Huh? Buzzinfrog, you are either in a state of denial or you must have bees buzzzin' around in your head 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 (MDX finised numero uno, of course )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.
Gator et al.buzzinfrog said:further proof that this site exists only for people who had to settle for an Acura SUV to have some company.
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" for MT's "SUV of the Year" and the winner of Car & Driver's "Designer-Ute Smackdown"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.
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.
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.
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? 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 Don't feel too bad though, at least the MClass was nominated for the award (along with the RX300, X5 and Land Cruiser)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
Well, if you don't like MT, how 'bout C&D?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.
Let me guess, it did 0-60 in 9.1 seconds at the "off-road shootout"? 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? 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 toproteus 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.