Longwolf (Christian)

Why I think the 2.0t (manual) is the right choice:

Gas prices will continue to rise.
I really don't dig automatics (sorry, personal preference).
Manual stock 2.0t is faster than an automatic 3.2.
Chipped 2.0t is waaaaay faster than automatic 3.2.
The extra cost for the 3.2 is not worth it in my opinion when you can spend that money on upgraded wheels/tires/brakes/chips/etc.
After owning 4 turbo A4 1.8ts.....I love Audi turbos.

acadia

To be honest, I think the 2.0t in the A5 is a travesty, I mean call me cynical but a car that gorgeous with that engine, is just terrible. It's like you have this car that looks sleek fast exotic, but underneath it's a farce, it's a pretender, it isn't fast at all. It's like that guy with the great suit and no substance, just full of hot air. That's how I feel aobut 2.0t.

To be ohonest there should have been 1 engine option, 4.0t fsi, end of story, and a super suped up version maybe 4.2 v8tt 500HP.

Yes, I know this cuts out segment of society, and so on. But the 2.0t is like BCS a complete farce, or TCU having to play Boise in Fiesta bowl, it's just wrong on so many levels.

Sheep in wolfs clothing that's the A5 2.0t.

Xenon

Thanks for the replies. Any more people go from a 6 to a 4 and wish they had gotten the 6?

kdstrunk

I think my 2.0T is quite a bit faster than my A6. I can't see why anybody would complain about a car that they didn't buy. Funny that nobody who stops me to comment on how beautiful my car is says "oh, you got the cheap one".

If you don't like that A5s have 2.0T's maybe you should consider buying a Ford Taurus SHO, they look pretty fast in the commercial...my two cents.

acadia

Again, sheep in wolfes clothing, I never said the car looked cheap I said the car looks fast and sporty but does not have the bite, to match it's bark, again to each his own. I mean it's just a personality thing, nothing wrong with your purchase, I just don't like to look the part without actually being the part. Just me.

Only a true car enthusiast would like know the difference without getting behind the wheel. Once though behind the wheel it's pretty apparent it's not what it looks to be. For example, you see quattro porte, which is just as gorgeous and you drive it, and it has the bite to match it's bark, but it also $100K+ , the A5 looks like $100K, well but the 2.0t drives slower than a taurus, so, it's kind of a wash. Like I said the 2.0t just doesn't do the car justice, and I pointed out that even the reviewers said the same thing as far as the sound of the engine, the pep, it's a good engine and all but doesn't fit the personality of the car. The A5 looks like a Gt, and truly, well rather the S5 does, and proper v8 is what looks like it belongs in the car.

As stated, I would have done 4.0t fsi , with 400HP, and than uber RS5, and yes, that would lower sales, and such, but the A5 looks too nice to be high volume, and looks like it should have a proper engine to match it.

As, it's said ,by the famous ludicrus, "And yuh got some big t*ts, with a matching a*s".

rferni

I previously owned a B7 A4 2.0T and now the B8 A5 3.2 6MT. Got my A5 in June '08 and had since forgotten how the A4 drove. Then i went in for my 15K mile scheduled maintenance appointment and got a B7 A4 2.0T loaner - wow, was that different!

I loved the sportiness of the turbo in the 2.0T of my old A4, but now that i was used to the refinement and linear, effortless response of the 3.2, the 2.0T felt almost primitive. The idling was rough and the engine way more whiny. Upwards of 4K RPM, you definitely feel the strain in the 2.0T while the V6 feels like it has reserves of power left. Am not suggesting the 3.2 is the best V6 out there and the B8 2.0T is definitely better than its B7 predesesor - but compared with the 2.0T, the V6 is definitely faster, effortless and refined.

Just my $0.02

BrandonLive

Every review I read said something along the lines of, "The 2.0T in the A5 is more full of spirit and torque than a 4 cylinder has any right to be."

The 2.0T at 0-60 in less than 6.5 seconds is *not* "slower than a Taurus." One of the main reasons I ditched my TT 3.2 was *because* of the 2.0T engine. Real car enthusiasts know that power isn't everything. I wanted a great, fun to drive, beautifully designed car that balances power with efficiency. The A5 2.0T is excellent at that. I'm just glad that Audi has started listening to their enthusiast customers and providing the 2.0T + quattro + manual with all the same amenities as the larger engine versions. In the past you'd have to buy the larger engine version to get features which weren't even available as options on the smaller engine models. When I bought my TT I didn't even want the 3.2 (though the noise was a bit addicting), but had no choice at the time because I wanted Quattro, a manual, and some of the premium / luxury features - none of which were offered on the 2.0T at the time.

Your argument makes no sense at all. If Audi listened to you I wouldn't be a customer of theirs.

BrandonLive

I went the other way (TT 3.2 to A5 2.0T) and don't regret it. While I know the A5's 3.2 is a bit stronger than the VR6 in the TT, I still think the comparison is relevant. The 2.0T is definitely slower to start and combined with the Torsen quattro system, more likely to bog on launch. But the mid-range power and acceleration feels *better* than my TT. Part of it may be the contrast from the lesser low end power, and the gearing (the TT gears were super short - couldn't really even get to 60 in second). But the effect is substantial. There's also quite a lot of top end power in newest 2.0T motors. The 3.2 in the TT felt strong and very even through the rev band, but it redlined so much earlier... I just felt like I was always shifting and the engine really wanted to keep on going.

The best part of the VR6 3.2 was the noise it made... but I don't think the V6 3.2 in the A5 has quite the same effect. With an APR re-flash I expect the 2.0T to be close to even with the 3.2 model. Certainly whatever difference there is wasn't worth the cost and impact on efficiency and emissions to me.

Now... if the 3.0T S5 had been out, I would have been extremely tempted by that. Or even a version of the TT S's 2.0T. But V8s don't interest me at all, and for what I wanted the A5 2.0T delivers just fine.

irenesbob

[QUOTE=acadia;23895308]Again, sheep in wolfes clothing, I never said the car looked cheap I said the car looks fast and sporty but does not have the bite, to match it's bark, again to each his own. I mean it's just a personality thing, nothing wrong with your purchase, I just don't like to look the part without actually being the part. Just me.

It depends on what you think "the part" looks like. I love the A5, but I think of it as a beautifully, but softly scultped, classic design effort; to me it definitely is not a performance profile look.

acadia

I think your missing the point, no one questions that the 2.0t is a good engine for what it is. My point is simply put, a v6 or more aptly a v8 is what belongs in this car, that's all I'm saying. You are comparing a 4 cylinder to other 4 cylinders, my point is we shouldn't even be talking about a 4 cylinder in the car at all. That's just my opinion, a car that gorgeous just deserves better, 6.5sec is still pedestrian compared to what the car looks like it should do, I mean do you really want to be making comparisons performance wise to a Taurus, I know I don't.

It just seems fundamentally wrong on so many levels, the car looks like it should be beastial in it's performance, as my friend said the car looks mean like a pitbull, muscular, and when you turn it on it just shakes it's muscles loose, stamps it's paws down, looks taught and ready to pounce.

I'm sorry the 4 cylinder 2.0t has 0 of those attributes, and essentially you put a sheep in wolfes clothing.

The 2.0t in the TT, seems fine, because the TT itself doesn't invoke that type of image upon looking at it , it looks peppy, roadsterish, a rabbit, not a beast.

Do my analogies at all make any sense. As stated to each his own. It's just my view.