Audi USA, calls GM Volt car for idiots!

[SVTVNM]

Good read I found the general comments on electric cars logical.



http://ninemsn.carpoint.com.au/news/...-dummies-16547

[The G6ET Spot]

All of what he say's is true.

It is about time that someone that thought this was actually put in print.

[chevypower]

Well if Audi says it, it must be true. What a load of crap. What is Audi doing? Nothing. Selling overpriced Volkswagens. BMW used to say Electric was not the answer, hydrogen is. That is funny because BMW are only talking about electrics and not hydrogen cars now.

[tranquilized]

I've read a few times lately, that a plug-in electric car in Australia would still emit slightly less cO2 than a conventional car, despite our coal powered plants. I've read this in Wheels mag for example.
I also read a while back that the Hazelwood power station in Victoria, which provides about 25% of our base load, produces more cO2 all by itself than all of Victorias cars put together. (Wikipedia)

Obviously both of those facts arn't right - its difficult to get accurate information. Surely it wouldn't be too difficult to work out how much cO2 an electric car would emit if powered in Australia - I'd love to know the real answer. My money would be on a modern internal combustion powered car being cleaner here and now.

[vztrt]

The batteries (or lack off) seem to be the biggest issue for EV/Hybrids.

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11272116

[TUF_302]

All i can do is laugh at GM on this one , to have one of the most prestige german cars companies making fun of your cars must mean your doing something wrong lol!

[flappist]

I suspect this is just briliant marketing.

Make a car that is ideal for idiots.

Then look for a place full of idiots that will buy it.

What country constantly shows it has an overabundance of idiots?

Where is this car being sold...........

[XDV800]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Well if Audi says it, it must be true. What a load of crap. What is Audi doing? Nothing. Selling overpriced Volkswagens. BMW used to say Electric was not the answer, hydrogen is. That is funny because BMW are only talking about electrics and not hydrogen cars now.

Say What?
Audi are obviously thinking ahead and seeing the flaws in the other brands toddle down the small ev route, and are saying goodluck with that. Audi simply taking another approach. Is an electwic R8 "nothing", apparently one is coming.
BMW are still forging ahead with H2 in leaps and bounds, have been doing so for a while now. They have the lxury of having another brand, MINI, which is dabbling with EV's, doesn't mean they have lost sight, they just have hands in both baskets.
Good point made by Peter Hamaneggburger or whatever about 'top down' marketing.
IMO hydrogen is the way forward anyway...

[Falcon Coupe]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

I've read a few times lately, that a plug-in electric car in Australia would still emit slightly less cO2 than a conventional car, despite our coal powered plants.

Does that take into account the pollution caused by manufacturing of each ?
If not tthe electric will be way behind.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Well if Audi says it, it must be true. What a load of crap. What is Audi doing? Nothing. Selling overpriced Volkswagens. BMW used to say Electric was not the answer, hydrogen is. That is funny because BMW are only talking about electrics and not hydrogen cars now.

What is Audi doing? Making bloody good cars .... overpriced VDUB possibly .... but compared to an over priced Daewoo?

Who knows who will be right or wrong in the years to come .... its worth much more debate and discussion other that the usual, "If its doesn't use oil, it must be wonderful." ......Why? ...... "Because!"



| [/url] |

[torbirdie]

it would pay to examine the situation a little more closely. The figures on what produces less CO2 per km really need to be examined in "well to wheel" basis, ie how much co2 is required total to make the vehicle move.

The thermodynamic efficiency of the internal combustion engine and a coal fire power station are about the same ~30%, and with download losses from the electricity and battery recharging and electric motor losses of ~15%, petrol would seem to produce less CO2 overall.

However, thats not taking into account the CO2 required to produce a litre of petrol. Its a little hard to find consistent info on how much that is, it also depends how many kms the oil had to travel to get here from the middle east etc(yes I know we produce half of ours), but conservatively it takes about the same amount of energy stored in a litre of petrol to get a litre of petrol from the crude in the ground(but willing to be corrected on that factor), so basically double the amount of CO2 that a car produces at the tailpipe. In comparison, the energy cost of getting coal out of the ground and into the burner at the power station would be relatively small.

Did you know that oil refineries are second only to coal powered electricity power stations in the CO2 emissions they produce.

Electric cars now are generally also equipped with regenerative braking, which makes them a whole lot more efficient in city driving also dont require any energy when not moving, unlike a petrol car where the engine idles, so at least in city traffic they do produce less CO2 than petrol for equivalent motoring. Also Im sure you are all aware of off peak electric water and why that is cheaper, unfortunately there isnt much other end uses of electricity that can use this, but plugging electric cars in overnight would be one of them so if recharged in this capacity the effective CO2 output is much less.

At the end of the day, electric cars powered by fossil fuels isnt going to be the answer to CO2 emissions.
Governments investing in renewable energy(which should be the easiet thing to do in this country), will make the single most polluting thing we do as individuals(drive cars), a CO2 free experience. Whether its generating the electricity to make hydrogen or pumping it directly into batteries, so far the development of battery technology is looking the better option but that could change.

[Ghiadude]

Our electricity grid is failing more often and for longer through privitisation and lack of investment and maintenance. It will not cope with the demands of charging even the most modest of electric fleets. How much Co2 will be produced trying to upgrade the infrastructure??
Personally i think we should all drive v8s that way we can get global warming done quicker and my hill top home will become waterfront in tropical weather and ill be tanned and rich.

[TE029]

I dont think Audi's statements are to be dismissed so easily, after all these were the guys not too long ago who won Le Mans a couple of years back to back and for one or two with an "Inferior" diesel engine that the opposition laughed at when it was in development.. Hmm last laugh any one...

I think that for the current market their approach is right on the money,
Work hard on bringing Alloy spaceframe chassis out right through the range,
Chop out the weight in a smart way, Offer the diesel alternative as a valid performance option V10 TDI anyone ? but keep screwing more and more economy out of your conventional fuel engines..

My 2 cents anyway...

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by auslandau

What is Audi doing? Making bloody good cars .... overpriced VDUB possibly .... but compared to an over priced Daewoo?

Who knows who will be right or wrong in the years to come .... its worth much more debate and discussion other that the usual, "If its doesn't use oil, it must be wonderful." ......Why? ...... "Because!"

I don't think that any car that uses no oil means it's a good car. I never used that argument and never will, but I applaud GM's attempt at putting an elec vehicle in to production finally. And I would any manufacturer who is being innovative. Something Audi is not doing. I guess it's easier to have a bit of a laugh at people who are actually doing something than to engineer your own. But all Audi/VW is using the same petrol and diesel engines that have been around for years. Something that Ford and GM are also doing. There will come a time when VW & Audi make a plug-in electric also. It may take them a lot longer to react to the growing demand, but it's going to happen. Like I kind of mentioned before, BMW used to say Elec wasnt the answer, and they brought out that 760 V12 Hydrogen ICE prototype, saying this was the future. Since then, BMW has been pretty quiet about the whole H2 thing, and moved more towards electrics. Audis are a FWD VW sedan with the AWD system marketed as "Quattro," and a 4 ring badge, which they charge a fortune for. I don't hate them, I think the Passat is a nice car, despite it being somewhat boring. One of the best things going for VW/Audi was the DSG system. It was available on their small engined cars. Q7, Touareg and I believe even the Passat V6 etc had regular autos. So it goes to show that they haven't even perfected their best selling point yet. Nothing else about the cars is innovative or revolutionary. For a distributor (not the manufacturer) to knock a manufacturer for doing something different, while they sit back and continue to sell the same cars with the same technology is an old school way of doing business. I would have more respect for them if they couldn't at least acknowledge a competitors strengths then just don't say anything. GM has made regular unleaded vehicles, turbo diesel vehicles, E85, parallel hybrid (like Prius), H2 fuel cell, full electric, regular unleaded with active fuel management. Since Audi & VW have only made two of these, I don't know how they could think they have anything to laugh about.

[cosmo20btt]

I think a study should be done on the long term effects of what kind of damage electricity can do from an electric motor in say a hybrid. I remember years ago when mobile phones came about that they used to have an output of 3 watts now they were downgraded to .6 of a watt to try to stop harmful microwaves, now they say you should use an ear piece. I think a lot more work on electric motors need to be studied on effects on humans before just throwing out to the masses.

[Luke Plaizier]

Originally Posted by TE029

I dont think Audi's statements are to be dismissed so easily, after all these were the guys not too long ago who won Le Mans a couple of years back to back and for one or two with an "Inferior" diesel engine that the opposition laughed at when it was in development.. Hmm last laugh any one...

My 2 cents anyway...

I don't suppose you'd want to quote all the rule concessions in LeMans that favoured Diesels so much it basically handed them the win....


Lukeyson

[TE029]

Originally Posted by Luke Plaizier

I don't suppose you'd want to quote all the rule concessions in LeMans that favoured Diesels so much it basically handed them the win....


Lukeyson

We could go there or we could also just remember the back to back wins with petrol engines 2000,2001,2002,2004,2005, then
2006 (Diesel),2007(Diesel),2008(Diesel)

We are getting a bit off thread topic but what i was trying to explain that in my opinion optimising the existing technology prior to reinventing the wheel was a smart approach in todays market,
We all know that there are alternative fuels out there (LPG,CNG, Hydrogen Hybrid etc) but due to Joe Public's perception of them they not volume sellers,Regardless to if they are more efficient and enviro friendly.
But introduce a cylinder cut off system that "saves" fuel and your marketing team go into overdrive and people suddenly think i can by the big motor and not use anymore fuel WOW !
Hence my comments that i think Audi or even the whole Volkswagen Group's (Bentley, Skoda, Seat, VW, Audi) approach is right for the current market.
Not the most pioneering or green perhaps but suitable for the general masses.

[XDV800]

Originally Posted by chevypower

I don't think that any car that uses no oil means it's a good car. I never used that argument and never will, but I applaud GM's attempt at putting an elec vehicle in to production finally. And I would any manufacturer who is being innovative. Something Audi is not doing. I guess it's easier to have a bit of a laugh at people who are actually doing something than to engineer your own.

GM is following a certain strategy that other makers (Toyota, Honda, etc)have already established in the market. I hardly see how that is innovative, it's more assimilation. An old dog learning a new trick that the neighbours puppy can do, if you will.

But all Audi/VW is using the same petrol and diesel engines that have been around for years. Something that Ford and GM are also doing.

Audi/VW have been innovating ahead of every other manufacturer for years with engine technology, both their TDi and FSi architecture are the most advanced on the market and have been for years. Fuel economy and emissions on some of their current crop are even better than the hybrids! Ford and GM contine to use pushrod engines, hardly new tech is it?

There will come a time when VW & Audi make a plug-in electric also. It may take them a lot longer to react to the growing demand, but it's going to happen.

Yes of course. But Audi are not about that, they represent sporty and stylish. They have not gone bankrupt. They continue to grow and sell more and more cars with current combustion technology because thats what the majority of end users want, and Audi do it better than most.

Like I kind of mentioned before, BMW used to say Elec wasnt the answer, and they brought out that 760 V12 Hydrogen ICE prototype, saying this was the future. Since then, BMW has been pretty quiet about the whole H2 thing, and moved more towards electrics.

Stop saying that! BMWs H2 tech is growing, allbeit slowly, as the packaging and efficiency refinements will take many more years to perfect. They even have partnerships with fuel providers where they are opening more H2 fueling stations throughout Germany.
Their foray into EV will be by kickstarting a new faceplate altogether, not marketed with a BMW badge at all by the sounds, which tells me that they wish to follow the market down the EV path, but aren't going to throw the entire brand behind it because the certainty is not there about the future. They are a healthy enough brand to be able to dip their feet in all ponds.

Audis are a FWD VW sedan with the AWD system marketed as "Quattro," and a 4 ring badge, which they charge a fortune for.

Point?
VW has actually borrowed from AUDI since acquiring them in the 90's and improved that brand substantially because of it and its other brand acquisitions.
I hadn't noticed Audi marketing bug shaped boxer engined contraptions lately.

I don't hate them, I think the Passat is a nice car, despite it being somewhat boring. One of the best things going for VW/Audi was the DSG system. It was available on their small engined cars. Q7, Touareg and I believe even the Passat V6 etc had regular autos. So it goes to show that they haven't even perfected their best selling point yet. Nothing else about the cars is innovative or revolutionary.

Pointless dribble ^^^

For a distributor (not the manufacturer) to knock a manufacturer for doing something different, while they sit back and continue to sell the same cars with the same technology is an old school way of doing business. I would have more respect for them if they couldn't at least acknowledge a competitors strengths then just don't say anything.

Thats what a competitor does. They don't just go to a new market, shake the hand of the other guys and say 'job well done, we might go back to ingolstadt because you guys seem to have it all wrapped up over here'!
Shaking things up, getting their brand in the headlines, free advertising.

GM has made regular unleaded vehicles, turbo diesel vehicles, E85, parallel hybrid (like Prius), H2 fuel cell, full electric, regular unleaded with active fuel management. Since Audi & VW have only made two of these, I don't know how they could think they have anything to laugh about.

-Q7 hybrid 2007 launched in U.S.
-Audi A5 E85 edition
-Audi A2H2 and VW HyMotion H2 fuel cell cars
-Active Fuel Management was concieved by GM, how would any other manufacturer be using it before them???

That makes 5 out of 6 options, not 2, with full electric on the way

You are just talking out your backside now... :

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

I think a study should be done on the long term effects of what kind of damage electricity can do from an electric motor in say a hybrid. I remember years ago when mobile phones came about that they used to have an output of 3 watts now they were downgraded to .6 of a watt to try to stop harmful microwaves, now they say you should use an ear piece. I think a lot more work on electric motors need to be studied on effects on humans before just throwing out to the masses.

Mobile phones must emit microwaves to transmit a signal. There is no need for an electric car to be transmitting microwaves. Electric motors can produce all sorts of radiation(typically in the radio frequencies), but in an electric car they'd have to make sure everything is very well supressed or it would interfere with all the onboard electronics etc, it would also have to meet em emission standards for public places, its is illegal to have devices that interfere with tv, phone and radio communications.

In essence electric car is equipped with a powerful electric motor, no different in principle to the electric drill that a trady has in their hand all day or someone sitting next to their airconditioner. Surely people who drive around in golf buggies, train and tram drivers/conductors would have suffered by now?

However, Id never dismiss anything out of hand, there was a story on the news last night about people living near wind farms claiming they were getting sick? Test instruments for em rad couldnt detect a thing, but the story is there.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by yzfr101

GM is following a certain strategy that other makers (Toyota, Honda, etc)have already established in the market. I hardly see how that is innovative, it's more assimilation. An old dog learning a new trick that the neighbours puppy can do, if you will.



Audi/VW have been innovating ahead of every other manufacturer for years with engine technology, both their TDi and FSi architecture are the most advanced on the market and have been for years. Fuel economy and emissions on some of their current crop are even better than the hybrids! Ford and GM contine to use pushrod engines, hardly new tech is it?



Yes of course. But Audi are not about that, they represent sporty and stylish. They have not gone bankrupt. They continue to grow and sell more and more cars with current combustion technology because thats what the majority of end users want, and Audi do it better than most.



Stop saying that! BMWs H2 tech is growing, allbeit slowly, as the packaging and efficiency refinements will take many more years to perfect. They even have partnerships with fuel providers where they are opening more H2 fueling stations throughout Germany.
Their foray into EV will be by kickstarting a new faceplate altogether, not marketed with a BMW badge at all by the sounds, which tells me that they wish to follow the market down the EV path, but aren't going to throw the entire brand behind it because the certainty is not there about the future. They are a healthy enough brand to be able to dip their feet in all ponds.



Point?
VW has actually borrowed from AUDI since acquiring them in the 90's and improved that brand substantially because of it and its other brand acquisitions.
I hadn't noticed Audi marketing bug shaped boxer engined contraptions lately.



Pointless dribble ^^^



Thats what a competitor does. They don't just go to a new market, shake the hand of the other guys and say 'job well done, we might go back to ingolstadt because you guys seem to have it all wrapped up over here'!
Shaking things up, getting their brand in the headlines, free advertising.



-Q7 hybrid 2007 launched in U.S.
-Audi A5 E85 edition
-Audi A2H2 and VW HyMotion H2 fuel cell cars
-Active Fuel Management was concieved by GM, how would any other manufacturer be using it before them???

That makes 5 out of 6 options, not 2, with full electric on the way

You are just talking out your backside now... :

When you try to win an argument by disregarding EVERYTHING somebody writes, not acknowledging at least even some of the facts - not even 1, you end up as you say "talking out your backside."
But some points FYI.
1. DOHC has been around since around WW1. (Hardly new technology is it?)
2. I have consistently advocated European diesel engines, H2, electric technology on this forum since around 2004-5, while not disregarding my likes for traditional V8s - so you don't need to sell me on the idea of European TDIs. So I like the idea of a Chevy Volt and Fisker Karma, but I also like the Ford SVT Raptor 6.2L V8. And yes, I was saying put diesels in Falcons etc, while everyone else was saying that diesels are slow, noisy, smelly and expensive.
3. I am not really brand biased, but when I see a company doing something good, I like it, and I will say I like it... when I dislike something, I will say that too, and if you can't deal with that, then too bad.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

I think a study should be done on the long term effects of what kind of damage electricity can do from an electric motor in say a hybrid. I remember years ago when mobile phones came about that they used to have an output of 3 watts now they were downgraded to .6 of a watt to try to stop harmful microwaves, now they say you should use an ear piece. I think a lot more work on electric motors need to be studied on effects on humans before just throwing out to the masses.

Electric motors have been run in a lot of different operations for decades. Run at longer intervals (unshielded) on people then most would get out of their car.

Another thing any sort of 'radiation' emitted from an electric car would be shielded from metal between the motor and the passengers. I wouldn't worry to much.

[TE029]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Electric motors have been run in a lot of different operations for decades. Run at longer intervals (unshielded) on people then most would get out of their car.

Another thing any sort of 'radiation' emitted from an electric car would be shielded from metal between the motor and the passengers. I wouldn't worry to much.

I agree, Although some of my knowledge is not 100% current one of the biggest obstacles in the "Electric" car technology is batteries,
As an example i was working for Toyota when gen 1 Prius was released the cost of a replacement battery for one of these was only between 5 and 10k short of the retail cost of the car..
Now while i am sure that the technology has developed since then as far as i am aware (Correct me if i am wrong please) every battery made still has a lifespan of cycles, What are you meant to do with your Prius after the batteries die ?
Obviously replacing the batteries is not a realistic option in anyones book,
Are we just creating a truly disposable vehicle that we can hopefully recycle most of once it fails...

[XDV800]

Originally Posted by chevypower

When you try to win an argument by disregarding EVERYTHING somebody writes, not acknowledging at least even some of the facts - not even 1, you end up as you say "talking out your backside."
But some points FYI.
1. DOHC has been around since around WW1. (Hardly new technology is it?)
2. I have consistently advocated European diesel engines, H2, electric technology on this forum since around 2004-5, while not disregarding my likes for traditional V8s - so you don't need to sell me on the idea of European TDIs. So I like the idea of a Chevy Volt and Fisker Karma, but I also like the Ford SVT Raptor 6.2L V8. And yes, I was saying put diesels in Falcons etc, while everyone else was saying that diesels are slow, noisy, smelly and expensive.
3. I am not really brand biased, but when I see a company doing something good, I like it, and I will say I like it... when I dislike something, I will say that too, and if you can't deal with that, then too bad.

FACTS? What facts?
Most of the points you made were simply incorrect, i was just pointing that out. If you wish to START an arguement, at least bring something worthwhile to the table, instead of baseless nonsense.
To suggest that Audi has not been innovating compared to GM is ludicrous. Just because they're not that big over your side of the world doesn't mean they aren't dominating other world markets in their respective class, and might therefore believe that EV is better off being filtered into the top end of the market, not the bottom where it is unaffordable for most users. Let the richie riches invest in the technology 1st.

I wouldn't say that GM is doing anything good right now, the companies back almost broke, so now they are looking to capitalise on the next big thing, whether they have chosen the right next big thing remains to be seen.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by TE029

I agree, Although some of my knowledge is not 100% current one of the biggest obstacles in the "Electric" car technology is batteries,
As an example i was working for Toyota when gen 1 Prius was released the cost of a replacement battery for one of these was only between 5 and 10k short of the retail cost of the car..
Now while i am sure that the technology has developed since then as far as i am aware (Correct me if i am wrong please) every battery made still has a lifespan of cycles, What are you meant to do with your Prius after the batteries die ?
Obviously replacing the batteries is not a realistic option in anyones book,
Are we just creating a truly disposable vehicle that we can hopefully recycle most of once it fails...

The batteries are very expensive, also while high tec they still are ordinary.
The use of exotic materials is the cause of this price and as China is saying they are going to stop exporting the materials.

Australia is lucky where we do have LPG to use as a stop gap in between a different technology being used for transport. Universities are improving battery technology (charge times, efficiencies & storage capacities) all the time. So eventually with good R&D dollars a proper EV will exist and not the restrictive ones we have now.

[Iggypoppin']

give it a day before someone causes this thread to get the chop..

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Electric motors have been run in a lot of different operations for decades. Run at longer intervals (unshielded) on people then most would get out of their car.

Another thing any sort of 'radiation' emitted from an electric car would be shielded from metal between the motor and the passengers. I wouldn't worry to much.

I sort of feel the same way you do but then i think about hi energy power cables that a couple of hundred feet in the air & they are linked to leukemia to children born near power lines it may not be you that is affected, it might be you offspring. I remember many years ago when people used to use copper leads in there cars, you could tell as they were driving by as the TV set used to get horizontal lines on it,I also knew experts that would scoff at the theory that a mobile phone could cause cancer, Surely they can spare one white mouse & sit it on the seat of a prius & take it for a drive for the rest of its life.

[torbirdie]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

I sort of feel the same way you do but then i think about hi energy power cables that a couple of hundred feet in the air & they are linked to leukemia to children born near power lines it may not be you that is affected, it might be you offspring. I remember many years ago when people used to use copper leads in there cars, you could tell as they were driving by as the TV set used to get horizontal lines on it,I also knew experts that would scoff at the theory that a mobile phone could cause cancer, .

I think you are misunderstanding the perceived problem. Em radiation from high voltage power lines and microwave emissions from mobile phones can be measured and do exist, what the power companies and mobile phone companies were denying was that either was of a concern for public health.
As far as I know, no one has measured any levels of em radiation emanating from an electric vehicle from which to base any health concerns.

Who are these "experts" that you know that deny that there could be any link between mobile phone use and health problems?

I dont see the relevance of people using solid copper leads in their cars caused interference to radio and tv broadcasts? Besides not being linked with any health problems, the practice is now illegal(under the communications act) and certainly electric cars dont carry high voltage spark supplies.......for obvious reasons..........and I dont think Ive heard of any one claiming that the vehicles of yesteryear which used solid copper leads caused cancer?

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

Who are these "experts" that you know that deny that there could be any link between mobile phone use and health problems?

I should of said that this was about 1993 just when mobile phones started to kick off

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by torbirdie

I dont see the relevance of people using solid copper leads in their cars caused interference to radio and tv broadcasts? Besides not being linked with any health problems, the practice is now illegal(under the communications act) and certainly electric cars dont carry high voltage spark supplies.......for obvious reasons..........and I dont think Ive heard of any one claiming that the vehicles of yesteryear which used solid copper leads caused cancer?

This was brought up on the fact that the current charged in the capacitor was hi enough to affect incoming radio signals from a hundred feet or so & I never claimed that anyone got cancer from them, maybe a jolly good jolt though.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

I should of said that this was about 1993 just when mobile phones started to kick off

While this is going way off topic. The whole mobile phone saga has been going on for a while. You have research from one group saying that it will give people tumours and others that say it wont. Then they said that you should use the wired hands free. Then there was research that said that wired handsfree actually increased the chances, and this was rejected a week later.

High usage does give the user the possibility to get a tumour, but it was also found the signal to your head is dramatically decreased if you don't have the handset right up against your ear. It was about 1-2cm away from your ear was enough.