A5 3.2 vs. 2.0T?
12-09-2009, 02:21 PM
#21
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
And that's where we are different, if they didn't have a v8 version of the car, I'd just still be driving my a4 2001 1.8t, and been happy. I wanted an upgrade and the S5 was just to gorgeous and too strong to pass on.
12-09-2009, 02:26 PM
#22
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=irenesbob;23895721]
Yeah,I see muscles and strength when I look at the A5/S5, it's beautiful, and even if you looked at as classical , I'd still say I'd expect it to be much faster than what the 2.0t can produce, I liken it to rather a Gazelle than if that's your route intead of a pittbull, but both of them don't invoke images of a 2.0t liter engine 4 cylinder to me. I mean if you were designing this car, and you made a machine this gorgeous, seriously, you are telling me your first thought would be to put a 2.0 4 cylinder engine in it? YOu have to be kidding right?
Bar the Aston DBX and Maseratti I think the A5/S5 are the most beautiful coupes. The Quattroporte is along the same lines, but you are telling me, that and the Aston DB8/9 are pure GT, so you are telling me, when you look at them, niether looking overly aggressive, you could imagine sitting in one and waiting to hear the purr of a 2.0t 4 cylinder. I call your bluff and BS.
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.
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.
Yeah,I see muscles and strength when I look at the A5/S5, it's beautiful, and even if you looked at as classical , I'd still say I'd expect it to be much faster than what the 2.0t can produce, I liken it to rather a Gazelle than if that's your route intead of a pittbull, but both of them don't invoke images of a 2.0t liter engine 4 cylinder to me. I mean if you were designing this car, and you made a machine this gorgeous, seriously, you are telling me your first thought would be to put a 2.0 4 cylinder engine in it? YOu have to be kidding right?
Bar the Aston DBX and Maseratti I think the A5/S5 are the most beautiful coupes. The Quattroporte is along the same lines, but you are telling me, that and the Aston DB8/9 are pure GT, so you are telling me, when you look at them, niether looking overly aggressive, you could imagine sitting in one and waiting to hear the purr of a 2.0t 4 cylinder. I call your bluff and BS.
12-09-2009, 04:36 PM
#23
AudiWorld Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The 2.0T feels basically as fast as the S4 of a few years ago, with much better handling and feel.
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.
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.
12-09-2009, 05:05 PM
#24
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do I have to pay for a less efficient, heavier engine in order to get a nice looking car? Your thinking is backwards.
Weird. I like it specifically because it doesn't look like a muscle car. It looks like a beautifully scuplted piece of design. It looks modern. It looks smart, high tech, functional yet quick and nimble. That's why I find the V8 S5 distasteful and am looking forward to its demise. A V8 doesn't belong in this car. When I think of a V8 I think of "obsolete, "inefficient," basically the opposite of modern. The RS5 I can make an exception for since, well, it'll be exceptional (i.e. it'll be an extremely well-tuned and it's clearly an all-out effort to maximize performance). An insane engine for an insane car.
The 2.0T feels basically as fast as the S4 of a few years ago, with much better handling and feel.
Indeed.
Weird. I like it specifically because it doesn't look like a muscle car. It looks like a beautifully scuplted piece of design. It looks modern. It looks smart, high tech, functional yet quick and nimble. That's why I find the V8 S5 distasteful and am looking forward to its demise. A V8 doesn't belong in this car. When I think of a V8 I think of "obsolete, "inefficient," basically the opposite of modern. The RS5 I can make an exception for since, well, it'll be exceptional (i.e. it'll be an extremely well-tuned and it's clearly an all-out effort to maximize performance). An insane engine for an insane car.
The 2.0T feels basically as fast as the S4 of a few years ago, with much better handling and feel.
Indeed.
As for v8 being obselete, if that were the case, cars that cost 4 times the S5 price would have ditched them for better technology, but at the end of the day, there is no replacement for displacement. You are trying to turn a GT car into a Prius, by a Prius, I didn't by the S5 because I care about feul economy it's simply for it's sporting design, it's power, and beauty.
Finally, you discredit yourself, completely, when you just made about the silliest comment ever, the 2.0t is basically as fast as the S4 from a couple of years ago, not only is it absolutely wrong, but it's wrong by nearly 2 seconds. 6.5 secs on a good day, isn't close to the 5 secs the s4 at 343 HP was doing 2 years, the 2.0t isn't remotely close to the 250HP v6 2.7tt S4 of 10 years ago.
Again, the 2.0t has no business in a GT car, which is ultimately withe A5/S5 looks like. As for muscularity, I did not say the the S5 was a muscle car, Germans don't produce muscle cars, Ford does, Germans do not. A suped up Mustang Cobra is a muscle car, and it's not in the same world in terms of beauty, perhaps you are confusing aesthetic muscularity with performance muscularity. The A5/S5 has muscularity in spades, high belt lines invoke muscularity when you see the car, and it's purposeful, it's the stance and presence of the car I'm referring. A wide low/stance invokes muscularity, the sleek tail lights enhance it's wide stance , which invokes muscularity. This is what I'm referring, when I say the car looks muscular and looks like it's ready to get up and go, the signature led lights invoke muscularity, when you see the car coming it says, I'm sleek, I'm refined, but don't get it twisted you'd see the back of my taillights in a blink of second, simple rouse the sleeping beast.
Except with the 2.0t there is no beast, it's a guard dog, with no guard, while the diamonds or being heisted the little pup is still barking, no bite, what so ever.
12-09-2009, 06:24 PM
#25
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I came from a 2006 A4 2.0T, which was great. Then I test drove the B8 2.0T and it was a slight improvement, but I decided to get the B8 3.2 because it just felt belt to drive. More power, faster (especially above 50mph) more responsive, and sounds better...it just fit the car better. Both engines are great, but my opinion is the stock 3.2 is better in every way except fuel economy. Also, I think you have more chance regretting the 2.0T than you do the 3.2...so the 3.2 would be a safer choice if you are on the fence.
12-09-2009, 07:48 PM
#26
AudiWorld Newcomer
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
i agree
The Beatles Stereo Box Set
Beatles Box Set
Beatles Remastered box set
12-09-2009, 07:49 PM
#27
Audiworld Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quoted from Car & Drivers Short Take Road Test...
"What’s more, our 3649-pound 2.0T weighed about 130 fewer pounds than the 3.2 and nearly 170 fewer pounds than the S5, allowing for a more nimble and playful attitude on our favorite back roads. 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.
"What’s more, our 3649-pound 2.0T weighed about 130 fewer pounds than the 3.2 and nearly 170 fewer pounds than the S5, allowing for a more nimble and playful attitude on our favorite back roads. 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.
12-09-2009, 10:12 PM
#28
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quoted from Car & Drivers Short Take Road Test...
"What’s more, our 3649-pound 2.0T weighed about 130 fewer pounds than the 3.2 and nearly 170 fewer pounds than the S5, allowing for a more nimble and playful attitude on our favorite back roads. 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.
"What’s more, our 3649-pound 2.0T weighed about 130 fewer pounds than the 3.2 and nearly 170 fewer pounds than the S5, allowing for a more nimble and playful attitude on our favorite back roads. 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.
12-09-2009, 10:30 PM
#29
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly, so it's .01g more nimble, how's the acceleration and power, I couldn't have said it best. All things being equal in the world, gasoline is free, no global warming, money no object and your choices are S5, A5 3.2, A5 2.0t , which one will you pick? I'm just saying ...
PS real world translation I'm quite confident the 2.0t would be the slowest of the bunch around the Nurbering.
"The 2.0T’s exhaust note isn’t the sexiest we’ve heard—it sounds farty and inappropriate coming from such a good-looking car"
PS real world translation I'm quite confident the 2.0t would be the slowest of the bunch around the Nurbering.
"The 2.0T’s exhaust note isn’t the sexiest we’ve heard—it sounds farty and inappropriate coming from such a good-looking car"
