2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption
08-08-2010, 02:12 PM
#41
Audi Forum - Posts like an A1
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orange Co, CA
Posts: 11
Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption
Thanks for heads up. Clearly Audi is pushing the 2.0T very hard. Pricing the Q5 20T is hard since Audi does not yet have the 2011 models on its website. They have lots of 2010 models to get off the lot. The dealers can price for me but it is a hassle to go to the lot and write down all the data.
From the visits I have made to my local dealers one thing is clear: the salesmen don't seem to understand the new models and pricing options.
From the visits I have made to my local dealers one thing is clear: the salesmen don't seem to understand the new models and pricing options.
08-08-2010, 04:53 PM
#43
Audi Forum - Posts like an A1
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orange Co, CA
Posts: 11
Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption
Warcity: the audiusa.com site still has only the 2010 models. Are you looking at the Canada site?
Let me know if you have found an Audi official site with 2011 model data and prices.
Edmunds, Kelly have the 2011 model data but it is not accurate. Thanks
Let me know if you have found an Audi official site with 2011 model data and prices.
Edmunds, Kelly have the 2011 model data but it is not accurate. Thanks
08-08-2010, 05:06 PM
#44
Audi Forum - Posts like an A1
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orange Co, CA
Posts: 11
Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption
I checked the audi canada site and they do have the 2011 models.
The usa site is stuck on 2010. But the canada site does have the data and I assume the usa models are the same.
The usa site is stuck on 2010. But the canada site does have the data and I assume the usa models are the same.
08-08-2010, 06:14 PM
#45
Audi Forum - Posts like an A1
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7
Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption
As I have more engine options available to me, my view is possibly tainted, but, having driven the 3.2 and the 2.0T back to back, and owning the 3.2 in a VW R32, I would go with the 2.0 in a (North American) Q5. Main reason is that whilst the 3.2 works brilliantly in the smaller Golf, I felt that you had to push it in the Q5 to achieve similar progress to the provided easily by the 3.0 TDI and the 2.0T. I guess the answer is that the turbo engine has a lot more torque available, much lower in the rev band than the petrol V6.
I'd have to say too, that I'm not convinced by arguments about long term maintenance costs on the smaller turbo engine. These things have been around for ever on the Golf GTI and family, and the have a reputation that is extremely good. With sensible driving, I'd expect there to be no difference in longevity, and the 2.0 will win the fuel consumption war, as long as you can keep your foot out of the carpet...and if you can't then it doesn't matter anyway.
An aside perhaps, but in Oz, where there are four engine options, the take up of the 3.2 is in small single digits.
I'd have to say too, that I'm not convinced by arguments about long term maintenance costs on the smaller turbo engine. These things have been around for ever on the Golf GTI and family, and the have a reputation that is extremely good. With sensible driving, I'd expect there to be no difference in longevity, and the 2.0 will win the fuel consumption war, as long as you can keep your foot out of the carpet...and if you can't then it doesn't matter anyway.
An aside perhaps, but in Oz, where there are four engine options, the take up of the 3.2 is in small single digits.
08-08-2010, 07:07 PM
#47
Audi Forum - Posts like an A1
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orange Co, CA
Posts: 11
Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption
Thanks jb747. I am definitely leaning to the 20T. In 2010, I was skeptical. But driving the Q5 20T quattro with the new 8 speed tiptronic was an eyeopener. It was smooth, powerful, and has the acceleration that is about the same as the V6. I am confortable with VW's long experience with turbo engines. Checking car complaint websites, I don't see many audi or vw turbo engine customers with complaints.
In checking the Canadian Audi website (unlike the USA, it now has the 2011 data), it is apparent that the Audi's more costly in Canada than the US. Could be taxes or something. I assume Audis in Australia are also more expensive.
In checking the Canadian Audi website (unlike the USA, it now has the 2011 data), it is apparent that the Audi's more costly in Canada than the US. Could be taxes or something. I assume Audis in Australia are also more expensive.
08-11-2010, 05:48 PM
#50
Audi Forum - Posts like an A1
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Orange Co, CA
Posts: 11
Re: 2.0T vs 3.2 fuel consumption
The AudiUSA site now has the 2011 models online with pricing and specs.
Some comments from this thread:
1. If you drive 12k mi/yr $3/gal and 3 mpg difference, the 3.2 will cost you about $240 more each year. $20/mo as one message said. Not a big deal.
2. 20T has more torque, less HP. But it is smooth with the new 8 spd Tiptronic.
3. Acceleration to 60 mph is about the same.
4. I priced the Prem Plus model with identical colors, extras incl Nav, Bose, etc. The 20T was $44.6K sticker, 3.2 was $47.7K. So only difference was the engine. So you save about $3K (and $240/yr in fuel cost!).
5. 3.2 Prem Pl comes with SLine trim for free. Can't get it on the 2.0T. So the $3K extra for 3.2 is really less if you place value on the SLine.
5. The 3.2 Prestige with same color, etc. is $50K or $2.3K or $5.3K more. You cannot get the 2.0T with Prestige.
6. Prestige adds keyless entry, blindspot detection, not sure what else.
7. I think the MMT Nav is the same for all models. But it was not clear if the 2.0T comes with rear camera, voice activation.
It is clear Audi is positioning the 20T for the economy buyer. You can get most extras but the Prestige package is off the table.
Doug
Some comments from this thread:
1. If you drive 12k mi/yr $3/gal and 3 mpg difference, the 3.2 will cost you about $240 more each year. $20/mo as one message said. Not a big deal.
2. 20T has more torque, less HP. But it is smooth with the new 8 spd Tiptronic.
3. Acceleration to 60 mph is about the same.
4. I priced the Prem Plus model with identical colors, extras incl Nav, Bose, etc. The 20T was $44.6K sticker, 3.2 was $47.7K. So only difference was the engine. So you save about $3K (and $240/yr in fuel cost!).
5. 3.2 Prem Pl comes with SLine trim for free. Can't get it on the 2.0T. So the $3K extra for 3.2 is really less if you place value on the SLine.
5. The 3.2 Prestige with same color, etc. is $50K or $2.3K or $5.3K more. You cannot get the 2.0T with Prestige.
6. Prestige adds keyless entry, blindspot detection, not sure what else.
7. I think the MMT Nav is the same for all models. But it was not clear if the 2.0T comes with rear camera, voice activation.
It is clear Audi is positioning the 20T for the economy buyer. You can get most extras but the Prestige package is off the table.
Doug
