Q5 - Q7 For the Q5 and the new Q7

2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 07-20-2010, 09:39 AM
  #11  
Audi Forum - Posts like an A3
 
flogsta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 74
flogsta is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption

Originally Posted by afretes
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.
Hi Alex, You are saying that you think the 2.0 will outsell the 3.2 by 2 to 1. Why is Audi Canada introducing the 3.2 first and not the 2.0? I asked this question at an Audi Event one of the Audi Mktg. Managers and the answer was that North American consumers still like the big engine for this type of car. Now, I bought the 3.2 because I could not wait any longer but I would have chosen the 2.0 without question. I see the statistics in Germany, the 2.0 and 2.0TDI are the preferred engines.

I just do not get it why introduce the 'big' engine and then 'discontinue' it after 2 years. Give the people more choices....
flogsta is offline  
Old 07-20-2010, 09:56 AM
  #12  
Audi Forum - Posts like an S4
Thread Starter
 
tomashek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Barrie, Ontario
Posts: 287
tomashek is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption

Originally Posted by flogsta
Hi Alex, You are saying that you think the 2.0 will outsell the 3.2 by 2 to 1. Why is Audi Canada introducing the 3.2 first and not the 2.0? I asked this question at an Audi Event one of the Audi Mktg. Managers and the answer was that North American consumers still like the big engine for this type of car. Now, I bought the 3.2 because I could not wait any longer but I would have chosen the 2.0 without question. I see the statistics in Germany, the 2.0 and 2.0TDI are the preferred engines.

I just do not get it why introduce the 'big' engine and then 'discontinue' it after 2 years. Give the people more choices....
Well, that's because North Americans prefer/ed? bigger emgines, right. That's why you see Hemi engines in sedans.......It's personal preference, but in my opinion it's ridiculous choice. Unfortunately vast majority of Canadians and Americans think otherwise, hence Audi's decision.
tomashek is offline  
Old 07-20-2010, 10:14 AM
  #13  
Moderator



iTrader: (1)
 
warcity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto -GTA
Posts: 1,487
warcity is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption

Big engine doesn't necessarily mean higher gas consumption. For example BMW has a 3.5 Liter twin turbo engine that consumes less gas than Audi's 2.0t. It's all about engine's efficiency and power utilization.

Big engine does not equal high consumption similarly, small engine doesn't mean lower consumption.
warcity is offline  
Old 07-20-2010, 11:02 AM
  #14  
Audi Forum - Posts like an S4
Thread Starter
 
tomashek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Barrie, Ontario
Posts: 287
tomashek is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption

Originally Posted by warcity
Big engine doesn't necessarily mean higher gas consumption. For example BMW has a 3.5 Liter twin turbo engine that consumes less gas than Audi's 2.0t. It's all about engine's efficiency and power utilization.

Big engine does not equal high consumption similarly, small engine doesn't mean lower consumption.
Where did you get that info from? I checked and its rated 17 mpg city/25 mpg highway and 20 mpg combined. How is this superior to 2.0T???
tomashek is offline  
Old 07-20-2010, 11:09 AM
  #15  
Audi Forum - Posts like an S4
Thread Starter
 
tomashek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Barrie, Ontario
Posts: 287
tomashek is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption

Originally Posted by warcity
Big engine doesn't necessarily mean higher gas consumption. For example BMW has a 3.5 Liter twin turbo engine that consumes less gas than Audi's 2.0t. It's all about engine's efficiency and power utilization.

Big engine does not equal high consumption similarly, small engine doesn't mean lower consumption.
I was just presenting point of view, and hard facts. Europe thinks way differently than us here. Their perception, and I can't blame them for it, is that Americans and Canadians want bigger engines, pure and simple. Its up to us to change it, and I think we slowely started doing it. So hopefully soon we have more diesel choices......
tomashek is offline  
Old 07-20-2010, 11:14 AM
  #16  
Moderator



iTrader: (1)
 
warcity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto -GTA
Posts: 1,487
warcity is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption

Originally Posted by tomashek
Where did you get that info from? I checked and its rated 17 mpg city/25 mpg highway and 20 mpg combined. How is this superior to 2.0T???
My apologies BMW's engine is 3.0 L NOT 3.5 but same statement applies. I am not a fan of BMW at all. I love my Audi. I was using it as a simple example. I don't like posting anything BMW related here but since I am being asked to here it is below.

I just don't like the idea of folks associated big engines with high consumption. That may have been the case 5 or 10 years a go but it's no longer. Same thing in reverse, small engine doesn't necessarily mean low consumption.

We need someone who has actually taken deliver of a 2011 Q5 2.0T to reset their computer and give us a proper reading taking into account their driving conditions/style.
Attached Thumbnails 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption-1.jpg   2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption-2.jpg  
warcity is offline  
Old 07-20-2010, 06:08 PM
  #17  
Audi Forum - Posts like an A1
 
lawski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 20
lawski is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption

Well im from europe and THE main reason why ppl buy the 2.0 and not the 3.2 is that it costs 10000 euro more... But everyone loves the 3.2...


On the Europe market the 2.0 was first.. THAN the 3.2 came..
lawski is offline  
Old 07-20-2010, 08:35 PM
  #18  
Audi Forum - Posts like an A1
 
MkIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bedford, N.S.
Posts: 25
MkIX is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption

Readers of this forum, including me, will be interrested in user feedback on the 2.0T.
MkIX is offline  
Old 07-20-2010, 09:24 PM
  #19  
Audi Forum - Posts like an A3
 
flogsta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 74
flogsta is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption

My final words on this I am originally from Germany and live now in Canada. The price might be one reason why the 2.0 engines are more popular in Europe but I personally believe they are more popular because they are simply enough! They are enough for the curved roads and city traffic. I wish Audi and other car makes would offer their customers more choices!
flogsta is offline  
Old 07-21-2010, 03:36 AM
  #20  
iTrader: (1)
 
1move's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: ....
Posts: 2,548
1move is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption

The 2.0T can and will be modified to its full potential soon enough, I am sure you can take an A4 turbo and stick it on there with minor modifications unless the whole entire engine design has changed.

As far as Europe VS North America i would say it essentially comes down to HP VS Torque. Europe Likes the HP and N.America has always loved the torque. Now before you say us N.Americans love the HP too, look at the bigger picture and ask your self why do we make so many 5.7,5.9.6.2L Engines??? Bigger engines provide a lot of potential for torque on the lower end which suits most N.American lifestyles. How many Europeans own a large boat or a trailer home/RV? Quite honestly next to none, and if it is a boat its already on the sea or lake.

So it will Always and I repeat always be a battle between Stigs fat American cousin or the Stig himself.

If some of you disagree that N.Americans like it bigger next time go to a McDonalds and supersize your fries and drink, that super size in Europe is at most a smaller cup than a medium drink and a small packet of fries. These guys like it compact and efficient, full of energy and not artificially inflated like the domestic engines.
1move is offline  


You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.

Quick Reply: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:40 PM.