QueensGambit

Also, thoughts on the Mercedes BLK / M class?

quattrosky

Meh on the car. I like my local Ford dealer, but I was not impressed by the Edge. They look nice, similar size, I took one for a drive and was underwhelmed. Also a bit cheap inside compared to either Lexus or Audi. And at MSRP, they were too close in price when you started adding on options. I suspect you can get a much better discount on the Edge. Deal breaker for me was poorer safety ratings on the Edge
http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shop...?vehicleId=496

Q5 not tested by NHTSA, but A4 (same basic platform) does better than Edge on both Frontal and Side impact
(http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shop...vehicleId=6601)

RX350 result same as A4 (http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shop...vehicleId=6606)

All 3 vehicles did well on IIHS (independent crash test)

Maybe I'm fussy but the extra star makes a difference to me.

quattrosky

I drove this one too and I found it awful. The 4 cyl in the 2.5i is just not strong enough to move this big car. I wasn't looking for supercar acceleration but there's a point to me where anemic acceleration is boring, frustrating and even potentially dangerous. The 2.5i was past that point. The 3.6R is a much better engine for the car (not great gas mileage though). Bigger inside than either Q5 or RX350 if you need to carry passengers in the rear very often.

opus360

The M class has top rating for quietness by Consumer Reports and very good ride as well. (Handling is so so.) I have never driven it, but friends who have it say it is really quiet. I did not mention M class before, as reliability is a big question mark. As commonly equipped, the ML350 is slightly above $50k.


Years ago, I was in Detroit for an overnight trip. I drove over. The roads were bad. Potholes were the size that can seriously damage a car. They had a morning pothole report in addition to the commonly seen in traffic reports in other cities.

quattrosky

Check out http://www.edmunds.com
Good collection of info and their True Cost to Own calculator goes in to detailed estimates for 5 years of ownership on most vehicles including maintenance, gas, insurance, depreciation.

Q5: http://www.edmunds.com/audi/q5/2011/...tyle=101343993
Total maintenance: $4983, repairs: $4949

RX: http://www.edmunds.com/lexus/rx-350/...tyle=101405745
Total maintenance: $4836, repairs: $1,034

So maintenance is pretty close to even. Repairs: not even close. Q5 estimate seems high, but that's what the number says.

But before you take that as the deciding factor, look at the total numbers:
Total TCO for RX: $60,514
Total TCO for Q5: $50,650

Now, this is for 5 years, not 7. You could do some extrapolation on the numbers to estimate for 7 years.

cheewy

I was actually looking at both cars and have driven both the RX and the Q5. The RX is more spacious, especially with rear seating leg room and cargo space. Insurance on the RX is cheaper as well. But I found the ride too soft for me. I would compare the ride comfort to a Camry which would be softer than a Civic. If you like the soft cushy ride, then Lexus would be the way to go. I part that really got to me was the materials they used. For example, their leather seats are extremely soft which cracks very easily. I saw an off lease 2010 one on the floor and the seats looked horrible. Personally I think the Q5 rides great as compared to my S4. Just remember, each person's taste in cushy ride's will vary.

quattrosky

My bad on the Edmunds TCO link, I looked for the 2.0T, and it appears that it only has the 3.2L model loaded for 2012 model year, and 2.0T is actually for the 2011 model year and what it's showing is the TCO for buying a USED 2011 2.0T. If you go by the 2012 3.2L, TCO is actually $67,922.

For 2012 Q5 3.2L, maintenance is: $4873 (almost identical to RX) and repairs are a more reasonable $2874

Depreciation is quite high. The 2.0T would likely come out significantly cheaper due to lower depreciation, taxes, financing and better gas mileage.

I notice that taxes and fees are not accurate for my state (NC). It's showing a lump sum buyers tax. We pay annual property tax instead.

gheffty93

Outbacks are definitely nice, little bit of a different deal though...obviously more of a wagon which isn't a bad thing. If you are looking at comfortable wagons then I'd check out the Volvo XC70 as well. Volvo makes a really nice wagon. I would in all honesty stay away from Mercedes. The GLK was awful in our opinion. Cramped and cheap interior, odd looks, and atrocious gas mileage. The M is another story - very nice but it is bigger and very pricey with options. You will be looking at prices into the $60k well equipped easily. If you are looking at that size, I think the Acura MDX is nicer and cheaper, though its gas mileage is also weak. Same as the GLK but it is bigger so I can kind of live with it.

QueensGambit

Thanks everyone, some good info here. Do you think.the Q5 would be a softer ride than honda civic?

AudiQ5sleeper

This all depends how the car is driven and how it was being taken cared of. without proper care a car will be a bad investment for you