2007 MDX production photos and info,

[siegen]

Autoweek has pictures and some info on the new 2007 MDX. These are the first production photos I've seen.

Full Article

That starts with the new 3.7-liter V6 powering the new MDX. Horsepower is up 40 to 300 and the engine produces 275 lb ft of torque, up 25 lb ft. It is mated to a 5-speed sequential gearbox.

300hp and 275tq. Those are good numbers for a V6 in this class.

[Drew Dowdell]

Interior looks stunning... exterior is evolutionary and kinda blah, doesn't scream premium like the others...... the steering wheel doesn't match the look of the rest of the interior.

overall, B+

[Guest YellowJacket894]

Three-hundred horsepower six? All-wheel drive with a bias away from the front-wheels better be standard or they'll be some pretty nasty torque-steer.

Betcha we'll see this V6 in the NG or MCE of the (ugly as sin) Ridgeline.

Otherwise, the interior is pretty darn nice, I'll admit. The exterior is unoffensive and the grille is...well, interesting (in a confusing way).

Edited August 25, 2006 by YellowJacket894

[Paolino]

That interior is gorgeous--My only gripe is that horrific steering wheel that Honda is becoming obsessed with using in their new vehicles. This will sell well.

[Paolino]

Hmm... Nav isn't standard on this, so I wonder what they're going to do about the hood -- what will the interior look like without Nav?

[Drew Dowdell]

Ya know, this thing goes on sale in a month and this is the first we've seen of it?

What good are ya Chris!?

[ZL-1]

Stunning interior!

[DetroitNut90]

Eh...I'm not nuts over the outside. I do like the interior, but I'd prefer some lighter wood, and would like to see a nav-less interior.

[Variance]

Hmm... Nav isn't standard on this, so I wonder what they're going to do about the hood -- what will the interior look like without Nav?

184991[/snapback]

Probably the same. Nowadays, most manufacturers have a color LCD display with or without navigation in their luxury cars.

[pow]

Wow, they've definitely made an effort with the design. This engine will eventually make it to the Odyssey... who would have thought 6 years ago that minivans would be delivering 270 (Sienna) to 300 horses?

[big blue]

That interior is just plain stunning. I'm not going to even complain about the steering wheel, why? Because I'm glad Acura is getting riskier with its product, even if it's to some small degree. I'm very glad the interior came out that way, after the slightly disappointing RDX interior(kinda too much plastic) I was getting worried.

That exterior is also beautiful, a little inoccuous but I love it. The grille doesn't bother me because I've been expecting it since the concept was unveiled with it. The last thing I wanted was for the MDX to blend in and with that grille it carries more of an Acura corporate look to it. Good job so far Acura, waiting for it to be on the official site so I can check it out futher

[corvette_dude729]

The interior is nice, but am I the only one that thinks that there is a slight overload of buttons. It just looks very crowded.

[Flybrian]

Nice interior, confusing exterior, steering wheel looks vaginal.

[DetroitNut90]

steering wheel looks vaginal.

185081[/snapback]

[CSpec]

I can't say that I like the interior that much. The stack is very narrow with a million buttons...

[Paolino]

steering wheel looks vaginal.

185081[/snapback]

THAT must be why I get ill when I see it!

[Cory Wolfe]

Hmm... BV likes.

[regfootball]

Nice interior, confusing exterior, steering wheel looks vaginal.

185081[/snapback]

damn, i knew i wasn't the only one who thought a baby was going to pop out of that thing. all bloody and yucky.

this thing is a pile of turd. why would anyone with a clear head get this over a mercedes m class? third seat maybe.

why are all these japanese crossovers starting to look the exact same?

honda's really been laying some eggs. the new CRV is hideous (pics in the new MT) and can barely crack the 10.0 second barrier on 0-60. The RDX can only get 16 mpg on a road test. Nice for a 4 popper to get such bad mpg. This new MDX has a strage ass interior and imitative and unoriginal exterior.

41-48 grand for this? It'd make more common sense for me to go shove a cucumber into myself in a public park.

you'd have to be a serious follower yuppie type to get off on this.

Edited August 26, 2006 by regfootball

[Northstar]

The interior looks nice except for the million buttons.

The exterior is not going to win any beauty contest.

Is the HP SAE certified or will it drop 10-15 horses like the RL did?

All in all, I think I'd take the roomy and much better-looking Enclave for (probably) thousands less.

[siegen]

Is the HP SAE certified or will it drop 10-15 horses like the RL did?

185116[/snapback]

No they just made up the 300hp figure for fun and are still waiting on the real results.

this thing is a pile of turd.  why would anyone with a clear head get this over a mercedes m class?  third seat maybe.

why are all these japanese crossovers starting to look the exact same?

honda's really been laying some eggs.  the new CRV is hideous (pics in the new MT) and can barely crack the 10.0 second barrier on 0-60.  The RDX can only get 16 mpg on a road test.  Nice for a 4 popper to get such bad mpg.  This new MDX has a strage ass interior and imitative and unoriginal exterior.

41-48 grand for this?  It'd make more common sense for me to go shove a cucumber into myself in a public park.

you'd have to be a serious follower yuppie type to get off on this.

185112[/snapback]

There is no hope for you.

[regfootball]

in my MTY I just got their test mileage was under 16 for the RDX and the manufacturer claimed 0-60 for the CRV was TEN seconds.

so, that's not bad information.

[bobo]

The steering wheel kind of looks like the CTS's with a glory hole. On the outside, I like the front, but the rear is just generic Japanese crossover. Not very interesting to look at.

[regfootball]

Americans will just continue to buy anything thrown in fornt of them without even bothering to check how little value you get for your dollar, as long as it has a Japanese label on it.

[sciguy_0504]

U-G-L-Y, you ain't got no alibi, you ugly, yeah, yeah, you ugly.

Inside and out, though I'll admit the exterior isn't as bad as the interior.

[Northstar]

No they just made up the 300hp figure for fun and are still waiting on the real results. 

185126[/snapback]

Well it seems to me they just made up the RL's 300hp figure

[Paolino]

Well it seems to me they just made up the RL's 300hp figure 

185415[/snapback]

The RL was given it's 300hp stat before the new SAE standards were out... when they came out, it dropped to 290... so 300 is not that unbelieable... especially since Lexus' SC430 was originally quoted 300, and that dropped to 288 under the new standards, and the LS430 was originally quoted 290 and that fell to 278.

[Northstar]

The RL was given it's 300hp stat before the new SAE standards were out... when they came out, it dropped to 290... so 300 is not that unbelieable... especially since Lexus' SC430 was originally quoted 300, and that dropped to 288 under the new standards, and the LS430 was originally quoted 290 and that fell to 278.

185424[/snapback]

I know, that's why I asked if the MDX's numbers would drop too. When have we seen an SAE-certified number that has two even numbers like 300 and 275? The Z06 has it, but that's underrated still even with the SAE certification.

[regfootball]

The Land Rover LR3 with rear seat package is a much cooler ride and better buy than this MDX crap.

[siegen]

I know, that's why I asked if the MDX's numbers would drop too. When have we seen an SAE-certified number that has two even numbers like 300 and 275? The Z06 has it, but that's underrated still even with the SAE certification.

185437[/snapback]

Why would they drop? If they're advertising 300hp, then it was tested and received that rating.

The Land Rover LR3 with rear seat package is a much cooler ride and better buy than this MDX crap.

185460[/snapback]

Why?

[deftonesfan867]

I'm gonna come out and say it, if GM did that interior the press would hate it. That "wood" is way to thick and the design, while having originality is ugly as sin...especially that steering wheel and the millions of buttons...dont think I need to talk about the exterior, but i'm just one man and those are my opinions.

[Member55]

Why would they drop? If they're advertising 300hp, then it was tested and received that rating.

Why?

185497[/snapback]

IMO because it will probably be cheaper and you're driving a Land Rover.

Edited August 28, 2006 by Member55

[big blue]

I'm gonna come out and say it, if GM did that interior the press would hate it. That "wood" is way to thick and the design, while having originality is ugly as sin...especially that steering wheel and the millions of buttons...dont think I need to talk about the exterior, but i'm just one man and those are my opinions.

185561[/snapback]

If GM released a car with that interior, I for one would love to own it because I like the design. If you feel that way about the car that's fine, but making assumptions about how the press might feel if it was made by the General doesn't help as you never know what could happen. Think positive!

I'd like to see an MDX w/o nav just to compare how many less buttons there would be. Also remember that luxury cars pack in more technogoodies than average cars so don't use normal vehicles as a basis for judgement. It does look a bit daunting but I haven't sat in the car, so I can't be sure. The only thing is I can't afford an MDX anyways, or an Enclave which I also like. Ah well, patience and hardwork will pay off...eventually

Edited August 28, 2006 by big blue

[Delta Force79]

this thing is fugly...the grille has got to go, the steering wheel has got to go and the wood is a little overused....overall a boring dud

[CSpec]

The engine is a 3.7, not a 3.5 like the RL, so 300 might even be conservative.

[C.H.U.D.]

Meh...not bad, but not great. A huge improvement over the previous model though.

[regfootball]

got my R&T in the mail today. I guess this FOUR CYLINDER fuel sucker only got THIRTEEN POINT EIGHT MILES PER GALLON for road and track.

13.8

frickin 400 horse trailblazer SS and SRT8 Grand Cherokee almost got that in testing.

Edited August 31, 2006 by regfootball

[siegen]

got my R&T in the mail today.  I guess this FOUR CYLINDER fuel sucker only got THIRTEEN POINT EIGHT MILES PER GALLON for road and track.

13.8

frickin 400 horse trailblazer SS and SRT8 Grand Cherokee almost got that in testing.

187259[/snapback]

?? Are you talking about the RDX or MDX?

Regardless, you said yourself road tests aren't a good way of determining mileage. Whether it's the RDX or MDX, the guys at Road & Track undoubtably beat on it pretty good.

[Northstar]

13.8 is still pretty damn bad. Didn't they get like 13.x from the Tahoe?

[regfootball]

OH CRAP, you're right! IT WAS THE RDX!!!!!!!!

[siegen]

13.8 is still pretty damn bad. Didn't they get like 13.x from the Tahoe?

187283[/snapback]

What if the editors spent 80% of their time on the track or going through twisties at WOT? Would 13.8 still be bad in that case? How can you make a judgement with absolutely no information?

Comparing a Tahoe to an RDX is like comparing an Avalon to a Cobalt SS. How could the Avalon get better mileage in a road test? It's twice as big! Maybe because the editors drove the snot out of the sportier vehicle while they merely cruised around in the other.

[The O.C.]

Americans will just continue to buy anything thrown in fornt of them without even bothering to check how little value you get for your dollar, as long as it has a Japanese label on it.

185177[/snapback]

I quite like it....!

I don't like it enough to buy it over the new X5 or even the Edge/MKX.....but I think it's unique, adventurous, and it does have a stunning interior.

[The O.C.]

The Land Rover LR3 with rear seat package is a much cooler ride and better buy than this MDX crap.

185460[/snapback]

Yeah and it was also just rated as THE least-reliable new car available in the U.S.

I forget what the study was....but I saw it on msn.com......LR3 was the worst and the Range Rover was second to last....(which my friend that owns one can attest to.)

[LTB51]

Americans will just continue to buy anything thrown in fornt of them without even bothering to check how little value you get for your dollar, as long as it has a Japanese label on it.

185177[/snapback]

Uh.... I'm not sure if you just like to make meaningless sweeping generalizations, but I wouldn't go after Acura with "how little you get for your dollar".

I just went to the Cadillac site to see what I could get for 41- 48K. Although I couldn't find a Cadillac with as nice an interior, for 58K I could get a 4WD Escalade with a moonroof. I guess Americans will continue to buy anything thrown at them without even bothering to check how little value you get for your dollar.

Edited August 31, 2006 by LTB51

[regfootball]

Uh.... I'm not sure if you just like to make meaningless sweeping generalizations, but I wouldn't go after Acura with "how little you get for your dollar". 

I just went to the Cadillac site to see what I could get for 41- 48K.  Although I couldn't find a Cadillac with as nice an interior, for 58K I could get a 4WD Escalade with a moonroof.  I guess Americans will continue to buy anything thrown at them without even bothering to check how little value you get for your dollar. 

187486[/snapback]

if spending 50k on an all wheel drive Accord (RL) floats your boat...be my guest.

why not just get an Accord DX and pocket the 35 grand?

Around here most STS sell starting in the high thirties to the low forties for nice well equipped cars. Anyone who buys an Acura-cough- HONDA over a Cadillac is a MORON.

[regfootball]

Yeah and it was also just rated as THE least-reliable new car available in the U.S.

I forget what the study was....but I saw it on msn.com......LR3 was the worst and the Range Rover was second to last....(which my friend that owns one can attest to.)

187471[/snapback]

you are thinking of the freelander. go back and check your list.

[LTB51]

Around here most STS sell starting in the high thirties to the low forties for nice well equipped cars.  Anyone who buys an Acura-cough- HONDA over a Cadillac is a MORON.

187602[/snapback]

Well-equipped for High 30's? The base of the base is 42.5K. I was up to 54K on V6 STS and I hadn't yet reached the features of the RL.

And of course no level of options or $$$ will make that ugly square Cadillac interior approach the quality and curves of the RL interior. Perhaps something to think about while the Caddy is in the shop as they try to find those electrical gremlins.

Can you at least try to be reasonable? Or are you interviewing for a job on GM's board and you are practicing your "Dillusional Denials of Reality" skills?

[Cory Wolfe]

That's Reg for you... He's likes being blindly retarded.

[Flybrian]

From January to June...

Cadillac STS - 12,004 sold

Acura RL - 6,684 sold.

In fact, the RL is the slowest-selling luxury car aside from the S80 and S-Type, both of which are nearly a decade old. Maybe Acura needs to work on Super Handling Marketing Abilities.

Then again, the Accord is selling well because its a decent car. The TL is selling well because its a distinctive car. Hmm...

[pow]

Well-equipped for High 30's?  The base of the base is 42.5K.  I was up to 54K on V6 STS and I hadn't yet reached the features of the RL.

And of course no level of options or $$$ will make that ugly square Cadillac interior approach the quality and curves of the RL interior.  Perhaps something to think about while the Caddy is in the shop as they try to find those electrical gremlins.

Can you at least try to be reasonable?  Or are you interviewing for a job on GM's board and you are practicing your "Dillusional Denials of Reality" skills?

187751[/snapback]

With $4000 rebates, one could easily get a new STS V6 for $34K. Or a slightly used one for $25K.

But then, to be fair, one could easily get a new RL for $42K, $8K under sticker.

[big blue]

Then again, the Accord is selling well because its a decent car. The TL is selling well because its a distinctive car. Hmm...

187759[/snapback]

*points to distinctive as the main reason RL is not selling well*

It's a decent car, it just totally went the wrong way in styling. The TSX and TL(which look great) don't look related to its barely larger sibling the RL at all, where did the Acura look for the RL go?

Edited September 1, 2006 by big blue