" The cargo area is relatively commodious at 781 L when the rear seats are up and 1,430 L with the rear seats folded"
I would definitely not describe the cargo area as "commodious". It is 35 L smaller than a Suzuki SX4! Therein lies the essential compromise of a "Crossover" such as this vehicle - it's not a wagon. Fine, if one wants rugged looks and some ground clearance, but it's hard to beat a wagon for utility.
Cargo numbers are basically useless. In this case, it's obvious that Suzuki is measuring differently than Audi (probably right to the roof instead of the seat tops.)
(Unfortunately) correct. Measurements - whether HP, fuel economy, towing capacity, legroom, or cargo volume - are useless unless standardized. And no MNFRs (or regulatory agencies) seem to have any desire to standardize their ratings (other than HP/TQ - but there's still some wiggle room there too).
That's why I like Consumer Reports cagro measurements, and C&D's comparison cargo measurements (# beer cases, length of pipe, plywood sheets, etc.) It gives another perspective of cargo volume because the MNFR numbers can't be compared directly
My Elantra Touring supposedly has 689L of cargo volume. That may be accurate - a Matrix is listed as 561L, and the ET definitely has a bit more room. But then Hyundai says "1848L with the rear seats down, more than a Murano (1826L)". Complete and utter BS - my buddy's Murano has oodles more room with the seats down. What did Hyundai do, include the volume in the rear leg area too? How about the footwells under the front seat?
Back to the test vehicle - has anyone driven both a Q5 and the allroad? Are the driving differences significant?