mmarshall

http://www.acura.com/



In a NUTSHELL: Well-designed and well-built, but as generic and appliance-like as a refrigerator.



I had not planned on formally reviewing a 2006 MDX, but received a couple of requests to so do. I had already driven an MDX that a friend of mine had bought several years ago for his wife and kids....( while he himself kept a Pre-Bangle BMW 540I.....trust me, folks, THAT was a NICE car ).......and the MDX, in the meantime has had only a few minor and cosmetic changes since than, so it is not substantially changed from the first models. But, since I had not formally written down any of the comments I had back then, and since Acura has tweaked the 3.5L drivetrain a little since then, I decided to start from scratch and do a full review on the 2006. However, 2006's will not be for sale much longer as a new 2007 will soon be debuting with many interior and exterior changes. I will not try and include the new 2007 model in this review as it will be too extensively changed.....that will be the subject for another review if CL any or other interest is there, but a good idea of what it will be like can be seen in Acura's new little brother to the MDX...the RDX, already on sale at Acura dealerships. I closely examined a new 2007 RDX briefly today, inside and out ( did not test-drive one ) and will have a little more to say about that in the closing part of this review.


Acura introduced the mid-sized MDX SUV several years ago as a marketing response to the vastly successful Camry-based Lexus RX300. Not surprisingly, it was ( and is ) Accord-based, and used a number of Accord-sourced components in the engine, transmission, suspension, and steering. Like the RX300, Acura adapted the basic platform to SUV, AWD, and semi-off-roading capabilities, while, also like the RX300 / 330, retaining car-like road manners and ease of driving. That it certainly does, though IMO it does fall a little short of the RX300 / 330 in powertrain refinement, noise isolation, ride smoothness, interior plushness, paint, and body solidity. But that is not necessarily a bad thing either....most of what it does, it does pretty well, even if a little short of the RX330 standards. And, of course, it does not offer ( yet ) a hybrid model like the RX, but we may see one on the next-generation MDX before too long.


So, then, just what IS the MDX like? Well, like I said, it is quite competent overall as an mid-sized SUV, and does most things pretty well if somewhat appliance-like. It is NOT as carlike on the road in driving feel as a Subaru Outback,( I know...I own an Outback ) because even though Accord-based, the MDX is a little more removed from a standard mid-size sedan than an Outback is, which is just a 100% Legacy with a slightly higher suspension, wheels, and body cladding. The MDX, not surprisingly, feels and drives very much like the Toyota Highlander and Honda Pilot. It does not have quite as much room behind the rear seats as the Highlander or Pilot...partly due to the more squared-off rear ends of those two competing vehicles. If this is an issue, then the Non-Hybrid Highlander or Pilot may actually be a better buy for less money. As I said in my opening statement, the MDX, like both of these competitors, feels and drives like a generic appliance, but of course, for many people, there is nothing wrong with that......that is what they want ( and I like a smooth, refined vehicle myself ). The Pilot, introduced by Honda after Acura had already introduced the MDX, is virtually identical mechanically, and, as noted, actually has more room inside......in fact, take a good look at it before signing on the dotted line for an MDX.....you may save some money.


The MDX competes, of course, not just against mid-sized Honda, Toyota, and Lexus SUV's but against the Volvo XC90, BMW X3/X5, Audi Q7, Mercury Mariner, Buick Rondevous ( shortly to be discontinued ), Cadillac SLX, Mercedes M-Class, and several other similiar vehicles. The MDX, however, substantially undercuts the Cadillac and several of the European models in price. The MDX, given Acura's consistantly well-above-average record of reliability ( some early TL transmissions excluded ) is much less likely to break down, especially in the area of electronics, as the European-designed SUV's. The Volvo XC-90 trounces the MDX on safety features, such as Volvo's special Roll-Control stabilty system ( being adapted by owner Ford to some of Ford's own SUV's ) , but then that is no surprise.....Volvo and Mercedes has always led the industry in safety innovations. The MDX, in the Non-Touring model, is reasonably-priced for what you get, but my advice is to avoid the Touring Package unless you've GOT to have the NAV option, which is not available without it. The Touring package, IMO, simply costs too much for just the NAV, slightly different-styled wheels ( the tires are the same size but a Michelin brand ), different wood trim, rain-Sensing wipers, and a roof rack. A roof rack, if you want one, probably can be purchsed and installed from the Acura Parts department for a lot less than the expensive package. Non-Touring models without options list generally around 38K; Touring models easily run mid-40's and up. Or.......if you like the way that the MDX drives and want to save even more money.....look at the Honda Pilot or non-hybrid Toyota Highlander.



Now let's look at the vehicle in detail:






Model Reviewed: 2006 Acura MDX ( Non-Touring )

Base Price: $37,125

Major Options: None

Freight: $670

Price as Reviewed: $37,795


Exterior Color: Redrock Pearl

Interior: Saddle ( tan ) leather



Drivetrain: Transverse-mount 24-Valve, VTEC, SOHC V6, 253 HP 5800 RPM, 250 ft.lbs. torque @ 3500-5000 RPM,
5-speed automatic transmission, All-Wheel-Drive with Variable Torque Distribution.






PLUSSES:



Well-rounded; does almost everything at least adequate or fairly well.

Well-designed, colorful gauges.

Adequate power for the weight and drag of AWD.

Good but not outstanding noise isolation.

Good handling for a high-center-of-gravity vehicle.

Adequate but not outstanding brakes.

Extremely well-designed folding 3rd-row seat and cargo area.

Well-weighted power steering ( but not quite BMW-like ).

Nice, classy, but not bright, exterior paint colors.

Three interior color choices instead of the more common two.

Acura reputation for reliability.

Well-done exterior paint.

Room inside for six-footers in both the front and second-row seats.






MINUSES:




Touring package expensive and IMO not worth the money.

Cheap-feeling, tinny doors and hood.

Slippery, Slide-O-Matic leather seats......and cloth seats are not an option.

NAV package not available as a separate option....requires the expensive Touring package.

Transmission first-second gear upshift too late....and no manual shift paddles or gate available.

Steering wheel tilts manually but does not telescope.

Brake pedal not well-designed for big shoes.

Under-dash step-on parking brake a litle awkward.

Not as much cargo room behind the seats as some cheaper, competing SUV's.

Large plastic engine cover a PITA for do-it-yourselfers up front.

Time's running out.....Will shortly be replaced by extensively changed 2007 model.







Though the MDX, as previously mentioned, is mechanically the same vehicle as the Honda Pilot, there is no mistaking the two of them as you first walk up to them. The MDX gives substantially more away to style over function than the more boxy and efficient Pilot. The MDX roofline slants down a little more over the cargo area, the windshield is a little more raked, and the front end is stylish. This might make it a little more acceptable at the country club but does nothing for its driving habits and, of course, cuts down on rear cargo room. The paint quality, in the Acura tradition, is well-above average, though not quite as well-applied as on the superb Acura RL......and I generally liked the outside paint colors. The base color and clearcoat are as smooth and even as a baby's skin, and there is only a small hint of orange peel.
The exterior hardware is also well-done and solid-feeling, with some nicely-done trim on the lower hatchback. The only outside trim piece I didn't like was the cheap-looking flat-black plastic rear wiper-control arm that would look out of place even on an $11,000 econobox.

I didn't care much for the doors and hood either, which, as they shut, felt and sounded somewhat tinny to me. At least the hood has two nice gas struts to hold it up....no fumbling around with cheap prop-rods.
Under the hood, the 3.5L transversely-mounted V6 fits in nice, without being stuffed in like a sardine can, but the BIG plastic engine cover ( these covers are becoming almost universal in upmarket vehicles ) predictably blocks access to almost everything under it short of a couple of dipsticks, and the transmission dipstick itself is poorly designed and a LONG stretch down between components on the right side of the hood. Though there are some exceptions, those who b**ch about newer vehicles being difficult to service are generally correct.

OK...get inside. It is a high enough vehicle so that, of course, one does not have to stoop to get in, but low enough so that one does not have to stretch either.....two reasons for the strong popularity of this type of vehicle. As I previously mentioned, the doors shut somewhat tinny, but otherwise the interior, IMO, is quite well-designed. You have a nice command-of-the-road view out the windows, and I didn't have any real complaints with ANYTHING inside short of the somewhat awkward step-on parking brake pedal under the left side of the dash. Acura puts nice pull-up handles on the console in most of their other vehicles.....why not this one?

As mentioned, the interior is quite well-done. I would have preferred slightly more grippy leather (maybe Alcantra ) on the seats ( you do slide around a little ) but that is a minor complaint, and one wears the seat / shoulder belts like he/she is supposed to, that alone helps hold you in place and keep you from sliding. But, given the choice, I would still take cloth over leather in almost any vehicle ( I always have ), and cloth is not an option in the MDX. I just like the feel of fabric,its seat friction, and its ability to stay cooler in summer and warmer in winter.....seat heaters notwithstanding. At least those seats, and the whole interior, are available in three colors (Ebony, Quartz, and Saddle Brown ) instead of the more usual.....and cost-cutting.....two.

Room for people inside is generally not a problem. There is adequate headroom front and rear even for my 6' 2" frame with the traditional baseball cap....and this despite the more slanted roof than on the Honda Pilot. There is also adequate legroom front and rear even for large people. The steering column tilts manually and doesn't telescope, but I found I didn't need the telescoping feature....I could get comfortable without it. The hardware inside is of high quality. well-designed, and well-attached. I found only one interior fit-and-finish goof ( and even that is unusual for Acura ).......a panel on the rear of the third-row seat that was warped and not installed properly, with an exposed clip. Nice-looking brown wood trim is standard on the console and door panels...the Touring Package, like that on the Sport / Touring packages on other vehieles, substitutes this nice-looking trim for a darker, grayish-looking Zebra wood.

The gauges are well-designed and have the usual Honda / Acura white numbers, blue arcs, and red needles, and are backlit like Lexus gauges. I wouldn't call the stereo a killer but you get your money's worth.....( and I got a real treat, when, by the luck of the draw, I got to tune in one of my favorite music groups......Motley Crue. ( I'm a classic Metalhead ). The Touring Package gives you a Bose stereo but the standard one, IMO, was fine. XM capability is standard and comes free at first....later, of course, you pay for it. The NAV models include GM's On-Star and 911-emergency feature...again free at first, but then you pay for it. On non-NAV models, the center-dash screen serves as the indicator for the auto-climate control system and radio functions....on NAV models, of course, for the NAV function as well....and Honda / Acura are generally considered to have the best NAV system ( One more reason Acura should make the excellent NAV/OnStar available as a stand-alone option without the rest of the overpriced Touring stuff ).

Although the folding 3rd-row seats, like those of most vehicles this type, are clearly not designed for large adults, nevertheless they are extremely well designed, and some of the best I've seen short of the power-operated ones in large, expensive SUV's such as the Escalade and Navigator. The second-row seats fold 60 / 40 and the somewhat smaller 3rd-row seats fold an even 50 /50. Each 3rd-row seat has its own cupholder and flip-open storage bin. Not only that, but each individual seatback flips right down onto the floor with just the touch of ONE button...great for convenience and ease of operation. Acura apparantly knew that many MDX's would be used for groceries and shopping, and went out of its way to make rear loading as easy as possible. The area behind the 3rd-row seats, as previously mentoned, is not quite as roomy as the boxier Honda Pilot, but is nontheless also well-designed, with storage compartments and a rear speaker.


OK...let's start her up and go for a ride. The V6 is smooth and refined, but not quite Lexus-quiet at idle. Power, even with 253 HP and 250 ft. lbs. of torque, is adequate for an AWD mid-size SUV but not earth-shattering....the weight and drag of AWD ( like with Subarus ) does make itself felt. The otherwise smooth and quiet 5-speed automatic, on full automatic, shifted annoyingly high from first to second even under a very light throttle...this did not go away as the transmission warmed up. The transmission had the zig-zag shifter pattern that is becoming more and more common ( I dislike that pattern myself, and prefer a traditional fore-aft motion ) but had no steering wheel shift-paddles or manumatic-slot to otherwise control the shifting...you had to use the awkward zig-zags to manually upshift or downshift.

Otherwise, on the road, as previously mentioned above the MDX did just about everything at least reasonably well or better.....there were no notable excellent or weak spots. It drove pretty much like a classic appliance-mobile.....smooth and quiet ( not quite to the RX330's silky ride or low noise levels ) and handled slightly better then the RX330...the RX's silky ride cuts into its steering response. The MDX's handling was accompanied by a small amount of body roll due to the fairly high center-of-gravity, but otherwise was predictable and sedan-like. Road noise and wind noise were well-muted but, again, not quite to Lexus levels ........you could hear the tires over coarse road surfaces. Braking was like everything else.....reasonably good but not outstanding. The only significant problem ( and I have this in a lot of vehicles with my big sie-15 clown-shoes ) was a pedal that allowed my oversized clodhopper to hang up slightly under the brake pedal as I lifted it from the gas. The specific vehicle I test-drove also had a slight shimmy in the tires
at higher speeds.....probably a result of either flat-spotting from the tires sitting in one position for a long time on the lot without use or from improper tire mount and balance at the factory. That is not something that likely would affect every vehicle...that is just a random thing.



Now........the verdict.

This is a generally well-designed and well-built mid-sized SUV that benefits greatly from its Accord-based major components. It compares favorably with the many other mid-sized SUV's that it competes against, does most things at least reasonable well or better, and has no glaring faults or weakpoints. It does not give you quite the silky refinement. plushness, or expensive feel of the Lexus RX300 / 330 but otherwise holds its own very well. The Touring package, though, is a mistake, for reasons already explained....avoid it unless you specifically want one or more of its features and you feel it is worth the extra money to get them. Otherwise it's a Honda Pilot with a little more style and flair..and price.

But, some other matters have to be taken into consideration as well. The 2006 MDX is the end of the first-generation model. Hondas has, of course, stopped production, so once the remaining 2006's are off the dealer lots, that will be it. An extensively redesigned 2007 model will soon be arriving at dealerships ( I will review it, of course, if there is any interest or requests ). So if you are even remotely interested in a 2006, get one before they are gone ( The dealership I was at today had maybe a dozen 2006's still left.....mostly Touring Models ). Perhaps, if the leftover 2006 Touring models don't sell off quick enough to make room for the new 2007's, they will chop the price enough to make them compatable with the standard model.....in that case the normally overpriced 2006 Touring model may be worth considering. We'll wait and see.

So, what will the 2007 MDX be like?..........I know that is the minds of some of you who are reading this. Well, I haven't actually seen it in person, but there are plenty of pictures of it on the Internet and in Acura's brochures.....and I included the Acura website like I always do with my reviews. I looked at the specs and pictures today in the 2007 brochure, and, in many ways the new little-brother Acura RDX just being introduced now gives an excellent picture of what the new MDX will look like. I looked at a new RDX in the showroom closely today but did not test-drive it. Both the RDX and the new MDX look strikingly similiar.....it is difficult to tell the two apart except by size. Both vehicles are somewhat sportier and more aggressive-looking on the outside than the 2006 MDX, and have lower-profile tires ( just like so many other redesigns today ). The 2007 MDX trades the softer-riding 65-series rubber on the 2006 for more aggressive 55's. The brown wood-paneling on the 2006 is also gone...the 2007 will have darker-grayish paneling under the gauges instead, similiar to the 2006 Touring model. Silver trim will abound inside, along with a Honda Civic-type two-tone steering wheel and the RL-style panel controller. The superb RL-style SH-AWD should also be available.

Though I, of course, lament the passing of the 65-series tires, ( I don't like stiff-riding vehicles ), the more conservative interior and steering wheel, and the brown wood trim of the 2006 MDX, there do appear to be some good improvements on the 2007 as well. The new 2007 RDX, and the features on it, give a good insight as to what the new 2007 MDX will be like. The somewhat flimsy-feeling hood and doors on the 2006 MDX have been replaced, on the new RDX at least , by MUCH more solid, precise, and substantial-feeling ones, and the interior, if more metallic and less plush-looking than the present MDX, really has some NICE, solid-feeling hardware to it.....even more so than the present good interior hardware of the 2006. And from the pictures, the new MDX will have roughly the same style interior as the RDX...so that bodes well for the new MDX hardware as well.

So there you have it. I hope that this review helps anyone interested in an MDX decide to get a 2006 while they last, or wait and get a 2007.

DrUnBiased

Isn't the 1st gen. MDX Odyssey based? Not Accord based.

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

old MDX is junk compared to the 07 one, hope to hear a review from the 07 MDX

GSteg

iTrader: (15)

yes, but the odyssey is accord based. lol.

mmarshall

BOTH the 1st-gen MDX and Odyssey are Accord-based.

mmarshall

The hardware and body panels are sure nice on the new 2007 RDX; that certainly bodes well for the strikingly similiar 2007 MDX, but I wouldn't say that the 2006 model is necessarily junk in comparison. True, it does not appear to be quite as solidly built as the new MDX promises to be ( and again, I can only judge from the new RDX, I have not seen the new MDX in person ) but the 2006 has some good features inside and, of course, the more comfortable-riding 65-series tires that the 2007 will lack. Of course, if you want sports-car handling at the expense of ride comfort, you will prefer the 2007.

DASHOCKER

iTrader: (2)

Great review Marshall Honda needs to do a better job with sheetmetal design imo, but I love their engines.

mmarshall

Thanks.

With the exception of the Mazda rotary and Miller-cycle engines ( and the rotary was actually a German design ) Honda has traditionally led the auto industry in engine technology. They were first to offer the CVCC engine in the mid-1970s that did not need a catalyst to meet emissions ( though it didn't run worth a damn with the manual choke until fully warmed up ). They were the first in Formula One with title-winning VTEC racing engines and were the first to offer VTEC on mass production street cars. They were the first company to offer a gas-electric in the U.S. market ( the Insight ) in 2000, beating Toyota's Prius by some nine months. And....they were the first company to actively engage in fuel-cell research for auto engines and are only a few years away now from offering the fuel-cell hydrogen powered FCX to the public.....right now it is being evaluated in private government and municipal use. The biggest roadblock to the FCX, right now, seems to be lack of hydrogen re-filling stations.

Personally, though, I don't care much for most Honda fours, though, despite their well-known efficiency in both HP and gas mileage. ( but not necessarily both at once ) They are mostly high-end HP and little or no low-end torque.....you have to rev the hell out of them to get any pickup...and when you do, of course, there goes your gas mileage. Of all the Honda fours in the U.S. market, only the in-line four used on the CR-V has a torque figure that equals the HP figure.....160 and 160.

One other thing Honda and Acura does very well is the excellence of their front-drive manual transmission linkage and clutches and their ease of use.....arguably the best FWD ones on the planet.

LexFather

Appliances sell well. Not sure why everyone has to think or feel their car drives like a Ferrari. I don't like it much but the MDX is a total hit for Acura. They got it right with this SUV.
Thanks for the review on the outgoing model. Clearly a FAR step from the SLX, lol.

Och

iTrader: (3)

Fair review, however I disagree with you on several points. My parents leased 2001 MDX for three years, so I drove it quite a bit, and know quite a bit about it. All in all, I personally consider it the best SUV on the road, bar none.

First of all has more cargo space than preppy Highlander, and especially RX. And when you fold the rear seats down, its unreal how much space there is. Being based on the Odyssey, it basically retained minivan spaciousness. It is also much more offroad capable than RX, and most any other car based SUV.

Also, the drivertrain and suspension are way more refined than RX300/330. RX maybe handles better, since it's much smaller, but MDX rides better and has much more powerful and refined engine. However wind noise does become an issue at higher speeds, but then again, its a larger vehicle. In any case, the road noise is neglible when compared to full size american SUVs like Yukon, etc, with 1" gaps between body panels.

Another great thing about this SUV is it's bulletproof reliability. See my parents lease all of their cars, and don't bother with mainenance. Their Qx4 that they had prior to the MDX died after 40k with no oild changes. The MDX survived 3 years and over 70k without a single oil change, and no maintenance whatsoever. And the engine, while running a little rougher than when it was new, was still strong, and didn't smoke. Not many cars can do that.

