Acura MDX SUV Forums banner

41 - 60 of 127 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
681 Posts
Not true, there is an MDXer who has more than 35K in odometer. Check the thread "Who got the highest mileage". I think factual analysis and presentation is constructive. Bashing without basis (bias or not) is not constructive and should be discouraged, IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
buzzinfrog said:
i dont mind the mdx bias, since it is an mdx site. its a little ridiculous around here though. someone disagrees, and you send them packing. maybe you should run for governor of afghanistan.
Huh? Buzzinfrog, you are either in a state of denial or you must have bees buzzzin' around in your head :D The members of this forum aren't the only ones with high opinions of the 'X. In fact, the majority of the automotive press concurs that the MDX is superior to the ML. Here's a good comparo in which your vaunted M Class managed to tie for fifth place :p (MDX finised numero uno, of course :) )

http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/comparisontests/2000/December/200012_comparisontest_designerutes.xml
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
Hmmm...2001 Sport Utility of the Year, I wonder which SUV won that one :p

http://www.motortrend.com/dec00/mdx/mdx_f.html

Yeah, yeah, I know. The M Class wasn't eligible for the Motor Trend award cuz it's only for new or substantially revised models. But I threw it in anyway just in case you tried to claim that the Car & Driver articles were written by the Governor of Afghanistan or something :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
You go Gator!!!

Com'on now buzzinfrog... buzz buzz on outahere:p leapleapleap:p WAKEUP READ THE FACTS!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,218 Posts
For Those Genuinely Interested in the ML320

Actually, an ML320 may be even more attractive to those currently considering ordering an MDX, because of the inevitable wait for the MDX, and the inevitable MB incentive for the ML320.

In some areas, a new order for a 2002 MDX may end up waiting until sometime in first quarter 2002 or even later, and probably be close to MSRP. With that kind of wait, it may not be much longer (if at all) for MB to have an ML320 incentive of, say, $1,500 to $2,500, putting the vehicle around $1,000 to $2,000 below invoice.

MB had similar incentives near the end of the 2000 model year, $2,000-$2,500 off for about 3 or 4 months, IIRC. The 2001 incentives seemed to start even earlier in its model year, presumably to entice folks waiting for the 2002 refresh. I wonder if slowing vehicle sales due to bad economic forecasts, lighter portfolios, and the tragedy will similarly push MB to introduce incentives relatively early in the model year? While the 2002 has significant improvements, the vehicle is in its fifth model year and MB can probably afford the incentives.

Just food for thought for those who may still be sitting on the fence. I like the MDX for reasons already well-documented, but a 2002 ML320 for $2,000 below invoice would be really hard to pass up (and I wouldn't, but that's only my own opinion and not necessarily others'). Right now you can get one for $500 to $1,000 over invoice which is good, but not unprecedented, and not when incentives are inevitable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
763 Posts
buzzinfrog said:
further proof that this site exists only for people who had to settle for an Acura SUV to have some company.
Gator et al.

Chill, guys, there is no need to argue with a troll.

ML is a fine vehicle, so is the RX, X5, MDX, and, for some, even Kia Sportage or Yugo :)

Ignore that buzzing thing and it will go away.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
vip9 said:


Gator et al.

Chill, guys, there is no need to argue with a troll.

ML is a fine vehicle, so is the RX, X5, MDX, and, for some, even Kia Sportage or Yugo :)

Ignore that buzzing thing and it will go away.
Okay Vip, I'll just go for a drive and chill in my MDX and try to get over the fact that I had to "settle" :p for MT's "SUV of the Year" and the winner of Car & Driver's "Designer-Ute Smackdown" :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Buzz -n- Brakes

Buzz, thanks for the entertainment. Your quick wit and astounding grasp of the facts is truly impressive. The ML is not for me even in 2002 form, but enjoy your fine ride. :eek:

After changing tact on your ML brakes 'discussion' to counter with no MDX owners have 35k miles, I would like to point out that there are certainly more Odysseys with over 35k miles than ML's. Since the MDX shares the brakes in common with the Odyssey - go ahead and stick you nose in the air - feel free to do your research on any problems.

Hint - there was one in a single model year, but the manufacturer handled the problem very differently. Good luck with your research. :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
715 Posts
What's The "Buzz" All About?

LOL....what an entertaining thread! I thought I accidentally went to the wrong site....this IS "a home for MDX enthusiasts" -site isn't it?

The latest go around with the "buzzard" makes me want to the Corvette owners website and hassle them about having to 'settle' for a Vette when they coulda had a Porche, just for fun...or would it be just for spite??? Hmmmm......

Mr. Quan, I am not worthy, I am not worthy (bowing down and genuflecting), your posts have been been so articulate, thoughtful and informative that I wonder if you really have a day job.

:D

And nice job ALL you MDXers for handling the "buzz."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
619 Posts
2002 ML changes

Just got my copy of november issue of C&D.

they state that the '02 ml320 will be $500 more expensive than '01 models. also, it weighs 178 lbs more due to Auto climate control, additional vents for rear passengers, curtain airbags, and additional speakers. :eek:

so, the 2002 ml320 now weighs 5000+ lbs, has the same lame engine, without any significant improvents(except the airbags) and costs more. atleast the new projector beam headlamps make the TRUCK look more elegant.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Re: 2002 ML changes

If you are referring to the fact the ML320 engine is rated 35 less hp than the MDX then you opinion is noted. On the other hand the MB engine goes up to 13,500 miles between oil changes and was voted one of the 10 best engines in the world for 2001. The MDX engine was dismissed as a mini-van engine. The ML320 will tow 5000 lbs without an additional coolers. The MDX on the other hand requires coolers and is limited to 3500lbs if it is not a boat. One wonders why you did call the MDX lame since most SUVs have much more ability than that. That extra 35HP that Honda claims for the MDX has to be good for something.

Too bad the MDX lacks projector headlights, xexon HID headlights, headlight washers, integrated mobile phone system, rear fog light, weather band in radio, Tele Assist (onstar), highly advanced real 4WD, Stability Control, rear airbags/curtains, all windows auto up/down, selectable consierge parking lights, oil level check at dashboard, Onscreen display of driving and traffic conditions for most major cities, also weather stock and news, real leather and wood trim. programmable automatic door locks, intermittant rear wipers, Rain sensing wipers, parktronic radar parking, skyview roof. emergency brake boost and real seat heaters.

The vehicle can phone in location if stolen, automatically call for help if a crash occurs, door unlock from phone or MB website, push button road assistance, 4 years maintenance included. And before I forget, a choice of 3 other 8 cyl engines. (one a diesel if in europe)

I agree with you the 2002 Ml was not significally improved over the 2001, but both vehicles are much more of a luxury SUV than the minivan based MDX. Other than the strange VTM there is nothing I see which distinguishes the MDX from any other Honda. rolleyes: rolleyes :D :D :D

MDXLuvr said:
Just got my copy of november issue of C&D.

they state that the '02 ml320 will be $500 more expensive than '01 models. also, it weighs 178 lbs more due to Auto climate control, additional vents for rear passengers, curtain airbags, and additional speakers. :eek:

so, the 2002 ml320 now weighs 5000+ lbs, has the same lame engine, without any significant improvents(except the airbags) and costs more. atleast the new projector beam headlamps make the TRUCK look more elegant.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
Re: Re: 2002 ML changes

zzdawg said:

I agree with you the 2002 Ml was not significally improved over the 2001, but both vehicles are much more of a luxury SUV than the minivan based MDX. Other than the strange VTM there is nothing I see which distinguishes the MDX from any other Honda. rolleyes: rolleyes :D :D :D
Are you talking about the same M Class that couldn't even beat a GM product (Envoy) for the '02 MT SUV of the Year award? :rolleyes: And are you also talking avout the same MDX that just won C&D's 5 Best Truck Award in the category of Luxury SUV? ( http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/features/2001/July/200007_5best_toc.xml ) I must admit I was a little surprised that the "selectable consierge parking lights" weren't enough to sway the judges in your favor :rolleyes: Don't feel too bad though, at least the MClass was nominated for the award (along with the RX300, X5 and Land Cruiser) :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Sorry Greg...in my experience, Motor Trend could not test their way out of a wet paper bag.
What do we know about their "award winning" GMC Envoy?
1) Its been TOTALLY recalled due to a heavily flawed suspension design
2) Wonderful GM build quality
3) Cheap..CHEAP plastic interior. Typical GM
4) Lousy fuel mileage
5) Mediocre suspension design. Still uses live axle rear
Yes, GM finally did create a decent engine, even by Japanese/German standards. Too bad the rest of the vehicle is lame and cheap (Yes, I have driven one).
Bottom lines. Tests all depend what you're testing for. Me? I look at engineering. The ML is probably THE best engineered SUV on the market today. Just slam the doors to see for yourself. Not to mention in the ML500, you're getting the same engine as the S-class (a $90k+ car)...arguably one of the finest V8's on the planet. With others..oh..I'm sorry..Acura only makes V6's.....

All I can say Greg is...go out and actually look at and drive a 2002 ML.....then come back and let us know what you think. Magazine competitions are worthless in this regard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
763 Posts
As you guys know, opinions are like a$$holes - everybody has one. Even trolls.

FWIW, here's my opinion: Magazine awards are garbage. Those magazines are more corrupt than Clinton Administration. A person looking to buy a car/SUV only based on those awards is a complete moron. Besides, correct me if i am wrong. but didn't ML win an award (or a bunch of them, actually) when it was introduced? Despite the fact that in the early going those trucks were literally falling apart?

Before buying MDX I strongly considered ML320. (That's 2001 model, but since aside from "cosmetic changes" nothing really changed for 2002, I think my conclusions are still valid). After completing a test-drive in what felt like a tank or some other fine product from Caterpillar, I did not even bother coming inside to talk numbers. I DID NOT CARE ABOUT THAT CAR! It has some great bells and whistles, but so do a number of other cars. It all boils down to one person's opinion against the other's. (See the first line of my post).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
proteus said:
Sorry Greg...in my experience, Motor Trend could not test their way out of a wet paper bag.

Bottom lines. Tests all depend what you're testing for. Me? I look at engineering. The ML is probably THE best engineered SUV on the market today. Just slam the doors to see for yourself. Not to mention in the ML500, you're getting the same engine as the S-class (a $90k+ car)...arguably one of the finest V8's on the planet. With others..oh..I'm sorry..Acura only makes V6's.....

All I can say Greg is...go out and actually look at and drive a 2002 ML.....then come back and let us know what you think. Magazine competitions are worthless in this regard.
Well, if you don't like MT, how 'bout C&D?

http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/comparisontests/2000/December/200012_comparisontest_designerutes.xml

I suppose you're gonna tell me that C&D is also incapable of testing their way out of a paper bag? :D Lemme guess, Bill Clinton was holding the stopwatch that showed the MClass doing 0-60 in a blistering 10.3 seconds? :p

And I suppose Hillary was the one who timed the MDX at 8.4 seconds? :D

And when they wrote of the MClass...

"The ML320's V-6 still strains, labors, and roars to keep this SUV on boil, however, as its 10.3-second 0-to-60 time attests...The ML320's logbook began to stutter with the descriptions "midpack","mediocre" and "satisfactory".

...they were doing so as part of an anti-MB conspiracy? :D

Please, if the MClass is such an engineering marvel, then why would an asture engineer such as yourself pass it up in favor of a minivan? :p You obviously appreciate the need for 4WD or you wouldn't be driving an A4Q. Once again, I think you're just trolling over here to make yourslf feel better about buying a minivan :)

ML320 got a grade of "7" out of 10 in the article above for its engine in comparison to the MDX engine grade of "9"). The only thing that saved the ML320 from getting the worst grade in the engine department was the Disco II :D I don't care how well a vehicle's doors may slam shut or how well it may perform in the kick the tire test if it can't do 0-60 in under 10 seconds :) I'm not an engineer, but I think the technology exists to build a vehicle that's both fast (for its class) AND solidly built. Case in point: Acura MDX :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
619 Posts
zzdawg

sorry for the delay in the reply.

Hopefully, this helps.

When I am evaluating a vehicle(any sedan, sports car, suv), I look certain MAJOR categories. Specifically, these are related to the engineering. That is, I like to evaluate:
  1. Engine
  2. Transmission
  3. Drivetrain
  4. Chassis
  5. Suspension Design
  6. Active and Passive Safety
  7. Acceleration
  8. Braking
  9. Handling
    [/list=1]

    Minor Categories: such as stereo, Navi, fog lights location are just that minor.

    The '02 ML320(not the other MB v8's which are significantly more expensive) has made significant improvements in the minor categories without significant improvements in what I consider to be MAJOR categories. In fact, I believe they have something like 1080 improvements. that is an amazing list. However, the curtain airbags are the only improvement i can think of that qualifies as significant.

    If you compare the MDX to the ML320 in the above listed categories, I think you will agree that the MDX is the winner. I think the ML320 definetly has better safety features, but other than that i think the MDX wins all other categories.

    One other category that i forgot to mention is RELIABILITY. Since we have no long term data on the MDX, I left it out. However, I am willing to bet that long term reliability of the MDX will be superior to the ML320.

    just my 2 cents worth
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Funny...figures I've seen for the ML320 show 0-60 in 9.1 seconds..and I've seen as high as 8.8 for the MDX. Be that as it may.
At least, the ML offers you CHOICES. You need a better engine? Buy the ML500, or the ML55, both of which CREAM an MDX in the power department. The MDX offers you ONE choice of engine. Its a good one, mind you, and certainly a good deal for the price. I can't knock it..after all, its EXACT same engine found in my Odyssey minivan...except I don't need to run premium fuel..:p
Looking at your catagories btw...comparing ML320 to MDX. This is purely objective, as I own neither
Engine - MDX
Transmission - ML..hands down. Manual shift function, and better grade logic intelligence.
Drivetrain - Low range gearbox, and higher towing capacity make ML the winner here
Chassis - ML has hybrid monocoque design (unibody+ladderframe)
Suspension - Both modern. ML is F/R double wishbone. MDX is front strut, rear DW. Both are excellent.
Active and Passive safety - ML has far better active safety (curtain airbags, rear side airbags, stability control). MDX has slightly better crash test results (both are rated excellent)
Acceleration - MDX
Braking - Not sure about this one..I believe they're very similar. ML does have brake assist and balancing...
Handling - Subjective. MDX has a "softer ride". ML is sportier

Bottom line however, is VIP is right. It really does boil down to ones needs and preferences. While in the SUV catagory, I would have preferred the ML, unfortunately I needed a vehicle for 6 adults AND cargo, thus the minivan. I therefore picked the best minivan out there. In 2005 when MB comes out with its new hybrid minivan/SUV..I'll be looking to trade up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
proteus said:
Funny...figures I've seen for the ML320 show 0-60 in 9.1 seconds..and I've seen as high as 8.8 for the MDX. Be that as it may.
Let me guess, it did 0-60 in 9.1 seconds at the "off-road shootout"? :p Why don't you tell us the HIGHEST 0-60 numbers you've seen for the M Class alnog with the LOWEST numbers you've seen for the MDX, instead of just vice versa? :D You obviously look at the ML 320 through kaleidoscope eyes cuz eveyrone knows the ML 320 is woefully underpowered for a vehicle of its size. That's precisely why MB's engineers keep stuffing bigger and bigger gas guzzling V-8s in them. Honda doesn't need to :)
 
41 - 60 of 127 Posts
Top