Q5 3.0T \ X35 - civil comparision

[Toast]

I have a A4 avant and a RAV4 that are coming up on there leases. I've been comparing the X3 and Q5 3.0T and they seem very similar. Bothhave about same speed and mpg, interior volume is slightly larger in X3 and X3 doesn't have hump in middle of back row so it would be more comfortable for 3rd person. I've looked at interior of X3 and it is a very pleasant place to be but haven't seen the inside of a Q5. Can you folks give me some any insight as to which one would be a better ride for a family of 4, 1 booster and 1 rear facing seat. I believe they are both excellent machines so please refrain from bashing.

RAV4
269 HP
246 TQ
Weight = 3700
Power to Weight Ratio = 13.75
Cargo Space = 38.4 cubic
MPG avg = 21

Q5 supercharged
272 HP
295 TQ
Weight = 4350
Power to Weight Ratio = 14.82
Cargo Space = 29.1 cubic
MPG avg = 21

X3 3.5
300 HP
300 TQ
Weight = 4225
Power to weight Ratio = 14.08
Cargo Space = 27.3
MPG avg = 21

[kenny kustom]

I looked at the x3 before getting my q5.
Hated the interior.
I do wish they had the same output as an s4.... But in saying that, I am very impressed with the Q5. I'm really having fun with it.
I'm also coming from a 2010 mercedes ML350 diesel. That thing was no slouch either!

[ibiski]

Even though it looks much better than the previous generation, the X3 still looks like a turd, especially front and side. I know looks are subjective but even though the Q5's looks are a bit dated, its design is still much more pleasing to the eye. As an owner of several M3's and an X5, I've had much better service experience with BMW, not to mention the free maintenance. I've gotten my brakes replaced free on two of my BMW's, something that would be rather impossible with Audi, where they won't even replace the wiper refills under the Audicare I paid for. Are you trying to replace your RAV4 and your A4 with only one car? If so, shoot for the BMW if you can live with its looks. Otherwise get the new RAV4 for the family trips, and an S4 or S5 for the fun car.

[Toast]

Trying to replace Rav4 with something that has similar cargo capacity and performance. Wife drives the A4 avant and we'll either get the 3 series sports wagon or a ES350 or maybe a GLK since she hates large cars so I drive the "utility" vehicle.

Curious how much smaller Q5 feels relative to ML or X5?

[kenny kustom]

Interior is smaller than the ml.
Trunk is smaller too. The ml size compares more to the q7 and the x5.
I wanted smaller.
So far, I am loving the q5.

[VroomVroom]

You mention having not seen the inside of a Q5.... I'd suggest making the time. It could be a game changer. In a nutshell, I pretty much blew off the Q5 for nearly two years. Too heavy...not much bigger than my Avant...don't really want the 2.0T, but they refused to mate the eight-speed to the 3.2....wah, wah, wah. Then, on a whim...almost by accident....I sat in one. Loved the room, front and back. Good-enough cargo capacity with the seats up and reclined. Found a comfortable seating position almost instantly. (Could not replicate in the BMW.) Excellent ergonomics. Then I drove it. No doubting the pudginess, but no complaints with performance....including the handling. After the drive, I had to walk around and get back in a couple of times. This is one of those vehicles that feels large and inviting inside, but appears much smaller outside. Nice illusion on behalf of Audi. In literally 30 minutes, I went from 'Meh' to 'Holy crap, I have to have one of these.'

You may not have the same experience, but at least you'll have a full apples-to-apples comparison. Good luck with the decision....

[ibiski]

How does your RAV4 have 269 HP?

[kenny kustom]

Actually, the 3.5 from 05 and up made 270.

I called bs too. But, Wikipedia confirms it....

[Toast]

Power 269 hp\weight 3700 lbs on rav is excellent, no turbo lag and uses 87. The problem is that Toyota skimped on sound deadening, interior materials and things that make a car comfortable to drive. They use that 3.5 in the highlander and i believe on lexus vehicles. Tried a XC60 which was nice but due to poor residual value the lease rates are not attractive. Narrowing down my list to X3, Q5 3.0 and RX350.

[VroomVroom]

I've become quite familiar with that Toyota 3.5L over the past seven-ish years. It really is a great motor, and they do a nice job with pairing it to a transmission with perfect ratios. I recently got to sample the latest & greatest during drives in two 2013 Lexus vehicles - a GS350 and an RX350 F-Sport. I have to tell you, that eight-speed in the RX is really impressive. Of course, the steering, suspension, and heavy front-wheel torque bias make for a much softer and polite driving experience than I prefer, but in terms of acceleration, the results are impressive. NVH, fit & finish, and materials are all top-notch. I wasn't in position to haggle (we'll replace my wife's '07 ES sometime in the next year, and she really loves the RX) but the dealer had a "Real World Price" placard of $48,600 against a $53,500 MSRP. The beauty of supply and demand, right? If the RX is your cup of tea, Lexus makes a gazillion of them and they're priced accordingly.

[ibiski]

RX has an overwhelmingly feminine image, and 90% of the time, there is a woman behind the wheel, though I must admit, Lexus did a pretty good job on the F-Sport. If only its interior would be as clean and modern as in the new GS or IS instead of the swooping curves in dash and radio area. I'm patiently waiting to see how the Macan will turn out

[b6onboost]

Q5 vs X3...its basically subjective. Pretty much comes down to looks and feel. Otherwise both will be a great replacement and huge step up from a RAV4.

Personally I think the Q5 3.0T is a much nicer car. The exterior sylting is more pleasing to the eye. The Q5 interior certainly feels higher class than the X3s. The SC 3.0T is lag free compared to the 35i's 3.0 turbo. Quattro is a better AWD system.

[Gspothit]

X3 = Turd

[Q5 Bob]

Q5 vs X3...its basically subjective. Pretty much comes down to looks and feel. Otherwise both will be a great replacement and huge step up from a RAV4.

Personally I think the Q5 3.0T is a much nicer car. The exterior sylting is more pleasing to the eye. The Q5 interior certainly feels higher class than the X3s. The SC 3.0T is lag free compared to the 35i's 3.0 turbo. Quattro is a better AWD system.

Having recently shopped both, I agree preference for one over the other is subective. Sales of the Q5 and X3 are nearly indentical which shows a nearly equal market/preference for each.

[VroomVroom]

Unfortunately not the same models you're considering, but this might be worth a read nonetheless...

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...omparison-test

[Toast]

cool read - thank you
never understood the love for the evoque but it sure is getting popular for a overpriced escape

Unfortunately not the same models you're considering, but this might be worth a read nonetheless...

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...omparison-test

[ibiski]

cool read - thank you
never understood the love for the evoque but it sure is getting popular for a overpriced escape

1. Go see one in person. The design is cutting edge and simply beautiful, though subjective.
2. The Evoque is not based on the Escape. It's a false rumor.

[ErnestHouse]

I'm sorry. When a car review resorts to food metaphors, like the Car and Driver one did, they lose all credibility. And if they don't at least provide a metaphor for the other cars in the comparo, then they lose the rest. And if that doesn't belie the article had a foregone conclusion before pen took to paper, the reader is told the BMW X3 is the comparo winner while it comes up last (by a good margin) on braking distance. What? There's scant few conclusions made in the article that aren't subjective opinions such as ride quality and steering feel (I've driven both the Q5 and X3 and they drive/steer the same), and the single most frequent and thing more drivers will in fact notice is the braking (something BMW has been having trouble with in other models) yet the worst braking car is the comparo winner while the Q5 is smeered for making the writer think of a dinner roll? All this in "Car and who knows what kind of Driver?" Please, I see a banana every time an X3 goes by and wouldn't be caught dead spending north of $40K on a car with a rear window modeled after the AMC Gremlin. I suppose we'll soon find James Broder working at C&D.

[Q5 Bob]

I see in the test results that the X3 was preferred overall by a slim margin over the Q5, 205 pts vs. 199. The Q5 was preferred overall in the Vehicle area which included comfort, eats, fit & finish etc. Where the BMW won, in their opinion, was Powertrain (49-46) and Chassis (21-17). I thought it was a good read, and agree that they were a little over the top with the food references etc.

