RE: Audi SQ7: Review

[PhantomPH]

JMF894 said:

This is pistonheads and I for one respect another persons choice. Anyone who has an interest in cars I can relate to. Anyone who slags another off for that different choice isn't really a petrolhead IMHO

THIS.

[je777]

ELothian said:

The reality is that some people want both cars and have worked hard enough to be able to have both.

The poor, of course, don't work hard.

[Hamma]

Oh you poor, un-masculine peasants! Can't you afford these?



BTW when is the 'rollin coal' trend coming to Europe?

[Artey]

Hamma said:

BTW when is the 'rollin coal' trend coming to Europe?

Most new cars in Europe are 'rollin coal'.

[Phil Dicky]

HoHoHo said:

JMF894 said:

HoHoHo said:

Gotta love the haters here

Just for the record in changing my F10 M5 V8 TT 560bhp Fire breathing monster for a new X5 M50d in a few months when it arrives.

Simply because I fancy one.

I don't need one

I don't have horses (I do have a dog though)

I don't tow anything

I don't go mud plugging and I don't shoot.

I just fancy one and it will be great. I know that. It will be a lovely drive, have 7 seats I'll use twice during the time I keep it. It's got loads of tech on it that will make me smile (oh and it's just a touch over 5 seconds to 60 should I wish to hear that gentle clatter of diesel once in a while).

And I'll be very happy when it arrives.

And I really don't care what anyone else thinks at all

I think the Audi is great. I just happen to be a BMW man.

Honesty I can respect.

These cars are not my cuppa ut choice is what gives us all what we want. If people are gonna bang on about the environment and anti-social stigma then should we just ban all supercars and performance variants of family cars too?

This is pistonheads and I for one respect another persons choice. Anyone who has an interest in cars I can relate to. Anyone who slags another off for that different choice isn't really a petrolhead IMHO

Jimbo

Thanks Jimbo

Like you I find it strange the attitude of posters sometimes, but we are all different I guess.

Jimbo has just posted more or less what I was going to add...I honestly can't believe some of the ste posted on here, it's a car entusiasts web site FFS .

[patch5674]

HoHoHo said:

Andy20vt said:

HoHoHo said:

Just for the record in changing my F10 M5 V8 TT 560bhp Fire breathing monster for a new X5 M50d in a few months when it arrives. And I really don't care what anyone else thinks at all

Well it's a good job you don't care isn't it, from a very cool M5 to a hair dressers, school run chav chariot - let me guess, ordered in 'look at me ' white or 'urban gangsta' black perhaps?

No, dull grey with normal wheels and de-badged

So sorry to disappoint you

I really don't see the issue, life is all about choice and if the market wasn't there the manufacturers wouldn't build them.

Quick reminder......the Porsche Cayenne was probably the best idea the guys in R&D ever had and at the time people through WTF are they doing.

Bammmm, loads and loads of sales and loads and loads of profit for shareholders.

From another thread you posted re the Audi RS3

Andy20vt said:

Urghhhhh indeed. Yet another pointless watering down of the once great RS brand. Feel genuinely sorry for the folks who'd buy one of these and actually think it's anything but a pimped up footballers wives vanity chariot. For 1/3rd of the price of this kn*b carriage you could get a mint used B5/B7 RS4 Avant, gain a lot of respect and self worth, and pocket the difference enabling you to do something useful with your life.

You're a tiny bit opinionated are you and why feel sorry for people who want to buy that car? I'm sure they don't feel sorry for you. It's a 'knob carriage' to boot as well and if they buy a different car their life becomes complete

Don't like them, don't buy one.

It's hardly rocket science for anyone with an IQ higher than that of a gerbil.

Edited to add and just to clearly wind you up some more, my wife has an X3.....yes, an X3.

Now that is for the school run and for nothing more than plodding about in.

She also doesn't have a horse (does have the dog obviously), doesn't mud-plug but it does have a great elevated view and large boot for all that shopping from Tesco.

It's a lovely car

Edited by HoHoHo on Friday 6th May 07:04

Ha that quote regarding the RS3 you've dug out from this guy has tickled me. So let me get this straight. Brand new SQ7, SUV with a load of new important technology is a chav chariot (whatever the fk that means) Brand new RS3; sportback, 5 cylinders, petrol, loads of power is also a blinged out knob carriage BUT an RS4 avant which he happens to own is a perfectly respectable tasteful automobile for gentlemen such as his dear self, and he wouldn't change it for the world despite having the ability to buy all of the aforementioned cars in cash.

I would understand the dislike for SUV's and a preference for fast estates that is perfectly reasonable if you weren't quite foo over bearing with your opinions. However the comment regarding the RS3 throws the out the window, and leads me to believe you're just a bit of a knob who refuses to accept the merits of anything that he doesn't have.

[SPMX5]

Andy20vt said:

Fair enough, that study was from around the year 2000 though - I wonder how things have changed for cars with the new NCAP ratings - virtually every new car is 5 Star now. I'm sure that crashing into a 4x4 whilst in a car is far worse than crashing into another car, so in that respect the less 4x4's out there then probably safer roads for all of us, the majority of us driving cars anyway. Either that or we all should drive SUV's, but then that would probably be an environmental disaster full stop, plus the current SUV drivers wouldn't feel special or safe any more so would have to turn to Hummers, Unimogs or similar, defeating the whole point.

remember at the start when you called him out to provide evidence (and he did, twice).

evidence...?

[SPMX5]

big_rob_sydney said:

PhilboSE said:

big_rob_sydney said:

Nice try Phil, but you fail on a few points. I had no intention originally of discussing my choice of vehicle. You raised it, not me. Similarly, I had no intention of raising any performance aspect either. My main point was its sheer size. You clearly have the ability to read enough to have recognised that at least, before you began with your remarkable tangent.

About the only point you HAVE raised (finally), was the fact that these obese vehicles can carry more than a sedan. Well no st sherlock. So does a bus.

Seriously, help me out here Big Rob. You go on about how big these cars are, yet you drive something that is pretty much the same size and yet far less practical. I raised it because of the spectacular hypocrisy. Apologies if you take dissecting your bizarre statements as a "remarkable tangent". Why are you choosing to do something that you regard as stupid?

And again, you're focusing on what I drive. In case you missed it, this article is about the sq7, not about a lexus ls. I have my reasons, which to be blunt, revolve around the enormous depreciation of new cars, along with the fact that lexus consistently wins quality awards, having won the jd powers quality survey against all comers quite consistently. If you want to get into a discussion on that, I'm more than happy to, but I just think that's another topic for another day.

Stop wasting peoples time attacking the messenger. The sq7 is a barge. What part of that have you missed? How does what I drive, in any way, have anything to do with the sq7? Since you're also looking at people profiles, you will have also noticed I ride a motorcycle, which is quite a bit smaller than the sq7 (and a lexus, funnily enough). I do wonder how on earth you will cope with processing that...

I'm almost certain a tangent is forthcoming from you.

Edited by big_rob_sydney on Thursday 5th May 21:45

just to clarify, you're saying that the SQ7 is far to big, is of an inappropriate size for the road and is entirely unnecessary. Nobody in their right mind would drive anything remotely this big and it would be hugely selfish to do so?

(it makes no difference that what you drive is pretty much the same size, that's not what we are talking about here so I'm not bringing that up)

[SPMX5]

pretty sure my mx5 is similar in terms of emissions so apologies to all the people who are getting upset in this thread, though my car is a lot smaller so

[xjay1337]

Hamma said:

Now that I can respect. No BS excuses. Still stupid as hell, but knock yourself out man! You have a fine brain, Jack!

Not that it's any of my business what others want to drive in the first place (just the fact that idiot-barges make the whole traffic system much less safe, so clearly idiots need regulations to stop them from being idiots. Which is why I think passenger cars driven on normal licenses should be limited to 1.9 tons or something, and require people who want to drive minivans and such that have room for less than 9 and weigh more than that get a special license.). My criticisms are directed to the false logic and ignorance that leads some to stupid conclusions.

You guys can make your lives and the lives of your surroundings as miserable as you want! Go full retard and enjoy! What ever muh-muh-muh-makes you happy!

you know loads of cars are over 1.9 tonnes so I don't think that would work at all
Non commercial (IE driving you and your mates to a festival) you can drive up to 12 passengers on a normal license I believe. Commercial driving (IE a bus driver for those elderly types) you need a license and CPC. Seems normal to me?

Too many people on this thread, not necessarily the post quoted above, but in general, seem to think other people should buy what >they< want even though >they< are not paying for it.

If someone wants a bloody diesel SUV let them! No-one cares what you, or they, drive ultimately.

[underphil]

xjay1337 said:

Probably. If we level it down we are looking at a 2.0L with 215bhp.. well ahead of anything out at the moment.
The peak numbers may not be amazing but if you look at the power curve it probably holds peak power pretty well.

660ft lb is immense.

not really, you can buy a 2.0 TDI Passat with 240bhp & 370 Lb/ft

[Hamma]

xjay1337 said:

you know loads of cars are over 1.9 tonnes so I don't think that would work at all
Non commercial (IE driving you and your mates to a festival) you can drive up to 12 passengers on a normal license I believe. Commercial driving (IE a bus driver for those elderly types) you need a license and CPC. Seems normal to me?

Too many people on this thread, not necessarily the post quoted above, but in general, seem to think other people should buy what >they< want even though >they< are not paying for it.

If someone wants a bloody diesel SUV let them! No-one cares what you, or they, drive ultimately.

Why wouldn't it work? For example a limit of 1.7 tons for cars with under 8 seats (that way real people carriers can go on as usual). Or all cars no matter how many seats. Just require some kind of extra license, doesn't really have to be a big deal, and I'm sure that most morons will not bother getting barges anymore since they are mostly just lazy. And those who really need massive vehicles can easily get that extra license with little to no extra cost.

Another idea is to get rid of all other car related taxes and slap some of it on gasoline tax, and most of it on diesel fuel tax.

IMO it's mostly about sending the signal that it's not ok to deteriorate the traffic system's safety just so you can have more metal around you (which isn't any safer as you'll get into an accident easier and flip over a lot easier).

Having a car height and weight arms race is idiocy. People with non-anti-social lightweight cars, pedestrians, cyclists, basically everyone else is put at much higher risk. I don't want anyone, including myself rammed by those SUVs which are mostly driven by people who drive like dicks, are texting or are otherwise completely negligent behind the wheel. It seems to be much of a cause-and-effect thing: they don't drive well so they know they are at risk of causing a collision, so they lease an SUV because they think that's the best solution to their own negligence and they only care about saving their own skin.

And I don't care that much about emissions except of course particulate emissions that are actually directly harmful to people, which of course diesel barges emit a lot more of, especially once they are clapped out pieces of junk in a few years.

Having roads full of SUVs is idiocy. It's not as if SUV owners really enjoy driving them either. They're the type of people who will vehemently proclaim that theirs is the best no matter what they bought.

Edited by Hamma on Friday 6th May 12:35

[iphonedyou]

Andy20vt said:

I could afford to buy three of these - with cash. Think I'll stick to my second hand RS4 though. Lovely to drive, quicker that the Q7, very rare, very practical and a 1/4 of the price of a new Q7.

Edited by Andy20vt on Thursday 5th May 14:31

Jesus Christ. What sort of people are we attracting here?

Well done you. Eleventy million internet points and a shiny fking medal.

[Artey]

iphonedyou said:

Jesus Christ. What sort of people are we attracting here?

Well done you. Eleventy million internet points and a shiny fking medal.

Is pistonheads where debt matters?

[Hamma]

iphonedyou said:

Jesus Christ. What sort of people are we attracting here?

Well done you. Eleventy million internet points and a shiny fking medal.

To me that was much more of a response to d***head SUV owners proclaiming that they bought one "because they can afford it" and that everyone knocking them "are just jealous and can't afford them".

Fact is lots of people can afford them but are not idiots.

[xjay1337]

Hamma said:

Why wouldn't it work? For example a limit of 1.7 tons for cars with under 8 seats (that way real people carriers can go on as usual). Or all cars no matter how many seats. Just require some kind of extra license, doesn't really have to be a big deal, and I'm sure that most morons will not bother getting barges anymore since they are mostly just lazy. And those who really need massive vehicles can easily get that extra license with little to no extra cost.

Another idea is to get rid of all other car related taxes and slap some of it on gasoline tax, and most of it on diesel fuel tax.

IMO it's mostly about sending the signal that it's not ok to deteriorate the traffic system's safety just so you can have more metal around you (which isn't any safer as you'll get into an accident easier and flip over a lot easier).

Having a car height and weight arms race is idiocy. People with non-anti-social lightweight cars, pedestrians, cyclists, basically everyone else is put at much higher risk. I don't want anyone, including myself rammed by those SUVs which are mostly driven by people who drive like dicks, are texting or are otherwise completely negligent behind the wheel. It seems to be much of a cause-and-effect thing: they don't drive well so they know they are at risk of causing a collision, so they lease an SUV because they think that's the best solution to their own negligence and they only care about saving their own skin.

And I don't care that much about emissions except of course particulate emissions that are actually directly harmful to people, which of course diesel barges emit a lot more of, especially once they are clapped out pieces of junk in a few years.

Having roads full of SUVs is idiocy. It's not as if SUV owners really enjoy driving them either. They're the type of people who will vehemently proclaim that theirs is the best no matter what they bought.

Edited by Hamma on Friday 6th May 12:35

Because it's stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What if you are a young parent and you want to buy a new Ford Galaxy
These weigh 1.8t if you go for the 2.0 TDCI with a few options.
Why do you want to restrict based on weight? Surely a TVR with 400bhp and 1100KG with no TCS, ESP, ABS etc, is more dangerous than an MPV or SUV which is carrying the kids around.

A larger car, such as a range rover or similar, doesn't really "deteriorate traffic systems" (I don't even know where to begin with trying to understand what you mean).
Your entire argument is based on assumptions that people who

- Drive like dicks
- Text while driving
- Negligent behind the wheel

Are only ever driving SUVs. Which is completely illogical and in actual fact, untrue! I'd love to see some official, independant statistics which prove your theory.

Most idiots I see are driving original Ford Focuses or similar vehicles. Shall I ban all vehicles under 1.2t?

In addition, I think the only people on this thread dictating what cars are "best" or what cars people "should buy" are those like yourself, suggesting they need additional licenses, or others, who say that "SUV/Diesel/4x4/big vehicles/anything that's not a Merc E55 AMG" is stupid, boring and dumb, and should not be bought.

I can see why people like feeling a little safer and having more ease of loading. It's easier to get baby seats in and out of a Rangie than it is a Hyundai i30 let me tell you that.

Edited by xjay1337 on Friday 6th May 12:44

[anonymous-user]

So it's fair to say that even those on this thread who seem to like and buy these pointless SUV monstrosities do so for one prime reason - because they can! It makes them feel good and like they've said it's their right to buy whatever they like. You could perhaps deduce from that that they don't care about what anyone else thinks or how anyone else is affected. So long as I'm alright Jack and all that. Reminds me very much of the gun lobby in America.

[Hamma]

xjay1337 said:

Because it's stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What if you are a young parent and you want to buy a new Ford Galaxy
These weigh 1.8t if you go for the 2.0 TDCI with a few options.
Why do you want to restrict based on weight? Surely a TVR with 400bhp and 1100KG with no TCS, ESP, ABS etc, is more dangerous than an MPV or SUV which is carrying the kids around.

A larger car, such as a range rover or similar, doesn't really "deteriorate traffic systems" (I don't even know where to begin with trying to understand what you mean).
Your entire argument is based on assumptions that people who

- Drive like dicks
- Text while driving
- Negligent behind the wheel

Are only ever driving SUVs. Which is completely illogical and in actual fact, untrue! I'd love to see some official, independant statistics which prove your theory.

Most idiots I see are driving original Ford Focuses or similar vehicles. Shall I ban all vehicles under 1.2t?

In addition, I think the only people on this thread dictating what cars are "best" or what cars people "should buy are those like yourself, suggesting they need additional licenses, or others, who say that "SUV/Diesel/4x4/big vehicles/anything that's not a Merc E55 AMG" is stupid, boring and dumb, and should not be bought.

I can see why people like feeling a little safer and having more ease of loading. It's easier to get baby seats in and out of a Rangie than it is a Hyundai i30 let me tell you that.

About my suggestion on weight limits: If you need/want/whatever a very heavy vehicle I already said it should be easy and inexpensive to get a license for them. For anyone. But that extra step would be a signal that they should think about it.

If there was for example a 1.7 ton limit in weight (more realistic would be 1.9 for a start and then gradually lower it over the years), one would expect the manufacturers to react and keep them just below that limit, right? Hell, big SUVs might very quickly get their weight under that limit by using lightweight materials and doing away with much of that unnecessary and completely unused 'off-road capability'. And the buyers seem to all be billionaires so they could buy lease a full-carbon SUV apparently...


About the rest: Wow, I didn't think that this is news in this day and age after so much discussions about SUVs, or so complicated.

It's a simple fact that much heavier vehicles are more dangerous to everyone in the traffic system. It is also a simple fact that taller vehicles, with higher bumper and hood levels are more dangerous to everyone in the traffic system.

In addition to that the vehicles that are heavier, as well as vehicle that are taller (and more compromised dynamically in order to be good off-road when fitted with off-road tires which never will be fitted...) are more likely to get into accidents (all other things being equal of course) due to physics. The consequences of crashes (and even near misses if the SUV manages to tip over) will be far worse. Then there's the pollution thing. And resource needs. And they even wear out the roads more, if we're piling on everything.

Just think about what happens when you have a traffic system full of heavy, tall SUVs instead of normal cars. And for what???!!!

Edited by Hamma on Friday 6th May 12:55

Edited by Hamma on Friday 6th May 12:56

Edited by Hamma on Friday 6th May 13:08

Edited by Hamma on Friday 6th May 13:08

[Hamma]

Andy20vt said:

So it's fair to say that even those on this thread who seem to like and buy these pointless SUV monstrosities do so for one prime reason - because they can! It makes them feel good and like they've said it's their right to buy whatever they like. You could perhaps deduce from that that they don't care about what anyone else thinks or how anyone else is affected. So long as I'm alright Jack and all that. Reminds me very much of the gun lobby in America.

+1

[Hamma]

swerni said:

And some can't afford one and are still idiots, eh poppet

Yeah, I mean who could afford these 'billionaire's toys'?

Audi Q7 £12,900

A sportier SUV than the Q7 for £6295

I'm sure that everyone in the world who sees an SUV immediately thinks OMG what a rich person!!!! Or not.

Will everyone be super-pissed off if I say that I have enough cash to buy both of those?

Edited by Hamma on Friday 6th May 13:05