- Oct 9, 1999
- 72,636
- 47
- 91
2002 Luxury Crossover Comparison Test: Acura MDX, Audi All-Road, BMW X5, Lexus RX300
- Thread starter NFS4
- Start date
- Oct 9, 1999
- 72,636
- 47
- 91
I honestly don't see how the X5 could even tie for first place:|:|
Give me a fuggin' break...the MDX should have won straight out with the All-road in second and the X5 in third. The X5 can't even hold a decent amount of stuff and it's stereo was dead last. And the bitch was $50,000 with a FUGGIN 6 under the hood.
I swear these guys must be sucking BMW's wang
come on nfs4... if money wasn't an issue...
and someone decided to buy you any one of the four suvs... you wouldn't pick x5?
don't get me wrong... i love mdx and all-road. and i have no idea what rx300 is doing in there.
but i'd take x5 over mdx any day... and to me audi is more of a forrester or v70XC level than an SUV.
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
Yeh, I'm calling BS too.
If I've got a family, the MDX is the hands down choice. If I actually want one with some off road prowess, some punch under the hood, and decent road manners, I'd go with the allroad. The BMW is just something to bolster your ego. It really offers nothing over the Audi or the Acura.
If I've got a family, the MDX is the hands down choice. If I actually want one with some off road prowess, some punch under the hood, and decent road manners, I'd go with the allroad. The BMW is just something to bolster your ego. It really offers nothing over the Audi or the Acura.
I call BS too. I don't like the looks of any of these (IMO, true SUV's are Expeditions, Hummers, Landcruisers, etc.) but I would have to pick the Lexus. It rides so damn smooth you never would have guessed its an "SUV".
Didnt the MDX win SUV of the year by Motor Trend or someone else? This is the first positive reveiw I haev heard of the x5
Does it list the prices of all of these? I looked but I dont see it. I thought the X5 was significantly more expensive than the rest... maybe not.
Spac3d
Didnt the MDX win SUV of the year by Motor Trend or someone else? This is the first positive reveiw I haev heard of the x5
Does it list the prices of all of these? I looked but I dont see it. I thought the X5 was significantly more expensive than the rest... maybe not.
Spac3d
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 67
- 91
I have to agree - the X5 is all sport, no ute, and to me it is the least compelling current Bimmer. The MDX seems like the no-brainer winner in this competition, but the automotive press is (usually for good reason) BMW's bitch.
- Oct 9, 1999
- 72,636
- 47
- 91
Do you know what kinds of SUV's I could get for $50,000?? Hell, I could have a loaded Sequoia, Tahoe, Expedition, Land Cruiser...hell a LOT of more competent vehicles than the poser X5 that has less cargo capacity than a 3-Series Wagon.
There isn't much functionality in the X5 IMHO other than the BMW name.
yeah... i agree... in that x5... in bmw's lineup comes up short in comparison.
but if someone just decided to buy you any one of the four... you wouldn't go for x5?
that's all i'm saying. i haven't driven mdx... but i had a chance to drive 4.4i and there's not much that i didn't like about that car.
except perhaps the price tag but that goes without saying for bmw's. no?
- Oct 9, 1999
- 72,636
- 47
- 91
If someone gave me one, I'd sell it QUICKLY. There is just not enough "vehicle" there to justify the price. I'd probably sell it and pick up a Toyota Highlander Limited AWD + Mini Cooper S.
That way I could have some crossover lovin' plus some BMW lovin' as well.
<< Like any buying decision, it all comes down to what you want from your vehicle. In the end, we couldn't decide what we liked the best: the functionality of the MDX or the performance of the X5. If neither of these attributes seems appealing to you, then maybe the luxury of the Lexus or the unique character of the Audi will win you over. Needless to say, all of these vehicles provide an above-average driving experience in one form or another, so regardless of what you settle on, you're more than likely to enjoy the ride. >>
I personally like the MDX and the RX300 over any of the other two.
GIVE ME X5 ANYDAY, i dont care that it has no cargo room, its still an SUV and it's a BMW. MDX should be #2, then audi then Lexus, which is crap.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,395
- 8,558
- 126
the BMW won more tests than it lost, it looks like. that'd give it a first place nod.
as for stereo, if the acura has what acura usually has, which is bose, then i'm not putting any stock into its stereo coming in first.
and acura has awful leather. more vinyl feeling than BMW's vinyl.
besides, the MDX and RX300 are both ugly as sin.
as for stereo, if the acura has what acura usually has, which is bose, then i'm not putting any stock into its stereo coming in first.
and acura has awful leather. more vinyl feeling than BMW's vinyl.
besides, the MDX and RX300 are both ugly as sin.
- Oct 9, 1999
- 72,636
- 47
- 91
Originally posted by: Beau6183
I'm a little confused, I thought you liked the X5
Oh well.....
I've always thought the X5 was overpriced and rather useless in the "utility" part of SUV. Passenger space and cargo space are woefully short and a 5-Series wagon makes a better choice. But if you want the best handling SUV, there's no other choice.
I just don't quite understand it...I mean it has no cargo room and is more expensive, handles poorer, gets worse gas mileage, and is not as good looking as a 5-Series Wagon. But, who am I to judge someone's purchases
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,395
- 8,558
- 126
handles poorer? seems like it won every one of those tests...Originally posted by: NFS4
I just don't quite understand it...I mean it has no cargo room and is more expensive, handles poorer, gets worse gas mileage, and is not as good looking as a 5-Series Wagon. But, who am I to judge someone's purchases
of course, i'm of the opinion that most SUV buyers would be better served by a regular station wagon, so i guess i'd agree with you about the 5 wagon being a better choice...
speaking of wagons theres an S4 avant here in the parking lot at work... damn sweet ride.
- Oct 9, 1999
- 72,636
- 47
- 91
Originally posted by: ElFenix
handles poorer? seems like it won every one of those tests...Originally posted by: NFS4
I just don't quite understand it...I mean it has no cargo room and is more expensive, handles poorer, gets worse gas mileage, and is not as good looking as a 5-Series Wagon. But, who am I to judge someone's purchases
of course, i'm of the opinion that most SUV buyers would be better served by a regular station wagon, so i guess i'd agree with you about the 5 wagon being a better choice...
speaking of wagons theres an S4 avant here in the parking lot at work... damn sweet ride.
I was comparing the X5 to the 5-Series wagon when I was talking about handling, space, price, etc.
X5 is the best handling SUV at the moment... MB M-class AMG migh be a bit more powerfull and faster, but BMW still holds the crown of the ultimate driver and handler.... Untill the Porsche gets here that is.
I dont care if i cant fit anything usefull into the X5... Its just pure fun to drive, and you can still take it camping/offroading once in a while. I dont think the MDX is more off-road capable, and it has just a tad more space, but its no BMW... Its still a good choice for people with less cash.
I dont care if i cant fit anything usefull into the X5... Its just pure fun to drive, and you can still take it camping/offroading once in a while. I dont think the MDX is more off-road capable, and it has just a tad more space, but its no BMW... Its still a good choice for people with less cash.
The X5 is a sorry excuse for an SUV. Good handling? All it is a glorified 5-series with a higher riding height. If you want handling... go with the 5-series. Who cares about handling of a friggin SUV? SUVs are designed for certain things, and handling isn't one of them.
As for off-roading... very few people would take a $50,000 off-road. Of those people, none of them would be driving an X5. No matter what you hear, the X5 cannot tame the off-road.
Toyota LandCruiser is a MUCH better value. X5 is simply for those people with lots of money that want an SUV and want a BMW. The only positives of the X5 are good handling and the BMW logo... these aren't things people should consider when buying an SUV.
- Oct 9, 1999
- 72,636
- 47
- 91
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL, don't kid your self there little buddy
1) Best handling for an SUV...but given the situations that most SUV's are put in those limits are NEVER even fully reached unless you are burning down backroads or around slalom cones.
2) The article said that you could hardly fit a laundry basket behind the back seats. WTF is up with that?? That is downright crap. And NE1 that offroads in a X5 is more brave than NE1 on this forum. 99.9% of X5's will never see a rock bigger than a baseball. If you plan on camping in an X5 with 3 other people, you had better bring a trailer b/c you won't be able to fit much in the cargo area behind the rear seats.
3) "Tad" more space?? PUUUUUUUHLEASE.
Cargo Space
MDX: MAX / behind rear seat 82 cu ft / 49.6 cu ft (3 times as much as the X5)
X5: MAX/ behind rear seat 54.4 cu ft / 16.1 cu ft (about as much as in my Camry sedan)
Not to mention that the MDX offers much more interior space for its passangers.
Also, the MDX and X5 are about equal in off-roading, but I'd give the edge to the MDX with it's higher ground clearance (by almost an inch) and more compliant suspension.
The X5 is all name and little substance IMHO.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter