Another Danoff Car Purchase Thread - FX35 Purchased

  • Thread starter Thread starter Danoff
  • 303 comments
  • 19,541 views
Chains? Wow. You must be talking about some serious snow. Even we get feet tossed at us overnight, those are considered a no-no down here in the LP.
 
FWD - the weight of the engine is on the driven tires. Which, fortunately, also happen to be the tires you steer with. Hence, Danoff only needs two sets of chains to go up into the mountains.
 
Rotary Junkie
If it's bad to the point of needing chains, how the ffffffff is an RSX getting through it chains or no?
Click to expand...

YSSMAN
Chains? Wow. You must be talking about some serious snow. Even we get feet tossed at us overnight, those are considered a no-no down here in the LP.
Click to expand...

That's because where you are they plow the roads (most likely) and don't want their beautiful road getting scarred up by chains. In the mountains around here they don't bother plowing/salting - or at least not enough so that you can see the road. So the roads are just snow/ice trails. You can't see road, just packed snow. Once you get a packed snow road, the chains aren't nearly as hard on the surface.

So that's how the RSX makes it through. There's a road there, and as long as I have chains on the front, I can make it down the road (with a little rear end slippage naturally). The car's not bombing through snowbanks (if I'm doing it right).
 
I got the FX added to the list as an EX alternative that has more space in the back. Any thoughts on the FX?

me
The List (test driven cars are in order of current rank)

- RDX (test-drove, awesome)
- CX-7 (test drove, nice, a little low on accel compared to RDX, handling not as good as RDX either)
- Murano (test drove '06 and '09. '06 horrific. '09 not bad)
- Rav-4 (test drove, would have to buy new... $$)
- RX (test-drove - handling)

- MDX
- Tribeca
- XC90
- XC60
- Q7
- A3
- S4 Avant
- EX35 (She likes the looks but price could be a problem)
- FX35

- Tiguan (styling - though she showed some weakness)
- X3 (too small)
- X5 (not enough for the $$)
- CX-9 (prefer CX-7)
- Venza (styling)
- FX (styling :()
- Grand Cherokee (bailout)
- Flex (Ford)
- SRX (bailout)
- CR-V (styling)
- Touareg (styling)
- Cayenne ($$, I found one and only one listed in our price range)
- FJ (sorry Famine, more safari than luxury)
- H3 (see above)

Eliminated Categories
- Any company that received bailout money.
- Wagons (except the EX)
- Non-AWD Vehicles
- Ford
- Anything with wood in it (except the EX)
Click to expand...
 
Danoff
I got the FX added to the list as an EX alternative that has more space in the back. Any thoughts on the FX?
Click to expand...

I assume you mean the first generation FX?


They're pretty decent. I've ridden in a few FX35/45s, and they're not bad. I came away very impressed by the sporting performance of the 45, but I didn't care much for the room (or lack thereof) in the back. I'd think that an FX35 sans the sport package would be a halfway decent sporting crossover that isn't too rough over the bumps, but still offers up something that is more entertaining than your average luxury thingamajig. It really isn't my pick for best in class at the time, but that I assume would be fairly predictable.

If your old lady is looking for style over substance, and you yourself are looking to save a bit of bank, this would probably be the most-logical option I'd think. Plus... With the FX35, you get to listen to that wonderful VQ all day. Ooooohhhhhh yeeeeaaaahhhh.
 
Is the Audi Q5 unavailable or out of your price range?

It's less challenging on the eye than the Tiguan. IMO.
 
The new Caddy is great. The old one is a decent car, and is probably the most practical in the segment, but obviously it's the old one and the competition is nicer. The FX is just cool, but the rear seats are awful and it's lacking on cargo room compared to its competition. I'd buy one just because it's super sporty and sounds like a 350Z.
 
Famine


toyota-fj-cruiser.jpg

Click to expand...

Wow, it looks even better in black with those FJ40'ish black steelies! :drool:
 
Updated List. The Audi A3 takes the lead. FX35 is coming in second, and the Rav-4 made a really solid impression when packaged exactly the way we'd want it.

me
The List (test driven cars are in order of current rank)

Test Driven (in order of preference)
1) A3 (barely enough space, fast, handles really well)
1) FX35 (fast enough, handles well, low on space)
1) Rav-4 (test drove the right model, would have to buy new... $$)
2) RDX (test-drove, awesome)
3) XC90 (too big, v8 a must, wood - however, this thing is a damned transformer... very impressive)
4) Murano (test drove '06 and '09. '06 horrific. '09 not bad)
5) CX-7 (test drove, nice, a little low on accel)
99) RX (test-drove - handling)

Not Test Driven But Well Known
- MDX
- Q7 (too big)
- EX35 (price could be a problem)

Eliminated Without Driving
- Tribeca (styling)
- S4 Avant (styling)
- XC60 (price)
- Tiguan (styling - though she showed some weakness)
- X3 (too small)
- X5 (not enough for the $$)
- CX-9 (prefer CX-7)
- Venza (styling)
- Grand Cherokee (bailout)
- Flex (Ford)
- SRX (bailout)
- CR-V (styling)
- Touareg (styling)
- Cayenne ($$, I found one and only one listed in our price range)
- FJ (sorry Famine, more safari than luxury)
- H3 (see above)

Eliminated Categories
- Any company that received bailout money.
- Wagons (except the EX and A3)
- Non-AWD Vehicles
- Ford
- Anything with wood in it (except the EX)
Click to expand...
 
Well, it's been 48 hours and she still hasn't changed her mind, so we're starting to get serious about the FX35.

The EX eventually got eliminated due to being too small. It's not that there wasn't room in the back, there was, but the hatch was angled badly and would be difficult to shut with a large dog in the back unless he was lying down. The A3's hatch was much more vertical, and so the room was better. The FX, while still suffering from the angled hatch, had a deeper storage area allowing the dogs to fit behind the back seat more easily without worrying about the hatch smacking them on the way down (also taller). It's not that the FX was perfect. It lacked a few niceties that made us scratch our heads. No cup holders in the back (my RSX has more than twice as many cup holders), the tiniest glove compartment I've ever seen, and not as much rear storage as you'd expect. But overall it was impressive.

The Rav-4 didn't handle or accelerate like the FX or A3 (obviously), didn't have quite the right look and feel, and we had to buy new and live without a spare. But it did put up a surprisingly good fight in the luxury SUV market. The RDX beat the Rav-4 in every category, but ultimately lost to the FX.

So, as odd as it may sound, it came down to the FX and A3. The A3 is surprisingly difficult to find in LA with Quattro - in fact I never found one that met our criteria. That being said, the A3 Quattro was quite possibly the perfect car in all ways but one. It handled superbly, had plenty of acceleration, lots of space, very luxurious feel, had a fantastic paddle-shifting transmission, excellent price, and looked great. It was more fun to drive than my car... which I was never expecting to say when looking for a utility vehicle. I fell in love with this thing, and the wife liked it as her car as well. We both left the Audi dealership thinking we would buy one - possibly new.

Then we looked at JD power reliability on the A3...

Audi pisses me off. They make some of the best looking cars on the road, and they make them with a sporty but luxurious feel that really won me over. It's so irritating that they can't make them reliable. The A3 scored low... as low as any car I saw them rank - and I checked quite a few. Meanwhile the FX35 scored just as high as the RDX, and BETTER than my Acura.

I hate to pass up what might be the perfect car for reliability concerns. But it just feels stupid to buy a car that has that kind of red flag on it. It's a real shame because the FX35 is nowhere near as fun to drive as the A3. But it just means that I'll be getting my 370Z instead of probably stealing my wife's A3. It's a step up for me, it's also a step down for her, but she doesn't really care.

There's one more knock against the A3. Since we were going to be using it as a ski car, we were planning to fit all season tires on it. And that just seemed like a crime on the Audi. We'd have broken down and had a set of winter tires and a set of summer tires, which would have been a pain (but we'd have done it). With the FX35 I don't feel the need to make that decision. The all seasons won't hurt it much because it doesn't inspire crazy turning the way the A3 does.

Comments?
 
JD Power's website doesn't seem to give me the option of selecting the non-turbo V6 to view - so if the turbo is the problem, it's possible that since 99% of them are turbocharged, they're hurting the average.

The 2007 initial quality assessment on JD power gives it low marks on powertrain, interior, and features but doesn't get an itemized review on dependability until next year. The 2006 A3 gets low marks in dependability for powertrain, interior, and features. So even if it's just the turbo charger, I'm still to expect the power windows to fail or the adjustable seats to stop adjusting.
 
Wow. Audi are considered to be one of the most reliable major makes in Europe - even to the level of boringly reliable. The Japanese marques and models tend to lead the way, punctuated by the Jaguar XJ and the higher-end VAG vehicles - Skoda Octavia, Audi A4/6, Volkswagen Passat.

Where Audi tends to fall over is cost of ownership - a basic service for a basic A4 is £250. A V8 A6 will swallow £250 in transmission oil alone for a basic service...
 
I sound like a broken record because I keep going back to JD power for reliability numbers (somebody feel free to suggest another place to look). Dependability for Audi (as a whole) is listed as average for 2009. Interior is above average.

The 2006 A4 gets high marks. '06 A6 gets average marks. '06 Passat is "below average" along with the A3. One problem here is the JD power doesn't seem to use anything lower than below average. So that mark is indistinguishable from the worst vehicles. Volkswagen as a company was down around Kia in terms of dependability.
 
We also use JD Power. I'm just startled there's a stark difference between UKJDP and USJDP for the same marque, especially when they're likely to come from the same factories (Ingolstadt, Brussels and Hungary).

Edit: Indeed. Audi's site says the A4, A6 and A8 come from Neckarsulm (Germany), the A3 Sportback in Brussels, the TT and new A3 cabrio at Gyor (Hungary) and everything else at Ingolstadt - except for Indian-market cars and China-market cars which are built in India and China. So they're the same cars, yet one JDP says above average and the other says average/below average...
 
Last edited:
Danoff
I sound like a broken record because I keep going back to JD power for reliability numbers (somebody feel free to suggest another place to look). Dependability for Audi (as a whole) is listed as average for 2009. Interior is above average.

The 2006 A4 gets high marks. '06 A6 gets average marks. '06 Passat is "below average" along with the A3. One problem here is the JD power doesn't seem to use anything lower than below average. So that mark is indistinguishable from the worst vehicles.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if the European and American models for Audi/VW are made in the same places, which could explain a lot if that is the case.

Volkswagen as a company was down around Kia in terms of dependability.
Click to expand...
I may be the exception, but having owned a Kia and VW back to back I can say that this is not my experience. My VW doesn't have the exploding fan blades of fun every 40,000 miles (a known non-recall issue) that my Kia had. And the VW also doesn't have a strange gas smell that led my mechanic to tell me there is a gas leak that can't be found, so don't smoke around it or take it near any external heat source.

I do know that VW supposedly has a reputation for electrical issues, which I seem to have mostly avoided, but the worst complaints about VW I hear don't compare to the troubles I had with my Kia. But I also had the last Sportage model before the discontinuation and rebuild.
 
I have an explanation.

It comes down to what J.D. Power's VDC and IQS considers a "problem".

According to them, a problem is anything a customer is dissatisfied with.

So VDC and IQS is a satisfaction index, not a scientific method for reporting mechanical reliability.

Let's take brakes as an example. J.D. Powers asks "are you happy with the brakes on your A3?" The customer says "well, they dust a lot. And they make noise in the winter. I don't like that."

Then that becomes recorded as a problem.

The brakes might work perfectly. But because the customer is uneducated to the fact that Audi (as well as BMW, Porsche and Mercedes-Benz) uses a pad material that offers superior performance at the expense of visible dust, Audi gets dinged for brakes.

When people couldn't figure out how to use BMW's iDrive, those were also recorded as an electrical "problem".

If a customer buys an M5 or RS4 and complains that the ride is stiff, or there is too much road noise from the low profile tires, or the "steering jerks around and follow ruts in the road", those become recorded as "problems".

"I bought a 911 and the rear tires wore out in less than 15,000 miles!" Recorded as a problem.

This is how the same car can have different results in Europe than in America.

Basically, too many Americans buy cars they don't understand and have no business driving and then whine about it.


M
 
Except that the A3 gets good IQ marks and bad dependability marks.

86589867.jpg


"Overall Dependability: Taken from the Vehicle Dependability Study (VDS), which looks at owner-reported problems in the first 3 years of new-vehicle ownership, this score is based on problems that have caused a complete breakdown or malfunction of any component, feature, or item (i.e., components that stop working or trim pieces that break or come loose)."

It is interesting that it's limited to the first 3 years - something that doesn't actually necessarily apply to me since I'd be buying it 3 years old. But what other information do I have to go on?
 
"I shouldn't have to fork out $750 for an oil change at 35,000 miles."

I bet you 50 internets that this complaint would be recorded as a "problem".


M
 
[casual racism]Perhaps they just screw together the RHD cars better so zat, piece by piece, ve can finally take over ze British Isles![/casual racism]

Or not.
 
I've talked to Audi owners that complained that their window winding units crapped out and had other similar non-significant-but-expensive problems. That's why I looked it up in the first place.

So where do I go to find out if this car is going to be in the shop all the time?
 
Danoff
It is interesting that it's limited to the first 3 years - something that doesn't actually necessarily apply to me since I'd be buying it 3 years old. But what other information do I have to go on?
Click to expand...

Go to an enthusiast's website like quattroworld or audiworld and do some research. The A3's been around in the US long enough that the car's problems should be well documented.

If you consider the problems too serious, then stay away from the car.


M
 
For what it's worth, here are Consumer Reports's ratings for the car:

craudia3.jpg
 

Latest Posts

Back