The front of the new RX330 is very uninspiring and generic. I thought I saw a picture of it, until I read the caption and it said Pacifica. The competition is much more than when the RX300 was introduced. The new one will be among the best sellers in its class, but I don't know if it can equal the first one.
I disagree with you. The Murano has real style, unlike a gimmick like the PT Cruiser. The interior is supposed to be much better than Altima.
Interesting how style appears to different people. I find the RX330 nice looking. Sounds like the extra power and better handling will be nice too. I like the idea that I can have it my way and not have to take (and pay for) things I don't want. That said, the extra row of seats in my MDX and the added width are MDX plus feature not in the RX330.
mariner7: I agree the retro look of the PT Cruiser is different from the generic look of most SUVs and most cars for that matter. But the PT Cruiser is not a gimmick It is easier to get in and out of than an SUV, yet sits taller than than a car. It has more room for me than an XC90, is truly fun to drive (PT Cruiser GT - turbo), and it easily fits into today's tight parking places. Retro, practical, and fun - not gimmick
We're opposites. I think the tail lights of the RX are one of the best things about its design. One reason: do you see those on Pacifica and Sorento? The other thing I like: the C pillar. Pacifica/Sorento couldn't copy that either. RX looks good except for that generic front end, IMO.
fmrfly, probably I don't give PT enough credit, as you said.
mariner - The front end is its best view. I just don't like how the rear hatch digs into a portion of the lens and I was hoping they'd do away with the clear lens as well. The sloping C-pillar is reminiscent of the BMW X5.
The front end looks exactly as the RX300, It was a nice design four years ago, but I think its a bit out dated. The side view is really subjective to one's taste and opinions. I think the rear of the vehicle tappers off too much, making it look like a station wagon, and whats up with all those window dividers right before the D pillar? The rear of the vehicle is somewhat subjective to one's taste as well. I dont like the way the tail lights blends into the rear windows. The clear lenses have to go as well, it looks almost like a after market product. It makes the car look cheap.
they were determined to give the RX an untrucklike look and they suceeded. It still looks soft and is nothing more than a wagon with extra ground clearance. Loyal Lexus owners will lock to it but other people are going to take a good look at the competition. The SRX and Toureg will be putting a major dent in RX sales.
When the SRX and Toureg actually do what you say they will then talk. Until then, the RX330 is the one to beat.
The SRX is the best of Cadillac's art & science design theme, but let's face it, it still looks like a wagon on stilts also, like the RX300 & RX330. Lower the SRX a couple of inches and boom, it's a CTS wagon.
its not just the fact that the RX looks like a wagon, its that it conveys a soccer mom image much like a minivan. The SRX may look like a wagon with extra ground clearance in some ways but the design is sporty and aggressive. The RX330 is not the one to beat. It is equal to most of the existing competition but it does not surpass them in any quantifiable way. The SRX and Toureq will offer more performance, better styling and a wider variety of options and powertrains. They promise to offer the handling of an X5 with lower prices and more utility. Even if the RX is successfl it cant match the success of the original.
I think Lexus fell asleep. By sandwiching the RX beneath the MDX (in room & power) and the GX above (in towing capacity, ruggedness and cost) they have failed to "hit the mark".
Cadillac can target BOTH the MDX (hopefully the Caddy's smaller less powerful V6 will also be more fuel efficient...) and the more powerful SUV/SAV/crossovers with its V8.
For ONCE in a long, long time the Cadillac could be "the one to beat"...
I agree with you also, I think the Lexus RX300 is definitely slipping in market share. Who is Lexus' major competition, the MDX, X5 and the XC90 for now. All three of those SUVs either offers more room or better performance or both. I really thought that with the RX330 redesign, they would come out roaring again. Looking at the RX330 and its specs, it is very disappointing to say the least. Very little improvement from the RX300 in my opinion. With the new VW, SRX and the Porsche SUV coming out next year, the RX330 will definitely not stand out in the crowd.
What does the SRX convey? The same thing. a soccer mom image. why? Because that's who it is going to sell to. It is going after the RX300 and MDX's market share. Cadillac offering more performance, better styling has been promised before but Cadillac has never delivered. Case in point the CTS. Cadillac hyped it up as a BMW 5-series beater for the price of a 3-series. What does it come out with? A crappy outdated engine and handling that can't match the best in class. And where are the features above and beyond what the competition offers? THe 3-series is better equipped.
THe RX330 is the one to beat. The RX300 is the best selling luxury SUV in it's price bracket and it holds the biggest single piece of the sales pie. From all the reviews so far, it looks like a great improvement on the RX300.
Please 1487, tell me about the features that are going to make the SRX soo soo superior to the RX330.
1487, BTW, don't bother responding, I find that nobody else bothers responding to your weak posts to begin with, except for fellow Cadillac lovers. Obviously, people aren't wasting time, and I guess, I should follow suit. Later, and rant on about Cadillac taking the luxury car market by storm.
No rival has a double team of RX & GX. They cover more of the spectrum than any other luxury brand. MDX is sort of like a compromise between the two. It may outsell the RX, but certainly won't outsell the Lexus duo. The bottom line is, when all has been said and done, Lexus will sell more SUVs than any rival.
I'm no fan of Toyota, but I have to admire them for this: they usually do their homework better than anyone else!
Lexus publicly stated that its new RX need not be everything to everyone. Even with newer competition offering 3 rows and more power, the current RX is still the sales leader.
Even the new ES300, overpowered by almost every other sedan with a V-6, has beaten a lot of the other entry level luxury sedans in sales, despite not being the fastest or the prettiest and certainly not the cheapest.
The new RX330 will definitely continue the success. Maybe it's the prestige of wearing a Lexus, but there's obviously something about a Lexus that makes people buy them (#1 selling luxury brand).
Most luxury brand do their homework pretty well, Lexus is no different from anyone else. I think Lexus is actually competing with them self by having so many SUV in their line up. How can you compare the sales number from one SUV vs two? That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. Why dont you add in the LX while you are at it. I am sure between the RX, GX and the LX, those three should at least double the sale of the MDX.
One huge advantage Toyota has over Honda & Nissan is that it has more engineering & financial resources. That means bringing more models to the market quicker that its rivals. The triple team of RX/GX/LX is a perfect example. Honda has one, and nothing else in the pipeline. At any given time, poor lonely MDX likely will have to contend with at least one much newer Lexus model!
Toyota is the biggest Japanese car company and Honda is the biggest engine manufacturer in Japan. Toyota doesn't really have that much more financial resources and engineering than Honda. Dont forget, Honda makes industrial and marine engines as well. I believed the two companies have different philosophy as to product lines. Acura believes in quality over quantity, and Toyota believes in a large selection. I think the MDX is a better SUV than all three Lexus SUV. If only Toyota can concentrate one one SUV and make it better, they may have a winner on their hands.
With its torsen center diff'l the GX is a true 4WD system and includes VSC/Trac for torque distribution as well. Its big, bulky and heavy to catch the eye of those that would otherwise buy an explorer/expedition, Etc. 7 seats, and off-road capability.
The RX300, with its "soft" "non-aggressive" AWD and VSC/Trac system is really marketed/designed as Mom's new soccer minivan.
The LX, I have no idea where this behemoth fits in.
The SRX will have the option of a V8, something that the Japanese rival do not offers in their 'smaller luxury SUV' class. (The GX is too big and has that full-frame...) Additionally, the SRX will also offer a 'clutchless manual' further bolstering its sport image.
SRX will have an enormous new system of UltraView 'astoroofs', that should be a big hit in "image-aware" markets (LA, Miami, Hamptons, Hawaii).
SRX will have a innovative system of magnetically damped suspension that may offer the 'holy grail' of near instantly reconfigurable ride & handling.
Even given all this, I do not think it will outsell the RX. The MDX does not outsell the RX, Lexus carries much more 'cachet' and it will be a LONG while before any Caddy will get (back) into that rarefied air.
I see Lexus fans are very excited about the RX330 and that is understandable. But once again Lexus redesigns a vehicles and it only concerned about surpassing its own model, not the competition. really I dont even know how this model is an improvement other than the slight power boost and the bigger rims. The first thing you need to remember is that sales vloumes are related to production volumes. The MDX was never going to outsell the RX because its annual production is nowhere near 90K units a year. even though it has been successful I dont think Acura has increased the number of MDXs produced. The SRX may target the RX in some ways but its main target was the X5. The X5 is the most prestigous vehicle in this class. The SRX will go up to $50K or so which is $5K beyond what a fully loaded RX300 will command. I think the RX330 is going to be too expensive fully loaded, but then again no one will opt for the top model anyway. If you want to know the SRXs features check the website, but the SRX has quite a few features not found on the SRX...one being the fact that its a balanced RWD chassis. Rest assured that it will be more performance minded than the soft RX330 and the V8 is a big plus, contrary to what others have said. If the RX330 had a V8 it would have been the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'm not saying the SRX will be the benchmark, but I am saying the magazines will love it because its sportier than the average SUV. Beyond all of that the RX330 looks even worse than the RX300 which is hard to believe.
BTW, I dont think the CTS was a disappointment in terms of sales or anything else. It has an iron block engine just like the IS300 and GS300. Are their engines also outdated? Its getting a 260hp V6 in the summer anyway. If you are going to get wise with me I hope you get your facts straight. also, a loaded CTS is less than a loaded 330 and has the same features.
Done correctly (***), the VSC/Trac controlled AWD will be a tremendous asset, much more reliable/predictable handling on adverse roadbed conditions...Safety.
(***) To support brake modulated AWD the ABS pump will likely need to be BEEFED up, giving the VSC/Trac system itself more viability, rather than the short (a few seconds, at best)intervention duration the RX300 currently has.
Ford Lowered the tires' air pressure, thereby lowering the center of gravity, in order to lower the Explorer's (projected)rollover rate. The RX330 has stiffer sidewalls (17" & 18" wheels, less "body" roll), which will serve the same purpose without raising any questions regarding ...SAFETY.
I have little doubt that snowchains can be used on the rear, or all four wheels on the RX330, that was a pretty damn foolish oversight on the RX300.....Safety
I also have little doubt that like the AWD RX300, the AWD RX330 will remain predominantly FWD torque biased, but UNLIKE typical FWD torque biased AWD, will not have the severe faults of FWD. As a result of the capability of the NEW AWD system the moment one needs to react to (impending) loss of control problems on adverse roadbed conditions....Safety
V8/Torque/HP. I am continually puzzled by the HP race on/in FWD vehicles, take the Caddy for instance. They tout 300HP but neglect to tell you that the circumstances under which you can make use of anything greater than 200 of those horses is very rare. At WOT they dethrottle the engine (an absolute MUST, stabilitrak, do they call it?) the very moment a front tire begins, even threatens to slip. They had to add an over-running clutch in the drivetrain to prevent the engine's lagging torque from causing loss of control of the vehicle. Torque steer? If the front tire's DON'T slip and you actually GET all that torque at WOT how in hell to you hold a "line"?
"Surplus" torque and/or HP on a RWD vehicle? Such as in an SUV, wherein one fully EXPECTS to encounter adverse roadbed conditions (thereby eliminating the notoriously over-steering 911)? You had BETTER have an AGGRESSIVE stability system such as the one on the X5.
Today's SUV is simply that famous, fabulous, soccer mom's minivan, redesigned for the macho "appearance" need of the opposite sex. Anyone interested in a minivan with an inordinately high torque/HP engine? NO?
RX330 has air suspension as an option, that actually automatically LOWERS the vehicle at speed... Safety
Head and knee protection airbags... Safety
Personally the first thing I will do is recalibrate the height sensors at each wheel so it ALWAYS runs at the lowest possible level, just as I did with my 92 LS... Safety
am i to understand that any feature not offered by the RX330 is a waste? If you people are in the market for a luxury vehicle than you obviously dont care much about practicality or modesty so why would you lament the fact that some SUVs have V8s and RWD? You are saying that the RX330 is underpowered and based on FWD to promote safety? You must be kidding. Every SUV may be used to take kids to soccer but you are kidding yourself if you think they all have the same image. Are you suggesting that certain models such as the Range Rover, Escalade and H2 are seen as nothing more than soccer mom transports? In terms of image the RX is in a class with the MDX, ML320, XC90 and maybe the Murano. It is definitely in the feminine class of SUVs.
When and if Lexus were to offer an RX180/e (120HP gas, 60HP battery) I would be one of the first to hop on that "bandwagon".
Each of us has our own level of acceptable "waste". I would in no way disparage Lexus if they were to offer an RX430. For those of you for which that would be an acceptable level of waste, more power to you.
Practicality or modesty???
Can't figure the modesty bit....
Practicality...
For some of us a variable compression ratio, variable speed hydraulically driven super-charged 2 liter 4 cylinder would be the untimate in practicallity, even over and above a hybrid.
RWD. Basically I have always been a champion of RWD, given a fairly balanced choice I would ALWAYS pick RWD vs FWD. When I travel in the wintertime I make it a point NEVER to rent FWD vehicles. But the fact of the matter is the available technology has now reached a point wherein we could easily have the best features of both FWD and RWD in one (AWD) vehicle.
Under-powered, the RX300? Absolutely not, even with the HLs 4 cylinder many of use wouldn't consider it under-powered.
And any or all FWD (or AWD with FWD torque bias) passenger car derivative SUVs should all be considered perfectly acceptable "soccer mom" minivan substitutes.
I saw Toyota's new Lexus GX in Yosemite after Xmas last year and it didn't look good to me. Styling makes a difference ... I don't care for the MDX but the new Honda looks Ok; however, lacking ML's ESP, I guess they're made wide to minimize the dreaded rollover dangers--too wide.
Toyota's rising star is the Sequoia. It probably will eat into the Suburban market better than Toyota's fuller sized SUVs ever did, even if CR doesn't care for it.
the sequioa has been out for well over a year and it has barely made a dent in sales of domestic SUVS. I may see a few of those a month. when it debuted it was supposed to send the Expedition and Tahoe running for their lives. It hasn't happened. I do not like the styling of the new GX because it seems too narrow and the wheelbase seems too short. The vehicle just seems out of proportion and it has too much cladding. I like the interior but the exterior is nothing new or unique.
The general taillight treatment of the GX has been seen on the Envoy and Montero, I think. I don't pay much attention to Mitsubishi styling, unlike Lexus designers, apparently.
It's one thing to find inspiration from MB designs, another to find it from GMC & Mitsu.
1487, the Sequioa is based on the Tundra, which is not a full sized truck, as we were reminded very recently. That might explained part of its lack of popularity compared with domestic SUVs. Toyota will certainly correct that with the next redesign.
Have a lot positive to say about the SRX in their March issues. The reports are all based on a pre-production model with V8 only.
The production models will be tighter and perform even better than the already praised pre-production. It will be interesting to see how well the V6 works.
There hasn't been a bad review yet, in fact there hasn't been a only "ok" review, on good and great reviews. This may be the best American vehicle in a long time. I don't remember an American vehicle getting this many good reviews without a bad review. Hopefully the 2005 STS will get just as good reviews, some people are already dubbing it the best American sedan ever.
I don't like its looks...IMO, a scaled down Escalade would look better.
I was amazed that the reviews so far have praised the SRX's interior. Is GM actually delivering on its promise of turning Cadillac around? They said similar things regarding Saturn, and the new L-Series and Ion weren't too convincing.
Mariner - I definitely see the Envoy in the back of the GX, it's not just the shape of the taillights that look so familiar, especially if it's an Envoy XL, whose rear is taller than the normal Envoy.
Cadillac had put out one disappointing car after another in the last 5 years. When they introduced the CTS, there was lots of hypes and good reviews to go with that as well. The CTS turns out to be a bomb. Although I dont expect the SRX to be as much a disappointment as the CTS. One can be sure that it will not live up to its hypes. Cadillac should really re-think their position in the luxury car market.
but from what I've seen of the SRX, I'm fairly impressed. The proof is in the driving, of course, but I think the interior is attractive and the exterior styling follows the current Cadillac theme, which I respect (even though Bob Lutz abhors it). I was pleasantly surprised. Looks like a much better execution than the CTS. I did try the X-5, and didn't care for how it drove. Little too stiff for my taste.
However you think of the CTS, it has been a huge sales success for Cadillac.
SRX most likely will be even a bigger success for Caddy, it looks a whole lot better than CTS for one. It & FX45 are the two lightest V8 SUV's on the market, and lightness is always a sign of meticulous engineering. One thing that plagues CTS is its heavy weight affects its performance. That won't be the case with SRX.
SRX to me is a much better effort than CTS, which some people thought was the best Caddy in memory. If Caddy can extend this streak, it will be a serious player. Lincoln seems about to give up, from lack of money or whatever. So Caddy will be the only American player, and that's a big advantage in the US market.
Does anyone know why Touareg/Cayenne weigh so much, 500 lbs more than some of their competitors? They even outweigh truck-based Aviator & GX470 by sizeable amounts.
I'm looking in this category for the best value in the used marketplace. There is a vigorous second hand market up here in QX4s, MLs and RXs as they have been around a while, and things are starting to develop for used MDXs and X5s. This would be a city traffic vehicle M-F and a cottage/sports hauler on weekends. 4WD/AWD needed only for normal winter driving. I will maintain it to spec and keep it forever if possible. I'd really appreciate hearing the collective wisdom out there, especially from those who have had theirs a while. Thanks.
The only vehicle in the title of this topic that is truck-based (ladder-on-frame) is the M-class.
That distinction will go away soon because the next-generation M-class (probably introduced in the fall of 2004) will be unibody, or at least a modified (reinforced) version.
You'll probably find the best used car deals on the ML320, which has lost resale value in an un-MB-like fashion. However, you'd have to check its service records to make sure it's not one of those that are chronically back at the dealership, even to fix relatively minor but numerous annoyances. MB's Starmark warranty is very weak (only adds on year to the vehicle's original warranty).
A used RX will be somewhat more but it should be quite reliable. A used MDX may not be too cheap because it's a relatively newer model and its resale is still high (for the time being). My 2001 MDX has been fine and hasn't even suffered some of the first-year annoyances (knock on fake wood).
Instead of writing again I will insert what I said somewhere else.
Quote,
“There apparently is no "perfect" solution: MB- great cars and service, but no SUV worth buying”
My answer, That sentence caught my eye, I am curious to know why you think the ML is not worth buying? I bought a 99 ML430, purchased in 1998, this is the much maligned SUV, right after I bought it I read all the reports saying how horrible vehicle it was, I said to myself I blew it, especially since I paid cash. Now going into five years I never had any problems, minor or major.
I did not buy my ML just to go around town, I bought it for a purpose, during the summer every chance I get I like to go to the beach in the Gulf Coast, I used to tow my two three seater jetskies with my pickup, but I like to go to some secluded areas which means off the road into sand and some steep boat landings, after getting stuck and slipping and sliding a few times I said I want a AWD vehicle, I read the literature on the ML, test drove it and said OK. In this five years I got to know and like it better as time goes by, not only do I tow my jetskies but also a big 23ft fishing boat, way over 5000lbs. I have also got it stuck in deep mud to the doorsills (anything will get stuck in the mud, I also stuck my Unimog with 4ft tires). In all fairness it does real well in the mud considering and take it from a guy who has done thousands of miles of off the road traveling for many years. I guess the point I am trying to make is that I have put my ML to hard use and after all this it rides tight and smooth as the day when I bought it, it has taken the hard long hauls better than my GM pickup.
The ML just won its third Dakar race in the unmodified class (for production time against Dakar wins it has by far the best ratio of any manufacturer), meaning as is from the show room, no modifications are allowed, plus hundreds of other rallies so far, underneath the skin a very substantial truck hides, just take a look underneath. I would not dismiss the ML so lightly.
Is funny, seems like yesterday I bought the truck and was feeling down about the negative publicity and my possible mistake, now I look with contempt all those shinny new SUV’s going about town.
Is the only real truck in this bunch, judge by yourself, I took this picture at the plant in Alabama, do the rest look this tough under the skin? no way. (click on hi res for panoramic view)
For every good story like yours, there are two other horror stories. I cant wait until the redesign of the ML, which may be next year or the year after that. BTW it will not be a truck based.
It'd sense for new ML to be based on E platform. So the current ML is based on a light truck that's sold in Europe?
I saw the Dakar race on Speedvision a while ago, didn't see a single ML. Saw lots of X5 (and some think that it's not offroader!), & some Nissan & Mitsu trucks. That Mitsu looks nice, it was a concept car in one of the auto shows. Mitsu should withdraw the Endeavor, and introduce that SUV instead!
The new ML should do what the first ML did -- redefine the higher-end SUV market. Though that's a lot tougher a prospect in today's crowded marketplace. The current ML came out in 1997 and was revolutionary at the time. Even today it still has very good capability and tremendous safety features, arguably as good as if not better than the heavily-hyped Volvo XC90 (ML has a much more capable 4WD system, and rear side airbags).
The challenge will be for MB to keep the cost down and the quality up. Personally, I would not buy an ML unless the local dealer support is good, so that's another factor as well. I also wouldn't go near the first production year, and possibly not the second either.
After the ML's release, the RX300 proved that this segment of the market, as a generalized whole, prefers a more car-like, "softer" SUV to a more hard-core SUV built for heavier off-roading and towing. I don't think that MB expected this in their product planning, but the new ML will address this area.
mariner7: The ML does very well in the Dakar rallies. This year, out of 130 teams, three ML's placed first, third, and sixth.
The new ML won't be based on the E-class platform, from what I understand. That chassis itself would make the ML quite expensive.
Here's some info on Wolfgang's site, hopefully posting this link is no problem:
Comments
I disagree with you. The Murano has real style, unlike a gimmick like the PT Cruiser. The interior is supposed to be much better than Altima.
mariner7: I agree the retro look of the PT Cruiser is different from the generic look of most SUVs and most cars for that matter. But the PT Cruiser is not a gimmick It is easier to get in and out of than an SUV, yet sits taller than than a car. It has more room for me than an XC90, is truly fun to drive (PT Cruiser GT - turbo), and it easily fits into today's tight parking places. Retro, practical, and fun - not gimmick
fmrfly, probably I don't give PT enough credit, as you said.
The SRX is the best of Cadillac's art & science design theme, but let's face it, it still looks like a wagon on stilts also, like the RX300 & RX330. Lower the SRX a couple of inches and boom, it's a CTS wagon.
Cadillac can target BOTH the MDX (hopefully the Caddy's smaller less powerful V6 will also be more fuel efficient...) and the more powerful SUV/SAV/crossovers with its V8.
For ONCE in a long, long time the Cadillac could be "the one to beat"...
THe RX330 is the one to beat. The RX300 is the best selling luxury SUV in it's price bracket and it holds the biggest single piece of the sales pie. From all the reviews so far, it looks like a great improvement on the RX300.
Please 1487, tell me about the features that are going to make the SRX soo soo superior to the RX330.
Hahahaha...
Assuming a decent level of aggressiveness in the VSC/Trac AWD torque distribution firmware, the RX330 will break the RX300's sales records.
I'm no fan of Toyota, but I have to admire them for this: they usually do their homework better than anyone else!
Even the new ES300, overpowered by almost every other sedan with a V-6, has beaten a lot of the other entry level luxury sedans in sales, despite not being the fastest or the prettiest and certainly not the cheapest.
The new RX330 will definitely continue the success. Maybe it's the prestige of wearing a Lexus, but there's obviously something about a Lexus that makes people buy them (#1 selling luxury brand).
How can you compare the sales number from one SUV vs two? That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. Why dont you add in the LX while you are at it. I am sure between the RX, GX and the LX, those three should at least double the sale of the MDX.
The RX300, with its "soft" "non-aggressive" AWD and VSC/Trac system is really marketed/designed as Mom's new soccer minivan.
The LX, I have no idea where this behemoth fits in.
SRX will have an enormous new system of UltraView 'astoroofs', that should be a big hit in "image-aware" markets (LA, Miami, Hamptons, Hawaii).
SRX will have a innovative system of magnetically damped suspension that may offer the 'holy grail' of near instantly reconfigurable ride & handling.
Even given all this, I do not think it will outsell the RX. The MDX does not outsell the RX, Lexus carries much more 'cachet' and it will be a LONG while before any Caddy will get (back) into that rarefied air.
Or like the Cayenne does the SRX weight so much that it needs that extra V8 torque.
BTW, I dont think the CTS was a disappointment in terms of sales or anything else. It has an iron block engine just like the IS300 and GS300. Are their engines also outdated? Its getting a 260hp V6 in the summer anyway. If you are going to get wise with me I hope you get your facts straight. also, a loaded CTS is less than a loaded 330 and has the same features.
THAT was my point. Probably about the same percentage that will op for the Cayenne TT vs the "S'.
(***) To support brake modulated AWD the ABS pump will likely need to be BEEFED up, giving the VSC/Trac system itself more viability, rather than the short (a few seconds, at best)intervention duration the RX300 currently has.
Ford Lowered the tires' air pressure, thereby lowering the center of gravity, in order to lower the Explorer's (projected)rollover rate. The RX330 has stiffer sidewalls (17" & 18" wheels, less "body" roll), which will serve the same purpose without raising any questions regarding ...SAFETY.
I have little doubt that snowchains can be used on the rear, or all four wheels on the RX330, that was a pretty damn foolish oversight on the RX300.....Safety
I also have little doubt that like the AWD RX300, the AWD RX330 will remain predominantly FWD torque biased, but UNLIKE typical FWD torque biased AWD, will not have the severe faults of FWD. As a result of the capability of the NEW AWD system the moment one needs to react to (impending) loss of control problems on adverse roadbed conditions....Safety
V8/Torque/HP. I am continually puzzled by the HP race on/in FWD vehicles, take the Caddy for instance. They tout 300HP but neglect to tell you that the circumstances under which you can make use of anything greater than 200 of those horses is very rare. At WOT they dethrottle the engine (an absolute MUST, stabilitrak, do they call it?) the very moment a front tire begins, even threatens to slip. They had to add an over-running clutch in the drivetrain to prevent the engine's lagging torque from causing loss of control of the vehicle. Torque steer? If the front tire's DON'T slip and you actually GET all that torque at WOT how in hell to you hold a "line"?
"Surplus" torque and/or HP on a RWD vehicle? Such as in an SUV, wherein one fully EXPECTS to encounter adverse roadbed conditions (thereby eliminating the notoriously over-steering 911)? You had BETTER have an AGGRESSIVE stability system such as the one on the X5.
Today's SUV is simply that famous, fabulous, soccer mom's minivan, redesigned for the macho "appearance" need of the opposite sex. Anyone interested in a minivan with an inordinately high torque/HP engine? NO?
RX330 has air suspension as an option, that actually automatically LOWERS the vehicle at speed... Safety
Head and knee protection airbags... Safety
Personally the first thing I will do is recalibrate the height sensors at each wheel so it ALWAYS runs at the lowest possible level, just as I did with my 92 LS... Safety
Each of us has our own level of acceptable "waste". I would in no way disparage Lexus if they were to offer an RX430. For those of you for which that would be an acceptable level of waste, more power to you.
Practicality or modesty???
Can't figure the modesty bit....
Practicality...
For some of us a variable compression ratio, variable speed hydraulically driven super-charged 2 liter 4 cylinder would be the untimate in practicallity, even over and above a hybrid.
RWD. Basically I have always been a champion of RWD, given a fairly balanced choice I would ALWAYS pick RWD vs FWD. When I travel in the wintertime I make it a point NEVER to rent FWD vehicles. But the fact of the matter is the available technology has now reached a point wherein we could easily have the best features of both FWD and RWD in one (AWD) vehicle.
Under-powered, the RX300? Absolutely not, even with the HLs 4 cylinder many of use wouldn't consider it under-powered.
And any or all FWD (or AWD with FWD torque bias) passenger car derivative SUVs should all be considered perfectly acceptable "soccer mom" minivan substitutes.
Toyota's rising star is the Sequoia. It probably will eat into the Suburban market better than Toyota's fuller sized SUVs ever did, even if CR doesn't care for it.
It's one thing to find inspiration from MB designs, another to find it from GMC & Mitsu.
1487, the Sequioa is based on the Tundra, which is not a full sized truck, as we were reminded very recently. That might explained part of its lack of popularity compared with domestic SUVs. Toyota will certainly correct that with the next redesign.
The production models will be tighter and perform even better than the already praised pre-production. It will be interesting to see how well the V6 works.
I was amazed that the reviews so far have praised the SRX's interior. Is GM actually delivering on its promise of turning Cadillac around? They said similar things regarding Saturn, and the new L-Series and Ion weren't too convincing.
Mariner - I definitely see the Envoy in the back of the GX, it's not just the shape of the taillights that look so familiar, especially if it's an Envoy XL, whose rear is taller than the normal Envoy.
How do you figure?
SRX most likely will be even a bigger success for Caddy, it looks a whole lot better than CTS for one. It & FX45 are the two lightest V8 SUV's on the market, and lightness is always a sign of meticulous engineering. One thing that plagues CTS is its heavy weight affects its performance. That won't be the case with SRX.
SRX to me is a much better effort than CTS, which some people thought was the best Caddy in memory. If Caddy can extend this streak, it will be a serious player. Lincoln seems about to give up, from lack of money or whatever. So Caddy will be the only American player, and that's a big advantage in the US market.
Does anyone know why Touareg/Cayenne weigh so much, 500 lbs more than some of their competitors? They even outweigh truck-based Aviator & GX470 by sizeable amounts.
That distinction will go away soon because the next-generation M-class (probably introduced in the fall of 2004) will be unibody, or at least a modified (reinforced) version.
A used RX will be somewhat more but it should be quite reliable. A used MDX may not be too cheap because it's a relatively newer model and its resale is still high (for the time being). My 2001 MDX has been fine and hasn't even suffered some of the first-year annoyances (knock on fake wood).
Quote,
“There apparently is no "perfect" solution: MB- great cars and service, but no SUV worth buying”
My answer,
That sentence caught my eye, I am curious to know why you think the ML is not worth buying?
I bought a 99 ML430, purchased in 1998, this is the much maligned SUV, right after I bought it I read all the reports saying how horrible vehicle it was, I said to myself I blew it, especially since I paid cash. Now going into five years I never had any problems, minor or major.
I did not buy my ML just to go around town, I bought it for a purpose, during the summer every chance I get I like to go to the beach in the Gulf Coast, I used to tow my two three seater jetskies with my pickup, but I like to go to some secluded areas which means off the road into sand and some steep boat landings, after getting stuck and slipping and sliding a few times I said I want a AWD vehicle, I read the literature on the ML, test drove it and said OK.
In this five years I got to know and like it better as time goes by, not only do I tow my jetskies but also a big 23ft fishing boat, way over 5000lbs. I have also got it stuck in deep mud to the doorsills (anything will get stuck in the mud, I also stuck my Unimog with 4ft tires). In all fairness it does real well in the mud considering and take it from a guy who has done thousands of miles of off the road traveling for many years. I guess the point I am trying to make is that I have put my ML to hard use and after all this it rides tight and smooth as the day when I bought it, it has taken the hard long hauls better than my GM pickup.
The ML just won its third Dakar race in the unmodified class (for production time against Dakar wins it has by far the best ratio of any manufacturer), meaning as is from the show room, no modifications are allowed, plus hundreds of other rallies so far, underneath the skin a very substantial truck hides, just take a look underneath. I would not dismiss the ML so lightly.
Is funny, seems like yesterday I bought the truck and was feeling down about the negative publicity and my possible mistake, now I look with contempt all those shinny new SUV’s going about town.
Is the only real truck in this bunch, judge by yourself, I took this picture at the plant in Alabama, do the rest look this tough under the skin? no way. (click on hi res for panoramic view)
http://www.funtigo.com/MLtransmission
Are you sure the ratio isn't ten no defect MLs vs one with defects and a LOUD owner?
I saw the Dakar race on Speedvision a while ago, didn't see a single ML. Saw lots of X5 (and some think that it's not offroader!), & some Nissan & Mitsu trucks. That Mitsu looks nice, it was a concept car in one of the auto shows. Mitsu should withdraw the Endeavor, and introduce that SUV instead!
http://www.whnet.com/4x4/pix3/w164_14.jpg
The challenge will be for MB to keep the cost down and the quality up. Personally, I would not buy an ML unless the local dealer support is good, so that's another factor as well. I also wouldn't go near the first production year, and possibly not the second either.
After the ML's release, the RX300 proved that this segment of the market, as a generalized whole, prefers a more car-like, "softer" SUV to a more hard-core SUV built for heavier off-roading and towing. I don't think that MB expected this in their product planning, but the new ML will address this area.
mariner7: The ML does very well in the Dakar rallies. This year, out of 130 teams, three ML's placed first, third, and sixth.
The new ML won't be based on the E-class platform, from what I understand. That chassis itself would make the ML quite expensive.
Here's some info on Wolfgang's site, hopefully posting this link is no problem:
http://www.whnet.com/4x4/w164.html