RE: Audi SQ5 TDI arrives with SQ7 compressor tech
Discussion
tankplanker said:
I'm not sure the 48v system is worth all the extra weight and complexity. Volvo's power pulse system achieves the same spin up of turbo from idling at 20,000rpm to a fully operational 150,000rpm in 0.3 seconds using compressed air via a lighter, simpler system.
I have it on my XC90 and while 0.3 seconds is still pretty laggy compared to the best NA petrol engines it doesn't half launch well once the turbo has spun up. Only advantage I can see with Audi's system over Volvos is that Volvo's system is limited to a max of 20mph, above which it will not trigger the compressor. Audi doesn't seem to have this limitation so would be more useful in 30-70mph and 50-70mph runs for things like overtakes on B roads.
The 48V system also allows a minor amount of contribution from a motor (is it just the starter motor) as far as I am aware, not just the turbo spin up (I presume is is what you are getting at?)I have it on my XC90 and while 0.3 seconds is still pretty laggy compared to the best NA petrol engines it doesn't half launch well once the turbo has spun up. Only advantage I can see with Audi's system over Volvos is that Volvo's system is limited to a max of 20mph, above which it will not trigger the compressor. Audi doesn't seem to have this limitation so would be more useful in 30-70mph and 50-70mph runs for things like overtakes on B roads.
tankplanker said:
I'm not sure the 48v system is worth all the extra weight and complexity. Volvo's power pulse system achieves the same spin up of turbo from idling at 20,000rpm to a fully operational 150,000rpm in 0.3 seconds using compressed air via a lighter, simpler system.
I have it on my XC90 and while 0.3 seconds is still pretty laggy compared to the best NA petrol engines it doesn't half launch well once the turbo has spun up. Only advantage I can see with Audi's system over Volvos is that Volvo's system is limited to a max of 20mph, above which it will not trigger the compressor. Audi doesn't seem to have this limitation so would be more useful in 30-70mph and 50-70mph runs for things like overtakes on B roads.
The compressor in the SQ7 completely changes the off/on throttle responsiveness across the rev range compared with traditional turbodiesels. I have driven the XC90 and it just doesn't compare at all even with the power pulse.I have it on my XC90 and while 0.3 seconds is still pretty laggy compared to the best NA petrol engines it doesn't half launch well once the turbo has spun up. Only advantage I can see with Audi's system over Volvos is that Volvo's system is limited to a max of 20mph, above which it will not trigger the compressor. Audi doesn't seem to have this limitation so would be more useful in 30-70mph and 50-70mph runs for things like overtakes on B roads.
The SQ7 48V system is also used by the dynamic sports suspension option, as the 12V can't handle the load necessary to enable the system to react as quickly as it can.
Overall, it's a bit like having a V12 engine - you accept the weight and packaging penalty for the advantages it brings.
TomScrut said:
The 48V system also allows a minor amount of contribution from a motor (is it just the starter motor) as far as I am aware, not just the turbo spin up (I presume is is what you are getting at?)
It has an electric compressor and an electric supercharger. The supercharger gives it a bit more shove but I'm not comparing that, just compressor to compressor.PhilboSE said:
The compressor in the SQ7 completely changes the off/on throttle responsiveness across the rev range compared with traditional turbodiesels. I have driven the XC90 and it just doesn't compare at all even with the power pulse.
The SQ7 48V system is also used by the dynamic sports suspension option, as the 12V can't handle the load necessary to enable the system to react as quickly as it can.
Overall, it's a bit like having a V12 engine - you accept the weight and packaging penalty for the advantages it brings.
Its worth reading the comparison reviews between the V12 Q7 and the V8 + 48v Q7 as the V8 just isn't anywhere near the same sort of engine, its more like a much larger V8 with a NA type of response than it actually is. I'd not disagree than the V8 makes for a quicker point to point car than the V12.The SQ7 48V system is also used by the dynamic sports suspension option, as the 12V can't handle the load necessary to enable the system to react as quickly as it can.
Overall, it's a bit like having a V12 engine - you accept the weight and packaging penalty for the advantages it brings.
The suspension option is only needed to help try and tame what is going to be heavier car than a simpler V8 twin turbo petrol would be in the same chassis in what is already quite a fat car. Obviously its better handling than the Volvo, but would the Audi be even better handling if we could cut the weight of the 48v system? The Macan seems to suggest that it is possible to work around the limitations of the weight and SUV format without resorting to a 48v system?
The SQ5 is closer in price and spec to the T8 XC60 than my XC90, which is way down on power making only 240 BHPand much heavier. The T8 XC60 is also still fatter than the Audi, but that has a proper electric motor setup and a ~300 BHP twin charged petrol setup pushing 410 BHP in Polestar form. Comparing that to the Audi would be more accurate and interesting comparison for straight line speed. I'm not deluded enough to think either Volvo could handle as well as the Audi with the optional 48v suspension.
Being an owner of the previous SQ5 TDI i’ve been waiting to see when / if a new one was released.
Quite disappointed that the performance and efficiency & emmissions are identical to my Plus.
I was hoping for improvements on all 3.
And has others have said, hate the new fake exhaust. Love my current quad.
Sorry Audi, i’m out.
Quite disappointed that the performance and efficiency & emmissions are identical to my Plus.
I was hoping for improvements on all 3.
And has others have said, hate the new fake exhaust. Love my current quad.
Sorry Audi, i’m out.
