2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption
07-19-2010, 08:25 PM
#1
Audi Forum - Posts like an S4
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Barrie, Ontario
Posts: 287
2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption
Found that posting:
Fuel Economy
It rates 2.0T at 20-27 US m/gal. which is way better then 3.2 at 18-23 US m/gal.
I wander if canadian rating will be similar. Thoughts?
Fuel Economy
It rates 2.0T at 20-27 US m/gal. which is way better then 3.2 at 18-23 US m/gal.
I wander if canadian rating will be similar. Thoughts?
07-19-2010, 11:55 PM
#2
Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption
If you convert this for 3.2 it's about 10-13 L/100 which is about 11.5 L/100 average.
Versus 8.7-11.7 L/100 for the 2.0t average of 10.2 L/100, difference of 1.3 L/100.
The 3.2 has a 75 liter tank of gas, assuming the 2.0t has the same gas tank size, if you fill up both cars at the same time and drive them the same way/amount by the time the 3.2 runs out of gas the 2.0t will still have 9.7L of gas left. Assume gas at $1.00 a litre and you fill up 2 times a month. Buying the 2.0t will save you $20.00 a month.
Now the questinos comes down to $20.00 at the expense of 60 less horse power. What's worth it?
Of course the gas consumptions listed figures are not usually same as actual consumptions and consumption of course varies based on driving conditons, habits, climate and hundres of other factors.
Versus 8.7-11.7 L/100 for the 2.0t average of 10.2 L/100, difference of 1.3 L/100.
The 3.2 has a 75 liter tank of gas, assuming the 2.0t has the same gas tank size, if you fill up both cars at the same time and drive them the same way/amount by the time the 3.2 runs out of gas the 2.0t will still have 9.7L of gas left. Assume gas at $1.00 a litre and you fill up 2 times a month. Buying the 2.0t will save you $20.00 a month.
Now the questinos comes down to $20.00 at the expense of 60 less horse power. What's worth it?
Of course the gas consumptions listed figures are not usually same as actual consumptions and consumption of course varies based on driving conditons, habits, climate and hundres of other factors.
07-20-2010, 02:20 AM
#3
Audi Forum - Posts like an A1
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 20
Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption
If you convert this for 3.2 it's about 10-13 L/100 which is about 11.5 L/100 average.
Versus 8.7-11.7 L/100 for the 2.0t average of 10.2 L/100, difference of 1.3 L/100.
The 3.2 has a 75 liter tank of gas, assuming the 2.0t has the same gas tank size, if you fill up both cars at the same time and drive them the same way/amount by the time the 3.2 runs out of gas the 2.0t will still have 9.7L of gas left. Assume gas at $1.00 a litre and you fill up 2 times a month. Buying the 2.0t will save you $20.00 a month.
Now the questinos comes down to $20.00 at the expense of 60 less horse power. What's worth it?
Of course the gas consumptions listed figures are not usually same as actual consumptions and consumption of course varies based on driving conditons, habits, climate and hundres of other factors.
Versus 8.7-11.7 L/100 for the 2.0t average of 10.2 L/100, difference of 1.3 L/100.
The 3.2 has a 75 liter tank of gas, assuming the 2.0t has the same gas tank size, if you fill up both cars at the same time and drive them the same way/amount by the time the 3.2 runs out of gas the 2.0t will still have 9.7L of gas left. Assume gas at $1.00 a litre and you fill up 2 times a month. Buying the 2.0t will save you $20.00 a month.
Now the questinos comes down to $20.00 at the expense of 60 less horse power. What's worth it?
Of course the gas consumptions listed figures are not usually same as actual consumptions and consumption of course varies based on driving conditons, habits, climate and hundres of other factors.
My Answer is no!
There is nothing greater than more horse power
Q5 V6 = better sound
Q5 V6 = More horse power
Q5 V6 = More top speed
It just drives way better.
07-20-2010, 07:21 AM
#4
Audi Forum - Posts like an S4
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Barrie, Ontario
Posts: 287
Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption
Well, I completely disagree. If you have boat to haul or something like that - then yes - get yourself as many ponies as you can. But not all want that. I drive mainly in the city and prefer more torque then horsepower. And if I can get more mileage when doing it, then why not!
BTW, turbo engines sound just fine with sweet turbo sound when pushed, and many drivers like it.
BTW, turbo engines sound just fine with sweet turbo sound when pushed, and many drivers like it.
07-20-2010, 08:04 AM
#5
Audi Forum - Posts like an RS4
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brampton/Mississauga
Posts: 800
Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption
The 2.0t engine will outsell the 3.2 2 to 1 in no time. I'm already seeing it. Very few people are interested in more HP, saving money is the main concern. I'll give the 3.2 another year before it gets dicontinued.
07-20-2010, 08:24 AM
#6
Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption
Well, I completely disagree. If you have boat to haul or something like that - then yes - get yourself as many ponies as you can. But not all want that. I drive mainly in the city and prefer more torque then horsepower. And if I can get more mileage when doing it, then why not!
BTW, turbo engines sound just fine with sweet turbo sound when pushed, and many drivers like it.
BTW, turbo engines sound just fine with sweet turbo sound when pushed, and many drivers like it.
07-20-2010, 08:25 AM
#7
Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption
Of course, because it's new, it's the first year generation of the 8speed, everyone is "excited" you'll be saying the same thing about the Hybrid in a year's time. This doesn't mean the 2.0T is superior to the 3.2
07-20-2010, 08:25 AM
#8
07-20-2010, 08:26 AM
#9
Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption
Also don't' forget, 2.0t is outselling 3.2 because MSRP is cheaper. Many people consider price as well.
