I have a confession to make: the first time I saw the Acura ZDX in the flesh, I actually liked it. Brooding by itself on the edge of a local auto show, the thing stood out in a sea of late-model sameness, a mood-lit, drama-drenched oddity of an automotive mash-up. Ridiculous? Sure. But what’s a semi-practical yet stylish grand touring crossover “aimed at couples” to do?
No, really, what is the ZDX going to do with itself? Having been launched in late 2009, the Acura’s first full year of sales yielded a minuscule 3,259 units sold. That’s about what the Dodge Challenger and Mitsubishi Galant sold in the last month alone. Now Wards Auto [sub] reckons the ZDX could be yanked, raising the possibility that the ZDX could become a limited-numbers collector car down the road (OK that’s a bit presumptuous). TTAC alum Jonny Lieberman reckons there’s nothing wrong with the ZDX that a little “righteousness” can’t fix, and suggests that 500 HP and a new transmission might reverse the sales no-show. I say kill it with fire and let it live as legend. Often the idea of something is better than the reality… and semi-practical yet stylish grand touring crossovers might just be one of those things.
The ZDX is fail.
The X6 works because it’s visually impressive, all looks. In many ways, the X6 is the new H2.
The Outback works because it’s well-priced and high value.
The ZDX is stuck in the middle, neither practical enough, nor stylish enough to succeed.
That’s because it’s a Crossturd in drag.
It’s actually a chopped MDX. The Crosstour is a much. much better car.
Put it this way: the Crosstour is the “best” Accord whose only real issue is rear visibility. The ZDX is an MDX with everything good about the MDX taken away, and everything bad about the MDX amplified.
The Crosstour’s only issues are rear visibility, and the fact that it’s a monstrous abomination which is a mockery of everything the Accord used to stand for. Also, an almost fanatical devotion to the pope. Comfy chairs, though.
…and the fact that it’s a monstrous abomination which is a mockery of everything the Accord used to stand for…
Yeah, but if you want what the Accord used to be, you can still buy a Civic. It’s not like Honda doesn’t make a very good pseudo-midsize anymore, the Accord isn’t that car, just like the Civic’s role belongs to the Fit.
And that’s ok. Honda used to make a good small car and a good medium-sized car. Now they make a good small car, a good medium car, and a good large car (with an odd-looking hatchback variant). What the badges say doesn’t really matter.
I think you need to drive the Crosstour and ZDX to understand why one is a good, if ugly, car and the other is a trainwreck. The Crosstour drives a lot like a normal Accord, except that it doesn’t have the Accord’s somewhat-high NVH. It’s still roomy, carlike and easy to use. The ZDX drives like a truck and is much more cramped inside.
Amazing with 2 cars so incredibly similar in the big scheme of things, that one can be deemed good and the other a train wreck. Hyperbole much?
Acura went a bit too far.
It’s actually much easier to get into and out of the back seat of an X6, and there’s enough room for the average adult back there.
You have to be very short and/or a contortionist to get into the back seat of a ZDX.
Amazing with 2 cars so incredibly similar in the big scheme of things, that one can be deemed good and the other a train wreck. Hyperbole much?
No.
The two cars look similar at a cursory glance, but the devil is in the details. The Crosstour is, for all intents and purposes, an Accord hatchback with a lift kit. The Accord, whatever gearheads think, is a really good car. It’s easy to drive, easy to get in and out of, reliable and capable. It’s only real sin is noise, and the Crosstour fixes that. If you can get past the looks, the Crosstour is a good car
There’s practically nothing good about the ZDX. You have to get past the packaging, the handling, the seats, the instep, the ergonomics, the weight, the size, the sightlines, etc, etc, whereas in the Crosstour you only have to deal with it’s looks. I suppose if I must say something nice, I’d say that the interior of the ZDX is of decent quality, but that’s kind of like saying that Hitler** was a snappy dresser. The ZDX wishes that looks were it’s only problem.
If cars were movies, the ZDX would be Plan 9 From Outer Space.
** Godwin!
Psar, there is one designer who used to be with Dior who would probably say that Hitler was a snappy dresser.
Was this the Acura that they hyped with the 30-second spot which featured the panning woman and 1/2 a second of the vehicle itself?
Yet another Hondafail. After two decades and hundreds of thousands of miles behind an H, everything I see on the road (save for the Fit) breaks my heart.
I’d like the Crosstour a lot more if its pricing didn’t start at $30K and you could get one with an I4.
I think I’m going to be sick. The Crosstour wasn’t heinous enough? Acura used to have a very ‘form follows function’ appearl. The Inegras and Legends of old, the first generation TL – all smart-looking and well-built. The whole Acura lineup has gotten fat and ugly – with fat pontoon fenders and loooooooong overhangs. Even consumer products in America look diabetic.
This could be Acura’s first step to realization that dressing up Hondas really ugly is not the best path forward. Pretty must stopped paying attention to Acuras ever since Integra and Legend.
The designer of the ZDX now works at Government Motors.
http://www.marieclaire.com/career-money/advice/tips/michelle-christensen
Well that sucks for GM. The sketches look good on paper, car just doesn’t look good in reality. Has she done anything else? If it was to put the ugly beak on Acura, that would be a nail in the coffin if you ask me.
“I love shoes — I have about 30 pairs. Their complex form relates really well to cars. Alexander McQueen’s are my favorites — his triple-buckle boots inspired the ZDX design. They are strong and functional-looking but still sexy.”
Maybe that’s the deal. Guys see it and think I’d like it on a woman, but wouldn’t want to wear it myself…
the quote about shoes forms being as complex as car forms…only if YOU as a designer make the car form complex. her and Bangle should open a design studio together Hideous Creases R Us.
The quote about shoes reiterates that immortal truism — if you don’t want to be treated like a stereotype, don’t do or say stereotypical things.
As it stands, Michelle could do with a little less talking about styling cars like shoes. Just a thought, hon. Have fun at the wreck that is GM.
Well, that would explain why one would need 5″ heels to get into the thing…
I certainly have a problem seeing anyone trying to enter the backseat through that apparently tiny door. Stop, already! If the Crosstour isn’t selling well, making an Acura version probably won’t help much. I wonder when the word “sensible” will re-enter the auto designer’s language? In my world as a package designer, it still exists. That being said, there are elements I find attractive: bright window reveal and sharpness of lines, but little or no practicality that appeals to me. I see a few Crosstours around my area, so there will be those that will buy this, but can Acura/Honda sell enough to make it worthwhile? Lots of cash down the drain if not.
Acura should get some credit for trying but they ended up pushing this waaaay past the realm of practical. The back seat is impossible to get in/out and see out of – which I didn’t care about because that’s the price of admission and I don’t drive other people around anyway.
The deal killer was the combo of the elevated ride height, pointy bumper and inset hatch in the back – you can’t even put a grocery bag back there w/o getting dirty, not to mention trying retrieve a runaway melon.
This is the first car that tempted me to write a review for TTAC because it’s so incredibly bad.
Take, for example, the Honda Fit. It’s not a supercar, but it embodies a lot of virtues: efficient, well packaged, quick, fun to drive, easy to use. Now, imagine a car that is the Fit’s polar opposite: huge and lumbering, yet curiously cramped. Amply powered, but not at all fun to drive. Not an SUV, and yet it drives like one while having none of an SUV’s advantages: no space for people, no ability to haul, no commanding view.
In short: imagine the worst aspect of every kind of car: the field of view of a sports car, the step-in of a truck, the rear seat of a coupe. Now, try to imagine why you would roll all this into one car.
Honda did exactly that. That the car is funny looking isn’t really the point, it’s that it’s funny looking and utterly terrible. People talk about the Crosstour, RL or TL and how they point to the decline of Honda, but those three are actually pretty good cars within their niche. And it’s not like you can’t make a sports car that’s an SUV—the Infiniti FX is just such a beast, and a very good beast it is—it’s that this is so not how to do it.
The ZDX sucks so much that it doesn’t have a niche. The CR-Z is a brilliant execution by comparison.
Here’s an example: you need to be six foot four to manage the ridiculous step-in this car has. I’m talking worse-than-HD-truck, here. And yet, if you’re over six-four, you can barely drive it. You certainly can’t sit in the sear seat. My five-foot mother-in-law couldn’t. My four-year old son complained about the view out (or lack thereof). As far as I can tell, the guy who designed this car must be an anatomical freak, and one who’s somehow completely untouchable within Honda’s corporate structure.
In terms of virtues, the ZDX’s looks are about all it has. Even the black-when-off instrument panel that should have looked cool instead looks like someone rubbed all the decals off.
The Aztek used to be the standard bearer for holistic suck, but at least the Aztek could hold carry people comfortably. Dismissing it for being ugly misses the opportunity to dismiss it for being a complete and epic failure.
I’d buy one just for that, and put a plaque on it that says “How not to do it.”
+1
I addition to being ugly (opinions vary but this one seems universal with this mess), the stupid thing is jacked up way too high. Its a wagon wearing SUV clothes. Its well documented that nobody takes real SUVs offroad (unless its a Jeep) so why bother with the puffed up look of this thing. You get all the bad of an SUV with none of the good of a wagon. This vehicle has stupid stamped all over it. Plus its ugly. Its the opposite of win-win. I know people don’t buy wagons but this silly CUV thing has about run its course if this is the best that Honda – once known for excellent packaging (CR-V, Element, CRX) – can come up with.
Eloquently stated.
If I remember, the Nissan Murano started all this. That was a cramped, confining, large vehicle with little practical value, but people bought them. I won’t stoop to P.T. Barnum’s term of a “sucker born every minute”, but having ridden in one, I wasn’t impressed. They do appeal to the eye, though, and I suppose that’s what makes horse races. In other words, something for almost everyone.
Why don’t you write a review?
This thing didn’t jump out at me as having been hit with the ugly stick right away, until I saw just how big it was. At first glance, I thought it was more like the CRZ in size and proportion.
BTW, evidently designed by Acura’s first female exterior designer.
“And it’s not like you can’t make a sports car that’s an SUV—the Infiniti FX is just such a beast, and a very good beast it is—it’s that this is so not how to do it.”
That’s exactly it, you can make a sports car look like an SUV but you can’t make a SUV drive like a sports car.
The FX is built on a RWD car platform with a performance suspension.
The ZDX is built on a Honda Pilot with struts up front and the rear suspension pushed inboard in favor of third row packaging.
The FX has fail sightlines and a fail cargo area too. But fun to drive forgives all sins.
She must be an interesting looking woman: you need to be five foot six at most, but with a thirty-six inch inseam, to find this car tolerable.
I was thinking more of the Infiniti FX series as not as much interior room as its size should convey.
I find this really depressing that Honda has sunk so low with this thing. I mean, I have always liked Hondas, and I love my 99 accord with the stick. I haven’t seen the ZDX except in pictures, but the greenhouse looks like it doesn’t allow enough light in to grow mushrooms. (I don’t think it’s ugly, though.)
@psarhjinian
I think mazder3 just hit the nail on the head with his reply in another thread. 5′ 6″ in woman + 4″ heels = the unusually long leg proportions to make this thing work.
The Aztec, although ugly, was actually a pretty decent people mover – seating was more like a minivan. And, although ugly at the time, I think now the entire crossover market is looking worse than the Aztec ever did, and the ZDX is simply the ugliest of the ugly.
The Aztec, although ugly, was actually a pretty decent people mover – seating was more like a minivan.
My father has recently been spending quite a bit of time driving my grandmothers Aztex (because of her fractured hip and multiple doctors appointments.) He remarked to me; “Actually rides and drives pretty nice, Bud.” (He’s one of those guys who will call you everything but your name, I think it has something to do with 30+ years as a salesman.)
“I say kill it with fire and let it live as legend.”
I see what you did there.
The problem I see with the ZDX is that it costs about the same as an MDX but has far less room. (I guess the same reasoning applies to the Crossturd and Pilot.)
I tried to find a juicy video of a car being blown to scrap, but nothing expressed the level of disgust I have for this thing. What the @#$% was wrong with a wagon? It’s not like you were selling any of these turd nuggets either.
I just hope the TSX wagon sells in decent enough numbers for Honda/Acura to pull its head back out to sunshine, but seeing the new Civic and the rest of the H/A lineup … hah. I have no real love for Infiniti or their styling but when they build a car with your name on it (V6 6MT RWD sedan), you can’t really say no.
The thing is, most of Honda’s cars are very good. Some (the Fit and Oddy) are brilliant. Even the TL, Accord and Civic are much better than enthusiasts give them credit for.
This car, though…
@psarhjinian: They do make competent cars (ZDX aside); it’s just that all of them exist on a spectrum between bland and bizarre (ZDX included).
My how the mighty have fallen. I believe Acura’s downward trajectory started when they dropped real names for their cars (NSX excepted). I once read an interview with a Honda executive where he explained why they made the lovely Legend the putrid RL. Honda’s fear was that the name Legend was diluting the brand name Acura. I think they found a faster way – build really ugly cars.
It should have been called the Acura Aztec, in memory of its hideous predecessor.
The GMC Terrain does a pretty good job carrying the torch for the Asswreck.
@ garbage motors…. Take your infantile comments somewhere else,and do us all a favour.
What’s wrong? I’ll tell you. It’s ugly. It’s impractical. It’s ridiculously overpriced. It’s ugly.
I think it’s beautiful, especially in Silver. Probably my favorite Honda product right now. It’s very unique. Practical? No.
I’ve always liked the looks — both this and crosstour remind me of saabs.
However, I’ve never driven one. And don’t plan to.
We can’t have wagons because the public doesn’t “want” them. This is what they want???
Judging from the sales numbers, no, the public does not want this.
The pubic does want wagons. It loves them. If we used the British term “Estate” they would sell like hotcakes. The public did not want wagons with fake plastic woodgrain on the side. When that was all that was available…Ford added four doors to a Bronco and the Explorer was born. Aha! A wagon without woodgrain! It sold like hotcakes. Stupid manufacturers thought it was because it was tall and rugged, but that just made it a palatable to dads.
Now, since half the freaking cars on the road are monstrously tall, everyone wants a tall wagon so they can see. But the rugged thing is being toned down. The Venza is definitely consuming old 4Runner sales. Almost all are unibody car based vehicles now…even the Jeep. They are wagons. I sure hope the TSX wagon is a hit, and a proper TL or Accord wagon would be as well. I have a Lexus RX350, but if they had an ES350 wagon, that would be my wife’s next car. By the way, she likes the X6, but loves the 550i GT.
The Venza might cut into Highlander sales, maybe, but not the 4Runner. 4Runner’s a real truck.
Just saw my first one of these today – rolled past my office window.
Me: “WTF is that?”… thinks… “oh yeah, one of those… huh…”
No thankyou.
I once saw an RDX and a Crosstour at a stoplight side by side. I was all of a sudden hit with pity and the rest of my drive felt gloomy. When I got home the ass of my neighbors cat was visible as he walked away from the tree in the front yard he stalks for birds and I now understood the inspiration of those designers. I then parked my ’89 Civic Si hatch in the garage and gave it a pat on the head and thanked it for being such a wonderful car for all these years and really helping me make up my mind that I’ll never really want to sell Honda’s best ever made car and never buy anything they now make.
Word.
“Civic hatchbacks with decent suspension?”
“Naw, lets put some stickers on the Si and throw a bunch of bloat and mimic the Venza”
Now that’s a recipe for success!
The Venza is quite charming by comparison. It really is a modern station wagon that won’t admit it.
Yeah but Toyota’s stated intent with the Venza was to sell it to Sex in the City type ladies who happened to have a kid or two to tote around. You know who I see in Venzas? Retirees on their way to Denny’s.
@Robert Schwarz: I would agree that the Venza is quite nice. I generally don’t care for ‘yotas, but I crawled all around a Venza at a recent car show, I was surprised. I expected Camry wagon, it’s certainly not.
It’s not being stepped on, that’s what’s wrong with it.
Nothing is wrong with this picture.
BMW does it with the X6, Audi does it with the Q7, so why not have another ugly, useless car “aimed at couples” from Honda/Acura?
Such couples are either old or (hopefully) will stay childless. Imagine the poor children.
its huge and wildly ugly… so is the honda flavor. the bmw one looks like a cartoon, i laughed out loud when i saw one on the street. Its like a comical hummer in pretense drag.
All of these humped-up cars look like 1950 Nash Ambassadors. No fold-down beds inside, though. Too bad.
While I do like looking at this I can more than understand why it doesn’t sell – for a lot of the reasons already mentioned.
Hopefully, this will be Honda’s sign that they need to stop procrastinating and finally spend their money developing a RWD architecture. Not only don’t I see the ZDX that much on the road, I don’t see the RL that much either. What do I see more of? The Genesis.
Color me mystified. I bought one of the first Legends 25 years ago and loved it. Bought a second-gen a few years later. And a Gen-2 TL after that. Since then, nada. Honda would have been my last choice if you asked me 5 years ago which well-thought-of Japanese automaker would lose their once unassailable mojo, Honda/ Acura would not have crossed my mind. I’m glad someone mentioned the Aztec, because if Honda doesn’t do a fast 180 they could go the way of Pontiac. Just sayin’.
It isn’t as bad as the Juke.
The ZDX and it’s german lookalike, the x6, are both questions that no one asked. Maybe back when they were on a drawing board, the makers thought there’d be a swarm of couples who are older, maybe the kids were gone, and they wanted something sporty but could still make it to the house upstate/the shore/lake/vacation home while living off the booming stock market. Building if off an existing platform meant it was just sheetmetal….
I have an MDX and like it, although I think the target changed between 2008 and 2011 from the X5 to the Lexus RS. The choice was MDX vs X5, and it was 85% of truck for 60% of the money, and with better electronics to boot. Since I spend little time at 100 plus in my MDX, the one place the BMW clearly rules is infrequently used.
I saw a ZDX in the showroom. It reminded me of the Infinit FX I once rented in Montana. (yes, dreams do come true). I had no idea why a fleet of FX were there, unless it was some sort of test fleet. The FX 35 rocked in Montana. I can’t claim to know what the gas mileage was, but it was a lot of fun. Sits real well at triple digits. Still, for all that size, you had four seats and no trunk-that luxury coupe the ZDX intender otherwise buys has a bigger trunk, gets better mileage, and unless you love the SUV look, is just cooler.
The FX made me think the G was worthy. The ZDX has no such resonance, even though I know the TL is also worthy.
I find it sad that the ZDX was the result of THREE YEARS WORK!!! You’d think that after working on a design for three years, they’d know how flawed of a design it was. The automotive equivalent to a high-heeled open-toed work boot that costs way too much.
On a separate note, Michelle Christensen is married to the guy who designed the Honda FC Sport
http://www.autoguide.com/gallery/gallery.php/?g2_view=largephotos.Largephotos&g2_itemId=4912
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/young-acura-designer-watches-her-baby-arrive/
How many Tourages did VW sell or for that matter X6?
Sometimes copying a competitor is a form of flattery. In this particular case, Honda big whigs should have stuck to that extra bottle of sake and passed out. The ZDX was a bad move.
Honda knows how to do one thing really well. Build cars in numbers. It isn’t very good in filling the niche market. That should be left to the German, Italian and British. Not only do they have the know how, they have the brand cache and “premium” dealer network. Having owned an RL, I never felt like any dealer I visited ever met up to the $50,000 price tag, let alone the $55k+ of the ZDX.
With that said, I’d recommend Acura sell off the remainder of the ZDX’s and instead focus efforts on the TSX and TL.