Acura MDX SUV Forums banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,531 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The MDX sits third behind the Pilot and Highlander
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,531 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Thanks Dale

I corrected my mistake:rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,266 Posts
Hi Msu79gt82 and DaleB:

___I think the X is hands down preferable in style and performance over either as far as enthusiast is concerned but the Pilot is wider, taller, larger inside, holds 8 uncomfortably ;), and is cheaper. Don’t forget the recommended Regular unleaded. As for the Toyota Highlander, look at its reliability and Consumer ratings in both Consumer Reports and Edmunds. There is still something magical about the Toyota/Lexus build quality over and above the Honda/Acura contingent. The Edmunds Consumer Ratings and Consumer Reports are bearing this out … If it was just a tad larger and had the 3rd row seat; I believe this vehicle would have taken CR’s title.

___When is my wife’s X going to get here :4:

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___[email protected]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,282 Posts
Hi Wayne,

I not sure I can agree that the Highlander is all that great. Compare it with the MDX at the NHTSA's web site under "comsumer complaints", and you will see what I mean.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,266 Posts
Hi OceanMDX:

___I have to look over the NHTSA site for the complaints but since I am not going to be purchasing a Highlander … You can follow Edmunds Highlander listing – CR’s = 9.5. Only the Sienna and Sequoia can match the Highlander in the Toyota brand. Looking at the Pilot listing – CR’s = 9.0. The X – CR’s = 8.6. The Car Buying issue of Consumer Reports showed the Highlander to be highly regarded with the infamous red circles in almost all of the reliability items looked at. The X on the other hand did not do quite so well. Honda has been falling faster than I had hoped according to these two sources no matter how unreliable we believe these sources to be …

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___[email protected]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
Out of curiousity, how many of each vehicle has been sold? If you don't have that many vehicle out of the road, the complaints are going to be lower than a company with tens of thousands more on the road...

Not that I would *EVER* buy a toyota...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
I'm not surprised at all that CR put the Pilot ahead of the MDX. They typically put a larger emphasis on "bang for the buck" than on luxury. The things such as a slightly bigger interior, the 8 passenger seating, and the lower price would probably score big on their scale. Also, the Highlander is very nice and I can see why it scored the way it did. It's solidly built and rides great.

Chris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,531 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
RE: CU's top three

The article pointed out that the MDX was ~ $5K more expensive than the Pilot and if you thought the extra luxury was worth it then go for it.

They also admitted the Highlanders 5 passenger seating limitation and if you needed 7 seats then the Pilot/MDX was the way to go.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Pilot vs MDX

If the Pilot had been available first, I probably would have bought one -- and been sorry. Equipped the way an MDX is (if all of the "standard" MDX items like memory seats were available), it would actually cost more! However, the basic Pilot has exactly the same basic functionality that the MDX does, and you can't get a basic MDX.

----------------------

2002 Touring, Mesa Beige, Manik side steps, body side moulding, ... everything but fender flares.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,218 Posts
2003 Pilot Beat the 2001 MDX Fair and Square, and not because of price

... even though the ratings are close.

Comparing the review of the 2001 MDX and the 2003 Pilot, the MDX actually had a higher score for front-seat comfort, while the Pilot had a higher score for controls and displays. I don't know about the former, but the latter was probably due to the MDX's climate controls.

However, where the Pilot clearly beat the 2001 MDX was in Emergency Handling. The MDX scored only a "below average" -- which, as SUV's go, is actually average. The Pilot, however, scored "average", which for an SUV in CR's scale, is quite good.

CR said of the MDX:

in the tight, fast turns of our track, however, the rear end swung out too easily.
Motor Week also noted the fishtailing behavior of the MDX's tail.

While CR said of the Pilot:

It was stable when pushed hard at our track. Maximum speed in our double-lane-change avoidance maneuver was fairly low, but the vehicle felt predictable and secure.
I think that Honda's softer tuning of the Pilot's suspension, while slightly reducing handling sharpness, actually helped the Pilot's emergency maneuver. This, along with the assistance of other tweaks that Honda probably made.

Now, that all said, CR's rating is based on the 2001 MDX. The 2003 has a revised suspension, as well as the all-important (as far as emergency handling goes) inclusion of stability control. I suspect that the 2003 MDX would perform significantly better in CR's test than the 2001 MDX, and probably complete the maneuver at a better speed than the Pilot. That is, of course, just speculation but it seems logical.

Another reason to buy a 2003 MDX over a 2002 MDX.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
Pilot, maybe

The pilot is really nice, would I trade it in and get rid of my MDX, no way! The highlander is for Grandparents, it sucks!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
I received my issue of Auto Week yesterday. In their synopsis of trucks/SUV's, they said the MDX is "head of the class" of the compact SUV's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
All good reliable vehicles.

The fact that Consumer Reports, Edmunds, and other automotive resources list the MDX, Pilot, and Highlander at the top of their lists should not come as a surprise to anyone here. Obviously which one is # 1 depends on what you are looking for or who you talk to. All are considered well built, reliable, safe, etc.

We've all done our homework here (I'd say DaleB and Wmquan get extra credit) so it really comes down to what you need/want. I agree with others in restating that Consumer Reports definitely looks more closely at the "value equation" and reliability than say Edmunds and certainly more than a magazine like Car & Driver.

The goal for me is to have the MDX last around 10 years and I don't think that is unrealistic. For that to happen it needs to very reliable. In CU it is ranked as "above average" reliability and that is good enough for me. While the Highlander is may be ranked slightly better in reliability (I think its excellent, not sure though), personally it is just too bland for my wife and I.

Someone earlier mentioned that Toyota/Lexus still holds a slight advantage over Honda/Acura in terms of reliability. I would tend to agree. IMHO, where Honda/Acura hold their edge over Toyota/Lexus is sportiness, ergonomics, and arguably styling. Again, IMHO, Honda products are simply more fun to drive and have more logical and interesting interiors than Toyotas (though no match for the Germans).

Something reliable and something a little fun too..........any thoughts?

:4:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,453 Posts
The one single reason.....

........my final three choices were limited to the '03 4Runner, Lexus GX470 and the Acura MDX, was DQR (as Honda calls it) - Durability-Quality-Reliability..........this instantly eliminated all other makes as possible contenders. (including some well engineered German vehicles such as the BMW X5, Mercedes ML, Volvo XC90, VW Touareg etc., which I might have considered otherwise)

On another note, more than the AGE (time period), I would realistically expect my MDX to last me at least 200,000 to 250,000 miles without any MAJOR component going bust (regardless of whether this mileage is accumulated over 5, 7 or 10 years). Only time will tell if the MDX is built to last. This is also one of the reasons I was concerned over the "transmission issue" (it's not just initial reliability, but LONG-TERM DURABILITY as well)

However, even though Toyota and Honda products are still far superior to other makes in terms of reliability and durability, they have definitely DECLINED in recent years and are just not what they used to be. This is certainly very very unfortunate.........but, oh well, I guess they have had no incentive to continue their obsession with PERFECTION, because the domestics and even overpriced German marques still don't even have a remote idea of how to attain the highest levels of build-quality that the Japanese marques have more than excelled at.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,866 Posts
The PILOT looks like a bigger CR-V if you ask me. And most importantly, PILOT only has 9 cupholders compared to my MDX's 10.

YESSS!!!!!

As for the Highlander- - just doesn't give me a rise!

___________________
Herbert Tan
Ground Zero, NY

2000 BMW 323
2002 Acura MDX - Brown/Saddle/Premium
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
Japanese automakers quality decreasing??

I wonder if the "proposed" decrease in realibility of Honda and Toyota is attributed to the fact that they are now built outside of Japan, that the cars are more complex (electrical systems), or that automakers now figure people are keeping their cars less than 6-7 years.

A combination of all 3?:eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,732 Posts
Re: Japanese automakers quality decreasing??

Hiker23 said:
I wonder if the "proposed" decrease in realibility of Honda and Toyota is attributed to the fact that they are now built outside of Japan, that the cars are more complex (electrical systems), or that automakers now figure people are keeping their cars less than 6-7 years.

A combination of all 3?:eek:

If you have another make like a domestic, and it has problems, you might think, gee, I should have got a Honda. You don't think, I should have got a Honda but they have problems too. What problems Honda may have will seem minor when you keep bringing your TrailStomper in for warranty work every month or so.
Underlying all of this could be some cutting of corners, especially in today's economy. Not as many quality checks, or less stringent requirements on suppliers, etc. etc.
Quality costs mucho dinero. So I would not be surprised if things are not done quite as well as before. But against the competition, you could still be on top.
And don't give me the 'quality actually costs less in the long run' lecture.
In a down economy, with pressure building, the decision-makers can become very short-sighted.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top