Hi all. Our lease on our Buick Enclave is up at the end of the month and we are between the 2020 MDX and the 2020 RX 350 (and we realize that the MDX will be redesigned for 2021).

We previously owned a 2002 MDX (from new) which was probably one of the best cars we ever owned. However, I’ve been reading a lot about quality and reliability issues with the current lineup of Acuras. I realize this is an Acura enthusiast forum, but I am looking for some real world practical advice concerning this issue. Is it overblown? I see a ton of MDXs on the road and I can’t imagine that all of these people would be buying this car if the ratings were accurate. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you.

 

Two words, KIA TELLURIDE!

 

The CR algorithm on new models is seriously screwed up. Good example is the rating of the 2014 MDX in the April 2020 car issue. It got all sorts of bad ratings in earlier years, and now is on the Best used car buys list. Granted, as a new generation it had a few problems that were fixed by Acura recall and campaign within the next few years. Compare the crazy low ratings of current newer models of many brands, with only one or two "Problem Areas" reported. Makes no sense to me. Since January I have been shopping for an SUV replacement for my trusty 2006 CRV. I compare the popular car evaluation websites, and look for common pros and cons on the various models. It gives a much better overall picture, IMO. A good current example of big disparity is the current CR rating of the new Honda Passport vs. almost every other review site. I take CR ratings with a measure of mistrust.

 

Yes, it's getting a lot of love, but as a brand new LINE, not just generation change, I personally wouln't jump on the bandwagon yet. One advantage of the 2020 MDX is that it is at the end of a 7 year generation run, which means that they have had a lot of time to make improvements. Good example is my 2006 CRV which was the last year for the second generation. Now 14 years old and stone solid reliability the whole time I have owned it. Much the same with my 2005 MDX that was near the end of it's generation.

 

But have they made improvements or are the problems that existed in the earlier years of the model run still in existence today?

 

Honda/Acura do a good job of continuing improvements within a generation build. Recent examples are the '16-'17 Pilot fix for the fuel pump and injector problem, the '16-'17 CRV oil consumption, and the '16='17 nine speed transmission problems. As automotive tech gets even more complicated, it's even more important to allow some time for improvement after a major design change. All the manufacturers are under a lot of pressure to meet ever-tougher EPA standards, and all are having "Teething Problems" with the new designs.

As one wag said "High Tech = Stuff that doesn't work right yet"

 

I had a 2013 MDX and sold it 90K miles. Never had any issue with it.
I currently have a 2019 MDX Hybrid with 8K miles. Never had an issue with it.

 

The hybrid intrigues me. Maybe we should be taking a closer look at that as opposed to the standard model.

 

certainly none of transmission issues that users experienced with the 9 gear box.
Inaddition it has many other advantages.
If you don’t need towing, it is the way to go.

 

I would drive MDS 3.5L sh-awd and hybrid MDX back-to-back to feel the differences between them. The MDX hybrid is very easy to live with as a daily city driver with the responsive throttle, instant low/mid-range tq, and sporty (or comfort mode) handling. The 3.5L and Hybrid are about even with hwy driving with the edge going to the 3.5L with more hp/tq available at +75 mph, similar hwy mpgs, and you get awd at +80 mph with the 3.5L (hybrid is fwd at +84 mph).

I even get better mpgs the more city driving I do in the hybrid. I'm seeing 26-28 mpg city compared to 14-17 mpg city with my 11 MDX. My mixed driving was around 23-25 mpg with about 50%-65% hwy. It is nice going 425-450 miles per tank in city driving.

 

I have a 19 MDX A-spec. It has about 25,000 miles on it and has not had one single problem, other than a leaky window to the front passenger window when going through car washes. They replaced the channel and it is not leaking any further. I am very happy with this car and enjoy it every time I get in it.

 

I agree completely on driving the regular and hybrid MDX. For us the difference was astounding. Shifting, handling, acceleration ride comfort etc. the hybrid won hands down at least for us. We were only interested in the hybrid, drove it loved it bought one. A few days later it was in to have protective film on the front and a few other things installed. The dealer gave us a 2020 technology package MDX to drive. Drove it off the lot and thought, is this really an MDX? on the way home played with it some and the 9 speed was NOT something I liked at all. Stuff your foot in it and wait for a lag before it decided what to do and shift. And shifts weren't near as smooth. The ride w/o the active damper system not near as controlled. If we had been looking at a non hybrid and drove the MDX, we would have been in a quandry. We drove a Audi Q5 non hybrid, similar transmission behavior, not quite enouigh, Lexus, hate the looks of the front end. RDX, nice but again, transmission was ok, but not inspiring. I think we would have decided to keep our 20 year old MB E class.

 

I will add that I have several friends who currently own or had own various years of MDX, from early on to several with the 2017- 2019 model year, all non hybrids and they all like them and have had good luck reliability wise. So, I guess that the current 9 speed is something people, hate, love, or don't care about.

 

I had a '17 MDX SH-AWD Tech and now have a '19 MDX SH-AWD Advance. There are subtle but important differences between the two, and frankly I wouldn't have any hesitation with going with a '20 MDX in terms of long-term viability. It is the final year of the Gen 3 iteration of the MDX, and (in my view) most of the kinks are worked out and it should be reliable for a long time to come. I know some will say the 9-speed ZF transmission is a weak spot, and while I don't fully agree, they have improved it with the '19 and '20 model years. I also agree that driving a Hybrid MDX while making a decision is a good thing to do. My wife has a '18 RLX Sport Hybrid that I get to drive on occasion, and it's a fine drivetrain as well, and the rural and city MPG's are a thing to behold. It all depends on how you will use your MDX, and whether the driving behavior for the type of roads you use will be acceptable in the hybrid vs the normal 3.5L setup. Towing is one big difference, and if you to anything at all, you need to go with the non-Hybrid.

Good luck

 

I've always been puzzled by many of the CR car ratings (performance and quality)
1) there are many cars where the year column is filled with double green arrows, indicating no problems yet the car as a double down red arrows, doesn't make sense to me
2) there are in some cases virtually identical vehicles (ex, GMC vs Chevrolet trucks) that share exactly the same components and the differences are esentially cosmetic yet the road test and reliabilty is significantly different. Now some may be from what the buyers expect for the given brand, but sometimes the disparity is high enough I can't see that be the whole issue.
3) yes there claim of no advertizing, which is correct. But if they gave all the stuff the tested high marks, even if that was correct who would buy the magazine? So, IMHO regardless of quality and usefullness they need to have criteria,real or arbitary, that leads to some level of differential ranking.
4) As a car user, my criteria for a good car doesn't seem to match well with the CR criteria. Now I will admit that we are probably outliers, But for us vehicle dynamic handling, how quite the vehicle is, takes priority or some of the fluff stuff. We tend to line up more with test critera from R&T, C&D etc. So I use CR test reports as a data point of things to look at and evaluate, but not anywhere near my top criteria.

And lastly, my personal experience has not lined up very well with the CR analysis. The worst two vehicles I owned reliability wise were ones that continually got and still get high marks from CR. And friends that have the same brand brag about quality, but when quized seem to have more shop time for issues that the bragging would equate to. And mulitple other vehicles I owned that had vey low reliability records yet we drove them 200K+ miles with nothing other than good normal recomended maintenance and very occasional minor replacement for things one might expect to have problems by 200K+ miles.
And it isn't just cars. Our dishwasher, which we and others that I know that have the same dishwasher love the unit, highly reliable, excellent cleaning, yet CR gave it pretty mediocre or bad marks. The highest rated one that year a few neighbors had and when something went bad (early) they bought the one we had.

 

Its like lying to your kids that Acura is a bad car

 

The reliability scores are arrived based on how owners rate their vehicle, so the data is based on sample size of CR's subscriber base. So most if not all of the data is from actual owners.

I hope this gives an idea of why the discrepancy and why a rating might get changed over a period.

 

It is true that as time goes on, the data is closer to fact. However, some of the ratings are nonsensical.

Example: 2019 Honda Passport. Too new to have enough data on, as shown by the fact that reported problems matrix doesn't even exist, but in their mini review they give it two arrows down (Worst reliability).

REALLY? Based on what?

Maybe some of their editors are also involved in current testing of "Best Medical Marijuana"?