, and safety is not in your top 3 (if you look at IIHS tests the way William and I do) priorities. FWIW, it never made my short list.
Crash test scores weighed heavily in my decision, and not just the "G". I look at the charts on IIHS and the forces/graphs on NHTSA site as well. I even look at the overseas sites.
Back to the discussing the MDX...You are right about the scores being deceiving. The MDX has a fair amount of footwell intrusion in the IIHS test, but if you read across, while there is intrusion, the forces on the lower legs was very low.