gheffty93

Peerblock, it has become apparent that you are an elitist. Enjoy your V6 all you want, because it isn't a terrible engine. But calling the 2.0T an econo-box is ignorant and a clear over-exaggeration.

HotRodW

Wow - the Newbie is not showing any respect. Apparently, anybody who purchased a 2.0T was a dumbass. He could have saved us all had he blessed us with his brilliance sooner. Thank goodness he is here now to ensure future Q5 owners don't make the same mistake. PeerBlock doesn't seem like a dignified enough screen name for one so knowledgeable. Do you prefer Lord, Sire, Master or Your Majesty?

ForesterFan

Don't feed the trolls. On another thread he is saying the B&O is actually a downgrade from the stock system.

rdA4WtQ5

Please don't feed the troll. The last tirade shows that he knows close to nothing, also he just joined and probably doesn't even have a car let alone a Q5.

stormgate

i just purchased my 3.2 last week... i'm in love! i wish they had the 3.0tdi in the q5... but we have to play the cards we are dealt.

i did test drive the 2.0t and i felt the 3.2 was more my driving style. i've owned many cars, most recently having owned both sides of the cross over spectrum - an infiniti g37 convertible and a jeep commander... both were naturally aspirated.

i have also owned a few 4-cyl cars that i've even turbo charged myself... and i will stand by the idea of "there is no replacement for displacement." not that the 2.0t isn't a bad engine because it is a wonderful engine. now, i know there is a bell curve to my quote... but we are talking about a 2.0t and a 3.2 n/a. below is a link to a forum with a dyno graph of both engines.

i'm just posting because i think this argument is a moot point... if you can actually feel 30 ft/lbs of torque difference with your butt dyno... then you deserve a metal.

https://www.audiworld.com/forums/sho....php?t=2807144

peak torque is at about 4450 rpm and the 2.0t looses it. the 3.2 has torque all the way into the 6000 rpm range before it seriously tanks. thats why the 2.0t comes with an optional 8-speed transmission.

yes, you can put a 400$ chip into a 2.0t, but you will, for lack of a better term, void your warranty. and if you are going to do that, then you might as well drop a bigger turbo, bigger front mount intercooler, and make this thing really fast...

or you can just buy a 3.2 and not void your warranty and still have oodles of fun driving it at high rpms.

they are both great motors and everyone has their own driving habits... but most importantly... everyone will prefer what they purchased over others... test drive it and choose for yourself... although it seems op has already picked up a 3.2. GREAT CHOICE!!!

JohnBoyToo

I'll play even though the trolling motor is running at high rpm's !

30 lbft is not much when you are talking 800 lbft @ 1600 rpm as in my other 'car':P)

but when it's in a 250 lbft vehicle - that's quite a jump...
and yes, most people CAN feel that especially @ 1500 rpm...

on edit after going out in the Q for the first time in weeks (it's the wife's dd)

Not sure where the rpm figures are coming from re in town 'buzzing' of the 2.0.... but BRISK acceleration (much faster than the traffic flows) and the rpm's never top 3k, in fact most of the time it's under 2k as 50 mph is in the 1700 range iirc ?!?

NABS4

Is that you, peerblock?

PeerBlock

You could say that anyone who buys an Audi instead of something more sensible like a Ford of Chevy is an elitist. I didn't call the 2.0T an econo-box, I called it an econo-banger because that's exactly what it is.

What's ignorant is countless people blindly recommending the 2.0T and dismissing the 3.2 as "inferior" for the most idiotic reasons.

I do not respect ignorance and purveyors of misinformation. I am new to owning a Q5 but far from new to cars. I didn't say anyone who purchased a 2.0T is a dumbass - it's a great engine for something like an A3, Jetta or Tiguan...but once you're at the A5/Q5 level you should not even be thinking about the 2.0T because it's like wearing a tuxedo with the sleeves cut off.

The 2.0T works in small to mid-size cars, even small-ish SUVs...but the Q5 is a far superior vehicle with the 3.2 V6...and if it becomes available with the 3.0T instead, even better.

The B&O system may sound better with certain types of music; the stock Audi system sounds great with all types of music. I don't know B&O for making high quality sound equipment - I know them for making overpriced equipment that is more about aesthetics than performance. How many people who upgrade their car stereos opt to buy B&O components? I can't think of any.

This is a forum, right? It's a place to have a discussion. It's not a place for a bunch of people to sit around and agree with each other, ostracizing anyone who disagrees with them.

If you disagree with anything I said feel free to write a rebuttal...but nothing I've said about the two engines is really a matter of opinion.

It's good to see that not all people have been brainwashed by the forum parrots.

Let me break this down for you:

Torque is the twisting force generated by the motor. You need a certain amount of torque to move a particular mass (i.e. the weight of the vehicle).

When you have enough torque, adding more becomes redundant. You can easily see this by looking at the TDI engine or any other diesel - high torque low HP (low RPM) so the car's performance is anemic.

"BUT WHY DOES MY 800 ft-lb engine feel so much faster?"

Torque is a MEASURED value and horsepower is a CALCULATED value.

To calculate the horsepower of an engine, you plug numbers into this formula:

(Torque x RPM) / 5252 = Horsepower

Notice how the amount of power an engine puts out depends on the torque of the engine. You DO NOT need 800 ft-lbs at 1,600 RPM to move a car, unless the car is made from entirely of cast iron.

BUT

You do need power to make it move faster, and you gain more power by:

a) Increasing the redline of the engine, as well as its ability to breath at higher speeds (i.e. F1 race cars).

b) Increasing the displacement to increase the amount of torque produced at a given RPM, thus increasing the peak power output.

c) Using forced induction to effectively increase displacement, providing the same benefits as B.

Your car probably has a redline around 7,000, so plugging that into the formula:

(800 ft-lbs x 7,000 RPM) / 5252 = 1,066 HP

You could also half the torque and double the RPM to get the same amount of power.

(400 ft-lbs x 14,000 RPM) / 5252 = 1,066 HP

Both of these engines have the same power output, but one of them revs twice as high as the other. The limiting factor becomes the gear ratios, since transmissions have a set range and specific final drive, even if you had a CVT.

Driving a car with either of these engines, the one with more torque will "feel" stronger because it delivers its power in narrower bursts while the one with lower torque and higher RPM gives you gradual power deliver when mated to convenctional transmissions...but supposing we could give each engine the perfect gear ratios without the limitations of the transmission, they would both accelerate at similar rates (assuming they both weigh the same and their weight was not beyond the 400 ft-lb capacity).

The point here being that simply fixating on HP or Torque is a fool's game. You need to tune the engine for the specific application.

The Q5 is not a pickup - it can be used for towing but that is not its primary intent, and I assure you that the majority of the people who say they will tow something rarely ever do...and if they do it's something light because there isn't much you can tow aside from a jet ski or motorcycle that falls within that 4,400 LB rating (including the weight of the trailer).

Both engines provide sufficient torque to tow the Q5's rated 4,400 LBS capacity, so choosing the 2.0T because of the perceived benefit of slightly more torque at low RPM is a bad decision because the engine will constantly have to work harder in everyday driving. It will be lacking substantial power for common driving such as highway merges and passing.


Yeah, it must be because nobody else would dare to think that there is any other choice than the econo-banger.

Coolieman1220

I'll chime in here as I've owned both a 2009 3.2 and a 2012 2.0t both premium plus

I loved my 2009 3.2. I wish i never got rid of it. I dislike the 2012 2.0t.

Besides the engine, the overall quality of the vehicle has gone in those 3 years. the leather, the rattles and all that. the build quality has become shottier and the price has only gone up.

In the city, the 3.2 with the 6speed was nice. It was quick but you had to open it up a bit. Gas mileage city wasn't too great at 16mpg.
In the city the 2.0t is much better, it doesn't sound as nice but it definitely has more grunt down low. Gas mileage in the city is about 18.5-19 lighter front end makes turn in nicer.

On the highway, the 3.2 was amazing. so smooth and powerful, the engine sang a great song and had lots of power in 6th gear and if you wanted to open it up, it would get up to 120 without a problem. Gas mileage on the highway was about 24-26.
On the highway, i hate the 2.0. all it wants to do is downshift. it is quiet while cruising. The lag is there. and people who say they get 30's idk how because i drive the 2.0 just like i drove the 3.2 and they get the same mileage if not the 2.0 getting worst mileage. I drive fast and constant boost may play a factor. the lighter front end isn't as nice of a solid feeling, could also be the different steering setups.

I primarily drive in the city which is why i sacrificed the 3.2 for 3mpg. (and a lower monthly payment)

However if they dont do a better job with the facelift and bring a diesel, audi may have lost me.

I agree with Peerblock's comments about the 2.0t. Maybe some of you hanv't driven a real car with real power. or maybe some of you just need to justify your purchases? Whatever it may be the 2.0 is an ok powertrain but not as charasmatic as the 3.2. Unfortunately the n/a motor is on its way out.

stormgate

i'm not peerblock.

i'm new to the audi world and my first audi is a q5 3.2l v6. not my first german vehicle, but i will say it's very well built. the 3.2l v6 seems rock solid and i am a big fan. the 3.0 supercharged they will be putting in this car looks very promising as well. although, i would prefer the 3.0tdi.

was just offering my opinion. meant no disrespect.