Topic: Long-term Test: 2010 Acura ZDX wrap-up

[Autos_Editor]

Despite compromising some practicality for style, the Acura ZDX offers the 'right blend of sportiness, functionality and style,' concludes Grant Yoxon.

Read More...

[JohnM]

The ZDX manages to combine the terrible sight-lines and difficulty of entry of a sports car, with the wretched excess of an SUV.   4500 pounds of personal transport for a pair of empty nesters?  Give me a break.

Is Honda going through some kind of mental crisis??  Did they hire a product planner from Chrysler?

I didn't see anything on fuel consumption but maybe that can be safely assumed to be terrible.

I saw one of these cartoonish behemoths up close and it would look good 40% smaller.

Honda should simply walk away from this "Car" and move on to something relevant.

Cheers,
John Meyer

[gord_boyd]

I completely agree with JohnM. 

[aaronk]

...
I didn't see anything on fuel consumption but maybe that can be safely assumed to be terrible.
...

Fueleconomy.gov says 19 mpg avg, 16 city and 23 highway. When an Audi A3 can do 95% of what the ZDX can, and actually look good, it makes you wonder what Acura was thinking...but then, the target buyer wants to be up high. Maybe it's the same target audience as the X6, which as done well for BMW despite all the hate from enthusiasts (like me!  )

[maxzoey]

I desperately wanted to like this car. I waited with anticipation for the ZDX to arrive in the showroom. After driving 3 Acura Tl's for the previous 10 years I thought the ZDX would be my next new car. What a let down, the difficulty of getting in and out of the car and the poor rear visibility were too much for me to overcome. I ended up getting a MDX. I Love my MDX , but a part of me still wants to like the ZDX. With sales of under 3300 units in the USA, you have to wonder how long they will be making the ZDX.

[aaronk]

The ZDX manages to combine the terrible sight-lines and difficulty of entry of a sports car, with the wretched excess of an SUV.

Again with the by now cliche anti-SUV sentiment.  Not everyone wants a Honda Fit or particularly cares if they achieve 5.9 l/100 km versus 6.4.  If you do care, then celebrate the fact that you have plenty of great options on the market.  The fact that the so-called wretched SUV lives on with $1.20/litre gasoline (even more for the many SUVs that require premium fuel, including the ZDX) signals that many people have a different preference.  Some of them might even be decent human beings.  Grant obviously found something redeeming in the ZDX.

I think it's more to the point that this really isn't an SUV. In my eyes, car-based SUV's are very practical vehicles - easy to get in/out, load up with lots of stuff, and often return decent fuel economy if driven normally. They can carry 5-7 people with room and comfort, some can even tow a trailer. Low-slung sedans are also good, as they offer a measure of sporting character and driving dynamics a tall vehicle can't deliver. But when you mesh the two without much effort, it's not really hating on an SUV to say that the ZDX is missing the point. It doesn't have the ingredients to be truly sporty, nor does it have the capability to be truly functional.

[mikemcm]

I've seen a few of these on the road and I just can't believe how ugly they are. The last few years of Honda cars have just been horrible.

[ktm525]

15 sold in Canada  for January or February.  High five.

[Sasker]

SUVs and crossovers are dangerous for other people on the road (cars and pedestrians), consume more and pollute more, block the view of other drivers, and are mostly used to satisfy psychological fears (have to keep my family safe! to hell with other people's families!) and lacks (my car is bigger than yours) of their owners rather than for real need.

99% of SUV buyers can very well live with a wagon or hatchback.

[Guy]

15 sold in Canada  for January or February.  High five.

That with $12K rebates. Another successfull Acura product!

[aaronk]

SUVs and crossovers are dangerous for other people on the road (cars and pedestrians), consume more and pollute more, block the view of other drivers, and are mostly used to satisfy psychological fears (have to keep my family safe! to hell with other people's families!) and lacks (my car is bigger than yours) of their owners rather than for real need.

99% of SUV buyers can very well live with a wagon or hatchback.

Sure there are lots of psychological reasons people buy the vehicles they do, but that's kinda the point. Manufacturers design vehicles to appeal to lust, prestige, sometimes even practicality - there's something for everyone. Thankfully manufacturers are at least reducing the emissions across the board, even a new 'guzzler' today would produce less CO2 than even a Honda Civic from the early 90's.

To the point about wagons, you're right, most could. They would probably enjoy the drive more too, cars are more agile and responsive and fun. But that's up to the buyer. I would say more people who think they unquestionably need an SUV to ferry the family should do themselves a favour and try a wagon/hatchback first, then decide.

The whole shift from Body-on-frame SUV's to crossovers in the last few years has made a great stride in making SUV's more efficient and in line with what it's owners use their vehicles for. It's also made them safer for drivers of said SUV and other traffic too. Pedestrians, well, if everybody is paying attention and driving with a head on their shoulders there should be no need for anyone to hit a pedestrian.

[ktm525]

SUVs and crossovers are dangerous for other people on the road (cars and pedestrians), consume more and pollute more, block the view of other drivers, and are mostly used to satisfy psychological fears (have to keep my family safe! to hell with other people's families!) and lacks (my car is bigger than yours) of their owners rather than for real need.

99% of SUV buyers can very well live with a wagon or hatchback.

Tell us what you really think. I prefer the extra space, additonal seats and larger cargo of my Land Rover LR3 over my Volvo V70R wagon. In addition it can easily pull loads that the Volvo could only dream of. The fuel economy is only a couple of litres/100km greater. Whether the Rover is more of a menace to the public is also open to debate. With the LR3 I find myself content to dwaddle along at near the speed limits. A performance based wagon like the Volvo meant it had to be flogged like the naughtly little car it was.

[PlanB]

Maybe it's the same target audience as the X6, which as done well for BMW despite all the hate from enthusiasts (like me!  )

With all the billions spent in marketing and customer survey research, I often wonder if auto-manufacturers simply make decisions on what cars to make or not make by the "Keeping up with the Jones'" mentality? 

BMW is developing this, and Audi is developing that, therefore we should be developing a competitor for it and on, and on, and on.

Why is it that creativity and original ideas are so few and far between in the auto-industry (I mean good ideas, not Aztek ideas)? 

[Sasker]

With all the billions spent in marketing and customer survey research, I often wonder if auto-manufacturers simply make decisions on what cars to make or not make by the "Keeping up with the Jones'" mentality? 

BMW is developing this, and Audi is developing that, therefore we should be developing a competitor for it and on, and on, and on.

Why is it that creativity and original ideas are so few and far between in the auto-industry (I mean good ideas, not Aztek ideas)? 

 At least BMW has a full spectrum of body types: big and small sedans, coupés, wagons, traditional SUVs, etc. Acura has a few sedans and SUVs, so offering such a useless, ugly, niche vehicle is not justified.

 And to make things worse, Honda Canada isn't even importing the TSX wagon. Not very clever at all.

[aaronk]

Maybe it's the same target audience as the X6, which as done well for BMW despite all the hate from enthusiasts (like me!  )

With all the billions spent in marketing and customer survey research, I often wonder if auto-manufacturers simply make decisions on what cars to make or not make by the "Keeping up with the Jones'" mentality? 

BMW is developing this, and Audi is developing that, therefore we should be developing a competitor for it and on, and on, and on.

Why is it that creativity and original ideas are so few and far between in the auto-industry (I mean good ideas, not Aztek ideas)? 

That's an excellent point.

I think the marketplace has become so competitive and investors hell-bent on making strong gains, everybody is afraid to take a leap. A few vehicles that come to mind as having cajones is the Jeep Wrangler, which still relies on its utilitarian roots but is in danger of becoming too modernized. The Mazda RX-8 and its rotary engine is a special breed of engineering, and the Tesla Roadster is a fun project. I'm certain there are dozens of engineering masterpieces sitting on drawing boards in design houses around the world, but the suits are too gutless to put them into production.

[aaronk]

The Aztek was a great idea with poor execution. It's actually a super useful vehicle - just ugly and cheap and sin. Admittedly, the thinking for the Aztek was actually ahead of its time. 

I will also chime in with the chorus that this "anti-SUV" mentality around here is nuts. I'm more than fine if one thinks they don't need an SUV or even if they simply don't like them or what they strand for. But to equate those who may consider purchasing an SUV with some sort of criminal or immoral act is ridiculous. Give me a break. Every SUV article that pops up here has the standard "social stigma line" from someone.

You know, I could buy a Chevy Tahoe and with my five minute daily commute make less an impact on the environment than some bloke (term for Bob) doing the poor-bastard hour commute is his fuel efficient small car. You don't see me telling people to get a job closer to where they live, do you?

In regards to the ZDX. I do think it's terrible in a contextual sense and I would never buy one. I have seen a few on the road here and it does look half decent - I certainly do not mind it.

Differing opinions is what makes a forum like this worth reading - I enjoy the bouncing around of ideas, comments and opinions. Certainly it isn't criminal that someone would buy an 'excessive vehicle', but a bit of research makes it easy to find why some people have the opinions they do. I would encourage those who are undecided but feel social pressure to drive an SUV to at least try something else, I encouraged a friend to do this and now he is looking at the Subaru Outback, preferring it to most of the CUV's out there but he hadn't even considered a wagon.

It's not hard to find evidence of the negative effects derived from an oil-addicted nation, and SUV's have (whether valid or not) become the poster image for that addiction. We may still burn coal to power our incandescent lightbulbs and ship goods across the Ocean in 20,000 hp diesel ships, but SUV's have become the domestic target for excess. I think those who have an opinion against said vehicles would probably have more luck lobbying their votes in the political realm, or maybe trying to find a constructive way around the problem like supporting smaller awareness groups or activities. Having people think about what they're doing isn't a crime, even if they don't like to be 'told what to do'. In the future people will look back on the dark days when a single person would drive a vehicle that got 12mpg, but most people either aren't comfortable or care not to think about that - it's all about me, right now. The good news is the last few years has brought progress - all vehicles, cars and trucks, are getting more efficient. As gas prices climb fuel efficient and electric vehicles will look better and better, and it seems governments have deemed it necessary to intervene in the marketplace and expediate this process of change.

What type of vehicle one drives, as you said Vmango, is only part of a much bigger picture.

[Sasker]

(A disclaimer first: What I say does not apply to everybody who has an SUV or CUV. I mostly mean people who live in the cities and use their vehicles to go to work or grocery shopping)

The problem with SUVs and crossovers is not just that they consume more gas, but also about their size and weight.

 You may have a big hybrid SUV or crossover that consumes moderately, but it still blocks the view of other drivers, and being taller and heavier, still causes a threat to others on the road. SUVs and crossovers are selfish vehicles.

 And to those who claim that this is a personal choice: Your tall and heavy SUV/CUV threatens the rest of us who drive in light, smaller cars, and that makes it our problem. Smokers can't claim they are exercising their choice to smoke unless they go away. The same applies to SUV/CUV buyers.

 I am not interested in SUV/CUV drivers having a "commanding view of the road" or "feeling safer" at the expense of other people. SUV/CUV drivers may come up with 1000 different reasons why the "need" that kind of vehicle, but that is as important as a smoker coming up with reasons about why he/she should be allowed to smoke in public.

The only reason such vehicles are being produced and bought is because 1) they create a lot of profit margin for car companies, and 2) there are a lot of selfish people out there.

[Erik]

In other words, Sasker, your choice to drive a small car is ok, but their choice to drive a large one is wrong.

[Triple Bob]

You know, I could buy a Chevy Tahoe and with my five minute daily commute make less an impact on the environment than some bloke (term for Bob) doing the poor-bastard hour commute is his fuel efficient small car. You don't see me telling people to get a job closer to where they live, do you?

Is that my old commute, or my current sideways one?      Thinking about it, probably both.

[aaronk]

I have a little sympathy for what you're talking about. I like small cars, I imagine I always will, but I notice the highways and streets changing because they are getting filled with taller vehicles that block the view of the road. I know someone who just bought an SUV because they were tired of being in a 'low car' and not being able to see, so it is a domino effect. The funny thing is, the more SUV's on the road, the less the view becomes 'commanding' - if everyone else is also in an SUV, you're back to square one.

On the other hand, it's a free market and this freedom is something we should value. Yes, there is a price to pay, but we are all able to make choices. Assuming and hoping everyone makes the mature or intelligent decision is just wishful thinking. My mid-20's neighbour who drives his modded and lifted F250 is a testament to this. But hey, what can you do. Buy a car that you think is appropriate and live with the consequences - some suck gas and hog the road, others pose a potential for poor visibility and/or incompatible crash safety standards. I drive a small Mazda Hatchback, I know if I got hit by a full-size pickup I would lose, but it's not something I live thinking about daily. Every day I get good fuel economy and enjoy driving my nimble, affordable car - that's a tangible choice I'm comfortable with.