Tesla Model X vs Infiniti QX30

What's the difference?

After nearly 700km of testing with both cars, it’s fair to say that the Tesla is indeed a capable tow vehicle, provided you keep the distances relatively short and plan around charge station locations.

Overall average - Penrith to Bathurst to Penrith

Fuel and energy consumption will always depend on the driving conditions, which is why we chose different routes for each leg of our testing.

Averaged across the two legs, towing the caravan with the Model X used 101 per cent more energy than without, or halved its driving range, which sounds a bit scary.

The LandCruiser by comparison added 63 per cent on average, which is still a big difference, but matters less in the real world when its big fuel tanks would still give you about 760km of driving range, which can be refilled quickly at any diesel-stocked servo.

So you could do a weekend trip with the caravan from Penrith with one supercharge in Bathurst, but it would’ve been highly unlikely to manage the extra 55km if you were leaving from Sydney CBD.

The bottom line is that there’s plenty of things - like smaller camper trailers - lighter than our caravan that will help the Tesla to do the towing job better right now.

Compared to the ‘Cruiser, the Tesla is a lesson in the benefits of a lower centre of gravity and road-focused handling.

As always, bigger batteries and more recharge points will go a long way to rectifying the Tesla’s towing shortcomings, and I'm sure we'll get there eventually.

But no matter what, its acceleration performance under load is simply excellent.

Thanks to our friends at Avida for making this test possible with the use of the 17-foot Avida Wave Tourer Electric Pop-Top single-axle caravan. They can also be reached on 1300 428 432.

Even though it’s almost identical to the Q30, the QX30 manages to feel sufficiently different in suspension tune and cabin ambiance to be considered different.

It’s a disappointing oversight, though, by Infiniti to deny the base GT such basic safety fundamentals as a rear view camera (which Infiniti assures us is being worked on).

Energy consumption is just one element of a tow vehicle though, with stability, braking and acceleration performance being the most important details.

The big ‘Cruiser is always a safe bet for towing heavy loads, but it's fair to say its off-road ability, tall body and short wheelbase mean it could be better on the road, and the Tesla goes some way to proving that.

With all those batteries mounted nice and low, the Tesla is significantly more stable with 1.7 tonnes on the back than the LandCruiser, in all conditions. It’s also helped by that longer wheelbase.

The Tesla’s airbag suspension is another surprise advantage, and while it can be a bit choppy around town over minor bumps, bigger bumps on the highway are soaked up really nicely and it all settles quicker than with the LandCruiser - even with the caravan on the back.

Tesla is famous for instant acceleration at any speed, and this effect remains when towing. The LandCruiser’s twin-turbo V8 (with max torque available from 1600-2600rpm) has long been a benchmark for tow vehicles, but the Model X makes it feel sluggish by comparison.

You know how caravan vehicles are usually the slow ones up hills? This time, we were the ones doing the overtaking, even up the steep bends heading out of Lithgow. To overtake, it just takes the slightest flex of your right foot.

Clearly there’s a big caveat though when it comes to how much energy it’s consuming while you’re enjoying that performance, and it’s deceptive because it doesn’t make any more noise like a conventional engine when you’re pushing it. 

You’d also think the weight of the van would overcome the engine-braking effect of the regenerative brakes, but they are still very effective at conserving your brakes downhill and preventing the car from running away from you, and no doubt giving the batteries a bigger boost at the same time.

On that note, the LandCruiser’s cruise control also does a great job of witholding speed on downhill runs, proactively dropping gears to engine brake enough to keep the Avida Wave in check.

Again, it would be easy to think that the QX30 would feel almost identical to its lower-riding sibling – but that would be incorrect. We criticised the Q30 for being a bit too buttoned down and unresponsive, but the QX30 feels more lively and involving, thanks to its unique spring and damper set-up.

Even though it’s 30mm higher than the Q, the QX doesn’t feel it at all, with a benign, pleasant ride with good body roll control and competent steering.

Our front-seat passenger complained of feeling a little ‘hemmed in’, which is a valid point. The sides of the car are very high, and the roofline is quite low, exacerbated by the steeply raked windscreen.

The 2.0-litre four-potter is smooth and punchy, and the gearbox well suited to it, but it’s lacking in aural character. Luckily the QX30 does a terrific job of suppressing noise before it gets into the cabin, then…