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

JPham · September 2003

"[The RX330] is a dressed up next gen Highlander" ... isn't the MDX just a dressed-up AWD Odyssey?

bobeberhardt · September 2003

hopeitsfriday

Both my wife and I both feel that these lights are ugly and, in general, do not like any vehicles that are sporting these lamps today. Like you said, they look like some cheap aftermarket add-on.

I am waiting to see what they look like after a few years when they accumulate surface scratching and the nice clear plastic starts turning yellow like most of them seem to do. Knowing Lexus (Toyota's) tendancy for this type of lense to accumulate condensation, not only are they ugly new but they are certain to get uglier as time progresses.

Seems to me this type of lense only is popular with the under 25 group, not the 45+ group of a typical Lexus buyer.

hopeitsfriday · September 2003

The 04 MDX's tail lights are different, but not ugly in my opinion. I personally prefer the tail lights on the 01 to 03 MDX. Some people actually like the 04 tail lights better, besides the dual exhaust more than makes up for it.
Getting back to the RX, I remember that the 03 and earlier RX300 had a clear tail light lenses with red reflectors. The clear lenses was very cheesy and on the outside part of tail lights, a part of the round brake lights is actually cutoff by the hatch to make it fit. Almost looks like a after thought. I figure they would improve on it for the 04, but I actually think they made it uglier. Like bobeberhardt said, lenses like that only appeals to the 20s crowd who like to add things to their cars, it does not appeal to the typical buyers of the RX330, middle age females who do not like to sup up cars. Luckily for Toyota, alot of people can look pass a set of ugly tail lights for other quality that the RX has, but its like every other things, there will be a few people who will actually like them.

adb3 · September 2003

At between $40-45K a pop and with sales of over 10,000 a copy last month, luck ain't got nothing to do with it. No doubt, no two people are the same, and everyone will have their likes and dislikes, but in the marketplace sales determine winners, treaders, and losers. So, considering all the fine offerings in this segment of the market, it is pretty evident that quite a few folks disagree with your assessment of the tail lights.

hopeitsfriday · September 2003

No , its just that quite a few folks can over look my correct assessment of the tail lights. How many people you know choose their car by how the tail lights looks?

adb3 · September 2003

As my daughter would say, "it's just not that serious." But I must respond just on GP.

You stated, "my correct assessment of the tail lights." "Correct" by whose standards? Not by mine because I don't agree, and my wife really likes the look--not run of the mill. Has anyone taken a poll? What is your empirical data? Very little mention of the tail lights in the numerous magazines and newpapers that have reviewed the 330, positive or negative.

My problem with statements such as this is that they project personal opinions as ones shared by the majority of others. Personally, I have NO problem with you disliking the tail lights. That's what makes us individuals. However, in the absence of any other evidence, IMO my point about sales holds more validity concerning the general feeling about the tail lights than your personal view.

JBaumgart · September 2003

Just to add one more opinion, I went out to the garage last night and took a good look at my wife's RX330 tail lights, and I have to say that I think they are beautifully crafted. I personally like the way they make the whole back end of the car look. I realize that this opinion is not universally shared by all - I remember Car & Driver's initial criticism when they first reviewed it, pre-launch. I think it also depends a great deal on the exterior color - certainly with the dark colors and black in particular the contrast is much more noticeable, and some may find it to be a bit "too much." On the Silver and Breakwater Blue (which is what we have) it's more of a blended look that I really like.

Not to start any more "wars" about the RX330's styling, but I personally am not crazy with the overall look of the FRONT end, which to my eyes looks a little bland...maybe "dowdy" is the word I'm looking for. I do like the side profile, and as stated above the rear, much better. Best of all is the overall construction and luxury touches that Lexus gives you, which in this class are unmatched by any other, IMO.

adp3 · September 2003

what are the chances that adp3 and adb3 would be posting on the same board?

adp3 · September 2003

I have come to the conclusion that Cadillac drivers do not ead Edmunds - no other way to explain why there are so few posts re the SRX

hopeitsfriday · September 2003

adb3: Its not just your daughter, I was saying the same, it's just not that serious. Its only a tail light. And you are right, it is my personally opinion and the opinion of some people and some car reviewers. Some actually likes the look of the RX330's tail lights, but then some people actually likes the look of after market white tail light lenses add ons too. To each his own I guess.

