By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
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