Q5 vs. Evoque?
02-23-2012, 01:16 PM
#31
It continues to amaze me to what level people criticize a brand of vehicle they've never owned, or a model they've never driven. Some seem to be especially defensive when others don't agree with their way of thinking. I'm particularly surprised by how many Audi owners are looking down on the Evoque, and Land Rover in general. Why is that exactly? Do we perceive the Evoque as a threat in some way? The attitude that they're overpriced, poorly made, jewelry for the wealthy just seems petty to me. Let's not forget that many a Ford and Chevy owner feel the same way about Audis. We defend our purchases by claiming the Audi is a superior car with superior components and superior engineering, and they are most certainly worth the premium we paid. But we can't see that same reasoning when it disagrees with whatever preconceived notions we have toward a brand. I for one am glad we don't all have the same tastes, and I am tickled that Land Rover had the ***** to bring something like this to the market. I agree it's not for everyone, but how can you possibly question it when they're selling every one they can build? I will end by saying that NOTHING is overpriced if there is a three month waiting list for it.
[End rant]
[End rant]
Last edited by HotRodW; 02-23-2012 at 01:18 PM.
02-23-2012, 03:48 PM
#33
Audiworld Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate feeling like I need to answer for Land Rover, but I love to rant.
I've been in the Land Rover community a while, and there are certainly things that go wrong, but its not anything worse than I see here on the Audi forum. You'd be surprised at the complaints I do see, mostly things that are trivial, but because we drop up to $140k for one of these things, people think it should be perfect. The one major fiasco LR did was to try selling a low-end model (LR2/Freelander). It wasn't a serious effort, and these things are nothing but problematic.
Most of the horror stories come from several model generations ago, and funny enough, it's easy to find Land Rovers with 300k plus miles still running out in the wild, in conditions that would make my Audi burst into flames.
The so called "reputation" that the air suspensions are problematic is unfounded. Granted, a coil or leaf spring will generally never fail, and so even 1 in 10,000 trucks having a problem is going to seem tragic. However, its not a trend.
The air-suspension in my wintery Tahoe environment is well worth the slight risk. I can raise the vehicle with a push of a button, and get through any snow berm and unplowed road without bottoming out, and then I can drop it on its bump stops for loading and unloading. My 85yo mother [who is less than 5' tall] can get in and out much easier than in our Q5. I have to carry a step stool for her in the Q.
When we are camping and pulling our trailer off road, each air spring independently adjusts pressure to make sure all wheels have solid contact.
Not sure about electrical issues, other than I see complaints about the beer cooler center console not keeping things cold enough. Seriously though, in the last decade, the ECU's do throw out many errors when the battery is nearing its useful life. A new battery, and all things are good again. The vision assist system (camera's all around the truck) did have a design flaw in the wiring), but was resolved within a model year.
To compare the two (Q5 and RRS), I do prefer my RRS. It rides quieter, less harsh on bad road, has programmable driving modes, electrically heated windshield sheds ice in less than a minute, seat warmers get really hot, and the acceleration from a stand-still is a neck-injury waiting to happen.
However, I feel the Q5 is technically superior in terms of instrumentation (except for the NAV). The RRS NAV is touch-screen, and even displays a QWERTY keyboard, so no comparison to the ****. The Q5 does have a power tail-gate, which only in 2012 did LR finally add one. The back seats are not happening for anyone over 15yo.
The Q5 is our everyday vehicle and excellent on gas; averaging 26mpg combined. The RRS gets 15 combined, but up to 22 highway (downhill).
Oh, and LR provides yearly Nav updates.
I've been in the Land Rover community a while, and there are certainly things that go wrong, but its not anything worse than I see here on the Audi forum. You'd be surprised at the complaints I do see, mostly things that are trivial, but because we drop up to $140k for one of these things, people think it should be perfect. The one major fiasco LR did was to try selling a low-end model (LR2/Freelander). It wasn't a serious effort, and these things are nothing but problematic.
Most of the horror stories come from several model generations ago, and funny enough, it's easy to find Land Rovers with 300k plus miles still running out in the wild, in conditions that would make my Audi burst into flames.
The so called "reputation" that the air suspensions are problematic is unfounded. Granted, a coil or leaf spring will generally never fail, and so even 1 in 10,000 trucks having a problem is going to seem tragic. However, its not a trend.
The air-suspension in my wintery Tahoe environment is well worth the slight risk. I can raise the vehicle with a push of a button, and get through any snow berm and unplowed road without bottoming out, and then I can drop it on its bump stops for loading and unloading. My 85yo mother [who is less than 5' tall] can get in and out much easier than in our Q5. I have to carry a step stool for her in the Q.
When we are camping and pulling our trailer off road, each air spring independently adjusts pressure to make sure all wheels have solid contact.
Not sure about electrical issues, other than I see complaints about the beer cooler center console not keeping things cold enough. Seriously though, in the last decade, the ECU's do throw out many errors when the battery is nearing its useful life. A new battery, and all things are good again. The vision assist system (camera's all around the truck) did have a design flaw in the wiring), but was resolved within a model year.
To compare the two (Q5 and RRS), I do prefer my RRS. It rides quieter, less harsh on bad road, has programmable driving modes, electrically heated windshield sheds ice in less than a minute, seat warmers get really hot, and the acceleration from a stand-still is a neck-injury waiting to happen.
However, I feel the Q5 is technically superior in terms of instrumentation (except for the NAV). The RRS NAV is touch-screen, and even displays a QWERTY keyboard, so no comparison to the ****. The Q5 does have a power tail-gate, which only in 2012 did LR finally add one. The back seats are not happening for anyone over 15yo.
The Q5 is our everyday vehicle and excellent on gas; averaging 26mpg combined. The RRS gets 15 combined, but up to 22 highway (downhill).
Oh, and LR provides yearly Nav updates.
Last edited by AWF Axis; 02-23-2012 at 04:09 PM.
02-23-2012, 06:31 PM
#34
AudiWorld Super User
It continues to amaze me to what level people criticize a brand of vehicle they've never owned, or a model they've never driven. Some seem to be especially defensive when others don't agree with their way of thinking. I'm particularly surprised by how many Audi owners are looking down on the Evoque, and Land Rover in general. Why is that exactly? Do we perceive the Evoque as a threat in some way? The attitude that they're overpriced, poorly made, jewelry for the wealthy just seems petty to me. Let's not forget that many a Ford and Chevy owner feel the same way about Audis. We defend our purchases by claiming the Audi is a superior car with superior components and superior engineering, and they are most certainly worth the premium we paid. But we can't see that same reasoning when it disagrees with whatever preconceived notions we have toward a brand. I for one am glad we don't all have the same tastes, and I am tickled that Land Rover had the ***** to bring something like this to the market. I agree it's not for everyone, but how can you possibly question it when they're selling every one they can build? I will end by saying that NOTHING is overpriced if there is a three month waiting list for it.
[End rant]
[End rant]
02-23-2012, 07:15 PM
#35
AudiWorld Junior Member
Opinion from someone who owns neither but has test driven both:
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the lag upon take-off with the Evoque. When starting from a complete stop, I was surprised at the lack of response for the first half second or so and then the sudden jump. I found myself pushing the pedal harder as I didn't feel it was very responsive and then finding that when it did kick in, it was more than I wanted. This was probably the most disappointing part of the test drive I had but I suppose it's something you'd get used to. The rep acknowledged it but said it was their way of controlling to "excessive power" that the vehicle has. Hmmm.
In addition, I would echo previous comments on the cargo space and rear legroom. Very much smaller than in the Q5.
I felt that the value for money was much higher in the Q5. In Canada, sure you can get one starting at 44-46K. However, you have to go up to 57K just to get Xenon lights with the LED rings. Yes, this also gets you many other options along the way but considering this is such a signature thing they seem to push in their advertising, I'm surprised it's not standard. The show room here had one that was priced over 70K. I'm pretty sure you can't get a Q5 to go north of 70K.
I do like the looks of the Evoque and from a purely exterior esthetics point of view, I'd go RR. The stereo in the RR was also excellent in my opinion and the front seats were more supportive and comfortable than the Q5. I would really like to see Audi throw some A4 S-line seats in the Q5. Problem with the Evoque seats... only the more expensive trim packages had the full 8 way adjustments. With the 6 way front driver seat, I found the front of the seat to be too low and I'm above average in height.
My final assessment - as a total package and value for money, I can't justify paying the money being asked by RR so I will likely be buying a Q5 in the near future.
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the lag upon take-off with the Evoque. When starting from a complete stop, I was surprised at the lack of response for the first half second or so and then the sudden jump. I found myself pushing the pedal harder as I didn't feel it was very responsive and then finding that when it did kick in, it was more than I wanted. This was probably the most disappointing part of the test drive I had but I suppose it's something you'd get used to. The rep acknowledged it but said it was their way of controlling to "excessive power" that the vehicle has. Hmmm.
In addition, I would echo previous comments on the cargo space and rear legroom. Very much smaller than in the Q5.
I felt that the value for money was much higher in the Q5. In Canada, sure you can get one starting at 44-46K. However, you have to go up to 57K just to get Xenon lights with the LED rings. Yes, this also gets you many other options along the way but considering this is such a signature thing they seem to push in their advertising, I'm surprised it's not standard. The show room here had one that was priced over 70K. I'm pretty sure you can't get a Q5 to go north of 70K.
I do like the looks of the Evoque and from a purely exterior esthetics point of view, I'd go RR. The stereo in the RR was also excellent in my opinion and the front seats were more supportive and comfortable than the Q5. I would really like to see Audi throw some A4 S-line seats in the Q5. Problem with the Evoque seats... only the more expensive trim packages had the full 8 way adjustments. With the 6 way front driver seat, I found the front of the seat to be too low and I'm above average in height.
My final assessment - as a total package and value for money, I can't justify paying the money being asked by RR so I will likely be buying a Q5 in the near future.
02-23-2012, 08:18 PM
#36
Audiworld Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's be clear. There's a difference between build quality and reliability.
To say Range Rover's are poorly built is ludicrous. Range Rover ranks within the top 3 of the Luxury SUV segment. This is pretty easy to research. Design, fit and finish is better than Mercedes ML and GLs. The hand stitched dash and seats, body fit and finish, driving experience, is beyond what most manufacturers can attain. Stuffing a supercharged 510hp 5.0 liter Jag engine into a 4x4 chassis that is smaller than the Q5 is crazy, and so you bet things happen. Admittedly, much of this is overkill for a vehicle that will never see the terrain for which it is capable.
It's the poor statistical reliability that has created this stigma, and Audi is not far above LR historically. The Q7 is in the bottom 5 of CR's reliability score for 2011. I've seen over and over in this forum about how Audi has had problems, and how no one cares because driving a Toyota is boring. We've got water pumps, clogged injectors, squeaky seats, old NAV maps, engine fires, leaky hatches and roofs. The gripes in recent LR models are bad camera wiring (a design flaw), badly balanced tires (lousy French Michelin's), squeaky brakes, and Blackberry pairing problems.
No one would say a Mercedes poorly built, but it was at the bottom of JD Powers reliability ratings just a decade ago.
Finally, depreciation for any vehicle past its warranty period is bad, with the exception of high reliability "boring" vehicles. Range Rovers inside 4 years have very high resale, but drop badly after. LR's have VERY high repair costs because of the complicated components.
The Q5 is still inside this period, so its enjoying a nice score in this department.
02-24-2012, 02:05 AM
#37
Last Rant
Wow. Now that's some serious ranting...First off, it should not "amaze" anyone that a competitors vehicle is being scrutinized. Particularly, an unproven newcomer like the Evoque.
I would never go into a Bimmer forum or any forum, ie. Lexus, MB, Volvo,LR, Infiniti and praise the Q5 over their X3,RX350,GLK,XC60,EX35, especially as passionate as Bimmer owners are. And the Q IS a proven worthy competitor.
I'll be sure to feel the wrath of owners telling me Audi's are overpriced, unreliable POS with electrical gremlins or rebadged VW's. That's to be expected.
I've already quoted a well respected publication, (Consumer Reports) that has undressed the Evoque in comparison to the X3.
And yes the Evoque is surely not for everyone. MSRP and value make it a niche vehicle at best. No test drive needed. Besides, I've test driven a base Cayenne and can't imagine an Evoque would even come close, except in price.
I would never go into a Bimmer forum or any forum, ie. Lexus, MB, Volvo,LR, Infiniti and praise the Q5 over their X3,RX350,GLK,XC60,EX35, especially as passionate as Bimmer owners are. And the Q IS a proven worthy competitor.
I'll be sure to feel the wrath of owners telling me Audi's are overpriced, unreliable POS with electrical gremlins or rebadged VW's. That's to be expected.
