Author Topic: Test Drive: 2013 Audi Q5 2.0T (Read 13828 times)

Autos_Editor · « **on:** March 21, 2013, 06:29:03 am »

The Audi Q5 receives a mid-cycle refresh for 2013, but remains an understated design, with a generous serving of 'just-right-ness'.

Read More...

redman · « **Reply #1 on:** March 21, 2013, 08:33:14 am »

How about the Volvo XC 60 as a competitor ? Was behind one on the highway in the way to work this morning. It's a nice looking vehicle in person.

Solstice2006 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 21, 2013, 09:08:36 am »

Quote from: redman on March 21, 2013, 08:33:14 am

How about the Volvo XC 60 as a competitor ? Was behind one on the highway in the way to work this morning. It's a nice looking vehicle in person.

I would consider the Volvo XC60 as a competitor as well. Same length, more cargo capacity, more power, the 3.2L goes on regular gas, and much cheaper.

Not sure if the 2013 Q5 is more expensive than the 2012, but the Buyers Guide for 2012, shows the 2.0 Premium at $41,200, and the Premium Plus at $45,300. Not sure why it has increased to over $47k, sounds way overpriced to me. VW needs their own midsize, bigger than the Tiguan, smaller than the Touraeg, for people who don't want to spend $50k on a midsize SUV. The Q5 overlaps the VW Touraeg in pricing, I would much rather have the Touraeg.

Snowman · « **Reply #3 on:** March 21, 2013, 09:09:55 am »

The Q5 is on my list to replace the Venza in 3 years. Hopefully the timing works out for the new model release.

aquadorhj · « **Reply #4 on:** March 21, 2013, 09:15:39 am »

Q5's expensive.

saw SQ5 at autoshow but it wasn't anything special.

Nice, very nice for sure, but for almost 70k...(it was 65 + tax) i would rather have something else.

Love the Volvo XC60's look and interior. didn't know it was cheaper

EDIT : i just checked out Volvo Canada's website, and XC60 isn't ANY CHEAPER. specced out with AWD, i got 50k without taxes.

Northernridge · « **Reply #5 on:** March 21, 2013, 10:46:42 am »

Audi Canada website says the base price is $39,900. Auto.ca says the base price is 47 something...that's a huge difference. I bet Audi is correct.

At 40k the nicely equipped base Q5 is a great buy and nice CUV.

Noto · « **Reply #6 on:** March 21, 2013, 11:00:27 am »

Arnold Schwarzenegger is Austrian, nicht German.

Lesley · « **Reply #7 on:** March 21, 2013, 11:20:21 am »

Quote from: Northernridge on March 21, 2013, 10:46:42 am

Audi Canada website says the base price is $39,900. Auto.ca says the base price is 47 something...that's a huge difference. I bet Audi is correct.

At 40k the nicely equipped base Q5 is a great buy and nice CUV.

Base price for 2.0T Premium is $ 43,150

Yah, I know Ahnuld is Austrian. But tell me you're not hearing him now too....

whaddaiknow · « **Reply #8 on:** March 21, 2013, 11:22:49 am »

Quote from: Northernridge on March 21, 2013, 10:46:42 am

Audi Canada website says the base price is $39,900. Auto.ca says the base price is 47 something...that's a huge difference. I bet Audi is correct.

At 40k the nicely equipped base Q5 is a great buy and nice CUV.

Unfortunately, another $750 have to added for any colour you choose which is simply ridiculous. Plus the lease rates are quite high, and the competitive advantage is lost there.

I am looking to replace my bimmer with a CUV type of car, so I'm shopping around.

SaskSpecV · « **Reply #9 on:** March 21, 2013, 11:31:40 am »

Quote from: whaddaiknow on March 21, 2013, 11:22:49 am

Unfortunately, another $750 have to added for any colour you choose which is simply ridiculous.

Agreed. At least Audi used to have red and white as non-metallic "no-charge" colour options. Buddy has a 2011 A4 in the base red - very nice colour. He balked at paying ANOTHER $750 for one of the metallic colours that didn't look any better to his eye.

Add that $750 to the $2000 freight/PDI (that Audi doesn't list on their website), and the "base price" is a lot higher than advertised. The automotive pricing shell-game continues!

blotter · « **Reply #10 on:** March 21, 2013, 11:42:21 am »

any vehicle that requires premium fuel will have an extremely hard time making my shopping list.
i know the turbos need the premium fuel, but non-turbos needing premium fuel just because it's a "premium" car is BS to me. i'll never get it. the reason most of these vehicles are premium is the interior luxury and not always because of the engine. (again unless it's turbo or some wicked sports car)

if Audi, Mercedes, BMW, Volvo, etc... had some models that didn't need premium fuel i'm sure more would consider them!

I love the Volvo XC60, even the Q5 is a pretty nice vehicle - but i wouldn't consider it needing premium. Oh, BTW the cargo space in the Q5 is about the same as a Toyota Matrix... not too much utility in these CUVs. I think they give up cargo space for roomier back seats.

Fobroader · « **Reply #11 on:** March 21, 2013, 11:51:47 am »

^^ Is 10 cents per liter that big of a deal that you would buy a car that you like less??

tpl · « **Reply #12 on:** March 21, 2013, 12:00:37 pm »

I wouldn't be surprised if the emissions are such that they ( Audi, BMW etc.) can just certify the EU engine without changes if they leave it on Euro 95 aka our premium. Rather than having to re-certify on 87.

Fobroader · « **Reply #13 on:** March 21, 2013, 12:14:03 pm »

Quote from: tpl on March 21, 2013, 12:00:37 pm

I wouldn't be surprised if the emissions are such that they ( Audi, BMW etc.) can just certify the EU engine without changes if they leave it on Euro 95 aka our premium. Rather than having to re-certify on 87.

Doesnt premium fuel burn more cleanly though?? Like more complete?

Snowman · « **Reply #14 on:** March 21, 2013, 01:05:48 pm »

Quote from: Fobroader on March 21, 2013, 11:51:47 am

^^ Is 10 cents per liter that big of a deal that you would buy a car that you like less??

Exactly, get a Prius.

blotter · « **Reply #15 on:** March 21, 2013, 01:12:22 pm »

Quote

Is 10 cents per liter that big of a deal that you would buy a car that you like less??

in the last three months i've watched the price of premium vs regular and it has fluctuate between 10 and 20 cents.
I wouldn't buy a car I like less BUT I can compare somewhat similar vehicles that have somewhat the same features and still have something that requires regular fuel.

example:

Volvo XC70 vs Subaru Outback 3.6R Limited

no prius for me

i need cargo space, some towing capacity and something with decent power for travelling with a loaded vehicle. (camping gear, people, mountain bikes, etc)

Fobroader · « **Reply #16 on:** March 21, 2013, 01:16:15 pm »

Dont get me wrong, all things equal, Id rather put in the baby duck 87 instead of the 93 Don Perignon. Saving money is good, but Ive never understood the panic and fervor some have when a vehicle is premium only.

gord_boyd · « **Reply #17 on:** March 21, 2013, 01:16:48 pm »

This CUV vs. wagon debate may be already overdone, but the aerodynamic fundamental on frontal area
and energy required at 120 - 140 kms/hr is huge for the extra 4 square feet or 5 sq. ft.

People like to point to differential between Regular and Premium and then forfit savings with huge frontal areas of CUV's/Suv's/trucks.

blotter · « **Reply #18 on:** March 21, 2013, 01:26:43 pm »

Dont get me wrong, all things equal, Id rather put in the baby duck 87 instead of the 93 Don Perignon. Saving money is good, but Ive never understood the panic and fervor some have when a vehicle is premium only.

over a ten year ownership it does add up!
however, it doesn't mean i won't buy a premium required vehicle... It better be THAT much better of a car though.

CAS · « **Reply #19 on:** March 21, 2013, 02:09:34 pm »

I drove both XC60 3.2 and Q5 2.0T. Where I noticed the difference most was over bumpy pavement: the Volvo's suspension crashes into the cabin while the Audi's feels more gentler and refined.