Used test: Audi Q7 vs BMW X5 - verdict
By buying used you can have either of these luxury SUVs for a fraction of the price you'd pay new. But which should you choose?...

Our Verdict
The BMW X5 is a great used buy. Not only is it good to drive and packed with tech, but it also fulfils a broad remit, thanks to its impressive comfort and lavish interior. Nevertheless, it still doesn’t quite have what it takes to beat the mighty Audi Q7.
That’s right: even bought at a couple of years old, the Q7 is one of the most complete luxury SUVs out there; it offers acres of interior space, seven proper seats, remarkable refinement and a limo-rivalling ride, especially if you can find one equipped with the optional air suspension. In fact, whisper it, but two-year-old Q7s are actually better than brand new ones in some ways; when the car was facelifted in 2019, Audi fitted a less decisive gearbox and a more distracting infotainment system.
For all the latest reviews, advice and new car deals, sign up to the What Car? newsletter here
1st – Audi Q7 50 TDI quattro S line

For Even plusher ride; seven proper seats; cheaper to buy and run; quieter engine
Against Infotainment outgunned by X5’s; not enough safety aids are standard
What Car? rating 5 out of 5 stars
Read our full used Audi Q7 review >>
Find used Audi Q7 for sale>>
2nd – BMW X5 xDrive30d M Sport

For Best-in-class infotainment; attractive interior; split tailgate is convenient
Against Smaller boot; less rear passenger space; pricey to service
What car? rating 4 out of 5 stars
Read our full used BMW X5 review >>
Find used BMW X5 for sale>>
Specifications: Audi Q7 50 TDI quattro S line
- Engine size - 3.0-litre diesel
- Power - 282bhp
- Torque - 443lb ft
- 0-60mph - 6.3sec
- Top speed - 152mph
- Fuel economy - 33.2mpg (Official average)
- CO2 emissions - 180g/km
Specifications: BMW X5 xDrive30d M Sport
- Engine size - 3.0-litre diesel
- Power - 262bhp
- Torque - 457lb ft
- 0-60mph - 6.4sec
- Top speed - 143mph
- Fuel economy - 37.2mpg (Official average)
- CO2 emissions - 162g/km
<< Previous
Page 4 of 4