iforyou

iTrader: (1)

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test

Fairly interesting test result....

ENGINE TYPE: turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve inline-4, aluminum block and head, direct fuel injection

Displacement: 121 cu in, 1984 cc
Power (SAE net): 211 bhp @ 4300 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 258 lb-ft @ 1500 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 8-speed automatic with manumatic shifting

DIMENSIONS:
Wheelbase: 110.5 in Length: 182.2 in
Width: 74.0 in Height: 65.1 in
Curb weight: 4095 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 7.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 20.0 sec
Zero to 120 mph: 35.5 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 7.7 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.5 sec @ 90 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 128 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 167 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.85 g

FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 20/27 mpg
C/D observed: 19 mpg

Now check out the numbers for the Q5 3.2 V6:
Displacement: 195 cu in, 3197cc
Power (SAE net): 270 bhp @ 6500 rpm
Torque (SAE net): 243 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm

TRANSMISSION: 6-speed automatic with manumatic shifting

DIMENSIONS:
Curb weight: 4346 lb

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 6.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 17.5 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 7.1 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 15.1 sec @ 94 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 129 mph


FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 18/23 mpg
C/D observed: 21 mpg

What's up with that?

The 2.0T model has turbo, 2 more forward gears, a much newer engine, 250 less pounds, much smaller engine, and it still consumes more fuel than the V6 model with an old engine. Icing on the cake...the V6 is even faster......did I mention about the smoothness of the V6 and its lack-free characteristic?

JS + XES

iTrader: (1)

hmm...... not sure if i fully understand your position on this issue, but 3.2 is about $6k more expensive than 2.0T. so the 3.2 SHOULD be better than the 2.0T, right?

and what makes you think this 2.0 turbo engine from audi is not smooth? i drive my gf's 2010 a4 avant with the same engine almost everyday, and it's surprisingly very smooth. my car is 2010 mazdaspeed3, and it has the 2.0 turbo engine as well, but in terms of smoothness, audi>>>>>mazda.

majin ssj eric

THey might not have driven each car in the same manner. That could explain the fuel mileage discrepancy....

fsttyms1

For normal driving the V6 probably has to work less to achieve the same results. Id like to the V6 with the 8 speed to see its increases.

charliemike

I think their numbers on the curb weight are wrong ... How do you go from a V6 to a I-4 and shave 250lbs?

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

I didn't really have a position. I wasn't really talking about the price difference. The V6 model is marketed as a higher end trim level while the 2.0T is the base model.

I was just surprised at the real world mpg. With all the hype on downsizing engines + turbo, I would imagine the 2.0T would get way better mpg than the V6, especially since both tests were done in a testing environment.

I didn't say the 2.0T engine is not smooth. I know that it's very smooth for a 4-banger. It's just that, if Audi can make a 4 cylinder that smooth, how smooth do you think its V6 would be?

For sure. But again, from all of the good things I've heard about how awesome downsizing +turbo is, you know, great mpg and great power at the same time, I'm just surprised at the actual result. People used to critisize how the RDX is a gas guzzler. I thought that the Q5 2.0T isn't any better despite having a newer engine and 3 more forward speeds.

Same. I think Audi needs to update the V6 engine too as it's getting a bit old, isn't it?

Hmm..my understanding is that the I4 model is a base model. I just checked out Audi.ca and compared the V6 Premium model and I4 Premium model. The V6 one has some extra standard features. Perhaps that's why the V6 is 250lb heavier (extra V6 weight + features)?

Saintor

You chose the right word; hype.