You are here: Forums SUVs Volvo XC90 / XC60 Volvo XC90 vs MB M Class vs Acura MDX vs Lexus RX 350 vs BMW X5 vs Cadillac SRX

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

1068 messages,  Last post on May 08, 2009 at 5:44 PM

You are in the Volvo XC90 / XC60 Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester

What is this discussion about? Mercedes-Benz M-Class, Acura MDX, Lexus RX 330, BMW X5, Cadillac SRX, Toyota Highlander, Volvo XC90, SUV

#31 of 1068 Nav, Reliability by wmquan Nov 25, 2000 (5:36 am)
I noticed the U.S. MB web site doesn't list the nav option for the ML320; is it a dealer-installed option in the U.S? (Though other dealer-installed options were listed.) If it's $1,500, it's definitely cheaper than the $2,000 Acura wants for the nav system (factory installation only). My understanding is that Acura's system earns raspberries for coverage that is more limited outside urban areas, but it earns kudos for ease-of-use (even though Alpine makes the base system, the controls and usage differ). bjacob1, you can access JD Power quality ratings at: http://www.jdpower.com/auto/jdpa_ratings/FindJdAwards.jsp 1st-half model year 2000 ML320's have roughly average reliability, as mentioned in Healey's article: "Though improving, M-class quality remains below average, according to a J.D. Power and Associates survey. Owners of new vehicles registered in March and April [2000]reported 165 problems per 100 vehicles. Industry average: 157." Technically, I'd think that 165 is close to the average of 157, unless the standard deviation is very low. Unfortunately, the results still leave the M-class in the bottom 30% according to JD Power, albeit probably near the top end of that. Take it for what it's worth, as posters here report an improvement. Odyssey also is not rated that well by JD Power; as clchu pointed out, the MDX is based on it and made at the same plant. Dunno yet if they're putting more effort into the higher-end vehicle. Note that while JD Power rates the Odyssey lower, Consumer Reports rates it above average. Lexus RX300 rated very well in JD Power, though only "average" by Consumer Reports. Other criteria to consider: - How important is it to have Xenon headlamps? - Are foglamps required? Any qualms about them not being street-legal?
#32 of 1068 silly1040 by wmquan Nov 25, 2000 (10:36 pm)
Thanks for your comment. As I said, everyone needs to put together their own list of priorities. In your case, it sounds like reliability is a very high priority (probably to above average or better, and probably with a proven history if I read your reaction correctly), so that would of course affect your selection of vehicle. Some folks don't seem to mind having average reliability (or even worse!) as much; warranties cover any fix, and the other facets of the vehicle offset the reliability. E.g. a good example is the Infiniti QX4: seems like excellent quality, but its IIHS crash test scores are "marginal." What do you do? The ML320 wouldn't your criteria, based on the currently available historical information (technically, it's actually slightly below average, based on numbers from the first half of the 2000 model year). Similarly, the MDX may not fit that bill either. While I don't see it doing worse than the present-day ML320 (it'll probably be as good, which certainly isn't what one would expect from Honda/Acura, and it could be better, though first year models always suffer; see my Odyssey comments), we won't know about MDX numbers for quite some time.                                                   SUV's in general are more complex vehicles than basic sedans, so it's understandable, even though it may be disappointing, that you don't find a wide range of them with the highest quality scores. Hopefully over time that will change. Even the Lexus RX300 doesn't carry the highest reliability score (does well with JD Power, only average by Consumer Reports's surveys). The Lexus carries the second-best proven reliability scores among the $40k luxury utes (after the QX4), but it is definitely a cut below Lexus's mroe reliable sedans. So you either "settle" or break out of this class of vehicle. Spending $40k on a high-reliability sedan is an alternative, though most folks looking for an SUV wouldn't make that choice.
#33 of 1068 William by aling Nov 25, 2000 (11:07 pm)
If excellent reliablity is a top priority, I think one has to rule out all of the European name brands (BMW/Jaguar/MB/Volvo/Saab) since they have about average or better than average reliability. Acura, Infiniti or (especially) Lexus will be the main choices as far as luxury brand names go. I know that a couple of my parents' friends have upgraded from Toyota Camrys to Lexus LS400s precisely because of this. Interestingly, those who have moved from Japanese to European makes haven't gone back (Mazda/Subaru to MB, and Lexus to BMW). Perhaps they feel that the superior driving/ownership experience and cachet of the brand name is worth the extra dealership visits. Parts cost isn't really a factor around here since (as the CAA report showed), the pricing is comparable to Japanese and domestic makes. Drew/aling Townhall Community Leader/Vans Conference
#34 of 1068 Re: Purchase of new SUV by psherrod Nov 26, 2000 (9:19 pm)
I suggest you add one more vehicle to the list of SUVs that you are considering: the Infiniti QX4. I made multiple test drives in all of the SUVs you mentioned (except for the MDX which wasn't out then) as well as several others and decided a 2001 QX4 was the best of the lot. It is solid, has an excellent silky smooth and powerful engine, looks very luxurious inside and out and has an outstanding reliability record. It is also more of a "real" SUV than a station wagon on steroids like the RX300. I also insisted on getting a navigation system in my SUV. The nav system in the QX4 is EXCELLENT. It has a very easy to use touch screen, it has the best voice guidance I've ever heard, and it has thousands of points of interest built in. But the unique feature of the QX4 system that no other brand has is the "BirdView" display. Rather than showing a planar map view, the BirdView display is from from a point behind and above the vehicle looking in the direction you are driving. So you see your "car" on the road and then see the road winding off into the distance. Because of the natural perspective effect, the closer roads are larger and in more detail, but you can see what the road is doing far into the distance and you can see cities near the horizon. You can touch a button to switch between BirdView and normal planar map view, but I use BirdView 99% of the time. I looked at a number of other navigation systems, and I believe the Infiniti is the best and easiest to use.
#35 of 1068 Drew by wmquan Nov 26, 2000 (9:36 pm)
Interestingly, those who have moved from Japanese to European makes haven't gone back (Mazda/Subaru to MB, and Lexus to BMW). Perhaps they feel that the superior driving/ownership experience and cachet of the brand name is worth the extra dealership visits. No doubt that MB and BMW carry more cachet for more people than Lexus (and even more so for Acura, which many consider a step below Lexus). "Superior" ownership experience depends not just on the brand you buy, but also a lot on your dealership, and which model you buy. I daresay at most MB dealerships, you get a lot nicer ownership experience if you buy an S-class than a M-class. That's not to say M-class ownership experiences aren't always superior either, but you don't get the same type of treatment at many dealerships (e.g. you get a Dodge Neon for a loaner, someone doesn't come over to pick your vehicle up for servicing). My point is, the ownership experience for buying an under $30k Subaru or Mazda for $200 above invoice is certainly going to be different than buying a $40k+ M-class or a $55k+ E-class. Interestingly, those who have moved from Japanese to European makes haven't gone back (Mazda/Subaru to MB, and Lexus to BMW). That could be more than just cachet. When you go up from Mazda/Subaru to MB, you're probably getting a better vehicle, even without the three-pointed star; so it's not surprising that you don't go go back (since people's incomes and ability to afford more sophisticated and costly vehicles tends to grow higher). Lexus to BMW, not just cachet, but also the driving experience you mentioned. If these are your parent's friends, then it's also likely that they're older, and the longer histories of MB and BMW as prestige brands also becomes a factor. That's why a lot of Cadillac buyers are typically in a significantly high age demographic. Also, in some ways, older buyers tend to be more tolerant of lower quality and less-frequent visits to the dealerships, because they grew up with vehicles that have lower quality than what many younger buyers have experienced. E.g. I complained when the tranny on my Integra went out at 26k, that it wasn't supposed to happen (at least statistically, based on survey numbers, but I got "lucky"), but my in-laws do the usual, "one major problem in 26k miles? you're spoiled ... let me tell you about that Vega we had ..."
#36 of 1068 wmquan - crash tests by bjacob1 Nov 27, 2000 (12:07 pm)
I've taken your advice and put together a list of what I want in an SUV (re:your prior post). The question now is where to I find the answers? I saw the link to the reliability comparison but where do I find crash tests? Right now I'm leaning toward the Lexus RX300 fully loaded w/ Nav. pkg + tow, pkg + heated seats (MSRP $44,400) w/ the best price I can find at $40,000 + taxes in Maryland/Va. area.
#37 of 1068 ML vs. RX by artc1688 Nov 27, 2000 (7:18 pm)
Similar to many people here, we are also hindering between the RX and the ML. I noticed that RX does not have the rear passenger's air bags, where ML offers this safety equipment as a standard. still confused about how much risks on the MB quality I am willing to risk......
#38 of 1068 bjacob1 by wmquan Nov 27, 2000 (8:19 pm)
Up to you, but if you still feel you need advice, you can share some of your priorities with us and we'll try to help. Obviously every individual has their own little preferences and biases but hopefully we'd try to be objective to help you, if you'd like. There are two types of crash tests you can review: IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) and NHTSA (National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration, part of the U.S. government. NHTSA publishes the famous "star" ratings, for front and sometimes side collisions. IIHS, so far, publishes ratings for offset-frontal collisions, which many believe is more "real-world" than the NHTSA front collision test. IIHS ratings are at: http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ratings.htm NHTSA ratings are at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/testing/ncap/ The RX300 has done very well in the IIHS crash test, earning an rating of "good," which is the highest IIHS rating (note that the ML320 also earned a "good"; the MDX has not yet been tested but most think it will be "good," but that's not yet proven). NHTSA results for the 2001 model won't be released until sometime in December (I could have sworn it had been tested in the past, though). The RX300 is an excellent vehicle, and I think a good fit if you have some of the following priorities: - You want a very car-like SUV; the RX300 is the most car-like, for sure. The ML320 is truck-based, and while relatively car-like compared to most SUV's, is the least car-like of the three you mentioned interest in. The MDX is in-between, probably closer to the RX in being car-like. - You want an SUV with a very smooth ride. The RX300 isn't an LS430 in terms of ride, but it is noticeably smoother than an MDX, and much smoother than an ML320, which can be quite jarring for those expecting a car-like smooth ride. - You want an SUV with a luxurious, plush interior. The RX300's has high-quality materials in abundance. The ML320 has some high-quality materials, but is more understated and uses them less (e.g. the "all-leather" front seats have hard plastic shrouds covering most of their backs). The MDX definitely doesn't have as many high quality materials as the other two (fake wood, more hard plastic, leather-trimmed seats). - You want the most luxury features; overall, the RX300 is the best in this category. E.g. one-touch power-up/down windows for all windows. - You want a high degree of proven reliability; the RX300 has the best quality scores of the three, from Consumer Reports and JD Power. The ML has historically been well below average, and the most recent surveys available (on 1st half 2000 models) show it as very close to average, but still slightly below. The MDX is an unknown; it'll probably fall somewhere in between. - You want xenon headlamps; they are available on the RX300 as an option. They are also available on the ML320, but as factory options, only as part of an expensive sport package. The MDX does not offer xenon headlamps. The RX300 doesn't meet some of the following priorities as well as the others; these may not be your's, of course: - If you need a lot of cargo room, the RX300 is the most limited of the three, though it's not too bad (you can adjust the position of the second row seat, and/or fold it down). - Similarly, you do not need a lot of payload capacity; the RX300 has a relatively limited payload compared to the the ML320 and MDX. Perhaps someone can chime in here with the number but I thought it was under 900 lbs (ML320 and MDX are in the 1,300-1,400 lb range). Exceeding recommended payload greatly increases the risk of rollover. - If you need to occasionally seat more than 5 passengers, the RX300 will not meet that need. The MDX will seat 5 adults plus 2 children in a third-row seat, the ML320 will seat 5 adults plus 2 (slightly larger) children in an optional third row seat. - You want off-road capability. The ML is the beste for this, though it's supposedly only for "medium" duty off-roading. The MDX is supposedly capable of some light off-roading but the ML was at least designed for this (low range, underbody protection). The RX isn't aimed at the off-roading customer profile. - You want a higher degree of driving feel. The RX300 is the most softly sprung of the three, and has more body roll and less road feel (though its steering feel is excellent). Lexus has stiffened up the suspension a bit to improve it. The ML320 probably has the sharpest handling (though the MDX Touring beats it on the skidpad), and the MDX is very close. This is a highly subjective category that you'd have to drive yourself to decide. ================ The RX300 should be quite safe, when driven within its limits (e.g. don't overload it, be careful about body roll). It has stability control and braking assist, which the ML320 also hss, but the MDX does not. The RX300 lacks the rear side airbags of the ML320 (the MDX lacks them too). The ML320 probably has the most solid construction of the three, and there are documented photos available to show how it stands up to collisions. However, the ML320 is not as child-friendly as the RX300. E.g. it doesn't have pinch-protection for the power windows (MDX doesn't either), though you can at least lock them, and still lacks door-ajar warning indicators. Child-proof door locks are now available as a retrofit (probably around $300 installed by your dealership). The RX300 has the ISOFIX/LATCH system of securing a child seat, which is better than the conventional lap/shoulder belt attachments of the MDX and ML320.
#39 of 1068 artc1688 by wmquan Nov 27, 2000 (8:22 pm)
Everyone's tolerance of quality risk is going to be different. If it makes it any better, most problems found in the ML320 seem to be easily and permanently fixed by qualified dealership service departments. Please make sure that the dealerships in your area are good; you can ask in the ML forum or the M-class mailing list, regarding the quality of dealership service departments in your area. If you're shaky about service quality, then that could give you major pause. I had read some pretty negative comments about MB service in my own area, including problems requiring repeated fix attempts, and the service technician just giving up, not being able to figure out the problem.
#40 of 1068 artc1688 by thor8 Nov 28, 2000 (2:07 am)
To me it sounds like a record stuck repeating the same thing over and over, quality and reliability in the ML, dubious. Two years ago when I bought my 99 ML 430 I did not know about edmunds, months later after the purchase I found edmunds and started readings about the bad reviews, the lowest rating in quality and build, oh boy, I became concerned, I have a pile of junk, suchs were the negatives. Two years later and 38,000 miles and going from border to border I had ZERO problems, only oil changes (more frequent than recomended) not even a rattle. I tow two big jet skies in a big trailer with other gear in a cargo area, total weigth about 4800 lbs and cruise about 80 and no strain, in very steep boat ramps the traction is superb and the availability of deep reduction is a plus I will never do without. Monitoring the ML forum for over a year, 99% is chit chat about little stuff, never read about someone being stranded on the road, what reliability concerns? Visiting the plant in Alabama, I bougth several books about mercedes, in their 110 years they have tens of thousands of patents, safety being their main concern, they are the leaders in the area and pioners in crash testing, crashing more cars than anybody, the methods they device become standardt for goverment agencies, offset crashing being one of them, one of their leading designers in structural design has over 2500 patents, the crumple zone being one of them in 1951, and keeping with mercedes policy they never enforced a safety patent. My ML experience

You are here: Forums SUVs Volvo XC90 / XC60 Volvo XC90 vs MB M Class vs Acura MDX vs Lexus RX 350 vs BMW X5 vs Cadillac SRX