WHICH IS FASTER FX50s OR CAYENNE S 2011 ??

trainerKEN said:
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
Click to expand...

I AM AGREEING WITH YOU. Not sure how else to say this or be any clearer.

Not sure what fuss you are talking about though. ;)
 
I guarantee the Russians have done this race on YouTube. RR uses that HP advantage at speed so the longer race might favor it. Granted I haven't watched that vid in awhile.

Also, it sounds to me like Ken is saying who cares which is faster. They are such different vehicles that it shouldn't matter.
 
To recap:
The race (in the video that was posted in this thread) shows an FX50S losing a standing kilometer race to a Cayenne, X6, and RR. The FX came in dead last. 4th out of 4 vehicles. A couple people didn't believe that the video is legit, then Ken brought up the semi truck comparison for some reason. The facts remain; there IS a video showing this race and in it, the range rover IS faster. What off road capabilities have to do with anything I don't know.

Posted from my BlackBerry using BerryBlab
 
StuLax18 said:
Also, it sounds to me like Ken is saying who cares which is faster. They are such different vehicles that it shouldn't matter.
Click to expand...

:tup::tup: Yup for sure and I agree!

The only thing I was saying was that I think the video is a bad representation...the fastest 0-60 rating I've seen on the RR sport supercharged is 5.9 and worse. The FX50, I've seen rated as 5.1 or 5.0 by car a driver and worse depending on who drove it. I agree, they shouldn't have put in the RR since they are such different vehicles, I was just saying that the numbers from tests that others have done on this completely don't watch what this video is showing...that's all....and because of that, who the hell knows about all the rest of the cars in the video on how accurate it is....and, therefore, as a result, to me the whole test is bogus. In my opinion, they should have had the Grand Cherokee SRT8 instead of the RR in the test and the same guy should have ran it and a few different times to get an average.

If I was doing a performance test, I would include 2 tests: one as a straight away and another cornering but also do wet and dry conditions. I know in the FX50 S, it devours corners with ease. I've taken ramps going 3 times the suggested speed limit and the steering wheel doesn't fight you like any other car I've driven (and I've driven a ton) and the tires don't squeal AT ALL like in any other car at that kind of speed and turn....it's the combination of the sport mode, dynamic power going to the right wheels at the right time during the whole turn, the the rear active steer. It's actually hard to believe unless you drive it yourself or sit in the passenger seat of a FX50 S and witness it.

Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving! :smile (2):

tchuck said:
To recap:
The race (in the video that was posted in this thread) shows an FX50S losing a standing kilometer race to a Cayenne, X6, and RR. The FX came in dead last. 4th out of 4 vehicles. A couple people didn't believe that the video is legit, then Ken brought up the semi truck comparison for some reason. The facts remain; there IS a video showing this race and in it, the range rover IS faster. What off road capabilities have to do with anything I don't know.

Posted from my BlackBerry using BerryBlab
Click to expand...

I think it's just a fun video for that guy to do on cool, luxurious, fast SUVs, but not a true performance video since the numbers from everyone else don't back up the results of it and you could just tell he didn't really take the whole test seriously: he had his hand outside the window counting down for everyone else and was looking at everyone else so he took off last from the line, and he was doing a performance test with only one hand on the steering wheel holding it casually. So it's obvious this was just a fun video with no real meaningful results.
 
Last edited:
jdTrader said:
I think it's just a fun video for that guy to do on cool, luxurious, fast SUVs, but not a true performance video since the numbers from everyone else don't back up the results of it and you could just tell he didn't really take the whole test seriously: he had his hand outside the window counting down for everyone else and was looking at everyone else so he took off last from the line, and he was doing a performance test with only one hand on the steering wheel holding it casually. So it's obvious this was just a fun video with no real meaningful results.
Click to expand...

Agree 100% with you.

Back on topic the FX50 is faster from 0-60 than the Cayenne S but i don't know wich one will be first afterwards!
 
I really dont care which is faster either, but someone posted up an interest and I wanna put my .02. The biggest advantage an FX has is the 20k difference and the japanese engineering under the hood IMO...:smile (2):
 
jayrandall I always see you talking down the FX the real question you should ask yourself why did you buy your FX if you didnt like it. I have seen you complain about every single aspect about the FX, so just do yourself a favor either sell your FX and get yourself a Cayenne since you like it so much or just stop complaining about it because since day one on the forums thats all you have done.
 
FX50 won't be getting a redesign until 2015. Probably in 2012 they'll be doing things like adding features and revising packages. They do redesigns every 6 years for the FX.
 
Fire0nic3 said:
FX50 won't be getting a redesign until 2015. Probably in 2012 they'll be doing things like adding features and revising packages. They do redesigns every 6 years for the FX.
Click to expand...

oh sweet! so my car won't look old for awhile! lol
 
Yeah lol! They just redesigned it for the 2009 model year so we won't be seeing anything different for another 4-5 years.


@Jayrandall, if you don't like your FX just get rid of it. I'd never buy a vehicle then call it ugly or something. You constantly insult the FX.

---------- Post added at 02:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:34 PM ----------

I can't wait to see that Maserati SUV. I wonder how much it'll go for.
 
Infiniti will most likely do some minor cosmetic exterior changes for 2012 like they did to the FX in 2006. Maybe like a new revised front bumper with a chrome strip or chrome trim around the fog lights. Maybe even a revised grille too. That's pretty much the standard in the industry to do some minor exterior ( in addition to interior) refreshing during the mid cycle of the models. They just did the G coupe for 2011 and the sedan for 2010 and can assume the FX is to follow. I guess we'll see in a few months!
 
cheechitup88 said:
truth is we all want the Porsche deep down
Click to expand...

I honestly don't....I think it's ugly compared to FX50 S, especially the rear (my wife thinks so too) plus the problem to me is that the front only looks good on the ones that are well over $100k all the cheaper models look butt ugly - the back looks butt ugly no matter what price range, and I HATE the triangle shape of the steering wheel...yes that much. I also hate how the center console is just flat vertical....that's how a lot of GMC, chevy, etc trucks are....to me ergonomically unpleasant. The hand rests in the center are not even stitched like in the FX.

The problem I have with the FX50 S is that it's still too slow for me. I want it faster; much faster. Also I don't like how the nav stuff is outdated compared to domestics, and I hate how it's lacking some things it should have like lane assist, auto fold mirrors, heated rear seats, climate control for the rear passengers, better/louder subs/audio, no squeeky brakes going in reverse, heating seats to warm faster, power lift gate, remote start. If I drove the Porsche for a few months, I'm sure I'd have a list of things i don't like or wish it had. The list of things I love is 100x longer than the things I dislike even to the simple things that make a huge difference like the Infiniti patented seat belt mechanism that doesn't latch and doesn't feel like you are wearing a seat belt unless the cars know you are about to hit something - one of my wife's fav features. If I had enough money for a butt ugly Porsche SUV (pun intended), I'd buy the FX50 S, go to a mod shop, give them a $60k check and say do all the above.
 
As far as looks go I agree 100% with JD IMHO the FX looks much better than the Cayenne
 
I don't understand the need for a fast SUV/CUV anymore.... I'll admit, I kinda got into that myself... but, the more I think about it, next time I want a fast car, I'd buy something that did NOT weigh 4500+ lbs and be done with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top