Sister wants an Audi q5

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
She should consider Mercedes GLC 300. Better car than Audi Q5 or especially Mazda CX-5.

lol, the AMG is, the base GLC? I'd prefer my Mazda until the improve some things on the MB.

-Stiffen the chassis up
-Improve the handling during accident avoidance "moose test"
-Make it so it can take 87 octane just fine (sometimes on road trips, that's what you got...)
-Why is service so [censored] expensive?
-I'd miss NAV HUD

Fix those things, and the GLC is a contender.


Really though, this thread has reaffirmed that I made a good choice, because you all got me to look into those vehicles and their dB at cruise, handling, etc. I'm not really concerned with what others buy, as much as enjoying the intellectual aspect of the conversation. I don't own stock in any of 'em, and your choices don't affect me, but seriously, it's been interesting to look into other CUV's/data/etc. and I may go drive the Q5. Already experience with the GLC43 AMG, and without its engine, its not really something I'd care to own instead (less refined). Friend of my loves his Q7 and encouraged me to look at the 5, so may well check it out!

One wild thing that stood out in all of this: THERE ARE NO STATS! for the base Macan! No instrumented tests. nada. Everyone is testing the "S" and "GTS". I had to rely on YouTube to even see one do a 0-60.

vs. my CX5


Kindof shocked, actually, that my Mazda is faster, and holy buckets look at that turbo lag on the Macan!

I thought this topic is about sister of OP, not you?

 

[Skippy722]

Originally Posted by edyvw

I thought this topic is about sister of OP, not you?


And why are we comparing a base model Porsche to a 1 step below top of the line CX-5?

 

[DaRider34]

Originally Posted by JEL01
I didn't know an STI/WRX competed with a Q5...

hey i replaced the subbie with a volvo

granted it was another sedan

 

[Quattro Pete]

Quote
and I may go drive the Q5. Already experience with the GLC43 AMG, and without its engine, its not really something I'd care to own instead (less refined). Friend of my loves his Q7 and encouraged me to look at the 5, so may well check it out!

One thing that I should have mentioned earlier is that one of the key reasons we bought it was the 3-liter supercharged V6. I think this engine is much better suited for the Q5, despite some MPG penalty. We would not have bought it with the 2.0T. The difference in refinement is very obvious between these two engines, and I am not a fan of turbo lag. Sadly, 2.0T is the only engine currently offered on the Q5.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Quote
and I may go drive the Q5. Already experience with the GLC43 AMG, and without its engine, its not really something I'd care to own instead (less refined). Friend of my loves his Q7 and encouraged me to look at the 5, so may well check it out!

One thing that I should have mentioned earlier is that one of the key reasons we bought it was the 3-liter supercharged V6. I think this engine is much better suited for the Q5, despite some MPG penalty. We would not have bought it with the 2.0T. The difference in refinement is very obvious between these two engines, and I am not a fan of turbo lag. Sadly, 2.0T is the only engine currently offered on the Q5.

The SQ5 is a beast. 10/10 would buy if I were not concerned with long-term maintenance, and even then, used to work with an MD who had an RS4, and it was fine. Another MD I know had one too, loved it. Kinda makes me like the S-line, even if it's an n=2.

Also, yeah, that's pretty laggy if you don't use the "launch control". I thought most modern turbo engines had evolved past this, but not so much I guess. Daily driving that looks annoying.

 

[edyvw]

I see what you saying. Last night I was driving Ferrari Modena on the Youtube, and low-end torque is nothing special.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by edyvw
I see what you saying. Last night I was driving Ferrari Modena on the Youtube, and low-end torque is nothing special.


All fun and games until that lag catches you by surprise when you made an iffy call in rush hour traffic. Why is Audi still using laggy turbos? This is 2019.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
I see what you saying. Last night I was driving Ferrari Modena on the Youtube, and low-end torque is nothing special.


All fun and games until that lag catches you by surprise when you made an iffy call in rush hour traffic. Why is Audi still using laggy turbos? This is 2019.

I know, I was driving it on Youtube, and as I was trying to reach my beer on a side, I felt a lag which almost prompt me to sit up from my recliner chair.
Need to try that in CX-5 and see if reaching beer while cutting corners on a Youtube will deliver different results.

 

[DaRider34]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
I see what you saying. Last night I was driving Ferrari Modena on the Youtube, and low-end torque is nothing special.


All fun and games until that lag catches you by surprise when you made an iffy call in rush hour traffic. Why is Audi still using laggy turbos? This is 2019.


better mpg and bigger hp numbers moving the power further up the rpms

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by DaRider34
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
I see what you saying. Last night I was driving Ferrari Modena on the Youtube, and low-end torque is nothing special.


All fun and games until that lag catches you by surprise when you made an iffy call in rush hour traffic. Why is Audi still using laggy turbos? This is 2019.


better mpg and bigger hp numbers moving the power further up the rpms

Audi has max torque available at 1,500rpms, unlike Mazda (2,000). But apparently on a Youtube, it is different.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by DaRider34
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
I see what you saying. Last night I was driving Ferrari Modena on the Youtube, and low-end torque is nothing special.


All fun and games until that lag catches you by surprise when you made an iffy call in rush hour traffic. Why is Audi still using laggy turbos? This is 2019.


better mpg and bigger hp numbers moving the power further up the rpms


Except that it's not...same horsepower, nearly the same mpg on paper (advantage Audi), but much better mph real world in the CX5, but I guess you can blame the 200# weight difference for that and say the Mazda is sleeker maybe?

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by DaRider34
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
I see what you saying. Last night I was driving Ferrari Modena on the Youtube, and low-end torque is nothing special.


All fun and games until that lag catches you by surprise when you made an iffy call in rush hour traffic. Why is Audi still using laggy turbos? This is 2019.


better mpg and bigger hp numbers moving the power further up the rpms

Audi has max torque available at 1,500rpms, unlike Mazda (2,000). But apparently on a Youtube, it is different.


It probably has similar torque to the Mazda at 1500 (Audi lists max torque as arriving at 1600), as the Mazda has nearly 40 pounds more twist by 2000 where it reaches max torque as noted.

One thing I did see when looking up this spec, is that the Audi has an 18.5 gallon tank. That's a legit advantage. Mazda needed to do that, too, and I'm frustrated that they didn't.

Whatever it says on paper, Audi owners don't like it. Here's some people who actually OWN the vehicle, unlike us here:
https://www.audiworld.com/forums/q5...cceleration-lag-does-bother-you-2935540/

Maybe you can go tell all of them they are wrong because Audi MUST be better than Mazda at making a responsive commuter with a turbo, lol! Also, maybe OP should really read that link and their sister should see if this foible bothers her on a test drive...

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by edyvw
but they do have by far best AWD system in industry.


This is a claim that any Subaru owner who lives in an area that sees actual winter would find laughable.
I know that I do.
To the OP, if sis really likes this Audi, then that's what she should buy.
Audis do have really nice interiors and are probably not a whole lot more costly to own and use than any other mainstream car of comparable cost and features would be.
It is a VW product after all, and VW has been in the car business for some years now.
Their products are seen on the road everywhere, so I don't think they can be all that bad.

I find it laughable to compare Subaru to Audi generally. But yeah, they have much better AWD system. They are very rare in the ditch here when things get dicy, unlike Subaru.


Says the guy who has neither a Subaru nor an Audi but rather a FWD minivan as his daily driver.
LOL!

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by edyvw
but they do have by far best AWD system in industry.


This is a claim that any Subaru owner who lives in an area that sees actual winter would find laughable.
I know that I do.
To the OP, if sis really likes this Audi, then that's what she should buy.
Audis do have really nice interiors and are probably not a whole lot more costly to own and use than any other mainstream car of comparable cost and features would be.
It is a VW product after all, and VW has been in the car business for some years now.
Their products are seen on the road everywhere, so I don't think they can be all that bad.

I find it laughable to compare Subaru to Audi generally. But yeah, they have much better AWD system. They are very rare in the ditch here when things get dicy, unlike Subaru.


Says the guy who has neither a Subaru nor an Audi but rather a FWD minivan as his daily driver.
LOL!

What he currently drives may not reflect on his knowledge base. Thats the same kind of logical fallacy as not wanting a football coach who can't run a low 4 second 40. Has zero reflection on his coaching knowledge.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by edyvw
but they do have by far best AWD system in industry.


This is a claim that any Subaru owner who lives in an area that sees actual winter would find laughable.
I know that I do.
To the OP, if sis really likes this Audi, then that's what she should buy.
Audis do have really nice interiors and are probably not a whole lot more costly to own and use than any other mainstream car of comparable cost and features would be.
It is a VW product after all, and VW has been in the car business for some years now.
Their products are seen on the road everywhere, so I don't think they can be all that bad.

I find it laughable to compare Subaru to Audi generally. But yeah, they have much better AWD system. They are very rare in the ditch here when things get dicy, unlike Subaru.


Says the guy who has neither a Subaru nor an Audi but rather a FWD minivan as his daily driver.
LOL!

I have one refrigerator in shape of minivan, I do not need Subaru in addition to that.
By the way, for average Subaru driver, this minivan is anyway too much.

 

[edyvw]

Quote
It probably has similar torque to the Mazda at 1500 (Audi lists max torque as arriving at 1600), as the Mazda has nearly 40 pounds more twist by 2000 where it reaches max torque as noted.

One thing I did see when looking up this spec, is that the Audi has an 18.5 gallon tank. That's a legit advantage. Mazda needed to do that, too, and I'm frustrated that they didn't.

Whatever it says on paper, Audi owners don't like it. Here's some people who actually OWN the vehicle, unlike us here:
https://www.audiworld.com/forums/q5...cceleration-lag-does-bother-you-2935540/

Maybe you can go tell all of them they are wrong because Audi MUST be better than Mazda at making a responsive commuter with a turbo, lol! Also, maybe OP should really read that link and their sister should see if this foible bothers her on a test drive...

But Mazda has 500ccm more. It has similar torque at 1.600 but that is not Mazda's peak torque.
So, should we compare Audi 2.9 TT to Mazda then? Or Audi 2.5ltr turbo?
Mazda has twin scroll turbo. The reason why Audi does not have twin scroll turbo is that creating such an engine would create in house competition. Mazda has one engine with turbo application, Audi has several. There has to be hierarchical order due to market reasons. VW EA888 engine has 184hp in current Tiguan, 235 in GTI, 252 in Audi, 280 in Golf R etc. It is not problem for Audi to pack more torque, more responsive engine with less lag (and there is lag in Mazda too, and obvious one too). Unlike BMW where twin scroll turbo delivers torque at 1,200rpm, in Mazda it is at 2,000. Audi can do that too, but than what about 2.9TT? Or in older Audi's 3.0 Supercharged?
Again, you are comparing 500ccm bigger engine. So, how about Audi 2.9TT compared to Mazda turbo?

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Quote
It probably has similar torque to the Mazda at 1500 (Audi lists max torque as arriving at 1600), as the Mazda has nearly 40 pounds more twist by 2000 where it reaches max torque as noted.

One thing I did see when looking up this spec, is that the Audi has an 18.5 gallon tank. That's a legit advantage. Mazda needed to do that, too, and I'm frustrated that they didn't.

Whatever it says on paper, Audi owners don't like it. Here's some people who actually OWN the vehicle, unlike us here:
https://www.audiworld.com/forums/q5...cceleration-lag-does-bother-you-2935540/

Maybe you can go tell all of them they are wrong because Audi MUST be better than Mazda at making a responsive commuter with a turbo, lol! Also, maybe OP should really read that link and their sister should see if this foible bothers her on a test drive...

But Mazda has 500ccm more. It has similar torque at 1.600 but that is not Mazda's peak torque.
So, should we compare Audi 2.9 TT to Mazda then? Or Audi 2.5ltr turbo?
Mazda has twin scroll turbo. The reason why Audi does not have twin scroll turbo is that creating such an engine would create in house competition. Mazda has one engine with turbo application, Audi has several. There has to be hierarchical order due to market reasons. VW EA888 engine has 184hp in current Tiguan, 235 in GTI, 252 in Audi, 280 in Golf R etc. It is not problem for Audi to pack more torque, more responsive engine with less lag (and there is lag in Mazda too, and obvious one too). Unlike BMW where twin scroll turbo delivers torque at 1,200rpm, in Mazda it is at 2,000. Audi can do that too, but than what about 2.9TT? Or in older Audi's 3.0 Supercharged?
Again, you are comparing 500ccm bigger engine. So, how about Audi 2.9TT compared to Mazda turbo?

Is the 2.9TT available in the Audi Q5?
Yes, the mazda turbo engine is 500cc larger, but it offers near identical fuel economy, and added driveability and additional torque and similar acceleration, without resorting to a DCT. Its also offered in a competitively styled and priced vehicle. If the 2.9TT is available in a baser Q5, then yes, that should be compared.


*mazda does not use a twim scroll turbo, but the exhaust header scavenging has similar effects. Similarly, they also incorporate low rpm flow restriction like a variable geometry turbo. Really, its an insanely awesome system. They also use the EGR to cool things instead of dumping fuel, which is why it gets rediculous fuel mileage in real world tests. For example, I have 10k miles on mine, and my lifetime mpg avg is 25.8. This from a vehicle rated at 27 highway...

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
Quote
It probably has similar torque to the Mazda at 1500 (Audi lists max torque as arriving at 1600), as the Mazda has nearly 40 pounds more twist by 2000 where it reaches max torque as noted.

One thing I did see when looking up this spec, is that the Audi has an 18.5 gallon tank. That's a legit advantage. Mazda needed to do that, too, and I'm frustrated that they didn't.

Whatever it says on paper, Audi owners don't like it. Here's some people who actually OWN the vehicle, unlike us here:
https://www.audiworld.com/forums/q5...cceleration-lag-does-bother-you-2935540/

Maybe you can go tell all of them they are wrong because Audi MUST be better than Mazda at making a responsive commuter with a turbo, lol! Also, maybe OP should really read that link and their sister should see if this foible bothers her on a test drive...

But Mazda has 500ccm more. It has similar torque at 1.600 but that is not Mazda's peak torque.
So, should we compare Audi 2.9 TT to Mazda then? Or Audi 2.5ltr turbo?
Mazda has twin scroll turbo. The reason why Audi does not have twin scroll turbo is that creating such an engine would create in house competition. Mazda has one engine with turbo application, Audi has several. There has to be hierarchical order due to market reasons. VW EA888 engine has 184hp in current Tiguan, 235 in GTI, 252 in Audi, 280 in Golf R etc. It is not problem for Audi to pack more torque, more responsive engine with less lag (and there is lag in Mazda too, and obvious one too). Unlike BMW where twin scroll turbo delivers torque at 1,200rpm, in Mazda it is at 2,000. Audi can do that too, but than what about 2.9TT? Or in older Audi's 3.0 Supercharged?
Again, you are comparing 500ccm bigger engine. So, how about Audi 2.9TT compared to Mazda turbo?

Is the 2.9TT available in the Audi Q5?
Yes, the mazda turbo engine is 500cc larger, but it offers near identical fuel economy, and added driveability and additional torque and similar acceleration, without resorting to a DCT. Its also offered in a competitively styled and priced vehicle. If the 2.9TT is available in a baser Q5, then yes, that should be compared.


*mazda does not use a twim scroll turbo, but the exhaust header scavenging has similar effects. Similarly, they also incorporate low rpm flow restriction like a variable geometry turbo. Really, its an insanely awesome system. They also use the EGR to cool things instead of dumping fuel, which is why it gets rediculous fuel mileage in real world tests. For example, I have 10k miles on mine, and my lifetime mpg avg is 25.8. This from a vehicle rated at 27 highway...

You again compare MPG with vehicles having 300lbs and more weight with far more complex AWD system.
No, 2.9TT is not available in Q5 (and no, it is not comparable to Mazda 2.5T as Mazda does not have anything in that class. It is different ball game in which mazda does not play.). Nw, it is different thing that YOU think somehow Mazda is comparable to these vehicles.
I told you before. RAV4, Honda CR-V, VW Toguan is where Mazda plays. And stop talking about 0-60. I starting to think you know only to drive in straight line.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
Quote
It probably has similar torque to the Mazda at 1500 (Audi lists max torque as arriving at 1600), as the Mazda has nearly 40 pounds more twist by 2000 where it reaches max torque as noted.

One thing I did see when looking up this spec, is that the Audi has an 18.5 gallon tank. That's a legit advantage. Mazda needed to do that, too, and I'm frustrated that they didn't.

Whatever it says on paper, Audi owners don't like it. Here's some people who actually OWN the vehicle, unlike us here:
https://www.audiworld.com/forums/q5...cceleration-lag-does-bother-you-2935540/

Maybe you can go tell all of them they are wrong because Audi MUST be better than Mazda at making a responsive commuter with a turbo, lol! Also, maybe OP should really read that link and their sister should see if this foible bothers her on a test drive...

But Mazda has 500ccm more. It has similar torque at 1.600 but that is not Mazda's peak torque.
So, should we compare Audi 2.9 TT to Mazda then? Or Audi 2.5ltr turbo?
Mazda has twin scroll turbo. The reason why Audi does not have twin scroll turbo is that creating such an engine would create in house competition. Mazda has one engine with turbo application, Audi has several. There has to be hierarchical order due to market reasons. VW EA888 engine has 184hp in current Tiguan, 235 in GTI, 252 in Audi, 280 in Golf R etc. It is not problem for Audi to pack more torque, more responsive engine with less lag (and there is lag in Mazda too, and obvious one too). Unlike BMW where twin scroll turbo delivers torque at 1,200rpm, in Mazda it is at 2,000. Audi can do that too, but than what about 2.9TT? Or in older Audi's 3.0 Supercharged?
Again, you are comparing 500ccm bigger engine. So, how about Audi 2.9TT compared to Mazda turbo?

Is the 2.9TT available in the Audi Q5?
Yes, the mazda turbo engine is 500cc larger, but it offers near identical fuel economy, and added driveability and additional torque and similar acceleration, without resorting to a DCT. Its also offered in a competitively styled and priced vehicle. If the 2.9TT is available in a baser Q5, then yes, that should be compared.


*mazda does not use a twim scroll turbo, but the exhaust header scavenging has similar effects. Similarly, they also incorporate low rpm flow restriction like a variable geometry turbo. Really, its an insanely awesome system. They also use the EGR to cool things instead of dumping fuel, which is why it gets rediculous fuel mileage in real world tests. For example, I have 10k miles on mine, and my lifetime mpg avg is 25.8. This from a vehicle rated at 27 highway...

You again compare MPG with vehicles having 300lbs and more weight with far more complex AWD system.
No, 2.9TT is not available in Q5 (and no, it is not comparable to Mazda 2.5T as Mazda does not have anything in that class. It is different ball game in which mazda does not play.). Nw, it is different thing that YOU think somehow Mazda is comparable to these vehicles.
I told you before. RAV4, Honda CR-V, VW Toguan is where Mazda plays. And stop talking about 0-60. I starting to think you know only to drive in straight line.

Mazda plays in the q3, x3, RDX, Xt4, etc. Arena with the cx5 top trim levels. Q5 is a bit larger, but also smaller than cx9. Rav, crv, etc. Are more analagous to where Mazda was in 2016, regarding performance and refinement.

Also, Q5 quattro system is about the same as cx5 awd system. They are both FWD, with AWD on demand when needed, the need for which is monitored by a [censored] ton of sensors.

https://m.glenmoreaudi.com/en/news/...uyers-want-it-/42853?mobileredirect=true

https://insidemazda.mazdausa.com/the-mazda-way/technology/the-case-for-predictive-awd/
Personally, I prefer Mazdas system with 1-2% preload as it eliminates shock. No way to do that completely with complete decoupling without sacrificing engagement speed, which takes 200ms in the Audi. Otherwise, iActiv and Ultra Quattro are [censored] near the same thing. The audi is slower to react, so it is more predictive to make up for it. The mazda has a quicker reaction time, so slightly less predictive. Both in the real world are probably indistinguishable from the other.

Your calling of the new ultra quattro "much more advanced " is proof youre just brandhumping. Further, that you dont understand how it works, when you say its part of the reason the audi has worse fuel economy, considering the awd system is literally physically decoupled and its just a fwd vehicle until slip is detected. This proves my point about your lack of understanding of how both vehicles mechanically compare, as well as how they operate.

For example, calling the mazda a twin scroll turbo design. Its not.

The list of factual inaccuracies continues, but the point remains that it seems your experience with Mazda is dated, and your understanding of Audi is incomplete, especially as relates to how the q5s awd on demand system works.

 

[edyvw]

Quote
Mazda plays in the q3, x3, RDX, Xt4, etc. Arena with the cx5 top trim levels. Q5 is a bit larger, but also smaller than cx9. Rav, crv, etc. Are more analagous to where Mazda was in 2016, regarding performance and refinement.

Also, Q5 quattro system is about the same as cx5 awd system. Like, so similar its disgusting neither has sued the other, lol! They are both FWD, with AWD on demand when needed, the need for which is monitored by a [censored] ton of sensors.

https://m.glenmoreaudi.com/en/news/...uyers-want-it-/42853?mobileredirect=true

https://insidemazda.mazdausa.com/the-mazda-way/technology/the-case-for-predictive-awd/
Personally, I prefer Mazdas system with 1-2% preload as it eliminates shock. No way to do that completely with complete decoupling without sacrificing engagement speed. Otherwise, iActiv and Ultra Quattro are [censored] near the same thing.

Your calling of the new ultra quattro "much more advanced " is proof youre just brandhumping. Further, that you dont understand how it works, when you say its part of the reason the audi has worse fuel economy, considering the awd system is literally physically decoupled and its just a fwd vehicle until slip is detected. This proves my point about your lack of understanding of how both vehicles mechanically compare, as well as how they operate.

For example, calling the mazda a twin scroll turbo design. Its not.

The list of factual inaccuracies continues, but the point remains that it seems your experience with Mazda is dated, and your understanding of Audi is incomplete, especially as relates to how the q5s awd on demand system works.

The fact that you think that Audi Q5 and Mazda have similar AWD system is stem from two things:
1. You seriously have insecurity issues around ownership of your vehicle. You want to drive premium, but obviously you did not get one. And you are seriously bothered by what your neighbor drives. Every topic you turn into attempt to find someone to confirm your bias.
2. You have no idea actually how any of these vehicles work, including your Mazda, let alone Audi.
And, that Audi, regardless that it has smaller engine, would obliterate that Mazda in curves. A. Bcs it is better handling vehicle, and b. you obviously only know how to drive on strait line.

And, you combine Q3 and X3. Do you actually have DL or you drive cars on a youtube?