RE: Audi SQ8 | Driven
Discussion
TurboHatchback said:
My objection to this sort of car is that they were clearly designed around a set of engineering requirements derived entirely from image (i.e. it must be big, aggressive, look like a giant plastic training shoe and be expensive). Grand Cherokees and Landcruisers etc are designed to be the best compromise of serious off road capability, on road manners, load space, towing capacity and affordability that they could engineer. Other types of car are designed to offer the best combinations of speed, economy, NVH, ride comfort, looks etc. Now I'm not suggesting that many customers of expensive cars need a fraction of the capabilities their cars offer whether they be performance, luxury or off road cars but I 'get' cars that are clearly the best that could be engineered from a starting set of objective requirements (and that look good). As an engineer I look at things like this with bafflement as there is no rational reason that anyone would buy one.
Clearly mine is a minority opinion though as everyone seems to want this sort of thing now.
It is a good view objectivity, and I fully appreciate where you are coming from, but it doesn't really address the 'cancer spewing' part which was highlighted and I wouldn't say that a 2006 Grand Cherokee is exactly a shrinking violet with it's size and massive grill. Off the top of my head I can't think of any modern cars that are now less aggresive than their older counterparts, it is just the way that styling has seemingly evolved across the board, so I'm not sure it is fair to level that just at the modern SUV. Just think of all sporty, more aggressive trim levels, which just about every manufacturer provides now, for all those who want the looks of the higher up cars without actually having to buy one. I would also safely predict that SUV's aren't the only segment of cars that are bought with purchasers image taken into account. Wouldn't most of us do that to a certain extent regardless of the type of car? Is there actually anything wrong with this or should we all be limited to buying stuff that we strictly need as oppose to want?Clearly mine is a minority opinion though as everyone seems to want this sort of thing now.
Honeywell said:
Just in passing I own a L322 Rangerover V8 and a BMW 535d (and a modified GT86 for fun).
Both are RR and BMW are great at what they do. I just don’t see the point in compromising both for a price tag of six figures to get something not quite as good as either.
It's a good thing when you can have specific cars to cover different bases, I'm sure many of us that can't would do the same if we could.Both are RR and BMW are great at what they do. I just don’t see the point in compromising both for a price tag of six figures to get something not quite as good as either.
Honeywell said:
What is the actual point of these things?
A BMW 530d is just as practical and better in every other regard at half the price.
That thing would be awful off-road and on those wide summer tyres likely to get stuck on mildly sloped wet grass. I think I’d be embarrassed to own one. Sorry, lease one.
Really can't see why you would be embarrassed to have one, personally I think it looks great.A BMW 530d is just as practical and better in every other regard at half the price.
That thing would be awful off-road and on those wide summer tyres likely to get stuck on mildly sloped wet grass. I think I’d be embarrassed to own one. Sorry, lease one.
SQ8 vs 530d
Other than being cheaper I am really struggling to think of any aspect of a 530d that I would see as better than the SQ8... possibly fuel economy?
Honeywell said:
What is the actual point of these things?
A BMW 530d is just as practical and better in every other regard at half the price.
That thing would be awful off-road and on those wide summer tyres likely to get stuck on mildly sloped wet grass. I think I’d be embarrassed to own one. Sorry, lease one.
The sole purpose is to annoy the likes of you A BMW 530d is just as practical and better in every other regard at half the price.
That thing would be awful off-road and on those wide summer tyres likely to get stuck on mildly sloped wet grass. I think I’d be embarrassed to own one. Sorry, lease one.
J4CKO said:
Lots.
How dare you be so rational and open minded J4CKO!! This is the PH forum. And be careful: suggest that things can be more than functional or have multiple uses and you'll get the "any watch worth more than a tenner is pointless" crowd over here crowing at you with their miasma.
I like to think I'm a bit of a car enthusiast but for me the trouble with all of these premium SUV's is they all look exactly the same.
