RE: Audi Q7 V12 TDI: PH Heroes

[anonymous-user]

PhilboSE said:

Do you actually believe this stuff when you write it? It says more about you then any choice of vehicle could say about other people.

My Q7 is towing my track car to Brands Hatch next Monday. Shall I take some photos for you, or would your head explode when your prejudices are challenged?

It's a little tongue in cheek of course but as a generalization, the vast majority of these you see on the road seem to fit perfectly the stereotypes I've outlined. The fact you do actually tow things with yours, rather than use it as a leather clad c*ck extension puts you in a very small minority IMO.

[PhilboSE]

Andy20vt said:

PhilboSE said:

Do you actually believe this stuff when you write it? It says more about you then any choice of vehicle could say about other people.

My Q7 is towing my track car to Brands Hatch next Monday. Shall I take some photos for you, or would your head explode when your prejudices are challenged?

It's a little tongue in cheek of course but as a generalization, the vast majority of these you see on the road seem to fit perfectly the stereotypes I've outlined. The fact you do actually tow things with yours, rather than use it as a leather clad c*ck extension puts you in a very small minority IMO.

How have you gained this insight that the "vast majority" of owners fit the stereotype you've described? On what evidence is it based?

[anonymous-user]

Brilliant car, totally bonkers and rare as hens teeth.

The irony of 'Big Rob from Sydney ' slating people who drive overweight and thirsty vehicles shaped like bricks when he himself drives a Lexus

I don't care what people want to drive, if it suits their requirements who am I to question their reasoning?

[anonymous-user]

PhilboSE said:

How have you gained this insight that the "vast majority" of owners fit the stereotype you've described? On what evidence is it based?

He does like to generalise about 4x4 drivers

[anonymous-user]

PhilboSE said:

How have you gained this insight that the "vast majority" of owners fit the stereotype you've described? On what evidence is it based?

Having been unfortunate enough to have met and seen lots of these people. Sure there's some not very pleasant folk driving all sorts of vehicles, it just seems that the 'self important' 'vain' and 'outta my way bullying' types seem to naturally gravitate toward these sort of status symbol vehicles.

For the rest of us, having an unnecessary 3 tonne status symbol, driven by an aggressive cretin, or a clueless 'on the phone' school mum (not sure which is worse) is far less safe for myself or my children than the same cretin or school mum driving a more normal sized vehicle of 1-1.5 tonnes.

It's not just my observation either. By far the biggest problem group of drivers (i.e. inconsiderate, angry and aggressive) we come into conflict with on a regular basis in my cycling club are these sorts of folk in their SUV's. It's a well discussed topic.

Now I'm not saying you fall into this category at all, it's just a shame that an awful lot do - much more than other categories of vehicle.

[The Beaver King]

Andy20vt said:

PhilboSE said:

How have you gained this insight that the "vast majority" of owners fit the stereotype you've described? On what evidence is it based?

Having been unfortunate enough to have met and seen lots of these people. Sure there's some not very pleasant folk driving all sorts of vehicles, it just seems that the 'self important' 'vain' and 'outta my way bullying' types seem to naturally gravitate toward these sort of status symbol vehicles.

For the rest of us, having an unnecessary 3 tonne status symbol, driven by an aggressive cretin, or a clueless 'on the phone' school mum (not sure which is worse) is far less safe for myself or my children than the same cretin or school mum driving a more normal sized vehicle of 1-1.5 tonnes.

It's not just my observation either. By far the biggest problem group of drivers (i.e. inconsiderate, angry and aggressive) we come into conflict with on a regular basis in my cycling club are these sorts of folk in their SUV's. It's a well discussed topic.

Now I'm not saying you fall into this category at all, it's just a shame that an awful lot do - much more than other categories of vehicle.

Car owners generally fit into two categories (or have multiple cars to fill each):

1. It does the job, practical, A to B types i.e. It does what I need

2. It looks/sounds cool, it's expensive/luxurious, it makes me feel good i.e. It adds something to me


There isn't anything complicated about it and I don't think there should be stigma around it either. I have two cars and a motorbike; none of them fit into the first category. They're all based on my wants, rather than my needs.

My dad has 4 cars and a motorbike; two of them are based on needs (one is an old diesel X5 for towing) and the rest are purely for fun/desire.

I don't really understand what anyone is arguing about. The Q7 V12 diesel is a vanity project, pure and simple. It goes far above and beyond any possible needs; in fact the Q7 itself is always going to be a 'want' rather than a 'need'. And that is fine; buy whatever the hell you want. It's your life

[Herbs]

Wow there is some bks spouted on this thread.

It better aerodynamically than a FFRR but they are loved.

It has less "want and imagine" than a FFRR but they are loved.

I also want to thank you as I never understood you could categorise people purely by what they drive rather than speaking to them and getting to know them.

I also see the main culprit is a lycra wearing cycle wker so at least I now know never to drink or engage with anyone who rides a bike

[PhilboSE]

Andy20vt said:

PhilboSE said:

How have you gained this insight that the "vast majority" of owners fit the stereotype you've described? On what evidence is it based?

Having been unfortunate enough to have met and seen lots of these people. Sure there's some not very pleasant folk driving all sorts of vehicles, it just seems that the 'self important' 'vain' and 'outta my way bullying' types seem to naturally gravitate toward these sort of status symbol vehicles.

For the rest of us, having an unnecessary 3 tonne status symbol, driven by an aggressive cretin, or a clueless 'on the phone' school mum (not sure which is worse) is far less safe for myself or my children than the same cretin or school mum driving a more normal sized vehicle of 1-1.5 tonnes.

It's not just my observation either. By far the biggest problem group of drivers (i.e. inconsiderate, angry and aggressive) we come into conflict with on a regular basis in my cycling club are these sorts of folk in their SUV's. It's a well discussed topic.

Now I'm not saying you fall into this category at all, it's just a shame that an awful lot do - much more than other categories of vehicle.

All I see in what you've written there is a lot of positive enforcement of prejudices, absolutely no evidence that the "vast majority" fit your stereotype. I'll swap you your experience for mine. I know about 5 other people with Q7s. All are parents at my kids school; with 1000 children at the school it's not a surprise that a few have larger vehicles. There's the usual spread of driving competency amongst them, but there's absolutely no difference between that group of people and all the other parents at the school. The one thing they have in common is 3+ children, and when you're doing lift sharing/playdates, seats 6&7 come in very useful. My experience is that the "vast majority" are all perfectly normal people (which is not, of itself, at all surprising). Not one fits the sobriquet that you attach to them.

Let's look at the language you've used above about these cars and their drivers: "self important", "vain", "status symbol", "unnecessary", "aggressive cretin", "inconsiderate". Your compulsion to qualify every statement with some invective suggests a lack of balance in your viewpoint - in fact it appears to be bordering on extremism. I also don't buy into this "heavy vehicles place me and my family at risk" argument either. There are more lorries and HGVs on the road than there are Q7s, how do you feel about sharing the road with them? BTW - the version of the Q7 that makes up 99% of the sales (the 3.0tdi) is 2060kg according to Google. Quite some way off the 3 tonnes that you and little Rod bandy about.

Do you think it is at least possible that your prejudices against these vehicles means that it doesn't register when you see them driven normally and with consideration (which will be the greatest majority of the time), but if you have a bad experience then it immediately reinforces your prejudice?

I just think it's extremely unlikely that anyone would buy a Q7 as a status symbol, or that SUVs would attract, in the main, any demographic other than families. Surely on those grounds then supercars would be more deserving of your invective?

[anonymous-user]

PhilboSE said:

My experience is that the "vast majority" are all perfectly normal people (which is not, of itself, at all surprising). Not one fits the sobriquet that you attach to them.

Haha funny how SUV drivers see other SUV drivers as perfectly normal. In the same way that fox hunters would observe other fox hunters as taking part in a perfectly normal and well meaning sport.

PhilboSE said:

I also don't buy into this "heavy vehicles place me and my family at risk" argument either. There are more lorries and HGVs on the road than there are Q7s, how do you feel about sharing the road with them?

Lorries deliver necessary goods and services. SUV's (unless you're a farmer) are an unnecessary status symbol.

[BIRMA]

Herbs said:

Wow there is some bks spouted on this thread.

It better aerodynamically than a FFRR but they are loved.

It has less "want and imagine" than a FFRR but they are loved.

I also want to thank you as I never understood you could categorise people purely by what they drive rather than speaking to them and getting to know them.

I also see the main culprit is a lycra wearing cycle wker so at least I now know never to drink or engage with anyone who rides a bike

I agree, at times I was lost for words or at least polite ones. It felt like being back in the school playground and the biggest bully spouted the most.

[PhilboSE]

Andy20vt said:

SUV's (unless you're a farmer) are an unnecessary status symbol.

I would like a car with 7 seats, because we are a family of 5 who frequently give lifts to others.
I would like a car with 4WD, because we drive to ski resorts in Europe once or twice a year.
I would like a car that can tow 2500kg minimum.

What do you suggest I buy?

Actually, on second thoughts, don't; you seem touchy and possibly a bit stabby. I think ah'm oot.

[big_rob_sydney]

PhilboSE said:

Andy20vt said:

SUV's (unless you're a farmer) are an unnecessary status symbol.

I would like a car with 7 seats, because we are a family of 5 who frequently give lifts to others.
I would like a car with 4WD, because we drive to ski resorts in Europe once or twice a year.
I would like a car that can tow 2500kg minimum.

What do you suggest I buy?

Actually, on second thoughts, don't; you seem touchy and possibly a bit stabby. I think ah'm oot.

You know, the points you've raised here, have already been addressed.

I will even reiterate them for you (just to prevent you from lying again and saying they haven't been). This kind of car appeals to those who may not have sufficient land and are therefore "stuck" with just the one parking space.

I would understand that to an extent (as I mentioned, if you had a specific need to tow a heavy load), but then if someone is paying the better part of £150k, then there really is no excuse, because they could presumably afford a property with multiple parking spaces.

So, frankly, I do not buy the argument that this is a "one car fits all" proposition. Certainly not at £150k.

There have been numerous threads on PH about what to buy with less money - see the many £100k threads we used to see, and I'm sure you will find a great many possibilities. But do us a favour, and dont suggest that this overweight, inefficient vehicle is the ONLY solution for every buyer, including the "soccer mums".

Because that's plainly bullst that even a liar like you can recognise.

[Willy Nilly]

On the towing front, I believe a new DAF XF with the big cab and 510 hp engine which will have a proper amount of torque at a respectable number of revs, rather than ringing the neck of a little 6 litre engine, can be had for about £100,000, which would leave a further £50,00 for a rather nice car. Just to put the price, HP and towing capabilities (such as they are) into perspective.

[anonymous-user]

Who cares about towing capacity - despite a certain poster on here claiming the opposite, it its a very rare sight to see a towbar fitted to a Q7!

[GM182]

WCZ said:

really? a 1997 citeron saxo vts has a 24% higher bhp/tonne
the audi tdi's ...not very good... huge lumps of torque...

Fair point re the power to weight but Q7 wins on torque to weight by 40% by my reckoning - 189lb/ft per tonne vs. 114 lb/ft per tonne.



horses for courses...

[gigglebug]

big_rob_sydney said:

PhilboSE said:

Andy20vt said:

SUV's (unless you're a farmer) are an unnecessary status symbol.

I would like a car with 7 seats, because we are a family of 5 who frequently give lifts to others.
I would like a car with 4WD, because we drive to ski resorts in Europe once or twice a year.
I would like a car that can tow 2500kg minimum.

What do you suggest I buy?

Actually, on second thoughts, don't; you seem touchy and possibly a bit stabby. I think ah'm oot.

You know, the points you've raised here, have already been addressed.

I will even reiterate them for you (just to prevent you from lying again and saying they haven't been). This kind of car appeals to those who may not have sufficient land and are therefore "stuck" with just the one parking space.

I would understand that to an extent (as I mentioned, if you had a specific need to tow a heavy load), but then if someone is paying the better part of £150k, then there really is no excuse, because they could presumably afford a property with multiple parking spaces.

So, frankly, I do not buy the argument that this is a "one car fits all" proposition. Certainly not at £150k.

There have been numerous threads on PH about what to buy with less money - see the many £100k threads we used to see, and I'm sure you will find a great many possibilities. But do us a favour, and dont suggest that this overweight, inefficient vehicle is the ONLY solution for every buyer, including the "soccer mums".

Because that's plainly bullst that even a liar like you can recognise.

Can you point out exactly where in the thread that Phil suggests that the Q7 is the only solution for every, or indeed any buyer as I just can't see it? The "one car fits all" argument that you are so keen to rebut hasn't actually been put forward by Phil who has merely given the reasons for why he chose one himself. He hasn't even suggested any of the other 5 folks that he knows have Q7's use them as a one stop solution. In fact the only person to have suggested the argument your whole post is answering is yourself and if you'd bothered to do your homework you would have looked up Phil's garage and noted that his Q7 is one of many cars that he possesses and has a distinct use within that garage. He has even been kind enough to outline what he uses each car for.

I really cannot begin to understand what type of person would accuse someone else of being a liar purely based on deciding to address a point of view that no-one other than themselves has put forward in a manner suggesting that someone else put it there in the first place.

[PhilboSE]

big_rob_sydney said:

You know, the points you've raised here, have already been addressed.

I will even reiterate them for you (just to prevent you from lying again and saying they haven't been). This kind of car appeals to those who may not have sufficient land and are therefore "stuck" with just the one parking space.

I would understand that to an extent (as I mentioned, if you had a specific need to tow a heavy load), but then if someone is paying the better part of £150k, then there really is no excuse, because they could presumably afford a property with multiple parking spaces.

So, frankly, I do not buy the argument that this is a "one car fits all" proposition. Certainly not at £150k.

There have been numerous threads on PH about what to buy with less money - see the many £100k threads we used to see, and I'm sure you will find a great many possibilities.

Gigglebug has already pointed out some of the many obvious problems with your post. But I'll pick up the baton and run with it.

The £100k thread is about people looking for a blend of different cars with different purposes within a set budget. The requirements I outlined above have significant overlaps. Your argument (if we can stretch the limits of the English language and call it that) seems to be that I shouldn't buy a single car for these stated purposes, but different Okay:

7 seats; if we rule out SUVs then it looks like an MPV is main option. Not many of those made now, so let's say a Ford S-Max. 1850kg.
4WD; This will be used for family skiing holidays, so we need the space. So an estate then. Say a Volvo V90 estate. 2011kg.
Towing; Defenders are good for those. The smallest Defender 90 is 1750kg so one of those. Not much fun on the motorway going to track, but hey.

So Little Rod's logic says I should buy 3 cars all a very similar size and weight. Or I could just buy a single SUV, say a Q7 3.0tdi at 2060kg, that does the job. Other SUVs are available; YMMV, etc.

big_rob_sydney said:

But do us a favour, and dont suggest that this overweight, inefficient vehicle is the ONLY solution for every buyer, including the "soccer mums".

Because that's plainly bullst that even a liar like you can recognise.

Feel free to point out where I said that - I never have. I've just been providing counterexamples to disprove the vapid sweeping generalisations that YOU are making.

And using language such as calling me a liar - I think you've established your intellectual level. Please quote the lie I have made, or feel free to retract.

You really are the paragon of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[PhilboSE]

Andy20vt said:

Who cares about towing capacity - despite a certain poster on here claiming the opposite, it its a very rare sight to see a towbar fitted to a Q7!

Er, someone who needs to tow things cares about towing capacity. I doubt anyone else does.

You are aware that the Q7 has always had a retractable towbar that is invisible when not in use, aren't you?

Honestly, it's like shooting fish in a barrel with you two.

[Herbs]

big_rob_sydney said:

I would understand that to an extent (as I mentioned, if you had a specific need to tow a heavy load), but then if someone is paying the better part of £150k, then there really is no excuse, because they could presumably afford a property with multiple parking spaces.

So, frankly, I do not buy the argument that this is a "one car fits all" proposition. Certainly not at £150k.

Because that's plainly bullst that even a liar like you can recognise.

You do realise that the normal engined Q7 is far cheaper than £150,000 don't you?

Car manufacturers should be applauded for offering a bonkers engine in any car - they, and we know its going to make up a tiny fraction of sales.

Why should:

VW put a 6.0L W12 in a motorway muncher (phaeton)
VW put a 5.0L V10 in a toureg
BMW 6.0L in a 7 Series
Mercedes etc etc etc

Mine cost me £14k by the way to sit next to my Aston Martin Roadster so what one magical car should I have bought instead?

[anonymous-user]

The guy is a troll, it's ok for him to drive a thirsty 4 door brick, but not ok for anybody else to drive a thirsty 4x4.