Originally Posted by muscleknight

2010 A5 2.0T Cab. The local guy here didn't seem to want my business so I took a trip about 2 weeks ago to get a clear bra put on my car in another city. Its about a 1.5 hr drive up the interstate to his shop. I still had less than 1,000 miles on it at that point so I didn't try to run it hard. Out on the interstate I had plenty of power to get around the trucks etc. when I needed it. It was also very quick as well. I drove it in sport mode. In drive mode the 2.0T does seem a little sluggish. One other thing I noticed is that the Lexus IS250 convertible is a 6 cylinder and only has 204 Hp. The 2.0T is a 4 cylinder and its rated at 211 Hp. I wonder how the Lexus 6 cylinder drives vs the Audi 2.0T?

Originally Posted by dseag2

I believe the Lexus IS250 convertible is a 2.5 4-cylinder. That's why it only has 204hp. Re: how it drives vs. the A5 2.0T, I doubt it has the torque, plus it has a hard top (more weight) so I would imagine the car is really sluggish in comparison. The IS350 is the 6-cylinder. What a butt-heavy car that is.

Originally Posted by flygti

Funny you should bring up Specs and Numbers. Apparently you have a very selective reading ability. May I reiterate the numbers for you...Our impressions were verified on the skidpad, where the 2.0T served up 0.91 g of grip and a 155-foot 70-to-0-mph stopping distance, topping not only the 3.2’s 0.90 g and 159-foot figures but the S5’s 0.88 g and 158-foot measurements as well. the four-cylinder’s horsepower deficit adds 0.4 second to the coupe’s run to 60 mph—6.2 seconds versus 5.8—and stretches the quarter-mile time from 14.5 seconds at 98 mph to 14.9 at 94. Top speed remains the SAME at a governed 130 mph. Away from the test track, however, the 2.0T feels as drivable and as quick as the V-6, thanks in part to having 15 more lb-ft on tap, and at far fewer revs (the six’s maximum 243 lb-ft aren’t available until 3000 rpm). So CLEARLY the only thing the V6 and V8 have over the 2.0 is acceleration and that being very marginal with the V6. So the 2.0 wins out on two out of the three parameters to which "performance" is measured but yet according to you it doesn't even compare performance wise? So who's delusional again?

BTW..I have nothing against any variant of the A5/S5. They all have their advantages and disadvantages. But saying one is better than the other solely based on anecdotal evidence like its fact is just plain ignorant (with exception being acceleration).

For the record.....Audi is indeed suggesting that the next generation of Audi S5 and S4 would likely feature an aluminum Audi Space Frame (ASF) and be powered by four-cylinder turbocharged engines. Read more here...http://www.fourtitude.com/news/publi...cle_5321.shtml

Originally Posted by acadia

so, what you've just stated, is that as expected, the more powerful engines hae better perfomance, I think I'll live with the .01 g when I slaloming of the A5 or .03g of the S5, vs the A5, and their respective 4 and 3 foot stop differences in comparison to the A5 2.0t. So, what you've just proven is that the 2.0t is not as powerful and stops a little quicker? I mean this is the straws you are grasping at. Notice, they themselves, state away "from the track" well the 2.0t feels as quick, but really isn't, when compared at the track, which goes back to my original statement, the 2.0t doesn't from a performance stnadpoint do this car justice, it's simply to gorgeous to incomplete it with that engine, I mean, nothing like looking a sleek gorgeous machine that looks like a beast, but when you turn on the engine sounds like a mouse and feels like it's fast I mean but actually isn't.

Again, I like things to be what they actually are supposed to be. Taht's just me, just me, man.

Originally Posted by Omeletpants

Whether the S5 is $10 or $100,000 doesn't change the fact that I think it feels nose heavy and is noisy. That's why I didn't buy it.

Originally Posted by acadia

No, this is not about assessing value, it's about which is simply better, you can assess all the value you would like, my argument, is from a strictly performance standpoint, the S5 is loads better, and the A5 3.2 is better as well. But, the people trying to present it any other way, are delusional, there are some pretty clear specs and numbers on this, and if you want to talk about nose heavy, that's great and fine, but the S5 would certianly run circles around the 2.0t on the track, it wouldn't even be close, forget it's near 2 second 0-60 time advantage, but once you get any appreciable speed, the S5 would be far too powerful for the 2.0t, the same thing, the 3.2 is just much stronger than A5 2.0t which is quick until you are at high way speeds when the engine simply runs out. And that's all my point, happens, to be, I don't care which one you buy, but don't try and present some argument that remotely from peformance stand point, the cars are similar, they aren't.

Originally Posted by acadia

so, what you've just stated, is that as expected, the more powerful engines hae better perfomance, I think I'll live with the .01 g when I slaloming of the A5 or .03g of the S5, vs the A5, and their respective 4 and 3 foot stop differences in comparison to the A5 2.0t. So, what you've just proven is that the 2.0t is not as powerful and stops a little quicker? I mean this is the straws you are grasping at. Notice, they themselves, state away "from the track" well the 2.0t feels as quick, but really isn't, when compared at the track, which goes back to my original statement, the 2.0t doesn't from a performance stnadpoint do this car justice, it's simply to gorgeous to incomplete it with that engine, I mean, nothing like looking a sleek gorgeous machine that looks like a beast, but when you turn on the engine sounds like a mouse and feels like it's fast I mean but actually isn't.

Again, I like things to be what they actually are supposed to be. Taht's just me, just me, man.

Originally Posted by BrandonLive

Reading comprehension fail.

He very clearly stated that when assessing "performance" (where performance includes things like acceleration, handling / skidpad, braking, etc) - the 2.0T has advantages. These need to be weighed and balanced by the buyer. If acceleration is all that matters to you, clearly you'll be happier with a larger engine. Acceleration is not all that's important to me.


Further, I didn't buy my car for the track. If anything, I bought my old car (the TT) more for the track than I did the A5. The A5 isn't a track car in my mind.

Originally Posted by acadia

No , I don't think the 3ft break , and .03 gpad for the A5 remotely makes up for the near 1+ second 0-60 acceleration difference, or does it make up for it's deficity with 4ft break , and .01 gpad against the 3.2, on the track it would lose out. Performance wise the A5 2.0t isn't as good.