2009 Audi Q5 Crossover Priced at $37,200

Another chick mobile.

I agree with Lancia Fan, the RX is basically purchased by female customers. It's so bland and "chicky" (made up that word) that any sane male wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.

Sorry Willis, but at best this car will be bought by chicks and guys who fancy themselves as metrosexuals. This thing looks like a re-skinned Tiguan, only the Tiguan looks more masculine. The Q5, X3, 2nd gen RX, RDX, and the GLK are all chickmobiles. And at $22,490 the Tiguan spanks the shit out of the Q5 at $37,200.00

I think the future Q3 will be based off the VW Tiguan.

Pricing is about right for that category considering it comes with Quattro and will have good equipment to start with.

Awesome.

it's nice, I saw at the NAIAS. Now we just need someone to build one of these things that is as nice as a Q5 inside, and as good looking as a GLK outside. Because the Q5 is nice inside but boring outside (hello, Audi RX350), and the GLK looks cool outside but is crap inside (Benz apparently ran out of money again when they got to the interior, just like they did on the new C-class). So far no one has gotten it right both inside and out.

Erik, you work for Mercedes, so I am not going to fault you for defending the interiors of those cars. But as someone who does not work for Mercedes (someone who also happens to think the interiors of the E-class, CLS, SL, and CL are gorgeous) the interiors of the new C-class and GLK are crap. "Conservative" is one thing. I have no problem with "conservative". "Made from materials that wouldn't have seemed out of place in the original Cadillac CTS or 2004-2006 BMW X3", however, now that's another thing entirely. That I do have a problem with, and that pretty summarily describes the interiors of the new C-class and GLK. Beautiful exteriors. Crap interiors. And it's a shame.

I don't work for Mercedes, yet I own two. My wife has the '08 C350 with the "crap interior" you are referring to. Let me give you my honest opinion about it. The cabin is well-made, solid and the materials are indeed premium. Black plastic and dark leather do not automatically equate to cheap. "Cheap" is such a strong word and there is nothing remotely cheap about the W204 C-Class interior. Mr. Erich H. is right when he mentions the word "conservative". The C-Class interior is indeed a little too conservative, but in terms of materials and premium feel the interior is a complete home run. An incredible improvement over the last generation W203.

Bill, "huge improvement" doesn't mean the new interior is good, it just means the old one was terrible. And it has nothing to do with the color, I have black interiors in both of my vehicles. It has to do with the look and feel of the materials. You see, I've heard the "premium materials" argument before. According to BMW the 2004-2006 BMW X3 interior was one of the most expensive interiors they made, according to BMW. Well guess what? It looked and felt cheap, so who cares? If it cost BMW a lot of money to produce that ugly, cheap looking interior, then they wasted their money (and the money of anyone who bought one). I don't care if it's made out of diamonds if it looks like something that should be in an economy car. And that is my impression of the new C-class and GLK interiors. I don't doubt the materials are expensive. I don't doubt the workmanship is solid. But it looks and feels cheap, period. So no offense, but no matter how much someone who works for Mercedes (Erich) or someone trying to justify their purchase of one of the cars in question (you) tries to convince me the interiors don't look or feel cheap, you aren't going to. Because they do. Not in all their models, but definitely in those two. Listen, enjoy your C350. It's a beautiful car outside. I like it. I just wish Mercedes had spent a little more effort making the inside look and feel as special as they did the outside. Because it's the best looking car in the class outside. They set the bar high. And you can tell they faceplanted right into that bar the second you get in the car.

c class is cheap on the inside because benz is as always trying to cut costs for fanboys. theyve succeeded. limited color choices as well on the interiors for the same reason. its a rip off.

Not to mention the seats are as hard as a church pew. IMO, the reason the interiors of MB's less expensive cars appear to be "cheap" is because they don't have a clue what actually appeals to the frugal buyer. I know I'll be deboosted for this statement but the first thing that came to mind as I sat in the GLK on Tuesday was... it reminded me of the BMW X3. I think Mercedes builds a great car when money is no object, but they struggle to build a decent car for under $40k. And of course anytime they build shit all the fanboys call it "conservative" instead of what it actually is, which is boring and dated.

It's not too bad, but kinda underwhelming considering it's designed after the A5 and A4.

This car (TORSEN-based permanent AWD) lost badly in German comparison against the VW Tiguan (front wheel drive, Haldex clutch occasionally powering the rear). Most importantly, the Tiguan got more points in slalom and steering department and same points for traction and driving safety, overall scoring 654 vs 658 (Q5) in "driving dynamics" subcategory. Where the f**k is quattro advantage?? Then the Tiguan is miles cheaper, has same engines, is as well made as this. It appears Q5 is a little bit useless and targeted for badgewhores: http://www.autozeitung.de/vergleichstest/audi-q5-vw-tiguan-volvo-xc-60&show=gesamtbewertung

Overpriced IMO. Less than the X3 though.

It will be interesting to see if BMW will drop the price on the next generation X3. It should be less expensive to build in the U.S than in Austria.

I cant imagine paying close or over 50k for this. Its almost the same price I've paid for my old Allroad 4.2l which in my opinion was more car for the money.

LeCar

I think the $50K version is fully, fully loaded. That's not too surprising considering the fact that the A4 3.2 can go over $50K.

Teknik was probably refering to Audi in North America where sales are not that great. A great majority of Audi's success in sales comes from their lower-end product sold in Europe and Asia. We really don't get those stripped-down versions here because Audi wants to try and cultivate an image of a higher-end marque.
This of course, also applies to BMW and Mercedes who also have greater world wide sales due to thier less expensive models.

Mr. David999, I hope you realize that if BMW or Mercedes sold only their most powerful cars in other markets they would not sell many of them. Other markets require a different approach. The German luxury brands have decades of experience in how to conduct business in those markets. They know what people want and they know of the automotive restrictions in place. They have adapted to the market. So selling cheaper cars with smaller engines is not a bad thing at all. To most people a less powerful Mercedes or BMW is still a prestigeous and luxurious car. You need to stop thinking in a narrow minded fashion and open your eyes a bit and experience other countries like Mr. Lancia Fan above me stated. Only so will you know what other countries (and other markets therefore) are like. Lexus has clearly not adapted to markets outside of North America. The question is, when will they adapt?

Did I say anything that was not true? You Lancia boy and Bill, jump to conclusions. I was responding to a post from turbospyder about world wide sales of Audi.

I think maybe your the one who should look in the mirror regarding your anti-Lexus posts.

You are a fool at best. BMW sales are tanking just as everyone else. January 2009 was "Black January" for the three premium automakers each loosing about an average of 30% from the previous year. How is Audi going to fail twit? They have record profits for 2008 that BMW and MB can only dream of achieving at this point. You sir are an idiot!

For example, your post below.

david999, your tactics are too obvious. You can try to hide it all you want and call us the fanboys but the fact is, at least we're not making any bones about it. The way you inject "economy car" hatred into your posts is annoying and childish. If Lexus had those cheaper models they would be in a far better position WW.

Sat in a couple at NAIAS. Interior nicer than other recent Audis, and easily the nicest in the segment.

I've input the available pricing and features info into TrueDelta.com's configurator.

Has anyone seen prices for options anywhere?

"Interior nicer than other recent Audis"

Really? I'd love to see if that's true because I haven't been impressed with the A4/A5 interior. Is this better than those? It would make my day.

I would buy one....nice.

overpriced rebadged VW Tiguan. I'll take the RX 450h

DinamoR....the Tiguan and Q5 are 2 entirely different vehicles.

Another so called auto enthusiast hits the autospies blogsphere. And yet another idiot joins the few sane and intelligent ones. First of diamond jim, the Q5 has nothing to do with the Tiguan. The new Q5 sits on Audi's new modular platform shared with the new A4 and A5. Don't be ignorant allegiance is evident in your teenage acronym.

I think the Volvo XC60 beats everyone in terms of styling and interior design. The Audi Q5 is just too boring it isn't revolutionary but it is better looking than the X3 for sure. So if i had to rate the vehicles by style: Volvo XC60
Mercedes-Benz GLK
Audi Q5
BMW X3

Not sure how this is not a chick mobile when the ENTIRE small SUV class are chick mobiles. That said I think the Q5 looks great!

It looks ok. One thumb up. But I wouldn't drive it.