Car & Driver Comaro: 3rd Place
02-12-2011, 09:13 AM
#1
Safety Car
Thread Starter
Car & Driver Comaro: 3rd Place
The words “coast to coast” have very specific connotations when they appear in this magazine. The Cannonball Baker Sea-to-Shining-Sea Memorial Trophy Dash, for one. Not this time. Do you see any California beaches in these photos? Any Red Ball Garages?
The coasts visited on this tour do lie on vast bodies of water, but the water is fresh (so to speak) and defines the eastern and western boundaries of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula.
So, rather than the 2798-mile blitz from New York City to Redondo Beach, California, as in the original Cannonball Run, our coast-to-coast dash was a little more modest—135 miles, from Alpena on Lake Huron at the east to Traverse City, tucked into Grand Traverse Bay off Lake Michigan, on the west. With some dirt-road diversion, plus the trek from and to Ann Arbor, it added up to 650 miles. Which seemed like enough. More than enough, in at least 1 of these vehicles.
There were 5, and their classification isn’t quite as easy as their shapes might suggest. We’re tempted to call them crossovers, but for all its elasticity, that word can’t stretch quite far enough to cover the Lexus GX460. One of the guides we use in identifying crossovers is their construction—unibody versus body-on-frame, usually based on front-wheel-drive passenger-car architecture. The 460’s body doesn’t catch up with its chassis until late in the assembly process. Which makes it a truck.
For that matter, even though the 4 others are unibodies—frame rails integrated with the body structure—the front-drive passenger-car connection is pretty much absent.
We also look at towing capacity. Vehicles rooted in front-drive architecture tend to be relatively anemic as draft animals—usually 4000 pounds max—but even that simple rule of thumb fails us here. The Acura MDX, which traces its ancestry to the front-drive Honda Odyssey minivan, has the lowest rating in the group, but it’s a respectable 5000 pounds. And the max capabilities range up to the Land Rover LR4, pegged at 7716.
In the end, we settled for a classification based on 1 inarguable attribute: 3-row seating. Not very snappy. But accurate. You could add the word “luxury” because that, too, is accurate. The amenity quotient is high across the board, and so are the prices. The as-tested ticket for each member of this quintet is well above $50K, soaring to a max of more than $67,000.
With snow in the forecast, we climbed into our 3-rows and set out for Michigan’s northeast coast, right where the index finger would poke up through the mitten of the Lower Peninsula. Suffice it to say, Dom DeLuise won’t be starring in this movie, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t entertaining.
2010 Lexus GX460: 5th place
Highs: Lavishly appointed interior, quiet at highway speeds, cushy seats, lovely audio, well equipped for off-road use.Lows: Under-suspended for its mass, occasional chassis quivers, marginal straight-line stability, ponderous dynamics.
The Verdict: An overweight Toyota 4Runner in evening clothes.
Last year, Lexus updated the GX460’s sheetmetal. Electronics abound, and the sophistication of the 4-wheel-drive system—a proper 2-speed transfer case and a lockable, Torsen torque-sensing center differential—gives the GX460 a level of serious off-road readiness comparable with the Land Rover’s.
That capability made the Lexus confidence inspiring in snowy stretches and on slurpy dirt roads. But who’s likely to take this rig into trackless terrain? The mechanical elements are there, along with 8.1 inches of ground clearance. But the beautifully appointed interior and soft suspension tuning aren’t the accouterments you’d associate with sub-Saharan safaris. More like treks to Trader Joe’s.
Sumptuous is not too strong a word here. The GS boasts glove-leather upholstery, clubroom seats with vast adjustability, handsome wood trim, and celestial audio—enhanced here by a $3930 package that includes a nav system and Mark Levinson sound. The only other big-ticket option was the Lexus Advanced Pre-Collision system (for $2670): adaptive cruise control, lane-departure warning, auto-dimming high-beams, and a driver-attention monitor.
Wake-up calls could be welcome. Attention deficits behind the wheel seem like more of a hazard in the GX460 than in the other tri-rows. The Lexus was fun-proof.
Its utter absence of driver involvement tops the list of complaints that handicapped the Lexus in the subjective scoring. “Almost totally devoid of personality,” observed one pundit, and all hands agreed that the steering was as numb as your mouth after a root canal.
This wasn’t helpful in a vehicle with straight-line stability that was a tad suspect, requiring constant, tiny corrections at the helm; a soft suspension that made for ponderous responses despite auto-adjusting anti-roll bars; and braking distances that were the worst in the group—184 feet from 70 mph.
Engine performance was a letdown, too. The 460’s new 4.6-liter V-8 (301 horsepower, 329 pound-feet of torque) and 6-speed automatic are the main components in the vehicle’s recent renewal. They’re stuffed into an envelope that’s relatively tidy, size-wise. The GX shares its foundations with the Toyota 4Runner, rather than the big Tundra pickup. Still, its acceleration times were the slowest.
The familiar Lexus attributes are evident here: beautiful fit and finish, superb materials, quiet operation. But the price—second-highest base, 2nd-highest as tested—is hard to digest. And for anyone who enjoys driving, the dynamics add up to a major yawn.
2011 Land Rover LR4 HSE: 4th place
Lows: Mystifyingly high mass, rock ’n’ roll responses, thirsty at the pump, interior fit and finish, electronic hiccups.
The Verdict: Capable, powerful, and unique, but still a work in progress.
If the Lexus was devoid of personality, the Land Rover was loaded with it. The logbook was peppered with affectionate notes about its defiantly retro profile—as well as its not-at-all retro 5.0-liter, direct-injection V-8 (375 horsepower, 375 pound-feet of torque). That engine is the key element in the Land Rover’s transition from LR3 to LR4, and it gives this off-road warrior respectable scoot—0 to 60 in 6.6 seconds, the quarter-mile in 15.1 at 93 mph—despite a high curb weight. At 5756 pounds, it was the heaviest in this far-from-sprightly group.
Robust engine output and hefty mass equal high fuel consumption—15 mpg in our trek, the thirstiest here. Still, crew members appreciated the V-8’s rumble, at least for a while, as well as its passing abilities on two-lane highways.
A new chassis gives the LR4 marked improvement in handling versus the LR3, particularly in ride quality and steering feel. Brake feel also improves, though the LR4’s mass made stops from 70 mph a lengthy proposition: 172 feet.
But improved compared with the LR3 doesn’t mean better than the competition. That tall profile suggests sport-fisherman-style transient responses. This initial visual impression proved accurate over the road, inspiring logbook notes about body roll, squat, and dive.
The interior makeover drew mixed reviews. High marks for its general appearance—elegant wood trim, hides from upper-crust cattle, handsome stitching—with demerits for inconsistent panel gaps, unseemly creaks, and a flimsy sunshade beneath the glass sunroof. The nav system was unpopular because of its slow touch-screen responses. And some found the cockpit a little confining.
Then again, some applauded its comfort. There was praise for the LR4’s ride quality and its commanding forward sightlines, and in this test of 3-row rigs, the LR4’s rearmost seats were the only ones capable of comfortably accommodating two adults.
You pay for that third row. It’s part of a $4250 package that includes the nav system, a rearview camera, satellite radio, iPod connectivity, and 19-inch aluminum wheels.
We didn’t tackle any really tough terrain—three of our players have zero off-road ambitions—but the LR4 was built for it. Its four-wheel-drive system is sophisticated: an electronically controlled center differential, a two-speed transfer case, shift-on-the-fly capability, and Land Rover’s Terrain Response system, which offers 5 driver-selectable operating modes. Further contributing to the LR4’s off-road chops are up to 9.4 inches of ground clearance.
But as the driving wore on, the LR4’s everyday dynamics compared less favorably with the others’, its V-8 rumble became tedious to some, and several electronic glitches—requiring a shut-down, start-up reboot—diluted enthusiasm for its offbeat character. A logbook entry summed it up: “Charming. Irritating. Charming. Irritating. Charming. Irritating.”
2011 Acura MDX: 3rd place
Highs: Easy to operate, pleasant to live with, agile, comfortable, capable handling, best mpg.Lows: Cluttered center control stack, merely adequate power, modest manumatic function, so-so 3rd-row space.
The Verdict: Friendly and eager to please, the golden retriever of SUVs.
With its smallish dimensions and 4638-pound curb weight, the MDX comes across as the most carlike, just as it did when it prevailed in an 8-way comparison almost 4 years ago [“8 Tickets to Paradise,” May 2007]. In that one, the MDX posted the best lane-change run, the best skidpad grip, and the 2nd-best 0-to-60 sprint, and tied a Cadillac SRX in the fun-to-drive department. It ultimately won the event going away.
Fun is still high among the MDX’s attributes but not quite top of the charts. What changed? There have been modest styling tweaks and some electronic upgrades, and a 6-speed automatic replaced the 5-speed. But this MDX is essentially the same as the 1 that beat everything in 2007. Quiet, powerful enough, smooth, responsive, comfortable, standard 3rd-row seat—so what’s the problem?
The problem is that the MDX hasn’t had any real problems, sailing blithely along as the class bestseller and Acura’s top dog. Don’t mess with success.
Although its objective test results were midpack in this rematch—4th in the acceleration categories, as well as braking distance—it held its own on the skidpad and in the lane change, where it trailed only the BMW, and not by much.
On the highways and back roads, the MDX made friends with everyone. It proffers creamy ride quality (even in sport mode, which is the default setting), generally good steering feel, comfortable seats, respectable roominess in its second and third rows, subdued road and wind noise in most conditions, and ease of operation.
Its clever Super Handling All-Wheel Drive performed well on slick pavement and snowy dirt roads. Basically a front-drive system (90/10 front-to-rear in normal operation), its computer apportions more torque to the left- and/or right-rear wheels when needed, and its operation is essentially transparent.
At 20 mpg, the MDX also delivered the best fuel economy in the group. And its pricing is aggressive.
Did we notice any shortcomings? There were several logbook comments about the Acura’s busy center stack, with its array of 48 switches and knobs, a complaint we also recorded in 2007. 1 test driver characterized them as “nearly illegible Chiclets.”
The manumatic function for the MDX’s automatic refused 2-gear downshifts. The side mirrors seemed small. Beyond that, it felt to some that a few luxury features were conspicuous by their absence—a heated steering wheel, for example, power folding mirrors, automatic windshield wipers, and push-button starting.
But it’s clear from the point margins that the MDX need offer no apologies. One tester called it the “most easygoing of this bunch. You don’t have to make any excuses for it.”
2011 BMW X5 xDrive35i: 2nd place
Lows: Afterthought 3rd-row seat, no road imperfection goes unnoticed, excessive low-speed steering effort, dated dashboard.
The Verdict: An SUV that would rather be a sports sedan.
Here’s a vehicle name you really don’t want to attempt with a mouth full of Wheaties. Be that as it may, the BMW was indeed the Ultimate Driving Machine in this event, at least statistically. The combination of the 2nd-lowest curb weight in the group, its torquey 3.0-liter inline turbo 6 (300 horsepower, 300 pound-feet), and slick 8-speed automatic made it the acceleration leader up to 100 mph, with 0 to 60 mph in 6.2 seconds, 0 to 100 in 16.7, and the quarter-mile in 14.7 at 94 mph.
There’s an asterisk here: BMW was unable to provide us with a 3-row X5 for the coast-to-coast safari, sending an executive’s personal vehicle for measurement and photographic purposes, and a 2-row version—lighter by 124 pounds—for formal testing.
The BMW also dominated the other dynamic elements of our testing regimen: top skidpad number, 0.89 g, edging the Acura’s 0.88; best by far in the lane-change exercise, at 57.8 mph; a strong best in braking distance, at 157 feet, better than many sports sedans. But these results also require a disclaimer. Most of the contestants wore either all-season or winter tires; the BMW showed up with summer rubber—Dunlop SP Sport Maxx tires (275/40-20 front, 315/35-20 rear).
This gave the X5 an unfair advantage at the test track, but that edge evaporated when we headed north. BMW’s xDrive 4-wheel-drive system is capable of apportioning 100% of engine torque to the front wheels (normally 40/60, front to rear) via a multiplate clutch, as well as side to side via brake applications. But for all that, the diminished grip provided by summer tires on winter roads hobbled the X5.
The Bimmer also lost ground in the subjective scoring categories for unnecessarily heavy steering at low speeds, for the occasional chassis shudder, and for suspension tuning that communicated every expansion joint and pavement blemish directly to the driver’s butt. Inside, there were demerits for some cheap-looking plastics; BMW’s irritating new automatic-transmission shifter; the generally dated look of the instruments and center stack; and its cramped 3rd-row seat, which looks like an afterthought add-on inspired by the marketing department.
Nevertheless, the BMW was obviously the top athlete here, which earned it 2nd-highest marks for driving enjoyment. And that was just enough to beat the MDX in a very close finish.
2011 Audi Q7 3.0 S-line: 1st place
Highs: Designer interior, athletic character, quiet at all speeds, autobahn ride quality, precise steering, long-haul comfort.Lows: Transmission too eager to upshift, hefty at the scales, early-onset ESP, surprisingly snug third-row seat.
The Verdict: A seductive coast-to-coast cruiser, wherever the coasts may be.
Alert readers will recall that a Q7 lined up in a luxury-SUV comparo a few years back [“Top-Rung Sport-Utes,” October 2006], where it finished 2nd of 5. You may also recall that only winners are invited to compete in a subsequent showdown, unless the vehicle in question has had a major makeover.
The Q7’s 2009 freshening wasn’t enough to put it back in the pool, but a new engine—a supercharged 3.0-liter, direct-injection V-6 (offered in two levels of output), plus Audi’s 8-speed Tiptronic automatic—did the trick.
This is the longest of our 3-row SUVs on the longest wheelbase, a plus for ride quality that struck a just-right balance between autobahn firm and Michigan back-road compliant. Those generous dimensions should have been a plus for interior volume, too, but that was not the case—the Audi’s 2nd and 3rd rows (standard in all Q7s) were disappointingly snug.
On the other hand, the Q7’s size gave Audi’s design team room to create sleek sculpture. It was the same story inside: an elegant harmony of subdued colors, rich materials, and superb seats, as well as exceptionally quiet operation.
As you’d expect, generous dimensions and 4-wheel drive add up to substantial mass, and the Q7’s 5350 pounds made it 2nd-heaviest here. There are 2 versions of the Q7’s new supercharged 3.0-liter V-6. The higher-output edition that comes with the upscale S-line model tested here (333 horsepower, 325 pound-feet of torque) moves all that mass with authority. It trailed only the X5 in the quarter-mile, and its 8-speed automatic helped give it the best 30-to-50-mph and 50-to-70 passing times.
The Q7’s exceptionally cautious stability control inhibited its skidpad and lane-change performance, although the vehicle generated a respectable 0.85 g. But good responses, combined with Audi’s Quattro 4-wheel-drive system, gave the Q7 a decided edge on snowy highways.
The Quattro setup employed here splits torque 40/60 front to rear in normal operation via a center differential using a passive Torsen mechanical limited slip. When grip diminishes at one end, the differential reorients the torque to the axle possessing better traction, and the system uses selective single-wheel brake applications to make side-to-side traction adjustments.
Complaints were few. Though smooth, programming for the 8-speed automatic prioritized early upshifts, a fuel-economy measure that was occasionally irritating in traffic and didn’t save the Q7 from a so-so 17 mpg during our test. And all the drivers remarked on the Audi’s mass.
This didn’t keep the Q7 from scoring high in the fun-to-drive category, though. And that, combined with its good looks, comfort, and overall refinement, carried the day.
02-13-2011, 08:50 AM
#3
Rich and Famous
Very Interesting ...
Last year 2010 the MDX was #1 in same comparison tests.
Its still the same MDX and think same Q7 and X5.
Now they think the 300HP is underpowered and cluttered and so so.
Whatever ...
Last year 2010 the MDX was #1 in same comparison tests.
Its still the same MDX and think same Q7 and X5.
Now they think the 300HP is underpowered and cluttered and so so.
Whatever ...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
tman570
2G RL Audio, Bluetooth, Electronics & Navigation
11
06-11-2019 07:56 AM
Mugen TSX
Eastern Canada
0
09-01-2015 11:11 PM
Mugen TSX
Eastern Canada
0
09-01-2015 11:05 PM
