We are aware of the login problems affecting the forums, and appreciate your patience as we work on a fix.
Did you recently purchase a new Tesla, Rivian or Lucid vehicle directly from the manufacturer and willing to share how your experience compared to previous vehicle purchases made through a traditional dealer? A reporter would like to speak with you; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 2/19 for details.
Mercedes-Benz M-class vs Ford Explorer/Mercury Mountaineer vs Buick Rendezvous vs Acura MDX
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Best of the bunch is the Mercedes followed closely by the Acura.
In terms of value, the new Rendezvous wins hands down. Although it doesn't have a sophisticated engine it does have great looks, space and quality (from what I hear). The 0-60 times really don't suffer much from the smaller engine which is surprising and you get the best gas mileage in class.
Since I can not afford a Mercedes or an Acura, I will be looking at a base Rendezvous for sure when our next lease is due next spring.
Nobody denies that Ford/GM are entirely CAPABLE of providing quality engines/transmissions. For example, most BMW transmissions are manufactured by GM! Ford has been making excellent multivalve engines in Europe for a long time. For some reason however, perhaps cost, Ford and GM still insist on selling that obsolete pushrod designs that everyone dropped decades ago. Yes..the Explorer V6 is SOHC, but is still remarkably inefficient by modern standards. Its a bigger engine, gets worse milage, far less refined, and produces less power to boot.
Stephen
Its not like Ford can't build world class cars. Ford Europe sells the Mondeo, and Cosworth Escort. They own Jaguar and Aston Martin...they have the ability, they just need the will!
Anyway, to sum up?
Explorer is a good vehicle in the 20-30 range, but there are much better choices in the 30K+ range.
Certainly the ML320 can match or exceed the performance of a similarly equipped Explorer/Mountaineer in most areas. However, a FULLY loaded EB Explorer/Mountaineer AWD can be purchased for just over invoice ($33,300 for audiophile sound, moonroof, luxury package, convenience group, and side airbags). A similarly equipped ML320 typically sells at or just slightly below MSRP (about $41,200 with similar equipment).
Is the ML320 a more desireable SUV? Sure, it has VSC and has better crash test ratings. However, the Explorer/Mountaineer also has good crash test scores and safety features, and it costs about $8,000 less in the real world. (I won't address roll-over stats here, it is for consumers to decide if Ford has addressed those issues satisfactorily...and soon to arrive VSC should satisfy those concerns).
I looked at both SUV's very closely and found both to be very well put together and desireable. Both vehicles look and feel the part of an upscale, near-luxury SUV. The ML has a great ride and a feeling of quality throughout. The ML320 "intangibles" were also superior and very real. The Mountaineer also me impressed with it's tremendous improvement over last year. It's ride was more truckish, but it was smooth and quiet by any standards, and the interior, while clearly not as nice as the Mercedes, was well executed and attractive (I liked the aluminum look no less than the wood in the ML, which looks fake to me).
My local Mercedes dealer and I assembled a MINIMALLY equipped ML320 with 3rd row and it came to $38,500. That's as low as you can go with cloth seats and no luxury package. The Explorer/Mountaineer, nicely equipped, can be purchased for about $30,000.
One caveat, if you want to lease, the Mercedes is probably a better value because of it's superior residual value. Monthly payments should be very similar to the Ford/Mercury, and the maintenance is included for 4 years (length of warranty). It's a good lease value.
Also note that considering trade in, you'll do much better as well. Explorers have MASSIVE depreciation, with 38-40% residuals after 4 years. ML and MDX are running at 51-53%.
Mountaineer isn't bad for the money, but it does lack refinement. For some people, this may not be much of a concern. For me personally, I'm willing to pay more to get the better vehicle.
Speaking of which, has anyone heard when the BMW X5L will be out?
BTW, I think most would agree that buying a used Mercedes is much less risky than buying a used Ford. The comparative residual values of these two vehicles demonstrates the long-term value of the Mercedes (the longer you keep it, the better the value).
MB abandoned the I6 style (which they have been using for eons) for a V6 mainly because the I6 wouldn't fit underneath the hood of the M-class. They wanted to be able to have a short and slopping hood line (which is actually part of the reason why the ML looks a bit minivan-ish from some angles) for improved visibility and much improved packaging reasons. By better packaging I mean this...the BMW X5, which has an I6, is about a couple of inches longer than the ML, but yet has much less room inside. The long hood eats up a lot of what would've been cabin/cargo space. Fitting an I6 to the ML without compromising any interior room would've increased the overall length of the vehicle larger than what MB wanted.
Hope this helps!
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
RDV needs more than just a more powerful engine. It needs more truck space with 3rd row seat up. I am not talking about hundreds of cubic feet of truck space just a few inches longer to be able to put grocery bags back in there when you have 3rd row seat up. Explorer has more space behind 3rd row seat.
Obviously RDV has a more versatile interior design. It's 50-50 split 2nd row design is better then Explorer's 40-20-40 split. It's easier to get into 3rd seat of RDV than Explorer. Explorer 2nd 20% portion is fixed not as smart as Buick.
RDV has a step in height about 16 inches so no running board is required. Explorer has a step in height about 22".
RDV needs to have rear bumper step protector so user can load stuffs without scratch the rear bumper. GM's minivan has rear bumper step protector, don't know why its not available for RDV?
Quality RDV vs Explorer? Hmmm well RDV 1st year model vs Explorer 1st year mmmm? Well even ML first year sucked big time too. Why didn't Toyota put 3rd row seat in Highlander?
http://4x4abc.com/ML320/ml320_rubicon_trail.html
ML in snow?
http://www.whnet.com/4x4/
ML is capable of doing everything the Explorer does. It has a full ladder frame, tows 5000lbs, and has decent offroad ability..what exactly does it not handle?
MB has no need to use Durango parts. They designed the Jeep Liberty from the ground up, should be nice. They also design the worlds best offroad vehicle, the G-class.
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
Orders for 2002 Explorers have surpassed the 100,000 mark, Which is more than ML sold last year altogether.
The estimated cost to service this vehicle for the next 5 years is $604/yr, almost 100 less per year than previous models. I would dread the cost of servicing the Mercedes, but if you got 8-12 thousand more to spend on the cost alone, you probably wouldn't sweat it.
Alot of people are saying Ford's quality (in explorers) has gone down, saying they are cutting corners etc. etc. Ford is cutting corners, not for the sake of cheaper equipment, but cheaper in cost to build its vehicles. This is how Ford represents the best value or bang for the buck, that makes it's America's Best Selling SUV, hands down. Yes I think for most communters the ML might be the way to go, but if you're an mainstream american, you can appreciate the money saved and earned by a Ford Explorer. Just think of the Aftermarket parts you can get with the price tag difference alone. Ford is listening to it's customers, and delivering what they want, and at a cost that is easy to swallow.
Customer-Driven Refinements of the 2002 Ford Explorer:
Seven-passenger seating capability with an all-new optional third-row seat
Wider coat hooks to accommodate large plastic hangers
Interior grab handles moved to the door-pillars where they’re easier to see and grasp
Grab-through exterior door handles, with finger grips on the back
Larger door openings and lower step-in height
Wider, more substantial optional running boards
Adjustable safety belts in the first and second rows
Power adjustable pedals and a tilting and telescoping steering wheel
Larger radio buttons, and an optional six-disc, in-dash sound system
Wider front-door map holders, designed to accommodate larger items – including water bottles or 20-ounce soft drinks
Frequently used controls placed higher on the instrument panel, and color adjustments making panels easier to read for color blind drivers
A larger fuel tank holding 1.5 more gallons of fuel
Not because Ford's engineers thought "we can do it cheaper this way" but because the customers wanted it. I wish I could figure out how to post pictures directly here, as I'd offer plenty of examples of Ford's interior not being cheap or ill fitting. (That is GM's job anyway).
I know the dealers in Cleveland, OH said they were going to try to charge MSRP but I've seen some Ads where one dealer has 27 and another 10.
Somehow I don't think they're selling like they thought they would(at least at MSRP).
Please don't tell us Ford has some big quality advantage over GM. With 5+ recalls on the Escape and 2 and counting on the new Explorer, Ford has nothing to brag about.
oh..so you doubt that the durango parts will ever make it to the ml...or maybe slap some mb badges on some Chryslers...
oh ok..maybe they ll employ that Chrysler engineering in the mb line..just hope i don t see an ml with the bright Dodge red..i dont know if I can take that.
Why don't you take a look at my pic in post #41 and see if that tranny is not for a truck, sitting inside a heavy ladder frame.
Mercedes also makes the Gwagen, by all means is the top off roading SUV. Also Mercedes makes the Unimog the top dog of all when it comes to go off the road. Here is a pic of my 406 next to our Passat, it is shorter but weighs almost 10,000lbs and can carry that much weight in the platform, it has an MB 6 cylinder diesel, 23 forward and 8 reverse, front and rear PTO, front and rear hydraulic PTO, seven and a half ft snorkel, air over hydraulic brakes, all synchronized, front and rear locks on the go, differential locks on the go, portal axles over coils, and rated at a 300 ton pull as a rail car.
Thanks,
Mitch
Well, for the MB, it's $0 for the first 4 yrs/50k miles.
Stephen
Stephen
One thing that bugs me about this point is that I would think most consumers would be more interested in how much _money_ they're going to have to spend on gas (miles per $), rather than how many miles they'll get per gallon.
The reason there is a difference is because with the Mercedes high compression engine, you are forced to burn premium gas, while the Explorer can burn regular gas. In Atlanta, GA, that typically equates to about $0.20 difference per gallon (currently $1.389/gallon regular vs. $1.589/gallon premium).
To give a real world example, here is what it would cost you to go 300 miles in each vehicle, using the average of city/highway mileage for each (17.5mpg for the Explorer, 19mpg for the ML320):
Explorer: 300miles / 17.5mpg * $1.389 = $23.81
ML320: 300miles / 19mpg * $1.589 = $25.09
As you can see, the Explorer has an advantage in what it will actually cost you for gas. If proteus were arguing the point, he would say something like "the Explorer sucks FAR less dollars". But then again, he'd never say that, because it would be a positive statement for the Explorer.
Just my 2 cents worth.
its funny how things get spun....
the side airbag curtain now on explorers on the road but not yet on the mercedes until 2002 doesnt get mentioned either...
I had a trip 650 mile trip from Salt Lake City to Yellowstone NP and back.I have been driven V6 2001 Explorer 4x4 and ML 320.First was Ford from rental com. at airport.With Ford it was 657 miles,41 gal. and 67,65 $ for regular gas.MB was trip 2 mo. later and it was 652 miles,34 gal. and 62,90 $ for premium.It was non hwy. driving.In the Ford was me and 100 pounds of photo stuff.In MB was me , my wife and 100 pounds of stuff.Average Ford 16,03 ------------ MB 19,20 mpg
AND I count all the gas bills . So it's not car computer average.Both ,,trucks,, comp trips was wrong +/- 0.5 MPG
<< ,,Just my 2 cents worth ,, >> uh :[))
i m impressed with your accuracy.
Seems like the Explorer costs 8.5% more in gas to operate for the city driving according to you.
So for me, I drive about 10,000 miles per year.
I use regular at about $1.80 per gallon.
The Explorer will cost me $95 more per year for gas than an ML320
To have the truck I want, I d pay the extra 95 per year.
So far I've gotten anywhere from 17.2 to 18.6 highway mpg in the first 2300 miles, and from 14.3 to 15.6 city mpg. The V8 is supposed to get 14 city/19 highway, so I guess what I've been getting seems to be pretty dead on with how it's rated.
Also, FYI, I accelerate quickly and set my cruise on 80mph. If I accelerated slower and set my cruise on 65-70mph, I could easily get an extra 1-2 mpg for both city and highway.
I also calculate my own mileage, rather than trusting the trip computer, which I have also observed to be +/- 0.5mpg. I would have thought that it would have been consistently low or consistently high, but I have seen it both ways.
The mileage figures I used for my example were the average of the city and highway mpg for both vehicles. For the Explorer V6, the average of 15 city and 20 highway is 17.5 mpg. For the Mercedes, the average of 17 city and 21 highway is 19 mpg. I was just trying to make an objective comparison using the rated mpg for each. I think that is a more fair comparison than basing it on one trip by one person with a rental car vs. a car they owned.
My point, however, was not to say that the Explorer will be greatly superior in how much it costs you for fuel. Rather, I was just trying to say that the two are in pretty much the same league. I think that in the long run you will spend a _little_ less on fuel with the Explorer than you will with the Mercedes. However, I would certainly not make my decision on which vehicle to buy based on this small difference.
(If you drive 15,000 miles a year, with the current Atlanta costs of regular ($1.389) and premium ($1.589) gas, using the average mpgs for each, it would cost you $63.90 less per year for fuel for the Explorer -- not very significant on a $30,000 vehicle).
I just get tired of proteus using the ML mpg as a huge bargaining point, as if it is SO wonderful, while the Explorer's is SO awful. In my opinion, the Explorer may win by a nose in overall fuel cost, but there's not a big enough difference for anyone buying a $30K (or $40K for the ML) vehicle to care.
One more thing . You still mention PREMIUM and REGULAR . MB DON'T NEED PREMIUM ONLY . The comp. is ,,watching ,, for you what type of gas you put in . Not even manual says that you have to use premium . And I dont think manny people who wants to buy a truck thinking between EXPLORER or ML BECAUSE THAT 10 k MORE .I have been thinking between 4Runner and Outback and ML and Volvo and Audi and E - wagon .
But I needed higher view and space inside where I can sleep . And car must drive in deep snow and mud too . For me is it just a car that I'm using to deth and than I get another one and another one....( I'm traveling a 60 mi./ year for nature photography )
Anyway good luck with your ex. :-))
PS : I dont like some things on ML , but I can live with them .
I will try to post pictures from the trips , but maybe in couple weeks.. 3 or 4 I hope :-))) From SW wilderness
All the best,
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
Premium in Europe is 96 oct.
Premium in Chicago is 91 to 93 oct. Premium in Iowa , Col , Utah and manny other places is 87 to 89 oct. So what you can do ? I'm using premium , but what is premium in Chicago is not premium over there.
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
Remember, price is what you pay: value is what you receive in return.
Looks, aftermarket friendly, and the ultimate reason, VALUE, are my reasons to my Suburban vessel. Safety, race car-like speed and drawing attention to yourself are not.
A vehicle is only as safe as the driver. If you need all of those curtains and sensors to increase your confidence on the road, you have no reason behind the wheel.
Resale: If you are leasing (of which, I know most of you guys will), It does not matter. If you intend to keep this thing longer than 5 or 6 years, who cares? It won't be worth much anyway.
Gas? Most of these things suck gas (except for the worthless baby suv's). If you cannot afford to set aside $30 weekly on gas, you have no reason considering an SUV.
Reliablility: C'mon people. No car lasts forever, they all need maintenance!
SOmething that is based off of a TRUCK that costs luxo sedan price is a waste of money. It is not an SUV, it is a bloated ego soother.
Your decisions of your consideration to purchase should not be based on others.
My conclusions:
ML: Looks like a minivan.
Buick: It IS a minivan with 4 doors.
Explorer: That box shape has grown old and dull. Needs more aftermarket stuff to spice it up.
Mountaineer: It looks good from the front only. Other than that, see explorer.
Acura: Looks like a minivan, but is a far better value than the ML.
I wish the Industry would go back to the stone ages of 4x4's. Just like it used to be. Luxury was having your spare tire out of the rear!
I did check out the Envoy. Hits include the 270hp V6, for once the General did something right. But for a vehicle that was supposedly "redesigned" they missed on the ergonomic factors again. Most notably trying to get into the back seat, almost half the door is over the wheel well. They could have lengthened the wheel base to get around this, in fact, if they had lengthened the wheel base then we might be talking about a third row
;-)
3rd row not a big need, but an Envoy with longer wheel base would be very nice. The current 2nd row stinks, like on the previous Jimmy/Blazer.