Topic: Test Drive: 2012 Acura MDX Elite

[Autos_Editor]

Despite nearing the end of its life cycle, the MDX is easily one of the best values in its class.

Read More...

[sailor723]

I think there is a mistake or several typos in the numbers for the XC90's cargo capacity. If my math is correct (1 cubic foot-28.31 litres) he Volvo has just over 2400 litres with all the seats down (85.1x28.31= 2409) and 43.3 cu ft (about 1226 litres) behind the second row)

http://www.trucktrend.com/features/tech/163_0909_2010_volvo_xc90_tech_specs/dimensions_and_weights.html

I drove the MDX a couple of times when I was shopping last year and was kind of underwhelmed. I don't quite know why. Maybe all the hype in ads about the SH-AWD and power had raised my expectations too high? There was nothing really wrong with it other than minor things ( I thought the dash was a little busy, didn't like that you couldn't get one without the third row and thought the roof rail option was pricey)  but it just didn't do it for me.... I guess maybe I'm more Eurocentric as my favourites in this class were the Touareg, the ML and the X5 .....a matter of personal taste more than specs and numbers I guess.

[TheKnownSpace]

Imho one of the only Acura models to look better pre-facelift. Don't get me wrong, i think it has aged very well, just that some of the characteristics that distinguished the older one have gone missing in favor of more "inoffensive" (read: boring) styling traits)

The dashboard does seem to have a lot of controls, but they appear to be logically laid out (a rarity for modern Acura models). the war between button and screens continues...

I honestly still think this a great CUV, it's just that when it first came out, the segment straddled the line between total on-road performance vs. off-road capability (X5/SRX/ML/XC90 etc. vs. LR4/GX/First gen Touareg etc. - - - one could even throw in pricey examples of mainstream CUV offerings), so the MDX carved a niche as real "driver-focused" utility vehicle that didnt carry the price heft of a BMW X5. But now every automaker is creating their CUV's as driver's cars with cargo hatches, so the MDX's mission statment becomes a bit muddled

[jyarkony]

I think there is a mistake or several typos in the numbers for the XC90's cargo capacity. If my math is correct (1 cubic foot-28.31 litres) he Volvo has just over 2400 litres with all the seats down (85.1x28.31= 2409) and 43.3 cu ft (about 1226 litres) behind the second row)

http://www.trucktrend.com/features/tech/163_0909_2010_volvo_xc90_tech_specs/dimensions_and_weights.html

I drove the MDX a couple of times when I was shopping last year and was kind of underwhelmed. I don't quite know why. Maybe all the hype in ads about the SH-AWD and power had raised my expectations too high? There was nothing really wrong with it other than minor things ( I thought the dash was a little busy, didn't like that you couldn't get one without the third row and thought the roof rail option was pricey)  but it just didn't do it for me.... I guess maybe I'm more Eurocentric as my favourites in this class were the Touareg, the ML and the X5 .....a matter of personal taste more than specs and numbers I guess.

those are specs a published on Volvo's media site (see pic attached), although our own specs page in the Buyer's Guide only cites the 914 (row 2&3 folded) and not the 1837 (all seats folded), which we will also have to update (that is the figure i quoted), though Autodata also quote 2410 L... not sure how Truck trend arrived at their measurements... Could be it's a case like Mazda only measuring up to the window line in their published Mazda5 cargo capacity.

As to your Eurocentricity, i can't argue with that—unless i knew I would regularly need that third row for passengers 6 & 7, a Touareg TDI comes in at  the same price range and it's driving manner and fuel efficiency both preferred to the MDX.

[Jaeger]

Center stack needs more buttons. 

I know it's being pitched as being a top value amongst luxury-branded CUVs - and it might well be.  But does it offer much more than non-luxury competitors?  I was reading the review and wondering if it is really any better than, say, a Toyota Venza (extra seating excepted)? I suspect the upcoming Santa Fe won't give up much to this, either.

I haven't driven one - though I have taken an extensive drive in one.  While it was a very nice ride in all respects, I have to say that nothing in the experience really screamed $63k to me.

Jaeger

[sailor723]

I think there is a mistake or several typos in the numbers for the XC90's cargo capacity. If my math is correct (1 cubic foot-28.31 litres) he Volvo has just over 2400 litres with all the seats down (85.1x28.31= 2409) and 43.3 cu ft (about 1226 litres) behind the second row)

http://www.trucktrend.com/features/tech/163_0909_2010_volvo_xc90_tech_specs/dimensions_and_weights.html

I drove the MDX a couple of times when I was shopping last year and was kind of underwhelmed. I don't quite know why. Maybe all the hype in ads about the SH-AWD and power had raised my expectations too high? There was nothing really wrong with it other than minor things ( I thought the dash was a little busy, didn't like that you couldn't get one without the third row and thought the roof rail option was pricey)  but it just didn't do it for me.... I guess maybe I'm more Eurocentric as my favourites in this class were the Touareg, the ML and the X5 .....a matter of personal taste more than specs and numbers I guess.

those are specs a published on Volvo's media site (see pic attached), although our own specs page in the Buyer's Guide only cites the 914 (row 2&3 folded) and not the 1837 (all seats folded), which we will also have to update (that is the figure i quoted), though Autodata also quote 2410 L... not sure how Truck trend arrived at their measurements... Could be it's a case like Mazda only measuring up to the window line in their published Mazda5 cargo capacity.

