By on June 15, 2017

2017 Audi Q7 blue front quarter

I was incredulous. My eyes must have been deceiving me. The number at the top of the page surely did not belong with the number at the bottom of the page. I rubbed my eyes, took another swig of the awful office coffee, and looked again at the window sticker that arrived in my inbox.

The price was indeed right. Audi would be delivering a $58,725 Q7 to my door the next day.

However, the 2.0T nomenclature at the top of the page was a shock. A three-row luxury SUV from a premier German manufacturer with a four-cylinder engine under the hood? Inconceivable. Can the two-liter turbo really move this big SUV with Teutonic aplomb?

2017 Audi Q7 blue rear quarter

After all, this Q7 has a listed curb weight of 4,696 pounds. Once you add some critical options — such as, perhaps, a driver — this four-cylinder powered behemoth clocks the scales very close to two and a half tons. Choosing the four over the six is like ordering a 1965 Mustang with the 170 cubic inch straight-six: performance sucks and future generations will laugh at you uncontrollably.

2017 Audi Q7 blue profile

The styling of the Q7 is certainly innocuous – heck, it’s quite anonymous. The chrome-rimmed corporate hexagonal grille is the only distinctive feature on the entire exterior. Everything else makes me consider what the first-generation Ford Taurus wagon would look like as a stretched SUV with better panel gaps. I do appreciate the relatively low beltline, as the Q7 has better outward visibility than I’d expect. But otherwise, it’s simply bland.

2017 Audi Q7 blue front

I’m sure some of that boils down to the wheels and the deep blue paint. The 19-inch wheels on my tester looked entirely too small for the big wheel wells, and the dark paint dulled the character lines that try to break up the Q7’s slabbed sides.

2017 Audi Q7 blue rear

I’ll hand it to Audi: it has somehow made interiors an art form. Allowing for the fact that I don’t spend much time in bespoke luxury cars that cost more than my home, I’ve never seen a better-designed car interior than those found on recent Audi models — and the Q7 is no exception. The material quality is superb, the leather is supple, and the plastics all seem to be both soft and resistant to scratches.

2017 Audi Q7 front seats

I briefly considered risking my career to appropriate the driver’s seat to fashion a new desk chair for my office. The brown leather on this tester is stunning.

2017 Audi Q7 second row

The 12.3-inch display in the driver’s instrument binnacle is brilliant. I love the option to overlay Google Maps satellite imagery on the navigation — both on the center screen and immediately in front of the driver, the person who needs it the most. I loved the option to keep the nav strictly in front of me. It silenced the youthful back-seat drivers who would typically try to correct me when I choose other routes than those provided by GPS.

2017 Audi Q7 instrument panel

I don’t love the pop-up navigation/media screen because I’d prefer a touchscreen over the console-mounted touchpad. I’ll concede this touchpad is among the best I’ve used, but I spend enough time driving a keyboard and mouse that I’d rather simply use my finger to directly tell the car what to do. Still, the screen does otherwise allow for a lower dashboard, helping make the interior feel larger. The nifty trick of the faux vents continuing across the passenger side of the dash is another attractive design choice.

2017 Audi Q7 dash

Two notes from my frequent front-seat passenger: the polished rim around the interior rear-view mirror is reflective, causing glare to reach her eyes at times. I never noticed it, but I could envision a time when a too-reflective mirror is distracting to a driver.

2017 Audi Q7 center stack

Secondly, she disliked the tiny strip of LED lights across the dashboard. Again, I wasn’t distracted — heck, I barely noticed the light — but she’s afflicted with vertigo at times, and that faint light across her field of vision affected her perception of the horizon as we bounded over some rough railroad tracks, making her a bit nauseous. It’s not something that will concern many, but something to consider on a test drive.

