MrsAdams2007

I have test driven both and think I am leaning towards the 2.0T but I am interested to hear the thoughts behind why you purchased the engine you did. Thanks.

Sticker

I am not a die hard car expert, but I still wanted to enjoy driving my car. I found the 2.0 to have essentially the same amount of "go" as the 3.2 and got better mileage. My only concern was whether the engine would hold up over time, but Audi has been making it (or a version close to it) for years.

I went with the 2.0 and have loved it. NO regrets.

RCM09

I love my 3.2. I recently drove a 2011 2.0 as a loaner when mine was in for repairs. I don't care to much for the 8 speed as it's constantly shifting up and down on the highway. Also with the 2.0 you will have to keep an eye on your oil level more so than usual. I've never had an issue with oil consumption but my wife's A4 2.0 is a different story. Also can't get used to that leaf blower sound before the engine warms up.

Is the gas mileage really that much better with the 2.0?

schanyc

Test drove both and went with the 3.2, found the frequent shifting on the 2.0 to be annoying. Also, the 3.2 will give you the extra kick needed for passing on the highway at higher speeds.

macwm

I've driven both and the 2.0T felt much quicker in everyday driving. True the 3.2 is better for high speed passing (above 4200 RPM) but I'm not driving in that neighborhood at all. Maybe it's me but I don't feel the trany hunting for gears; it could be the way one drives. Once the engine has about 5K mileage seems to improve; with 75% highway driving I'm averaging 24.8 mpg. All Audi turbo's will use some oil, but so far (5K) I've not had to add any additional oil. Also keep in mind the 2.0T is about 200 lbs lighter in the front end which makes for better handling.

Coolieman1220

agree..oh and the 3.2 sounds better

Reisen

I thought for sure we'd be getting the 3.2. I like the looks way better (front and rear bumpers), plus, I've been a N/A BMW snob for a long time.

Well, there's a reason BMW switched over to turbos. We test drove the 2.0 first, and really loved it. Great torque, minimal turbo lag, and the car felt really light and sprightly. We finished the test drive with a big grin on our faces, and my first reaction was "Wow, if the 2.0 felt that good, I'm going to love the 3.2".

Drove the 3.2, and we were really let down. Not horrible, but you could definitely feel that lack of torque compared to the 2.0. Now, sure, had we gotten the engine into that powerband and really slammed it around corners or flew from 60-80, yes, after seeing the power charts of both engines, I'm sure the 3.2 would have felt better. But that's the kind of driving I'm going to do with A- A car, and B- a manual transmission. My current BMW fits both of those descriptors, the Q5 fits none. Honestly, I didn't find the brakes quite strong enough to go *****-to-the-wall at 5k rpm in corners, plus the whole AT without paddle shifters thing (wasn't testing a prestige).

Further, I really think I could feel that extra 200+ pounds. BMW shifted their battery around on the E46 to get better weight distribution. An extra 200lbs up front has got to make the Q5 feel a little more nose-heavy, and to me, it did. I'll fully admit that could be all in my head. But 200lbs is a significant amount of weight, even on a compact SUV.

So, for anything but track or highway driving, I'm thinking that the gobs of torque in the 2.0 is the way to go. Add in a better transmission, better fuel economy, better weight distribution, significantly lighter overall weight, and significantly lower cost, and for us, it's a no-brainer. There's a reason it's selling so well.

Admittedly, if most of my driving was going to be highway, I might go for the 3.2. Heck, in Germany, I'd almost certainly go for the 3.2. But in a city in the US? 2.0 all the way. Plus, of course, there's that little detail that the 2.0 can be chipped...

Reisen

Also, and I haven't gotten the car yet, I find it interesting people complain about the car burning oil. Maybe it's been something about our past cars, but in Germany, driving routinely at 120mph or faster, all of our BMWs have burned some oil. Is it really a big deal to check it every few months and throw in $5 worth of oil?

Barksdale

I ordered the 3.2 because I didn't like the constant shifting of the 8 speed tranny. The 2.0 harsh downshifting was also something I didn't care for. They are both great engines but my personal preference was the 3.2.

JBarnes

I also test drove both engines and at first leaned towards the 2.0T because the 2.0T felt punchier off the line and I thought the fuel economy would be much better. However, I ordered the V6 because I wanted the S-line package and I felt the V6 had better top end passing power and I also preferred the way the V6 sounded. It seems the V6's real world fuel economy isn't far off the 2.0T's judging from previous posts here, although it does vary a lot based on everyone's driving style.