Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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.
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
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
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!
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
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.
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.
fo
But it's ok for people to name the dealer/city or email you privately. Thanks!
Steve, Host
thanks
fo
Anyone had similar situation?
Which one did you choose and why?
Thanks a lot.
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!
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.
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...
"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.
http://www.bmw.com/bmwe/products/automobiles/x5_2/x5/index.html
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?
So you think the GX looks like a hearse?
Well, I guess a black one might:-)
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.
4runner V6 Limited would be my choice over the GX.
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.
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."
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?
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 don’t spend this extra $10k.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Pretty amazing that C&D tested the Infiniti FX45 at .87g's which just from a handling perspective puts both of these to shame.