There is a review from fourtitude a few months back regarding testing an A5 with an ethanol version of the EA888 2.0T.

There are definitely more positive notes, but one negative in my book.

"They also boast more dynamic torque buildup that's more pleasurable to drive..."

"Essentially, if you ignore the experimental fuels or components, the specifications of these two motors are close to what will go into full production in the A4 and A5 in the near term..."

"So how does it drive? On the streets of downtown San Francisco, torque was plentiful and came on in a linear fashion improved over the elder 2.0T. Though the buzziness of the current 2.0T isn't gone entirely, refinement levels over the old are markedly improved."

So acceleration and refinement are improved over the outgoing 2.0T, but they did mention the dreaded word "buzziness" of this new motor. Albeit a test mule for E85.

However, what may be buzzy and have poor NVH to me may not bother the author at all. So I still have to drive one first hand before I'm convinced they improved NVH over the old 2.0T. :-)<ul><li><a href="http://www.fourtitude.com/news/publish/Features/article_3658.shtml">http://www.fourtitude.com/news/publish/Features/article_3658.shtml</a</li></ul>

Ethanol does create more "power" in a given engine. PLUS.

Ethanol goes much less far per gallon than dino fuel. MINUS.

Ethanol is subsidized at 51 cents per gallon by taxpayer money -- this means it goes less far and costs more than dino fuel. MINUS. MINUS.

Ethanol made from corn causes a "multiplier" effect with respect to the economy and the price of food that is unfavorable to most people, if not all people. MINUS.

Ethanol, according to "most" real scientists, as opposed to folks like me who only play scientists on TV, uses more energy to create it than it generates, something like Engergy In 1.2+, Energy Out 1.0. MINUS (and dumb.)

So, other than being "popular," our approach to Ethanol is wasteful, expensive and, um, dumb. At the very least it is ill-informed.

Couple this with the various reports from "this that and the other" think tank, research organization, etc, that we have from between 100 - 400 years worth of dino fuels here in our own country and Ethanol makes about as much sense as ingesting arsenic in relatively small amounts -- it won't kill you quick, but it will kill you.

The minuses do outweigh the plusses.

Drive it like you live.

previous conversations regarding the new EA888 2.0T smoothness and NVH vs. the V6.

:-)

So call it that it might have been a test engine in that car perhaps or what not.

...but at what production flows? Production in the States has been going south since 1970. That's one reason why I'll go with the 2.0t engine (manual is another). But just wish that Audi offered up a couple of the diesel options for us. I'd settle for one of those, even with the cost of diesel being snotty awful.

the media propaganda.

There may be oil off the Cali coast, there's some oil in the Gulf and ditto with ANWR but back in 1970 our production went into decline (it was around 11.3 million barrels per day). Even when the North Slope came online in the mid 80's, it only managed to make a bump on the decline side of the curve.

Since 1970 our production has been declining by about -1.4% per year and while I agree that we need to develope what we have, it won't change the price of oil or stop the decline. In probably several years, global production declines are likely to kick in and it could be rather nasty.

Apparently the only spare global reserve capacity is from Saudi Arabia and they seem set on holding production down to less than 9.5 mil barrels per day.

Iraq, if it ever gets stable, does have the potential for around 5 million barrels or better per day. But that's not going to happen any time soon.