View Poll Results: Which cute-ute for you?
Acura RDX
18
27.69%
Audi Q5
18
27.69%
BMW X3
3
4.62%
Infiniti EX35
8
12.31%
Mercedes Benz GLK
6
9.23%
Volvo XC60
1
1.54%
No way in hell
7
10.77%
A wagon
4
6.15%
Voters: 65. You may not vote on this poll
Which luxury cute-ute would you pick?
04-25-08, 11:29 AM
#33
Without considering the price, these are the only SUVs I like styling-wise:
1. BMW X6
2. BMW X5
3. Land Rover Range Rover Sport
4. Land Rover Range Rover
5. Porsche Cayenne GTS/Turbo
6. Infiniti EX35
7. Acura RDX
8. Lexus LX570
9. Honda CR-V
10. GMC Acadia
11. Mercedes-Benz GLK
12. Toyota Land Cruiser
13. Buick Enclave
14. Lexus RX
15. Mercedes-Benz ML
1. BMW X6
2. BMW X5
3. Land Rover Range Rover Sport
4. Land Rover Range Rover
5. Porsche Cayenne GTS/Turbo
6. Infiniti EX35
7. Acura RDX
8. Lexus LX570
9. Honda CR-V
10. GMC Acadia
11. Mercedes-Benz GLK
12. Toyota Land Cruiser
13. Buick Enclave
14. Lexus RX
15. Mercedes-Benz ML
04-25-08, 11:37 AM
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm not sure I'd call those cute utes. Yes they're the smallest ones out now but the RX300 was no bigger than those and it wasn't a 'cute ute'.
1sicklex, you know how in the other thread you said you were tired of things just getting more powerful without any focus on efficiency? I'd think you'd feel similarly here... the RX300 was big enough back then, why do 'real' lux SUVs have to be bigger now to not be considered 'cute utes'? You've always seemed to regard them as substandard and sub-luxury but I don't think there's anything wrong with owning a smaller, less expensive to buy/produce/drive luxury SUV.
Anyway.. to answer the question... I hate the way the X3 looks. The Q5 looks nice. I've only driven the RDX out of all of those and it was fun to drive but the fuel economy numbers on it are pretty dismal for a turbo 4.
1sicklex, you know how in the other thread you said you were tired of things just getting more powerful without any focus on efficiency? I'd think you'd feel similarly here... the RX300 was big enough back then, why do 'real' lux SUVs have to be bigger now to not be considered 'cute utes'? You've always seemed to regard them as substandard and sub-luxury but I don't think there's anything wrong with owning a smaller, less expensive to buy/produce/drive luxury SUV.
Anyway.. to answer the question... I hate the way the X3 looks. The Q5 looks nice. I've only driven the RDX out of all of those and it was fun to drive but the fuel economy numbers on it are pretty dismal for a turbo 4.
You wrote 3 sentences as your answer.Nope, instead, you bring up a vehicle that is no longer made and not in this discussion, one that was so far ahead of its time, it debuted in 1999.
If you WANT to continue to talk about 1999, go ahead, there was no class BELOW the RX, the "cute-ute" moniker wasn't even MADE yet.
It is 2008, the discussion is about 2008. Call the 1RX whatever YOU want to, we are talking about the vehicles IN THE POLL.
04-25-08, 11:38 AM
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Without considering the price, these are the only SUVs I like styling-wise:
1. BMW X6
2. BMW X5
3. Land Rover Range Rover Sport
4. Land Rover Range Rover
5. Porsche Cayenne GTS/Turbo
6. Infiniti EX35
7. Acura RDX
8. Lexus LX570
9. Honda CR-V
10. GMC Acadia
11. Mercedes-Benz GLK
12. Toyota Land Cruiser
13. Buick Enclave
14. Lexus RX
15. Mercedes-Benz ML
1. BMW X6
2. BMW X5
3. Land Rover Range Rover Sport
4. Land Rover Range Rover
5. Porsche Cayenne GTS/Turbo
6. Infiniti EX35
7. Acura RDX
8. Lexus LX570
9. Honda CR-V
10. GMC Acadia
11. Mercedes-Benz GLK
12. Toyota Land Cruiser
13. Buick Enclave
14. Lexus RX
15. Mercedes-Benz ML
I would flip your list damn near. ML on top, X6 on the bottom. As a matter of fact, I would rate about 3 or 4 and the rest goes in a big ugly bucket that doesn't deserve to be ranked in a beauty contest.
