:tongue (2):
WHICH IS FASTER FX50s OR CAYENNE S 2011 ??
- Thread starter وضح النقاء
- Start date
F
Fire0nic3
Guest
I've seen the fish eye backup camera in action already and it still doesn't compare to the function of the around view monitor. The visual representation of the front and rear parking sensors still doesn't live up to the around view monitor like the FX has. I feel it's still best to be able to see all around you instead of just in back with some graphics that the parking sensors pick up. On top of the around view monitor the FX also has the front and rear parking sensors show up on the graphics of the around view monitor to show exactly which sensor is the one being affected that as object is in front of or near.
Infiniti's lane departure warning system still surpasses the Cayenne cause the Cayenne's system only warns you. The FX35/50 actually monitor the lanes, warn you, then apply the front and rear brakes on the opposite side to nudge you back into the lane perfectly lined up.
Not directed towards you bro, but no one can convince me the Cayenne is better. I'm not an Infiniti fanboy either as I like all kinds of cars, but I'd just go with the FX50.
Air ride FTW!!!
Seriously though, I'd probably take the FX also, but mostly because of the price difference that you noted along with the assumed reliability advantage Infiniti has over any non-911 Porsche. They really are pretty comparable vehicles though, in every technical aspect.
I also have to agree with the around view! I have driven cars with back camera and none compare with the system from infiniti (that includes the older FX and my borther's S5). Plus you can use it in tight spaces to see how close are you to the obstacles (this is how we drive here in Bucharest; it is a crowded city). Everytime i used it i have that GTA feeling :tongue (2):
Im not too sure its the Porsche you should be worried about.
YouTube - Porsche Cayenne v BMW X6 M v Infiniti FX v Range Rover Sport drag race by autocar.co.uk
YouTube - Porsche Cayenne v BMW X6 M v Infiniti FX v Range Rover Sport drag race by autocar.co.uk
- Name
- Sj
the rest of them are just supercharged/turboed from the factory...let's turbo the FX50 also..that would be so aewsome..
ThE Fx 45 BeAsT
Member
I mean personally when it comes to which one is going to be in the shop more, everything but the fx. you can't compare forced injection with N/A.
---------- Post added at 07:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:40 PM ----------
x6 would still win. in handling
---------- Post added at 07:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:40 PM ----------
x6 would still win. in handling
cheechitup88
Member
I don't know what EXACT part of the interior is nicer, I just find the overall look is nicer. If you want pictures, google it I guess....
the RR isn't not known to be fast (not to mention, they're like 5800lbs! so for 6.2, it IS somewhat impressive)... but it will OWN everybody on offroads. And actually, to my understanding... the Cayenne does quite well on offroads too (which, I know nobody here cares about... but I'm just sayin')
Last edited:
okay, whatever man... apparently you don't understand my point
Dude, I found it hard to believe as well, but if you have a video of the FX50 beating a RR supercharged, Ima have to live with these results for now.
you guys are soooo blind (in some ways)... as I've already mentioned, the RR weighs a lot more... I mean A LOT more. That's like making a big deal in a running race with someone overweight and beating him...
Meanwhile, there are guys in a RR forum saying "Yeah, I like to see a FX vs RR on a dirt road-UP HILL". That would be stupid too... because the FX is NOT known for offroading.
but go ahead, knock yourselves out... do cart wheels and back flips around the room over a stupid comparison.
- Car
- 2009 FX50S
We are agreeing with you. Not sure what your point is when we are accessing that the RR is too heavy, slower even with way more hp bc it's heavy etc
I don't understand why you think that's true, but here's a possible explanation as to the results of the video.
FX50S:
4575lbs
390hp @6500rpm (11.73lbs / 1hp)
369ftlbs @4400rpm (12.40lbs / 1ftlbs)
RR Supercharged:
5816lbs
510hp @6000rpm (11.40lbs / 1hp)
461ftlbs @2500rpm (12.62lbs / 1ftlbs)
You can see that the peak power to weight ratios are very close, perhaps close enough to say that the winner of a given race would depend on the reaction time of the driver. HOWEVER, the fact that the peak torque occurs a full 1900rpm sooner in the RR means that the RR has a more advantageous power to weight ratio for a greater portion of the rpm range, if that makes sense. Not only that but the RR has one less gear and thus, one less gear change to make on it's way to a given speed. Unless of course that speed is within 1st gear, which in the video it isn't.
There are other factors that play into the results as well, like aerodynamics, gear ratios, even tire pressures, and others. I guess we'll just have to wait until someone posts a video of an actual race between the two............oh wait.
EDIT: I wrote the resulting units backwards. It should read "xxxlbs / hp" and "xxxlbs / ftlb".
DOUBLE EDIT: I fixed it. It reads correctly now.
Last edited:
let's be real...
the RR Supercharge is 5900lbs vs the FX50S at 4550lbs. The RR weighs 1,350lbs MORE... and you make a big fuss that it's slower despite the extra 150hp??!! The 150hp in ratio to the extra 1,350 doesn't mean crap. If you can't visualize "1,350lbs"... think of 5 fat guys weighing 270 each... put those guys in the FX50 and have it race the RR, it would interesting to see the outcome.
Don't get me wrong.. the FX50's performance is impressive... but you're comparing apples and oranges. The RR is a true luxury offroading vehicle, it's NOT even considered a "crossover". In some states, any vehicle weighing over 6000 lbs gets a commercial plate... the RR missed it by 100lbs.
A Peterbilt has 530hp... yet, I have no doubt the FX50 can beat it too... but is it any reason to make a big fuss about? -NO
Last edited: