|
|
Have to agree that these are pretty tepid numbers considering the price tag and fuel consumption.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Oh jeez. Did anyone even criticize the Enclave here? Opfreak copied and pasted info about it that was tacked onto the CX-9 specs, but that's it. If anything, he was showing it in a possitive light. Give it a rest.
Good points about the CX-9, though. Wasn't there a blog someone wrote a while back that basically said the CX-9 was better than the Audi q7?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philadelphia, PA United States of America |
|
|
Joe- the CX-9 has a 3.7L 24 valve V6.
|
|
|
|
1487
- Mar 19, 2008 7:00 am
(#16 Total: 19)
|
|
|
|
Philadelphia PA United States of America |
|
|
The enclave is MUCH larger than the X5 and has no V8. It should be slower. Its about hauling people and stuff in quiet style, not winning drag races with $70k jacked up station wagons from Germany.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The X5 has to accelerate quicker than that.
The Mazda CX9 has two less cylinders and 80 less horsepower than the X5 and it still posts identical 0-30 and nearly (.1) identical 0-45 numbers, not to mention very close 0-60 times. If you look at the acceleration videos, the CX9 scoots away just as fast as the X5, or so it seems.
Maybe its the X5's portly curb weight? 5335 lbs? Still, the mazda weighs quite a bit too....
I think you guys should redo the acceleration run. Somethings fishy.
|
|
|
|
tryan
- Mar 18, 2008 4:26 pm
(#14 Total: 19)
|
|
|
|
As many have said, those are very disappointing acceleration numbers for such an expensive, supposedly sport-oriented SUV. I would expect more from my $55k (base)
|
|
|
|
|
|
The X5 is a rather heavy vehicle as well at around 5300 lbs of teutonic-ness. Still, 7.1 secs is a slow time for this vehicle. As jpr18 mentioned, 6.4 is BMW's estimate and they are almost always very conservative. Car and Driver got 6.1 seconds 0-60 and a 1/4 mile of 14.7 @ 95 mph out of an '07 X5 4.8i.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I second the "Forward for downshifts, backward for upshifts." It just makes physics sense. It's a pet peeve of mine to see "race-inspired" "sequential shift" cars with backwards shifting mechanism.
|
|
|
|
jriz
- Mar 18, 2008 2:55 pm
(#11 Total: 19)
|
|
|
|
Yes Suby, it is a SHORT TERM car. No need to start G8 rumors Round 2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Louis, James is probably referring to a short-term test Infiniti FX50.
|
|
|
|
jpr18
- Mar 18, 2008 2:38 pm
(#9 Total: 19)
|
|
|
|
Illinois, United States of America |
|
|
You guys must be pretty bad at this, BMW says 0-60 is in 6.4 seconds...and that is a conservative estimate!!
Mine feels quicker than 7.1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good stuff opfreak...I think they are in the same class. I think the most impressive thing is the agility shown (again, this is their non-sport version but with the big engine).
I'm just really unimpressed by that acceleration for that size engine. Doesn't the CX-9 have the 2.3 liter DISI engine in it producing 270~ HP and 280 torque?
Joe
|
|
|
|
opfreak
- Mar 18, 2008 12:58 pm
(#7 Total: 19)
|
|
|
|
just in case people were wondering.
stolen from the cx9 post.
cx9 (enclave)
0-30 - 2.8 seconds (3.0)
0-45 - 4.9 seconds (5.0)
0-60 - 7.4 seconds (7.9)
0-75 - 11.1 seconds (12.0)
1/4 Mile (ET/MPH) - 15.9 seconds @ 89.4 mph (16.2 @ 86.2)
30-0 - 34 feet (33)
60-0 - 133 feet (129)
.79 g (.76 g)
58.3 mph (limited by undefeatable stability control)
(58.6 mph also limited by undefeatable stability control)
----------
so its better then those 2. but is it that much better? and I cant rember, is the enclave/cx9 in the same class as the x5, or are the enclave/cx9 'bigger'
|
|
|
|
louiswei
- Mar 18, 2008 12:50 pm
(#6 Total: 19)
|
|
|
|
American are just funny, they (okay, we, but at least I am not driving one...) don't like station wagons but yet they have no problem driving a jacked up version.
Crossovers = jacked up station wagons!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aside from the stopping distance and the skidpad, I didn't think it performed that well.
0-60 in 7.1 and 15.4 seconds in the quarter mile? I think the Mazda CX-7 does better, while getting better fuel economy. Hell, I think the X3 3.0si 6-speed does better. I don't know how part-throttle at-speed acceleration is, but it better be damn good for the cost of the upgrade to the 4.8 liter....
The one thing I'll say is that the skidpad and slalom are pretty darn good for the Non-sport package X5. With the sport package, as it's most commonly tested, I would expect those numbers to go up into a very impressive category (i.e. sporty sedan category).
Good things :)
Joe
P.s. I imagine the 3.0 liter twin turbo in this car may actually outperform the 4.8 liter due to it's superior low-end torque in such a heavy application.
|
|
|
|
ewilfong
- Mar 18, 2008 12:34 pm
(#4 Total: 19)
|
|
|
|
Louiswei, I think you're right. However, the American car market is getting crossover-heavy, so....
|
|
|
|
louiswei
- Mar 18, 2008 12:26 pm
(#3 Total: 19)
|
|
|
|
So I see the FX50 will be joining the fleet soon.
Is it me or the LT fleet is getting cross-over heavy...
|
|
|
|
1487
- Mar 18, 2008 11:55 am
(#2 Total: 19)
|
|
|
|
Philadelphia PA United States of America |
|
|
For $70k I am certainly glad it performs that well. Praising expensive vehicles for performing better than cheaper ones is kind of pointless. For my money the X5 better be able to outrun, outstop and outgrip lesser SUVs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Forward for downshifts, backward for upshifts ... just like it should be."
Agreed. That's the way it should be on all autostick-type shifters--just like sequential gearboxes on real race cars.
|
|