I've already quoted a well respected publication, (Consumer Reports) that has undressed the Evoque in comparison to the X3.
And yes the Evoque is surely not for everyone. MSRP and value make it a niche vehicle at best. No test drive needed. Besides, I've test driven a base Cayenne and can't imagine an Evoque would even come close, except in price.
02-24-2012, 07:58 AM
#38
That's exactly what I mean by defensive. Thank you for proving my point. Nobody is praising the Evoque over the Q5. You seem to be taking compliments aimed at the Evoque and interpreting them as criticism toward the Q5. The two things are completely unrelated.
Last edited by HotRodW; 02-24-2012 at 08:45 AM.
02-24-2012, 08:18 AM
#39
AudiWorld Super User
This statement has problems.
Let's be clear. There's a difference between build quality and reliability.
To say Range Rover's are poorly built is ludicrous. Range Rover ranks within the top 3 of the Luxury SUV segment. This is pretty easy to research. Design, fit and finish is better than Mercedes ML and GLs. The hand stitched dash and seats, body fit and finish, driving experience, is beyond what most manufacturers can attain. Stuffing a supercharged 510hp 5.0 liter Jag engine into a 4x4 chassis that is smaller than the Q5 is crazy, and so you bet things happen. Admittedly, much of this is overkill for a vehicle that will never see the terrain for which it is capable.
It's the poor statistical reliability that has created this stigma, and Audi is not far above LR historically. The Q7 is in the bottom 5 of CR's reliability score for 2011. I've seen over and over in this forum about how Audi has had problems, and how no one cares because driving a Toyota is boring. We've got water pumps, clogged injectors, squeaky seats, old NAV maps, engine fires, leaky hatches and roofs. The gripes in recent LR models are bad camera wiring (a design flaw), badly balanced tires (lousy French Michelin's), squeaky brakes, and Blackberry pairing problems.
No one would say a Mercedes poorly built, but it was at the bottom of JD Powers reliability ratings just a decade ago.
Finally, depreciation for any vehicle past its warranty period is bad, with the exception of high reliability "boring" vehicles. Range Rovers inside 4 years have very high resale, but drop badly after. LR's have VERY high repair costs because of the complicated components.
The Q5 is still inside this period, so its enjoying a nice score in this department.
Let's be clear. There's a difference between build quality and reliability.
To say Range Rover's are poorly built is ludicrous. Range Rover ranks within the top 3 of the Luxury SUV segment. This is pretty easy to research. Design, fit and finish is better than Mercedes ML and GLs. The hand stitched dash and seats, body fit and finish, driving experience, is beyond what most manufacturers can attain. Stuffing a supercharged 510hp 5.0 liter Jag engine into a 4x4 chassis that is smaller than the Q5 is crazy, and so you bet things happen. Admittedly, much of this is overkill for a vehicle that will never see the terrain for which it is capable.
It's the poor statistical reliability that has created this stigma, and Audi is not far above LR historically. The Q7 is in the bottom 5 of CR's reliability score for 2011. I've seen over and over in this forum about how Audi has had problems, and how no one cares because driving a Toyota is boring. We've got water pumps, clogged injectors, squeaky seats, old NAV maps, engine fires, leaky hatches and roofs. The gripes in recent LR models are bad camera wiring (a design flaw), badly balanced tires (lousy French Michelin's), squeaky brakes, and Blackberry pairing problems.
No one would say a Mercedes poorly built, but it was at the bottom of JD Powers reliability ratings just a decade ago.
Finally, depreciation for any vehicle past its warranty period is bad, with the exception of high reliability "boring" vehicles. Range Rovers inside 4 years have very high resale, but drop badly after. LR's have VERY high repair costs because of the complicated components.
The Q5 is still inside this period, so its enjoying a nice score in this department.
02-24-2012, 10:24 AM
#40
No they didn't
And after all the bickering, this just in . . .
http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...neva-show.html
It would certainly address the visibility concerns, true? So is it great idea, or the answer to a question nobody asked? Assuming it makes it to production, I guess we'll find out.
http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...neva-show.html
It would certainly address the visibility concerns, true? So is it great idea, or the answer to a question nobody asked? Assuming it makes it to production, I guess we'll find out.
Last edited by HotRodW; 02-24-2012 at 10:28 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
