This is based on best available information at the time. It's just a simple graph of the HP and torque numbers.

I figured I would share since I have not seen a graph for the new 2.0T and rarely ever see the two main engine choices for any given model overlapped for comparison.

<img src="http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/14154/b820vs32.jpg">

I've thrown in the '07 2.0T for grins, since that's what I currently drive. (green)

The 3.2 numbers are from the offical spec graphs on AudiWorld resources. (blue)

The new 2.0T is based on currently available information regarding the new 2.0T at 211HP and 258 lb-ft of torque. (red)

The numbers work out to the new 2.0T having an average 10% advantage below 4500 RPM and the 3.2 having a 20% advantage above 5000 RPM. (not counting that the 3.2 will likely be able to rev higher than the 2.0T.)


Now for the opinion part.

With the new 2.0T's extremely low torque plateau it looks like it will function similar to a diesel, and looks like it will fall off quickly above 4500 RPM. Coming extremely close to the torque characteristics of the B7 2.0T at 5000 RPMs and up.

On the flip side the 3.2 is at an unquestionable torque disadvantage up to 4500 RPM, but then continues to pull decent torque out to 6000+ RPM.

Overall I'm sure both cars will be extremely close in straight line performance since the 3.2 will likely weigh more than the 2.0T.

I'd certainly like to drive both before passing judgement. So far I can only compare the A5 3.2 to my current B7 2.0T whereby the 3.2 is the better engine choice for me.

At what RPM (manual &amp; auto) will the engines turn at speed (MPH)?

60
70
80
90

When my wife had her 225HP 1.8T's TT's it seemed to me that 65MPH was around 2,350 in 6th (but my memory could be fading. . . )

I ordered the 4 due to the torque, thinking the 3.2 would not be significantly "better" for what will be about a $5,000+ premium.

The 3.2 is going to be 10% of their sales volume, if that, especially once you throw in the price of fuel now.

Usually the autos work out to a fairly long final drive so that'll keep the Revs low at speed.

It's always been a poor value in terms of performance relative to its segment peers and the turbo I4 offerings, even more so now.

I love the 3.2 in my '05 A6, Audi needed to "mildly" bi-turbo this thing about 18-24 months ago.

A mild bi-turboing of the 3.2 would probably have yielded nearly 300HP and quite possibly OVER 300 foot pounds from under 2,000 RPM to perhaps over 5,500. BMW keeps putting that nifty little (?) "35" engine in every damn car they sell, practically.

I drove the X6 this weekend, already drove the 335 and 535, damn the 135 must be a friggin' rocket. Meanwhile the fine as wine 3.2L soldiers on, a great engine, but sadly outgunned. My wife's new X3 has the bumped 3.0 engine and it is now lazily putting out 260HP and 225 ft lbs. The only reason, I can think of for Audi to "lag" (no pun intended) behind in this one area is, uh, er, I can't think of one. The 2.7T in 2004 (I know it was thirsty and dirty, bla bla bla) was a delightful, powerful engine -- even in the end of the line 2004 A6 SLine 2.7T incarnation.

Of all the car companies that can claim deep skills in turbo charging, Audi has to be in the top tier -- so what's the deal with this new A4 2.0T and 3.2L -- it has to be marketing, not engineering prowess.

Hell, just buy a new A4, debadge it, "mildly" chip it, etc and don't tellanyone -- they'll never know you didn't pony up for the extra 2 cylinders.

Me -- I wouldn't even bother to chip the thing. Hopefully Audi will bring the 3.0TFSI or 3.0SFSI or twin-charged V6 to market as the A4, NOT the S4 with the accompanying bump in MSRP.

I know, I know the RS4 has a lot more other goodies in it than the S4 whereas the B8 2.0T and 3.2 will be identically equipped except for the engine.

All the points are valid. Based on past sales volumes and high gas prices the 2.0T will undoubtedly outsell the 3.2 as usual.

I really just wanted to compare the two engines based purely on the HP and torque numbers, not peoples perception of what will sell and which is truly better for their needs/wants.

My honest opinion from the graphs is the 2.0T does have a major torque advantage from 1500 RPM to 3000 RPM, but beyond that the margin is too close to be concerned (15 lb-ft) and then above 5000 RPM the 3.2 takes over.

We'll have to see when the mpg ratings come out, but I get the sense the 2.0T will not get as large a bump in city MPG. Audi claims a 15% mileage improvement over the outgoing 2.0T, but my money is on more improvement in highway mileage.

B7 2.0T 19/22/27
A5 3.2 18/21/27
My guess at the B8 2.0T
B8 2.0T 21/25/32

We'll see what we see when all the information is out and the cars actually arrive to be driven.

No know pricing yet for the US B8 and no chips available for the new 2.0T until they are developed.

(BTW the difference between identically equipped B7 2.0T and 3.2 was closer to $4000.)

I get a funny feeling that the detuned 290hp supercharged 3.0L V6 that's going to the A6 will eventually find it's way to the A4 &amp; A5 as well.

Both well optioned (S-Line, Premium, Met paint, Conv, Nav, Bluetooth, heated front seats then the difference is only $4,150.

Comparing base prices there is a $6000 difference, but the base 2.0 doesn't come with the same level of options as the base 3.2.

The 290HP 3.0T will likely be in the A6/Q5 at some point. I'm speculating if you want the 3.0T in a B8 you'll have to spring for the higher power version in the S4....at least in the US.

It's very unlikley Audi will offer two different HP 3.0Ts in the B8 A4 platform in the US and only forced induction motors for the B8.

That's my speculation anyway. Hopefully I'm wrong.

i believe it's like 1%-2%.

If the 1.8T was a manual and the 2.8 was automatic.

Comparing both automatics the performance specs for 2001 are nearly identical. Comparing both sticks the 2.8 was 0.5s quicker to 60. So comparing a stick 1.8T to an automatic 2.8 puts the 1.8T a full second faster to 60.
Back in 2001 the automatics were not nearly as good as they are now, so for consistancy it's easier for me to only compare automatic performance.

The 2.8 had a 20HP and 60 lb-ft advantage over the 1.8T and admittedly the 1.8T puts up strong performance numbers for being at a deficit.

Fast-forward to today the 3.2 has 50HP advantage, but a 15 lb-ft disadvantage on the 2.0T. Again comparing automatics I'll still bet the performance difference between B8 engines will be greater than the difference between B5 engines with the 3.2 coming out ahead...admittedly not by a staggering amount.

some of us have bad luck ma man...

Including drag strip and highway pulls.