Volvo XC90 vs MB M Class vs Acura MDX vs Lexus RX 350 vs BMW X5 vs Cadillac SRX
meredith
Member Posts: 575
This topic is a continuation of Topic 2274....
MB M-class vs Infiniti QX4 vs Lexus RX300 vs
Acura's new SUV. Please continue these discussions
here. Thanks!
Front Porch Philosopher
SUV, Pickups, & Aftermarket and Accessories Host
MB M-class vs Infiniti QX4 vs Lexus RX300 vs
Acura's new SUV. Please continue these discussions
here. Thanks!
Front Porch Philosopher
SUV, Pickups, & Aftermarket and Accessories Host
Tagged:
0
Comments
Drew/aling
Townhall Community Leader/Vans Conference
Drew/aling
Townhall Community Leader/Vans Conference
Has anyone else in here heard these claims that the RX is less classy and like pinching pennies?
Does anyone have knowledge as to which would be best for a sciatic nerve problem. I'm in the suv quite a bit, and my leg pain is getting worse. Would a power seat provide relief? A cushier seat (ML 320), or is the ride (stiffness) key?
Sorry for this ridiculous-sounding post, but I'm hesitant to make a decision if anything will make a difference (aside from lumber injections).
The MB seats were orthopedically designed and are very comfortable for most people. I will point out that the M-class does ride firmer (like most German vehicles) than both the Lexus RX and Acura MDX, but if you felt that it was smooth and comfortable, I don't think you'll have a problem with it. Running boards or side steps can be fitted to the truck to aid entry and exit from the cabin. These accessories are also available on the MDX.
Try taking a longer test drive in the ML to see how comfortable you are with it on longer distances. To make sure that you are getting the true ride and handling characteristics of the vehicle check that that the tires on the test ML are all inflated to 29 psi, and that your test vehicle has (preferably) the Dunlop Grandtrek tires rather than the lower quality and harder General Grabber ST tires.
All but the base MLs have power seats, and the heated seat option (also available on the MDX and RX) will give you some back relief as well (like a heating pad) since it does heat the lower back as well as the seat bottom.
FYI, you can pick up a '00 ML320 with a substantial discount (over $2K at least) off MSRP right now since they're trying to clear out the '00 models for the incoming '01s (only minor changes). If you would like more information about the M-class, join us in the MB M-class topic.
Good luck!
Drew/aling
Townhall Community Leader/Vans Conference
Pictures of my '00 ML320 can be seen at http://go.to/m-class . In the 1st gallery, you will also find '98 ML320s (without the ESP stability control system) that have been involved in accidents. All passengers survived without permanent injuries.
We have had our MDX for almost 2 weeks, and she has had no problems with the front seats whatsoever. She finds them quite comfortable. I can't really comment as to how orthopedically correct the MDX seats are compared to the M-Class or the RX300. In your case, I would definitely recommend staying with an SUV model that is known for luxurious, or near-luxurious, accommodations; such as the M-Class, RX300, or MDX. It sounds like you can affort either one of these, from reading your post. On the other hand, I would be suspicious of the long-term comfort and support provided by the seats in a Tribute or RAV4. (You may know differently about the RAV4, since you own the 1996 model!) BTW, don't even consider a Grand Cherokee!
If you narrow your decision down to 2 or 3 models, ask to take an extended test drive, and then see if you can remain seated after the test drive as you ask some questions about interior features and controls. If you can remain in the same seat for 30 minutes with no discomfort, that should be a good sign.
As a final thought, I would tend to side with Drew regarding the M-Class seats. Although we bought an MDX, I am biased toward European interior design. I think the European manufacturers (MB, Volvo, Audi, BMW, etc) generally do a better design of their front seats than domestic or Japanese manufacturers. However, I would be surprised if the MDX or RX300 seats present a problem to you, and they both ride a little smoother (RX300 the smoothest) than the M-Class. That is why you should do an extended test drive.
Sorry, couldn't help myself! ;-) Sarcasm aside, if the RX300 meets all your functional needs, then WHY consider spending so much more money on the LX? (...or the same amount on an older LX that has little warranty remaining? Older trucks tend to rattle more than new ones!) If you don't plan to use the 3rd row seats, if you don't need the extra ground clearance, if you aren't needing the trail riding capabilities, etc.; the RX300 seems to be a very luxurious vehicle that will provide better on-road driving characteristics, better acceleration, much better fuel economy, and lower emissions than the LX.
Also, I don't consider ANY Sport Utility Vehicle or Truck to be "glamorous", no matter how big it is, or how much leather, wood, and chrome is included. The LX admittedly has some look of class to it, but it is nevertheless a big, boxy truck-based vehicle. I might consider a Jaguar XK8 or MB CLK430 convertible to be glamorous, or maybe an Audi TT, but certainly not any SUV. If image and "looks" are the biggest concern in an SUV purchase decision, many would consider the X5 to be a better choice. It would also be much more fun to drive.
Tim Benton was the sales manager handling this transaction. He initially quoted me a price of $650 over invoice. However, after about half an hour of negotiation, we agreed on a price of $400 over invoice. Despite this verbal agreement, he still charged me $650 over invoice. Given the excitement of buying a new luxury car I overlooked the price and signed on the dotted line. I did not realize this discrepancy until I came home that evening and had a chance to review the sales contract in detail. Subsequently, I phoned Tim to discuss the possibility of creating a new contract. However, his defense was that I signed the contract so therefore I’m stuck with the price. He was neither apologetic for the key entry error (if you can even call it that) nor was he willing to change the contract. I was disgusted to hear such a response and even more disappointed in myself for trusting him. I felt betrayed. Knowing how upset I was, he finally agreed to contact the general manager to inquire of the possibility of changing the contract. At this point, I decided that I could no longer trust him and needed to take matters into my own hands. After numerous phone calls and messages left, I finally got a hold of the general manager who indicated that he knew nothing of the issue (i.e. Tim did not contact him) but assured me that it was a simple mistake to correct. Thus, a new contract was created with the correct price. When I arrived at the dealership to sign the new contract, Tim walked out the other door without even acknowledging me. This validates my perception of his business ethics, or lack of thereof, by not admitting his mistake.
The second issue I had with Glendale Infiniti related to the poor quality of service of the Service Manager, Roy, and the Customer Service Representative, Cheri. When I took possession of my car, there was a scratch on the side mirror and some markings on the bumper. Tim granted me a Due Bill to come back and have the scratch buffed away and the markings removed. In addition, I needed wheel locks to be installed. Hence, I called Roy to schedule a time to bring in the car for service and indicated that I needed a loaner car to get home. He assured me that it was not a problem. However, when I did come in, he did not have a loaner available. In addition, he claimed that he knew nothing about the Due Bill (sales department did not forward the Due Bill to the service department). The lack of internal communication at Glendale should not be my problem. Yet, I ended up paying for the poor communication such that I had to wait for over an hour before they got me a loaner car. To top this off, the loaner was an ‘89 Thunderbird!! So essentially, I drove in with a 2001 brand new Infiniti and drove out with a clunker! It was pathetic! In addition, when I picked up my Infiniti, it was filthy because the dust from the buffing landed on the dash board and no one cared to clean the car before returning it to me.
As if the aforementioned was not enough drama, I later spoke to a Customer Service Representative who essentially doubted everything that happened. Apparently, she spoke to Tim and Roy and received their version of the stories. As a Customer Service Representative, she should not have even doubted my complaints. She should have been apologetic and offer to do whatever it takes to win back my trust. Instead, she reacted the exact opposite – she said that there was nothing she could do and that it was my prerogative if I wanted to notify other consumers of my bad buying experience. I thought Infiniti differentiated itself from Nissan by the quality of services it provided, but I was proven wrong.
I hope this message will allow other consumers to learn from my mistakes. If you have further question, feel free to write me at S_l_phan@hotmail.com
Sincerely disappointed.
Any comments pro or con about the new Car & Driver SUV Review. Someone reported in the MDX discussion group that the new issue rates 7 mid-sized upscale SUVs against each other. I have not yet had a chance to read this article. The reported top 3 finishers?
1) MDX
2) X5 3.0
3) RX300
SUVs 4-7 included the ML320, Montero, QX4, and Discovery. I don't know the finishing order for these 4 models.
Since I personally chose an MDX after testing it against the RX300 and ML320, I am not surprised it won. It's not unnatural for the new kid on the block to win, especially when it offers great value. However, I AM surprised that the ML320 was not among the top three finishers. With the X5 finishing #2, it makes me wonder how much importance road handling figured into the equation versus utility and cargo capacity?
I find Car and Driver to be one of the more respectable automotive magazines (as compared to Motor Trend), and so I am looking forward to reading this article very soon.
most often, bad experiences are heard loud and reach far, but good experiences often not mentioned. it's true that good service is expected from infiniti, and i expect just as much if not more than others, but don't let one post ruin infiniti's reputation. thanks all.
on a side note, are you happy with your qx4? mine could not be better, especially as a first time vehicle buyer.
Mercedes, BMW, and Lexus were very refreshing. After showing the car/SUV and going for a test drive, the salesman would give us a brochure, his card and ask that we call if we had any questions. NO pressure at all. NO tricks. NO rush. What a delight to shop for a car and have the salesman be available to answer questions. When it's time for my new car you can bet I'll be going to one of these three.
I have bought from a Land Rover "Centre" and Mercedes Benz and I have, on each occassion, no pressure whatsoever from the sales people there.
The LR salesperson even did the financing from his desk. Didn't have to talk to another person. It only took me less than a couple of hours to complete the transactions, from the test drive to driving my new car out the lot, from both these dealerships.
I don't think anyone can be sure about how they'll be treated at a particular brand's dealership until they show up there; you may be missing out on something good if you bypass it.
Nevertheless, I would agree that there is probably a greater probability of less-than-ideal sales treatment at a random Acura dealership than, say, a BMW dealership. Too much of that Honda-the-car-that-sells-itself attitude, and too many salespeople who are making most of their commissions pushing relatively low-end Integras.
In a couple of weeks you will receive a customer satisfaction survey card directly from Infiniti. You should give the dealer "poor" ratings on the appropriate categories and attach a written description of what happened. I understand that Infiniti of America takes these comments VERY seriously. I would expect them to contact you after receiving your evaluation.
http://www.edmunds.com/edweb/editorial/confessions/index.html?id=nl
Just put a deposit on an Acura MPX which has good support for both me (short) & my husband (tall) and the seats evidently has some of that NASA developed Swedish support material that conforms to your body shape. I've had sciatic problems in the past, also, and comfort was an important factor in the decision.
Australian review
..."Mitsubishi’s new Pajero GLS (Montero 01 in the US) has raised the standard for four-wheel drives in several areas, and beat the Mercedes-Benz ML320 and Toyota 100 Series LandCruiser GLX to the best 4WD title.
On the road, the Pajero delivers class-leading ride, handling and steering, and braking, attracting consistently good scores.
The change to a unitary construction (with no separate chassis) has helped Mitsubishi to deliver best in class dynamics. The new chassis combines with fully independent suspension to provide an outstanding ride/handling compromise.
In this respect, it makes the LandCruiser feel like a truck.
Although the Toyota LandCruiser’s 4.5 litre engine delivers more pulling power in the low to mid rev range, the Mitsubishi Pajero’s 3.5 litre V6 also performs strongly.
New to the Pajero is a five-speed, adaptive auto transmission with a tiptronic-style manual shift mode.
Off the bitumen, the LandCruiser still has the edge but the Pajero is now very close. With a good approach angle, a smooth and willing engine, solid engine braking and reasonable wheel articulation, the Pajero copes with terrain that would have defeated the previous model.
For the money, the Pajero GLS also offers a long standard equipment list.
