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

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

11618202122

Comments

  • msu79gt82msu79gt82 Member Posts: 541
    No I did NOT buy the RX330 - I chose to get an Infiniti FX35. Because space was not the deciding issue here, the FX35 beat out the RX330 for our second vehicle (MDX is still the primary family car).

    I must confess that part of the decision was that the RX is just "so ordinary." It has virtually no pizzaz and besides that everyone else has one.
  • dhamiltondhamilton Member Posts: 878
    ellenlsc
     I am looking for the same information myself. If I come across any I'll let you know. I have driven both. Respond if you want thoughts. good luck. dan
  • adp3adp3 Member Posts: 446
    good choice on the FX rather than the RX to go with your MDX. I wonder if there is a household on earth that is driving an MDX and an RX. That'd be pretty funny. Then, again there were houses that had a boring Buick and a boring Olds in them, so....

    you gotta have ONE vehicle that has a little fun in it in the garage. And no matter much you like your MDX, it doesn't exactly say "fun" (don't get me wrong, I like the MDX, for what it is)
  • fndlyfmrflyrfndlyfmrflyr Member Posts: 668
    You said: ... no matter much you like your MDX, it doesn't exactly say "fun" (don't get me wrong, I like the MDX, for what it is).

    Don't have to hedge. My MDX is like my Avalon, a real yawner to drive. Like you, I like it a lot anyway.

    No, one doesn't have to have a fun car in the garage, but I do admit our PT Cruiser GT is a lot more fun to drive than the Jaguar S Type V8 it replaced.
  • mrkbbd1mrkbbd1 Member Posts: 7
    Does anyone know the release and possible specs on the AMG ML's set to come out either late next year or early 2006.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    "Every year the editors at Edmunds.com vote on the "most wanted" vehicles. Now it's your turn. Forget about what you think ought to win based on stats and specs; choose the vehicle you'd want parked in your driveway. Vote today: this survey will only be available for a limited time."

    Consumers' Most Wanted Vehicles for 2005

    Steve, Host
  • delia4delia4 Member Posts: 2
    Trying to decide between 2001 MDX and 2001 RX300. Both have 37000 miles. 2001 MDX transmission went out on test drive, getting new transmission. Wouldn't buy MDX without extended warranty on transmission to 100,000. Like MDX because more functional, but don't necessarily need extra seating. Am driving Lexus RX300 now, very nice.
  • irishwheatirishwheat Member Posts: 30
    Let me tell you briefly, about my 2005 MDX horror story. Let's see navigation did not work, Acura would not reimburse me for the trouble. Finally fixed after 8 months. Heater went out, 3 recalls, would not start after a week away. On Star went out. What a mess! Dont but this car. Im now trying to sell to move toowards something else, and I will take a huge loss. Even the lemon law is looking into my car. I use to love Honda/ Acura...sorry never again.
  • louiein99louiein99 Member Posts: 33
    My wife and I have it narrowed down to the MDX and the RX330. We currently have no kids, but we have a "plan." I will drive the car for the next 2 years while she gets the most fun out of her Eclipse GTS (she won't part with it since it was her college graduation present to herself.) I told her that once she gets pregnant (according to the plan in 18-24 months) she will not be allowed to ride in that little pill box anymore.

    So, we are buying now. I will drive the vehicle for the next couple of years, and then when she gets pregnant, she will get the roomier and safer crossover vehicle. With that said, we plan to keep the vehicle 5-7 years.

