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

prodogs · June 2003

My lease was coming due for my ML320. I was fixed on getting the ML350 especially since dealer offered me $1500 under invoice and I had a $1k coupon.
-
I drove the 03 which was not much different than my 00, except for styling differences.
-
Then I went to freshalloy.com and read about the FX35. I was intrigued about the looks and performance of the car so I took for a test drive.
-
WOW!!! Style, Handling, AWD, Exceptional Navigation System. Groovy Sports Suspension. Great Acceleration, 20 inch tires, 300 Watt Bose Stereo, DVD System, Intelligent Keys, rear passenger curtains - Light Years ahead of my ML320 at the same price.
-
Needless to say I am leasing the Infiniti FX35 AWD with Tech Package. For those like me who's Corvette days are behind them because of the practicallity of family life, this car should be seriously reviewed. The best compromise between family car and sports car i have seen in a while.

Now I know why Mercedes was heavily disconting their 03 models. Competition!

BTW - 0-60 for FX35 is about 7.1 seconds
0-60 for FX45 is about 6.3 seconds

You get can an FX35 with tech package for about 42500.

hopeitsfriday · June 2003

I disagree with the statement that with all things equal, a FWD will be faster than a RWD. Frist of all, dont use a Mustang as an example, for god sake, Ford dont know how to make a FWD car. A 200 HP RWD car will skid off the line very easily, but you would have a hell of a time trying to make a FWD car skid off the line. That is because of the added traction on the front wheels. While the RWD car is skidding and looking cool, the FWD car is gaining car lengths ahead of the RWD.
For every person that cares about power slide or RWD handling, there are three that want better traction in the rain or snow. Lets assume half of the drivers are female, I am sure 95% of them would prefer safety over power slides. Of all the male drivers out there, lets just say 40% of them are motor head, that number might be a bit high. Therefore, the majority of the population dont care about that push it to the limit characteristic of a RWD.
BTW, how many people do you think takes their luxury SUV over 150 MPH. Maybe just you and a hand full of young guys, thats it. I have 260 HP on my SUV and I haven't ever gone over 85 MPH yet.

Prodogs: You should really wait till next year, Mercedes is coming out with a redesign ML320 next year. The pictures look awesome.

prodogs · June 2003

Are u sure its next year? I heard that it was 2005.
Could not wait because my lease is up on the 21st had to get into another vehicle.

Here are pix
http://www.prodogs.com/fx35woody

hopeitsfriday · June 2003

It is a 2005, but it should be out at the end of next year.

wwest · June 2003

Please re-read 719 and then tell me which one of us is confused...

eaton53 · June 2003

"I disagree with the statement that with all things equal FWD will be faster than RWD."

I agree with that statement. :-)

wwest · June 2003

Also.

hopeitsfriday · July 2003

You forgot the comma on post 723, it is a two part sentance, not a very good one, I can see how you misunderstood it :P
We can debate until the cows come home and we would not agree. It is still my option that with well engineered cars, any thing under 250 HP should be FWD and and anything over 250HP should be AWD. You do agree that a AWD handles better than a RWD right?

eaton53 · July 2003

But there's a weight, cost and complexity penalty... if I lived the south, I don't think the cost/benefit ratio would justify it.

Wouldn't be too hard to justify it here in the midwest, though.

wwest · July 2003

I would NEVER agree with a "blanket" statement that AWD is better than RWD, it all depends on the actual implementation. For instance the "AWD" RX300 is definitely FWD torque biased, 90/10 "latently", and 75/25 at best, under continuous slippage conditions.

I haven't had an AWD RX330 on a dyno yet but Lexus tells me that it uses differing front and rear final drive ratios just as does the RX300.

The good(??) news on the AWD RX330 is that once the front wheels slip (they will almost always be the first to "go", with 90% of the engine torque) the brake will be quickly used to re-route torque to the rear. But then given the FWD aspects the dethrottling effect may come first or at least simultaneously with brake modulation.

But the you only have about 45 seconds of brake modulation to get you unstuck/moving.

Let's take a vote...

Would anyone disagree that it would be best if engine torque, leading or lagging, could be removed from the front wheels/tires as the front contact patch begins to be loaded up with directional control forces?

That is, basically, what the FWD RX300 Trac system does(as does most FWD Trac systems, I suspect), it dethrottles the engine if (driven, front)wheel rotational slippage is detected. Differential braking of the front wheels cannot be the first choice without "upsetting" the operator with front "LSD like" steering wheel feedback.

hopeitsfriday · July 2003

Let's take a vote...
Would everyone agree that it is better to have more weight on the drive wheel, hence better traction.
Would everyone agree that it is better to have 4 contact patches instead of two.
Would everyone agree that it is better to push and pull thru a turn then just push.
AWD is definitely superior in handling even in dry weather. Just look at the BMW 330i vs 330ix. With the new generation of AWD, the added weight is very minimal. The cost is also minimal too considering these are $40000 + cars we are talking about.

wwest · July 2003

I asked for your vote first...

wwest · July 2003

Is it okay if I include "high traction" along with dry weather? Sand and gravel and all that "dry" slippery stuff you know.

AWD vs RWD will make no difference unless the RWD vehicle's engine is powerful enough to overcome the traction conditions, in that case, clearly, sending some of the torque to the front will help. Unless you're accelerating into a really tight turn that is.

Front torque biased AWD systems will always exhibit some level of torque steer, especially so in dry weather high traction conditions.

"AWD is definitely superior in handling even in dry weather (high traction) conditions."

NOT !!

But can you explain your thinking, please?

ksoman · July 2003

After ordering an MDX and sitting on it waiting for us to be picked up for a week, my wife finally went out and bought a.....

2004 bmw 325 convertible.

oh well, such is life... i'm just glad i got out of the SUV ownership frightening experience.
Interesting thing is, we actually hike and go backcountry quite a lot... but we'll just make do by renting equipment and damaging somebody else's truck's underbody I suppose...

ksso

hopeitsfriday · July 2003

Have you ever driven a BMW 330xi, its almost like the car is on rails. Thru shape turns, no skidding or sliding and very little body lean. Just when the back end feels like it wants to spin out, the front wheels pull it straight. Much better handling than its counter part,the RWD 330i. On a RWD system, it doesn't take much HP to overcome traction, a little more than 150HP would do it depending on the tires.
I think that both FWD and RWD has its advantages and disadvantages, RWD loses control easier but it is easier to gain control back. FWD has better traction in foul weather but cannot handle high HP yet. So I guess the perfect car would be a permanent AWD with 4 wheel steering.

wwest · July 2003

But I think you just did a really good job of describing how my 2001 911/996 C4 handles. But I would be willing to bet that the "native/latent" torque distribution on the 330xi is very close to my C4, 5/95 F/R.

wwest · July 2003

Mine...

Just read up on the 330xi. It uses the X5 "SAV" concept, 38/62 F/R latent torque distribution, but that sums up to less that half the story.

Like the MB and the new RX, the 330xi uses brake modulation to apportion engine torque. Since it also has "VSC" and e-throttle there is little way of knowing what kind of overall activity, electronically dynamically, was/is involved in "staying on rails" while accelerating around a tight turn.

The VSC might have been preventing oversteer by moderately applying a single front brake while the e-throttle system simultaneously dethrottled the engine slightly.

If the firmware was properly designed you may have even had an instance, granted, and extreme one, wherein the side forces on the front wheel/tire contact patches used up so much of roadbed adhesion coefficient that the engine torque in addition caused them to begin slipping.

Now you would have both front brakes applied (to reapportion excess engine torque to the rear), and in a hard right turn the left front brake applied harder than the right front (to combat oversteer), and dethrottling slightly(??) to boot.

Obviously the dynamics of the circumstance can very quickly make the issue of the F/R latent torque distribution ratio meaningless.

But I'll still vote for using the yaw, speed, and steering wheel position sensors for unloading the engine torque from the front wheels/tires as the side forces build due to directional control inputs.

But then maybe that's exactly what the traction/VSC firmware in the 330xi is designed to do, who knows??

ewt · July 2003

"Would everyone agree that it is better to have more weight on the drive wheel, hence better traction."

Yes, and that's why RWD is superior to FWD for performance reasons. When you accelerate, weight transfers back to the rear wheels. To answer your earlier comment, a RWD car will accelerate faster than a FWD car all else equal due to weight transfer assuming the car has a reasonable amount of power. Ask anybody who drag races if they'd rather have FWD or RWD.

"Would everyone agree that it is better to have 4 contact patches instead of two."

Yes, although all cars have at least 4 tires (and contact patches).

"Would everyone agree that it is better to push and pull thru a turn then just push."

No I wouldn't. When you ask the front tires to turn and accelerate at the same time, you reduce their ability to do both. Look up "friction circle" on google for more background on what's happening. Just about all sports cars seperate power delivery and steering on different sets of wheels for that reason.

"AWD is definitely superior in handling even in dry weather. Just look at the BMW 330i vs 330ix."

No it's not. AWD is not superior to RWD in dry weather. I've raced both on autox courses/racetracks and have a lot of experience with both. In theory, you should be able to put power down sooner with AWD, but that is negated by it's propensity to push under power. It is more idiot proof since being hamfisted with the throttle is less likely to cause the car to spin, but it doesn't make the car handle better. How many AWD racecars do you see outside of rally/off road series? Not many with good reason. AWD has been tried and abandoned in F1 and CART because it didn't offer handling advantages. Powering the front wheels causes the car to push under power and adds weight.

Porsche has sold AWD versions of the 911 for several years, yet their racecars are universally RWD, and just everybody I know who seriously tracks them chooses the RWD versions. Their current top performance versions (GT2 and GT3)are RWD rather than AWD for the same reasons.

hopeitsfriday · July 2003

We are not talking about 800 HP races cars on a race track or drag strip here, we are talking about regular passanger saden on regular streets with rain or snow sometimes. Therefore, all your theories are out the window. Although I think some of them were out the window to start with.

wwest · July 2003

No, not at all...

When racing cars we are typically pushing roadbed adhesion right up to the limits, the very same condition that sometimes inadvertantly exists (surprise!!) in the wintertime on ice and snow covered roads. And that is why RWD & RWD biased AWD is preferable, overall, to FWD or front biased AWD.

So yes, for most of us, much of the time, FWD, RWD, AWD, it simply doesn't matter, but like racing at the limits of roadbed adhesion, when you drive across that iced over bridge deck, or take an icy curve, in the wintertime you will be much better off with RWD.

stever · July 2003

You might enjoy hopping into this thread:

paisan "Station Wagon vs SUV" Jul 2, 2003 3:24pm

Careful, Willard - I may take that last post as a retraction of your "ordinarily" statement :-) Except now I can't remember where we argued about it, and what your exact words were.

This has been a long, involved thread that probably should continue in Which is better? AWD, FWD or RWD? so we'll quit boring the luxury SUV fans to death over it. Too bad it's read-only - maybe we should ask Shifty to reopen it.

Steve, Host

hopeitsfriday · July 2003

Steve: Of course AWD is the best for all around driving. Between RWD and FWD, I would say if you like to drive like a crazy man and really push your car to the limit every day, then RWD is for you. Otherwise, for everyday driving that most of us do, such as dropping your kids of to school or just going from point A to point B, then FWD is superior.
WWest: Another theory blown, there is really no comparison between RWD and FWD in the snow, not even close. FWD has better snow traction, everyone knows that and you should too.

wwest · July 2003

Yes, absolutely, I agree whole-heartedly, with FWD the "drive" wheels ALWAYS have better traction. Because with front engine FWD the majority of the weight is on the front wheels.

But now just take a moment of time and think about:

1. Many states require tractor-trailer rigs to run with rear "drag" chains when the road is covered with snow and/or ice.

2. Absolutely no tire shop will install studs only on the front of a FWD vehicle.

3. Right within the owners manual of most FWD vehicles (and the RX series with front biased AWD) it will inform you that during wintertime or low traction conditions disparate traction on the front (snow treads) vs the rear will often lead to loss of control.

4. When replacing only two tires all tire manufacturers recommend putting new, higher traction tires on the REAR, NEVER the front, regardless of drivetrain, FWD, RWD, AWD, or 4WD.

Now, tell me once again how safe it is to have more traction on the front than the rear on snow and/or ice.

stever · July 2003

Of course AWD is the best for all around driving

I disagree, and my daily driver now is an Outback. I think FWD is best for all around driving.

I also think we've beat it to death, and need to take this elsewhere. Anywhere!

I finally got around to asking Shifty to reopen the AWD vs FWD vs RWD discussion - stay tuned to continue in there. Thanks!

Steve, Host

wwest · July 2003

will "there" make??

tidester · July 2003

...will "there" make.

It will allow us to focus on the primary topic of this discussion and put AWD vs. "the world" in an appropriate forum. Of course, you knew that.

tidester, host

ewt · July 2003

Actually, what holds true for 800 hp racecars holds even truer for cars without as much power because wheelspin isn't as big of an issue, which is where AWD is beneficial. I never said AWD wasn't superior on wet or slippery surfaces, just that it isn't on dry pavement. With that, I'll stop in deference to Steve's request to stay on topic.

More on topic, what are local dealers telling people for SRX availability? Mine is saying August. I certainly hope Cadillac doesn't really price the V8 version with typical options in the mid 50s. That would be a mistake IMO for a company that doesn't have a lot of brand appeal for the type of buyers (younger, traditional import buyers) they're trying to attract. The Aviator tried the same approach and had to be heavily discounted right off the bat.

stever · July 2003

It's official - please continue the AWD/RWD/FWD debate in Which is better? AWD, FWD or RWD?.

Thanks!

Steve, Host

rerenov8r · July 2003

It might be interesting if a mag (or even edmunds) does a shoot-out to see which is better. If I'm not mistaken, when the various coupes & sedans that are availble with or without AWD it is mostly FWD that they offer {notable exception: 911}

Might help to settle the debate...

wwest · July 2003

is likely to bite the leg of the man.....

At least not until at least half of the manufacturers have switched back to RWD.

I have this mental struggle going on, it's a cadillac, stay away, but it's a RWD biased AWD. Yes, but it's still a cadillac, etc, etc.

brunna · July 2003

I thought all Sube's were AWD? Did you convert yours back to just FWD? Brave soul.

wulf007 · July 2003

My local small dealership had an SRX in for demo which I was told was a V8 AWD but not fully loaded that had an MSRP at $58K (seems high but thats what they said). Since the V6 starts at around $38k+ I am assuming they are bundling options like they do on the CTS. Meaning some option packages can be as much as $10k and certain options are only available in option packages or after market. I agree with ewt, pricing in the middle to high 50's is a mistake. Lots of other luxury or high end SUV's that are available at a lower price. Two sales reps from two different dealerships knowledgeable about both Escalades and SRX's said they thought the Escalade was a better buy for the money (actually cheaper in my case).

hopeitsfriday · July 2003

I have been reading up on the 2004 Cadillac XLR, now there is a car to get excited about, what a incredible design. Its lines are almost perfect, unlike the CTS or the SRX. Now why cant they design the CTS and the SRX along the line of the XLR. It has almost no options at all, so they can't false advertise a low price. Unfortunately, its MSRP is over $70000. That is one of Cadillac's biggest problem, their well designed cars are over priced and the low price cars are cheaply made.

rerenov8r · July 2003

Which ones?

fndlyfmrflyr · July 2003

Just looked at the prices shown here on Edmunds. Looks like the Navigation option costs $10,000. According to what is posted, one needs at least 4WD to get a Nav system AND the Nav system apparently is only available with the costly 1SC package. $48K for a six cylinder SRX seems high to me.

stever · July 2003

No, I didn't put the fuse in. Even though I'm driving one now, doesn't mean I'm convinced that it's the best system for everyday use.

Now I'm curious - which of the five in here is the lowest price (meaning the lowest that you can easily buy, not a base that's never in stock). The MDX? Gotta go find my comparison link....

Steve, Host

hopeitsfriday · July 2003

I did comparison shopping and test drove 4 out of these 5 SUV, the SRX was obviously the one I did look at. The pricing goes like this, from lowest to the most expensive. ( The first three is very close in pricing )

MDX....can buy a base with no option at all.
MB-M Class....becuase of the dealer's willingness to wheel and deal.
RX300.....Base price about the same as the MDX, but no base units available.
X5......Almost not acceptable to drive without any options, tough to get a base with no options anyways. A reasonable equipped X5 will cost mid to high 40s.
SRX.....Pricing stills remain to be seen, if it is anything like the CTS then the cheapest one you can buy should be in the mid 40s. I think I would prefer an X5 over the SRX.

avery1 · July 2003

Any reason that you didn't test the Volvo XC 90?

hopeitsfriday · July 2003

I did test the Volvo xc90 5 cylinder, as well as the GMC envoy and the Grand Cherokee. They were not on the list of SUV on the topic of this forum, thats why I didnt list them.

avery1 · July 2003

Where did they rank in your list? I don't think we will be arrested for mentioning some other cars for one post.

stever · July 2003

After days of the AWD/RWD/FWD thread, talk about any car will be welcome in here :-)

Thanks for the pricing rundown Hope; good summary, esp. the notes about availability in the base configurations.

Steve, Host

hopeitsfriday · July 2003

I know what you mean Steve ROTF, I thought that AWD/FWD/RWD thread would never end.

avery1:
I rank them as following.

1: BMW X5
2: XC90 T6 with the 2004 5 speed transmission
3: MDX
4: XC90 2.5T
5: ML320
6: Envoy
7: Grand Cherokee
8: RX300

Not sure where the Toureg or the SRX would fit into the list, but I would imagine the Toureg would be somewhere near the top and the SRX would be somewhere near the bottom.

Of course, this is just one man's opinion, so please don't jump all over me for my ranking.

Happy 4TH of July guys

wwest · July 2003

I was at Pacific Raceway yesterday and a BMW factory rep told me the ML's next makeover will lose the truck frame for a more car-like under-pinnings and the overall look will change only slightly, mostly the front headlights.

hopeitsfriday · July 2003

Yes, you are right WWest, the new M-class will be built from a uni-body structure, and it will be offer in a 5 passanger version and a extended wheel base 7 passanger version. Some pictures of it in the following site:

http://www.whnet.com/4x4/w164.html

eaton53 · July 2003

Will be at the very top of the list, due to its outstanding power and vehicle dynamics combined with the utility the X5 lacks.

svalley · July 2003

I think the new M class looks like a Toyota RAV4.

hermantam · July 2003

Last week, I traded-in my 2000 ML320 and bought a 2003 Acura MDX Touring with Navi and RES.

In the past year, my ML turned into a complete nightmare - first started with the air mass sensor failure (twice), then the in-line fuel filter, followed by the infamous/common power window switch failure, the moonroof (a trim fell off), the transmission valve stuck, mysterious noise from the AC center vent, the power steering hose clamp recall, and the last one - the glove box cover hinge broke! It was unbelievable.

With warranty expiration in sight (we put 47K miles on it), the local MB dealer in Omaha (which runs their newly acquired MB dealership like a Ford dealership) sent me a letter saying that they will provide "complimentary local transportation" (read "no loaner") for service after the warranty expires. After seeing the JD Power report, well, that's it for me. I opt out.

My wife and I both have high demanding jobs, with a little one year old. We have no time for stopping by the MB service department every now and then (they don't open on Saturday!) Plus they charge $90/labor hour! (A brake job at 25K mile costed me $900.)

With reliabiliy as the #1 requirement and a $40K-$45K budget, we shopped for the Japanese brands only (love X5 but it's just another ML in terms of quality and reliability; do not want to take the risk of trying the "recently improved" GM quality - may be in five years when they have a track record established.) We considered the Lexus GX but the third row seat is a joke. The RX is gimmicky (the power hatch is for physically challenged people IMHO.), pretentious (oh come-on it is a dressed up next gen Highlander) and overpriced like the GX. The dealer experience was so-so (they were not fair on the trade-in value).

Ended up I bought an MDX because that's a safe choice from a reliability standpoint, with a lot of nice features (DVD, Navi, third row seats, etc.), at a very reasonable price (I paid $40K). Also the dealer treated me well. In the past I owned a Honda Accord from 1995 to 2000 before I made the costly mistake of buying the ML. Over the five years I had no problem with the Accord. I trust Acura/Honda reliability.

Looking back, I have to say ML is a well-designed vehicle with great off-road capability. I drove that in severe weather (heavy rain, whte out snow, icy road) and survived. I took that off road too and it rocked! But the build quality and reliability is simply horrible - I worried about another failure coming from god-know-where every day in the last three months I owed the vehicle.

In conclusion, I have completed lost confidence in MB. Too bad the ML is our first and last Mercedes vehicle. We will never buy another Mercedes again.

hopeitsfriday · September 2003

Is it me or does the RX330 have even uglier tails lights than the RX300. It looks like a cheap after market product that definitely do not belong on a car in this price range. That kind of tail lights might go well with other unsightly add ons such as a 4 inch tail pipe, chain link steering wheel or maybe even that Jesus Christ sticker on the head lights, but not with what is suppose to be a luxury car.

wmquan · September 2003

Some folks think the 2004 MDX's taillights are ugly too. I'm okay with them, though.

maxhonda99 · September 2003

hopeitsfriday,

Well, obviously the luxury SUV buying crowd doesn't think the tailights are ugly, otherwise it wouldn't be crushing every other entry level luxury SUV!

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

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles

Your Privacy