In a Nutshell: Competent and fairly well-built, but not particularly Mazda-sporty, silly marketing, and somewhat overstyled for my tastes.

Mazda, after Ford took over many of its functions in the late 1980's, originally entered the SUV world, in the early 1990's, with the Navajo, an obviously rebadged version of the Ford Explorer Sport, a 2-door model that, at least in my part of the country here, never even approached the enormous sales numbers of the 4-door Explorer models at the time. The Navajo, inside and out, was virtually indistinguishable from the Explorer Sport... with only very minor differences in trim, grille, steering wheel, and company logos. So, if Ford couldn't couldn't sell the Explorer Sport in large numbers under its own name, it certainly is no surprise that Mazda, which, at the time, was not an SUV-oriented company like Ford, could not either (and Ford never gave Mazda a 4-door Navajo). After several years of mostly collecting dust and bird droppings on dealer lots, the Navajo was quietly pulled from the marketplace. Meanwhile, however, the mid-late 1990's SUV craze was on, and then, of course, the late 1990's rise of the Crossover, car-based AWD SUV's, so the marketers at Ford and Mazda decided to try again with a Mazda SUV to expand its lineup. Ford and Mazda jointly designed the smaller-than-Explorer, car-based, FWD/AWD Ford Escape/Mazda Tribute....later to be joined by the Mercury Mariner.
The Tribute, again not surprisingly, sold much better than the ill-fated Navajo. The Tribute had the same general shape as the Escape, but a different, more sport-oriented suspension, a different stering wheel, dash, and trim... all more in line with Mazda's "Kansei" sport-orientation and driving feel... an advertising slogan that, IMO, made FAR more sense than the current, inane "Zoom Zoom" line that is about a second-grade level in school.


Once again, however, Ford short-changed Mazda, by witholding the Toyota-licensed Hybrid system in the Escape/Mariner from the Tribute, but no matter... the Tribute was relatively successful even in spite of this. And I myself liked the more conservative squared-off lines and interior styling of the Escape/Mariner/Tribute, more than I do the styling of the Ford, Lincoln, and Mazda vehicles that replace them... including the Edge, CX-7 and CX-9.

So, now, enter the third-generation of Mazda SUV's....the Mazda5, the larger CX-7 (already covered in a previous review), and the still larger CX-9.

The Mazda5 is essentially a redone, semi-minivan styled, 2+2+2 seating version of the small, Mazda3 sedan. The CX-7 is a slightly larger version of this platform, with front-end and front-fender styling cues from the Mazda RX-8 sports car. The CX-9, subject of this review, is a slightly stretched, redone version of the Mazda6 platform that is also shared with the new Ford Edge and an upcoming Lincoln version. Its general styling more or less mimics the CX-7's, but differs slightly in the front fenders, grille, headlight, and D-pillars....still not enough to easily tell them apart unless you are up very close. Also redesigned this year is the Tribute itself... but that is, of course, the subject of another thread/review, and I won't get into that here.

The new lineup now gives Mazda FOUR minivan/SUV type vehicles....and this from a company that one had trouble moving the lone Navajo off the lots. The CX-9 is easily the largest, plushest, heaviest, best-equipped, and......not surprisingly.......the most expensive of the four. Still, no Hybrid versions (yet) for any Mazda product, (and of course, being a Ford subsidiary, Mazda cannot offer one without Ford's OK ).

Even without a hybrid, though, the CX-9 has plenty to offer. Three versions are offered...Sport, Touring, and Grand Touring. Only one drivetrain is offered...a transverse-mounted 3.5L V6, automanual Sport-Shift automatic, and a choice of FWD or AWD. All three versions have the FWD/AWD choice. The list prices of the three versions don't really vary that much. Sport versions start just under 30K and Grand Touring versions just under 34K... making, IMO, the Grand Touring version a fairly good deal... unless you're like me and prefer cloth to leather. In that case, you have to get the Sport.. the other versons come with leather.


Many safety-related devices come standard in all three versions. One area where Ford DIDN'T short-change Mazda this time is in giving the CX-9 the Volvo-designed Roll-Stability System, standard on all three CX-9 versions (Volvo, of course, like Mazda, being also Ford-controlled). The system allows a small amount of body roll (I'll get into the handling details in the review below), but steps in to prevent rollovers when things get really dangerous.

Although Mazda still clings to the silly Zoom-Zoom image in its ads, I didn't find the CX-9, overall, to be particularly sporty or responsive. Part of this, of course, has to do with its size....it is not only heavier but much less agile than the smaller CX-7, and did not have the steering feel, either.

And even the CX-7, IMO, did not have the steering feel of earlier Mazdas (I drove exclusively Mazda sedans myself in the mid-80's to mid-90's, and owned three of them, before switching to Toyota and then Lexus).

So, then... just what IS the CX-9 like, and how does it measure up in detail? Let's find out.

Model Reviewed: 2007 Mazda CX-9 3.5L AWD Grand Touring

Base Price: $33,875

Major Options:
Cargo Net: $40
Pearl Paint Charge: $200
Moonroof/Bose/CD: $1760
Towing Package: $525
GT Assist/NAV: $2500

Destination Charge: $595

List Price as Reviewed: $39,495


Exterior Color: Crystal White Pearl
Interior: Black Leather



Drivetrain:

3.5L transverse-mount DOHC V6, 263 HP @ 6250 RPM, 249 ft-lbs. torque @ 4500 RPM

6-speed Sport-Shift automatic.

Active, Torque-split full-time AWD system.


PLUSSES:

Well-designed brake pedal with no sponginess.

Vented disc brake rotors on all four wheels instead of rear solid ones.

Relatively small price difference between trim levels.

Smooth, quiet V6 engine.

Regular, 87 Octane recommended.

Relatively solid-feeling doors.

Smooth, sedan-like ride, comparable to non-MazdaSpeed 6.

Plenty of room inside, front and rear, for adults.

Slickly done White-Pearl paint job.

Plushest, highest-quality interior of any Mazda.....much nicer than CX-7.

High-quality stereo with Bose speakers.

Cloth seats available on Sport model for those who don't want leather.

Well-done interior hardware.

Well-designed gauges except for the red-orange lighting.

Digital dash-mounted gear display even with transmission in non-sport, full-automatic mode.

Relatively easy-to-use radio controls and displays even with NAV system.

Third-row seat in back a little larger than average for this size vehicle.

Well-designed steering wheel with cruise control and radio volume functions.

ABS, EBD, Traction, Stability, and Roll-Stability systems all standard.

Slick-as-butter climate controls with effective A/C system.


MINUSES:

Silly "Zoom-Zoom" marketing....and the CX-9 does not have that much zoom.

Extra charge for Crystal White Pearl paint.

Transverse-mounted V6 means a rather complex AWD system.

Plastic engine cover hampers too much underhood access.

MazdaSpeed versions and manual-transmission versions, as yet, not available for enthusiasts.

Mazda and BMW automatic Sport-Shift patterns opposite from most vehicles.

Ugly (IMO) front-end styling.

Gimmicky (IMO) Mazda web site.

Uncomfortable exit from rear seat.

Power-steering effort and feel not as good as other Mazdas.

Heavy vehicle weight hampers performance.

Not as agile or responsive as little-brother CX-7.

Manual prop-rod hood not compatible with this class of vehicle.

Outside mirror housings and hardware somewhat flimsy.

Odd-looking two/tone/multi-patterned black/gray leather seats.

Red-orange dash lights not well-suited for bright sunlight.

The usual funeral-home paint color choice.

Poorly designed rear wiper arm.

Awkward zig-zag automatic shifter pattern.

Step-on parking brake....but not particularly awkward.

OK handling but with some body roll.


The first impression of this vehicle, as you walk up to it, as I mentioned above, is a strong resemblance to little-brother CX-7, particularly in the front end... little besides the CX-9's somewhat larger size gives it away. The obviously RX-8-inspired styling, with the bulging front fenders, cat's-eye headlights, strongly wedge-shape nose, and Acura-smile grille, may turn some people on, but is just not my cup of tea. For one thing, I was a strong admirer of the Escape and Tribute (I considered the Escape one of the top ten Domestics for the money), and, like with Chris Bangle BMW styling, I find the CX-7 / CX-9 general shape difficult to get used to....particularly the front end. However, styling is personal and subjective, and I know my dislike may be somebody else's dream machine....so take my styling comments with a grain of salt.

The actual body itself is well-built, with durable, solidly attached trim/chrome. Most of the exterior hardware seemed of high-quality and well-done, but I disliked two things. First, though the swiveling outside mirrors had a strong and durable housing, they felt flimsy on the plastic piece where they joined the main body of the car. Second, the black plastic rear wiper-arm, though actually hinged in two places, did not seem to want to pull up enough to clear the window glass to fit in a new blade insert...that could make it difficult when the original blades wear out and need replacing. (My 2006 Outback has the same problem...that was fixed on the 2007 model). In my part of the county, with the ozone level in the air, the rubber blades wear out every 18 months or so on the average, and either the blades or the entire arm have to be replaced.

The paint job is quite well-done, especially with the extra-cost ($200) White Pearl Crystal Mica on my test vehicle (I chose white because it was one of the AWD Grand Touring models in stock, a clear sunny morning, and the sun was beginning to heat things up...white obviously stays cool). Up close, it is hard to tell this paint from the superb Lexus White Pearl used on many of its products. Mazda is one of the few Japanese-nameplate manufacturers to charge extra for some colors (it is much more common with German and Sweedish nameplates). I am generally not a fan of that practice, but in this case it may actually be worth it for the White Pearl... especially when you look at the rest of the paint colors offered. Yes, just more of the usual funeral-home stuff, including TWO blacks (Brilliant Black Clearcoat and Sparkling Black Mica) and TWO grays (Galaxy Gray and Liquid Platinum). The Copper Red, Black Cherry (actually a super-dark wine red) and Stormy Blue have a little class to them, despite the general dullness.

Whatever color you choose, it should at least stay reasonably well-protected from road-spray debris along the lower-body edges. Unlike the poorly-designed sharp tuck-ins on the new Acura MDX, the CX-9's lower-body appears to better-resist spray and debris kicked up from the front tires (This, of course, will reduce the need for my ever-present SCRATCH-OUT). The black lower-body edge and wheel-well cladding, like on most car-based crossover vehicles of this type, seems well-designed, of high quality, and runs around the entire lower body of the car...front, sides, and back. The roofline, in conjunction with the CX-9's "sporty" image, appears a little lower and of course much more swept-back than the squarish Tribute's, but, surprisingly, does not cut out much headroom inside.....more on this in a minute.

Open the hood, unclip the prop-rod and put it into its hole (that's right......no gas-strut supports on an almost $40,000 vehicle) and the transverse-mounted 3.5L V6 fits in rather snug, although there is a little room to drop your hands down and get to some things on the front side of the block. The big, unneeded, (and idiotic, IMO) plastic engine cover, like on many other vehicles these days, blocks almost EVERYTHING on top of the engine block.

Like other AWD vehicles with transverse engines, and unlike Subaru and Audi, the CX-9 has a rather complex AWD system (not as complex, of course, as Acura's superb SH-AWD system) that requires extra gears and hardware to re-route the power back to the AWD system and front drive shafts behind the engine and transmission. The hood itself seemed of average quality and solidness....not particularly light of thin, but not tanklike either like on the
BMW X3 and X5.

Open the doors and get in.....like several other mid-sized crossover vehicles and SUV's I've tried at lately, the step-in height is not bad at all, and running boards are neither needed nor listed as a facory option or dealer-installed accessory. The doors close with a reasonably solid feel and "thud".

Inside, this is easily, as befitting its price, the plushest American-market Mazda interior I've seen yet. The leather, though not quite as smooth as of Jaguar/Lexus quality, is well-done, comfortable, and though the gray pattern and contrast that runs around the edge of the seats on the black interior gives it a rather odd, two-tone swirl, the power seats (power is optional in the Sport model) are quite comfortable, and adjust low enough for my big 6' 2" frame and ever-present baseball cap to clear the ceiling, even with the optional moonroof. Rear-seat legroom is unusually good...almost as good as the front, and the rear seats slide forward and back on manual tracks if desired, but don't appear to have the rake-recline seatbacks that some competing vehicles do. There is a hard plastic cover ridge on the outer edge of the rear seats that houses the tilt-down mechanism...it hits your butt as you slide out, but otherwise there are no major rear-seat discomforts. Headroom in the rear, while not quite as good as in the front due to the sweep-down rear roofline, is not bad either. Even the third-row seat, while, like with other vehicles of this type and primarily for children and small adults, still has more room than you usually expect in a seat of this type.

Like I said, the Grand Touring model has, in general, the plushest interior of any U.S.-market Mazda I've ever seen. Rich-looking, polished wood trim runs up the sides of the console, along the dash, and along the door panels. Classy, well-finished, high-quality chrome and metallic accents highlight and add to the wood in several places. Lesser CX-9 Sport and Touring models, unfortunately, make do without the wood trim and have a much more monochrome black interior, with much less metallic trim (Mazda calls it "Piano-Black") though beige leather is also available in the Touring model like it is in the Grand Touring. The Sport comes just one way...monotone black cloth, which, from a comfort point of view, would probably be my choice...but I LIKE that wood and metallic trim in the Grand Touring. (Never was a big fan of leather seats though....I even managed to get my old Lexus IS300 with cloth seats).

The dash gauges are generally well-designed and clear, and like other vehicles of this type, sit in little circular tunnels. In spite of the protection that the tunnels normally give from bright sunlight, for some reason, the CX-9's reddish-orange dash lights (red-orange chosen, of course, for that "sporty" look) tends to fade out a little in sunny conditions, even with the dash light control turned up. Not serious, but just a little noticeable. The interior switches, buttons, and controls were all of a very high quality and slickly done... some appear and feel of higher quality than the more expensive Acura MDX and BMW X3 I just recently looked at. I liked the way Mazda integrated the NAV, radio, and climate controls... the radio and climate modes are up above and forward of the NAV screen, in a separate readout at the base of the windshield, and are not a complete mess like with BMW's I-Drive and Audi's MMI. ALL of the interior buttons and ALL of the interior controls were well-done and of high quality...I really didn't see and feel much of anything inside I didn't like, except for the foot-operated parking brake (I prefer a console-mounted lever) which, still, was not particularly awkward, and the definitely awkward zig-zag shifter pattern. (I have to put up with that ziz-zag nonsense on my Outback, too... Subaru got rid of the nice straight forward-back levers several years ago) BMW and Mazda shifters do have one feature that, while I didn't necessarily dislike it, takes some getting used to. In the automanual mode, you bump the lever up to down-shift, back to up-shift. Takes some getting used to.....be careful you don't redline the engine on shifts until you get used to the pattern, though, of course, the shift computer will step in to prevent any real engine abuse. Still, you could get a jolt to the drivetrain.

The stereo is of very high quality with the Bose speakers, and produces excellent sound (darn it...I forgot to bring AC/DC and Judas Priest with me). Like the Acura MDX stereo, it one of the best I have heard since the insanely good one in the Lexus LS460, and easily one or even two steps above the one in the BMW X3 last week. With the readout away from the NAV screen, up above with the climate readouts, it was also fairly easy to adjust and change stations, and of course, there are volume controls on the well-designed steering wheel.

The cargo area, as you would expect from the intruding third seat (which of course, can be folded away), and the sweepback rear roofline missing in the
more squarish Tribute, is not exactly a Chevy Suburban's, but, with the third seat seat holds a reasonable amount of cargo, and the quality of the hardware and trim back there is about equal to the X3's and the MDX's... one step below the superb Audi Q7 real chrome and metal hardware. The cargo floor, like most mid-sized SUV's, lifts up to expose an under-floor compartmentalized tray with the jack and tire-change hardware, and there are built-in 12-volt outlets.

OK....Mazda, like BMW's, are generally built to drive, so lets go driving. Start-up is rather unusual, even by the new electronic standards these days. A hard-plastic but comfortable, easy-to-use, grip-knob is built right into the ignition switch...there is no key slot. A flat, card-thin, plastic "key" transponder must be with you or in the car for the switch to work. With the "key" on you or close to you, twist the knob just like would a conventional key, and the 3.5 L V6 fires right up and settles immediately into a Lexus-smooth,quiet idle. Like always, adjust seats, mirrors and belts, bring the shifter back into Drive (the auto part of the shifter, unlike the manual sport-shift part, works conventionally), and off you go. One unusual feature I especially liked was the digital gear display on the dash that told you exactly what gear you were in, even in the full-automatic mode.....most vehicles have that only in the automanual mode. In fact, I wish that auto manufacturers would use a gear readout for MANUAL, clutch-operated transmissions....it would save a LOT of guessing, missed shifts, and, yes, damaged or ruined engines. Why they don't is beyond me.

Anyhow, the 4500-lb. weight of the Grand Touring model, plus the drag of the AWD system, plus (yes, I know) my own portly weight, despite the well-designed 6-speed transmission and fairly short final-drive unit, doesn't help the engine performance any. The engine is smooth and quiet, except for exahust noise on acceleration, and will get out of its own way, but not much else. The torque curve, unlike excessively peaky Honda/Acura engines, is flat enough that you get at least some response at low RPM's, and you do get a small shove in your back starting around 3000 RPM or so. But is not the "Zoom-Zoom" Mazda image by a long stretch.....so don't take this vehicle down to the drag strip on Friday and Saturday night to run with Mustangs and Camaros. It is plenty good for all normal driving, however, and it does seem to have enough reserve power, above 3000 RPM or so, for passing, for hill-climbing, and for reasonably heavy loads.

Much of the transmission, I have already described, but in general it is smooth-shifting and responsive, and the lever has a nice feel once you are out of that ridiculous zig-zag pattern into real driving. Just remember, like I said earlier, that, with Mazdas, back is UP and forward is DOWN....the engine will thank you for it.

The ride, perhaps due to the longish wheelbase, is rather smooth for a mid-sized SUV, and especially a MAZDA one....this in contrast to the firm, even harsh, rides of many other Mazda products. It was noticeably smoother than the ride on little-brother CX-7. Mazda, more so than almost than any other Japanese automaker, places a premium on steering response, sharp handling, and all-around sportiness, though they have sometimes, until the MazdaSpeed models debuted, lagged behind competitors in engine power (A MazdaSpeed or manual-transmission version of the CX-9 is not in the works yet that I know of). Anyhow, though you won't mistake this chassis and
suspension for that of a Lincoln Town Car or Buick Lucerne, you will find comparatively little of either the "Zoom-Zoom" ride or "Zoom-Zoom" handling. Bumps, while felt, are easily absorbed by the relatively supple (for a Mazda) suspension and steering response, while not sluggish, is not exactly Miata-quick either. Body roll, while kept in check by the standard Roll-Stability System, is likewise a little more noticeable than other Mazda products. Again, not severe, but just a little noticeable. The power steering effort is also not quite what you expect in a Mazda....and a little overboosted for my tastes, certainly not in the same league as the superb BMW X3 power steering I sampled last week. But.. it must be remembered, though, that my comments about the steering and chassis refer to the Grand Touring model only, with its obvious bias toward luxury rather than sport. I did not cross-check or test out the Sport or Touring models... their steering and suspension systems might be a little more like those of conventional Mazdas.

But the car, as a whole, is pleasant to drive... I can think of lots worse automotive ways to spend several hours on a long trip. And the brakes are fully up to Mazda standards....with a smooth, German-like, firm pedal, NO sponginness, evenness of response and modulation, and even good spacing for my size-15 clown shoes, something that a lot of other vehicles don't have. In addition, instead of putting on solid rotors in back that are prone to warping with heat buildup, Mazda gives you nice vented rotors all four wheels, not just up front like on most non-high performance vehicles. That is something else that the entire industry, IMO, should be doing, and is still dragging their feet on.....standard vented rotors on all four wheels, on vehicles that have rear discs, of course... some entry-level and lower-priced vehicles still have rear drums.

So... the verdict? IMO, Mazda has produced essentially what the Acura MDX, perhaps its closest competitor, should have been...and isn't. The CX-9 Grand Touring model trumps the new MDX in a number of areas.......interior quality, hardware, suspension, brakes, body design, body trim, a good steering wheel (the MDX's is terrible), seat comfort, interior room, usefulness of the 3rd-row seat, gear-dash readouts in all transmission modes, and simplicity of controls. The MDX, to be fair, has better dash lights, a slicker transmission shifter with a conventional pattern, a gas-strut-supported hood to the CX-9's cheap prop-rod, and better warranty and dealer service.

So... my advice to Mazda? Dump the ridiculous, kid-mentality "Zoom-Zoom" campaign, get a better U.S-market web site (the present one is less than ideal), yank the cheap prop-rod and put a hood mechanism in the CX-9 worthy of its price, go to a better color for the dash lights (white back-lit ones are generally the best), drop the $200 charge for the White Pearl paint and offer more colors that will actually wake you up, dump the awkward full-automatic zig-zag shift pattern, and put the parking brake lever back on the console where it belongs. But, all in all, even with the CX-9 as it is (and I know I sound like a cliche when I say this).....there are lots worse ways to spend your hard-earned automotive dollars. Mazda, here, has come up with a pretty nice vehicle.

In a Nutshell: One of the best BMW daily drivers I've seen yet, especially for inclement weather.

