I love it!!

In all honesty though, I would never take it over an X6. Never.

The design is a far cry from a carving “from a block of sex”. Instead I’m constantly reminded of a dinosaur that’s feeling perhaps a little queezy and nose heavy.

In a few years, the wear and tear will mean nothing compared to the depreciation.

“infinitely” as in I would have no problem throwing sod or sticky children into a GTI.

An FX? No, no, no.

Who am I to argue with the reviewer, but there are several aspects where the GTI is not as practical. One example, in my FX45 I was able to fit a full size bath tub from Home Depot, plus a front passenger. I wasn’t able to fully close the hatch due to the curved rear window, it did fit without extending into the bumper area. I doubt you would be able to fit a bathtub and a passenger in a GTI. The cargo capacity listed is 20 cubic feet less than the FX.

If we are talking about comfort, rear leg room in the GTI is slightly more, but the rear seats do not recline like they do in the FX. Passenger volume is listed as ~93 cubic feet for the GTI and ~102 for the FX.

The FX also has a tow capacity of 3,500 lbs so towing, jet skis, motorcycles, fishing boats are not a problem. I wasn’t able to find the GTI tow capacity.

I guess it really depends upon how you define “infinitely more practical”. The only things I can think of is the much better gas mileage and lower price, as better than the FX.

A GTI is an infinitely more practical car. Just as much passenger room, and… the VW has to have more storage. all you can get into the back of the FX50 are wine carrying cases. By design, no doubt.

I priced the GTS and it costs almost $89,000 than the FX50 with similar features. So it should be better since it costs 40% more.

I noticed that the FX was a lot faster to 60 though, 5.0 seconds vs 5.7 for the Porsche. You won’t get similar acceleration from the Cayenne until you pay at least $97k (base) for the Turbo.

$63k fully loaded is actually a bargain when you compare it to the X5, X6, ML550, and ML63. They said the same thing about gas prices when the first FX45 came out and gas was $1.72 in 2003. I have to believe that people who will buy this car will think about gas prices.

barberoux:
It isolates the driver from the driving experience, “I didn’t touch a pedal for over an hour in bumper-to-bumper gridlock”. That is a driving experience?

How are you suppose to have a “driving experience” in gridlock traffic? Even a responsive, sporty car, like the MX5 or GTI you listed, would not be fun in traffic. The adaptive cruise in the new FX is an improvement over the current model which did not have the ability to deal with bumper to bumper traffic. In traffic, I think you would want the isolation.

barberoux:
For $63K I could buy a MX-5, a motorcycle and a GTI, for when it rains.

MX5 motorcycle and GTI are still not as practical as the FX. You can’t haul your spouse, two children and a dog, in the first two, and the GTI has 1/3 less cargo space. Not to mention, other than the unspecified motorcycle, they are both slower. The GTI is even slower than the old FX45. In addition, having three items takes up three parking spaces, almost three times the maintenance, and insurance cost.

I live in a wealthy area in South Florida, and I have yet to see the FX50 of the X6 either…!

That is both arrogant and condescending at the same time.

It’s also probably accurate and pretty funny. Lighten up, Jonny’s humor means no harm.

barberoux:

The emotional qualities of a car are important to a lot of people. If all vehicles were designed with only utility in mind, the world would be a sad place filled only with Corollas, Rangers and motorcycles.

That is both arrogant and condescending at the same time.

Use the 390-bhp engine as God intended and I’ll be surprised if it breaks double-digit MPG.

first, if you count shifting from neutral to first then each successive shift should be counted as two shifts. for example, “shifting” from 1st to 2nd would be a shift from 1st to neutral and then another from neutral to 2nd. that means a total of not 5, but 9 shifts. bringing the end result to a shift every 3 1/3 mph. how aggravating.

second, even disregarding the previous argument as to the absurdity created by a “shift” from neutral to 1st, why count the neutral-1st shift at all? if the point is to show how frustrating it is to have multiple shifts from 0-30mph, the shift from neutral to 1st does not support your point because it takes place, necessarily, before you have begun accelerating. thus, it is not accurate to represent it in a count designed to demonstrate such frustration. that is, of course, unless you want to bolster the number of shifts in order to make the point seem more significant than it is. if so, go with nine shifts. it’s much more impressive.

The old FX takes corners very well, I believe AMCI got 0.92G on the skidpad, and in real world driving, it has more grip than I have courage to test. The V8 is really heavy though, and spoils some of the handling compared to the smaller engine models.

I’m finding that I get around 19mpg, which I think is ok considering we only manage to get around 21mpg out of a MB C300 4matic (loaner car).

You really are math averse.

30 mph divided by 5 shifts = 6 mph

6 x 6 x 6 x 6 x 6 x 6 = 30

Of course I’m counting 1st gear as a shift… so…

generally, i think these (FX45 included, sorry) are a literally huge waste of space. this is a perfect example of selling a car/truck/suv/crossover/wtf to people who make purchases because “it looks cool” and “its got so many buttons.” just play with something shiny. it’s cheaper.

golf clap for getting “prestidigitation” in