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

adp3

someone posted this on another board:

I was surprised at the figure myself and did a double take as well. The car was reviewed on Road&Track and Automobile Magazine. It was listed as 18 city and 30 (or almost 30) highway. I also believe the figures were for the Northstar V-8. It weighs about 4,300 lbs. The reviewers liked the way it rode, handling almost like a car than an SUV, a la X-5. It was actually developed in the famed Nurburgring circuit with BMW 530 in mind, according to the magazine. The SRX actually is based on a regular passenger car chassis, like the X-5.

If the safety features are decent (better than average SUV), I think it could be a real contender. It does seem a bit more expensive, but v-6 is just as powerful as the X-90 T6. I am really hoping to be able to compare them at the Geneva autoshow in 2 weeks

adp3

http://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/firstdrives/articleDisplay.as- p?articleID=451

Perhaps the most impressive stat is the Northstar-powered SRX's astonishing fuel economy. Thanks to this SUV's low weight (less than 4300 lb. in rear-wheel-drive guise) and tall top gear, Cadillac says that the provisional numbers are showing 18 mpg city and nearly 30 mpg highway.

onelgs

What's the lowest offer I should make for these SUV's? In your experience, is one superior to the other? I drove both and would be happy with either one even though I do like the navigation system and DVD player in the MDX.

Will greatly appreciate any feedback as purchase will be made within next 2 days.

Thanks!
Lidia

wwest

the X5 is the better SUV, more adverse roadbed capability if needed. But if you're simply looking for a modern station wagon, or a macho minivan, the MDX will be fine.

lexusdude

just get the RX300 or 330, that's what we're here for, right?

onelgs

The RX300 is my last (3rd) choice... Even though I'm certain I would prefer the RX330 over the 300 but the dealer just told me he's getting 10 in two weeks and they have a waiting list with 23 people on it!

But the main reason that I don't want to buy the Lexus is because in my neighborhood, every 3rd car on the road, is a Lexus... and they're all either silver or gold. I prefer to be different and not follow the crowd. LOL

Lidia

adp3

How about comparing the Caddy to the Volve XC90? And what about the Pacifica? The Caddy and the Pacifica seem to be going after the same crowd, no?

Someone pklease tell me that Cadillac is doign something right. I'd love it if this is a decent vehicle. It certainly is the oddest looking one that I am considering.

pathfinder14

what's the difference between leather and leatherette.

joatmon

Leatherette is a vinyl. It is a very good grade of vinyl and quite comfortable. However, resale would be tough.

ceksc

I have a Lexus on order to replace the bmw x5. I have had the car for two years and have never had more problems with a vehicle. Electrical shorts, battery draining issues (eventual recall repaired this), innaccurate heating and cooling system and various ergonomic issues. It is not that the car does not have many redeeming qualities. For the price, however, I expect much more from a luxury suv.

hopeitsfriday

" the X5 is the better SUV, more adverse roadbed capability if needed " than the MDX. I don't think so, both SUV have similar all wheel drive systems. The MDX has the capability to lock in all 4 wheels in really tough situations, the BMW does not. The MDX wears off road tires and the BMW has racing tires. I think the MDX would be much better in the snow and adverse situations. The BMW performs better than the MDX on the race tracks but I think the MDX has the advantage in utility.

djocks

getting into the SUV game here and have only driven my father's 2000 Lexus RX300. I am going to lease this for my wife. She puts on about 10K a year and because of work, half can be written off.

Here is where I need help.
The comparison includes:
1. Mercedez ML320
2. Lexus RX300
3. Acura MDX
4. Nissan Murano
6. Infiniti FX35
7. VW touregg
8. BMW X5 3.0

Here are the factors important for her:
1. Easy to drive
2. appeal (she loves the interior of the fx and the exterior of the Jeep GC)
3. No need for a third seat, just a little extra storage
4. leasing programs (residuals, price, maintenance)
5. Safety (no need for off road capabilities)
6. The standard 6 cyl. engines in all of these are plenty

What should be my first move?

wwest

Does the fact that you don't mention a need for wintertime on-road adverse condition, snow and ice, capability, actually meaningful?

MDX vs X5

The MDX is predominantly FWD, only AWD up to about 18MPH. Not sure if the manual AWD switch over-rides that upper limit. But what, where, is the torque bias ratio even in AWD?

Don't know why, but you can't get HID headlamps on the MDX.

djocks

Thanks,
Yes we live in Conneticut and will encounter some snow.

adp3

it seems like the Volvo should be on your list.

and isn't this a Cadidlac site? YOu could at least put the SRX on your list, even if you have no intent to buy it.

:-)

if safety and driveability are an issue, a nice wagon should be on your list. Far safer and better to drive. Also, better mpg, likely. Audi A6?

wwest

The RX330 will be out in April and if the new VSC AWD firmware is coded to be aggressive then it will overshadow all of the others. Assuming you rate luxury fairly high in your "wants".

mac320

The base "6" for the '03 ML is now the 350 which actually is a 3.7L engine that replaced the 3.2L after the model year started. If there still are any new '03 ML320s available, you probably could get a good lease deal. And, you left the Honda Pilot off your list.

adp3

http://thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=5768&n=157,181&- amp;sid=181

a positive car review from The Car Connection, Feb. 17

sorry for the re-post if folks have seen it

greenlatern

Don't know how it might apply to your situation but the X5 has a gross vehicle weight of 6005 lbs., enough to accelerate the depreciation (big tax write-off) if leased on business. There were a lot of stories in the press in December on how heavy SUVs were bought for this reason. I love my X5 in the snow, not just for the traction but also the heated seats, heated steering wheel and heated wiper fluid jets. Park distance control makes it easy to park. HOWEVER, my wife does not think it's easy to drive. Residuals seem to be a little over 60%.

1487

I dont know who was saying the CTS was a flop but that is inaccurate. The car was projected to sell about 40K units and thats what they sold. I believe it is among the top 3 or 4 entry level lux cars in monthly sales. I know it outsells the IS300 and the X-type. The SRX is projected for 30K units in its first full year which is very conservative number that will keep it relatively exclusive compared to vehicles like the RX300 which is everywhere. To be honest the SRX is directly competing with the X5, Toureg and FX45. Everything else in this class is more biased towards soccer moms and people who like Buick-soft ride quality. The SRX is more performance oriented than the RX330, Pacifica, MDX or XC90. If they only plan to sell 30K units then this vehicle should do just fine, they might even have to increase production.

fndlyfmrflyr

I guess when a car company sets low sales projections it is easier to call the sales numbers a success. So far, I have seen only one CTS on the road, so if eclucivity is the GM goal they indeed have succeeded.

We drove a loaded CTS when they first became available. It handles well and has a good feel too. The transmission is excellent and the ride comfortable. It could use a bit more power, but that will be fixed in the next model year. Skipping looks, which is different in a take it or leave it way, we found the back seat too small for us. My head hit the ceiling (I'm 5'10") and the seat was not very comfortable either (maybe because I didn't fit). The dash instruments and center stack were unreadable on the sunny day we drove the car unless the car was in the shade. The sun visor couldn't be lowered without hitting my wife's head when she drove the car. Some of the interior is hard rather than soft. The noise level at freeways speeds was higher than expected too.

It is a good start, but a work in progress and not up to the standards of other cars in the class. Maybe next model year the car will have some of of the deficiencies corrected and will be a real success, with sales well above 40,000.

The SRX sounds good, but so did the CTS. Reviews have been good and it will have a third row available, though from what I have read it will be down on luggage and hauling volume. BTW, the MDX does not have a Buick-like soft ride quality. It will be nice, however, if the "S" in SRX really does stand for sport and the vehicle does performs that way too.

jrockb4

I know they are pre-production reviews, but the SRX is getting the best reviews of any GM vehicle in recent memory. They are not getting the "GM car X is a nice vehicle, but...." reviews. It is getting the "The may be the best vehicle in it's class" reviews. Motor Trend, Road and Track, Car and Driver you name it. Of course this could change between now and Sept, but things should only get better. Below is jus tthe latest rave review.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/autos/articles/gm/story/916600p-- 1089872c.html

hopeitsfriday

I recall about 2 years ago, right before the CTS was about to come out. Reviewers couldn't stop talking about it, it was suppose to be the car that will save Cadillac. Very much like the Allante 10 years ago, it too was suppose to be the next generation of 2 seat roadsters . Well we all know how those 2 stories turn out. I personally test drove the CTS, it has nice power and handling is average. But the interior material was very cheap and not up to the standards of other cars in the $35,000 range.
The SRX has a very radical design, it has one of the those like it or hate it design much like the Nissan Murano and the BMW Z3. I believe the SRX will be a little more successful than the CTS, but it can never live up to its hypes. But even if it come close to what reviews are saying, it would be the most successful new Cadillac in a long while.

1487

fndyly,

Listen, I really think you need to review the sales of some entry level luxury cars. There are only a handful of entry lux cars that outsold the CTS last year. I know the Es300 and 3 series outsold it but I cant vouch for anything else. 40K units is very good for a 1st year luxury car that has no real predecessor. I'm not sure whre you live (probably CA) but I have seen dozens o CTS since its intro. I probably see 2-3 every week. I have been in the CTS and my head didnt hit the ceiling (i'm 5'10") and the car is bigger than every car in this class save the ES300 and Acura TL. What are you talking about? What cars in the class are so much better than the CTS? Out of the RWD competition only the 3 series could be considered superior and thats only if size isnt an issue for the buyer. The CTS interior is as good as the LS, X-type, IS300, I30 and TL in my opinion. I've found all of those cars to feel sort of non-luxurious on the inside.

Also, the SRX is larger than other lux crossovers including the X5. I'm not sure what you've read that suggests it will be smaller than the competition.

richw5

fndly - I'm 6'0" and own a CTS. Our purchase was the result of needing a second car, to transport our year old (at the time of purchase)grandson. My wife uses the CTS as a daily driver and we take turns riding in the back seat, when we bring the grandson to our house for a visit.

As long as the front seat isn't all the way back, I don't have a problem with rear leg or head room. As for wind noise, our CTS is one of the quietest cars I've ever owned. It's just a fun car to drive. We've never had a sunlight problem with the dash or instruments. While I feel it needs about 30 more horsepower, my wife thinks it's perfect now.

While the CTS is priced to compete with the BMW 3-series, it's the size of a 5-series. I've blown away many 3-series BMW's without a sweat and believe me, the CTS is superior.

A couple of weeks ago, I went to the Chicago Auto Show. The SRX was there and impressed me right off the bat. Some of the harsh lines of the CTS are softened and it's a great looking vehicle. Beyond that, it's roomer then most (if not all) of it's competition and can be configured to meet all of our needs. I was really impressed. My retirement changed the frequency of car purchases at our house, but in a few years, my wife's '99 Explorer will be traded for an SRX.

P.S. Here in the Chicago suburbs, I normally see two to three CTS's every day. My wife's boss asked if we would be angry if she got a CTS too.
I just smile and know that we did the right thing. Cadillac has some great cars coming out in the next few years. Just watch.

Rich

fndlyfmrflyr

Not knocking the CTS, just reporting what my test drive was like. There appear to be very few on the road in my part of SoCal. I have a headroom problem in a few cars, The front was fine for me, but the back was a minus one inch on the headroom side, but okay for leg room. Even the S-Type Jag that I had at that time (gone for about a year now) had more rear headroom.

The CTS is big on the outside compared to cars in the same price range, but drove smaller (that's good). Having dash and center stack non mechanical instruments and displays wash out in bright sun is not unusual. Just mentioned it because as a new design I expected better than average.

Even the dealer agreed the car was noisy. It wasn't wind noise, but sounded like tire noise. Maybe there was a tire problem on the one I drove? But, it rode very well and the handling was good too. The dealer was very good by the way. He gave us the keys and said to take for a good drive but try to be back in an hour or so. We were out about an hour.

For me the car really competes in the 5 series, A6, S80, E-Class, and G35 size class. Compared to those, the CTS is a good start that needs a bit more refinement. Yes, the CTS price is less, but not enough to make a purchase - yet.

I expect the SRX to be at a higher level of refinement. If it is, It may be the replacement for my MDX.

jrockb4

I agree that pre-production reviews are iffy at best, but I can always hope that for once Cadillac has gotten it right :-> For once the reviews have all been positive that I have seen so far, without the it is nice but ... comments that were made about the CTS. Just for the record here is another one...

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/rr/04srx.htm

hopeitsfriday

I just read the link you have provided, it is in fact a very good review. I was looking at the dash design of the SRX and I see a problem right off the bat. The radio controls are blend into the navigation controls, this make thing really confusing, especiailly if you are driving the car for the first time and unfamiliar with the dash layout. This is a trend I have notice not just in the SRX, but many other automobiles. Its is definitely a negative trend. I prefer a well defined layout. The major parts at the center dash should be navigation system of trip computer, then the radio and the HVAC system.

jrockb4

I agree that it is confusing at first, that is why GM does so much in the way of steering wheel controls. Keep your eyes on the road :-> I look forward to taking all of the competitors out for a thorough testing. The magazines should have a field day.

chumsae

All ML's qualify for the accellerated $20,000 depreciation allowance if truck is used more than 50% for business and owned (not leased).
  
The early ML's have a GLVW (gross loaded
vehicle weight) of 6,005 lbs (this is the car
weight plus maximum design load). My 2000 ML320
has a GLVW of 6,236 lbs.

Interestingly, the RX300 doesn't meet the weight test (maybe the newer ones do).

You can check for GLVW on the driver's side doorsill area.

By allowing an acceleration of $20,000 depreciation, the owner will have a net return
of $5,000 (assumes 25% tax rate)in the form
of reduced federal taxes. You will also take
the usual depreciation allowance which is, I believe 1/5th of the purchase price, reduced by any months in 2002 that you didn't own the car.
Hence, a $40,000 ML would see a $20,000 plus $8,000 (regular depreciation) and a net benefit
of $7,000 in reduced taxes at a 25% tax rate.
You then depreciate the remainder, $12,000 over the next 2 years.

Of course this isn't manna from heaven; it is simply an accelleration of depreciation you would eventually take in later years. It is, though, a nice cash-flow device that "pays you back" $5,000 plus for money you may not have spent if you financed the truck and put little down.

The law was written to ease the way for farmers and tradespeople to buy newer vehicles in the over
6,000 lb class.

Ile

I think that the law was made so that Bush family can make more money in their oil business. :-)

ceksc

Maybe the new Lexus GX should also be a part of this comparison. I had a M-Benz and an X5 and the GX is the best SUV i have every driven.

243

The new Lexus RX 330 is getting rave reviews and should challenge the BMW X5 and MDX ! I am debating between the X5 3.0 and new Lexus 330. Edmunds has a good review of the Lexus below.. let me know what you think.

http://www.edmunds.com/future/2004/lexus/rx330/100154000/preview.- html?tid=edmunds.f.discussions.leftsidenav..1.Lexus*

adp3

the XC90 is not on your list?

also - not willing to wait for the SRX?

kiefaber455

Does anyone know where I can find specs for the new SRX. Looked at the FX35 today and while I love the styling, there really isn't a great amount of cargo room for my needs.

fedlawman

I saw an RX330 in person yesterday. It's rather bland from the front and surprisingly Hyundai Santa Fe 'ish from the rear. The interior is straight from the Kia Sorrento (who copied who, I wonder?).

hopeitsfriday

So please remind me, whats the big difference between the RX300 and the RX330, another 20 HP? The RX330 will be the same as the RX300, that it will only challenge the X5 and the MDX in the area of reliability not performance.

fedlawman

Depends how you define performance.

If it's straight line acceleration, the RX330 should easily hang with the MDX and X5 3.0.

It is, however, probably softer in the twisties, sacrificing cornering prowess for superior ride comfort.

Also, at $37,000 it's a relative bargain for Lexus typical quality, luxury, and comfort.

JBaumgart

Also note that with the Performance Pkg and its new air suspension and 18 inch wheels the ride is much firmer and remains flatter around bends than the RX 300 or the 330 with the regular coil suspension. I've driven both and there is a very noticable difference; in fact, I thought the Performance Pkg would be a little too firm for many Lexus buyers. Although it's still not an outright performance vehicle (like the Porshe or FX45) I do think it would hold its own with the MDX and X5 3.0. It's lighter than either either of these vehicles and even though it's 150 lbs heavier than the 2003 RX it managed to pick up nearly a full second on its 0-60 time, while at the same time being a little more fuel efficient than the old model and its competition.

wwest

A decent AWD system, potentially.
Air suspension.

hopeitsfriday

If we are talking about accelaration, the RX330 will not keep up with the MDX, and if we are talking about handling, the RX330 cannot handle as well as a X5. And one cannot get a RX330 for $37000 becuase there are so many options on it. A more realistic price might start at about $40000.
I am just wondering why and where is the redesign? Toyota could have done all those changes without a total re-design. The MDX did from 02 to 03. If a company is going to re-design a vehicle, I would hope it is a big improvement and not come out with a vehicle that looks similar. I would not say adding 20 HP, 18" wheels or air suspension any big improvment, and the RX330's AWD system cannot be locked like the MDX and it is not a permenent AWD system like the one on the X5, therefore, you can bet it will not perform as well on snow. At $40000, I would expect a vehicle that is roomier, looks better, faster and handles better.

wwest

1. To better distinguish it from the Highlander.
2. Air suspension should give it better handling overall than the X5.
3. Some (many?) of us prefer economy over acceleration...
4. New AWD system while still predominantly FWD biased has the potential for substantial improvement over the always "flaccid" VC used in the 300.

I for one, am really impressed with the overall beauty and styling of the new RX330. My "eye of the beholder" puts it in the styling class of the C4S.

But:

1. Is the defog and the wintertime modes of the climate control system fixed? Probably not, but remains to be seen.

2. Why go through a redesign of this level and not fix the rear suspension clearance problem?

3. The LX470 has remotely operated rear winglet windows and the GX has manually operated ones. Why was the RX over-looked?

4. What would it have taken to bias the torque to the rear for a more "natural" driving road "feel" and safer natural reaction on the slippery stuff. Of course that could, with aggressive VSC/Trac firmware, have put the AWD system in the class of the Sequoia and maybe that would have cost some of those sales.

hopeitsfriday

I am not saying that the Rx300 or the RX330 is not a nice SUV, but redesign usually equals to major changes. Toyota did not do that in this case, maybe they figure its better to leave a good thing alone. A good example of that would be the redesign of the Ford Taurus in the 90s, the Taurus went from the #1 selling sedan to below the top 10.
Even with the air suspension, the RX330 will not perform as well as the X5. The air suspension only give you a choice of a soft or sportier ride, it does not improve the handling overall. As far as feul economy, the RX330 will be about the same as the MDX and a little better than the X5, but I dont think any of the SUV buyers has feul economy very high on their pirority list, other wise they would be driving a Purvis instead of a RX330.
IMHO, they should have install the powered tail gate window on the RX330, which they have on the 4 runner, it is a very nice option that every SUV should have. The RX330 is almost like the Ford explorer line. People buy them becuase its a well known brand, but if one does a little research, they will realize that they can get more bang for their bucks. The RX330 is a average SUV, and that is exactly the problem, it is just average, it doesnt stand out in any area but it does perform average in almost all areas.

wwest

That's true, it doesn't stand out in any one area, but overall it is the best SUV. And if SUV buyers aren't into economy why so many sales of 4 cylinders in the HL.

If Lexus offered a 4 cylinder RX I would be one of the first to buy. My 92 190HP Jeep will soon have gone through its third winter on a cattle and wheat range in north central MT. Haven't heard any HP complaints.

hopeitsfriday

The 4 cylinder HL is mostly for entry level buyers, such as the RV4 or the Honda CRX buyers. Most of the SUV sold in the U.S. are either 8 or 6 cylinders.
I do not believe the RX330 is the best SUV overall, It performs acceptably in alot of area, but there are other SUVs out there that performs average as well but do stand out a some areas. The Volvo XC90 is a good example, it performs as well as the RX330 in many areas but stands out in the area of safety features.
I had a 94 Jeep 6 cylinder 190 HP, it is not economical on gas believe me. I was geting about 15 to 16 MPG with mix driving. I am actually getting better mileage with my MDX, which is 400 pounds heavier and have 70 more horse power, go figure.

wwest

My Jeep got about the same as my RX does now. Probably helped that I always ran summer tires, snowchains for backup, and in 2WD whenever possible.

Volvo....

Are they actually safer or has their marketing been drilled into us over the ages?

It's really hard for me to believe a FWD vehicle can be "safer", and that's where Volvo has been for all these past years.

And I realy do think safety is more a function of the operator than the vehicle. And yes, I know, some accidents cannot be avoided, I've had my share.

But I will grant you except for the weight, price and BMW nameplate, the X5 would likely be best overall.

hopeitsfriday

Just wondering what front wheel drive have to do with safety?
There is not one SUV that is best overall for all people, you may be able to name 4 or 5 that is best overall that will cover 90% of the SUV buyers. BMW is a bit overweight, but that is not always a bad thing. The problem I have with the BMW X5 is that for the price they are asking for, the quality should be alot better.

wwest

On the slippery stuff it's best to allocate engine torque, leading or lagging, to a separate set of "contact patches", rear, and leave the direction control to the front "contact patches".

hopeitsfriday

I am not quite sure what you were trying to say in Posting #410. I think we all know that FWD vehicles performs better than RWD in the slippery stuff. It is easier to stay on track if you are pull the car rather than pushing it. The problem with front wheel drive is that it cannot handles a lot of horse power without inducing torque steer. That is why most of the super high power cars are still rear wheel drive. Front wheel drive technology has came a long way though, it is very common these days to see a 200+ HP front wheel drive vehicle that handles the curve without torque steering.

wwest

As long as you have a quick ECU to dethrottle the engine the instant wheel slippage is detected or the "VSC" says yaw is exceeding safe parameters.

Like 4WD, FWD is MUCH better at getting up and going on the slippery stuff, but when it comes to directional control/recovery and/or stopping I'll take my RWD every time.

That FWD Cadillac with the high torque northstar engine has an over-running clutch in the tranny so the front wheels can't "drive" the engine, and it has a damn quick ECU for dethrottling the instant a driven wheel slips and/or "stabili-trac" says things are outta whack.