Considering 2011 Q5, have some questions
#11
Audiworld Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://www.audiworld.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I think we all want a balance between performance and fuel economy. The performance of the 3.2 is about the same as the 2.0T in the city, on the highway, the 3.2 is a bit quicker, especially with a car loaded with cargo and passenger and AC on. The 2.0T gets about 2 MPG more overall and if you want the S-line package, you have to get the 3.2L.
It really depends on how you will be using your Q5, if you do mostly city driving by yourself, then teh 2.0T is more than enough performance. If you take a lot of family trips, than maybe the 3.2 is more suited for you. I notice you live in SF, there was one 2.0T owner in here from SF complaining about the 2.0T performance and gas mileage driving the hills of SF. If you can wait, you might consider waiting until next Summer and hope the 3.0T Q5 will be introduce.
It really depends on how you will be using your Q5, if you do mostly city driving by yourself, then teh 2.0T is more than enough performance. If you take a lot of family trips, than maybe the 3.2 is more suited for you. I notice you live in SF, there was one 2.0T owner in here from SF complaining about the 2.0T performance and gas mileage driving the hills of SF. If you can wait, you might consider waiting until next Summer and hope the 3.0T Q5 will be introduce.
#12
Audiworld Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://www.audiworld.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
This post just goes to show you, enough power can mean many thing things to different people. For example, my brother thinks his 4 cyl Passat has more than enough power while my wife thinks her 3.2 Q5 barely have enough power. I think it really comes down to what the OP want in how a car performs.
I will add that I too like the exhaust note of the V6! It might come down to what deals I can get for the 3.2 vs the 2.0T to make me part with an additional ~5k(including options).
#13
AudiWorld Super User
![Default](https://www.audiworld.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Definitely agree with you. My last new car was a 2007 BMW 335i coupe but I will certainly not expect either Q5 to have that kind of acceleration. I suppose adequate passing power is still subjective for different people so perhaps I should go for a few more test drives with both engines to better judge for myself.
I will add that I too like the exhaust note of the V6! It might come down to what deals I can get for the 3.2 vs the 2.0T to make me part with an additional ~5k(including options).
I will add that I too like the exhaust note of the V6! It might come down to what deals I can get for the 3.2 vs the 2.0T to make me part with an additional ~5k(including options).
That is true, but at the same time, have you notice highway cruising speed is increasing. If you try to pass someone on the highway with your 5 year old SUV with 150 HP, you are going to have a real hard time.
#14
Audiworld Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://www.audiworld.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I thought I was sold on the 2.0T but I'm not so sure now after hearing that some people are getting decent mpg for the 3.2.
#15
Audiworld Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://www.audiworld.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I have waited myself for a long time before getting the Q5. I was sold by the 2.0T engine. I am a longtime bimmer driver and tend to drive sporty cars but needed a small SUV to carry my upcoming newborn around. If I was to get a 6 cylinder, I would have probably stuck with BMW. The 2.0TFSI is an award winning engine. It has better performance than the M54 engine in my e46 330ci with better fuel economy even on such a big car. Remember that the 2.0 actually has more torque than the 3.2 so in real world, the performance will not differ much. The Q5 is in need of a change for their 6 cylinder offering. There was no compelling reason for me to get a 3.2. The 2.0T is selling like hot cakes around here while the 3.2 seem to linger on the dealer lots...
#16
Audiworld Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://www.audiworld.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Wow just checked my two local dealers' inventory and they are completely sold out of the 2.0T. They only have a total of 3 cars combined, all 3.2s. A month ago they still had over 25 cars, mostly 2.0Ts.
#17
Audiworld Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://www.audiworld.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Pretty much the same here on mileage. Averaging 25 MPG with 3.2 on highway. Notice a difference with fuel brands and octane. Shell premium offers the best performance. Dealer advises to stay away from Mobil fuel. Not sure what others think...
#18
AudiWorld Senior Member
![Default](https://www.audiworld.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
To me it sounds like the 2.0 does much better than the 3.2 in real world mileage than the 2 mpg difference that Audi posts on the window sticker.
As far as the tranny (non-ADS) mostly I keep it in drive mode. But for freeway ramps (especially uphill) I use sport mode and the car flies. The sport mode is great if you're in a hurry or just want some added performance. The acceleration is unreal for an SUV. The Manual mode I find no need for at all but I'm coming from 4 straight 6MTs. Others that have always had automatics may like it.
If you're main concern about the 2.0 is freeway passing you should go on another test drive and use Sport Mode. It makes a huge difference in the 3.2.
So far I really enjoy my 3.2 but the 1 thing I would change is the gas mileage. While combined 18 is not the worst ever considering my driving habits (80 on the freeway and moderate to heavy foot city) I was hoping for a little better.
I got mine right before the '11s came out so I had no choice in engine. If you drive mostly alone you should strongly consider 2.0.
#19
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://www.audiworld.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Also. aren't the Audi Q5 MPGs:
3.2 17 city 23 highway
2.0 20 city 27 highway
That's more then 2mpg.
With the 2.0T being the newer engine combined with the 8 spd tranny it is getting much better mileage then the 3.2 but 3.2 buyers don't typically buy them for the mileage, at least on this site.
#20
Audiworld Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://www.audiworld.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Also. aren't the Audi Q5 MPGs:
3.2 17 city 23 highway
2.0 20 city 27 highway
That's more then 2mpg.
With the 2.0T being the newer engine combined with the 8 spd tranny it is getting much better mileage then the 3.2 but 3.2 buyers don't typically buy them for the mileage, at least on this site.
3.2 17 city 23 highway
2.0 20 city 27 highway
That's more then 2mpg.
With the 2.0T being the newer engine combined with the 8 spd tranny it is getting much better mileage then the 3.2 but 3.2 buyers don't typically buy them for the mileage, at least on this site.
3.2 18 city 23 highway 20 combined
2.0 20 city 27 highway 22 combined
It's the combined numbers where I mean the 2.0T only gets 2 mpg better than the 3.2. Which is why I'm interested in what everyone's getting in real world situation, calculated by taking miles traveled between full tank fill ups.