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

thor8 · October 2003

Hopeitsfriday, Falling behind nothing, simply the ML is the strongest vehicle in the class as far as build goes, the RX300 is basically a car in SUV uniform while the ML is built as a truck should be, on a heavy ladder frame double wall in the center section, in post #7169 in the ML topic I posted a picture I took at the factory, see for yourself and compare or look underneath an RX and an ML and you will see the heavy build of the ML against the delicate build of the RX.

For the ML safety and comparisons here is a lot of information.

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

The only other SUV I will consider is the Touareg with the V10 diesel because I do go to the beach a lot and I usually tow something, either 2 three seater jetskies or a 24ft offshore boat which is over 5000lbs or like next weekend we will go to Road Atlanta for the Petit Le Mans race in which case I will pull a big heavy camping trailer, for my needs I want a serious towing vehicle that handles and rides good for the long haul with a few thousand lbs. behind.

JBaumgart · October 2003

Obviously if you are going to be towing over 5,000 lbs you wouldn't even want to consider an RX330, or most other car-based SUV's for that matter. The ML's capacity is 5,000 lbs, so if your boat is over that you should probably look elsewhere too.

adp3 · October 2003

/direct/view/.ef17b19

Infiniti FX35/45 vs VW Touareg vs Porsche Cayenne vs BMW X5 vs Cadillac SRX

you folks may be interested in this one

mbukukanyau · October 2003

I am extremely unhappy to report that the SRX is a station Wagon more than a cross over Vehicle. Its competing against Volvos and Pacifica, not ML and X5 or MDX

stever · October 2003

That could change :-)

Steve, Host

adp3 · October 2003

Please. Does the X5 really have more off-road capability than the SRX? I understand the X5 is sweet on the highway, but in snow it gets poor marks. Has anyone ever driven one off-road? Does the MB have off-road capabilities?

I agree that comparisons should be between similar vehicles. Then again, if the same driver woud "consider" each of the vehicles,then they should be compared. I think there are folks out there who would consider all of the vehicles in this message board (as well as the Pacifica, the XC90, and others).

mbukukanyau · October 2003

Its ground clearance is soo low! Its like a Subaru forester, or
Outback -VS- an ML or X5.

To be a real crossover, it needs to ride higher Like the Lexus RX 330

Its sooo low. I was like, Yikes!

highender · October 2003

veering offtopic for a moment. You said that car & driver is a good mag. Will, during its report on the Porsche Cayenne earlier this year, the 2 guys driving the Cay (with onroad tires) drove it offroad in the mud without the slightest clue what they were doing.. Driving an offroad vehicle in mud is like giving Pete Sampras a ping pong paddle and complaining he plays lousy tennis. Hellooooo !! Then these 2 geniuses said " we had to use an ordinary pickup to pull it out" Hellooooooo, when a vehicle is stuck in mud, you could use a winch or any vehicle to move the car a little to escape the self dug hole. they tried to undercut a vehicle using underhanded ,dirty , unfair tactics that are unbecoming of a fair magazine. I was aghast at this unprofessional prank that they pulled with glee....I already wrote them to castigate this boorish behaviour (on par with childhood pranks).....I don't know if it is jealousy, repressed trauma, immaturity or what, but if you have something to say , then say it....don't stage something to fail and then report as if it is the genuine ......duhhhhhhhh !!

orwoody · October 2003

Good point - most people don't have a clue about offroading. Depending on what you are doing and where you are going, the vehicle needs to be equipped for the conditions. One can't take a 4WD rig with "all season" tires, 6" ground clearance, etc... and expect to run it in mud, rock, snow, sand.... it takes a proper combo of vehicle, ground clearnace, engine, tranny, wheels and tires for the conditions...
Me thinks the Cayenne is more set up for the upscale "soccer dad" who runs up to the ski area on the weekend. (like my Denali)

fndlyfmrflyr · October 2003

Took a look at a V6 SRX today. Enough room in front seats, but not quite as much as MDX. Middle row okay too, but didn't seem as wide as MDX. Middle row A/C vents in roof. The step in to the front seats seemed quite wide and my pant legs did a nice job wiping the sheet metal clean. Over all feel just sitting in the SRX was not as nice as the MDX. Couldn't find the right steering wheel angle for me.

The third row is just a cushion on the floor with a backrest that is electrically raised. The floor for your feet is virtually the same as one's rear when seated.

Luggage area behind the seats seems smaller than MDX. The load floor is not flat with all of the seats folded.

Expensive too. Can't get navigation without all wheel drive. Not impressed enough to take a test drive. The RX330 seemed a lot nicer inside and feels like it has as much room for five and more room for luggage.

eaton53 · October 2003

You didn't drive the SRX, so you've missed much of the point of it.

Its strength is in its all-around competance, which brought it a win in a very tough Car and Driver comparo.

fndlyfmrflyr · October 2003

True, I'd like better performance than my MDX. However, I need to be able to seat seven, none younger than high schoolers, and still carry their marching band instruments.

The SRX doesn't meet my cargo and people carrying needs. It doesn't matter how well it drives. In addition, the price is well above an MDX.

I'm sure Caddy will sell a lot of them. I like the outside look and the finish inside looks fine too, though I like the more open feel of the MDX better. If I was longer in the leg the wide frame rail to step over wouldn't be a problem either, but it is for me, while it isn't in the MDX or most others.

eaton53 · October 2003

I'm not surprised the SRX isn't bigger than it is.... it's slanted to the sport side of the SUV and more size and weight isn't the friend of performance.

Besides, Caddy already has the Slade (bigger) and ESV (biggest) for those who need to carry more people and stuff.

thor8 · October 2003

In regards to the ML towing capacity that is a hard one to call, in the US is limited to 5000lbs but in Europe is limited to 7200lbs, same vehicle, the ML was designed to tow that weight (over 7000lbs) the lower rating for the US is a legal issue rather than capacity.

JBaumgart · October 2003

The lower tow rating here in the U.S. applies to other vehicles as well. My point was that if you need heavy-duty towing capability there are many other vehicles from which to choose, like the VW Touareg, for example - 7700 lbs IN THE U.S.

In my case I can choose from just about any SUV or car-based SUV as my 17 1/2 foot boat weighs less than 2,000 lbs. My FX45 (and my Audi allroad before it) handles it just fine.

thor8 · October 2003

It could be so, I just dont know of any other SUV de-rated for the US market, I know in the US in the case of the ML it has to do with the Hitch, the exact technical reasons I dont remember to be accurate. But I agree with you and we should be glad that we have such a huge selection and everybody can find what they want.

Right now I tow mostly a two three seater Jetskies along with other gear in the trailer, about 3500lbs or a 24 offshore fishing boat, high bow on tandem axles, over 5000lbs.

I have used my GMC pickup to tow the boat but the ML is stronger on the highway and better on the other end, by that I mean it has a low range and AWD, that makes it a lot easier on difficult boat landing that are too steep or have a sudden drop or a combination or sandy areas, locked on first gear in LOW at 5000RPM the truck will not reach 10MPH, is a very strong and controlled pull, I dont have to burn clutches, spin tires, rock it, have help and delay the ramp like some others while they try to pull their heavy boats out.

And definitely I dont want a big SUV like a Suburban or a dully pickup, in other words the strongest on the smallest package with a very precise handling, in that respect my ML has served me well, in five years I had no problems whatsoever, it will be very hard for me to justify getting rid of my ML.

However I agree with you about the Touareg, but the V10 Diesel only, and that is the only other SUV I would consider, but going to a gasser Touareg I dont see how I will be upgrading much from my particular vehicle.

Regards

nortsr1 · October 2003

I just purchased a base White Diamond V8. I was origanally told I had to purchase the "package' to get AWD. I went to the GM web site, built my own, and sure enough...you can get the AWD as a "separate' for $1800.00.i suggest you check out their site, build your own V6 and see if it is also available as is the V8.
Also, we purchased the SRX at "Dealer Invoice" and it was exactly the same as the Edmunds site. I cannot give out dealers name, as he is a friend and would not do this for someone else. {at least that's what he said.
The white diamond is a 900.00 "extra as is the 1800.00 AWD, which we also got for the dealer invoice. I forget what the amounts were.

adp3 · October 2003

would love to hear your driving reports, nort

I pulled up next to a Pacifica yesterday and asked the folks to roll down their windows. Talked to them about the car. They hate it. Drives like a boat and you can't see anything.

I didn't ask what they had driven before. It may be a great car if you are used to driving a minvan, but not a great car if you are used to a coupe.

eaton53 · October 2003

Makes you wonder if they drove the car before they bought it, doesn't it?

At these prices, I'd make darn sure I liked it.

adp3 · October 2003

yes, you'd think they could have figured that out BEFORE buying it

"it has lots of nice featrues, though" they said

but the wife was even leaning over the husband/driver to yell to me how much they hated it

pretty funny

I should have offered to buy it for 20K

hopeitsfriday · November 2003

Just seen a SRX on the road for the first time today. Looks like a CTS station wagon to me.

adp3 · November 2003

I haven't seen one on the road yet (except the one I test drove)

adp3 · December 2003

still haven't seen one on the road in SF Bay Area

pbeers · December 2003

have seen two in the last couple of weeks here in L.A.

klin · December 2003

Hello,

From checking safety web-sites, MDX seems to have a pretty good ratings (4-star) on rollover and other crash tests. Also, for 04 model it has side curtain airbags for all 3 rows.

However, its quality/reliability are questionable (from reading problem forum and JD Powers rating).

What is your research/experience comparing to other SUVs, esp. Toyota's SUVs (e.g. Highlander)?

Thanks for sharing

rerenov8r · December 2003

The MDX has proven highly reliable, though there seems to have been a batch of problem transmissions (primarily from the '01 & '02 model years) -- fortunately these have been replaced under warranty. Some claim that the redesigned '03 transmission is much more durable.

Initial build quality has been very, very good, as well as uniform through all the years. There have been those who complain that Acura is not as "luxury oriented" as Lexus , but that is not a "build quality" issue so much as a 'customer treatment' issue.

I am not aware of any data that suggest otherwise.

explorerx4 · December 2003

ford has the best mid size third row seating. you might take a look at the aviator.

fndlyfmrflyr · December 2003

rerenov8r said "Initial build quality has been very, very good, as well as uniform through all the years." Can't prove that by mine or some others I saw about the time I bought almost two years ago. However, once the sloppy assembly problems were fixed my MDX has proven very reliable as long as you don't count interior rattles.

Through the years I have found little correlation between initial build quality and long term reliability or durability.

My PT Cruiser's initial build quality was far superior to the initial build quality of my MDX. If I start counting at day one, my Cruiser had two problems and the MDX 15. Both are equally reliable and neither shows any durability problems.

overtime1 · December 2003

My wife and I have had zero quality issues with the '03 MDX we bought almost a year ago. No problems whatsoever and not even the hint of a rattle or creak coming from anywhere in the vehicle.

overtime

doug889 · January 2004

I have a 2000 RX300 and a 2002 MDX. The RX 300 hasn't had a single problem so far. The MDX has had some rattling sound from under the dash. I took it back to the dealer twice. They fixed it but the rattling came back eventually. The RX300's transmission is very smooth but very slow to down shift when you need it. I like the MDX transmission better.My neighbor's ML300 has had major problems.

allnation · January 2004

There is no such thing as ML300. Do you mean your RX300? My ML has zero problem.

grapevinetx · January 2004

Guess we'll have to get doug889 to clarify for us. I took him to mean that his neighbor has a MB M-Class that has had major problems.

doug889 · January 2004

Sorry, I meant the MB M-Class. He bought the first year model. It died on highway twice.

mbukukanyau · February 2004

It Seems like no one ever looks at it

eaton53 · February 2004

"It Seems like no one ever looks at it"

What I was told by the sales manager at the local Caddy dealer was that Cadillac initially messed up the model mix, giving dealers loaded V8's - a tough sell against the ever-popular Escalade - whether the dealers wanted them or not. The V6 ones move out fast. I aasume they're rectifying this.... this dealer told me the vast majority of his stock will be V6's.

Nice thing is, though... since the V8's tend to languish on the lots, if you do a 24hr test drive, that's probably what they'll give you. It is a fantastic vehicle to drive.

mbukukanyau · February 2004

The moneyed uptown folks will probable soon figure this out. There is a certain aura that goes with American luxury. Sort of, I have money to spend and I do not care about the image thing.

future · July 2004

For the MB Class "M", the company made ML200, ML320 with 3.2 litre engine been replaced by ML350 with 3.7 litre engine. "It should given a name as ML370". For the V8, ML500 replaced the ML430. and top of the line ML55 by AMG.

With in the circle of my family and in-laws, we have MDX, Lancruiser, Land Rover, Lexus LX450, ML320, ML430, ML500. The third row seats and bang for the buck is Lancruiser off road and on road. The 1998 ML320 had some rattle noise multiple times, even after had been fixed by MB dealers few occasions. The new ML500 for 16 months, no rattle but braking problems. After 2 yrs owning Land Rover Discovery of having temperature problem, My sister trade it with the 2003 MDX. Closer to 2 yrs now she has not spent any extra money on the MDX.

Nevertheless, all vehicle are great depend upon the test of the buyer. For reliability with less maintain go with Acura or Lexus. Willing to pay for just the name plate go with MB. You need to compare apple to apple, this case SUV with 3rd row seat. Welcome to any input. thank

anythngbutgm · July 2004

My folks are up to something like 110k miles on there Nighthawk 01', so far so good. I guess they had the tranny check and it was fine, although my Dad is a fanatic about maintainance. Always wanted one for myself so my fiance and I traded the Benz in (another great, almost flawless car) on an 03 GG Touring with 14k on it. The thing is like brand new, couple of scratches on the hatch, but mint. We shopped around a bit before and compared it to the 04 which has a few more features, but the price for an 04 Touring was around 41 grand.

Checked out the X5 which was in the 50's and very small inside for what was IMO a large vehicle. Did like the option of a manual tranny, she's the primary driver and prefers Automatics.

The ML was is nice, but from what I've been told, an oil change requires removal of the transfer case and partial pull of the motor??? They have something like 20k mile oil change intervals so maybe it balances out the cost. The interior was kinda cheap, for the money, I think our CK coupe had a nicer, classier feel.

The Volvo XC was the runner up, I liked it ALOT, and have been eying it since Auto show season, but power was adequate, and the maintainance scared us off.

The FX is awesome, but really hard to see what's behind you, and while I absolutely love the whole cheetah look, she thought it was hideous.

She liked the RX, and it was very smooth, comfy, quiet, and pretty quick, but narrow and claustrophobic IMO. Would have stepped up to the GX, but once again mid 50's pricetag.

Didn't compare Cayenne, Toureg, or Aviator. In the end, we love our "X" getting alot of use from it, and the Acura service dept. is excellent.

jiamin · July 2004

I test drove LX470 and BMW X5 4.4, and found X5's interior despointed me a lot. Cheap looking. The best thing to me is its large moonroof. It drives fine with a bit louder noise when AWD plays its role, compared to LX470 which is the BEST.

I only had like 3 minutes in each car so that's all I could say for them now.

she1122 · July 2004

Has anyone heard any information about the Mercedes ML coming out with a diesel in the near future? I notice that the Japanese are going with the hybrids. With Volkswagon going diesel and the new Mercedes diesel sedan, I am figuring the germans are going diesel. So any information on the ML?

fensterlips · July 2004

I read all these great posts and no one mentions towing. We have a Suburban approaching 100K which has been wonderful on the open road, but a beast to drive around town. I went to the Lexus "Taste of Luxury" drive-a-thon when they came to LA giving me a chance to "test drive" all the Lexus and competitive vehicles. I was impressed with the Acura MDX, but it seems to tow only 3500 lbs or 4500 lbs -- depending on what you read. Why is this so poorly rated? The X5 was nice to drive, but a bit more costly. The ML seemed a little long in the tooth. I'd really like to replace the Sub' but they all seem to fall a tiny bit short in one area or another. Any helpful thoughts?

BTW - It seems like there is precious little difference in the mileage of SUV's until you get to the "light" crossovers.

maxhonda99 · July 2004

fensterlips,

How can you compare a Suburban to a MDX, X5, ML, or RX in terms of towing? First take a look at the size of your suburban's engine vs. those in the MDX, X5, ML, or RX. Second, take a look at the size variance between the Suburban and the others. Third, take a look at how they are constructed. The Suburban comes from Pick-Up genetics while the others come from Sedan genetics except for the Benz ML.

You have to realize the above crossover SUVs were not designed by their manufacturer's to tow heavy objects, they were designed to be used the way the majority of SUVs are used, which is basically to make HOme Depot trips, pick up kids from soccer practice, to hold lots of shopping bags and to make it through snow.

If over 5,000lbs. towing capacity is a necessity you have to look at SUVs with bigger displacement engines(Big V8s) and body on frame architecture. There is ultimately no way a 6-cylinder engine is going to pull more than a few thousand pounds.

avery1 · July 2004

If they have fixed all their initial problems I would check out the Touareg.

eaton53 · July 2004

"If they have fixed all their initial problems I would check out the Touareg."

Or the Lincoln Aviator. Lincoln performed very well (top 5) in the long-term Power survey.... I've driven the Av a couple of times and came away quite impressed.

fensterlips · August 2004

Maxhonda99,

It was interesting to look at the towing numbers for the X5 and the ML. I agree the X5 doesn't have truck genetics, but BMW shows a 6000 lb capacity. Not sure on the GVWR. The ML with it's body on frame is 5000 lbs and the Sub (from memory) is 6800 lbs. The RX has no chance, but it's pretty small - however the GX and LX are body on frame - RWD, and V-8's -- not sure on their tow numbers.

I was hoping for a pleasant driving experience, a long lived vehicle, towing capability and a decent amount of space -- doesn't need to be cavernous -- just decent. The MDX is the right size, just can't tow for beans with the FWD, unibody, etc. etc. It's more a highly capable minivan with AWD -- IMHO. The GX and LX seemed a bit overpriced and a somewhat unremarkable driving experience.

I was scared off the ML with all their low grade parts and teething pains, and the X5 seemed quite small inside.

I was tempted by a Denali, but I don't want to trade car payments into parts payments as we get close to 100K. Besides - the truck genetics pretty much guarantees an unimpressive driving experience...

fndlyfmrflyr · August 2004

Have you driven a Denali? Have a friend on his second Denali XL (new one is three months old). I've been a passenger and driven it. I found it as comfortable as my MDX and it seemed a bit quieter too (I have an 02 and the 04s are probably a bit less noisy). Regular handing isn't bad considering how big it is.

If you have a big towing need you might want to consider a 4 door diesel powered pickup or the VW Touareg (sp) diesel.

maxhonda99 · August 2004

If you need towing capacity past the 5K to 6K lbs. mark, the American SUVs are still the way to go, since they offer large V8s and most still have body on frame architecture.

msu79gt82 · August 2004

We traded our old '01 earlier this year for an '04 and still love the car. In my opinion the MDX is still the best in its class. We are currently looking to buy an RX330 and do not consider the two to be exactly comparable.

And that is the problem with comparisons like this; the MDX had 3 rows and seats 7, the RX330 and X5 are 2-row 5 seaters. Each vehicle has its own advantages and weaknesses. Any car purchase decision eventually comes down to a compromise between ones needs/wants/desires and their budget.

dripps · August 2004

After driving both the Acura MDX and the Cadillac SRX there was no comparison...the SRX has a MUCH better ride. It also gives us the 3rd row seat (although not for adults!) that my previous car, the 2001 BMW X5, didn't have. I have the new SRX for a week now (almost 700 miles) and just can't get over how much I LOVE this car! I was looking at the Chrysler Pacifica first because my kids loved the bucket seats in the 2nd row but just wasn't able to compromise the lack of power....and just didn't have the luxury/quality feel of my BMW. My son suggested the Cadillac which I wasn't aware of....we were sold!

jlynn · September 2004

I'm trying to decide between MDX and RX. did you buy the RX? If so, how does it compare to MDX outside of the 7/5 passenger thing?

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