An ugly contest, we got some real contenders there!!!
04-25-08, 11:42 AM
#36
Lexus Champion
How does that saying go again? "All that glitters isn't gold." This can be said of some of the vehicles here. Sure, the interiors may look nice on the computer screens and magazines, but people need to have some actual seat time in the vehicles before passing judgement. Close the doors, feel the dash board, play with the controls, check the fit and finish, and lastly drive the vehicles. The RDX in particular looked nice inside, but felt as if it will have some loose interor panels within 10k miles imo. It felt as if it was assembled in 5 minutes at the factory imo. I found the rear legroom in the rear limited and the cargo area smaller than I expected. The 4 banger is very buzzy, but the vehicle does drive nice.
The RDX drives pretty smooth - I'm guessing probably smoother than the X3 based on my experience with the 3 series and the reviews I've read of the X3 but I'm sure the handling isn't on par.
The X3 is probably a great ride for the guy or gal that needs a practical vehicle that still drives somewhat like a sport sedan. Just kinda depends on individual preferences and priorities.
04-25-08, 11:44 AM
#37
Lexus Champion
04-25-08, 11:50 AM
#38
Lexus Champion
So the majority of your post had nothing to do with the question. You wrote 3 sentences as your answer.
Nope, instead, you bring up a vehicle that is no longer made and not in this discussion, one that was so far ahead of its time, it debuted in 1999.
If you WANT to continue to talk about 1999, go ahead, there was no class BELOW the RX, the "cute-ute" moniker wasn't even MADE yet.
It is 2008, the discussion is about 2008. Call the 1RX whatever YOU want to, we are talking about the vehicles IN THE POLL.
You wrote 3 sentences as your answer.Nope, instead, you bring up a vehicle that is no longer made and not in this discussion, one that was so far ahead of its time, it debuted in 1999.
If you WANT to continue to talk about 1999, go ahead, there was no class BELOW the RX, the "cute-ute" moniker wasn't even MADE yet.
It is 2008, the discussion is about 2008. Call the 1RX whatever YOU want to, we are talking about the vehicles IN THE POLL.
... A good portion of the discussion in this thread has been a tangent based on the original question. Strangely you didn't complain about when people brought up other points of discussion instead of just flat out answering the question. Heck, you even brought up the fact that Lexus lacks an entry in this market.So what's wrong with what I said again? Oh... it's because I said it.
My point was that the RX was the same size as these "Cute utes" until it became the RX330. Yet you seem to hold these 'cute utes' with regard as sub luxury sub par vehicles. The RX, much like 95+% of the vehicles out today, got bigger with its most recent redesign. But that doesn't mean that's the 'right' way to go every time.
Maybe now is the time we should start expecting and wanting to see vehicles shrink and lighten up a bit during their redesign phase, for the sake of fuel efficiency, cost, and even performance.
04-25-08, 12:25 PM
#39
Lexus Champion
I'd rather have an inexpensive cute-ute and a car vs. an expensive, small SUV.
However, that new X3 above looks pretty good, at least appearance wise. Otherwise, I'd take the turbo RDX. I wouldn't necessarily call it inexpensive though.
No love for the new Highlander?
However, that new X3 above looks pretty good, at least appearance wise. Otherwise, I'd take the turbo RDX. I wouldn't necessarily call it inexpensive though.
No love for the new Highlander?
04-25-08, 12:27 PM
#41
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 12,056
Likes: 0
Received 74 Likes
on
45 Posts
well technically, the highlander is big SUV, and the RAV4 would be the cute ute.
i think the X6 is the most hideous car bmw has ever made, and thats saying something, next to the 1 series and X3
i think the X6 is the most hideous car bmw has ever made, and thats saying something, next to the 1 series and X3
04-25-08, 03:42 PM
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
... A good portion of the discussion in this thread has been a tangent based on the original question. Strangely you didn't complain about when people brought up other points of discussion instead of just flat out answering the question. Heck, you even brought up the fact that Lexus lacks an entry in this market.So what's wrong with what I said again? Oh... it's because I said it.
My point was that the RX was the same size as these "Cute utes" until it became the RX330. Yet you seem to hold these 'cute utes' with regard as sub luxury sub par vehicles. The RX, much like 95+% of the vehicles out today, got bigger with its most recent redesign. But that doesn't mean that's the 'right' way to go every time.
Maybe now is the time we should start expecting and wanting to see vehicles shrink and lighten up a bit during their redesign phase, for the sake of fuel efficiency, cost, and even performance.
You can try to bunch the RX in here all you want, fine by me. The discussion is NOT about a vehicle from 9 years ago.
If you want to say the RX pre-dated these cars as the original "cute ute" fine, throw a party. Again, the term was not coined then.
You seem to be taking general offense to "cute-ute" like I made it up. lol
MAYBE if these vehicles were out in 1999, then I would be more accepting to them. If anything, they did follow the 1RX. The RX grew in size and everything else today.
AS MP said, its pretty amazing, you can get the 2RX for the price of all of these vehicles.
This poll will be very interesting here b/c Lexus HAS no vehicle competing here. So there won't be the usual Lexus landslide in the poll (being a Lexus forum). For instance I said I got this off VWVOrtex and of course the A5 was winning the poll.
So far the RDX leads.
04-25-08, 11:50 PM
#43
The brash, trucklike, boxy, unsleek, roughness of the GLK appeals to me, for some reason, as does the blocky, segmented interior.
It's because I find this segment to be stupid. You buy a small SUV instead of the comparable sedan because you want it to be bigger, taller, tougher, more SUV-like. But more and more, these SUVs are designed to look like they're just wagon counterparts of the sedans they're based on with a jacked up suspension. The EX looks like an uglier version of the G35 and is barely any taller. The Q5 looks LESS butch than an A4 and is, worse yet, boring. The RDX, XC, just seem like they're sort of stuck in the middle between serene sedan design language and taller SUV design. They're all completely unsure of what they want to be and what will appeal to the most amount of people. Why build an SUV that's designed to be like a sedan?
I appreciate the GLK design more and more because it is completely sure of it wants to be; a seriously butch, trucklike design. It fully embraces the fact that it is an SUV, as opposed to trying to be a little SUV a little not. The interior is not the best; I love the Volvo's and the Infiniti's, but it's not terrible either. I kind of like its modern retroness, especially in that cool brushed aluminum finish. The GLK would be my pick.
And yeah, I've totally ignored the X3. That car is a blasphemy to every sense in my cerebral cortex. I have test driven the X3, EX and RDX and I'm not sure if you got a special edition X3 or something Dashocker, but the one I drove was resolutely appalling and dour inside. Felt like it was made out of playskool material or something with an MS DOS nav system. No hate towards BMW or anything... the X5 is a brilliant looker and driver, with FANTASTIC materials inside. The X3, on the other hand... isn't.
It's because I find this segment to be stupid. You buy a small SUV instead of the comparable sedan because you want it to be bigger, taller, tougher, more SUV-like. But more and more, these SUVs are designed to look like they're just wagon counterparts of the sedans they're based on with a jacked up suspension. The EX looks like an uglier version of the G35 and is barely any taller. The Q5 looks LESS butch than an A4 and is, worse yet, boring. The RDX, XC, just seem like they're sort of stuck in the middle between serene sedan design language and taller SUV design. They're all completely unsure of what they want to be and what will appeal to the most amount of people. Why build an SUV that's designed to be like a sedan?
I appreciate the GLK design more and more because it is completely sure of it wants to be; a seriously butch, trucklike design. It fully embraces the fact that it is an SUV, as opposed to trying to be a little SUV a little not. The interior is not the best; I love the Volvo's and the Infiniti's, but it's not terrible either. I kind of like its modern retroness, especially in that cool brushed aluminum finish. The GLK would be my pick.
And yeah, I've totally ignored the X3. That car is a blasphemy to every sense in my cerebral cortex. I have test driven the X3, EX and RDX and I'm not sure if you got a special edition X3 or something Dashocker, but the one I drove was resolutely appalling and dour inside. Felt like it was made out of playskool material or something with an MS DOS nav system. No hate towards BMW or anything... the X5 is a brilliant looker and driver, with FANTASTIC materials inside. The X3, on the other hand... isn't.
