Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options

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

1…78101213…22

Comments

  • Options
    maxhonda99maxhonda99 Member Posts: 1,289
    hopeitsfriday,

    First you say the MDX is safer due to size, then you say they are basically both the same in terms of size? Make up your mind.
  • Options
    hopeitsfridayhopeitsfriday Member Posts: 396
    maxhonda99: I said I thought the MDX is safer in my opinion because its bigger, and its just my opinion. I never said the X5 was the same size as the MDX, its obviously not, what I did say was that they weight about the same, and if one vehicle is safer than another, its not by much.

    fedlawman: Come on lawman, vinyl seats on a BMW, not a chance in hell would I settle for that.
    Anyway, we were comparing similarly equipment X5 and MDX, and the MDX comes with most of the options on the X5's Premium package, also alot of the options on the Premium package cannot be brought via a la carte.
  • Options
    fedlawmanfedlawman Member Posts: 3,118
    "vinyl seats on a BMW, not a chance in hell would I settle for that."

    But you settled for vinyl in your Acura? Don't worry, I won't tell your friends...

    "we were comparing similarly equipment X5 and MDX"

    There is no such thing because both vehicles have mutually exclusive options. Adding the $4000 premium package simply adds more stuff that the MDX doesn't have. Better to say that the MDX and X5 (without Premium package) are comparably equipped, and leave it at that.

    Of course, saavy enthusiasts like us choose a car for the way it performs, not because it has headlight washers, right?.
  • Options
    hopeitsfridayhopeitsfriday Member Posts: 396
    Only you would spend $45000 on a car and go cheap on the seats.
    I am doing my best to compare similarly equipment X5 and MDX. why compare both based models when it is obvious that they are not equivalent. why not compare top of the line then? My point is, there is no way we can match up every option exactly, but the comparison I used was pretty close. BTW weren't you the one that was comparing a based MDX with the loaded Buick RDV on the other forum?
  • Options
    fedlawmanfedlawman Member Posts: 3,118
    "Only you would spend $45000 on a car and go cheap on the seats."

    I guess I simply don't sweat trivial details...
  • Options
    maxhonda99maxhonda99 Member Posts: 1,289
    hopeitsfriday,

    How did fedlawman go cheap when he spent $45K?

    It would seem to me more like you went cheap. Especially considering your MDX is cheaper and you are the one who's constantly complaining about how much more expensive the X5 is over the MDX.
  • Options
    fedlawmanfedlawman Member Posts: 3,118
    You still haven't told me why the vinyl that covers about 75% of the MDX's seats is acceptable to you...
  • Options
    hopeitsfridayhopeitsfriday Member Posts: 396
    As they say fedlawman, its where the rubber meets the road that counts. As long as the seating surface is made from the leather, then its all the same to me. Besides almost all manufacturers use other material for trims, mostly due to cost reasons. Only cars in the real high price would consider using seats make from all high grade leather.
  • Options
    maxhonda99maxhonda99 Member Posts: 1,289
    hopeitsfriday,

    Now it's not the features that matter but "its where the rubber meets the road that counts."

    fedlawman has a great point. Honda/Acura tells you it's leather seating surface, but even alot of that leather seating surface is not really leather. for example, I know on my Accord, the side bolsters, the headrests are not covered in leather. Even though Honda says Leather trimmed interior on seating surfaces. And the TSX I drove a couple of days ago seems to be the same way-very little of the seats is actually leather.
    Let's not forget the fake plasti-wood that really does look fake that covers the dash on a MDX.
  • Options
    email77email77 Member Posts: 27
    Boys after I read the entire message about MDX/X5. It don't matter at all, as long as you like the car and the price you paid for. Just enjoy it after all. Don’t compare it. that is no ending no winner. As a consumer we are all looser. you may not agreed, that is O.K. as long as you like your dream car that is matter. hope reading more about some interesting thing in the future
  • Options
    wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    I'm probably about to buy a new RX330. The X5 has a much better AWD system, is rear torque biased, and has a decent climate control system.

    All shortcomings of the RX330, but the RX still wins, overall.

    If the Cayenne had a 250HP engine, less weighty, and was priced at the X5 3.0 level, my wife would be shopping in Paris this summer.
  • Options
    montreidmontreid Member Posts: 127
    It's nearly impossible to match up cross-competition trims; but we can match as closely as possible.

    By adding as little options to a specific trim level (like X5 with many options) to match another car (like MDX that has many 'standard' options) would give the best apple:apple comparison in $$ sense.

    Most shoppers here know that Honda/Acura has always played the cheap seats trim for cost savings, thus making their cars for "cost efficient" compared to the luxury arena (to which you are comparing the MDX to in this thread).

    Hope, to correct your memory: you're the one who tried comparing the base MDX to the loaded Rendezvous, not Fed.
  • Options
    tomtomtomtomtomtom Member Posts: 491
    You might be surprised to know a lot of people could not tell if the seats in bimmer is leatherette or real leather.
  • Options
    bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    Wouldn't the smell of leather (or lack thereof)give it away right away?
  • Options
    suvladysuvlady Member Posts: 1
    I have been an RX 300 owner for a long while now and was seriously considering buying a new RX 330. Went for a test drive a week ago and found the RX 330 drove a lot like my RX 300 but a bit stiffer and a bit more powerful. Overall, I thought is was a nice machine except for the way it handled curves. Decided to test drive an X5 3.0 (not available when I got the RX) to compare. They are really different vehicles. The X5 is engineered to handle more like a BMW - tight cornering and solid road feel. The RX 330 is more like a Lexus - soft road feel and looser steerage. I decided for our second SUV it should be different - so I bought the BMW X5 an SAV. For me it is worth the extra $3,500 to get 60/40 rear/front drive, the total service package for 50K miles, and euro sport like steering. Plus the airflow control system and the transmission are awesome. I think I going to like owning a BMW, they are not a Mercedes (owned a few Mercedes - just don't like the M-class) or a Lexus - each has their own character. Advice - buy what you like and enjoy! Also, take more than one test drive in anything you are about to buy.
  • Options
    wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    suvlady:

    Did you test drive with the air suspension set at lowest level for best "curve" performance?

    Not to in any way imply that the X5 isn't the best choice.
  • Options
    hopeitsfridayhopeitsfriday Member Posts: 396
    There is no way a RX330 will out handle a X5, I don't care what suspension option you get. The X5 is the best handling SUV on the market. BMW design the X5 to excel in handling. I am not sure what Lexus design the RX330 to excel in.
  • Options
    maxhonda99maxhonda99 Member Posts: 1,289
    hopeitsfriday,

    Thanks for the information. I wouldn't have known the X5 handles better if you didn't tell me.

    Hey, the X5 will run even bigger rings around a MDX.
  • Options
    overtime1overtime1 Member Posts: 134
    Dunno if an X5 3.0 will run rings around an MDX although it does handle better (handling better IMO doesn't mean "running rings around"). Its slower and some of the reviews of the '03 MDX have shocked the reviewer by how "X5" the handling is.

    Or course, if you want more utility than the X5 offers (in terms of space) you can go with the WRX wagon at half the cost and that truly will run rings and rings and rings around the X5 ;-).

    OT
  • Options
    wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    I was trying to determine if suvlady had gotten a "feel" for the RX330 handling vs the X5 with the RX hunkered down closer to the road.

    No doubt if you like full time sports car style handling in an SUV the X5 will come out on top.
  • Options
    hopeitsfridayhopeitsfriday Member Posts: 396
    I am not sure if you did know that at all about the X5. You sound so out outrageous in some of your post, I am not sure if you are a ten year old kid or just a mis-informed adult. Anyways, that post was not directed at you.
    FYI, for a X5 to run rings around a MDX. It would have to catch it first, since the MDX blows away the X5 in 0-60 MPH.
  • Options
    maxhonda99maxhonda99 Member Posts: 1,289
    hopeitsfriday,

    I sound outrageous? How about "It would have to catch it first, since the MDX blows away the X5 in 0-60 MPH."

