2L Turbo vs 3.2L V6
08-12-2010, 09:55 PM
#11
Audi Forum - Posts like an RS4
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brampton/Mississauga
Posts: 800
Re: 2L Turbo vs 3.2L V6
I've always been a great fan of our 4 cyl engines. I believe that Audi's position towards fuel savings is in the right track. Hybrid is next, I'm personally not a big fan of that technology, I may change my mind once I know more about it.
I'm going to Germany at the end of September for training, I'm hoping to get some juicy info.
No idea why the 3.2 was introduced first, after over 8 years with Audi, I still don't know why things are done certain ways.
I'm going to Germany at the end of September for training, I'm hoping to get some juicy info.
No idea why the 3.2 was introduced first, after over 8 years with Audi, I still don't know why things are done certain ways.
08-13-2010, 11:12 AM
#13
Audi Forum - Posts like an A3
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 74
Re: 2L Turbo vs 3.2L V6
ot a big fan of that technology, I may change my mind once I know more about it.
I'm going to Germany at the end of September for training, I'm hoping to get some juicy info.
No idea why the 3.2 was introduced first, after over 8 years with Audi, I still don't know why things are done certain ways.
I'm going to Germany at the end of September for training, I'm hoping to get some juicy info.
No idea why the 3.2 was introduced first, after over 8 years with Audi, I still don't know why things are done certain ways.
And sorry for beating Argentina at the World Cup.
08-13-2010, 05:10 PM
#14
Audi Forum - Posts like an RS4
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brampton/Mississauga
Posts: 800
08-14-2010, 08:42 PM
#16
Audi Forum - Posts like an A1
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3
Re: 2L Turbo vs 3.2L V6
I am one of those who couldn't wait and got the 3.2, but to me, the biggest attraction of 2.0 right now is the price saving on purchase, and the potenitial gas saving.
But with the "smart" pricing by Audi (the fact that the $2300 panorama roof is not included in any package except for 3.2 premium...which BTW is a must have if you have a female in the decision making), buying the car in 2010 and 2011 is not that much of a difference. For e.g. 2.0 premium plus + roof is 47,600 MSRP and last year, premium 3.2 is 48,600...not a huge difference, but you get more HP whether you need it or not.
I know the 2011 has more features, but they are not must have to me...in terms of gas saving, well if you drive luxury, it's not likely to make a huge difference in your life...finally, the supplier discout was WAY better in 2009...so I don't think us 3.2 owners from last year should feel too bad about our purchase, I would not be suprised if people who had the 7% supplier discount actually pay less than a lot of the 2.0 owners...just my 2 cents
But with the "smart" pricing by Audi (the fact that the $2300 panorama roof is not included in any package except for 3.2 premium...which BTW is a must have if you have a female in the decision making), buying the car in 2010 and 2011 is not that much of a difference. For e.g. 2.0 premium plus + roof is 47,600 MSRP and last year, premium 3.2 is 48,600...not a huge difference, but you get more HP whether you need it or not.
I know the 2011 has more features, but they are not must have to me...in terms of gas saving, well if you drive luxury, it's not likely to make a huge difference in your life...finally, the supplier discout was WAY better in 2009...so I don't think us 3.2 owners from last year should feel too bad about our purchase, I would not be suprised if people who had the 7% supplier discount actually pay less than a lot of the 2.0 owners...just my 2 cents
Alex, I am really glad to hear this from you. If the 2.0 liter wins over and over again. Will your head office get it? I mean, we talked here on the forum about it before and I voiced my opinion that the 2.0 (both regular and TDI) are the favorites in Germany and by my own impression Canadians would take 'smaller' engines. But why do they first introduce the 3.2 and then later the 2.0? I just do not get it. I love the Q5 and wanted one/needed a car so I took the 3.2 but always regret that the 2.0 was not available.
08-14-2010, 09:20 PM
#17
Re: 2L Turbo vs 3.2L V6
Well said MaQ5. I agree 100%. The supplier discount was amazing in 2010 compared to 2011 specially.
I was at Audi today for service, while waiting I spoke with 2 sale specialist, both said, if you are used to the power the 3.2 gives you driving the 2.0 will not be at all enjoyable. To prove the point I along with a fellow forum member who was also servicing his car, took the 2.0 out on a drive. He will attest to this as well. Sure the acceleration was "as good" as the 3.2 but once the cars gets going, there is no kick, it doesn't sink you into your seat when you floor the gas, there was zero power on the hwy and I was constantly waiting for something to happen. You cannot get into 8th gear unless you're going 75km or higher (which defeats the purpose for city driving). When flooring the gas pedal, the engine was screaming.
The car idles at exactly 800 RPM (same as 3.2) gas savings at the end of the month based on 1 fill up a month is exactly $20.00 cheaper than 3.2. According to Audi Downtown Toronto, the only reason the 2.0 is selling so good is because it's cheaper priced.
For those who've never driven the 3.2 you will enjoy the 2.0t. For those who drove the 3.2 for a quick 10 minute test drive, you cannot make a fair comparison. The Q5 is a lot more enjoyable when it has a 270 to go along with it's 2000+ ton body weight. The new 2.0t engine however will shine on the A4/A5.
I was at Audi today for service, while waiting I spoke with 2 sale specialist, both said, if you are used to the power the 3.2 gives you driving the 2.0 will not be at all enjoyable. To prove the point I along with a fellow forum member who was also servicing his car, took the 2.0 out on a drive. He will attest to this as well. Sure the acceleration was "as good" as the 3.2 but once the cars gets going, there is no kick, it doesn't sink you into your seat when you floor the gas, there was zero power on the hwy and I was constantly waiting for something to happen. You cannot get into 8th gear unless you're going 75km or higher (which defeats the purpose for city driving). When flooring the gas pedal, the engine was screaming.
The car idles at exactly 800 RPM (same as 3.2) gas savings at the end of the month based on 1 fill up a month is exactly $20.00 cheaper than 3.2. According to Audi Downtown Toronto, the only reason the 2.0 is selling so good is because it's cheaper priced.
For those who've never driven the 3.2 you will enjoy the 2.0t. For those who drove the 3.2 for a quick 10 minute test drive, you cannot make a fair comparison. The Q5 is a lot more enjoyable when it has a 270 to go along with it's 2000+ ton body weight. The new 2.0t engine however will shine on the A4/A5.
08-15-2010, 02:13 AM
#18
Audi Forum - Posts like an A3
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: toronto
Posts: 63
Re: 2L Turbo vs 3.2L V6
Yes, I can attest to warcity's comments...we both test drove the 2L. If I haven't driven the 3.2L, I would probably go for the 2L considering that I'm often on the road. It was nice to meet flogsta in person!
08-15-2010, 09:37 AM
#19
Audi Forum - Posts like an A3
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 74
Re: 2L Turbo vs 3.2L V6
Warcity and Q-E shared their test drive experience with me yesterday (great meeting you guys).
Last edited by flogsta; 08-15-2010 at 03:19 PM.
08-15-2010, 03:09 PM
#20
Audi Forum - Posts like an A1
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 5
Re: 2L Turbo vs 3.2L V6
I bought my Audi 2011 2 liter at a meager 3% discount to which I added the horrendous amount for the moonroof. The difference in price with a 3.2 2010 is minimal. The Audi dealers are in a strong position since there are waiting lists.
I had not test driven a 2 liter, only the 3.2, but the turbo and torque made me believe a fast or faster take off and fast passing other cars driving at 70 to 90 km/h. Apparently I am somewhat mistaken. Another consideration: I dislike to go often for a fill-up, and the 2 liter uses less gas. I would have preferred a very fast diesel like the ones I have recently seen flying by on the German Autobahn.
I had not test driven a 2 liter, only the 3.2, but the turbo and torque made me believe a fast or faster take off and fast passing other cars driving at 70 to 90 km/h. Apparently I am somewhat mistaken. Another consideration: I dislike to go often for a fill-up, and the 2 liter uses less gas. I would have preferred a very fast diesel like the ones I have recently seen flying by on the German Autobahn.
