Long-Term 2.0 Q5 Reliability Up to 100K?
08-15-2012, 06:11 PM
#1
Audiworld Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long-Term 2.0 Q5 Reliability Up to 100K?
I have test driven the Q5 twice, and the second time really left a good impression on me, better than the first. I am looking to downsize from a full size SUV and move up in luxury. I would like to know if anyone has gone 100,000 miles plus without a major repair, which has been my litmus test for vehicle loyalty. I've narrowed my choices down to the Q5, Mercedes ML350 diesel, and Acura RDX (which I have yet to test drive). Each gets about the same gas mileage. The Mercedes offers more, but is significantly more expensive. I think the Q5 beats all of them in styling hands down. Unlike the RDX, the Q5 has slightly movable rear seats that you can recline somewhat. The Q5 has rear air vents, the RDX does not; however, the RDX is more reliable. None have ventilated seats, unlike the Lincoln MKX, which I ruled out despite loving that feature. However, I am concerned about the Q5's spotty reliability record. I know another thread blasted Consumer Reports for saying the truth, that the 3.2 is below average in reliability and the 2.0 is average. Even the Audi Koolaid drinkers will have to admit that things go wrong with these vehicles at a significant rate, just read this forum. That is my biggest concern. So how 'bout it, how about a 100,000 mile report from those that have gone at least that far.
08-15-2012, 06:55 PM
#2
AudiWorld Super User
I think you are reading between the lines too much but you wont believe it because you already refer to those who support as "Audi Koolaid drinkers".
The average distance on 2.0 TFSI seems to be about 21k miles so far. I will also be interested to see some reports here. Good or bad will be (if not already) recorded for your further analysis.
The average distance on 2.0 TFSI seems to be about 21k miles so far. I will also be interested to see some reports here. Good or bad will be (if not already) recorded for your further analysis.
08-15-2012, 07:18 PM
#3
Audiworld Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me say that it was not my intention to insult anyone. A Koolaid drinker is someone who has such a committed subjective view of something they ignore the facts and want to kill the messenger, so to speak. Hence demeaning Consumer Reports for honest reporting of reliability. That's why I'd love to hear from real owners about this issue.
08-16-2012, 04:18 AM
#4
AudiWorld Member
I think what people were criticising the reliability reports for was that they lumped all 3.2 Q5's together regardless of year. The early delivery Q's had a few distinct issues that were fixed under warranty (water pump and DRL's) and later years had none of the problems. Hence the early models are heavily dragging down the overall up time of the later vehicles.
The early 2.0TFSI Q5's had oil burning issues but they seem to have been all cleared up before this engine variant was released into the NA market.
To get a bigger sample size for reliability you might want to take a look at the B8 A4/A5 vehicles as well, as they all use the same basic platform.
The early 2.0TFSI Q5's had oil burning issues but they seem to have been all cleared up before this engine variant was released into the NA market.
To get a bigger sample size for reliability you might want to take a look at the B8 A4/A5 vehicles as well, as they all use the same basic platform.
Trending Topics
08-16-2012, 05:34 PM
#8
AudiWorld Super User
08-17-2012, 05:32 AM
#9
AudiWorld Senior Member
All models with a plastic coolant pump(all of 2009 and early 2010) would be included in the reporting that gave the 3.2 V6 a BLACK spot(poor rating). The same scenario applies to the DRLs.
Unfortunately, that black spot applies to ALL of the 2010 models even though many were not affected by the issues. Additionally, both of these issues were corrected by recall/TSB. CR's reporting would have one believe that the engines are still prone to failure/low reliability. The recalls/TSBs to correct issues are NEVER reported by CR for ANY car. Seeing that black spot may scare away a naive would-be consumer looking to purchase a pre-owned Q5 3.2.
This is just 1 instance of how the CR reporting is skewed and/or inaccurate in the real world.
08-17-2012, 06:05 AM
#10
Audiworld Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what people were criticising the reliability reports for was that they lumped all 3.2 Q5's together regardless of year. The early delivery Q's had a few distinct issues that were fixed under warranty (water pump and DRL's) and later years had none of the problems. Hence the early models are heavily dragging down the overall up time of the later vehicles.
The early 2.0TFSI Q5's had oil burning issues but they seem to have been all cleared up before this engine variant was released into the NA market.
To get a bigger sample size for reliability you might want to take a look at the B8 A4/A5 vehicles as well, as they all use the same basic platform.
The early 2.0TFSI Q5's had oil burning issues but they seem to have been all cleared up before this engine variant was released into the NA market.
To get a bigger sample size for reliability you might want to take a look at the B8 A4/A5 vehicles as well, as they all use the same basic platform.
Let me chime in that I have a 09 Q5 3.2 and I have had zero issues. I am at 46000 miles so far. I have only had scheduled maint and the water pump recall done. It's my belief that if you use the best gas and maintain your car your problems will be nill or minimal. I have had good luck with other vehicles with this practice as well. I love the Q5!!