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

kaitsu · April 2003

Hopeitsfriday,

I noticed that you had considered both X5 and XC90 before choosing MDX and I was curious about your opinion on the BMW and Volvo. I have narrowed my pick between those two, by either getting the X5 slightly used (2000 or up) or a new T6 XC90.

My biggest concern with X5 is the reliability, as I drive the car daily in my business, sometimes for hundreds of miles per day. I can't have the car in the shop all the time.

The XC90 seems to be an overall good choice (safety, space, speed, comfort, quality etc.). I am hesitant to pay $45,000 for a car, though (just a personal thing...).

I am not considering MDX as it does not fall under the accelerated depreciation tax break.

Thanks for your input.

hopeitsfriday · April 2003

A brand new X5 is about the same price as the T6 XC90, I would stay away from used X5. The early X5 had alot of problems. In the recent years, BMW had rectify alot of those early problem and it is a much better SUV now than say 2 or 3 years ago.
Both SUV had very nice interior, the X5 felt more sure footed and corners better. I drove the 2.5T XC90 didnt get a chance to drive the T6. The 2.5T was slow off the line, like many turbos, acceleration got better at higher RPM. The X5 had a much better acceleration curve, BTW, I am not a big fan of turbo charge.
Reliability is not what these SUV excels in, but both are pretty reliable considering they are both European cars. Volvo markets its cars for best in safety, but the X5 is not far behind as far as safety is concern, both very safe cars. I haven't drove the T6 XC90, but it hard to out perform the X5 when it comes to handling, BTW the 2.5T didnt even come close in performance. You may want to recheck the cargo space again visually, the XC90 has alot of cargo space on paper, but when I was looking at them in person, the XC90's cargo space didnt look twice as big as it claims in the specs.

Good luck

shadowbox · April 2003

It really depends on what type of feel you prefer. To me the X5 is the best "feeling" SUV. That's because I love the way BMWs drive and it feels like a BMW through and through. The XC90 felt like a big car. The steering was way over assisted. It felt like I was driving a Lincoln Town Car. Ok, not that bad. But, it was a very smooth luxurious drive, where as the X5 is more sporty. There is no doubt that it has a lot more cargo room than the X5. Maybe not double, but more. If you prefer a smoother luxurious ride, than the Volvo may be your SUV.

hopeitsfriday · April 2003

Oh kaitsu, I forgot to mention that the 2.5T is suppose to handle better than the T6 XC90. The T6 is also suppose to get a 5 speed transmission in the 2004 model and hopefully improve handling, but MSRP for both trims are expected to go up in 2004.
I am sure you have read this link before comparing the two SUV among a bunch of others, but just in case you havent, here it is.

http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/comparisontests/2003/- january/0301_comparo_bradsher.xml

kaitsu · April 2003

Thanks for your comments. I took both Volvo models (T6 and 2.5T) out for an extended spin (about 45 mins each) driving in familiar territory with stop-and-go traffic, hills, interstate etc. I liked the T6 more, mainly due to its definitive power advantage. The smaller engine seemed to struggle more, especially when accelerating at interstate speeds (55-65 mph). First time I tested the T6, I also felt that the steering was way too light, but on the above, longer, test I hardly noticed it any more. So I guess I could get used to the steering.
Next I'll try the X5 on that same route.

Friday, thanks for the link. I had read it before, but had forgot about the Touareg. I probably wait until I try the VW before making my final decision. It's a great time to look for a new SUV, with so many good choices!

tomtomtom · April 2003

Which car dealer let you test drive a car for 45mins?

fndlyfmrflyr · April 2003

While it seems most dealers allow a very short test drive we have found there are a significant number that do allow extended test drives. Before we bought our MDX we test drove one for 30 miles and another for 20 miles. The Cadillac dealer and the Jaguar dealer let us test drive without a salesman. If I am really interest in a vehicle, once I am behind the wheel on a test drive, I test it where I want, not necessarily where the salesman wants.

kaitsu · April 2003

The dealership is in the Atlanta area and the test drive was mid-week during the afternoon. It also helped that we had bought our current Volvo from the same salesperson. It was actually very nice to be given the keys and sent away without a salesperson present. We drove the car back to our house using the same roads we would normally drive giving us a good idea how the XC90 responded compared to our two other cars. If there are any dealers reading this, I strongly recommend this sales strategy. It made us feel empowered customers and we would give our business to this salesperson in a heartbeat.

tomtomtom · April 2003

After all these years, only once the dealer (Toyota) let us went out without the sales tagging along. We drove the car for 15 mins. We did buy the car afterward. I don't drive the same way when the sales sits next to me or behind me.

adp3 · April 2003

I have had a similar ex[periecne (Murano test drive, SF Bay Area) - we were shocked. Didn't buy the car, but the experience should be copied by other dealers. Really gave us a sense of empowerment, I agree.

onelgs · April 2003

I must say I'm very surprised to read that some of you are surprised that a dealer would let someone take a car alone or for an extended time.

Prior to purchasing my MDX last month, I did most of my test driving on Saturday's. The BMW X5 dealer told me to take it for as long as I wanted... I drove it home and back (about 45 minutes). The MDX dealer asked if I could have it back in 30 minutes because it was the only test drive model on the grounds... The Lexus dealer, practically begged me to take the RX300 overnight but I only kept it for 2 hours.

Personally, when we're planning to spend $40K on a vehicle, we should be entitled to take it for an extended drive... minimum 30 minutes and definitely, ALONE.

Lidia

vintagegold · April 2003

The first time I took my Highalnder for a test drive, I had to ask that the salesperson to come with me because I didn't know the neighborhood. He seemed a bit surprised and I kind of felt like it was an imposition. Then, I went to the Volvo dealership and looked for a while and asked to take it for a quick turn around the block because I needed to pick me son up from one of his activities. "Take it to go pick up our son, drive it for as long as you like." When I took a Pilot out, it was the only one on the lot. When I was sitting in it waiting for the keys, another couple started going through the car with their salesperson. I was handed the keys and sent off. I offered to have it back quickly. "The response was "Take your time." Same thing when I wanted to take a Murano.

When I went back to Toyota two after my first test drive and told the salesperson that I just wanted anouther drive as I had just tested out some other makes, he wanted me to run all of my Saturday errands with it. "Keep it for 3 or 4 hours."

Maybe it just depends on the area you are in.

wmquan · April 2003

It totally depends on the dealership. Usually a hotter-selling model with few demos might lead to the salesperson coming along, and/or a shorter test drive. But a lot of it is just the dealer policy and the salesperson. The MB, Lexus, Volvo, Acura, etc. salespeople seem to tag along on test drives in my area. The local Subaru/VW dealership (Chaplin Subaru/VW) lets us drive their vehicles alone for as long as we want, though. Very low-pressure.

Come to think about it, the last time we were at MB, Volvo, and Acura, not only did the salesperson come along, they claimed they had to drive us off the lot "for insurance reasons." They'd take us to a public lot or park somewhere and then we'd switch! Strange.

hopeitsfriday · April 2003

I think you have hit the nail on the head, it may depend on what kind of insurance they have for their test drive cars. The terms and condidtions of their policy itself. When I went for test drives, the BMW and MB dealer let me test drive the car by myself and the Volvo and Acura dealer wanted to come along.

chile96 · April 2003

Leaning heavily towards purchasing an X5 but want to check out the MDX before I commit. Can anyone make any rec's on salesman in the Houston area? Thanks

fo

stever · April 2003

We frown on posting names (or links or phone #'s, etc.) of salespeople on Town Hall - it incites soliciting, bird dog fee posts, blatant ads, etc.

But it's ok for people to name the dealer/city or email you privately. Thanks!

Steve, Host

chile96 · April 2003

OK - can anyone recommend a dealer in Houston or relate their experiences w/ different dealers in Houston. Sorry to "cross the line" earlier.

thanks
fo

andrewtran71 · May 2003

On the outside, I think the X5 is the best looking of the bunch. But on the inside, I think the MDX is the best looking as it looks more like a sedan on the inside. The NAV on the MDX is definitely the best. The NAV on the X5 and M-series look too small. Car & Driver rank the MDX number 1 and over the X5. So it must be the best, right:-)

mouseonline · May 2003

andrewtran71 · May 2003

I agree. It's has roughly the same dimensions as the MDX. I still like the MDX better because the inside of the MDX looks so good like a sedan. The GX470 looks like a heavy-duty, tough-looking, true-SUV as opposed to the "Cross-over" SUVs. But the price difference between the GX470 and the MDX is about $10K!

mouseonline · May 2003

Try to decide which one to choose.
Anyone had similar situation?
Which one did you choose and why?
Thanks a lot.

wwest · May 2003

If you have need for a real, actual, AWD/4WD system then the GX is your game. IMMHO it's exploded, over-sized, for a 5 passenger vehicle.

alphamale · May 2003

Yet chose the Touregg over both (by a margin!)
  The MDX looks like an Acura sedan.
  The GX looks like an LX470 for $10k less.
  The Rx looks like the ES300 inside
  ADVANTAGE: 2004 RX330! No contest

  I can't include (seriously) the Touregg 'cus of the noticable lack of style, and zero heritage, and zero luxury marque pampering! Too many ain't gots!

  The X5 is now long in the tooth (almost as much as the ML!). Too small inside, too expensive outside, and a weak value next to the new FX!

  The FX and RX definitely raised the bar for luxury, style, innovation, and performance in this class.

  No Aviators need apply!

alphamale · May 2003

Sounds like it drives BETTER than the CTS. Just as ugly though. Wouldn't park it on the same continent as the FX/RX!

berkk · May 2003

Trying to decide between X5 and RX330. I would definitely go with X5 (name, ride, look) but reliability is my concern. I like RX330 because it has a better interior. I do not know much about NAV in these cars. Are they useful? Any suggestions?

alphamale · May 2003

They're very different SUV's for different buyers.
The X5 is sporty and quick. The RX is roomier and more luxury oriented. X5 is better off-road. The RX is a better riding vehicle.
The RX, I feel, is better balanced vs. the 3.0 X5. More torque, more cargo/back seat space, and has features unavailable on the X5 (or anything else). And the NAV is only matched by Acura for ease of use and speed.

wwest · May 2003

If the extra cost and the name plate doesn't put you off, and you feel you will have need for true on-road AWD capability, then buy the X5.

My experience with the RX nav has been that it is so "buggy" as to be useless. Ergonomically its a disaster.

I currently own an 01 RX, traded up from a 00 RX, and will likely buy a new 04 RX before winter. It will NOT have nav, and I have workarounds for the climate control flaws and the lack of capable AWD.

Have a 92 AWD Aerostar available for those times...

shifty4 · May 2003

I have just begun looking to purchase an SUV. As an incorporated business I can "expense" at least $25K on 2003 taxes on any SUV having a GVWR of greater than 6000 lbs. The X5 and MB320 fit in this category. What about the SRX and the others? Any advice is appreciated.

wwest · May 2003

Text taken from MY2002 Toyota Sequoia owner's manual, page 230, 2nd sentence of 2nd paragraph, left column. Yellow CAUTION high-lighted text.

"Be careful when accelerating, up-shifting, downshifting, or braking on a slippery surface. Sudden acceleration or engine braking, could cause the vehicle to skid or spin."

NOTE: "ENGINE BRAKING"

(DO NOT LIFT YOUR FOOT FROM THE THROTTLE QUICKLY!)

Or else quickly shift into neutral.

The Sequoia is predominantly a RWD biased vehicle, what did you suppose will happen with a FWD or AWD with front torque biasing?

Same manual, Page 143, center column yellow high-lighted CAUTION note.

"Under certain slippery road conditions, full traction of the vehicle and power against 4 wheels (4WD mode) or rear wheels (2WD mode) cannot be maintained, even though the active traction control system is in operation"

I read this statement as verification of a firmware time-out to prevent the ABS pump/motor from being over-taxed and over-heating due to continuous pump activity requirement.

This statement would likely also apply to ANY Toyota or Lexus vehicle with ACTIVE Trac and/or AWD using braking to apportion torque, HL, 4runner, GX470, RX300, RX330, Sienna, and obviously the Sequoia.

You likely have only about 45 seconds of continuous Trac or AWD "duty", then you're left with a vehicle that has 3 open diff'ls.

And obviously the ABS and VSC would now also be non-functional until the time-out expires (unless you need to do a restart cycle??) and the pump can again be activated.

kiiwii · May 2003

don't forget MDX is an Odyssey with oversized wheels. both are built on the same frame and engineering.

hopeitsfriday · May 2003

Don't forget the X5 is an 525i with a luggage rack on top. Both are built on the same frame and engineering. X5 vs.MDX...nah! X5 vs.TL...yeap!

greenlatern · May 2003

To paraphrase USA Today auto expert James Healey, BMW has great faith in the X5, having developed a platform and four-wheel drive system just for it. He goes on to say that a common (but WRONG) misunderstanding is that the X5 is based on BMW 5 series sedans or wagons. He helps clarify this misunderstanding by pointing out that the "X" is BMW speak for the AWD system; the "5" means it is midsized and midpriced. The article first appeared in Novemeber of 1999.

hopeitsfriday · May 2003

Yet more made up facts. BMW did not developed a platform just for the X5. You are right about the X5's platform being not from the 5 series, but the chassis and the suspension it is based on another BMW sedan, the 7 series. Below is the link: look under the category chassis.
http://www.bmw.com/bmwe/products/automobiles/x5_2/x5/index.html

andrewtran71 · May 2003

Although the dimensions are similar, the GX costs about $10K more and has a 4.7L V8 engine vs. a 3.5L V6 engine. So I don't think we can fairly compare the two. So what would you compare the GX to?
But if I'm comparing, I think the GX looks better on the outside, but the MDX looks better on the inside, except for the perforated leather crap. Who the hell thought of perforated leather anyway?

wwest · May 2003

Start with a hearse.

andrewtran71 · May 2003

Oh, that's funny.
So you think the GX looks like a hearse?
Well, I guess a black one might:-)

hopeitsfriday · May 2003

You got it all wrong bro. The GX may have a bigger engine but the MDX is more than a half of a second faster from 0-60 MPH, while both SUV weighs about the same.
I also think the MDX looks better on the outside, and the GX looks better on the inside. Lexus always has a high quality interior, but the outside of the GX retained that old land cruiser look, very boxy.
The GX costs about $10K more than the MDX. Alot of that $10K goes into the 4 wheel drive system and the interior of the GX.
It is hard to find a vehicle that we can compare closely with the GX. It is definitely a dying breed. Some vehicle that comes to mind may be: HUMMER H2, Mercedes-Benz G-Class, Range Rover, LS470 or the Lincoln Navigator.

wwest · May 2003

rear swing door.

4runner V6 Limited would be my choice over the GX.

newlexer · May 2003

We had been considering the the X5 for a while, having been happy drivers of a 540i. We needed a second vehicle with more room, but weren't entranced by most hulking SUVs. I wanted something that drove more like a car for regular 200 mile weekend trips up and back a curving and hilly parkway. Something that could emulate the grip and tightness of the 540i as much as possible. I did not want a truck ride.

The X5 drove like a BMW. Tight and responsive. The interior, however, was smallish with a so-so back seat. The reliability ratings in Consumer Reports and in owners forums, made us pause.

When we expanded our universe, I expected to like the MDX, given all the good press. It wasn't bad, but the steering was sloppy compared to the X5. The braking was not nearly as good. The ride was definitely more truck like.

The RX 330 with performance package (air suspension option) clinched it. It had enough space, it handled very well in the test ride. The back seat was the most comfortable of any of them models we tried. The history of the model and current reviews were very positive.

On the parkway--in the "low" mode--it handles curves very well. Even a bit better than the 540i. It most definitely does not have the 540i's power, but it has enough so it doesn't strain up the hills.

The back-up camera is a very nice feature (rear visibility is not a strong point with this vehicle). Overall, the finish and features earn a B+.

For our particular needs, the 330 worked.

fedlawman · May 2003

MDX vs. GX470

Of course the GX470 shares much of it's engineering heritage with the $17,000 Tundra pick-up truck, so like the MDX, it has humble origins.

But at $47,000, the GX470 is far from humble...you actually get a lot of stuff for the $10,000 you'd pay over the MDX.

First of all, 0-60 in 8.3 secs, 1/4 mile in 16.2, and 58.8 MPH in the 600' slalom indicates that street performance is at least equal to the MDX, even though it weighs 200 lbs more than the MDX.

But that's not the full story. With a 4 cam, 32V V-8 with 320 ft lbs peak torque, the GX470 will run away from the MDX when loaded with passengers/cargo, going uphill, or towing a trailer.

For the extra $10,000, you also get Driver adjustable ride height and shock settings, Hill-descent and Hill-start assist, Side curtain airbags, Full-time 4WD with locking Torsen mechanical center differential, Active traction control and brake assist, and a Dual-range transfer case.

And don't forget the sumptuous Lexus interior with amenities like retained accessory power, 4 one-touch power windows, rain sensing wipers, memory steering wheel, and electroluminescent instruments. Of course an ultra-rigid body structure and quiet cabin don't need mentioning.

So let's see. Superior on-road performance/safety, superior off-road performance/safety, superior towing capability, superior luxury, superior electronic safety systems, a superior warranty, and oh yeah...real wood trim!

The GX470 can truly tell the MDX, "anything you can do, I can do better."

fedlawman · May 2003

MDX vs. X5

As illustrated above, one of the significant differences between European and Japanese cars is the "trickle-down" theory.

When you look at cars such as the Passat or 325i, they offer engineering and technology that has been passed down from $75,000 luxury cars. This same theory applies to the X5, which benefits from it's kinship to the 7 series sedan.

On the other hand, the typical "premium" Japanese automobile (including the MDX) derives most of it's technology and engineering from a $16,000 family car. Which came first, the MDX or Accord?

mouseonline · May 2003

GX470 ride is much more comfortable than MDX.
I agree with the previous post.
But MDX does have a few points.
Better MPG, wider, fold flat seat, not to mention cheaper.

I personally think MDX fits my need. GX fits my want.
I am just afraid if I buy MDX, I will regret later that why I dont spend this extra $10k.

wmquan · May 2003

The GX may have a bigger engine but the MDX is more than a half of a second faster from 0-60 MPH, while both SUV weighs about the same.

Actually, that's not true (that the MDX is "more than a half of a second faster from 0-60"). Car & Driver's recent SUV comparo included the 2003 MDX and the GX470.

0-60 mph
MDX: 7.8 seconds
GX470: 7.7 seconds

Also not correct is "while both SUV weighs the same." The GX470 was stated as 390 pounds heavier.

Superior on-road performance/safety, superior off-road performance/safety ...

"Superior" may be an overstatement. Even C&D's aforementioned comparo actually gave the MDX 9 points for on-road handling, while it only gave the GX470 8 points. Even for off-road capability, the GX only beat the MDX by one point. The largest disparity in the scoring was, not surprisingly, in "features and amenities," with the GX getting 9 points and the MDX only six ("superior" works for me there!).

Interestingly, the GX470 only beat the MDX in overall C&D scoring by a single point (91 to 90). Obviously it's just one magazine's review and what's important is where the buyer's priorities are. And in lots of ways the GX470 is a tremendous vehicle.

fedlawman · May 2003

I used the term "superior" somewhat broadly. More specifically:

On paper, the GX has equal on-pavement acceleration and road holding to the MDX, yet adds Adaptive suspension, Emergency brake assist, and Active traction control for safety, and delivers a quieter, more comfortable ride. Naturally, the MDX weighs less and has a lower CG, so it handles more "car-like" than the GX.

Off pavement, the GX has more Ground clearance, higher Approach and Departure angles, a Full perimeter frame, Full-time 4WD, Dual range transfer case, Hill-descent control, Height adjusting suspension, and 320 ft lbs. peak torque at 3400 RPM. Only a one point gap, huh?

Of course, for $47,000, one would expect the GX to be superior to the MDX. The fact that the MDX compares so well to the GX is impressive, especially considering the likelihood that either of these vehicles will ever leave the boulevard.

In reality, my only significant beef with the MDX is it's poor bang for the buck when compared to the much less expensive Honda Odyssey and Pilot.

wmquan · May 2003

[GX470] delivers a quieter, more comfortable ride ...

Actually, C&D's instruments measured interior sound levels as equal when at full throttle and at 70 mph cruising. Yeah, that surprised me too, but perhaps the 2003 MDX's additional sound insulation has paid off (and the Lexus may be noiser than the nameplate may suggest). The MDX was actually significantly quieter at idle (36 dB vs. 39 dB). Thus, at least according to C&D, the MDX is quieter.

Roadholding, as you said, is mostly equal, though the MDX does have a slight edge on the skipad (.74g's vs. .72g's, though we're not talking Corvettes here, obviously).

C&D scored the GX's ride as one point higher too.

The off-road capability of the GX is impressive, and I'd probably give it more than a one-point differential too. But of course that results in practical penalties like weight, bulk, mileage, etc. All areas that end up giving the MDX edges (better handling, more practical cargo room, a more elegant third-row solution, better gas mileage, faster highway passing speeds). And, as you said, how many $47k-outfitted GX's are really going to do more off-roading than a gravel parking lot?

Of course, for $47,000, one would expect the GX to be superior to the MDX. The fact that the MDX compares so well to the GX is impressive, especially considering the likelihood that either of these vehicles will ever leave the boulevard.

In reality, my only significant beef with the MDX is it's poor bang for the buck when compared to the much less expensive Honda Odyssey and Pilot.

Interesting. It's impressive that the MDX compares so well to the $47,000 GX, yet it's a poor bang for the buck when compared to the Odyssey and Pilot. Oh well, win some, lose some. Though I agree that the Pilot is a better value on paper than the MDX (but not a "superior" one vs. a "poor" one ...).

In a lot of ways, I think the GX470's closest competition, at least on paper, is the Mercedes-Benz ML500. Both are truck-based, have medium off-roading capability (though the Lexus's should be better), similar real-world pricing, and similar luxury aspirations (but the MB's interior is Teutonically sparse compared to the GX's). Both have the same awkward third row seat installation, too. Both have excellent 4WD systems. Main difference is the terrible reliability reputation of the MB, though it's at least improved in recent years. An ML replacement is due late next year, though. And it won't be truck-based.

wmquan · May 2003

Off pavement, the GX has more Ground clearance, higher Approach and Departure angles, a Full perimeter frame, Full-time 4WD, Dual range transfer case, Hill-descent control, Height adjusting suspension, and 320 ft lbs. peak torque at 3400 RPM. Only a one point gap, huh?

Oh, I checked back with the review, and C&D's comparo said the MDX did very well on its off-road course despite not having all the doo-dads. They went on to say that the MDX does well as a light-duty off-roader. That explains the one point gap. No doubt that the GX470 will dramatically outpace the MDX on tougher courses, but that's moving even further away from the likely use of the vehicles.

Wonder how many GX's we'll see doing heavy off-roading. A high price for a luxury brand doesn't necessarily mean no off-roading, as one can find G-wagens at some off-roading events (I remember GatorGreg posting a photo of a G-wagen towing an M-Class out of a predicament). Then again, the G-wagen has a very clear purpose, and does the "Lexus profile" eliminate the properous, off-roading demographic. Curious. I wonder how many Range Rover owners off-road seriously?

andrewtran71 · May 2003

True, I think the interior of the GX is more expensive and luxurious, but I think the looks of the front dash on the MDX looks much better. Well, alright, on second thought, I'll agree with you on the exterior looks. I think the MDX looks better on the outside too:-)
I heard from someone that the new MDX will feature 3.8L and 290HP, but I personally doubt it.
But then again, why not?
I like the MDX over the GX. The MDX is hot.

andrewtran71 · May 2003

Well, yeah, for $10K more, it better be better!
There's not such thing as a free lunch. You get what you paid for. A better comparison would be the RX vs MDX since the price range is similar. Here, the MDX is bigger and better.

andrewtran71 · May 2003

Cool, man. The MDX is actually quieter than a Lexus GX470! Wow! 3 dBA difference at idle is pretty significant. And the fact that both are equal at full-throttle and 70mph cruising is awesome. Honda/Acura definitely has a winner.

JBaumgart · May 2003

"Roadholding, as you said, is mostly equal, though the MDX does have a slight edge on the skipad (.74g's vs. .72g's, though we're not talking Corvettes here, obviously)."

Pretty amazing that C&D tested the Infiniti FX45 at .87g's which just from a handling perspective puts both of these to shame.

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

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles