Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





BMW X3 vs Subaru Forester XT vs Infiniti FX 35 vs Toyota RAV4

1192022242559

Comments

  • lbhaleylbhaley Posts: 91
    As most of us know, Car & Driver got 5.3 sec 0-60 for the MT XT.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Automatic only is an oversight, IMO, for the FX. They did the same with the G35 at first, but since have corrected that.

    Still, the G35x is also auto only. They'll never learn!

    Welcome back Pete, and yes I remember you from the early days in the VDC boards.

    All I can say is that the H6 was all about smooth power delivery and quiet operation, not performance. They also never offered it with a manual tranny. 0-60 was only slightly quicker than the H4s with the manual, actually, but it sure is smooth.

    The Subie turbos perform way, way better, a different league entirely. The WRX and XT also have shorter wheelbases and are more nimble and much lighter than the VDC ever was (that was my position back then, too).

    VDC was and remains their technology leader, but it was never about performance, it was about moving upscale into (near) luxury territory.

    So no, I don't think the VDC would be in this performance arena.

    -juice
  • overtime1overtime1 Posts: 134
    I think we're aware of the 5.3s attained by C&D but for the purposes of comparing cars I think that using results like the one linked above is a better indicator. Presumably both cars were launched similarly in a similar environment under similar conditions. Also be aware that the test was 0-100kph.

    Didn't C&D test the FX45 0-60 in 6.1?

    overtime
  • lbhaleylbhaley Posts: 91
    I agree that comparisons are only valid when all of the test parameters are as close to being the same as possible. Therefore Car & Driver's tests of the FX45 and the XT would be a valid comparison to use. I'm not sure that C&D got 6.1 for the FX45 but I believe it was somewhere in the 6 second range. I am going to look it up tonight.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    The XT is a shell compared to the FX45. A loaded FX45 can attain a 0-60 of 6.x, weighs much more than an XT and might be comparable in luxury to the X5. The fact the Subaru weighs in a 3300 vs the FX35/FX45 4000 effects the towing and amenities. Add another 700 lbs to the Subie and watch it's zip go zap. You might say, that's what you like about it, others say it's too plebian and spartan.
  • akasrpakasrp Posts: 170
    endless loop about a $24K car not being as posh as a $40K car.
    well, frickin' DUH!

    srp out
  • ballisticballistic Posts: 1,687
    those rear back up cameras. I don't really have a problems seeing what's behind my Forester.

    Which is just about everything, because 99% of all cars on the road (including X3 and FX) can't keep up.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    That's true, so we have to ask what the intended mission is for these utes.

    Given they're compact and sporty, I dunno, in that way the Forester XT is the purest of them. The extra weight is a pretty big compromise to have to make.

    Look back to the BMW 2002, remember those? They were never about luxury. Sporty, compact, fun, light, quick, yes. Instant cult car.

    When did window shades become important? Radar cruise control? To me, I'd say, wake up and drive.

    I drove the X5 and the 530i wagon back to back and much preferred the 5 series, but the 3 wagon is just too small. At least the X3 offers more room, I'd have to drive one to judge, but reviews aren't encouraging.

    I'm sure I'd prefer a G35 over an FX, too. Don't they make a wagon version for other markets? If that came here, I'd sure like to try a G35x wagon with a manual tranny.

    Compared to a Legacy, Forester XT is actually lighter, more nimble, and (until the Legacy turbo arrives) much quicker. I should know, we own one of each. Forester adds a lot more fun and takes almost nothing away.

    I don't think I could say the same about the X3 and FX vs. their wagon mates. They are heavier and less sporty.

    Of course, when the Legacy GT (turbo) does arrive in 2005, I may just get that. We'll see.

    -juice
  • ballisticballistic Posts: 1,687
    and before ballistic kills me about leasing... thing i really like about leasing is having a new car every x years

    Very, very expensive proposition.

    note to missle dude, i bought my fxt thinking that it would be reliable enough and i would drive in until it died with 200,000+ miles on it.

    See? You've been reading my material for only a few months, and already you're IQ is shooting up.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    "very, very expensive proposition."

    Yes, but it's built into the budget.

    "note to missle dude, i bought my fxt thinking that it would be reliable enough and i would drive in until it died with 200,000+ miles on it."

    Note to self, never own cars more than a few years and get rid of them at about 100k.
  • fully loaded is more than FX, but as an all round car its better IMO, C/D said its faster at the high end, that Northstar is really something.

    Does anyone here consider an SRX against any of the aformentioned cars in this thread?
  • oregonboyoregonboy Posts: 1,653
    ballistic: "See? You've been reading my material for only a few months, and already you're IQ is shooting up."

    The flip side is that some of the other posters' material is certain to cause brain damage! :o)

    james
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    SRX has a lot more room than any vehicle here, it's really not compact by any means.

    But...yeah, I would consider one if the prices came down to earth. I like Caddy's new styling and 2 kids and a nanny make the seating arrangement desirable for me.

    Pacifica is (now) priced right, but it's not sporty enough, neither acceleration nor handling is up to my standards.

    -juice
  • ballisticballistic Posts: 1,687
    ...desperately needs the hemi, but it probably won't fit.
  • ballisticballistic Posts: 1,687
    Right. Some should probably come with a warning label: "May be harmful to your net worth."
  • ballisticballistic Posts: 1,687
    Who would have believed, ten short years ago, that GM would build anything as contemporary and competitive (in its niche) as the SRX?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Well, JB, I think they get the point.

    Ask yourself, what if I had enough funding for every other aspect of my life, and really had plenty of spare cash for myself? I'd probably drive some nice vehicles too. At that point it's not really affecting more than 0.0001% of your net worth, i.e. it's not significant.

    Cost no object, I dunno, I'd have a pretty darn nice fleet in my garage, too. An STi as my toy, a loaded Sienna XLE AWD minivan with a DVD theater for the family, and probably an Audi RS6 Avant for all around use, something like that. Plus a Boxster S or a Lotus Elise as my other toy, so the wife and I could alternate for commuting.

    I doubt I'll ever be in that position, but perhaps people that have to balance their checking accounts aren't really in a position to understand what it's like to ignore prices completely, and get what you like most, period.

    I'm sure you'd have a dream garage. Heck, it may involve importing a Forester STi as just one part of your fleet.

    I'll cut them some slack and admit I'd probably be no different, buying my personal favorites with little regard to acquisition costs.

    -juice
  • ballisticballistic Posts: 1,687
    Juice,

    Sounds like my ultimate dream car is the same as yours: RS6. Only problem is (so far as I've seen) North Americans can't get the lovely Avant version.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    That wouldn't stop Bill Gates. Import the darn thing, bribe the feds!

    Remember, I'm talking cost no object.

    OK, I might settle for a S6 Avant. RS6 is automatic only any way. ;-)

    -juice
This discussion has been closed.