Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Volvo XC90 vs MB M Class vs Acura MDX vs Lexus RX 350 vs BMW X5 vs Cadillac SRX



  • louiein99louiein99 Posts: 33
    Well put, but on the last point...even my wife points would still be driving a minivan. :D

    In a sense, the crossover (really shouldn't call them SUVs...they aren't) fits because it gives that blend of functionality and style. A Honda Odessey is a nice vehicle...but a 29 year old male with, as the guy before me noted..."doesn't even have kids yet" would not be caught dead purchasing a very functional minivan.

    In the crossover realm: In the right/darker colors, the RX can be a manly vehicle with a unique look. The MDX is very nice, but the exterior look is somewhat bland. Even with its sloped rear door, it seems like it could handle a load better than the RX. Some of the others use V8 engines to move the bulky frames, and they boast about being the quickest vehicle in their segment. Lets be honest, 0-60 in 6.something seconds is quick, but it is by no means fast...well until you get to a Cayenne turbo, which by performance car standards isn't all that fast either...and is closing in on $100,000.

    No, most of us don't NEED to tow anything or take these puppies offroad. We want something SAFE that looks cool, and would rather spend the extra money on a few extra feet of unusable cargo space than a second or two shaved off our quarter-mile time.

    Not really sure where I was going with this ramble...but thanks for listening :)
  • wmquanwmquan Posts: 1,817
    The funny thing about style is that's it's, of course, subjective. Obviously as you noted, there is a segment of buyers who won't be caught dead driving a minivan. Manufacturers don't help, by making it difficult to buy AWD minivans. E.g. the Sienna AWD may be the most capable, but it's quite expensive and uses run-flats that a number of folks don't like. The Chrysler minivans don't have top-notch crash scores and reliability numbers. The Odyssey doesn't come in AWD.

    Styling is also subjective when it comes to the RX. I'm okay with the styling myself, but I know plenty of people who hate it and think it's a "chick car" no matter what the color. That's why we don't all drive the exact same vehicle, personal preferences always win out.
  • ctsangctsang Posts: 237
    I won't be caught dead driving a suv. I drive sienna awd which is less boxy than suv.
  • m4d_cowm4d_cow Posts: 1,491
    truly subjective, the only minivan/wagon i ever considered was the japanese market odissey, really sharp looking imo, and quite roomy despite its short height.

    btw what do you guys think of the new Range Rover Sport? im still looking for an suv and its now down to 2 choices: X5 or RR sport, i considered the cay s before, but the overly firm ride really blows...
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 38,950
    I got my first minivan at age 36 since they were the most practical ride for canoeing and skiing, etc. (for me anyway), even if I do wish for more ground clearance occasionally. But let's divert the manliness thread over to the SUV vs. Minivans discussion.

    As far as the Cayenne, the air suspension offers a comfort mode doesn't it? And 18" wheels help too.

    highender, "Porsche Cayenne" #1116, 13 Jul 2004 2:01 pm

    Steve, Host
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    I haven't been able to warm up to the RX styling, past or present. It looks, to me, like a tall hatchback/wagon. Viewed from the back, it has kind of a "bird" styling --- roundish body on skinny legs. Looks kind of tipsy. I think they need to widen the track and/or use wider wheels and tires. Test drove on with my brother recently, and both of us were underwhelmed by its supposed vaunted luxury and quietness -- we knew going in it wasn't the most rugged of SUV, by the luxurious ride wasn't really anything to write home about either. Maybe we had set our expectations too high.
  • m4d_cowm4d_cow Posts: 1,491
    "As far as the Cayenne, the air suspension offers a comfort mode doesn't it?"

    True, but even the ride in comfort mode (the cay s has air suspension + 18" wheels) still cant match x5 with standard suspension.
  • SylviaSylvia Posts: 1,636
    A TV reporter is hoping to talk with someone who wants to purchase a Cadillac. Please respond to with your daytime contact info by May 31, 2005.

    Jeannine Fallon
    Corporate Communications
  • msu79gt82msu79gt82 Posts: 541
    We are on our second MDX (an '04 and the wife's daily driver and the "family" car), and consider it the best vehicle we have ever owned. Last Sept I got an FX35 as my daily driver after givng serious consideration to the RX330. While I really like the RX's exterior styling I could not ever warm up to its interior. From what I have read in previous posts regarding your needs I don't think you can go wrong with the MDX - good luck with your decision.
  • m4d_cowm4d_cow Posts: 1,491
    recently test drove a new MB M-350, its better than i expected, roomy, comfy seats, and nice interior, though it doesnt handle or accelerate as well as the x5. Anyone got any other comments?
  • cabluecablue Posts: 48
    I'm interested in hearing more about the new MB M-class. This suv and the X5 seem to be the only ones that I've looked into that have the rear side-impact airbags. My kids ride with me all the time in back. Most, of course, have the window curtain bags but not the side airbags. I was seriously considering the Lexus 400h because of the gas mileage but then noticed they don't have the side airbags in back. Also impressive in the MB is the large amount of leg room in back. My kids are getting tall with long legs so this is important to me. I'm partial to BMW so comparing the two, did the MB feel a lot larger inside? Also, the MB is a new body whereas the BMW will be getting a new body very soon. I don't like the gas mileage of either, though.
  • I got my ML350 on Saturday after test drove Lexus, BMW, Acura, Sequoua. We decided to go for ML350. Leg room is very good comparative with Lexus and interior is better than X5. I felt that I am driving a big vehicle when I was test drove the ML 350 but I felt like Toyota camry driving when I test drove the lexus but It has the technology more than ML350. Even the Lexus exterior(body shape) looks like it is ford Wagon.
  • wmquanwmquan Posts: 1,817
    Since high levels of safety equipment seem to be high on your list (because you want to make sure you get rear side airbags for the thorax), the new M-class should be significantly ahead of the X5 in that regard. It's a much newer design from a manufacturer that usually produces safer vehicles than BMW, even when the models start at the same time.

    Thoracic side airbags for the rear are pretty unusual, and pretty much confined in the U.S. to MB, BMW, and Audi. But the Audi SUV isn't available yet. VW apparently makes rear thoracic side airbags available in European models but not in the U.S. Pity. I wonder if part of the reason are fears of how they'd be perceived in the U.S. market. There had been some speculation that they weren't safe for children. However, a very thorough NHTSA study demonstrated that they were safe for properly restrained children. Their testing focused on trying to create injuries by seating the dummy in all sorts of ludicrous positions. E.g. unbelted, with the dummy's back against the door! That semed to be the only way they could cause an injury.

    In fact, it's quite possible that rear thoracic side airbags could provide better protection for small children than side curtains. That's because side curtains usually provide the impact protection in the center of the rear window, much taller than the heads of children (even those in car seats). Some side curtains look like they cover the whole window but in fact have little or no padding at the bottom of the window.

    Unfortunately, MB has not yet made available for the U.S. M-class two promised safety items -- active head restraints for the front passengers,. and PRE-SAFE. They'll either come out late this model year or not until the next.
  • m4d_cowm4d_cow Posts: 1,491
    well, the M is a lot roomier than the x5, though im not sure if its that much safer, and definitely have more legroom both front and rear. if thats your priority, the MB is a good choice.
  • ennaceennace Posts: 1
    The only SUV for my money is the Range Rover and its derivative the Discovery. I'm not sure they're covered in this thread, so don't get upset if I'm in the wrong place (I'm new around here).

    These German and Japanese models amount to pretentious and expensive rubbish with no real off-road capability e.g. in mud/snow etc.

    Stick with the original SUV - LandRover.
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    Simply not true. There are plenty of Japanese and German SUV that are very capable off-road. 4Runner, Pathfinder, Xterra, GX470, Landcruiser, MB G & M class, Cayenne, Toeureg. Probably a couple more I missed.
  • maxhonda99maxhonda99 Posts: 1,289
    Funny post.

    The Toyota Land Cruiser has similar credentials as a Land Rover when it comes to off-roading. Not to mention the other products the poster above mentioned which are good to excellent off roaders also. Let's not forget the Mitsu Montero also, which is a excellent off roader also.

    Also, I bet you a Hummer H1 can crush a Land Rover in off-roading!
  • habitat1habitat1 Posts: 4,282
    "These German and Japanese models amount to pretentious and expensive rubbish with no real off-road capability e.g. in mud/snow etc."

    A Range Rover advocate calling anything else "pretentious and expensive" has got to have a screw or two loose.

    I considered the LR3 and it is an impressive vehicle. But a quick check of Range Rover resale values shows that it is the only make that would have been WORSE than the Isuzu Trooper we were getting rid of. Clearly, anyone that thinks a new Range Rover is worth the $65k+ it stickers for is going to be in for a rude awakening when they find that it has lost 50% of it's value in about 2 years. That's an expensive lesson in the price of a "pretentious" ego.
  • leswlesw Posts: 11
    After a terrible ownership experience with my 99 ML320 I'm surprised that I accepted the invitation to participate in a 2006 ML Road Rally organized by MB.
    The new ML both 350 and 500 are light years ahead of 1998-2005 MY.
    They are roomier, handle better, use far better materials inside and the evolutionary styling is far more attractive. I had a chance to drive 350 and 500 back-
    to-back on a performance track testing handling full speed acceleration and braking. Wow! They are as good as Cayenne and X5, but roomier and more luxurious. I prefer the clean styling of the X5 interior, but its personal.
    The greatest surprise was my observation that I prefer ML350. It is only slightly slower than 500, but more balanced, better handling (w/18") and better suited powertrain to the chassis calibration. If I confirm that the reliability has improved as drastically as the rest of the vehicle I will go back to ML.
  • ctsangctsang Posts: 237
    Forget your Range Rover. Go to middle east or africa, that's what I call really off road, the SUV of choice for so many years is the Toyota Landcruiser.
Sign In or Register to comment.