Car & Driver CUV comparison...

T

theRAMSTA

Member
Location
Helmetta, NJ
Car
07 FX35
Car and Driver's website recently did a comparison between the top luxury crossovers on the market: BMW X6, Acura ZDX, and the Infiniti FX35. Before ending up with the FX, I was considering all of these other CUVs. Based on the results below and the extra money in my pocket, it looks like I made the right decision.

0-60mph:
FX35: 6.1s
X6: 5.9s
ZDX: 6.4s

0-100mph:
FX35: 16s
X6: 16.4s
ZDX: 17s

Street start (5-60mph):
FX35: 6.5s
X6: 6.9s
ZDX: 6.7s

Fuel Efficiency (C/D observed)
FX35: 14mpg
X6: 16mpg
ZDX: 20mpg
 
Personal opinion on X6:
- It looks great
- It handles great (without any mods)
- It feels huge
- You sit high (compared to FX)

I have JB+ only right now and it gives a nice punch after the turbo spools properly but there are a LOT of limitations on the exhaust, which explains the 0-100 times. How does 4 cats, 1 resonator and 1 big rear muffler sound? This thing would fly with some better downpipes and a good exhaust but there are very few aftermarket options and they're ridiculously pricey. $1200 for just a rear muffler? I say go fuck somebody else with that.. :smile:

It does turn heads though. Don't know in disgust or in amazement but it does anyways..
 
Frankly I think the X6 looks lifeless whereas the FX, while being a YMMV looks wise, looks very much alive and "energetic".

I LOVE my FX. I looked at the X6 before I took the plunge but could not find anything that justified the increased cost, heck I'm not sure I could find anything to make me chose the BMW even if the cost was about the same.

---------- Post added at 05:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:05 PM ----------
PRICE31 said:
what about the 50? isn't the 50 still cheaper than the X6 itself? or we're comparing different engines here?
Click to expand...

For the "same" car the X6 will cost you about 15-20k more. Engine wise the X6 has 10 more horsepower (with the upgraded motor) but almost identical or inferior acceleration numbers.

If you buy the M version you'll spend closer to 96k but you'll have 550hp ;D

For me the FX was an easy choice I think. Now if I had money to burn I'd probably go with the X6 M. 550hp is hard to resist with all the other options :)
 
Last edited:
14 mpg??? For what generation?

I'm at 18mpg and have been around that number for more than 100,000 miles, according to the computer.
 
Mongolian said:
I don't think people forking out that much dough cares much about MPG... -_-
Click to expand...

True... I'm just wondering what MPG the X6M would get if you were to seriously drive it in the canyons. My friend's M6 can get as low as 10 if he pushes it a little.

---------- Post added at 09:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 PM ----------
jumbosrule said:
14 mpg??? For what generation?

I'm at 18mpg and have been around that number for more than 100,000 miles, according to the computer.
Click to expand...

I'm averaging around 16-17. And thats mixed freeway and local roads. 14 is definitely possible.
 
According to the posted numbers you can expect about 1mpg less than the FX50 on the X6 V8, don't remember the V6 but that is more in line with the 35 not the 50.

These cars are all guzzlers, turbo or not ;)

I should note that I have about 1k miles on my 2010 FX50s and I'm averaging about 13-14 BUT I am still driving it very "playfully" so my mileage would suck. I am in sport mode most of the time and I definitely don't ease my way into traffic!
 
They are both ugly vehicles IMO. The turbo motors are easy to upgrade. The aftermarket will be more accepting of the bimmers. Bimmers generally drive much better. Infiniti is very close though, but overall after owning much more bimmers and only 1 infiniti I still prefer the bimmer. Every single person is going to like one or the other, shoot they may not like either.
 
santiagodraco said:
For the "same" car the X6 will cost you about 15-20k more. Engine wise the X6 has 10 more horsepower (with the upgraded motor) but almost identical or inferior acceleration numbers.
Click to expand...

The 35i engine is rated at 310 but it's actual output is closer to 340. Either way, because of the extra weight, X6 looks a tad slower than 2nd gen FX35 (according to the test). As a person who drove both first gen, second gen (tested) and X6 (own), I think the X6 is much better on low end acceleration thanks to the turbos. While I had to kick it through 3500rpm on the FX to get a good rush, the X6 gives it right around 2250-2500 and flies from there on until the exhaust limits the upper end.

Personally (ie, IMO), I'd go with the second gen FX if only it didn't look that ugly (personal choice here). Also, it's SO easy to tune the X6 to get much better power. With just a $225 "booster" (JB+), you get close to 40hp and you feel it. I've spent more than $3000 on my FX to get half the results on this.

What I don't like most about it is that, apart from the stuff in my prev post, the majority of the current X6 owners are snobby idiots that don't know shit about their car and don't know its potential. Also, there's no good forum (like IS here) that is on X6. 3 series guys have a good community but that doesn't apply to the X series unfortunately..
 
jumbosrule said:
14 mpg??? For what generation?

I'm at 18mpg and have been around that number for more than 100,000 miles, according to the computer.
Click to expand...

my average has been 14mpg for quite awhile now (at least constantly for over a year). My style is suburb and city driving but in school also my mpg sucks. I dont even punch the throttle much anymore, and when i do i dip down into the low 10s
 
EG3 said:
The 35i engine is rated at 310 but it's actual output is closer to 340. Either way, because of the extra weight, X6 looks a tad slower than 2nd gen FX35 (according to the test). As a person who drove both first gen, second gen (tested) and X6 (own), I think the X6 is much better on low end acceleration thanks to the turbos. While I had to kick it through 3500rpm on the FX to get a good rush, the X6 gives it right around 2250-2500 and flies from there on until the exhaust limits the upper end.

Personally (ie, IMO), I'd go with the second gen FX if only it didn't look that ugly (personal choice here). Also, it's SO easy to tune the X6 to get much better power. With just a $225 "booster" (JB+), you get close to 40hp and you feel it. I've spent more than $3000 on my FX to get half the results on this.

What I don't like most about it is that, apart from the stuff in my prev post, the majority of the current X6 owners are snobby idiots that don't know shit about their car and don't know its potential. Also, there's no good forum (like IS here) that is on X6. 3 series guys have a good community but that doesn't apply to the X series unfortunately..
Click to expand...

Actually turbos provide less affect at the low end, so turbo'd cars are slower off the line. Just fyi :)

I agree on the 2nd gen FX, it's a look that has to grow on you. Never the less it's look is striking, it may not be as appealing as the G, but it does stand out! And if you like it you really like it.

But for the money it simply can't be beat imo. The FX50 is a screamer and is loaded for features and with the incentives available it's an even better buy. You can get much better deals from Iinfiniti than from BMW.

---------- Post added at 07:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 PM ----------
tchuck said:
Is there a break in procedure on the 50s?
Click to expand...

There's any variety of break-in procedures people say are best. My break-procedure has always been to simply drive the car without being crazy :) Other than that I don't give it a bit of thought.

---------- Post added at 07:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:46 PM ----------
jumbosrule said:
14 mpg??? For what generation?

I'm at 18mpg and have been around that number for more than 100,000 miles, according to the computer.
Click to expand...

As you can see from my profile information I'm driving an FX50s, so second gen 5 liter.
 
santiagodraco said:
Actually turbos provide less affect at the low end, so turbo'd cars are slower off the line. Just fyi :)
Click to expand...

Maybe turbo cars of yore. Exciting new technological advances has made it almost impossible to tell FI vehicles from NA vehicles. The N54 in the BMWs is one such motor.

Turbos have come a long way also. Examples can be seen on any STS TT C6/ZO6, Hellion powered Terminator, or Hellion powered GT500.
 
Actually turbos provide less affect at the low end, so turbo'd cars are slower off the line. Just fyi :)
Click to expand...
depends on the size of the turbos also, smaller will spool up faster, but lack top end .... but I agree with you for the most part.

eg3, stop it with the bimmer talk :tongue: Infiniti FTW ! :rofl:
 
theMerchant said:
depends on the size of the turbos also, smaller will spool up faster, but lack top end .... but I agree with you for the most part.

eg3, stop it with the bimmer talk :tongue: Infiniti FTW ! :rofl:
Click to expand...

No denying the last comment.. I'm just trying to lure some members from here to the Bimmer world so I can have some good chat potential unlike the idiots out there with their Bimmer SUVs :tongue:

santiagodraco said:
Actually turbos provide less affect at the low end, so turbo'd cars are slower off the line. Just fyi :)
Click to expand...

As I said, I've driven all three (2006 FX35, 2009 FX35, 2009 X6 35i) and from these, X6 is more punchy than all. Also, as Alan said, that "turbo cars are slower off the line" depends a lot on turbo size. The bigger the turbo, the slower it is off the line due to the turbo lag. The X6 uses two small turbos on a 3.0L direct injected engine. The power picks up around 2250-2500rpms whereas the 6 cylinder FX picks up around 3500-4000rpms. The exhaust is way too restrictive though, which explains the worse numbers on a 0-60 run. A couple of simple & cheap mods and it can easily outperform the 09+ FX35 by at least .5 secs

Btw, I'm no novice/newbie/noob on FI. Take a look at prev posts here. Just fyi :wink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top