| MDX vs. RX vs. SRX vs. X5 vs. MKX Consumer Reports, July 2007
- Click HERE for Original Thread
|
| JeffK |
Just received the July, 2007 issue of Consumer Reports.
They ranked the Lexus RX and the MDX tops - with the Cadillac SRX in third, BMW X5 fourth and the New Lincoln MKX dead last.
In comparing the RX and the MDX, Consumer Reports stated:
"The RX 350 and MDX also have very different driving characters. Which one is better for you is a matter of personal preference.
The Rx is a luxurious and comfortable vehicle that has always done well in our tests. It new V6 engine delivers the quickest acceleration and the best fuel economy in this group, at 19 mpg overall. But the Rx isn't agile or particularly fun to drive. So drivers who prefer a cushy ride and who don't need seating for more than five might prefer the RX.
The MDX has better handling and a powertrain that feels sportier than the Lexus, but a firmer ride. Some of our staff preferred driving it to the RX. If responsive handling or a third-row seat is a high priority, the MDX might be a better choice for you."
JeffK |
|
|
| Acura Buff |
Jeff, What did CS say about the MDX's handling in comparison to the X5's ?
Thanks!
(I hope my mailman is delivering my copy tomorrow so I can read it this weekend) :) |
|
|
| drjay |
Like Acura Buff, I haven't received my copy yet, but here's some additional information from the report that a friend shared with me:
1. Lexus RX350
2. Acura MDX
3. Cadillac SRX
4. BMW X5
5. Lincoln MKX
Lexus RX350
Highs: Ride, quietness, acceleration, access, fuel economy, fit and finish, reliability
Lows: Lacks agility
Acura MDX
Highs: Agility, powertrain, ride, fit and finish, front-seat comfort
Lows: Slow rear-view camera, busy dashboard
Cadillac SRX
Highs: Agility, steering, powertrain, ride, rear-seat comfort, regular fuel.
Lows: Uncomfortable seat-mounted safety belts, driving position, emergency handling characteristics, reliability.
BMW X5
Highs: Handling, smooth powertrain, front-seat comfort, fit and finish
Lows: Ride, unintuitive controls and shifter, tiny third-row seat, delay for rear camera, two-step ignition procedure.
Lincoln MKX
Highs: Access, regular fuel, crash tests
Lows: Braking, visibility, switchgear labeling lacks contrast
---
They recommended the Lexus and Acura. The SRX has a fair reliability record and the Lincoln and BMW are too new.
Road test scores:
RX350: 80
MDX: 80
SRX: 69
X5: 67
MKX: 60 |
|
|
| Acura Buff |
Thanx, drjay for posting the highs & lows of each vehicles.
I actually got my copy of cs and here are some more cs' takes on the mdx:
"We liked its refined powertrain, quick acceleration, responsive handling and controlled ride. We found the interior fit and finish impressive and the front and second row seats comfortable."
"The controls can be daunting at first but are easy enough to operate once you become familiar with them."
"Handling is agile and composed. We found the steering responsive, and we liked its weight and feedback. When pushed to its handling limits, the mdx was stable and secure, although it posted only a modest speed in our avoidance maneuver and allowed the rear to slide out a bit before the stanard stability control kicked in, Acura's SHAWD helped quell some understeer on the track but has no effect on everyday driving."
"The firm brake pedal brought short responsive stops." |
|
|
| Fabvsix |
| I just got my copy but have read this article several times before online. What I note is the RX is "not fun to drive" but was voted a notch over the MDX......What are these guys smoking????? If it's no fun to drive WHY bother ????????????????????????????:confused: :confused: :confused: |
|
|
| coulomberic |
quote:
Originally posted by Fabvsix
I just got my copy but have read this article several times before online. What I note is the RX is "not fun to drive" but was voted a notch over the MDX......What are these guys smoking????? If it's no fun to drive WHY bother ????????????????????????????:confused: :confused: :confused:
I agree. If a wheel barrow does not have a sub-par rear view camera or a cluttered dashboard, does this make a winner? A vehicle boring to drive does not belong at the top. |
|
|
| JeffK |
Not to beat a "Dead Horse", but Toyota products for many, many years have been described as "boring but reliable".
When the first Lexus LS400 came out it went after the Mercedes while Infiniti imitated the ride of the BMW.
Well the rest is history: Americans like a soft cushy ride: Within 4 years the Infiniti Q45 (I had one) went from a BMW 5/7 series eater to a boulevard cruisers, similar to the Lexus LS400.
If you want a "sporty ride" (I do) then either German, Mazda or Acura (or Honda). If you want a plush, quiet ride with little or no feedback, then go Toyota or Lexus.
When Consumer reports rates a vehicle they give weight to reliability, fit and finish and cost. Only recently have they taken into account "fun to drive".
And if you like the "soft plushy American car ride" is there anything more reliable (on average) than a Toyota or Honda!
JeffK |
|
|
| Blackura |
quote:
Originally posted by Fabvsix
If it's no fun to drive WHY bother ????????????????????????????:confused: :confused: :confused:
"Fun to drive" usually implies stiff suspension and hard ride. Great fun on smooth roads and shorter drives, like my old CRX-Si. On northern roads with potholes and frost heaves, and on long interstate drives, "fun to drive" can also mean near-torture.
Not everybody drives only for fun on sunny weekends on perfectly smooth Southern California roads. Under those perfect circumstances, I'd much rather have a "real" sports car than an SUV opf any kind.
What it comes down to is which vehicle best meets your needs for roads and driving conditions you actually deal with on your commute everyday and which has the best compromise between "fun to drive" and "insulation from harsh elements."
For some, that means the sponginess of a Lincoln Towncar and for others it's a no-holds-barred Lotus Elise. For most of us, there's a compromise somewhere in the middle. |
|
|
| Fabvsix |
| Then get the 2007 Acura MDX "SPORT" as it gives both "comfort and sport" with the Active Damper System always working...... ! :1: |
|
|
| acuramdx300 |
| Does anybody know if the article is on the website? If so, please send me the link. |
|
|
| epiney |
quote:
Originally posted by acuramdx300
Does anybody know if the article is on the website? If so, please send me the link.
You need to be a paid subscriber to access. Not sure if they have psoted it yet. |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by JeffK
Just received the July, 2007 issue of Consumer Reports ...
Since the MDX is selling so well in the Houston area they do not really need to deal; I've tried twice and can not get a good price (partly because the trade-in on the '04 sucks :confused: )
Its just as well however because after spending more time in the new X its a vehicle I couldn't own. Several deal killers for us: head restraints are uncomfortable for my wife, no keyless entry, and the back-up camers takes 10 seconds to engage (a safety issue that CR noted).
Note also that CR gave mixed reviews on the handling; noting it "posted only a modest speed in our accident avaoidance maneuver and allowed the rear to slide out a bit" - Also they said the SH-AWD has no effect on everyday driving. |
|
|
| mkaresh |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
Note also that CR gave mixed reviews on the handling; noting it "posted only a modest speed in our accident avaoidance maneuver and allowed the rear to slide out a bit" - Also they said the SH-AWD has no effect on everyday driving.
I guess it depends on what your everyday driving is like.
I haven't gotten my copy yet, but I have driven the X5 with Sport Package and thought the ride quality was much better than on the old X5. Even the second row could use more room, though. |
|
|
| acuramdx300 |
| Man pretty soon 07's will start piling around town. I enjoyed that exclusivity. :( |
|
|
| 1SICKLEX |
quote:
Originally posted by JeffK
Not to beat a "Dead Horse", but Toyota products for many, many years have been described as "boring but reliable".
When the first Lexus LS400 came out it went after the Mercedes while Infiniti imitated the ride of the BMW.
Well the rest is history: Americans like a soft cushy ride: Within 4 years the Infiniti Q45 (I had one) went from a BMW 5/7 series eater to a boulevard cruisers, similar to the Lexus LS400.
If you want a "sporty ride" (I do) then either German, Mazda or Acura (or Honda). If you want a plush, quiet ride with little or no feedback, then go Toyota or Lexus.
When Consumer reports rates a vehicle they give weight to reliability, fit and finish and cost. Only recently have they taken into account "fun to drive".
And if you like the "soft plushy American car ride" is there anything more reliable (on average) than a Toyota or Honda!
JeffK
True but Lexus continues to improve and offer both luxury and sport and they continue to get sportier. The new IS/GS are sporty, the IS-F is coming and the LF-A is coming.
Even driving the ES 330 to ES 350 back to back shows the ES 350 is much less Caddy than before.
To many people are caught up in "sport" when they RARELY use it in the first place but they like to talk how others are not sporty.
lol |
|
|
| mkaresh |
| CR needs to make it much clearer how the vehicles were equipped. It looks like the MDX is a Tech, not a Sport. Similarly, the RX 350 might have the "Performance Package," which includes an air suspension that provides sportier handling, or it might have the standalone 18-inch wheel option. Either way, it handled better than a base RX 350. |
|
|
| Mike624 |
The post about the test model being a Tech piqued my interested because I was surprised by the X's poor showing in CR's avoidance maneuver test...
That said, it appears as though they did test a Sport model. Even though they make no mention of the "Sport/Comfort" button, their test model's base price was $45,695. Also, it was equipped with Michelins...
That would make it a Sport, correct? |
|
|
| phins2rt |
quote:
Originally posted by Mike624
That said, it appears as though they did test a Sport model. Even though they make no mention of the "Sport/Comfort" button, their test model's base price was $45,695. Also, it was equipped with Michelins...
That would make it a Sport, correct?
I thought the sport was closer to $48K including destination... |
|
|
| Fabvsix |
| yep I paid MSRP : $48, 4xx.00 seems to ring a faint bell. This was back in November of 2006...:1: |
|
|
| Mike624 |
Edmunds lists the Sport MSRP at $45,595 plus destination.
Fab -- looks like you have a Sport/Ent. MSRP + destination for that is $48,465.
-Mike |
|
|
| phins2rt |
quote:
Originally posted by Mike624
Edmunds lists the Sport MSRP at $45,595 plus destination.
Fab -- looks like you have a Sport/Ent. MSRP + destination for that is $48,465.
-Mike
Correct you are Mike. I was factoring in the Ent package as well. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
