Infiniti FX35

[YSSMAN]

The only thing wront with the 35 is that it comes with the 45 wheels, but smaller. Get your self some of those 45 20's and you'll be good.

Thats the problem... I seen an FX35 with the optional 20" from the 45 and I automatically think it is the 45. There is a clear difference between the two, and unfortunately they didn't do a very good job making them easy to tell apart. That means that there are plenty of posers out there who can go out and buy the 35 and look like they are in a 45 and none would know. That is of course if they listen to the exhaust...

 

[Kylehnat]

That means that there are plenty of posers out there who can go out and buy the 35 and look like they are in a 45 and none would know. That is of course if they listen to the exhaust...

I think you're overestimating the automotive intelligence of the general public. The only difference they see between the 35 and 45 is the price. The mentality is: "Why should I spend more on the FX45, when I can get the FX35 for less money?" It's not: "I'm going to buy the FX35 just to piss off YSSMAN". Besides, posers are not smart enough to buy an FX in the first place.

 

[niky]

Another factor is that the FX35 is pretty good in the first place... why spend on an extra liter in displacement when you can already buy the looks and speed in the "base" model?

 

[sutton.a]

Whats the fuel economy like on these things? same as other suvs?

 

[Duke]

Look anything like this beautiful machine:

"Beautiful machine"?

Look at those stupid squinty little eyes set into those massive cheeks. Look at that fat ass - heck, it's fat all over, topped by a pinheaded cabin with tiny little gun-emplacement windows. And the giant 20" wheels make it look like a bulldog wearing clown shoes.

That entire vehicle is an excercise in badly proportioned excess and pointless image. The only thing that gives it the slightest amount of dignity is that it does have some performance to it - except, imagine how much more performance it could have had if it weren't for the role in the SUV farce that it was forced into playing.

 

[Pupik]

the Infiniti FX reminds me too much of that goddamn Lexus RX. and I positively DESPISE those.

Eh, there's nothing alike, excepet for the so-called category they're marketed in. The RX exterior looks better than the FX exterior, in my opinion; but the FX outperforms it in every performance-related category, except fuel economy.

They don't share much in of anything in common at all, actually.

 

[1X83Z]

Last I heard, this summer. So it should be due out anytime.
Edit: Correction. I was just on Nissan's website(drooling over Versa), now they say that Altima is due on Winter of 2006.

You're the first person to ever drool over the Versa!

I thought I saw a new Altima yesterday - it looked just like a Maxima except the front end was quite different. Maybe it was just a facelifted Maxima? It did NOT have that vertical gray "tooth" that Nissan is using these days, which is why I noticed it to begin with.

Whats the fuel economy like on these things? same as other suvs?

A bit better - I'll get the figures in a bit, but the V6 it uses is a bit better than most competitors' engines.

 

[Jim Prower]

How does this POS:

(RX)

Look anything like this beautiful machine:

(FX)

That's like saying a Toyota Solara looks like an Aston Martin DB9.

What? They're both freakin' bean-mobiles driven by (gross generalization) "Better-than-thou" suburban rich-people wannabes who want a luxury badge, and think these damn things can pull their (usually 2 kid)family around better than a sedan (which they can't.)

and these things can't go off-road, hell, most owners are scared to take them on gravel. might scratch the paint.

A Jeep is an SUV, because it can go off-road. A Suburban is an SUV, because it can haul just about anything a truck can. These are ugly-looking wagons that just roll over slightly more easily, because of their never-used ground clearance. The only advantage these vehicles have over cars is cargo capacity in the back.

and, to tell the truth, I've never found any SUV attractive.

(to your merit, the infiniti is sportier than the Lexus, but that's the case with pretty much any InfinitiVLexus comparo, barring the truck-based SUVs.)

 

[JCE]

"Beautiful machine"?

Look at those stupid squinty little eyes set into those massive cheeks. Look at that fat ass - heck, it's fat all over, topped by a pinheaded cabin with tiny little gun-emplacement windows. And the giant 20" wheels make it look like a bulldog wearing clown shoes.

That entire vehicle is an excercise in badly proportioned excess and pointless image. The only thing that gives it the slightest amount of dignity is that it does have some performance to it - except, imagine how much more performance it could have had if it weren't for the role in the SUV farce that it was forced into playing.

I think the headlights and taillights are great. It's different, I'm sick of seeing the same old stupid type of headlights on every other car--so you 'd have to admit that it is at least different and unique. And I happen to like "fat asses" as well. 350Z anyone? I think the ass is the best part of the exterior minus the low profile stance.

What? They're both freakin' bean-mobiles driven by (gross generalization) "Better-than-thou" suburban rich-people wannabes who want a luxury badge, and think these damn things can pull their (usually 2 kid)family around better than a sedan (which they can't.)

and these things can't go off-road, hell, most owners are scared to take them on gravel. might scratch the paint.

A Jeep is an SUV, because it can go off-road. A Suburban is an SUV, because it can haul just about anything a truck can. These are ugly-looking wagons that just roll over slightly more easily, because of their never-used ground clearance. The only advantage these vehicles have over cars is cargo capacity in the back.

and, to tell the truth, I've never found any SUV attractive.

(to your merit, the infiniti is sportier than the Lexus, but that's the case with pretty much any InfinitiVLexus comparo, barring the truck-based SUVs.)

So if I buy one of these next year I will be a rich bean counting snob? Hardly. This can pull around a family of four just the same as a Maxima or any other saloon car. AND it is an SUV in that; it's SPORTY, and you can use it's boot to store/carry things for UTILITY, and it's a VEHICLE. omghax that spells SUV. And who cares if it can go off road? Why would anyone take an expensive vehicle of any kind off road? And in my opinion the acronym SUV doesn't automatically designate it as 100% off road only or capable. The RX can't go off road to save it's life, and neither can any of the BMW SUVs. I don't think it matters. It's mearly subjective what everyone thinks of SUVs. I personally don't find 99% of them attractive, but there are about 4 that I find very good looking and wouldn't mind owning them myself--FX/Cayenne/Touareg/Range Rover Sport. I like the way they look, feel, and drive. Who cares if I never take them off road? If I bought a Jeep or a Discovery I'd be expected to take it off road because those are obviously built for it.

 

[Tornado]

So if I buy one of these next year I will be a rich bean counting snob? Hardly. This can pull around a family of four just the same as a Maxima or any other saloon car. AND it is an SUV in that; it's SPORTY, and you can use it's boot to store/carry things for UTILITY, and it's a VEHICLE. omghax that spells SUV. And who cares if it can go off road? Why would anyone take an expensive vehicle of any kind off road? And in my opinion the acronym SUV doesn't automatically designate it as 100% off road only or capable. The RX can't go off road to save it's life, and neither can any of the BMW SUVs. I don't think it matters. It's mearly subjective what everyone thinks of SUVs. I personally don't find 99% of them attractive, but there are about 4 that I find very good looking and wouldn't mind owning them myself--FX/Cayenne/Touareg/Range Rover Sport. I like the way they look, feel, and drive. Who cares if I never take them off road? If I bought a Jeep or a Discovery I'd be expected to take it off road because those are obviously built for it.

I think what he's getting at (and I do agree with him) is that they are pointless because there lack of off-road ability. Where I disagree with him is that there is no better wagon alternative like there is with many other sissy SUV's, making the Infiniti the best their is of that ilk offered by Nissan in America. But other companies have no excuse. An example:
This destroys this in every measurable category.

 

[YSSMAN]

Whats the fuel economy like on these things? same as other suvs?

I'll start with the top-line model:

2006 Infiniti FX45:
- Power: (4.5L V8) 320 BHP, 330 lb-ft torque
- Acceleration: 0-60 in 6.3 seconds (2003 Model, 315 BHP)
- Skidpad: 0.87g (2003 Model)
- EPA City/Highway: 14 mpg / 18 mpg (2006 Model)

2006 Infiniti FX35:
- Power: (3.5L V6) 280 BHP, 270 lb-ft torque
- Acceleration: 0-60 in 7.0 seconds (2003 Model)
- Skidpad: 0.80g (2003 Model)
- EPA City/Highway: 16 mpg / 21 mpg (2006 model)

---

What I find funny is that there are many full-size SUVs that can get similar fuel mileage to the FX35. Many of which are larger and cheaper...

 

[niky]

But not faster. The FX35's gearing and high torque peak are probably at fault for the fuel consumption.

I wonder what'd happen to the FX45 if the FX35 got the new V6 with over 300 hp?

Oh, and regarding the argument over the usefulness/uselessness of the FX... I do agree that you can get more practical cars, but the person I was shopping it to needed a posermobile, and as it's rare to the point of non-existence here, it'd do perfectly.

 

[Jim Prower]

So if I buy one of these next year I will be a rich bean counting snob?

1. "Bean" comes from the shape, not Bean-counter.
2. Did you see the term "Gross Generalization?" I know there's exceptions to every rule. You MIGHT even be percieved as such if you drove one. People don't take the time (and, often, don't have the time: I mean, come on, how much of an impression do you get at 65 MPH? It's the car you drive, and the way you drive it, that's it.) to get to know you, as unfair as it may seem.

I'm not takling about you. Don't take things personally. I'm talking about the damn car. Besides, i'm a small-town midwestern boy, living in a fairly Blue-Collar area. I might not get what you city folk think.

3. It's pointless to look like you can go off-road (and have all that ground clearance) If you can't.

 

[1X83Z]

I wonder what'd happen to the FX45 if the FX35 got the new V6 with over 300 hp?

Sales would tank, but you're forgetting that the FX45's 4.5-liter V8 is capable of much more than the 315 horsepower it's rated at - in fact, in every other application of that engine (the current and former M45 and the current Q45) it makes 340 horsepower, which I think would be a welcome change to the FX. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the rating was significantly increased for the next-generation models.

 

[JCE]

Wow a 0.87g skidpad? For something this large? I'm amazed. How close is that to the Cayenne Turbo?

 

[GT4_Rule]

The Cayenne is beautiful...in what way? It's hideous...just a Porsche badge slapped onto a tank, as "Car" says. I believe that wholeheartedly and think the same with FX. How did Infiniti engineers ever come up with that idea, I don't know.

 

[YSSMAN]

The Porsche Cayenne Turbo will pull 0.82 on the skidpad, I belive the Turbo S doing about the same (if not, slightly better). However, the numbers speak for themselves:

* 0-60 MPH: 5 seconds flat
* 0-100 MPH: 13 seconds flat
* Top Speed: 161 MPH

...We're talking about performance that matches that of the Mustang GT, and will eventually out-run it in top speed, and leave it in the dust out on the trail as the Cayenne is actually VERY capable off-road.

 

[GT4_Rule]

But the only reason it matches Mustang GT's performance is because it has 210hp advantage over Mustang. Wikipedia Article Found Here

 

[YSSMAN]

Yes, but when you consider a 2,600lb Mustang GT is going up against a nearly 6,000lb Cayenne, 210 BHP isn't as huge of a difference as what it should be. That said, even when you minimise the difference by 100 BHP by using the GT500, even then, the Mustang barely peeps by the Porsche in terms of accelerating performance.

...I'm wondering however...

Given the GT500's less-than-sellar handeling capability and the story that the Cayenne Turbo was indeed faster than the previous-generation Boxster S around the 'Ring, it would be very interesting indeed to see the two square off at a racetrack as well...

 

[GT4_Rule]

I always believed that the Mustang weighed north of 3000lbs...

Oh well, it won't make too much of a difference anyway.

But Cayenne S has the advantage of 4WD, as well as IRS.

 

[YSSMAN]

Ooops, you're right, mistype on my behalf. It certainly is about 3,600lbs...

 

[sidewinderl]

Vortech slapped a supercharger on a Mustang GT and did 192 mph (575 bhp at 16 psi) http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=7&article_id=2572&page_number=8