From http://www.off-road.com/mbenz/members/jchen/rx300.html: As an Mercedes-Benz M-Class owner, the recently introduced Lexus RX300 naturally got me into comparing it with the M-Class. My wife and I went in a Lexus dealer to test drive the vehicle recently and we both tried to be as objective as we can to see if there is a better choice. We met a very friendly salerep and he was eager to show us the vehicle. Apparently Lexus prepared their sales force with a boiler plate of sales pitch. Upon inquiring what other vehicles we're comparing, we told him a pretty long list, including Ford Expedition, Land Rover Discovery, Jeep Grand Cherokee, and the obligatory M-Class. He zeroed right into the ML320 and told us it is the only competitor to the RX300. We then heard about the RX300 has 5 more HP than the ML320 but wasn't told the 11 less lb-ft at 1400 higher RPM, the completely flat trunk space without those Lego like plastic plates but wasn't told 10 less cubic feet space, and the list went on. There're some legitimate complaints that many of us M-Class owners already know, such as use of steel rod for hood instead of gas strut, real wood all around, much more leather, better workmanship such as the sheet metal along the sides of the engine bay being rounded out instead of sharp edges on the M-Class that could cut one's fingers, better dealer services such as free Lexus loaner car (ES300) no question asked everytime in service, full size spare in the trunk, better extended power train warranty for 6 yr/70k miles. And there're several questionable comparisons, such as side airbag in the seats instead of in the door which no one is sure if one is better than other, better gas mileage (18/22 vs. 17/21), and a real bad taste comment about how one can build a quality car in Alabama. I almost want to ask how can one build a quality car in Tennessee (Camry) but didn't take the bait. Finally, the salerep tried to be objective and told us the company line that if there is anything the M-Class is better than the RX300 that will be the off-road capability but he then went on to say "are you going to take these $40k vehicles to dirt road?" He is probably right for 95% of the SUV owners. Seeing the RX300 in flesh the first time my first reaction is how short the height it is. I can see the roof with my eyes and I'm merely 5'10". The overall proportion of the vehicle looks like a cross of jacked up sports wagon like the Audi A6 wagon. The RX300 interior is standard Lexus. If you have ever been in an ES300, you will find it right at home. Software leather abound and the wood treatment makes you feel you are sitting your living room. Vision is good but headroom is almost car like. I don't feel like sitting in a SUV at all, i.e. the seating height is quite lower. The front vision is also not as good as most of the SUVs in the market due to the lower roofline. Controls are typical Japanese, i.e. well placed and build but a little bit in the gimic gadget side comparing to European's no nonsense style a bit in the plain side. The center instrument console is the most controversial one. The shape and the location suggest the same designers did the Toyota Previa did the interior of the RX300, even tough the Previa replacement has less radical treatment to the instrument console. Besides feeling less headroom, there is definitely less interior room in other dimension comparing the M-Class. The rear seats are midsize car like in size. One peculiar finding is that the front seats don't inclined to an upright position I like and I later found this is common in other Lexus vehicles. Several other nice luxury features include memory seats, steering wheel automatically tilted up when ignition is turn off, auto close and open windows including the sun roof with auto shut off feature when an object (your finger) is detected, and rear vents locating in center console. We took a 15 minutes drive in mostly city road with some hilly drive and two miles in freeway. The engine is smooth but emits a rather coarse sound when revving high. I didn't have a chance to push the vehicle (and the M-Class for that matter) hard enough to see the limit of handling but I'd say the RX300 handling is a bit on the soft side with light but less precise steering effort comparing the M-Class. The weakest part in handling is the large turning circle as I did a donut turn in the same spot when testing an ML320 the first time. The 4-speed transmission is smooth but not as good as the 5-speed in the ML320. Overall, handling in normal city driving is fine with a slight and almost hard to detect disadvantage to the M-Class. While not surprising, the one area that we found the RX300 really lacking is chasis safety. Having owned two Swedish cars (89 Volvo and 93 Saab) and been hit twice by non-insured drivers, our family places safety on top of everything when it comes to shop for a new vehicle. While this is not exactly scientific and we are still waiting various government and private organizations to run crash tests, I did a few measurements in both vehicles. First one is the inner steel bumper size, both front and rear. The front bumper can be seen through the space in front of the radiator with the hood is open. The RX300 bumper is about 2 inches tall, or about 5/8 of the ML. Next I checked the A/B/C pillars. The A pillar is about 3/4 of the M-Class, the B is 3/4 and the C about 3/8 at the roof section. This is more dramatic when I sit in the driver seat adjusted to a position I like and I measure the distance between my skull and the A pillar. The sleek roof line in the RX300 will undoubtly become a liability of chasis safety as the A pillar is very close to my head even I moved the seat all the way back. I have a serious doubt about where my head may land if I'm in a frontal collision or a roll over accident. The doors on the RX300 are also quite flimsy, you can just tell by looking at the tiny steel door frame. In summary, the RX300 is an excellent vehicle trying to address certain segment of SUV buyers. Drivers of ES300 and Camry will find the RX300 right at home, in fact I suspect majority of the buyers will be former ES300 owners and it's priced just a few thousands more than the ES300. The 2wd version is also priced low enough for people who wants to drive something taller than a car but never go off-road or even in bad weather and like the Lexus service. For us, we're happy we bought the ML320. Even if we would do this all over again we will still chose the M, simply because our own concern safety and willing sacrifice other features if we have to. A side note, at the dealer we saw a brand new LX470 and I managed to talk the salesrep into letting us to drive it, after he tried to qualify our financial status -- "by the way, what do you do for living", "computer engineer", "oh, this is a much more expensive truck", "yes but if we want it we can pay cash for it (and we could)". Other features aside, the LX470 is much more solid in construction, even the front and rear bumpers seem to use similar steel bumper member as the RX300 but with two welded together, and the A/B/C pillars are more in the range of the M-Class with similar headroom inside. If we have to buy a Lexus SUV, it would be the LX470.