2022 Audi Q3 S Line Review – Sporty or Just Weird?

Tim Healey
by Tim Healey

Fast Facts

2022 Audi Q3 S Line Fast Facts

Engine
2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder (228 horsepower @ 6,000 rpm, 251 lb-ft @ 4,500)
Transmission/Drive Layout
Eight-speed automatic, all-wheel drive
Fuel Economy (U.S., MPG))
21 city / 28 highway / 24 combined (EPA Rating)
Fuel Economy (Canada, L/100km))
11.4 city / 8.3 highway / 10.0 combined (NRCan Rating)
Base Price
$38,700 (U.S.) / $45,800 (Canada)
As-Tested
$47,040 (U.S.) / $52,640 (Canada)
Prices include $1,195 destination charge in the United States and $2,950 for freight, PDI, and A/C tax in Canada and, because of cross-border equipment differences, can’t be directly compared.

The idea of a compact, sporty entry-luxury crossover is appealing.

It’s a sort of a “have your cake and it too” proposition – you get the utility of a crossover, but it’s also fun to drive and at least a little bit upscale. Sure, it’s expensive, but perhaps not out of reach for the upwardly mobile young (or youngish) urban professional.


That’s the proposition offered by the 2022 Audi Q3. Does it live up to what it promises?

The short answer: Well, maybe.

Let’s start with the good news: The Q3 is lively to drive in an urban environment, despite having a motor that doesn’t appear particularly robust on paper. The 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder makes 228 horsepower and 251 lb-ft of torque, and while the Q3 isn’t especially fast it still manages to feel spritely enough around town. There is some throttle delay and/or turbo lag at times.

An eight-speed automatic transmission gets the power to the ground via all-wheel drive. The Q3 handles with a lively friskiness that’s just fun enough to liven up the dreary commute, though the steering feels, as if often the case these days with VW/Audi products, a bit too light and disconnected. There’s also a bit of a ride punishment – the Q3 is definitely on the stiff side, though it never veers into punishing.

Where the Q3 confounds me is in the cabin. There’s good here – an easy-to-read digital gauge cluster, an infotainment screen that integrates nicely into the center stack, and appropriate buttons for the radio and HVAC. What’s not quite as good is the use of shapes and materials in its design. It’s a mishmash of angles that mixes black, aluminum inlays, and brown leather. I realize this design is subjective and I don’t find it ugly, just a bit incoherent. More concerning were some below-the-beltline materials that felt a little downmarket and plasticky.

At least the Audi MMI infotainment system is easier to use than it use to be. Audi has made great strides in that area.

I’m less put off by the angular exterior looks. It’s a cohesive design that gives off “upscale lifted sporty hatch” vibes. That’s what the Q3 is, of course, and it shows. The grille is a bit oversized here, as seems to be a trend these days, but not so much that it ruins the flow.

You can snag an S Line for a base price of $38,700, but it wouldn’t be a press vehicle if it wasn’t laden with options. Here we start the proceedings with the $595 Chronos Gray paint, then tack on $3,300 for the Premium Plus package. That includes adaptive cruise control with lane guidance, LED headlights and interior lighting, a top-view camera, driver-seat memory, and satellite radio.

Another $2,700 brought forth the Technology Package, which added navigation, virtual cockpit digital gauges, MMI, and Sonos audio. Eight-hundred more bones gave this one 19-inch wheels.

Slap on $1,195 in destination and you have a total of $47,290. An Audi phone box was deleted from my tester for a total of $47,040.

Fuel economy for the Q3 S Line is 21 mpg city/28 highway/24 mpg combined.

The Q3 S Line left me feeling a bit perplexed. It’s fun enough to drive and the price of entry isn’t too high. Audi’s cabin user experience is generally fine, and that’s true in this application. But some of the interior design choices seem odd – it’s almost like designers wanted more to stand out by being different than creating a cohesively handsome design. And while the price isn’t that far off of today’s newly insane average transaction price, it’s still hard to excuse the use of some downmarket materials, even if they are hidden below the beltline.

I doubt I’d kick the Q3 out of the driveway. But I don’t know if it would be my first choice in this segment.

What’s New for 2022

The 2022 Audi Q3 makes standard the newest generation of Audi’s MIB 3 infotainment system as well as side assist with rear cross-traffic. Also newly standard is the Audi parking system and the interior aluminum inlays.

Who Should Buy the 2022 Audi Q3 S Line

The yuppie seeking a compact sporty crossover at a reasonable price.

[Images © 2023 Tim Healey/TTAC]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by  subscribing to our newsletter.

Tim Healey
Tim Healey

Tim Healey grew up around the auto-parts business and has always had a love for cars — his parents joke his first word was “‘Vette”. Despite this, he wanted to pursue a career in sports writing but he ended up falling semi-accidentally into the automotive-journalism industry, first at Consumer Guide Automotive and later at Web2Carz.com. He also worked as an industry analyst at Mintel Group and freelanced for About.com, CarFax, Vehix.com, High Gear Media, Torque News, FutureCar.com, Cars.com, among others, and of course Vertical Scope sites such as AutoGuide.com, Off-Road.com, and HybridCars.com. He’s an urbanite and as such, doesn’t need a daily driver, but if he had one, it would be compact, sporty, and have a manual transmission.

More by Tim Healey

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 22 comments
  • Make_light Make_light on Apr 27, 2023

    I had one of these as a rental once, and it is probably the most disappointing new car I've ever been in. And this is coming from someone who is an Audi fan and compact SUV apologist. It doesn't feel luxurious inside, the engine sounds buzzy and cheap, the ride is solid but has no hint of cushion. A CX-5 is superior in any conceivable way. Friends of mine have a Tiguan, and I can't see any reason to choose the Audi over it, not one. I'd even say a Forester is nicer (but slower).


  • Cprescott Cprescott on Apr 27, 2023

    Why? Not sure why these products even exist other than to be over priced and to make mega profits when a four door hatchback car would cost less to build, less to sell, and have better fuel economy without giving up much of anything.

    • See 1 previous
    • Bobby D'Oppo Bobby D'Oppo on Apr 28, 2023

      These people want a badge to flaunt and a commanding perched view of the road, and by God if they have to pay through the nose for a jacked up, flabby econobox to get there, they certainly won't be stopped!



  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
  • FreedMike If Dodge were smart - and I don't think they are - they'd spend their money refreshing and reworking the Durango (which I think is entering model year 3,221), versus going down the same "stuff 'em full of motor and give 'em cool new paint options" path. That's the approach they used with the Charger and Challenger, and both those models are dead. The Durango is still a strong product in a strong market; why not keep it fresher?
Next