You might remember the Audi E-tron concept from last month's Frankfurt auto show. It looked like a shrunken R8 and had an all-electric drivetrain underneath. We didn't peg it as a production car initially, but Audi executives have said it's in the company's product plan.
Those plans are moving right along and the likely result is an all-new sports car dubbed the Audi R4. As you might have guessed from the name, the R4 will be a junior version of the R8. Along with its smaller size, the R4 will all feature a unique set of drivetrains, the highlight being an all-electric setup for the top-of-the-line model.
Although Audi claimed that the concept's four electric motors produced 3,319 pound-feet of torque, we're guessing that the production model will tone that down a bit to avoid completely obliterating the rest of the R4's drivetain. Audi's top executive in the U.S. said to expect to see working prototypes of the electric R4 in two years' time and an on-sale date in late 2012.
With the electric model filling the high-end, the Audi R4 will round out the lineup with lesser versions using engines from the current TT. The 2.5-liter turbo five-cylinder in the TT-RS is a likely choice as it delivers a solid 335 horsepower while the TTS sold in the U.S. gets a 2.0-liter, 265-hp four-cylinder.
Now that Porsche is under the Volkswagen corporate umbrella, the R4 is expected to share a platform with the next-generation Porsche Boxster. Both coupe and targa versions of the R4 are expected.
2009 Frankfurt Auto Show: Audi E-tron
alman08 says:
07:27 PM, 10/14/09
this concept looks fairly nice. however, do they realize it actually cost more $ to charge up these cars than using gasoline or diesel?
smilez says:
08:02 PM, 10/14/09
Have you done any research on this? A quick survey: "A 2007 study by the non-profit Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) calculated that powering a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) would cost the equivalent of roughly 75 cents per gallon of gasoline—a price not seen at the pump for 30 years."
Not to mention it will only go down once the proper resources are in place and more widely used.
IMO, this is beautiful looking car. Not to mention the ginormous grille looks a little scaled down even. The only thing I'm not digging right now is Red top. Audi likes red (interiors too). Not my thing, but it must be popular because they, as well as others have been doing it for a while.
albook says:
08:28 PM, 10/14/09
I'll take mine in Black.
alman08 says:
08:34 PM, 10/14/09
Maybe I read it wrong, but I thought E-tron is no hybrid. It's all electric.
Go read an article in Automobile mag about the cost of running a Tesla. Better yet, ask IL about their PG&E bills on running the E-Mini.
inlinesix says:
09:33 PM, 10/14/09
I want one with about 300 horses. Very Nice!
zoomzoomn says:
06:03 AM, 10/15/09
This would be a great looking TT replacement...sans the e-driveline, of course.
brn says:
08:12 AM, 10/15/09
smilez quotes "A 2007 study by the non-profit Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) calculated that powering a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) would cost the equivalent of roughly 75 cents per gallon of gasoline—a price not seen at the pump for 30 years."
I understand your point about electricity having a high potential for costing less than oil, but I would much rather see quotes from neutral sources.
The EPRI is far from neutral. They have a vested interest in EV promotion.
75cents per gallon likely assumes extreme efficiency in charging.
75cents per gallon likely assumes extreme efficiency in storage.
75cents per gallon likely assumes tiered rates, which drive up other costs.
75cents per gallon likely assumes tiered rates, which will go away of night charging becomes popular.
75cents per gallon needs to be compared to pre-tax gasoline. Gasoline tax pays for the roads. Electricity doesn't.
I'm far from an expert, but even I can find issues with the claims.
Again, I really do believe electricity should cost less than oil, but I don't believe the exaggerated numbers.
cwmoo740 says:
09:32 AM, 10/15/09
Oh come on, they should stick the 4.2L V8 in that thing. It would be fantastic.
And brn - let's do some simple math. The battery in the Mini-E is rated at 35 kWh. Electricity (on average across the US according to the DOE as of april 2009) is $0.12/kWh.
35kWh * ($0.12/kWh) = $4.10
BMW says that the Mini-E has a range of 150 miles per charge, but that seems a little optimistic. How about 50 miles? I know that IL has been getting more than that quite consistently, but let's just see.
$4.10/(50 miles) = $0.082/mile
Gasoline time. Let's compare it to a 2010 prius?
($3.00/gal)/(50miles/gal) = $0.06/mile
Okay, so a prius is cheaper to fuel than the mini-E. What about a regular mini?
It's rated at 28/37, so for convenience let's just say... 35 mpg.
($3.00/gal)/(35 mi/gal) = $0.0857/mile
I know this argument doesn't address all of the externalities involved with having electric powered cars, such as the fact that a lot of this electricity comes from coal, or the cost of producing these batteries, but it's just about cost to the consumer from fueling up his car.
Even with the crappy engineering that BMW did with the Mini-E (slapping an old washing machine motor to an already existing car and then sourcing batteries from a third party), it's still highly competitive in terms of refueling cost with cars such as a mini cooper, already one of the most fuel efficient cars in the american market.
altimadude00 says:
09:55 AM, 10/15/09
Following this new naming scheme, will the next TT be called the R6?
alex4515 says:
10:02 AM, 10/15/09
You are still comparing to after-tax gas prices...not to mention that $3.00/gal is a bit high as a national average right now. It's about right for CA, AK, and HI but gas averages out to be significantly cheaper than that right now in nearly all other states - see http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/sbsavg.html. Finally, a car like the Mini-E would have to provide a significant cost savings to make up for its lack of range. We have a long way to go before this is a viable alternative for even 25% of the population.
estreka says:
03:24 PM, 10/15/09
Depending on price, this could be quite viable. I could see people paying $60K for this.
brn says:
08:34 PM, 10/15/09
This comment system needs some work. Some of my entries in this and other threads never showed up.
cwmoo740, you're redirecting. I never intended to indicate that EVs were not more efficient than ICE. I was addressing the validity of the EPRI quote.
mlh says:
02:59 PM, 10/16/09
I'll take mine in diesel.