Frisky Dingo

https://youtu.be/5UwOBKSHl-c?t=3m51s There are countless low-profile tires that will make even a RWD car a beast in the snow. I drove my RWD 335i all winter long last year with 18"s in 8+ inches of snow. Try driving a lifted truck with with some MT's on it in the snow, and get back to me on whether or not it's the aspect ratio of the tires that gives a car winter traction. Lol. Oh, and Olds- the X6 has no job. It's a cash grab. Nothing more.

That's like saying a 2WD Silverado is every bit the RWD system as what's in a 458 Italia. And it's simply untrue. The SRX, like other GM vehicles, uses the Gen 4 Haldex system. It is FWD biased, and does not have the same ability or feel as some other AWD systems, like some of those found in Audis. Most Audis (everything larger than A3/Q3) use traditional mechanical AWD systems with center torsen diffs. These have numerous advantages over systems like Haldex's. I was specifically referring to an XTS-V. While it was unquestionably more competent than the last SHO I drove, track ready it was not.

7. I aint bashing BMW nor praising Cadillac for the money factor...I am not even bashing BMW for the existence of SUVs and FWD little CUVs...what I am bashing is fanboys that find excuses...a X1 is a Pontiac Vibe replacement...its funny that you give that a pass...yet bash cadillac on a 5 year old SUV that was made in haste to sell in this market because Lexus cleans up...all Cadillac did was follow Lexus' lead...and it paid off...nig time...yet you fail to see this..and just plainly say...the SRX sucks...and THAT is what Im bashing...THAT point of view you have... 8. No..the X5 was not great...what was great was the marketing behind it...Sports ACTIVITY Vehicle... The Grand Cherokee Orvis Edition was THE lux SUV to get at that point in time...Im sure a muscle car bound SRT style Grand Cherokke would have existed without the "help" of BMW...why? Syclone and Typhoon...454 Chevy Pick-up...Dodge Ram Indianapolis 500 Edition, Ford Lightning...all American Muscle Trucks...and the SRT Grand Cherokee follows THAT lead....not BMW's lead...sorry...its more like BMW emulated the Typhoon with "better" handling other than the other way around...\And with all that said and done....a Grand Cherokee is still on top of that SUV hill...even after BMW has "invented" another niche with an X6... 7)Again, I'm not giving anyone a pass for anything. I don't care if the SRX or the X1 are FWD, AWD, RWD. They can fly for all I care. I'm not in the market for such a vehicle. It makes no difference to me. Would the X1 be better if it were RWD based? Absolutely. Does that mean it sucks that it's not? Maybe, maybe not. Probably not by default, but it almost certainly isn't going to be as entertaining as the outgoing model. And it definitely won't perform as well, seeing as in how it's lacking a 6 cyl model. You're consistently trying to attack a stance I don't have. Again, I don't care if it's FWD or not. I'm not bashing it or excusing it either way. 8)The X5 did exactly what it was intended to do, and it did it very, very well. Most SUV buyers don't go on treks across the Gobi. They might use AWD/4WD to make it to the cabin when it snows, and that's about it. BMW capitalized on this and offered something nobody else was doing. It was a sporty/luxury SUV. That's nowhere near the same thing as the Syclone and 454 SS. Nor is the GC SRT-8. And the first gen X5 drove very well. BMW X5 owners only go to the mall...When it snowed...the X5 was a joke...with those very low profile 18 or was it 19 inchers?...meant for summer hot lapping...yeah...I know...change to winters...*SIGH*....That X5 was meant as a Sports ACTIVITY Vehicle...not a snow bound SUV...like a...full sized Blazer... So...explain to me why in the world would a SAV need low profiles...to make it to the cabin...or in snow hell Montreal? Frisky...the X5 and now the X6 does what it does best...its a poseur vehicle...and there is nothing wrong with that...just dont try to overvalue it... It sucks as a SUV...because the X5 does not accomplish what SUVs are supposed to accomplish. its not much of an SUV...it wont tow...it wont off road... It sucks as an Ultimate Driving Machine...because its too heavy and high...sure...it handles better than my dad's old 1986 Celebrity...but If I want a track car...I aint buying an X5... Its great for soccer moms to snub their neighbors with. Which is fine...but that is all that its great at...because hauling families...there are vehicles that are meant for that that do a better job...a Ford Flex comes to mind...a X5 is great as a poseur vehicle...its comfortable and it rides great for those that like to pose in it... Lol, since when do low-profile tires keep a vehicle from performing well in the snow?? My Audi A4, and both my and my friend's E90's must not have gotten that message. This might come as a shocker to you- but YOU don't get to define what makes a sport utility good. Not everyone is trying to traverse the Rubicon on a daily basis. There's a reason why the Exploder and Pathfinder are now unibody crossovers. Again, the X5 did what it was intended to do extremely well, and single handedly created a segment that has been a huge success. The X6 is an abomination.

Wrong - Above 275hp, you need Hi-Per strut.. maybe. And that argument negates the entire Audi lineup if it were true. The XTS V-Sport is very nearly track ready and it is FWD based. The SRX sux so bad that it outsells its competitors, the GLK, X3, and Q5, regularly.... even at the tail end of its production run. Audi's CUV's are not FWD, nor is their AWD system FWD-based. This is a fallacy that needs to die. Their AWD systems are dedicated AWD systems and designed as such. Hence their engines being longitudinally mounted. The XTS is not most certainly not track ready. Maybe slightly curvy back road ready. Sales are not indicative to whether or not something sucks. We all know this. It's a tired argument. In the same vein, McDonald's must have the best burgers in the world..... If Audi's CUVs are not FWD nor using FWD based AWD system, you better notify Audi, because they have some serious errors on their Audi.de website. Q3 FWD.png Q5 FWD.png A8 FWD.png TT FWD.png My 1985 Oldsmobile Toronado has it's engine mounted longitudinally and so does Dodgefan's Dodge Intrepid. That doesn't make them RWD cars. I've actually had the XTS V-Sport on a track.... Have you? No, it's not a Z-06, but it will out handle a Mercedes Benz E550 Floatmatic. McDonald's burgers are cheap junk and McDonalds sales are way down while Wendy's and Burger King (the two who sell at the same price point) are expanding. The SRX sells at the same price point as the X3 and GLK and sometimes outsells them both combined. Now, I'm not the greatest fan of the SRX... but I wouldn't not buy it just because of the way the engine was situated.. and I certainly wouldn't pick the MB or BMW just because their engine is facing the other way.... Ok, I should have better clarified what I meant. Audi's FWD vehicles simply exist to serve a price point. They are not the basis for their vehicles drivetrains or platforms. Their AWD systems are designed to be AWD systems, not FWD systems that can send a little bit of power to the rear tires. Unlike the SRX and so many others. Again, I don't care what the SRX's sales numbers are. And as a matter of fact, the GLK and early X3 both sucked. Even worse than the SRX. They were both unsightly, overpriced, rough riding snoozefests. The X3 improved considerably during it's LCI, but it's still nothing spectacular. And for the last time, the SRX's weakness doesn't lie in it's drivetype. I don't care. It's the other issues I mentioned. It would be better if it were RWD, but it could be FWD and still be good. As for the XTS, I haven't driven it on a track. But I've driven it on a back road, and was not impressed in the slightest. You and I must have very different definitions of 'near track ready'. A Boss 302 is 'almost track ready'. An FR-S. A Miata. Not a 2 ton boat that just happens to deploy a lot of power.

Wrong - Above 275hp, you need Hi-Per strut.. maybe. And that argument negates the entire Audi lineup if it were true. The XTS V-Sport is very nearly track ready and it is FWD based. The SRX sux so bad that it outsells its competitors, the GLK, X3, and Q5, regularly.... even at the tail end of its production run. Audi's CUV's are not FWD, nor is their AWD system FWD-based. This is a fallacy that needs to die. Their AWD systems are dedicated AWD systems and designed as such. Hence their engines being longitudinally mounted. The XTS is not most certainly not track ready. Maybe slightly curvy back road ready. Sales are not indicative to whether or not something sucks. We all know this. It's a tired argument. In the same vein, McDonald's must have the best burgers in the world..... The sales argument HAS to be involved sometimes...the BMW 3 Series became a smashing hit...because...well...it must have bben the best at something...mediocrity usually fails in the market place... THAT argument is tiring...the Mcdonald's analogy...because from a business stand point...McDonald's still outsells its competitors...because EVERYBODY on this planet and Mars, knows what a Big Mac is all about... it aint the best in your eyes...but McDonald's has served BILLIONS after all, they must be doing something right... Like a Camry...its not the best you say? Well...tell that to the Toyota accountants...and see how long it takes them to laugh in your face...its the best at something...and to Toyota...that is all that counts... Here's the thing, though. The 3 Series was the indisputable champ for a long time. As was the Camry. That's how they got to where they are now. You could argue that they're no longer the best, and you could be right. It doesn't matter, because at one point they were, and that's why they still SELL the best. Are they bad? No. But nobody really makes bad cars anymore. McDonald's sales the most hamburgers because they're everywhere, they're cheap, and they're familiar. It's not hard to deduce. But does that mean they're better than the place down the street with the Kobe beef on brioche with garlic aioli? Of course not. Doing something right and doing something the best are not the same thing. I can't believe I need to type that out to get my point across.

7. I aint bashing BMW nor praising Cadillac for the money factor...I am not even bashing BMW for the existence of SUVs and FWD little CUVs...what I am bashing is fanboys that find excuses...a X1 is a Pontiac Vibe replacement...its funny that you give that a pass...yet bash cadillac on a 5 year old SUV that was made in haste to sell in this market because Lexus cleans up...all Cadillac did was follow Lexus' lead...and it paid off...nig time...yet you fail to see this..and just plainly say...the SRX sucks...and THAT is what Im bashing...THAT point of view you have... 8. No..the X5 was not great...what was great was the marketing behind it...Sports ACTIVITY Vehicle... The Grand Cherokee Orvis Edition was THE lux SUV to get at that point in time...Im sure a muscle car bound SRT style Grand Cherokke would have existed without the "help" of BMW...why? Syclone and Typhoon...454 Chevy Pick-up...Dodge Ram Indianapolis 500 Edition, Ford Lightning...all American Muscle Trucks...and the SRT Grand Cherokee follows THAT lead....not BMW's lead...sorry...its more like BMW emulated the Typhoon with "better" handling other than the other way around...\And with all that said and done....a Grand Cherokee is still on top of that SUV hill...even after BMW has "invented" another niche with an X6... 7)Again, I'm not giving anyone a pass for anything. I don't care if the SRX or the X1 are FWD, AWD, RWD. They can fly for all I care. I'm not in the market for such a vehicle. It makes no difference to me. Would the X1 be better if it were RWD based? Absolutely. Does that mean it sucks that it's not? Maybe, maybe not. Probably not by default, but it almost certainly isn't going to be as entertaining as the outgoing model. And it definitely won't perform as well, seeing as in how it's lacking a 6 cyl model. You're consistently trying to attack a stance I don't have. Again, I don't care if it's FWD or not. I'm not bashing it or excusing it either way. 8)The X5 did exactly what it was intended to do, and it did it very, very well. Most SUV buyers don't go on treks across the Gobi. They might use AWD/4WD to make it to the cabin when it snows, and that's about it. BMW capitalized on this and offered something nobody else was doing. It was a sporty/luxury SUV. That's nowhere near the same thing as the Syclone and 454 SS. Nor is the GC SRT-8. And the first gen X5 drove very well.

Wrong - Above 275hp, you need Hi-Per strut.. maybe. And that argument negates the entire Audi lineup if it were true. The XTS V-Sport is very nearly track ready and it is FWD based. The SRX sux so bad that it outsells its competitors, the GLK, X3, and Q5, regularly.... even at the tail end of its production run. Audi's CUV's are not FWD, nor is their AWD system FWD-based. This is a fallacy that needs to die. Their AWD systems are dedicated AWD systems and designed as such. Hence their engines being longitudinally mounted. The XTS is not most certainly not track ready. Maybe slightly curvy back road ready. Sales are not indicative to whether or not something sucks. We all know this. It's a tired argument. In the same vein, McDonald's must have the best burgers in the world.....

1)I didn't say the X1 had an underrated ride. They ride rough. I said it WAS an underrated ride. Because it handles well, is a nice size, can be had with I6 power, and was reasonably priced. 2)I explained why the SRX sucks. 3)I didn't say this new X1 DOESN'T suck. Idk if it will or it won't. Neither do you. Nobody does. Nobody has driven it. They literally just released pics of the damn thing. Would I buy it? No. Is it what I expect from BMW? No. Does that mean it sucks? Absolutely not. 4)BMW was never a niche manufacturer. They simply built a style of car that everyone else did with a different set of priorities. BMW's like the X1 exist today for the same reason the Macan and Panamera exist- so the parent company can afford to build the fun stuff. That's common knowledge. GM couldn't survive on Camaro Z/28's and Stingrays. It sucks, but it is what it is. 5)I'm not terribly fond of the M1. I like it, but I lust for one. I still recognize it's significance. I don't lust after an F40 either, but I recognize it's significance. Those are two totally different things. but to say the M1 failed because it didn't dominate racing is the same things as saying the F40 failed because it didn't. Maybe you should look up Ferrari's motorsports track record outside of the 60's and F1. 6)I said why I thought the SRX sucked. It literally does NOTHING class leading. It's a gussied-up, overpriced Equinox. Which itself sucks. 7)You can't excuse the SRX for being FWD based because it allowed Cadillac to generate the income it has while simultaneously bashing BMW for doing the same thing. 8)The first gen X5 was fantastic. That vehicle literally invented the segment we have today that includes the Cayenne, LR Sport, etc, etc. If it had never materialized, the Grand Cherokee SRT-8 wouldn't exist. Nor would any of the smaller options like the Q5, GLK, etc. Or even the SRX you seem so keen on defending.

So Dingo, Please reread the story above as this DOES NOT have the I6 but a lowly 4 banger that is transverse and being used to mostly go FWD but on slippage use the AWD system to work. Also if the SRX and Equinox suck so bad, then state facts please, do not just say it sucks unless you want to clarify it by saying some other personal pet peeve with the auto's. Please support and back up your statements with facts not just useless english words. I don't need to reread the story, YOU need to reread my POST. I understand this vehicle no longer will use an I6. I specifically stated 'current X1' in my post- the E84. Which is available with the N55. State facts? Okay. The interior is cheap, they're outdated, they're overpriced, and until the 3.6 got shoved in them, they were powertrain disasters. Hows that? Yeah..but...like you said...the SRX sucks...while the X1 is...well...BMW could do no wrong...right? Looks are subjective...and no...the X1 looks like it could be a Pontiac Vibe replacement...nothing wrong with that...but it aint "the looker" in this category...a Mazda CX-5 looks waaaaay better......but that is my opinion....but when someone makes a blanket statement about the SRX sucking...one may not take someone's opinion about a BMW's look too seriously... Underrated ride is how you want to spin things... Its all good...but the X1 aint exactly all that...especially when one makes a blanket statement about the competitions ride... Like I said...Cadillac has refined its FWD ride since the late 1960s...but we will diss the Caddy and just say the X1 has an underrated ride....yup...seems legit... I did not say the X1 or BMW could do no wrong. Don't put words in my mouth. Looks are subjective, yes. I think it looks great, sue me. I also think the SRX looks pretty good. And I have no issue with it being on a FWD-based platform. That's not my issue with the SRX. It's virtually everything else. And yes, the X1 is underrated. All the people who lament the lack of wagons, but somehow find the F31 too soft, well, the E84 has been around since 2012. Just another case of people not putting their money where their mouth is.

So Dingo, Please reread the story above as this DOES NOT have the I6 but a lowly 4 banger that is transverse and being used to mostly go FWD but on slippage use the AWD system to work. Also if the SRX and Equinox suck so bad, then state facts please, do not just say it sucks unless you want to clarify it by saying some other personal pet peeve with the auto's. Please support and back up your statements with facts not just useless english words. I don't need to reread the story, YOU need to reread my POST. I understand this vehicle no longer will use an I6. I specifically stated 'current X1' in my post- the E84. Which is available with the N55. State facts? Okay. The interior is cheap, they're outdated, they're overpriced, and until the 3.6 got shoved in them, they were powertrain disasters. Hows that?

OK...so the SRX sucks...that is more of a tit for tat argument you got going on...but whatever. lets see how BMW will make the X1 handle like an ultimate driving machine. You know...FWD...Because GM knows how to make FWD cars handle...and the Equinox and SRX aint that bad...lets see how BMW paid journalists will spin the negativity that will surround it...because...it is wrong wheel drive after all....and coming from BMW...because while some of us can huff and puff over a FWD Cadillac crossover...Cadillac jumped into the FWD pool with its Flagship Eldorado in the late 1960s...and Cadillac continued to refine FWD performance and handling waaaaay into the 2000s with their cars...so people can smirk all they want about a FWD SRX...it just shows the stupid double standards you German friendly BMW lovers have... Please show me a SINGLE instance in which I have applied double standards to the vehicles/brands in question. I'll wait...

While it wasn't a blistering success, the 8 Series was not a failure. It was exactly what it was supposed to be- a GT Coupe with more emphasis on luxury than sport. It was no more a failure than the 928. And the M1 a failure?? Lol, please. I know you don't like BMW, but come on, get real. Yeah...the 850 WAS a failure...in the sales department...and the image that BMW wanted to pass on...it wasnt a ultimate driving machine...nor was it a luxury car in the minds of the consumer...Mercedes held on to that title...The 500 SL...was engineered like no other...and it stayed that way in the minds of the consumer...while BMW was trying to make something that would stick...in the minds of the consumer...hence the Bond cars...with the Z3, Z8 and the 750... The M1... http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-m1-trilogy-the-history-of-the-m1-feature from the link: "The M1 finally took to the racetrack in 1979, but failure dogged it from the first. The Procar series brought mixed reviews, providing a show of brilliance but also evidence of early engine problems. The Group 4 entries at the Watkins Glen and Le Mans endurance races failed. Furthermore no turbo was ready for the M1’s M88 engine, because all work had been focused on McLaren’s turbocharged four-cylinder for the 320i. So even when Neerpasch commissioned a special Group 5 M1 from March later in 1979, the wildly illegal car that resulted was underpowered. A similar version raced by Jim Busby in America ultimately suffered the indignity of being fitted with a Chevrolet small-block V-8." The bold part is the real funny part... Im sorry guys...but BMW is NOT the car company you guys imagine it is...BMW's marketing division is responsible for BMW's "greatness" ... Again, the 8 Series was not a failure. It was produced for 10 years, with over 30,000 built. It met it's demise like so many other cars of that era, 928 included. Also, your comparison to the SL is rather moot, as it was not intended to be a direct competitor. Hell, you're comparing a car that is exclusively a roadster to one that is exclusively hard top. A more apt comparison is the Mercedes SEC- S Class Coupe- which only sold 2/3 the numbers the 8 Series did over it's production run. As for the M1, maybe you should read the second and third parts to the very article you referenced. The road car was sublime. It outperformed virtually every other sports car of it's era, and changed the automotive landscape forever by getting the M Division up and going. The only thing you have to stand on is the car's lack of success in Group 4 guise. The car would later find success in IMSA, however, winning several races leading to winning the 1981 GTO category. This before it was used in various other smaller series throughout the 80's to decent success. BMW has the second most motorsports wins behind Porsche. And the M1 was a game changer that doesn't get the recognition it deserves. BMW is wholly the car company I imagine them to be. Not perfect, but FAR better than you and many others give them credit for.