The ML320 uses the same great engine as the E320 sedan, but has limited off road ability, and the Pajero is at least equally capable on the road.
Any suggestions on these 3 suv's?
If your questions go beyond just comparing the vehicle' nav systems, I suggest you list your priorities in a vehicle to yourself; what are the most important factors to you -- what can't you live without, what is important to you, what isn't? Which of the items can be "traded off" and which ones are absolutes?
The RX300, ML320, and MDX are all excellent vehicles, but each is better at fulfilling some needs than the others.
Questions include, but are not limited to:
How important is cargo room? How much do you need?
How important is passenger room (and for how many adults and children)?
How important is reliability (e.g. really great reliability vs. above-average reliability, or vs. average or below-average reliability). Is "projected" reliability adequate in determining reliability, or does that give you the willies?
Do you consider minor differences in crash-test results important, when the vehicles themselves all have the highest rating category?
Do you want as much safety measures as is possibly available in your range of choices? E.g. what if one vehicle has 12 measures, the other 14; does that make you automatically go for 14?
Do you really need 4WD (since the Lexus is available in a cheaper 2WD version)?
Is off-road capability important?
What type of weather conditions do you have to handle? Will you frequently drive in snow and ice?
How important is acceleration?
How important is car-like handling and/or car-like ride comfort? Do you want the maximum softness of ride, or do you want the rough stuff?
Would you prefer a truck-like SUV or a car-like SUV?
How important is towing? How much would you tow?
How important is it to have a prestige brand? Do you prefer Japanese or German brands?
Do you have any special requirements (e.g. you want to be able to exclude a moonroof, you're especially tall or short).
Are there critical budget constraints? Is one vehicle being a couple of thousand cheaper than another going to weigh heavily?
If you like your Audi and its characteristics, the ML320 might be right up your alley (personally, I think it looks even more like a minivan than the MDX, but that's just an opinion). And while the ML320 doesn't have automatic climate control, you can think of it as "semi-automatic."
All of them are good for different things and depending on your budget you'll find your winner.
We ordered the MDX but after the side by side comparison bought the Mercedes and love it for what we bought it for. If the NAV is important than the MDX will win you over.
We choose safety ( truck construction, 6 air bags ) and ability to seat 7 to be the most important features. The Mercedes won by a long shot. If the navigation unit is important as is most bang for buck the MDX will probably pull ahead. Also if you like the really neat folding seats than MDX wins over the Mercedes. I don't know how you value "reliability" ML has a bad reputation from the first several years and the jury is out on the 2000 and 2001. The MDX is a first year, generally Honda has been good but their minivan had all sorts of little problems and the MDX is being built in the same factory. The RX is a Lexus, you either love it or feel its a pretender as a SUV. It has all the things that people who love Lexus love, but it doesn't seat 7 and is probably the most car like of the three. I think you'll be happy with any of the three just as long as you figure out what is most important to you and score the three correctly.
I disagree. The ML320 has an optional navigation system which is made by the same company (Alpine - same displays and all) as the MDX's system. This system is available for about US$1500, which is comparable, if not slightly cheaper than the MDX's system.
As for reliability, the early to mid-year MY2K MLs have about average reliability according to JD Power's Initial Quality Survey.
Like William, I think that we need to know more criteria for basing the decision before we can offer more insight into the +/- of each vehicle.
Good luck!
Drew/aling
Townhall Community Leader/Vans Conference
My understanding is that Acura's system earns raspberries for coverage that is more limited outside urban areas, but it earns kudos for ease-of-use (even though Alpine makes the base system, the controls and usage differ).
bjacob1, you can access JD Power quality ratings at:
http://www.jdpower.com/auto/jdpa_ratings/FindJdAwards.jsp
1st-half model year 2000 ML320's have roughly average reliability, as mentioned in Healey's article: "Though improving, M-class quality remains below average, according to a J.D. Power and Associates survey. Owners of new vehicles registered in March and April [2000]reported 165 problems per 100 vehicles. Industry average: 157." Technically, I'd think that 165 is close to the average of 157, unless the standard deviation is very low. Unfortunately, the results still leave the M-class in the bottom 30% according to JD Power, albeit probably near the top end of that. Take it for what it's worth, as posters here report an improvement.
Odyssey also is not rated that well by JD Power; as clchu pointed out, the MDX is based on it and made at the same plant. Dunno yet if they're putting more effort into the higher-end vehicle. Note that while JD Power rates the Odyssey lower, Consumer Reports rates it above average.
Lexus RX300 rated very well in JD Power, though only "average" by Consumer Reports.
Other criteria to consider:
- How important is it to have Xenon headlamps?
- Are foglamps required? Any qualms about them not being street-legal?
In your case, it sounds like reliability is a very high priority (probably to above average or better, and probably with a proven history if I read your reaction correctly), so that would of course affect your selection of vehicle.
Some folks don't seem to mind having average reliability (or even worse!) as much; warranties cover any fix, and the other facets of the vehicle offset the reliability. E.g. a good example is the Infiniti QX4: seems like excellent quality, but its IIHS crash test scores are "marginal." What do you do?
The ML320 wouldn't your criteria, based on the currently available historical information (technically, it's actually slightly below average, based on numbers from the first half of the 2000 model year). Similarly, the MDX may not fit that bill either. While I don't see it doing worse than the present-day ML320 (it'll probably be as good, which certainly isn't what one would expect from Honda/Acura, and it could be better, though first year models always suffer; see my Odyssey comments), we won't know about MDX numbers for quite some time.
SUV's in general are more complex vehicles than basic sedans, so it's understandable, even though it may be disappointing, that you don't find a wide range of them with the highest quality scores. Hopefully over time that will change. Even the Lexus RX300 doesn't carry the highest reliability score (does well with JD Power, only average by Consumer Reports's surveys). The Lexus carries the second-best proven reliability scores among the $40k luxury utes (after the QX4), but it is definitely a cut below Lexus's mroe reliable sedans. So you either "settle" or break out of this class of vehicle.
Spending $40k on a high-reliability sedan is an alternative, though most folks looking for an SUV wouldn't make that choice.
I know that a couple of my parents' friends have upgraded from Toyota Camrys to Lexus LS400s precisely because of this. Interestingly, those who have moved from Japanese to European makes haven't gone back (Mazda/Subaru to MB, and Lexus to BMW). Perhaps they feel that the superior driving/ownership experience and cachet of the brand name is worth the extra dealership visits. Parts cost isn't really a factor around here since (as the CAA report showed), the pricing is comparable to Japanese and domestic makes.
Drew/aling
Townhall Community Leader/Vans Conference
I also insisted on getting a navigation system in my SUV. The nav system in the QX4 is EXCELLENT. It has a very easy to use touch screen, it has the best voice guidance I've ever heard, and it has thousands of points of interest built in. But the unique feature of the QX4 system that no other brand has is the "BirdView" display. Rather than showing a planar map view, the BirdView display is from from a point behind and above the vehicle looking in the direction you are driving. So you see your "car" on the road and then see the road winding off into the distance. Because of the natural perspective effect, the closer roads are larger and in more detail, but you can see what the road is doing far into the distance and you can see cities near the horizon. You can touch a button to switch between BirdView and normal planar map view, but I use BirdView 99% of the time. I looked at a number of other navigation systems, and I believe the Infiniti is the best and easiest to use.
No doubt that MB and BMW carry more cachet for more people than Lexus (and even more so for Acura, which many consider a step below Lexus).
"Superior" ownership experience depends not just on the brand you buy, but also a lot on your dealership, and which model you buy. I daresay at most MB dealerships, you get a lot nicer ownership experience if you buy an S-class than a M-class. That's not to say M-class ownership experiences aren't always superior either, but you don't get the same type of treatment at many dealerships (e.g. you get a Dodge Neon for a loaner, someone doesn't come over to pick your vehicle up for servicing). My point is, the ownership experience for buying an under $30k Subaru or Mazda for $200 above invoice is certainly going to be different than buying a $40k+ M-class or a $55k+ E-class.
Interestingly, those who have moved from Japanese to European makes haven't gone back (Mazda/Subaru to MB, and Lexus to BMW).
That could be more than just cachet. When you go up from Mazda/Subaru to MB, you're probably getting a better vehicle, even without the three-pointed star; so it's not surprising that you don't go go back (since people's incomes and ability to afford more sophisticated and costly vehicles tends to grow higher). Lexus to BMW, not just cachet, but also the driving experience you mentioned.
If these are your parent's friends, then it's also likely that they're older, and the longer histories of MB and BMW as prestige brands also becomes a factor. That's why a lot of Cadillac buyers are typically in a significantly high age demographic.
Also, in some ways, older buyers tend to be more tolerant of lower quality and less-frequent visits to the dealerships, because they grew up with vehicles that have lower quality than what many younger buyers have experienced. E.g. I complained when the tranny on my Integra went out at 26k, that it wasn't supposed to happen (at least statistically, based on survey numbers, but I got "lucky"), but my in-laws do the usual, "one major problem in 26k miles? you're spoiled ... let me tell you about that Vega we had ..." ;-)
I noticed that RX does not have the rear passenger's air bags, where ML offers this safety equipment as a standard.
still confused about how much risks on the MB quality I am willing to risk......
There are two types of crash tests you can review: IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) and NHTSA (National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration, part of the U.S. government. NHTSA publishes the famous "star" ratings, for front and sometimes side collisions. IIHS, so far, publishes ratings for offset-frontal collisions, which many believe is more "real-world" than the NHTSA front collision test.
IIHS ratings are at:
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ratings.htm
NHTSA ratings are at:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/testing/ncap/
The RX300 has done very well in the IIHS crash test, earning an rating of "good," which is the highest IIHS rating (note that the ML320 also earned a "good"; the MDX has not yet been tested but most think it will be "good," but that's not yet proven). NHTSA results for the 2001 model won't be released until sometime in December (I could have sworn it had been tested in the past, though).
The RX300 is an excellent vehicle, and I think a good fit if you have some of the following priorities:
- You want a very car-like SUV; the RX300 is the most car-like, for sure. The ML320 is truck-based, and while relatively car-like compared to most SUV's, is the least car-like of the three you mentioned interest in. The MDX is in-between, probably closer to the RX in being car-like.
- You want an SUV with a very smooth ride. The RX300 isn't an LS430 in terms of ride, but it is noticeably smoother than an MDX, and much smoother than an ML320, which can be quite jarring for those expecting a car-like smooth ride.
- You want an SUV with a luxurious, plush interior. The RX300's has high-quality materials in abundance. The ML320 has some high-quality materials, but is more understated and uses them less (e.g. the "all-leather" front seats have hard plastic shrouds covering most of their backs). The MDX definitely doesn't have as many high quality materials as the other two (fake wood, more hard plastic, leather-trimmed seats).
- You want the most luxury features; overall, the RX300 is the best in this category. E.g. one-touch power-up/down windows for all windows.
- You want a high degree of proven reliability; the RX300 has the best quality scores of the three, from Consumer Reports and JD Power. The ML has historically been well below average, and the most recent surveys available (on 1st half 2000 models) show it as very close to average, but still slightly below. The MDX is an unknown; it'll probably fall somewhere in between.
- You want xenon headlamps; they are available on the RX300 as an option. They are also available on the ML320, but as factory options, only as part of an expensive sport package. The MDX does not offer xenon headlamps.
The RX300 doesn't meet some of the following priorities as well as the others; these may not be your's, of course:
- If you need a lot of cargo room, the RX300 is the most limited of the three, though it's not too bad (you can adjust the position of the second row seat, and/or fold it down).
- Similarly, you do not need a lot of payload capacity; the RX300 has a relatively limited payload compared to the the ML320 and MDX. Perhaps someone can chime in here with the number but I thought it was under 900 lbs (ML320 and MDX are in the 1,300-1,400 lb range). Exceeding recommended payload greatly increases the risk of rollover.
- If you need to occasionally seat more than 5 passengers, the RX300 will not meet that need. The MDX will seat 5 adults plus 2 children in a third-row seat, the ML320 will seat 5 adults plus 2 (slightly larger) children in an optional third row seat.
- You want off-road capability. The ML is the beste for this, though it's supposedly only for "medium" duty off-roading. The MDX is supposedly capable of some light off-roading but the ML was at least designed for this (low range, underbody protection). The RX isn't aimed at the off-roading customer profile.
- You want a higher degree of driving feel. The RX300 is the most softly sprung of the three, and has more body roll and less road feel (though its steering feel is excellent). Lexus has stiffened up the suspension a bit to improve it. The ML320 probably has the sharpest handling (though the MDX Touring beats it on the skidpad), and the MDX is very close. This is a highly subjective category that you'd have to drive yourself to decide.
================
The RX300 should be quite safe, when driven within its limits (e.g. don't overload it, be careful about body roll). It has stability control and braking assist, which the ML320 also hss, but the MDX does not.
The RX300 lacks the rear side airbags of the ML320 (the MDX lacks them too). The ML320 probably has the most solid construction of the three, and there are documented photos available to show how it stands up to collisions.
However, the ML320 is not as child-friendly as the RX300. E.g. it doesn't have pinch-protection for the power windows (MDX doesn't either), though you can at least lock them, and still lacks door-ajar warning indicators. Child-proof door locks are now available as a retrofit (probably around $300 installed by your dealership). The RX300 has the ISOFIX/LATCH system of securing a child seat, which is better than the conventional lap/shoulder belt attachments of the MDX and ML320.
If you're shaky about service quality, then that could give you major pause. I had read some pretty negative comments about MB service in my own area, including problems requiring repeated fix attempts, and the service technician just giving up, not being able to figure out the problem.
Two years ago when I bought my 99 ML 430 I did not know about edmunds, months later after the purchase I found edmunds and started readings about the bad reviews, the lowest rating in quality and build, oh boy, I became concerned, I have a pile of junk, suchs were the negatives.
Two years later and 38,000 miles and going from border to border I had ZERO problems, only oil changes (more frequent than recomended) not even a rattle. I tow two big jet skies in a big trailer with other gear in a cargo area, total weigth about 4800 lbs and cruise about 80 and no strain, in very steep boat ramps the traction is superb and the availability of deep reduction is a plus I will never do without. Monitoring the ML forum for over a year, 99% is chit chat about little stuff, never read about someone being stranded on the road, what reliability concerns?
Visiting the plant in Alabama, I bougth several books about mercedes, in their 110 years they have tens of thousands of patents, safety being their main concern, they are the leaders in the area and pioners in crash testing, crashing more cars than anybody, the methods they device become standardt for goverment agencies, offset crashing being one of them, one of their leading designers in structural design has over 2500 patents, the crumple zone being one of them in 1951, and keeping with mercedes policy they never enforced a safety patent.
My ML experience
This is not to suggest that other vehicles are trouble-free. However, when someone compares, say, an RX300, there's a clear separation. I'm not suggesting the RX300 is a better or equivalent vehicle than the ML320, this is just focusing on quality.
The M-class is an excellent vehicle, and MB has superb technology -- absolute, positive agreement from me on this. But to suggest "what reliability concerns" may be a tad bit optimistic. Everyone's mileage is going to vary, and there's no doubt that there are many happy M-class owners with trouble-free vehicles. But there are indeed a significant amount of problems, and there's plenty of documentation on the message boards here about them, especially in '98 and '99 models (that have greater history with them). And some of them have indeed stranded drivers, though I would say from what I've read that the greater majority of problems are more fit and finish items.
Folks who have been "spoiled" by the tremendous quality available in their past vehicles, such as Toyota Camry's, Nissan Maxima's, etc. do need to realize that SUV's as a whole will probably be less reliable, and they'll have to adjust their expectations. And, of course, some models will be less reliable than others. Whether or not it sways one's buying decision is up to them.
That takes me to the reliability issue, I dont know what unreliable means to you, but to me "unreliable vehicle" means a vehicle of such a poor quality that there is a higher than average chance that it will not deliver you from point A to point B, I had a few of those in my life, I can name a Vega and a Pacer. To me words have to be used in their proper definition, if not they loose their meaning and can not accurately describe an event, I worked in engineering and I pay attention to words, I translate them into real entities with exactitud not into loose proximities.
Would it not be a more correct description to say, I heard they had problems with fit and trim, than to say unreliable, then what do I call an unreliable vehicle?
Or do I have it all wrong?
Regards
(There are, of course, exceptions. The most recently notable was the fuel pump, which did have the capability of failing and leaving one stranded, and I did read a message on the M-class forum in the last few months about someone breaking down in such fashion while on a vacation. But hopefully these are rare.)
I don't know what the correct terminology is. From an English language standpoint, quality problems with accessories, trim, etc. can be legitimately described as a lack of reliability. I suppose what could be preferrable would be a more accurate and descriptive context around the reliability, and again, I see your point.
Consumer Reports obviously bundles all of this into a general "reliability" category. However, JD Power does break down its quality survey into categories: mechanical quality, feature & accessory quality, and body & interior quality. That may well be a good way to extrapolate an accurate term; mechanical reliability.
Indeed, the JD Power results rates the M-class with a score of "4" for mechanical quality, which places it in the top 11% to 30% (or, better than average). It's the other categories that the M-class has traditionally suffered in.
Of course, there are a substantial number of folks for whom even having good mechanical reliability is not adequate; they expect reliability in accessories, paint, etc. But that's up to the individual.
ML is a truck that rides like a car.
MDX is an Odyssey with larger wheels.
all are good choices. it really depends what your preference is.
Rx300...Nice ride but didn't like the ex or interior design
MDX...Nice, but to wide (5" bigger)takes up to much room in garage.
Also, first year in production, never know what's gonna happen.
ML430...bought it. :-)
1. The stupid parking brake that in not a lever but a foot pedal.
2. The Audio, AC, and trip computer are all on the center display. You have to go through several windows to change radio stations, or to see outside temps or setting on the AC. Too much distractions from the road.
3. Memory is for the seats only not the mirrors. Also could be programed into the key like the MDX.
4. Horrid turning radius.
5. Sound system is not as good as the Bose System in my 98 Audi
6. The fold down arm rest interferes with fasting the seat belt on the driver seat.
7. Only a four speed automatic transmission.
8. Wind and road noise is more than I thought acceptable for a luxury vehicle.
Wish I could have convinced my wife to look at the MDX.
"1. The stupid parking brake that in not a lever but a foot pedal."
Agree!
"2. The Audio, AC, and trip computer are all on the center display. You have to go through several windows to change radio stations, or to see outside temps or setting on the AC. Too much distractions from the road."
Isn't this amazing? I run an information technology division, and this thing drove me nuts.
"3. Memory is for the seats only not the mirrors. Also could be programed into the key like the MDX."
Yup. And that's why I'll probably get a Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited. I love the seats, mirror, and radio memory feature.
"4. Horrid turning radius."
Agreed
"5. Sound system is not as good as the Bose System in my 98 Audi"
I'm on the fence with this one. It was ok. I agree that the Bose in our '97 Pathfinder is excellent.
"6. The fold down arm rest interferes with fasting the seat belt on the driver seat."
Yup.
"7. Only a four speed automatic transmission."
Disagree here. I was very impressed with the "programming" of the transmission and how ell it adapted to the engine load at a given momented. Very smooth shifts under hard accelaration.
"8. Wind and road noise is more than I thought acceptable for a luxury vehicle."
Didn't take it to a high enough speed so can't comment.
Wow. It's refreshing to see a similar experience to mine. At least I know I'm not crazy.
TC