    So, do we go with the RX or the MDX to suit both of our needs as we think to the future? Gladly listen to any comments.
  • crystal2crystal2 Member Posts: 52
    Louiein99, I will try to respond to a part of your question since I do not know the MDX. One thing you may not be aware of is an insurance cost issue. I just purchased the RX330 and I was shocked by the quote for the new 2005 AWD RX330. It came out to be less than our 2002 Audi Quattro A6 and the same price as our 1997 Subaru Outback. Even the insurance agent was surprised by how low the insurance fee was for a brand new RX330. I have to think that it is related to safety and reliability issues (it has 9 or 11 airbags?). The only car that seems to beat the safety record of the RX330 is the Volvo. This should be a consideration, especially for a pregnant woman and a small child on the way. Just a thought (by the way, the Thundercloud I bought does not have the RSES and the receiver hitch, just towing prep package). Good luck with your decision-making.
  • louiein99louiein99 Member Posts: 33
    Crystal2, That was very insightful. I will have to get quotes for both to find out. I was hoping to hear that insurance would be low due to safety. The wife gets a little ticked, and tickled, cause I worry about her in that little car...so safety was a big factor (on top of all the economics that guys usually dwell on).

    Thanks for clarification on your purchase. I kept crunching the #s, and it seemed like you bought yours under invoice price. Not having the RES explains it. How do you like the Black wood trim in the Thundercloud edition? I am very iffy on it.

    Thanks again.
  • crystal2crystal2 Member Posts: 52
    Louiein99, my preference was for the golden maple wood trim in the RX330; I think it looks more like wood than the black maple. Also, dust shows up more with the black wood. However, in 3/05 - 4/05, I thought I was getting a good deal on the Thundercloud. Some members of a Lexus forum love the horizontal grill in the front of the Thundercloud. I like the medium silver color and it had everything else I really cared about (nav/ rear camera; upgraded sound system; the latter was esp hard to get in the northeast). Also, I was told there are only 500 Limited Ed. Thunderclouds manufactured for the U.S. Moreover, all Thunderclouds were manufactured in Japan and I preferred that because of unknown differences in manufacturing quality between the Japan and the "new" Canada plants. I realize this is still an ongoing debate, but the Japanese origin was my preference after previous traumatic experiences with unreliability of American cars owned. (The Vehicle ID beginning with "J" means the RX was manufactured in Japan)
    Regarding your comparison: You may want to go to the dealerships and ask for brochures of the RX and the MDX. In the RX brochure there are two pages with extensive info on safety features: safety bags, reinforced body structure with front and rear crumple zones, rear outboard child-seat tether and lower anchors, etc.
    Your wife should be happy and tickled you are concerned about her and the baby's welfare.
  • wmquanwmquan Member Posts: 1,817
    We bought our 2001 MDX with the birth of our first child, and now have two children to carry in it.

    In your situation, a major factor is how many kids do you expect to have in the next 5-7 years, and do you take long trips in the vehicle. The RX will be fine for carrying around two children in car seats and a reasonable amount of luggage. The MDX has more usable cargo space behind the second row, and is wide enough that it is sometimes possible to put three children in car seats in the second row. And have a lot of cargo room for trips. Plus the MDX has a small but occasionally useful third row if you need to ever carry grandparents or other friends with your kids.

    For us, there have definitely been a number of occasions where the MDX's greater usable cargo space behind the second row has come in handy. Even when the kids aren't in the MDX, taking out car seats to fold down the second row isn't convenient (even when you have LATCH). With kids, we've made big trips to Costco and stuffed the cargo hold full with boxes of diapers, wipes, cases of formula, etc.

    That said, the RX330 has enough cargo space for most needs. If your emphasis is on luxury, it beats the MDX hands-down in this department. I also suspect that your wife will prefer driving the RX over the MDX. It's more "female friendly," with options like a power liftgate, and a convenient place to put the purse between the two front seats. It's also significantly narrower than the MDX, and coming from the Eclipse, the Acura may feel like a bus to your wife. So she might like driving the RX more.

    Finally, it's like the MDX will be redesigned next year with a totally new model out.

    Good luck!
  • m4d_cowm4d_cow Member Posts: 1,491
    id suggest the rx over the mdx, its comfier inside, better looking outside, and like the others said, insurance cost less. the only area where mdx wins over the rx is value imo.
  • louiein99louiein99 Member Posts: 33
    All, thanks for the insight. With our children plans, the RX should suffice. As it stands now, we are leaning heavily to the RX just for the luxury of it. Obviously, if we were going solely on functionality, the MDX would win.

    The redesign of the MDX is intriguing. We do not have to buy in a hurry, and it may be well worth our while to hang on until July/August when we will get a chance to see a preview of what the 06s for both models look like.

    Crystal2 (and any others), how does your Mark Levinson stereo sound? I listened to one at the dealership the other day, and the FM stations did not sound very good. I have read in other reviews, that it does not reproduce FM music very well, but that it sounds out of the world with CDs. It also lacks a subwoofer. Without this, how is the bass response? A big hold out for me is getting ML in the vehicle. The dealer was pushing others, and I wouldn't even consider them without it, but I am beginning to wonder if it is worth the fuss. I actually thought the MDX Bose system had much more punch to it.

    Any thoughts?
  • crystal2crystal2 Member Posts: 52
    Louiein99, I was just testing out the sound system. I had been alerted to the "sub-par" quality of the ML, but I figured it could not be too bad, being an upgrade and Harmon Kardon manufactured?

    Well, I have to honestly say I was disappointed with the FM sound (as you have identified). I thought it was because I had not turned on the rear speakers, so I proceeded to read the manual and turned on the rear speakers. I honestly could not tell the difference even with all the speakers on (I had to ask my son if he could hear the sound coming from the back and he said yes (son was sitting in the rear seat). I decided to try the new classical music CD given by Lexus to new owners and the sound was definitely improved. However, again, not the greatest. My nakamichi system at home and the Bose system in my husband's Audi sound much better and more rich (must be related to the subwoofer issue).

    So I am not sure it is worth the extra $800? I read that others have been satisfied with the standard sound system that comes with the 2005 RX. So if I were you, I would consider passing on this option esp. if you are interested in saving "a few" bucks. (By the way, my husband likes the black wood trim in the Thundercloud now that he has seen the car in person; he loves the Bose sound system in the Audi, "his favorite feature in the car.")
  • wmquanwmquan Member Posts: 1,817
    The redesign of the MDX may not occur until the 2007 model year, thus it wouldn't come until sometime next year.

    If you are prioritizing luxury, the RX is hard to beat. It definitely isn't the MDX's forte.
  • m4d_cowm4d_cow Member Posts: 1,491
    regarding the ML system: i also felt the lack of punch, like some of you, when i think about it again, the system is meant for older people ( a lexus sales guy said most ppl who buy rx are 40+) who rarely listen to music w/ a lot of bass

    bose overall is decent, but lacks high and low details in my previous audi

    HK logic 7 is pretty good, but other models are less capable than ML or bose imo

    my suggestion: skip the useless ML package, buy atlas (instead of expensive nav system), forget the tv camera (useful only for those who cant drive), and save yourself a couple hundred bucks and buy aftermarket sound system instead.
  • lexusguy311lexusguy311 Member Posts: 10
    Being an owner of an RX330 with the Mark Levinson system I can say that the sound system is well worth the 800 dollars I paid for it. When I first heard the system at the dealership I wasn’t to impressed with it. I opted for it anyways, since I had to get it with RES and navigation. When I returned home I played a variety of CD’s and DVD’s to get an idea of the sound quality on the system. I was really impressed at the quality of sound from these sources. My brother has an alpine surround sound system installed in his IS300 and we both agreed that the ML matched and even outshined his alpine system in many aspects. Although the ML doesn’t have a sub, the eleven-speaker system puts out enough sound to make my ears ring when I have it turned all the way up. The sound that it is put out is very clean, rich, and pure even when it is turned up to its MAX, where the sound stays steady and doesn’t distort like other systems I have had in the past. If I had the 800 extra to invest I would, you will not be disappointed. BTW I am a 25-year-old male who enjoys a stereo that booms, and the ML system fills that need and then some.
  • louiein99louiein99 Member Posts: 33
    Lexusguy311, Thanks for the input, but you did not mention how regular radio stations fared in your analysis. I have not heard a CD in the system, but from other reviews, I am fairly certain the the ML is outstanding in this arena. The question is how is the DSP amp transfering the FM signal to digital. Although I have an abundance of CDs, I rarely listen to them, so the FM sound quality is extremely important.

    I only had a chance to listen to the stereo for a few minutes...the wife wanted to check other stuff out instead...but the bass sounded flat, and overall the sound was muffled a little. This may be due to me not having a chance to mess with the treble, mid, bass settings (they were all set to 5 while I was listening). Have you had a chance to determine which worked best. I noticed the Edmunds review of the base RX radio had the mids at -2 or -3. Please tell me your settings, so that I can try them on my next visit to the dealership.

    Quick question that I forgot to ask the dealer. When using the RES, can the sound be played through the stereo speakers or only through the IR headphones? I noticed the headrest models the dealership will install only plays through the headphone. Thanks again.
  • m4d_cowm4d_cow Member Posts: 1,491
    on the plus side the ML system offers great sound quality, but on my test unit the voice gets distorted at high volumes, the mids lack details somehow, and theres still that lack of bass punch. as for the Bose, mid is really smooth, but also lacks decent high-low details or also known as "flat"

    im currently still searching around for a decent sound system, HK Logic7 being my current favorite (considering an x5 right now), but im sure a better aftermarket system is out there somewhere.
  • habitat1habitat1 Member Posts: 4,282
    For another perspective, we picked the MDX over the GX470 in January. We have two kids and were coming out of a 5 seat Isuzu Trooper, but wanted the flexibility to carry our kids friends, as well. The GX lost out due primarily to it's dysfunctional third row set-up. It did have an off road capability advantage over the MDX, but the MDX won out in on road handling. The other serious contender for us was the XC90 V8 that has exceptional safety features and excellent performance. Unfortuanately, it's third row seat, while better than the GX, was still behind the MDX.

    As far as the RX goes, it was never in contention for us, but we have a couple of friends with them. First thing I have noticed with all Lexus' is that they favor a soft, almost wallowy ride over tight handling and steering. That's not my preference. Second, try as I might not to let my male ego come out, 95% of the RX's I see in our area (Washington DC) are driven by women. Not quite as bad as a VW Beetle, but pretty close. It's not a vehicle I would want to drive for 2 years, before turning it over to my wife. I have no problem handing my wife the keys to my Acura TL 6-speed and taking over the MDX on occassion, but I think I'd be anxious to get the TL back with the RX for both of the reasons listed above.

    Have you tried the XC90 V8? Very impressive and useful for a "younger" family.
  • louiein99louiein99 Member Posts: 33
    I did check out the XC90, albeit, the V8 version never really came up (have not test driven either). My wife is somewhat environment conscious and this model gets worse gas mileage than my Nissan Pathder, plus I think its emissions are higher than the RX (more on par with the X5). Next, we really have no need for a 3rd row seat. The styling isn't really manly either, but it would be doable.

    I am upgrading from a Pathfinder, mainly because the gas mileage is lousy and I never tow anything nor do I do any serious...or semi-serious offroading. Although luxurious, the XC90 V8 doesn't up the gas mileage and it is more torque than I require. Granted, you are about as safe as the gold in Ft. Knox in the XC90 though. I will relook at the smaller engine models.

    For the RX, I did see a black one roll by, and IMO it looks fairly manly. The black tied in the black rear spoiler, and SEEMS to give the vehicle a more slick and lower profile.
  • habitat1habitat1 Member Posts: 4,282
    I have to ask, if (1) your wife is "environment conscious" and (2) you are looking for decent gas mileage and (3) you don't do any serious or semi-serious off roading, and (4) you don't ever anticipate having a need for a third row seat and (5) you don't even have kids yet then ....