    So, what is the difference in the 0-60 time of a X5 and MDX? about a 1/2 second? Oh yeah, it's really blowing it away!! Do you know what running rings around it means? It means the X5 will outhandle a MDX, which it will.

    "You sound so out outrageous in some of your post," Boy, you should get a load of some of your posts then.
  • Options
    steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    This discussion is about the listed SUVs features and drawbacks, not about each other. Editorial comments about each other's messages doesn't shed light on the comparisions.

    Steve, Host
  • Options
    hopeitsfridayhopeitsfriday Member Posts: 396
    Half of a second in 0-60 could means one to two car length. To drive rings around anything, you would have to get in front of it first.
  • Options
    wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    I'd just cheat, nobody said life, or drag-racing, had to be fair!
  • Options
    montreidmontreid Member Posts: 127
    I haven't looked at the turning radius' of the X5, but it'll probably be smaller that the MDX.

    In that case, the MDX will runs larger rings around the X5--no matter what the speed. :)
  • Options
    maxhonda99maxhonda99 Member Posts: 1,289
    Good one wwest!!

    hopeitsfriday,

    Actually a half-second 0-60 difference is less than 1 car lengths difference.

    ANd speaking of 0-60 times,
    Motor Trend:
    MDX 0-60MPH = 8.1 secs.
    X5 3.0 with automatic = 8.1 secs.

    you want to know some other performance figures for the 2? Well, even if you don't I'll tell you:
    slalom:
    60.1MPH for the X5 3.0
    57.3MPH for the MDX

    braking:
    123ft 60-0 for the X5 3.0
    139ft 60-0 for the MDX

    And since you're always saying the MDX is much better in everything it does over a RX300 or RX330, let's post some numbers from them also:

    RX300:
    0-60mph 8.7
    slalom: 58.9MPH
    braking: 130ft 60-0MPH

    RX330:
    0-60mph 7.8
    slalom: 57.1
    braking: 122 ft. 60-0
  • Options
    hopeitsfridayhopeitsfriday Member Posts: 396
    montreid: The turning radius for the MDX is 37.2 Ft., turning radius for X5 is 39.7 Ft. I am a little surprised by those data too.

    maxhonda99: Motor Trend's data is for the MDX is from 02, in fact, I dont think anyone has tested the 03 MDX yet. I am looking at the Edmunds' numbers. The X5 0-60 in 8.5 sec. and the 02 MDX at 8.1 sec., and the 03 MDX gains 20 HP over the 02.

    As far as distance difference with those 0-60 numbers. Miles per sec. = 60 mph / 60 mins per hour / 60 mins per sec = 0.01667 miles per sec
    1 mile = 5280ft, therefore (5280 * 0.01667) at 60 mph you will travel at 88 ft per sec., half of a sec. = 44 ft. Almost 5 car length.

    Can you provide a link to those MT numbers on the RX, they dont look right at all. The RX330 is suppose to handle better than the RX300, yet it loses 1.8 MPH in the slalom. The RX330 only gain 10 HP from the RX300, yet it gains 0.9 sec. in 0-60, almost impossible considering the weight for both SUV didnt change that much.
  • Options
    maxhonda99maxhonda99 Member Posts: 1,289
    hopeitsfriday,

    I do not think Motor Trend lists the times online. YOu must go to bookstore and flip to the back of MOtor Trend magazine and see times.

    The RX330 also gained a 5th gear in it's transmission.

