UrbanExtant

I also prefer the look of my s-line exterior 3.2 Q5 to the 2.0's exterior, but that's a personal choice. This hasn't been brought up by anyone else, so here it goes...I own a 2.0T A4, same engine and transmission that is in the Q5, and while it is a sweet combination, my partner and I do NOT miss the turbo lag that comes with the 2.0T engine when we drive the 3.2 Q5. While the lag isn't horrible, it is still there, and it is noticeably lacking when you go from the 2.0T engine to the non-turbo 3.2 Q5. Just my 2 cents on the whole thing, and another aspect to consider when exploring the engine choices.

AudiUSF

Drove the 3.2 and 2.0T back to back. While the 3.2 is a good engine to me it was boring compared to the 2.0T (I drove both cars on the highway and street). Also, I don't feel the turbo lag when merging on to the highway or passing cars. Best thing about the engine is gas mileage!

Don't think you can go wrong with either engine, I think it's just a matter of personal choice.

theperchik

I just gave my 3.2 2010 Q5 in for the first 5K service and got a P+ with Nav 2.0T 2011 A4 as a loaner.

I felt that the A4 was almost as peppy as the Q5 only when the A4 was in sports mode.

I test drove both 2.0T and 3.2 Q5's back to back and was pretty sure i made the right decision. Now after today's loaner I am really happy I went with the 3.2 Q5, def worth the extra $

Shawn99/30V

A4 2t is a little faster than Q5 3.2 according to audi's website. I think it was 6.6 vs 6.7 0-60.

theperchik

Wow, that is interesting considering that it is heavier. Definitely plausible. But in terms of turbolag and just real world feel on a little highway and mostly Manhattan driving this morning the 3.2 felt noticeably zippier.

Shawn99/30V

(Data from AudiUSA.com):

A4 2t quattro auto: 3715 lb, 6.6" (0-60)

Q5 2t: 4090 lb, 7.1"

Q5 3.2 4299 lb, 6.7"

Summary of Comparison:
1) Handling: The V6 is 209 lb heavier than the 2t and the extra weight is on the nose.
2) 2t uses timing chain, what about 3.2?
3) MPG: 2t=20/27, 3.2=18/23
4) Price: $3100 more on 3.2t both Premium Plus trim
5) Reliability: is turbo less reliable? before and after chip
6) Tunability: 2t has much more potential with a simple chip, the power will equal or succeed the 3.2 with its lighter weight.
7) Sound: V6 vs turbo whine
8) Throttle response: 2.t has lag from idle to 1500 but has better mid range than 3.2(linear vs non-linear)

HaveBullDogWillTravel

When I got my Q5 the 2.0T was not available...but if I had to do it over again and had a choice I'd go with the 3.2V6 again. Extracting nearly the same HP and even more torque from a relatively low displacement engine by turbcharging it and putting it in a HEAVY vehicle is not a good idea, IMO. That might have a lot to do with the reports of extreme oil consumption. I think there's some measure of life expectancy and reliability that's sacrificed when a small displacement engine is tuned to deliver high power. This, and the fact that the 3.2V6 is so damn smooth compared to any 4-banger is all I need to make my decision. The superb fuel mileage of the 2.0T is very attractive though.

Aloha-boy

This debate reminds me of when I owned an A4 around the '04-07 era. Back then it was the 1.8t vs 3.0 engines. All the younger/tuner minded folks wanted the 1.8t, while the older/set-it-forget-it folks liked the 3.0.

I have my heart set on a 2.0t P+ at the end of the year. Hopefully AoA will offer the S-Line package for the 2.0t at that time. If not no biggie, I could spend the money on APR's S3 KO4 conversion for some extra ponies!

The G Man

If Audi introduce the 3.0T Q5 next year, your choices will be even tougher

FitzLA

I live in the hills of Los Angeles, and also have a home in Big Bear. After having driven 2.0 loaners, I would never get one. The 2.0 is lacking on the hills and lacking acceleration power at highway speeds. The 3.2 is the way to go, until they come out with the Q5 TDI. (forget the Hybrids, I'll never own a hybrid)