Q5 [Official] Audi SQ5 TDI

[Deckhook]

Quite nice, I like the right/left exhausts, the X3 xDrive35i/35d doesn't have duals. I think the X3 M35i will get duals.
Also I think the engine choice is nicer than the 3.0 V6 TFSI. But what will the SQ7 get, now that it is almost sure it is coming ? 4.0 V8 TFSI or 6.0 V12 TDI ?

I reckon like the SQ5 the SQ7 will be offered in both petrol and diesel, so you'll probably see the 4.0TFSi from the S6/7 and their current v8TDi cranked up to 400hp. As for the v12TDi, I can't believe this engine will return to production, well not in an Audi.

 

[Tumbo]

The name really bothers me. SQ5 sounds so freakin weird. Q5-S sounds so more natural, more manly, more sporty.

But the car... Oh my. If it would be a petrol 3.0TFSI, I would place my order tomorrow. I'm waiting for the petrol version of the car.
God I love that color!! And I love the exterior trim so much!

 

[Tumbo]

LOL...

Honestly I didn't see Tumbo response, I just responded without reading the rest of the thread.

Great minds think alike

 

[MarcinM]

I wonder why BMW X3 35d 15% better fuel consumption than the S Q5?

 

[Deckhook]

^It might have something to do with the official acceleration times, 1 whole second quicker to 100km/h suggests to me that the SQ5 is making more than 313hp both it and the X3 35d officially have.

 

[purplehenk]

Acceleration has nothing to do with theoretical fuel consumption. No way the pedal will be floored during consumption tests.

 

[Giannis]

But the car... Oh my. If it would be a petrol 3.0TFSI, I would place my order tomorrow. I'm waiting for the petrol version of the car.

Doesn't a diesel engine (especially the 3.0 TDI) make much more sense in an SUV than a petrol engine?

If I was to buy a Q5, I would definitely go for diesel.

 

[Deckhook]

Acceleration has nothing to do with theoretical fuel consumption. No way the pedal will be floored during consumption tests.

Without knowing how much actual power any of these two models produce at a give rev/throttle position it's impossible to say either way, all I was suggesting is that to be that much quicker it would need to be producing more actual power and to produce more power requires more fuel/air mix.

P.S.
I agree with you Giannis, its not only the superior economy but the way a diesel engine delivers its power that makes it perfect for an SUV.

 

[Giannis]

Without knowing how much actual power any of these two models produce at a give rev/throttle position it's impossible to say either way, all I was suggesting is that to be that much quicker it would need to be producing more actual power and to produce more power requires more fuel/air mix.

P.S.
I agree with you Giannis, its not only the superior economy but the way a diesel engine delivers its power that makes it perfect for an SUV.

Leaving fuel consumption aside, the general idea of the SUV concept is more in line with a diesel engine, than with a petrol one, IMO. Given the high centre of gravity and the soft suspension you can't expect your SUV to corner like a sporty sedan, not like any sedan or hatchback actually. Then the main advantage of a petrol engine, ie its ability to rev way past a diesel engine's limit, in order to deliver the peak power, is made pointless. So diesel is the way to go, as far as I am concerned. But there's no way I would get a diesel engine in any sedan or hatchback!

 

[Tumbo]

Doesn't a diesel engine (especially the 3.0 TDI) make much more sense in an SUV than a petrol engine?
If I was to buy a Q5, I would definitely go for diesel.

1. Not when you live in the Middle East, when the petrol is almost for free.
2, Not when you HATE the sound and the smell of a diesel.

I will NEVER have a diesel car.

 

[Giannis]

1. Not when you live in the Middle East, when the petrol is almost for free.
2, Not when you HATE the sound and the smell of a diesel.

I will NEVER have a diesel car.

Ok, that makes sense

 

[Deckhook]

So diesel is the way to go, as far as I am concerned. But there's no way I would get a diesel engine in any sedan or hatchback!

So what you are saying is for a better sound and throttle response you don't care/willing to give up superior fuel conspumption, lower emissions and thus tax bracket and better residuals when you come to sell your saloon/hatch/estate.

Interesting opinion when you consider there's some diesels like the 35d and 3.0BiTDi that actually out perform their petrol equivalents in many ways and are as good as in almost all others.

 

[Giannis]

So what you are saying is for a better sound and throttle response you don't care/willing to give up superior fuel conspumption, lower emissions and thus tax bracket and better residuals when you come to sell your saloon/hatch/estate.

Interesting opinion when you consider there's some diesels like the 35d and 3.0BiTDi that actually out perform their petrol equivalents in many ways and are as good as in almost all others.

Yes, sound and throttle response are much more important than emissions in my book. On top of that, you missed the MUCH higher rev limit. Also, as I find it financially stupid to change cars every few months, I don't care about residuals, as I don't plan to sell what I buy. The Clio has already been 22 years with my family (and still doing great) and I have the Volvo for 7 years now (still haven't got bored of it).

So far, the only compromise I have done, is accept Volvo's throttle response, yet I got an amazing engine with enough power for my needs, in exchange. Seriously, the B5204T5 is has a very linear (for a turbocharged engine) power curve, due to the light pressure of 0.4 bar/ 0.6 bar overboost. And taxes-wise, the Volvo ended up costing a small fortune every year (in taxes only, because it has proved to be very reliable so far) yet I knew that when I bought it

As far as the Clio is concerned, it's just perfect for me. Manual steering (yet a bit slow), manual (meaning not hydraulic assisted) clutch, manual gearbox, manual everything. It's 100% car! And oversteers like crazy

So, why buy something that burns taxi fuel, when all I want is to enjoy it?

 

[Levi68]

SQ5 makes you think it is powered by a 3.0 V6 TFSI. It could be called DSQ5, like the previously planned (?) DS4, that would be a diesel version of S4/RS4. DS would stand for "DieselSport". But now it seems impossible to use "DS" because Citroen.

Don't know about the Evoque, because it is still a quite large SUV, and it costs more than X1 or Q3.

 

[Deckhook]

Don't know about the Evoque, because it is still a quite large SUV, and it costs more than X1 or Q3.

I wrote a piece on the Evoque when I had one out for a couple of days and whilst it's brilliant and rear leg room is acceptable it's boot space is pathetic and was the deal breaker for us as a family because it couldn't take the son's w/chair no matter how much I dismantled it.

 

[Zafiro]

I'm not a diesel person myself either. Besides you have to drive many many miles every year if diesel car is going to pay off in Sweden.

 

[Deckhook]

I'm not a diesel person myself either. Besides you have to drive many many miles every year if diesel car is going to pay off in Sweden.

Unless Sweden is greatly different to the UK you should still see a far better residual price on trade in with a diesel compared to an equivelant petrol.

 

[ACE]

Let's start with the best part, this car looks fairly good. That being said, I feel like this S version is mostly a design feature, they took an existing engine (on par with BMW's second best inline 6 Diesel only) and added some styling cues. Press release doesn't mention any other technical modifications, and the massive body roll in Bob's video suggests nothing differently. Engine sounds as awkward as the model name to me.

Long story short, this is a pretty cool car but the S badge doesn't seem to be justified IMO.


Best regards,
south

The article mentions some suspension adjustments and the brakes have S emblems on them, so I suspect they won't be the same brakes found on other Q5 models. Taking an existing (non S) engine and putting it an S model, doesn't seem that terrible to me, since the performance is significantly better than the rest of the Q5 range, I think the "S" (not "RS"!) badge is justified.

Are the M badges on the M135i (N55 shared with non-M 640i) and 1M (N54 shared with non-M Z4 35is) justified "in your opinion"?

 

[south]

The article mentions some suspension adjustments and the brakes have S emblems on them, so I suspect they won't be the same brakes found on other Q5 models. Taking an existing (non S) engine and putting it an S model, doesn't seem that terrible to me, since the performance is significantly better than the rest of the Q5 range, I think the "S" (not "RS"!) badge is justified.

Are the M badges on the M135i (N55 shared with non-M 640i) and 1M (N54 shared with non-M Z4 35is) justified "in your opinion"?

Why so defensive? I just voiced my opinion that this isn't a real Audi S model to me. Feel free to disagree but don't get pathetic or derail the thread in the process. Thanks a lot.


Best regards,
south

 

[Deckhook]

I don't believe he's comment were there to derail the thread, only to highlight that others do similar things and call them performance variants. I think I also highlighted other Audi S models which are similar in execution.