AshD said:
Being an owner of the previous SQ5 TDI i’ve been waiting to see when / if a new one was released.
Quite disappointed that the performance and efficiency & emmissions are identical to my Plus.
I was hoping for improvements on all 3.
And has others have said, hate the new fake exhaust. Love my current quad.
Sorry Audi, i’m out.
This new one does seem a massive disappointment when compared to the old SQ5 TDI Plus for sure. Usually newer models move things forward in terms of performance/economy, whereas this has stood still. Quite disappointed that the performance and efficiency & emmissions are identical to my Plus.
I was hoping for improvements on all 3.
And has others have said, hate the new fake exhaust. Love my current quad.
Sorry Audi, i’m out.
st4 said:
A diesel....
Shame. I thought the tide was turning against these noisy polluting cars that damage peoples health.
Potential customers of these have turned their noses up at the petrol version though. Love or hate diesel I do think that it suits a heavy SUV like this with all the low down torque. Shame. I thought the tide was turning against these noisy polluting cars that damage peoples health.
cerb4.5lee said:
st4 said:
A diesel....
Shame. I thought the tide was turning against these noisy polluting cars that damage peoples health.
Potential customers of these have turned their noses up at the petrol version though. Love or hate diesel I do think that it suits a heavy SUV like this with all the low down torque. Shame. I thought the tide was turning against these noisy polluting cars that damage peoples health.
Pls though can Audi and others stop with the fake exhausts.
TX.
tankplanker said:
PhilboSE said:
Overall, it's a bit like having a V12 engine - you accept the weight and packaging penalty for the advantages it brings.
Its worth reading the comparison reviews between the V12 Q7 and the V8 + 48v Q7 as the V8 just isn't anywhere near the same sort of engine, its more like a much larger V8 with a NA type of response than it actually is. I'd not disagree than the V8 makes for a quicker point to point car than the V12.In any event, I wasn't actually trying to say that the SQ7 engine is like a V12, I was trying to say that you accept the demerits of the system in order to get the benefits in the same way that you would have to live with the weight and consumption of a V12 if you chose it over say a straight-6 option in another car.
tankplanker said:
The suspension option is only needed to help try and tame what is going to be heavier car than a simpler V8 twin turbo petrol would be in the same chassis in what is already quite a fat car. Obviously its better handling than the Volvo, but would the Audi be even better handling if we could cut the weight of the 48v system? The Macan seems to suggest that it is possible to work around the limitations of the weight and SUV format without resorting to a 48v system?
The standard suspension "tames" the heavy car quite well. The dynamic one makes a big improvement to the handling; the smarts on it (e-diff, 4WS, reactive suspension) are also commonly found on supercars...I have no idea what the 48V system adds to the weight of the system - some cables, a lithium battery, the compressor itself - but I'm pretty convinced the SQ7 would be half the car if you took it away - a bit like an XC90 (or any other 7-seater SUV) I suspect. The actual 48V system (what you can see of it) occupies a small area under the boot, it doesn't impact on load space. I'm glad the SQ7 doesn't have a big petrol engine - it wouldn't average 33mpg or do 600 miles on a tank for a start!
You can't compare the Macan and the SQ7, the Macan is at least two customer segmentations away in terms of size and therefore weight: Macan < Cayenne < SQ7. The Macan's a very nice car but if you need something the size of the Q7 then my first hand experience suggests that the 48V is very much worth having.
st4 said:
But not as nice as the petrol. Our brethren across the Atlantic manage fine without diseasals
They actually like diesels across the pond especially when they compound turbo the things, carry on disliking them though I'll carry on liking the right drivetrain in the right car.ZX10R NIN said:
They actually like diesels across the pond especially when they compound turbo the things, carry on disliking them though I'll carry on liking the right drivetrain in the right car.
Big petrol engines are good and right. Particularly in performance applications and premium cars where refinement is of absolute importance.The drivetrain from the RS4 or S4 would be a totally amazing fit for this car.
st4 said:
ZX10R NIN said:
They actually like diesels across the pond especially when they compound turbo the things, carry on disliking them though I'll carry on liking the right drivetrain in the right car.
Big petrol engines are good and right. Particularly in performance applications and premium cars where refinement is of absolute importance.The drivetrain from the RS4 or S4 would be a totally amazing fit for this car.
However, i’ll stick with my old gen SQ5 Tdi Plus...until the new one has a variant that moves the power upward and loses the fake exhausts.
9k rpm said:
Sorry to burst your bubble but it’s fake sound; it has a speaker in the exhaust. Audi call it “Active sound”.
I know (I spec'd enough of them this but even without it they had a decent exhaust note, the activator gave them a great not the in car part of the system was rubbish.st4 said:
Big petrol engines are good and right. Particularly in performance applications and premium cars where refinement is of absolute importance.
The drivetrain from the RS4 or S4 would be a totally amazing fit for this car.
Im guessing its for a large number of people who can't actually afford a car as expensive as this, so its really on a lease?The drivetrain from the RS4 or S4 would be a totally amazing fit for this car.
They can't afford the fuel either so it has to be diseasel .........? I can't logically think of any other reason TBH.
daytonavrs said:
Im guessing its for a large number of people who can't actually afford a car as expensive as this, so its really on a lease?
They can't afford the fuel either so it has to be diseasel .........? I can't logically think of any other reason TBH.
Yep this. PCP hire car pilots will flock to this in droves. They can't afford the fuel either so it has to be diseasel .........? I can't logically think of any other reason TBH.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff