|
Sign in using an external account
|
|
|||||||||
| Register | Albums | Classifieds | FAQ | Members | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Vendors | Garage | TSB & Recalls |
| Welcome to AudiWorld! | ||
|
|
Welcome to AudiWorld.com.
You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join AudiWorld.com today! |
| Notices |
| Q5 Discussion Discussion forum for the Audi Q5 SUV
Sponsored by: Audi ![]()
|
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#11 | |||
|
AudiWorld Super User
2012 BMW 5-SeriesJoin Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,200
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
AudiWorld Member
Garage is empty, add now
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 113
|
Oh, I see. Guess I didn't read closely enough. Scratch that then. WAIT for the 2013s! the 3.0T will be WORLDS better than the 3.2, which as of now has no advantages over the 2.0T
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 | |
|
AudiWorld Member
2010 Audi Q5Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 125
|
Quote:
1) Availability Date: Lots of chatter that the 2013 Q5 won't be available until Fall, which may make this a moot point for the OP. If you need a new car in time for the school year, you'll likely be out of luck for the 2013s. 2) Possibility of a delayed 3.0T launch. Some talk that the 2013 will being with the 3.2 and switch to the 3.0T later in the year. All else being equal, I'd wait for the 2013 with the 3.0T and updated MMI, but that may not be an option. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
AudiWorld Member
Garage is empty, add now
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 113
|
yah, I see that. Time is an issue for us as well, but we are getting the 2.0T so we couldn't justify waiting. well My advice to the OP is if you are getting a 2012 just get a 2.0T. The performance difference is pretty much indistinguishable, it's cheaper, and it gets far superior MPG. If you can wait, then go with the 3.0T. The 3.2 just seems underwhelming and antiquated to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
AudiWorld Super User
2012 BMW 5-SeriesJoin Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,200
|
I can tell the difference between the 2.0T and the 3.2 on the highway, but you guys are right, there is not enough difference to justify the cost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Audiworld Junior Member
Garage is empty, add now
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 12
|
Having had experience owning both the SRX and the Q5 (my current car), I would say both are nice, I actually think the SRX feels more luxurious inside. The Q5 is way better to drive and the MMI system is better in the Q5. Biggest reason though is the gas mileage. The SRX drinks gas and I never even got close to the highway mileage rating. I was always on the low end of the city MPG rating. The SRX was reliable and never really had any issues. The Q5 2.0T engine is awesome in my opinion and my wife also loves it and has never said the SRX feels faster (in fact she though the Q5 had the bigger engine).
As far as waiting for the 2013 model - I love the '12 model LED better. The MMI bluetooth streaming can be done with the 2012 model by buying the right cable. I also probably was not going to pay for the additional $30/mo charge for MMI audi connect - I would rather just use my iPhone hotspot. So in the end I decided not to wait and purchase the 2012. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Audiworld Junior Member
Garage is empty, add now
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 44
|
My wife drives the SRX as her regular car, it just went past 12k miles, but I drive it on long trips. My Q5 3.2 is approaching 60k, so the SRX is becoming more our "road trip" car. The Q is much more a driver's car; power, towing, handling, braking gas mileage it's the hands down winner. Didn't have any snow this winter so I can't comment about which AWD works better. The SRX is a little nicer inside, the seats are about even, and the SRX had some nicer storage and convenience touches. My Premium Plus had a nice stereo but not as good as the SRX. And the SRX' navigation is so superior it's not funny. Plus the SRX has a lot more vehicle info, particularly tire pressure - really annoys me Audi doesn't have this function. The Q did have more repair issues the first 10k - 3 DRL replacements and the water pump, and the rear seat rattle. The SRX, nothing. My wife would probably choose the SRX to drive all the time. Despite five times a much mileage on the Q, I would choose it as my every day ride.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Tags |
| cadillac, general, motors, powered, vbulletin |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2009 AudiWorld.com Audi Enthusiast Community












Linear Mode
