Really curious to know what your second choices were behind the MDX (staying under 50K level). I was really interested in the X5 base level but never did drive one and realize they are mid 40's and up...I also had quite a debate going in my mind with MDX vs a nice new bimmer 3 series - but that is a whole different ballgame!
Your next choice after MDX
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
As far as SUVs, my choices were:
1. BMW X5
2. Honda Pilot
I drove both the X5 and the Pilot. The X5 handled terrific and was a nice package. Given the fact we were looking for the 3rd seat option, and that the X5 was a few thousand more, we chose the MDX. The Pilot also drove nicely (as we'd expect) and fixed a few things that are annoying on the MDX -- for instance, the Pilot has a real roof rack. Obviously the engineers who designed the MDX roof rack never used one, nor did they look at how roof racks are used.
The Mercedes SUV drove okay, but had an incredibly small 3rd seat. I just didn't see any compelling reason for the Mercedes.
We traded in our Jeep Grand Cherokee (I had three of them--I'm a slow learner) after having numerous service problems. In fact, on our way to trade-in our Jeep, we had to stop to get it serviced. It took Jeep FIVE service trips to fix a rear seat, but I wanted it fixed prior to the trade.
Sorry this got long-winded, since we just got our MDX a few days ago, this is all pretty fresh in my mind!
1. BMW X5
2. Honda Pilot
I drove both the X5 and the Pilot. The X5 handled terrific and was a nice package. Given the fact we were looking for the 3rd seat option, and that the X5 was a few thousand more, we chose the MDX. The Pilot also drove nicely (as we'd expect) and fixed a few things that are annoying on the MDX -- for instance, the Pilot has a real roof rack. Obviously the engineers who designed the MDX roof rack never used one, nor did they look at how roof racks are used.
The Mercedes SUV drove okay, but had an incredibly small 3rd seat. I just didn't see any compelling reason for the Mercedes.
We traded in our Jeep Grand Cherokee (I had three of them--I'm a slow learner) after having numerous service problems. In fact, on our way to trade-in our Jeep, we had to stop to get it serviced. It took Jeep FIVE service trips to fix a rear seat, but I wanted it fixed prior to the trade.
Sorry this got long-winded, since we just got our MDX a few days ago, this is all pretty fresh in my mind!
Joined
·
699 Posts
The 'X doesn't feel so high after a couple of weeks. My previous car was really low, so the 'X felt like I was riding a mile high. Now it feels 'normal.'
Joined
·
570 Posts
My other choice was..........TL-S!? Well, I was originally going to look at updating the '00 TL to a TL-type S. I started to see the need for more room, towing abilities(in the future), 4 Wheel / All wheel drive for winter driving. Looked and drove an MDX, there was NO OTHER that came into the thought process. I LIKE Acura vehicles:2: :4:
I did drive the 3.0 X5 too -- I did think the drive was better than the MDX. I really didn't think much about it being lower to the ground though. Overall, the MDX offered the right feature set and reliability for us; otherwise I might be driving an X5!juvee said:
Joined
·
681 Posts
Pilot must be the closest
NOW I would probably opt for the Pilot, although I've never seen one in the flesh. It should be the closest thing if you can't have an MDX.
Back when I was shopping around my next choice was, surprisingly, the Subaru Forester but it was a little small and there were too few dealers.
I drove the X5 and I would have to agree that it is very sporty AT SPEED. At low speeds (where we mostly do a lot of our driving) I thought the handling would have shamed a Panzer Tank. The though of driving that puppy in the parking garage every day made me tired to think about it.
Meep Meep
NOW I would probably opt for the Pilot, although I've never seen one in the flesh. It should be the closest thing if you can't have an MDX.
Back when I was shopping around my next choice was, surprisingly, the Subaru Forester but it was a little small and there were too few dealers.
I drove the X5 and I would have to agree that it is very sporty AT SPEED. At low speeds (where we mostly do a lot of our driving) I thought the handling would have shamed a Panzer Tank. The though of driving that puppy in the parking garage every day made me tired to think about it.
Meep Meep
Joined
·
10,732 Posts
My only other consideration was the Highlander. I remember some early comments about the MDX looking like a glorified wagon.
But one day was behind a Highlander at a stop light, and there was an MDX in the next lane. The two together, it doesn't get much better to make my comparison!
The MDX 'towered' above it, and the Highlander really looked like a station wagon in comparison.
My image of the MDX was a vehicle to reckon with, with lots of space, and had a boldness about it that said "I can get the job done!"
But one day was behind a Highlander at a stop light, and there was an MDX in the next lane. The two together, it doesn't get much better to make my comparison!
The MDX 'towered' above it, and the Highlander really looked like a station wagon in comparison.
My image of the MDX was a vehicle to reckon with, with lots of space, and had a boldness about it that said "I can get the job done!"
Joined
·
594 Posts
Sequoia
My next 2 would've been the X5 or the Toyota Sequioa. I always love the size of the Landcruiser, but WAY to much money. The X5 was too small for what we needed, and the Sequoia would have been overkill and not fit in the garage. The MDX is just right....
My next 2 would've been the X5 or the Toyota Sequioa. I always love the size of the Landcruiser, but WAY to much money. The X5 was too small for what we needed, and the Sequoia would have been overkill and not fit in the garage. The MDX is just right....
Not a popular option around here, but my (close) second choice when I purchased in 10/00 was an ML320.
Since then, it's been improved (side curtains, availability of bi-xenons, one-touch up/down all windows, etc.). Still has lots of great stuff the MDX doesn't and should have. That might make a decision today even tougher, based on my own priorities. But MB still struggles to get a fifth year vehicle to be simply average in reliability, and I find the ML320 to be somewhat underpowered. Then there's the styling, which was helped by the 2002 update, but it didn't go far enough. Hopefully the 2003 MDX will help address the differences.
Today, I'd also look strongly at the Highlander. You give up some space but the vehicle is quite high quality. Maybe the Pilot, but I'd pay the price difference and get an MDX instead, I just find it more appealing (personal priorities).
I agree with Roadrunner in that if I was willing to get a smaller SUV, the redesigned 2003 Forester would be a strong candidate. Indeed, it may well become our second car next year.
Since then, it's been improved (side curtains, availability of bi-xenons, one-touch up/down all windows, etc.). Still has lots of great stuff the MDX doesn't and should have. That might make a decision today even tougher, based on my own priorities. But MB still struggles to get a fifth year vehicle to be simply average in reliability, and I find the ML320 to be somewhat underpowered. Then there's the styling, which was helped by the 2002 update, but it didn't go far enough. Hopefully the 2003 MDX will help address the differences.
Today, I'd also look strongly at the Highlander. You give up some space but the vehicle is quite high quality. Maybe the Pilot, but I'd pay the price difference and get an MDX instead, I just find it more appealing (personal priorities).
I agree with Roadrunner in that if I was willing to get a smaller SUV, the redesigned 2003 Forester would be a strong candidate. Indeed, it may well become our second car next year.
Joined
·
219 Posts
A6 Avant
I seriously considered an A6 Avant before I bought my MDX. The quality of materials and assembly of that Audi is just stellar. It also had some stuff I like that the MDX doesn't, like express windows/sunroof, and REAL wood! I was leaning toward the MDX for reliability.
But, I talked with a guy I met on this site who owned both an MDX and an A6....he loved them both, but our discussions lead me stick out the loooong wait for the MDX, rather the immediate gratification of an A6 Avant. Space, engine power and AC performance tipped me to MDX. I haven't been sorry.
But, I still lust after those polished jewel Audi's.
I seriously considered an A6 Avant before I bought my MDX. The quality of materials and assembly of that Audi is just stellar. It also had some stuff I like that the MDX doesn't, like express windows/sunroof, and REAL wood! I was leaning toward the MDX for reliability.
But, I talked with a guy I met on this site who owned both an MDX and an A6....he loved them both, but our discussions lead me stick out the loooong wait for the MDX, rather the immediate gratification of an A6 Avant. Space, engine power and AC performance tipped me to MDX. I haven't been sorry.
But, I still lust after those polished jewel Audi's.
I also was first considering the Highlander. But after sitting in it (as passenger - car is to be wife's) and looking around at the <cheap> quality, I couldn't justify the purchase. That motivated me to search in a higher bracket, and the MDX was the clear winner.
Joined
·
616 Posts
William, say it isn't so. I considered you a kindred spirit in our lust for the WRX wagon (in silver with the BBS wheel upgrade if you please). No, not as practical as the Forester but whee-haaa tons of fun to drive. If only I could think of a justifiable reason to purchase a fourth carwmquan said:
I had MLs two of them and Expedition and X5.
The ML drives great when it is not in service.
The X5 is an even better drive and a great car, I would not call it an SUV. Trunck space is tight.
My next one will be (if I have the money) the Porsche Cayene and if not the VW Touareg (hate the name).
I like my MDX but I do not consider it to be a luxury SUV. Too many things are missing for a real luxury car.
The ML drives great when it is not in service.
The X5 is an even better drive and a great car, I would not call it an SUV. Trunck space is tight.
My next one will be (if I have the money) the Porsche Cayene and if not the VW Touareg (hate the name).
I like my MDX but I do not consider it to be a luxury SUV. Too many things are missing for a real luxury car.
Joined
·
6,531 Posts
There really was not a second choice
We traded an Expedition and so did not consider a Sequoia (Expy only had 45K on it). Took a cursory look at Highlander and RX300 but really wanted 3 rows of seats; so it was buy an MDX or keep the Expy a while longer. The MDX won:2:
We traded an Expedition and so did not consider a Sequoia (Expy only had 45K on it). Took a cursory look at Highlander and RX300 but really wanted 3 rows of seats; so it was buy an MDX or keep the Expy a while longer. The MDX won:2:
Ha! I love the WRX but probably couldn't quite justify it. I'd imagine its insurance premiums aren't great either (I could be wrong here).donsev said:
William, say it isn't so. I considered you a kindred spirit in our lust for the WRX wagon (in silver with the BBS wheel upgrade if you please). No, not as practical as the Forester but whee-haaa tons of fun to drive. If only I could think of a justifiable reason to purchase a fourth car
I also want something with more advanced side impact protection if I'm going to buy something where the passengers ride lower than an MDX. Maybe Subaru will add head-chamber airbags to the WRX like they did for the 2003 Forester. Then again, if Subaru adds some kind of head protection to all its vehicles, a Legacy or Outback might be a more practical choice for a second vehicle.
But yes, the WRX might just fulfill a midlife crisis
Joined
·
18 Posts
my other choice would be...
the X5 and the Allroad Quattro.
The X5 did not have as much room as the MDX and the Quattro was too much money for a wagon.
the X5 and the Allroad Quattro.
The X5 did not have as much room as the MDX and the Quattro was too much money for a wagon.
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!