Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Luxury Lounge

1…4142444647…428

Comments

  • deweydewey Member Posts: 5,251
    We are dependent because the oil suppliers have used the "price of oil vs. alternatives" to their advantage.

    Tagman,

    it's only an advantage for oil companies because consumers dont want to pay more for fuels . Consumers dont want synfuels. They want cheap fuels instead. The reason oil is cheaper than alternatives like synfuel is because there is still a vast abundance of oil reserves. But there is just one problem. Most of these reserves are under the control of oil Sheikhs, Putin, Chavez and other hostile dictators (some wanting an atom bomb) .

    American oil companies especially Exxon are doing their very best in providing consumers with what they want most and that is providing them with the cheapest possible fuel prices.

    Everytime fuel prices shoot up oil companies like Exxon get blamed. The fact of the matter is that high fuel prices has nothing to do with oil companies but everything to do with the manipulations and tensions of overseas countries.

    When Syncrude is competitively priced to oil then syncrude will become an option.
  • bristol2bristol2 Member Posts: 736
    Every time fuel prices shoot up oil companies like Exxon get blamed. The fact of the matter is that high fuel prices has nothing to do with oil companies

    That's not completely true. Oil companies have been enjoying record profits as a percentage of sales as well as in gross sales.

    Don't you ever wonder why the cost at the gas pump goes up at the same time a barrel of crude goes up? Even though the gas in the station's tank was bought at a cheaper cost?

    Oil companies are not the evil entities that they are frequently portrayed but they are not on the side of the consumer either.
  • deweydewey Member Posts: 5,251
    What about a few years ago when an oil barrel was priced in single digits. Many oil companies were suffering during that period while us consumers were feasting on cheap gas at the pumps. Not too far in the recent past petroleum engineers struggled to find employment. Just like other industries oil companies have their feasts and famines.

    Big oil profits are not obscene when you consider the trials and tribulations they had to go through in the past.
  • hpowdershpowders Member Posts: 4,330
    I would be for anything that would permanently change the consumer's mindset toward fuel efficiency. It's not going to happen voluntarily.

    With GMC coming out recently with their much heralded big new SUVs (Saturn Outlook, etc;) achieving 16 mpg if one is lucky, we obviously have a long way to go.
  • bristol2bristol2 Member Posts: 736
    You are a very generous consumer to give the oil companies credit for their trials and tribulations of the past! I wish I had you as a customer.

    Oil companies were not suffering when oil was cheap, you notice no one went out of business, they just consolidated and made a lot of money at that and then got tax breaks for exploration which they don't want to stop now that oil is high.
    Refiners were suffering during low cost years but now they are kings of the pile.

    The fact is that because a commodity market goes up and down does not mean that those in that market have free rein. Again, I don't want to infer that I think there is a conspiracy with big oil but I think that they are more than happy to push price jumps down to the consumer when the actual product in inventory was bought at a lower than current market cost.

    Finally they don't seem to be interested in bringing prices down (pro-consumer) as they are in pushing prices up (pro-profit).
  • deweydewey Member Posts: 5,251
    Here's a cabrio warning to you Howard. I know you're interest in the BMW 335i cabrio and here's some info about it:

    The 2007 BMW 3 Series and the 2007 Audi A4 Cabriolet, meanwhile, received the Institute's second-lowest score of marginal in side-impact tests. The BMW convertible starts at $43,200, while the A4 model starts at $39,100. Both received the highest ratings in frontal tests.

    During its side test of the 3 Series, for example, the Institute recorded injury measures on the driver dummy that could indicate rib fractures and injuries to internal organs in a similar crash

    Personally I prefer driving my 335i sedan than any cabrio especially up here in the not always sunny north.

    link title
  • deweydewey Member Posts: 5,251
    The fact is that because a commodity market goes up and down does not mean that those in that market have free rein.

    I've seen the alternative to a free rein market here in Canada. We had a disastrous 1980 National Energy Program and today there are still a majority of Canadians who want our oil industry to be nationalized and feel it is their legitimate right to be insulated and pampered away from the real brutal world of high oil prices.

    Profit maximizing organizations belong in the oil industry. Certainly not politicians.

    That's my opinion and I dont want to have a lengthy battle because I am fully aware that I wont be able to persuade anyone here to think differently.
  • bristol2bristol2 Member Posts: 736
    Fair enough.

    I think we all agree that improved mileage + choice = win/win.
  • deweydewey Member Posts: 5,251
    Agree :shades:
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    hpowders, think it through for a moment. Your surcharge idea would do absolutely nothing for conservation and everything for hurting our economy. Some of you are mentioning the big gas crisis of the early 70s. Yes, that was a terrible time, but did it stop anyone from driving? Nope! People still had to go to work, buy food and other life necessities, visit with friends and family, doctor visits, etc. despite the crisis and prices. A surcharge now would not change that one bit.

    Your idea of basically trying to deprive people of the right to drive is just like trying to take away our freedom. It's un-American. Driving is, pure and simple, an American pastime. Surely, you remember as a kid your dad piling everyone in the car on a Sunday afternoon for a drive. But the main reason your surcharge idea will never work is because nature loves balance, and is always in balance. Jack up the price of gas and guess what happens. People cut back on other things. No eating out as much. Fewer nights at the movies. Fewer trips to amusement parks, museums, concerts, etc. As you can probably guess, spread that across millions of people across the nation and that's BILLIONS of dollars lost from the economy. All for nothing. A surcharge would be an undue hardship for the working class, a waste of money, and a waste of legislation.
  • hpowdershpowders Member Posts: 4,330
    Yes. Thanks, Dewey!

    I just saw that this morning in my local paper. Second highest rating doesn't inspire much confidence.

    I saw the 335i convertible recently and didn't like it. It does not look very appealing with the top up!

    The additional weight of the vehicle makes it the poorest handling 335i, which still isn't bad of course, but my interest in it has disappeared.

    I'm with you! If I get a 335i, it will be the sedan. Functionality with great performance! :)
  • jlbljlbl Member Posts: 1,333
    May be an Edmunds' posters get-together party can be organized at Le Mans one of these years! :D

    May be Edmunds would be so kind as to sponsor the attendants! ;)

    Regards,
    Jose
  • hpowdershpowders Member Posts: 4,330
    Whoa! Who said anything about depriving people of the right to drive? Let 'em drive as much as they want with vehicles designed for maximum fuel efficiency.

    GMC recently released the Saturn Outlook and GMC Acadia large crossover vehicles. I feel it was a mistake to have brought them to market in their gas-guzzling 16 mpg (if you only drive downhill)) versions. They should have been released as diesels achieving at least 25 mpg.

    All vehicles should be converted to hybrid or diesel versions as soon as possible and NOT simply existing as expensive alternatives for the affluent among us.

    Then, drive 'em 'til you drop! ;)
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    Let me rephrase that to "a surcharge would infringe on the freedom to drive."
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,327
    If what you say is true then it shouldn't matter what the price of oil is to the oil companies. They would only be making their few cents a gallon profit. Instead Exxon is making like 30 billion profit this quarter.

    I understand and agree with you to some extent but how do you explain these huge profits?

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • laurasdadalaurasdada Member Posts: 4,724
    Although I'm not sure that it applies to Truck/SUVs... So, the Gov't is reaching further into the pockets of those that it deems to be purchasing fuel-wasting cars, e.g. some (all?) MB V8 cars.

    '21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)

  • jimbresjimbres Member Posts: 2,025
    Instead Exxon is making like 30 billion profit this quarter.

    The beauty of capitalism is that you're free to buy a few shares of Exxon & enjoy some of this profitability.
  • dan67dan67 Member Posts: 51
    Fantasy Land. First of all the US Tax Code is highly tilted toward social/economic goals. That is one of the reasons it is so darn complex. 1000's of examples of this in the Tax Code, most far less positive than lowering foreign oil use. Getting our dependance on foreign oil down would certainly fall into being a good social/economic and political good. So I for one wouldn't be upset with a phased increase in gasolene taxes giving people a chance to move to higher MPG vehicles or alternative. I believe the average American will not change his consumption habits without a strong economic reason. Second, higher prices reduce demand by simple economic theory. Third, getting nearly 50% of the US families that pay no income tax to pay more makes them more vested in the economic system. Additionally those able to afford higher MPG vehicles will end up paying more taxes which would not violate our desire for a progressive tax system based on income. Finally, I'm tired to lining the pockets of countries that hate us and all we stand for and seem to cost us in American lives and fortune.
  • tagmantagman Member Posts: 8,441
    Dewey -
    The point I was making is that resources for alternative fuels are plentiful in this country. The market conditions have not made it profitable enough for the oil companies and other companies to use them. But as we flirt with high oil prices, these alternatives start to look more attractive.

    Also, there were posts inferring that we are at the mercy of the shieks... and I want to point out that even if they completely stopped the supply, which makes very little economic sense, we are not as dependent as was being posted. Of course, our infrastructure would be badly shaken during our transition, but ultimately alternative fuels such as synfuel could be distributed by the existing gas stations, and many existing engines could run it, or easily be converted to run it. Additionally, consider that there is enough resource in our country alone to last for at least another century. And by then, we'll be much more advanced in energy technology.

    In my opinion, the markets will ultimately dictate the energy consumption and fuels used and produced, and it is obvious that the U.S. population is now finally engaged in a trend towards both smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles.

    The small fuel-efficient segment is in the process of rapid growth. This segment is now on fire. As diesels start to arrive, the size of the vehicles won't need to be quite so small to achieve greater fuel efficiency.

    The instability of the world and global politics are reasons enough to move towards energy independence, but rest assured in the event of a crisis, we do have the ultimate capability to be independent, even if we were to go through some tough times to establish it.

    TagMan
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,327
    I understand that but that does not answer the question.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • jimbresjimbres Member Posts: 2,025
    I'm not sure that I understand the question or the need to ask it. Why is it necessary to explain any company's profits -- whether that company is the corner bookstore or a multinational corporation?

    Underlying that question is the unspoken assumption that a company is not entitled to any profit over & above what the questioner deems to be "reasonable". Would you have asked that question 10 years ago, when oil was selling for $10/barrel -- too low, in the view of industry analysts, to make exploration worthwhile? (The rule of thumb in the mid to late 90s was that it didn't pay to look for new oil unless you could get at least $20/barrel for it.)

    I apologize if you did not intend your question to be understood in that way. I don't want to give offense. It's just that this kind of thinking was behind 1970s regulations that capped the price on "old" (pre-1973) oil & that led to the 1979 supply crunch.

    Like hpowders, I waited in long lines in 1973-1974 & again in 1979 for a few gallons of gasoline. After that, I decided that I preferred expensive but available gas to cheap but non-existent gas.
  • deweydewey Member Posts: 5,251
    30 Billion in a quarter is a sin. ;)

    Exxon during 2006 earned about 40 billion and during the first quarter of 07 they earned about 9 billion.

    Those are still humungous profits. And I've never said that oil companies dont benefit from high oil prices. Ofcourse they do. What I said was that they are not the big reason behind those very high oil prices we have today.

    There is a boom in nickel, uranium and copper prices. Should we regulate and restrict mining companies because of their high profits? Ofcourse not. Likewise with oil companies.

    Also most the benefits of high oil prices are flowing not to Exxon or other multinational oil companies but to the various nationalized oil companies like Aramco (Saudi Arabia). Despite this fact Exxon is still making $40 Billion. Just imagine the hefty profits at Aramco(profits are undisclosed because it a Saudi government company)? All that wealth is definitely evident in the 60 exotic car collections of various Sheikhs.
  • deweydewey Member Posts: 5,251
    when oil was selling for $10/barrel -- too low, in the view of industry analysts, to make exploration worthwhile?

    That lack of exploration during that period is one of the reasons why we have our situation today.
  • deweydewey Member Posts: 5,251
    Tagman,

    I agree with everything in your post. The benefits of energy independance would definitely involve hardships. But the only way we would choose energy independence would be through another crisis like the 1973 situation. Otherwise we will continue our complacent consumption of relatively cheap oil from hostile lands.

    Nothing's going to change unless we are jolted into change. Hardships are hardly ever chosen.
  • lexusguylexusguy Member Posts: 6,419
    What I am saying is by this time, almost 35 years after the energy crisis of the 1970's, all vehicles should be providing us with 35 mpg.

    If cars today weighed what they did in the '80s, and had the power they had in the '80s, they would be getting 35mpg+. In the '80s the average horsepower was barely over 100. Now its over 200. In twenty years, the 4-cyl Camry has gained 43hp, 7" in length, and 617 pounds of weight. Do you want gas mileage, or do you want a car that's safe?
  • hpowdershpowders Member Posts: 4,330
    "I waited in long lines in 1973-1974...After that, I decided that I preferred expensive but available gas to cheap but non-existent gas."

    Well said. That is the point. Better to have some fuel that is expensive, but available, than none at all because it was too cheap and used like water.
  • hpowdershpowders Member Posts: 4,330
    I want all engines converted to diesel and hybrid versions to conserve what fuel we can.

    We will never, unfortunately, be able to turn the clock back to the good old days.
    That's why they have cosmetic surgeons. ;)
  • lexusguylexusguy Member Posts: 6,419
    We will never, unfortunately, be able to turn the clock back to the good old days.
    That's why they have cosmetic surgeons.

    Actually, the 2007 Corolla is about the same size and weighs a bit less than the '87 Camry. It's capable of 35mpg+, even with airbags and all of the other things the government now requires. Fuel efficient cars are available, and yet the #1 and #2 sellers are still full sized pickups that get mileage in the teens. What does that tell you?
  • laurasdadalaurasdada Member Posts: 4,724
    That many people need a full-sized pickup to help them make a living?
    Or saw "Urban Cowboy" too many times... :blush:

    '21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)

  • tagmantagman Member Posts: 8,441
    Fuel efficient cars are available, and yet the #1 and #2 sellers are still full sized pickups that get mileage in the teens. What does that tell you?

    It tells us that there are those that don't respond as quickly as others.

    Don't forget that in the SUV category, for example, the Ford Explorer is not #1 any more. It's now the Honda CR-V. And, the hottest growth segment?... Smaller fuel-efficient cars!

    So, again, the response curve will vary for different people and different segments. Nonetheless, there is a significant trend and desire towards fuel efficiency.

    TagMan
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,327
    Once again, your rant has little or nothing to do with what I was talking about.

    If you have an opinion or want to make a statement that is fine but please don't disguise it as an answer to a question that I posed.

    Your first sentence is the only one that was correct. You had no understanding of the question posed or the reasoning behind it.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • jimbresjimbres Member Posts: 2,025
    If I misunderstood your question, please accept my humble apology. It was certainly not my intention to "rant".

    Would you please help me by rephrasing or elaborating on your question? I would like to avoid any further misunderstandings.
  • houdini1houdini1 Member Posts: 8,327
    The post in question was directed to another member as a reply to one of his posts. I was seeking clarification on his opinion.

    At any rate no harm done and I would like to welcome you aboard. I can see that you are a long term member but that you haven't posted much in this particular forum. I hope you will decide to stick around and share some of your wisdom here. I can assure you that you will find it informative and entertaining.

    2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460

  • lexusguylexusguy Member Posts: 6,419
    That many people need a full-sized pickup to help them make a living?
    Or saw "Urban Cowboy" too many times...

    I have a tough time believing that the enormous number of V8 pickups sold every year are all bought by professionals that need their capabilities. I'm sure the percentage is more than the number of Cayenne owners that go rock crawling (0%) but probably not by all that much. For whatever reason, 'mericans love their trucks, no matter how much gas they guzzle or how awful they are to drive. Also, nobody needs a Ram SRT-10 or Silverado SS for work.
  • anthonypanthonyp Member Posts: 1,860
    hi blkhemi

    A long time since we communicated....I must have gotten lost somewhere along the line, as I thought you had traded the S8 possibly for the Jag...Anyway since we purchased the Audi, a year and a half ago, in my case it has been the best..even better than the previous Lexus....I guess everyone have their priorities, but I couldn`t be more pleased with my car...and I know how you felt about the W 12...That was a fun time in your life--a time I got to know you a little....Tony ps the QP has just a bit too much outside chrome for my tastes...Other than that a smooth looking car...
  • deweydewey Member Posts: 5,251
    For whatever reason, 'mericans love their trucks, no matter how much gas they guzzle or how awful they are to drive. Also, nobody needs a Ram SRT-10 or Silverado SS for work.

    A great post for another forum but certainly not for this one.
    How many of us here wants or owns a luxury or performance V8/V12?
    The majority I presume.
    How many of us here needs a luxury or performance V8/V12?
    None of us I presume.
    We members in this forum are just as indulgent in consuming gas as our breathen Urban Cowboy truck drivers.
  • reality2reality2 Member Posts: 303
    The A8L W12 easily exceeds $120,00 USD. Nothing new there and has been since its introduction. I would think that would be common knowledge among "Luxury Lounge" participants.
  • jimbresjimbres Member Posts: 2,025
    Thanks for the kind words.
  • lexusguylexusguy Member Posts: 6,419
    The A8L W12 easily exceeds $120,00 USD. Nothing new there and has been since its introduction. I would think that would be common knowledge among "Luxury Lounge" participants.

    Right, I wasn't talking about the W-12 though. I was talking about the V8 powered A8L, which starts at $72K, as I said. Brightness took the £63K A8L 4.2TDi to mean that the car would cost $120K here (ignoring that the A8L 4.2FSI is also £63K), and a quick trip to Audiusa.com proves that it does not cost $120K. Fortunately for us, car makers don't price by exchange rate, or we'd be paying about 2X what we do for our cars.
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    How has your XK been? Is the rear seat at all useful? Because when I went to the Jag dealer with my son to do a (preview) drive of the XJ for my wife, he attempted to sit in the back of the XK, and said it felt like "sitting in a bucket." This is a boy who knows his cars, and thinks the XK is beautiful (as do I), so I trust him.

    I only ask because, eventually (I stress that), I will be driving an XKR to see if it can replace my S4. There are so many different vehicles on my list that it's hard to keep it all straight, but I do know that the sexy new XKR is on it for sure. "Underpowered," my @ss. Not everyone has to one-up BMW.

    '06 Audi A3 2.0T DSG • '05 Audi S4 Cabriolet • '04 Lexus RX330
  • esfesf Member Posts: 1,020
    The A8L 4.2TDI (my favorite luxury sedan-- call me biased) also gets better mileage than the LS600hL, as well as similar acceleration numbers. Audi quotes about 5.8 for 0-60mph, and it gets 33 US mpg. Very good... very good indeed. I think of it as the ultimate exec express.

    '06 Audi A3 2.0T DSG • '05 Audi S4 Cabriolet • '04 Lexus RX330
  • lexusguylexusguy Member Posts: 6,419
    How has your XK been? Is the rear seat at all useful? Because when I went to the Jag dealer with my son to do a (preview) drive of the XJ for my wife, he attempted to sit in the back of the XK, and said it felt like "sitting in a bucket." This is a boy who knows his cars, and thinks the XK is beautiful (as do I), so I trust him.

    The rear seats in the XK have always been useless, at least in the convertibles anyway; I've never owned a XK coupe or tried to sit in the back of one. If you have legs, you won't fit. They are nothing more than a leather parcel shelf with seat belts. If you're looking for a true "4-seat" convertible, the XK is out.

    As a luxury GT convertible for two though, the XKR is the best in the segment, at least until I get a chance to drive the Maserati GT anyway. It might not have M6 power, but I'll take Jag looks over M power any day of the week.
  • carnaughtcarnaught Member Posts: 3,497
    We shouldn't be in this position. We've had almost 35 years to make some serious changes and instead, we've done nothing.


    EXACTLY. We could/should have been oil-independant by now!
  • tagmantagman Member Posts: 8,441
    We shouldn't be in this position. We've had almost 35 years to make some serious changes and instead, we've done nothing.


    EXACTLY. We could/should have been oil-independant by now!

    Big Money / Powerful Politics / Human Nature

    TagMan
  • deweydewey Member Posts: 5,251
    "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
    JFK

    We ourselve are the main culprits for our energy dependence. Government and businesses do not dictate to us what cars we should drive. Nor do they do not dictate how big our energy inefficient McMansions are suppose to be.

    If fuel prices drop again as it did in the 90s then fuel efficiency will become an auto buyer's priority number 38 as it was ten years ago.
  • laurasdadalaurasdada Member Posts: 4,724
    Hello, LG: Did you buy or lease the XKR? What is the exterior/interior color? I imagine that it has been more than a faithful servant so far...

    '21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)

  • hpowdershpowders Member Posts: 4,330
    A rather obvious and alarming fact, don't you think, that the USA continues to be so vulnerable because of our addiction to foreign oil despite the gas lines of the 1970's?

    One poster told me I should go buy a Prius and leave him alone. Sounds to me like the very definition of complacency.

    Synfuels, ethanol mixes, hydrogen fuel cells, hybrid and diesel technologies collectively haven't even make a small dent in our oil dependency because there seems to be no great need in pushing for them.

    Automakers continue to churn out mammoth crossovers like the Enclave, Acadia and Outlook with the media sounding the trumpets about how great these vehicles are. Buried in the small print is that folks will probably get around 12 mpg in everyday driving.

    What happened today at JFK Airport shows where the terrorist mindset is at. Bring down the "Great Satan" by hitting him where he is most vulnerable: his oil.
  • lexusguylexusguy Member Posts: 6,419
    Hello, LG: Did you buy or lease the XKR? What is the exterior/interior color? I imagine that it has been more than a faithful servant so far...

    Mine is the XK8, I bought it not long after launch and the XKR wasn't yet available. The exterior is liquid silver metallic, and the interior is slate blue\ivory with the burl walnut trim. Some critics have taken shots at the interior, but I don't really understand it. With the full leather and wood, the XK is easily as nice as any 911 or 650, and its about a thousand percent better than the old XK.

    So far its been great, no throttle "learning" issues like the X3 or anything else. The quality rep for the X and S-type is still pretty bad, but the XJ and XK seem to be doing pretty well lately.
  • laurasdadalaurasdada Member Posts: 4,724
    Thanks for the update. And regarding critics and their opinions, there is only one critic that matters...

    Beautiful car.

    '21 Dark Blue/Black Audi A7 PHEV (mine); '22 White/Beige BMW X3 (hers); '20 Estoril Blue/Oyster BMW M240xi 'Vert (Ours, read: hers in 'vert weather; mine during Nor'easters...)

  • deweydewey Member Posts: 5,251
    I love it when people praise my BMW 335i . Keep it up please and dont stop the compliments until that future day when I sell my car at a very high resale value (crossing my fingers)

    Please note the one sentence below:

    : The small 3 Series is the very best BMW--aint that the truth. Far better than my wife's 5 series touring, a 7 series , 6 series or any other BMW model. The BMW 335i is the best BMW ever made (in my highly biased opinion)

    SOURCE: NEW YORK TIMES

    The BMW 335i engine makes a vocal argument to being the best turbo powerplant this side of a $130,000 Porsche. Free-spinning and seamless, it evinces none of the power lag or spiky peaks you expect from turbochargers, achieving peak torque at a low 1,400 r.p.m.

    Even the burly new M3 with the V-8 will produce 5 less pound-feet of torque (295) than the 335i turbo models.The result is a 3 Series that feels roughly as quick, but less high-strung, than the current-generation M3 (rated at 333 horsepower).

    During my blast north of New York along the Hudson River, the BMW’s mad turbocharged rush was a new thrill. More familiar was the unity of power, steering, shifter and brakes that no other car in this class can quite reproduce. The suspension is supple when you want it, firm when you need it, and the car will cruise or command any road, depending on your mood.

    link title

    SOURCE :USA TODAY

    In this case, the low-end V-6 version of the Audi Q7 crossover SUV is less complicated but just as refined and sporty as the pricier, accessory-festooned V-8 model (though can't match the V-8's rocketing go-power).
    Other examples of unintended Teutonic minimalist superiority: The small 3 Series is the best BMW; Audi's own small, relatively spare, A3 is its standout sedan.

    And the base Q7 poses an interesting chin-stroker. For no more than you'd pay for a loaded Mazda CX-9 or GMC Acadia crossover SUV, both of them north of $43,000, you can have the striking Audi Q7 3.6 with respected quattro all-wheel drive.

    link title
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles