| liuj |
man..this baby kicks ass...
wut do u think? |
|
|
| nwaring |
I'm hopeful it is at the Cleveland Auto show in March. I have learned not to trust my judgement when looking at pictures.:)
Niles |
|
|
| liuj |
The FX35 is powered by a 280-horsepower, 3.5-liter, double overhead cam V6 and is available with either rear- or all-wheel drive. Starting manufacturer's suggested retail price, including destination charge, for a two-wheel-drive model is $34,745.
The test vehicle was the uplevel FX45 with 315-horsepower, 4.5-liter, double-overhead cam V8 under the hood and standard all-wheel drive. Starting price is $44,770.
20-inch wheels and tires for FX45
18-inch wheels and tires for FX35
Note the FX is longer in total length and wheelbase than competitors like the BMW X5, Mercedes-Benz M-Class and Acura MDX
In the FX, it's programmed to provide good acceleration and launch at startup and maintain optimum power distribution, front and rear, during spirited driving.
Steering had a precise, responsive feel in the FX. It's power-assisted rack and pinion, but with a quick steering gear ratio like those on sports cars.
fuel economy is rated at just 15 miles a gallon in city driving. This is akin to the fuel economy of some big SUVs.
Front-seat legroom of 43.9 inches is commendable, but rear-seat legroom of 35.2 inches is less than the 37.8 inches in the MDX and the 38 inches in the M-Class.
The FX cargo space, with rear seats folded down, totals 64.5 cubic feet.
This compares with more than 81 cubic feet in the MDX and M-Class.
In fact, the FX is built on the platform that's used for the Infiniti G35 and Nissan 350Z cars |
|
|
| vicpai |
.......I didn't know this thing was out already, or could it have been a "pre-production test vehicle"?? :confused:
Just an hour or so back I was driving on Palos Verdes Drive North, going west toward Crenshaw Blvd, and it was there, right in front of me waiting at the stop-light!! It was Silver and said "FX-35". It had a special license plate (3 digits). I followed it all the way to PV drive east, which made the driver (an Asian Lady) very very nervous. She "stepped on it" and quickly changed lanes, at PV Drive East, turned right, and at lightning speed dissappeared into the hills :D
However, I had enough time to make a few observations:
The occupants sit a lot lower than the MDX (roof height is also lower). As I pulled alongside (for a very very brief moment before she dissappeared), I was looking "down" :D at the driver. There happened to be a Toyota Matrix right besides it and it seemed to be exactly the same height. The wheels seemed really "huge" ......overall it looked pretty good!! (well proportioned) |
|
|
| liuj |
it will release on January 24th in USA and February in Canada.
well.. i checked the dimension of the FX35, it is around 1.5 inches lower then X5... so..around 2-2.5 inches lower then MDX |
|
|
| ndahbar |
Sweet. Nissan knows how to make engines, that's for sure.
However although it's not much better than the MDX 3.5L (indeed, iterations of this Nissan VQ engine appeared in 240, 255, and 260 guise) the smoothness is lacking compared to the Honda engine. No surprise there, Honda is the BMW of Japan when it comes to engines! |
|
|
| navybean |
| I think it looks dope!!!!!:4: |
|
|
| liuj |
FX35 and FX45 release tomorrow in USA!!!!
Canada will be in february.... >.<
(I live in Canada).... |
|
|
| ndahbar |
I really like the FX45, very nice. I can see myself in it. Unfortunately, the car with the Technology package (which I would want, most definitely) ends up costing almost $53K. That is FAR HIGHER than the MDX. Ok, so it has a few more features, but again, this price makes it OUT of the class our MDX is in. Same goes for GX470. A few K in price is something, but 11 to 12K or more different? Err, no.
Plus I bet with the sports suspension (the Japanese can't make it like the Germans can, sorry, fact of life, deal with it) and the 20 inch rims the ride is terrible in a city like Boston or NY. The roads are terrible and I might regret the purchase! Ouch! |
|
|
| tigmd99 |
| Let me guess...NDA, you like German cars?! :p |
|
|
| ndahbar |
How did you guess? :cool:
To be honest? If I could get the X5 3.0 with all the options I wanted, and even though the NAV is inferior, if I coulda gotten that for the same price as the MDX, I woulda done that. Alas, it, also, is 53K fully loaded to the gills.
Guess what though? I would take the FX45 over it as it costs the same!!! So there. I'm offically getting my MDX in February *AND* I am saying I would prefer this Infiniti over a German! :4: |
|
|
| tigmd99 |
Seriously, why buy the FX45/X5/ML55/etc. when you can get a MUCH more sporty & upper-class BMW 540i wagon???!!! The wagon can outhandle the FX AND give a comfortable ride at the same time! More cargo space too i think.
I simply do not see any logic to the current rush of sporty cross-over SUVs...dimply does not make sense. If you want a sport car, GET A SPORT CAR, not a SUV-wannabe-sport car.
Thanks. |
|
|
| ndahbar |
You know, I just personally CANNOT get my eyes (brain?) used to wagons. They are just so...hmm, what's the word, not "ugly" per say, well kinda, but I mean, anti-sporty. They just don't look right. Ok yeah, I guess UGLY. I would never get one. But for those that can see themselves driving a wagon, by all means, I totally agree with Thai! However as you can tell, the majority of people agree with my opinion, and thus X5's sell like hotcakes in comparison to the BMW wagons (which are just as awesome as the 5-series sedans, with about 100lbs extra weight).
Man. I want an X5 4.6is. Black on Black. Can we say sweet looking!! Dang. |
|
|
| DUBYA123 |
| :confused: Just saw one on the road, quite small, more like a wagon, kind of dissappointed, my first opinion, when it was coming towards me I was like Wow, the side view is a different story though , ugly..........IMO |
|
|
| ecaribe |
| You could never compare a FX with BMW wagon. You have to see this baby up close to be able to judge it. If you are into traditional box SUV, then fine, but if you are looking for something new and exciting, look no further. This SUV/Sports Car is great, It's fast original and, did I mention the all the complements you get when people see you driving it?. Never compare the MDX to this vehicle, they are two different animals. MDX is based on a minivan chassis, the FX is based on sports car. Just put it this way MDX=Minivan dressed up(nothing wrong with that) FX=Sports car. Two different SUVs. |
|
|
| jofam |
| is not going to be an easy one for those who do not care for third row seating? A fully optioned fx 35b is about $46,000. Does anybody know if it is selling at or below MSRP? |
|
|
| Desant |
ecaribe,
I disagree. FX is a very nice vehicle, however it is not a sports car and never will be. I can't see anybody taking an FX to a race track. Maybe I am wrong, but I can't.
Also, nothing wrong with minivans - I like them a lot. However, MDX is NOT a dressed up minivan. I am not saying it because I own MDX. It is just not!
This said, I would agree that FX is built on a platform of a sports sedan (not a sports car) and MDX on a platform of a minivan. This, however, does not make FX a sports sedan (leave alone sports car) or MDX a minivan.
Just my 2 cents... |
|
|
| MDXNYC |
| Read the reviews, the FX45 can out perform the 5 series wagon, and besides who would want to drive a wagon when you can have the FX45, the fastest SUV on the market. |
|
|
| Desant |
...which is excellent!
TL type S also outperforms 5-series wagon. However, last I checked 5-series wagons were not categorized as a sports cars. But then again, I may be wrong. Please point me to a review I may have missed that characterizes 5-series wagons as a sports cars. :confused:
Additionally, the reviews also say that Porsche SUV is the fastest SUV today! But then again, they may be wrong too... |
|
|
| MDXNYC |
| Acura TL-S has the styling of my grandmothers 1990 Buick and I would never pay 30k for the car. But back to the FX45, The Infiniti G35 is a sports sedan, can't argue that and thats what the FX45 is based on, except for the 315hp and 330lb-ft of torque! We all have our own options though, maybe thats why I am selling my MDX for the FX45! |
|
|
| Desant |
Yeap, you are right there! We all have our opinions! :) FX 45 looks like a great SUV and I am sure you would enjoy it a lot! I know how much I enjoyed just test driving 4.4 X5 and FX45 is probably even faster! Again, good luck with FX and good choice!
As for me, I love MDX and I am planning to keep it for at least 6-7 years. IMO, MDX offers today the best combination of sportiness, family convenience, luxury and value. Could be faster, but that's not why I bought it. I have a little MB SL 600 for fun that I drive around when it is not snowing. I have Montero for off-roading fun and everyday commute.
Maybe at some point I would get either a Porsche Cayenne (spelling?) or FX as a fourth (fun) car. Who knows? :) |
|
|
| DaleB |
quote:
Originally posted by Desant
IMO, MDX offers today the best combination of sportiness, family convenience, luxury and value. Could be faster, but that's not why I bought it.
This is only the 3rd year for Acura's first real SUV. I suspect it will either evolve or split off some very impressive vehicles over the next several years. |
|
|
| tigmd99 |
Hmm, i am sorry, where does it say that the FX outperforms the 540i wagon?? And forget about the 540i sedan! What is the cargo capacity comparison between the BMW wagon and FX45??
What is SUV?? Where is the cargo space?? Where is the off-pavement (i won't even mention off-road) ability?? Where is the "utility"?? 20" wheels simply do not belong on a SUV...unless you're a rapper or football player...but then again, you will need a bigger subwoofer than the BOSE spare-tire-combo. Why is it even called a "SUV"??? Does anyone know??
The FX will never make it anywhere past paved roads. It's suspension is too stiff to even absorb anything but smooth pavement. It is NOT a SUV...it is a car (G35-FM platform)that TRIES to be a SUV. It is a far cry from being a SUV.
Oh yeah, the 540i will be redesigned next year (i think)...it will have the 745i engine...very nice!
Sorry, when it comes to pure handling dynamics, there is nothing better than a BMW...yes, i will admit that! ;) You can ask ANY mechanic/journalist/whatever and they will agree with me.
thanks. |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by MDXNYC
We all have our own options though, maybe thats why I am selling my MDX for the FX45!
The FX45 is a 4-seat crossover SUV that MSRPs at $52,370 with the Technology Package (required to get Moonroof and Navi).
The MDX is a 7-seat car-based SUV that MSRPs at $41,000 with Navi.
The options you want/need often determine people's opinions. There is ABSOLUTELY no way the FX45 can even COMPETE with the MDX as a FAMILY car.:1:
Call the FX45 what you will, but if you need family transportation it will not suffice. |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
Actually it cost more than I said earlier:eek: It does not come with roof rack or splash guards that are standard on MDX Touring w/ Nav.:rolleyes:
FX45 w/ Technology Package, Roof Rails & Cross Bars, and Splash Guards is $53,020 |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
FX35 w/ Technology Package, Roof Rails & Cross Bars, and Splash Guards is $46,295.
These options make it comparably equipped to the MDX Touring w/ Nav.
So the FX35 is more expensize; yet offers sporty performance, for 4 passengers only. We have 3 kids; minimum seating for 5 is a requirement. Needed options determine opinions.:cool: |
|
|
| hipchecked |
I drove the FX35 this week. Overall it's a very good ride for whatever you want to call it (SUV, Crossover, Jacked Up Wagon).
I did not like all the gadgetry in it. I drove one with the technology package. Damn thing was like running a computer, way too complicated. The FX35 is very quick. The sport package is STIFF!
The FX35 is so fast that the FX45 scares me, that's too much HP for a car like that to handle safely.
Personally, I purchased a Pilot 6 weeks ago. I really don't like it and am close to buying a 03 MDX Touring instead. I like the 03 MDX much better than the FX35.
I'll grant Infiniti one thing, the FX is one funky vehicle! |
|
|
| jastevenson |
The FX seats 5, moron. And the FX35 is most certainly not comparably equipped. It has a radio key, power tilt/telescope wheel, more horsepower, tire pressure monitor, 20" wheels, dual zone climate, etc.
I'm not saying it's better. Just that you should do your homework before you comment.
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
FX35 w/ Technology Package, Roof Rails & Cross Bars, and Splash Guards is $46,295.
These options make it comparably equipped to the MDX Touring w/ Nav.
So the FX35 is more expensize; yet offers sporty performance, for 4 passengers only. We have 3 kids; minimum seating for 5 is a requirement. Needed options determine opinions.:cool:
|
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
quote:
Originally posted by jastevenson
The FX seats 5, moron.
I pulled the prices and the info off of Edmund's website (and I quote "Cons Only seats four passengers.")
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2003/inf...v..16.Infiniti*
I did my homework and reported what I found out - you don't like it take it up with Edmund's:11: :9: |
|
|
| crikey |
Nissan has a program called Vehicle Purchase Plan that allows one to purchase the FX for under invoice. For example, an FX35 with Sport Package, Roof Rails and Cross Bars would cost around $36,545.99 + TTL:
2003 FX35 AWD(Invoice Price): 32,616.00
Options
Sport Package: 3,361.00
Roof Rails: 259.00
Cross Bars: 191.00
Total: 36,427.00
NVPP Disc(3.58%): (1,304.09)
Subtotal: 35,122.91
Dlr Del Fee(2.5%): 878.07
Dest Charge: 545.00
Final Cost: 36,545.99 + TTL
That certainly sounds like a good deal. :) |
|
|
| DaveI |
quote:
Originally posted by crikey
Nissan has a program called Vehicle Purchase Plan that allows one to purchase the FX for under invoice....
Tell me more, how does one get into this Vehicle Purchase Plan? |
|
|
| crikey |
quote:
Originally posted by DaveI
Tell me more, how does one get into this Vehicle Purchase Plan?
Aha! Piqued your interest, huh? :)
One has to be employed by a company that participates in the Nissan Vehicle Purchase Plan. For more info, see Nissan Vehicle Purchase Plan. You can always call the toll-free number to see if your employer participates. |
|
|
| zafer |
quote:
Originally posted by crikey
That certainly sounds like a good deal. :)
Yeah, it is, if you can find a dealer thats offering the FXs under the VPP. |
|
|
| crikey |
quote:
Originally posted by zafer
Yeah, it is, if you can find a dealer thats offering the FXs under the VPP.
It's not hard to find one if you know where to look. Here's one such dealer in the Dallas-Forthworth Texas area which ships anywhere in the continental US: Grubbs Infiniti. Ask for Danny Mayer, the General Manager. Tell him that someone from Freshalloy suggested to call him about a VPP sale for the FX.
I do not work for this dealership or for Nissan/Infiniti nor do I have anything to gain by providing this information. I'm just sharing information to people like me who are cross-shopping the MDX and the new crossovers and are hoping to get the best deal out there. I hope that Acura dealers get a wake up call and see that the MDX is not the only choice in town.
For my needs, the FX might be a bit small but I have to check it out and see if it fits my needs. If it does, then the choice would not be too hard. |
|
|
| RickP |
| I test drove the 03 MDX then 10 minutes latter the FX35 on the same roads. There is no comparison in "Feel". The FX does truly drive like a sports car and you can get one for $40,000 if you forgo the nav system. It is very fully equipped like this; way more so than the MDX. The only downside is that it is a small SUV and can only really fit 4 adults with a small amount of luggage. By the way, the FX35 felt every bit as quick as the FX45 driven back-to-back. Don't bother with the 20 inch wheels; the 18 inch wheels are plenty big enough on this vehicle. |
|
|
| crikey |
quote:
Originally posted by RickP
I test drove the 03 MDX then 10 minutes latter the FX35 on the same roads. There is no comparison in "Feel". The FX does truly drive like a sports car and you can get one for $40,000 if you forgo the nav system. It is very fully equipped like this; way more so than the MDX.
Thanks for sharing your experience, RickP. That's what I heard about the FX. I have not been able to find time to get a test drive.
quote:
The only downside is that it is a small SUV and can only really fit 4 adults with a small amount of luggage.
That's what I was afraid of, it's short in utility. This is where MDX excels since it has a cavernous cargo space. I still think the MDX (or Honda Pilot) is the SUV for my family's needs. I just hope that the new crossovers like the FX affect MDX sales significantly in a way that discounts are easier to come by. One can always hope.
quote:
By the way, the FX35 felt every bit as quick as the FX45 driven back-to-back. Don't bother with the 20 inch wheels; the 18 inch wheels are plenty big enough on this vehicle.
But those 20 inchers look so cool, and to think that you really only have to add $1300 ($1121 invoice) to get them with a sport-tuned suspension. But I agree, it might be overkill since the 18 inchers are plenty big already. |
|
|
| Desant |
I just did a quick test drive of FX 45. Fast, a little bit choppy, feels like a sports car - really nice!!!
However, IMHO, this is not an SUV. With the front sit in a "comfortable" position, I could barely fit into the back sit - and I am 6 feet tall. Trunk space would barey fit my lab retriever! :)
The conclusion I came to is that in the end of the day, MDX and FX are in two different categories. MDX is SUV - family car with enough space for lots of people and a dog! It is fast enough, luxury, comfortable and great looking.
FX is a raised sports wagon - something like BMW Z3 on steroids, or luxury version of Subaru Impreza on steroids. I don't mean anything detrimental by this - FX is a great looking crossover. In fact, think about it as a AWD luxury sports car that will go a little bit further (off-road) than your typical sports car and will sit relatively comfortably 4 and little less comfortably 5 adults. And, it is perfect for snowy conditions, such as here in Boston! :) |
|
|
| crikey |
Well, the FX35 has got me seriously thinking about getting one over the MDX. The practical side of me knows that I can get more utility from the MDX than the FX due to the MDX's 7-seating flexibility which translates to a cavernous cargo area. The FX only has 27 cu ft. of space behind the 2nd row. But with the FX, almost all safety features are available and standard:
HID Bi-Xenons
Traction Control System
Vehicle Dynamic Control (Infiniti's stability control system)
Side-curtain airbags
Electronic Brake Distribution and Brake Assist
I'm aware that the MDX is safe too, but it seems (at least on paper) that the FX35 is a bit safer.
And with the 20" wheels in the Sport Package, C&D got a braking distance of only 160 ft. from 70mph. This, according to C&D, is the best they've ever obtained from an SUV/crossover.
And AWD system of the Infiniti was derived from the Skyline GT-R supercar, i.e. the ATTESA E-TS™.
And to top it off, I can get an FX35 AWD with Sport Package for $36,546 + TTL for a vehicle with a $40,665 MSRP. The best I've been able to get on an MDX is $1000 off MSRP + TTL.
I've got 19-month old twins and the FX35 or the MDX will be the mommymobile. We don't go on long trips very often although that could certainly change once the kids get older.
HELP!!! What should I get??? |
|
|
| wmquan |
crikey,
I think the FX35 may provide "incremental" safety over the MDX but:
1) It is not guaranteed how the FX35 will fare in crash tests, whereas the MDX's outstanding crash test results are well-known.
2) If your priority is really safety, get the XC90 you've been looking at. Its a large step up from both vehicles, period.
I'm a bit concerned about how the FX35 will fare in crash tests. E.g. the most recent Nissan vehicle crash-tested, the Altima, scored "just a good" in the IIHS offset-frontal crash test when other sedans are scoring Good+Best Pick. Worse yet, the Altima without side airbags scored a weak 4/4/3/4 stars in the NHSTSA round of full-frontal and side-impact tests. Will the FX35 be a major improvement, or is Nissan (even with Renault's influence) cutting some corners? It's one thing to add safety gadgets, it's another to build a complete system.
Now, if your heart prefers an FX35 over an MDX, get an FX35. You have to be happy with your choice.
Did you mean 27 cubic feet behind the second row? Ouch! With twins that seems tad small. Isn't that less than a Subaru Forester? |
|
|
| cmdpm |
crikey,
if you plan on keeping the new car for many years the the MDX is the way to go since your kids and your stuff wiil need more space as the years pass.
on the other hand, while the children are young, this would be a great opportunity to get an fx35 because:
1. it is a more sporty crossover
2. has a more fun design
3. is less expensive
4. it's safer-at least on paper
leasing may make sense for you as you can walk away from the lease and get a more spacious car when the children are older and you need more utility.
if i did not need the greater utility of my MDX i would have chosen the fx 35 or fx45.
whichever way you go don't worry because both of these crossovers are great!!
good luck,
chris
:29: celebrate life |
|
|
| crikey |
quote:
Originally posted by wmquan
crikey,
I think the FX35 may provide "incremental" safety over the MDX but:
1) It is not guaranteed how the FX35 will fare in crash tests, whereas the MDX's outstanding crash test results are well-known.
2) If your priority is really safety, get the XC90 you've been looking at. Its a large step up from both vehicles, period.
I'm a bit concerned about how the FX35 will fare in crash tests. E.g. the most recent Nissan vehicle crash-tested, the Altima, scored "just a good" in the IIHS offset-frontal crash test when other sedans are scoring Good+Best Pick. Worse yet, the Altima without side airbags scored a weak 4/4/3/4 stars in the NHSTSA round of full-frontal and side-impact tests. Will the FX35 be a major improvement, or is Nissan (even with Renault's influence) cutting some corners? It's one thing to add safety gadgets, it's another to build a complete system.
Now, if your heart prefers an FX35 over an MDX, get an FX35. You have to be happy with your choice.
Did you mean 27 cubic feet behind the second row? Ouch! With twins that seems tad small. Isn't that less than a Subaru Forester?
Thanks, wmquan. Regarding crash tests, I think that we may need to look at the G35's numbers since the FX35 uses this platform. I have not actually looked at those numbers yet. Now for the Nissan Murano, the Altima's results might be used as a guideline.
Getting an XC90 right now is going to require a lot of patience. Not only is it more expensive than the MDX or FX35, there aren't even any units available. I really think that Volvo messed up the introduction of the XC90. Another shadow looming over the XC90 is reliability. Honda/Acura and Nissan/Infiniti seems to have gotten reliability/quality down pat.
My heart actually wants a G35 Coupe :) but my brain can't pick between the MDX or the FX35.
Oh, it's 27 cu ft behind the 2nd row. I corrected it, thanks. |
|
|
| crikey |
quote:
Originally posted by cmdpm
crikey,
if you plan on keeping the new car for many years the the MDX is the way to go since your kids and your stuff wiil need more space as the years pass.
Thanks, Chris. The pratical me says the same thing.
quote:
on the other hand, while the children are young, this would be a great opportunity to get an fx35 because:
1. it is a more sporty crossover
2. has a more fun design
3. is less expensive
4. it's safer-at least on paper
That's what my wife says. She's actually in love with the FX. It only took one look for her and it was love at first sight. Her exact words were, Damn the cargo space, I want this SUV. It even comes in her color combo choice -- Silver with a light beige interior.
quote:
whichever way you go don't worry because both of these crossovers are great!!
good luck,
chris
:29: celebrate life
That is so true -- both vehicles are great |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by crikey
Thanks, wmquan. Regarding crash tests, I think that we may need to look at the G35's numbers since the FX35 uses this platform. I have not actually looked at those numbers yet. Now for the Nissan Murano, the Altima's results might be used as a guideline.
Getting an XC90 right now is going to require a lot of patience. Not only is it more expensive than the MDX or FX35, there aren't even any units available. I really think that Volvo messed up the introduction of the XC90. Another shadow looming over the XC90 is reliability. Honda/Acura and Nissan/Infiniti seems to have gotten reliability/quality down pat.
I agree that the G35's platform may be more relevant. My main point in bringing up the Altima isn't that it's the same platform, but it's more on where the manufacturer stands in safety. E.g. witness how Honda has become very serious about crash tests. A progression from improved performers (e.g. the Odyssey) to top performers (e.g. the MDX). It doesn't happen overnight, but now every new Honda/Acura seems to be a top performer in most if not all categories.
I haven't seen the same signs from Nissan yet. Their Altima model is relatively new and was supposed to be their premier family sedan, yet it's behind both the Camry and Accord. It's an improvement, but not the tops. That does not necessarily bode well for Nissan's commitment to safety, and makes me wonder how the FX35 will do. I'm hoping Renault's influence may make a difference.
Yes, the XC90 seems to have the same painful introduction the MDX had. A bit less price-gouging from dealers, not quite with the same bad attitude, though.
If your wife is in love with the FX35, well, that might take care of things! The space will be a bit tight and less flexible, but should be okay if you pack intelligently. After all, lots of Foresters handle two kids well enough. |
|
|
| crikey |
quote:
Originally posted by wmquan
I agree that the G35's platform may be more relevant. My main point in bringing up the Altima isn't that it's the same platform, but it's more on where the manufacturer stands in safety. E.g. witness how Honda has become very serious about crash tests. A progression from improved performers (e.g. the Odyssey) to top performers (e.g. the MDX). It doesn't happen overnight, but now every new Honda/Acura seems to be a top performer in most if not all categories.
I haven't seen the same signs from Nissan yet. Their Altima model is relatively new and was supposed to be their premier family sedan, yet it's behind both the Camry and Accord. It's an improvement, but not the tops. That does not necessarily bode well for Nissan's commitment to safety, and makes me wonder how the FX35 will do. I'm hoping Renault's influence may make a difference.
Ah, I see your point. It's kind of ironic though, that Honda's focus on safety is only on crash-test performance. Otherwise, I would have expected the MDX to have side-curtain airbags. It's not a biggie to me, but it's kind of a mixed message? And what's the deal about not having HIDs on the MDX? It's kinda puzzling to me.
quote:
Yes, the XC90 seems to have the same painful introduction the MDX had. A bit less price-gouging from dealers, not quite with the same bad attitude, though.
That is certainly true. I haven't actually heard of any price-gouging -- I should check eBay. But yes, it seems the Volvo dealers are better at handling the situation.
quote:
If your wife is in love with the FX35, well, that might take care of things! The space will be a bit tight and less flexible, but should be okay if you pack intelligently. After all, lots of Foresters handle two kids well enough.
Man, shes' still bugging me about it too. I'm afraid that she'll wake up from her dream and have a serious case of buyer's remorse. Practicality dictates that the MDX is a better choice and right now, her choice is based on emotion. We'll try to get a test drive of the FX and we'll take it from there. |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by crikey
It's kind of ironic though, that Honda's focus on safety is only on crash-test performance. Otherwise, I would have expected the MDX to have side-curtain airbags. It's not a biggie to me, but it's kind of a mixed message? And what's the deal about not having HIDs on the MDX? It's kinda puzzling to me.
Well, I don't think that Honda's safety focus is only on crash-test performance. Especially now that they're finally introducing items like side curtain airbags in at least one model. However, I agree that crash testing has been Honda's primary focus. Certainly a key area to have primary focus in, but only a step toward the overall safety equation that Volvo and MB address the best. To their credit, Honda's made huge strides in that direction, judging from their crash test scores. Part of the reason was the investment in their crash-testing facility in Japan.
But yes, Honda has been very slow in introducing head protection. And they've made no statements on what they've done for roof reinforcement, something where safety leaders Volvo and MB have addressed in their SUV's. Doesn't necessarily mean that the MDX's roof is particularly fragile, but it doesn't mean it's anywhere near the Volvo's and MB's, though.
Another area is rear-impact safety, e.g. will the seatbacks collapse in a severe accident. Unfortunately there is no standardized high-speed test for this, yet. The last public statement a Honda official made about seatback strength was a few years ago and that the Honda seats were 1.5 times FMVSS 205 standard. Unfortunateley, FMVSS 205 is ancient in terms of the progress of automobile safety. Volvo and MB have proposed raising the standard by large multiples (8, 12, etc.) which gives you an idea of how strong their seats are.
I think Honda has made some of the biggest strides of all the Japanese manufacturers, but they need to carry forward the excellent crash test results to other safety areas. However, without crash test results for the latter, I'd consider the MDX above the FX35/FX45 for now.
BTW, while I consider the XC90 a step above the MDX in safety, I consider the ML320 almost equal to the XC90, if not equal. Volvo overmarkets that Roll Stability Control, and the ML320 has a better AWD system and rear thoraxic side airbags for the 2nd row that MB says is safe for children. The Volvo beats the MB in some areas, the MB in others. Of course, the XC90 is a better everyday vehicle for most drivers than the ML320, just as the MDX is. |
|
|
| crikey |
There aren't any crash test results for the G35 yet which I find interesting. I thought it would have been done by now. Thus, I have no point of comparison.
Speaking of the ML, have you had the chance to testdrive the ML350, wmquan? I agree, the ML is comparable to the XC90 in terms of safety. But, if I were to choose, I'd pick the XC90 over the MB exactly for everyday drivability.
I just touched base with my Volvo contact at a local Volvo dealership and the earliest to get a 2.5T AWD XC90 is June. And yes, no discounts, straight MSRP. |
|
|
| RickP |
Are you sure you can get an FX with sport package for $36000?
That's about invoice for this vehicle and they're not discounting this vehicle in CA that I know of. |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by crikey
Speaking of the ML, have you had the chance to testdrive the ML350, wmquan? I agree, the ML is comparable to the XC90 in terms of safety. But, if I were to choose, I'd pick the XC90 over the MB exactly for everyday drivability.
I just touched base with my Volvo contact at a local Volvo dealership and the earliest to get a 2.5T AWD XC90 is June. And yes, no discounts, straight MSRP.
I haven't driven it. I heard the ride is improved somewhat, but I suspect the ride is stiffer than what I'd want. The MPG isn't too good but at least the ML350's new engine makes it more responsive -- the ML320 had gained too much weight as more features were added. Good news is that there are really good discounts on the ML350. But yes, the Volvo is simply a more refined SUV and easier to live with day-to-day, and the MDX is the same. ML quality has definitely improved but I'm not sure if it's better than, say, a second year XC90 (which we're getting quite close to!).
I think the MDX is the better overall SUV for most people. Myself, if I had to make the choice today I might have to go with the XC90. My own purchasing criteria now requires side curtain airbags, which would disqualify the MDX, and I think Acura has to add more safety features in general. However, I think there's a good chance that side curtains will be added to the MDX in 2004.
However, the XC90 has a few major negatives. E.g. the somewhat weak power in the 2.5T combined with the awful transmission and steering in the T6.
Would you consider an RX330 as well? It does seem to have addressed most of the weaknesses of the current RX300. Obviously some won't be able to get over its looks. |
|
|
| RickP |
My experience with Volvo was horrible; they are very service intensive and the service is expensive! I also think the XC90 is fairly expensive and looks exactly like their wagon only higher.
(IMHO) |
|
|
| crikey |
quote:
Originally posted by RickP
Are you sure you can get an FX with sport package for $36000?
That's about invoice for this vehicle and they're not discounting this vehicle in CA that I know of.
Hi RickP,
Nissan has a program called the Vehicle Purchase Plan that allows a business associate (a party that does business with Nissan) to purchase certain Nissan/Infiniti vehicles for less than invoice. I am fortunate to have an employer that does business with Nissan. If you don't mind looking a couple of posts back, I listed the breakdown of an FX35 with Sport Package/Roof Rails/Crossbars for $36,546 +TTL. AFAIK, they are selling the FX for MSRP at this time since it just came out 1/20/2003. |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by RickP
My experience with Volvo was horrible; they are very service intensive and the service is expensive!
(IMHO)
Yep, it's a trade-off. Get the extra safety features of the Volvo, but lose some on the reliability and higher maintenance costs. IMHO, the XC90 is better looking than the MDX. Sort of like an X5.
However, the MDX isn't cheap to maintain either. Cheaper than the Volvo but not by a huge amount. Everyone's dealer will vary but Acura sure pads the maintenance costs. Especially if you go by the severe maintenance schedule, which makes your scheduled dealer visits more frequent than the Volvo. |
|
|
| crikey |
quote:
Originally posted by wmquan
I haven't driven it. I heard the ride is improved somewhat, but I suspect the ride is stiffer than what I'd want. The MPG isn't too good but at least the ML350's new engine makes it more responsive -- the ML320 had gained too much weight as more features were added. Good news is that there are really good discounts on the ML350. But yes, the Volvo is simply a more refined SUV and easier to live with day-to-day, and the MDX is the same. ML quality has definitely improved but I'm not sure if it's better than, say, a second year XC90 (which we're getting quite close to!).
I think the MDX is the better overall SUV for most people. Myself, if I had to make the choice today I might have to go with the XC90. My own purchasing criteria now requires side curtain airbags, which would disqualify the MDX, and I think Acura has to add more safety features in general. However, I think there's a good chance that side curtains will be added to the MDX in 2004.
However, the XC90 has a few major negatives. E.g. the somewhat weak power in the 2.5T combined with the awful transmission and steering in the T6.
Would you consider an RX330 as well? It does seem to have addressed most of the weaknesses of the current RX300. Obviously some won't be able to get over its looks.
Since it takes a while to get an XC90 at this point in time, it might even be a wiser choice to wait until the 2004 MDX comes out also (September?). Problem is, the better half wants a new one pretty soon. I don't know if she can wait that long. But I agree, for most people, including myself, the MDX is an outstanding overall SUV.
Most of the current XC90 owners don't mind the 208 hp 2.5T in the XC90. I think that this is a better engine/tranny combo than the T6. I agree with the T6 steering, it's a bit too light for my taste, almost numb.
The RX330 is probably a good choice too. However, a new, supposedly HOT SUV will probably be commanding MSRP. I might pay MSRP for the XC90 but I can't say the same about the RX330. And looks are subjective. :) When is it coming out anyway? March? April? |
|
|
| RickP |
| If you can get an Infiniti at dealer invoice or below, buy it ASAP. Even at MSRP, it's a terrific car! |
|
|
| crikey |
quote:
Originally posted by RickP
If you can get an Infiniti at dealer invoice or below, buy it ASAP. Even at MSRP, it's a terrific car!
No question that it's a terrific car. However, it's a bit short on utility in comparison to the MDX and I have twin toddlers with their stuff to lug around. It's really a tough choice. |
|
|
| wmquan |
quote:
Originally posted by crikey
Since it takes a while to get an XC90 at this point in time, it might even be a wiser choice to wait until the 2004 MDX comes out also (September?). Problem is, the better half wants a new one pretty soon. I don't know if she can wait that long. But I agree, for most people, including myself, the MDX is an outstanding overall SUV.
...
The RX330 is probably a good choice too. However, a new, supposedly HOT SUV will probably be commanding MSRP. I might pay MSRP for the XC90 but I can't say the same about the RX330. And looks are subjective. :) When is it coming out anyway? March? April?
I think the RX330 starts shipping in April. It'll go for MSRP at first, so your timing probably won't work out for it. It will start getting discounts fairly quickly, though. There's now an established history of RX discounts and Lexus's production will be revved up pretty high so supply won't be an issue. I've heard some rumors that pricing won't be as bad as some people think it may be (e.g. not a massive price increase for the extra features). We'll see.
But a lot of this really comes back to how much Utility you want in your second vehicle. You've had a Pathfinder for a while -- how has its relatively small cargo volume worked for you? You might be able to do fine. I think people shrink or grow to fill a space when it's there. For us, with just one child, we make massive trips to Costco -- ours is so crowded that we hate going there more than once every 2/3 months. I can Tetris-pack an overflowing cart (including the bottom filled with diaper and detergent boxes) into the MDX's cargo area behind the second row, it's really quite awesome.
A lot of SUV's advertising that they have around 80 cubic feet with the 2nd/3rd rows folded, but not as many have nearly 50 cubic feet behind the second row like the MDX does, and it is quite useful. We just bought a massive double stroller for the next baby (Mountain Buggy Urban Double), and we're glad to have the space.
The bigger challenge comes with trips. Though with the FX being relatively low you could always get a cargo pod for the top if you need the extra room. Our MDX has been great for the multi-day visits over the mountains to grandma's house. |
|
|
| crikey |
quote:
Originally posted by wmquan
But a lot of this really comes back to how much Utility you want in your second vehicle. You've had a Pathfinder for a while -- how has its relatively small cargo volume worked for you? You might be able to do fine. I think people shrink or grow to fill a space when it's there. For us, with just one child, we make massive trips to Costco -- ours is so crowded that we hate going there more than once every 2/3 months. I can Tetris-pack an overflowing cart (including the bottom filled with diaper and detergent boxes) into the MDX's cargo area behind the second row, it's really quite awesome.
A lot of SUV's advertising that they have around 80 cubic feet with the 2nd/3rd rows folded, but not as many have nearly 50 cubic feet behind the second row like the MDX does, and it is quite useful. We just bought a massive double stroller for the next baby (Mountain Buggy Urban Double), and we're glad to have the space.
Since I have Twins, I already have a double stroller -- we have the Combi Twin Savvy double stroller. It's real light, around 15 lbs., and is quite compact when folded. However, when we go to one of those warehouse places for supplies like yourself, we find that 38 cu ft. is sometimes not enough. But those are rare times since Costco/BJ's are quite near our place and they don't tend to get crowded, except on weekends. I make a trip whenever a trip is required. So, the Pathfinder's cargo volume has worked for us but sometimes I wished it had more. Like I said, practicality really dictates the MDX, even the Pilot. My wife doesn't like the Pilot at all. Shes says it looks like a minivan and/or a big CR-V. To me it looks good. Looks are really subjective.
quote:
The bigger challenge comes with trips. Though with the FX being relatively low you could always get a cargo pod for the top if you need the extra room. Our MDX has been great for the multi-day visits over the mountains to grandma's house.
We don't usually take a lot of trips but that was due to the Twins not being old enough yet. But now, they seem to prefer being in the Pathfinder rather than being at home :). And I agree, should the FX be the vehicle of choice, a cargo pod would be the solution to the space problem. That, and leaving the double stroller home and replacing it with 2 small umbrella strollers. We'll see what the testdrive on the weekend presents. I'll bring a couple of suitcases and the double stroller. |
|
|
| DaveI |
I just test drove the FX35 today, and it was impressive. You do trade off some utility & rear seat room for the FX's superior acceleration, handling, & braking. And having to buy the technology package for $7k to get the navi is kind of harsh.
Too bad it wasn't around a year ago when we were shopping for the X, would have been a tough choice.
If only someone would offer me full retail for my X....... |
|
|
| ndahbar |
| I FIND IT PRETTY FRIGGIN SUSPICIOUS THAT THE FX35 IS NOT ON THE INFINITI WEBSITE YET??? I thought it's out already. No? Just the 45? I guess so then. Well why then is there a debate over "HELP! I am thinking to go FX35 over MDX what to do?!" ??? |
|
|
| DaveI |
| I think on the Infiniti site when you click on the FX45 link, it comes up with a page that allows you to toggle between the 35 vs. 45. |
|
|
| crikey |
The FX35 ROCKS!. It's not an SUV, it's a sports car with more passenger and cargo room. A couple of observations:
1. The hood is really long, it was a good thing that the driver's seat had an 8-way power setting as I was able to adjust the height of the seat so I could see better. Due to the hood being as long as it is, IMO, I think that it may fare well in frontal crash tests but actual tests would tell.
2. The passenger seat is low. My wife said it felt like it swallowed her since she could not see over the hood. It's non-adjustable for height since it's only powered 4 ways. :( This is the only thing that my wife didn't like about the FX35.
3. Overall, the seats were mighty comfortable and very supportive. The leather was unmistakably top quality. The back seats were equally comfortable as well, even the middle seat.
4. The sound of the exhaust is very similar to the G35 Coupe since it uses the same engine and probably the same plumbing, i.e exhaust system.
5. The cargo area was, as expected, very tight. Having said that, I was able to fit in 4 standard-sized suitcases (whatever that is, but not those hand-carry ones) by standing them on their sides. The fit was snug but it fits. Same 4 suitcases was a bear to put in my current 2001 Nissan Pathfinder since the cargo area of the Pathfinder has significant wheelwell intrusion, unlike the FX35's and is shorter than the FX35's cargo area. However, shopping trips to Costco would be significantly lessened (I guess that's good for me?).
6. It handled very confidently, IMO, almost similar, if not better, than the Mazda 6s that I recently testdrove. I personally would not be too worried about rollovers in the FX35.
Overall, my heart and part of my mind (due to all the safety features) says FX35 but the majority of my mind says MDX due to more pratical utility. And since my employer participates in the VPP, I can get into an FX35 AWD with Sport Package (includes 20" wheels :2:) and Roof Rails for less than $37K + TTL (MSRP is $40515). The MDX probably wins on resale value since the residual values on the FX don't look very attractive.
Man, this decision is going to be really tough. I'm almost sold on it, but not entirely. I've always wanted a G35 Coupe, could this be the next best thing? ;)
Anyway, thanks to all who have been providing their feedback. I appreciate it.;) |
|
|
| ndahbar |
People don't realize the amount of road you can view sitting in a Honda. The dash is always low, awesome visibility. This also applies to the NSX. This is something I LOVE and I've noticed it all by myself w/o anyone ever pointing it out to me since I was a kid.
And you've just said it about the FX. Yah good luck parallel parking that thing. The MDX I am sure will be far less stressful to pilot around our cities as they are today.
Also, err, I would stay away from the 20 inch wheels if your city has crap roads. MOST big cities in the USA fall under that category (pretty darn embarrassing for a 1st World Country, let alone the sole superpower in the world, but that's another story).
Alas, in the end, there will be two polar extremes: Those that say "far out, this car looks cool" and the other side that says "err, buddy, let me tell u how the real world is: If u want a car, get a car. If u want an SUV, get an SUV. Dump this weird hybrid crap". :rolleyes: |
|
|
| wmquan |
Thanks for sharing your comments. I enjoyed reading about your excitement with the vehicle.
Practical considerations aside or at least somewhat mitigated (since you found that it might have adequate cargo room), will you be happy now if you buy the MDX? Or would you always ask yourself "why didn't I get that sports car SUV?" At this dollar level of purchase, you have to be happy.
Obviously the FX trades away the higher seating position of an SUV, the commanding view. Actually, the MDX's seating position, while certainly higher, is not very high compared to some SUV's. Then again, the SUV doesn't have the ground clearance of some of those monsters, and that too-high tippy feeling either! |
|
|
| crikey |
quote:
Originally posted by ndahbar
People don't realize the amount of road you can view sitting in a Honda. The dash is always low, awesome visibility. This also applies to the NSX. This is something I LOVE and I've noticed it all by myself w/o anyone ever pointing it out to me since I was a kid.
I agree, most Hondas/Acuras that I have been in have very good visibility.
quote:
And you've just said it about the FX. Yah good luck parallel parking that thing. The MDX I am sure will be far less stressful to pilot around our cities as they are today.
Lucky me, I don't get to parallel park a lot in FL. :)
quote:
Also, err, I would stay away from the 20 inch wheels if your city has crap roads. MOST big cities in the USA fall under that category (pretty darn embarrassing for a 1st World Country, let alone the sole superpower in the world, but that's another story).
The 20" wheels are quite unabsorbent of bumps. You can really feel that road. But that's the price to pay for a sport-oriented suspension.
quote:
Alas, in the end, there will be two polar extremes: Those that say "far out, this car looks cool" and the other side that says "err, buddy, let me tell u how the real world is: If u want a car, get a car. If u want an SUV, get an SUV. Dump this weird hybrid crap". :rolleyes:
That's pretty much what one of the C&D editors said. But yet, we saw the X5 coming out -- hardly any utility in that SAV. Now, it seems that other manufacturers see that the sport crossover would be the next wave. Thus, we have the FX45/35 and the Murano. |
|
|
| crikey |
quote:
Originally posted by wmquan
Practical considerations aside or at least somewhat mitigated (since you found that it might have adequate cargo room), will you be happy now if you buy the MDX? Or would you always ask yourself "why didn't I get that sports car SUV?" At this dollar level of purchase, you have to be happy.
And I also ask myself the other question, will I be happy now if I buy the FX35? :D I agree, I'm fortunate enough that I could afford to buy either the MDX or the FX35. But in the end, I have to be happy with what I buy. More contemplation, more contemplation, more contemplation...
quote:
Obviously the FX trades away the higher seating position of an SUV, the commanding view. Actually, the MDX's seating position, while certainly higher, is not very high compared to some SUV's. Then again, the SUV doesn't have the ground clearance of some of those monsters, and that too-high tippy feeling either!
Certainly, there are pros and cons -- sacrifice a bit of visibility for more stability. |
|
|
| Desant |
It seems to me like your heart is set on FX, however your mind is telling to maybe get an MDX. In either case, you will love it and you will have regrets.
If I were you, I would get an FX, because you and your wife seem to be in love with it and if you don't get it, you will always regret it every time you see it. Yes, it will have less space and less value, but you will love it.
That is just my advice! :1: |
|
|
| crikey |
quote:
Originally posted by Desant
It seems to me like your heart is set on FX, however your mind is telling to maybe get an MDX. In either case, you will love it and you will have regrets.
If I were you, I would get an FX, because you and your wife seem to be in love with it and if you don't get it, you will always regret it every time you see it. Yes, it will have less space and less value, but you will love it.
That is just my advice! :1:
Thanks for your advice, I appreciate it. |
|
< | |