Landrover- Short of looking at the badge on the back I'd really struggle to identify any of their range (defender excepted) apart for the two extremes of evoque and FF.
Audi - unless they're side by side I couldn't tell the difference between an SQ5/ 7 or 8
BMW- Their whole range is just bland. Saw an X3 the other day and I'd swear it's much larger than the original X5
Merc - Can never remember how their naming strategy works so don't know whether to be impressed or not.
Working on the above and assuming that most people don't actually need such a large/powerful vehicle and are only buying them for a status symbol I'd just buy the one with the biggest discount (apart from the BMW) and take the badges off.
So my buying would probably go along the lines of "I'd like an SUV please with big alloys in black/black leather with some tail pipes. Which one's the cheapest?
Landrover- Short of looking at the badge on the back I'd really struggle to identify any of their range (defender excepted) apart for the two extremes of evoque and FF.
Audi - unless they're side by side I couldn't tell the difference between an SQ5/ 7 or 8
BMW- Their whole range is just bland. Saw an X3 the other day and I'd swear it's much larger than the original X5
Merc - Can never remember how their naming strategy works so don't know whether to be impressed or not.
Working on the above and assuming that most people don't actually need such a large/powerful vehicle and are only buying them for a status symbol I'd just buy the one with the biggest discount (apart from the BMW) and take the badges off.
So my buying would probably go along the lines of "I'd like an SUV please with big alloys in black/black leather with some tail pipes. Which one's the cheapest?
Edited by Harry H on Thursday 10th October 14:15
From the linked Guardian article earlier I was most excited to find out that a pedestrian is 70% more likely to die if hit by someone with a 2.4 litre engined car compared to a 1.6 litre car according to research by 'British academics'.
The smallest engine I have is a 2.4, but it's a filthy old diesel, so presumably even if I manage not to hit a pedestrian, they'll die from my emissions anyway
I just don't know what to do 
The smallest engine I have is a 2.4, but it's a filthy old diesel, so presumably even if I manage not to hit a pedestrian, they'll die from my emissions anyway
I just don't know what to do alexjb99 said:
Arsecati said:
Honeywell said:
What is the actual point of these things?
A BMW 530d is just as practical and better in every other regard at half the price.
That thing would be awful off-road and on those wide summer tyres likely to get stuck on mildly sloped wet grass. I think I’d be embarrassed to own one. Sorry, lease one.
If you were interested in an Audi SQ8, why would you possibly be swayed by a BMW 5-Series? Audi owners and BMW owners don't mix - the logical estate alternative to this would be an A6 Avant. Though having said that, this argument of 'pointless SUV over more practical Estate' has been well worn for years...... are you seriously only realising this now? A BMW 530d is just as practical and better in every other regard at half the price.
That thing would be awful off-road and on those wide summer tyres likely to get stuck on mildly sloped wet grass. I think I’d be embarrassed to own one. Sorry, lease one.
I had from new an Audi A6 (C7 facelift 2016) and from around 6 months old a BMW 520d (G31 2017). The BMW had the more modern technology and interior, but for me the Audi was superior in every other way.
I disliked the BMW immensely and got shot after about 8 months, for an Octavia vRS. I'd be hesitant to buy another BMW, I'd have another Audi in a flash.
Would I have an SQ8? Absolutely, I love it! Apparently it would be rubbish off road, and? I wouldn't be taking it off road. Let's be honest, the majority of people owning one of these will have utterly no intention of going off road whatsoever. The only grass it will see is the car park at the Cheltenham Festival or Badminton horse trials.
Only caveat is the pre-facelift current gen S4. That was quite nice. Not as nice as my old 340i MPPSP though. Naturally
neil1jnr said:
Honeywell said:
What is the actual point of these things?
A BMW 530d is just as practical and better in every other regard at half the price.
That thing would be awful off-road and on those wide summer tyres likely to get stuck on mildly sloped wet grass. I think I’d be embarrassed to own one. Sorry, lease one.
Really can't see why you would be embarrassed to have one, personally I think it looks great.A BMW 530d is just as practical and better in every other regard at half the price.
That thing would be awful off-road and on those wide summer tyres likely to get stuck on mildly sloped wet grass. I think I’d be embarrassed to own one. Sorry, lease one.
SQ8 vs 530d
Other than being cheaper I am really struggling to think of any aspect of a 530d that I would see as better than the SQ8... possibly fuel economy?
But then I am not an Audi fan, so my opinion probably doesn't count for much.
slowcars1 said:
SturdyHSV said:
From the linked Guardian article earlier I was most excited to find out that a pedestrian is 70% more likely to die if hit by someone with a 2.4 litre engined car compared to a 1.6 litre car according to research by 'British academics'.
The smallest engine I have is a 2.4, but it's a filthy old diesel, so presumably even if I manage not to hit a pedestrian, they'll die from my emissions anyway I just don't know what to do
It's annoying that they're allowed to write such nonsense without citing their source.The smallest engine I have is a 2.4, but it's a filthy old diesel, so presumably even if I manage not to hit a pedestrian, they'll die from my emissions anyway
I just don't know what to do However, I suspect the author of the article is confusing correlation with causation. I think it's highly unlikely that engine displacement is the reason a pedestrian is 70% more likely to die when hit by a car. I suspect that drivers with 2.4L engines who have hit pedestrians are likely to be driving much faster than drivers with 1.6L engines who also happened to hit pedestrians. This is just a convenient way of skewing the statistics to push a narrative. But without the source we cannot know for sure.
ts in their sporting SUV's!gigglebug said:
slowcars1 said:
SturdyHSV said:
From the linked Guardian article earlier I was most excited to find out that a pedestrian is 70% more likely to die if hit by someone with a 2.4 litre engined car compared to a 1.6 litre car according to research by 'British academics'.
The smallest engine I have is a 2.4, but it's a filthy old diesel, so presumably even if I manage not to hit a pedestrian, they'll die from my emissions anyway I just don't know what to do
It's annoying that they're allowed to write such nonsense without citing their source.The smallest engine I have is a 2.4, but it's a filthy old diesel, so presumably even if I manage not to hit a pedestrian, they'll die from my emissions anyway
I just don't know what to do However, I suspect the author of the article is confusing correlation with causation. I think it's highly unlikely that engine displacement is the reason a pedestrian is 70% more likely to die when hit by a car. I suspect that drivers with 2.4L engines who have hit pedestrians are likely to be driving much faster than drivers with 1.6L engines who also happened to hit pedestrians. This is just a convenient way of skewing the statistics to push a narrative. But without the source we cannot know for sure.
EDIT:
No you aren't going mental, I was only aware of slowcars1's post because you quoted it, can't see it anywhere
@ Harry H - all SUV's look the same.
I agree. Clarkson used to ridicule Porsche design dept. on their "updates".
With the Q series, it seems that with each numerical increase, Audi just adds 15% to the size of the previous model - like blowing up a balloon.
This is why an averaged sized lady looks so small in a Q8 - which is meant for a powerfully built executive.
Shopping is supposed to be done using a Q2.
I agree. Clarkson used to ridicule Porsche design dept. on their "updates".
With the Q series, it seems that with each numerical increase, Audi just adds 15% to the size of the previous model - like blowing up a balloon.
This is why an averaged sized lady looks so small in a Q8 - which is meant for a powerfully built executive.
Shopping is supposed to be done using a Q2.
Harry H said:
I like to think I'm a bit of a car enthusiast but for me the trouble with all of these premium SUV's is they all look exactly the same.
Landrover- Short of looking at the badge on the back I'd really struggle to identify any of their range (defender excepted) apart for the two extremes of evoque and FF.
Audi - unless they're side by side I couldn't tell the difference between an SQ5/ 7 or 8
BMW- Their whole range is just bland. Saw an X3 the other day and I'd swear it's much larger than the original X5
Merc - Can never remember how their naming strategy works so don't know whether to be impressed or not.
Working on the above and assuming that most people don't actually need such a large/powerful vehicle and are only buying them for a status symbol I'd just buy the one with the biggest discount (apart from the BMW) and take the badges off.
So my buying would probably go along the lines of "I'd like an SUV please with big alloys in black/black leather with some tail pipes. Which one's the cheapest?
For the love of god you’re clutching at straws now !!!
You can say the same about all Mercedes cars all look the same and BMW and Audi for that Matter , all the same but slightly different in dimensions !!
Why don’t we settle this anti suv hatred once and for all
Let’s lobby the government to get all manufactures to join forces and make one car , no choices , it will be a 2.0 petrol , 4 doors. Make it bland as f**k so not to offend anybody, as well as one colour, interior, no optional extras , one price etc , etc, we could have one option manual or auto , oh hang on a minute no that would cause a cafuffle to !!!
Landrover- Short of looking at the badge on the back I'd really struggle to identify any of their range (defender excepted) apart for the two extremes of evoque and FF.
Audi - unless they're side by side I couldn't tell the difference between an SQ5/ 7 or 8
BMW- Their whole range is just bland. Saw an X3 the other day and I'd swear it's much larger than the original X5
Merc - Can never remember how their naming strategy works so don't know whether to be impressed or not.
Working on the above and assuming that most people don't actually need such a large/powerful vehicle and are only buying them for a status symbol I'd just buy the one with the biggest discount (apart from the BMW) and take the badges off.
So my buying would probably go along the lines of "I'd like an SUV please with big alloys in black/black leather with some tail pipes. Which one's the cheapest?
For the love of god you’re clutching at straws now !!!
You can say the same about all Mercedes cars all look the same and BMW and Audi for that Matter , all the same but slightly different in dimensions !!
Why don’t we settle this anti suv hatred once and for all
Let’s lobby the government to get all manufactures to join forces and make one car , no choices , it will be a 2.0 petrol , 4 doors. Make it bland as f**k so not to offend anybody, as well as one colour, interior, no optional extras , one price etc , etc, we could have one option manual or auto , oh hang on a minute no that would cause a cafuffle to !!!
Edited by Harry H on Thursday 10th October 14:15
Whilst I’m at it why don’t we all just where the same clothes , shoes , live in the same houses , same furniture, hairstyles blah blah blah !!!
Come on guys we are all supposed to be petrol heads whether it be a Kia or a Bentley let’s discuss them but why the hatred !!!
Each to their own , we are literally spoilt For choice , that’s got to be a good thing surely!!
Come on guys we are all supposed to be petrol heads whether it be a Kia or a Bentley let’s discuss them but why the hatred !!!
Each to their own , we are literally spoilt For choice , that’s got to be a good thing surely!!
I’m all for diversity but £100k on a car that’s highly compromised as an off-roader and highly compromised as a family car and highly compromised as a sporty drivers car just makes no sense to me. You could get a 7 seat Landrover Discovery which really is practical and good off road plus a BMW 530d Touring which is really premium and brilliant to drive and just as fast. Surely if you are in a position to drop six figures on a car you’re not living in a house with a pokey driveway for only one car?
moldy said:
Whilst I’m at it why don’t we all just where the same clothes , shoes , live in the same houses , same furniture, hairstyles blah blah blah !!!
Come on guys we are all supposed to be petrol heads whether it be a Kia or a Bentley let’s discuss them but why the hatred !!!
Each to their own , we are literally spoilt For choice , that’s got to be a good thing surely!!
Oh come on. You can't beat a good performance SUV discussion for weeding out the terminally insecure Come on guys we are all supposed to be petrol heads whether it be a Kia or a Bentley let’s discuss them but why the hatred !!!
Each to their own , we are literally spoilt For choice , that’s got to be a good thing surely!!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff