Audi, MIT develops dashboard robot AIDA as a mobile assistant

Lots of people talk to their cars—even if few admit it. So far those conversations are pretty one-sided, with the exception being a voice-recognition navigation system. That may one day change. Exploring the potential for future man-machine interaction, Audi has teamed with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to develop an interactive robot that not only talks back, but can also learn your driving habits, help you navigate, and even warn you of danger approaching.
 
Nicknamed AIDA, for Affective Intelligent Driving Agent, this robot  sprouts up from the top of the dashboard, smiles, frowns, and tilts its “head” to convey emotion. It is like having your own in-car Wall-E. So if the MMI isn’t enough of a distraction, here comes AIDA.
 
Researchers at MIT say that within a week of driving AIDA will learn where you live, where you work, and the route you take in between. If that route is congested, it will suggest alternate routes. If the car is low on gas, it will suggest you travel through the cheapest gas station along the route. Within a month, it will learn where you like to shop, and can route you by the grocery store.
 
AIDA can be more than a frivolous companion, though. Using forward radar, electronic stability control and other sensors, AIDA can warn of possible collisions and advise you on how to avoid them. The system’s virtual eyes merge into a cyclops – a single circle of dots surrounding a red warning triangle. And by choosing the shortest routes and avoiding traffic, it can save gas.
 
Having your car look after you, however, strikes some as “nannying.” Further, depending on how well AIDA can keep secrets, there may be a way for others to know where you’ve driven, including a spouse or car thief.
 
Should mobile assistant technology advance, those old jokes about the car knowing its own way on familiar routes may become all too true. However, AIDA is unlikely to appear on production cars any time soon.
 
Would you want AIDA for a copilot? Share your thoughts in the comments.
 
—Eric Evarts

Just In: Audi A5, Infiniti G37, and Lexus IS convertibles

We recently shook off a spurt of December-like weather here in Connecticut and recent rains that have made it a colder, less pleasant October than normal. That cut into our top-down time with our three new convertibles, as well as our beloved Miata roadster.
 
Lexus IS 250 C
Our Lexus IS 250 C’s 204-hp is outgunned by most competitors, and the small-displacement powertrain has its work cut out for it moving around the 3,845-lb. folding hardtop convertible. (You can get an IS 350 convertible, but we bought the more popular, smaller-engined version.)
 
Our car has the Luxury Package (HIDs, heated/ventilated front seats with memory, wood interior trim), park assist, and a few other options, bringing the total to $44,400. (At that point, a $100 option for headlamp washers seems cheap -- just make them standard, already.)

Like the IS sedan, our first impressions of the convertible are that it’s a very pleasant and well-finished car, but it falls somewhat short of thrilling an enthusiast driver. As such, it is a reasonable successor to the now-defunct Toyota Camry Solara convertible.

See our convertible buying advice, recommended convertibles, and convertible ratings.  

Infiniti G37
The Infiniti G37 convertible comes with only one engine option: a lovely 325-hp, 3.7-liter V6. Ours has a seven-speed automatic transmission; when that gear box appeared last year on the G37 sedan, it improved fuel economy significantly.
 
We also got the Premium Package, which adds a Bose Open Air Sound System, including “front seat personal speakers” in the headrests that work quite well. There are also heated and cooled front seats, driver’s seat memory, power tilt/telescope wheel, and an iPod controller. Also adding “genuine African rosewood trim” put the sticker at $48,715.
 
We’re big fans of the G37; it’s currently our top-rated compact sports sedan. However, the convertible is having a harder time winning people over. The responsive steering, slick powertrain, and comfortable seats remain, but the move to a convertible didn’t help structure or the ride. One nice feature in our car is the standard rearview camera -- convertibles end to suffer from visibility problems with the top up.
 
Audi A5 quattro
Audi has had a history of being something of a bargain upscale brand. But looking at some of their current pricing suggests one of two things: either they’ve been successful at shaking that bargain image, or they’re getting downright audacious. (Maybe a bit of both.) Our $49,300 Audi A5 convertible is one such example.
 
The A5 convertible has a folding soft top, unique in a world of now-common folding hardtops. Our car also has a 211-hp, 2.0-liter, turbocharged four-cylinder engine. Our Premium plus model adds HID headlights, 18-inch alloy wheels, heated front seats, and an iPod controller. Throw in $400 of “dark walnut wood inlays” and $475 of quartz gray metallic paint and you get a sticker of $49,300.
 
Let’s compare. You can buy a well-equipped Volkswagen Eos, a very well-finished convertible with a folding hardtop and the same engine (making slightly less hp) as our Audi, for $37,290. At the other extreme, a BMW 328i convertible with similar equipment costs $50,900 -- not much more for a car with a folding hardtop and two more cylinders.
 
Our pricing protest is somewhat tempered by Audi offering a unique feature for a convertible: all-wheel drive. BMW, Infiniti, and Lexus don’t offer their all-wheel drive systems on their convertibles.
 
We have found that the lack of a complex folding hard top doesn’t hurt the A5’s livability, and allows for opening and closing the top on the move (it works up to 25 mph or so).
 
All three convertibles are going through break-in miles as they progress through our multi-week test regimen. Look for further coverage and full road tests in coming months. Learn more about buying a convertible.
 
—Tom Mutchler

Recalls: Audi, Infiniti, Nissan, and Pontiac vehicles

A few recalls have been announced recently that affect the Audi A3 and Audi TT and Roadster, Infiniti M35 and M45, Nissan Cube, Murano, and Rogue, and Pontiac Vibe. If your vehicle is listed here, the manufacturer will contact you with information about what to do, or you can use one of the numbers we list below to contact the manufacturer yourself.

2006-2010 Audi A3, 2008-2010 Audi TT and TT Roadster

Volkswagen is recalling certain Audi A3, TT and TT Roadsters manufactured between September 29, 2005 and August 26, 2009 due to a problem with the fuel tank cover. The closing force of the spring of the fuel tank ventilation valve isn’t adequate to hold the valve closed under extreme driving conditions. This could cause fuel to leak and a vehicle fire could occur.

Owners will be notified of the problem and dealers will replace the fuel tank ventilation value free of charge. Questions regarding the recall can be answered by calling 1-800-253-2834.

2008-2010 Infiniti M35 and M45, 2009 Nissan Cube and Nissan Murano and 2008 Nissan Rogue

Nissan is recalling some 2008-2010 Infiniti and Nissan vehicles sold or registered in certain states due to a problem with the nut used to secure the sensor-transmitter of the tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS). The nut may corrode and crack after being in contact with heavy concentrations of road salt. If this occurs the nut may come out of the sensor transmitter and the tire-pressure light may illuminate. If the owner ignores the light and the vehicle continues to operate, the tire will quickly lose air pressure and could result in a flat increasing the risk of a crash.

The recall only affects models sold or registered in Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington D.C., West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

The dealer will replace the TPMS nut free of charge. Owners may contact Nissan at 1-800-647-7261 and Infiniti at 1-800-662-6200.

2008-2009 Nissan Rogue

Nissan is recalling certain 2008-2009 Nissan Rogue vehicles due to a screw in the steering gear cover that could loosen and fall out. This could result in loss of steering control and an increased risk of a crash.

Dealers will inspect to see if the screw is loose and tighten it if necessary. They will also install a cover plate to prevent he screw from coming out. Owners may contact Nissan at 1-800-647-7261 for more information.

2009-2010 Pontiac Vibe

General Motors is recalling certain 2009-2010 Vibe models equipped with the 1.8-liter engine and sold or registered in cold-weather states.

When driving in certain conditions in extremely low temperatures, the intake manifold suction port for the brake vacuum can become locked due to freezing condensation. This could lead to longer stopping distances and a possible crash.

The recall only affects models sold or registered in Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Dealers will modify the brake vacuum line free of charge. Owners may contact Pontiac at 1-800-620-7668.

Pet Peeve: Audi Q5 – The maddening key

As you know, we all drive the test cars not only on the track, but in our day-to-day lives as well. We drive the cars to the grocery store, the doctor’s office, and to fulfill our share of car pooling to kids’ soccer practices. This adds to the all-important “what’s it like to live with” section of our final write up.
 
Last night I drove the Audi Q5. In our tests, we praised its quiet, well-finished cabin; comfortable ride; strong V6 engine; and very un-SUV like handling. But, for me, the absolute deal-breaker and argument against buying one (at least this one) is the infuriating ignition key.
 
You see, Audi, similar to many high-end manufacturers, uses a blocky, all-in-one ignition key. But in no way does it resemble a traditional key, such as a house key. Instead, these new style keys are a bit larger than a Hot Wheels car, and not nearly as much fun. The ignition mechanism works by the key being inserted into a slot and then pressed to start the car. However, many who have driven our Q5 found it annoying, compared to the typical transponder keep-it-in-your-pocket key common to this class.
 
But my frustration with it boiled over last night when I drove my boys to their Cub Scouts pack meeting. When I pulled into the school lot and put the Q5 in Park, I couldn’t remove the key to shut down the car. Which left me no choice but to then push it in again, restarting the car and try again. I had to restart the car four times before it magically released from the dashboard. We walked into the meeting late. I was not amused. The same thing happened on the way home. And on the way into work this morning.
 
This was similar to our experience with the last Audi A4 we tested, which had a similar set-up. When we brought the issue up at a meeting with Audi, we were told a change is in place for 2010 models. I’ll believe it what I can pull the key out the first time.
 
For years, Audi’s slogan has been “advancement through technology.” I’m sorry, but this system is not a step forward. What is the point of taking something relatively simple (like shutting off the car) and making it complicated? How did the designers and engineers convince upper management that adding extra steps to a simple task was good idea? We criticized recent Audis in our evaluations for unnecessarily complicated controls. For example, selecting a seat heater or fan speed setting requires pushing a button and then dialing in the setting you want. Other cars do this with a single button press.
 
When I think of how much better cars are than they ever were, I think of stability control; antilock brakes; curtain air bags; and engines and components that run reliably for 100,000-plus miles. Growing up in the 1970s, I never thought I’d see the day when a 400-hp Chevrolet Corvette would get 31 mpg on the highway. Stuff like this gives me hope that the wonderful world of cars keeps evolving in ways I couldn’t dream of.

But this Audi ignition key is so infuriating that I don’t want to drive it. And in my view, it is a regression of common-sense engineering.

Read our full Audi Q5 road test (available to online subscribers).

—Mike Quincy

2009 Frankfurt Motor Show: Audi and Volkswagen electric cars

Electric cars gave the bi-annual Frankfurt Motor Show a jolt this year. They have run the gambit from fanciful to revolutionary, with many showcasing dramatic styling and futuristic technologies. Here, we will highlight a couple standout concepts from Audi and Volkswagen; we will follow up with examples from Lexus and Toyota.
 
Audi E-tron
Audi imagines the E-tron concept as the electric sports car of the future. It’s a little bigger than an Audi TT, but looks like the much sexier R8. The E-tron uses a lithium-ion battery pack and four electric motors, two on each axle, for an electric version of Audi’s Quattro system. Audi claims the car has 313 horsepower, will accelerate from 0-60 mph in 4.8 seconds, and has a 150-mile range. The company doesn’t specify the technology in its 53 kwh battery pack, but says it is liquid cooled. The E-tron uses a heat pump for air conditioning. The concept car explores smart infrastructure communications with wireless car-to-car, car-to-street, and car-to-pedestrian communications technology to smooth traffic flow, take advantage of automated driving systems, and help avoid accidents.
 
Volkswagen E-Up
For several years, Volkswagen has been showing models based on its original Up concept of 2007, a rear-engined four-cylinder, four-seat hatchback the company said could replace its New Beetle as popular and cheap transportation for the masses. The E-Up takes that concept one further by making the car electric. The E-Up is a more upright design, measuring just 10-1/2 ft. (a little longer than a Smart ForTwo) with seating for three adults and one child--similar in concept to the upcoming Scion iQ.) The E-Up uses a lithium-ion battery a little more than half the size and weight of the one in the Mini-E [LINK], 18 kwh, for a range of 80 miles, which VW says is sufficient for urban driving. Top speed for the 2,400-pound car is 85 mph. The E-Up can be recharged overnight on a 220-volt outlet, or more quickly with higher amps. Volkswagen says an 80-percent charge takes just one hour.

—Eric Evarts

Learn about driving green in the Consumer Reports special fuel economy section.

Just In: 2010 Audi A6 3.0T

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As such, we don’t rate styling – but that doesn’t mean we don’t find some cars more attractive than others. To my eyes, the Audi A6 is aging rather well, both inside and out. (Visit the Audi A6 model overview, available to online subscribers.)
 
The current generation appeared in 2005 and a recent freshening for 2009 keeps a fresh look. Even though some nipping and tucking went on, the biggest change was under the hood. If you get Audi’s Quattro all-wheel-drive system (like the vast majority of buyers do), the new base engine is a 300-hp, 3.0-liter supercharged V6 instead of Audi’s 3.2-liter. (It’s a bit odd that the badge on the car’s rump has a “T,” implying a turbocharger, rather than an “S.”) The old engine did a pretty good job, fuel-economy and performance-wise, but Audi felt like it needed a more powerful V6, since opting for the V8 these days is both politically incorrect and expensive.  It will be interesting to see how this new one compares.
 
Our A6 is a Premium plus model, adding “no-charge navigation,” 18-inch wheels, HID headlights, and other interior features. That’s lots of optional equipment for $1,400. Heated seats and winter mats brought the price to $53,075.
 
Despite the freshening, some of the A6’s minor eccentricities remain. The MMI controller still takes a lot of button twirling and presses for navigating through the radio functions, although you can change stations through the steering wheel controls. (Still, traditional “hard” preset buttons would be handier.) The glove box is mostly consumed by an old-school six-CD changer, as well as Audi’s multimedia drives/slots.
 
We’ll let you know how this stylish and posh executive transport fares as we put more miles on its clock.
 
—Tom Mutchler

Test complete: Audi Q5

At one point this decade Audi used the slogan “Never Follow” in its marketing campaigns. Audi aficionados like me found this amusing (disclaimer: I currently own a 1983 Audi UrQ and a 1996 A4 quattro, and leased a 2001 A4 Avant;, my wife leases a 2007 A4 quattro; and my father owns a 2004 A4 quattro) because Audi did its best to follow every other manufacturer on the SUV bandwagon. This despite making a series of interesting and enjoyable Avants (Audi-speak for station wagon) since the early 1980s. I wasn’t really excited about the mid-sized Q7 when we tested it and it didn’t wow us in testing. To me, my first thought was that the smaller Q5 didn’t stir any different emotions. Just another SUV.

Well, the Q5 is no Q7. And that’s a good thing, even if it isn’t a true sportwagon replacement.

The Q5 really did impress us once we got our hands on it, even among those of us who tend to find German luxury vehicles a bit too complex and overdone. It was the baby bear of the luxury, small SUV class in most areas – everything was just right. The ride and handling were impressive (unlike the BMW X3), the interior was roomy for the class (unlike the Infiniti EX), mileage wasn’t terrible (looking at you, Volvo XC60), and its low-speed ride is composed (that’s a demerit for the Mercedes-Benz GLK).

Add in its weight and price…oooh. Well, there’s a bit of a negative. The Q5 definitely is porky at 4,320 pounds (but when has a recent Audi been praised for its light weight?), and its $42,800 as-tested price puts it on the podium for pricey compact sporty sport-utility vehicles, just behind the BMW X3.

And, like the comparison made in the Mercedes-Benz GLK blog, the Subaru Forester 2.5XT Limited does pretty much everything the Q5 does, while carrying about 900 fewer pounds and at a nearly $14,000 savings. While it lacks the cachet of a German brand, for some people that cash savings certainly softens the impact felt among peers at the tennis club.

While I do like the Q5—and my wife likes it even more—I wish there was a better business case for Audi to sell manual transmission-equipped, all-wheel-drive sportwagons (with diesel, please) rather than SUVs. With both the A4 and A6 Avants stuck with automatics, and the new S4 available only as a sedan, I guess there is always the pre-owned market.

Learn more about the Audi Q5, with road tests, pricing, and more, in the model overview (available to online subscribers).

—Jon Linkov

Cash for clunkers: How CARS could have helped me

“It’s my money.” There, I said it. For the duration of this blog, I’m “that guy,” the person who claims the right to dictate how his or her tax money is spent once it’s sent in to the government. And with in regard to the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), I wanted to get my tax money back, but it wasn’t going to happen.

I am generally supportive of the CARS program, and the program has certainly been successful.  But I just wish it could have done more for me. (Read: "Is cash for clunkers for you?")

My 1996 Audi A4 2.8 quattro has nearly 160,000 miles on it. It’s long paid off, has been pretty darn reliable (really!), is in excellent condition, and doesn’t get much use because I often drive the CR test cars. But it has eaten a few batteries (mostly from lack of use), the climate control display is always on the fritz, and it needed two new catalytic converters last year. Needless to say, it has little value in sale or trade.

But I’m newly remarried with a baby on the way and the A4 doesn’t really cut it safety-wise. Not only does it lack side and curtain air bags, but it also doesn’t have the LATCH system for securing child seats. This is a biggie for me. As CR says in our guide to child seats: “Despite its flaws, LATCH installation eliminates some of the incompatibilities that may exist when you use the vehicle safety belts to install a child seat.”

So I’m officially in the market for a new car, but the CARS program won’t help me. According to the EPA my A4 gets 20 mpg combined. Perhaps with the new cats and O2 sensors my car gets near that, but I doubt it. But with CARS, over 18 mpg and you’re out.

I wish it hadn’t been configured like that, and rather that any major increase in mileage would be considered.

Running my scenarios
I certainly would have rushed out to drop off the A4 at the Volkswagen dealer for either a 2009 GTI or a Jetta diesel wagon. Both fit my needs and my tastes. The GTI doesn’t represent a huge improvement, but look at the numbers from fueleconomy.gov: a 5 mpg improvement in combined mileage, a 7 mpg improvement on the highway, 3.4 fewer barrels of oil consumed each year, nearly 2 fewer tons of CO2 emitted, and a $400 savings in fuel costs each year.

If I opted for the Jetta diesel, the differences are far greater: a 14 mpg improvement in combined mileage, a 17 mpg improvement in highway mileage, 5.5 fewer barrels of oil consumed each year, 3 fewer tons of CO2 emitted, and nearly a $1,000 savings in fuel costs. But the A4’s 20 mpg overall figure prevents me from getting back my tax money.

However, my old 1996 Chevrolet Blazer 4WD, with its 16 mpg, easily qualifies for CARS. What if I traded that in on something similar, say the popular Ford Escape V6 AWD: a 4 mpg improvement overall, a 4 mpg improvement on the highway, 4.3 fewer barrels of oil consumed each year, 2.2 fewer tons of CO2 emitted, and a $458 savings in fuel costs each year.

My whining is merely to illustrate that CARS could have been written to take a wider range of “clunkers” off the road. Mandating a floor for new vehicle mileage is necessary, but why not just set that and go from there? The newly purchased cars must get 22 mpg and a 4- or 10-mpg improvement over the old, while new trucks must get 18 mpg and a 2- or 5-mpg improvement over the old vehicle.

Yes, I realize the upgrade from low to mediocre mpg (the Blazer/Escape scenario) is often the same or better than the upgrade from mediocre to good mpg (the A4/GTI). Of course, the A4/Jetta diesel (assuming I could find a Jetta diesel wagon!) easily trumps the other two scenarios.

The overall result would still be very beneficial in terms of fuel used, greenhouse gas emissions, and safety. Through the Cars blog, we’ve received many comments from readers in similar situations, with 19 or 20 mpg overall, finding the program is just beyond their grasp. In the end, CARS stops short by focusing on gas guzzlers rather than fuel economy improvement. The irony is, had I bought a less fuel-efficient vehicle years ago, I would be $4,500 closer to a new, safer family car.

—Jon Linkov

Learn more in our cash for clunkers special section.

Also read:
Cars for clunkers: Obama signs $2 billion extension into law
Cash for clunkers: CARS program beats all expectations
Cash for clunkers: Most popular clunkers, new cars
Cash for clunkers: The safety advantages with new cars
Cash for clunkers: Recommended cars that qualify for a voucher
Cash for clunkers: The best gas guzzlers to junk
Cash for clunkers: Compare the fuel savings
Cash for clunkers: Fuel and owner costs
Cash for clunkers bill cuts fuel consumption–running the numbers

Have you traded in a clunker? Share your experience in our cash for clunkers forum.

IIHS Top Safety Picks: Audi, Lexus, Toyota, Volkswagen

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has announced four vehicles that earn its Top Safety Pick award: the 2009 Audi Q5, 2010 Lexus RX, 2009 Toyota Venza, and 2009 Volkswagen CC.

To qualify for the Top Safety Pick accolade, a vehicle must earn the highest rating of good in the Institute's three main tests: front-, side-, and rear-impacts. In addition it must be equipped with electronic stability control (ESC). All four of these vehicles come equipped with standard ESC and side air bags.

We recently tested all four. Our full Ratings are in the model overview pages of each vehicle (available to online subscribers).

There are currently 77 2009 models, so far, that earn the Top Pick award, up from 43 for the 2008 model year. Among them are most of the Subaru and Honda/Acura line as well as several Ford products and Volvo models. One reason for the increase is that IIHS has pushed manufacturers to make vehicles more crashworthy, improving occupant protection. Another reason is the addition of standard ESC, which will be required equipment on all vehicles by the 2012 model year. However, many manufacturers have wisely chosen to add this important safety feature to their line up before the deadline.

See Crash test 101 for more information on how the IIHS evaluates and tests vehicles. Also, check out our more than 300 crash test videos to see how vehicles perform in IIHS' front and side crash tests.

—Liza Barth  

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has announced four vehicles that earn its Top Safety Pick award: the 2009 Audi Q5, 2010 Lexus RX, 2009 Toyota Venza, and 2009 Volkswagen CC.

To qualify for the Top Safety Pick accolade, a vehicle must earn the highest rating of good in the Institute's three main tests: front-, side-, and rear-impacts. In addition it must be equipped with electronic stability control (ESC). All four of these vehicles come equipped with standard ESC and side air bags.

We recently tested all four. Our full Ratings are in the model overview pages of each vehicle (available to online subscribers).

There are currently 77 2009 models, so far, that earn the Top Pick award, up from 43 for the 2008 model year. Among them are most of the Subaru and Honda/Acura line as well as several Ford products and Volvo models. One reason for the increase is that IIHS has pushed manufacturers to make vehicles more crashworthy, improving occupant protection. Another reason is the addition of standard ESC, which will be required equipment on all vehicles by the 2012 model year. However, many manufacturers have wisely chosen to add this important safety feature to their line up before the deadline.

See Crash test 101 for more information on how the IIHS evaluates and tests vehicles. Also, check out our more than 300 crash test videos to see how vehicles perform in IIHS' front and side crash tests.

—Liza Barth  

From the Logbook: Audi Q5

The growing segment of small luxury SUVs has suffered a bit from Goldilocks syndrome--nothing has been “just right.” Here’s the scorecard so far:

The BMW X3? Stiff ride, even after a mid-life update.

Land Rover LR2? Odd controls, less than luxurious interior, and lousy reliability.

Infiniti EX35? Fast, but tight inside.

Acura RDX? Stiff ride, road noise, and an unrefined powertrain.

Further complicating the value equation: more mundane small SUVs like the Volkswagen Tiguan and high-level versions of the Subaru Forester and Toyota RAV4 are very well-rounded and cost thousands of dollars less than the zootier nameplates.

Enter the Audi Q5. Fashionably late to the party (or this market segment), the Q5 is based on Audi’s A4 sedan. Our typically equipped Q5 cost $42,800 including the Premium Plus package, a lot of money considering we didn’t get navigation. But putting the high price aside, how does the Q5 do at balancing utility, luxury, and sport? Let’s check the logbook:

“Ride is firm at low speeds but has good isolation and is steady.”

“Very quiet!”

“Nothing like an Audi to make a VW look like a bargain! The Tiguan is very expensive compared to a Forester Turbo but cheap compared to this.”

“Same old (Audi) control gripes.”

“You can buy a new Acura MDX for this price.”

“Huge sunroof that stretches from front to rear is nice on a sunny but cold day.”

“Dislike controls – still too many steps to get to what is wanted.”

“Nice engine; I like this V6 more than our A4’s 2.0T.”

“Handling is quite agile.”

“Seats comfortable, but push forward into shoulder blades.”

“What a nice SUV–blows away X3 and RDX.”

“I just wonder how many of the target buyers can swing the note on this right now…”

“Nice size gives practicality and enough room without being trucky and balky.” “Awkward radio controls are frustrating to deal with.”

“No rear view camera in a $43K SUV is disappointing.” (It’s packaged into the $3,000 navigation system option that our Q5 lacks.)

“Pleasant to drive, plenty of power, and smooth.”

So the Q5 is enjoyable to drive and a handy size, but the controls are a pain and you have to pay a steep price to play.

–Tom Mutchler