bigc_2k3

Those were the fuel economy figures our sales guy quoted when we bought our 2.0T.

And that was one of the reasons we decided to go with the 2.0T over the 3.2.

We do a bit of highway and that will make a huge difference.

900Km on one tank on a roadtrip would be nice!!!

warcity

iTrader: (1)

I wasn't rely too much on posted figured, they're never the same as actual figured.
10.6l in city and 7.7l highway this is about 9.1l/combined. Assuming the 2.0T has a 75L tank (same as 3.2) based on this consumption the max you'll get out of a tank is 830. I would be blown away if this is true. The 3.2 has given me up to 720 Km on a tank of gas.

jb747

I should have said, that whilst I thought the 3.2 was quite flat, the 2.0 felt pretty good. More torque, and lower down, made for a much more relaxed drive. The 3.2 may have been ultimately quicker, but it felt like you had to work it much more.

And I think I'd swap our engine choices for your prices....

DougC

Today I drove a 2011 Q5 2.0T and 3.2 V6. I was expecting the V6 to be a smoother faster Q5. I did not take the vehicles on the freeway but I did accelerate fast and got up to speed on city streets. Also, hit the brakes hard and it stopped fast.

I was pleasantly surprised with the 2.0T. It has an 8 speed autotrans. The ride seemed softer and more comfortable than the 3.2 Q5. Can this be?

The salesmen said this is NOT the VW 2.0T. It has more hp and torque. The 8 speed trans smooths the acceleration from standstill to 60 mph.

Is this all my imagination or is this really a new and high tech 2 litter turbo engine/drive train for 2011? I've always driven 6's and 8's and reluctant to try a 4 cyl car. But this was pretty tempting.

I don't care about gas millage. But the extra mileage would be nice windfall.

Does anyone on this forum see the same improvements I see in the 2011 Q5's vs the 2010 models.

PS I went to the dealership to drive a 2009 A4 with 3.2 V6. I liked it but after trying the Q5 20T, I'm leaning to a new Q5.

warcity

iTrader: (1)

8 speed naturally makes the acceleration smoother. This is Audi's very first year production of the 8 speed. The 2.0t also has 11 more torque over the 3.2 but about 60 less HP. It really depends on what you prefer personally. In my opinion neither car is superior over other. The 2.0t is new and hyped up, whether it's hyped for the right reasons or not it's remained to be seen. A year from now all the hype will be with the hybrid.

The new 8 speed is going on the 2011 A4s as well.

my2010q5

3.2 is the way to go with. You will notice difference when acclerate on highway with 3.2 . In city probably both 3.2 and 2.0t are same with acceleration. At dealer, sales person explains that ppl buyin 2.0t because it is cheaper and almost same perfermance as 3.2. He also mentioned that 2.0t engine is tougher in maintenance in the long term if you keep the car over 5 years..

DougC

I will try the 20T at freeway speeds before deciding. At a $4500 savings, it is tempting unless I can find more real advantages to the 3.2 6. Doubt I would want the hybrid. I guess they wont bring the TDI to the A4, Q5 in the US for 2 yrs or more.

I drove a new 2011 BMW 535i with the twin turbo and it is one amazing engine. But at $60,000 I think I will pass. The new X3 will have this engine and be in the showrooms in about 2 months. But it could be expensive and it still rides like a truck in my opinion.

warcity

iTrader: (1)

I completely agree with this statement as well. I believe one major reason for 2.0T in NA is the lower MSRP otherwise 2.0T would have been offered right from the start similar to the A4. More speed equals more moving parts plus turbo equals more maintenance cost after your warranty runs out. The only other car is the Q5 direct competition class that has a "similar" engine is the RDX which is being redesigned very soon all other ones are V6 engines.

DougC

I suspect you are right. Turbo's may require more maintenance. I doubt I would keep the car past the warranty or lease term. But even if it in for warranty service, it is a big pain.

A friend bought a Volvo XC90 (4yrs ago) and it was a lemon. In the shop for 3-4 months in the first year! Unbelieveable. Volvo eventually took care of it and gave him a loan car. But who paid him for the time and stress he went through. The new Volve XC60 3.0Turbo drives great. But the residual value after 3 yrs is lower than most cars in this class. Makes me wonder.

warcity

iTrader: (1)

One thing major to note here, is that yes it's $4500.00 cheaper but they get you on the sun roof. If you do the math, it's not much savings at all. This is a very smart way Audi is trying to sell the 2.0 by including the tech package but removing the sun roof so do the math before deciding.