The Acura, BMW, and Lexus seemed like old designs in engines and handling, to me. Audi makes great cars with top safety ratings and the CUV is form followng function in our case.

I think Audi has done a tremendous job of standing out from the rest. A stylish crossover with solid features and options, gas mileage is better than it’s competition, tow capacity is among the best, and price is very competitive.

I’ve been impressed so far with two of the test drives I’ve had in the last two weeks and I’m seriously considering the purchase.

Of course I could be like very third household and soccer mom and get a Lexus (which I would have to explain to my girlfriend as to how I became a soccer mom) but it’s not about what everyone else has. The Audi Q5 is a good addition to the current norm and all we need now is the TDI version.

When I hear that argument in the USA, I often wonder how that works. If every third* other idiot has an SUV/CUV/pickup, how exactly do you gain a visibility advantage?

Well, you certainly get a disadvantage by not joining the arms race.

If you are 93 years old, the higher ground clearance of he Q5 will be appreciated. If you’re not…

In Europe. 2.0TDI is the entry level Q5. 3.0 TDI more expensive.

From Audi Germany’s online configurator:

Gas
2.0 TFSI 155(211) 6-Gang quattro 40,700.00
2.0 TFSI 155(211) S tronic quattro 42,850.00
3.2 FSI 199(270) S tronic quattro 46,900.00
Diesel
2.0 TDI 125(170) 6-Gang quattro 38,800.00
2.0 TDI 125(170) S tronic quattro 40,950.00
3.0 TDI 176(240) S tronic quattro 47,900.00

-> 2.0 TDI is cheaper than the 2.0 gasser.
-> US mandatory slushbox is not available in Europe
I have seen a few Q5s on the road, but no gassers yet.

When I hear that argument in the USA, I often wonder how that works. If every third* other idiot has an SUV/CUV/pickup, how exactly do you gain a visibility advantage?

Clowns.

* 1/3 might be an exaggeration on my part….

Didn’t the man just say, so his short wife can see over traffic?

The problem is, Toyota/Lexus types don’t give a damn, so Audi is just wasting its money.

Whatever. Just from the ads the Q5 looks way better than the latest RX, as once again Toyota designers show a talent for penning fuglyness. (On the way to work I was laughing at that clown car, the FJ Cruiser).

The operative word is margin, not MSRP. The CUV push comes straight from the need to get customers to pay more without getting more. You cannot charge a premium for wagon versus the sedan it’s based on, but you can charge it for a crossover.

But they don’t actually charge a premium for a crossover right now, not in MSRP, not in invoice, not in actually what consumers are paying. I’d agree with you in theory, but they don’t seem to be doing it. Yes, the operative word is margin, and I suppose it’s somehow possible that the crossover costs less to manufacture than the wagon, but I doubt it. Since the Q5 probably costs at least at much to make and bring over, we can safely compare MSRP to compare margin.

Well, as someone who has just been cross shopping the recently reviewed RDX and an A4 Avant, that’s too bad. I didn’t even consider the Q5, at least in part because I didn’t want to pay the extra money for the less-torquey V6 over the 2.0T. Not sure how the 2.0T would handle the extra weight of the Q5, but in the A4 Avant it’s noticeably quick and torquey. And pretty economical as well (both in terms of MPG and MSRP).

Not to mention all the conventional arguments about estate/wagon vs. CUV. If Acura sold a TSX estate, I’d have been cross shopping that instead.

Going in this afternoon to sign the papers on the Avant, so you can tell where my decision-making process lead me.

The operative word is margin, not MSRP. The CUV push comes straight from the need to get customers to pay more without getting more. You cannot charge a premium for wagon versus the sedan it’s based on, but you can charge it for a crossover.

I drove a base model with base wheels. It’s much less attractive with the base wheels. That said, a former Q7 owner in the showroom at the time thought it was a Q7. I happen to see a bit much resemblance to the VUE, like another commenter here.

I was let down by the interior. Not bad, but not nearly as nice as the ultra-spec interiors in the NAIAS cars.

The engine felt stronger and sounded nicer than I expected. The steering and handling were as described in this review.

TrueDelta hopes to have reliability stats on these as soon as possible. Know someone who owns one? Send them here:

http://www.truedelta.com/reliability.php

Do they still make the Allroad? So this would mean Audi now sells the A4 Avant, Allroad, Q5, and A6 Avant, all of which are within a few inches of each other—and will add a Q3.

In Europe they have an A4 based Allroad and an A6 based Allroad. OTOH, the Qs don’t sell so well there, like all CUVs. But the A4 Allroad appears to be coming to the US, so whatever.

An A4 3.2 sedan (3.2 avant doesn’t seem to be available in N.A.) has an MSRP of $40K. Guessing from the price of an A4 2.0T Avant, a 3.2 Avant might be $43K. The Q5 is only $37K.

I’d make some minor quibbles… the Avant premium versus the sedan is only about $1.5K, not $3K. Also the 3.2 Q5 has the three trim levels, whereas the 3.2 A4 only has the two higher trim levels of the A4. (The 2.0T has all three.) Yet OTOH the lowest trim level in the Q5 includes some options that aren’t in the lowest trim level on the A4.

In general, though, I agree with you. Audi doesn’t really charge a lot more, if any, for the Q5 than for the A4. This is true of other manufacturers and their CUVs as well.

The 3.2 A4 is definitely going away for 2010, though. Makes sense; there’s little point in taking that engine over the 2.0T or the supercharged 3.0 in the 2010 S4. The 2.0T is probably going to go in the Q5 as well.

Gross margin. Audi can charge a lot more for this than they can for an A3 or A4 Avant.

They can, but they don’t.

An A4 3.2 sedan (3.2 avant doesn’t seem to be available in N.A.) has an MSRP of $40K. Guessing from the price of an A4 2.0T Avant, a 3.2 Avant might be $43K. The Q5 is only $37K.

Even the mammoth Q7 is $6K cheaper than the A6 Avant.

Seems like most couples/families even those that buy luzury cars have a “large” car (mid-sze or larger SUV) and a mid-size or smaller sedan. I see a lot of driveways with a 3 and an X5, an S60 and an XC90, and E and an ML, an ES350 and an RX, a TL and an MDX. Where does that leave these small CUV’s. Seems like a smallish SUV with decent off-road capability would be the perfect “3rd car” If that is this segment’s best purpose, it isn’t going to sell very well.

Q5:

Luggage – 29 cubic ft
Max Cargo – 57

2010 RX:

Luggage – 40
Max Cargo – 80

So it is bigger, certainly. But it is still a cute ute’ in a key way: it has styling that, as dcdriver notes, seems to overwhelmingly appeal to women. Most other luxury utes seem styled with a blocky, slashing, almost disorienting series of creases and folds that make them seem larger than they are. The RX, at least historically, has a much more gentle shape that I think allows it to seem ‘cute’, despite being much larger inside than many competitors.

Also, the RX is indeed 5 inches longer than the Q5, per Edmunds, but it is basically the same width and height.

Just eyeballing them, to me the X3, GLK, RDX, XC60, Q5 are all a class smaller than the RX350, although I haven’t really looked at the specs of the new model RX350. Is it smaller than the previous model?

—————————————–

I agree. There is no comparison in size.

Maybe he is comparing in price. VW is know to sell tiny crap boxes for a lot of money.

One of the reasons I think the RX350 does so well in this segment is because it is actually a midsize, so the cargo and space complaints are absent. The RX350 is actually big enough to be a family car. As I said before, it really competes with the ML and X5, so it is defintely bigger than these cute utes. Also, anybody else notice that almost all RX350’s are driven by women.