RE: Audi SQ7: Review

[JMF894]

Baryonyx said:

big_rob_sydney said:

Putting aside all discussions of selfishness of road space taken, you realise that the UK is not exactly like the US in terms of width of roads, and narrow country lanes will not suit these kinds of cars, especially if another one is coming in the opposite direction.

Absolutely spot on.

You should try driving a fire engine down said country lane to a job and meeting another truck.

Or a bus.

Or tractor.

But I do see your point

[JMF894]

PhilboSE said:

big_rob_sydney said:

Every time I see abominations like this, I just laugh. I mean, why stop there? Why not go out and buy a tank? Good luck parking this in any normal sized parking station without either banging doors, or coming back to find your own doors having been dinged by someone else futilely trying to get out next to you.

Putting aside all discussions of selfishness of road space taken, you realise that the UK is not exactly like the US in terms of width of roads, and narrow country lanes will not suit these kinds of cars, especially if another one is coming in the opposite direction.

Its a bit ironic, because for all intents and purposes, practicality is supposed to be what these lifestyle vehicles are about. When they get so bloated, I wonder just how practical they really are.

Usual ill informed tripe.

Lexus LS length: 5060mm
Audi Q7 length: 5100mm.

So "selfishness of road space taken" is defined by 40mm or the last 0.8% of a car's length, apparently.

Baryonyx said:

big_rob_sydney said:

Putting aside all discussions of selfishness of road space taken, you realise that the UK is not exactly like the US in terms of width of roads, and narrow country lanes will not suit these kinds of cars, especially if another one is coming in the opposite direction.

Absolutely spot on.

Let us know how your campaign to ban vans and lorries from the UK road network is getting on. Will no-one think of the Jaguar XJ8 drivers in their diminutive vehicles?

Edited by PhilboSE on Thursday 5th May 12:16

Ooh touchy! Wonder why......

[dave_s13]

I don't much like audis but now I have a family I wouldn't hesitate to have one of these.

Your priorities change hugely as you struggle on through life.

[Jimmy Recard]

patch5674 said:

So lets read in-between the lines.....You can't afford one let alone three, so your sticking with your smaller, older, cheaper car, but you must stop along the way, in your RS4 which is a right little shrinking violet of a car, and point out how you'd never buy the Q7 because it's a disgusting expression of brash consumerism.

snigger. You are of course correct. Telling people that you have £210,000 in cash (when nobody cares) tends to mean that you don't have it.

[smilo996]

So a 2.5 ton "car" with absolutely no more utility than an S4 or S6.
The only benefit being to make the owner feel superior and give yummy mummies a false sense of security.

Huge, pointless and a profligate waste of resourcees. If you really need a 4*4 then buy a Range Rover, at least they do it properly.

Roll on the next oil crisis.

[vrsmxtb]

j90gta said:

No matter what engine is fitted, or how well-built its supposed to be, it's still vulgar. When was the last time anyone actually saw one of these being used off-road or even towing something? An estate car will do almost everything that most owners of these will ever need.

You're missing the point, as the point is they exist purely to be vulgar!

Long gone are the days that SUV type vehicles were aimed at the towing and off-road market.

[GJR68]

Great technology and I'm sure fabulously capable but really really couldn't be *rsed with the parking and town driving on a daily basis. Bus, Van and Truck drivers get paid for the inconvenience !

[Vroom101]

AH33 said:

Worst looking big 4x4 of all, the front especially. Its all out of proportion. No-one seems to agree, but they're all wrong.

I agree with you, so I must be right too

Much preferred the look of the previous shape. This thing just looks too clunky. The surfacing is all over the place, and as you say, the proportions are all off. If I was in the market for a seven seater SUV and had a fat wad of cash (I'm not, and I don't ), my money would be going to Volvo, not Audi. I know the XC90 doesn't have the Q7's stupendous engine, but let's be honest, how queasy do you want to make your kids and all their mates?! No point having a luscious interior if it's full of child vomit.

[the_hood]

smilo996 said:

So a 2.5 ton "car" with absolutely no more utility than an S4 or S6.
The only benefit being to make the owner feel superior and give yummy mummies a false sense of security.

Huge, pointless and a profligate waste of resourcees. If you really need a 4*4 then buy a Range Rover, at least they do it properly.

You do know that a Range Rover weighs more. Also, what exactly do they do properly?

[Aeroresh]

I quite like it however I for one have been here before. I must have tried most Range Rover performance 'equivelants' over the years, cayenne turbo, Ml 420, X5iS, V8 Grand Cherokee, etc but Ive always gone back.

That says a lot about the character of the Range Rover and is something thats lacking from the competition no matter how technically accomplished they appear to be.

[skyrover]

smilo996 said:

So a 2.5 ton "car" with absolutely no more utility than an S4 or S6.
The only benefit being to make the owner feel superior and give yummy mummies a false sense of security.

Huge, pointless and a profligate waste of resourcees. If you really need a 4*4 then buy a Range Rover, at least they do it properly.

Roll on the next oil crisis.

Considering large SUV's have the lowest fatality rates on our roads, they are indeed "more secure"

[anonymous-user]

skyrover said:

Considering large SUV's have the lowest fatality rates on our roads, they are indeed "more secure"

Could be correct, could be bull, care to substantiate that with actual evidence?

There's no doubt though, as has been proved in numerous tests that being hit by a SUV or 4x4 type vehicle is far more dangerous than being hit by most modern cars. Shame then so many mums insist driving them past the local school when there's small kids on the loose. Still so long as their kids are okay, who cares about anyone else's right?

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 5th May 21:27

[belleair302]

Wonderful technology but such a nasty way to travel. No thank you on an SUV.

[skyrover]

Andy20vt said:

skyrover said:

Considering large SUV's have the lowest fatality rates on our roads, they are indeed "more secure"

Could be correct, could be bull, care to substantiate that with actual evidence?

[xjay1337]

kapiteinlangzaam said:

Is it only me that is slightly disappointed with the headline BHP figure....?

4.0L twin turbo V8, and only 430bhp? Ford turn out the same from the 5.0 NA Coyote.

Although I presume its only a remap away from 550+

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.

[anonymous-user]

Sorry but that list is bo**ocks. It's from the US for a start. Top of the list is an Audi A4 (a car), and there's plenty of SUV type vehicles in the bottom section too.

[skyrover]

Andy20vt said:

Sorry but that list is bo**ocks. It's from the US for a start. Top of the list is an Audi A4 (a car), and there's plenty of SUV type vehicles in the bottom section too.

Like it or not, it's fact.

What the article is saying is that small car's have a higher fatality rate than large ones, which of course is backed up by physics.

Yes there are exceptions to the rule, but by and large SUV's are in the top bracket and small car's are in the bottom.

And it does not mater where the list is complied. The cars will crash the same anywhere in the world.

[big_rob_sydney]

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

[The Vambo]

smilo996 said:

So a 2.5 ton "car" with absolutely no more utility than an S4 or S6.

SQ7 + seats folded = 1,955 litres. S6 Avant + seats folded = 1680 litres. Absolutely no more utility?

I would be gutted if I listened to you and bought an S6 just to find out my boot was full and my 275 Litre dog wouldn't fit.

smilo996 said:

The only benefit being to make the owner feel superior and give yummy mummies a false sense of security.

Just try to remember, no one can make you feel inferior without your consent.

smilo996 said:

Huge, pointless and a profligate waste of resources. If you really need a 4*4 then buy a Range Rover, at least they do it properly.

It? The Landcruiser thing?

smilo996 said:

Roll on the next oil crisis.

But then you would be the snakeoil salesman's bh.

[anonymous-user]

No one's suggesting buying a little shopping car to transport the family, but if you read your own list, the Audi A4 at approx 1.5 tonnes is safer than an SUV weighing 2.5 tonnes. I think you'll find that most of the EURO NCAP 5 star stuff in the UK would be similar to the A4. Go figure?

This is an American study - I don't know if you've ever been to the States but almost everyone seems to drive a big V8 SUV. Thankfully in the UK there seems to be far less of them so the likelyhood that you'll crash into one in a smaller car is much reduced. This no doubt skews the US statistics significantly, making them not really relevant to UK driving.

So the only safety upside of SUV's seem to be their weight - but that's also a big downside with reduced stability (greater tendency to roll in an accident). Okay so some SUV's hide their weight well through clever electronics but you can't argue with the laws of physics.