Highpark

I'm doing 26 mpg city without trying.

Dalancroft

I'm jealous!

MP4.2+6.0

Read your own quotation of my reply. Plainly says the Mazda on the AWD question, not the Q5.

Also, you can't just assume the quoted weights are valid comparisons either. A Q5 2.0T base and a fully loaded one will weigh in differently, but the quoted weight is often only for the most basic one offered in that motor configuration. Thus, owning a Hybrid as an example, not all of the incremental weight in the quoted numbers in in the battery and electric motor oriented stuff relative to a straight gas 2.0T. A bunch of it is also in the Prestige level equipment always in a Hybrid, but only optionally in a 2.0T. Consider just the panorama roof as one of many weighty up model deltas. If you own a Premium + with a variety of included options, it will presumably weigh more than the base model 2.0T as well. For that matter, even things like 235's in 18's or 19s vs. 255's in 20's will affect all of the Cd, weight and mileage marginally, but too subtle for the first pass and the limited info that was provided.

I googled the acceleration #'s briefly, and found a MT extended test on the then newly released 3.7L motor at 7.8 seconds on a 2008 AWD, down from 8.1 on the prior 3.5L. Saw several references on current ones (circa 2013) at 7.5 seconds. A theoretical 6.8 is a big step up from that w/ the weights involved, particularly pre- 8 speed trannies. Thus, from what I saw with published data, the Q5 2.0T 0-60 # you cited was faster--which I would probably expect even at lesser HP w/ the weight difference, broader torque curve at lower RPM's typical of a modern turbo, and 8 speed tranny delta.

Q5 Bob

The 2.0t Q5 is slower 0-60 vs. its competition in most of the tests I've come across. However in the tests that measured 30-50, 50-70 etc. times it was very close to the others. When shipping I was comparing the X3, GLK & RDX (both V6's).

floraudi

I don't think an Outback handles like a Porsche, and I ought to know. My 3.0 Q5 is getting 26.5 on the highway and almost 20 around town.

Bob Petruska

We did own a Turbo Porsche many years ago.

our Outback handles like on rails and a less jiggly ride compared to the Q5. We test drove a Grand Cherokee today and was not impressed. Will do the Lincoln MKX on Monday. I think that it's just a sign of the times with how cars are changing, you need to buy one every 3 years so the change isn't that noticeable. I owned a lot of Nissan Z cars and they were great in the early years and then got bad.....

Bob Petruska

but possbile depending upon your speed and driving style.

Most Q5 3.0T owners average 20 mpg or less.....

http://www.fuelly.com/car/audi/q5/gas%20v6/suv

spijun

Yes, but on the N.A. market. Not all Q5 quattro aka AWD .
FYI in Europe exists also a version with front-wheel drive aka FWD

spijun

I do not understand that someone can be compared Outbak vs Q5. Totally incomparable categories and classes of cars Outback with Q5
Subaru Outback is Wagon . Outback can be compared with the Audi allroad (maybe it not realistic because the Audi is premium class)

Q5 Bob

A couple of quotes from Consumer Reports

Q5: "pushed to its limits at our test rack, the Q5 handles almost like a sports sedan, remaining balanced. It posted a good speed negotiating our avoidance maneuver and drivers felt confident".

Outback: "Suspension tweaks made the ride considerably stiffer but tidied up the sloppy on-limit handling a bit".

Just pointing out that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and as has been mentioned, one needs to get what they prefer and what suits them best.