backtop


Print 23 comment(s) - last by Doug S.. on Feb 27 at 3:33 PM

The 2014 Audi A3 E-tron plug-in hybrid will launch in 2014, but will make an appearance at the 2013 Geneva Auto Show

Audi revealed its 2014 A3 E-tron, which is the automaker's entry into the plug-in hybrid market.

The 2014 Audi A3 E-tron plug-in hybrid features a 148-HP 1.4-liter TFSI four-cylinder engine and an electric motor that offers 100 HP. It gets 188 MPG on the European cycle, and can run 31 miles on electric alone at speeds up to 80 MPH.

Audi also mentioned a new six-speed e-S tronic transmission, which transfers the power to the front wheels. The car can go from zero to 62 MPH in 7.6 seconds.


"The electrification of the drivetrain, above all using plug-in technology, will play a decisive role in the model strategy of (Audi)," said Audi in a statement. "This latest development is designed to give some insight into how the technology will take shape in the Audi models of the future."

The 2014 Audi A3 E-tron plug-in hybrid will launch in 2014, but will make an appearance at the 2013 Geneva Auto Show.

Source: Edmunds



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

plug-in?
By Argon18 on 2/22/2013 5:17:06 PM , Rating: -1
Any plug-in vehicle is idiotic. Electric vehicles are NOT clean! The majority of electricity generated in the US comes from burning coal. COAL . Your electric car (plug-in hybrids included) are coal-powered cars! The 2nd most used source in the US is nuclear.

When you drive an electric car, you're either burning coal, or creating nuclear waste. Not so Green after all.




RE: plug-in?
By KCjoker on 2/22/2013 6:50:29 PM , Rating: 2
Careful you're not supposed to talk about that. And considering how Obama is killing the Coal industry it makes electric cars even less cost effective. And the eco nuts won't allow us to build more nuclear power plants.


RE: plug-in?
By Mint on 2/23/2013 12:54:16 PM , Rating: 2
Romney would make no difference. Natural gas is simply cheaper.

CCGT plants are 60% efficient, because they first work on the expansion of gas during combustion to drive a turbine and then use remaining heat for a steam turbine. Coal just generates heat so you can only do the latter, and is ~35% efficient.

So for raw fuel costs, you need 70% more energy with coal than natural gas. Aside from a short spike, coal has been steady at ~$3/MMBTU before and after Obama:
http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/co... (FYI, 20MMBTU/st)
Natural gas has plummeted in price due to shale mining advancements:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9190us3m.htm

Natural gas needs to almost double in price before coal becomes economically attractive again, even if we subscribed to your apparent policy of completely ignoring pollution.


RE: plug-in?
By tng on 2/23/2013 8:18:59 PM , Rating: 3
Don't forget the concerted effort in the Northwest US to remove all hydroelectric dams.


RE: plug-in?
By Mint on 2/26/2013 1:43:36 PM , Rating: 2
All dams? There are 79000 significant in the US, over 2500 producing power.

Removing a few to restore fish populations isn't a concerted effort to take them all down. Take off the tin hat.


RE: plug-in?
By tng on 2/26/2013 6:11:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Removing a few to restore fish populations isn't a concerted effort to take them all down.
Well unless you live in the Portland area, I would doubt that you have heard this, but it is about more than fish populations.

The Spotted Owl was not about the bird, it was about stopping logging, all logging. The Sierra Club, WWF, plus several other environmental organizations have publicly that their goal is to remove all damns from the Columbia/Snake river system and restore the habitats that were originally there. The fish are just a pretense.


RE: plug-in?
By Doug S on 2/27/2013 3:33:32 PM , Rating: 2
During the Bush administration the GOP delcared no added CAFE stds needed since cars would cost thousands more. IN addition the GOP declared there is no proof on climate change. Pres Obama and the DEMS passed CAFE stds for 2025 for a fleet avg of 54 mpg. WE are seeing the engineers at all the auto firms in the world designing green muscle machines of 500 hp getting EPA numbers of 24-26 mpg as does the Z06 Corvette from Chevy. Our new Kia Optima SX Turbo pushes 269 ft lbs of torque at a mere 1750 rpms with a direct injected twin scroll turbo at a amazing 18 psi boost and gets 34 mpg on the highway 29 mpg combined. Muscle cars and super cars having a hybrid system with 800 hp and the limits are unbelievable. Technology is here along with Pres Obama and we climate change crazies. We still love our cars but also love our planet. Changes help all of us and the GOP will evenutally understand after loosing more Pres Elections down the road. The masses believe in clean energy and coal is 18th century. Nuclear has so many problems in disposal. Check out Washington state now with a disaster looming. Underground rods highly radioactive for the next thousand years. Where do we put them?


RE: plug-in?
By MadMan007 on 2/23/2013 12:46:39 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, no, coal isn't the 'majority' although it does account for more MW-h than any other single fuel type. It is being replaced by natural gas as a generation fuel, and if the trend continues it will be passed by natural gas in MW-h per year within a few years. Nuclear remains steady, sadly, it would be nice if the US could get some modern nuclear reactors built.

Here's some data to check out: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/query/index.cfm?...


RE: plug-in?
By tng on 2/23/2013 8:23:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...coal isn't the 'majority' ...It is being replaced by natural gas as a generation fuel...
Which means that more "Fracking" will be needed to keep up with demand. Which means that we will trade the environmental problems with coal for a completely new type of environmental issue, and probably a worse one at that.


RE: plug-in?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/24/2013 7:33:14 PM , Rating: 2
I really don't see the upside in using natural gas for power generation. It's a natural non-renewable resource and thus would be better used for heating homes and appliances (stoves water heaters etc etc). Something we can't really do with coal.

It's 2013, seriously, it's embarrassing we're still burning things to generate power. Just make with the nuclear already for all's sake. And shoot down anyone who has a problem with it.


RE: plug-in?
By Mint on 2/23/2013 6:54:05 AM , Rating: 1
First of all, you're wrong about most coming from coal.

More importantly, it's irrelevent where existing electricity comes from, because that's being used for existing loads. What matters is where incremental NEW electricity comes form.

That's all natural gas and wind, especially at night when existing natural gas plants currently ramp down due to lower nighttime load. The vast majority of EV charging will be done at night.


RE: plug-in?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2013 9:44:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The vast majority of EV charging will be done at night.


No, it wont. The only way EV's become even remotely feasible as a mass transportation option, is lots and lots of recharging stations everywhere, just like gas stations. And those draw an enormous amount of power from the grid. And they will not be used just at night, get real.

I know in your little Liberal fantasy world, everyone will just get by plugging their cars into a 110v outlet at night. But it's time to get real. Please, can you?

quote:
What matters is where incremental NEW electricity comes form. That's all natural gas and wind


Are you this thick? I cannot think of two worst options for new power generation than these. Aside from maybe solar, but you greenies still think THAT is a feasible source of power for the masses.


RE: plug-in?
By Mint on 2/23/2013 12:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And they will not be used just at night, get real.
Did I say just at night? NO, I said the MAJORITY of charging will be at night. Why the hell would anyone prefer a going to a charging station when plugging in at home only takes 10 seconds each day? Most households have a garage/carport, ~90% of new homes do, and most of those without one either don't have a car or aren't buying new anyway, so don't act like that is going to make everyone charge during the day.

80% of days where a car is driven involve <55 miles for the day. That's a fact. People who do long trips very often won't buy EVs, so it'll be even more concentrated among EV owners.

Finally, for PHEVs (e.g. the subject of this article), the whole point is to charge at night and use gas when you run out.
quote:
Are you this thick? I cannot think of two worst options for new power generation than these.
It's not my choice. It's FACT, which I know is a foreign concept to you.

I don't support wind, because the variation in output prevents us from using the most efficient (and cheapest) natural gas generation. Unfortunately, that's the reality of new generation today - lots of it is wind.

It's not just environmentalists pushing for it. Natural gas generators know that they are the only way to back up wind and solar fluctuations, and they'd rather sell expensive peaking energy than cheap baseload. T. Boone Pickens is a huge force behind the pro-wind movement.

But why are you against natural gas generation? It's the cheapest method around right now. I support nuclear because it's clean and I think the long term cost can get extremely low, but for now natural gas is cheaper and lower risk.


RE: plug-in?
By MadMan007 on 2/23/2013 2:41:46 PM , Rating: 2
Don't worry about Reclaimer77, he thinks that everyone who says anything positive about solar, wind, or other 'green' fuels is a hippy liberal anti-capitalist America hater. It's just easier for his little brain to categorize people that way.


RE: plug-in?
By FaaR on 2/23/2013 8:17:08 AM , Rating: 2
Even if (IF) the electricity is generated from coal - which is not true universally; the US != everywhere - a coal powerplant is far, far more efficient than an internal combustion engine, especially if waste heat from the powerplant is retained for heating hot water for taps and radiators in city buildings.

So yeah, a plugin hybrid run on coal-powered electricity may not be exactly green (hardly anything human beings do these days is), but it IS a lot green-er than regular vehicles.

...Anyway, what exactly are you railing against here? You don't like "green" tech? You don't like nature, trees, the environment, stuff like that, what? How far exactly do you think you'd get in a world where all the living green stuff didn't exist? This is a worthwile - and in fact vital - pursuit if human civilization is to exist more than a few hundred years more at most.

Jesus wept. The stupidity!


RE: plug-in?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2013 9:47:53 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
...Anyway, what exactly are you railing against here? You don't like "green" tech? You don't like nature, trees, the environment, stuff like that, what? How far exactly do you think you'd get in a world where all the living green stuff didn't exist? This is a worthwile - and in fact vital - pursuit if human civilization is to exist more than a few hundred years more at most.


Straw man much? Yeah I'm sure he totally said those things. Can you be more dramatic?


RE: plug-in?
By Mint on 2/23/2013 1:07:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So yeah, a plugin hybrid run on coal-powered electricity may not be exactly green (hardly anything human beings do these days is), but it IS a lot green-er than regular vehicles.
If you go strictly by the numbers, it actually isn't, as a gas hybrid is surprisingly more efficient than coal. However, an EV recharged by coal is better for urban pollution, which is far more relevant than coal emissions in low population areas or GHG.

But it's a moot point anyway because EV/PHEV owners have an economic and time incentive to charge at night, when we have plenty of natural gas capacity sitting idle, and if there's any new baseload generation needed, it's done with CCGT anyway.

We won't be building any coal to take care of EV demand.


RE: plug-in?
By piroroadkill on 2/25/2013 6:10:25 AM , Rating: 2
*sigh*

The electricity grid mix can change, your ICE car will always burn the same.

It's also been shown that even the dirtiest grid charging EVs is cleaner than ICE cars...

I think EVs have a long way to go (better batteries, lower cost, faster charging), but this old argument is plain nonsense.

Charging cars at night is actually GOOD for the grid, because it levels out demand.


RE: plug-in?
By CharonPDX on 2/26/2013 2:47:12 AM , Rating: 2
Speak for your own area. Here in the Pacific Northwest, the majority of power comes from hydroelectric and wind.

And even if it was 100% "dirty" coal, a coal-fired power plant turning coal into electricity, transmitting that long distances to a car charging station, experiencing the conversion loss when charging the battery, then the efficiency of the electric drivetrain... Would still be cleaner than an equal-size-and-power car burning gasoline!

And when you improve the electricity generation infrastructure with cleaner electricity generation, that car gets even cleaner - without changing the car at all.

Just because you enjoy destroying the environment with coal doesn't mean that everyone else will forever.

Here's a study on that very thing:
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy...

Long story short: In areas that tend to have cleaner electricity, an EV is cleaner than even the cleanest hybrid. In areas that tend to have dirtier electricity, an EV is cleaner than the vast majority of all "efficient" conventional gas cars, although yes, a good hybrid may do better. (But, hey! Get a plug-in and you'll have your option of either. If you opt for cleaner electricity, you can get a cleaner car!)


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson

Related Articles
Audi Announces Four New Diesels for U.S.
November 20, 2012, 5:39 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki