HaveBullDogWillTravel

I've got a 2.0TDi and DSG in my '11 Golf and I can tell you that it's slow off the line. Once moving a little it's got very good acceleration but there's a definite delay. It takes some getting used to that's for sure.
With a difference of 1000 lbs between the Golf and the Q5 I'd expect the Q TDi to be SLOOOOOOW throughout the entire range.

jamrock

Yes its a Quattro and the dealer did not have one for me to test drive.. my luck

Stuttgartrob

Did you get the 140hp or the 170 hp 2.0Tdi? I test drove a 140 hp one and it was alot slower than my 170 hp 2.0tdi. Not saying the 170 hp version is fast but the 140hp one I would have to downshift alot to get it going.

jdong

I found the 2.0T (gasoline) + the ZF 8HP combination to be quite acceptable in terms of the power and even low-end torque response. It doesn't exactly kick you off the line, but once you get the engine speed about 1500RPM or so, it's got solid power and torque. Both the torque converter and the automatic parking brake / hill roll assist help a ton on hilly areas like San Francisco.


I don't know about the 2.0TDI though, but I'd imagine a small diesel to have more turbo lag. I drove the 3.0TDI Q7 and found it too sluggish for my tastes so I can't imagine the 2.0TDI doing much better.

woolie

I test drove both back-to-back, and yes, huge difference. The 2.0T is quicker and more nimble in city driving than the 3.2.

rdA4WtQ5

Same here. Also, in cruise while towing, I was amazed at the hills I could hold speed towing a 2000 lb. trailer in 8th gear.

HaveBullDogWillTravel

Huge difference? Not quite. The 3.2 you drove must have been pulling a trailer or the tires were flat.
The one and only 2.0T I drove was plenty quick but it wasn't quicker than my 3.2. It felt slower and it is slower according to Audi and every test comparison I've seen. As far as being more nimble is concerned, I didn't pick up on that but maybe a track run would reveal something. The weight difference between the two closely equates to a 210 lb passenger sitting in the front seat. That's not anything I would notice in day-to-day city driving.

Marley's Ghost

Probably why the 4.2 TDI is a very popular Q7 option here.

The 2.0 TDI is not available for the Q5 here, so I can't speak to its performance, but my 3L TDI performs very well. A bit of turbo lag initially but otherwise plenty of acceleration and more power than I can really use, especially going up the mountains.

spijun

See that here is a discussion on the acceleration of the Q5. These are factory data:
0-100 km
2.0TFSI 7.2s,
3.2FSI 6,9s;
2.0TDI 9,9s; (170PS)
3.0TDI 6.5s
for all S-tronic
Another fact that many do not know a very important and it is engine torque.
If anyone can feel the difference of 0.3 seconds, it was really successful

rdA4WtQ5

And here is some data from Edmunds Inside Line:

2.0T
0-30 (sec): 2.5 (2.9 TC on)
0-45 (sec): 4.3 (5.0 TC on)
0-60 (sec): 6.8 (7.6 TC on)
0-75 (sec): 10.2 (11.2 TC on)
1/4-Mile (sec @ mph): 15.1 @ 90.0 ( 15.6 @ 88.8 TC on)
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 6.5 (7.2 TC on)

3.2
0-45 mph (sec.) 4.4
0-60 mph (sec.) 6.8
0-60 with 1 foot of rollout (sec.) 6.5
0-75 mph (sec.) 9.9
1/4-mile (sec. @ mph) 14.9 @ 93.1

Not that scientific, different years 2011 vs 2009.
I have seen similar numbers in other spots.
My butt dyno measured the 2.0T faster 0-30 as well.