JBarnes

My initial impressions of the 2.0T was exactly as you said, very similar to the 3.2 in the city and enough that I could be happy with it. I do live in San Francisco but I work about 25 miles away by freeway so my driving will be a mix and I intend to take lots of road trips in the Q5. Although the combined mpg for both engines only differ by 2 based on the published numbers, real world mpg really varies depending on the driving. I am really interested in knowing what the best case scenario current owners are getting with the 3.2, whether people are exceeding the published numbers for freeway and combined driving over an entire tank of gas.

JBarnes

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).

The G Man

Have you consider a A6 Advant with the 3.0T engine? Its much quicker than the Q5 and gets better gas mileage.

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.

JBarnes

No because I've been seduced by the Q5. I read in another thread that north of the border, one can order a 2.0T with S-Line but we can't here and that just does not make sense at all to me.

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.

Rafale

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...

Rafale

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.

Q5ACK

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...

jrjunior31

Not sure how many miles you have but this is wayyy better than my 3.2. Mine has 3500 miles so I guess I can expect some improvement down the road but for now I get only 18 mpgs combined with about a 65/35 city to freeway mix. But some of the driving is hilly and I border on a heavy foot.

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.

jeff968

We have to be careful that we are comparing apples to apples. If people are quoting mileage from the trip computer that will be higher them what they are really getting.

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.

JBarnes

You were close. According to Audi's 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.