A driver's SUV?
Written: Jun 08 '03 (Updated Jun 22 '05)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: Distinctive styling, performance, handling
Cons: Distinctive styling, option packaging, ride quality, utility compromised
The Bottom Line: More fun to drive than any other SUV I've sampled, even with the base engine and suspension. Ride quality and option packaging are the major negatives.
|
|
|
| mkaresh's Full Review: 2003 Infiniti FX |
Back in 1989, fresh out of college, I spent a number of months touring the country. Driving the Toyota Celica All-Trac Turbo I then owned along the unpaved roads that crisscross the Southwest, I envisioned a new sort of vehicle, one that combined a powerful engine and agile chassis with the ability to travel such roads in comfort.
The Celica was 90 percent of the way there. Somewhat dead on pavement owing to the balanced traction of all-wheel-drive, it came alive on less grippy surfaces. On snow or off the pavement the chassis could suddenly be steered with the throttle. The road up Pikes Peak was a blast. However, the Celica was a bit firmly sprung and lacking in ground clearance for travel along unpaved roads. Although a rock never took out anything vital, my journeys through the Southwest would have been more comfortable and less stressful in a vehicle with greater suspension compliance and ground clearance. I didn’t want an SUV, mind you. I wanted to hurry along these roads at the wheel of an agile, sharp-handling machine. I wanted a cross between an SUV and a sports car.
Well, fourteen years later we might finally be seeing such vehicles. (I’m going to ignore the crude attempt that was AMC’s early 1980s SX4.) Acura and then BMW claimed to offer such crossovers with the MDX and X5, but they’re not quite what I mean. (The hyperlinks lead to my reviews of these related vehicles.) The MDX drives too much like a minivan. It’s handling is hardly exhilarating, despite the claims of Acura’s marketers. The X5 comes closer, but it still feels quite trucky with its upright windshield, high driving position, and inescapable sense of mass.
Newer vehicles come closer still. Porsche recently introduced its first non-sports car, the controversial Cayenne. No doubt it’s very capable. Sadly, it’s also inexplicably hideous and priced, well, like a Porsche. Nissan for 2003 went one better, introducing not one but two driver-oriented SUVs, the Nissan Murano and Infiniti FX.
These might be expected to be much the same vehicle, as Nissans and Infinitis have been in the past. They are not. Despite their very similar positioning as SUVs that favor sport and highly distinctive styling over utility, the Murano and FX are very different vehicles. Like nearly all car-based SUVs, the Murano is based on a front-wheel-drive family sedan, in this case the Altima. The Infiniti FX breaks with this pattern (as does the BMW X5) by taking a rear-wheel-drive platform as its basis. (There will soon be others. Cadillac has a CTS-based SUV coming this fall, and Mercedes and Lexus appear to have similar vehicles on the way.) Sharing a platform with the Nissan 350Z and Infiniti G35, the FX can legitimately claim a sports car connection. Just with additional utility and all-surface traction. Even more than the Porsche SUV, which possesses some true off-road capability, the FX was designed primarily for on-road thrills. To find out if this was the sort of vehicle I envisioned years ago, I took one for a test drive.
Infiniti FX35 / FX45 Reliability
Want better reliability information? Want to really know what difference it will make if you buy an Infiniti FX rather than something else? It's coming in the form of "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats. From these you might learn that your first choice, compared to your second choice, is likely to make 2.7 extra trips to the shop in its first five years. You might decide its advantages compensate for this, or you might not. Either way, you'll be able to make a much better informed decision.
To gain access to this information you have a choice: sign up to help provide the data now or pay $24.95 later. For the details, visit my website, www.truedelta.com.
Models and Option Packages
The FX comes in two versions, the FX35 and the FX45, the primary difference being the engine. The FX35 shares a 3.5-liter V6 with half of Nissan’s product line. In this application it produces 280 horsepower. The FX45 shares a 4.5-liter V8 with Infiniti’s pair of large sedans. In this application it produces a bit fewer horses, at 315. Wheels are the other major difference. Huge, 20-inch wheels that dominate the appearance of the vehicle are standard on the FX45, but only optional on the FX35. ‘Small” 18s are standard on the cheaper model. Every review I’ve read suggests that the FX45 is cursed with extremely poor ride quality, so I opted to test drive an FX35 with the smaller wheels and less firm suspension. A harsh ride on unpaved roads was one of the things I disliked about the Celica, after all.
Alas, driving an FX with the smaller wheels is not easy. According to Consumer Guide, Infiniti expects the V6 model to initially comprise 70 percent of sales, and for this to grow to 80 percent down the road. Yet the brochure speaks only about the FX45 until you reach the specs pages in the back. On the cover it reads “FX45,” not “FX.” It’s as if they want people to focus on the V8 model.
Perhaps this is to more clearly separate the FX from the Murano, which utilizes the same basic V6 (though with “only” 245 horsepower). Even the FX35 is considerably more expensive than the Murano, and the chassis are totally different, yet the marketers cannot be blamed for thinking that further differentiation might be a good thing. That, and its easier to start people high and shift them down if necessary than vice-versa.
Actually, the principle goal seems to be to force people to spend as much as possible. The color chart in the brochure was a real shock. Those who desire a base FX in either 35 or 45 form have their color selection made for them. Unless you order a pricey option package, the only color combination available is ivory (white) with a “willow” (greenish tan) interior. A bit heavy-handed, methinks. This strategy continues for those who don’t want the 20-inch wheels and sport-tuned suspension. FX35s equipped with only the “premium package” (basically heated leather, sunroof, uprated stereo) must choose among four basic colors: ivory, black, silver, and gold. The racier colors—red, brown, and especially copper—are only available with the sport package. Ditto the risqué yet invitingly warm “brick” interior. I went with a silver/willow vehicle, although the brown/brick strikes me as most appealing with the FX.
Before moving on, I should complete my criticisms of the option packaging. Entertainment systems are all the rage with minivans and SUVs. As the father of three young children, I’d want one. As an individual option they generally run about a grand lately. However, on the FX such a system is only available only as part of the technology package. Not only does this package also include a navigation system, laser-guided intelligent cruise control, and a rear view camera, but both the premium and sport packages. Hence it both brings with it those 20-inch wheels and a $9,400 price tag. As nifty as intelligent cruise is, this vehicle is expensive enough. I’d personally like to be able to order the entertainment system as an individual option and be done with it.
Now that I’ve fully vented about the fascist option/color packaging, on with the review.
Styling
As Infiniti points out at every available opportunity (including Hummer H2ish ads that emphasize defying convention), the FX looks like no other vehicle. SUVs tend to be angular to reinforce their rugged image. The FX, in constrast, possesses curves on the order of the Audi TT. Or Porsche 911. Frankly, the FX looks more like a Porsche than Porsche’s own SUV. Easier on the eyes, too. Despite its curvaceousness, the FX still looks tough and rugged. Credit generous proportions and a huge grille. (The latter recalls another recently introduced semi-SUV, Chrysler’s more luxury-oriented Pacifica.) With huge wheels and an imposing front end, the FX does not have to rely on angular styling to get its message across. Instead, it can manage to look both sporty and unstoppable.
The FX’s sporty character is enhanced by a relatively low height. At 65 inches, like Chrysler’s Pacifica and Lexus’s RX 330 it stands two to six inches lower than other midsize SUVs. (But still about ten inches taller than a typical sedan.)
While I admire Infiniti’s audacity, and even find myself strangely drawn to the styling of the FX, I can’t quite find it attractive. I enjoy how the FX makes me think about the many stylistic conventions it violates, yet cannot become comfortable with it. Intentionally, it just looks wrong. Thinking through what rubs me the wrong way, I come to focus on the rear end and wheels.
Much like an English bulldog, and likely for the same reason, the FX combines an imposing front end (courtesy of Nissan’s cab rearward FM platform) with a diminutive rear. Once past the passenger compartment the body quickly arcs down to an abrupt end. The resulting proportions appear silly, yet silly in a way that commands respect, as the tiny rear makes the front appear even more imposing. In those classic cartoons no one makes fun of the bulldog to his face. An additional benefit: unlike the Chrysler Pacifica, no one will accuse the FX of being a station wagon. A hatchback perhaps.
The 20-inch wheels on most FXs are so large as to appear cartoonish, yet the vehicle has been designed around them to such an extent that the 18s—not long ago larger than the largest wheels available on an SUV—appear a bit too small. Maybe 19s would strike a happy medium?
Between the huge wheels, the imposing hood, and the bobbed tail the FX above all else demands attention. In this manner it’s a Hummer H2 with curves.
Inside there is less craziness. This makes sense. Even people attracted to bizarre styling find it difficult to get comfortable in. Hence, much like ultra-modern homes, vehicles with bizarre exteriors often have more conventional interiors. The FX interior resembles that in the Infiniti G35 sedan, especially the wide, flat, faux metal center console and the front seats with their controls on the inner thigh bolster. The instrument panel and doors have simple forms styled to suggest a massive structure. If you want a bizarre interior to go with your bizarre exterior, check out the Murano.
Actually, a bit of bizarre is available in the form of the brick interior. This orangish color is available in many Nissan vehicles for 2003, including the Murano. As I’ve mentioned, I like this interior in the FX. The top half of the interior is black, so it’s not overwhelmingly orange. It feels warm in a way willow and graphite are not. I especially like the reptilian pattern embossed on the leather. Sadly, if you want the brick interior you must order the sport package (or the technology package, which includes the sport package).
The secondary controls are about average in ease of use for a luxury vehicles, which is to say they are laid out better than in other recent Infiniti designs yet still are not that easy to use. The HVAC and stereo are operated with a couple dozen flat black buttons that differ little in appearance or feel. At least two conventional knobs are retained for the primary stereo functions. The far controls are a bit of a stretch. As in more and more luxury vehicles, all readouts are handled on a flat panel display even without the nav system option.
The materials thankfully are a cut above those in the G35. They are still not as rich as those in the BMW X5 or Lexus RX. Among other things, the color match among various materials in the willow interior bordered on poor. For example, the grab handles on the doors were significantly greener than other parts. In its rush to get a slew of new products out ASAP—I continue to be amazed that a nearly bankrupt company could introduce so much so fast—it seems Nissan may have forgone sweating the details.
Accommodations
As in Chrysler’s Pacifica, the driving position it about halfway between that of a car and a conventional SUV. I don’t have the actual figures, but the drivers seat feels even lower relative to a BMW X5 than the difference in the vehicles’ heights would suggest. As a result, visibility forward is good but not quite SUV expansive. In fact, the relationship between the driver’s sightline and the hood is much like that in a car, with the major difference being that both the driver and the hood are roughly half a foot higher off the ground than in a car.
Visibility isn’t so good to the rear. The rear quarter windows are even smaller than they look from the outside. All in all, there is a lot of structure hampering the view rearward. But I’ve been told you’re supposed to use the mirrors rather than looking over your shoulder to change lanes anyway. (Just be sure to properly adjust your mirrors first.) When backing up…I guess that’s what the rear view camera option is for.
As in the Pacifica, the interior styling, with its expansive gently curved surfaces, suggests a massive structure. Think large exterior with a cozy interior. Think fortress on wheels. Quite likely both companies learned from market research that this is what many people want.
Based on the FX’s extensive standard safety equipment, the appearance of safety is likely not deceiving. This equipment includes ABS, brake assist, stability control, active headrests, and two seats of side airbags. Pretty much everything you’ll find on brands known for safety.
Despite the initial impression of coziness, there is plenty of room for a pair of adults front and rear. Even with the sunroof the ceiling sweeps far overhead. In the rear legroom is generous. The front seats, like those in the G35, are well bolstered for good lateral support in aggressive driving. They are adequately comfortable, but the emphasis is clearly on sport over luxury. As in most vehicles, the rear cushion could be a bit higher for optimal thigh support. The rear seat reclines about 1/3 of the way to flat for good napping on trips. Narrow rear door openings slightly complicate access to the rear seat.
At 189 inches the FX is as long as an Acura MDX or Volvo XC90, but owing to its sporty styling lacks the space for a third row. If you want a sharp handling SUV with a third row, the Acura MDX and Volvo XC90 are the only choices right now. The Acura's handling isn't very sporty. I have not yet driven the Volvo, but it's too tall to handle especially well. In the fall Cadillac will introduce a three-row, CTS-based SUV that should handle significantly better than either (but have an even more cramped third row--the tradeoffs don't go away).
As with the X5, cargo space falls short of the SUV norm. But not to as large an extent, courtesy of the FX's half a foot of additional length. With the rear seats up cargo volume is 27 cubic feet—and looks like less than that. While significantly better than the X5’s 16 and the Cayenne’s 19, it pales in comparison to the Lexus RX 300’s 32, much less a Ford Explorer’s 47. With the rear seats folded, cargo room in a sunroof-equipped FX jumps to 60 cubic feet. Although this is again more than the BMW (54), and it ties the Porche, it is much less than many competitors such as the Acura MDX (82), Lexus RX (85), and Volvo XC90 (93). Such is the price of those curves, that long hood, those huge wheels, and that relatively low roof. The FX is roughly the same length as the others, it is simply packaged much less efficiently for styling’s sake.
The rear seats fold easily. A lever on each sidewall of cargo area releases each seatback section, which then automatically folds forward without further effort. There is no need to remove headrests or tilt the seat cushion forward first. The only issue with this system is that when the seatbacks are folded back up they return to a fully upright position. To be comfortable rear passengers must then recline them. A minor nuisance.
On the Road
At 4200 lbs., the FX35 is significantly lighter than the competition (save the Lexus) despite its massive appearance. An Acura MDX runs 4400 lbs., a BMW X5 4500, a Chrysler Pacifica 4700, and a Porsche Cayenne 5000. Hence even with the V6 acceleration is more than adequate (if not neck snapping). As Nissan’s V6 has grown its voice has grown less sweet, but its throatiness in 3.5 liter form befits an SUV. When pushed the FX35’s engine sounds strong rather than strained. During my test drive I had the occasion to floor the throttle a few times, but never found myself wishing for more power.
Those in search of awe-inspiring, slam-you-in-the-small-of-the-back power are more likely to find it in the V8. The two engines do not differ so much at high RPM—peak power differs by only 35 horses. In the midrange, however, the V8 possesses a larger advantage, producing nearly 60 ft-lbs. more torque at a peak 800 RPM lower. I do not know if gearing differs between the two engines. If the V8’s gearing is taller to aid fuel economy its performance margin will shrink.
On the subject of fuel economy, I would not expect much. The V6 might not sound or feel strained, but it is nonetheless working fairly hard to move the FX. At 70 it is turning 3000 RPM, which is a bit fast for decent fuel economy with an engine of this size. As I’ve already mentioned, I also found myself dipping pretty aggressively into the throttle. Owners of the Nissan Murano have been reporting fuel economy around 18 miles per gallon, and the Murano is a slighly lighter vehicle with a much more efficient CVT transmission. I’d expect mid-teens in typical suburban driving in the FX35, and maybe even low teens in the FX45.
A five-speed automatic is the only transmission available with either engine. This transmission can be manually shifted, but even though it reacted to such input fairly quickly I continue to find such transmissions no substitute for a true manual. As the transmission generally found a good ratio all on its own I did not use this feature much. In aggressive driving along a twisty road it was of some benefit.
If nothing else, the FX should be about exceptional handling for an SUV. It does not disappoint. The FX is easily the sportiest handling SUV I’ve driven. This impression begins with the steering wheel. An instrument cluster that adjusts vertically with the wheels allows the diameter of the latter to be exceptionally small. I’ve only encountered such a small wheel in sports cars in the past. Further connoting sporty handling, the wheel’s rim is thick.
This wheel accurately conveys the character of the FX’s handling. The small diameter suggests responsiveness. The thick rim suggests a certain heaviness and stability. A BMW X5 handles more nimbly—it feels “light on its feet” while the FX feels planted--but the BMW also feels much more trucky owing to a more upright windshield and higher seating position. Although the FX feels less agile, it corners with less lean and more grip (and the X5 already does much better than most other SUVs in these areas). The 265mm wide tires deserve credit, as does the stiff suspension. (The base suspension is stiff, the sport-tuned suspension is ultra-stiff. Pressing down with all of my 170 pounds on the front fender of an FX45 I could not get the vehicle to budge.) Unlike in many SUVs, there is no slop to be felt in the chassis.
The steering system provides a good but not great level of feedback. Unlike in the BMW, I felt this was a vehicle to be steered with the whole hand rather than sensitive fingertips. Steering effort is moderately high, which I personally like. Overall, I felt as if I was driving a jacked up, bulked up sport sedan. Which is pretty much what the FX is. It might not be a sports car, but it is fun to drive in a way few SUVs are. Still not my personal cup of tea, but for those who must have an SUV this is arguably the best handler in the bunch.
Sadly, the laws of physics cannot be denied. Even with the base tires and suspension the ride is busy over all but the smoothest pavement. The X5 suffers similarly. To get a relatively tall vehicle to corner with minimal lean, the suspension must be stiffer even than that of the typical sport sedan. If the FX45 rides significantly worse than the FX35, I can see what the fuss is about, as the FX35’s ride quality is marginal. On those Southwestern roads I mentioned in the introduction the FX would probably not have ridden any better than my Celica. It probably would have sounded less out of its element, though. The FX’s ride might be busy over rough pavement, but it did not at all sound as if the vehicle was being beaten to death. The passengers, maybe, but not the vehicle. If you live in an area where the roads are smooth (i.e. not my native Michigan) then the ride quality will be less of an issue.
Given a fairly smooth road surface, noise levels approximate those of a middling near-luxury sedan. Road noise is most prominent, even with the 18-inch tires. The engine becomes moderately vocal when pushed, not a bad thing in a driver-oriented vehicle. As long as the road as smooth, the FX should be a comfortable long-distance cruiser.
Pricing
For quick, up-to-date pricing, and especially user-specified price comparisons, check out the website I created: www.truedelta.com. Why yet another vehicle pricing website? Well, I personally lacked the patience to keep using the others. They were too slow and required too much effort, especially when trying to compare prices. So I taught myself some programming and created a site where there is no need to dig through option packages, prerequisites, and the like one by one -- the TrueDelta algorithm figures these out for you in one swift pass.
The following is from when the review was originally written:
With the $2,600 premium package and a roof rack the FX35 lists for $39,365. Edmunds suggests that the typical dealer discounts this about $700. Those willing to do without all-wheel-drive can save $1,500. Add $1,300 for the sport package. Add another $6,700 for the FX45’s V8. Other luxury brands charge about the same for an eight over a six, but it still seems a bit steep. Toyota charges about two grand in its Tundra pickup for such a jump, and it wasn’t long ago that American brands only charged a few hundred for a couple extra cylinders. I’d personally find it difficult to spend the extra cash for the V8 even if it didn’t require the 20-inch wheels.
All comparisons are to the premium package FX35 I drove.
A similarly equipped BMW X5 3.0 lists for $46,420 even without the sport package likely required to get the X5 to handle even as well as the base FX35. The sport package requires the premium package, and together they push the price well over fifty. Discounts are minimal.
Cadillac’s SRX isn’t available until the fall, but should cost nearly as much as the BMW.
An Acura MDX “Touring” lists for $38,800. Discounts are again minimal. Thus the price is very similar to the FX35’s. The Acura is much more practical, with a third row and much more cargo room, while the FX looks and feels much sportier.
A Lexus RX 330 with the “performance package” (which I imagine is necessary to make the Lexus feel at all sporty) lists for $42,455. This package includes a power tailgate and swiveling headlamps, features not even available on the FX. Discounts should be minimal. I haven’t driven the Lexus, but expect it to be significantly more luxurious, comfortable, and refined than the FX, but significantly less fun to drive.
The Chrysler Pacifica is the closest American competitor until the Cadillac arrives. Similarly equipped it lists for $36,860, and Edmunds again suggests a minimal discount, about $500. This vehicle is overpriced for a Chrysler, so I find this hard to believe. The Pacifica like the Acura is more of a touring vehicle than a sporty handler. Like the Acura, it has a cramped third row. Like the FX, it sits lower to the ground than other SUVs.
A Nissan Murano equipped like the FX35 I drove lists for $35,553. Edmunds suggests that the typical dealer discount brings this to $34,200. The Nissan offers more cargo volume, but the view forward resembles that of some minivans—the dash is very deep. The interior is much cheaper than the Infiniti’s and not styled as well. Although the Murano’s ride quality has also been criticized, my sense was that it is significantly better than the FX35’s. Acceleration is stronger in the Nissan, but the CVT-based powertrain feels less refined. Handling and grip, though much better than most SUVs, does not inspire confidence to the same level as the FX35’s. The Infiniti feels more composed and is more fun to drive. For most people interested in a sporty SUV the extra $4,500 for the Infiniti will be money well spent.
Going to the other extreme, the Porsche Cayenne easily tops $60,000 when equipped like the vehicle I drove. No doubt it is a better vehicle, if not a better-looking vehicle. But it costs over 50 percent more.
Overall, the Infiniti in FX35 form seems reasonably priced. As noted above, the option packaging is much more of an issue than the base price of the vehicle.
Final Words
The Infiniti FX blends a sport sedan with an SUV to a much greater extent than any previous vehicle. Utility is somewhat reduced by the sport-oriented styling and packaging, but not as much as with the BMW X5. Outstanding handling is paid for with a busy ride. This ride quality keeps the FX from being the all-road high-performance vehicle I envisioned back in the late 1980s. So that vehicle has yet to be created. As an SUV restricted to the pavement, preferably smooth pavement, the FX is an intriguing proposition. I’d personally still prefer a high-performance station wagon, but for those seeking the most fun-to-drive SUV this is likely it for now. If you find the distinctive styling appealing that’s an added bonus.
To learn more about my reliability research and sign up to participate in it, or to perform thorough new car price comparisons, visit www.truedelta.com. A link to this website and alphabetized links to my other vehicle reviews can be found on my profile page.
Recommended:
Yes
Amount Paid (US$): 39,365
Model Year: 2003
Model and Options: FX35, Premium Pkg, roof rack
|
|
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2008 Shopping.com, Inc.