    Well, until Someone actually tests a '03 MDX we can't actually do much can we? Except make up 0-60 numbers.
  • Options
    hopeitsfridayhopeitsfriday Member Posts: 396
    A fifth gear would help, but not to that extend. Do you have the gear ratio of the two transmissions? Perhaps the RX330 is geared more towrad the low end.
  • Options
    wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    Top gear is almost always 1:1 tranx output shaft vs engine RPM, excluding overdrive. Assuming same engine and torque range adding more gears typically means more grunt at the low end and smaller/tighter RPM range in each gear.
  • Options
    tidestertidester Member Posts: 10,059
    ...you will travel at 88 ft per sec., half of a sec. = 44 ft. Almost 5 car length.

    I am not sure what your point is. In the 0-60 (acceleration) you just reach 60 mph at the last instant - obviously you aren't travelling that fast the entire distance. Deceleration (60-0) is much quicker (about 4 seconds vs. 8 seconds).

    tidester, host
  • Options
    wmquanwmquan Member Posts: 1,817
    The Car & Driver SUV comparo in its January 2003 issue had a 2003 MDX, and an X5 3.0i. The nice thing about the comparo was that all the vehicles were tested under the same conditions, at the same general time.

    MDX / X5 acceleration in seconds

    0-30: 2.7 / 2.7
    0-60: 7.8 / 8.1
    0-90: 18.2 / 18.8
    1/4 mile: 16.1 @ 85mph / 16.2 @ 85mph
    street start 5-60: 8.2 / 8.3
    top gear 30-50: 4.1 / 4.2
    top gear 50-70: 5.2 / 5.7

    Just for laughs, here are more numbers.

    Braking: 200' / 172' (MDX was the worse of 8 SUV's tested; X5 was 2nd-best)
    Skidpad: .74g / .82g
    Emergency Lane Change Manuever Speed: 58.3mph / 56.9mph (the test was done with ESP off, and the X5 does not totally disable it).

    The on-line version of the article doesn't have all the numbers in it:

    http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/comparisontests/2003/- - january/0301_comparo_bradsher.xml
  • Options
    fedlawmanfedlawman Member Posts: 3,118
    So the MDX is 0.1 seconds faster through the 1/4 mile than the X5.

    They both weigh about the same, and the MDX has a larger engine with 35 more hp.

    How does BMW do it?
  • Options
    hopeitsfridayhopeitsfriday Member Posts: 396
    What wmquan forgot to mentioned was that the MDX finished in third place while the X5 finished at forth. The MDX finish in front of the X5 once again, just about every article I have read rate the MDX higher than the X5.

    Hum, from 0-90mph, there is 0.6 sec. difference between the two car, yet at 1/4 mile or 0-85 mph, there is only 0.1 sec. difference. Something doesn't add up here.

    steve_ HOST : If you are up to it, you can try to do the calculus on that scenario, but my bet is that it will be one to two car length.
  • Options
    tidestertidester Member Posts: 10,059
    steve_ HOST : If you are up to it, you can try to do the calculus on that scenario, but my bet is that it will be one to two car length.

    I, for one, will be interested in seeing STEVE's calculation! ;-)

    Seriously, I think that was intended for me - but I'll leave it as an exercise for the interested student!

    tidester, host
  • Options
    overtime1overtime1 Member Posts: 134
    So the MDX is 0.1 seconds faster through the 1/4 mile than the X5.

    They both weigh about the same, and the MDX has a larger engine with 35 more hp.

    How does BMW do it?

    That number is the closest gap you could find and is probably just representative of the different gearing between the cars. I too would like to see the calculus behind the discrepancy between the 1/4 and the 0-90 tests - although that too could be a gearing issue. Its possible the X5 could just loose considerable oomph in the 85-90 range due to the specifics of the tranny.

    The point is that the MDX is faster across the board then the 3.0 X5. Dunno why thats a problem though because the 3.0 has a couple of big brothers ;-).

    I'm still real curious about reasons behind owning the X5 when you can get equal utility in cars that can 'run circles around it' for much much less money. If performance is your thang then why an SUV that has less utility and less performance than other options?

    If performance + utility is your thang get an MDX ;-).

    OT
  • Options
    steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    I'll get to it as soon as I figure out who's the fastest here:

    image

    Steve, Host
  • Options
    wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    NOT NITS.
  • Options
    overtime1overtime1 Member Posts: 134
    So which is Tidester and which is Steve? =)
  • Options
    steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    By my calculations anyway, LOL

    Steve, Host
  • Options
    tidestertidester Member Posts: 10,059
    So which is Tidester and which is Steve? =)

    Steve is the one with a gazillion links at his fingertips ready share with the rest of us on a moment's notice!

    I'm the other guy! :-)

    tidester, host
  • Options
    tomtomtomtomtomtom Member Posts: 491
    Since most of you admitted never take your SUV off road, shouldn't you guys go buy a sports wagon if you are into the 0-60 numbers?
  • Options
    overtime1overtime1 Member Posts: 134
    I'm the other guy! :-)

    Better speed up. It looks like he has a small lead on you! :p
  • Options
    wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    In (too) many places in the world there is no need to go "off-road" to have need of TRUE AWD/4WD performance.

    Speaking of which, since only RWD biased AWD/4WD offers TRUE ("Natural") adverse roadbed performance, why is the MDX even a part of this discussion?

    If you have the extra cash and can get around the BMW cache', then the X5 is the vehicle for you.

    If you can't afford an X5, then by all means consider the alternatives, even the MDX.

    Speaking here as a past owner of an 00 AWD RX, a current 01 AWD RX300 owner, and soon to be owner of an RX330. All truly FWD torque biased.
  • Options
    fedlawmanfedlawman Member Posts: 3,118
    I agree with you.

    The only thing the X5 has that a sport wagon doesn't is height.

    Personally, I'd choose a 330xi over an X5. I bet the 330xi even has more cargo capacity...
  • Options
    overtime1overtime1 Member Posts: 134
    I think the WRX, S4 and 330xi all have more cargo room than the X5. Choose your level of lux and then feel free to run circles around the X5 that people purchased because it was a performance vehicle ;).

    OT
  • Options
    montreidmontreid Member Posts: 127
    LOL, Steve! We've reduced the SUV debate to tricycles. So, the X5 is on the outside with the larger turning radius...running circles around the MDX. ;)

    OT, the BMW crew love their BMWs. The X5 wasn't built for hauling, a quick look in the 'trunk' will reflect this. It's raised for off-roading into the Tahoe/Vail/Aspen area and looking good. SUV in BMWs mind apparantly didn't include the interior utility portion (unless it's a toolbox). But that's the 5-10K (depending on who's calculation) difference for that people want for the badge and BMW leather smell.
         Nobody questions the value, versatility and performance that the MDX brings; but Acura dances that line between near-lux/lux vehicles--thus its popularity (and within reach of the upper middle class incomes) among the masses.
  • Options
    steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    I'll have you know that was a pic from the well-respected barstool racing circuit!

    Tricycles indeed... hrummph ;-).

    How about a real link?

    "It doesn't hurt that the MDX is like a living room on wheels. It certainly feels less cramped than its main competitors, the Mercedes Benz ML series SUVs and the BMW X5."

    Acura SUV is a living room on wheels (Post-Gazette.com)

    Steve, Host
  • Options
    JBaumgartJBaumgart Member Posts: 890
    "Speaking here as a past owner of an 00 AWD RX, a current 01 AWD RX300 owner, and soon to be owner of an RX330. All truly FWD torque biased."

    I've read in several places where in the new RX 330, 50% of the torque goes to the front wheels, and 50% to the rear wheels, under normal conditions. What's the technical explanation of why you keep alluding to the fact that it's front wheel drive torque biased? Seems to me that if it truly is 50/50 front and rear under no-slip conditions that it would not be fwd biased, but perhaps you could educate me or post a link to where you read this.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles