MO against others
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Murano vs BMW X5
I had the chance to compare the BMW X5 vs The Murano at the Auto show in Toronto. The X5 just didn't do it for me, I was expecting more from the BMW other than the price. I found that the Murano is roomier and has more power. Sure the X5 is a good looking SUV but the Murano's futuristic looks, safety features and perfomance has done it for me, not to mention the CVT ride.
I love my Murano!!!
03 MO SE, Glacier Pearl
Caffe latte leather :1:
I had the chance to compare the BMW X5 vs The Murano at the Auto show in Toronto. The X5 just didn't do it for me, I was expecting more from the BMW other than the price. I found that the Murano is roomier and has more power. Sure the X5 is a good looking SUV but the Murano's futuristic looks, safety features and perfomance has done it for me, not to mention the CVT ride.
I love my Murano!!!
03 MO SE, Glacier Pearl
Caffe latte leather :1:
Joined
·
8,367 Posts
Is the JD Power survey based on customer responses, or some internal study? If its customer surveys then comparing the Murano against vehicles costing $10,000 more isn't really a fair comparison (for the more expensive vehicles!)
To be honest, people shopping in the RX330, FX, X5, MDX range probably have higher standards for their vehicles than those who are shopping in the Murano's price class. I would imagine the average luxury crossover driver has owned a luxury make in the past, and compares against that in terms of satisfaction with their new vehicle. However, I am willing to be that most Murano owners are shopping in the family crossover range (~$25,000-$35,000) and probably drove more plebian vehicles before purchasing a Murano. Hence the Murano gets high satisfaction and quality ratings.
To be honest, people shopping in the RX330, FX, X5, MDX range probably have higher standards for their vehicles than those who are shopping in the Murano's price class. I would imagine the average luxury crossover driver has owned a luxury make in the past, and compares against that in terms of satisfaction with their new vehicle. However, I am willing to be that most Murano owners are shopping in the family crossover range (~$25,000-$35,000) and probably drove more plebian vehicles before purchasing a Murano. Hence the Murano gets high satisfaction and quality ratings.
I drove a Navigator before getting my Mo. Was wanting to down size. I looked at all of the SUV'S above, including X5. One test drive
of the Mo and that was all it took. The quality and price, it was a no brainer. I get way more looks in my Mo than friends do in their SUV's.
Black SL, Caffe interior, front tinted windows
of the Mo and that was all it took. The quality and price, it was a no brainer. I get way more looks in my Mo than friends do in their SUV's.
Black SL, Caffe interior, front tinted windows
Joined
·
828 Posts
That makes sense. But to me is good news.
The person who compares the average ($25 – 35K) vehicle against the MO sees a substantial increase.
While the person who drives the upper vehicles ($40K+) sees a decrease in quality and performance.
Thus, the MO is equal to the other but less expensive!
The person who compares the average ($25 – 35K) vehicle against the MO sees a substantial increase.
While the person who drives the upper vehicles ($40K+) sees a decrease in quality and performance.
Thus, the MO is equal to the other but less expensive!
Eric L. said:
Joined
·
5,244 Posts
I do not know what the ratings are based on. I agree that the comparison is not fair. But for the Murano!
As I drive both the FX and MO I have to disagree with the quality ratings. Definitely FX has better interior quality. As to the look – look is very subjective. Reliability – too early to say. Performance is on par probably.
What I really do like about MO is nice, smoooooth ride, roominess, FUTURISTIC LOOK!, fuel economy, performance. I do not think there is better value for money at the moment.
As I drive both the FX and MO I have to disagree with the quality ratings. Definitely FX has better interior quality. As to the look – look is very subjective. Reliability – too early to say. Performance is on par probably.
What I really do like about MO is nice, smoooooth ride, roominess, FUTURISTIC LOOK!, fuel economy, performance. I do not think there is better value for money at the moment.
We were looking for a car for two years -- kept waiting for new Acura models to come out -- almost every car we drove cost more than the Murano. We went out to buy an FX, but when we saw the Murano next door (adjacent Nissan - Infinity dealers), spouse liked the MO better (less extreme looks), and I really could not justify the difference in price. We have not had any regrets.
Joined
·
1,383 Posts
recent motor trend review on infinity fx says...
the fx is a bling bling drive with a bang bang ride.
I guess the 20 inch wheel caused the 'bumpy'ness.
the fx is a bling bling drive with a bang bang ride.
I guess the 20 inch wheel caused the 'bumpy'ness.
Joined
·
4,601 Posts
Post the Pacifica, I'd like to see how that compares. I see they're doing the typical discounting to push them, here.
If it's really true that people looking at the higher end lines expect more, than the Pacifica should blow them all the way. However, the reality is probably not like that.
If it's really true that people looking at the higher end lines expect more, than the Pacifica should blow them all the way. However, the reality is probably not like that.
Joined
·
487 Posts
The JD Power ratings are taken from owner surveys. I got a JDP survey shortly after buying my MO and rated it fairly high. Later in the game, I would have marked it down a bit for the window rattles, but that's about it.
Judging by that, the high ratings on the MO would mean that the owners were overall stoked when they first bought it. Everything blew them away. But with the BMW and others that have lower ratings... they must have been fairly disappointed at that time and are probably even LESS happy now.
Judging by that, the high ratings on the MO would mean that the owners were overall stoked when they first bought it. Everything blew them away. But with the BMW and others that have lower ratings... they must have been fairly disappointed at that time and are probably even LESS happy now.
All the vehicles posted (including the later post of the BMW X5) are EXACTLY what I was comparing the MO to. I also compared to the new X3. I know, not fair, but in the end, no surprises for listers, which won out. The reason I compared the Mo to the X3, X5, RX330 (and 300), and MDX was due to size and features (I didn't put the FX in the running because being the same manufacturer, I considered the FX a different type of vehicle - more sports car, less roominess inside, etc.). If you look at general size and configuration, interior amenities, and styling, they all fit in the luxury end of the small/mid-size SUV category. I knocked out the others because of the following:
RX300/330 - boring ride. Kind of like riding in a cushy sedan or small minivan. My family has (and I love) our minivan. I wasn't looking for another.
X3/X5 - very utilitarian (i.e., not many features for the price), quality did not seem up to snuff for what BMW's are charging.
MDX - very nice, but like the Lexus, boring ride. In addition, cramped rear quarters trying to squeeze in that third row of seats.
I also looked at the domestics (Trailblazer, Vue, Explorer) and lower priced imports (Pilot, Highlander, Isuzu Ascender, Discovery) and even the Hyundai/Kia nameplates. The Ford/Chrysler offerings had too many reputation issues. The lower priced imports simply didn't have the features (except the Ascender - but the roofline on that was really low - and I'm under 6'!!). The Hyundai/Kia's were just too cheap (interior, features, etc. - not pricewise!). The only real contender was the Trailblazer, but that's because I'm historically a GM guy. So in the end, it had to be the Mo. Simply no contest. I'm glad others (i.e., JD Powers survey) agree!
RX300/330 - boring ride. Kind of like riding in a cushy sedan or small minivan. My family has (and I love) our minivan. I wasn't looking for another.
X3/X5 - very utilitarian (i.e., not many features for the price), quality did not seem up to snuff for what BMW's are charging.
MDX - very nice, but like the Lexus, boring ride. In addition, cramped rear quarters trying to squeeze in that third row of seats.
I also looked at the domestics (Trailblazer, Vue, Explorer) and lower priced imports (Pilot, Highlander, Isuzu Ascender, Discovery) and even the Hyundai/Kia nameplates. The Ford/Chrysler offerings had too many reputation issues. The lower priced imports simply didn't have the features (except the Ascender - but the roofline on that was really low - and I'm under 6'!!). The Hyundai/Kia's were just too cheap (interior, features, etc. - not pricewise!). The only real contender was the Trailblazer, but that's because I'm historically a GM guy. So in the end, it had to be the Mo. Simply no contest. I'm glad others (i.e., JD Powers survey) agree!
Also the murano is wider than all other models. About 1-3 inches wider than most of models listed. wider means more stable and better handling when cornering.
Just get wider tires and you will get the cornering performance of a sports car.
But remember MURANO is not FERRARI so drive carefully there are children and families on the road as you drive.
Just get wider tires and you will get the cornering performance of a sports car.
But remember MURANO is not FERRARI so drive carefully there are children and families on the road as you drive.
Joined
·
1,383 Posts
I think isuzu axiom does look good and therefore
should we compare it with the Mo?
Now, i am not sure whehter the axiom is build using truck platform or crossover
should we compare it with the Mo?
Now, i am not sure whehter the axiom is build using truck platform or crossover
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Join the discussion
