RE: Audi SQ5 vs Porsche Macan Diesel: Blood Bros
Discussion
ORD said:
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.
Not necessarily a typo. I think these kind of high cars does accelerate not_so_well at the higher speeds (due to bad aero) but you can optimise acceleration quite well for certain speed, ie 0-62mph. So car makers can have a good headline figure.Edited by LasseV on Monday 13th April 03:47
ORD said:
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 bulls
t 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.
I think you must be stuck in the 90's fella. Times have moved on. If it's not a typo, I call bulls
t 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.
4wd, Launch control and DSG transmission is a very potent mixture. 340hp TTRS/RS3's have been timed at under 4 secs to 60, so I have no doubts in my mind that an Audi SQ5 can do it in under 5secs (0-62 is 5.1, 0-60 therefore quicker)
S4mb0x said:
Still don't buy it. Physics is physics and the numbers don't work.
I have no doubt that Audi can supply a car for testing that will hit the time (once or twice before going pop), but the number isn't credible on the power, weight and torque figures, even allowing for very short gearing.
cheddar said:
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.Last time I checked this sites tag line was "Speed Matters". Kind of makes a statement about the site...
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.
ORD said:
Still don't buy it.
Physics is physics and the numbers don't work.
I have no doubt that Audi can supply a car for testing that will hit the time (once or twice before going pop), but the number isn't credible on the power, weight and torque figures, even allowing for very short gearing.
I think it's entirely plausible. I'll throw in an odd benchmark since I've got one; in 1989 autocar tested an r129 sl500 0 - 60 in under six seconds. Car weighs the best part of two tons and sports 326 bhp. So, twenty six year old transmission and tyre tech ago and two wheel drive. I think this latest automotive burberry would do the numbers no problem. Physics is physics and the numbers don't work.
I have no doubt that Audi can supply a car for testing that will hit the time (once or twice before going pop), but the number isn't credible on the power, weight and torque figures, even allowing for very short gearing.
mrclav said:
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.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.
Last time I checked this sites tag line was "Speed Matters". Kind of makes a statement about the site...
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.
I don't doubt that on paper the time to 60 is achievable and I'm sure if you get the boys from Audi to show you they will prove it. Real world, not so sure but I really don't see that its a relevant conversation anyway.
Every time I see a Macan/Q3/Q5/Evoque etc. they are by and large driven by a very nice middle class lady with kids in the back of it and invariably barrelling down the middle of the road as they have no clue how wide their car is.
Personally I have little interest in these types of things however, I have plenty of friends who will read this with some relish as they are in the market for something they can buy for the Mrs to drive and these will fit the bill nicely.
For every person on here buying and using one in anger (there are clearly a few) I would imagine there are another 10 who have one on the drive and have only sat being the wheel a handful of times in comparison to their other halves..
Take my car park for example, off the top of my head in my department of 25 I can list the following: X3, X5, X5M, Q5, Q4, Q3, Rangey Sport, Rangey, iX35, Sportage, Kuga, Quashqai. Not one of them driven by a guy. The target market for the SUV in the UK is clearly not male.
Every time I see a Macan/Q3/Q5/Evoque etc. they are by and large driven by a very nice middle class lady with kids in the back of it and invariably barrelling down the middle of the road as they have no clue how wide their car is.
Personally I have little interest in these types of things however, I have plenty of friends who will read this with some relish as they are in the market for something they can buy for the Mrs to drive and these will fit the bill nicely.
For every person on here buying and using one in anger (there are clearly a few) I would imagine there are another 10 who have one on the drive and have only sat being the wheel a handful of times in comparison to their other halves..
Take my car park for example, off the top of my head in my department of 25 I can list the following: X3, X5, X5M, Q5, Q4, Q3, Rangey Sport, Rangey, iX35, Sportage, Kuga, Quashqai. Not one of them driven by a guy. The target market for the SUV in the UK is clearly not male.
Read the review, really tried to find something i found interesting. I can't help but dislike cars like this. Have driven a few different 'top of the range' crossovers and they all left me cold. Sorry guys but these two cars are really boring and i have had more fun in low power FWD hatches.
M@1975 said:
I don't doubt that on paper the time to 60 is achievable and I'm sure if you get the boys from Audi to show you they will prove it. Real world, not so sure but I really don't see that its a relevant conversation anyway.
Every time I see a Macan/Q3/Q5/Evoque etc. they are by and large driven by a very nice middle class lady with kids in the back of it and invariably barrelling down the middle of the road as they have no clue how wide their car is.
Personally I have little interest in these types of things however, I have plenty of friends who will read this with some relish as they are in the market for something they can buy for the Mrs to drive and these will fit the bill nicely.
For every person on here buying and using one in anger (there are clearly a few) I would imagine there are another 10 who have one on the drive and have only sat being the wheel a handful of times in comparison to their other halves..
Take my car park for example, off the top of my head in my department of 25 I can list the following: X3, X5, X5M, Q5, Q4, Q3, Rangey Sport, Rangey, iX35, Sportage, Kuga, Quashqai. Not one of them driven by a guy. The target market for the SUV in the UK is clearly not male.
Largely true, I expect. I don't understand the fascination with a high driving position. All I get from sitting up high is the feeling that I am nowhere near the road and am not properly in control. Every time I see a Macan/Q3/Q5/Evoque etc. they are by and large driven by a very nice middle class lady with kids in the back of it and invariably barrelling down the middle of the road as they have no clue how wide their car is.
Personally I have little interest in these types of things however, I have plenty of friends who will read this with some relish as they are in the market for something they can buy for the Mrs to drive and these will fit the bill nicely.
For every person on here buying and using one in anger (there are clearly a few) I would imagine there are another 10 who have one on the drive and have only sat being the wheel a handful of times in comparison to their other halves..
Take my car park for example, off the top of my head in my department of 25 I can list the following: X3, X5, X5M, Q5, Q4, Q3, Rangey Sport, Rangey, iX35, Sportage, Kuga, Quashqai. Not one of them driven by a guy. The target market for the SUV in the UK is clearly not male.
I think nervous drivers feel safer in big, high vehicles, which is fine for them but a bit a shame for everyone else. I would rather nervous drivers stay in small, light vehicles that are less able to do damage when they are crashed.
I dont get the fixation on MPG in this class.
And by this class, I mean cars costing around 50k. A few extra MPG here or there wont break the bank. I can understand that it is "just another" point, but it seems like its a major point to many peoples way of thinking, which just seems daft to me.
Personally, I would exclude all discussions of MPG on any car costing this much, and focus on their, presumably many, other attributes.
And so that theres no doubt, I don't see the point in these cars at all. Massively compromised by their weight, they will never be sporty, despite the power and straight line performance on offer. They are barges, and you wont get the kind of feedback you might expect from a proper sports car.
So why are we getting all excited by "sporty" SUVs, which come from brand names like Porsche? Clearly, its a contrived effort to part punters from their hard earned by a tenuous-at-best association to a sporting brand, even though the item in question has all the excitement of dull dishwater on a good day.
And by this class, I mean cars costing around 50k. A few extra MPG here or there wont break the bank. I can understand that it is "just another" point, but it seems like its a major point to many peoples way of thinking, which just seems daft to me.
Personally, I would exclude all discussions of MPG on any car costing this much, and focus on their, presumably many, other attributes.
And so that theres no doubt, I don't see the point in these cars at all. Massively compromised by their weight, they will never be sporty, despite the power and straight line performance on offer. They are barges, and you wont get the kind of feedback you might expect from a proper sports car.
So why are we getting all excited by "sporty" SUVs, which come from brand names like Porsche? Clearly, its a contrived effort to part punters from their hard earned by a tenuous-at-best association to a sporting brand, even though the item in question has all the excitement of dull dishwater on a good day.
red_slr said:
We are just about to clock 100hrs on our Macan and its showing 3529mi and 26.4mpg.
Pretty happy with that tbh. Its all in town. Range Rover we had before was in the teens.
Who cares, though? Given the purchase cost, a few mpg difference is nothing. I am with the poster above on this one - mpg is a bizarre obsession in anything this expensive.Pretty happy with that tbh. Its all in town. Range Rover we had before was in the teens.
If one car is £1000 cheaper but a bit thirstier, the saving will buy you a huge amount of fuel to close the gap and, in any case, differences in fuel costs are a tiny part of the overall costs and comparison.
I don't agree with the guy above re these being barges. The reviews are pretty overwhelming re its dynamics being very good. It drives very well indeed for an SUV and as well as a good saloon (think 3 series on decent suspension).
ORD said:
Applying a stopwatch to the Youtube vid shows a 0-62mph time of something around 6 seconds. I can believe that. Coincidentally about the same as the Porsche (which is lighter but seems to run lower boost).
Different engine the SQ5 has the bi-turbo unit the Porsche makes do with the single turbo one. The Porsche is down on power and torque compared to the Audi even if you take into account the weight different its 137hp/tonne vs. 163.
I don't doubt the Audi will do its numbers to 62 with 20% more power than the Macan, as an example the X3 35d does the sprint in 5.3 with slightly less hp/tonne than the Audi.
Edited by Wills2 on Monday 13th April 11:58
MitchyRS said:
ORD said:
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.
I think you must be stuck in the 90's fella. Times have moved on. If it's not a typo, I call bulls
t 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.
4wd, Launch control and DSG transmission is a very potent mixture. 340hp TTRS/RS3's have been timed at under 4 secs to 60, so I have no doubts in my mind that an Audi SQ5 can do it in under 5secs (0-62 is 5.1, 0-60 therefore quicker)
ORD said:
Who cares, though? Given the purchase cost, a few mpg difference is nothing. I am with the poster above on this one - mpg is a bizarre obsession in anything this expensive.
If one car is £1000 cheaper but a bit thirstier, the saving will buy you a huge amount of fuel to close the gap and, in any case, differences in fuel costs are a tiny part of the overall costs and comparison.
Because to most people who buy these, the actual cost is cash deposit + £550ish a month. When you look at it like that, then mpg does become more relevant. If one car is £1000 cheaper but a bit thirstier, the saving will buy you a huge amount of fuel to close the gap and, in any case, differences in fuel costs are a tiny part of the overall costs and comparison.
Nobody likes wasting money and a diesel engine in a car of this type makes sense. It's the petrol powered Turbo-S models that I really can't understand.
Oz83 said:
Because to most people who buy these, the actual cost is cash deposit + £550ish a month. When you look at it like that, then mpg does become more relevant.
Nobody likes wasting money and a diesel engine in a car of this type makes sense. It's the petrol powered Turbo-S models that I really can't understand.
More noticeable, yes, but no more relevant. All a monthly payment plan does is increase the total cost, therefore reducing the proportion of that cost that is made up of fuel. So, if anything, fuel costs are even less relevant (albeit more obvious and seemingly important).Nobody likes wasting money and a diesel engine in a car of this type makes sense. It's the petrol powered Turbo-S models that I really can't understand.
I can perfectly see the point of the Turbo S versions of these kind of cars. Insane straight-line acceleration is all that they really have going for them, but what else can a car like this have anyway? It's never going to be delicate or provide much feedback, so I can see the sense in maximising the one thing it can do as well as a sports car - go bloody fast in a straight line.
I would never in a million years want a diesel Macan, but (if money were no object) I wouldn't object to my wife buying the Turbo.
cheddar said:
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.
Fixed...cheddar said:
These are two of the best all round cars for the money you can buy - they'll be used to clog up streets outside schools so the sprogs don't have to walk more than 8 yards to the gate, by people who lack spacial awareness.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff