Last post on Jul 29, 2012 at 7:31 PM
You are in the Volvo XC90
What is this discussion about?
Mercedes-Benz M-Class, Acura MDX, Lexus RX 330, BMW X5, Cadillac SRX, Toyota Highlander, Volvo XC90, SUV
#373 of 1084 getting into the game...HELP!
Mar 04, 2003 (10:03 am)
getting into the SUV game here and have only driven my father's 2000 Lexus RX300. I am going to lease this for my wife. She puts on about 10K a year and because of work, half can be written off.
Here is where I need help.
The comparison includes:
1. Mercedez ML320
2. Lexus RX300
3. Acura MDX
4. Nissan Murano
6. Infiniti FX35
7. VW touregg
8. BMW X5 3.0
Here are the factors important for her:
1. Easy to drive
2. appeal (she loves the interior of the fx and the exterior of the Jeep GC)
3. No need for a third seat, just a little extra storage
4. leasing programs (residuals, price, maintenance)
5. Safety (no need for off road capabilities)
6. The standard 6 cyl. engines in all of these are plenty
What should be my first move?
#374 of 1084 djocks
Mar 04, 2003 (10:40 am)
Does the fact that you don't mention a need for wintertime on-road adverse condition, snow and ice, capability, actually meaningful?
MDX vs X5
The MDX is predominantly FWD, only AWD up to about 18MPH. Not sure if the manual AWD switch over-rides that upper limit. But what, where, is the torque bias ratio even in AWD?
Don't know why, but you can't get HID headlamps on the MDX.
Mar 04, 2003 (11:40 am)
Yes we live in Conneticut and will encounter some snow.
#376 of 1084 XC90
Mar 04, 2003 (12:05 pm)
it seems like the Volvo should be on your list.
and isn't this a Cadidlac site? YOu could at least put the SRX on your list, even if you have no intent to buy it.
if safety and driveability are an issue, a nice wagon should be on your list. Far safer and better to drive. Also, better mpg, likely. Audi A6?
#377 of 1084 djocks
Mar 04, 2003 (12:20 pm)
The RX330 will be out in April and if the new VSC AWD firmware is coded to be aggressive then it will overshadow all of the others. Assuming you rate luxury fairly high in your "wants".
Mar 05, 2003 (9:05 pm)
The base "6" for the '03 ML is now the 350 which actually is a 3.7L engine that replaced the 3.2L after the model year started. If there still are any new '03 ML320s available, you probably could get a good lease deal. And, you left the Honda Pilot off your list.
#380 of 1084 thoughts for djocks
Mar 06, 2003 (10:34 pm)
Don't know how it might apply to your situation but the X5 has a gross vehicle weight of 6005 lbs., enough to accelerate the depreciation (big tax write-off) if leased on business. There were a lot of stories in the press in December on how heavy SUVs were bought for this reason. I love my X5 in the snow, not just for the traction but also the heated seats, heated steering wheel and heated wiper fluid jets. Park distance control makes it easy to park. HOWEVER, my wife does not think it's easy to drive. Residuals seem to be a little over 60%.
Mar 08, 2003 (11:58 am)
I dont know who was saying the CTS was a flop but that is inaccurate. The car was projected to sell about 40K units and thats what they sold. I believe it is among the top 3 or 4 entry level lux cars in monthly sales. I know it outsells the IS300 and the X-type. The SRX is projected for 30K units in its first full year which is very conservative number that will keep it relatively exclusive compared to vehicles like the RX300 which is everywhere. To be honest the SRX is directly competing with the X5, Toureg and FX45. Everything else in this class is more biased towards soccer moms and people who like Buick-soft ride quality. The SRX is more performance oriented than the RX330, Pacifica, MDX or XC90. If they only plan to sell 30K units then this vehicle should do just fine, they might even have to increase production.
Mar 08, 2003 (1:53 pm)
I guess when a car company sets low sales projections it is easier to call the sales numbers a success. So far, I have seen only one CTS on the road, so if eclucivity is the GM goal they indeed have succeeded.
We drove a loaded CTS when they first became available. It handles well and has a good feel too. The transmission is excellent and the ride comfortable. It could use a bit more power, but that will be fixed in the next model year. Skipping looks, which is different in a take it or leave it way, we found the back seat too small for us. My head hit the ceiling (I'm 5'10") and the seat was not very comfortable either (maybe because I didn't fit). The dash instruments and center stack were unreadable on the sunny day we drove the car unless the car was in the shade. The sun visor couldn't be lowered without hitting my wife's head when she drove the car. Some of the interior is hard rather than soft. The noise level at freeways speeds was higher than expected too.
It is a good start, but a work in progress and not up to the standards of other cars in the class. Maybe next model year the car will have some of of the deficiencies corrected and will be a real success, with sales well above 40,000.
The SRX sounds good, but so did the CTS. Reviews have been good and it will have a third row available, though from what I have read it will be down on luggage and hauling volume. BTW, the MDX does not have a Buick-like soft ride quality. It will be nice, however, if the "S" in SRX really does stand for sport and the vehicle does performs that way too.