My only complain about the MDX are the seats. They are nowhere near as comfotable as Lexus seats, in fact I would even say that they are uncomfortable, and after a long drive I would always get lower back pain. But then I dont think anyone makes seats anywhere near as comfortable as Lexus. In my GS I can drive for hours and hours, and not get tired, its just amazing. Even in my parents S500, despite the seats being much more adjustable than my GS, I can't get comfortable, and find myself adjusting and readjusting the seats every now and then, unable to find a comfortable position.

mmarshall

I don't think we disagree except on the interior room and the ride comparison wih the RX. The current-gen MDX has less room inside than the Pilot by actual cubic-foot measurments, mostly because of the more stylish roofline vs. the Pilot's boxiness. Now, as far as the Highlander is concerned, you may me technically correct...the Highlander, despite its boxiness, is slightly smaller inside than the Pilot, primarily from being a physically smaller vehicle in size....and the hybrid version, of course, cuts down more on cargo space because of the large battery pack. It may also be slightly smaller than the MDX inside...I did not actually take a tape measure to every interior dimension, but relied on two main sourse....the actual manufacturer specs, and how well I myself fit inside of them....and believe me, at 6' 2" ( more with a hat ) and 280 lbs. I am no midget.
Now...as far as the ride goes, I don't know where you keep your tires at, but at factory-recommended pressures and at light loads, the RX300, to the seat of my pants, had a noticeably smoother and silkier ride......perhaps the smoothest of any SUV I've driven. ( The RX330 is slightly different but not noticeably so ). Of course, the RX's silkiness in the tires and suspension cuts into its steering response.....to the point where, all other things equal, the MDX easily outhandles and outturns it.

Perhaps in your experience the MDX outrides the RX.....not in mine. The RX wins the ride contest, the MDX the handling.

Now..drivetrain refinement? I agree the MDX has slightly more power...but it is not so much the engine as it is the fact that unlike the Lexus AWD system, the MDX's has the weight of AWD but somewhat less overall drag......the system only drives the front axle until slippage is detected, and then the rear differential ( no center one ) kicks in and sends torque to the rear wheels. The Lexus AWD system, on the other hand, drives both axles as required.....and has a center differential. Engine smoothness?.....IMO, no contest. The Lexus wins hands-down. You could thread a needle while sitting on the RX's hood at idle....not quite so with the MDX.

Seats? Like I mentioned, I'm not a fan of leather in general, ( though Jaguar does an excellent job with it ) and neither vehicle offers cloth as an option.

doug_999

Just about dead on MMarshal...

Couple of things...
With the MDX you can get both the NAV and Entertainment packages. Something you can't do with the Pilot (you can get one or the other, not both). Total price is $44,200 which is a pretty good deal for all of that technology (an even better deal today with the new one coming out). I personally think the Touring package offers a lot for the money.

The J-Gate shifter is TERRIBLE. I'm going to rip it off one of these days. WHY do automakers insist on doing this?

The doors do feel cheap.

The ride does not compare with the RX - I think this is due to the tires. These are truck tires and I know they will work fine here in the Chicago winters. Our old RX needed snow tires in the winter as its stock tires were sedan tires and not very good ones at that.

The powertrain however is incredible on this MDX - so smooth. Does hold first a little too long (not sure if that's what you were experiencing), but it really seems more "refined" than the Toyota product.

As for room, the MDX really blows away the Highlander. Not even close.

So there is my input.

Och, I "think" the lease agreements require the standard maintenance to be done on the car. I assure you at some point your parents not changing the oil is going to bite them in the butt - with a nice bill for a new engine.

mmarshall

The ride difference is actually more with the Lexus softer suspension than the tires. This can be gauged by the greater amount of body roll on the RX and the fact that the MDX also has fairly soft-riding 65- series tires.

Yes, in the MDX I drove, first gear does hold on too long even under very low throttle....( you expect it, of course, under a heavy engine load ). I don't understand this, as it hurts gas mileage and does unnecessary RPM's and engine wear.

Och

iTrader: (3)

It bites them in the *** all the time, but they dont really care. They register these cars on their company, and abuse them like there's no tomorrow. With their Qx4 they were presented with a 9k bill for a new engine, but they didnt pay it, they found a way out of it :-P

mmarshall

It takes a lot to destroy a Nissan-Infiniti 3.5L V6...besides the usual ways, of course.....driving it with no oil or with sludge and gel. That is one of the best and most durable engines on the market today.