So sorry, but again...3.2 vs. 2.0?
01-05-2011, 01:10 PM
#21
AudiWorld Senior Member
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)
01-05-2011, 04:46 PM
#23
AudiWorld Newcomer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
01-05-2011, 05:49 PM
#24
AudiWorld Senior Member
Just my old school preference.
that 3.0 would be awesome, great power and mileage no worries. i dont think it would be that much more. 335d is awesome, i get a smile every time i drive it. That low end grunt and sound is awesome. i want to chip it but its got enough power as is and i want to keep it forever since its a HALO car for BMW in the US and i feel as if a chip may hurt it in the long run...
01-05-2011, 10:14 PM
#25
AudiWorld Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That 335d had some serious devastating torque: 425 lb/ft! That's more than a lot of big trucks'. Take that car up the mountain roads would be like driving in heaven. I wonder if they'll put that engine in the new X3. The urea emission additive is a deal killer for some. Does your TDI require urea?
Before I test drove the Q5 2t, I thought the hefty weight would be too much for the little engine. I was wrong. The car accelerated effortlessly in D mode. I didn't even have the need to put it in S. Too bad he wouldn't let me take it up on the freeway. The 8 speed AT was a good match. However, there was one occasion before the stop, the transmission downshifted abruptly. I heard Audi has readdressed this issue by reprogramming the transmission. The test drive kind of changed my mind and now I kind of want one for myself. The ride however, was a little too firm for my taste.
Before I test drove the Q5 2t, I thought the hefty weight would be too much for the little engine. I was wrong. The car accelerated effortlessly in D mode. I didn't even have the need to put it in S. Too bad he wouldn't let me take it up on the freeway. The 8 speed AT was a good match. However, there was one occasion before the stop, the transmission downshifted abruptly. I heard Audi has readdressed this issue by reprogramming the transmission. The test drive kind of changed my mind and now I kind of want one for myself. The ride however, was a little too firm for my taste.
01-06-2011, 11:08 AM
#26
AudiWorld Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMO, you can't go wrong with either engine. For us, we wanted a Q5 that had good gas mileage, so the 2.0 fits us perfectly. If we wanted a sportier feel to an SUV, then we would have picked the 3.2. I know I'm stating the obvious with my comments, but both Q5s are very good choices.
01-07-2011, 10:35 AM
#28
AudiWorld Newcomer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is that a turbo will perform better than an "equivalent" NA engine at altitude. Does that mean the 2.0T will perform better than a 3.2L? Don't know since one is a 4 cylinder vs. 6.
01-07-2011, 12:51 PM
#29
AudiWorld Senior Member
The 2.0T will suffer some but probably not as much as the 3.2V6...relatively speaking. But we're talking minimal power loss at best...probably noticeable but hardly worth mentioning
01-07-2011, 02:07 PM
#30
AudiWorld Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thinner air resulting from high altitude definitely has a lot to do with combustion engine, since the power is derived from AIR + FUEL + COMBUSTION. The higher the altitude means thinner air = less power.