RE: Audi SQ5 vs Porsche Macan Diesel: Blood Bros

[cheddar]

SteveSteveson said:

It is fundamentally compromised for the sake of style. It has the suspension raised and additional weight for no reason other than styling. The only reason to buy one is for the style. They are not SUVs, with a good reason for those compromises. The engineers expend the effort trying to overcome the compromises made by the designers, making sure the cars are not quite as dull. I can't think of a single situation where there would not be a better car, and that's my problem with them.

Last time I checked this sites tag line was "Speed Matters". Kind of makes a statement about the site...

I think the exact opposite.

These are two of the best all round cars for the money you can buy - they'll cosset on the commute, offer confidence and ability in compromised weather, ford small streams, eat gravel roads and muddy paddocks, waltz up to ski fields with impunity, they'll also knock off hundreds of miles in a day without breaking a sweat, tow two+ tons easily then offer serious pace and fun on challenging roads all whilst returning 35+mpg.

Daft quad exhausts aside, I love them.

[Matt UK]

mrclav said:

Matt UK said:

So should PH not focus more on the next few generations of R8 and 911 then?

Try logging onto Evo then?

Thanks, perhaps I'll take a look.

[delays]

cheddar said:

I think the exact opposite.

These are two of the best all round cars for the money you can buy - they'll cosset on the commute, offer confidence and ability in compromised weather, ford small streams, eat gravel roads and muddy paddocks, waltz up to ski fields with impunity, they'll also knock off hundreds of miles in a day without breaking a sweat, tow two+ tons easily then offer serious pace and fun on challenging roads all whilst returning 35+mpg.

Daft quad exhausts aside, I love them.

This.

[LasseV]

griffgrog said:

I'm not sure I follow?

It's quite spacious. The boot is pretty big for a small SUV. Bigger than an Evoque for instance.
The Macan is great fun to drive.You can really press on through corners. It's fast enough and has a distinctly rear wheel drive bias to the handling..
It's comfortable, has a great ride and is big (and heavy) enough to tow my race car with it.

So I get an adequately spacious, comfortable, great fun car that great to drive, does good mpg. It's really very practical. Not a beauty though. The Evoque does look better.

I did compare these cars to wagons rather than to evoque. I really do think that for example 335/535 i/d models (or s4 avant, or fast mercs shooting brakes) are just much more better cars.

I get that these cars are for people who want's to have something different, but still.... I just don't get these cars.

Worst part is that Porsche was developing small sports car, but ultimately it did get canned. Then they did make Macan....

[kambites]

LasseV said:

I get that these cars are for people who want's to have something different,

Are they? I think there's more fast SUVs on the road that fast estates.

[gigglebug]

SteveSteveson said:

It is fundamentally compromised for the sake of style. It has the suspension raised and additional weight for no reason other than styling. The only reason to buy one is for the style. They are not SUVs, with a good reason for those compromises. The engineers expend the effort trying to overcome the compromises made by the designers, making sure the cars are not quite as dull. I can't think of a single situation where there would not be a better car, and that's my problem with them.

Last time I checked this sites tag line was "Speed Matters". Kind of makes a statement about the site...

Lots of people, and I mean lots of people like the higher driving positions of these types of vehicles compared to saloon's so I don't understand why this is considered by you as a compromise for the sake of styling?? To say that you can't think of a single situation where there would not be a better car is a bit of a no st Sherlock thing to say as well and proves absolutely nothing. You could have a Bowler Wildcat for off road, an S class for luxury, an Ultima for track use, an f type for a sports car and a chuffing great van if you need to lug anything big and all would be much better than these two in their respected fields. But then you've had to buy 5 different vehicles and spent a whole heap more money haven't you? I for one am happy that Pistonheads get to pass judgement on a variety of different vehicles and lets face it your not forced to read any of the articles, your quite entitled to pick and choose based on your own likes/dislikes and your certainly not expected to pay for the privilege of looking so it shouldn't be that much of problem that not everything is to your specific taste on the website should it?

Edited by gigglebug on Sunday 12th April 21:03

[Brompty]

Good Grief. PH - what happened? The whole article reads like regurgitated marketing tosh. Must do better.

[LasseV]

kambites said:

Are they? I think there's more fast SUVs on the road that fast estates.

You are right, fast suvs are very common cars. I bet that wagons are just too normal for suv buyers and it doesn't matter how good those cars really are. I think suv's are so popular because they looks like an offroader and somebody did say at the work that you really need one if you live in britain/western europe.

[Olf]

The Audi - 313bhp. 1.9 tonnes and 0.62 in 5.1? I'm struggling with that last number I'm afraid.

[PistonBroker]

Numeric said:

Actually think both would be nice for pootling around North Devons narrow roads, sit up high for a great view and plenty of grunt for getting past grockles . . .

Agreed. Chased a Q5 from Exmoor Zoo back to the NDLR in my wife's CRV last week. The Audi was handling it all very well.

I've found the MX5 is more fun . . . until you turn off the main roads and can't see round the high hedges.

[037]

Give me one of these 2 over any similarly priced estate car any day!
Imagine the conversation with the wife, should we get the estate 3 Series of the Porsche darling?
No wonder the residuals are so great!

[dunnoreally]

The fact that Porsche's SUVs are so good only makes them more annoying. If they were just rebadged Audis taking advantage of a trend then chances are in ten years or so Porsche would be just as eager to forget about the things as everyone else, but the fact they can be taken seriously by people who are serious about cars means they aren't going anywhere.

I know they're fast and versatile and comfortable, and make a lot of sense to a lot of people, but that just means I can't laugh at them when I feel I really ought to be able to. I guess no matter how good crossovers get, I'll still always think of them as cars for people who don't really care one way or the other. My loss, I suppose.

[J4CKO]

Olf said:

The Audi - 313bhp. 1.9 tonnes and 0.62 in 5.1? I'm struggling with that last number I'm afraid.

I thought that, it seems a pretty amazing time for such a heavy car with 313 bhp, shouldn't that be 6.1 ?

Carstats cacluator sayd,

Power to Weight: 167 bhp/ton
0-60: 6.4
0-100: 16.8
60-100: 10.4
1/4 Mile ET: 15.12
1/4 Mile Terminal: 93
Dragstrip 1/4 Mile ET: 14.80
Dragstrip 1/4 Mile Terminal: 96



Found this, the 0-100 mph is 16.6, that doesn't really add up with a 5.1 (4.6 here !) 0-60, that is actually pretty average by modern standards, if the 0-60 is true it must be down to 4wd traction and having 8 gears but if it takes 5.1 to get to 60, it takes another 11.5 to get to 100, was expecting it to be 12/13 seconds based on the 0-60.

http://www.accelerationtimes.com/models/audi_sq5_t...

Edited by J4CKO on Sunday 12th April 22:11

[ORD]

J4CKO said:

I thought that, it seems a pretty amazing time for such a heavy car with 313 bhp, shouldn't that be 6.1 ?

Carstats cacluator sayd,

Power to Weight: 167 bhp/ton
0-60: 6.4
0-100: 16.8
60-100: 10.4
1/4 Mile ET: 15.12
1/4 Mile Terminal: 93
Dragstrip 1/4 Mile ET: 14.80
Dragstrip 1/4 Mile Terminal: 96

Agreed. The Audi 0-60 time must be a typo. AWD does give some advantage off the line, of course, but not enough to get a car with that bhp/ton to 60 in under 6 seconds.

If it's not a typo, I call bullst on Audi's claimed times.

As for the cars, they are largely the result of fashion as opposed to practical buying decisions (for most people), but you can't argue with the proposition that Porsche has by all accounts nailed the dynamics. Good on them!

I was intrigued by the Macan as a family car but ultimately concluded that it offered nothing worthwhile (for me) over an estate and was no better to drive than a 3 series on decent suspension. Once you get over how weird it feels to have a high car drive well, it's no sports car.

[red_slr]

3000 miles into our Macan ownership.
For me its ok, not my thing tbh, but the wife *loves* it.
Which is probably where the PH masses miss the idea on this one.... I think its a bit of a girls car.

Our second is on order...

[J4CKO]

red_slr said:

3000 miles into our Macan ownership.
For me its ok, not my thing tbh, but the wife *loves* it.
Which is probably where the PH masses miss the idea on this one.... I think its a bit of a girls car.

Our second is on order...

I think that it isn't a "girls car" which makes me think of Micra CC's and Pink Ford Ka's, it is just that ladies are that fussed by the last few percent of sporting ability and arent bothered about it being low slung and hugely sporty, as a sweeping generalisation, they appreciate practicality, enough performance that they dont notice it is slow, nice interiors, decent safety, the high-ish driving position, comfort, a few toys and a decent image.

It is us that are are daft, not the ladies !

[Wills2]

ORD said:

J4CKO said:

I thought that, it seems a pretty amazing time for such a heavy car with 313 bhp, shouldn't that be 6.1 ?

Carstats cacluator sayd,

Power to Weight: 167 bhp/ton
0-60: 6.4
0-100: 16.8
60-100: 10.4
1/4 Mile ET: 15.12
1/4 Mile Terminal: 93
Dragstrip 1/4 Mile ET: 14.80
Dragstrip 1/4 Mile Terminal: 96

Agreed. The Audi 0-60 time must be a typo. AWD does give some advantage off the line, of course, but not enough to get a car with that bhp/ton to 60 in under 6 seconds.

If it's not a typo, I call bullst on Audi's claimed times.

As for the cars, they are largely the result of fashion as opposed to practical buying decisions (for most people), but you can't argue with the proposition that Porsche has by all accounts nailed the dynamics. Good on them!

I was intrigued by the Macan as a family car but ultimately concluded that it offered nothing worthwhile (for me) over an estate and was no better to drive than a 3 series on decent suspension. Once you get over how weird it feels to have a high car drive well, it's no sports car.

It isn't a typo, well if it is Audi have made in the brochure as well, these cars provide really good headline figures, launch control, lots of torque to blast you off the line, 8sp gearbox and 4WD but tail off dramatically above 60 mph.

You think you're getting a fast car but you aren't really not with just 163hp/tonne.

[gpjersey]

I happen to own an as SQ5. I Have also driven the macan and the evoke. All three of them are good cars. Granted they are no RS6 but I can't justify one of those just yet.

They are pretty good, I have 2 kids and we happily run about in it. I used to have the X5m which needed a fuel truck to follow it and i decided it was to big.

As for the 5.1 time. 5th gear did it on their test. It has twin in line Garrett turbos which launch it. Also I can't say I have ever done over 41mpg. But on one of my trips through France this winter I averaged 38.2. That is pretty good.

Is it a true PH car. Probably not, but then again I struggle to get an old dyson and a load of garden waste in the bonet of a Porsche turbo.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but before you cast to much of a disapproving eye upon either of them, they are there to fit a market and they are class leaders in that market.

Try one of them you may be surprised.

[S4mb0x]

Olf said:

The Audi - 313bhp. 1.9 tonnes and 0.62 in 5.1? I'm struggling with that last number I'm afraid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dByQXRfuEYk

[mrclav]

SteveSteveson said:

mrclav said:

SteveSteveson said:

mrclav said:

Absolutely spot on. One has to wonder if PHer's think that these manufacturers should pander to them and them only...

I don't think anyone has a problem with them being made. If there is a market then car makers should fill it and make money. The issue is PH focusing on such dross.

Please define that empirically - exactly how is a Macan "dross"? Have you driven one? Lived with one as a daily driver? If so, what was bad about the car? Please enlighten us all.

Just because you think so doesn't mean that is the case, that's simply your opinion. Any car that's had years spent in perfecting by some of the best engineering minds in the world can hardly be described as such.There are many on here for whom such a purchase is something very relevant to their situation and lifestyle.

Last time I checked, this site wasn't Evo. There are articles for everyone and every taste on here and I hope that it may continue this way. I don't particularly like SUVs and would never own one but that doesn't make someone who does them less of a "Pistonhead" than you or I.

It is fundamentally compromised for the sake of style. It has the suspension raised and additional weight for no reason other than styling. The only reason to buy one is for the style. They are not SUVs, with a good reason for those compromises. The engineers expend the effort trying to overcome the compromises made by the designers, making sure the cars are not quite as dull. I can't think of a single situation where there would not be a better car, and that's my problem with them.

Last time I checked this sites tag line was "Speed Matters". Kind of makes a statement about the site...

Why do people who actually buy super-cars do so? Mainly for the style - yes, for many enthusiasts the performance matters too but for most people it's style first and foremost; this is why a 458 is popular choice but a Gumpert Apollo isn't.

Supercars have often been far more compromised for regular use than the cars in this article as they are expensive, thirsty, impractical, have little to no luggage space relative to their size and are often difficult to get in and see out of for no reason other than styling. The engineers expend effort into trying to overcome the compromises made by the designers making sure the cars are not quite as unusable in an everyday context. I can't think of a single situation where someone with a family would want one as their only daily driver. However, I don't have a problem with them existing or being spoken about on here even though they are fundamentally compromised for the sake of style and I very much doubt you do either.

And yes, "Speed Matters" is the tag line. So what? Any car that can do 0-60 in 5 seconds wouldn't be considered slow by most. As I said before, this site caters for all tastes, be they super cars, SUVs, motorbikes, whatever.