2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption
07-21-2010, 06:17 AM
#21
Audi Forum - Posts like an A3
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 72
Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption
With resepct to the Q5, has anyone thought about the fact that the transmissions on the vehicles are completely different?
I agree that with the same transmission (6sp Auto) the fuel consumption would be the same and the car would not have enough gettup. In fact i drove a 2.0T a4 right after driving a 3.2 Q5 and found the 3.2 to be far superior.
But when i drove a 3.2 Q5 followed by a 2.0T Q5, the difference in efficieny and apparent power was in favour of the 2.0T. That 8 speed transmission makes a huge difference in utilization of the available power, and apparently it is supposed to be significantly more fuel efficient.
Our sales person was able to provide canadian fuel economy numbers for the 2.0T which suggest significant improvement in city and highway economy vs the 3.2.
For me since i am not towing anything, i don't need the raw HP this time around, and with the ability to add a chip (APR makes one already) that can add around 25 addtional HP and 60 torque for under $1000, it seems like a no brainer.
Now, if the Q5 3.2 had the 8 speed ZF transmission, It might be a different conversation...
I agree that with the same transmission (6sp Auto) the fuel consumption would be the same and the car would not have enough gettup. In fact i drove a 2.0T a4 right after driving a 3.2 Q5 and found the 3.2 to be far superior.
But when i drove a 3.2 Q5 followed by a 2.0T Q5, the difference in efficieny and apparent power was in favour of the 2.0T. That 8 speed transmission makes a huge difference in utilization of the available power, and apparently it is supposed to be significantly more fuel efficient.
Our sales person was able to provide canadian fuel economy numbers for the 2.0T which suggest significant improvement in city and highway economy vs the 3.2.
For me since i am not towing anything, i don't need the raw HP this time around, and with the ability to add a chip (APR makes one already) that can add around 25 addtional HP and 60 torque for under $1000, it seems like a no brainer.
Now, if the Q5 3.2 had the 8 speed ZF transmission, It might be a different conversation...
07-21-2010, 09:03 AM
#22
Audi Forum - Posts like an A3
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 74
Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption
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.
07-21-2010, 11:48 AM
#24
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
With resepct to the Q5, has anyone thought about the fact that the transmissions on the vehicles are completely different?
I agree that with the same transmission (6sp Auto) the fuel consumption would be the same and the car would not have enough gettup. In fact i drove a 2.0T a4 right after driving a 3.2 Q5 and found the 3.2 to be far superior.
But when i drove a 3.2 Q5 followed by a 2.0T Q5, the difference in efficieny and apparent power was in favour of the 2.0T. That 8 speed transmission makes a huge difference in utilization of the available power, and apparently it is supposed to be significantly more fuel efficient.
Our sales person was able to provide canadian fuel economy numbers for the 2.0T which suggest significant improvement in city and highway economy vs the 3.2.
For me since i am not towing anything, i don't need the raw HP this time around, and with the ability to add a chip (APR makes one already) that can add around 25 addtional HP and 60 torque for under $1000, it seems like a no brainer.
Now, if the Q5 3.2 had the 8 speed ZF transmission, It might be a different conversation...
I agree that with the same transmission (6sp Auto) the fuel consumption would be the same and the car would not have enough gettup. In fact i drove a 2.0T a4 right after driving a 3.2 Q5 and found the 3.2 to be far superior.
But when i drove a 3.2 Q5 followed by a 2.0T Q5, the difference in efficieny and apparent power was in favour of the 2.0T. That 8 speed transmission makes a huge difference in utilization of the available power, and apparently it is supposed to be significantly more fuel efficient.
Our sales person was able to provide canadian fuel economy numbers for the 2.0T which suggest significant improvement in city and highway economy vs the 3.2.
For me since i am not towing anything, i don't need the raw HP this time around, and with the ability to add a chip (APR makes one already) that can add around 25 addtional HP and 60 torque for under $1000, it seems like a no brainer.
Now, if the Q5 3.2 had the 8 speed ZF transmission, It might be a different conversation...
Now 2.0T came with excellent 8speed, ZF sourced transmission. My friend works as a mechanic (20 years and counting...) and said to me that ZF tranny is one of the best and most reliable transmission in the world! Checked online and it's sure not exaggeration. He said that he saw 1 (one) failed over 20 years in business.
07-21-2010, 11:55 AM
#25
Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption
The 3.2 engine on the Q5 is not a "new" engine to Audi. I highly doubt Audi would keep releasing the same engine with problems (as indicated by Edmund). Furthermore I won't make any decisions based on reports. One could argue that the 2.0T engine still has the oil issue that everyone talks about but Audi continuously denies but I am sure that's already been addressed.
I am sure both engines are fantastic otherwise neither would be in production. it's a matter of price and preference.
I am sure both engines are fantastic otherwise neither would be in production. it's a matter of price and preference.
07-21-2010, 01:59 PM
#26
Audi Forum - Posts like an RS4
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brampton/Mississauga
Posts: 800
Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption
Aside from CVT and DSG, all other transmissions are ZF, manual and tip.
Transmission source and type in the main reason I have started to consider Q5 again. There's many complains about 6s tranny, just check Edmunds.com reviews..... It's way to problematic for a car of that magnitude.
Now 2.0T came with excellent 8speed, ZF sourced transmission. My friend works as a mechanic (20 years and counting...) and said to me that ZF tranny is one of the best and most reliable transmission in the world! Checked online and it's sure not exaggeration. He said that he saw 1 (one) failed over 20 years in business.
Now 2.0T came with excellent 8speed, ZF sourced transmission. My friend works as a mechanic (20 years and counting...) and said to me that ZF tranny is one of the best and most reliable transmission in the world! Checked online and it's sure not exaggeration. He said that he saw 1 (one) failed over 20 years in business.
07-23-2010, 12:19 AM
#27
Audi Forum - Posts like an A1
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7
Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption
I own the 3.2 lt engine in another vehicle (Golf R32), and in that car, I love it. But we test drove the Q5 with the 3.0 TDI, 3.2, and 2.0 petrol, one after the other, and all with the same transmission. In the Q5, I thought the 3.2 was quite flat, and the lack of low down torque was quite noticeable. I ordered the 3.0.
07-23-2010, 10:54 AM
#29
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
07-23-2010, 10:59 AM
#30
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
Just saw 2.0T in brown teak on my local dealer lot, looking pretty good, different, with beige inside.
Sticker on the window said 10.6l in city and 7.7l highway. Not to bad if you ask me!
Sticker on the window said 10.6l in city and 7.7l highway. Not to bad if you ask me!
