...well, not really.

Actually, he sort of bashes it, in a way that only Jeremy can.

We'll forgive him and his snootiness - After all, he DOES host the most kickass show on television, AND, despite his languid style behind the wheel, is actually an accomplished driver.

So, Mr. Clarkson - Tell us about the Infiniti FX50:

- by Jeremy Clarkson

I once drove an oil tanker. She was called the Jahre Viking and at 1,504ft was not only the longest ship in the world but also the biggest man-made movable object. She was so vast, in fact, and drew so much water that she was unable to get through either the Panama or the Suez canal. Even the English Channel was too shallow.

To drive, she was not sprightly. To pull up and stop in Texas, for instance, the captain had to start braking off the coast of Namibia. At one point, I grabbed the throttle and slammed it forward, but there was absolutely no difference in the pace of our lonesome plod round the Cape of Good Hope. In fact, it took a full half an hour for the speed to creep up from 12.4 knots to 12.5.

Certainly, the Somali pirates could catch this enormous ship, but making it stop? That would be rather more difficult.

In many ways, then, driving the Jahre Viking is a bit like driving the car industry.

In all other walks of life, disaster can be averted at the last minute. “I smell gas so I won’t light this cigarette.” “That Taliban insurgent is shooting at me so I shall shoot back.” “This girl has obviously been torturing her baby so I’ll put it in care.” And so on.

However, when you are running a car company, you are not afforded this luxury. “Oh, God. A recession has arrived so I must immediately stop making large off-roaders and make an urban runabout instead.” This is not something the managing director of Land Rover can do.

The Queen didn’t see the financial crisis coming. The government didn’t see the financial crisis coming. The banks didn’t see the financial crisis coming — and they caused it. So what possible chance was there for a Rotarian in Birmingham? And what can he do now it’s arrived? He’s in the driver’s seat of the Jahre Viking, he’s doing 12.5 knots, a cliff has appeared off the bow and there is absolutely nothing he can do to prevent a massive crash.

It takes, if you rush, a minimum of four years to design a new car, to build the tools and the robots on the production line and to make sure the seats don’t squeak if the finished product is driven over rough roads in Arizona or on a frozen lake in northern Norway. It is simply not possible to do all this in a moment. When you run a car firm, you have to anticipate a gas leak in your kitchen before the house has even been built.

Look at Jaguar, a company that has spent the past 30 years jumping over thin air and crashing through the fences. It started work in the Loadsamoney Eighties on a hypercar called the XJ220, which went on sale in 1992, just as the world went into reverse. So then it began work on a small car called the X-type, which came out when everyone was eating cash just to get rid of it. And now it is working on a new 5 litre V8, which will emerge into the marketplace in the middle of next year, when most forecasters are saying the unemployment figures will have enveloped everyone up to and including the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Yes, Jaguar could down tools and start on a 1.1 litre ecodiesel. But that wouldn’t be ready until 2012, when who knows what state the economy might be in. Certainly not a businessman from Stourbridge.

It’s a complete nightmare and I was therefore not surprised to see a bunch of car bosses descend on Downing Street the other day with their caps in their hands.

The bankers have been bailed out. It seems likely the car industry in America will be bailed out. So surely the British government, represented in this instance by Lord Mantelpiece, would be sure to listen, especially as the car industry here still employs 780,000.

I bet it didn’t, though. Because while an old-fashioned socialist would have put the needs of the workers before the composition of the gas in the upper atmosphere, we are currently being ruled by a bunch of new-age communists, who almost certainly sat there saying, “Yes, I’m sure it’s all very sad, the destruction of the motor industry, but we’ve promised the electorate a cut of 80% in carbon emissions so your death is probably for the best.”

It makes my hair itch with rage. Because how can a Rotarian from the Midlands possibly develop an all-new means of propulsion to stave off a disaster that most right-thinking people accept isn’t happening while the products he is making now pile up unsold on every disused airfield in the land? It’s like being asked to give someone a new hairstyle while you are drowning.

And now, as a result, Britain’s car industry will soon join the mines and the steelworks in the chapter headed Something We Used to Do Before It Was Ruined by Communists.

Still, there’s always an upside. Other countries have decided the needs of the many are more important than how much carbon dioxide there is in the air and as a result their car industries will expand to fill the gap left by ours. In fact, it’s already happening, because soon something called Infiniti is coming to a dealership near you. Possibly one that used to sell Range Rovers.

When Toyota decided to start making upmarket cars 20 years ago, it realised, rather brilliantly, that the Toyota badge wouldn’t cut much mustard and came up with the Lexus brand instead. Well, you may not realise that Nissan did exactly the same thing for the American market, creating the Infiniti.

There was, however, one big difference between the two philosophies. Toyota decided that a Lexus should be built to a standard unparalleled in the world and that the cars should drive and feel better than any Mercedes. Nissan, on the other hand, just wrote Infiniti on the back of a Datsun. In crayon. Hoping the Americans would be fooled. Which they were.

Since then, though, Infiniti has apparently been catching up and it now says it is ready to come to the cradle of motoring. Europe.

There will be a selection of models on offer but I began by testing the car that’ll get here first. It’s called the FX50S and it’s a big five-seater, seven-speed, 5 litre V8, all-wheel-drive monster. I use that word advisedly. The front, dominated by a radiator full of massive spiky teeth, really does look as if it should be in a cave. It looks like Jabba the Hutt. And from there on, things get worse.

I don’t deny that it’s quite fast. But it’s only quite fast . . . for an enormous off-roader. Which is the same as being quite well behaved . . . for a psychopath. In the big scheme of things, it is not fast at all.

Oh, they’ve tried to give it a sporty feel. The chassis is lifted from a Nissan 350Z and the suspension is electronic and adjustable, but it doesn’t work. Any more than it would work if you entered the Grand National on a cow. And by trying to make it handle, which it doesn’t, they’ve ruined the ride. It is deeply uncomfortable in sport mode and nasty in the standard setting.

Worse still is the fact that while this car might work off road — though with those massive sport tyres, I doubt it — you’d never think of going there because all the mud might mess up your shiny paint.

Then there’s the interior, which is sort of all right. I even quite liked the clock. But it’s no more accommodating than a Ford Focus, the boot is tiny and the front seat is not the sort of place you enjoy sitting especially. Unless it’s raining.

What this car did, most of all, was remind me just how fabulous the Range Rover is. That’s a car that is sporty, comfortable and handsome whether you’re on the road, off the road or just sitting in the thing, waiting for your children to finish their music lesson.

I don’t doubt the Have Your Say bit that’s put at the end of this on the internet will be full of Americans saying they’ve got an FX50 and it’s great. But it isn’t.

The only thing that would possibly convince me to buy one is if Land Rover went out of business. And with Captain Mantelpiece in the hot seat, we have to accept that this is a possibility. Worrying, isn’t it?

Clarkson's funny and the show rocks, but sometimes he's also a downright idiot.The FX50 is NOT an "offroader" and anyone dumb enough to label it one should not have a TV show. Of all people, I guy from England should be able to recognize a shooting brake (station wagon to us Americans) when he sees one.

And apparently he's never driven a Q, either. Datsun my arse. Shut the hell up, Jeremy, until you've actually DRIVEN the cars you're talking about. And while you're shut up, spend that time thinking of the last Toyota OR Lexus sold successfully as a high-class limousine for THIRTEEN YEARS STRAIGHT. You know, like the Nissan President was. That "Datsun" that had a crayon badge on the back in the US. How about the last Lexus to pioneer active suspension? I'm waiting Mr. Britishpants.

Oh, I'm sorry, that's right, all Lexus has ever done for anyone is make a car that parks itself. Good thing they're out there making technologies that help make cars more enjoyable to driv...oh, damn.

I'll make you a deal, Clarkson: Come to Utah and drive my Q. THEN you can try and talk about crayon badges on the back of Datsuns. You'll probably want to take your foot out of your mouth first, though, or no one will be able to understand you.

Well-said, my man.

Sometimes it's just not appropriate for the guy in charge to tee off on a critic.

p.s. There's a lot of pissed-off Cayenne owners who'd LOVE to take his rant as gospel. Too bad they're blinded by Japanese LED taillights.

Jeremy Clarkson wrote:I don’t deny that it’s quite fast. But it’s only quite fast . . . for an enormous off-roader. Which is the same as being quite well behaved . . . for a psychopath. In the big scheme of things, it is not fast at all.

Interestingly, the vaunted ad revered Mitsubishi EVO X (yes, the one with the dual-clutch transmission and the big fat turbo) reaches 60 mph in 5.1 seconds.

The 4,575 pound FX50 takes one tenth of a second longer.

5.2 seconds, 0 to 60. 13.7 seconds at 103mph in the 1/4-mile. Nicely on-par with the $135,000 Cayenne Turbo S.

Not fast at all? On what planet?

Jeremy Clarkson wrote:And by trying to make it handle, which it doesn’t, they’ve ruined the ride. It is deeply uncomfortable in sport mode and nasty in the standard setting.

Hmmm.

0.85g on the skidpad on miserable Infiniti-issue Bridgestone Dueler H/L all-season tires?

Interesting to note that these are identical numbers acquired from the 2006 BMW M Coupe and 2006 Porsche Cayman S.

Yet the Cayman review stated: "Cornering, too, is a Cayenne stronghold. Or maybe we should say "stranglehold" since this peppery SUV refuses to grip the tarmac with anything less than a rubbery noose. It twisted the tarmac under our skid pad to the tune of 0.85g and split the cones of our slalom at 65.2 mph."

Did we mention the FX50 did 63.3 mph in the slalom?

That's ONE mph slower than the Mustang Shelby GT-H.

So, if I understand it correctly, if we drop $56,000 on an FX, and another $1,500 on some damn good tires, we have a vehicle that will outrun and outhandle the $134,000 Cayenne Turbo S.

Looks to me like that $134,000 could get me TWO FX50's, TWO new sets of sticky tiers, and leave $20,000 in the bank.

That's enough money to fuel BOTH FX50's for six years. With premium.

Sorry Jeremy - Love ya, but you missed the boat on this one. See ya on TV. Keep up the great work!

Why don't you guys mail this to him somehow? I'm sure you can make it happen...

FX50 is nice, but ugly. Top Gear Magazine gave the FX50 a very positive review in October. I can't remember who wrote the article, but they were very excited about the idea of Infiniti coming to the UK. I think it was James May? Other publications said they preferred the smaller wheels and tires to debrutalize the ride quality.

The Land Rover products offer much of the FX50's performance (minus a whole lot of reliability) without giving up off-road ability, so the gripe is legit. But indeed, the FX is a tall sport wagon, NOT an SUV. Infiniti calls it an "S^2UV".

Quote »There was, however, one big difference between the two philosophies. Toyota decided that a Lexus should be built to a standard unparalleled in the world and that the cars should drive and feel better than any Mercedes. Nissan, on the other hand, just wrote Infiniti on the back of a Datsun. In crayon. Hoping the Americans would be fooled. Which they were.[/quote]He's partly right. The Q was replaced by the Cima and the rest of the lineup turned into Rebadged Maxima, Rebadged Pathfinder, and Rebadged Primera. Nissan was struggling at the time and Lexus pummeled Infiniti into the dirt for a while.

I think the new FX will be excellent. Its lack of cargo space kept a lot of interested people from buying it.

I'd give my left nut to have Mr. Clarkson pop in and crash this party.

p.s. Emailed thread link.

He needs to STFU!

The FX 50's are one of the coolest crossover's I've ever seen!

Comparing it to a Land Rover is just retarded. . . they are apples and Oranges. Oh, and of course he likes Land Rover's because he's from the UK where they are built.

Land Rover's suck for reliability and IMO really aren't that great as a general rule.

^idk my firend just got a 99 range rover and its pretty dam nice. I was never a fan till i got in his and looked around and stuff, but to nissan's defence i have never been in a fx and only noticed how ugly they look from the outside.

dusred wrote:He needs to STFU!

The FX 50's are one of the coolest crossover's I've ever seen!

Comparing it to a Land Rover is just retarded. . . they are apples and Oranges. Oh, and of course he likes Land Rover's because he's from the UK where they are built.

Land Rover's suck for reliability and IMO really aren't that great as a general rule.

As a former Roverite, I can say they're amazing, and awful, all at the same time. Like a gorgeous woman with millions of dollars, a college degree, and a culinary education who happens to enjoying pissing in your mouth.

Its worth it for some, but I drive too much to justify putting up with all the flaws. Also, I've heard that since switching from BMW to Jaguar power, the Range Rover's reliability has declined.

Nothing drives, feels, looks, covers terrain, and satisfies like a Range Rover. Nothing breaks like one either.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:The FX50 is NOT an "offroader" and anyone dumb enough to label it one should not have a TV show. Of all people, I guy from England should be able to recognize a shooting brake (station wagon to us Americans) when he sees one.

All that Red Dwarf didn't give you much of an idea about British car slang, ehh?

"Offroader" and even "4x4" is simply any SUV, 4x4 or no. I'd say the FX50 is an SUV (along the lines of the stupid X6), though I see the station wagon argument. Remember, Europe gets TONS of cool station wagons so they don't have to put up with the "tall sport wagon" bull****.

Now, you're way, way off on what a shooting brake is. A "shooting brake" is 3-door hatchback with a sharpish rear slope. Think Z3/4 Coupe. The Brits call station wagons "estates."

Clarkson is a windbag first (as shown by that article primarily being a rant about automakers), car reviewer 2nd. That said, any way he can spread the hate on cars like the FX, X6, etc is fine in my book.

Hitman, where are you getting your numbers? The Evo X hits 60 in 4.9, I'll let your Cayenne speeds slide as the 06 does do a 5.2 second 0-60, but the 2009 does it in 4.9. The 06 Cayenne S does, however, ruin the FX in the slalom, with a 65.2The Cayman S does a .94 g skidpadAll these were from Edmunds, which puts the FX50 @ 5.6 0-60, .85g skidpad, and 63.3 mph slalom.

"Performance" SUVs are a bit of a "why" to me. I get the Cayenne a little, as it's a true SUV with it's all kinds of lockers and low-ranges and a 7000+ pound towing capacity (3500 for the FX50), but it's still a "I have a Porsche" first, SUV second. AND EXPENSIVE. Yikes.


Modified by charlieo at 4:04 PM 11/26/2008

Clarkson also doesn't tend to take reliability into consideration when reviewing cars.

Any and all Land Rover products are generally abysmal in this regard, and while they can indeed scale K2 in style, they'll barf up two transmissions, a differential, and a few dozen internal engine parts whilst doing so.

Additionally, a Range Rover is an awful lot spendier than an FX50 is, at least AFAIK. Granted, in Britain, Range Rover's don't cost quite as much as they do here and the FX50 likely costs relatively more.

He's also got a huge boner for British vehicles, understandably I suppose, but he doesn't exactly make a secret of it. He loved the Phantom but his only problem with it was that it is now designed and built in Germany. He seemed unwilling to cede the next logical extension, which is that it was the best Rolls in recent memory BECAUSE it was built by BMW.

I dig the FX.....not surprised by what Clarkson said though.

charlieo wrote:Hitman, where are you getting your numbers? The Evo X hits 60 in 4.9,

Motor Trend: "Despite the fancy launch controlled sprint, the best 0-60 time we could manage was 5.2 seconds. "

All other reviews I found were "projected" or "estimated".

Then again, Clarkson claims 4.1 seconds... Sorry for the lulz. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...1.ece

charlieo wrote:The 06 Cayenne S does, however, ruin the FX in the slalom, with a 65.2

Hardly a "ruin". Less than 2mph. Again, easily rectified by simply switching tires. Which, incidentally, will also improve lateral g's - Probably besting the Porsche.

charlieo wrote:The Cayman S does a .94 g skidpad

No Caymans allowed. This is about SUV's.

Bottom line? Gimme 2 FX50's, 2 sets of Pilot Sports, and whatever good times $20K will buy.

AZhitman wrote:
Motor Trend: "Despite the fancy launch controlled sprint, the best 0-60 time we could manage was 5.2 seconds. "

All other reviews I found were "projected" or "estimated".

Then again, Clarkson claims 4.1 seconds... Sorry for the lulz. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...1.ece

Hardly a "ruin". Less than 2mph. Again, easily rectified by simply switching tires. Which, incidentally, will also improve lateral g's - Probably besting the Porsche.

No Caymans allowed. This is about SUV's.

Bottom line? Gimme 2 FX50's, 2 sets of Pilot Sports, and whatever good times $20K will buy.

AZhitman wrote:Interesting to note that these are identical numbers acquired from the 2006 BMW M Coupe and 2006 Porsche Cayman S.

Hey now, you brought the Cayman into it!

Those Motor Trend guys aren't fit to drive my jock strap. Didn't they fire Brock Yates?

Switching tires= unfair. Else I'll put Hoosiers on the Cayenne for our theretical challenge! 2 mph is a fair amount in the slalom, but splitting hairs...

I don't really care how many FX50s you could buy with Cayenne money, it'd be like picking up herpes on a blue-light special. I'd buy a truck, a trailer, a daily, and a racecar for one FX, and if I do it right, have cash for a season of HPDE.

P.S.: The Clarkson review of the Evo points out it's the non-US spec Evo X FQ-360. that's got almost 60 hp more than the U.S. version. I bet it could do a 4.1... Need your bifocals?

charlieo wrote:Hey now, you brought the Cayman into it!

Those Motor Trend guys aren't fit to drive my jock strap. Didn't they fire Brock Yates?

Switching tires= unfair. Else I'll put Hoosiers on the Cayenne for our theretical challenge! 2 mph is a fair amount in the slalom, but splitting hairs...

I don't really care how many FX50s you could buy with Cayenne money, it'd be like picking up herpes on a blue-light special. I'd buy a truck, a trailer, a daily, and a racecar for one FX, and if I do it right, have cash for a season of HPDE.

P.S.: The Clarkson review of the Evo points out it's the non-US spec Evo X FQ-360. that's got almost 60 hp more than the U.S. version. I bet it could do a 4.1... Need your bifocals?

LOL - Touche!

I brought the Cayman in because it couldn't outdo the FX on the skidpad.

Go into a race shop and tell them your stock FX50 will pull the same lateral G's as a stock Cayman, have them spot you .2g, and bet a paycheck.

Don't fret - I prefer your idea of buying ONE FX and a trailer, and spending the rest on something that will embarrass the Cayenne AND the Cayman S, and still drive home with a wad of cash in the bank.

My bad on the euro-spec Mitsu... I blame the Alzheimers.

Regardless, my point stands. Clarkson is fapping away over cars that DON'T significantly outperform the car he's bashing.

It's all relative, and the FX is a freak for the price. Plain and simple.

AZhitman wrote:
It's all relative, and the FX is a freak for the price. Plain and simple.

Oooooooh heeeeeey booooooys....



Starts at 42k

Jerk.

Remember my thread about getting trounced by one of those stupid things?

Damn. Now THAT'S a freak.

The SRT-8 Cherokee is nice. The headlights are kind of...odd. But much less odd than the FX's new face.

That's the big thing about the FX that I'm disappointed in: the old FX was GREAT looking. Infiniti went overboard with the styling this time.What happened to the subtle pleasant shapes Nissan used to use? Now everything's extreme and overboard. Not pleasing to the eye at all.

charlieo wrote:Those Motor Trend guys aren't fit to drive my jock strap. Didn't they fire Brock Yates?

Pretty sure that was Car & Driver.

HashiriyaS14 wrote:
Pretty sure that was Car & Driver.

You're truth!

Verifying that came up with this gem of a quote by Yates:"Motor Trend is for people who move their lips when they read."

My point still stands.

I got a free subscription to Motor Trend with my admission to the International Auto Expo in SLC earlier this year. I always had a poor opinion of the magazine in the past, but getting it every month since January has really reaffirmed that opinion. Motor Trend reads like one gigantic advertisement. And they focus so much on shiny pictures of the cars over actual reviews of the cars. Their reviews/reports/whatever coverage of the cars never discusses what I want to hear, either. They never talk about how it is to drive, how the brakes feel, how the steering feels. It's always "the cupholder is in a bad spot" and the like. Plus, they never really have anything very bad to say about anything. They love every car. That's a big part of why it feels like an ad. Every review reads like a sponsored plug (which, I remind myself, every review probably is). Motor Trend is the Edmunds of car mags.

If you look around you can get free MotorTrend and Car & Driver online. Just look for those free magazine sites.

+11ty billion.Drive it first you idiot!

Clarkson : the other idiot "Not So" Great Britain produced.

98 and 3/4% of the time he annoys everyone.The other 1.1/4% he says something dumb,and everyone laughs at him.

*Ps: I dont like Pommies very much*

While perhaps displaying some familiarity with oil tankers, he has almost none with Infiniti. Hopefully he is on the restricted visa list at immigrations so it may stay so.

Want to beat and FX50, spend lost more on a Cayenne. Plain and simple. don't think the MB AMG G6.3 is out yet, but that will take it too.

The FX50 is a bargain and you can drive it everyday and not own oil wells or be a trust fund beneficiary.