Consumer Reports reviews MDX, X5, SRX, RX350, MKX, and Navigator

  1. Welcome to GM Inside News Forum – General discussion forum for GM

    Welcome to GM Inside News Forum - a website dedicated to all things GM.

    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, Join GM Inside News Forum today!
     
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Consumer Reports reviews MDX, X5, SRX, RX350, MKX, and Navigator

  1. #1
    4.6 Liter Northstar V8
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Fort Washington, MD
    Posts
    1,880
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Consumer Reports reviews MDX, X5, SRX, RX350, MKX, and Navigator

    CR rankings of all premium SUVs tested by CR: (models in italics are new for this month and models in bold are Recommended by CR.)

    EXCELLENT:
    1. Lexus RX400H: 83 points ($49,883)

    VERY GOOD:
    2. Lexus RX350: 80 points ($45,706)
    3. Acura MDX: 80 points ($46,365)

    4. Mercedes-Benz GL450: 77 points ($67,820)
    5. Mercedes-Benz R500: 76 points ($62,055)
    6. Volvo XC90 V8: 74 points ($47,685)
    7. Infiniti FX35: 71 points ($39,960)
    8. Audi Q7 4.2: 69 points ($57,920)
    9. Cadillac SRX 3.6: 69 points ($48,240)
    10. Mercedes-Benz ML350: 69 points ($48,880)
    11. Lexus GX470: 68 points ($51,787)
    12. BMW X5 3.0si: 67 points ($56,745)
    13. Lincoln Navigator Ultimate: 65 points ($59,015)

    14. Land Rover SE V8: 61 points ($50,015)
    15. Cadillac Escalade: 61 points ($64,905)
    16. Lincoln MKX: 60 points ($43,595)


    Specific ratings of each car in this month's group:

    Acceleration:
    RX350: 5/5 (0-60: 7.3 seconds, QM: 15.8 seconds)
    MDX: 4/5 (0-60: 8.0 seconds, QM: 16.3 seconds)
    SRX: 4/5 (0-60: 8.3 seconds, QM: 16.4 seconds)
    X5: 4/5 (0-60: 8.6 seconds, QM: 16.7 seconds)
    Navigator: 4/5 (0-60: 8.8 seconds, QM: 16.6 seconds)
    MKX: 4/5 (0-60: 8.2 seconds, QM: 16.3 seconds)

    Transmission:
    RX350: 5/5
    MDX: 5/5
    SRX: 5/5
    X5: 4/5
    Navigator: 4/5
    MKX: 4/5

    Routine Handling:
    RX350: 3/5
    MDX: 4/5
    SRX: 4/5
    X5: 4/5
    Navigator: 3/5
    MKX: 4/5

    Emergency Handling:
    RX350: 3/5 (Avoidance maneuver max speed: 50.5 mph)
    MDX: 3/5 (Avoidance maneuver max speed: 48.0 mph)
    SRX: 3/5 (Avoidance maneuver max speed: 51.5 mph)
    X5: 4/5 (Avoidance maneuver max speed: 53.0 mph)
    Navigator: 2/5 (Avoidance maneuver max speed: 48.0 mph)
    MKX: 3/5 (Avoidance maneuver max speed: 49.0 mph)

    Braking:
    RX350: 4/5 (60-0: 130 feet dry, 141 feet wet)
    MDX: 4/5 (60-0: 134 feet dry, 139 feet wet)
    SRX: 4/5 (60-0: 138 feet dry, 152 feet wet)
    X5: 4/5 (60-0: 130 feet dry, 142 feet wet)
    Navigator: 3/5 (60-0: 149 feet dry, 167 feet wet)
    MKX: 3/5 (60-0: 149 feet dry, 162 feet wet)

    Headlights:
    RX350: 1/5
    MDX: 3/5
    SRX: 3/5
    X5: 3/5
    Navigator: 3/5
    MKX: 4/5

    Ride:
    RX350: 4/5
    MDX: 4/5
    SRX: 4/5
    X5: 3/5
    Navigator: 4/5
    MKX: 4/5

    Noise:
    RX350: 4/5
    MDX: 4/5
    SRX: 4/5
    X5: 4/5
    Navigator: 4/5
    MKX: 4/5

    Driving Position:
    RX350: 4/5
    MDX: 4/5
    SRX: 3/5
    X5: 4/5
    Navigator: 3/5
    MKX: 3/5

    Front-Seat Comfort:
    RX350: 4/5
    MDX: 5/5
    SRX: 4/5
    X5: 5/5
    Navigator: 4/5
    MKX: 4/5

