mmarshall

A Mini Review/Update of the 2011 Audi Q5 2.0T Quattro

http://models.audiusa.com/q5

In a Nutshell: As always, a 2.0L gem of a powerplant...but why not the superb S-Tronic transmission with it?










(This was the two-tone leather package my test-car had)

I had already done (and posted) a full-review on the 2010 Audi Q5 3.2L V6 model last year when it was first introduced, but I received a request, a couple of days ago, from a CL member, to do the 2.0L Turbo-Four model. So, today, I stopped by a nice new Audi shop in the area (only four months old, with a state-of-the-art building/facilities), and checked out the 2.0T model. Since I had already spent a fair amount of time with the then-new 3.2L V6 model last year, I concentrated primarily on the 2.0L's powertrain/chassis, and didn't see a need to do an entire full-review all over again. But, of course, I compared the interior, underhood layout, cargo area. etc.....with the 3.2L model just to check for any significant differences.....and also differences with the competing Mercedes GLK I also recently reviewed. So, this is not a full-review, but a simple review-update describing the diferences in the 2.0T version.

And, of course, I'll include the original 3.2L review here for reference, if desired:

https://www.clublexus.com/forums/car...9-audi-q5.html

First off, I always enjoy the 2.0L Turbo Four....just as I enjoy BMW power-steering/chassis, Lexus smoothness/refinement, Subaru AWD systems in the winter, and Mercedes-AMG power (though I'm generally not not an aggressive driver). The 2.0T has been a pleasure to drive in every VW/Audi product I've ever sampled it on (and that's quite a few). Though expensive premium fuel is required (as with virtually all turbos), it's worth the few extra cents a gallon on this one. I have long considered it one of the American Market's Ten Best powerlants....even compared to some newer or all-new designs.

2.0T models come in Premium and Premium-Plus versions, and with standard Quattro AWD....no 2WD models are offered. For 2011, both 2.0T versions come with an 8-speed Tiptronic Sport-shift automatic with lever-manual-shift (no shift-paddles)...no manual transmission is offered (the 3.2L V6 still comes with a 6-speed Tiptronic). I myself, though, am a big fan of the superb twin-clutch automanual VW/Audi DSG (Direct-Shift-Gearbox)....(Audi calls it S-Tronic). VW sill offers it on some of its products, but Audi seems to be phasing it out of more and more of its American-market vehicles (while still keeping it in Europe). This, IMO, is a bummer ......it is not offered in any of the Q5 models at all. I see no reason why it can't.....VW offers it with the 2.0T.

For the test-drive, I selected a pretty white Premium-Plus model with a sharp-looking two-tone, Black/Cinnamon-Brown leather interior.....Audi calls it Cinnamon, but it's really more of a gorgeous Chocolate-brown (several different leather/wood/brushed-aluminum trim options are available). As always with the 2.0T, it was an enjoyable experience...and I got a longer test-drive, this time, than I did with the 3.2L last year, to boot. Not only is the engine in this vehicle nice, but so is most of the vehicle around it.

So...let's hop to it.



Model Reviewed/Updated: 2011 Audi Q5 2.0T Quattro Tiptronic

Base Price: $35,200


Options:

Premium-Plus Package: $4200

Bang-Olufsen Premium Stereo Package: $850

Carpeted Floor Mats/Trunk Liner: $240


Destination/Freight: $875

List Price as reviewed: $41,365


Drivetrain: Quattro AWD, Longitudinally-mounted 2.0L Turbo in-line four, 211 HP @ 4300-6000 RPM,
Torque, 258 ft-lbs. @ 1500 4200 RPM, 8-speed Tiptronic Sport-shift automatic transmission, locking center/rear differentials.

Towing Capacity: 4400 lbs.

EPA Mileage Rating: 20 City / 27 Highway


Exterior Color: Ibis White

Interior: Cinnamon Brown Leather (This is a sharp-looking package)




PLUSSES:


A gem of a powerplant.

Throttle initially less-jumpy than the 3.2L

S-Tronic transmission not quite the equal of the DSG/S-Tronic, but close.

Seamless AWD system.

The usual superb Audi-grade interior/trim.

Good chassis engineering.

Excellent ride-handling compromise.

Power-steering-feel almost as good as BMW's.

Quiet, refined noise control....but not Lexus-quiet.

Better column-stalks than the competitor Mercedes GLK.

Good underhood layout except for plastic engine cover.




MINUSES:


No oil dipstick with the 2.0L

No S-Tronic transmissions on any Q5.

Body sheet metal strong, but not as strong as Mercedes GLK.

MMI/center-dash controls needlessly complex.

Potential reliability questions.




EXTERIOR:

No significant changes from the 3.2L exterior last year. The white paint job on my test-car was nice and well-done, but not quite as visually stunning as the Oyster-White-Pearl that is used on some other Audi models (Audi, Infiniti, and Cadillac helped perfect that color). The exterior sheet metal is strong, but not as tank-solid-feeling as the rival Mercedes GLK....especially the GLK's hood.



UNDERHOOD:

Generally a good layout. The longitudionally-mounted 2.0T fits in pretty nicely, with some room around all of the edges of the engine-block to reach things. Two things I didn't like, though.....the big (and needless) plastic engine-cover blocking all of the top-engine components, and the lack of an oil-dipstick. As with the Mercedes GLK (which uses a similiar system), I simply don't trust electronic oil-sensors....never did. Put the stick back in, please.



INTERIOR:

The usual superb standards of Audi-grade trim/fit/finish. The two-tone Black/Brown leather interior in my test car, with wood/chrome trim, was especially sharp-looking. The MMI control-**** system (supposedly) has been tweaked some from last year, but I still found it...and the stereo and climate buttons/*****.....more complex to use than necessary. The optional Bang-Olufsen stereo, which my test-car had, is a killer....just the thing for some good old-fashioned 80's Heavy Metal. Like the Mercedes GLK, Audi put both the turn-signal and cruise-control levers on the left-side of the column, but, unlike Mercedes, the Q5 does it correctly. The turn-signal lever is above the cruise-control, sticks out more, and your left-fingers generally hit it first. Other than that, no significant interior differences with the 3.2L model.




CARGO AREA/TRUNK:

Very well-finished, as expected from Audi. Generally roomy and versatile, as with the 3.2L. Still a temporary-spare, though, IMO not befitting of a vehicle of this class.




ON THE ROAD:

Here's where the 2.0T really shines...and the rest of the vehicle with it. Start the 2.0T with a dash-mounted rectangular hole and a push-type rectangular electronic key/fob. The 2.0T fires to life smoothly and quietly. I've said it before, and I'll say it again...reliability questions aside (most Audis are generally average or worse in reliability), this engine, IMO, is simply a gem. For years, it was rated at 201 HP and 236 ft-lbs. of torque.....I felt it was then-underrated in the power department, and actually running more than that. For 2011, the official figures are 211 and 258 (a higher torque figure, BTW, than the 3.2L V6's, BTW, which is 243 @ 3000 RPM). The 2.0T's maximum torque figure comes at a very low 1500 RPM and continues till 4200, helping to enhance its low-mid-range performance. I think that the official 211/258 figures may STILL be underrated, especially with the kick in the pants that it gives this relatively heavy (4090 lbs.) vehicle. Hit the gas, and you get a virtually instantaneous shove in the back, with very little lag as the turbo spools up. The engine is also relatively smooth and quiet for a turbo 4. The 2.0T's electronic throttle-control didn't seem to have as much jumpinesss starting up from rest as that which I remember from the 3.2L model last year....it was easier to drive smoothly from a stop and then punch it when you wanted the power. The only real down-side to this engine is, of course, the cost of feeding it Premium fuel....at rates which will probably be below 20 MPG in city-use.

The 8-speed Tiptronic transmission (8 speeds, IMO, being somewhat of an overkill), is smooth, quiet, refined, and sharp-shifting, whether in full-auto or auto-manual mode. I still, in general prefer the smooth, lightning-quick responsiveness and efficiency of the DSG/S-Tronic twin-clutch automanual (and the S-Tronic does not have the roughness/lurching from rest that some automanuals do). But, in general, the more conventional, torque-converter Tiptronic automatic is not a bad replacement....its refinement and smoothness added to the already superb 2.0T powerplant. The lever, like in the 3.2L, is fore-aft, with no annoying zig-zag.

The chassis is also well-engineered. The power steering, along with the superbly-smooth leather rim on the steering wheel, approaches that of (IMO) industry-leading BMW in crispness/road feel. Steering response is not overly-quick but smooth, well-weighted, and with just about the right amount of effort for my tastes. Cornering has some body roll, but it is well-controlled. Ride comfort, from the rather tall (by today's standards) 60-series tires is pretty good for the amount of handling offered.....the Germans, regardless of brand, seem to have chassis engineeering down pat. Noise control, from both wind and tires is also pretty good, though not Lexus-quiet. Brakes are the usual German standards of firmness/quickness of response, lack of sponginess, and a good pedal-feel. I didn't notice any problems with my big feet and pedal-placement/location, which I sometimes do.



THE VERDICT:

My strong recommendation, if you are going to get a Q5, is to get the 2.0T version. You've heard enough of my on-and-on recommendations, so I won't rehash it anymore here. But, compared to the 3.2L V6 model I drove last year, the chassis also seemed more refined. And (as was also the case last year) the vehicle was very well-built...at least when brand-new. I can remember doing Audi Fox/4000/5000 test-drives back in the 1980s, when Audis seemed poorly-built, and had assembly problems/squeaks/rattles even brand-new (I won't get into the media's controversial unintended-acceleration problems of the Audi 5000, which nearly drove Audi out of the American market). But today's Q5 seemed worlds apart from the poorly-built Audis of 25 years ago...and it was a pleasure to drive, to boot. Reliability, though, while not the worst, as with other German brands, is still not the best....though there are worse brands in that category. But, for 41K (35K to start), this vehicle seems to give you your money's worth.

And, as always, of course............Happy Car Shopping.

MM

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

I really love the style of the Q5. One of the best looking "small" SUV's IMO. I'm really glad they're offering the 2.0L 4 turbo. Nice and torquey, perfect choice if you live in a city/suburb and don't need the extra oomph of the V6. I also think it's the engine that should propel the VW Tiguan. I agree with you regarding an actual dipstick is the way to go. The interior is finished very nicely! Wouldn't mind test driving one myself. Thanks for the review Marshall!!!

mmarshall

Yes, it is a handsome vehicle.....although Audi, uses a grille-size that, IMO, is larger-than-needed. The older, smaller Audi grilles looked better.


The 3.2 V6 doesn't really give any extra spunk, though. The 2.0T, in fact, out-torques it, at lower RPMs. The V6, though (probably) would give slightly smoother operation at high RPM, however.

Hard to beat Audi interior trim, especially in its price-range. Some of the interor controls/*****/displays, though, could use some improvement (and less-complexity) in the way they operate.

I think that the reason that elecronic oil-sensors are used in some upmarket cars is that people are getting so lazy they just don't want to open their hoods anymore. How long does it take to wipe a dipstick and look at it...a couple of seconds?

If you want to test-drive one, be my guest, and enjoy yourself. In my area, at least, they are readily-in-stock, but not in huge numbers.

Sure...anytime. More coming, depending on vehicle availability.

BMWdrvr

Good review. I've tested teh Q5 right when they started to appear here a year ago, with a different engine and different tranny. Pretty well-done SUV - good (aesthetically pleasing) overall design both inside and out (which, unfortunately, I couldn't say about latest RX generation), very good interior material quality (typical Audi), pretty acceptable steering/braking performance (better than on similar Mercedes models). The only 2 things I disliked were the jerky/hesitant automatic tranny and the way all the buttons/***** were clustered around the transmission shifter.
B.t.w, I really disagree about digital oil level gauge - I like the convenience of checking the oil (and every other fluid) level on an electronic display rather than wasting my time (regardless of how short it might be) doing an unpleasant and completely unnecessary things "under the hood" Has nothing to do with "laziness" or anything like that, I just find it more pleasant/convenient and I have no logical reason to be afraid of it failing (I couldn't find any statistically significant data showing the electronic oil level sensors being "unreliable", and even if it will ever fail - I have a warranty on my car and I never keep (and hopefully never will) any cars past their factory warranty).

mmarshall

Thanks.

The latest Tiptronic isn't jerky or unrefined at all. It operates as smoothly as the superb DSG/S-Tronic....but probably is not quite as efficient.

Not only around the shifter, but the lower/center dash as well. Typical of upmarket German vehicles, there is more button/control complexity then necessary.


I understand your point, respect it,....and took that viewpoint into consideration when I posted what I did. But dipsticks, inserted properly, can't fail (except on the rare occasions when they are mismarked at the factory; that has been known to happen). Sensors can, and sometimes do fail. BMW, when the sensors first came out several years ago, replaced a number of expensive, relatively new engines because the sensors failed. And, warranty or not, I wouldn't want my engine siezing-up in the seedy areas of some large cities, or in a remote rural place.

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

Lol, true. But that just seem's to be the industry trend. Have you checked out the size of an F-Series pick-up emblem lately

Agreed. The V6 will always be smoother in that application

I like to check it myself as you do. Just habit I guess. Have to see to believe kinda thing lol

I work at a Lexus/Acura/Infiniti/BMW automall so I get to check off some of those every now and then. And then a few miles down the road there's another automall with Porsche/Audi/Jag/LR. Definitely wanted to try an S4, XF, and the Q5. Hopefully soon

mmarshall

Sounds like you and I have some tastes in common. I know there are a number of current styling "trends" that I don't care for.

Due to precise manufacturing tolerances, most modern engines, especially if they are broken-in properly, don't use much oil until they get a lot of miles on them. Still, though engines are generally more forgiving of oil-neglect than in the past, you still want to look at the dipstick at reasonable intervals. In most cases, though, it doesn't have to be done every time you fill up, like decades ago.


Here you are. I did a full-review on the S4....and last year's XF. This will give you an idea of what to expect. (Of course, now it's your turn)

https://www.clublexus.com/forums/car...0-audi-s4.html

https://www.clublexus.com/forums/car...jaguar-xf.html

(There have been a few changes to the XF for 2010).

BMWdrvr

I wouldn't really generalize this way, I've seen more random buttons sprinkled all over the dashboards of some Acura/Infiniti models than on, for example, my E90 sedan

Fizzboy7

Great review.

I have been anxiously waiting to hear more about this engine in the Q5. This would be the only SUV I'd consider. The 2.0T option makes it affordable, more efficient, and as some have said, even faster. Audi should have released this motor at launch, but it makes sense why they didn't. As often happens, they release their top engine first, to capture more profit with the higher sticker and demand of a new vehicle. Once demand levels out, then more affordable models pop up. Now more people can consider this as a purchase. Audi has made their grander dollars already with the 3.2 sales, so everyone should be happy.


But back to this motor and the Q. One thing not really mentioned here is the weight savings of the 2.0. Just like with the A4, the 2.0 versions handle better because they weigh less and have better weight distribution. I autocrossed the 3.2 Q5 for half a day when it first debuted. It was a delight, tracked very well, and felt lighter than it's size suggested. I can only imagine the lighter 2.0 version is even better.

In my opinion, one of the nicest things about the Q is the styling inside and out. This is one clean-looking SUV, with no strange window lines, gashes, or gimmicks. Even Audi's large grille works well here, as larger grilles often work better on trucks/SUV's. And the interior is my personal favorite out of the entire Audi line. Clean, modern, and asthetically pleasing. Again, no strange or trendy angles to take away the look. Also agree, the cinamon interior combo is simply gorgeous.

All in all, the Q5 is a standout SUV and I admire Audi's talents as a company.

Great review and thanks for the effort Marshall.

GlobeCLK

iTrader: (5)

Thanks for the review. I originally wanted a Q5 2.0T, but in the end went with a FX35 for better performance, spaciousness, technological gadgets, and reliability. I was looking forward to the 2.0T powerplant, but seeing how small it was during a test drive really pushed me away from it. Nevertheless the Q5 is a beautiful SUV, and the quality and feel is top notch.

mmarshall

Sure. Anytime.

I agree wth much of what you say here. Audi seemed to also make two other marketing errors besides this one......no TDI diesel for the American market (this would be an ideal vehicle for one) and, of course, no S-Tronic with the 2.0T. The Tiptronic is a good substitute, but IMO there is simply nothing like the DSG/S-Tronic.

Audi also managed to get a nice, handsome vehicle without all of the silly aero-stuff, humpback-roofs, and swept-headlights/tailights found on many other vehicles. Conservative, squarish rooflines like that do a lot for space-efficiency, headroom, and cargo room. The competing Mercedes GLK, which I reviewed last week, also benefits from this type of styling.

mmarshall

Sure. Anytime.

Congragulations on your purchase. Not the car for me, style-wise, but it does have good handling, eliability, and a sporty demeanor.


Small engine, but (trust me) not-so-small power.


Yep...I can remember when new Audis, quality-wise, like 80s/90s-vintage Hyundais, left a lot to be desired. Today, among mass-produced cars, they offer what is (arguably) the best-quality interior fit/finish on the market...though some other vehicles, (Jaguars in particular) are also way up there.

SoCalSC4

I still don't 'get' American's fascination with SUVs as opposed to a proper car-based station wagon. I suppose it's the "stigma" of driving a wagon, but at this point SUVs ARE driven by soccer moms. The way I see it, driving an SUV has the "soccer mom" stigma, not wagons or mini vans.

Wagons handle better, get better fuel economy, are easier to load, and usually offer as much interior space as their SUV competition. Ever tried to load bulky/heavy boxes in the back of an X5? There just isn't much space back there!

Of course, with mmarshall, I expect I am preaching to the choir.

Thanks for the review!

mmarshall

Sure...anytime.

Audi tried marketing just that...an AWD, SUV-type, raised-suspension wagon called the All-Road. It was just like the Volvo XC70......a more-expensive, European Subaru Outback. The XC70 was a success; the All-Road wasn't.

Audi, however, does market a couple of conventional-height, non-raised-suspension wagons now.....they are called Avants.

SUVs, today, have a several stereotypes......soccer-moms, cowboys/ranchers, off-road adventurers, safety-fans that want a lot of metal around them for protection, and as everyday commuting machines for bad weather.

I see no "stigma" as far as wagons go....that's another old inaccurate stereotype. Nor are they just "Mommy-vehicles". Dodge did a powerful Hemi Magnum R/T wagon (even with an AWD option), BMW markets "Ultimate Driving Machine" 3 and 5-series wagons, and Mercedes even does mega-HP AMG wagons.

The amount of cargo room and ease of loading-unloading depends on the shape of the rear-roofline, rear-seat design, rear-bumpers, cargo-lid opening, and a number of other factors. That's why, in full-reviews, I try to give a detailed explanation of the cargo area, just like with the rest of the car.

You are correct that wagons, even raised-suspension AWD ones like the Outback, XC70, Freestyle, All-Road, etc.....handle and steer better than conventional SUV's, even car-based ones. That's one reason why I like type of vehicle so much.

The Q5's road manners, though, are most-impressive for a conventional, car-based SUV. It is, IMO, a pleasure to drive, with only a very slight trace of the SUV-type porposing.



Instead of the choir, more like to the preacher himself. .........I'm a big fan of Outbacks and similiar-type wagons.

GlobeCLK

iTrader: (5)

Actually I meant to say how small the interior room was. I have plenty of confidence in the 2.0T powerplant. Excellent fuel economy and potential