How do Mercedes BlueTec SUVs stand up to Lexus RX and Chevy Tahoe Hybrid?

EPA estimates are always really low for Diesels for some reason. Edmunds actually drove the vehicle so they were able to calculate mileage themselves instead of relying on the EPA testing cycle.

@ Turbo,

Did you notice that the eGM article used the EPA estimates for the 2WD Tahoe Hybrid instead of the 4WD in comparison to the GL320 CDI? What a sloppy job on eGM's part on reporting! It would have been nice if they had reported on overall driving range on a full tank of fuel: 490 miles in the Tahoe, 447 miles in RX (CITY DRIVING ONLY, 413 miles hwy), approx. 602 for the ML, and 634 for the GL (715 miles if you add the reserve tank into the equation).
Towing is an embarrassment for the RX, only 3500 lbs.! It's 6200 lbs. for the Tahoe, 7200 lbs. for the ML, and 7500 lbs. for the GL.

And all of these specs were pulled from the respective manufactures' websites, not eGM.

EPA uses emitted CO2 content to calculate MPG. They don't actually burn a gallon of gas to come up with the number. I hope they used the right table for diesel cars.

However, EPA number is use to simulate the average users. I can get higher than EPA number (even the old EPA rating) on virtually all the vehicles I had. But, I am also well acknowledged not everyone drives the way I do, and I can get better or worse MPG (10 or 30) depending on my mood. Just like most of my co-works’ prius get 50 mpg+ while top gear get their prius rated at 17 mpg.

And I agree 23.9 mpg is a substantial boost from 20.9mpg (19% better). However, when you factor in the price difference between diesel ($5.19) and 87 gas ($4.59) (13% more expensive), your net saving is less than 3 cents per mile. or less than 300 per year if you drive 10k/year. A Regular service for diesel vehicle can easily off set that price.

How? the chevy cost over $50k

How did the other agents let this get posted, blasphemy! I call Shinanigans! LOL, ok now that I had my fun. I am not shocked about this at all. Diesel where I live is passed $5 at this point. Approximately $5.16 last I check two weeks ago, could be higher now. Image is a huge perception tool with Americans, it's a given with a lot of people worldwide actually.

So when someone drives by a station and sees gas at $4.20 and diesel at $5.16 then they cruise by the dealership and notice diesel versions of cars are even more pricey than their gas counterparts, you are not going your job of reeling them in.

If I was at a dealer looking at a Jetta for example. I can get the eco 4 banger which gets probably 30mpg or a tad over. The 6cyl which probably gets 24-26mpg maybe, and the diesel which gets close to 40 mpg. All of these are average guesstimates btw, which is what the average consumer would think of off the top of their head without research.

So moving on, I go to the dealer and see the 4 cyl Jetta starts at 16 or 17k. The 6cyl starts at 19-20 and the diesel starts at 21-22. That is 5-6k higher than the 4 cylinder. I'm not looking for power, or this hot performance car, I just want something simple that gets good mileage. Well 40 does sound good, but 30 is no scoff. And gas is still cheaper than diesel, so because I don't wanna crunch numbers I call the 4 cylinder the better buy.

Two negatives with higher prices on the cars, higher prices with diesel, and the fact that diesel pumps are not exactly as available as gas ones, not every gas station has diesel, and with the cost of fuel goin up so much, some have stopped carrying it because they cannot afford it and get a negative return.

Sum that all up and the fact that in the US, diesels are still mainly seen as for trucks and busses and smelly and smokey. I know they are not, but you need to think of the average consumers POV. Maybe they can change that and kudos to them for trying, but I don't see it being a HUGE a shift as they claim. 15% of your sales is a lot.

@ Whelan,

Actually, the Jetta base engine is a 2.5L 5 cyl, not a 4. But I like the point you made! I struggle with that same argument with my best friend. We went to college together and I'm baffled when he has such a simplistic view of the world and doesn't take the time to try to analyze all of the facts and perspectives. He runs his own business and is in need of a new truck. I say go diesel for resale value, cost per mile and extended driving distances. His response is that he doesn't need all that torque.
Ah, the debate continues....

I personally think the RX shouldn't even be compared to the ML. Reason behing it's bigger and priced a little more. Compare top ML model to top RX model and you'll see the major difference. I always saw ML and X5 as the primary competition. RX will go against the X3 and GLK better. Lexus GX should be a little better for the ML to go against.

My two cents.

they are comparable size-wise.

and i doubt anyone would cross-shop a X3 to a RX.
just like no one would cross-shop a 135 to a GS350.

You're so right, Agent63. The GX would be a much better competitor. Too bad it's not available with a hybrid engine, which would make the Toyota trolls happy.

i dont know how to put this, but you're wrong. lol

the RX competes head to head with the ML350.

Then that's as far it goes. It doesn't compete anywhere close to an ML550 or an ML63.

One word, no, two...

ULTRA BIASED

Incredible.

@ the troll MT,

Hey idiot, why don't you provide us with actual comparisons that have been documented by a legitimate source?

And why don't you grow some cojones and stop repeating everything your Daddy and other people say.

Better AWD system!!! Better performance!!! You are on crack MT the camry based rx couldn't dream of performing like the ml. for one the engine in the rx is mounted the wrong way, its a frontwheel drive setup for cryin out loud. and fun to drive??? come on the ml would outperform the rx. the rx drives like a wet sponge. As far as design, well that is in the eye of the beholder. I'll give the rx the reliability and green factor but thats about it.

The RX400h doesn't even have proper AWD - the rear wheels are electric only! It can't go off road at all!

thanks for mentioning that rupert. I had forgotten about that. Wonder what happens when you go through a dep puddle of water lol.

Hey Michael,

You forgot to mention that you can go 14,000 miles on a single tank of gas in a Lexus RX.

Ahhhhhhh, aren't Lexus' dreamy? They're the "bestest" cars in the whole wide world..... :) :) :) :)

I can't wait to grow up and be just like my idol Michael Taylor..... yay!!!!

Please tell us more Mr. Lexus Man.....

ROFL, mmeecc!

There is a brand new RX coming out at the end of year, right?

yes, will be unveiled this fall/winter at the paris autoshow and available Q1 of 2009

ok here's the deal.

If you do a lot of highway driving diesel is the better alternative.

If you are stuck in traffic crawling about town most of the day hybrid is the way to go.

LSD is illegal in some vehicles and will cause you to fail some emissions tests depending on the vehicle, and possibly damage the engine to some extent; not that ULSD is helping matters.

The majority of diesel outlets are starting to switchover to supplying ULSD, which is what is required on all new diesels engines in the U.S.

What isn't stated are the problems that is faced by owners of the Mercedes 3.0 CRD engine that is used in these vehicles. ULSD has less energy because of the emission regulations, thus leading to lowered fuel economy and possible engine problems; and ULSD costs more than LSD. Blutec isn't going to help matters. There are some computer updates to the 3.0 engine that reduces the efficiency of the engine even further than ULSD, and numerous computer problems.

To sum up my point, it doesn't matter what diesel vehicle you buy in the U.S., after 2007, they're all made strictly for ULSD, and there's a chance you're going to encounter some problems early on.

Despite these issues, I still want a diesel, however.

@ huu,

You're slipping a little. I know you are trying to make a point but of what I am not sure.
If you look at my 1st post (to TurboSpyder), you'll notice that the RXh falls short of the ML on the hwy by 189 miles, and drive almost 7 miles further only on city streets (granted, that's not that big of a difference). And that completely excludes the 3.4 gal reserve tank. According to Lexus' website, the RXh has a 17.2 gal fuel tank and EPA est. of 26 city(447 mi.)/24 hwy (413 mi.).

And why in the world would you try to compare the Camry-based RXh tow capacity of 3500 lbs. to an E320 Bluetec Sedan, especially when that same engine handles 7200 lbs in the ML and 7500 lbs in the GL? I don't get it.

Are you smoking what michael taylor smokes! Yeah the X5 and ML aren't off road beast, but the range rover is a BEAST off road. heres a hint go on youtube and look up camel trophy. You obviously have no knowledge of automobiles or you would have never said that about range rover.

Ok, for the record, I'm loving my GL diesel.

Cherokee? I don't think so. Maybe a jeep wrangler rubicon would beat a land rover, but the cherokee, I don't think so. Not saying the cherokee sucks, but it doesn't have the active terrain response and adjustable ride height that the land rover, range rover or range rover sport has. I agree it would beat the lr2 (freelander) though.

Good post sailor!

I can hardly believe it, it actually seems like there is some sort of informative debate going on here, not too much useless bickering, rants and Micheal Taylors. I'm shocked.

I only hope there will be more threads like this.