Disappointing gas mileage
04-03-2014, 04:12 PM
#11
AudiWorld Super User
I did state that we are looking at 2 other vehicles...
I would respond your family all agrees they've never driven a Porsche. My wife recently traded up from a 2005 Audi S4 Cabriolet to 2011 Porsche 911 Carrera S Cab, and the difference is night and day. Interior materials, handling, acceleration, overall build quality ... the S4 was a great car but can't hold a candle to the 911 except maybe in the area of comfort.
If you're so down on your Q5, why don't you just sell it???
BTW, equating a Subaru -- SUBARU! -- to a Porsche is the best laugh I've had all week. I had to check the date to make sure it wasn't still April 1.
If you're so down on your Q5, why don't you just sell it???
BTW, equating a Subaru -- SUBARU! -- to a Porsche is the best laugh I've had all week. I had to check the date to make sure it wasn't still April 1.
04-03-2014, 04:16 PM
#12
AudiWorld Super User
Probably true, but we need the higher cargo space.
I'm just disappointed that this Q5 didn't follow the past A4 trend. My relative just bought an A6 and when I drove it I wasn't excited. I think this electo-steering assist is the problem, just lack of good road feel, and not tight.
04-03-2014, 04:20 PM
#13
AudiWorld Super User
They mean it feels glued to the road
I would respond your family all agrees they've never driven a Porsche. My wife recently traded up from a 2005 Audi S4 Cabriolet to 2011 Porsche 911 Carrera S Cab, and the difference is night and day. Interior materials, handling, acceleration, overall build quality ... the S4 was a great car but can't hold a candle to the 911 except maybe in the area of comfort.
If you're so down on your Q5, why don't you just sell it???
BTW, equating a Subaru -- SUBARU! -- to a Porsche is the best laugh I've had all week. I had to check the date to make sure it wasn't still April 1.
If you're so down on your Q5, why don't you just sell it???
BTW, equating a Subaru -- SUBARU! -- to a Porsche is the best laugh I've had all week. I had to check the date to make sure it wasn't still April 1.
The Q5 electo-steering is just not tight as the Subie is.
04-03-2014, 05:08 PM
#15
AudiWorld Senior Member
Thread Starter
I'd been getting closer to 320-340 but this last tank (which admittedly was 95% city) just astounded me.
04-03-2014, 05:09 PM
#16
I've been getting 21-22 mpg in Wisconsin this winter with about 50/50 city/hwy driving on my Blizzaks. One big advantage I might have is not living in a large metro area where I can get gas without ethanol. If I'm not mistaken, the winter formulation gas is only required in metro areas. I also don't warm up my car... I just get in and drive. I'm hoping I will average about 24 mpg in the warm weather.
04-03-2014, 05:13 PM
#17
AudiWorld Senior Member
Thread Starter
04-03-2014, 06:38 PM
#18
AudiWorld Super User
Your mileage doesn't surprise me actually, when CA location is focused on.
On the Q5 2.0T, your calc. honestly does not surprise me. Like you I live in CA--the Peninsula of the SF Bay Area more specifically. From reading many MPG posts on this board, I shake my head often thinking, that's just not the world in which I live.
First, being sober, the stats now say I live in somewhere between the first and third worst metropolitan traffic area of the country, contending with LA and NY. Even within the Bay Area, there is Fremont or Hayward or other places with some faster streets as "city/suburban" and then there is creep and crawl like SF, a lot of Berkeley, and a variety of other places. Thus even the "local" yardstick varies from locale to locale, but the traffic here is statistically among the worst in the country.
Another data point are some loaners I got from Rector in Burlingame. Each one has had a few thousand miles, and the mpg reading was never cleared. Yes, the computer if anything is marginally optimistic, but so far I have been in a 19mpg A4 2.0T quattro and a 17mpg Q5 2.0T. So a set of drivers over six to ten tanks found those kind of mpg's per the display in Peninsula driving in low mileage 2013's and 2014's.
Relative to your Mazda, I can only speculate. You don't say if it was FWD or AWD. And even if it was AWD, Audi quattro drive is full time while almost all the Japanese designs are part time/on demand, excepting mostly Subaru's as I recall. The full time designs will invariably use more fuel. Also don't know the gearing on each comparatively. Also a bit surprised if I read your post to say the Mazda would weigh in at close to 5000 pounds if I add give or take 500 pounds to a Q5 weight. I could believe the CX 9 weighs around what my old Sienna AWD weighed, which was also in the mid 4000 range and got a similar 16MPG in mixed Bay Area city/suburban w/ modest freeway. Also, are you sure the Mazda is actually as fast as the 2.0T? Our 230HP 3.3L Sienna certainly wasn't. The turbo and the 8 gears give the 2.0T pretty good acceleration, but turbo's just plain burn gas if used.
Net, honestly in the SF Bay Area or other similar "city suburban" CA locales if you were looking for low 20's on the Q5 2.0T, it doesn't tie to what I saw on the loaners or the realities of the traffic issues here. Owning the Hybrid, low 20's is what I'll see with that in everyday local use, and it only gets comfortably to upper 20's if it has a good amount of leisurely freeway and higher speed/expressway type suburban driving. As another data point even on the family 1.6L turbo 2010 Mini S with a six speed stick FWD and easily 1000 pounds less weight and similarly not all that aero, no better than mid 20's around here is pretty common over tens of thousands of miles now.
First, being sober, the stats now say I live in somewhere between the first and third worst metropolitan traffic area of the country, contending with LA and NY. Even within the Bay Area, there is Fremont or Hayward or other places with some faster streets as "city/suburban" and then there is creep and crawl like SF, a lot of Berkeley, and a variety of other places. Thus even the "local" yardstick varies from locale to locale, but the traffic here is statistically among the worst in the country.
Another data point are some loaners I got from Rector in Burlingame. Each one has had a few thousand miles, and the mpg reading was never cleared. Yes, the computer if anything is marginally optimistic, but so far I have been in a 19mpg A4 2.0T quattro and a 17mpg Q5 2.0T. So a set of drivers over six to ten tanks found those kind of mpg's per the display in Peninsula driving in low mileage 2013's and 2014's.
Relative to your Mazda, I can only speculate. You don't say if it was FWD or AWD. And even if it was AWD, Audi quattro drive is full time while almost all the Japanese designs are part time/on demand, excepting mostly Subaru's as I recall. The full time designs will invariably use more fuel. Also don't know the gearing on each comparatively. Also a bit surprised if I read your post to say the Mazda would weigh in at close to 5000 pounds if I add give or take 500 pounds to a Q5 weight. I could believe the CX 9 weighs around what my old Sienna AWD weighed, which was also in the mid 4000 range and got a similar 16MPG in mixed Bay Area city/suburban w/ modest freeway. Also, are you sure the Mazda is actually as fast as the 2.0T? Our 230HP 3.3L Sienna certainly wasn't. The turbo and the 8 gears give the 2.0T pretty good acceleration, but turbo's just plain burn gas if used.
Net, honestly in the SF Bay Area or other similar "city suburban" CA locales if you were looking for low 20's on the Q5 2.0T, it doesn't tie to what I saw on the loaners or the realities of the traffic issues here. Owning the Hybrid, low 20's is what I'll see with that in everyday local use, and it only gets comfortably to upper 20's if it has a good amount of leisurely freeway and higher speed/expressway type suburban driving. As another data point even on the family 1.6L turbo 2010 Mini S with a six speed stick FWD and easily 1000 pounds less weight and similarly not all that aero, no better than mid 20's around here is pretty common over tens of thousands of miles now.
Last edited by MP4.2+6.0; 04-03-2014 at 07:34 PM.
04-04-2014, 04:48 AM
#19
AudiWorld Senior Member
In 2011 I test drove the Subaru Outback 3.6 and the Q5 2.0T. At the time the 4 cylinder Outback was only rated to tow 1500 lbs so not an option. Now I believe it is rated at 3500 lbs. I found the 3.6 Outback to be a sluggish toaster compared to the Q5. And I get a great discount on the Subaru as well, just couldn't do it. It was so boring to drive and hurt my eyes to look at it. The gas mileage ratings were much worse at the time as well and only a 5 speed. I routinely get high twenty's on the display and don't baby it. I have friends with the 4 cyl outback CVT and they get good mileage and like their cars. It's all what you like or not.
04-04-2014, 11:58 AM
#20
AudiWorld Senior Member
Thread Starter
Relative to your Mazda, I can only speculate. You don't say if it was FWD or AWD. Also a bit surprised if I read your post to say the Mazda would weigh in at close to 5000 pounds if I add give or take 500 pounds to a Q5 weight. Also, are you sure the Mazda is actually as fast as the 2.0T?
2) Q5 (2.0T) curb weight 4089 lbs, CX-9 (AWD, which is what I had) 4559. Close enough to 500 lbs. for my math
3) Q5 0-60 7.1 seconds, CX-9 6.8
I think that answers your questions.
Last edited by Dalancroft; 04-04-2014 at 12:00 PM.