BMW introduced its popular X3 model in response to the huge, and growing, popularity of small-to-medium sized, car-based unibody SUV's and to the success of its big brother, the larger X5, in the marketplace. The X3 served a vital role for those who wanted the world-famous BMW steering, handling, and chassis dynamics but also needed (or wanted) more cargo room inside, all-weather versatility, more ground clearance for snow and mud, and liked the higher "command" seating position. The regular BMW passenger-car station wagons (known in BMW-speak as "Sport" Wagons, of course) offered the extra cargo room in back and a limited amount of versatility, but, of course, did not have the ground clearance for deep snow or mud. The BMW AWD sedans, of course, gave extra traction and stability in the rain and shallow snow, but, again, lacked the ground clearance for deeper snow, and of course had little cargo room in back.

Now, in general, one does not usually buy a BMW to be a school bus, nor are BMWs meant for Chevy Suburban-style towing or Land-Rover type off-roading and trail-busting, but as I mentioned above, BMW has found a market, with the X3 and X5, for those who want the superb BMW driving dynamics combined with station-wagon AND all-weather/mild off-road capability. The X5 fills those roles nicely, but the X3 does it in a smaller and more affordable package. I say "more affordable" rather than simply "affordable" because the X3, despite being less expensive than the X5, is still somewhat pricey for its size. Like many other BMW products, the X3 is not chump change, and dealerships, though willing to bargain somewhat, don't give them away either. My Steptronic-equipped X3 started out at $38,000 and listed for some $45,000....without a Sport Package at that.

Only one engine for the X3 is offered in the American market... the by-now-familiar silky-smooth 3.0L in-line 6, though diesels are rumored to be coming with the better-quality diesel fuel we now have here. With the demise of the 3.0L in-line 6 used in the Lexus IS300 (a nice engine...I owned one),last generation GS300 and SC300, and the old Toyota Supra, that leaves BMW as the last remaining auto manufacturer in the American market with an longitudional-mounted in-line 6. Two transmissions are offered...the Automanual Steptronic automatic, and a traditional, clutch-operated manual for the enthusiasts; BMW having seen fit not to offer the SMT (Sequential Manual Transmission) in the American-market X3 line. Perhaps it is just a case of engineers not being able to bolt the SMT to the 3.0 engine and AWD hardware; perhaps it is just previous owner complaints about the SMT's harsh shifts. Also the subject of previous owner complaints, and even the complaints of sport-oriented enthusiast magazines like Car and Driver and Road and Track, was the original X3's harsh, noisy ride. BMW addressed the harsh-ride complaints by softening the suspension a little on later models and offering 55-series all-season tires as standard (50 on the Sport Package). These suspension and tire changes, fortunately, kept the same superb BMW steering feel and improved ride comfort, but, in conjunction with the X3 having a higher center of gravity than the X5 due to the X3's narrowness, allows a little more body lean on turns than the higher but wider X5. Still, by SUV standards, the X3 handles quite well, and also has the superb BMW brakes. And, the X3 has been more reliable and has avoided the defective cooling-switch design and engine fires of big brother X5 (BMW learned quick when they had to replace totalled $50,000 vehicles under warranty). Neither model, though, has been reliable by Toyota/Honda/Subaru standards, however, especially with the traditionally quirky German electronics.

Despite my dislike (and in some cases, intense dislike) of some Chris Bangle-designed features, I usually enjoy BMW reviews, with their silky-smooth, just-the-right-effort, almost perfect steering and superlative chassis designs. And, one of my BMW pet peeves, the I-Drive, fortunately, is not offered on the X3 in the American market, at least according to the salespeople.

So... did the All-Weather, versatile X3 measure up?

Read on.

Model Reviewed: 2007 BMW X3 3.0si (Steptronic)

Base Price: $38,000

Major Options:
Silver Gray Metallic paint: $475
Premium Package: $2550
Heated Front Seats: $500
Xenon headlights: $800
Navigaton system: $1800
Privacy Glass: $350

Destination Charge: $775

List Price as Reviewed: $45,250

Exterior Color: Silver Gray Metallic
Interior: Gray Nevada leather with Ash Dark Wood trim


Drivetrain: 3.0L VTEC, DOHC, longitudional-mounted in-line 6, 260 HP @ 6600 RPM, 225 ft-lbs. torque @ 2500 RPM,
6-speed Steptronic, Sport-Shift automatic transmission,
X-Drive full-time, torque-on-demand AWD system with Hill-Descent Control.


PLUSSES:

Oh, that BMW power steering...superlative effort/road feel even with AWD.

Smooth in line 6.

Relatively flat torque curve.

Slick transmission shifter....much better than the X5's electronic shifter.

6-speed manual transmission (yes, a real one with a clutch) available for enthusiasts.

Relatively quiet ride except under strong acceleration.

Excellent, non-spongy brakes....and many brake safety related-functions standard.

Standard Stability control.

Fairly comfortable seats.

Tank-solid hood closing.

Well-done primary gauges.

Tilt-and-telescope steering wheel (manual controls).

No I-Drive.

Easy entrance/exit by SUV standards.

Adequate headroom for tall drivers.

Relatively nice paint colors.....but could be better.

3 different interior wood trim patterns available.

Fairly powerful but noisy climate control.

Clever flasher switch in rear cargo area

Well-applied paint.

Solid exterior trim and hardware.

Well-designed lower body and wheel-well cladding.

Limited 4 year/50,000 mile free maintenance and wear-item replacements.


MINUSES:

Extra-cost paint colors, like on other BMWs and European makes.

Poor underhood access.

Pricey for a relatively small SUV.

Tinny-sounding doors.

More body roll than usual for a BMW product.

Second-rate leather trim inside.

Shoe-catching brake pedal.

Iffy-quality electronics.

Odd location for power door-lock switch between the center-dash vents.

Opposite-shift pattern from most cars.

All 3 interior wood trim patterns relatively unattractive, IMO.

Stereo OK but rather mediocre.

Cheap-looking and cheap-feeling steering column stalks.

Odd turn-signal lane-change function.

Ignition switch hidden at right-angle behind the steering wheel.


The first impression of this vehicle, as you walk up to it, is, not surprisingly, a smaller and more scaled-down version of big brother X5. The X5's success in the marketplace and the tendency of the Chris-Bangle-design BMW's to all have more or less the same chiseled-angle body-design features dictated that Junior would, for the most part, copy big brother. Not only are the body lines pretty much the same, but also the traditional BMW eyebrow-headlights and twin-kidney grilles that all BMWs get, except the Mini Cooper.

The exterior workmanship is quite good.....actually better, overall, than many new BMW sedans, but I don't know why. The exterior body panels all feel quite substantial and well-made. The gas-strut-equipped hood feels rock-solid and closes with a tank-like thud: the doors feel equally rock-solid, but close with a cheaper and tinnier-sounding noise.

All of the exterior hardware feels solid, durable, and well-attached....even the rear-window wiper arm, which is cheaply made on a lot of vehicles. Yes, the matte-black plastic finish on the arm looks cheap, but that low-gloss black finish is required on wiper arms by law to reduce sun glare.The paint colors are, for the most part, the usual funeral home shades, but the Crimson Red and Monaco Blue at least have some class to them. And, just like with other BMW products and European makes in general, some colors and metallics cost extra.....the Silver Gray Metallic on my X3 ran $475. This is a weird quirk of the European auto-pricing system...you generally don't find this on American, Korean, or Japanese-nameplate vehicles, except for some Dodge/Chrysler products, which, of course, are Mercedes-owned.

The exterior trim is all solidly attached as well, and the paint job, though not quite up to Toyota/Lexus standards (what else IS?), is done reasonably well, with a minimum of orange peel and a decent gloss. I especially liked the black body cladding that circles the entire bottom of the vehicle....front, sides, and back. The cladding was durable, well-attached, had a nice finish (not too dull or too glossy), and was designed very efficiently around the wheel wells and lower part of the body sides to ward off paint damage from road debris.....this contrasted strongly with the poorly-designed and poorly-finished lower body sides and cladding on the Acura MDX I reviewed last week.

Underhood, the longitudinal-mounted 3.0L in-line 6 is rather crammed in, though there is a little space on the left side (as you are looking back) to reach a few things such as the oxygen sensor and windshield-washer-fluid reservoirs. The
entire top of the engine, as with many upscale vehicles there days, is covered with a BIG, plastic, BMW logo-equipped engine cover. The oil filter, in BMW tradition, is up front, in a cylindrical housing with a bolt-off cover. The rest of the underhood features are pretty much the hide-and-go-seek variety, especially the battery, stuck way back under the rear cargo cover, just forward of the rear bumper...........this being done, of course, for weight distribution and handling.

Open the doors and get in. The step-up height, like several recent small/medium-sized SUV's I've reviewed, is just fine for most people.....running boards are not needed, and they are not listed in the BMW literature and accessories as an option either. I was able to swing my tall and somewhat oversized frame off the ground and right into the driver's seat with no step-up at all.

Once inside, like the outside, the view is more or less the same as you get with big-brother X5 except for a slightly simpler layout and controls. Inside, you find the same cheap-looking and cheap-feeling Nevada Leather trim as in the X5, the same superb steering wheel, and the same fairly comfortable seats. As with many other vehicles, two interior colors are offered (beige and gray), and three different wood-trim color/patterns are offered......Dark Ash, Popular Natural Light, and Popular Gray. I wasn't wild about any of the three wood patterns, although, as with many other vehicles, I personally found the beige interior and the Popular Natural light wood to be the best-looking combo, although your interior tastes, of course, may or may not differ from mine.

The seats, as previously stated, were reasonably comfortable despite the poorly-finished leather, but I could have used some more height in the seat backs....they cut off just below my shoulder line (shorter people will probably not notice that). They are, of course, multi-power adjustable and with 3-position memory. Headroom is fine for tall people despite the sunroof housing if you get the seat lowered enough... the back of the cushion didn't go down quite as much as I wanted, but my head cleared OK. Legroom, likewise was fine....more than I needed. In front of you is the typical superb 3-spoke BMW steering wheel (again, contrasted with
the piece-of-crap of a steering wheel in the Acura MDX last weeek). The X3's wheel has tilt-and-telescope features, with manual levers for each.

The drivers'-side dash and primary gauges are typical, superb BMW-clear, simple, and legible. The Ultimate Driving Machine should have Ultimate Legibility Gauges, and BMW rarely disappoints in that area. The rest of the dash is pretty well-done by Chris Bangle standards (and, mercifully, devoid of You-Know-What), but, still, there are a few quirks. The NAV system, despite being less complex than the You-Know-What, is still far from simple. The power door-lock switch is oddly placed between the two center-dash vents, under the hazard flashers...another quirk shared with other BMW models. The turn-signal lever, as with the other steering-column stalks, has a cheap look and feel, but operates as smoothly as silk. It has a odd feature, however, new for 2007. When you press it down and let it spring back for lane-changing, the flashing green arrow does not cut off immediately....it hangs on for a few seconds and then quits. Press it further, for a full turn, and it clicks/un-clicks and the flashing green arrow behaves normally. The buttons, hardware, and switches inside are all of at least fairly good quality, except for the column stalks as noted. The stereo is reasonably good...about average for a European vehicle of this class, but not quite as good as the Lexus/Acura stereos. The climate control is not dual-zoned (the vehicle probably isn't wide enough to really need it) but the heat/AC systems work reasonably well.....again, not quite up to the class-leading GM and Lexus systems. The climate buttons could be a little less complex, but in general are clear, well-marked, and reasonably easy to use.

In the back, you have, of course, the same second-class leather on the seats as you do up front......the unpleasant, grainy Nevada Leather, and the legroom and headroom is OK but marginal for large adults. The X3's roofline, while well-shaped for space efficiency, is not particularly tall, and while it will take average-size adults OK, don't expect to cram Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippin in back there.
The rear seat, of course, has the usual 50/50 fold-down feature for extra cargo room, and a center cut-out/flip-down for loading long, narrow items like skis with the seatbacks up.

The cargo area in back is fairly well-shaped for efficiency, but the not-so-tall roof and the battery buried under the lift-up cargo floor take up some of the usable space. A clever idea is a safety-flasher switch built into the right-rear wall of the compartment that turns the flashers on and off...something I don't recall having seen on any other vehicle, even on safety-oriented Mercedes and Volvos. The hardware in the cargo was not the equal of the superb hardware in the rival Audi Q7 but was well-done and appeared made of good materials.

OK...the Ultimate Driving Machine, of course, is built to DRIVE, not look at, so let's go for a spin. As always, seats, mirrors, and belts adjusted. Start her up with a conventional key (BMW engineers have not yet given the X3 a start button like other BMW's, and the ignition switch is hidden, old-style, behind the steering wheel on the side of the column), and the SMOOTH, in-line 6, just like the one on my old Lexus IS300, fires up and idles like silk. Slip it into gear with the well-designed, silky, snap-action shifter (much, MUCH better than the vague, flimsy, electronic, shifter in the X5...a piece of crap) and off you go.

The 3.0L six has a good HP figure on paper (260) but the torque figure is considerably less than that...225 ft-lbs. A flat torque curve helps and prevents the annoying peakiness found in Honda and some Toyota engines, but the weight of this vehicle (5049 lbs.) and the of the AWD system takes its toll on engine performance. This is simply one of the prices (along with lower gas mileage) that you pay for the traction and stability of AWD...but, not being a power or speed freak, it is a price I am easily willing to pay, as I'm sold on AWD traction, even in summer (it helps in rain, too, not just snow or ice). The six has adequate power for normal level-surface driving, but it might be a little overtaxed in a heavily loaded X3 or on long, steep hills, and it certainly is no BMW M-spec drag racer. Otherwise, like the old Toyota/Lexus 3.0L in-line six, it is smooth, silky, and quiet except for heavy acceleration, where you hera the typical-BMW exhaust burble.

The 6 speed StepTronic automatic shifts smoothly and quietly...slightly less so in manual mode, but overall is quite well refined. After driving the X5, with its flimsy, frustrating, electronic shifter, it was a pleasure to use the X3's FAR-better-designed one. It snaps from gear to gear with smooth, solid precision, has a solid and well-constructed feel, and is simple, direct, and straightforward to use. Well, instead of straight FORWARD, maybe I should say straight BACKWARD instead, because unlike most vehicles, with BMW and Mazda auto shifters, you pull back to upshift and push forward to downshift (you will remember this after you come close to redlining the engine a couple of times...fortunately, I didn't).

The steering (you KNOW what I'm going to say....what else?), despite the AWD, is pure BMW...that alone speaks for itself (simply the best). IMO, there just are no better mass-produced power-steering units in the world, though some Porsche ones come close. BMW steering systems are are a major reason why BMW's win so many sport-sedan comparison tests. You can practically steer them blindfolded, simply from the road feel and almost perfectly-weighted effort. But...most of you guys already KNOW this......so let's go on with the review....to something you may NOT know.

Despite the heavenly steering and generally good handling for an SUV, there is a little more body roll in the X3, especially in my non-Sport-Package version, than you normally expect in a BMW. The engineers, acutely aware of both customer and auto-press complaints of the overly-harsh, noisy ride in the early x3 models, softened things up a little in the suspension, anti-roll bars, and tires, and the result, in the new 2007 model, the ride comfort is much better....though it is no Lincoln Town Car, the ride is comfortable by small SUV standards. The result of some of that new-found compliance in the underpinnings, however, together with the car's relatively high center of gravity (though it sits lower than the taller X5, it is substantially narrower as well, raising the center of gravity), is noticeable body roll in sharp cornering, (more than in the X5), but still, by small SUV standards, not bad. This is not a Suzuki Samurai just waiting to toss you on your roof the moment you flip the wheel in a sharp turn, but on the other hand, it is not a low-slung BMW M4 coupe either, where you can corner while snubbing your nose at the laws of physics. The X3 seems safe in all but extreme cornering.....but I wouldn't push it too far.

The noise level, both from the smooth quiet engine and well-done body insulation, is generally low except for the familiar BMW growl as you open it up. The Ultimate Driving Machine should not be like a tomb, but on the other hand, you want it quiet enough for a long cruise on the freeway if needed, and, here again, the x3 delivers.

It also delivers when it comes time to stop. In the not-only-BMW but German auto tradition, the brakes are excellent. Though the stopping distances are not quite Porsche-short (few vehicles can equal Porsche in quick stops because of Porsche's weight distribution and brake design), the pedal feel is superb, with right-now, linear response, excellent modulation, and an almost total absence of sponginess. As I stated in my recent Audi Q7 review.....German drivers simply will not put up with weak, spongy brakes. In Germany, cars, when they are on the Autobahn.....they GO. So, obviously, they have to STOP as well. The only fly in the X3's braking ointment, from my point of view (and this may not affect others with smaller feet.....I wear those big size 15 clodhoppers, remember?) is the often-encountered problem of my big feet getting caught momentarily under the edge of the gas pedal when I lift off the gas. This is not a problem in my current Subaru Outback, nor was it in my old Lexus IS300, but it is something I notice in many vehicles I review.


So... the verdict?

BMW, with this vehicle, has not hit a homer, but, by my standards, gets to third base. It has the steering, brakes, and transmission refinement expected of the Ultimate Driving Machine, more room inside than smaller BMW sedans, all-weather traction, versatility in the cargo area, a smooth, quiet engine, a relatively nice ride with low road noise level, generally good hardware inside and out, and BMW, wisely, has left the I-Drive out of the X3 to boot. It falls a little short in cornering stiffness (a Sport package with 50-series tires and firmer suspension will address that, at the loss of some ride comfort), the unpleasant leather package inside, pulling power from the engine, and the quirkiness of some of the interior switches. It is also rather pricey for a smallish SUV, although BMW engineering, of course, doesn't come cheap....and BMW picks up a lot of the maintenance and wear-item replacement for the first 4 years or 50,000 miles... a sales incentive. It is, overall, an excellent vehicle from BMW... despite the tippier cornering, it is far more pleasant, overall, to drive than the larger X5, and despite my general dislike of Bangle-designed BMW's, this is one of the best
ones yet... and perhaps THE best and most sensible daily driver BMW has yet come up with, especially for foul-weather areas. This vehicle is not cheap, but there are far worse ways to spend your automotive dollars.

In a Nutshell: A rather unique mixture of form, function, quality, and cheapness.

Acura, in response to the exploding popularity of mid-sized, car-based SUV's, introduced the first-generation MDX several years ago to a car-buying public that just couldn't get enough of this type of vehicle (and, to an extent, still can't). The MDX went into strong competition with the (at that time) Lexus RX300, BMW X3/X5, Mercedes ML320, Audi All-Road, Volvo XC70, and Subaru top-line L.L. Bean and VDC Outbacks, although the All-Road, XC70, and Outbacks were more car-like and sat a little lower than the MDX. Lower-priced MDX's, to some extent, price-wise, even competed with loaded versions of the top-of-the-line Toyota Highlander Limited.

The MDX was quite successful in its early years (supply exceeded demand, though it was not a classic follow-the-crowd vehicle), and dealers could charge a premium, and there some waiting lines, though not terribly long. The MDX was successful enough that Honda saw fit to introduce its own version, the Pilot, which was a little larger, more boxy-styled, more space efficient inside, and, IMO, a better value overall (more on that later).

However, successful as the first-generation MDX turned out to be, it was, like other Acura products, somewhat overshadowed by its Lexus competition, primarily the RX300/330. Unlike Toyota/Lexus, at that time, Honda only used the Acura brand name in the U.S, having introduced it in 1986.......the same vehicles, overseas, carried the Honda name instead. The Lexus RX300/330 trumped the original MDX in ride quality, noise isolation, powertrain refinement, interior plushness, and dealer service. However, the MDX, despite somewhat less refinement, like the RX300/330, had the build quality and reliability for both it and the RX to trump their European competition in that department, primarily in electronics.....in that area, choosing between the RX and the MDX was like Tweededee and Tweeledum. Both vehicles, as a result, enjoyed a good reputation in the marketplace and low depreciation.

With Lexus having introduced a second-generation RX330/350 model a few years ago, and, more recently, an expensive, high-technology RX400H Hybrid, the folks at Honda/Acura marketing felt that it was time to replace the old MDX with something that they felt was more up-to-date. However, unlike Lexus with the RX, Acura has not chosen (yet) to do a Hybrid version. The new 2007, like many of today's new and redesigned vehicles, is clearly designed with a more "sporting" factor in mind, and aimed at a younger buying audience. Gone are the softer-riding (and clearly preferable, IMO) 60-series tires in favor of firmer-riding 55's. The interior has more of a space-ship styling to it, not unlike the Subaru Tribeca's dash and console (although the dash-console sweep in the MDX is not as pronounced as the Tribeca's). The power steering effort has been increased a little to imitate a BMW's a little more (a feature I DO like), although it is more artificial-feeling than a Bimmer's. The suspension and anti-roll bars have been stiffened. The interior wood paneling is a grayish, more "sporting" wood trim than the warmer, brown look of the old one. And, last, another feature that I like, the superb SH-AWD system from the Acura RL, has been made standard....as it has in the smaller, less-expensive Acura RDX as well. And, of course, more power...the new MDX has a typical-Honda VTEC V6 that now makes a full 300 HP and 275 ft-lbs. of torque.....but at typical-Honda, annoyingly high RPM's (and of course, reviewing brand-new cars, I can't take them anywhere near redline).

Three model/trim lines of the new MDX are offered, all with the same engine and drive train: a base model (which I chose for the review), a Technology-Package MDX with a NAV screen, backup camera, and other advanced electronics (see the web site), and the Sport Package MDX with firmer, more sport-oriented chassis tuning, wheels/tires, and trim.

To put it mildly, I have quite mixed feelings about this new MDX. It is a good, even excellent vehicle in some areas, and somewhat disappointing in others. Overall, I don't think, despite the superb SH-AWD and powerful though peaky V6, that it is quite as good a value for the dollar as the somewhat less-expensive Honda Pilot...but, again, I'll get into that more later.

So, now, lets' have a look at Acura's new RX-fighter in a little more detail:

Model Reviewed: 2007 Acura MDX

Base Price: $39,995

Major Options: None

Destination Charge: $670

List Price as Reviewed: $40,665

Exterior Color: Steel Blue Metallic

Interior: Taupe Leather

Drivetrain: 3.7L SOHC VTEC V6, 300 HP @ 6000 RPM, 275 ft-lbs. torque @ 5000 RPM.
5-speed automatic Sequential-Sport Shift transmission, full-time SH (Super-Handling)
AWD system with Direct Yaw Control.


PLUSSES:

Same superb, seamless SH AWD as its brother RL and the smaller RDX.

Borderline V8 power from a V6....but you have to rev too much to get it.

Smooth, slick-shifting transmission, both in automatic and auto-manual mode.

Reasonable price for its content.

Standard 3rd-row seat for families.

Relatively good handling, by SUV standards.

Better-than-average reliability record.

Convienent, tilt-down exterior mirrors when in reverse.

Well-designed, convienent tire-pressure monitoring system.

Nicely done paint...but not quite to Lexus standards.

Excellent stereo.

clear, well-designed gauges and controls.

Convienent, power tilt-and-telescope steering.

Nice power-steering feel...not quite to BMW standards.

Good legroom, front and rear.

Easy-to-use power tilt/slide sunroof.

Solid-closing, heavy-duty-feeling doors.

Multi-power adjustable seats includes power lumbar support.


MINUSES:

HP/Torque curve too peaky; too many revs needed for power.

Unimpressive brakes.

Poorly designed steering wheel.

Sheet metal of lower-body tuck-in exposed to sand, salt, and road debris.

Flimsier exterior hardware and trim than past Acura products.

Cheesy, plastic chrome exterior door handles.

Difficult and awkward to check the oil.

Lower-profile, 55-series tires this year are not needed.

Firmer than necessary, but not harsh, ride.

Cheap looking and feeling gray cladding on lower front and rear ends.

Dark, grayish Koa wood interior trim not very appealing (to my tastes).

Awkward, hard-to-use parking brake.

Large panel gap and misalignment between the right-front dash and door trim.

Yes, you're probably getting tired of hearing it.....the same old funeral-home paint
colors....and I'm getting tired of complaining about it.

Relatively low roofline compromises front and rear headroom.

3rd-row seat, like most vehicles of its type, very cramped.


The first impression of this vehicle, as you walk up to it, especially if an RDX is parked near it, is the strong (though not identical) styling similiarity between the MDX and its little brother; except the MDX, of course, being one vehicle size and class larger. There are minor differences between the upper/lower grilles, bumpers, fog lights, and lower-body tuck-in, but in general the two are VERY similiar....not surprising when you consider that they both are being marketed to more or less the same age group....RDX buyers, of course, more likely to be single or with small families, and MDX buyers, of course, with larger families. The MDX's exterior styling takes a marked difference from the old MDX, with the roofline being a little lower, the large D-pillars in back being more raked, the front end being more swept-back and streamlined, and the wheels, even without the Sport Package, more aggressive-looking than the old ones. The lower-sides of the body have a pronounced tuck-in underneath, which, while "sporty" looking, allows the paint on the parts of them not directly shielded by the standard splash guards to be exposed to all kinds of stuff kicked up by the front tires....a poor design, IMO. There is a thin strip of black cladding at the very bottom, but it is not wide enough to do much good. The paint job is definitely on the good side (better than average), but, with a slight amount of orange peel, not quite up to Lexus standards, and, oddly, not as well-done as the superb, Lexus-quality paint job on its brother RL. As I stated in the MINUSES column above, it's the same old mortuary paint colors, although the Aspen White Pearl, Steel Blue Metallic (a nice medium blue-gray), and Dark Cherry Pearl were classy...I chose a Steel Blue for the review, a color I've liked for years. The exterior hardware quality ranges from good (exterior mirrors, general trim, logos, etc...) to cheap and cheesy, like the flimsy, "chrome" plastic door handles and thin, matte-black, plastic rear wiper arm. A roof rack is not standard, but can be added as a dealer accessory.


Open the aluminum hood, which, unlike the smaller RDX's, is automatically gas strut-supported, and the 3.7L V6, like most Honda/Acura products, fits in transversely, and it is reasonably easy to reach things not covered up by the now-ubiquitous plastic engine cover. The oil dipstick, with a nice, thick, well-designed flexible metal rod, is great, except for one thing.......it sits so far forward, well under the plastic radiator cover shroud, that you have to awkwardly lean way over the grille and radiator to reach it and stick it back in its tube. Everything else under the hood (engine cover notwithstanding) is fine...no real problems.


Open the doors and get in. As with my recent Dodge Nitro and Audi Q7 reviews, optional running boards are available, but I did not think them necessary except for very short people. Like the roof rack, on the MDX, they are a dealer-installed accessory, if desired. But, for most people, the step-up height is no problem. Shut the nice, solid-feeling doors and you get a rather nice, pleasant "thunk" instead of the "thwick" you get from, say cheaply-made, entry-level Dodges and Chevies. Once inside, the vehicle becomes a rather strange mixture of good and not-so-good. The Taupe-colored seat leather is OK...seems better-than-average....but clearly not as soft or as classy as the leather in Jaguars or some Lexus products. The seats themselves have many power adjustments, even for lumbar support. The lower cushion, for my rather portly frame, was fairly comfortable, the upper-cushion bolsters pressed noticeably into the back of my shoulders. Legroom in the front seat was fine; headroom in front was fine if you lowered the seat way down, thanks to the sunroof housing, which, like in most vehicles, took away 1-2 inches of headroom. The steering wheel was, IMO, quite poorly designed, and perhaps the single worst feature inside. It had nice electric power tilt and telescoping, a feature some other $40,000 vehicles don't, but that was not the problem. It was uncomfortable to hold, had hard, projecting leather stitching that dug into your fingers, poorly-finished pieces of plastic on the wheel moldings that had burrs left on them from the molds they were cast in (this may have been a sample defect.....another MDX I looked at had better-quality plastic on the wheel), and, worst of all, when you turned the wheel for a sharp corner, regardless of whether it was adjusted for tall or short people, the large opaque, triangular center-section of the wheel hid large parts of the instrumentation and gauges. Back to the drawing board, Acura....you can do better then this.

The three primary gauges, like more and more vehicles these days, sit inside of circular tunnels.....this done, of course, to keep sunlight from interfering with their legibility, although the dash lighting, like with most Acura products, was of the Lexus-type electroluminescence to also improve legibility. The design is the usual Honda/Acura blue outer circles, white numbers, and reddish-pink needles. I found them pleasant, easy-to-read, and liked the colors. The Koa dash and door panel wood trim was not quite my cup of tea....too dull a grayish color, too polished, and too un-woodish for my tastes (I like traditional-looking natural wood). There was also a rather large and noticeable gap and misalignment where the wood on the right-front dash joins the right-front door panel....less so on the drivers' side. The dash hardware, buttons, and controls were most well-done, made of good materials, easy-to-use, and legible.....there were a couple of cheap-feeling, flimsy buttons as well, untypical of Honda/Acura. Fortunately, there were no I-Drive-type knobs in this version (the base model), those being restricted to the more expensive Technology MDX models with the NAV and camera package. The stereo was one of the car's best features, and quite impressive...clearly the best one I've listened to since the insanely superb LS460 Mark Levinson stereo I wrote up last December. The high, awkward, step-on, left-foot parking brake, especially for people with big legs like mine, is a PITA to use...it, like the steering wheel, could use a thorough re-design. The sunroof, except for robbing a little headroom, is otherwise well-designed...the easy-to use switches tilt up and down and back and forth for the respective roof functions. Two other features I liked inside, both connected to the multi-function dash computer, were the tire-monitoring display that not only warns you of loss of tire pressure but shows you how much air (in PSI) is IN all four tires any given moment......an excellent feature. Also excellent, although somewhat more gimmicky, is the video display for the SH-AWD system that, with bar symbols, shows you how much torque is being fed to each one of the four wheels....the SH-AWD system is very complex, and you can see the display jumping around to front wheels, back wheels, and side-to-side as you corner.

In back, legroom is fine, even for big, tall people, but the lowered roofline of the new MDX, as oposed to the old one, cuts out some headroom...but not seriously. Like on the Audi Q7, the 50/50 split rear seats both recline (manually) so you can lower your head under the roofline. The rear seats, as expected, are less comfortable than up front, and, like with most Japanese-designed vehicles, are a little short on thigh support. Rear doors, like the front, produce the same solid "thunk" when you shut them.

The third-row seat, of course, when raised, takes up much of the cargo space, but of course, it folds down to form a flat cargo floor. The seat itself, of course, like most third-row seats, is fit only for children or very small adults. When lowered, cargo space is reasonably good for a vehicle this size, but, once again, we get into the same old problem of lowered rooflines and swept-rear ends.....the cargo ceiling is noticeably lower than in the old MDX. Auto designers are going to have to start deciding which is more important......form or function. Generally, I'm on the side of function. Otherwise, the cargo area is well-done, with high-quality materials, though not quite so impressive as the Audi Q7's real metal and real-chrome hardware. A tray lifts up to reveal an additional cargo bay underneath, with the jack tools in a covered sub-compartment.

OK...time to drive. The 3.7L V6 starts up with a VW-style swing-out, button-operated key. No ignition dash buttons.....a departure from many new vehicles in this class. Idle is smooth and quiet....Honda/Acura, like Toyota/Lexus, being experts in producing smooth, quiet engines. Adjust mirrors, seats, belts, etc.....with the well-designed, slick-feeling controls, release the poorly-designed parking brake, ease the slick, smooth, high-quality shifter into Drive and go. The V6, as mentioned, is smooth and quiet, but annoyingly sluggish and short on torque at low RPM's....anything under about 3500 RPM will have Granny passing you in the slow lane, and you don't start to feel any real kick at all until about 4000 or so (with a brand-new car right off the lot, I, of course, didn't go much over that). Torque peak.....and maximum acceleration....comes at 5000. That, IMO, is unsuitable for American-style driving. This V6 is capable of V8 power, but the revs required to get it are too high. Honda/Acura engineers need to seriously consider reprogramming the engine's HP and torque curves to getter a flatter, less peaky range, or just, as with other honda/Acura products, stop using the VTEC valve timing system altogether... the VTEC system seems to be the primary source of the engine's peakiness.

Peakiness aside, the engine, like most Toyota/Lexus engines, is smooth and quiet in normal RPM ranges. The exhaust note is noticeable but not pronounced. The transmission, with its well-made, high-quality shifter (even slicker than the snappy chrome ball on my old Lexus IS300) shifts slickly and smoothly, in both full-automatic and automanual mode, regardless of RPM. There is only 5 gears instead of the more-common 6 in this class of vehicle, but the ratios, and their coverage, are such that you generally don't miss the sixth gear......and with the lower speed limits in the U.S. as contrasted to German Autobahns, you don't need a super-tall 6th gear anyway.

The overall ride, as stated before, IMO, is firm (not harsh), but firmer than necessary, due to the lower-profile tires this year and general stiffening of the underpinnings. This of course, is rewarded by flatter cornering, less body roll, and quicker steering response than last year's MDX (which, IMO, was not particularly sloppy-handling to start with). Bumps are felt, but, due to relatively good noise isolation, (poor road noise isolation has been a Honda problem for years), not heard very loudly. Wind noise, likewise, is fairly well surpressed....after all, this is a $40,000 semi-luxury SUV, not an econobox. The wheelbase is JUST long enough, and the suspension JUST soft enough (despite the firmness over bumps) that you don't get much of the fore-and-aft porpoising over bumps that you do in smaller SUV's...you DO notice that in little-brother RDX.

The brakes, another classic Honda weak point, appear and feel like they are undersized. Honda has a history of putting undersized brake rotors and calipers in many of their vehicles.....particularly the Civic. The brakes on the new MDX don't feel any different from many past Honda products I've sampled.....spongy, unresponsive, and with relatively long stopping distances.....though, like with most reviews, I didn't slam them on or hit them full-force. Still, in normal driving, they felt noticeably weak compared to most vehicles I drive. The brake pedal had a little of the tendency I find in so many vehicles to catch my size-15 clodhoppers lifting off of the gas pedal......not as bad as in some other vehicles.

The verdict?

I have mixed feelings about this vehicle. It has a superb transmission and AWD powertrain, and a responsive engine if you keep the revs way up, but, IMO, you should not have to go to motorcycle RPM's every time you want to pass someone....this is something Honda needs to work on. The interior, likewise, is generally very well-done, with some nice, convienent features, but the steering wheel and emergency brake both need a major redesign. The new roofline, while not really cramped, cuts out some space efficiency....in this regard, I think the lower-priced Honda Pilot may actually be a better value than the MDX. The Pilot is larger, less expensive more boxy-shaped, has more room inside, is built just as well (better in some areas), and has a V6 engine that, while not as powerful as the MDX's on paper, feels just as responsive in actual-world driving. The Pilot does lack the superb SH-AWD system, individual tire-monitoring diagram, and a few other nice features inside that the MDX has, but in a pinch, I could live without them. And the Pilot, like the MDX, has a good reliability record. So, if it were my money, I'd take the Pilot home and leave the difference in price in my bank account.

PS... after reviewing the MDX, I took a brief look at several new RDX's (I had briefly looked a couple of them over at the D.C. Auto Show in January), and was invited by both the salesman and sales manager to drive one.....so drive one I did, though I didn't keep it out long enough, or examine it thoroughly enough for a formal write-up and review. At first impression, though, its standard 2.3L turbo in-line 4 (Honda/Acura's first production turbocharged engine in an American-market vehicle, DEFINITELY cures the MDX's low-RPM torque problem, and the interior fit-and-finish, despite being a smaller and less-expensive vehicle, and especially its steering-wheel design, outdoes its more expensive big-brother MDX. If there is sufficient interest, I will do a full RDX review....at first glance, it seems to be a better value, though it lacks many of the MDX's power-operated features inside.