2011 Q5 2.0 TFSI engine performance
07-19-2010, 01:42 PM
#11
Audiworld Junior Member
Thread Starter
i feel as if the 2.0 feels quicker at first but thats because of the low gearing, then you get a bit of lag until the revs build and the turbo spools and then it goes.
on the highway in top gear, the 2.0 feels as if it hesitates at first when u put ur foot down. it feels as if it needs to build up its power but when it comes the torque does feel good. with the 3.2 you don't feel that, its pretty instantaneous.
on a side note, my 3.2 gets to 126mph really quickly, althought the 2.0 will take you there, its gonna take a much longer time! =)
on the highway in top gear, the 2.0 feels as if it hesitates at first when u put ur foot down. it feels as if it needs to build up its power but when it comes the torque does feel good. with the 3.2 you don't feel that, its pretty instantaneous.
on a side note, my 3.2 gets to 126mph really quickly, althought the 2.0 will take you there, its gonna take a much longer time! =)
Looks to me like Audi put 2.0t engine an approximation of the 3.2? Still cannot imagine how this power plant which works fine on A4 can at all do on the relatively heavy Q5...
I actually hoped the 211hp on the 2.0t Q5 version fused with the 8-speed tiptronic will break the deal by:
1. smootheness of the 8-speed gear box.
2. less curb weight
But is it really a replacement for the 3.2 if we do not race, but drive between 50 and 90 mph?
07-19-2010, 01:55 PM
#12
Audiworld Junior Member
Thread Starter
Hello all,
I'm brand new to Audi ownership. Just purchased a 2010 Q5. Drove the 3.2 and 2.0 back-to-back-to-back. There is a little more hesitation off the line with the 2.0, but I wouldn't call it orders of magnitude different. My wife did think the 3.2 was a little better off-the-line, which is why we ended up with the 3.2. Truth be told, neither jumps off the line instantly; the throttle toe-in seems blunted. While I hate hair trigger off-idle throttle calibration, the heavy pedal feel combined with the soft toe-in makes it difficult for me to start smoothly, or at least the way I want.
I'm brand new to Audi ownership. Just purchased a 2010 Q5. Drove the 3.2 and 2.0 back-to-back-to-back. There is a little more hesitation off the line with the 2.0, but I wouldn't call it orders of magnitude different. My wife did think the 3.2 was a little better off-the-line, which is why we ended up with the 3.2. Truth be told, neither jumps off the line instantly; the throttle toe-in seems blunted. While I hate hair trigger off-idle throttle calibration, the heavy pedal feel combined with the soft toe-in makes it difficult for me to start smoothly, or at least the way I want.
It's clear about smart economical solutions with the 2010 version.
Let's look clearly at 2011 Q5 line. Because if we bring other players to the comparison it can get real ugly.
Look at Subaru Outback 2010 2.5 limited (CVT) and Jeep Grand Cherokee 2011. Subaru looks like a more economical solution if one can live with low seats and other trade offs which are OK if you understand that a car is just a transportation tool and will never replace you home comfort.
Cherokee has the only trade off I'm familiar so far - bad-bad MPG. Jeep does have plans to equip Cherokee with 8-speed transmission, but question - why wait?! Given what Jeep delivers in this vehicle except that - it's a great option. Not a sport car, but it will take you anywhere which a car is for.
07-20-2010, 01:49 AM
#13
Audiworld Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
serranot:
It's clear about smart economical solutions with the 2010 version.
Let's look clearly at 2011 Q5 line. Because if we bring other players to the comparison it can get real ugly.
Look at Subaru Outback 2010 2.5 limited (CVT) and Jeep Grand Cherokee 2011. Subaru looks like a more economical solution if one can live with low seats and other trade offs which are OK if you understand that a car is just a transportation tool and will never replace you home comfort.
Cherokee has the only trade off I'm familiar so far - bad-bad MPG. Jeep does have plans to equip Cherokee with 8-speed transmission, but question - why wait?! Given what Jeep delivers in this vehicle except that - it's a great option. Not a sport car, but it will take you anywhere which a car is for.
It's clear about smart economical solutions with the 2010 version.
Let's look clearly at 2011 Q5 line. Because if we bring other players to the comparison it can get real ugly.
Look at Subaru Outback 2010 2.5 limited (CVT) and Jeep Grand Cherokee 2011. Subaru looks like a more economical solution if one can live with low seats and other trade offs which are OK if you understand that a car is just a transportation tool and will never replace you home comfort.
Cherokee has the only trade off I'm familiar so far - bad-bad MPG. Jeep does have plans to equip Cherokee with 8-speed transmission, but question - why wait?! Given what Jeep delivers in this vehicle except that - it's a great option. Not a sport car, but it will take you anywhere which a car is for.
The point I was trying to make is that I did not see a huge difference in performance between the two powertrain choices. I drove them both in order to determine which met our needs. The 3.2 ultimately worked better for us. However, I think buyers of the 2.0 will be very satisfied with their choice, and if the thing gets the mileage improvement it's supposed to get, it will largely be a win-win for those buyers.
My other point was that neither car had what I would consider quality throttle tip-in. Not tuned the way I like it. Not a defect but rather an engineering choice. Obviously that was not a deal-breaker.
Regards,
Tom
07-20-2010, 04:46 AM
#14
AudiWorld Senior Member
Coolieman1220:
Looks to me like Audi put 2.0t engine an approximation of the 3.2? Still cannot imagine how this power plant which works fine on A4 can at all do on the relatively heavy Q5...
I actually hoped the 211hp on the 2.0t Q5 version fused with the 8-speed tiptronic will break the deal by:
1. smootheness of the 8-speed gear box.
2. less curb weight
But is it really a replacement for the 3.2 if we do not race, but drive between 50 and 90 mph?
Looks to me like Audi put 2.0t engine an approximation of the 3.2? Still cannot imagine how this power plant which works fine on A4 can at all do on the relatively heavy Q5...
I actually hoped the 211hp on the 2.0t Q5 version fused with the 8-speed tiptronic will break the deal by:
1. smootheness of the 8-speed gear box.
2. less curb weight
But is it really a replacement for the 3.2 if we do not race, but drive between 50 and 90 mph?
07-20-2010, 05:00 AM
#15
Audiworld Junior Member
Thread Starter
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point, given my post.
The point I was trying to make is that I did not see a huge difference in performance between the two powertrain choices. I drove them both in order to determine which met our needs. The 3.2 ultimately worked better for us. However, I think buyers of the 2.0 will be very satisfied with their choice, and if the thing gets the mileage improvement it's supposed to get, it will largely be a win-win for those buyers.
My other point was that neither car had what I would consider quality throttle tip-in. Not tuned the way I like it. Not a defect but rather an engineering choice. Obviously that was not a deal-breaker.
Regards,
Tom
The point I was trying to make is that I did not see a huge difference in performance between the two powertrain choices. I drove them both in order to determine which met our needs. The 3.2 ultimately worked better for us. However, I think buyers of the 2.0 will be very satisfied with their choice, and if the thing gets the mileage improvement it's supposed to get, it will largely be a win-win for those buyers.
My other point was that neither car had what I would consider quality throttle tip-in. Not tuned the way I like it. Not a defect but rather an engineering choice. Obviously that was not a deal-breaker.
Regards,
Tom
Thank you very much for sharing your experience.
My comment was related to the lack of MPG advantage of the 3.2 powerplant being compensated by the lower price tag due to the sales event for 2010 models. I would follow your example if I could, but because I'm placing my order somewhere in August this solution is not an option for me. I'm sorry if there was some misunderstanding
07-20-2010, 06:28 AM
#16
Audiworld Junior Member
Thread Starter
downshifting. even if you wanted to slightly pull at those speeds with 8 gears the car will want to downshift downshift downshift. and when a car downshifts it uses more gas and makes more noise. 126 wasn't sustained, just for a little to see what it could do. I'll prolly never hit that again unless i find an open stretch so i can see what the limiter is like. i think the difference is one of preference. there are people like me who don't like 4 bangers and have yet to find one to work. although diesel 4 bangers arn't bad. or a 4 banger in a civic for instance.
no one races a Q5...although someone here wanted to autox theres. Its not a race car but a vehcile designed for highways and to cruise on them at high speed in comfort. i've never like the Audi 2.0's, i hear they work great in GTI's but i never liked them in A4's. i found they were too underpowered. sluggish and loud. many of you have different opinions...
no one races a Q5...although someone here wanted to autox theres. Its not a race car but a vehcile designed for highways and to cruise on them at high speed in comfort. i've never like the Audi 2.0's, i hear they work great in GTI's but i never liked them in A4's. i found they were too underpowered. sluggish and loud. many of you have different opinions...
Appreciate your comments very much. I got a feeling that I share your preferences.
So pity Audi tortures its American customers with gasoline engines installed on heavy vehicles
This is why I keep looking and trying to convince myself for alternatives to Q5, even though it's a great vehicle in all other aspects.
07-20-2010, 03:41 PM
#17
Audiworld Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tom:
Thank you very much for sharing your experience.
My comment was related to the lack of MPG advantage of the 3.2 powerplant being compensated by the lower price tag due to the sales event for 2010 models. I would follow your example if I could, but because I'm placing my order somewhere in August this solution is not an option for me. I'm sorry if there was some misunderstanding
Thank you very much for sharing your experience.
My comment was related to the lack of MPG advantage of the 3.2 powerplant being compensated by the lower price tag due to the sales event for 2010 models. I would follow your example if I could, but because I'm placing my order somewhere in August this solution is not an option for me. I'm sorry if there was some misunderstanding
Yes, I agree. You would need years of good mileage given the discounts on 3.2s right now.
Just drove the car home. I really, really think they blew it on the throttle response. My 540i is hardwired to my brain compared to this car. But for everything else, especially the steering dynamics and the seating, Audi nailed it.
Tommy
07-20-2010, 10:30 PM
#19
Audiworld Junior Member
Thread Starter
No need to be sorry. I was not offended. I just did not understand.
Yes, I agree. You would need years of good mileage given the discounts on 3.2s right now.
Just drove the car home. I really, really think they blew it on the throttle response. My 540i is hardwired to my brain compared to this car. But for everything else, especially the steering dynamics and the seating, Audi nailed it.
Tommy
Yes, I agree. You would need years of good mileage given the discounts on 3.2s right now.
Just drove the car home. I really, really think they blew it on the throttle response. My 540i is hardwired to my brain compared to this car. But for everything else, especially the steering dynamics and the seating, Audi nailed it.
Tommy
I believe the throttle response made so intentionally - to achieve 18/23 at least
Because the car is heavy and the most of the gallons is eaten at the acceleration.The only thing Audi has to do is to bring 3TDI. Once done - that would be the car I need. Before that has happened it's still a compromise %)
One thing. "Q" is "ku" in German and some Scandinavian languages which means "cow"
Given the weight of the vehicle it's a very cool name I still think I'm gonna get one of them though
07-20-2010, 11:10 PM
#20
Audiworld Junior Member
Thread Starter