JBarnes

Hi all,
I'm new on the forum and am considering a 2011 Audi Q5. I test drove a 2009 3.2 V6 last week and just yesterday, I drove a 2011 2.0T. I was impressed by the performance of the 3.2 but didn't get a chance to take it on the freeway. I was similarly impressed by the 2.0T's off the line push but freeway passing was a tad underwhelming.

I've mostly owned performance cars and hatchbacks in the past and have decided I wanted something different for a change. I'm attracted to the Q5 by its looks and the way it drives and am now trying to decide on the engine type to balance performance and fuel economy. I'm very familiar with the 2.0T engine and it's ease of adding more power through an ECU upgrade. I also really like the S-Line exterior and the sport steering wheel.

Questions:
1. What are the real world mpg numbers that current owners have seen with the 3.2L?

2. For those who picked the 2.0T, are you happy with the real world mpg and do you find the power adequate when trying to pass other vehicles on the freeway?

3. For both 3.2L and 2.0T without Audi Select Drive, is there such a thing as regular and sport mode for the tranny? On my test drive, the dealers didn't seem to know this.

That's it for now. Thanks and I look forward to contributing in the future.

Coolieman1220

I have seen 27mpg a few times on the highway if i cruise in the low 70's
you can get 25-26mpg easily if you keep it under 80.
cruising at 90 w/ load, you get around 22mpg.

in the city you get 17 or so, i've seen as low as 15.5 all city in NYC.

yes the transmission does have a sport mode if you pull it back all the way. Does it do much? just remaps the shift points higher and the throttle and downshifts are more responsive.

Also i find the 3.2 sonds a lot nicer w/ its exhaust note.

Good luck

gat821

We get pretty much the same mpg as Coolieman, except for the city-only driving of NYC, but only because we don't live in as big a city .

I'm quite surprised your salesman didn't know about sport mode.

When we were driving in Smoky Mountain national park, we left it in sport mode most of the time. Didn't feel much need to use the manual shift, as the tranny did hold gears longer on downhills and curves as we were expecting.

Happy shopping!!

The G Man

I think we all want a balance between performance and fuel economy. The performance of the 3.2 is about the same as the 2.0T in the city, on the highway, the 3.2 is a bit quicker, especially with a car loaded with cargo and passenger and AC on. The 2.0T gets about 2 MPG more overall and if you want the S-line package, you have to get the 3.2L.
It really depends on how you will be using your Q5, if you do mostly city driving by yourself, then teh 2.0T is more than enough performance. If you take a lot of family trips, than maybe the 3.2 is more suited for you. I notice you live in SF, there was one 2.0T owner in here from SF complaining about the 2.0T performance and gas mileage driving the hills of SF. If you can wait, you might consider waiting until next Summer and hope the 3.0T Q5 will be introduce.

jeff968

Well one thing to note, the trip computer MPG is always higher then the real word MPGs so hopefully the previous posters are giving you their own calculated numbers and not from the TC. Our 2.0T only has 1500 miles on it. Although the trip computer says we are getting 25.5 mpg (combined highway and city) I got 24 on Saturday and usually see 23.5. Doing our first highway trip in a few weeks so I'm looking forward to seeing how it does. Also, I know the Q5 is in break in period now adn we should see a bump at 5,000 miles or so. I'm very happy with the 2.0T. I waited for the introduction of the 2.0T in the Q5 before making our purchase. Very happy with the vehicle.

EVOQ5

It actually feels as if my 2.0T is more responsive than my previous e90 330i.

Last week I drove around with 4 adults in the car and we took a mountainy dirtroad and the highway back (Apache Trail for the locals) and I had no issues with passing and the power available really impressed me. It wasnt even rev-ing that much.

MPG on the TC is about 31mpg with cruisecontrol at 70mph on a flat road. Combined usage is closer to 24/25 (calculated). I'm at 2200 miles so it may improve some.

Houstonmobilian

Exactly the same mpg like you. I'm at 2700 miles now.

princetonq5

I've averaging 24MPG overall with 3.2. on highways alone, i get about 26. I'm quite happy with the 3.2, especially how it sounds during brisk accelerations over 4,000RPM. it's a sweet little engine.

The G Man

This post just goes to show you, enough power can mean many thing things to different people. For example, my brother thinks his 4 cyl Passat has more than enough power while my wife thinks her 3.2 Q5 barely have enough power. I think it really comes down to what the OP want in how a car performs.

jeff968

True, but there is no question that manufactures continue to revise their powertrains so that one can essentially "leap frog" another for a given year or two or three. For example, I remember when the A4 came out in 1996. It had the 2.8 6cyl 172 hp in it but in 97 Audi introduced their latest engine, the 1.8T 150 hp which performed pretty much the same (due to similar torque), got better mileage and cost less. The dealers screamed as the 2.8s were languishing on the lot. Audi responded with a 190hp version of the 6 in 1999. The 3.2 is still the same engine that was introduced with the Q5 in 2009. I wouldn't be surprised to see some revisions next year so that it has more advantages over the latest and greatest 2.0T other then supposed-smoothness.