Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
SUVs Volvo XC90 / XC60 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
|
I think it's the OTHER way around... A fully loaded HL will be equivalent to the Lexus w/Value Package. Except for anti-pinch windows. And the HL will be cheaper. Say goodbye to Lexus sales... |
|
|
I know I'm entering this discussion late, but tskyplayer's question (Post #5)intrigued me. A fully loaded RX300 (4wd, Nav) MSRP's at about $42,800 and can be bought for about $39,500. I believe that is too much to pay for a car that it seems everyone else owns. We are in the market for a 3rd vehicle and have looked hard at the RX300. What I have begun to notice is that everyone has one! They are all over the road. Lexus began as the upscale/exclusive end of Toyota. Upscale and exclusivity are tied closely to the concept of class (in the way I believe tskyplayer is asking). Therefore it seems to me that if everyone has one then it is not as upscale &/or as exclusive as the term classy seems to conotate. In this way of looking at classy, the MB, BMW, Acura could be called classy because they still qualify for upscale/exclusive by virtue of numbers alone. |
|
|
To compare the price of the Acura with the RX300 requires the RX be 4wd and optioned with leather. Once an RX is equipped with what MDX comes standard it is plain to see there is really no price difference. A discounted RX costs about as mush as an MDX at MSRP (if compared with same equipment). In my area Acura dealers are not gouging anyone! But you do pay MSRP. MDX w/ Touring and Navigation costs $39450. RX300 w/ Leather, etc, 4wd, and Nav costs ~$42500 and can be purchased for ~$39500 to $40000. So to get an RX with the same features as an MDX would cost you the same. Actually you can't get an RX with the cargo room of an MDX or with a 3rd seat option. As an aside note: The Acura MDX's rear cargo room (with the 3rd seat folded flat) greatly exceeds the room in my Expedition with it's 3rd seat tilted up! To take the Expedition's 3rd seat on a trip and have cargo room, you must tilt the 3rd seat forward. So MDX offers a significant cargo advantage over the "bigger" Expedition. |
|
| Great analysis on MDX's cargo flexibility! With 5 or 6 passengers, there's more cargo space in MDX than even the Odyssey as you'll use none or half of the 3rd seat in MDX but the whole 3rd seat in the Odyssey. | |
| What a sad perspective. I can't imagine giving weight to how many people own a particular car. Do you always shy away from popular items? How many Edsels do you own? | |
|
avery1: It is a rather superficial perspective, but I agree with msu79gt82 regarding exclusivity affecting people's choice for a new $40K car purchase. 1) Quite often, people spending well over $30K on their car purchase want a vehicle that has a certain degree of exclusivity. I think this is especially true for younger adults who are ugrading from vehicles such as Accords or Explorers into the upscale/luxury market. They don't want the same car as all the other "Jones's" in their community. And this is what I have observed: If a car is truly outstanding in the eyes of the owner, then he generally could care less if all his neighbors also own the same car. But if and when the honeymoon ends between an owner and his car (even if for very minor issues), he starts taking notice at how many other people in his community are driving the same car. He then thinks to himself, "Not only is this car not as pleasurable to drive as I had hoped, but EVERYONE seems to own one! I'm just part of the crowd!" 2) Resale value may be a valid concern for choosing a car that is not as populated on the roads, especially in a dynamic market segment in which some new competitors are seen as just as favorable from both the automotive press and the owners. Resale value may not be a concern to everyone, but I guarantee you that I always give it some thought before I make a purchase! For example, I honestly believe that the RX300s are being sold at a heavy enough volume such that their resale values will be affected a couple years from now. (I even had a Lexus salesman tell me I'd be better off leasing an RX300 instead of buying one, due to "possible" drops in resale value due to increased RX300 production.) I guarantee you that right now, many RX300 shoppers do not know about the existence of the MDX. I bet that half of today's RX300 buyers also don't know that a similar SUV, the Highlander, is about to start selling at Toyota dealers. There is a large subset of the auto buying public that do not read any automotive press releases, nor do they catch any online reviews and discussion groups such as this one. This segment of the public helps keep sales momentum strong for the models that have already proven themselves the past few years, while also helping to keep down the demand for newer models. I'm guessing that 2-5 years from now there will be at least 5 times as many used RX300s on the market as MDXs. With that differential, which SUV do you think will hold its resale value the best? 3) Exclusivity perhaps explains why some people who live in warm climate areas buy an expensive, cumbersome, and gas-guzzling SUV (such as the LX470, Range Rover, Navigator, etc) even though they don't require the cargo room, nor do they plan on going off-road! I can't relate, but I know these people purchase these vehicles under these circumstances, and exclusivity is a major factor. |
|
| Refer to the TOYOTA HIGHLANDER SUV discussion for a fascinating analysis of the relative value of a fully loaded Highlander versus an RX300. The concept of the RX300 being an "upscale" vehicle was used often (by consumer and dealer alike) as justification for favoring it over the competition. In this context (as well as the context in Post#5's question) upscale clearly refers to exclusivity and "class". In this context there is no way that a car owned by the masses can be considered "upscale"! This does not by any means detract from the very real quality of the RX300. However in my opinion it can no longer be considered "upscale" in the same sense as the MB M-Class, BMW X5, and Acura MDX Luxury SUVs. | |
|
Msu79gt82- By your definition then (of the RX300) then I propose that the MDX is not upscale either. The MDX actually is not that expensive and represents a good value if it wasn't for dealers goughing people on the price (I just had one call me). And as soon as Acura get's their act together regarding production, you'll see these things everywhere too and the price will drop to where they belong. I'm only playing devil's advocate on this subject. I don't own a MDX but consider it a good value. This whole "upscale" subject just weirds me out. Hell, I see ML 320s all over the place right now. |
|
| tonychrys has an excellent point! The concept of "upscale" has no relation to quality and/or reality. What may be considered "upscale" today may not be so tomorrow. Yet is it still a very potent selling point, even if somewhat intangible. My original intent was to suggest that numbers (of vehicles on the road) has always played a role in defining what is considered "upscale". In our country's not so distant automobile past there were supposed to be more Chevys on the road than Buicks, which in turn was supposed to outnumber Caddys! Even today there are more Suburbans on the road than Yukons. There are more Tahoes than Escalades, more Expeditions than Navigators, even more Land Cruisers than LX470s. Yet there are now more RX300s on the road than I believe can support the claim of it being "upscale" which of course has nothing to do with reality or quality. | |
|
I'll go you one step even further: I truly believe you see many more so called "upscale" vehicles on the road because folks are simply in over their heads financially. This phenomenom started back in the early 90's when personal leasing started to take off and the bank's were "overly optimistic" on the residual values. So now you had the average American who could never afford to buy an upscale vehicle, scraping together every dollar they could on a monthly basis to lease one. Everybody likes to "pretend" until the monthly bill comes and snaps them back to reality. The residuals on the RX's when they first showed up a couple of years ago were very good, hence more folks were able to get into the cars. With the MDX applying market pressure, Lexus had to then reduce the car this year by $1500, helping even more folks initially get into the car. TC |
|
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
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Mercedes-Benz M-Class
2009 Acura MDX
2006 Lexus RX 330
2010 BMW X5
2010 Cadillac SRX
2010 Toyota Highlander
2010 Volvo XC90
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