2017 Audi Q7 third row upright

The squat transmission lever is a little funky. Similar to the disgraced “Monostable” shifter found on FCA products, it’s not completely awful, but it’s not immediately intuitive to select park. For those times I needed additional acceleration – which is quite often in the four-cylinder Q7 – slapping the big E.T.-headed lever to the left to manually select gears feels very odd. Yes, I know there are steering-wheel-adjacent paddles, but sometimes I forget they’re there and muscle memory of a couple of decades of driving has trained me to extend my right hand for additional gears.

Audi quotes 252 horsepower and 272 lb-ft. of torque for this 2.0-liter turbo four. It also quotes 7.1 seconds to 60 mph. I didn’t break out the stopwatch, nor do I have access to a dyno, but I’m not convinced. Once the car is up to freeway speeds, acceleration is adequate for passing, but getting a couple of tons (especially when loaded with a family of Tonns) moving from a stop is another matter. A ratty Corolla beat me off the line when I was trying to sneak ahead where two lanes reduced to one.

For those who think the four-cylinder has to get better fuel economy than the big six, think again. The EPA rates the Q7 2.0T at 20 mpg city, 25 mpg highway, and 22 mpg combined. The 3.0 V6? 19 mpg city, 25 mpg highway, 21 mpg combined. I observed 19.8 mpg in mixed driving conditions — often with the pedal matted.

The Q7 does handle quite well. Other than a little cowl shake over those railroad tracks, it’s quiet and solid in most driving situations. The kids were comfortable with decent legroom in the second row. When my eight-year-old tried the third row, however, she complained loudly as she wasn’t able to move her legs at all.

The typical rattle of a direct-injected four-cylinder has no place in an otherwise-premium SUV, either. It’s not noticeable within the closed cabin, though a bit of a roar came through as I explored the top end of the tach. As I idled with a window down or stepped away with the engine running to shoot photographs, the diesel-like clatter was everpresent.

The Q7 2.0T is not a bad vehicle. Indeed, it’s well built, handles beautifully, and rides well. For those who buy an SUV for bragging rights at soccer practice, careful application of dental floss and adhesive remover can easily remove that 2.0T badge from the tailgate, saving you six thousand dollars over the V6-powered car. But considering where it’s price sits in the market, the four-cylinder is woefully underpowered. If I needed a three-row SUV, I’d strongly consider looking across the dealer lot at the VW side, where a roomier, loaded Atlas sits for ten grand less — powered by a V6.

2017 Audi Q7 blue

[Images: © 2017 Chris Tonn]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

83 Comments on “2017 Audi Q7 2.0T Review – Two Point Dough...”


  • avatar
    derekson

    “The nifty trick of the faux vents continuing across the passenger side of the dash is another attractive design choice.”

    Fairly certain that is a real vent.

    • 0 avatar
      deanst

      There doesn’t seem to be any controls for the “vents” in front of the passenger, so I hope they are fake.

      • 0 avatar
        derekson

        Audi calls it the “panoramic air diffuser” if you look at the Q7 brochure (I just looked it up). I believe it’s basically a form of indirect vent so you get airflow without feeling a strong blowing in your face if you don’t want it.

        “Wing-design wrap-around dashboard with panoramic air vent strip and available four-zone climate control with diffuser vent”

        https://www.audiusa.com/newsroom/news/press-releases/2015/11/audi-of-america-announces-pricing-for-2017-Q7

    • 0 avatar
      Middle-Aged Miata Man

      Functional or not, that “nifty trick” didn’t work on the last-gen Malibu, and it really doesn’t look any more attractive or upscale here…

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      F*CK TURBO CHARGED 4 BANGERS IN ANYTHING OTHER THAN DISPOSABLE COMPACTS OF THE MITSUBISHI VARIETY.

      “But, but, heavy duty trucks go 300,000-500,000 miles with turbocharged diesel engines!”

