lmariorod

Haven't driven the 3.0T in the Q, but know how sweet this engine is. It's in my S5.
Only way the 3.0T Q5 could be improved on, is if it had the dual clutch S-tronic. This tranny is super fast and sweet shifting.

FOUR FLUSHER

I live in Reno and drive to Tahoe often. I test drove both motors up Mount Rose highway, and the 2.0 was OK but in the end I felt like the 3.0 was a steal at only $2K more.

123Audi4me

I drove part way up the Mt. Rose highway during my 2.0 test drive. It seemed fine but wish I had driven a 3.0 now. All they had at the time was a 2012 3.2.

When did you order your Q5?

FOUR FLUSHER

I'm going with Neillo in sac, the order should go in this week

Coolieman1220

Which engine was the X5? I test drove the 35d and loved it. Then again I have that same motor in my 335d and it is one of the best engines I have ever had the pleasure to experience. I have not driven the 535 but I have driven the F30 328 which has electric steering and I loathed it in that application. As a matter of fact, for the F10 M5, BMW has gone back to hydraulic rack steering.

I will agree with you. I hate electric assisted steerings and I've driven many new cars that use it and I hate it most of the time. However the engine and seats would be enough to make me over look the steering.

I don't realize why so many people love the 2.0t over the 3.2. Now with the 3.0t there is a much bigger more defined gap. At first I did not like 8 speeds but with a powerful engine they are really nice when they dont need to downshift much. My biggest issue is when you're in 8th gear, you have to drop 3 gears to get good power. I wish it would go for 8 to 6 or 5 when you go into manual mode.

The electric steering works, it just doesn't feel right. i dont feel connected to the road using it. I recently drove to Vermont for skiing and the poor 2.0t struggled to go up the hills on the interstate on I89. I felt bad for the motor. The 2.0t does feel lighter and more nimble but the 3.0t feels more planted. They both handle equally well.


Double clutch tranny's are nice, too bad not many vehicles come with them here.



Recently I went skiing in the 2.0t, full load, 5 people, roof racks with 4 skis. Got an average of 19.5-20mpg. Did the same trip in my 3.2 and got 21.5mpg. I think the 2.0t when under boost (heavy loads) it gets garbage mileage, especially on the highway. I really suggest to go with the 3.0t if you're doing a lot of highway especially mountain driving.

HaveBullDogWillTravel

Have you looked into a VAGCOM setting that may reduce the boost in the steering. IIRC, there was a setting on my VW Golf that could be changed that would increase/decrease steering boost. Maybe "Steering Assist, Adaptation"...can't remember if it even applies to the Q5 or any Audi models for that matter.
Might be worth looking into if you do decide to get the 3.0T.

antirich

"I don't realize why so many people love the 2.0t over the 3.2. Now with the 3.0t there is a much bigger more defined gap. At first I did not like 8 speeds but with a powerful engine they are really nice when they dont need to downshift much. My biggest issue is when you're in 8th gear, you have to drop 3 gears to get good power. I wish it would go for 8 to 6 or 5 when you go into manual mode."

These are very close ratio transmissions. The change from 8-7 is minimal at best, feels more like a double overdrive. Even 8-6 is not really noticeable. Not like your old 4-5 speeds, where a gear change would jerk the car.

The goal of downshifting is to keep the engine in its optimal RPM range for the power you need. With smaller, higher tuned engines (especially turbos), you need to be up there in the RPMs.

Larger motors can pull power torque from a wider range of RPMS, hence less of a need for a 7-8 speed.

I do agree, I wish I could shift from 8-5 using the tiptronic, but as with any of these systems, it's just not possible (that I know of). Still, the Audi's levers are very fast clicks, much quicker than the floor shifter.

JohnBoyToo

It all depends on the tuning and where they want the power ...
high rpm hp or low rpm torque...
my 'other car' has 800 lbft available @ 1600 rpms, which makes for very little 'drama' at high rpm, but lot's of PUSH at lower rpms..

and to the point of '2.0T love' - it may be other factors.

They offer all kinds of colors in everything -
individuals can get what THEY want, not what they are told they SHOULD want

The Q is the wife's car and to her "function follows form",
it is an appliance to her, just has to look good (a Keurig versus a Mr. Coffee if you will!)

so the styling is what she liked and just so long as it gets her to the office and she doesn't have to stop every other day for fuel, she's good !

given that it's her girlie commuter - the 8 speed and mpg is why I got the Q and 2.ohT in 2011, an early adopter if you will since it wasn't offered with the other engine.

so enjoy what you have and don't have TOO much disdain for us lesser drivers...
maybe our other car makes up for the size difference

JohnBoyToo

As an example..
which dyno below is better ?

Hint, it depends...
on what you are trying to do with the tool:
In my application the higher and longer (duration) of the torque curve is better whereas someone else may be more interested in the small window where peak is higher...
neither is wrong, just what you intend to do...
in everyday driving more 'under the curve' is my favorite...

Coolieman1220

And thats why I have a motorcycle and a BMW 335d! =)