Autocar - First for car news and reviews

What is it?

It’s not unusual, said Tom Jones, and even though he wasn’t talking about the Audi Q5, he might as well have been. It is not a breakthrough car, it’s not even a particularly innovative one.

In truth it is the inevitable, not-unappealing product of some corporate box-ticking and sensible exploitation of Audi’s modular platforms: another niche is added to the Ingolstadt brochure; a few more pennies are totted onto the profit column.

The onslaught of Audi ...Read the full article

I like it!  Best looking SUV in its class, that's for sure.  As long as Audi's reputation for quality and finish are intact, this would be the SUV for me .............. ooh er ... depending on where fuel prices go, that is.

sorry, but this is just another pointless "we've not actually driven this car" article.

The 'A3 on steroids look is appealling' but so predictable and I doubt very much whether it will be a small car, given how gargantuan the Q7 is. This car is probably not far off the bulk of the seven-seater XC90 or Captiva but with only 5 seats. 

Q5 will be 5cm longer than a Freelander - internal dimensions feel more like a RAV4. The car is in the UK and can be seen at the Goodwood Festival of Speed within the Audi showroom/stand - and yes you can climb all over it. The press pack was released on the 9th July - go to http://www.worldcarfans.com/9080709.009/new-video--in-depth-kit-released-for-audi-q5 There's 11 pages of information - all you need to mock up a fake test drive. The key question for me is price - I may be tempted. Autocar? Printing a "test drive" and not having driven it? Completely unacceptable. PS. If you do get to Goodwood, try and blag your way into the circuit and a seat as a passenger in the new RS6 - eats R8's for breakfast; 150mph+ on the back straight!:-)

LateKnight:

sorry, but this is just another pointless "we've not actually driven this car" article

 Er, have you read it?

 

I did read the article and have to say that it is obvious that you dont want to like the car and therefore obviously dont, to use your closing line

I agree with Dryfly.

An unpleasant,slightly sneering article, with very little of the real information potential buyers and car enthusiasts want to read. The tone merely meant that I disregarded the opinions of the 'tester' entirely. Result: A non-article.Don't expect me to buy the magazine this week

Nice try but BMW beats Audi easily.

dryfly:

I did read the article and have to say that it is obvious that you dont want to like the car and therefore obviously dont, to use your closing line

That's not what you said. You said I hadn't driven it, not that I didn't like it.

Don't like what I say? A difference of opinion is fine (though for what it's worth, I thought the Q5 was pretty good).

But I do not want people thinking we pretend we have driven cars when we have not. Some magazines do. Autocar does not.

 

Unless dryfly has two identities, Matt Prior still can't stick to the facts. It was another poster who suggested he hadn't driven the car.

 But any advantage of road testing is largely lost when the Tester clearly has so many pre-conceived opinions before he opens the car door. The result was not much better than if he hadn't driven it. Perhaps that is what the other poster really meant.

I'm going to stick up for Matt Prior here. I can't see what any of you are on about. He drove the car, thought it was reasonably good but uninspired, and that's what he wrote.