    Rear-Seat Comfort:
    RX350: 4/5
    MDX: 4/5
    SRX: 4/5
    X5: 4/5
    Navigator: 5/5
    MKX: 4/5

    Access:
    RX350: 5/5
    MDX: 4/5
    SRX: 4/5
    X5: 4/5
    Navigator: 4/5
    MKX: 4/5

    Controls and Displays:
    RX350: 4/5
    MDX: 4/5
    SRX: 4/5
    X5: 2/5
    Navigator: 3/5
    MKX: 4/5

    Interior Fit and Finish:
    RX350: 5/5
    MDX: 5/5
    SRX: 4/5
    X5: 5/5
    Navigator: 4/5
    MKX: 4/5

    Cargo Area:
    RX350: 3/5
    MDX: 3/5
    SRX: 3/5
    X5: 3/5
    Navigator: 5/5
    MKX: 3/5

    Fuel Economy:
    RX350: 2/5 (19 mpg)
    MDX: 1/5 (17 mpg)
    SRX: 1/5 (16 mpg)
    X5: 1/5 (17 mpg)
    Navigator: 1/5 (13 mpg)
    MKX: 1/5 (16 mpg)

    Reliability:
    RX350: 4/5
    MDX: 4/5
    SRX: 2/5
    X5: Unknown
    Navigator: Unknown
    MKX: Unknown

  2. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8 Butz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    8,048
    Thanks
    292
    Thanked 129 Times in 73 Posts
    My Ride
    DC Metro

    Re: Consumer Reports reviews MDX, X5, SRX, RX350, MKX, and Navigator

    They sure love Lexus

  4. #3
    Ach
    Ach is offline
    4.6 Liter Northstar V8 Ach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,770
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Consumer Reports reviews MDX, X5, SRX, RX350, MKX, and Navigator

    Wow, a little too broad of a price range in that comparo.
    The Fleet:
    2010 Ford Fusion Sport AWD
    2000 Ford SVT Contour
    1998 Jeep Grand Cherokee
    1985 BMW 635CSi

    The Past:
    2007 Lincoln MKZ
    1997 Lincoln Mark VIII LSC
    1995 BMW 530i
    1998 Olds Aurora
    1994 Infiniti Q45t
    1988 Cadillac Sedan DeVille
    1989 Acura Legend Coupe L
    1989 Olds Eighty Eight Royale

  5. #4
    3.6 Liter SIDI V6
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1,230
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Consumer Reports reviews MDX, X5, SRX, RX350, MKX, and Navigator

    2/5 reliability for the SRX?? CR is such junk, how about a 0/5 Reliability score for Consumer Reports.

  6. #5
    4.6 Liter Northstar V8 mystikranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,932
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Consumer Reports reviews MDX, X5, SRX, RX350, MKX, and Navigator

    It's very normal for Consumer Reports to do a broad spand of random vehicles together. I'm suprised they didn't include a Hyundai or Kia.

    I'm suprised MKX didn't do as well or the same as the RX350.

    Current Ride:
    2007 Chevy HHR LT
    Future Ride:
    2010 Camaro SS

  7. #6
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8 BrickTamland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Waterville, OH
    Posts
    6,962
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Consumer Reports reviews MDX, X5, SRX, RX350, MKX, and Navigator

    About the price range - the Navigator was not actually part of the comparison. It was on the page following the comparison.
    I reject your reality and substitute my own.
    Current: Galaxy Gray 2007 Mazda 3 s Grand Touring
    Former: Super Black 2003 Nissan Maxima SE
    Brilliant Blue Metallic 1995 Ford Explorer XLT 4WD

  8. #7
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8 Butz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    8,048
    Thanks
    292
    Thanked 129 Times in 73 Posts
    My Ride
    DC Metro

    Re: Consumer Reports reviews MDX, X5, SRX, RX350, MKX, and Navigator

    Quote Originally Posted by Joevette
    2/5 reliability for the SRX?? CR is such junk, how about a 0/5 Reliability score for Consumer Reports.
    They are the least reliable magazine

  9. #8
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8 fp115's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,341
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Consumer Reports reviews MDX, X5, SRX, RX350, MKX, and Navigator

    Hmmm why did they test the V6 SRX? At least those look like the V6 RWD numbers.

  10. #9
    4.6 Liter Northstar V8
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Fort Washington, MD
    Posts
    1,880
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Consumer Reports reviews MDX, X5, SRX, RX350, MKX, and Navigator

    Quote Originally Posted by fp115
    Hmmm why did they test the V6 SRX? At least those look like the V6 RWD numbers.
    The SRX, like the X5, RX, and MKX, was V6 AWD.

    And yes, as BrickTamland said, the Navigator wasn't in a direct comparison with the smaller vehicles (though it's not much more money than the X5). Its closest competitors, such as the Escalade, came out earlier for a previous back-to-back review.

  11. #10
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,905
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Consumer Reports reviews MDX, X5, SRX, RX350, MKX, and Navigator

    completely random and i still don't understand as usual. Of course we all know of their flawed reporting methods so that probably influences the mis-decisions.

    CobaltSScrazy
    2005 Cobalt SS

  12. #11
    2.4 Liter SIDI ECOTEC Fiero GT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    182
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Consumer Reports reviews MDX, X5, SRX, RX350, MKX, and Navigator

    So the only one deemed "Excellent" is the RX400h? I think that pretty much deems this comparison nonsense. I can't see how they recommended the hybrid version of the RX over the regular V6 version. The Lexus hybrid has so much more complicated electronics and systems to deal with. I can't even imagine 6 years down the road how much it would cost to fix the computer system, battery pack, etc. While the technology might be good now because it gives you better mpg w/o a loss in performance, as far as CONSUMER REPORTS, this car should be bad news. It is just setting you up for costly repairs down the road. Don't exactly know how that is a good consumer decision. I guess if you trade it in after the warranty runs out, then great. But some people actually keep their cars longer than 3/4 years and 50,000 miles.
    The touch of death...every car I own eventually gets killed off by GM...

    Current:
    2007 Cobalt SS/SC Stage II
    2006 Vue Redline
    Past Rides:
    1999 Grand Am GT (258,000 miles)
    1998 Intrigue GL (239,000 miles)

  13. #12
    6.2 Liter LS9 Supercharged V8 guitarlix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,264
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Consumer Reports reviews MDX, X5, SRX, RX350, MKX, and Navigator

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiero GT
    So the only one deemed "Excellent" is the RX400h? I think that pretty much deems this comparison nonsense. I can't see how they recommended the hybrid version of the RX over the regular V6 version. The Lexus hybrid has so much more complicated electronics and systems to deal with. I can't even imagine 6 years down the road how much it would cost to fix the computer system, battery pack, etc. While the technology might be good now because it gives you better mpg w/o a loss in performance, as far as CONSUMER REPORTS, this car should be bad news. It is just setting you up for costly repairs down the road. Don't exactly know how that is a good consumer decision. I guess if you trade it in after the warranty runs out, then great. But some people actually keep their cars longer than 3/4 years and 50,000 miles.
    That would seem like a sensible line of thought. My dad has a tendency to think like that. But Toyota has done their homework when it comes to their hybrid systems. The original hybrids from 1997 are running perfectly today, many of them over 200,000 miles with no issues.

    Plus, many Lexus vehicles come with super complex electronic systems but they're among the most reliable cars you can find in the world. It all lies in the design and integration.

  14. #13
    1.8 Liter ECOTEC
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    40
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Consumer Reports reviews MDX, X5, SRX, RX350, MKX, and Navigator

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiero GT
    So the only one deemed "Excellent" is the RX400h? I think that pretty much deems this comparison nonsense. I can't see how they recommended the hybrid version of the RX over the regular V6 version. The Lexus hybrid has so much more complicated electronics and systems to deal with. I can't even imagine 6 years down the road how much it would cost to fix the computer system, battery pack, etc. While the technology might be good now because it gives you better mpg w/o a loss in performance, as far as CONSUMER REPORTS, this car should be bad news. It is just setting you up for costly repairs down the road. Don't exactly know how that is a good consumer decision. I guess if you trade it in after the warranty runs out, then great. But some people actually keep their cars longer than 3/4 years and 50,000 miles.
    If you'd do research/read/educate yourself before ranting, you'd understand that TESTING is testing at CR, and reliability is RELIABILITY. The two don't impact each other.

    POTENTIAL failures 3, 4, 5, 6 or more years down the road don't impact how ANY vehicle performs in ANY review at ANY magazine, be it GM, Lexus, BMW...or do you think that a simple car with no a/c, no electric windows, etc (basically, bare essentials) should be boosted in scoring because fewer systems could/possibly/maybe fail at some future point in time that is yet to be determined?

    Like most here, you're looking for problems where they don't exist.

  15. Remove Advertisements
    GM Inside News
    Advertisements
     

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.1.2