Anyone know what the take rate is for AWD on the M35? Seems like the vast majority of the ones I see are M35x models.
#1
Minor refresh to the front and rear. No interior shots yet.
For those who don't know, AWD is now available with V8 starting 2008.
:snore
#2
Anyone know what the take rate is for AWD on the M35? Seems like the vast majority of the ones I see are M35x models.
#3
I don't know the rate, but it is common here in northeast. Just like there are more IS 250 AWD than IS 350.....
#4
Quote, originally posted by Oliver@triplezoom » Anyone know what the take rate is for AWD on the M35? Seems like the vast majority of the ones I see are M35x models. Depends on where you live. Here in the Southeast, where the take rate on AWD anything (even SUVs) is low, the take rate is near zero.
And while this is nice, it still doesn't end Infiniti's need for a proper Q flagship.
Originally Posted by alleghenyman
#5
Looks good, but I don't care for the exhaust (too recessed). I'm curious to see what a sport model looks like. According to http://www.infinitinews.com there is supposed to be great differentiation between the sport and non-sport models.
1989 Cadillac STS * 1991 Ford Escort GT * 1997 Honda Civic EX * 1997 BMW 528i * 1998 Honda CR-V EX * 1999 Acura 3.2 TL * 2000 VW Golf GLS 1.8T * 2001 Land Rover Range Rover 4.6 SE * 2002 VW Passat GLS 1.8T * 2002 Honda Civic EX * 2006 Lexus GS430 * 2006 Honda Pilot EX-L * 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander XLS * 2009 Hyundai Genesis 3.8 * 2010 Kia Forte Koup SX * 2011 Hyundai Sonata SE
#6
Quote, originally posted by jwaters943 » Looks good, but I don't care for the exhaust (too recessed). I'm curious to see what a sport model looks like. According to http://www.infinitinews.com there is supposed to be great differentiation between the sport and non-sport models. They need to do that for all their cars. The non-sport G35 is still to sporty for mainstream buyers. Not everyone appreciates the throaty exhaust. They need at least one car that offers a Lexus-like smooth ride.
#7
Maybe they'll get rid of all that chrome.
:snore
#8
I never really liked the rear of the previous one. This one is pretty good.Front is nice too.
Overall:
#9
Quote, originally posted by spidy » Minor refresh to the front and rear. No interior shots yet.
The lower fascia reminds me of the Eos. The rear looks a little better, but those tails are still ginormous. The V8 AWD combo would be nice around here.
#10
They fixed the rear lights. That's about all it really needed on the outside. And AWD on the V8 is smart too.Expect a Q concept at the car shows next year.
#11
Quote, originally posted by Oliver@triplezoom » Anyone know what the take rate is for AWD on the M35? Seems like the vast majority of the ones I see are M35x models. Between March 2005 and May 2007, retail sales of the M35 is 44,999 units in the US.
47.42% AWD (21,339 units)
52.58% RWD (23,660 units)I'm surprised...almost 50/50!
#12
deleted.
Modified by livingVoice at 9:07 AM 7-24-2007
#13
Quote, originally posted by schtebie » No, actually he's spot on.
I deleted my previous post.
#14
damn, too late.
My dad would ahve hit an M45x sport so hard.
Unfortunatly he needed AWD to pass through chain control on a more than weekly basis in the winter, so M35x it was. He's kind fo unhappy the m45x is out, as he would never take the hit of selling a car after 2 years.
I probably don't know what I'm talking about (but I know more than you)
Rainbow Farts - Team My Little Pony
#16
Quote, originally posted by mister_g60 » *yawn* I know it's no Volvo S40 or anything......
#17
Need better pics to make any final judgement. Can't tell anything from these pics.
#18
Quote, originally posted by Professor Gascan » The lower fascia reminds me of the Eos. The Cayman also has a similar treatment, with that little wing running into/through the round foglight. It's pretty ugly and wimpy-looking in all three instances.
Edit: Holy cow though, that is like a carbon copy of the Eos. Weird.
#19
The front and rear both look much improved. That still doesn't change the fact that the car (to me anyway) looks goofy on anything less than the 5-spoke 19"s. I'd like to see a profile shot to see if the body still carries as much visual heft as it did before.
#20
Quote, originally posted by jwaters943 » I know it's no Volvo S40 or anything......
that time of the month huh?
#21
Would be nice if they went to a 6spd auto at this point.
#22
I will buy slightly used RL before getting anywhere near this glorified Maxima.
#23
Quote, originally posted by marzen » I will buy slightly used RL before getting anywhere near this glorified Maxima.
Glorified Maxima? It's RWD/AWD...not FWD. Have you driven one before??
#24
Quote, originally posted by schtebie »
Glorified Maxima? It's RWD/AWD...not FWD. Have you driven one before??
No sh*t!
I'm a pretty big Honda/Acura fanboy, but I can give credit where credit is due.
The M is a VERY good car, easily one of the top 3 vehicles in it's class. It shames the RL in terms of feature content, reliability (the RL has been the most problematic vehicle in Acura's history), room, and available horsepower. It also handles quite a bit better when equipped w/ the Sport Package as well.
Modified by jwaters943 at 9:48 AM 7-24-2007
#25
Quote, originally posted by marzen » I will buy slightly used RL before getting anywhere near this glorified Maxima. Glorified maxima? One is RWD, the other is RWD. The only similarity is they are both under Nissan umbrella.
#26
Yes, I drove M45. not the AWD version but yes I have.
Not all that cracked up to be. 535i was more compelling than M45
#27
Quote, originally posted by marzen » Yes, I drove M45. not the AWD version but yes I have.
Not all that cracked up to be. 535i was more compelling than M45The M was never meant to be a performance car. It's a pretty damn good all-rounder though. I like BMW and Acura as much as the next guy...but come on...
#28
they got rid of the black housing headlights!!
#29
Quote, originally posted by christurismohk » Isn't that a sport model feature?
#30
Quote, originally posted by Beltfed » Isn't that a sport model feature?
Yes it is and it's something that will likely still be on sport models.
1989 Cadillac STS * 1991 Ford Escort GT * 1997 Honda Civic EX * 1997 BMW 528i * 1998 Honda CR-V EX * 1999 Acura 3.2 TL * 2000 VW Golf GLS 1.8T * 2001 Land Rover Range Rover 4.6 SE * 2002 VW Passat GLS 1.8T * 2002 Honda Civic EX * 2006 Lexus GS430 * 2006 Honda Pilot EX-L * 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander XLS * 2009 Hyundai Genesis 3.8 * 2010 Kia Forte Koup SX * 2011 Hyundai Sonata SE
#31
I like the front end styling of the Infiniti M-series. It's one of Nissan's better looking front end designs and a very handsome face next to the competitors in the market.
#32
Quote, originally posted by marzen » I will buy slightly used RL before getting anywhere near this glorified Maxima. LOL
'Glorified Maxima'? One is RWD/AWD, the other is FWD only. One offers a V6 or a V8, and the other offers just a V6. Using your theory, the RL is a glorified Accord right?
You don't have to like the M, or the G for that matter, but both vehicles are pretty damn good examples of what Nissan/Infiniti can do when they don't muff things up.
#33
Are you suffering the same fate as Mr Twain in your sig?
Quote, originally posted by marzen » I will buy slightly used RL before getting anywhere near this glorified Maxima.
Modified by rbloedow at 11:17 AM 7-24-2007
#34
Quote, originally posted by P-Body » LOL
'Glorified Maxima'? One is RWD/AWD, the other is FWD only. One offers a V6 or a V8, and the other offers just a V6. Using your theory, the RL is a glorified Accord right?
You don't have to like the M, or the G for that matter, but both vehicles are pretty damn good examples of what Nissan/Infiniti can do when they don't muff things up.
But but but.. the RL has super handling! Super. What's the M for? Mega Handling? Psssshhhh.
Bloated, underperforming, unreliable Honda accord vs. a glorified Maxima? I'll take the fatty Max, thanks.
http://www.speedsportlife.com
Press vehicle this week: 2011 Ford Fiesta SE Hatchback
#35
Quote, originally posted by marzen » Yes, I drove M45. not the AWD version but yes I have.
Not all that cracked up to be. 535i was more compelling than M45In what way is the 535i more compelling? The feel of the E60 is more isolated than the E39 and isn't noticibly better than the M's (You can feel the difference on a fast sharp hard turn, where the active suspension utilize itself, I hardly doubt there's a decent percentage of 5, non M5 owners, out there will drive that hard, even then the M handles itself very well). Ergonomics isn't better, granted the latest version of I-Drive is much better than the previous version. Interior quality isn't (though that's my opinion), neither is the new Micky-D's smile that it has now on the lower bumper. Enlighten me about it.
Personally, the seating position in the M is much better. I have driven the E60 530i on a 300 mile road trip and it isn't comfortable; though the seats isn't designed with people who are 5'5" in mind (I have done the same distance in my 350Z and am ok with it).
Posting Permissions
