IN a NUTSHELL: The world's most ubiquitous sports car gets slightly more refined and less of a sardine can for large people.

Well, a bright, sunny day in the D.C area today; not a cloud in the sky, mild, mid-70's....a perfect day to drive ( you got it ) a nice convertible.
I realized that I had not yet reviewed the latest Mazda MX-5 Miata, a car that just lives for days just like this. That, and the fact that so many guys going through mid-life crisis end up getting one, and the fact that the car has always been popular with women ( some of my female friends and acquaintances have also asked me about the new one ) and I decided that today was the day to go on down to the Mazda shop and ( from past experience ) try and shoehorn my over sized frame into one and pound my way over bumps like the old one did...only the new one doesn't pound quite so hard, and the classical sardine-can cabin of the old one can take slightly ( just slightly ) larger sardines now. Years ago, in the 1980's and early 90's, I drove Mazdas myself and bought some cars from this shop but, of course, it has all different people and management now.

Anyhow, they had moved all of the new Miatas into the back of the lot now that the peak spring-summer Miata selling season is over, so they needed someone to come along and crank them up and get the oil flowing and the batteries charged up again. Even though a new folding-hardtop model is now available for about $1900 extra, the standard fabric top is so easy-to-use that unless you live in a questionable or seedy area for vandals and car thieves, the traditional soft-top model makes more sense and is cheaper to boot ( no pun intended ).

In this gridlocked area, there is no question that an automatic or automanual transmission makes more sense for daily driving, but let's face it....on this car, gridlock of no gridlock, anything but a pure traditional manual would border on heresy, anything else would just not be in character with the spirit of driving a Miata. Add to that that the new clutch and gearbox is even better and easier-shifting than before, and the choice was obvious... a manual-transmission soft-top, even though the car IS available with a sport automatic with paddle-shift for those who don't want a clutch at all, even as nice a one as this car has.


Mazda introduced the MX-5 Miata in July 1989 as a modern-day successor to the old British 2-seat sports cars of the 50's and 60's that generally drove down the road shedding parts behind them...their quality levels were atrocious. Ill-fitting side curtains that leaked like a sieve often took the place of real glass windows. Oil usually ran out on the driveway...or anything else you parked the car on....the British idea of gaskets was something that sealed off liquids about as well as a piece of Swiss Cheese. The infamous Lucas electrical systems would short out or catch fire about once a week if you were lucky...more if you weren't.

Shifting the non-synchro or partial-synchro manual boxes without mastering the art of double-clutching or throttle-blip / rev-matching produced cruched gear-crunches that would assault your ears ( and the gear-teeth ) day and night. ( Night, of course, providing that the Lucas headlights actually WORKED ). All of this... just to get the razor-sharp handling, glued-to-the-road steering feel, and sense of intimacy between man and machine that these cars were so well-known for.

Well, some of the folks at Mazda decided, almost 10 years after the last of them, the wedge-shaped Triumph TR8, had left the American market, that the time had come to combine the best of what these cars had to offer... an intimate driving experience... with the best of what Japan had to offer... reliability, build quality, and state-of-the-art engineering. So... the engineers at the Japanese company best-known for the famous Kansai driving experience and its emphasis on steering feel and BMW-like response put their heads together and came up with the original 1990 MX-5 Miata. The car was an instant hit....Mazda sold far more of them in the first year than planned, and it quickly became a cult car as autocross, rally, and gymkhana groups embraced it in droves....as did the ladies for its minuscule and bright-colored " cuteness " and easy-to-fold top. Dealers, not surprisingly, padded the second-stickers well to ensure profiteering, ( my local Mazda dealer was one of the few to sell them at list ).

The Miata went on to become the best-selling sports car in history. Almost annually, special-edition and limited-production models were introduced, with some of the most popular, not surprisingly, being in the British Racing Green color with tan leather seats. And, unlike other " sports cars " of the period that were really more like GT tourers, the Miata, with each redesign, stayed more or less true to its roots...a pure, no-nonsense live-it-up sports car for the masses, though as time went on the price crept up a little and more features were offered. The latest-generation model improves on its predecessors in a number of areas, including a slightly roomier interior for large people like me, fixed headlights that eliminate the problems of the flip-up lights failing ( although they were usually quite reliable ), a refined clutch and shifter with lower effort ( which, as we'll soon see, is superb ), a slightly larger engine with more HP and torque but still somewhat underpowered engine for a real drivers' car, an even easier-to-use folding top with only one header latch to flip now instead of two, and a tilt steering wheel that allows BIG legs like mine to finally fit under it reasonably well, after some 15 years of having to do pretzel-contortions. Paint colors, unfortunately, are more in line with the Town Cars at Murphy's Funeral Home than with a cheery, sunny-day driver's car convertible, the bright red being the only exception.

So... let's take a look now at the world's most popular sports car in more detail.

Model Reviewed: 2007 Mazda MX-5 Miata Sport.

Base Price: $21,435

Major Options: Convienence package: $1055

Freight: $595

Price as Reviewed: $23,085

Exterior Color: Galaxy Gray Mica
Interior: Black Cloth

Drivetrain: RWD, 2.0L DOHC in-line 4 with VTEC, 166 HP @ 6700 RPM, 140 ft.-lbs. torque @ 5000 RPM,
5-speed short-throw manual transmission.


( 163 ft.lbs.@ 6700 RPM with Sport Automatic transmission )


PLUSSES:

A blast to drive on narrow, curvy roads.

Bargain price.

Extremely good reliability record....one of Consumer Reports' Ten Best.

Super-easy-to-use manual transmission and clutch.

Right-now steering.

FIRM brake pedal.

Much better ride than before....still a little on the stiff side. ( Yes, you expect that with a sports car ).

Good trunk space for such a small convertible.

Well-designed gauges and controls, with a pleasant lack of electronic video nonsense.

Extremely short turning radius.

Good but not outstanding paint job.

Super-easy-to-fold top.

Tilt-steering wheel ( finally ) gives more room for big legs and frames.

Good stereo for a car primarily designed to be driven topless.

Fairly rigid, state-of-the-art convertible structure minimizes cowl flex even with the top down.

Slightly more room inside than previous models.

Fixed headlights eliminate the one-eyed-frog look when a folding-light door malfunctions.

Good interior hardware.

More sophisticated and better-refined suspension than previous models.

Folding-hardtop model now available for those who want more security.


MINUSES:

Not a car for NBA guys.

Traditional easy convertible break-ins, with soft-top, for vandals and thieves.

Poorly suited for long-distance, Interstate driving.

Even more poorly suited for wet/slick roads.

Not much low-end torque, even with a manual transmission.

Low roof line still cramps tall drivers....not as bad as before.

Cheap looking hard plastic door panels vibrate when door is closed..

Right outside mirror too small.

Tin-can hood and trunk lids.

Small, closely-spaced gas and brake pedals awkward for big feet ( like mine ).

Very low ground clearance over obstacles.

Awkward unidirectional engine oil dipstick.

Gas-flap and trunk-release buttons awkwardly located.

Rather dull paint colors for a classic sports car.

No place for the seat back to recline.

Too much black monotone inside on base model for my tastes.

Steering-wheel-mounted stereo controls take away from the sport-look somewhat.


Although the new car is slightly larger than the old one, it still is almost like an insect as you walk up to it. The car still underwhelms you with its small physical size and low stance to the ground. However, it is obvious at a glance that this model is different than before, with its new fixed headlights, bulging fender flares, hunkered-down look, and redone dash, but it is still instantly recognizable as a Miata... the same car that people have loved for over 17 years now. The exterior fit-and-finish is well-done, with high-quality hardware. The paint is smooth, evenly applied, and commendably free from orange peel, although, not suprisingly, a little short of the superb, industry-leading Toyota / Lexus paint jobs. The hood has a very light feel to it... light even for its aluminum construction, and the trunk lid a even lighter feel. Inside the trunk, though, is more room than you normally expect to find in a car of this type, especially considering the space needed to stow the folded top... the Mazda engineers have really done a good job here. And they did an even better job designing the folding roof itself....more on this in a minute. The rest of the body sheet metal, unlike the hood and trunk, feels substantial.

Underhood, the 2.0L in-line 4 is postioned WAY back toward the firewall, in an obvious effort by the engineers to get a 50/50 weight distribution for optimum handling. This is great from a driving standpoint but makes it rather difficult to reach some things....the rather awkward, unidirectional-fitting oil dipstick is a good example. Like many vehicles today, the engine has one of those idiotic plastic covers that restrict access to things even more. ( There ought to be a law against those things... just ask the guys in the service bays that have to do engine work ).

Stoop WAY down to get in ( this is no Suburban ) and you find, as previously mentioned, that the interior is a little more friendly to large people. MY ubiquitous baseball cap now comes up to about even with the top of the windshield header, instead of some 2-3" above it like the old car, and with the manual tilt steering wheel all the way up, ( which still isn't that far up ) now allows me to at least get my legs under it without looking like a Bachmann Pretzel.

The interior, as a whole, is quite well-done, except for the cheap-looking and cheap-feeling solid black plastic inner door panels that rattled and vibrated every time the door was shut and the awkward, out-of-the-way buttons for the trunk release and gas flap door. The trunk-release button is way down under the left dash where it is even harder to find, by feel, than the almost equally-hard hood release. The gas-filler door is opened by a button INSIDE a pull-down door compartment built into the back wall between the seats.

The dash and gauges are quite well-done, with legible, circular, clear markings, and all of the controls, except for the release buttons I just mentioned, are well-placed, well-designed, and are a pleasure to use. And, best of all, there is little or none of the electronic and video gimcrackery so prevalent in today's vehicles. This is a car built for a drivers, not high-tech or electronic buffs. Sure, you have some electric convenience features... power windows, door locks, mirrors, etc... but these are not STAR TREK video Space-Age gadgets that distract you while you are trying to drive......and DRIVING is what this car is all about, at least on dry pavement ( more on that later ).

So, not surprisingly, the seats are designed for driving, with good side support without being too confining ( even my big tush fit in them reasonably well ). Unfortunately, like in the last Miata, there isn't much space for them to recline because of the space behind the seats needed for the trunk and roof compartment. If you want the seat to recline, you have to slide the bottom of the cushion forwards like in the last model, and then you are scrunched up against the wheel. Again, this is a potential problem only for big adults like me; smaller ones will have no problem.

The folding top, in this car, as mentioned, is a pure gem. I can't think of any reason at all to spend the extra money for the folding hard-top unles you live in a high-crime area or just want the slightly better noise and weather-insulation that the metal top gives. On the new Miata, you don't even have two windshield header-latches to unclick anymore, just one in the center, and the roof folds back with one arm and lowers back behind the seats... just push the front edge down and it clicks into the self-made boot automatically. To raise it, just press a built-in latch behind you between the seats; the top unclicks and pops up, and you just grab it with the same arm and pull it back forward over your head into the windshield header and snap the latch back in place.....presto. The release latch back behind you, between the seats, can be a little awkward for a big guy like me to contort around and reach, but for most people should be no problem.

Visibility out of the car with the top up was , like most convertibles, a little restricted around the rear pillars, but otherwise not notably bad. Tall guys like me have the your head about even with the top of the windshield, so it can be difficult looking up in front of the car. The right-side outside mirror, while made of good materials and solidly attached, is a little small for my tastes....it doesn't allow a good view towards the back of the car, which already sits very low in the first place.

OK... this car was built to DRIVE, so let's do that. Start her up and you are greeted with some engine noise and a little vibration...this is NOT a luxury car. The gear-shift lever vibrates at idle and you can also feel a little in the steering wheel despite the fact that it is rear-drive. That's not to say that it is like a go-cart, however... if anything, it is smoother and more refined than the last model by a noticeable amount.

Put the lever into first, let out the clutch, and go...the smooth clutch engages right off the floor, with almost no play at all. The ultra-short-throw snick-snick shifter is even betetr then before...the last one, IMO, was heavy-feeling with a lot of effort; this one is like a Honda Civic's... just snicks right from one gear to the next. You can shift this car in your sleep, except that I occasionally misjudged 3rd and 5th...perhaps with brand-new unbroken-in shift linkage. The engine, while noticeably more powerful than the original 1.6L 116 HP of the original car, is still, IMO, a little short of power for a car of this type.....it could use some tinkering by the MazdaSpeed folks, or maybe a turbocharger. Those of you who know me know that I am not a speed freak by any means, but I sill think 140 ft. lbs' of torque ( 163 in the automatics ) is little low for a true drivers' car... especially as outstanding a drivers'car as this one is.

The rest of the driving experience, however, is fully up to sports-car standards. Twist the wheel and the car responds right-now. Hit the brake pedal and the brakes engage immediately with a super-firm pedal almost completely devoid of the mushiness and sponginess you find in big Ford and GM SUV's. Road and wind noise, as to be expected in a small convertible, is present but with the top up is not bad at all. With the top down, the wind-blocking effect is pretty good....there was no real wind turbulence coming into the cabin except right at the top of the windshield... fortunately my cap fits pretty tight. There is a small amount of cowl flex on rough roads with the top down, as to be expected in almost any convertible short of a $90,000 Mercedes SL roadster, but almost none with the top up. The advances in the suspension and tires over the original car are obvious....the double-wishbone frone / multi-link rear setup on the new car gave a firm but noticibly less jolting ride ( I still wouldn't call it smooth ) than the old car gave, which IMO was downright HARSH, yet the new suspension still provided the crisp response this car is noted for.

That one-with the road-feel and quick steering, though, IMO, along with the stiff ride, short, high-RPM gearing, short wheelbase, and fairly high noise level make... the same tings that make this car such a blast on narrow, curvy roads... also make it unsuitable and tiring on a long-distance cruise. The car's suspension, while not quite as stiff as the old car's, still bumps harshly over expansion joints, and the quick, darty steering will put you right into the lane next to you at the slightst twitch of the steering wheel......not very comforting in a car this size when you are right next to an 18-wheeler. The short engine gearing and lack of insulation produces high RPM's and engine noise at crusing speeds even in 5th gear ( some Miatas have a 6-speed ), and the general lack of weight and 50/50 weight distribution don't do a whole lot for stability. This, obviously, is a car for back roads, sharp curves, and lower speeds.

It also pays to keep this car off of slick surfaces. While it was a beautiful day and I didn't actually sample it in the wet, the front/engine, rear-drive setup, light weight, and dry-pavement high-performance tires are known to be a very bad combination wet or slick roads. I've had numerous Miata owners tell me...and read numerous auto tests in magazines.....that describe the Miata's tendency to just spin the rear wheels, even with traction control, and slide all over the place in bad weather. You don't buy a car like this for winter.....park it and take the Subaru.

Drive this car in its proper environment and like it was designed to, though, and it is a blast. It will stick to DRY corners like on rails. The agility is just amazing..it will turn round in practically its own length. This car spoils you so much on curvy roads that you get back into a regular family car and, by comparison, it feels like a tank. Little wonder that it became the world's favorite sports car practically overnight, especially with its low price, high build quality, and good dealer network. Unlike with other Mazda products, the corporate bosses at Ford have seen fit to leave the Mazda people alone and let then design this car as they see fit, without the huge Ford influence we see in some of the rest of the company's products, like with the Tribute and B-Truck series.


So... the verdict? Really not much more that I can add here to what I've already said. To sum up, it's inexpensive, fun, a blast to drive on dry curvy roads, well-built, reliable, with low depreciation....you won't have much trouble reselling one in reasonably good condition.

It's also a little more refined than past models, slightly more accomodating to oversize persons, and readily available at dealerships. It is NOT a car for crusing coast-to-coast in, it is NOT a car for wet or slick roads, it is NOT a car to use as a moving van, and it is NOT a car for those who want Volvo or Mercedes-like crash protection.

In short, it was... and is... still the world's most ubiquitous sports car.

In a Nutshell: The first GOOD Ford competition to the Chevy Suburban / GMC Yukon XL......almost everything that the ill-fated Excursion SHOULD have been and wasn't.

My Candidate for 2007 Truck of the Year.

I have not received any formal requests from CL members ( yet ) to review this vehicle, but one of my co-workers ( actually the son of one of my former supervisors ) is quite interested in it, had already test-driven one himself ( a new EL 4X4 Limited model ), wanted my opinion of it, and asked me to look it over and review it, so.....here you are. I decided that if I was going to do it for him, I might as well write it up at the same time and share it with you guys as well.

And this new extra-long Expedition model ( hence the designation EL ), besides just being another one of my reviews, is also a very significant new large SUV, in that it is not only based on a new-generation Expedition model in general, but is also the FIRST time that Ford has introduced an extra-long Expedition model and offered good, credible competition to the long-established reign of the Chevy Suburban / GMC Yukon XL as the largest vehicles of their type in the U.S. market.

The Chevy Suburban was introduced in 1935 ( one of the longest-running models still in production ), grew vastly in both size and weight through the years, and, along with its GMC twin, completely dominated the extra-long full-size SUV market. Ford, strangely, even with its renowned success in trucks and SUV's,never saw fit over the years to try and compete directly with the Suburban, always producing vehicles that stopped short of equaling the Suburban in size and weight.

Same with Dodge... Daimler-Chrysler never saw fit, either, to make an extra-long version of a full-size Dodge Ram-Based SUV, instead being content to offer nothing larger than the mid-to-large size Dodge Durango.

Ford finally did attempt to market a Suburban-fighter... and the result was a disaster. Instead of doing it RIGHT, they hurriedly rushed through a poorly engineered version of their F350 Heavy-Duty truck as a people-mover to try and one-up the Suburban in size and weight ( which they did ) and ended up with a monster that that was harshly criticized not only by environmentalists for its extreme gas consumption but by Consumer Reports for its ungainliness as well. Though, of course, the tree-hugging crowd was correct that the Excurion was wasteful of fuel, its REAL problems ( at least in my opinion ) had little or nothing to do with mileage....you EXPECT a large, truck-based vehicle to use a lot of fuel. No, the Excursion's real problem was that it was simply too large and too heavy for the suspension and underpinnings that the Ford engineers gave it. I don't know if this was solely an engineering decision or one of Ford's infamous management-interference issues like with the safety defects of the Pinto and Crown Victoria fuel tanks. The Excursion simply had too much bulk and weight for its chassis...it weighed well over 3 tons empty and pushed virtually 4 tons loaded. When I test-drove one it several years ago, it had the driving dynamics of a battleship. It was somewhat oversprung on small, sharp bumps and WAY undersprung and under damped on large ones. It would pound over things like pavement and bridge expansion joints but heave, wander, and bob up and down like a boat over larger undulations in the road. When coming to a stop, at low speeds, the nose would bob up and down and the horizon would go up and down in the windshield almost like a stunt plane. Not surprisingly, I wrote it up ( this was in my pre-CL days ) as one of the worst-handling and poorly-controlled vehicles I had seen in decades. Consumer Reports came out a few months later, tested it themselves, and pretty much came up with my conclusion....a poorly-engineered suspension. In addition, unlike the Suburban ( and even its own little brother the Explorer ) Ford did not give the Excursion a true All-Wheel-Drive automatic torque-on-demand system with a center differential...only the pickup-truck-based Part-Time 4WD system that was obviously cheaper and saved on production costs.

So... not surprisingly, beset by intense criticism for its poor engineering and political pressure from environmental groups, the Excursion was quietly dropped and replaced with a MUCH better vehicle.....an extended version of the brand-new Ford Expedition. Although the power-steering, power-brake booster, paint job, and some of the exterior hardware could use some more work ( see my comments below ) this vehicle, for the most part, is what the Excursion SHOULD have been and wasn't... I was rather favorably impressed with it, and considering what a significant addition it is to the large SUV market and Ford's first GOOD Suburban-fighter, I think the Expedition EL deserves consideration for the 2007 Truck of the Year award.

This new vehicle, though, like the former Excursion, does NOT come cheap... open up not only your hearts but your wallets, brothers and sisters, if you want to take one home. Right now, for the most part, Ford dealerships are getting only top-dog, loaded, Limited models ( like the one I reviewed ) that start at 42-43K and list for 50K and up. Even the upcoming less-expensive Eddie Bauer and XLT models will cost a good chunk of cash ( see the attached Ford website for pricing details ). But in this age, your money buys a LOT of vehicle... the Expedition could easily, in my opinion, pass for a Lincoln-badged vehicle with its opulent interior full of power-operated and convenience features and its numerous safety features throughout. Professional athletes and rap artists who are used to Cadillac Escalades and Lincoln Navigators are going to feel right at home in the Expedition EL...in fact, its interior, in some ways beats even the previous Navigator. However, both the Escalade and Navigator are also new this year, with better interiors than before... ( I have not reviewed either one, though I did review the new 2007 Tahoe. The Expedition, inside, in contrast to many previous Ford models, has trim and hardware that not only LOOKs nice but IS nice....and in contrast to the new Tahoe / Suburban where GM did a nice job on the new dashes but put the same old GM cheap junk for hardware in the rest of the interior, The new Expedition EL has nice, classy, well-built, attractive hardware and trim EVERYWHERE inside, with the possible exception of the steering wheel... more on this later.

The new Expedition EL also pampers you in the convenience department. Little is asked of you that some gadget or electric motor doesn't handle. Even the lack of a power-tilt ( manual-tilt only ) or any telescoping function on the steering wheel is made up for the fact that you can power-adjust the brake and gas pedals to any position you want. And the rear seats and hatchback lift go up and down with electric motors....something that until now only the Escalade and Navigator offered. This new Ford is basically now, for the most part, a Lincoln... at a Lincoln price.

So...now for a look in detail:


Model Reviewed: 2007 Ford Expedition EL Limited 4X4

Base Price: $43,395 ( Includes freight )


Major Options:

20" Chrome wheels with Pirelli Scorpion tires: $995

Second-Row Captain's Chairs: $795

NAV package: $1995

Convienence Package: $675

Heavy Duty Tow Package: $350

Front/Rear rubber floormats: $55

SIRIUS radio: $195

Rear self-leveling air suspension with message center: $485

Skid Plates: $100

Daytime running lights $45

Power moonroof $950

Power liftgate $495

Chrome luggage rack with black crossbars $95

Video rear-seat entertainment DVD with headphones $1500


persdict.dat$52,125


Exterior color: Black Clearcoat

Interior: Charcoal / Black leather



Drivetrain: 5.4L 3-valve Triton V8, 300 HP@ 5000 RPM, 365 ft.lbs. torque @ 3750 RPM

6-Speed automatic transmission wih Overdrive.

4-Wheel-Drive with electronic dash-activated 2H, 4A, 4H, 4L settings


PLUSSES:


A huge improvement over the poorly-engineered Excursion:

Could easily pass as a Lincoln-badged vehicle, especially inside.

SOLID, bank-vault doors.

Quiet on the road with good wind and road noise isolation.

Luxurious-looking, classy, well-done interior trim. ( Nice high-contrast 2-tone on Eddie Bauer models )

Well-designed gauges, controls, and NAV system.

Generally good hardware inside...a big improvement over previous Ford SUV's.

Standard Roll-Stabilty system for safety.

Relatively smooth ride for a truck.

Power-adjustable pedals compensate for non-telescoping steering column.

Very high level of standard equipment.

Nice, power-operated convienences almost everywhere.

Versatile, multi-use cargo area.

4X4 system ( finally ) has a auto mode/center differential like GM's that can be used anywhere.

Classy, though somewhat dull, paint colors. ( my favorite was the Dark Copper Metallic )

Roomy, fairly comfortable seats with plenty of head and legroom.

New 5-Year/ 60,000 Ford drivetrain warranty ( Finally ).

Off-Road packages available for trekkers.


MINUSES:


High-effort, Sponge-O-Matic power brake booster.

Minor creaks and rattles in the interior and body structure over sharp bumps.

Excessive slippage in the automatic transmission during cold shifts.

Poor steering response, especially on sharp curves.

Vague, sticky, rubbery-feeling power steering and without steering wheel self-centering.

Power-operated tailgate doesn't give you much time to get your head out of the way when lowering.

Typical Ford cheap, poor-quality exterior hardware; flimsy-feeling outside mirrors.

No lock for the gas cap or filler door.

Engine cold-idle speed too high.

Limited model is quite expensive, especially with options. ( note the as-reviewed price over 52K )

Second-rate paint job...again typical of Ford products.

Lightweight, flimsy-feeling hood.

High roofline and luggage rack limits low-ceiling clearances.

Goofy-shaped steering wheel.

Tow-Your-Own-Gas-Pump fuel mileage better than Excursion's but still no econobox.

As always, we'll start with the first impression you get as you walk up to it, which is exactly what the name implies....a regular Expedition with a longer overhanging rear end, a longer wheelbase ( this helps the ride somewhat, as we'll see later ) and larger rear-quarter windows. It exterior size, unlike the larger Excurion, is almost a dead ringer for the Suburban it now will compete against.

In my opinion, it is not only a handsome vehicle inside but outside as well.....much better looking than previous Expedition models. In fact, I think the not-yet-released Eddie Bauer models are the best-looking ones of all.....better than even the more expensive Limiteds. The Eddie Bauer models have a big chrome grille and two-tone paint outside and high-contrast two-tone leather inside, where everything on the Limited is much more monotone inside and out.
If only Ford could paint a car like Lexus or Acura. Such, unfortunately, is not the case. It has the same old orange-peel and cheap-looking application that virtually every other Ford-designed U.S.-market vehicle does...indeed, as with most domestic-designed vehicles in general, except for maybe some Cadillacs. My test vehicle was black and therefore had a little more luster to the paint than some of the lighter colors did, which, with the lighter colors, is about like what you would find on a kitchen appliance. Exterior hardware, particularly the flimsy-feeling plastic outside mirrors, headlight lenses, and gas cap cover, was also unimpressive....and the gas cap cover was non-locking... strange in a $50,000 vehicle. The hood could also feel more impressive. While I understand the efforts of the engineers not to repeat the mistake of the far-too-heavy Excursion, the hood feels like a tin can.

The doors, however, are like bank vaults... they feel and shut like what Mercedes used to give us back in the 1980's. They are heavy, sturdy, and SOLID.......and come with Ford's well-known keyless push-button entry where you push on the numbered code buttons. Mt test vehicle had the massive, chrome-plated 20"six-spoke wheels with Pirelli Scorpion tires.....probably the most ostentatious-looking thing on the outside, since the Limited model does not have the two-tone paint and chrome grille that the Eddie Bauer model does. The roofline is way up there, especially with the roof rack...I am 6' 2" and it is taller than me, so caution is needed when driving under low-hanging obstacles. Yet the high center of gravity does not induce body roll... as we will see in a minute.

As expected in a vehicle this size, there is plenty of room in the cargo area in back. The power-operated liftgate ( an option ) is operated by a button on the left wall... it gives you about a second or two to step back and get your head out of the way, then down it comes. It also latches and locks automatically...you don't have to push it the last inch or two. The 50/50 third seats fold down manually; the 60/40 second-row seats by a power-button in the rear of the cargo area. Second-row seat headrests cleverly tilt back on a built-in hinge and grooved tracks....no having to take them both off and fumble around putting them back on again.

The floor of the cargo area ( well-carpeted and well- finished ) has a tent-like fold-up section that separates it into two sections, front and rear.....useful for holding upright grocery bags. Underneath the regular cargo floor are additional storage compartments and cubbyholes, and more are built into various other places in the rear end.

The interior, in general, is perhaps the vehicle's nicest feature... something that has been sorely lacking in a lot of domestically-designed vehicles. As mentioned in the introduction, Ford didn't just use classy and well-done trim and hardware on the dash and put junk in the rest of the interior like GM did with te Tahoe / Suburban, Ford did it right and put classy, luxurious-looking, well-done trim inside everywhere. No cheap flimsy stuff here... the switches, knobs, panels, all have at least a reasonably solid feel, classy chrome, brushed-metal, or wood trim, and are all well-integrated.

And with all of the equipment that is both standard and optional, there are controls and switches everywhere... front and rear and left/right climate controls, rear-seat DVD entertainment with headphones, SIRIUS radio, NAV systems, power-switches for just about everything you could imagine... I am a licensed pilot and have flown airplanes that were far less complex.

The front seats are comfortable, have reasonably high-quality leather ( somewhat short of Lexus or Jaguar-quality leather of course ), and have loads of headroom especially with the multi-power-adjustable ( even power-lumbar-support ) seats all the way down...as I usually need. The captain's Chair rear seats ( an option ) likewise are comfortable, well-made, and roomy both in head and leg room. With my 6' 2", 280-lb. frame, I did not squirm my way back to the third-row seat to actually try it out, but it appeared to have enough room for at least small adults....not people my size.

Up front. the gauges and air-vents were well-designed and constructed and had nice, chrome-rings on them.....better-looking than the ones GM now uses. The gauges, , like those in most vehicles nowadays, are clear and legible. A rotary switch to the right of the steering column controls the ( FINALLY! ) multi-adjustable 2WD / 4WD / AWD system with low range for off-roading and difficult situations. This system, good as it is, still has not been integrated into Ford's F-series or Ranger pickup lines like it has now with Ford SUV's... this is one area where GM still is way ahead of Ford.

So, overall, a great job on the interior... all except for the steering wheel, which, in my opinion, is somewhat goofy-looking, with four un-symmetrical spokes and a cheap-looking apperance except for the nice wood trim on the upper third of the rim. It looks out of place with the rest of the classy interior, and Ford would do well to consider a redesign on the 2008 models to three symmetrical spokes instead... this would be a minor issue and not cost much to do, even with the airbag integration.

OK... start her up. The new Expedition, on the road, is also a huge improvement over the Excursion, just as the interior is, but a few things still need some work...we'll get to that in a second. The big ( by today's standards ) 5.4L Triton V8 is smooth and quiet, but the idle speed when cold is annoyingly high....Ford supposedly did this intentionally and re-programmed the engine computer due to customer complaints about the engine not warming up fast enough to get heat inside quickly ( the Expedition, of course, has a large, hard-to-heat interior ) but I suspect the real reason is quicker warm-up for lower emissions.....most emissions occur with cold engines. Anyhow, the idle speed, for the first several minutes, is rather annoying, and you have to keep a lot of pressure on the vehicle's underboosted and excessively spongy brake pedal, which feels almost exactly like the brake pedal in the Tahoe / Suburban.

Anyhow, the 300 HP V8 with 365 ft.lbs. of torque, while not making this large, heavy, vehicle exactly a dragster, gives it enough power to get out of its own way...it is notably more responsive than the heavier Excursion was, and with the towing package, can tow up to Class IV 9200 lbs. on 4X2 models......9000 with the tested 4X4. The engine itself, aside from the annoying cold idle speed, is seamless... smooth and quiet.

So is the transmission, except for a tendency to slip excessively during cold shifts... this lessens somewhat as the transmission warms up. When cold, there is a noticeable surge in engine RPM, followed by a soft re-engagement as the PM drops. Again, this could have been programmed by Ford engineers either for emissions to prevent rapid RPM drops during shifts ( which hurts emissions ) or just for comfort slippage tends to smooth out the shifts. The slippage, however, is not good for either acceleration or gas mileage.

The ride/handling combination is an area where, even with a few faults, the Expedition EL is an ENORMOUS improvement over the Excursion. The Excursion was just gross to drive...it had the dynamics of a battleship.
The Expedition, mostly due to its much better chassis and suspension, and the much better suitability of that chassis to the vehicle's weight, provides a relatively smooth ride for a truck, combined with good tracking. The ride, helped by the longer wheelbase, was in general a little smoother than on regular-size Expeditions or Tahoes, without as much SUV-style purposing. Small bumps could be heard and felt, but without much reaction due to the excellent sound insulation and long suspension travel. Vehicles as large as the Expedition EL, of course, have plenty of room all throughout the structure for sound insulation, and it shows.

Large bumps and undulations are also smoothly dealt with and well-controlled, without the incessant corkscrewing and bobbing motions one had to put up with in the Excursion. The ride, on smooth surfaces, was more or less comparable to some Cadillac and Lincoln luxury cars. A few minor squeaks and rattles from the hardware and the somewhat-less-than-Mercedes body solidness make themselves known over small bumps.

Steering response, though, is not quite up to the rest of the rest of the suspension. The steering wheel not only looked somewhat goofy, as noted earlier, but steered less than perfectly as well... though again much better then the Excursion did. Steering response was quite slow and understeer quite pronounced, even with the enormous 20" wheels and Pirelli Scorpion tires. While, of course, full-size, truck-based SUV's are not intended to be sports cars, you soon learn that you do not... repeat, do NOT try to throw this vehicle around turns. It tends to plow straight ahead until the wheel is turned way-off center, and then comes around reluctantly. Michael Shumacher would not be at home in this vehicle.

But then again, he just might be, with this vehicle's noted lack of body roll for its and weight and high center of gravity. I think this might have at least partly to do with the Volvo-designed Roll-Stability-System that was introduced on the Volvo XC-90 and that Ford, being Volvo's owner, is adapting to its own SUV's. The RSC is standard on all new Expeditions, standard-length and EL, and I think that is one reason why the steering response may be so slow. The RSC, besides monitoring yaw angles and steering input like a regular stability system does, but also takes body roll rate into account. So, when this heavy and high-center-of-gravity vehicle TRIES to roll in sharp turns, the RSC immediately brakes the affected wheels and tries to lessen the vehicle's turn rate to compensate and get the body level again, and the vehicle tends to fight the steering wheel, so you more or less have to force the steering wheel to keep the vehicle turning. Normally, with a stability system, the computer would try to eliminate the understeer by tightening up the turn rate, but by tightening up the turn rate, you get more body roll as a result. So, by controlling the body roll quite well, the system seems to feed in more understeer. I'm not an engineer, but it seems to me that this is just one of the areas where no piece of technology can overcome all of the laws of physics, and you must accept some compromise as a result.

You also learn NOT to tailgate other vehicles in this vehicle and NOT to drive with your head up your ass. Large, full-size truck-based SUV's have never been known for effective brakes, and this one is no exception. The brake pedal, thanks at least partly to the under-boosted and inefficient power-braking system, and even with the large brake rotors with the 20" wheels, has about the same feel and responsiveness of wet spaghetti. Again, this has been commonplace in big GM SUV's for years, but I have driven Navigators before and don't remember it from the last-generation Navigator, which was Ford F-150-based just as this vehicle is. Outside of the Wet-sponge fel of the pedal, though, the brakes work fine if, like with the Tahoe / Suburban, you put enough pressure on them.

The verdict?

As already repeated several times, a tremendous improvement over the Excursion, which was an absolute bear to drive, even for people like me who are used to jumping into and driving many different kinds of vehicles. The new Expedition EL, finally, is worthy Ford competition to the Suburban, and is almost a plush inside as the new Escalade... and even beats the Escalade's quality of interior hardware and door solidness, except for the dash where both do a superb job.

But with that Cadillac and Lincoln-like plushness and luxury comes a Cadillac and Lincoln price, especially for the top-of-the-line models that Ford is sending to the dealerships now.( Fortunately, that is the model my co-worker wants ).

The Expedition EL pleases quite well with its generally smooth ride ( for a truck ), cavernous and flexible cargo area, impressive interior fit-and-finish, well-designed controls, and large towing ability. It falls down somewhat in exterior fit-and-finish, the power steering and power braking systems need more work, the transmission shift characteristics need to be tweaked a little, the engine idle speed lowered, and the Roll-Stability computer adjusted to allow a little less understeer without excessive body roll. Otherwise, a really nice vehicle... for a price.

In a nutshell: A nice small-to-medium-sized Sport Wagon with a Euro-look and feel to it despite the common GM Epsilon platform shared with other vehicles.

Saab introduced the 9-3 SportCombi wagon last year, more or less as a successor to the old Swedish-designed Saab small and medium size hatchbacks that were phased out with Saab's new emphasis on GM-sourced and designed platforms. At first, after the old Swedish models were phased out, only 4-door sedans and two-door convertibles remained....vehicles based on GM world-platforms. However, the cries of the Saab faithful and the Saab traditionalists, small in number but loud in voice, eventually reached up to GM management, and the OK was given for the expense to re-tool a wagon version of the new 9-3 sedan to replace the old hatchbacks and give the Saab traditionalists a lift-back version once again....though the SportCombi is actually more of a traditional Wagon body style than the slant-roof hatchback style common to earlier Saabs. Four-cylinder turbos are also more or less a Saab tradition, and the SportCombi carries that tradition on, although a turbo V6 with 250 HP is available in the more expensive Aero version.

Having reviewed the Saturn Aura just a couple of weeks ago, I felt it would also be interesting to see how the 9-3 compared, since the 9-3, Aura, Pontiac G6, Chevy Malibu, and Opel Vectra are all derived from the same GM world-wide Epsilon platform. The 9-3 had some of the same overall feel to it but was quite different in power steering boost, body sheet metal thickness, road noise, and interior room.

The 9-3 ( and 9-5, for that matter ) is available in quite a number of different versions now....sedan and Wagon, manual and automatic, and 2.0T and Aero versions. Each version can be equipped almost any way the buyer wants...there are few restrictions on body styles and equipment. Chosen for this review, by special request, was the 9-3 SportCombi Wagon.
I picked a 2.0T automatic version with 17" wheels to review because that is the way that many of them, in the American market, are likely to be bought, except maybe in low-traffic rural areas where a manual transmission might be a little more desirable. After looking at the Aero versions of both the 9-3 sedan and Wagon, I didn't think they were worth the extra money over the 2.0T versions unless the added HP and torque was a big factor in the purchase. The Aero's 17" wheels and tires are an option on the cheaper 2.0T model ( my test car had them ) and IMO the 2.0T, though sapped a little by the automatic transmission, has plenty of power for all normal driving....the Aero's turbo V6 was not needed ( and it only adds 40 HP and 38 ft.-lbs more torque ).

Anyhow, this is a car that is quite well-done in a number of areas, but needs attention in some others. Let's take a look at it in more detail:

Model reviewed: 2007 2.0T Saab 9-3 SportCombi Wagon

Base Price: $27,915 (includes freight )

Major Options:

Cold Weather package, $550

Premimum Package ( including 17" wheels ), $1995

Automatic transmission, $1350

Power Moonroof, $1200

Titan Gray Metallic paint $550


Price as Reviewed: $31,565.

Exterior Color: Titan Gray Metallic
Interior: Slate gray Leather

Drivetrain: FWD, 2.0L in-line, turbocharged, intercooled, transverse-mount 4, 210 HP @ 5500 RPM, 221 ft.lbs. torque @ 2000 RPM, 5-speed Sentronic automatic transmission with manual shift gate.

PLUSSES:

Generous 5 year / 100,000 mile drivetrain warranty.

3yr / 36,000 mile free scheduled maintenance.

Strong body sheet metal.

Turbo relatively free of lag.

Generally smooth ride except over bumps.

Low wind noise.

Well-designed and versatile cargo area.

Extremely well-designed air vents and handles.

Front seats well-shaped for both support and comfort.

Enough headroom, front and rear, for reasonably tall persons.

Good handling relatively free of body roll.

Much better stereo and climate control buttons for 2007.

Solid-feeling doors.

Well-done paint.

High-quality exterior hardware.

Cleverly designed parking brake handle.

Easy-to-reach dipsticks.

Good steering feel.

Factory incentives available on pricing and financing.

Tasteful, well-done dash and door trim.

Numerous safety features including active headrests.


MINUSES:

Low ground clearance limits access over bumps and ramps.

Lots of engine noise.

Turbo requires expensive synthetic oil.

Cheap-looking and cheap-feeling leather on the seats.

Non-locking gas cap door.

Ugly taillights go too far up the D-pillars.

Somewhat overboosted power steering in spite of good road feel.

Brake pedal unsuited for big feet and shoes.

Automatic transmission saps some engine power.

17" 45-series tires harsh over bumps and give road noise.

The usual funeral-home paint colors, except for a special-order yellow-green not in the brochure and common on Saab convertibles.

Extra charge ( $550 ) for regular metallic paint colors a rip-off.

Uncomfortable, hard, scratchy stitching on the leather-covered wheel.

Cheap, flimsy turn-signal stalk and tick-tick sound for the flashers.

Turbo boost gauge has no numbers.....only markers and a redline.

Goofy, traditional Saab ignition switch on the console instead of dash or steering column.

Slight amount of sponginess in the brakes.

Headlights operated by a rotary dash switch instead of a more convienent stalk.

Awkward power mirror buttons.

Poor interior visibility out the rear around the and D-pillar area.



Though, as mentioned, this car is derived from the Epsilon platform, it is unmistakably Swedish and Saab as you first walk up to it. The Saab-like grille, hoodline, wheels, and trim will at first sight set traditionalists at ease. It is in my opinion, quite a handsome and good-looking vehicle outside except for the goofy, minivan-style taillight that go much too far up the D-Pillars. One should be able to see brake lights adequately without illuminating half the rear end of the car all the way to the roof.

Anyhow, taillights aside, the outside of the car in general is very impressive. The exterior hardware is first-rate, the body sheet metal is MUCH thicker than on other GM Epsilon-derived vehicles ( This car is not going to get dented very easily by small objects ), the paint is done almost to Lexus standards... smooth, lustery, and almost completely devoid of orange peel, and, compared to other cars in its class, the doors shut like bank vaults. The exterior trim, likewise, is tasteful, of high quality, and well-done. Lower-body skirts and air dams under both sides of the car, the front grille, and rear bumper add a flair of sportiness but decrease ground clearance.

Open the durable-feeling and thick-sheet-metaled hood ( a gas strut holds it up.... no proprods ) and the 2.0 turbo 4 fits in neatly sideways, but once again, as with so many other vehicles today, the large, ubiquitous plastic engine cover blocks access to many components. In my opinion, there should be a law against those damn covers....and they also impede air circulation around the hot engine. Fortunately, the dipsticks are extremely well-designed.....the oil dipstick is right in front of you, high up on the engine block, away from the plastic cover where it is very easily accessible.

Get inside the car, and likewise you are treated, in general, to a very nice and well-equipped, tastefully-done interior....with only a couple of obvious cost-cutting or poorly-designed features. Saab-O-Philes will immediately be right back at home.....the interior looks just as Saab-like as the exterior does....right down to the quirky and traditional console-mounted ignition switch. Saab justifies this ignition-switch design on the excuse that it is safer in accidents and helps prevent knee injuries, but I'm not convinced...if it was that much safer, Volvo and Mercedes, the two automotive safety kingpins, would have probably adopted it by now.

Anyhow, the interior, like I said, is generally quite well-done except for the cheap-looking and cheap-feeling feeling seat leather ( just like its corporate brother, Saturn Aura ), odd-shaped power-window buttons that jut out from the A-pillar at an awkward angle to reach, and a cheap-feeling plastic turn-signal stalk that felt like it was going to come off right in your hand every time you used it. The click-click of the flashers themselves also sounded loud and tinny. A minor complaint was the rotary headlight control on the dash...I generally prefer a stalk-mounted control like on most Japanese-designed vehicles.

But there was little or nothing to complain about with the rest of the interior. The seats may have had unimpressive leather on them but they were shaped almost perfectly for a good combination of support, comfort, and adaptability to my rather portly.....well, never mind. And once you were property belted in with the very-easy-to-use belt holders, you didn't slide around like you do on some leather seats. The dash was strongly traditional Saab, with the typically Saab, well-designed air vents with the easy-to-use grip buttons on them. The steering wheel was well-designed, with the now-common three spokes at 3, 6, and 9 o'clock, radio and climate buttons on them, ans clear view of the gauges. The leather on the wheel, though, like on the seats, was not well-done, and the stiching was hard and scratchy and irritated your fingers. Put a good steering wheel cover on this car if you buy it.

The gauges were also very well-done. Everything was simple, clear, and easy-to-read except for the standard turbo boost gauge which did not have any numbers on it......just white bar markings and a red line, although common sense, of course, would lead one to keep the boost out of the red zone to avoid possible engine damage. New this year over the 2006 models are rotary stereo and auto heat/AC controls which replace last year's several rows of confusing, look-alike buttons. The new controls are much easier to decipher and use at a glance....important when you have to constantly keep your eyes on the road. The stereo itself is not quite up to Lexus Mark Levinson standards but will not disappoint...there are multiple speakers all over the car, even in the tail hatch. The trim inside is extremely well-done...easily one of the car's best features.....with high-quality brushed-metal and wood-trim on the console and doors. The pull-up parking brake handle is cleverly integrated into the left side of the console's trim......you cannot tell what it is just from looks alone until you actually pull it up.

Headroom and leg room was fine front and rear, especially with the power seats lowered all the way, even with the moonroof option....a notorious gobbler of ceiling space. My big size-15 clown shoes were tight getting in and out of the rear doors but for most people that would not be a problem. The cargo area is cleverly designed as well, which makes up for some of the space lost to the inward-slant of the rear window. The ubiquitous pull-shade behind the rear seats does not only its normal function like in most cars, but has a upwards-tilt lock as well for covering bulky items. The carpeted cover over the rear-spare tire area can fold upright into a grove like a pup-tent to divide the cargo area front and rear, and as previously stated, numerous speakers are mounted in both the rear area and the hatch itself.

OK...start her up. The 4-cylinder turbo, as expected, is not particularly smooth or quiet at idle. However, once it gets going after a brief warm-up to get some oil pressure to the turbo, it provides smooth, but not quiet, power and pulls strongly under load. Saab engineers have done a good job of integrating the turbo to the engine controls so that there is minimal turbo lag....the power is almost instantaneous, though as previously noted, there are no numbers on the boost gauge...it is just a matter of keeping the boost out of the red zone and the RPM's under 4000 on this brand-new engine. Saab uses expensive Mobil 1 synthetic oil at the factory, no doubt to protect the turbo at high temperatures...you won't have nickel-and-dime oil changes with this car. When I asked the Saab people there how the super-slick synthetic oil will affect engine break-in ( normally you want SOME friction during break-in so the piston rings will seat properly ), their answer was that conventional break-ins are not needed with Saab engines. Perhaps......but again, I'm not convinced.

The transmission was smooth and quiet ( mostly drowned out by engine noise ), whether full automatic or auto-manual operation. The shift lever had a slightly rubbery feeling sliding sideways back and forth between the auto and manual gates but was otherwise crisp and positive. Handling was suprisingly good for a nose-heavy front-drive, helped no doubt by the fact that this car had the Aero's 17" 45-series tire option on it. Steering response was quick and positive, and despite the high level of power-steering boost ( too high for my tastes ) it was still easy to tell just what the front tires were doing and feel the road surface underneath. This was another interesting contrast between this car and the brother Saturn Aura.....the Aura had quick response but a super-heavy feel to the steering...if anything, it didn't have ENOUGH boost...a rarity in today's market. There as a marked lack of body roll in the 9-3 unless you pushed it... the fairly low ground clearance and low center-of-gravity, no doubt, helped also.

The 17" 45-series tires, borrowed from the Aero, were generally smooth-riding on good surfaces except for noted harshness and noise over bumps, and as noted, contributed significantly to the car's generally good handling, steering response, and road feel. If handling is your first consideration, go ahead and spend the money for the package ( it comes with other items too ), but avoid them and stick with the standard 16" ones if you want ride comfort ( as I usually do ).

Brakes were well-done for a mid-sized semi-sports sedan/wagon except for the one glaring thing I find with many of today's vehicles... the brake pedal is close to the gas pedal and an inch or so higher, so my big right shoe gets hung up under the edge of it a moment as I lift it off the pedal... but this would probably not be a problem for people with smaller feet. The brakes themselves were fine except for a very slight amount of sponginess in the pedal... again not a big deal.


The Verdict?

Despite not being a true Swedish-designed Saab under the skin, Saab traditionalists should not be too disappointed with this car....it carries on most of the traditional Saab features such as a turbo 4, interior, grille, trim, console-mount ignition. and, of course, with the SportCombi, a liftback design and cargo-carrying capacity as well. The chassis does not feel quite like a traditional Saab but otherwise handles and steers very well. For everyday driving, IMO the 16" wheels are a better deal but I realize that a lot of people, especially younger drivers, want the agility of the 17's. The car is reasonably priced, and incentives are available. The drivetrain warranty is much better than many other comparatively-priced GM vehicles, and for some cars ( check with Saab and the dealership ) free servicing is available for 3 years...important with that expensive synthetic oil. I enjoyed this car, was generally impressed with it, and found it an interesting car to drive, although if you really try, you can detect the Epsilon-feel of this car that is shared with its corporate brothers.

It definitely needs work in the quality of its seat leather, engine noise, turn-signal stalk, ignition switch, ( sorry, Saab-O-Philes, IMO it belongs on the dash or the steering column ), and, like many Euro-nameplate cars, the silliness of the extra-charge for metallic paint colors, but overall I was favorably impressed and I think there are definitely worse ways to spend your automotive money.

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 nonetheless 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.

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 similar... 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.