CrustyNoodle

If only it was that simple eh!

Gotta disagree with you on your engine preferences. The 2.0TFSI is the choice for city work and towing where you want your torque early in the rev range. The 3.2 would have been the choice for the more sporty drive however that is not what the OP was asking for.

Techm8n

I agree with crusty. Majority of peoples daily driving is in the low rpm. It's only once in a while when you floor the gas pedal which is when the v6 is better.

Before my 2.0t, I had a 300hp V6 Acura MDX. It was fast at the upper rpm, but torque was lacking. I enjoy the 2.0t much more as I have usable torque @ 1500 rpm. Also better for towing. And for $499 I can get APR tune for 323 lbs. torque.

gheffty93

Haha! And that is why the 3.2 is selling better right? Wrong. We test drove both and honestly the 2.0T was the better choice. Stop calling it an econo-banger...that engine is frankly the future of cars and you are still jsut stuck on V6s.

Rupesh

Agreed. I'm switching from a 5 liter V8 MB sedan to Q5 2T. I honestly felt more power in this smaller engine than my Mercedes. Reason being the same that everyone has already given... better low end torque for every day driving. I took the delivery of Q5 in Germany last month and had full opportunity to drive on the Autobahn as well as the twisties. The only time I thought it could use more power was when I was trying to go from 75 mph to 100 mph in a hurry. The rest of the time which is perhaps 90% of the scenarios, I thought the car was performing better than my expectations.

Cheers.

NABS4

This nugget of information should have been passed along to all the RS4,etc. owners who've been pulling the heads to get the carbon ground off.

Techm8n

The Audi 2.0t has won the International Engine of the year award 5 years in a row. http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...19/466458.html

Nuff said.

alatsacto

[QUOTE=PeerBlock;24302669]The 3.0T is a supercharged engine. It does not have a turbo anywhere in the mix.

There is some bad info floating around here with people suggesting that the 2.0T is a better engine for anything than the 3.2. It's not, and opting for it will make your nice Q5 sound like an econo-wheezer in addition to compromising power.QUOTE]

PeerBlock, you know you just opened up a big can of worms, right? Hahah. Everyone who owns one or the other engine will be adding their two cents.

I am currently not an owner of either engine, however I am looking to purchase a 2013 Q5. I'm not a big car enthusiast, so I wouldn't be able to rattle off car parts and tuning mods for you, but I love to drive. So picking the right car is important to me. I'll be honest I was skeptical when I was first introduced to the 2.0T engine for an SUV. My initial thoughts were I want the V6 with more power.

I have test driven both the 2.0T and 3.2 models. My take was that there wasn't a huge difference in power between the two. On flat road with minimal additional weight, the main difference is probably accelerating at higher speeds. After test driving both, I definitely had to reconsider my pre-conceived opinions. But as I was trying to make this decision a few months back, my dealer brought to my attention that the new 3.0T supercharged engine was most likely going to replace the 3.2 engine for the Q5. Now that engine has more HP and torque. I'm looking forward to test driving that engine or some form of that engine before making my final decision.

William B. Kayen

We own a 2.0T and it is truly amazing. 32 MPG on the highway and better MPG than the Lexus Rx Hybrid we traded in. You won't be disappointed with the 2.0T if you get it. My wife loves it and remember a happy wife is a happy life.

ThunderDent

Been getting a little over 32 on the highway myself. it's unbelievable that a car this size gets that. and to think I was looking at the VW Toureg Hybrid (which you can't find anywhere). Unbelievable it starts at $65K, and gets worse gas mileage. I don't think so.

You can say that again. My wife always says "would you rather be right, or happy?" Even though I know I'm right (always), I'd rather be happy.

PeerBlock

I drive in the city regularly. The 3.2 isn't letting me down. The 2.0T is tuned for low-RPM performance, which is why it reaches its peak power output at 4300 RPM and peak TQ output around 1,500 RPM. It's also a FSI engine so it is subject to the carbon build-up issues that any other FSI engine would have.

You want both power and torque THROUGHOUT the RPM range, not all huddled between 1,500 to 2,000 RPM. Watch your tach when you are driving normally; the 2.0T will be swinging up to and past 4K almost every time you accelerate. Please don't try to pass off this "we drive in the 2000 RPM range" B/S because it's not true. The 7-speed trans is geared in such a way that the 2.0T is operating in its powerband of 4300 RPM when under load.

Let's be realistic - the Q5 is not a pickup...he is going to tow something OCCASIONALLY and not routinely. The V6 is more than capable of doing so while providing a better driving experience when he is not.

Do you actually pay attention to your tach? Your 2.0T is going to be hovering around 3-4K when accelerating even if you are driving like a granny and when you floor it you'll really regret that the engine runs out of steam at 4,500 RPM while the 3.2 keeps pulling and pulling.

Oh really? Are you towing a lot with your Q5? So much so that it's a major consideration? If yes, you bought the wrong car. You should have gotten an F-150. If no then you're just trying to validate the econo-banger. Boatloads of torque mean nothing without the power to apply it and the warranty >>> APR tune.

Horsepower is the rate at which the engine can apply the torque it has, which is why if both engines have enough torque to move a given mass, adding more torque will not be "faster". The 3.2 has less peak torque but it has 30% more HP and it revs higher so you get more out of each gear.

I would say that the Q5s with the 2.0T being $10K cheaper than their 3.2 counterparts has a lot to do with the sales figures. It IS an econo engine, that's why it's cheap. Don't delude yourself into believing it's anything other than an econo-banger and the people who buy it are the same people who are impressed by Kias and Hyundais.

I really doubt that all cars are going to be stuck with underwhelming econo-bangers. Anything less than a V6 engine in a luxury car is pretty much sacrilege. It not only is cheap, it looks and sounds cheap. Why would you pay so much money for a car that has the same engine you can get in a $20K VW?

Fortunately I do not drive an RS4, I have a Q5...and this is a problem that all FSI engines develop when they are not able to reach high operating temps.

Regular doses of techron or filling up with Shell should help reduce it. You should also use the lowest octane gas that meets the engine's requirements. My Q5 says 91 so I will put 91 in there, not 93...but even 89 could work. My car is under warranty and it should still be covered should this ever become an issue.