I finally got the APR stage one for my 2010 A5 2.0T
05-01-2010, 06:58 AM
#71
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone who doubts a tuned 2.0T vs a stock 3.2 should look at the torque numbers. A stock 2.0T already makes more torque than a stock 3.2, which is part of the reason why their respective performance is comparable enough that Audi is phasing out the 3.2. A tuned 2.0T running 91 or 93 octane is a torque monster.
05-01-2010, 04:43 PM
#72
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone who doubts a tuned 2.0T vs a stock 3.2 should look at the torque numbers. A stock 2.0T already makes more torque than a stock 3.2, which is part of the reason why their respective performance is comparable enough that Audi is phasing out the 3.2. A tuned 2.0T running 91 or 93 octane is a torque monster.
Yes, it has tons of torque, but HP is still what determines speed, not Torque. Audi is phaising out the 3.2 because as gas gets more expensive they percieve the demand for smaller engines will outpace the demand for bigger engines. It has nothing to do with performance in the sense that Audi thinks the performance of the 2.0 is better than that of the 3.2 it's not, it's a question of they feel consumers in the future are going to care far more about feul economy than a few 10th's of a second.
05-01-2010, 05:44 PM
#73
Audiworld Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In addition to Acadia's point, most people who buy the A5 were simply looking for a 2-door version of the A4, not necessarily a sports car like the S5. The 2.0T's low-end torque is much more useful to a typical driver than the 3.2, which has to rev higher. The fact that one can modify the ECU to boost performance is simply a nice perk.
We can split hairs between the 2.0T and the 3.2 but the truth is that the relative difference between these two engines are marginal compared to the difference between the A5 and the S5. So Audi picked one and felt that the 2.0T was the better fit for the typical A5 customer. Anybody who is really serious about performance will either spend more for the S5 or sacrifice luxury for muscle (5.0 Mustang GT).
We can split hairs between the 2.0T and the 3.2 but the truth is that the relative difference between these two engines are marginal compared to the difference between the A5 and the S5. So Audi picked one and felt that the 2.0T was the better fit for the typical A5 customer. Anybody who is really serious about performance will either spend more for the S5 or sacrifice luxury for muscle (5.0 Mustang GT).
Last edited by ViktoR6; 05-01-2010 at 05:47 PM.
05-02-2010, 07:25 AM
#74
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, it has tons of torque, but HP is still what determines speed, not Torque. Audi is phaising out the 3.2 because as gas gets more expensive they percieve the demand for smaller engines will outpace the demand for bigger engines. It has nothing to do with performance in the sense that Audi thinks the performance of the 2.0 is better than that of the 3.2 it's not, it's a question of they feel consumers in the future are going to care far more about feul economy than a few 10th's of a second.
On the A4 platform in 2009 when consumers were given the choice between a 3.2 and 2.0T, I remember reading something like only 1 out of every 9 A4s sold were 3.2s. Obviously for a coupe such as the A5, performance is generally of more importance than it would be to a sedan consumer (who may care more about factors such as mpg and price), which is why I assume all A5s (at least for the US market) came w/ 3.2s up until recently. However, the shift to the 2.0T on the A5s for 2010 shows that it is comparable enough performance-wise to the 3.2 to not significantly decrease sales in a market that is more performance-driven than the sedan market.
W/ regards to speed and torque, I actually had quickness in mind rather than speed. The 2.0T definitely loses steam in the top-end, which makes the 3.2 great for ppl who spend time in the upper RPM range. But since everyone is guaranteed to spend some time in the lower RPM range, I feel that low-end torque is more applicable than top-end HP and (IMHO) more useful in most performance comparisons.
Last edited by ItsDubC; 05-02-2010 at 07:29 AM.
05-02-2010, 11:41 AM
#75
Audiworld Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whay I can personally say about the 3.2 vs the 2.0t is that both are quite similar in performance for a daily driver, but some differences are glaring. I tested the Q5 and I´m pretty sure they should not differ so much in the A5.
First, what REALLY bugged me about the 2.0t was the lag... OMG, that was such a slow reaction that I frowned from it... After it decides it´s time to go, great!
The 3.2 wins on response and SOUND. The V6 sounded a LOT better than the 2.0t and even my wife said so...
We ended up buying a 2.0t A6 (doesn´t lag, but has 40 hp less than the A5 for being programmed to be as close to fuel efficient to a diesel engine as possible - mileage is a MUST for us), but I´d no doubt much rather DRIVE the 3.2 V6.
First, what REALLY bugged me about the 2.0t was the lag... OMG, that was such a slow reaction that I frowned from it... After it decides it´s time to go, great!
The 3.2 wins on response and SOUND. The V6 sounded a LOT better than the 2.0t and even my wife said so...
We ended up buying a 2.0t A6 (doesn´t lag, but has 40 hp less than the A5 for being programmed to be as close to fuel efficient to a diesel engine as possible - mileage is a MUST for us), but I´d no doubt much rather DRIVE the 3.2 V6.
05-03-2010, 05:05 AM
#76
Audiworld Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W/ regards to speed and torque, I actually had quickness in mind rather than speed. The 2.0T definitely loses steam in the top-end, which makes the 3.2 great for ppl who spend time in the upper RPM range. But since everyone is guaranteed to spend some time in the lower RPM range, I feel that low-end torque is more applicable than top-end HP and (IMHO) more useful in most performance comparisons.
05-03-2010, 06:33 AM
#77
AudiWorld Newcomer
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W/ regards to speed and torque, I actually had quickness in mind rather than speed. The 2.0T definitely loses steam in the top-end, which makes the 3.2 great for ppl who spend time in the upper RPM range. But since everyone is guaranteed to spend some time in the lower RPM range, I feel that low-end torque is more applicable than top-end HP and (IMHO) more useful in most performance comparisons.
05-03-2010, 08:28 AM
#78
AudiWorld Newcomer
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter
05-03-2010, 09:56 AM
#79
Yes, it has tons of torque, but HP is still what determines speed, not Torque. Audi is phaising out the 3.2 because as gas gets more expensive they percieve the demand for smaller engines will outpace the demand for bigger engines. It has nothing to do with performance in the sense that Audi thinks the performance of the 2.0 is better than that of the 3.2 it's not, it's a question of they feel consumers in the future are going to care far more about feul economy than a few 10th's of a second.