|
From YourSITE.com Reviews & Road Tests Whether you know it or not, Fourtitude is one of a collection of sites run by a group of European car enthusiasts. Other sites in the group focus on Volkswagen, BMW, Volvo and even Saab, and, just as with Fourtitude, all of those sites are also run by die-hard enthusiasts of their respective brands. This house-of-Euro-fanboys makes for an interesting office-place dynamic.
Visually, the X3 is from a different time. While it, like the others, rides on a car-based platform, it was conceived at a time when designers believed that buyers still wanted their crossovers (that word wasn’t even being used yet, actually) to look like real sport-utilities. Instead of looking like a tall hatchback, the X3 borrows more from the G-Wagen and Range Rover school of design. It looks bold and adventurous, while the Volvo and Audi have flow and grace as their major themes. Looks, however, can be deceiving. Despite its chunkiness, the X3 is 86 pounds lighter than the XC60 and 90 pounds lighter than the Q5; additionally, it has the shortest length of the bunch and is just barely taller than the Audi. The Q5 and the XC60 must have been using the same Crossovers for Dummies book because in addition to being within four pounds of one another, they’re the exact same length (182.2 inches, though the Audi rides on a 1.3 more inches of wheelbase) and are separated, power-wise, by just 11 horsepower. The Audi has a slight lead in every passenger space measurement, while the Volvo boasts a bit more cargo space. The X3 splits the two for passenger space but, thanks to those squared-off edges, has a group-leading 71 cubic feet of luggage room with the seats down. Though the space inside each of these crossovers is within inches of one another in every measurement, the atmosphere of each couldn’t be more different. The X3’s seating position can only be described as Land Rover-like. The seat is mounted high, while the window line and hood are low, providing a commanding view of the world outside. The Q5 feels the most like a traditional sedan, while the XC60 provides the up high, yet cocooning feel we’ve come to expect from more and more current crossovers. Three vehicles, three personalities. The BMW is for those who want a full view over everything; the Audi is for image-conscious sedan owners looking for added space and utility; the XC60 provides a bit of both. The XC60 also delivers perhaps the most interesting cabin. While some of the materials (the rubbery steering wheel and some door trim come to mind) aren’t up to the same tactile standards as those in the Audi, our tester came with two-tone leather upholstery and a gorgeous optional slab of curved wood along its unique floating center stack. All of the Volvo’s buttons, save the navigation controls hidden on the back of a one steering wheel three o’clock spoke, are laid out in a simple, logical manner. Scandinavian minimalism has never looked better. Well, mostly. We do have to complain about the high count of different textures in the cabin. The dashboard material matches nothing else and while the two-tone seats are attractive, one color is made up of smooth, soft leather while the other comes from, we assume, the hide of a narwhal that washed up on the coast of Sweden. Still, the seats are comfortable, the design is attractive, and the optional Dynaudio system is incredibly clear, provided you don’t overload it with bass notes.
The Audi Q5 has, predictably, the highest perceived interior quality of the bunch, though a small bit of cost-cutting generally not seen from the brand is evident in the hard plastic used for the lower door panels. Yes, one might argue that these parts should be durable and scuff-resistant to brush off abuse from passengers’ shoes (especially considering the toughness people expect from crossovers), but it was surprising too feel in an Audi. The seats are comfortable if a bit generic-looking, and its white-lit black gauges with red dials are the most legible in low-light driving. Audi’s standard MMI system, now in its third generation and featuring optional navigation with topographical maps and even detailed building graphics in urban areas, is the best user interface of the group by far and we especially like the volume knob located right next to the rest of the controls, right where one’s hand might rest while operating other radio controls. Overall, the Q5’s interior is a lesson in playing it safe. It isn’t Audi’s finest work ever, but it isn’t offensive in any way. It’s straightforward and functional.
It’s hard to criticize the X3’s interior knowing how far it has come since its original grainy, hard dashboard and lack of much contrasting trim, but even with its 2007 refresh, the BMW is showing some age. Its buttons and controls seem more in line with the last generation 3-series sedan because that is, in fact, the chassis on which the X3 is based. However, its seats are attractive and more supportive than those in the other cars, especially in terms of lateral support versus the Volvo. Traditionalists will love that the X3 is the only one in this group to use a genuine, honest-to-goodness metal key that goes in a slot and – get this – turns to start the engine. The X3’s outdated navigation controls and interface make iDrive and BMW’s latest generation of navigation seem heaven-sent, but on the positive side of the interior, the X3’s massive glass roof opens back further than the Audi’s or the Volvo’s. Like the XC60, the BMW comes standard with the big moonroof; it’s an option on the base Q5, but you’ll have to pony up for a higher trim level to get it as standard equipment. The second serious gripe about the X3 when it first debuted was its ride quality, which was closer to that of a Z4 M coupe than to its big brother X5. This was addressed during the 2007 refresh, but the X3 is still by far the harshest of this group. The good by-products of this are that the X5 feels locked to the road on smooth highways and it’s the easiest to toss around in tight urban traffic. It’s weight advantage over the other two helps there as well. The downside of this is that on the same roads we commute home on each and every day, the X3 delivers one of the most jarring rides we’ve experienced in a while. At least its engine doesn’t have the same personality – BMW’s 3.0-liter inline-six is as soft as ever in this application.
Audi’s direct-injection 3.2-liter V-6, in contrast, still has some of the coarseness we’ve come to expect. The tones from beneath the hood aren’t as pleasing and the meat of its torque doesn’t feel like it is cut as thick as the BMW’s or the Volvo’s turbocharged in-line six. Audi claims the quickest 0-60 mph time of 6.7 seconds, but the boosted XC60 (a claimed 7.1-second sprinter) feels quicker. It weighs the same as the Audi, yet it produces 10 more horsepower and 52 lb-ft more torque (at 1500-4800 rpm, no less.) The 0-60 math doesn’t quite add up if you ask us. The Audi’s gear ratios have a slight advantage, but our butts tell us the Audi isn’t the drag racer of the group. It does, however, offer a pretty excellent compromise of sportiness and comfort; this is especially true for the Audi Drive Select-equipped model we drove. In addition to modifying the suspension damping characteristics, ADS modifies steering weight and throttle sensitivity, allowing the driver to select between “comfort,” “dynamic,” and “auto” modes. With this somewhat expensive system, the Audi is able to behave like the BMW, the Volvo, and everything in between. We left it in automatic mode for the most part, as we were told it was the closest to how a base level car would behave. Left this way, the Q5 represents the middle of the road. Thanks to its relation to the latest generation of Audi coupes and sedans, it also doesn’t feel as front-heavy as people who’ve been turned off to Audis would expect. However, it does still exhibit some secondary ride jitters.
Ride motions are most fluid in the Volvo, which absolutely loves to settle in at highway speeds. We drove it 300 miles round trip to and from a gathering in Elkhart Lake, Wisconsin and loved every second of the car’s soft, yet supportive seats, the ride tranquility, and the inline six-cylinder’s massive torque, which allowed the transmission to fall asleep in sixth gear. Volvo’s T6 powerplant is quite wonderful in its BMW smoothness and thanks to the turbo, it’s both the most powerful and the smallest (by 43 cubic centimeters) engine of the test. However, it’s also the least efficient; its combined 19 mpg falls short of the 20 mpg recorded for both the Audi and the BMW. For those of you cheering for the X3, you’ll be happy to know it has the bragging rights to the highest mpg figure of 24 highway miles per gallon versus the Audi’s 23 and the Volvo’s 22. However, these three vehicles are right on top of one another. Obviously, there will be XC60 drivers out there claiming big numbers and X3 owners not owning up to the 10 mpg they average by driving like cocks. The Volvo loses some points once it gets off the highway, where our feelings are mixed. It has a perfect throttle tip-in and light, energetic steering that make it feel more like a big C30 than a small XC90 on city streets, which makes it enjoyable as an daily urban pothole fighter. But its seats could use more bolstering and in tighter corners – on-ramps, for example – the XC60’s handling gets floppy with the nose feeling heavy compared to the more rear-biased German competition. I mention on-ramps because while most sane people wouldn’t expect their XC60 to be autocross-ready, it can feel slightly cumbersome in some common driving situations.
The XC60’s trump card, of course, is City Safety. It’s an infrared laser system that senses cars ahead and works at speeds below 18 mph. If the speed differential between the Volvo and the car ahead of it is below 9 mph, the car will stop itself and prevent any damage or injury. At differentials between 9 and 18 mph, the impact is reduced. Unfortunately, this is the type of system that is only impressive when you really need it to be. Sure, we tried it against a few soft objects like garbage cans and it was neat, but we also resisted the temptation to trust the car while creeping up to a stop sign behind a Land Rover Defender, which seemed like something good to run into without inflicting damage the other driver would have to deal with. We’re sure it will work great, but we’ll have to wait and hear comments from real owners about its effectiveness. Surprisingly, since pricing usually trends higher for newer models, the X3 has a starting price about $2000 higher than the other two vehicles, which have identical starting prices of $37,200. But if you want to split hairs, that number isn’t exactly true. Adding a destination charge of $825 to each brings the real price, except the Audi isn’t quite done there, either. If you try to build a completely base Q5 on audiusa.com, it insists that you get an optional $275 stereo upgrade from, apparently, no radio at all. On this technicality, the Volvo is the price leader. In the recent weeks, the brand has also introduced a non-turbo, front-drive version of the XC60, dropping the base price by thousands.
So let’s sum it up. The BMW X3 is due for a replacement but still manages to hold its own (dynamically if not visually) against the latest and most interesting competition. Despite having the lowest power figure, it’s the sportiest of the bunch and the best for dodging clueless cab drivers and lost tourists. Its initial flaws have been attended to but still exist to a lesser extent. If you’re into soft rides, elegant interiors, or infotainment systems that are easy to navigate, you’ll want to stay away from the X3 or at least wait for the next generation version to debut next year, hopefully with a slightly lower price tag. Or if space isn’t an issue, the smaller, cheaper X1 is also just around the corner. The Audi Q5 continues the brand’s path toward a more performance- and style-oriented car-builder. It offers the best combination of all-around sport and comfort and has by far the best user interface for controls, gauges, and electronic do-dads. It’s styling is more conservative, which will likely attract more buyers than it will scare away. Yet at the same time, it does include some subtle aggressiveness borrowed from Audi’s rally past. It’s boxed fender flares scream “Ur quattro” while its elegant D-pillar is cut similar to that of an S5 and again, has some Audi heritage drawn right in. We like the Q5, but if it had the A6’s new supercharged V-6, which is more powerful and more fluid, we’d absolutely love it.
In a way, the Q5 and the XC60 almost complement one another. They weigh the same, measure closely in every direction, and even have the same starting prices (sort of.) But from there, they take different paths. While the Audi is conservative, yet upscale, and does its job quite well without a whole lot of driver involvement, the XC60 has an in-your-face exterior and, when spec’d right, an interior that’s doesn’t just get in your face, it punches you in the nose. Some people won’t like the two-tone leather, the less-is-more floating console, or the many textures. They should probably buy a Q5. But others will think it’s very cool, and as a vehicle, they’ll probably find the XC60 to be comforting, entertaining, and useful all at the same time. It’s fast but not exactly sporty and, as one would expect from a new Volvo, it’s very safety-oriented. So that’s how they play out. Which one is best will likely depend on your own priorities and allegiances. Naturally, even our own staff would be pulled in different directions, with no single vehicle emerging as totally dominant in the group. A rematch to the death, however, may be in order once the new X3 is spawned.
© Copyright 2004 by YourSITE.com |
