RE: Audi SQ7: UK Review
Discussion
RSK21 said:
It may not be the norm but a friend of mine has a new Q7 having had two previous generations ones. He always specs the off road pack (although no low range shows it's not for really serious stuff) and I have seen that all have been perfectly capable on farms and in forests which would defeat a standard estate car.
My uncle has a Q7 and goes off road with it.mrnoisy78 said:
We have a Seat Ateca in our family.
We needed a car with a bigger boot to replace the wife's old hatchback and although we would have preferred an estate car, the Ateca was a shorter vehicle with more load space and competitively priced; the length of the car was important as parking where we live means you get a finite amount of space for your car. It's got a 1.4 turbo petrol engine in it, which is perfectly sufficient for what it needs to do and actually doesn't ride or handle too badly, but it's never going to handle like a car because it's big unwieldy beast. That said, it is not a sports vehicle!
Ultimately if we're all honest, the main reason people buy the expensive Range rover and Audi models is because they want a giant luxury vehicle that's comfortable and for some reason aren't happy with your typical RS6 or equivalent luxury saloon and are probably less fussed about it handling like one.
In all seriousness, very few will ever drive a £70-90,000 Sport Utility Vehicle (and I use the word Sport with irony because they don't look sporty regardless of how much you stick on them!) off road because it would cost too much to fix when things break.
You mention a Hilux but that's an example of the sort of vehicles people would be prepared to drive off road and use to transport goods because it's a practical usable vehicle that's cost effective to maintain, run and use in that sort of environment.
We just have to be truthful and ask when was the last time any of us ever saw an Audi SUV going off road
Does it mean the owners are up themselves? No.
The Hilux example was just to mention that there are plenty of vehicles on the road that people drive that are not luxury SUVs but a fair few people have them for the same purposes (farmers as an example) that another person would have a Range Rover etc for.We needed a car with a bigger boot to replace the wife's old hatchback and although we would have preferred an estate car, the Ateca was a shorter vehicle with more load space and competitively priced; the length of the car was important as parking where we live means you get a finite amount of space for your car. It's got a 1.4 turbo petrol engine in it, which is perfectly sufficient for what it needs to do and actually doesn't ride or handle too badly, but it's never going to handle like a car because it's big unwieldy beast. That said, it is not a sports vehicle!
Ultimately if we're all honest, the main reason people buy the expensive Range rover and Audi models is because they want a giant luxury vehicle that's comfortable and for some reason aren't happy with your typical RS6 or equivalent luxury saloon and are probably less fussed about it handling like one.
In all seriousness, very few will ever drive a £70-90,000 Sport Utility Vehicle (and I use the word Sport with irony because they don't look sporty regardless of how much you stick on them!) off road because it would cost too much to fix when things break.
You mention a Hilux but that's an example of the sort of vehicles people would be prepared to drive off road and use to transport goods because it's a practical usable vehicle that's cost effective to maintain, run and use in that sort of environment.
We just have to be truthful and ask when was the last time any of us ever saw an Audi SUV going off road
Does it mean the owners are up themselves? No.
alock said:
A standard parking space for cars in the UK has been 4.8m by 2.4m for many years. Many car parks have been designed to this specification.
A Q7 is over 5m long so will overhang standard spaces.
A Q7 is 1968mm wide without mirrors. If you park next to another one in a car park and both park perfectly in the middle of your space, there is 432mm between the cars to open your doors.
A Q7 is 2212mm wide with mirrors. If you park next to another one in a car park and both park perfectly in the middle of your space, there is 188mm between the mirrors to walk between.
In my opinion it is too big for the UK. Why should my town be redesigned with fewer but larger spaces just so some people can buy something like this. We need to increase the number of parking spaces in most towns! This criticism applies to many other cars as well, I'm just using the Q7 as an example.
The door card on a Cayenne must be getting on for a foot thick, so even if the door can be opened, can it be opened wide enough for the door card to clear the b pillar? A Q7 is over 5m long so will overhang standard spaces.
A Q7 is 1968mm wide without mirrors. If you park next to another one in a car park and both park perfectly in the middle of your space, there is 432mm between the cars to open your doors.
A Q7 is 2212mm wide with mirrors. If you park next to another one in a car park and both park perfectly in the middle of your space, there is 188mm between the mirrors to walk between.
In my opinion it is too big for the UK. Why should my town be redesigned with fewer but larger spaces just so some people can buy something like this. We need to increase the number of parking spaces in most towns! This criticism applies to many other cars as well, I'm just using the Q7 as an example.
It would be nice to have bigger parking spaces, everyone with a car would benefit, but the fact remains, we are a bit short of space in much of the UK and land is very expensive.
TomScrut said:
My uncle has a Q7 and goes off road with it.
Yep, although in the minority, there are a few that use expensive off-road vehicles for actually going into fields and down impassable country lanes unreachable by conventional cars - although arguably if you wanted something to do that *really* well and with established credentials for doing so in luxury you'd buy a Range Rover not an Audi. It's just a shame that 90% of these "super off roaders" will never go further off-road than the pavement in South Kensington
.TomScrut said:
One thing that has been overlooked about SUVs is the reason my partner has her Kia Sportage (as opposed to an estate car) is that it is far easier to load a child into a car seat in a higher car.
If this was a real reason then 2 years later those same people will be selling their SUV for being too high for their toddler to climb into.Transferring a baby from a pram into a normal height car is much easier than lifting a toddler from the ground into an SUV.
mrnoisy78 said:
Yep, although in the minority, there are a few that use expensive off-road vehicles for actually going into fields and down impassable country lanes unreachable by conventional cars - although arguably if you wanted something to do that *really* well and with established credentials for doing so in luxury you'd buy a Range Rover not an Audi.
It's just a shame that 90% of these "super off roaders" will never go further off-road than the pavement in South Kensington.
He had an RR Sport before and prefers the Audi for day to day. I don't think budget allowed for a big RR!It's just a shame that 90% of these "super off roaders" will never go further off-road than the pavement in South Kensington
.alock said:
If this was a real reason then 2 years later those same people will be selling their SUV for being too high for their toddler to climb into.
Transferring a baby from a pram into a normal height car is much easier than lifting a toddler from the ground into an SUV.
What do you think side steps are for ? Transferring a baby from a pram into a normal height car is much easier than lifting a toddler from the ground into an SUV.
xjay1337 said:
As mentioned I think SUV simply suit the lifestyle and requirements of most of the people who buy 8them.
I think the best selling (or one of the best selling cars) is the Nissan Quashiquieieurihg thing - an SUV, hardly a good brand, but gives you the same stuff.
Generally big loading area, lots of room inside, easy to get in and out of, etc.
Having just suffered a Qashqai as a rental car for the past couple of days, I can tell you categorically that it gives you nothing of "the same stuff" that an SQ7 or a Cayenne (my reference point) will give you... not remotely close to the boot space, the passenger space, the easy of entry/exit (bump on my head from the lower than expected roof line as evidence), the cruising ability, the stability, the luxury, the performance, the traction, the sense of well-being.... to summarise, it has absolutely nothing in common at all with a premium SUV.I think the best selling (or one of the best selling cars) is the Nissan Quashiquieieurihg thing - an SUV, hardly a good brand, but gives you the same stuff.
Generally big loading area, lots of room inside, easy to get in and out of, etc.
Which is exactly why there is a market for SQ7 et al... they offer the (well to do) family man everything in a one box solution.
alock said:
If this was a real reason then 2 years later those same people will be selling their SUV for being too high for their toddler to climb into.
Transferring a baby from a pram into a normal height car is much easier than lifting a toddler from the ground into an SUV.
Well it is a real reason and since said child will be two when the car goes back from its lease it could well be an estate car then. But for those two years it is a legitimate reason for us (and hence why it is the case) and we may change our minds for the next car.Transferring a baby from a pram into a normal height car is much easier than lifting a toddler from the ground into an SUV.
RSK21 said:
What can a SUV do that an awd estate car can't ?
My dear Sir one would look an absolute buffoon taking one's A4 Quattro Avant on a shoot;)
On a less tongue in cheek footing having had a quick look at your posting history ( I know it's terrible isn't it but 'I'm bored waiting for some work to be done on my car) it seems your interaction on PH comprises almost exclusively of posting negative views on vehicles (not just SUVs) reviewed by PH staffers or otherwise featured on the site. This includes on the one hand claiming the only good thing about a Merc GL63 is the engine and then on the other elsewhere deriding the AMG V8 as pointless and wasteful.
Is there anything you enjoy about modern motoring ?
Oh my dear sir you do cherry pick, don't you? You will find most of those, as you put it, negative comments are indeed about... SUVs. But then again why wouldn't they be since I do have a negative opinion about them?My dear Sir one would look an absolute buffoon taking one's A4 Quattro Avant on a shoot;)
On a less tongue in cheek footing having had a quick look at your posting history ( I know it's terrible isn't it but 'I'm bored waiting for some work to be done on my car) it seems your interaction on PH comprises almost exclusively of posting negative views on vehicles (not just SUVs) reviewed by PH staffers or otherwise featured on the site. This includes on the one hand claiming the only good thing about a Merc GL63 is the engine and then on the other elsewhere deriding the AMG V8 as pointless and wasteful.
Is there anything you enjoy about modern motoring ?
'Almost exclusively' you say. Right... ok... sure, whatever you say.
Is there anything about modern motoring I enjoy? Less and less these days as more and more companies are putting emphasis on SUVs and crossovers.
As for the shoot - do you take an SUV or an offroader? A Q7/X5 or a RR/Disco? I know these days everything gets bundled into the SUV bag and offroaders are used as SUVs (ie RR prowling around London) but there's still a capability gap between proper offroaders and SUVs.
You might look a baffon in an A4 (but then again that comes with the territory these days), but you could use Legacy Outback for instance. And with that being tongue-in-cheek - it does go back to the SUV as an image thing point doesn't it?
Also, I do wonder what relation one's posting history has to validity of his/her opinions. Yes, I'm a glass half-empty kind of person. Does that mean my opinions are invalid?
Edited by Bladedancer on Thursday 13th April 07:15
Bladedancer said:
Oh my dear sir you do cherry pick, don't you? You will find most of those, as you put it, negative comments are indeed about... SUVs. But then again why wouldn't they be since I do have a negative opinion about them?
'Almost exclusively' you say. Right... ok... sure, whatever you say.
Is there anything about modern motoring I enjoy? Less and less these days as more and more companies are putting emphasis on SUVs and crossovers.
As for the shoot - do you take an SUV or an offroader? A Q7/X5 or a RR/Disco? I know these days everything gets bundled into the SUV bag and offroaders are used as SUVs (ie RR prowling around London) but there's still a capability gap between proper offroaders and SUVs.
You might look a baffon in an A4 (but then again that comes with the territory these days), but you could use Legacy Outback for instance. And with that being tongue-in-cheek - it does go back to the SUV as an image thing point doesn't it?
Also, I do wonder what relation one's posting history has to validity of his/her opinions. Yes, I'm a glass half-empty kind of person. Does that mean my opinions are invalid?
Hmm'Almost exclusively' you say. Right... ok... sure, whatever you say.
Is there anything about modern motoring I enjoy? Less and less these days as more and more companies are putting emphasis on SUVs and crossovers.
As for the shoot - do you take an SUV or an offroader? A Q7/X5 or a RR/Disco? I know these days everything gets bundled into the SUV bag and offroaders are used as SUVs (ie RR prowling around London) but there's still a capability gap between proper offroaders and SUVs.
You might look a baffon in an A4 (but then again that comes with the territory these days), but you could use Legacy Outback for instance. And with that being tongue-in-cheek - it does go back to the SUV as an image thing point doesn't it?
Also, I do wonder what relation one's posting history has to validity of his/her opinions. Yes, I'm a glass half-empty kind of person. Does that mean my opinions are invalid?
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 13th April 07:15
Almost exclusively - yep I stand by that as the majority of your posts seem to be knocking the style, price, or purpose of a car mentioned
Shoot - a Range Rover and previously Discoveries. Have witnessed several Q7, Touareg and Cayenne previously but admittedly not as frequently. You couldn't achieve the same with a Legacy Outback.
Validity - didn't question this, as stated previously everybody has an opinion. Yours seem predominantly negative about modern motoring and prejudiced against certain segments which you have freely admitted
Bladedancer said:
Oh my dear sir you do cherry pick, don't you? You will find most of those, as you put it, negative comments are indeed about... SUVs. But then again why wouldn't they be since I do have a negative opinion about them?
'Almost exclusively' you say. Right... ok... sure, whatever you say.
Is there anything about modern motoring I enjoy? Less and less these days as more and more companies are putting emphasis on SUVs and crossovers.
As for the shoot - do you take an SUV or an offroader? A Q7/X5 or a RR/Disco? I know these days everything gets bundled into the SUV bag and offroaders are used as SUVs (ie RR prowling around London) but there's still a capability gap between proper offroaders and SUVs.
You might look a baffon in an A4 (but then again that comes with the territory these days), but you could use Legacy Outback for instance. And with that being tongue-in-cheek - it does go back to the SUV as an image thing point doesn't it?
Also, I do wonder what relation one's posting history has to validity of his/her opinions. Yes, I'm a glass half-empty kind of person. Does that mean my opinions are invalid?
My Dad goes shooting and he has had (and used for shooting) Touaregs, MLs, Shoguns and an Outback with no bother. The two former cars I would think you would categorise as an SUV rather than a proper off roader? Given he drives in fields a lot to do with his work as well as shooting I don't think he would have had multiple Touaregs or MLs if they were inadequate in this respect. The aforementioned Uncle uses his Q7 for going shooting, and has had a RR Sport, an XC90, a Touareg, a Discovery and Shoguns. So it would seem for this purpose an "off roader" is completely interchangeable with "an SUV". I use quotation marks as I aren't entirely sure what differentiates the two in your opinion. And from what I can gather (as I do not go myself) the biggest deciding factor as to getting stuck is the person behind the wheel or the tyres on the wheels rather than the badge on the bonnet.'Almost exclusively' you say. Right... ok... sure, whatever you say.
Is there anything about modern motoring I enjoy? Less and less these days as more and more companies are putting emphasis on SUVs and crossovers.
As for the shoot - do you take an SUV or an offroader? A Q7/X5 or a RR/Disco? I know these days everything gets bundled into the SUV bag and offroaders are used as SUVs (ie RR prowling around London) but there's still a capability gap between proper offroaders and SUVs.
You might look a baffon in an A4 (but then again that comes with the territory these days), but you could use Legacy Outback for instance. And with that being tongue-in-cheek - it does go back to the SUV as an image thing point doesn't it?
Also, I do wonder what relation one's posting history has to validity of his/her opinions. Yes, I'm a glass half-empty kind of person. Does that mean my opinions are invalid?
Edited by Bladedancer on Thursday 13th April 07:15
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure a lot of people who have SUVs could make do with a normal car, but some people do have legitimate reasons for having them. On the other hand I would also call one having one because one likes the car as a legitimate reason. There are plenty of things people buy that I cannot understand why but when all is said and done its their money and none of my business why they want said items.
TomScrut said:
On the other hand I would also call one having one because one likes the car as a legitimate reason. There are plenty of things people buy that I cannot understand why but when all is said and done its their money and none of my business why they want said items.
This 100%There exists though a vocal faction on PH who simply can't accept this and feel the need on the vast majority of SUV themed threads to inform people why such cars should not be purchased.
RSK21 said:
TomScrut said:
On the other hand I would also call one having one because one likes the car as a legitimate reason. There are plenty of things people buy that I cannot understand why but when all is said and done its their money and none of my business why they want said items.
This 100%There exists though a vocal faction on PH who simply can't accept this and feel the need on the vast majority of SUV themed threads to inform people why such cars should not be purchased.
I for one can't fathom why people seem to take time out of their day to 'pick' on a car and those that buy/dirve them. Indeed, it's obviously ok to have an opinion on something, preferably, if you've got first hand experience of the car you've chosen to slate. All else other than personal preference for looks are all but pointless imho.
What car/suv etc people pay for, choose to buy (by whatever means) is sod all to do with me and neither do I take 'offence' at anyone for their choice. Life's too short!
Great that there's the choice out there for those that can and want to. The decisions folk make are personal, specific to them and bog all to do with people who choose to very generically stereotype and slate others for their choice.
If I could afford it, I'd have one of these for the novelty value it has to ME.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff