kip1

Remember you are talking about 0-60 times,very depandant on launch, gearing etc. 0-120mph the 3.2 will be a lot quicker. The new 3.0 tdi w/245bhp is significantly faster than the 240bhp (In the a4 it was 0-100km/h 6.4 vs 5.7 if I remember correctly, in Auto Zeitung), but the 3.0t is the S4/S5 engine with a downgrade in power, not visible in tests. It is as near as makes no difference a SQ5.

luv2sleep

It's a tribute to another member on this board. I love my econobanger!

Coolieman1220

This is getting out of hand.

Edmunds is a BS car review website that offers terrible opinions. It is what people who don't know about cars and are not enthusiasts. On a forum you find many enthusiasts.

EVERYONE unanimously knows that the 3.2 is faster than the 2.0t (stock for stock)

So what was the point of this thread? To call out another member? That is very unprofessional and if i were a mod luv2sleep would get a warning because of this conduct. I recommend that the mods close this thread as it is directly a personal attack.

luv2sleep

Why don't you chill out. I'm not calling anyone out. And, how's it a personal attack? Jeeeeez.

AudiByNature

Let's be honest. Even if the 3.2 and 2.0T took exactly the same time to go from 0-60, Audi isn't going to publicize that on their website. It would be even more difficult to sell 3.2 models.

So, Audi's site is just as suspect as Edmunds.

It's entirely possible that there's little difference in 0-60 times between the two models, so I wouldn't go so far as to say "EVERYONE unanimously knows the 3.2 is faster..."

Also, who seriously cares? If you bought either vehicle for the 0-60 performance, you probably didn't do a lot of research. Either is perfectly acceptable for a 4000lb SUV.

We all really like our vehicles. Let's all relax and enjoy the weekend.

Techm8n

LOL, I luv my econobanger too. Double

rez

For sure! Love my econobanger! with that sweet 8 speed tranny!

Mspeedster

Edmunds testing times are closer to real world vs. the other car mags who will try to extract every ounce of speed at the expense of the car's transmission.

While in most tests the 3.2 should be faster, it's entirely possilbe on a given day with a given set of cars that the 2.0T might better the 3.2. The 2.0T is lighter, has more torque, and the 8 speed transmission.

I agree with the prior point that the differential between the two engines wasn't wide enough, hence the reason the 3.2 will soon be gone as an option for the new Q5s.

4Rook

I am not familiar with Edmunds test protocols so I cant comment unless you elaborate on how they report results. I do know that C&D produces very consistent numbers and the 3.2 is 0.5s faster 0 to 60 than the 2.0t. 0-60 times aren't that important as compared to the 5-60 time which is a more "real world test" (flooring it from 5mph) this takes out any brake torque advantage one engine/trans combo may have. In this case the 3.2 is faster by 0.6s.

The gap becomes even greater with the 3.2 as speed increases... horsepower eventually takes over and the 3.2 will show its tail lights to the 2.0T. Look at the 0-100, 30-50 and 50-70 times in the links posted below... 3.2 FTW.

In all, I really like both engines. The 2.0T is a heck of an overachiever - it puts out great numbers for a 211hp engine. The 3.2 goes about its business very well, has great output for its size and really moves out at highway speeds.


2.0
http://archive.caranddriver.com/var/...c544caf40b.pdf

3.2
http://archive.caranddriver.com/var/...ac8b68c774.pdf

mtberman

Also consider the affect of altitude on performance. This is an important consideration where I live (Denver) and in other areas.

Being turbocharged, the 2.0T econo banger will lose less power output at high altitudes than the normally aspirated 3.2 elder banger. This won't matter when the 3.0T super banger arrives. For those who value performance above economy, THAT will be worth stepping up for.