Topic: Test Drive: 2013 Audi Q5 Hybrid

[Autos_Editor]

A rolling concert hall or crche with a racer's heart, this luxury crossover continually demonstrates why it's not cheap.

Read More...

[tpl]

The adaptive headlight thing was invented 50 years ago and IIRC was on some Citroens by the late '60s.    It has taken the US government 50 years to allow it.

I looked at a Q5 while in an Audi dealer recently.  Mrs tpl liked it and I thought that for an SUV it was quite attractive on the outside and very attractive inside. I could not get over the apparent mass of the vehicle...to me, in a fairly small showroom, in dark grey metallic , it looked far too huge and tall for me to ever want one.    The price didn't help either.

[OliverD]

To me, the upcoming diesel model will be much more appealing. It will also be much cheaper.

[JRM]

The Q5 looks out of proportion.  It is tall and wide but too short in comparison.  That is probably why it has such a small cargo space (739L) behind the front seats for the size of the vehile.  In comparison the compact Ford Focus hatch isn't that far behind at 674L and the compact Golf wagon has 929L.  If these SUV's, the U being for utility,  must be so large, they should have considerably more cargo space than a compact hatch/wagon.  It's an inefficient design otherwise.

[johngenx]

Price as tested: $63,745

 

[whaddaiknow]

Price as tested: $63,745

 

My reaction, too. So much for entry-level compact CUV from Audi.

[Northernridge]

In the low 40s the Q5 seems like a great choice among CUVs but at 63k it seems moronic.  Other than using hybrid technology for extreme fuel efficiency (Prius) I think it's a waste of money for its marginal fuel efficiency and performance gains in normal cars. Hybrid pricing is outrageous to me – you can buy cheaper fuel efficiency gains and cheaper performance gains. I don't get the value proposition except in Prius-like applications where the whole car is built around the technology for max fuel efficiency.

Some people gripe about the diesel engine price premiums but this is offensive.

[Snowman]

Price as tested: $63,745

 

My reaction, too. So much for entry-level compact CUV from Audi.

  have you even priced a 2.0 Q5 

[Mike]

The Q5 looks out of proportion.  It is tall and wide but too short in comparison.  That is probably why it has such a small cargo space (739L) behind the front seats for the size of the vehile.  In comparison the compact Ford Focus hatch isn't that far behind at 674L and the compact Golf wagon has 929L.  If these SUV's, the U being for utility,  must be so large, they should have considerably more cargo space than a compact hatch/wagon.  It's an inefficient design otherwise.

Not sure where those numbers came from.  Behind rear seats = 824 L, behind front seats = 1622 L

[tpl]

The Q5 looks out of proportion.  It is tall and wide but too short in comparison.  That is probably why it has such a small cargo space (739L) behind the front seats for the size of the vehile.  In comparison the compact Ford Focus hatch isn't that far behind at 674L and the compact Golf wagon has 929L.  If these SUV's, the U being for utility,  must be so large, they should have considerably more cargo space than a compact hatch/wagon.  It's an inefficient design otherwise.

Not sure where those numbers came from.  Behind rear seats = 824 L, behind front seats = 1622 L

Is that to the roof or too the bottom edge of the rear window...which is the sensible measurement.

[whaddaiknow]

Price as tested: $63,745

 

My reaction, too. So much for entry-level compact CUV from Audi.

  have you even priced a 2.0 Q5 

That wasn't the point of my comment. The point was on how quickly one ends up in the lottery win category even with the entry level CUV (for Audi) once you start putting checkmarks in the option boxes. Nothing new, of course, or different from any other manufacturer. At least Audi shows a 50% increase, Ford manages a near 100% price hike once all the options are ticked off 

I personally never warmed up to the looks of the Q5/Q7 family, as well as the A7 (I find it fugly and distorted). My money would go to RDX/MDX.
A4/6/8 are a different story. Those are seriously good looking cars.

[sailor723]

The Q5 looks out of proportion.  It is tall and wide but too short in comparison.  That is probably why it has such a small cargo space (739L) behind the front seats for the size of the vehile.  In comparison the compact Ford Focus hatch isn't that far behind at 674L and the compact Golf wagon has 929L.  If these SUV's, the U being for utility,  must be so large, they should have considerably more cargo space than a compact hatch/wagon.  It's an inefficient design otherwise.

Not sure where those numbers came from.  Behind rear seats = 824 L, behind front seats = 1622 L

Is that to the roof or too the bottom edge of the rear window...which is the sensible measurement.

You do seem to see different cargo capacity numbers given for the same CUV quite often. Is there not some sort of standard for measuring this....or does it vary from country to country? Is it measured differently in Europe than in North America?  I seem to recall seeing something described as "EPA" cargo capacity given on some US sites.

[Mike]

The Q5 looks out of proportion.  It is tall and wide but too short in comparison.  That is probably why it has such a small cargo space (739L) behind the front seats for the size of the vehile.  In comparison the compact Ford Focus hatch isn't that far behind at 674L and the compact Golf wagon has 929L.  If these SUV's, the U being for utility,  must be so large, they should have considerably more cargo space than a compact hatch/wagon.  It's an inefficient design otherwise.

Not sure where those numbers came from.  Behind rear seats = 824 L, behind front seats = 1622 L

Is that to the roof or too the bottom edge of the rear window...which is the sensible measurement.

You do seem to see different cargo capacity numbers given for the same CUV quite often. Is there not some sort of standard for measuring this....or does it vary from country to country? Is it measured differently in Europe than in North America?  I seem to recall seeing something described as "EPA" cargo capacity given on some US sites.

Most do ceiling to floor, Mazda usually doesn't though

[sailor723]

The Q5 looks out of proportion.  It is tall and wide but too short in comparison.  That is probably why it has such a small cargo space (739L) behind the front seats for the size of the vehile.  In comparison the compact Ford Focus hatch isn't that far behind at 674L and the compact Golf wagon has 929L.  If these SUV's, the U being for utility,  must be so large, they should have considerably more cargo space than a compact hatch/wagon.  It's an inefficient design otherwise.

Not sure where those numbers came from.  Behind rear seats = 824 L, behind front seats = 1622 L

Is that to the roof or too the bottom edge of the rear window...which is the sensible measurement.

You do seem to see different cargo capacity numbers given for the same CUV quite often. Is there not some sort of standard for measuring this....or does it vary from country to country? Is it measured differently in Europe than in North America?  I seem to recall seeing something described as "EPA" cargo capacity given on some US sites.

 

Most do ceiling to floor, Mazda usually doesn't though

I think some review sites use their own calculations (CR? Edmunds?) while others just repeat what the manufacurers give them. May account for seeing different specs for the same car.

[JRM]

The Q5 looks out of proportion.  It is tall and wide but too short in comparison.  That is probably why it has such a small cargo space (739L) behind the front seats for the size of the vehile.  In comparison the compact Ford Focus hatch isn't that far behind at 674L and the compact Golf wagon has 929L.  If these SUV's, the U being for utility,  must be so large, they should have considerably more cargo space than a compact hatch/wagon.  It's an inefficient design otherwise.

Not sure where those numbers came from.  Behind rear seats = 824 L, behind front seats = 1622 L

The 739L was in this article.  I also checked with the MSN autos site, which quotes the same volume

[JohnM]

"it’s still a bit big for typical city life"  and it weighs 2,545 kg.   This has to be GVW.   

Still a massive machine to be considered for urban use but for all of its bulk the mileage is amazingly good.

Also, when do we get a review of the Jetta Hybrid?  Saw the first ad last night.  Priced right on the standard Prius with a similar sized battery.   The Jetta has much more power and torque though from its 1.4L TD.  No hatch of course and it would be interesting to see how the VW hybrid system works.  If it is as slick as the Prius, then its quite a package.

Cheers,
John M.

[carcrazed]

Those wheels may be good aerodynamics, but don't look very good to me.

[Fobroader]

$63K?!?!?!?!?!?!? That is downright offensive, so a Jeep Wrangler for winter and an FR-S/BR-Z for the summer and a couple of grand left over to go somewhere nice it is. $63K....... that hilarious.

[carcrazed]

Can't see a lot of Hybrids selling at $55K base; here's hoping that the upcoming diesel option will be more competitively priced.

[jyarkony]

"it’s still a bit big for typical city life"  and it weighs 2,545 kg.   This has to be GVW.   

Still a massive machine to be considered for urban use but for all of its bulk the mileage is amazingly good.

Also, when do we get a review of the Jetta Hybrid?  Saw the first ad last night.  Priced right on the standard Prius with a similar sized battery.   The Jetta has much more power and torque though from its 1.4L TD.  No hatch of course and it would be interesting to see how the VW hybrid system works.  If it is as slick as the Prius, then its quite a package.

Cheers,
John M.

Pritchard is driving one next week.... Expect a review in a few weeks.