Another Danoff Car Purchase Thread - FX35 Purchased

  • Thread starter Thread starter Danoff
  • 303 comments
  • 19,544 views
So the used AWD FX35 comes in the right color, with the right interior, and no wood, turns out to be loaded to the gills with accessories - but it's rare and not worth waiting for another one to come around. The price? Well it's the same as the new A3. So why would I want an FX35 with 2 years left of warranty when for the same price I could get a brand new A3 with a 6 year warranty? Here you go.

The A3 is $33.4k, the FX35 is $33k. This is the negotiated low price. Now, let's assume for a moment that I own the car for 60,000 miles and then sell it. For the sake of my research, let's pretend I bought in '06. The '06 A3 would be worth ~$16.5k (hard to tell because they didn't offer quattro in 4cyl that year). The '04 FX35 with more miles would be worth $19.5k. That's 3k of resale value different. The difference is accountable to the fact that I'm buying things that I can't sell ($3k warranty, $850 destination charge).

The A3 saves me $1.7k in gas though. But, I need a new set of wheels/tires with my A3 that I don't with the FX ($1k) and there's at least $1k extra in maintenance.

All totaled, the A3 costs $3.7k more. But there are some less tangible differences.

1) The FX is loaded to the gills, the A3 is bare bones. Now, that's because I don't mind bare bones (and neither does the wife). I don't really want all the options that I'll end up with on the FX, but there's no way around them because everyone else wants them. So during that 60,000 miles I get satellite radio and navigation in the FX and not in the A3... but whatever that doesn't really matter. Value $0.

2) FX doesn't have to change tires to go skiing. This might sound trivial, but it makes a difference for any last minute plans. Not really much though so it's only a minor consideration.

3) A3 is in the shop constantly. This is partly due to reliability, and partly due to the maintenance required every 15 miles or 5 minutes (whichever comes first). It's not a major problem to take it to the dealership for maintenance/repairs - but it is a hassle.

4) FX had a previous owner. There's something to be said for nobody else having owned your car, and the A3 option removes that. But I don't really mind buying used.

5) A3 has more warranty. Over the 60,000 mile example above, the A3 is covered completely whereas the FX is out of warranty after 2 years. I don't think this will matter as my RSX has worse/same reliability figures than the FX and hasn't needed a repair.

6) FX has more space, A3 handles way better. Now we come to it. The A3 is more fun to drive by a good margin. The FX doesn't suck either, but it's not an A3. Space vs. Speed, the age old dilemma. To tell you the truth, if this were my car, I'd say the A3 is worth the extra $4k and be done with it. But it isn't my car, and I honestly don't think my wife will notice a difference in the performance. The A3 still wins this comparison, but not enough not make up the price difference.

7) A3 has to go at 5.5 years. I'm not owning the A3 out of warranty. So the car has to be sold after 5.5 years whereas the FX doesn't ever have to be sold. Potentially we could drive it into the ground. I'm not sure I see any changes in our future that make the FX unsuitable for us. We'd have to have 3 kids in close time proximity - and that's incredibly unlikely at this point.

So the FX wins with more space, the wife not caring about the handling difference, it being almost 4k cheaper to own, and being relatively hassle free.
 
Last edited:
As for number 6, the A3 is a compact and the FX is a big crossover... that's a big no-brainer in terms of fun-to-drive, but you've got the RSX anyway...

Good choice, I'd say. 👍
 
Bought the FX this weekend. Very nice car so far. Here's the fleet for now, but I'm prepping the RSX for sale. Thanks for everyone's help with this. It was one of the more exhausting purchases I've been part of.

img2956small.jpg

img2969small.jpg
 
success_baby.jpg


Also, you're house looks nothing like what I tought it looked like. Maybe I'm thinking of your old house? Could have sworn one of them had a porch and was close to the road.
 
She likes it a lot - so do I actually. One thing that we discovered though was that the speedometer is off by about 3-4 mph, especially at high speeds. The speedo says the car is going faster than it is. This leads to an error in the odometer of (I measured with GPS yesterday) of 3.6%. So when the car has 100,000 miles on the odometer, it will actually have 96,400 miles.

Infiniti says the spec on the speedometer is 10%!! The say that the spec on the odometer is 7%!!! WTH? That's some really sloppy tolerance. Long story short, they won't fix a car that is within spec. So I intend to let infiniti know what I think of their tolerances, but it looks like we'll just cope with this.
 
That's pretty much industry standard - though I'm told it's illegal in the EU for a speedo to underread (say you're doing 50mph when you're doing 55mph).
 
Famine
That's pretty much industry standard - though I'm told it's illegal in the EU for a speedo to underread (say you're doing 50mph when you're doing 55mph).
Click to expand...

It's also illegal here. The speedo can't go under at all.
 
Something carmakers worldwide agree on? *dies of shock*

But yes, 10% overread has been standard pretty much as long as I can remember. Red tends to vary between 5% at very low and very high speeds to a couple of percent at 70-80mph.
 
Funnily enough... checking all the new cars we drive against the V-Box, many of the Mazda's dont' over-read by much... maybe just 1-2 mph... sometimes nearly nothing.

Last car we tested was a Pious... errh... Prius. Speedo over-reads by about 3-4 mph... but the odometer is about 5% slow... go figure...
 
I wonder if I can trick it with a different diameter tire. I should try to figure out what size tire would correspond to a 4 mph shift at 60 mph.
 
Thanks for the tool Joey.

I've decided that this is a form of inflation. If the odometer is 5% high, it means that the car looks like maintenance comes 5% slower, the car lasted 5% longer, the gas mileage is 5% better etc. Very tricksy.
 
I assume companies make the speedometer read high just to avoid trouble with people complaining about false speeding tickets and whatnot. Your grandioso scheme is clever, but mine is much simpler. I'm not sure how the offset works for electronic gauges but mechanical ones will have higher error at higher speeds because of the gear ratios. My Civic's speedo was about 10mph off at its highest speed.

Oh, by the way, I suggest you sell the FX if it has adaptive cruise control. The other day on the highway my V1 kept giving me false laser signals while one was behind me. I noticed whenever I moved it would speed way up, and whenever i pulled in front it would fall way back the same way every time. I finally let him pass because it was annoying as hell. Damn adaptive cruise control!
 
Last edited:
My current tires are at 6/32 tread, so even knew they wouldn't correct for the offset. The OEM tire size is P265/50R20. I think if I went with P265/55R20 it would do a good job of correcting for the error. So far I haven't found any other FX owners who have done this.

As an aside, it sounds like everyone else has noticed this and doesn't care. Am I the only one who is bothered by this error?
 
I did the same thing. Switched from 195/50 to 205/50 and my speedometer error is nearly zilch, now. Ride is slightly better, too.
 
I just went from 215/45R17s (Michelin Pilot MX MXH4 I think...doesn't matter, nobody should ever want them) to 225/45R17s (Dunlop Direzza Z1 Star Spec...you should want them). According to Miata.net's tool when my speedo shows 60 I'm doing 60.9mph. Works for me. And these ride a lot better, partially because of more sidewall, mostly because the Michelins are just junk.
 
ok... wait... you guys have both posted that you changed the first measurement (the one before the slash). As I read it, this measurement is the width of the tread. Wouldn't this require a different width of rim? I must be misinterpreting what the measurement is, but I was trying to maintain that number and adjust the sidewall ratio to get a larger sidewall.
 
The width of the tire affects the overall ratio on the tire. I know someone explained it to me when I was looking at rims and tires for my car, although I can't remember the whole reason behind it.

And no, a wider tire doesn't require a wider rim but you may run into the overly squishy feeling I had when I got wider tires on the Cooper with OEM rims. I don't recommend that, it made driving feel like crap. Although I think if you got a summer tire with a stiffer sidewall it wouldn't be an issue.
 
Ex. 245/50R16

245 is the section width in millimeters
50 is the aspect ratio of sidewall to width, so here the sidewall is 50% of the section width
and of course 16 is wheel height in inches.

Increasing the section width 10mm doesn't really matter much, unless the tire is the widest it can be for the specified wheel.
Going with what Joey said, low-profile tires are usually best when they are about the same width as the wheel.
 
Mine are slightly wider. That 10mm difference equals, at a 50% aspect ratio equals a 5mm increase in height per sidewall... take two sidewalls and the tire is about 10mm taller, or 0.4 inches taller overall.

That changes the speedo quite a bit, and in my case, removes most of my speedo error, and gives me more sidewall.

Stock wheels can take quite a bit of tire... I've got an 8 inch wide tire on a 6 inch wide rim, and the sidewalls are still vertical (because the tire has a rim protector on, so the sidewall dips in at the wheel)... if you've got a low-pro that's the same section width as your rim, you get sidewall stretch... which looks nice if you're into it, but really isn't all that.

Your 10 inch wide tires on the FX are probably seated on 7.5 inch wide rims. An extra half-inch in width (10mm) won't change that much.
 
I was going to chime in, but looks like those two covered it pretty well. My mechanic changed the tires for me and apparently partway through fighting to get them on (Dunlop = wide section width, + 10mm wider than stock, + stiff sidewall summer tire) he measured and found that they were over an inch wider than my stock tires. They've improved the car in every way (besides tire wear, quietness - they throw rocks constantly, and cold weather capability/snow).
 
Danoff
ok... wait... you guys have both posted that you changed the first measurement (the one before the slash). As I read it, this measurement is the width of the tread. Wouldn't this require a different width of rim?
Click to expand...

Yes and no. The wheel width is just the inner width - between the lips/beads. Stock tyre size usually starts at an inch over that, and can go up about an inch further safely. For example, on my 6x15 inch wheels Mazda offered 205 tyres (which is 8 inches, on a 6 inch rim) and 185 tyres (which is just over 7 inches) - I run 205s today and have done for 7 years... I wouldn't go any higher than this though - I'm after 225s for Marvin, and that means 7x16s.

Danoff
I must be misinterpreting what the measurement is, but I was trying to maintain that number and adjust the sidewall ratio to get a larger sidewall.
Click to expand...

Keeping the width but changing the profile will change ride and handling and, depending on the tyre, possibly significantly. As well as the rolling radius, but that's what you're seeking to do, so that's fine :lol:

However, it's exactly what I did on the ST220. The stock tyres were 40% profile on an 18" wheel, which is just asking for every bump in the road to be translated directly to your coccyx. I kept the width and wheel, and upped the profile to 45% but, at the same time, changed the make of tyre to one with slightly softer compounds and, to me, desirable grip/slip characteristics - had I kept the brand, I'd have had better ride but sloppier handling, because it'd be the same tyre and compound with more sidewall flex.

The net result was, quite by chance, perfect - the ride was much better, the handling improved (there's lots to be said for softer compounds, even though they wear a bit more I prefer road safety to the economics of it) and the speedo became almost spot on.


It's a very dark art - and an expensive place to experiment. I've just been fortunate so far!
 
I've always preferred to keep nearly the same tire diameter as stock, or just a tad bit smaller in order to keep my speedo reading high. I'd much rather be going slower than I think I am than know my precise speed. When It reads 70 I'm actually going 68, and therefore I'm not likely to get a ticket for going 71.

What I did on the Civic was go from a 195/55 to a 205/50. The new tires ended up being a few tenths of an inch smaller diameter, which keeps my speedo reading high. It also raises the tires' gear ratio effect, which was probably nil, but it made me smile to think I was being clever.

Now, on my stock 5.5 inch wide wheels my all-season 195s had nearly vertical sidewalls. And on my aftermarket 7 inch wide wheels my 205 summer tires had nearly vertical sidewalls. Despite the measurement most tires are never exactly the same width, and summer performance tires tend to be wider than other types. I didn't do any math to get the right look because I would have gone with 215s or 225s, and that wouldn't have worked out right, so instead I just looked for pictures of what other people had done.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
Well, the last one worked out well - I still love my RSX-S, so I figure I might as well have another go at a car purchase thread.

This car is for the wife - so it has to be an auto, and I have to have a reasonable amount of assurance that she's not going to die in it.

The budget is <=$25k. Mileage limit is 40k. Ugly cars (and some pretty cars that she thinks are ugly) will get tossed out for no other good reason.

Gas mileage is not a consideration, convenience/utility is a low consideration, performance is a medium consideration, handling is high, looks are above all (that last one you can't really help with, so pretend I didn't say it).

On the test-drive list for upcoming weekends:
- 350Z
- BMW 330i ZHP (she doesn't want to try it, but I'm making her)
- Audi A4
- Miata MX5 (power retractable hardtop)
- Civic del Sol (I know, it breaks the rules)
- Civic
- G35 Coupe
- G35 Sedan
- Audi TT
- Acura TSX
- C230 Sedan

What's missing from the list? Keep in mind that this is for a blonde girl in her 20's living in SoCal.

The RSX is off the list because I have one, and for no other reason. Hyundai, Subaru, Scion, Chrysler, and possibly Toyota are elimiated due to poor styling. Also eliminated is the RX8 (I tried), Mazda 6, and Camry.

Edit: Also, all soft-top convertibles are out.
Click to expand...
S2000. Or are they soft top only? I dunno, but they're sweet.
 
When you read the entire thread, rather than just the first post, you'll kick yourself.
 

Latest Posts

Back