Firstly, it looks great. The best looking crossover this size on the market, imo. That said, it sucks to see this being a casualty to the conversion to a FWD-based platform. I know it makes good business sense, but still. The current X1 is really an underrated little ride. It's essentially a slightly lifted E91. And with the 3.0 I6, it's quite the sleeper. Oh, and the SRX, like the Equinox it's based on, sucks.

While it wasn't a blistering success, the 8 Series was not a failure. It was exactly what it was supposed to be- a GT Coupe with more emphasis on luxury than sport. It was no more a failure than the 928. And the M1 a failure?? Lol, please. I know you don't like BMW, but come on, get real.

I'm not sure why this is a surprise to anyone. With ever-tightening emissions and MPG targets, this is inevitable. We probably won't see this in the States. Also, to those who said an I4 would be terrible in a 7 Series- the new car is going to weigh what the current 5 Series weighs. And the 528i is not a slow car as it is. And that's assuming the 7 Series doesn't see a power bump in I4 guise. Also again, the E38 7 Series is one of the best looking sport/lux sedans of all time.

40K for FWD and CVT? In something marketed as a 4 Door Sports Car?? Haha, hard pass. Good one Nissan. You should have just killed this thing off like you were thinking about.

Sure thing. I took it to lunch a few days ago, and my impressions still stand. Amazing car. I'd love to have one. In fact, if I were looking to spend 50-60K on a fun car, it'd be a Z.

I just don't see this happening.

Dude, that's nuts. I currently live in Cape Girardeau. I'm from a little bit of everywhere, however. My parents were military and so was I. I was born and raised for a few years in Germany, lived in Texas on three different occasion, Lousiana, North Dakota, California, Arkansas. I've lived in Missouri longer than anywhere else, so I suppose this is as close to home as I'm gonna get for now. Fascinating!

Eh, I wouldn't go that far. They ride and drive pretty well and in 4-cylinder guise, they get decent fuel economy. They're tweener cars... smashed between the CR-V/RAV-4 and the Grand Cherokee/Edge in size. Where they really fall down is on their interiors which are now about 5 years out of date. Relative to most of their competition, I stand by my claim. They have a decent ride, and that's about it. They're underpowered in I4 guise, get crap mileage, and are overpriced as hell. This, in addition to just being generally outdated and totally dull to drive. Resale value isn't stellar, either. In truth, they are just about the very last small SUV I'd buy, with the list being- 1-Forester 2-Cherokee 3-CX-5 4-Rav 5-CR-V 6-Escape 7-'Nox/Terrain 8-Sportage/Tucson Their only saving grace is the available V6. Well, they're also much larger than all of those you list as well. It's almost a full size class difference in capacity. And in all my years of experience with them in car sales, that has never ONCE been the deciding factor in someone buying one.

Eh, I wouldn't go that far. They ride and drive pretty well and in 4-cylinder guise, they get decent fuel economy. They're tweener cars... smashed between the CR-V/RAV-4 and the Grand Cherokee/Edge in size. Where they really fall down is on their interiors which are now about 5 years out of date. Relative to most of their competition, I stand by my claim. They have a decent ride, and that's about it. They're underpowered in I4 guise, get crap mileage, and are overpriced as hell. This, in addition to just being generally outdated and totally dull to drive. Resale value isn't stellar, either. In truth, they are just about the very last small SUV I'd buy, with the list being- 1-Forester 2-Cherokee 3-CX-5 4-Rav 5-CR-V 6-Escape 7-'Nox/Terrain 8-Sportage/Tucson Their only saving grace is the available V6.

I have two friends that have these. One Vert and one Coupe. ..dicks.. lol I'm not a vert fan at all but These with the roll bar still manage to look tough to me. Are your friends' Mystics as well?!? ..one day I'll have one.. once they are considered classics probably. Both Mystics, yes. One (vert) is stock except intake, smaller pulley, and cat-back. The Coupe has a bigger blower, full bolt-ons, etc. Made like ~670whp as of last dyno.

The Equinox and Terrain are terrible vehicles.

I have two friends that have these. One Vert and one Coupe.