      F*ck that bullsh!t comparison.

      heavy duty turbodiesel trucks have engine blocks, valves, rods, pistons and everything else that are bout 5x – 10x more durable, along with 3-6 oil coolers, appropriately sized coolant systems, etc., unlike these 1.4 liter to 2.3 liter turbocharged, literally made of tinsel and plastic, weak-sauce coolant system, lack of proper oil cooling, built-to-price-point-and-planned-obsolescence piece of sh!t !!!

  • avatar
    Chocolatedeath

    Unfortunately a cylinder is probably going to keep me from buying another CX9. I have never really owned a really strong motor in a car and want to before I get to old. I have driven several V8 and strong v6 cars in my life but never owned one. You can laugh but a K900 is looking real good right now. Not for 0-60 but for the sound and slight push in the back.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      Two thumbs up, good luck to you in your quest.

      • 0 avatar
        NormSV650

        K900 can be had for $22,200 off MSRP in IN, for a new 2015. 2016 K900 are almost $15,000 or enough to put Manheim out of business.

        The Explorer at 4,500 lbs can get away with a 2.0T, so can the Q7. Though it songs like they are cooking the books at the EPA to offer it.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          About 50% of your sentences don’t seem to make sense.

          • 0 avatar
            Lorenzo

            It all makes sense, except for “songs” (sounds?). You might as well get used to re-reading stuff like this to get the gist of it: the 140 character limit is changing the language.

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            28CL, just concern yourself with my numbers as that is what people are paying for cars today.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            “2016 K900 are almost $15,000 or enough to put Manheim out of business.”

            What does this mean then? How is a wholesale auction corporation going out of business because of incentives?

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            No need to sell or trade your K900 if it 25-35% off MSRP.

            2.0t to 2.3t for the 2016 Explorer. Gains 30 hp/trq for the bigger engine. Ford of Ecoboost!

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          The Explorer 2.0T was so awesome that it got near universal bad reviews from the automotive media, was only bought by like 5% of customers, and Ford doesn’t make it anymore.

        • 0 avatar
          legacygt

          The Explorer used to have a 2.0T and it was awful. Couldn’t get out of it’s own way and real world efficiency was dreadful. The Explorer now has a 2.3T and is a little bit better.

    • 0 avatar
      Fred

      …and another person ignores the Chevy SS

  • avatar
    stingray65

    Wasn’t there a recent review of the X5 with the 3 liter turbo 6, which did 0-60 in 6 seconds and was considered a bit under-powered? If that is the case, then this one must seem positively glacial and it doesn’t even save the oceans from rising since it gets virtually the same MPG as the bigger engine Q7.

    • 0 avatar
      brawnychicken333

      I don’t know about a review, but I have an X5 with the 3.0 and it is not underpowered at all for any lead footed driver.

      The Q7 with the 2.0 is ridiculous. If you can’t afford the 6, you can’t afford the vehicle.

  • avatar
    JimC2

    “The 19-inch wheels on my tester looked entirely too small”

    Argh. Read that out loud a few times. We need to start one of those hashtag campaigns for a return to reasonable wheel sizes.

    • 0 avatar
      heliotropic

      Seriously. I think these wheels look perfectly sized for this vehicle. No large void between the brakes and the barrel of the wheel, and big meaty tires that look like they can survive lousy roads while giving better ride quality.

    • 0 avatar
      whitworth

      Agreed, this was like nails on a chalkboard to me as well.

      19″ wheels are flipping huge, if it was up to me, nothing would exceed 17″. The tire fills the wheel well just fine.

      With bigger rims, you get worse fuel economy, acceleration, ride quality, cabin noise, expensive tires etc all for that “bling” look.

      No thanks

    • 0 avatar
      newenthusiast

      I agree that saying 19″ wheels looks to small is ridiculous. I have the 19″ wheels that came standard with my Q7. Tires are 265/50r/19. I actually think they look fine, but prefer meatier tires.

      I have been trying for a while now to either find a tire with more sidewall that fits my wheels, or a nice set of the OEM 18″ wheels that came with the base spec 3.6 version of my Q7 at that time. Either way, I want to fill the gap with more tire, not more wheel. But the people at my local Audi shop and aftermarket shops seem to be either reluctant to help me with what they consider a downgrade, or I have to accept that there really is nothing out there that meets my criteria and lug bolt pattern that is as conservative looking as I would like. One shop gave me a quote on lowering the vehicle to ‘eliminate the gap’. They kid was earnest and was trying to help, but that is not the same as adding tire sidewall. It would actually make the ride stiffer and potentially increase cabin noise, the opposite of what I am trying to accomplish. Plus, it would look stupid.

      The 19″ wheels I have are about as large as I would go….but the other Q5’s and Q7’s I see around here seem to have even larger wheels….there’s an otherwise pristine red first gen Q7 I see occasionally that must have 24″ wheels I think? Looks almost donked out. Makes me sad.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      Forget it. History repeats itself, and we’re going back to Model-T (and Conestoga wagon) wheel sizes. Government is doing such a poor job of maintaining roads, that we’ll be better off running 25-inch artillery type wheels and skinny tires on the wrecked roads we already have in some areas, but we’ll have everywhere eventually.

      It’s hard to believe now that when Semon “Bunkie” Knudsen took over Pontiac in 1956, he had the 1957 models reduce wheel size from 15-inch to 14-inch. That was the “longer, lower, wider” era of car design, and full size GM cars, Chryslers, and Fords in the late ’50s and early ’60s ran on 14-inch wheels.

      • 0 avatar
        newenthusiast

        Well, the less than stellar roads are WHY I want more sidewall….a little more cushion against potholes and half-assed patched roads, especially at highway speeds.

        Less rubber makes no sense in that scenario.

  • avatar
    redapple

    High revving, heavy breathing, shaking POS 4 bangers in a $60,000 car?
    Jeez.
    Caddy, MB and now Audi.
    Better get that V-8 Mustang now.
    I see what’s coming.

  • avatar
    seth1065

    6K to move up to a ^ cyl is a but much Audi, I see these things all of metro NY and most of the ones I see have the 2.0, maybe a lease special. I would get a MDX instead if I was in the market for this type of vehicle , thank the lord I am not.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    People wonder why the Acura MDX sells…loaded up all the way, it’s the same money, and you get a six.

    • 0 avatar
      Car Ramrod

      Exactly. Not to mention if you can’t afford the six on the Audi you definitely don’t want to know what these will cost to own after warranty.

    • 0 avatar
      onyxtape

      Loaded up all the way, sometimes one can be had for just a tad under $50k.

      Take out the ridiculously high-end options (drop-down DVD screen bar) and an above-average-equipped one can be had sometimes for under $45k.

      And any of these come with a ~300hp J35 six.

  • avatar
    87 Morgan

    Egads that’s that a lot of weight for a 4 mil. Also, would love for someone to help me understand why a 6 cylinder engine is a 6k option. Does it really cost that much more to had two more? Granted you are going to a v6 vs an inline 4 but it seems like a lot.

    • 0 avatar
      jmo

      Engineering question: If an engine produces a maximum of 250lb/ft of torque at the wheels then if the vehicle weighs 4000lbs or 8000lbs the force through the drive-train is still only 250lb/ft, right?

      The B&B need to walk me through where they see the differing stresses of a 250bhp 4cyl and a 250bhp 6cyl not accounted for by the engineers.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        Yes 250 lb/ft is 250 lb/ft whether generated by 4 or 6 cylinders of a bunch of hamsters in a really big hamster wheel and it doesn’t matter how much weight you are trying to move, 250 is still 250.

    • 0 avatar
      brawnychicken333

      I would guess the 6 has a bunch of other options in addition the engine.

    • 0 avatar
      derekson

      I imagine a lot of the cost difference is due to economies of scale. If you look at worldwide sales, Audi isn’t selling nearly as many V6 vehicles as they sell vehicles with variants of the 2.0L I4. Then add in parts commonality with the lower spec versions of the I4 in VW, Skoda, SEAT, and you’ve got a whole other level of scale for at least some fraction of the parts.

    • 0 avatar
      bikegoesbaa

      6 cylinders cost more to build because having two banks of cylinders mean twice as many heads, exhaust manifolds, cams, etc vs an inline motor.

      It’s also less expensive to machine inline cylinders with 1 precision head mounting surface than two banks of cylinders and 2 head mounting surfaces.

      It’s reasonable to expect a V engine to cost more to make than an inline motor.

      But manufacturing cost doesn’t really have anything to do with cost to the consumer.

      The real reason a 6 is a big upcharge is that there are lots of people in the “the only thing that matters is cylinder count” mindset who are willing to pay a bunch more to tell themselves and others that they have a 6. Even if they are not able to articulate a convincing case for why that is desirable.

      • 0 avatar
        redapple

        Not so fast.
        You forgot about the expensive turbo and intercooler.
        Turbo 4 are not cheaper than a naturally aspirated v-6

        • 0 avatar
          DearS

          I have not driven a heavy 4 cylinder vehicle, but my Pilot has not had an issue with V6 power. Not sure how consistent the 4 cylinders are with Turbos, but I know in the Fusion the turbo is slow to respond sometimes.

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            DearS, go drive a 2017 Escape SE 1.5t with AWD. Just doddling along the neighborhood streets the throttle tip in is very responsive requiring little movement and the transmission calibration well sorted. I can’t say much else good about the cuv as it is pretty rough. But considering you could probably get this version for under $17K it is quite the deal.

      • 0 avatar
        JimC2

        Funny thing about cylinder count is there are plenty of car buyers who don’t know how many cylinders are under their hood. I know that this very notion offends our gearhead sensibilities here in the hooniverse but the reality is those people are a decent sized block *and* they have spend money on new cars!

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          The normies may not care about cylinder count or engine configuration, but they can still tell if vehicle A is noticeably slower / less responsive than vehicle B or if vehicle C sounds like a Cuisinart grinding gravel.

          • 0 avatar
            Maymar

            The normies think the CLA250 is a luxury car.

            Also what magical heavens do you all live in where people drive assertively? Around here, my aggressively driven hamster mill subcompact (0-60 in 9.5 or so) is still usually one of the quicker things on the road.

          • 0 avatar
            legacygt

            Exactly. And if put in a blind test among the mainstream compact class, the CLA would probably come in somewhere below the Civic and Mazda3. Many would probably find the rind harsh and prefer a Focus.

    • 0 avatar
      87 Morgan

      I guess what I eluding to, perhaps not very well if at all, was the fact that in my experience (2002 WRX Wagon) the turbo four made the peak HP a lot higher up the RPM dial vs the V8’s and now V6 that I have grown accustomed to. I did not keep the Subie very long for reliability reasons but it took quite awhile to get used to the turbo lag which was much more pronounced in the gas than the TDI VW I had previous to the WRX.

      My thinking would be that to get this thing to get out of its own way you are going to have to mat it everywhere you go negating any mpg advantage over the 6.

      which is why i asked the question regarding the expense of the 6 vs the 4. Seems like the 6 should be standard.

      • 0 avatar
        bikegoesbaa

        A stock 2002 WRX makes maximum power around 5.5k RPM and max torque at around 3k RPM. That’s not very high revving.

        What V8s and V6s are you used to that peak out appreciably lower than that? Are they Diesels?

        Regardless, the turbo in something like a WRX is sized/optimized with an eye towards power output. They can also be sized for broad drivability at the expense of power, which is likely what Audi is doing for their SUVs.

  • avatar
    Compaq Deskpro

    I’ve started this article over several times, and I keep losing it and getting distracted. This thing is today’s version of an 80’s Buick Century wagon with the Iron Duke(don’t quote me). Smallish, underpowered, sort of luxurious, has a middling amount of utility, and is boring as all hell. This thing doesn’t have a single feature that makes me care about it in the slightest.

    • 0 avatar
      baconator

      So true. Or maybe the Electra 225 wagon is the right analogy given the cost. It’s for people with kids and grandkids who want the fancy badge and interior. I don’t think a 7.1 second run to 60 will feel too slow, unless they’re trading down from a 6.0L Yukon Denali.

  • avatar
    Mandalorian

    As the owner of a last gen, I’m not going to be trading in anytime soon. The new model really is a step down. The 4-cyl engine is a joke. The only thing the new one has going for it is a marginally nicer interior.

    • 0 avatar
      newenthusiast

      I concur, also the satisfied owner of the first gen. I’d have to try the current 6 cyl out (its a 3.0 T I think), but I’d be more inclined to see if I can find a nice, well kept example of the first gen with the 3.6 VR6…but that was last offered in 2011, so mileage and maintenance will have to be scrutinized if I went that route.

      I’ll stick with my V8 for now.

      But as someone else stated below, suddenly the Durango from yesterday looks appealing as the next purchase. The 3.6 Pentastar is perfectly fine, but the R/T does have that V8 Hemi in it….

      • 0 avatar
        Mandalorian

        The 3.0T is an absolute gem of an engine, but I’m not a fan of the deflated station wagon look. Next purchase wise, I’d lean towards a Yukon Denali with the 6.2. The GMT 900 was a close second when I bought the Q7, but the new K2XX Denali is a true luxury vehicle.

        • 0 avatar
          newenthusiast

          Well, the problem the Denali, as nice as it is on the inside, is that I’d be guilty of what many here say most buyers do. I’d be buying more vehicle than I need.

          Since my Q7 came with the factory installed towing package, and it’s the 4.2 V8, I’m rated up to 6600 lbs. So I’m right where I need to be with towing (otherwise I’d get a minivan), and use the third row often enough where I need one (kids and their activities and stuff and friends…a few times a week).

          I’d rather stay closer to this size and class. The GM twins are BOF full sizers that won’t fit in my garage, and just are more than I want or need. Things closer in size and class like the GMC Acadia/Buick Enclave, or the Infiniti QX60 (the AWD version) are rated just below what I need when I tow (I’m at around 5700lbs, I think the Acadia tops out at 5200). The Mercedes GL is a HUGE jump in price and maintenance costs, even if I buy used….which I’m too risk averse for.

          The Ford Expedition/Lincoln Navigator is out there I suppose, but again, those are BOF truck derivatives, which is overkill. But it may be that my needs will only be met by full-sizers from here on out as engines get smaller.

          I might be hanging on to my Q7 (and being OCD about maintaining it) for a long while. Unless, of course, someone puts out a minivan, or crossover, or even a wagon, that can seat 7 and tow what I need…which seems unlikely.

  • avatar
    Bazza

    “Can the two-liter turbo really move this big SUV with Teutonic aplomb?”

    No it can’t, it certainly can’t do it over the long term, and it would be really helpful if automotive journalists would stop reviewing these inanities as if they satisfactorily meet luxury or near-luxury standards. They don’t.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      You want honesty in journalism? You’re a nothing but a truthist.

    • 0 avatar
      jmo

      Do you have some data to back up your assertions? Turbos have been in regular use for decades – it’s not like this is a new technology.

      • 0 avatar
        Bazza

        And I’ve wrenched on turbo engines for decades. It isn’t the technology…it’s the application. Too little engine for too much metal, and there is no place for 4-bangers in luxury applications with maybe an exception in cases of substantial electric motor augmentation. Otherwise, just no.

      • 0 avatar
        Russycle

        The data’s in the article. The Q7 is slow off the line and it gets the same gas mileage as the V6 version. Turbos shine when you can keep them out of the boost for normal driving, so you get good mileage most of the time and power when you need it. If you need the turbo engaged all the time, forget about getting good MPG. Honestly, can’t see why Audi even bothers with it in this vehicle, except to get their customers to fork over more green for the 6.

        • 0 avatar
          NormSV650

          The turbocharged fuel economy comes at highway speeds where thottle is constant. The turbo will be building very low boost against the throttle body blade taking away any loses from intake to the filter, through a MAF sensor, and more tubing to the throttle body. Under someninstances the manifold maybe slightly pressurized helping to relieve the pump loses of a normally aspirated engine.

  • avatar
    gtemnykh

    All of a sudden Corey’s $42k V6 Durango looks awfully tempting…

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      Or Dodge Journey GT V6 with 3-rows. Motor Trend just tested one and it put down car-like 25s in the figure eight test. I looked at the brochure PDF to see what tires they were using but the thought of wearing flat bill hat and my lack of full arm ink really says much about the demographic at Dodge.

      Corey, southern Ohio boy, is well tatted?

    • 0 avatar
      legacygt

      I’ve got one. The Durango V6 is pretty good. The Q7 has a better interior and a badge that makes people feel special.

  • avatar
    whitworth

    Customers do not want a 2.0 liter engine for their $60k, near-full sized SUV that weighs close to what a Suburban does.

    This is done to appease the greenies and stupid government regulations. Same with the stop/start technology.

    • 0 avatar
      Russycle

      The 4 gets the same mileage as the 6. Since it’s not helping Audi meet CAFE, what government regulations are you blaming here?

    • 0 avatar
      Fred

      As a “greenie” I reject your assumption it was done for me. I’d prefer you get the biggest premium gas sucking beast you can and suffer everytime you pull up to the pump. Then again, if you can afford this guy I doubt you really care about the price of gas.

      My bet is they are getting it preped for some hybrid boost so next time you can out drag that old Corrola to the next stop sign.

  • avatar
    turbo_awd

    Forget about the engine – what about the interior design? Specifically, center console balloonitis – that gas pedal is almost TOUCHING the center console.. WTF happened to leg room for the driver’s leg, VAG? It’s horrible – almost all the newer cars are doing this.. It’s like I’m supposed to have 3-inch diameter legs to be able to drive this thing comfortably.. Or put my legs together in the middle and turn my feet outwards to push the accelerator – whatever happened to a little “manspreading” style, knees bent, approx 1.5-2 feet apart, feet 6-10 inches apart to hit the pedals?

    I’ve seen similar, way-too-large consoles in Taurus, Sonata, Genesis, MKZ, and a bunch of others. I end up getting out before I’ve even really gotten a chance to look around because I’m so cramped. Now, I’m not RAIL thin, but my BMI’s between 25 and 30.. So yeah, I could stand to lose another 20 lbs, and I’m working on that. But my thighs aren’t magically going to turn into baseball bats.. They’re going to stay bazookas..

  • avatar
    5280thinair

    I have the same engine in my 2017 A4. In that application, it’s a surprisingly good power plant. It has a nice wide torque band (better than many V6s I’ve driven), never really leaves me wishing for more power, is really smooth, and makes an actually nice sound when you mash the gas pedal. It does sound a bit like a diesel when I have the windows down, but otherwise manages to be a very suitable engine for a sport/luxury sedan.

    However, my car weighs approximately 1,000lbs less than the Q7 reviewed here. A vehicle of the Q7’s mass needs a lot more torque if it’s going to avoid feeling sluggish. However, I think power has come to mean little to the average consumer – if you’re spending most of your time in congested traffic, you may not notice the difference between 200hp and 400hp.

    • 0 avatar
      Fred

      The curious thing is that the A3 with the same engine is probably the fastest of all the standard 4 cyl Audis.

      • 0 avatar
        5280thinair

        Keep in mind VAG has a bunch of different versions of the 2.0T gas engine. Looking at Audi USA’s web site, the A3 is available with two versions of the 2.0T: a 186hp/221 lb-ft version in FWD cars and a 220/258 version in those with Quattro. These are “lesser” versions of the 2.0T than the 252hp/273 lb-ft version used in the A4 (excluding the “Ultra” model).

        Of course the S3 gets a high-zoot 292hp/280 lb-ft 2.0T.

        • 0 avatar
          jh26036

          Most of these Q7 will be sitting in traffic and moving kids from soccer practice to karate class at 35mph. The new 2.0L from VAG is a strong little motor and will do just fine in a Q7.

          You can always call up APR if you want a couple extra hp (I have no idea if they offer a tune for this new motor yet).

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      Just full your seats with 200 lbers and you’ll have your 1,000 lbs extra. Albeit a lower center of gravity than your A4 compared to the Q7. I did something similar in my Envision 2.0T and really didn’t notice the lack of power in city drivjng. Just the braking distances were requiring more pedal pressure. Of course I have not burnished the pads to the rotors yet in some hot braking exercises.

  • avatar
    ToddAtlasF1

    Does the new Q7 share its sheet-metal with the Dodge Journey?

  • avatar
    driven1

    No, the Dodge Journey styling was considered too daring for Audi. The unfortunate resemblance is a thing. Why even bother with a model designation, just put a bar code on it and save the effort. Seriously, the last gen had a lot more character. I predict the depreciation on these will be worse than average for a luxury German brand, which is pretty awful. It’s a “meh”. Mid cycle refresh will likely be prompt, but, the press has been very kind in their reviews (of loaded versions, of course).

  • avatar

    This is an extra profit grab. They get that most buyers aren’t geeks, and don’t care if hamsters or squirrels are under the hood-while WE wouldn’t consider this insult to the buyer, most won’t even notice. Slip in the cheapest to make motor they have…I’m surprised they didn’t try to use the 1.4 Turbo out of the Jetta S

    VW-Audi makes a dozen different varieties of this engine tuned to the car and market, but this is a bit of a reach…a GTi, sure…S3, OK…even a Passat, but not this tank, and no way for 60k.

    The J motor in my MDX works hard to move the X…and a Q7 is heavier. Pass….

  • avatar
    legacygt

    I love turbo engines when they’re well matched with the car but I’m sick of these small turbos in big cars. This is a gambit meant to eek out a couple extra mpgs on the EPA test cycle but they don’t translate to actual real world results. Turbos can greatly improve efficiency, particularly when the engine is suited to move the vehicle without spooling up the turbo in relaxed driving. But this car is too heavy and 2.0L is too little to get this thing moving without spooling up the turbo all the time. The result is that the little engine ends up drinking fuel like a bigger one and there are virtually no gains in fuel efficiency. I’m sure the V6 is a more satisfying drive and I wouldn’t be surprised if the V6 gets better mpg than the 2.0T in the real world driving. The EPA should be on top of this because many manufacturers are taking advantage of the test and consumers and the environment are the losers.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    What happens when someone backs into your ugly maw thing in the urban parking garage? Do magic sensors somehow prevent a front collision from other drivers when the car is in park?


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • DeSoto, Adventurer: Hi all, Many thanks, Sajeev, for posting my questions! I’ve finally been published! Woot,...
  • Secret Hi5: Don’t change anything. Stay with your existing setup, and in the unlikely event of a flat, drive on...
  • Fordson: Probably should have made the sarc more obvious. Aaaaand no, I don’t think it will buff right...
  • Ermel: Why you aren’t getting the Amarok? Four reasons: too small (it’s just a midsize), too expensive...
  • Stanley Steamer: A tire patch kit and a cheap compressor is all I ever needed. I have had to use them 20-plus times...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff