Sign in to follow this  
Easylife

What Are The Rx's Real Competitors?

Recommended Posts

I notice in most car mags that the new Disco is being pitched against cars like the X5, XC90, Land Cruiser and VDub Toerag, the RX is as ever conspicuous by its absence. When the X3 was tested they often put the RX in the pot alongside the LR Freelander.

This is where I get confused, surely the Freelander is in a different market to the RX?? More RAV 4 territory. The XC90 is only marginally bigger and is similar to the RX in so much as it offers true refinement and comfort over off road performance. The X5 has a dynamic advantage on road but I suspect most owners would never push the car to the extremes required to find this out.

So the new Disco is King off road - great....apart from the motoring press who really cares? Does anyone with a £35-£40K car really want to stuff a boulder through the undersides or put go faster hedge rash down the sides? Nah course not. Surely what most SUV owners want is Style, comfort, good on-road manners and the ability to carry on driving in a bit of snow or across a wet and muddy field (rarely) Strange that the new Disco gets critisised for being too heavy (over 2 tons), too slow (109 mph), too Military (over functional cabin with no luxury touches) oh and it rattles too, yet somehow it still comes out on top!! See why I'm confused? The RX suffers none of the above and beats almost all SUV in the build, quality and refinement stakes.

It was good to see an RX in the recent TV series Waking the Dead, now I think Lexus should push a little harder on product placement and get the motoring press to recognise the car as a true contender to the X5, XC90 brigade, Only What Car? seem to have cottoned on so far. Auto Express preffered the X3 while most other mags say the X3 has poor build and ride. Strange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the

RX is supposed to go against the X3

GX vs X5

LX vs X7

:unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

X3 versus RX NO CONTEST!!!!

The only thing an X3 says to me is you cannot afford an X5 but you really want an X5.

I see a lot of X5 s on the road as opposed to the RX 300.

In my opinion( and I am biased!) the Lexus is a more refined status of ownership.

It seems every man and his dog has a BMW of some sort. I think they have lost the exclusiveness of ownership. You lokk at any model Lexus and you know it has style and refinement. Look at a BMW and you are thinking has it got all the toys? Is it the top of the range?

Saying all this my sister has owned 4 BMWs and will not even consider anything else!

The Lexus marque is like this club its exclusive!!

But like I said I am biased cos' tyhis is my second Lexus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RX is up against the X5, Volvo, VW and Jeep. The X3 didn't even exist until recently.

I think most of the series II RX owners here looked at the X5 and XC90 when making their choice.

Don't think Lexus need to push harder on product placement, it is the best selling petrol model in its class. Once the 400h appears it will also take a big slice of diesel market as well.

The only problem with the Lexus is that it looks expensive when comparing prices due to the high level of spec. Spec up the competition and it's good value but some people seem to dismiss it before doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bulk the interior up a bit give it a good few extra bhp and I think the Rx300 would take on and beat any on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what you mean by 'bulk the interior up a bit' have you looked at the average X5 interior? and OK an XC90 has two extra (Kids) seats but thats all. As far as power goes, how many 4.4/4.8 litre X5's do you see around? The most popular model (and justly so) is the 3.0d which aside from being a diesel has no real power advantage over the RX. A V8 RX would be great from an aspirational point of view but who would buy one?

I had another look at an X3 today and am left in no doubt that the RX is closer to an X5. I still like the X5 though, trying to figure out how I can get some 19" wheels with 255's on my RX like the X5 sport has as standard!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why dont you get 22"s?? B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The most popular model (and justly so) is the 3.0d which aside from being a diesel has no real power advantage over the RX.

think u mite be a little wrong there

the facelift X5 3.0d im sure has around 400nm torque maybe 0-60mph time of 8.2seconds is same as RX but sure it gets killed through gears.

i'd take the X5any time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8.2 is much quicker than the RX however that is for the manual version. Auto is closer to the RX performance. Still the 400h will out-perform the 3.0d and have better fuel economy but that's many months away.

Guess it comes down to if you want to own a BMW or not and if you want to drive about in a common car or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here Here

I echo Colins posts

Rx vs X5 / XC90 / Tourag

NOT

Rx vs X3

The X3 is rubbish IMHO and more a competitor for the Honda CRV / Freelander / Toyota RAV 4 etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here Here

I echo Colins posts

Rx vs X5 / XC90 / Tourag

NOT

Rx vs X3

The X3 is rubbish IMHO and more a competitor for the Honda CRV / Freelander / Toyota RAV 4 etc.

What seems to be overlooked here is first the resale value after say 3 yrs - the service intervals- and the MPG between the lexus rx300 series and the BMW X5.

I have at the moment a 300 se mk1 which returns an average of 21.5 mpg around town and 27/28 on motorway- service every 10,000 miles and depreciation of over 50%. Compare this with the BMW X5 Diesel sport average 29 MPG around town- service approx 15,000 miles and depreciation 20% less over 3 yrs.

As Toyota already make a 3 ltr diesel engine if only they fitted it to the Lexus RX300 series they would Knock MBW into oblivion.

My car is due for its 30,000 miles service in 2 weeks and I have asked for the RX300se-l as a loan car for the day to make a final assessment on it overall but I do have to say at the moment I am leaning towards the X5, although more expensive with the add ons, for a long term basis and resale value it does seem the better option. I have had no problems with the Toyota back up not only with this car but with others previously and BMW backup is something I know little about apart from asking BMW owners.

Taking both as new cars without these considerations yes the Lexus is a better bet but one has to take into consideration these other points as well.

Realspeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the series II RX will have better depreciation than the series I. I also feel the X5 won't hold its value quite as well in the future due to the amount of vehicle that will become available for sale in the next year or two.

Servicing intervals are low on Lexus/Toyota compared to german manufacturers but then again their reliability is much better. Also BMW service prices tend to be more expensive than Lexus so it probably evens up over a few services.

The main problem with Lexus and diesel is the RX is mainly designed for the US and JDM where diesel is no cheaper and therefore isn't in as much demand and Lexus feel their current diesel engines aren't Lexus smooth.

If you are going to choose which car to get based on running costs then an X5 3.0d will win over an RX until the 400h is available. Some people are willing to pay extra not to drive a diesel or not to drive a BMW or to drive something a little more exclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how people view things so differently. What most folks forget about BMW is that the standard spec car with say Leather, Auto & Metallic looks a sound proposition on paper when considering residuals but add; Sat Nav, Sunroof, Multi CD, Privacy Glass, alloy upgrade, Xenons, Adaptive Lights, Auto dim Rear View Mirror, Rain Sensors, Electric Folding Mirrors, Electric Tailgate Lift (don't think you can) etc..etc, then see if you can get your money back!!!! Suddenly the depreciation argument falls apart. I know I have seen it all too often with mine and my companies BM's, Mercs & Audi's. I am yet to find a dealer who will give added PX value on optional extra's.

Prove me wrong !!!

BMW play a clever game, we are told that the 5000 or so 1 series BM's destined for the UK this year are all 'SOLD' prior to launch. My partner went to our local dealer on Saturday and was offered a choice of spec & colour for this year. Same story with X3. Its a great way to prop up your residuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

indeed, BMW used prices look high when compared to the list price but hardly any cars are brought at list price - add £5 to £10k to that initial price and the % drop is much bigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

There seems to be a strong feeling that the 400h will give superior fuel mileage. However a direct comparison between petrol/hybrid and diesel has been carried out by the Times : see

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0...1235584,00.html

On this basis the 400h will be great if you potter round town but perhaps not so economical if you use M-ways etc. These sort of findings have also been noted before.

As for direct competitors (flame suit on) the 400h will be predominantly front wheel drive (i.e. 225bhp engine + 25bhp electric motor at front and only 25bhp electric motor at rear. So around town will be a 50bhp 4wd and pushing it will give an 11:1 fwd bias. So will the 400h be a '4x4 at all :winky: ?

Perhaps the new M-class ('fall' 05) with 218bhp V6 diesel will (eventually) prove to be an able competitor (for 400h?) :whistling: .

Cheers,

Dieter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh !!! Dieter ML arn't you on the wrong website !! Sorry nobody has mentioned the Merc ML :blink: . So will you be buying the new ML next year or are you going to come and play for the Lexus team???

Is that right about the power distribution on an RX400?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk in the US at the moment is 36 mpg town and 31 highway. US figures are measured in a different way to Europe but their gallons are also smaller. If those figures are correct then it will be better than the diesels. There haven't been any official figures yet they just quote the same as a family car (1.8 Avenesis size?)

The hybrid in the RX isn't just about economy it also boosts performance (something the Prius doesn't do). 0-62 time is 7.6seconds for the 400h, much better than the 9.0seconds from the RX300

M-class with 218bhp V6 diesel, BMW X5 already beats that and the 400h will be faster and should be more economical

Is that right about the power distribution on an RX400?

Yes the engine drives the front wheels with twin electic motors to drive front (larger motor) and rear wheels. As the vehicle isn't designed to be an out and out off roader but an SUV it isn't a problem. Nearly all new 4WD cars have a large bias towards the front wheels.

The power split above isn't quite right. The engine produces around 208 bhp. The electric motors are 165bhp at the front and 67bhp at the rear and produce a lot of torque. The system doesn't use all 3 at full power, the maximum power produced is 270bhp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

Colin,

I think you'll find that the electric motors have no where near those power outputs. So you are claiming 232 'electric' bhp and 208 'petrol' hp which is going to be limited to 270bhp combined :ohmy: . I recall seeing 2 x 25 bhp on Lexus site.

Government figures for hybrid vehicles (apparently) always overestimate fuel economy (nature of test which is (not purposely) biased towards electric motor) and 'real-life' figures are always lower. This 'bandying about' of mpg figures is rubbish. I'm waiting to see what the real figures are/will be and then I'll choose which 4 x 4 to 'go for'. That's assuming that the penalty for owning a 4 x4 hasn't become 'death by stoning' ( K.livingstone and his environmentalist cronies seem to have a big downer on 4 x 4's.). Perhaps a fwd 400h will escape this stigma? :winky:

Cheers,

Dieter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
M-class with 218bhp V6 diesel, BMW X5 already beats that and the 400h will be faster and should be more economical

Yeah and expect them to shove the new 3 litre double turbo from the 535D in there soon. It's a shame the B*Ws look so sh*t under Bangle because their diesel engines are great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dieter, maybe you should look at the spec of the Prius.

http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/2004/prius/specs.html

The total output is 110bhp but the engine is 76 and the motor is 67. As you can see you cannot just add up the engine and motor power to get the total.

The electric motor in the Prius is 67bhp so why would the RX ones only be 25bhp? The front RX motor is a much higher output than the Prius one.

This page gives the actual figures of the electric motors. It's an official Toyota document on the SU-HV1 (which has become the RX 400h)

http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/tech/environment/hsd/05.html

Some more details of the RX can be found here:

http://www.infomotori.com/a_29_IT_5189_6.html

You can also see the power reserve in the Toyota concept the Volta. Using the same system it outputs 408bhp!

http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/future/volta.html

Edited by ColinBarber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Colin,

I'll concede those electric motor figures to you. My apologies. I'm sure I read somewhere that they were 25 bhp 'apiece'. Still can't fathom out why the addition of 232 bhp + 208 bhp = 270 (limited) bhp. Surely the optimum situation would be to have a smaller engine 'servicing' those two electric motors?

Mercedes will also be making the new M-class available with the 4ltr V8 twin turbo CDi engine (300bhp/500nM torque @ => 27 mpg) which should give the 400h a 'run' for its money..

IMHO 4 x 4 SUVs are not really about speed B) but we all appreciate some performance :whistling: especially if it's (relatively) cheap (cf Cayenne turbo NOT).

As I've said before the 400h is an interesting and ground breaking car and I look forward to 'real' info etc.

Cheers,

Dieter

PS As an 'outsider' I'm more concerned with objectivity than rhetoric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of Jeremy Clarksons write up on the test drive of the RX :---

So what’s the alternative for around £37,000? I’m no fan of the BMW X5 or the VW Toe-Rag, the Porsche Cayenne V6 isn’t very bling, the Mercedes ML is 500 years old, the Discovery is for murderers (they all have one) and you’re more likely to find an NHS dentist in Scarborough than a Volvo XC90 on the roads. So that leaves the Range Rover, which unfortunately is a deal more expensive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Part of Jeremy Clarksons write up on the test drive of the RX :---

So what’s the alternative for around £37,000? I’m no fan of the BMW X5 or the VW Toe-Rag, the Porsche Cayenne V6 isn’t very bling, the Mercedes ML is 500 years old, the Discovery is for murderers (they all have one) and you’re more likely to find an NHS dentist in Scarborough than a Volvo XC90 on the roads. So that leaves the Range Rover, which unfortunately is a deal more expensive

A Range Rover tut tut.

Here what's you want

Pferdestärken 313

Engine cubic capacity 4921

Fuel Consumption

Urban 16.5mpg - 17.1l/100km

Extra-urban 28.8mpg - 9.8l/100km

Combined 23.0mpg - 12.2l/100km

Engine emissions 332g/km

Engine noise levels 72.0dB

Engine maximum Speed 140mph - 225km/h

Engine acceleration 0-62mph 7.8secs

Maximum output PS 313

at RPM 3750

Maximum torque 553 lbs.ft / 750 Nm

at RPM 2000

Please note: The maximum power output figures are quoted in PS (or Pferdestärken, which is the metric equivalent of horsepower). To convert from metric to imperial horsepower, divide the PS figure by 1.0139.

This is the most powerful production passenger diesel engine in the world.

What is it well it's our V10 TOUAREG. :ohmy::ohmy:

The Lexus is mine and well I think it's a 4x4 for the women. :winky:

Sorry but it is mostly women who drive the RX. :whistling:

The RX should be compaired to the Rav's and Hyundia's and all other jap stuff :yack:

Not German manufactures. :D

See ya :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RX300 competitors are all in the mind of the person buying the car and what they expect from it. I came to the RX via 2.5 litre Senator for 5 years, 3 litre Senator for 5 years then a 4 litre Range Rover for 5 years.

I loved the Senators but the slightest sign of snow or frost and with the motorway tyres and rear wheel drive I was left at the side of the road with the back end snaking while hatchbacks raced passed on a Yorkshire hill on the way to work.

So I decided a 4x4 was what was needed - even if only for 2 days a year.

My initial response was appalling - it felt like a Transit after the Senators and the viscous fan sounded like a turbine and there is no doubt you need to adjust your driving technique for 2.5 tonnes of high up metal. (I have seen 3 rolled Discoveries on motorway verges).

Like most of you I did the rounds when the Range Rover was feeling it's age - the only one I didn't try was the Volvo and my favorite was another Range Rover. But after a second test drive I was convinced that I didn't really have the need for a low box as I had pulled out all the conifers (15) that I was going to (If this is on your list get the Range Rover).

I find the RX to be smoother. quieter and generally more comfortable than the Range Rover - but the Range Rover Seats were more comfortable.

Most contributors seem to want jet engine performance with moped costs - dream on.

Sports car performance and handling from a 2 tonne high up 4x4 - get real and a GS430 or an Audi Quatro as that then becomes a competitor.

So if your bias is to out and out off road then the Lexus would't be on your list as the low box models would trounce the Lexus and it may be that the RAV4 is a competitor in the non low box list.

If however you want the surefootedness of a 4x4 for slippery roads a few days a year, the occasional drive across muddy grass at Billing on a rainy day and the sleepy drive down to Spain every year then in my opinion the RX300 doesn't have any competitors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

Colin,

I'm not an engineer but I think the disparity in total (electric + petrol) power outputs comes from the fact that the electric motors can never :question: operate at full power (for more than seconds) as the Battery drain would be too severe. Hence 232 total electric bhp equates to 60 or so 'real' bhp (giving combined real output of 270bhp).

However this is fine for 'boosting' petrol power (0-60) and to run 'electric' 4wd system etc.

Some other hybrid competitors (due next year) could be Merc S-class (more expensive but also without off road capability), new R-class (also more expensive) and possibly new M-class (see this weeks Auto Express).

It appears that Lexus are currently leading the way :whistling: but Mercedes are 'hot on their heels'? :winky:

Cheers,

Dieter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this