123Audi4me

I would tend to agree with your comments. However, what makes this latest C&D article look bad is that the fact that they panned in the recent article what they praised in an article only a couple of months ago. Credibility issue?

Mitch105

I really like this engine indeed. The first 09 a4 I had with it needed oil top every 5k. The other two not a drop. Never had one spec of engine trouble.

The maintenance is dead simple. There is hardly any and covered by audi care. The mpg is good city great hwy. The 8 speed helps get extra mpg. How you drive affects fuel economy.

Performance of the 2.0t is excellent. You simply cannot fault the drivability of this great engine. I use shell v-power.

With all that said, the 3.0t is a superior engine and well worth it if you want to spend the money. For me, driving 90% city area with mostly shorter hwy travel around town I choose to spend the money on a better equipped car with more options such as panoramic roof as well as enjoy better mpg. But many here don't seem to have a budget constraint lol so they can have all options and the 3.0t. I prefer gasoline to diesel so the 2.0t for me hits the value/performance sweet spot. Plus the diesel will be 1000s more I am sure.

So bottom line is that the 2.0t is a kick *** all you really need engine that is proven and bullet proof though takes premium fuel like the 3.0t. The 3.0t is one of the nicest and true premium engines out there but to get a well equipped one like a 2.0t means quite some $$$ added to the bottom line.

123Audi4me

Thanks again for the comments. Here in the states, the 3.0T is only $2300 more than a comparibly equipped 2.0T. But that is still $2300 plus the slightly less MPG. And if I ordered the 3.0T, I'd be tempted to add other options that are not available on the 2.0T! So, I think I made the right decision.

HadoukenZR

Guilty ! Haha ... I first considered the 2.0T but after driving the 3.0T the choice was clear for me.

And of course... i had to add the S-Line package

... with B&O, Navigation, etc... lol.

Mitch105

Yeah. That's exactly what happens.

It's a nice equipped 2.0t or a ***** out fully loaded 3.0t. Not much middle ground. One is a supreme value considering how nice a car the 2.0t really is but the other is how g-d intended it to be

But not for free.

ErnestHouse

Nobody's taken anything personally. Nothing wrong with a good review but comparisons are a useless attempt to quantify subjective judgements that only buyers can make, not have those things decided for them by journalists. It's useless to take the things C&D looked at and roll it all up into a "winner". C&D declaring a "Winner" is no reason to get an X3 over an Evoque or for that matter a Q5. I might pick the Evoque because it kills in the slalom. You might pick a Q5 because the ride has less road noise from tires. The next might skip the X3 because it brakes the worst of the bunch. Magazines serve readers by experts ferreting these things out. They make advertising revenue by declaring comparo winners.

FACTOID FROM THE C&D COMPARO: While the cars braking was tested and the X3 tested the worst of the 3 cars, the tallying done to declare the "winner" did not take braking measurement into consideration. It only took the subjective "Braking Feel" which the rated the X3 superior in over the Q5 and Evoque 9 vs 7 and 7 respectively.

Free market competition makes for improved products not journalism. And it doesn't matter if someone was around in the 60's and 70's (I was BTW, 1st car was a '66 leMans). The conclusion perhaps to draw from your point actually reinforces why a trade rag comparo isn't useful to readers/buyers: All three cars are actually quite good. None are a train wreck. There is no "best", only the "best for you".

Q5 Bob

I think reviews and comparos are useful especially when shopping for a vehicle. When I read them if something doesn't apply to what I'm looking for or interested in, I dismiss it. When the article covers an area of interest to me, I pay closer attention. You can bet the manufacturers pay attention to the reviews from certain sources.

It's interesting to note that the recent Consumer Reports review of the Q5, X3, RDX, XTS came to a similar conclusion as C&D. A trend? Who knows, just an observation. As mentioned, we bought the Q5 anyway.

Lorenzzo

I agree with this. I've driven Bimmers for years, had the opportunity to drive a new 3 series F30 over the last several months and test drove all the BMW SUV-s. For daily driving I clearly preferred the Q.

These writers that love BMW-s ignore the cheap interiors, learned what they know about cars at Malibu Grand Prix and are fully biased. The Q matched the BMW in the slalom yet felt like a dinner roll? How does that make sense? What else do you need to know to put he article on your ignore list? The look is approaching tired? Look at the cosmetic changes, if any, on the others. They're SUV's not purses. I can almost guarantee the writer has a full collection of purses.

This is a biased writer with an absence of credibility. As for the magazine's credibility, consider the completely different article tones separated by a year. There's a reason these things are selling, it's because people do their own test drives and comparisons and are intelligent enough to recognize and ignore fools penning for a washed up rag. I'll take their objective testing info but good or bad ignore their useless subjective impressions every single time.

rarewolf

The most objective reviews I found were actually a review and summary of many road tests by U.S. News. For example, see here:
http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com...rucks/Audi_Q5/

Is it a coincidence the Q5 is #1?

my CA$0.02

idale

What I got out of the "dinner roll" comment was that they were saying it wasn't some "exciting" course, but rather a "plain" dinner roll. There's been complaints that Audi is "samey" and not exciting and whatever, but I like Audi's remaining a little more understated and less "flashy" than other makes: concentrate on delivering a solid vehicle that's good to drive rather than trying to impress with design or whatever. (Though to me, I think Audis look better because they're understated yet not devoid of character.)

Regardless, pretty much everyone's biased one way or another, and the best we can do is try and understand the preferences of a reviewer and use those to calibrate how we read the review. There's valid information there, but you just have to try and strip away the reviewer's bias and overlay your own to figure out where it might align with your preferences.