Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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
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.
Will greatly appreciate any feedback as purchase will be made within next 2 days.
Thanks!
Lidia
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
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.
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?
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.
Yes we live in Conneticut and will encounter some snow.
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?
a positive car review from The Car Connection, Feb. 17
sorry for the re-post if folks have seen it
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.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/autos/articles/gm/story/916600p-- 1089872c.html
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.
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.
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
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.
http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/rr/04srx.htm
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.
http://www.edmunds.com/future/2004/lexus/rx330/100154000/preview.- html?tid=edmunds.f.discussions.leftsidenav..1.Lexus*
also - not willing to wait for the SRX?
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.
Air suspension.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.