VW Touareg: The sexiest vehicle on the market?

I think so, and I think it will be with us for a very long time. An instant classic.

http://www.vw.com/touareg/
http://4wheeldrive.about.com/cs/volkswagonreviews/a/aa071803a.htm

Just saying the name Toe Rag gives me goose bumps :howyoudoin:

The interior is b e a u t i f u l but I still theink the Cayenne pips it in the exterior look.

The interior of the X5 is better, the VW exterior is nice, but I can’t get over the fact that it is an upscale VW. VW just isn’t upscale. Just look at their Phaeton, I don’t think it went over well. Risky purchase. I also like the Cayenne, XC90, X5 and Land Rover LR3. The LR3 has a nice interior too. I do like the Touareg, but the price is out of line with the brand image.

Touareg represents a decent value for what you get. If I’m not mistaken, it’s basically a Porsche Cayenne under the skin. VW, Porsche, and Audi in general share a lot more in common than most people like to think.

I’ve not personally seen a Touareg, but if it’s meant to be upscale, badging it as an Audi might have been a better move to attract the brand/image conscious. Phaeton is a good example of this. It probably would have gone over a lot better as an Audi A10 or something like that. Interesting tidbit is that according to VW, Phaeton now accounts for 5% of all luxury sedan sales in Taiwan. :astonished:

BMW X5, Porsche Cayenne, VW Toe Rag.

Three of the ugliest vehicles ever to come on the market. Three shapeless, froggy jellymoulds.

Decent value for what you get? It’s a yuppie mobile. VW don’t get it that the only reason people buy these bulbous vans is for snob value. Not much snob value in anything with VW on the front.

Have any of you ever driven a BMW X5 off road? I have, and they’re shite.

A business partner of mine in the USA got one of these last fall. It is an excellent vehicle. Full of very neat tools and tricks. Great performance and very well built. He’s put about 20,000 miles on it so far and no problems.

[quote=“hexuan”]Have any of you ever driven a BMW X5 off road? I have, and they’re shite.[/quote] People don’t buy these cars for off road. I thought everyone knows that, and I don’t think the original poster had off road in mind. Why drive usch an expensive car where it might get scratched or dented?

Ben, the soon to be released Audi SUV will be the Q7 not A10.

The Toureg is nice to look at but what the hell is it?

It’s not a truck, has traction control systems that are compromised for road driving characteristics, and doesn’t really haul all that much stuff.

It has a two speed transfer case, center and rear locking differentials, and no flex in the suspension at all. Strange combination of goodies that don’t mesh well off road.

I’ve seen the BMW in action off-road and as Hexuan mentioned it sucks. My sister drives both the X-5 and an older Land cruiser with 200,000miles on it. She’s selling the beemer.

Two nights ago a friend of mine came back with a Toyota Tundra. TRD off road package, live axle, comfortable interior and a six foot bed. Toyota’s smooth 240bhp V8 completed this package nicely. Half a million cheaper than the Tourag and twice the vehicle that doesn’t try to be something it’s not. I’ve driven both the Toureg and the Tundra now, and for functionality there is no contest. The Toureg has less interior room for hauling than my 11 year old Rodeo. The thing that really surprised me was that the Tundra soaked up the bumps with standard leaf springs than the toureg.

I like to own something for functionality as well as style. The toureq is not a truck, not a car, and not an SUV in the true sense of the word.

If I could afford a luxury SUV, I’d go with a Land Cruiser in a Heartbeat over a Toureg.

Wealthy soccer mom cars. The Tundra is a cracker though.

All the farmers where I’m from have Land Rovers or Landcruisers. But of course they actually need to go off road. I think the Range Rover is much nicer looking than any of the new ones, although the new Range Rover doesn’t look as good as the last one. Why are they not that popular here? Too expensive?

I’ve driven an old Subaru estate off road and it had a better 4WD system than the X5. The BMW does this mad thing where it spins the front wheels for a while, stops, has a think, and then spins the back ones, stops, then spins the front ones again… I’m sorry, but that’s not four wheel drive.

What is this obsession with four wheel drive in Taiwan anyway? Is it just because the Americans are all driving round in jeeps so the Taiwanese must follow? Or is it just that petrol’s too cheap?

[quote=“hexuan”] I think the Range Rover is much nicer looking than any of the new ones, although the new Range Rover doesn’t look as good as the last one. Why are they not that popular here? Too expensive?

The BMW does this mad thing where it spins the front wheels for a while, stops, has a think, and then spins the back ones, stops, then spins the front ones again… I’m sorry, but that’s not four wheel drive.
[/quote]

Expensive and not the best reputation for either reliability or off-road prowess, at least in the states. Maybe better now with the BMW V8. I like the Disco though.

As for the X5, it’s a common failing with the viscous coupling/clutch pack systems. It’s even worse on the Porsche.

[quote=“hexuan”]
What is this obsession with four wheel drive in Taiwan anyway? Is it just because the Americans are all driving round in jeeps so the Taiwanese must follow? Or is it just that petrol’s too cheap?[/quote]

At least the SUV revolution gave the locals something elso to choose from besides Mercedes/BMW sedans. Also, I’m sure as many other have found that they enjoy the elevated seating position as much as the room and feel. The X5, while being utter crap off-road is probably a true pleasure on pavement. Same for the Volvo, Toureg, and the other mindless set of pseudo-off roaders.

The Toureg gets around this problem with both central/rear locking differentials, but it’s still limited by suspension suspension travel. The Disco, on the other hand, has solid axles front and rear. The difference is night and day, as the Disco’s flexy suspension lifts, droops and finds it’s way into holes that would stop a Toureg dead in it’s tracks.

I agree it seems highly unlikely that more than a very small percentage of 4WD owners in Taiwan have any need for such a vehicle and for most it does seem slightly pointless. A while back I saw a Lexus 4WD with 4 televisions in it; some people just have too much money and don’t know what to spend it on.

On the other hand, not everyone buys the Toureg for image. My brother has one and for him it’s extremely practical. He lives in Denver, has a second house up in the mountains where they go hiking in the Summer and skiing in the Winter. He probably drives up there 20 or 30 weekends in a year, with the wife, kids, dog, skis and all their luggage. Often they’ll drive on torn up, rutted, dirt roads to get to a trailhead for hiking. And even in town, it’s a good vehicle when it snows . . . and he likes the mapquest (or whatever it’s called) and other luxury frills. He’s very happy with it.

The Discovery is such an improvement on the Defender. I don’t know what the new Defender is like, but the old ones were pigs to drive compared to a Range Rover or car - they were agricultural vehicles really. Brilliant off road but hideous in traffic. Rich farmers drive Discos ha ha ha. But frankly a 4WD Subaru estate does a good enough job for mud and snow for most people at a fraction of the price.

Some of the new Range Rovers have no ground clearance and low profile tyres (!) The 80s ones were excellent off road, but you’re right MJB about the overall finish and build quality. The diesel engines were gutless, and the Rover V8 engine had silly fuel consumption. I think they’ve got a new 6-cylinder diesel engine now. Not that anyone in the States or here would been seen dead in a diesel car I’m sure!

[quote=“hexuan”]BMW X5, Porsche Cayenne, VW Toe Rag.

Three of the ugliest vehicles ever to come on the market. Three shapeless, froggy jellymoulds.
[/quote]

You want ugly, research the Pontiac Aztec…now thats ugly defined!

[quote=“MJB”]
As for the X5, it’s a common failing with the viscous coupling/clutch pack systems.[/quote]It’s not a failing with the components, but the implementation. Subaru use a viscous coupling on the manual cars and a clutch system on the autos and both work very well. Audi’s implementation worked well, Volvo’s sucked.
With oil at $50/barrel I’m sure the SUV craze will be over real soon.

I have never understood why all rear wheel drive cars aren’t fitted with limited slip differentials or seven sack of spuds in the boot as standard.

[quote=“Hobart”][quote=“hexuan”]Have any of you ever driven a BMW X5 off road? I have, and they’re shite.[/quote] People don’t buy these cars for off road. I thought everyone knows that, and I don’t think the original poster had off road in mind. Why drive usch an expensive car where it might get scratched or dented?

Ben, the soon to be released Audi SUV will be the Q7 not A10.[/quote]

The Audi A10 comment was in reference to the Phaeton. IMO, opinion, it would have sold better if it was badged as an Audi A10, or even a Porsche Phaeton. A Porsche sedan doesn’t seem to farfetched now that they’ve got an SUV.

[quote=“hexuan”]BMW X5, Porsche Cayenne, VW Toe Rag.

Three of the ugliest vehicles ever to come on the market. Three shapeless, froggy jellymoulds.

Decent value for what you get? It’s a yuppie mobile. VW don’t get it that the only reason people buy these bulbous vans is for snob value. Not much snob value in anything with VW on the front.

Have any of you ever driven a BMW X5 off road? I have, and they’re shite.[/quote]

My comments were in reference to what 90% of the buyers of SUVs will use them for, which means on-road, tooling around town with the family and kids. The Touareg represents a good value, because you are getting pretty much a Porsche Cayenne under the skin, but with a VW price.

Off-road, no contest, a Land Rover or Toyota Land Cruiser would be the vehicles of choice. Those vehicles made their name out in the outbacks of places like Australia, Africa, Middle East, etc. I would say they are the undisputed best off-road SUVs aside from models derived from military use platforms.

It’s a shame that in the US, the Land Cruiser has now been reduced to another on-road tooling around town type of vehicle. The front live axle is gone, so the suspension articulation is gone too. The front and rear differential lock is gone as well, and it sits lower to the ground. At least the rest of the world still gets the “real” one. The previous FJ80 body US spec Land Cruisers were thinly dressed up (with leather, carpet, CD stereo etc) versions of the real deal, with front and rear live axles, optional locking front and rear differentials, generous ground clearance, generous approach/departure angles, etc.

IMO, there is no real need for the primarily on-road SUV that seems to be so popular nowadays.

If you want the cargo space or to carry 6 passengers, then you’re better off getting a mini-van. You’ll get better gas mileage and better cargo space, and your passengers will be more comfortable

If you want to occasionally go up to the mountains to ski, or the weather gets nasty sometimes where you live, you’re better off with an AWD wagon. You’ll get better gas mileage, same cargo space, and better handling.

If you need to go off-road frequently, then you wouldn’t be looking at a BMW, Porsche, Lexus, Infiniti, etc.

M5 owner pays some kids to polish his car, X5 owner pays them to throw mud at it :smiley:

Here’s some fun video of an AWD system comparison