tigmd99

Sorry if repost...Congrats anyway!

Link:

Edmunds Ultra-Lux Midsize SUV Comparo...GX won!

Conclusion: 2004 Lexus GX 470

Picking the top luxury vehicle in a particular category is always a tricky task. One man's favorite feature is another man's annoyance, but in this case we didn't have much trouble deciding which one of these vehicles most convincingly makes a case for itself as the best midsize ultra luxury SUV. With its buttery-smooth ride, refined drivetrain, impressive off-road capability and beautifully finished interior, the GX 470 has few faults. Sure, it's not the sportiest SUV on the block, but if that's what you want, maybe an SUV isn't for you.

The Land Rover did pretty much everything we expected of it. It barely broke a sweat off-road, handled itself admirably on the road and had all the character you would expect of a half-British/half-German luxury SUV. More than one of our editors said they would probably take the Range Rover if it was up to them. But in the end the Rover just didn't say "luxury" quite like the Lexus — something it should have been able to do given its $20,000 price premium.

The Porsche was the most polarizing of the four, as it was panned by some for its odd looks and limited ability in the dirt, while others loved its sumptuous interior and ability to rip a corner like a 911. The Cayenne is an SUV for a particular kind of buyer, and for that buyer it will probably satisfy. But to us, there was no way that was worth nearly twice as much as the Lexus, either in its performance or its comfort. It's definitely an acquired taste, just not ours.

The Touareg might have stretched a little to get into this category, but it certainly didn't embarrass itself. Its monster motor provided plenty of smoke-belching fun. But when it came right down to it, having more torque than a semi truck just wasn't enough to cut it. Like the Porsche, the V10 Touareg is an acquired taste that's sure to satisfy those who yearn for its particular brand of luxury. But when it comes to shelling out over $60,000 for an SUV, we would want, and expect, a little more.

98Nav400

Read the article and personally don't agree with the choice of competitors. In my opinion they handicapped the competition with higher prices/options and chose vehicles that weren't direct competitors when I chose my GX. Here is their choice and my thoughts on what it should have been:

Their choice ---------------- My Choice ------- Reason
Touareg V10 Diesel ----- Touareg V8 ------ Still more power than the GX lowers MSRP ~ $12,000
Cayenne TT ----------------Cayenne V8------- " " ~ $35,000
Range Rover----------------Land Rover LR3--- Lowers the price ~ $20,000

When shopping for the GX470 I didn't compare the vehicles they chose but instead the ones that I put in "My Choice". They seem to fall into the same price category as well as being the "middle child" as our GX470 does.

Nice article but it doesn't make me think that I have a nicer vehicle than the competitors chosen; regardless of the looks I would be driving a 450hp SUV if they were the same price, the same goes for the Range Rover. I have already had a Touareg and wouldn't go down that path again.

CdeFabio

I agree! Shame on Edmunds . I did not consider any of those vehicles when I bought my GX, I considered the X5 and the Mercedes ML, but I loved the GX much better. If they wanted to include cars in the 60-75 grand range, then the LX 470 might be a better choice. But the results speak for themselves, the GX holds its own against the big boys!

davidc1

I think the LX 470 wasn't chosen since it's not "mid size." Either way, I don't think the results would have changed if they included ML and X5.

XeroK00L

Edmunds has totally screwed up!! They left out the GX470 in their recent 2004 Midsize Luxury V8 SUVs Comparison Test but puts it against vehicles that are simply not in the same target market in this so-called "2004 Ultra Luxury Midsize SUVs Comparison Test "? What exactly are they trying to differentiate between the two tests?

I'd really like to see the GX470 ranked in the other test, where its true competitors (vehicles that are most cross-shopped with) are included. I guess it's still good to see the GX win yet another comparo nevertheless. Hey it won even without the '05 engine upgrade!

Tony

Its still nice to see that our truck came out on top with vehicles in a higher luxury bracket. I would still like to own a porsche Cayenne turbo but not the range rover. I test drove the range rover and felt that it did look cheap on the inside and the doors seem so plastic and thin. I think the article was good but not practical. The X5, ML and Acura MDX along with the Toureg V8 and Cayenne V8 are more the GX immediate competitors.

et415

I think if the GX won the Ultra Luxury test, then it would be safe to assume it would have won the Luxury test of SUVs that were much cheaper.

On my budget, I was considering some European models (X5, LR3, Cayenne V6, and Touareg V6), but all of them fell short on reliability, and the Cayenne and Touareg fell short on power. The X5's main negative was that its design is long in the tooth and about to be replaced.

I also considered some Japanese models (FX and MDX), but they both fell short on weight (needed over 6000 GVWR for tax purposes), plus the MDX was so boring.

So in the end it came down to the base GX 470 and the Toyota 4Runner Limited 4x4 V8. The best value in the SUV market (imho) is the Toyota 4Runner SR5 V6, but when the 4Runner was equipped with the options I wanted (necessitating going up to the Limited), then the price difference made it a no-brainer to go with the GX. I got a terrific deal on the 2004 GX less than a month ago. Initially I thought the GX was pretty expensive for a gussied up 4Runner and when compared to the MDX, but now I think it's a bargain.

98Nav400

Perhaps, but leveling the playing field price wise may have changed the outcome as well. In this test the other vehicles were penalized for the higher price, as well as the subjective quality as compared to the least expensive GX470. When reading through the reviews each one had a "compared to the $20k permium over the GX470...." statement.

Also the Touareg V8 is much more comparable to the GX470 price wise. The V6 tops out at about $44k, the V8 at around $53k.

Here is a more applicable test--however somewhat dated now:
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1

Please notice the GX470 placed second. While these are all subjective and there have been vehicle improvement to all of these models since this article was written; it does show closer competition with its "real" competitors.

I do want to reiterate; I have a GX470 and love it. In the above article is shows the Touareg winning--I had a Touareg and with the mechanical and dealer problems I experienced I will never stray away from Lexus again.

The items these comparisons don't evaluate are what's extremely important in the actual ownership experience. For example; reliability, dealer experience, loaner cars, and the untangible feeling that my GX470's getting better with time. While I wasn't initially impressed by the lack of wizbang features, space age materials, and raw HP/Performance figures when I purchased the GX; I have continued to be more impressed everyday with just how well everything works. It all works together flawlessly, and should I have any problems I know that the dealership will take care of it and make me feel great about the proccess.

Johnny Mo

I don't know about you guys, but I always viewed the X5, MDX and the ML to be in the RX category of competitors - sure they are available with V-8's, but as far asa size goes they are much more akin to the RX than the GX...that said I don't know if I'd pit the GX against a Cayenne TT or Land Rover though.

et415

If you look at the Scoring Explanation part of the article, you'll see that the GX trounced the other cars in the test, overall score-wise. In the explicitly stated price-no-object "personal" score, it came in second to the Range Rover but well ahead of the VW and Porsche. For the "recommendation" score (which SUV they would recommend for the average buyer of this type of vehicle), the GX came in well ahead of the others. In fact, other than the "price" score (accounting for only 10% of the overall score), the other factors seem to be price-no-object, and the GX came in no lower than first in every category other than "personal," in which it came in second). In fact, for the "Feature" content score, you would expect the cheaper vehicles to be penalized for not having desirable features, but the GX tied for first. (though they seemed to have erred in stating that the rear-view camera is standard.)

bgsntth

I got the impression that each of the competitors had to have true off-road capability, hence equipped with a low-range. I also agree with all of you that the Cayenne TT, Range-Rover, are not in the same competitive group as the GX. Personally, I compared our GX to the Toureg and the Discovery. I previously had a Grand Cherokee LTD with the off-road package and an ML350, the latter being the most abysmal vehicle I have ever owned.

Had I not needed a low-range, we most likely would have looked at one of the car-based SUV's, though low-range aside, the GX still compares very favorably (weight, ride, performance, roominess). There is just something sacreligous. about buying a truck with all the GX's off-road capability, but never using it.

Martin

GS3Tek

iTrader: (8)

The articles are there to help us in the research, but I never use them to make any final decisions. Its forums like these that are more practical
Often times, I don't know what WTH they're thinking

Well, seems like almost all of us GX owners did the typical homework:
ML, X5, MDX, LR3, 4-runner, FX, touareg, cayenne....
I chosed the GX b/c best bang for the $ WITH 3rd row. The V8 has pleeeeenty of power, so who needs a turbo on an SUV (i know... i know... someone will) ?
If we didn't need the 3rd row, then there would be many other options.

spwolf

GX is an awesome SUV. While many of owners might compare it to car based SUV's when they are making purchase, it is completly different type of car than X5, Acura, RX...

Because of its pricing, you might want to compare it to lower priced competitors, but at the end it won over ultra-luxury contest. And the fact of the matter is that it is overall better and more luxurios vehicle than LX470...

Only thing that irked me in the article is how GX doesnt have "the heritage", "history", etc, etc. Is it so hard to do an reasearch and find how it is Land Cruiser Prado, SUV with 55 years of history? Car that is made to work on tough mountains and trails? At least top 5 cars on this years Dakar rally were Prado's, in production class (and not LC100's).

Overall, good win for GX/Prado!

et415

IMHO, the most prestigious SUV is the Range Rover. If money were no object (but it is) and if it were a reliable vehicle (which it's not), that would be my aspirational SUV. It has the heritage as well as goods. The second most prestigious SUV marque is Lexus. The main reason is not only does it have the goods, it has Toyota's (especially Land Cruiser's) heritage as a true off-roader. No one doubts Lexus SUVs' off-road capabilities, despite its luxuriousness (just like Range Rover).

BMW, Porsche, and M-B may be more prestigious CAR marques, but they are not more prestigious SUV marques, imho.

tigmd99

I know that you guys love the GX, but saying that the GX is better than LX is a bit of a stretch. How is it better?? I did my research on both and do not share your opinion.