Last post on Jul 29, 2012 at 6:31 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
#896 of 1084 Re: MDX or RX330 [hpowders]
May 21, 2005 (6:57 am)
"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.
May 22, 2005 (12:25 am)
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.
May 22, 2005 (4:51 am)
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.
#899 of 1084 Re: Cargo [wmquan]
May 22, 2005 (8:08 pm)
Well put, but on the last point...even my wife points out...you would still be driving a minivan.
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
#900 of 1084 Re: Cargo [louiein99]
May 22, 2005 (9:38 pm)
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.
#901 of 1084 Re: Cargo [wmquan]
May 23, 2005 (6:46 am)
I won't be caught dead driving a suv. I drive sienna awd which is less boxy than suv.
#902 of 1084 about looks
May 23, 2005 (7:02 am)
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...
May 23, 2005 (7:53 am)
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
#904 of 1084 Re: Cargo [wmquan]
May 23, 2005 (8:26 am)
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.
May 24, 2005 (5:54 am)
"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.