adp3: You are right, it depends alot on exterior colors, I agree with you that it looks better with light colors. I think with the dark colors, it make them stand out more and they already draws too much attention by them self. I find the front end of the RX330 average looking, did not change much from the RX300 at all, which was very disappointing. I know that Toyota is capable of making a very nice looking front end. Just look at the front ends of the ES300 and the Toyota Sienna, they both have the contour head lights look, very sleek. BTW, are you two related?

adp3 · September 2003

actually, both comments were posted by adB3, not by me

eaton53 · September 2003

We're waiting for it to dominate the next round of fancy crossover comparos. :-)

Besides, with all of the rave reviews the XLR and CTS-V are getting, there's a whole lot going on in Caddyland.

automole · September 2003

hopeitsfriday: How many people do you know that choose their car by the way it looks overall? I know some people will be infuriated by my comments but in my opinion the MB, Lexus, and Acura ALL look like @$$ !! I'm sure they are fine vehicles but I wouldn't choose any of them if good looks was my first criteria...-and yes, your assessment of the taillights IS correct!

In my opinion (and it is merely a subjective opinion) the only vehicles in this category I'd be happy to see in my driveway would be the Cadillac SRX or the Infiniti FX45/35 based on appearance alone.

hopeitsfriday: On a different note, I disagree with your assessment of the XLR...I think for whatever reason the CTS and SRX both look more "correct" than the XLR. Cadillac messed up with the XLR and toned down the styling (and horsepower) too much. They should have left the XLR looking like the evoq...now THAT is a good looking car!
( http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp/models/gallery.jsp?model=evoq )

adp3: Your conclusion is incorrect. The reason there are so few posts by Cadillac owners on the SRX is that there are so few SRX owners. The SRX is JUST NOW starting to show up on dealers lots so there are very few SRX owners.

As eaton53 said..."We're waiting for it to dominate the next round of fancy crossover comparos".

adp3 · September 2003

automole: you missed my point. Before the XC90 hit any showrooms, the Edmunds XC90 board was all lit up about it. There is no such buzz re the Caddilac within the Edmunds community. I don't think that has anything to do with the merits of the vehicle. I think it has to do with "who Cadillac drivers" are, generally. GM can say that today's Cadillac driver is similar to today's Volvo driver, but I suspect a higher percentage of Volvo drivers are web savvy than Caddy drivers. Just a guess.

Again, I LIKE the SRX and expect to like it more when I get in one. I am just ocmmenting on the EDMUNDS community.

Perhaps there is a place on the web where Cadillac fans (or foes) congregate, but I don't know of it.

rerenov8r · September 2003

Historically even "not really into cars" drivers of Volvos 'knew about' the turbos or the legendary safety & cold weather comfort. There is/was a certain ethusiast mystique that even the most "Mom" of the mom-mobile Volvo owners could share. But the VAST majority of Caddy drivers are STILL not "enthusiasts". Heck Cadillac's last legitamte enthusiat offering was pre-WWII...

Given the relatively HIGH PRICE that SRX is set at, your generic "motor head type" is not going to be too intersted. Couple that with the LACK of CONTROVERSY (unlike the OUTRAGE some felt toward Porsche for the very concept behind the Cayenne) and the SRX is FRIGHTENINGLY BUZZ_FREE.

I would HOPE that Caddy does a MUCH BETTER JOB of building interest in this VERY CAPABLE vehicle, but this IS the company that thought Brooke Shields and a duck that faced the wrong way was a "good plan". How freakin' out of touch...

Speaking of creepy, imagine if they also used:
<Bob Hope voice> Hey. Lemme tell ya about that Brooke Sheilds. HOWBOUTTHAT. And what about the duck? WHOO BOY ha </bob hope voice>

YIKES!!!

tidester · September 2003

Perhaps there is a place on the web where Cadillac fans (or foes) congregate, but I don't know of it.

Some of them hang out in places like these:

2004 Cadillac SRX

2004 Cadillac SRX

Cadillac Escalade

tidester, host

adp3 · September 2003

why would you go to an Escalade board to talk about the SRX?

and you posted two links to the same board

like I said - where is everybody?

I don't think Volvo Moms are more into cars than Caddy drivers, but I don't think Volvo moms populate these boards, in any case, though some of the XC90 posters are women (maybe 25%?). How did Ford create such a buzz for the Volvos but GM has not for the Caddy?

tidester · September 2003

why would you go to an Escalade board to talk about the SRX?

The question was where do Cadillac fans (or foes) congregate.

and you posted two links to the same board

Oops! Slip of the mouse! You can do your own search if you're interested.

tidester, host

b4z · September 2003

There are very few places that are as active as edmunds when it comes to Cadillacs.
I guess they don't engender a lot of rabid enthusiasm like other marks.
Except for the CTS which is wildly popular among it's owners.
The SRX will take time to build a following.
If you want, i can give you some URLs for Caddy info and forums.

rwebb@prucar.com

adp3 · September 2003

I wasn't looking for other forums as much as commenting on the lack of buzz re the SRX vis a vis the XC90. No big deal. Does GM sell as many units in the US as Volvo? We allknow that a higher percentage of Volvo drivers are engineers, and engineers are more likely to be ont he web than the typical Caddy driver. Again, this is not a "judgment" about either vehicle - just a comment and trying to find some rationale for less Caddy SRX buzz other than what I usually hear ("it's because the SRX will stink")

b4z · September 2003

It is my opinion that most Volvo owners are not car enthusiasts.
They are looking for a safe, solid vehicle.
While Volvo may have the buzzwords like "turbo" and "AWD" they are not purely performance oriented like a BMW is.
Back in the late 70's and 80s when the Volvo and Saab turbos first came out they were pushed as performance cars, when in reality they were sedans with good straighline acceleration and a European driving feel.
These were not great cars. Nor are they great cars today.

Who really wants a 5 cylinder engine when the competition offers a straight or V angle 6?

I personally think there will be a buzz about the SRX but it will take many years for Cadillac to get back in the public's good graces.
Much like it will take Mercedes a long time to get out of the public's good graces with their currrent problems that they aren't able to fix.

Another thing is that the cost of the SRX is higher than many people thought it would be.
I contend a 35K base price and a 41K V8 price would get people interested.
It would pretty muuh stop many people from considering the Toureg or Volvo.

hopeitsfriday · September 2003

I believe Cadillac biggest problem is this whole image make over thing. The typical Cadillac drivers of yester-years use to be the over 60 population. Now Cadillac is designing their cars for a much younger crowd. They went from Frank Sinatra to Led Zeppelin. They essentially have drop the original buyers before they have gain the new ones. This has been a transformation that is almost 10 years in the making. There is finally some sign that Cadillac will make a slight come back in the luxury market. The SRX did make some buzz about a year ago, then when they announce the price, I think everyone was shocked, almost the same price as the Escalade. Plus the fact that recent Cadillacs have been one disappointment after another and the SRX is, in some people's opinion, is no more than a $60,000 stealth station wagon.

fndlyfmrflyr · September 2003

One reason there is little chatter is there are virtually none available. My local dealer has not received any and has no literature either. The sales people say they drove one some time ago, but know very little about the vehicle (except that the third row is very tight). They are waiting for the rear drive STS also. The CTS-V isn't available either. Caddy seems to have a number of exciting vehicles in development that car magazines report on, and sometimes drive, as if they will be showing up in show rooms now. GM seems to be doing this with a number of vehicles in addition to the Cadillac models. Others may find the tease acceptable, I don't.

automole · September 2003

I think you hit the 'nail on the head' when you mentioned Cadillac's image problem. Until the CTS arrived I would NEVER have considered buying a new Cadillac due to the dated design and poor performance. With fresh designs like the CTS and SRX Cadillac actually has a chance of getting NEW buyers. Not to be morbid, but if Cadillac plans on surviving long-term they will have to due something to replenish their supply of customers that is currently (and literally) dying off.

I've been to the Cadillac dealership on several occasions and found the way they interact with me amusing. Cadillac is really not used to dealing with younger customers and I feel extremely out of place lounging around the waiting room with my 1.5 year old daughter. The sales staff and service department are never really sure HOW to treat me and act somewhat uncomfortable around me. I can't remember EVER a time in which I wasn't the youngest customer in the showroom...and I'm not THAT young!

Cadillac is on the right track and I feel their sales will continue to increase as they redesign the rest of the line. The only real problem I forsee is that they are now designing cars that appeal to younger buyers (CTS) or families (SRX and Escalade) but pricing them out of reach for most.

In my opinion the SRX is MUCH more than a stealth station wagon but the price should be closer to $40K than $60K.

adp3 · September 2003

I agree that the pricing, especially in today's market, will drive many people away, perhaps into the waiting arms of Daimler-Chrylser's Pacifica (which is also overpriced).

Of course, the Audi A6 wagon is overpriced, as is the Volvo XC70 (Cross Country). Heck, what AWD wagon isn't overpriced? The VW Wagon with AWD? The Subaru?

JBaumgart · September 2003

We have both the Lexus RX330 and an Infiniti FX45, and after options and discounts they each coincidentally came to about the same price (mid-40's). Although each of these models are considered to be overpriced by some, in comparision to others in this segment, they are considered to be attractive alternatives (relative bargains?) by others. To gauge how much this might be considered to be the case, you only have to look at the sales numbers for each model. The RX330, for example, sold more than 10,000 units last month, so obviously if this vehicle may be considered "overpriced" by many, there were 10,000+ customers who thought the price they paid was at least fair enough to get them to sign on the dotted line. Those models that are not so mainstream yet relatively pricey, with more of a sport/performance bent, like the Audi allroad (my previous car) and FX45, sell in fewer numbers but as a result are more exclusive to own. I think the SRX will fall into this category too.

It all depends on what your preferences (size, luxury, prestige and performance) are and how much you're willing to spend. There are plenty of wagon/car-based SUV's to choose from in each price range. And of course the lower the price point, the greater the potential customer base.

hopeitsfriday · September 2003

automole: I know what you mean when you say that Cadillac dealers are really not used to dealing with younger customers. When I went into my local Cadillac dealer, they were not use to dealing with young informed customer at all. I asked a bunch of question and they could answer just a few. All they kept saying was the North Star engine is one of the best, but they didnt know the technical specifications. BTW, they had a whole bunch of CTS there but no SRX at all.

JBaumgart: I think that Lexus sell so many RX330 is because they get the upgrade minded customers from Toyota. Toyota and Lexus are almost starting to be a house hold name when it comes to quality and reliability. Buyers who wish to do very little homework and who are not motor heads are the RX330 biggest customers. If you ask most RX330 owner if the engine was 2 valves per cylinder or 4 valves or what the compression ratio of the engine is, I bet over 75% would not know without looking it up.

maxhonda99 · September 2003

hopeitsfriday,

How many CTS customers or SRX customers would know how many valves their engine has, compression, size of engine, etc.? over 75%?

JBaumgart · September 2003

Another question: If Lexus sells so many RX330's from upgrade-minded customers from Toyota, you would think Cadillac would do the same for upgrade-minded customers of Chevy, Pontiac, Buick and Oldsmobile. I agree that as a whole Lexus buyers may not be the "motorheads" that buyers of other makes might be, but I wouldn't sell them so short when you say they don't do their homework. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that, "Toyota and Lexus are almost starting to be a household name when it comes to quality and reliability" which to me would indicate that Lexus owners are at least bright enough to recognize quality when they see it! AND, if you buy a quality product that works as advertised for many years of ownership, there is little need to have to be a motorhead in the first place!

adp3 · September 2003

I would buy the hybrid RX330 (when it comes out) sight unseen - that is how much I trust Toyota

hopeitsfriday · September 2003

Your theory about Cadillac's customers being upgrade-minded customers of Chevy, Pontiac, Buick and Oldsmobile are not all together true. Most Chevy, Pontiac and Buick customers buys American cars because of the price and parts availability. Once they get older and are ready to upgrade to luxury cars. Alot of them looks toward foreign cars because of the quality. There is not longer a good reason to buy American cars such as Cadillac at that price range because Cadillac do not offer any price advantage at that level.

rerenov8r · September 2003

"fanatical devotion" that Lexus enjoys. Makes things too easy...

adp3 · September 2003

OK, I wuld probably wait for Car and Driver (or Edmunds) or someone to review the Lexus hybrid - but I wouldn't wait a year to see how the first model year turns out. Lexus has demonstrated that they can deliver. Has any other car company had the first year reliability that Lexus has?

Now, maybe that record comes from none of their "new" vehicles being all that "new" - maybe they are just gussied up versions of stuff that they already have on the market. BUT, they do seem to deliver, even in the first model year. Am I wrong?

JBaumgart · September 2003

They are consistently at the top of J.D. Power ratings - how many years in a row now? This is no fluke, and so no, you are not wrong. Lexus is No. 1 when it comes to initial quality and owner satisfaction, hands down. The question for buyers then becomes, how important is this to you, compared to other aspects of owning they type of vehicle you are looking at? Rarely are Lexus models the most stylish, the best performing, or the cheapest. And these days most other competing models are also very reliable, when compared to most everything made not that many years ago.

rerenov8r · September 2003

I don't get it. The LS430 does get exceptionally good numbers, and folks tend to let the glow light up the whole brand. Some GM vehicles get very close in terms of "defects per hundred", yet virtually no one will cut 'em slack...

The SRX will almost certainly be the best GM vehicle yet -- I wonder how many people will "wait till they get the bugs out"?

Personally the sludge issue is enough to keep away from most Toyota/Lexus V6s...

adp3 · September 2003

I do tend to agree with rerenov8r - first impressions are lasting, and Lexus has had the high quality "first impression" for a long time. ALso, GM's past performance continues to weigh it down. I don't know how long it takes for these "impressions" to fade and reality to take over. That would be a good study.

b4z · September 2003

I have been in Lexus LS400s with 140,000 miles that drive better than many cars with 20,000.
That speaks volumes to me.

hopeitsfriday · September 2003

Car maker can not change its image by just surveys. Once people have problems with a brand of cars, they tend to stay away from that brand for a long time or forever. Cadillac if still suffering from poor qualities of the pass, and they will continue to suffer until the next generation of car buyer gets to the age where they can afford a Cadillac. So maybe Cadillac is doing something right by thinking ahead to the next generation.

b4z · September 2003

It will take Mercedes many years to lose the reputation that it has gained.
but it is doing a pretty good job of it right now.

fndlyfmrflyr · September 2003

Which Mercedes reputation? The old one of well built long lasting reliable cars or the new one of sloppy assembly and less reliability?

Interesting that neither Mercedes nor Toyota seems to have suffered from their engine oil gelling problems from a few years ago. Even Honda/Acura seems to have come out okay after their massive transmission problem. All three essentially covered up the problems until being exposed by the public. I wonder why the public looks the other way when it is a foreign manufacturer.

b4z · September 2003

I reread my post and it wasn't clear.

The current sloppy assembly, high dealer visit reputation.

avery1 · September 2003

I have a '99 RX 300, my first Lexus. Fortunately, I didn't have a gel problem but there were several other sort of significant problems and I am still a big fan of the car and company. It isn't whether or not there are problems it is how they deal with it. Can't speak for Mercedes or Honda but Lexus bent over backwards to take care of my problems and wouldn't rest until I was 100% satisfied. Every service visit, besides oil changes, was followed by a phone call to be sure I was happy. Never had anything approaching this service before. I will look for my next car at Lexus first if they have the type I am looking for.

adp3 · September 2003

I think one reason American car buyers are so forgiving of foreign car manufacturers is because the American car companies...um..SUCK? My Dodge and Chrysler service experience has been horrible. They gouge you at every opportunity on servicing, and they can't fix the beasts to save their lives. the only reason I go back is because one they do some work and the problem recurs, you hope they will fix it again for free (which they never do). The foreign car companies, at least the Japanese ones, probably have all of us fooled, but my servicing experience with Honda and Acura has been much better (though still very expensive).

fndlyfmrflyr · September 2003

My experience is the reverse. My Acura dealer has terrible service, and my Chrysler dealer has good service. The dealer that sold me my Avalon was as bad as the Acura dealer when it came to service.

All of the dealers I've used for service in recent years call to see if one is satisfied. When they call I ask them to not call again. I don't want to be bothered.

I've found most dealers do a good job on the simple and routine items, but when there is a significant problem it is more the luck of the draw - will a good mechanic be assigned the job.

adp3: Doubt it is the manufacturers that "suck." The dealers are independent and they are the ones that don't do the job. Part could also be attributed to how well the manufacturers back the dealer when it comes to warranty work. But, the bottom line is the dealer is the one that does the work, not the manufacturer. I've found significant differences between service departments at dealerships owned by the same person or group.

My selling dealer (12 miles away) for my MDX washes the car and gives free loaners when the MDX goes in for service. If they could just repair as well as they wash... The other Acura dealer near me (also 12 miles away - opposite direction) is owned by the same person and gives good service, but doesn't wash or give free loaners.

I've noticed a significant difference around here in how much dealers charge for the same service and parts. Some dealers charge as much as 20% over suggested retail for parts, while others discount. I found labor charges for the same work to vary by as much as 300%. It pays to shop around for dealer service.

landdriver · September 2003

I agree either dealerships or manufacturers can "suck," though in the case of the manufacturer if it sucks too much then it won't last long in the U.S. market, or at a minimum thrive (FIAT comes to mind). In the case of Toyota their quality is impeccable -- the public knows this and is that's what keeps them in business!

prob1293 · October 2003

It would seem to me the only viable comparisons are the MDX, SRX, Pacifica and possibly the XC90 (7-passenger capacity).

Can anyone offer some feedback on these models. At least for now, the Pacifica seems to be the lowest priced, but it's also the lowest powered.

The SRX gets very pricey very quickly, but the power is more suitably matched to its size and utility.

Both the Pacifica and the SRX get poor reviews in terms of interior-gadget & control quality from the press. These factors are important to me.

The MDX still seems too truck-ish and expensive.

I'm coming from an '00 Volvo V70 and this category (7-passenger room) seems tremendously appealing.

Thanks!

fndlyfmrflyr · October 2003

MDX truckish? To us it seems car-like.

The Pacifica costs the least, but seats six at most. The third row is not for adults and the car could use more engine, especially from a standing start.

The SRX can be expensive and I have been told by Caddy dealers the third row is very tight. The V8 is very expensive, but should have plenty of power. The V6 has almost as much power as the MDX, so it should perform okay.

The XC90 can get expensive too, especially the 6. The rear seat is short on headroom for adults, and with the third row option leg room is reduced in the second row.

The MDX is getting a bit long in the tooth design wise. Still, it offers the most room for people, a reasonable resale, Honda reliability, and can carry adults in the way back (Yes, it is tight back there, but there is enough headroom for adults and enough knee room for high school teens).

All are well made, all are fine for up to four in the vehicle (five for all except the Pacifica), all are car-like in ride and quiet, and all are reasonably safe. Buy what feels best to you.

mb280 · October 2003

It was interesting reading the comments on this board. I have an old C280 and my wife has a 99 ML320. I didn't want to be a two ML family and am aware that they will be changing body styles so I bought a RX330. The ML after 63,000 miles has had its share of minor problems but there is no comparison between the vehicles. The ML feels like solid machinery. The RX feels like a piece of tin. Somehow when I drive the ML I feel secure both in terms of handing and body structure. I do not have that feeling about the RX. To be sure the RX is beautifully finished and has great features. I would switch cars with my wife but I am concerned about the car's safety.

In regard to Lexus dealers calling after a service visit, I find that an intrusion. If I am not happy about something I will let them know. I do not need their phony concern interrupting me during the business day.

tidester · October 2003

The RX feels like a piece of tin.

Don't knock it! Tin prices are higher than aluminum, copper, zinc and lead - combined! :-)

tidester, host

hopeitsfriday · October 2003

I believe that the ML320 is about a thousand pounds heavier than the RX330, the added weight will give you the illusion that you are in a safer car. In reality, Mercedes has been falling behind other auto manufacturers in using advance light weight alloy material. Instead, they choice to put in bigger engines to compensate for the unnecessary weight. According to nhtsa, both the RX300 and the ML320 have the same rating in frontal crash test.

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