Sasmf

Strange review claiming there is some turbo lag and fuel economy is worse than 3.2 V6.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test

m1964

There is always SOME turbo lag in turbo engines, and they claim the real world fuel economy is not as good as Audi claims it to be, but it is not worse.

Coolieman1220

yet they praise the same engine in a GTI

m1964

GTI is probaly "better" application for 2.0T because it will be more effective in the GTI then in Q5. And they cannot compare 2.0T GTI to 3.2L GTI.
They did praise Audi for good application of a smaller engine in a relatively big vehicle.

sjuhawks19

I currently have a GTI with the 2.0 and it is a wonderful engine but I've test driven the Q5 2.0 (and ordered one) and it actually feels quicker. I realize it is not but the GTI is rated at 200 horsepower and 207 lbs-ft of torque, the Q5's torque really works well for a larger vehicle. I had no hesitation ordering one.

I did test drive an A4 Avant as well and it didn't feel any quicker to me than the Q5 and what they fail to say is how much tighter the back seat is. I am upgrading from the GTI to the Q5 because I have 2 kids, and after checking out the Avant I wasn't impressed by the back seat room at all. But damn if the A4 isn't a beautiful looking vehicle, particularly with that titanium package.

audihonda

i agree with you about the back seat leg room, which is significantly more than the a4. in fact, it's comparable to the 2010 A6 that i checked out.

the-oneil

The Q5 has the exact leg room as an A4, but has significantly more head & shoulder room. It also has more cargo space; all the while being shorter than the A4.

Q5

A4 wagon

Q5

A4 wagon