[A4A4A4]

I'm sorry. When a car review resorts to food metaphors, like the Car and Driver one did, they lose all credibility. And if they don't at least provide a metaphor for the other cars in the comparo, then they lose the rest. And if that doesn't belie the article had a foregone conclusion before pen took to paper, the reader is told the BMW X3 is the comparo winner while it comes up last (by a good margin) on braking distance. What? There's scant few conclusions made in the article that aren't subjective opinions such as ride quality and steering feel (I've driven both the Q5 and X3 and they drive/steer the same), and the single most frequent and thing more drivers will in fact notice is the braking (something BMW has been having trouble with in other models) yet the worst braking car is the comparo winner while the Q5 is smeered for making the writer think of a dinner roll? All this in "Car and who knows what kind of Driver?" Please, I see a banana every time an X3 goes by and wouldn't be caught dead spending north of $40K on a car with a rear window modeled after the AMC Gremlin. I suppose we'll soon find James Broder working at C&D.

The fact that you think the X3 and Q5 drive/steer the same makes you lose all of your credibility. You can make the case that you prefer the softer boosted steering feeling of the Q5 to the heavier more direct steering of the BMW, but it would take a very untrained driver to say that there's no difference at all.

It's always funny to read comments on comparisons because you're almost certain to hear someone say there was a bias toward the winner. Just as I've heard people complain that C&D favours BMW's, I'm now hearing just as frequently that they favour Audi's. The fact of the matter is, they pick the car they think is best. If you look back on it historically, Audi and BMW come out to a roughly 50/50 split.

With all that said, in my personal opinion, I'd pick the Q5 over the X3, but that's just my opinion and I can respect why someone else may come to a different conclusion. I think if Audi gave them an S-line it may have changed C&D's rankings a bit but they can only review what they were given.

[ErnestHouse]

It doesn't matter to me which way they lean. I look for intellectual honesty in a review and find the C&D one lacking based on what I know from my own test drives and research. So why should I or anyone trust what they say about the rest?
For a magazine named Car and Driver, you think they might mention the Q5's intelligent roof rack that automatically adjusts the suspension dampening to compensate for the change in COG. Or perhaps (and this is a stretch for the Driver part of the name), the Q5 has a shifter that actually, ... wait for it ..., SHIFTS! In contrast, the X3 has a joy stick reminiscent of a PC flight simulator from the 1990's. No, the opening paragraph blathers about with something about how lobsters piss and paragraph 2 calls the 3 SUV's huggable.

I'll confess I haven't the refined touch to sense the difference in steering that obviously must be there. But if it's that a refined of a difference, it can't matter: The X3 lost in slalom agains the Evoque. The X3 is far noisier than the Q5. There's other contradictions as well.

[A4A4A4]

It doesn't matter to me which way they lean. I look for intellectual honesty in a review and find the C&D one lacking based on what I know from my own test drives and research. So why should I or anyone trust what they say about the rest?
For a magazine named Car and Driver, you think they might mention the Q5's intelligent roof rack that automatically adjusts the suspension dampening to compensate for the change in COG. Or perhaps (and this is a stretch for the Driver part of the name), the Q5 has a shifter that actually, ... wait for it ..., SHIFTS! In contrast, the X3 has a joy stick reminiscent of a PC flight simulator from the 1990's. No, the opening paragraph blathers about with something about how lobsters piss and paragraph 2 calls the 3 SUV's huggable.

I'll confess I haven't the refined touch to sense the difference in steering that obviously must be there. But if it's that a refined of a difference, it can't matter: The X3 lost in slalom agains the Evoque. The X3 is far noisier than the Q5. There's other contradictions as well.

Can you really not feel the difference in steering? I think to most it's pretty evident.

Sure the X3 lost to the Evoque in the slalom... but the Q5 did as well.

The X3 is far noisier? Your bias is showing again. The X3's dBA were tested (objectively mind you) at idle, WOT, and 70mph cruise at 37, 71, and 67 respectively. The Q5 came in at 36, 71, and 68. I think most would call that pretty even.

I think the driver part of C&D comes in when you look at things like the big discrepancies in power and speed between the two turbo 4's, as well as the aforementioned steering feel.

[rayray]

You mention having not seen the inside of a Q5.... I'd suggest making the time. It could be a game changer.

1. Go see one in person.

Best advice right there. If you don't want to hassle with a dealership, see if they have both at CarMax and do a side by side comparison. Done this quite a few times without buying from them...no issues. Good luck on your search.

[ErnestHouse]

"By our sound meter, the Audi is in a virtual tie with the BMW for quietness," -- C&D

I have no biases. The sound in the X3 had more road noise which was summarily unpleasant compared to the Q5. Something a meter won't tell you and is yet another subjective quality you can't put a number on such as the reported (but what I feel is minutia) difference in steering. I think the idea of a comparo is flawed and C&D's attempt to roll up their pick and choose differences into a scorecard does not serve readers. Those of us in industries where this stuff is done know how it really works. There are plainly too many subjective qualities involved in comparing these vehicles such as the visceral positive reaction of the Evoque's design language. Whose to say C&D sampled and scored it high enough? No, comparos do not serve readers. What serves readers are facts and opinions that readers can decide whether to accept or not. Assigning arbitrary scores to intangible and subjective attributes so that a "Winner" is given serves the highest bidder paying the expenses behind the article/magazine. Readers would have been better served to know about the sluggish response of the Q5 power tailgate that makes you think it doesn't activate and just when you hit it again, it goes but stops because your second press cancels the first. Or that neither Q5 or X3 allow you to close it via the FOB or foot wave. Instead we're given boring drivel about lobsters, cougars and useless food metphors no doubt rooted in nothing more inspired than the writers lunch menu choices.

[Q5 Bob]

Whlie new car shopping recently I read a lot of reviews, comparos etc. I enjoy reading most of them whether or not I agree with them. Consumer Reports offers a slightly different perspective in their reviews.comparos focusing more on practical areas than the enthusisast mags. IMO the choice is good. There is a lot of info out there for consumers and car enthusiasts.

We nearly bought an X3 but in the end went with the Q5 for a variety of reasons.

[ErnestHouse]

+1.

I can say the X3 and Q5 are both good cars. Without driving an Evoque, I won't say.

The more I think about it, the #1 Car and Driver rating is just something that accountants can put a voodoo number crunching dollar figure on. In their minds, it then becomes a commodity to manage and parlay with all the external politics and forces that come with that kind of thinking.

[Q5 Bob]

FWIW, Consumer Reports recently rated the X3 (and RDX) ahead of the Q5. The Q5 had been their top rated small luxury CUV, but apparantly the updated X3 and RDX put them ahead in CR''s eyes.

[A4A4A4]

"By our sound meter, the Audi is in a virtual tie with the BMW for quietness," -- C&D

I have no biases. The sound in the X3 had more road noise which was summarily unpleasant compared to the Q5. Something a meter won't tell you and is yet another subjective quality you can't put a number on such as the reported (but what I feel is minutia) difference in steering. I think the idea of a comparo is flawed and C&D's attempt to roll up their pick and choose differences into a scorecard does not serve readers. Those of us in industries where this stuff is done know how it really works. There are plainly too many subjective qualities involved in comparing these vehicles such as the visceral positive reaction of the Evoque's design language. Whose to say C&D sampled and scored it high enough? No, comparos do not serve readers. What serves readers are facts and opinions that readers can decide whether to accept or not. Assigning arbitrary scores to intangible and subjective attributes so that a "Winner" is given serves the highest bidder paying the expenses behind the article/magazine. Readers would have been better served to know about the sluggish response of the Q5 power tailgate that makes you think it doesn't activate and just when you hit it again, it goes but stops because your second press cancels the first. Or that neither Q5 or X3 allow you to close it via the FOB or foot wave. Instead we're given boring drivel about lobsters, cougars and useless food metphors no doubt rooted in nothing more inspired than the writers lunch menu choices.

I think the idea of comparos are far from flawed. Nearly every person who goes out and buys a car goes through the process, some may even go as far as to quantify things into numbers and tally it up like C&D does. What you need to understand is that this is just one opinion, it's not the end all be all and they're not trying to make it out to be.

If Suzy down the street tells you she bought an Evoque over the Q5 because she thinks it looks better, you wouldn't get upset about it, you'd realize she has a certain criteria and she picked based upon it. C&D is doing the exact same thing (albeit going into much greater detail) but in the end all they're offering you is their personal choice.

Opinions are absolutely needed for things like this, if the magazines had to base themselves solely facts (as you suggest), C&D would have to dismiss fantastic drivers cars like the BRZ/FR-S or even the 1M. Driving isn't done on paper, it's done on the road, that's what the people need and want to hear about.

Remember, C&D is trying to represent the opinion of enthusiast drivers, I think you may miss a lot of their points because you aren't one. These are the people who put less emphasis on quirks like slow tail-gates or special foot waving. They care more about things like power output, handling, maybe even unquantifiable things like exhaust notes and steering feel.

Are you really suggesting that C&D gives their wins to the companies who pay them more? When the S6 beat the M5 or the A7 beat the 6GC about 6 months ago, was Audi paying more back then? BMW suddenly found a few extra bucks to kick to the magazine companies now so their X3 can beat the Q5? Obviously BMW had more money to throw around March of last year when the 328i beat the A4, right?

I have a feeling you must hate Top Gear.

[ErnestHouse]

Wrong again. I love Top Gear.

Amongst these tightly competing cars, there is no "best". Only the car that's best for you. So having a Consumer Reports "Best SUV" or C&D Comparo winner is useless. When they do a lousy job of the comparison it's worse. I do think other motives and pressure go into it at times, especially when there are flaws in their comparo as I've pointed out. Heck, C&D didn't even mention the Q5 heated and cooled cup holders of the Q5! :-)

Seriously, I don't think you can come to a winner decision that has meaning or value to car buyers, only advertising executives and marketeers. All readers are served with thorough reporting and expert evaluation not blathering about the density of Starbucks and other boring drivel about Birmingham. There'll be plenty of BMW material chest beating the magazine wins as X3 over Q5.

At best, this comparo is the X3 28i vs the Q5 2.0 [insert twirling finger] but it will be used to declare X3 over Q5. What about the fact there is no hybrid model in the BMW or RR line while there is a Q5? Does it make the Q5 "better"? What about the SQ5 while BMW needs Alpina and then there's this summer when there's a 5th Q5 model (TDI) while BMW won't have a TDI till spring 2014? How do you score Q5 vs X3 with that? Do enthusiasts not care about that? How do you compare the Q5 performance hybrid that gives V6 performance at 4 cylinder economy vs the X3? Do you compare it against the 35i or the 28i? How big a factor is the lower price and better mileage of the hybrid over the X3 35i petrol model? Does a half second 0-60 difference trump all to enthusiasts but not the worse braking of the X3? You should be insulted.

[Q5 Bob]

Are you suggesting that one should only read/follow reports. reviews etc. that they agree with?

Personally, I like to know the pros and cons of each vehicle. Even if I don't necessarily agree with the findings, it helps to make an educated decsion on a vehicle, and what is rright for me.

[A4A4A4]

Wrong again. I love Top Gear.

Amongst these tightly competing cars, there is no "best". Only the car that's best for you. So having a Consumer Reports "Best SUV" or C&D Comparo winner is useless. When they do a lousy job of the comparison it's worse. I do think other motives and pressure go into it at times, especially when there are flaws in their comparo as I've pointed out. Heck, C&D didn't even mention the Q5 heated and cooled cup holders of the Q5! :-)

Seriously, I don't think you can come to a winner decision that has meaning or value to car buyers, only advertising executives and marketeers. All readers are served with thorough reporting and expert evaluation not blathering about the density of Starbucks and other boring drivel about Birmingham. There'll be plenty of BMW material chest beating the magazine wins as X3 over Q5.

At best, this comparo is the X3 28i vs the Q5 2.0 [insert twirling finger] but it will be used to declare X3 over Q5. What about the fact there is no hybrid model in the BMW or RR line while there is a Q5? Does it make the Q5 "better"? What about the SQ5 while BMW needs Alpina and then there's this summer when there's a 5th Q5 model (TDI) while BMW won't have a TDI till spring 2014? How do you score Q5 vs X3 with that? Do enthusiasts not care about that? How do you compare the Q5 performance hybrid that gives V6 performance at 4 cylinder economy vs the X3? Do you compare it against the 35i or the 28i? How big a factor is the lower price and better mileage of the hybrid over the X3 35i petrol model? Does a half second 0-60 difference trump all to enthusiasts but not the worse braking of the X3? You should be insulted.

Exactly! Car and Driver is just showing what the best car for them is. Things like heated and cooled cup holders aren't mentioned probably because they don't matter to them (and they only have limited space to print), just as they don't matter to me.... or 90% of other enthusiasts.

I think if you can be a discerning reader and pick out the parts of the article that do hold value to you then it could certainly be beneficial. Or if the majority of your automotive needs fall in line with C&D's, which for enthusiasts probably isn't that far fetched, you could easily take heed in the results too. You have to understand, they're still a writing publication and will write as such, there will be extended metaphors, there will be personification, and there will be anecdote, this way, those who don't care much about the cars can still pick up the magazine and read it without boring themselves to death.

How often to you hear Clarkson spout on about power liftgates or cupholders unless he's making a humorous quip about them?

The comparison does quite literally say "2013 BMW X3 xDrive28i vs. 2013 Audi Q5 2.0T, 2013 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque" not "X3 vs. Q5. vs. Evoque", they mention that they're comparing basic turbo 4 small small SUVS, that's really all it's on about. It doesn't matter that X3 has no hybrid, this isn't BMW brand vs. Audi brand, it's quite simply about the cars at hand. Sure if your a keen reader you can extrapolate some basic things out of here if you're looking at a derivative model, they will still share the same chassis, which happens to make for a big part of the driving experience. Yes they have to quantify some subjective matter, we get that, but that's also something people do (whether they realize it or not) when they're buying their own cars and have to come to a "winner". Why is it perfectly okay for you to do this when you buy a car but not for C&D to when they're writing an article?

It seems that comparisons aren't really what you're on against, I think it just upsets you that the car you own happened to lose and now maybe someone you know (or even yourself deep down inside) will think less of the purchase you made... This is something you need to get over, the Q5 (in any derivative) is still a fantastic car, you chose it for specific reasons and that's all that matters, I'd have it over the X3 too FWIW. Just chalk this up to your interests not aligning with C&D's this time, not that all comparos are inherently wrong, C&D is the devils work, or there's some back-room marketing going on.

[ErnestHouse]

You are wrong about that. I don't have a Q5. The comment about cupholders was sarcasm hence the emoticon. But C&D weighed Features/Amenities 10 yet scored X3 and Q5 the same. By comparison that is equal to the weight of the transmission, the beloved steering feel, handling and Engine NVH. Heck, C&D even weighted economy a 10. What enthusiast could care about that? OMG, tested price is weighted 20 which is the same as 1/4 mile acceleration. What a bunch of noobs eh?

The C&D Comparo is a bad one. They'd have had plenty of room in the piece for important things like how the X3 228i can have DHP while while the Q5 2.0 can't. Or the improved handling from the Q5 intelligent roof rack. Or why the X3 brakes are so bad even tho they are larger. Or which stability system is better (The Evoque and Q5 stability control was turned off on the skidpad test. why?) had they not wasted it on blathering about lobster urination, Starbucks density, cougars or elephants.

[A4A4A4]

I'm not even sure what you're on about now.

Some enthusiasts do care about emissions, me being one of them.

All magazines turn off as many stability controls as they're able to on skidpad tests, this helps them improve the lateral roadholding. The Q5 and Evoque don't have fully defeatable systems, that's why they have to include that it's *stability control inhibited.

Isn't DHP just BMW's version of Drive Select? Which is available on the 2.0T

I think it may just be a lack of understanding on your part that makes comparisons like these seem so invaluable to you.

[Q5 Bob]

The Q5 model tested was a Premium Plus which doesn't have the intelligent roof rack or cooled and heated cup holders. So no need to mention them.

In any case, these comparos will never satisfy everyone and I'm sure the publications know that. Some of the letters to the editor are always pretty funny after any type of comparo.

P.S. I don't know much about the Evoque, but did cross shop te Q5 and X3 extensively, and pretty much agree with C&D's assessment, point totals etc.

[ErnestHouse]

I'm not even sure what you're on about now. Some enthusiasts do care about emissions, me being one of them.

Exactly the point. It's arbitrary what they include and weight... good for some but not others.

... Isn't DHP just BMW's version of Drive Select? Which is available on the 2.0T. I think it may just be a lack of understanding on your part that makes comparisons like these seem so invaluable to you.

To the contrary, it isn't available on the T2.0: http://models.audiusa.com/q5/features-and-options

[A4A4A4]

To the contrary, it isn't available on the T2.0: http://models.audiusa.com/q5/features-and-options

That's too bad, it is up here

[ErnestHouse]

EPILOG: Only 6 months earlier, C&D's K.C. Colwell wrote of the same MY Q5:
"All the Q5s come with electrically assisted power steering that actually has a sufficient amount of feedback for an SUV and knows straight-ahead like a salmon knows upriver. The chassis blends a comfortable ride with a sporty demeanor in the way we expect a sports sedan to."

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...commend-page-2

[Q5 Bob]

I guess you could argue that this was a "First Drive" overview and not a more detailed comparision with other vehicles. Also D. Pund authored the aforementioned comparo and K.C, Colwell did this one. A case of beauty is in the eye of the beholder?