acadia

It has nothing to do with being speed limited, it just runs out of engine, the problem is the 2.0t has lot's of torque so it's quick, but that also means the engine hit's RPM's fairly quickly with nowhere else to go, the 3.2 simply pulls longer and at highway speeds harder. It's simple physics. It's not a knock on your car, it just is what it is. You bought the car that you wanted, which is fine, I think personally the 2.0t is a disservice to a car so gorgeous, the 2.0t is not truly a fast engine (although the a5 looks pretty fast), and I mean it sounds like a joke compared to the 3.2 and 4.2. To me it's just like wearing a great suit with some terrible shoes, just screws up the whole look.

I'm not knocking your purchase, it's your money, man, I just wouldn't have made it. I previously owned an A4 1.8t 2001, and buying a 2.0t wasn't really an upgrade to me, sure the car looks great but it still didn't give me the power I wanted.

mgd99

Huh?

You didn't buy one because they weren't available?

But you wouldn't have bought one if they were available?

Was that a typo?

BTW The 2.0 really does have a max speed of 81 mph........They just gamed the speedometer markings so you think you are going 150mph.........Really sorry to break it to you this way..................that is a joke.

BlueSander

mgd99, how are you doing with the EU front plate? I got a ticket for not having one. It sucks.

kdstrunk

I would have bought the 2.0T even if the 3.2s were available at the time I bought mine, which they weren't. Not a typo. Good to know that I won't get a photo radar ticket as I think they require 11 over. Sucks to know that I can't even reach the speed required to activate the flux capacitor.

RoyM

I did the same thing with my 2009 A4. I had ordered a 2.0T My previous A4's had been V6's and I thought I would try the 2.0T. Well a few weeks before my car arrived I was at the dealers to test drive a 2.0T and a 3.2. Both cars were great but the 3.2 was just a better fit for me. I was luck that the dealer had a 3.2 in the same color that was to arrive about 2 weeks after my 2.0T. I elected to change my order to the 3.2 and I am very pleased with it. I have nothing bad to say about the 2.0T but I just really like the sound, feel and smoothness of the 3.2. I find the mileage on the interstate to be excellent.

I'm sure you will really enjoy your 3.2 when it arrives.

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?

mgd99

So far so good.

I hope you didn't jinx me.

BlueSander

lol, they let me get off the ticket though. The guy prob was deperated to meet his quota at the end of the month. I have been driven without a front plate for years and ... con't to do so lol

acadia

I"m sure the Audi drives as good if not better, but I would suspect more cylinders smoother ride, ... on another note, the V6 3.2 is 265HP. I was faced with a decision 1.8t or 2.8, in '01, I couldn't afford the S4 which is what I wanted, but I chose the 1.8t and chipped and was ok with the car, simply put because, I thought with a couple of mods I could get the same or better performance out of the 1.8t. Again, though, I had less money to work with then, so I went with most bang for the buck. If I could have gotten the S4 though that's what I would have done.

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