3.2 continues for '12
04-05-2011, 04:27 PM
#31
Audiworld Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The original point of the turbo and supercharger was to overcome power loss at high altitude.
As everyone knows, torque is more important for acceleration, whereas HP is more about top speed. Since the 2.0T already has more torque than the 3.2 at sea level, in the mountains the 2.0T has an undisputed advantage, and simply outperforms the 3.2.
The difference with the 3.2 vs 2.0T performance (0-60*) is only 6%. There's a 15% performance loss at only 6000ft in general for naturally aspirated engines. At 8000ft, almost 20%.
* 0-60 7.1 secs for the 2.0T, and 6.7 secs for the 3.2.
* 1/4 Mile 15.1 for the 2.0T, and 14.9 for the 3.2
I've driven both engines here in Tahoe. Statistics aside, they are very different at 6000ft. The 3.2 will jump off a dead stop better, but the 2.0T will catch up inside 2 seconds and just out accelerate the 3.2. The only draw back with the 2.0T is it fades at high rpms.
04-06-2011, 05:13 AM
#32
AudiWorld Senior Member
Thread Starter
I have no issues with my 2.0T in my Avant, and I love the torque and it's a blast to drive everyday.
Only thing I wish was better was the gas mileage, as it's a bit disappointing in the "real world".
04-06-2011, 05:21 AM
#33
AudiWorld Senior Member
And it sounds funny, it idles rough (like most turbo's) it sounds strained, it has some lag and the instant tip in of an N/A motor isn't there.
I think i mostly dislike that awful 8 spd transmission. It downshifts like no tomorrow, it's constantly shifting. its like a truck!
the 3.2 has a nice sound to it as well.
It seems to be a lot about preference....
I think i mostly dislike that awful 8 spd transmission. It downshifts like no tomorrow, it's constantly shifting. its like a truck!
the 3.2 has a nice sound to it as well.
It seems to be a lot about preference....
04-06-2011, 09:31 AM
#34
Audiworld Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And it sounds funny, it idles rough (like most turbo's) it sounds strained, it has some lag and the instant tip in of an N/A motor isn't there.
I think i mostly dislike that awful 8 spd transmission. It downshifts like no tomorrow, it's constantly shifting. its like a truck!
the 3.2 has a nice sound to it as well.
It seems to be a lot about preference....
I think i mostly dislike that awful 8 spd transmission. It downshifts like no tomorrow, it's constantly shifting. its like a truck!
the 3.2 has a nice sound to it as well.
It seems to be a lot about preference....
04-06-2011, 09:58 AM
#35
Audiworld Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I test drove both engines, much of it on straights near the dealership. I wished they had a more interesting route but I guess I got a taste of how it handles on local roads. I was more aggressive on these roads than I would normally drive and the 2.0 just seemed to be constantly shifting (very smooth no less) thru it's 8 speed tranny. I preferred the longer gear ratios of the 3.2 with less frequent gear changes and wanted the torque in the higher rpm range which would be used in highway passing situations. The S line int/ext pack and the 20s don't hurt either.
I could not agree more!
04-06-2011, 10:15 AM
#36
AudiWorld Senior Member
I test drove both engines, much of it on straights near the dealership. I wished they had a more interesting route but I guess I got a taste of how it handles on local roads. I was more aggressive on these roads than I would normally drive and the 2.0 just seemed to be constantly shifting (very smooth no less) thru it's 8 speed tranny. I preferred the longer gear ratios of the 3.2 with less frequent gear changes and wanted the torque in the higher rpm range which would be used in highway passing situations. The S line int/ext pack and the 20s don't hurt either.
it is a very smooth unit the 8spd in the Audi but i hate to see shifting shifting shifting. it feels like a CVT, the RPMS barely move....
04-06-2011, 12:43 PM
#37
AudiWorld Senior Member
Thread Starter
I don't find the 8 speed awful. The shift patterns don't bother me.
The newer generation 2.0T that was put in the 09 & up A4's is so much better than the prevoius 2.0T.
It's not near as noisy as the old 2.0T that was in the 05.5 - 08 models. Talk about rough at times.
My Avant feels so strong in that 40-80 mph range and it's a blast to cruise on the highway. Just a little bit of lag to be expected with a Turbo, but not near as noisy as the old one.
As far as the 3.2, when you really DIG into the throttle, it's not like that baby is super smooth and quiet. It can be harsh at times as well.
The newer generation 2.0T that was put in the 09 & up A4's is so much better than the prevoius 2.0T.
It's not near as noisy as the old 2.0T that was in the 05.5 - 08 models. Talk about rough at times.
My Avant feels so strong in that 40-80 mph range and it's a blast to cruise on the highway. Just a little bit of lag to be expected with a Turbo, but not near as noisy as the old one.
As far as the 3.2, when you really DIG into the throttle, it's not like that baby is super smooth and quiet. It can be harsh at times as well.
04-06-2011, 03:41 PM
#38
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 711
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I test drove both engines, much of it on straights near the dealership. I wished they had a more interesting route but I guess I got a taste of how it handles on local roads. I was more aggressive on these roads than I would normally drive and the 2.0 just seemed to be constantly shifting (very smooth no less) thru it's 8 speed tranny. I preferred the longer gear ratios of the 3.2 with less frequent gear changes and wanted the torque in the higher rpm range which would be used in highway passing situations. The S line int/ext pack and the 20s don't hurt either.
Agreed. Passing at 75 to 80 mph on aggressive I-95 around Washington, DC I'm VERY pleased with the 3.2L engine.
04-06-2011, 05:28 PM
#39
AudiWorld Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ha! I am in the DC area for work this week and am really missing my q5. My rental is a '10 Jeep Patriot, which is just awful. I am not sure it could get up to 75-80! I had to drive from Reston to Manassas to Leesburg and back to Reston today and hated every minute of it! The area is beautiful though!
04-07-2011, 02:28 PM
#40
AudiWorld Senior Member
I find this comment odd, as the turbo will outperform the 3.2 at high elevation. At 8000 ft, there is about 15% horsepower and torque loss in the 3.2, where as the turbo engine will remain close to the same performance, even with Audi's conservative wastegate management.
The original point of the turbo and supercharger was to overcome power loss at high altitude.
As everyone knows, torque is more important for acceleration, whereas HP is more about top speed. Since the 2.0T already has more torque than the 3.2 at sea level, in the mountains the 2.0T has an undisputed advantage, and simply outperforms the 3.2.
The difference with the 3.2 vs 2.0T performance (0-60*) is only 6%. There's a 15% performance loss at only 6000ft in general for naturally aspirated engines. At 8000ft, almost 20%.
* 0-60 7.1 secs for the 2.0T, and 6.7 secs for the 3.2.
* 1/4 Mile 15.1 for the 2.0T, and 14.9 for the 3.2
I've driven both engines here in Tahoe. Statistics aside, they are very different at 6000ft. The 3.2 will jump off a dead stop better, but the 2.0T will catch up inside 2 seconds and just out accelerate the 3.2. The only draw back with the 2.0T is it fades at high rpms.
The original point of the turbo and supercharger was to overcome power loss at high altitude.
As everyone knows, torque is more important for acceleration, whereas HP is more about top speed. Since the 2.0T already has more torque than the 3.2 at sea level, in the mountains the 2.0T has an undisputed advantage, and simply outperforms the 3.2.
The difference with the 3.2 vs 2.0T performance (0-60*) is only 6%. There's a 15% performance loss at only 6000ft in general for naturally aspirated engines. At 8000ft, almost 20%.
* 0-60 7.1 secs for the 2.0T, and 6.7 secs for the 3.2.
* 1/4 Mile 15.1 for the 2.0T, and 14.9 for the 3.2
I've driven both engines here in Tahoe. Statistics aside, they are very different at 6000ft. The 3.2 will jump off a dead stop better, but the 2.0T will catch up inside 2 seconds and just out accelerate the 3.2. The only draw back with the 2.0T is it fades at high rpms.