MotorTrend Acura ZDX First Drive

[siegen]

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1...test/index.html

Equipped very well and priced 10,000-15,000 under the comparably-equipped X6. They like the drive better than the X6 as well, despite not being quite as fast as the twin-turbo (but weighing 400+ lbs less).

They overall seem to like the styling.

Observed FE, despite the test-drive treatment, was 17mpg. Very impressive for a crossover that hits 0-60 in 6.5 seconds. Better than how the RDX tended to fair in first-drive reviews.

[Drew Dowdell]

The great thing about these vehicles is that no matter if you pick the BMW or the Acura, either way you look like a tool.

[FAPTurbo]

X6's are selling like gangbusters in my area. My school has quite a few students who drive them, and I can't for the life of me understand why someone would buy an X6 over an X5.

Yes, they do make their drivers look like tools.

[siegen]

The great thing about these vehicles is that no matter if you pick the BMW or the Acura, either way you look like a tool.

That could be said about any luxury vehicle. Or just about any vehicle period aside from generic econoboxes.

[Drew Dowdell]

That could be said about any luxury vehicle. Or just about any vehicle period aside from generic econoboxes.

Not quite. This "new breed" of car takes an ugly but somewhat useful vehicle and removes the useful.

It's the answer to the question no one asked... "What if we made a Hyundai Tiburon into a crossover?!"

[Justin Bimmer]

Did motor trend shoot Novocain into their eyes prior to evaluating the exterior styling of that thing.

[regfootball]

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1...test/index.html

Equipped very well and priced 10,000-15,000 under the comparably-equipped X6. They like the drive better than the X6 as well, despite not being quite as fast as the twin-turbo (but weighing 400+ lbs less).

They overall seem to like the styling.

Observed FE, despite the test-drive treatment, was 17mpg. Very impressive for a crossover that hits 0-60 in 6.5 seconds. Better than how the RDX tended to fair in first-drive reviews.

you finally admit, the RDX was a fuel sucker. Honda has no clue about turbo.

[siegen]

you finally admit, the RDX was a fuel sucker. Honda has no clue about turbo.

Finally admit what?

Under heavy driving situations, the K23 turbo tends to lose more fuel economy than the N/A V6.

This isn't a Honda thing, it's a turbo thing. Manufacturers come out every year saying they have a new turbocharged engine that gets the power of a larger engine with the fuel efficiency of a smaller engine. The end result has always been the engine gets the power of the larger engine and the fuel economy of the larger engine, in a little smaller package. With the RDX, it averages 18-20 mpg in real world driving, which is typical V6 AWD luxury crossover mileage.

The new 6-speed auto in the ZDX likely helps the mileage by a point or two, so I wouldn't be surprised if the ZDX ends up equaling or even bettering the RDX in average heavy footed driving conditions (despite weighing right around 500 lbs more).

Most Honda fans would rather see a J V6 in the RDX than the turbo, but it may not have fit with Honda's safety margins (for pedestrians) intact.

Edited September 23, 2009 by siegen

[aaaantoine]

I designed this breed of car years ago...

[G. David Felt]

What a waste of metal, this is a tool auto with no real usability other than to drive. It will sell due to Honda's name but it will be their Aztec as after the initial demand is met, it will die off.

Sadly more and more CUV and SUV's are loosing interior room for some kind of Art statement. I love the look of my 94 GMC Suburban and the room is amazing. I can drink a can of pop and empty it with tilting my head back where my newer 2006 Escalade I cannot as it does not have the head room. Come to think of it, just about any of the newer auto's I have I cannot drink in them like I can in my suburban except my H2. Big and Roomy and sadly will be the last of any real full size SUV's. So I think I will end up driving older auto's do to the lost of room so that some Engineer Art student can make or try to make stupid art statement.

Over all this auto is Ugly

[Intrepidation]

Kill it with fire!

The guys at MT must be smoking some really good stuff, got a hold of the Honda Kool-Aid or gotten a big paycheck in the mail to think this is good looking.

[regfootball]

collective MT woodfest for this thing?

wow. i do admit it makes more sense than the RDX. but the RDX is for chicks.

[siegen]

What a waste of metal, this is a tool auto with no real usability other than to drive.

What is the Corvette? What does it do other than allow one or two people to drive fast? It doesn't have a great or luxurious interior, nor is it particularly comfortable to drive. It makes guys feel like they have big penises and that's it.

Not everyone needs a car for practical purposes. This is the luxury market after all; people buy cars for the drive and the image. If they want practicality, they can get the MDX, which is mentioned in the article.

[Intrepidation]

WHo the hell buys a CUV/wagon thing and says "yup I want it to be completely useless, that's what makes me want it. It's like a people carrier only ugly and not very good at what it does."

Both the X6 and this thing fall under that catagory.

[A Horse With No Name]

Not quite. This "new breed" of car takes an ugly but somewhat useful vehicle and removes the useful. It's the answer to the question no one asked... "What if we made a Hyundai Tiburon into a crossover?!"

I would take the Tibron, actually.

Someone needs to shoot the guy that designed this thing for Acura. Even if the guy is dead they ought to dig him up and shoot him so that we can make a point...

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

WHo the hell buys a CUV/wagon thing and says "yup I want it to be completely useless, that's what makes me want it. It's like a people carrier only ugly and not very good at what it does.

I can think of one person who posts here regularly, actually. Not naming any names...but

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

Kill it with fire! The guys at MT must be smoking some really good stuff, got a hold of the Honda Kool-Aid or gotten a big paycheck in the mail to think this is good looking.

I have an idea of what really happened, but this isn't the R rated thread so I won't discuss it.

Chris

[A Horse With No Name]

collective MT woodfest for this thing? wow. i do admit it makes more sense than the RDX. but the RDX is for chicks.

The RDX is as ugly as home made sin also.

Acura's current product lineup makes me want to sink a cargo ship full of new cars, all wearing the Acura badge.

What godawful product.

Chris

[siegen]

The RDX is as ugly as home made sin also.

Acura's current product lineup makes me want to sink a cargo ship full of new cars, all wearing the Acura badge.

What godawful product.

Chris

Really? The only really sore spot I see is the new RL. The TSX and MDX in particular I think are very solid designs -especially in person.

[Intrepidation]

When they redesigned the TL they ruined my favorite Acura, and the only one I'd actually consider owning.

[Z-06]

Really? The only really sore spot I see is the new RL. The TSX and MDX in particular I think are very solid designs -especially in person.

Scratch TSX it would be partially good had they not ruined the front. MDX is a an awkward but good design. The rest of Acura lineup is horrendously ugly. While not on par with the Aztec, the ZDX is on top of the list for disgustingly ugly vehicles.

[§carlet §wordfish]

I still think y'all are crazy. This is a perfectly fine looking car. I honestly can't understand what everyone finds so revolting about it, other than possibly the mess of cutlines towards the back.

Someone please explain.

Edited September 23, 2009 by §carlet §wordfish

[Intrepidation]

How can I count the ways? Well we could start with the proportions. As I said in the original thread about this thing, you could almost be lulled into thinking it looks ok from the rear 3/4th but from every other angle it looks ungainly.

It's the front is an big offender. The shield has yet to work on any of the Acuras its been shoved on. The way the HIDs are positioned far outboard makes it look as though it's whatever the opposite of cross-eyed is. However it's really icing on an overall poorly executed cake.

From the side, well it's a mess. First you have the issue of too short wheelbase with too long front overhang. If the wheelbase was longer it would look more balanced. I'm not talking RWD proportions, just balance. It's kind of like economy cars with short wheelbases. It's not pretty, it's awkward. Then that rear door looks too short, relative to the front door, yet doesn't work like it does for a RX8 or even an Ion Quad Coupe. Hiding the rear door handle may have sounded like a super cool idea, but Nissan called and wants it back for their Pathfinder. It should have been all or nothing. The roofline also looks like it suffered as a result of eh short wheelbase. It would be better if it had more room to taper, just like the Avenger's roofiline would look better if it had more room to taper. Lastly, there's the way the character line goes over the wheel arches. I get what the designers were going for, but it interrupts the line and disjoints it. It would have been better if it was a real line flowing into real arches and not bend around them.

[§carlet §wordfish]

I agree with you about the rear door handle, and maybe the character line (still undecided about that), but nothing else you mentioned really bothers me. First, the front end is probably my favorite of any in Acura's short history. I think the Power Plenum grille is cool, and the headlights don't look crosseyed at all- they don't really look like any kind of eyes, they look like sharp sleek headlights. I have also always been a fan of the cut-off fast back, even on the Prius. (Actually from the A-pillar back I think the Prius looks pretty cool.) Long front overhangs have never bothered me, in fact I don't usually like short front overhangs. Nor do I think the rear door looks too short compared to the front, it looks about the same as most any current car.

[Drew Dowdell]

Gaah!!!

[regfootball]

i'll take mine, personally........aztek ftw

Edited September 24, 2009 by regfootball

[siegen]

Reg those are definitely the nicest Aztek photos I have ever seen, but it's still über ugly and cheap looking.

The proportions are a little off when viewing it directly from the side.

[A Horse With No Name]

I fail to see what confusing sports cars and crossovers is doing for automotive design.

It's about as bad as using a Triumph TR-6 as the basis for a minivan, IMHO. Senseless.

Nothing either sporty or practical, just different for the sake of being different.

Chris

[§carlet §wordfish]

Gaah!!!

<Eagle SX/4>

<Urkel>

Um, no.

[A Horse With No Name]

Actually if anything the American Motors product is better proportioned than the Acura Product.

I'm not anti Honda, they have some good engeneering. However, the current styling needs to leave like yesterday.

[Bimmer325]

[Bimmer325]

At least Acura understands that when producing an innovative vehicle, Fisher-Price build quality won't do.

[regfootball]

yeah but bad design in the 40k price class?

LMAO. just the fact that pictures of the thing illicits comparisons to the aztek means acura has failed big time.

to even have them be mentioned together has got to devastate an acura marketing person's energy.

FWIW the interior of that ZDX is not all that fantastic either.

the ZDX's biggest transgression is that GINORMOUS front overhang, just like the accord crosstour. OMG its huge!

[Drew Dowdell]

$40,000 for that?!?

[siegen]

$40,000 for that?!?

$44-48k probably, based on MT's estimates.

And that's a damn fine interior. Excellently styled and from the reviews, extremely well appointed. Techno may not be your thing, but this interior (at least based on the Acura's I have sat in, which are similar) is nothing but top notch.

Armchair critics ftw?

[Drew Dowdell]

$44-48k probably, based on MT's estimates.

And that's a damn fine interior. Excellently styled and from the reviews, extremely well appointed. Techno may not be your thing, but this interior (at least based on the Acura's I have sat in, which are similar) is nothing but top notch.

Armchair critics ftw?

I'm surprised at the interior of that $44k Acura because it's not remarkably better than a $19k Honda

[Bimmer325]

That says more about how good the '$19k' Honda's interior is than anything else...

[siegen]

I'm surprised at the interior of that $44k Acura because it's not remarkably better than a $19k Honda

You use the word "better" but I don't think you are meaning to. Or are you assuming the ZDX will have the same level of materials, quality and fit & finish as the Accord?

The Accord has a finely styled interior IMHO, and the style is similar to (but still very different than) the ZDX. The materials and fit & finish of the Accord won't be close to the level of the ZDX. That is almost a given, even though none of us has sat in it yet.

The Accord and ZDX (or TL or TSX) having similar styling of the interior in no way detracts from either vehicle. If the Acura has the same level of materials as the Accord, and that level was of a mainstream (non-luxury) sedan, then it would certainly. But I am confident that won't be the case.

Edited September 24, 2009 by siegen

[Robert Hall]

Both interiors look quite good.. can't really judge them, though, from single pics. Have to sit in them and feel them to really judge them.

[frogger]

I didn't know Accords with leather, dual zone climate, cd changer, navigation etc were less than 20K, that is quite a well equipped car for the price.

[Robert Hall]

I didn't know Accords with leather, dual zone climate, cd changer, navigation etc were less than 20K, that is quite a well equipped car for the price.

I think the nicely equipped Accords are more like $30k or more. Under 20k is Civic territory.

[Intrepidation]

I'm surprised at the interior of that $44k Acura because it's not remarkably better than a $19k Honda

That says more about how good the '$19k' Honda's interior is than anything else...

I agree. The Accord's big strength has long been its high quality interior. Even the 90's Accord, over a decade old, has a nicer interior than several cars sold today.

The current Accord's interior is my favorite thing abut it. Very slick and modern looking, with a great sense of quality. Too bad the sedan's exterior wasn't as nice.

[siegen]

LMAO. just the fact that pictures of the thing illicits comparisons to the aztek means acura has failed big time.

Are the Aztek comparisons coming because of the use of the rear hatch lower glass?