Wagon or SUV? Audi RS4 Avant vs Alfa Romeo Stelvio Q

Audi RS4 Avant versus Alfa Romeo Stelvio Q. Estate versus SUV. Apple versus orange.

Clearly, the competitors in this segment-jumping twin test don’t face off as neatly and naturally as, say, Giulia Q against RS5 Sportback. Or do they? Giulia versus RS5 Sportback does present disparity in body style, in door count and in driven-wheel format.

Ignore categorisation, and the RS4 versus Stelvio make an odd if naturally fit couple. Both are mid-sized wagons boasting their maker’s high-performance gumption and credo, with very similar all-wheel drive powertrains. And each promises all-rounder duality, fit for both school run utility and sunny Sunday morning thrills once uncorked.

And at $146,900 against $147,900 in favour of the slightly more affordable Italian, they want for very similar wedges in what are both recently fettled guises for MY21, too.

18

The pair occupy a similar groove, even if, by nature of different segmentation, the visually plumper Italian appears to be a tighter squeeze. In the absence of a Giulia Q estate or full-monty RS Q5, this rivalry on the pages before you is a logical world cup match-up.

Interestingly, the Stelvio Q marks territory as arguably the friskiest and most agile high-performer for a pigeonhole that doesn’t favour such folly: mid-sized SUVs.

In fair contrast, the RS4 Avant is pegged as a pragmatic all-rounder, less visceral than key nemesis Mercedes-AMG C63 S Estate, less heroic than alpha siblings RS6 Avant and big daddy RS Q8: a sweet spot, rather than being renowned as a hot one.

As getaway cars for a bank heist go, it’s a two-minute job with a tape measure to deduce the Alfa Romeo is the smarter place to park more loot though, at 525 litres of boot space against the Audi’s 495L, the practicality advantage is trimmer than you might expect.

18

The form guide, too, favours the Italian on pace if, again, modestly so.

Both fit 2.9-litre bi-turbo sixes, the SUV’s 375kW at 6500rpm exceeds the estate’s 331kW at 6700rpm, while torque is lineball at 600Nm, the Audi’s peak arriving lower in the rev range (1900rpm plays 2500rpm). Eight-speed torque-converter autos and all-wheel traction are levellers, though there’s a disparity in footprint, the Audi’s all-four 275mm spread differing from the Alfa Romeo’s staggered 255mm front, 285mm rear methodology.

The Stelvio’s 3.8sec 0-100km/h claim, a three-tenths advantage, will surely raise an eyebrow given the difference in physical stature, but perhaps the real shocker is that the Italian’s kerb weight is, at 1830kg, only 85kg heftier than the RS4 Avant’s surprisingly portly 1745kg kerb weight. Further, the Italian’s 283km/h V-max offers 33km/h more ‘getaway’ headroom than that of the German.

18

Differences, then, are clearly more in shades than strides. Deciding which of the pair is the fitter pulse-raising punt is a more complex and involved proposition. That’s because by the seat of the pants, the two full-fat family haulers are very different animals indeed.

The RS4 Avant is low. Its squat stance and plump proportions are exacerbated by the trim roofline. You fall into its sunken, naturally formed bucket seat squabs. Its centre of gravity seems to skim the Tarmac. There’s a certain lightness to its cabin ambience – techy, lavishly appointed and unapologetically Teutonic – that makes the Audi seem trimmer and leaner than its weighbridge ticket otherwise suggests.

At the helm, the RS4 Avant feels like a thoroughbred sportscar refashioned with a big boot.

18

By stark contrast, in core vibe, the Stelvio Q feels like a juiced-up plus-sized family hauler. It doesn’t hunker down on its optional 21s (20s are standard) so assertively. You climb into it, propping yourself up in its torso-welding, excessively bolstered seats, hemmed in by a seemingly thicker layer of metal, glass, plastic and carbon-fibre than that of the Audi. Its cabin design is more austere, more classical and certifiably more Italian, right down to the elephant ear column shifters and analogue instrumentation.

For the driver, the Stelvio Q fits more like a boxing glove as opposed to a racing one.

The instant it gets rolling, the Alfa Romeo seems to shed its sense of flab, clearer and with more intimacy than you initially expect, shrinking in the manner of its alert response, albeit not necessarily in its impression of size. The Audi, too, feels lean and taut, to a degree you reasonably expect without knowledge of its hefty weight.

18

Each protagonist’s bi-turbo 2.9 six brings intriguingly hazy providence: Audi and Porsche each claiming the larger stake in what is clearly the most bespoke turbo six of the Volkswagen-Audi family. Alfa Romeo is somewhat cagey, officially at least, about exactly how much Ferrari DNA carouses through the Stelvio six’s oil galleries.

Whatever the cases, they’re both great engines. The RS4 Avant’s bringing more raspy pop, fizzle and instant torque dividend in the low-end of the rev range, where its rival is almost too polite. But dig in, even moderately, and the Stelvio Q’s six builds to a richer, more intoxicating character, with a conspicuous turbo whoosh and a soul-squeezing metallic timbre in the top-end that’s indicative of exotic Italian engineering.

Strung out, each delivers dynamite thrust and feel equally as manic on song. But they are different. The German mounts peak torque quicker and earlier and seems to flatten at the top of the rpm curve, whereas the Italian swells into its mid-range then rages louder as the needle races north to the cut-out.

18

But throw in a mix of curves and straights and, A to B, both are as effective as they are likeable. It’s just that when the hot-mix straightens, the Alfa Romeo is relentless in its march – you really need to wring the Audi dry to maintain step with the Italian.

Both eight-speed autos are alert and crisp, with spark-cutting ‘brap’ theatrics and generally seamless upshifting though, drive mode dependent, the RS4 Avant will
nudge the rev-limiter. But it’s the Audi, with its wheel shifters, that solely offers the handier flexibility of half-a-lock up- and down-changes in the mid-corner. And from the very first apex, the pair prove themselves as very different dynamic animals.

The Stelvio Q grabs you with surprise, its steering hyper alert just off centre and its front end so hyperactive and darty. Initially, it demands two or three apex entries to acclimatise to the sharp rack and gain trust in its assertive nature. You learn quickly that the point of its nose is the cause of numerous effects in the handling character you’d better be on the ball enough to catch.

18

In stark contrast, the RS4 Avant’s steering is so benign around its centre that, by comparison, it seems dulled and numb, asking for an extra quarter turn of input to open up the feedback tap through the tiller. Put some lateral load through the front axle, though, and it becomes wonderfully tactile, well weighted and respectably communicative.

The Audi’s more evenly measured front end mightn’t set your synapses tingling so instantly, but it’s trustworthy and offers unfailing encouragement to push on and dive deep on corner entry, its meaty front Hankooks drilling tenaciously into the hot-mix.

On a red-hot go, the RS4 Avant plants itself in the mid-corner, working its fronts a little harder than the rear, which remains ironclad stable without a hint of budging off its line while carrying a constant throttle. It welds itself to the chosen line, safe as houses, while injecting enough response and balance for organic adjustment, if without demanding laser focus in wheel and loud pedal adjustment.

18

By contrast, the friskier Stelvio Q is livelier in the mid corner and keener to rotate in response to more moderate driver inputs and milder weight transitions. Its complex torque shuffling smarts are quite rear-biased and the SUV leans into its whopping 285mm rear Pirellis hard, patently the more playful of the pair at a toasty eight-tenths punt, where it doesn’t take much encouragement to sway its tail.

The accessibility of the Alfa Romeo’s grin-inducing nature is, however, intrinsically tied with arriving at its limits sooner, and at a lower road speed, than with the Audi. It becomes untidy easily, falling into understeer without a whole lot of provocation, its tail slewing about under robust braking or in protest to ham-footed throttle input. Constantly staying on top of the Stelvio Q demands reining in and keeping fairly close tabs on not overstepping the lateral inertia.

With a similar mid-corner, the comparatively staid Audi obediently corresponds corner exit thrust beyond how deeply you’ve buried your right foot into the carpet. It’s tidier, more ‘on rails’ and gets back on maximum boil quicker than what the Italian can muster.

18

A slighter longer wheelbase and more even spread of rubber might bring shades of extra stability to the Audi, but it feels as if the German’s flatter stance and lower centre of gravity pay the highest dynamic dividends by the seat of the pants.

Push on, at a clip perhaps most prudently reserved for race circuits, and the Audi’s inherent playfulness emerges. There’s just more headroom available before it arrives with its rewards than what the Alfa Romeo offers, and with that comes superior ultimate pace. And it’s more evenly mannered with the rise and fall of the heat and pace it’s presented with.

Right here is where judging which of the two fast-wagon protagonists is dynamically better demands perspective.

At a spirited on-road clip, the Stelvio Q’s playfulness rewards more quickly and easily. That its fun factor is more easily accessible, and perhaps more potentially gratifying during fair-weather Sunday morning punts, will certainly be the more desirable drawcard for some petrolhead tastes.

18

In a context that’s less about ultimate performance and more about a nicely balanced duality between driving enjoyment and fulfilling fully formed SUV practicalities, the Stelvio Q makes a compelling case.

That the RS4 Avant demands to be let off a longer chain at higher velocities to return maximum engagement is more of a double-edge sword as a family friendly wagon than it is, say, in a less apologetic and more driver-focused format. More is more, perhaps, but as a multi-talent road-going prospect, it only just sits on the right side of balancing real-world fun factor and utility and stops short of being potent to the point of inaccessibility.

Unsurprisingly, each assumes a palatable sheen of civility even if hints of their focus creep into the experience as a sort of ever-present reminder of core intent. Both powertrains, things of polish in attack mode, get a little ruffled and grumpy at the low-speed and stop-start stuff.

18

Ditto the brakes: the Alfa Romeo’s polarising by-wire engineering wooden and under-assisted at a leisurely clip; the Audi’s bitey, abrupt and squealy in light application. That said, each wagon’s stoppers really come into their own as powerful and precise allies in the heat of battle.

While it would be easy to sit on a fence underneath a banner thst read ‘pick your favoured fruit’, the Audi takes a narrow win here because, yes, it presents loftier dynamic capability if, somewhat crucially, in a wagon package that doesn’t really concede much at all to Alfa Romeo in terms of space, practicality and functional family friendliness.

The Stelvio Q is full of charisma. But it clearly aims to more literally embody the dynamic character of the Giulia Q and, as a facsimile at best, doesn’t quite convincingly get there.

On the contrary, the RS4 Avant delivers on expectations. It’s the German that returns the most genuine purpose, the bona fide athlete for those moments when the kids and luggage are absent from the rear-view mirror.

18

Audi RS4 Avant and Alfa Romeo Stelvio Q specifications