Nissan Murano Forum banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Windy City MO :)
Joined
·
137 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm curious about what you guys think about the Infiniti FX.

There are certain things I like about the FX but there are others that I can't pass by.

Pros:
Nice interior.
More tech goodies.
Front end.
Rims/Tires.

Con: Well, for me there's only one.
The back end. :16:

The LEDs are kool but the rear looks just looks unfinished. Like it should have been extended a few more inches... without the sharp slope.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
4,664 Posts
Over time, I've found I like the looks of the MO more and the FX less. I did find it a little cramped compared to the MO, when getting in and out. Wouldn't turn one down, but I don't regret the MO and if they were the same price with the same features/options, I'd get a MO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
No CVT for the FX!.......................................................Advantage: MO.
But it does have rear wheel drive.............................. Advantage: FX.
Overall looks,.............................................................. Advantage: MO.
Roominess,..................................................................Advantage: MO.

Face it, You just cannot beat the MO. It's an awesome ride!

I have not driven an FX, so no comment on the ride quality, Power, Etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
55 Posts
I test drove the FX35 and have to say that it didn't seem to accelerate or handle any better than the MO. It also had less road feel than the MO, which made it seem less sporty (but I don't think the one I tested had the "sport package" either, which might have made a difference). The overall design of the interior I thought was very similar to the MO's, however I too thought it seemed a little "cramped" for such a large car, and although I have to admit I like the front end better than the MO's (I'm kinda old fashioned in that I like my headlights horizontally placed, not vertically), the overall look of the FX is more like a station wagon with monster tires whereas the MO looks more like an SUV (In fact when I first pointed out an FX on the road to my wife she retorted "oh, I don't like station wagons...") Then of course there's the difference in gas mileage and the exorbitant cost of the "tech package"....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
I loved the FX45. I test drove the same day as the MO (for our 13th Wed anniversary).

It was a completely different driving experience (can you say "race car") the Murano plenty of power and smooooth.

I cannot justify the added price for the FX. If the price were the same, well that would be tough but we would have still gone with the MO because my Wife did not like the looks of the FX as much as I did. I will have to drive the MO for awhile and see if I still have FX envy. I want them both.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Of course beauty is in the eye... the FX is visually stunning to my eye... what the Cayenne wishes it would have been. The Murano is "interesting" looking. Not beautiful in any sense--too unconventional and starkly different to be beautiful.

Getting in and out the back seat of the FX is a joke. I wonder if the design team ever tried it themselves? The interior of the Murano reminds me of the Land Rover Discovery in terms of space and sensibility. A very good thing. The FX interior--like the Highlander--seems optimized for its target market which does not include six foot, 200 hundred pounders. Murano has no problem with interior space.

Actually the CVT is my least favorite aspect of the Murano. It feels--to me--like a slipping automatic.

Price wise the 2wd FX is priced very aggressively compared to the Murano around here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
FX#%

I test drove the FX35 twice, once with 20 inch wheels, and once with 18 inch wheels. I thought the FX had a harsher ride than the Murano, and also the seats squeezed my shoulder blades. Given also that the Murano is slightly roomier and priced less, I chose the Murano. (Haven't gotten one yet.......am waiting for the '04's)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
jay beede said:
... The Murano is "interesting" looking. Not beautiful in any sense--too unconventional and starkly different to be beautiful.
We are in agreement on the FX being stunning. But everything that is different about the Murano in my eyes is wonderfully sculpted, curvaceous, and definitely beautiful. The FX to me looks more agressive at certain angles, and more elegant/regal (like the grill) at others. It is a funny vehicle in that you really have to look it over in person to get feel for it. Pictures do not do it justice.

The infiniti lot was right next to one of the Nissan dealers when we test drove the Murano. We mentioned the FX 45 right next door and the salesperson laughed saying a lot of them thought it looked like "Camel Joe". I guess because of the long front end and the scooped area on the hood/headlights. He need not have worried. We did not want to drop and extra 20K into that fine vehicle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
It's cute

It looks good, but I stopped at the price tag. I prefer the look of the MO, and had no idea that the interior would be smaller in the Infiniti. Seems odd.

I don't like the idea that FX is both rear-traction AND not-CVT. Makes it "just another car" to me, and very expensive. In Canada, a fully loaded MO (with every option) is $3k or so less than the least expensive FX.

I think if I were given an FX, I'd want to sell it to get a Murano.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top