CTT vs. Q7 vs. RR vs. MDX... possible Koosering
06-30-2011, 09:11 PM
#1
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
CTT vs. Q7 vs. RR vs. MDX... possible Koosering
So the SO dropped off her leased Mercedes SLK380 this week. She likes the mid-size luxury SUV segment... so guess what she's considering getting...
Anyone recently go through the used-SUV comparision game? The contenders are the CTT, the Q7, the RR Sport (Supercharged?), and either a Benz or MDX outlier. Probably '08 or '09 if it were the CTT, and whatever $40-something could get on the others.
Seems novel to park matching CTTs in the garage, but I might feel somewhat Koosered if she ended up with a newer P!G than me...
Anyone recently go through the used-SUV comparision game? The contenders are the CTT, the Q7, the RR Sport (Supercharged?), and either a Benz or MDX outlier. Probably '08 or '09 if it were the CTT, and whatever $40-something could get on the others.
Seems novel to park matching CTTs in the garage, but I might feel somewhat Koosered if she ended up with a newer P!G than me...
06-30-2011, 09:27 PM
#2
Instructor
Join Date: May 2011
Location: No. California
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I looked at all of these and I think if she drives each she is going to want the CTT. Q7 is a little too long and unwieldy. MDX is relatively smooth driver, decent power, lots of cabin tech but doesn't really feel polished like the others - both look and drive. Probably the best bang for the buck though. The RR Sport has decent power and I like the exterior but the interior is a bit cramped (surprising for a taller SUV) and the ride isn't as refined. Not sure what MB you are considering but I really hated the ML350. No road feel at all. If she just wants to drive it slowly to the country club to play tennis then it might work.
07-01-2011, 05:48 PM
#7
Burning Brakes
We just went through this search process.
Considered everything, and I mean everything in our search.
It may be the little things which will sway the choice though.
Once we determined the "must have" list, some natural selection came about.
The Q7 was very nice, but too big for our purposes.
The Q5 was nice, but no heated steering wheel.
The Jeep Grand Cherokee was a contender, till we discovered you couldn't program the nav on the fly, and the gas mileage was terrible.
The X5 priced itself out of the market when Porsche dropped the Canadian prices. The Mercedes was discounted due to appearance.
The RR was gone due to reliability.
The "fun to drive" factor was the final point which pushed us into the Porsche camp. The JD Power ratings were icing on the cake.
I won't know till after the winter if our choice was correct, but I will be giving her every chance to prove me right.
Good luck on your journey!
Considered everything, and I mean everything in our search.
It may be the little things which will sway the choice though.
Once we determined the "must have" list, some natural selection came about.
The Q7 was very nice, but too big for our purposes.
The Q5 was nice, but no heated steering wheel.
The Jeep Grand Cherokee was a contender, till we discovered you couldn't program the nav on the fly, and the gas mileage was terrible.
The X5 priced itself out of the market when Porsche dropped the Canadian prices. The Mercedes was discounted due to appearance.
The RR was gone due to reliability.
The "fun to drive" factor was the final point which pushed us into the Porsche camp. The JD Power ratings were icing on the cake.
I won't know till after the winter if our choice was correct, but I will be giving her every chance to prove me right.
Good luck on your journey!
Trending Topics
07-22-2011, 05:57 PM
#8
Intermediate
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Scotland
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thought about changing my turbo s. so went looking today
Drove a Full fat range rover 3.6tdv8 Not for me. choppy ride, wind noise, slow, not much of a looker on the outside, although looked fantastic on the inside.
Then took a tdv8 range rover sport for a drive. MUCH better i could see me owning one but just no where near as good as the porsche, again too noisy and choppy.
We also sit inside,
Q7 horrible, no point driving it
ML Merc, horrible, as above
X5 tooo small, as above
Drove the porker back home and am planning mods instead of selling. got to say though the fuel is killing me. Average 16.5mpg and am paying £1.50 a litre for super
Drove a Full fat range rover 3.6tdv8 Not for me. choppy ride, wind noise, slow, not much of a looker on the outside, although looked fantastic on the inside.
Then took a tdv8 range rover sport for a drive. MUCH better i could see me owning one but just no where near as good as the porsche, again too noisy and choppy.
We also sit inside,
Q7 horrible, no point driving it
ML Merc, horrible, as above
X5 tooo small, as above
Drove the porker back home and am planning mods instead of selling. got to say though the fuel is killing me. Average 16.5mpg and am paying £1.50 a litre for super
07-25-2011, 06:11 PM
#9
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Thanks for all the insight.
A few test drives this week: Q5 was way too small and underpowered; Q7 didn't even get a test drive (thouth I did like the R8s fresh off the truck from Infineon);
RR Sport Supercharged was the front runner, but we don't live in the Serengeti, and reliability keeps coming up with this one (loved the interior though, and the off-road test course was convincing); quite a peppy ride - felt the CTT turbo lag for the first time in years driving out of there.
If you can get over the ugly exterior, the MDX has a very nice cabin IMO. But the ride was underwhelming - I forgot this is Honda, with only Gold, Silver, Bronze for every model.
Made it to the BMW lot only as they were closing, so no driving yet... but they seem a lot cheaper than Porsche . Or is it because I was drooling at the $99K, 0-60 in 4.0, X5M?
This one's not my call, but I think its down to the X5 vs. Cayenne.
A few test drives this week: Q5 was way too small and underpowered; Q7 didn't even get a test drive (thouth I did like the R8s fresh off the truck from Infineon);
RR Sport Supercharged was the front runner, but we don't live in the Serengeti, and reliability keeps coming up with this one (loved the interior though, and the off-road test course was convincing); quite a peppy ride - felt the CTT turbo lag for the first time in years driving out of there.
If you can get over the ugly exterior, the MDX has a very nice cabin IMO. But the ride was underwhelming - I forgot this is Honda, with only Gold, Silver, Bronze for every model.
Made it to the BMW lot only as they were closing, so no driving yet... but they seem a lot cheaper than Porsche . Or is it because I was drooling at the $99K, 0-60 in 4.0, X5M?
This one's not my call, but I think its down to the X5 vs. Cayenne.
07-26-2011, 12:58 AM
#10
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Wow - she showed me links to at least 6 '08 CTTs for sale, mostly in So. Cal. So that's a telling indicator of where we're heading...
Is it against protocol to ask if anyone on here is selling an '08 CTT they've taken good care of...? Blue or White, Pano, rear camera, tow, etc...
Is it against protocol to ask if anyone on here is selling an '08 CTT they've taken good care of...? Blue or White, Pano, rear camera, tow, etc...
07-26-2011, 02:23 PM
#11
Having come out of a 2009 GTS, and currently driving a 2008 RRS S\C, I can confirm the above comments:
RRS S\C has much better
-torque, but runs out of breath around 4500rpms
-cramped interior. I had two inches of extra head room in the GTS, but have to angle the seat back to fit. To fold the rear seat, the rear seat cushion has to flipped ( as it does in the GTS), but the seat belt housing extends so far out that anyone over 5'10" is going to have difficulty driving.
-ride is really choppy, and the suspension is always into the bumpstops - drives me nuts. You cannot adjust the dampening, only the ride height.
Likes with RRS S\C
-Has been far more reliable than the GTS - so far.
-Has better off-road traction, but worse off-road ride.
-My dealer always puts me in a 2011 Jaguar XJ L as a loaner.
I'm in the process of looking for an GTS tip, as the ride, inability to get comfortable, and inability to fold the rear seats are wearing on me. I can use my wife's FFRR for more severe offroad duty, which by the way, has been the most reliable vehicle we have ever owned. The trick with Land Rover products is to not buy anything pre 2007 and after the model change in 2010. I would consider another Land Rover in 2012. The LR4 is a great off-road truck/people mover for a vehicle that is only 190' long. All Land Rovers do need to go on a serious diet.
If you want a high performance SUV, I think the Cayenne is by far the best.
RRS S\C has much better
-torque, but runs out of breath around 4500rpms
-cramped interior. I had two inches of extra head room in the GTS, but have to angle the seat back to fit. To fold the rear seat, the rear seat cushion has to flipped ( as it does in the GTS), but the seat belt housing extends so far out that anyone over 5'10" is going to have difficulty driving.
-ride is really choppy, and the suspension is always into the bumpstops - drives me nuts. You cannot adjust the dampening, only the ride height.
Likes with RRS S\C
-Has been far more reliable than the GTS - so far.
-Has better off-road traction, but worse off-road ride.
-My dealer always puts me in a 2011 Jaguar XJ L as a loaner.
I'm in the process of looking for an GTS tip, as the ride, inability to get comfortable, and inability to fold the rear seats are wearing on me. I can use my wife's FFRR for more severe offroad duty, which by the way, has been the most reliable vehicle we have ever owned. The trick with Land Rover products is to not buy anything pre 2007 and after the model change in 2010. I would consider another Land Rover in 2012. The LR4 is a great off-road truck/people mover for a vehicle that is only 190' long. All Land Rovers do need to go on a serious diet.
If you want a high performance SUV, I think the Cayenne is by far the best.
07-27-2011, 05:25 PM
#13
yep, very good car, but having had bmws before, I wanted something else for a change. plus the interior is, well... boring IMO
even w/o any mods, it's definitely faster than a CT-S, handling is okay, but I found CT-S to be a little more funnier to drive. a big plus for me was that cayenne is actually an off road (diff locks, air suspension...) w/ sports car abilities, x5m is just an S(U)V that can go over some gravel roads and that's it.
even w/o any mods, it's definitely faster than a CT-S, handling is okay, but I found CT-S to be a little more funnier to drive. a big plus for me was that cayenne is actually an off road (diff locks, air suspension...) w/ sports car abilities, x5m is just an S(U)V that can go over some gravel roads and that's it.
07-28-2011, 12:01 AM
#15
http://carpoint.carpoint.ninemsn.com...ne-turbo-21840