This review is a result of our five-month search for a new vehicle. We've also investigated the BMW X5 3.0i, Mercedes ML320, Infiniti QX4, GMC Yukon and Volvo S70XC, and for us it's been a tough choice. We highly value safety, utility and versatility, and each model has something superior to offer in one or more of these categories. Although we recently plunked down a refundable deposit for the MDX and have gotten in line for a three-month wait, we may switch in the interim if significant new information warrants it.

12/30/00 Update: We've switched to the BMW X5, and explain why in our review comparing it to the MDX (in the 2001 BMW X5 category). And won't switch again, as we take delivery tomorrow!

7/20/01 Update: The 2001 J.D. Power Initial Quality Survey was just released, and the RX300 is rated 5th out of 190 vehicles in the survey. This is the top Luxury SUV rated, and is much higher than the X5, which ranked 165, or MDX at 114. Do these results correlate well with long-term reliability? They have in the case of the RX300, per Consumer Reports. However, Ford's Expedition, which CR's members rated below average, is JD Power's top rated Full Size SUV this year.

There’s no such thing as the perfect vehicle to meet everyone’s needs. We’ve therefore put our own considerations at the end of this review, so that the reader can put our judgments into perspective. We’ve also listed our references at the end, and cite them by number in the review. We test-drove each vehicle at least twice, but found that we got much more information through library and internet research. Indeed, it’s easy to get seduced away from important considerations on the dealer’s lot when smelling the new leather and revving up the engine.

FIRST IMPRESSIONS

The RX300 is currently the best-selling upscale SUV in America, and has also earned Consumers Reports’ "Recommended Buy" designation in its full-size SUV category (2). It is essentially an all-wheel drive Camry, with a chassis and power train that are loosely based on that model. Because of that configuration it’s not really an off-road vehicle, and was described as "a poodle in the midst of a coon-hound trail" in one off-road comparison test (1). It was able to keep up with the other SUVs in that test, but just barely.

The MDX is Honda/Acura’s answer to the RX300, with more power, cargo space and off-road capability. Its cousin (chassis & power train, roughly) is the Honda Odyssey, which has also earned CR’s top "Recommended Buy" title. The MDX has been receiving rave reviews and earning top performer ratings in auto magazine SUV comparison tests (1, 7), and is currently back-ordered in many Acura dealerships throughout the U.S. (per our investigation of dealer and auction web sites, as well as calls to West Coast dealers.

1. SAFETY: probable Advantage MDX, 2-1-4

1.1 Rollover Protection: likely MDX
Rollovers caused 79% of all SUV fatalities in 1997 (8). A narrower track (width between wheels on the same axle), greater height and greater cargo volume are the three main factors causing rollover. NHTSA (8) estimates rollover tendency through a measurement called Static Stability Factor (SSF), which is the track divided by the center-of-gravity height. You can estimate SSF by simply using height. The lower the number, the higher the rollover tendency. The MDX comes out a little ahead due to its wider track, as follows: MDX: 66.4/71.3 = .9313; RX 300: 62/67.5 = .9185.

More notably, an interesting article on predicted rollover probabilities (9, 7/17/00*) gives the RX300 a 22-27% chance of rollover in a serious accident, putting it in the same category as the Ford Explorer. Although the MDX wasn’t around when this analysis was done, its cousin the Odyssey is in the 7-10% category, the lowest for any minivan and in the third lowest category (out of 10) for all vehicles evaluated.

The RX300 has a stability control mechanism (VSC) that modulates braking electronically to prevent sideways skidding, which often results in rollovers. Although we couldn't find any independent evaluation of the effectiveness of this system, we consider it an advantage of the RX300 over the MDX -- but not enough of one to rate it as the more stable vehicle.

1.2. Collision performance: probable tie
The RX300 has earned a "Best Pick" designation in offset frontal crash tests (6), the third best (behind BMW and Mercedes) of all midsize SUVs evaluated. Government crash test results (8) for the RX300 are due in December 2000 (front) and March 2001 (side).

The MDX hasn't been tested yet, but reviewers have stated that Honda's testing labs have given it NHTSA-equivalent five star (highest) ratings for front and side collisions (1). And the Honda Odyssey, with the same chassis, has earned a Best Pick in the IIHS’s minivan category.

1.3. Effective Braking: RX300
Both vehicles have independent channel, four-wheel disc ABS braking systems, the safest combination to have. However, the RX300 outperforms the MDX as follows in 70-0 mph braking tests (1): RX300: 188 feet; MDX: 205 feet. The RX300’s braking is among the best of the midsize SUVs, while the MDX's approximately equals that of the much-larger GMC Yukon Denali XL.

1.4. Supplemental Restraint Systems: tie (or likely MDX)
Both vehicles have seat belt pretensioners and front & side-chest airbags, but neither has bags that protect the head in a side collision. This could be a life-saver one day, or at least prevent serious injuries in a side impact crash. The MDX gets high marks, however, for having bags with passenger position sensors and partial-inflation capability.

1.5. Bumper Damage Protection: probable tie
The RX300 has the third-lowest midsize SUV bumper repair cost (6), $864, behind BMW X5 ($547) and Mercedes ML320 ($744). Compare this with the $2,790 that you'd pay with the worst model, the Isuzu Trooper. The MDX hasn't been tested yet, but the Honda Odyssey, which has the same chassis as the MDX, rates a similarly low $299.

1.6. Head Restraint Protection: tie (or probable RX300)
An important measurement for rear-end collisions, and very few vehicles excel in this test except Volvo and Saab (6). The RX300 gets an Average rating, and the MDX hasn't been tested yet. But its cousin, the Odyssey, gets a marginal rating.

1.7. Weight Load Capacity: MDX
A recent presentation by NBC's Dateline and Consumers Reports (2, 12/00) dramatized the importance of this factor. Some SUVs have load capacities of under 1,000 lb., and thus are easily overloaded and much more prone to loss of control and rollovers. A Ford Explorer, for example, has a rating of 980 lb., compared with 1,200 lb.on a Ford Taurus wagon. The MDX is markedly safer in this regard, as follows: RX300: 880 lb.; MDX: 1362 lb. Compare this with a Camry wagon, which can carry 1,095 lb.

This means that you're overloaded in the RX300 with five 180 lb. adults and no cargo, according to the manufacturer's specifications. Anyone planning to carry lots of people or stuff, especially with the latter on top of their vehicle, should carefully consider this serious limitation of the RX300. (We've written a review on the subject of weight load capacity)

2. UTILITY: Advantage, MDX, 4-0-1

2.1. Off-road Performance: MDX
Off-road tests in dry conditions and intermittent mud (1,7) show the MDX to be the better performer in this category, although not by much. Both are less capable than the more truck-like SUVs such as the Mercedes ML320 and Infiniti QX4. The latter have low-range four wheel drive gear mechanisms that are better for climbing and descending hills and digging out of muck. They also have ground clearance and suspensions that are better suited for off-road conditions than either the MDX or RX300.

2.2. Winter Performance: MDX
An excellent source for winter performance reviews (9) enthuses that the MDX "kicked the goobers" out of the RX300, Mercedes ML320 and BMW X5 in winter conditions on black ice, slush and snow. its new Variable Torque Management System prevented the powering-down, spin-outs and loss of control seen in the other models in these conditions (the Rocky Mountains in winter, after heavy snowfall).

2.3. Trailer hauling: tie
The RX300 tows 3,500 lb. The MDX tows 3,500, or 4,500 lb. if a boat. However, the MDX requires a towing conversion package for anything over 2,000 lb., which will cost significant extra cash (varies by dealer).

2.4. Passenger Volume: MDX
The MDX provides 162 cu. ft versus 101 in the RX300. You can fold down the third row seat and actually lay down a plywood 4 X 8 in the rear space if you had to (with 16" sticking out the back). More practical for us is the ability to store bikes in this space, and Acura even sells an interior bike rack for this purpose. The RX300 not only has significantly less passenger volume, but its cargo space’s length, height and width are smaller as well – and its weight load capacity is also much smaller (see 1.7 above)

2.5. Power/Acceleration: MDX
The MDX does 0 to 60 mph in 8.4 seconds, vs. 9.6 seconds for the RX300. Its across-the-board acceleration at different speed levels (1) is also superior to the RX’s. The MDX also has more torque (245 vs 222 ft.lb.). In our test drives on the freeway, we found the MDX’s extra power to be noticeably better for lane changes and passing.

3. VERSATILITY: Tie, 2-2-2

3.1. Driving performance: tie
The RX300 seemed to give us a slightly better experience in test drives, but performance tests (1) indicate that the two are approximately equal. The MDX has a better skidpad (.74 g. vs. .68 g.), while the RX300 had a slightly better lane change maneuver performance (53.9 vs 52.4 mph.). These can be compared to the much-better BMW X5, which has a .78 g. skidpad and 58.6 mph lane change.

3.2. Driving Comfort: RX300
Again, the two are close but the RX300 feels somewhat better. We enjoyed the feel of the RX’s front seats a little more, yet preferred the middle seats in the MDX. The RX's interior is a little better designed, but the MDX's suits our somewhat utilitarian orientation just fine. Interior noise levels are approximately equal at different rates of speed (1). MDX bonuses are separate front and rear air conditioning systems and standard seat warming. Note: the MDX’s third row seats are not big enough to comfortably transport adults over long distances.

3.3. Space Conversion: MDX
The RX300 doesn't even have the third row seat, so no contest there. With the MDX, you can fold down one of the two mid-row seats so that it can accommodate extra long stuff such as skis and ladders. Can’t do this in the RX. And the MDX’s third row seat doesn't have to be removed like in most other full-size SUVs. You just fold it down, and there's a (relatively) vast expanse of cargo space.

3.4. Mileage & Emissions: MDX
Even though the MDX has more power, it amazingly achieves better highway fuel economy (17/23 vs. 18/22) AND earns a ULEV (ultra low emissions) rating to boot. The RX gets only a LEV rating. The latter is the reason for giving the MDX this point, even though the RX300 has a better city mileage.

3.5. Warranties: RX300
Both are 48 mo./50K for basic coverage, but the RX300 offers better power train coverage (6 yr/70K vs. 4 yr/50K) and better rust protection (72 vs 60 mo.). Both companies have excellent reputations for warranty protection (2)

3.6. Reliability: probable tie
The RX300 has an excellent repair history (2). Although the MDX is a new model, its cousin the Odyssey – and other Honda and Acura models as well – also have excellent repair histories.

THE BOTTOM LINE

The above things thus considered, we opted for the MDX and got in line to wait for ours after paying a refundable deposit. The three-month wait has given us time to reflect on our choice, as well as write this review analyzing one of our other top choices, the RX300. If we intended to haul less stuff around, and didn’t plan to do much driving in winter conditions, then the RX300 would be a top consideration. It’s a more compact package, is more car-like in appearance and handling, and has the famous Toyota reliability. We currently own a Toyota Previa, and have enjoyed the durability and consistency that it’s given us. And our mechanic has told us that the Lexus is even better. However, we’ve also investigated Honda/Acura (2), and have a lot of confidence that it will be no less reliable. Please let us hear from you if you think otherwise!

________________________________________________

OUR CONSIDERATIONS

We believe that Safety should be the foremost consideration when buying a vehicle. For some people, "safe SUV" may be an oxymoron, like "jumbo shrimp," given all the recent press about Explorer rollovers. However, it's a statistical fact that SUVs -- and especially those of greater size and wider track -- have fared better in accidents than other vehicles. IIHS and NHTSA are good references on this subject (6,8).

These sources indicate that under-size SUVs have had a dangerous track record, and one additional source (9, 7/17/00, SUV Rollover Probabilities*) gives the Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4, Suzuki Grand Vitara and Subaru Forester almost double the likelihood of a rollover in an accident as compared to the BMW X5. Also, under-size SUVs are easily overloaded (see 1.7 above) and thus more vulnerable in this regard. Lastly, they're also more susceptible in side collisions. The CR-V even rolled over when tested for side collision protection (8), the only vehicle ever to do this in NHTSA tests.

Over-size SUVs, such as the Excursion, Expedition and Suburban, although much safer statistically for their occupants, can nevertheless be dangerous as well – especially to others on the road – with their longer braking distances, limited maneuverability and significant crash incompatibility. The above reasons are our rationale for only looking in the mid-size SUV category.

We're not race-car drivers, and accordingly don't give our highest marks to tests like the 600-ft. slalom and skidpad performance -- although these are considerations. On the other hand, we believe that acceleration and braking are important safety features.

The next factor is Utility, which for us is a large part of what having an SUV is all about. We want to be able to, on occasion, travel safely on ice and snow, haul our pop-up travel trailer, navigate rutted muddy roads (but not go extremely off-road), and carry sizeable loads of stuff ranging from bicycles to 4 X 8 sheets of wood--the latter two items without racks.

However, as frequent travelers we enjoy the aesthetics of a vehicle's ride, and want our SUV to be a good "people hauler" as well. This includes warranty performance as well as comfort and reliability. So this Versatility is important to us too.

REFERENCES that have been helpful to us:

1. Car and Driver (www.caranddriver.com)
2. ConsumerReports.org
3. Consumer Reports, 4/00 new car issue
4. Consumer Reports, 5/00 Special Edition on SUVs
5. Edmunds (www.edmunds.com)
6. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (www.highwaysafety.org)
7. Motor Trend (www.motortrend.com)
8. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (www.nhtsa.org)
9. USAToday (www.usatoday.com)*

*Note re rollover probability: the 7/17/00 USA Today article cites a study by the Transportation Analysis Institute. This study makes its predictions based on its "K Factor (KF) Rollover Index", which combines track, center-of-gravity height, and weight. Imagine a group of errant college students trying to tip a Ford Excursion (very good KF Index) versus a Subaru Forester or Toyota RAV4 (very bad & worst KF indexes), and you'll see the logic of including weight as an additional factor. Given that the MDX weighs 90 lb. more than the Odyssey LX, and is the same approximate height and track -- but with a slightly higher ground clearance, shifting its center-of-gravity height upward -- the MDX will likely be close to, but not as good as, the Odyssey's excellent KF index.