As to your Eurocentricity, i can't argue with that—unless i knew I would regularly need that third row for passengers 6 & 7, a Touareg TDI comes in at  the same price range and it's driving manner and fuel efficiency both preferred to the MDX.

Interesting....The 249L figure given for all seats up agrees with what I found at various online sources  (8.8 cu ft = 249 L) but the other numbers on the Volvo site are way smaller  I did read somewhere that the Europeans only measure up to the windows while in NA measurements are total cubic capacity. Maybe the Volvo media site is using Euro standards? I can't imagine the XC90 cargo capacity being less than 1/2 that of the MDX

[vaff3]

I absolutely love my 01. No rattles.  Comfortable.  Just change the oil and keep driving. The two weak points are the wind noise and lack of horsepower; which the '12 more than addresses.  If I had only one vehicle to drive, it would be your '12.   

[Sir Osis of Liver]

This is what Consumer Reports measured for cargo space behind the second row seats (third row folded if available).

MDX         35.5 cu ft (1005 litre)
XC90        38.0 (1076L)
X5            36.0 (1019L)
Q7            37.0 (1048L)
Outback   36.5 (1033L)
Passat Wagon 41(1161L)

(I include the OB and Passat wagon just to compare to true wagons)

They do the measurements themselves with a pipe frame. Probably the most realistic numbers available.

[rrocket]

This is what Consumer Reports measured for cargo space behind the second row seats (third row folded if available).

MDX         35.5 cu ft (1005 litre)
XC90        38.0 (1076L)
X5            36.0 (1019L)
Q7            37.0 (1048L)
Outback   36.5 (1033L)
Passat Wagon 41(1161L)

(I include the OB and Passat wagon just to compare to true wagons)

They do the measurements themselves with a pipe frame. Probably the most realistic numbers available.

Beer case test is most realistic!!   

[sailor723]

I found numbers of 83.3 for the MDX and 93 for the XC90 (from Edmunds) with all seats down. It's beginning to look like comparing cargo capacities like in this article is useless unless you know that all the numbers are from the same source and measured the same way.

[Jaeger]

I found numbers of 83.3 for the MDX and 93 for the XC90 (from Edmunds) with all seats down. It's beginning to look like comparing cargo capacities like in this article is useless unless you know that all the numbers are from the same source and measured the same way.

True.  I'm seeing more variability in reported interior dimensions across the board than I would like.  I wish there were some singular, comprehensive and reliable source for comparing interior dimensions, because there can sometimes be significant diffferences beteween similarly sized class competitors.

Jaeger

[sailor723]

Yep, at least with the CR numbers you know they were all calculated the same way and are at least good for relative comparisons. If you took the cargo capacities in this article at face value you'd think the Volvo had less than 1/2 the space of the other two. I think the Europeans have some sort of standard. (probably some sort of EU regulation....they seem to regulate everything else  )

[mmret]

I actually like the "busy" center stack as I can actually hit buttons to accomplish a task rather than go through some god damn menu system.

Completely agree. Dedicated buttons for stuff is the way to go. Takes far less concentration than using MMI/iDrive/COMMAND Knob etc.

TBH I never understood why people gave Acura so much trouble for the button count. They're just giving you easier and multiple ways to do things. I felt the updated interiors were top notch in virtually all respects.

[Jaeger]

I actually like the "busy" center stack as I can actually hit buttons to accomplish a task rather than go through some god damn menu system.

Completely agree. Dedicated buttons for stuff is the way to go. Takes far less concentration than using MMI/iDrive/COMMAND Knob etc.

TBH I never understood why people gave Acura so much trouble for the button count. They're just giving you easier and multiple ways to do things. I felt the updated interiors were top notch in virtually all respects.

Matter of preference.  I find a touch screen solves both the issues of massive buttonitis and unwieldly scroll-type controllers.  I find extreme button overload to be visually distracting and aesthetically displeasing.  And I definitely don't find multiple buttons easier to use than a touch-screen - particularly at night, when it can be harder to differentiate one microscopically-lit little button from the next.

Of course, others will have different preferences.  The great many Acura / Honda buyers of highly optioned models clearly like it or at least don't mind it.  I much preferred the dash on my loaded Altima to a similarly loaded Accord.  The latter seemed to have twice as many buttons to operate the same functions.  Not a plus in my books.

Jaeger

[mmret]

Lack of tactile feel on touch screen is a huge downer. Can't use them by feel, need to look at the screen.

Whats the difference between that and plugging away on an iPhone while in the car?

Much easier to develop correct muscle memory with tactile buttons.

[Jaeger]

Lack of tactile feel on touch screen is a huge downer. Can't use them by feel, need to look at the screen.

Whats the difference between that and plugging away on an iPhone while in the car?

Much easier to develop correct muscle memory with tactile buttons.

Hmmm.  I doubt  very much that you can reliably can find one of a zillon tiny like-sized and like-shaped buttons by tactile feel or muscle memory.  At night.  You're going to hav to look any way.  I prefer the touch screen by a country mile. And a half.

Jaeger

[Brig]

I have two iPods:  an iPod Touch, and a 2005 iPod Mini.  I use the Mini in the car, as it is tactile and much easier to manoeuvre without having to look at it too much (just spin and click).  Touch screens make me crazy.

[mmret]

Hmmm.  I doubt  very much that you can reliably can find one of a zillon tiny like-sized and like-shaped buttons by tactile feel or muscle memory.  At night.  You're going to hav to look any way.  I prefer the touch screen by a country mile. And a half.

Hardly a zillion. If you look carefully they are all logically arranged.



UPPER SECTION

Upper section: HVAC. And only HVAC.

Note that the four most important buttons are closest to the drive. Temp Up/Down and Auto/Off.

Dual/Rear are toggle switches that let you relink the tri-zone temp control to the main one...which is right next to your hand. So, that's good.

You could nitpick and say that they should have been reversed with the fan speed control but I never felt much need to change the fan speed off Auto in the TSX to be honest.

Next two buttons control "wintry things". Front defrost, heated mirrors etc.

Arguably Recirc, AC, and Mode go together better but I suspect they wanted to place Defrost closer to the driver as it is more important. Rarely saw much need to use AC or Mode in the TSX.

Recirc is arguably useful for controlling external venting on/off. Closer to drive is good. Good!

Passenger control is in the logical place, not much to say.

SECOND ROW

1-6 for the CD Changer. One logical row, one set of highly related buttons. I'm not sure what DISC- and DISC+ do. I assume these also control station presets.

THIRD ROW

Load, CD slot, and Eject. Durrr. Load and eject are opposites. THey go on opposite sides of the thing they control. They're also different shapes from other buttons.

FOURTH ROW
Secondary controls for the Audio system. Arguably, Seek + and Seek- should be on the left, and then SC/RPT/ASEL. However, I assume 90% of people use radio presets, and for CD track skipping its duped on the steering wheel.

FIFTH ROW

The "main" Audio buttons. Volume/Power, which is bog standard in every other car in existence. THen a row full of source selectors in a highly logical order (Traditional Radio, Satellite Radio, CD, AUX...iPod really), and then one "plug" button which they probably had no other place for.

The Tune / Sound Adjust knob is rarely used in my experience. You use presets and who really plays with the EQ while driving?

SIXTH ROW
Appears to be for the rear seat DVD system. All functions are contained in this one little block.
Note that the eject logically remains on the right side. Play/Pause is logically the first button. The two source buttons are right next to each other. I haven't used it, but it seems good enough.

SEVENTH ROW/BLOCK
Giant iDrive/MMI/whatever knob in the middle. Fine. Cancel on the let side, good (closer to the driver). MAP button also on the left. Also good for quick access to...the Map.

SETUP out of the way.
Not sure what AUDIO does?



Anyways, the point is that the layout is highly logical. I don't see how you could screw it up.

EIDT: I should mention another nice thing....a LOT of these swithces have a built in LED to show you their status. Knowing Acura/Honda, certain ones will be in different colours depending on their function. No need to look at some info panel or display to ascertain the necessary information, and you get immediate feedback from teh thing you directly pressed. Good!

[Jaeger]

Wow, this really matters to you, doesn't it?  Your post is as overly long and complex as the design it seeks to defend.

Yes - significantly less than a zillion.  You've got me there.  I find it overly busy and not terribly functional.  Similar size, shape, colour and (I presume) texture to that stack of buttons - so much for "tactile feel" being a distinguishing factor.  Bottom line - I don't care for it.  At all. Others may love it, and God bless 'em.  I don't require that everyone see things my way.  Choice is good.  Those that like the 'can't have too many buttons' approach get to have it their way.  Just like those who don't.

Jaeger

[mmret]

Didn't intend the post to be that long. It just kind of kept going. Stream of consciousness.

The logic is there. I find neither the design nor the post complex. Perhaps you are simple.