But I prefer the interior of the Q7, although the R-Class will likely have better middle + rear seats, as well as the exterior. The combined figure is also 30.4mpg (I think), and we all know that won't happen, because combined figures never are reached. My mum gets 28mpg from her pre-facelift Q7, and I doubt the R320 CDI (the alternative) would get any better.
Do you buy an R-Class or Q7 for speed? You want enough to get you around places, so yeah, R320 over R280, but you still don't need anything too rapid. 8.5seconds to 60 for the Q7 3.0TDI isn't bad at all, compared to 8.7 0.62 for the R-Class, so they're pretty much the same in that respect.
The R-Class is horrible, both in terms of looks and build quality.
I used to think these big SUVs were useless until my friend and his wife had twins, now, between car seats and dipper bags and strollers, their Volvo XC-70 is full to the brim just to go to dinner at his parents' house.
Well what about MPVs? They don't sell any in the US that aren't complete crap to drive and ugly as well. Also most of them aren't AWD, which if you live in many parts of the US you need.
Well what about estates (station wagons)? The American estate cars are crap, few Japanese companies make them, few are AWD and MB and Audi have gone for a more stylish look and aren't that roomy in the cargo area.
I used to REALLY hate SUVs, but now I'm starting to understand them. However, I'd still like to see more diesel versions made available for the US and more Americans buy them.
"The Metric System is the tool of the Devil! My car gets 40 Rods to the Hogshead and that's the ways I likes it!" -Grandpa Simpson
The front wheel drive S80 with studded tires we had when we went to the Swedish Rally did just fine. We even crossed a lake with it and roads were usually covered with snow and ice.
Lack of charisma can be fatal.
Visca Catalunya!
That's more frugal, not cleaner.
pollutant emissions aren't the same as the fuel consumption.
I took the 4.2 engines for the similar power delivered.
Obviously a Q7 equipped even with a 54 bhp 1.2 liter engine would require even less fuel.
I would argue much more about else, but I'm bored.
KFL Racing Enterprises - Kicking your ass since 2008
*cough* http://theitalianjunkyard.blogspot.com/ *cough*
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)