A5 owners... More love for the V6 or 2.0t?

**XCELR8** · 03-03-2011 03:44 PM

Getting ready to sell my B7 A4 and move into an A5. However, I had my mind set on the V6 S-Line, but hearing a lot of good buzz about the 2.0t also. Any advise as to which way to go (and no not an V8 S5 as my long azz commute would suck more gas than a transcontinental flight)?

**cabracco85** · 03-03-2011 03:51 PM

They both have their ups and downs, The 3.0T is very limited to mods right now. The 2.0T has been out awhile and there is some mods out there. Stock for stock the 3.0T would be the better bang for your buck. But modded im not sure which way would be best. If the 3.0T is like the b8 s4 then that would be the way to go. With just a chip it should be good for some 12s and get decent MPGs. And im sure the 2.0T would be just as fun but there is a big gap HP wise. I would think it would take a mildly modded 2.0T to reach the performance as the 3.0T stock. Also im not sure how the costs differ but that would be another thing to consider.

**XCELR8** · 03-03-2011 03:59 PM

I thought the A5 was only a 2.0t, not a 3.0t like the A6 and the 08-10 V6 was a 3.2l naturally aspirated. I'd be looking at a 2.0t or the 3.2l V6.

**bhk1004** · 03-03-2011 04:00 PM

3.0t only on s5 cabrio

**AudisticS5** · 03-03-2011 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by cabracco85

They both have their ups and downs, The 3.0T is very limited to mods right now. The 2.0T has been out awhile and there is some mods out there. Stock for stock the 3.0T would be the better bang for your buck. But modded im not sure which way would be best. If the 3.0T is like the b8 s4 then that would be the way to go. With just a chip it should be good for some 12s and get decent MPGs. And im sure the 2.0T would be just as fun but there is a big gap HP wise. I would think it would take a mildly modded 2.0T to reach the performance as the 3.0T stock. Also im not sure how the costs differ but that would be another thing to consider.

he meant to compare the 3.2 V6 with the 2.0 T.

**A4A4A4** · 03-03-2011 04:10 PM

TBH, I wouldn't even look at the 3.2. Worse gas mileage, more expensive, and only very marginally faster. With just a chip the 2.0T will pull on the 3.2 plus all that torque, ahhh

. Don't know what engine you have in your B7 but the 2.0T in the B8's are a very substantial upgrade from the B7 2.0T. I say 2.0T or bust, especially with the long commute.

**Black3.2** · 03-03-2011 04:22 PM

You wont find a lot of love for the 3.2 engine because people on this board like to chip their cars. With that said i obviously have a 3.2 (user name) and i have driven the 2.0t a lot as well. I could not be happier that i have the 3.2. Although i believe the 2.0t is a great engine i am done with 4 cylinders. The exhaust note is totally different 3.2 sounds nice, 2.0t in my opinion does not. I have zero desire to mod a car, been there done that. I think it really depends on what you personally are looking to do. If you want a car with decent HP and nice torque get the 3.2, if you want to do modifications and potentially deal with replacing turbo's get the 2.0t. The 2.0t will be faster if you do mods, but you will need more than a chip to beat a stock 3.2, this has been proven by myself and a friend he has the 2.0t B8 A4 chipped by APR, we both drove each others cars and the 3.2 was faster both times and that was in a straight line and going around corners.

**XCELR8** · 03-03-2011 04:27 PM

I have a 2.0t in my B7 now and it's has a tp and APR tune. I've been happy with it but wasn't sure if the V6 had more tq or was faster than the new 2.0. I had to upgrade my dv valve on the B7 and a couple of other p.i.ta things to accommodate the tune I wasn't planning on. If I buy the 2.0t I really don't feel like upgrading the dv valve, hp fuel pump, etc like I've had to on this car to run a tune.

**shadymg** · 03-03-2011 05:06 PM

i replied to a similar post a bit ago, but since this very same decision haunted me for weeks before my purchase i think i'll share (plus i love this place).

So first off, i'm not a modder, heck, not really much of a car guy until i finally got my 3.2 A5 2009. Before this car, i had 2 4-cyl hondas (civic and accord). So...that being said...

I test drove a 2.0 A5 2011...and i was so bored. I honestly felt like i was driving my accord when i was getting on the freeway. Sure the nav was newer/nicer than the 3.2, but if i was going to shell out 40-50k for a car, i wanted a CAR ya know? Tough to explain in words, and again i'm SURE my last 10 years with a honda swayed my decision. When i test drove the 3.2, right away it felt great. Felt powerful. Just felt like a 40-50k car for me.

I think what most people have said is true--if you're planning on modding, then the 2.0 can get pretty fast (my buddy has a GTI 2.0 and he chipped it and it hauls). Except the gas statement--if my memory is correct, the 2.0 really only is an additional 2mpg more than the 3.2? That's hardly noteworthy of a decision IMO

one other item i should mention. I test drove a V8 S5.....and that was just nuts fun to drive. but THAT was a huge mpg difference, not to mention 10k more....so that never stood a chance. But still HELLLLLA fun to test drive :-)

**bknewtype** · 03-03-2011 05:07 PM

no mods = 3.2
mods = 2.0

**Mops@Nemesis** · 03-03-2011 06:08 PM

I have the 2.0 in my b7....suits the car well but could be quiter, smoother, etc but again great motor. That being said i have the 3.2 in my a5 and would not have it any other way. Love the smooth pull, smooth operation and LOVE the sound. Along with the exhaust and intake the power is excellent. Just dont like the idea of the 2.0 in the a5 but thats just me. i really enjoy the sound of my 3.2 and the 2.0 exhaust clips i have heard are weak. 3.2 gets great mpg as well....get 30+ on the hwy.

**danS5** · 03-03-2011 06:30 PM

A buddy of mine has a 3.2, and it delivers a decent amount of power for what it offers. Like someone said before me, it sounds great as well. Honestly, if you're just focused on modding, then I'm sure there are other models out there with a more suitable platform for better gains than a 2.0 T A5.

**sakimano** · 03-03-2011 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by A4A4A4

TBH, I wouldn't even look at the 3.2. Worse gas mileage, more expensive, and only very marginally faster. With just a chip the 2.0T will pull on the 3.2 plus all that torque, ahhh

. Don't know what engine you have in your B7 but the 2.0T in the B8's are a very substantial upgrade from the B7 2.0T. I say 2.0T or bust, especially with the long commute.

***I have a 2.0T B8 A4 Avant (same engine as the A5)***

all of what A4x3 said may be true, but the 2.0T sounds absolutely horrible. At best it sounds like a tractor...a diesel one.

The 3.2 sounds a bit better (a lot better actually) and is definitely a little smoother. All around if you're just buying the car and keeping it stock, the 3.2 may not be a bad choice, especially because it will sell well aftermarket (99% of 1st, 2nd and 3rd A5 owners won't mod a lick, so don't give a shit about tunability and like the 'big V6' instead of the measly little 2.0T 4banger). Stock, the 3.2 is also a smidgen faster, but it's really a toss up performance wise.

As for mileage, the 2.0T is ok...but not great. Our car gets around 350mile per tank on average. A 3.2 is going to probably get 85-90% of that, so we're talking a few hundred bucks a year on gas difference. Certainly not enough to change one's mind on a $30,000+ (used) car.

OP's modlist says to me he's more into show than go...(other than his tune)

OP - buck up and get an S5 4.2 from 09. Probably not far off in cost of a 2011 A5 2.0T (but you may need to rob banks on the side to pay for gas)

**cabracco85** · 03-03-2011 06:53 PM

my bad i mixed up the s5 cab thinking it would have the 3.0T. well then the choice is an easy one, the 2.0T all the way. With just a little chip youll have more power then the 3.2 and more torque. And get better gas mileage.

**Bigserve134** · 03-03-2011 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by cabracco85

my bad i mixed up the s5 cab thinking it would have the 3.0T. well then the choice is an easy one, the 2.0T all the way. With just a little chip youll have more power then the 3.2 and more torque. And get better gas mileage.

Yup 2.0T, and if the chip doesnt satisfy you can swap out for bigger turbos for a few thousand and trump the power of a stock S5!

**sakimano** · 03-03-2011 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by Bigserve134

Yup 2.0T, and if the chip doesnt satisfy you can swap out for bigger turbos for a few thousand and trump the power of a stock S5!

Maybe true, but it'd be without the torque on demand of the V8, and the sound. Those two things (feel and sound) are pretty big on 'owner satisfaction'. It's amazing how many big turbo 4cyl cars are parted out or sold with alacrity after build completion, and move into bigger displacement NA cars (extremesportIII, audiA4_20T, auditude2.0t)

Here's what clint wrote recently about his big turbo'd A4

Originally Posted by AudiA4_20T

So I'm getting a white B6 S4 shell and the original plan was to put a 2.7T in. However, I've just had a 600hp 1.8T with 0 torque for awhile, and I'm thinking a 4.2 might be nice.

**Bigserve134** · 03-03-2011 08:47 PM

True, last time I took a loaner A4 from the dealer it felt weak due to the lack of torque, but the turbos were still fun. Seems like the only solution is to set up a group buy with Underground racing for twin-turbo 4.2s (maybe we can get it down to only $40k per kit) :)

**gamer2k** · 03-03-2011 11:06 PM

If no mods I'd go V6. The new 2.0T is a great engine in terms of power and economy but it isn't nearly as refined as the V6.

**lascivious** · 03-03-2011 11:09 PM

I guess most have said the obvious; the smaller turbo's are easier to pump our HP from mods.....

If you not modding, let me add the Transmission in this case matters. My first audi was a 3.2l a4. 6 audi's later, i keep preferring the bigger natural aspiration mated with standard transmissions.

I've driven some 2.0 loaners with DSG front wheel drive and they were sickeningly fast. Mating the same 2.0 un modded to a big heavy CVT or quatro auto really bogged the car down. At the same time, pairing the natural engine, to a standard where you can hear and feel the torque response with your body, feet and ears (even without exhaust mods) is a different feel.

Frankly, I think we've all basically given different views and it will depend on what you like in your vehicles. I prefer the biggest, throatiest engine i can get married to a standard.

I would vote the 3.2.

**Okan509** · 03-04-2011 05:18 AM

2.0T all day!

**a5sport** · 03-04-2011 07:23 AM

Was an easy choice for me. Won't drive an automatic trans car...so the 2.0T was my only choice.

Like it very much. And Car and Driver tested the 2010 version, and it outhandles both the 3.2 & the S5. Made my day.

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

**Audiforumuser** · 03-04-2011 01:00 PM

This is like color, purely a personal choice, go test drive each and decide for yourself.

I'm with the others with the 3.2 though. The 2.0T is just too lifeless for me. The 3.2 with exhaust and the Volant CAI sounds about as good as a V6 can sound. Gas mileage is also way better than i expected. Averaging 8.8 litres/100 with mine (City and highway) ~51,000 km's.

**Black3.2** · 03-04-2011 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by a5sport

Was an easy choice for me. Won't drive an automatic trans car...so the 2.0T was my only choice.

Like it very much. And Car and Driver tested the 2010 version, and it outhandles both the 3.2 & the S5. Made my day.

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

I think you should read the article that you posted because they test drove a MANUAL TRANSMISSION 3.2. Just letting you know that.

**MURVANMAN** · 03-04-2011 02:00 PM

Having owned both ,(at the same time) I would say that it depends on what kind of driving you do. The 2.0 I have has been chipped, Milltec exhaust, GHL Down pipe, Forge DV and other assorted mods. The 2.0 just feels like it has more torque and is more nimble (both cars manual trans) and is just more fun to drive. The sound is pretty nice with the Milltec exhaust too although I would rate the sound of the 3.2 better. If you do the majority of your driving at highway high speed cruising above 55mph, then you would probably want the 3.2 because it is not so buzzy at high speeds. For a city urban warrior I would choose the 2.0. Mileage will not be too much different beause you will want to beat the hell out of the 2.0.

**b6onboost** · 03-04-2011 02:15 PM

Honestly, its powerband preference. Some like to build power linearly, others like that kick of boost. The 2.0T and 3.2 V6 are very close performance wise. I recall a head to head 2.0T vs 3.2 test (B8 A4s) a near wash 0-60.

The 3.2 V6 has more torque off idle, no turbo lag, and a linear powerband. When you step on it from a light it feels stronger, smoother, sounds better, and continues to accelerate progressively to redline.

The 2.0T has a stronger midrange. It may feel weaker off idle, have some turbo lag, but once its spooled it gives you a kick in the pants (stronger than that of the 3.2). Power comes on more abruptly and also begins to taper before you hit redline.

**Okan509** · 03-04-2011 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by b6onboost

Honestly, its powerband preference. Some like to build power linearly, others like that kick of boost. The 2.0T and 3.2 V6 are very close performance wise. I recall a head to head 2.0T vs 3.2 test (B8 A4s) a near wash 0-60.

The 3.2 V6 has more torque off idle, no turbo lag, and a linear powerband. When you step on it from a light it feels stronger, smoother, sounds better, and continues to accelerate progressively to redline.

The 2.0T has a stronger midrange. It may feel weaker off idle, have some turbo lag, but once its spooled it gives you a kick in the pants (stronger than that of the 3.2). Power comes on more abruptly and also begins to taper before you hit redline.

Yeah, but the thing about the 2.0T is you can spend 600+ dollars for a tune, and wipe the 3.2 all day

**jneutron** · 03-04-2011 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by bknewtype

no mods = 3.2
mods = 2.0

What he said+sound times personal choice

**Black3.2** · 03-05-2011 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by Okan509

Yeah, but the thing about the 2.0T is you can spend 600+ dollars for a tune, and wipe the 3.2 all day

This just isn't true as proven by myself and a friend. we both have 2009 a4's, he has the 2.0t with the APR chip and i have the 3.2. We did a few pulls (on a closed course no public roads) we did from 0-100, 40-100 and a few others, the 3.2 won easily on the 0-100 and it was a dead heat 40-100. then we switched so i was driving his car and he was driving mine (his is manual mine is auto, should have said that earlier) same exact results. We also drove around a closed circuit road course and the 3.2 was much better coming off of corners. It takes more than a $600 chip to beat the 3.2. With all that said, my next Audi unless it is an "S" will have the 2.0t engine.

**ActivS5** · 03-05-2011 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by Black3.2

This just isn't true as proven by myself and a friend. we both have 2009 a4's, he has the 2.0t with the APR chip and i have the 3.2. We did a few pulls (on a closed course no public roads) we did from 0-100, 40-100 and a few others, the 3.2 won easily on the 0-100 and it was a dead heat 40-100. then we switched so i was driving his car and he was driving mine (his is manual mine is auto, should have said that earlier) same exact results. We also drove around a closed circuit road course and the 3.2 was much better coming off of corners. It takes more than a $600 chip to beat the 3.2. With all that said, my next Audi unless it is an "S" will have the 2.0t engine.

You mean have a 3.2? Sounds like you like the 3.2 better than the 2.0T based on your remarks! lol

Anyway, I have a 3.2 and have driven 2.0t's around quite a bit. I love the sound of my 3.2 and power and can not stand the cackling of the 2.0t even with an aftermarket exhaust. If you are one to mod your engine, go with the 2.0t. As stated above, the the modding world for the 3.2 is minimal to nil.

I can not sacrifice the sound of the 3.2L and don't see why a street car needs all of these engine upgrades unless you track your car. If you do, that's cool and more power to you. The 2.0t is a great engine, don't get me wrong, and you can make that thing smokin'! It is fun to have the engine up's on the street, I must say! Although for me, I spend those dollars on my gutted track car that will use the money a lot more than my street car will.

If I were to do i over again, I would still keep my 3.2

**Okan509** · 03-06-2011 12:55 AM

Originally Posted by Black3.2

This just isn't true as proven by myself and a friend. we both have 2009 a4's, he has the 2.0t with the APR chip and i have the 3.2. We did a few pulls (on a closed course no public roads) we did from 0-100, 40-100 and a few others, the 3.2 won easily on the 0-100 and it was a dead heat 40-100. then we switched so i was driving his car and he was driving mine (his is manual mine is auto, should have said that earlier) same exact results. We also drove around a closed circuit road course and the 3.2 was much better coming off of corners. It takes more than a $600 chip to beat the 3.2. With all that said, my next Audi unless it is an "S" will have the 2.0t engine.

I call bullshit on your and your buddy's ability to drive a manual lol

**Couchmarine** · 03-07-2011 05:58 AM

Love my stock 2.0T. Plenty of power, almost no lag, and can't beat the mpg's. I get around 28 overall. 32+ on the highway. I'm not big into mods and I don't think it needs anything. Test drove both the 3.2 and the 2.0T and didn't notice a huge difference, so that factored in. Good luck.

**a5dude** · 03-07-2011 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by XCELR8

Getting ready to sell my B7 A4 and move into an A5. However, I had my mind set on the V6 S-Line, but hearing a lot of good buzz about the 2.0t also. Any advise as to which way to go (and no not an V8 S5 as my long azz commute would suck more gas than a transcontinental flight)?

From your last sentence, seems like you are more concerned with gas consumption, so 2.0 suits you better?

**ActivS5** · 03-07-2011 09:34 AM

Is it odd that I get 35+ MPG's on the freeway with my 3.2? I have a 45 min commute on the flat freeway and set cruise control at around 68-70, 35+ MPG's easily.

**Okan509** · 03-07-2011 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by ecrew16

Is it odd that I get 35+ MPG's on the freeway with my 3.2? I have a 45 min commute on the flat freeway and set cruise control at around 68-70, 35+ MPG's easily.

Is that manual calculation? The DIS will be off, but still a great number. In my 6MT 2.0T I get around 30-ish, but this is spirited highway driving and manually calculated

**ActivS5** · 03-07-2011 03:08 PM

I have yet to manually calculate it. I will do so on my next fill up and see what Audi is hiding :D

**Audiforumuser** · 03-08-2011 06:08 AM

Originally Posted by ecrew16

Is it odd that I get 35+ MPG's on the freeway with my 3.2? I have a 45 min commute on the flat freeway and set cruise control at around 68-70, 35+ MPG's easily.

Nope, my DIS averages 7.7 liters per 100 when i'm on the highway. That converts to ~37mpg. I have manually calculated and my DIS is almost 2 mpg on the optimistic side so it's more like ~35mpg which is still way better than I anticipated! :)

My cruise is usually set between 114 to 118 km/h

This was calculated this winter on a 3.2 with 51,000 kms. In warmer temperatures the numbers are slightly higher.

**a5sport** · 03-08-2011 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by Black3.2

I think you should read the article that you posted because they test drove a MANUAL TRANSMISSION 3.2. Just letting you know that.

Ahhh...Sparky...want to borrow my glasses?

The title to the article is "2010 Audi A5 2.0T - Short Take Road Test". It is VOUS who needs to read the article...not me. I've read it several times.

Oh...and by the way...Audi did not have a manual trans 3.2 in the US in 2010. Try a little research next time sport.

**sakimano** · 03-08-2011 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by ecrew16

Is it odd that I get 35+ MPG's on the freeway with my 3.2? I have a 45 min commute on the flat freeway and set cruise control at around 68-70, 35+ MPG's easily.

not if your DIS is on Imperial Gallons (which I bet you a Coke you are)

**a5sport** · 03-08-2011 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by Okan509

Is that manual calculation? The DIS will be off, but still a great number. In my 6MT 2.0T I get around 30-ish, but this is spirited highway driving and manually calculated

Same car here. I have seen (with manual calculations) 32+ MPG with the cruise set at 80 MPH on a flat highway (I-95 in the Carolinas). Got that both ways to & from Hilton Head, SC last November.