DailyTech - Audi Presents 2014 A3 E-tron Plug-in Hybrid

Submit News

Auto Audi Presents 2014 A3 E-tron Plug-in Hybrid
Tiffany Kaiser - February 22, 2013 1:22 PM

18 comment(s) - last by Reclaimer77.. on Feb 24 at 7:33 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

Username
Password
remember me

plug-in?

By Argon18 on 2/22/13, Rating: 0

RE: plug-in?

By KCjoker on 2/22/2013 6:50:29 PM , Rating: 1

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.

Parent

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.

Parent

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.

Parent

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?...

Parent

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.

Parent

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.

Parent

RE: plug-in?

By Mint on 2/23/2013 6:54:05 AM , Rating: 2

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.

Parent

RE: plug-in?

By Reclaimer77 on 2/23/2013 9:44:18 AM , Rating: 1

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.

Parent

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.

Parent

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.

Parent

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!

Parent

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?

Parent

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.

Parent

Son, I am disappoint...

By ppardee on 2/22/2013 2:33:29 PM , Rating: 3

Calling a car e-tron and no EL wire to be found is a travishamockery!

I do like the fact that it has a high gas mileage without looking dorky. Now, can we do this for less than $30k? If not, go back to the drawing board.

RE: Son, I am disappoint...

By maevinj on 2/22/2013 3:13:16 PM , Rating: 4

It's an Audi, so you can almost guarantee it will be over 30k. Probably closer to 40-45. I'm sure they could rebrand this a VW and get it under 30k though.

Parent

RE: Son, I am disappoint...

By hubb1e on 2/22/2013 4:54:53 PM , Rating: 3

That would be called the Golf e-tron. The A3 and the Golf are on the same chassis and share most of their engineering. The hyrid VW Jetta costs about 28K and that's without the extra batteries for a plug in so don't count on this to be less than 30K especially as an Audi.

Parent

RE: Son, I am disappoint...

By tng on 2/23/2013 8:17:14 PM , Rating: 1

quote:
I do like the fact that it has a high gas mileage without looking dorky.

Agreed. Not sure how many more eyesores like the Prius, Insight, Leaf and Volt I can stand. Always liked the A3 3 door, but alas they sell only the 5 door in the US.

Parent

"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs