Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
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 must confess that part of the decision was that the RX is just "so ordinary." It has virtually no pizzaz and besides that everyone else has one.
I am looking for the same information myself. If I come across any I'll let you know. I have driven both. Respond if you want thoughts. good luck. dan
you gotta have ONE vehicle that has a little fun in it in the garage. And no matter much you like your MDX, it doesn't exactly say "fun" (don't get me wrong, I like the MDX, for what it is)
Don't have to hedge. My MDX is like my Avalon, a real yawner to drive. Like you, I like it a lot anyway.
No, one doesn't have to have a fun car in the garage, but I do admit our PT Cruiser GT is a lot more fun to drive than the Jaguar S Type V8 it replaced.
Consumers' Most Wanted Vehicles for 2005
Steve, Host
So, we are buying now. I will drive the vehicle for the next couple of years, and then when she gets pregnant, she will get the roomier and safer crossover vehicle. With that said, we plan to keep the vehicle 5-7 years.
So, do we go with the RX or the MDX to suit both of our needs as we think to the future? Gladly listen to any comments.
Thanks for clarification on your purchase. I kept crunching the #s, and it seemed like you bought yours under invoice price. Not having the RES explains it. How do you like the Black wood trim in the Thundercloud edition? I am very iffy on it.
Thanks again.
Regarding your comparison: You may want to go to the dealerships and ask for brochures of the RX and the MDX. In the RX brochure there are two pages with extensive info on safety features: safety bags, reinforced body structure with front and rear crumple zones, rear outboard child-seat tether and lower anchors, etc.
Your wife should be happy and tickled you are concerned about her and the baby's welfare.
In your situation, a major factor is how many kids do you expect to have in the next 5-7 years, and do you take long trips in the vehicle. The RX will be fine for carrying around two children in car seats and a reasonable amount of luggage. The MDX has more usable cargo space behind the second row, and is wide enough that it is sometimes possible to put three children in car seats in the second row. And have a lot of cargo room for trips. Plus the MDX has a small but occasionally useful third row if you need to ever carry grandparents or other friends with your kids.
For us, there have definitely been a number of occasions where the MDX's greater usable cargo space behind the second row has come in handy. Even when the kids aren't in the MDX, taking out car seats to fold down the second row isn't convenient (even when you have LATCH). With kids, we've made big trips to Costco and stuffed the cargo hold full with boxes of diapers, wipes, cases of formula, etc.
That said, the RX330 has enough cargo space for most needs. If your emphasis is on luxury, it beats the MDX hands-down in this department. I also suspect that your wife will prefer driving the RX over the MDX. It's more "female friendly," with options like a power liftgate, and a convenient place to put the purse between the two front seats. It's also significantly narrower than the MDX, and coming from the Eclipse, the Acura may feel like a bus to your wife. So she might like driving the RX more.
Finally, it's like the MDX will be redesigned next year with a totally new model out.
Good luck!
The redesign of the MDX is intriguing. We do not have to buy in a hurry, and it may be well worth our while to hang on until July/August when we will get a chance to see a preview of what the 06s for both models look like.
Crystal2 (and any others), how does your Mark Levinson stereo sound? I listened to one at the dealership the other day, and the FM stations did not sound very good. I have read in other reviews, that it does not reproduce FM music very well, but that it sounds out of the world with CDs. It also lacks a subwoofer. Without this, how is the bass response? A big hold out for me is getting ML in the vehicle. The dealer was pushing others, and I wouldn't even consider them without it, but I am beginning to wonder if it is worth the fuss. I actually thought the MDX Bose system had much more punch to it.
Any thoughts?
Well, I have to honestly say I was disappointed with the FM sound (as you have identified). I thought it was because I had not turned on the rear speakers, so I proceeded to read the manual and turned on the rear speakers. I honestly could not tell the difference even with all the speakers on (I had to ask my son if he could hear the sound coming from the back and he said yes (son was sitting in the rear seat). I decided to try the new classical music CD given by Lexus to new owners and the sound was definitely improved. However, again, not the greatest. My nakamichi system at home and the Bose system in my husband's Audi sound much better and more rich (must be related to the subwoofer issue).
So I am not sure it is worth the extra $800? I read that others have been satisfied with the standard sound system that comes with the 2005 RX. So if I were you, I would consider passing on this option esp. if you are interested in saving "a few" bucks. (By the way, my husband likes the black wood trim in the Thundercloud now that he has seen the car in person; he loves the Bose sound system in the Audi, "his favorite feature in the car.")
If you are prioritizing luxury, the RX is hard to beat. It definitely isn't the MDX's forte.
bose overall is decent, but lacks high and low details in my previous audi
HK logic 7 is pretty good, but other models are less capable than ML or bose imo
my suggestion: skip the useless ML package, buy atlas (instead of expensive nav system), forget the tv camera (useful only for those who cant drive), and save yourself a couple hundred bucks and buy aftermarket sound system instead.
I only had a chance to listen to the stereo for a few minutes...the wife wanted to check other stuff out instead...but the bass sounded flat, and overall the sound was muffled a little. This may be due to me not having a chance to mess with the treble, mid, bass settings (they were all set to 5 while I was listening). Have you had a chance to determine which worked best. I noticed the Edmunds review of the base RX radio had the mids at -2 or -3. Please tell me your settings, so that I can try them on my next visit to the dealership.
Quick question that I forgot to ask the dealer. When using the RES, can the sound be played through the stereo speakers or only through the IR headphones? I noticed the headrest models the dealership will install only plays through the headphone. Thanks again.
im currently still searching around for a decent sound system, HK Logic7 being my current favorite (considering an x5 right now), but im sure a better aftermarket system is out there somewhere.
As far as the RX goes, it was never in contention for us, but we have a couple of friends with them. First thing I have noticed with all Lexus' is that they favor a soft, almost wallowy ride over tight handling and steering. That's not my preference. Second, try as I might not to let my male ego come out, 95% of the RX's I see in our area (Washington DC) are driven by women. Not quite as bad as a VW Beetle, but pretty close. It's not a vehicle I would want to drive for 2 years, before turning it over to my wife. I have no problem handing my wife the keys to my Acura TL 6-speed and taking over the MDX on occassion, but I think I'd be anxious to get the TL back with the RX for both of the reasons listed above.
Have you tried the XC90 V8? Very impressive and useful for a "younger" family.
I am upgrading from a Pathfinder, mainly because the gas mileage is lousy and I never tow anything nor do I do any serious...or semi-serious offroading. Although luxurious, the XC90 V8 doesn't up the gas mileage and it is more torque than I require. Granted, you are about as safe as the gold in Ft. Knox in the XC90 though. I will relook at the smaller engine models.
For the RX, I did see a black one roll by, and IMO it looks fairly manly. The black tied in the black rear spoiler, and SEEMS to give the vehicle a more slick and lower profile.
...why are you getting an SUV? My Acura TL 6-speed has taken my family of four on 750 mile round long weekend trips trips when we weren't loading up on luggage. The TL gets nearly 30 mpg on the highway, is fun to drive and is equiped with all of the latest safety features. And fully loaded it's $5,000 less than either the RX or the MDX.
I'm not trying to throw a guilt trip at you, but although the RX is a reasonably efficient SUV, it's still a hog compared to any sedan. You may have other reasons, but I think 5 seat car based SUV's are often candidates for a sedan repalcement. Certainly the X5 with less space than a 5 series is.
Being 6'2", I don't have enough legroom in most cars. The X5 front seat really has a lot of travel giving me all the room I need.
Also, it's if you can't beat 'em join 'em syndrome. I'm tired of parking in parking lots surrounded by these giants on all sides. I can't see a damn thing when I try and back out with my tiny 325i.
And when a ute comes in front of me on the interstate, my view of the road is blocked.
So, I need one for the room and defensive purposes.
Also, I feel BMW's best interior is found in the X5.
We are actually considering a TL as our sedan of the future, but we will not look at purchasing that for at least 18-24 months. My wife has a little car that the two of us can take on trips if we want, so I do not see a need to have two "cars." It also allows us to stagger car payments a little since my wife's car will be paid off in two months.
Back to "why an SUV" when all of your points are pretty accurate. The number one reason is because I like the way they look and the way the road looks from the higher seating. But, without me needing V8 power, the ability to tackle the Rubicon or the ability to tow over 3500 pounds, the RX and MDX kind of fits the bill.
I want the feel of a sedan with the cargo space of an SUV, bottomline. I am willing to venture that 90% of RX owners feel the same way.
Funny, i feel the same, the RX looks pretty (if not very) feminine, but somehow it turned quite manly in black+spoiler+18" wheels, not bad at all...
hpowers: i also think x5 got the best interior design, particularly the light poplar wood trim in it, i actually want pastel green interior, but its not available for US market, well i guess ill have to order one
I hope you are not judging "most cars" by your admittedly tiny 325i. Good friend of mine who is 6'4" bought a 545i a couple of months ago and when he is in the driver's seat, there is still ample room for a 6 footer in the seat behind him. It is amazing to me how many sedans have grown in interior space. I consider my TL "cozy" but was surprised how much bigger it is inside than another friend's early Mercedes E class (1989 E300).
I certainly respect everyone's right to choose whatever fits their needs and preferences. I'm considering trading my TL for a 2006 550i 6-speed and I certainly can't justify that move on any practical or financially prudent front.
P.S. louiein99: On the cargo carrying capacity of the RX, however, I would suggest a close inspection and "test fit". When we traded our boxy 5-seat Trooper for the sleeker 7-seat MDX, I thought we were getting a lot more cargo space too (in 5-seat configuration). As it turns out, the more sloped rear designs of the MDX, RX, and especially Cayenne and X5 wreck havoc on "real" cargo capacity, forget what Edmunds lists as the cubic feet. For all of the dimensional increases in our MDX, cargo capicity is nominally more in than the Trooper. The RX would be much, much less, unless you pack your goods in trapezoidal boxes.
and like you said, X5s cargo carrying ability is a nightmare for those looking for utility, and cayenne is no different.
For us, we don't carry a bunch of garbage cans and the like in the back of the MDX, so the sloping hatch doesn't hurt us. The Pilot gets more room by not having a sloping hatch. Where both vehicles excel at is how much cargo room they have below the windowline. It's four feet between the wheel wells and the space is deep, significantly larger than the RX. You can put the contents of a Costco cart and a half in there and still get the cargo cover over it. Certainly more than what you can get into a sedan's trunk, though some larger wagons can get very close.
That all said, you don't need an SUV to put 1.0 Costco carts' worth of junk away. My 9-3 has a large trunk and I've found that with Tetris-like packing I can usually get a non-overflowing cart totally into the trunk. Though sometimes the pack of toilet paper has to go into the passenger area.
Of course, the "why get an SUV" question can then go into "why not get a minivan?" Which will hold more cargo and also provide the high seating position that many people buy an SUV for. But it comes down to preferences.
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
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.
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...
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
True, but even the ride in comfort mode (the cay s has air suspension + 18" wheels) still cant match x5 with standard suspension.
Thanks,
Jeannine Fallon
Corporate Communications
Edmunds.com
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.