    ...why are you getting an SUV? My Acura TL 6-speed has taken my family of four on 750 mile round long weekend trips trips when we weren't loading up on luggage. The TL gets nearly 30 mpg on the highway, is fun to drive and is equiped with all of the latest safety features. And fully loaded it's $5,000 less than either the RX or the MDX.

    I'm not trying to throw a guilt trip at you, but although the RX is a reasonably efficient SUV, it's still a hog compared to any sedan. You may have other reasons, but I think 5 seat car based SUV's are often candidates for a sedan repalcement. Certainly the X5 with less space than a 5 series is.
  • hpowdershpowders Member Posts: 4,330
    My family consists of my wife and me. I am seriously considering the X5 4.4.
    Being 6'2", I don't have enough legroom in most cars. The X5 front seat really has a lot of travel giving me all the room I need.
    Also, it's if you can't beat 'em join 'em syndrome. I'm tired of parking in parking lots surrounded by these giants on all sides. I can't see a damn thing when I try and back out with my tiny 325i.
    And when a ute comes in front of me on the interstate, my view of the road is blocked.
    So, I need one for the room and defensive purposes.
    Also, I feel BMW's best interior is found in the X5.
  • louiein99louiein99 Member Posts: 33
    I definately see your point, but just like the post above, I just prefer the looks and the extra cargo space. I have really enjoyed my previous SUV, and I just want to step up. I am in the military, and I have already moved twice in the past year. I will move at least 2 more times in the next 3 years. No, this is not the norm-even for the military, but it is my situation for now. It helps to have the extra cargo space to haul my gear, and the necessities to a new location...as well as boxes of my old stuff that my wife makes me give to Goodwill. :)

    We are actually considering a TL as our sedan of the future, but we will not look at purchasing that for at least 18-24 months. My wife has a little car that the two of us can take on trips if we want, so I do not see a need to have two "cars." It also allows us to stagger car payments a little since my wife's car will be paid off in two months.

    Back to "why an SUV" when all of your points are pretty accurate. The number one reason is because I like the way they look and the way the road looks from the higher seating. But, without me needing V8 power, the ability to tackle the Rubicon or the ability to tow over 3500 pounds, the RX and MDX kind of fits the bill.

    I want the feel of a sedan with the cargo space of an SUV, bottomline. I am willing to venture that 90% of RX owners feel the same way.
  • m4d_cowm4d_cow Member Posts: 1,491
    "For the RX, I did see a black one roll by, and IMO it looks fairly manly. The black tied in the black rear spoiler, and SEEMS to give the vehicle a more slick and lower profile"

    Funny, i feel the same, the RX looks pretty (if not very) feminine, but somehow it turned quite manly in black+spoiler+18" wheels, not bad at all...

    hpowers: i also think x5 got the best interior design, particularly the light poplar wood trim in it, i actually want pastel green interior, but its not available for US market, well i guess ill have to order one
  • habitat1habitat1 Member Posts: 4,282
    "Being 6'2", I don't have enough legroom in most cars.....I can't see a damn thing when I try and back out with my tiny 325i."

    I hope you are not judging "most cars" by your admittedly tiny 325i. Good friend of mine who is 6'4" bought a 545i a couple of months ago and when he is in the driver's seat, there is still ample room for a 6 footer in the seat behind him. It is amazing to me how many sedans have grown in interior space. I consider my TL "cozy" but was surprised how much bigger it is inside than another friend's early Mercedes E class (1989 E300).

    I certainly respect everyone's right to choose whatever fits their needs and preferences. I'm considering trading my TL for a 2006 550i 6-speed and I certainly can't justify that move on any practical or financially prudent front.

    P.S. louiein99: On the cargo carrying capacity of the RX, however, I would suggest a close inspection and "test fit". When we traded our boxy 5-seat Trooper for the sleeker 7-seat MDX, I thought we were getting a lot more cargo space too (in 5-seat configuration). As it turns out, the more sloped rear designs of the MDX, RX, and especially Cayenne and X5 wreck havoc on "real" cargo capacity, forget what Edmunds lists as the cubic feet. For all of the dimensional increases in our MDX, cargo capicity is nominally more in than the Trooper. The RX would be much, much less, unless you pack your goods in trapezoidal boxes.
  • m4d_cowm4d_cow Member Posts: 1,491
    true, cargo isnt just about the numbers, its also about the shape of the cargo area as well, imo the sloping roof on the RX will make loading a bit difficult

    and like you said, X5s cargo carrying ability is a nightmare for those looking for utility, and cayenne is no different.
  • wmquanwmquan Member Posts: 1,817
    While it's true that cargo is also about the shape of the area, it also comes down to how one needs to use the cargo area. Obviously if one is putting in tall items, the sloping lid will inhibit what you carry.

    For us, we don't carry a bunch of garbage cans and the like in the back of the MDX, so the sloping hatch doesn't hurt us. The Pilot gets more room by not having a sloping hatch. Where both vehicles excel at is how much cargo room they have below the windowline. It's four feet between the wheel wells and the space is deep, significantly larger than the RX. You can put the contents of a Costco cart and a half in there and still get the cargo cover over it. Certainly more than what you can get into a sedan's trunk, though some larger wagons can get very close.

    That all said, you don't need an SUV to put 1.0 Costco carts' worth of junk away. My 9-3 has a large trunk and I've found that with Tetris-like packing I can usually get a non-overflowing cart totally into the trunk. Though sometimes the pack of toilet paper has to go into the passenger area.

    Of course, the "why get an SUV" question can then go into "why not get a minivan?" Which will hold more cargo and also provide the high seating position that many people buy an SUV for. But it comes down to preferences.
  • louiein99louiein99 Member Posts: 33
    Well put, but on the last point...even my wife points out...you would still be driving a minivan. :D

    In a sense, the crossover (really shouldn't call them SUVs...they aren't) fits because it gives that blend of functionality and style. A Honda Odessey is a nice vehicle...but a 29 year old male with, as the guy before me noted..."doesn't even have kids yet" would not be caught dead purchasing a very functional minivan.

    In the crossover realm: In the right/darker colors, the RX can be a manly vehicle with a unique look. The MDX is very nice, but the exterior look is somewhat bland. Even with its sloped rear door, it seems like it could handle a load better than the RX. Some of the others use V8 engines to move the bulky frames, and they boast about being the quickest vehicle in their segment. Lets be honest, 0-60 in 6.something seconds is quick, but it is by no means fast...well until you get to a Cayenne turbo, which by performance car standards isn't all that fast either...and is closing in on $100,000.

    No, most of us don't NEED to tow anything or take these puppies offroad. We want something SAFE that looks cool, and would rather spend the extra money on a few extra feet of unusable cargo space than a second or two shaved off our quarter-mile time.

    Not really sure where I was going with this ramble...but thanks for listening :)
  • wmquanwmquan Member Posts: 1,817
    The funny thing about style is that's it's, of course, subjective. Obviously as you noted, there is a segment of buyers who won't be caught dead driving a minivan. Manufacturers don't help, by making it difficult to buy AWD minivans. E.g. the Sienna AWD may be the most capable, but it's quite expensive and uses run-flats that a number of folks don't like. The Chrysler minivans don't have top-notch crash scores and reliability numbers. The Odyssey doesn't come in AWD.

    Styling is also subjective when it comes to the RX. I'm okay with the styling myself, but I know plenty of people who hate it and think it's a "chick car" no matter what the color. That's why we don't all drive the exact same vehicle, personal preferences always win out.
  • ctsangctsang Member Posts: 237
    I won't be caught dead driving a suv. I drive sienna awd which is less boxy than suv.
  • m4d_cowm4d_cow Member Posts: 1,491
    truly subjective, the only minivan/wagon i ever considered was the japanese market odissey, really sharp looking imo, and quite roomy despite its short height.

    btw what do you guys think of the new Range Rover Sport? im still looking for an suv and its now down to 2 choices: X5 or RR sport, i considered the cay s before, but the overly firm ride really blows...
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    I got my first minivan at age 36 since they were the most practical ride for canoeing and skiing, etc. (for me anyway), even if I do wish for more ground clearance occasionally. But let's divert the manliness thread over to the SUV vs. Minivans discussion.

    As far as the Cayenne, the air suspension offers a comfort mode doesn't it? And 18" wheels help too.

    highender, "Porsche Cayenne" #1116, 13 Jul 2004 2:01 pm

    Steve, Host
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    I haven't been able to warm up to the RX styling, past or present. It looks, to me, like a tall hatchback/wagon. Viewed from the back, it has kind of a "bird" styling --- roundish body on skinny legs. Looks kind of tipsy. I think they need to widen the track and/or use wider wheels and tires. Test drove on with my brother recently, and both of us were underwhelmed by its supposed vaunted luxury and quietness -- we knew going in it wasn't the most rugged of SUV, by the luxurious ride wasn't really anything to write home about either. Maybe we had set our expectations too high.
  • m4d_cowm4d_cow Member Posts: 1,491
    "As far as the Cayenne, the air suspension offers a comfort mode doesn't it?"

    True, but even the ride in comfort mode (the cay s has air suspension + 18" wheels) still cant match x5 with standard suspension.
  • SylviaSylvia Member Posts: 1,636
    A TV reporter is hoping to talk with someone who wants to purchase a Cadillac. Please respond to jfallon@edmunds.com with your daytime contact info by May 31, 2005.

    Thanks,
    Jeannine Fallon
    Corporate Communications
    Edmunds.com
  • msu79gt82msu79gt82 Member Posts: 541
    We are on our second MDX (an '04 and the wife's daily driver and the "family" car), and consider it the best vehicle we have ever owned. Last Sept I got an FX35 as my daily driver after givng serious consideration to the RX330. While I really like the RX's exterior styling I could not ever warm up to its interior. From what I have read in previous posts regarding your needs I don't think you can go wrong with the MDX - good luck with your decision.
  • m4d_cowm4d_cow Member Posts: 1,491
    recently test drove a new MB M-350, its better than i expected, roomy, comfy seats, and nice interior, though it doesnt handle or accelerate as well as the x5. Anyone got any other comments?
  • cabluecablue Member Posts: 48
    I'm interested in hearing more about the new MB M-class. This suv and the X5 seem to be the only ones that I've looked into that have the rear side-impact airbags. My kids ride with me all the time in back. Most, of course, have the window curtain bags but not the side airbags. I was seriously considering the Lexus 400h because of the gas mileage but then noticed they don't have the side airbags in back. Also impressive in the MB is the large amount of leg room in back. My kids are getting tall with long legs so this is important to me. I'm partial to BMW so comparing the two, did the MB feel a lot larger inside? Also, the MB is a new body whereas the BMW will be getting a new body very soon. I don't like the gas mileage of either, though.
  • sierrasonicsierrasonic Member Posts: 26
    I got my ML350 on Saturday after test drove Lexus, BMW, Acura, Sequoua. We decided to go for ML350. Leg room is very good comparative with Lexus and interior is better than X5. I felt that I am driving a big vehicle when I was test drove the ML 350 but I felt like Toyota camry driving when I test drove the lexus but It has the technology more than ML350. Even the Lexus exterior(body shape) looks like it is ford Wagon.
  • wmquanwmquan Member Posts: 1,817
    Since high levels of safety equipment seem to be high on your list (because you want to make sure you get rear side airbags for the thorax), the new M-class should be significantly ahead of the X5 in that regard. It's a much newer design from a manufacturer that usually produces safer vehicles than BMW, even when the models start at the same time.

    Thoracic side airbags for the rear are pretty unusual, and pretty much confined in the U.S. to MB, BMW, and Audi. But the Audi SUV isn't available yet. VW apparently makes rear thoracic side airbags available in European models but not in the U.S. Pity. I wonder if part of the reason are fears of how they'd be perceived in the U.S. market. There had been some speculation that they weren't safe for children. However, a very thorough NHTSA study demonstrated that they were safe for properly restrained children. Their testing focused on trying to create injuries by seating the dummy in all sorts of ludicrous positions. E.g. unbelted, with the dummy's back against the door! That semed to be the only way they could cause an injury.

    In fact, it's quite possible that rear thoracic side airbags could provide better protection for small children than side curtains. That's because side curtains usually provide the impact protection in the center of the rear window, much taller than the heads of children (even those in car seats). Some side curtains look like they cover the whole window but in fact have little or no padding at the bottom of the window.

    Unfortunately, MB has not yet made available for the U.S. M-class two promised safety items -- active head restraints for the front passengers,. and PRE-SAFE. They'll either come out late this model year or not until the next.
  • m4d_cowm4d_cow Member Posts: 1,491
    well, the M is a lot roomier than the x5, though im not sure if its that much safer, and definitely have more legroom both front and rear. if thats your priority, the MB is a good choice.
  • ennaceennace Member Posts: 1
    The only SUV for my money is the Range Rover and its derivative the Discovery. I'm not sure they're covered in this thread, so don't get upset if I'm in the wrong place (I'm new around here).

    These German and Japanese models amount to pretentious and expensive rubbish with no real off-road capability e.g. in mud/snow etc.

    Stick with the original SUV - LandRover.
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    Simply not true. There are plenty of Japanese and German SUV that are very capable off-road. 4Runner, Pathfinder, Xterra, GX470, Landcruiser, MB G & M class, Cayenne, Toeureg. Probably a couple more I missed.
  • maxhonda99maxhonda99 Member Posts: 1,289
    Funny post.

    The Toyota Land Cruiser has similar credentials as a Land Rover when it comes to off-roading. Not to mention the other products the poster above mentioned which are good to excellent off roaders also. Let's not forget the Mitsu Montero also, which is a excellent off roader also.

    Also, I bet you a Hummer H1 can crush a Land Rover in off-roading!
  • habitat1habitat1 Member Posts: 4,282
    "These German and Japanese models amount to pretentious and expensive rubbish with no real off-road capability e.g. in mud/snow etc."

    A Range Rover advocate calling anything else "pretentious and expensive" has got to have a screw or two loose.

    I considered the LR3 and it is an impressive vehicle. But a quick check of Range Rover resale values shows that it is the only make that would have been WORSE than the Isuzu Trooper we were getting rid of. Clearly, anyone that thinks a new Range Rover is worth the $65k+ it stickers for is going to be in for a rude awakening when they find that it has lost 50% of it's value in about 2 years. That's an expensive lesson in the price of a "pretentious" ego.
  • leswlesw Member Posts: 11
    After a terrible ownership experience with my 99 ML320 I'm surprised that I accepted the invitation to participate in a 2006 ML Road Rally organized by MB.
    The new ML both 350 and 500 are light years ahead of 1998-2005 MY.
    They are roomier, handle better, use far better materials inside and the evolutionary styling is far more attractive. I had a chance to drive 350 and 500 back-
    to-back on a performance track testing handling full speed acceleration and braking. Wow! They are as good as Cayenne and X5, but roomier and more luxurious. I prefer the clean styling of the X5 interior, but its personal.
    The greatest surprise was my observation that I prefer ML350. It is only slightly slower than 500, but more balanced, better handling (w/18") and better suited powertrain to the chassis calibration. If I confirm that the reliability has improved as drastically as the rest of the vehicle I will go back to ML.
  • ctsangctsang Member Posts: 237
    Forget your Range Rover. Go to middle east or africa, that's what I call really off road, the SUV of choice for so many years is the Toyota Landcruiser.
Sign In or Register to comment.