Hybrids and Electrics aka Hippie cars

[Raitziger]

the torque curve is totally plane on a EV( 100% of torque available all the time).

This is not true, but there is an quite high initial torque from start that no internal combustion engine has. Torque curve depends how your dc/ac drive is made to work. (pwm, f/u.....) Car makers can e.g make drive system to limit torque to some value in drive controls if they want to.

 

[the Interceptor]

They should not be on sale to the public until they are better in all respects, manufacturers can research and develop them as much as they like until that time.

And this is based on what? There are EVs out there, and they're being bought. Since everyone should be aware of the drawbacks this technology has, these sales aren't screw overs either. So if someone can make a product and there is a demand for it, too, why shouldn't it be on the market?

Petrol is not due to run out for at least another 500 years, based on oil resources, but it will get more expensive.

We've been told for decades that oil win run out soon. Obviously, this is not true. Yet, since noone actually knows how much oil we have left, all numbers, may they be 5 or 500 years, are speculative.

As soon as battery technology is replaced with something else then electric cars should be very good. I look forward to an electric Elise type car that is lighter than 800kgs.

I'm sure we will see cars like this in a few years, likely powered by an electric motor and a hydrogen fuel cell. Yet, as said above, there is no basis to demand of a product to be better than its competition for it to be on the market. People and their wallets will decide whether there is a demand for the Tesla roadster, and I would say there is. Also, cars like this are needed to raise public awareness of the technology as well as for gaining experience with the technology in practical use.

It's okay if you don't want to have one, but please don't conclude that it's useless for that matter.

 

[SETWAVE]

It's okay if you don't want to have one, but please don't conclude that it's useless for that matter.

Of course when i say it is useless i mean in my opinion not what everyone should think.
What is worse are the family/supermini sector of EV cars which Audi themselves have been quoted as saying are for "idiots". Which is why Audi will be making an electric supercar similar in size to the R8 called the E-tron. Electric has to offer something to a customer that they can be excited about and specifically desire over a petrol model, hopefully by 2013 Audi will show us how. The Tesla offers nothing but an idea, its a great idea but it failed.
Audi aim to build an electric R8 style supercar with equal weight and performance as the petrol. Should be great.

 

[the Interceptor]

Of course when i say it is useless i mean in my opinion not what everyone should think.
What is worse are the family/supermini sector of EV cars which Audi themselves have been quoted as saying are for "idiots". Which is why Audi will be making an electric supercar similar in size to the R8 called the E-tron. Electric has to offer something to a customer that they can be excited about and specifically desire over a petrol model, hopefully by 2013 Audi will show us how. The Tesla offers nothing but an idea, its a great idea but it failed.
Audi aim to build an electric R8 style supercar with equal weight and performance as the petrol. Should be great.

The E-Tron will have exactly the same attributes compared to an R8 as the Tesla Roadster has compared to an Elise. I might add that the Tesla also wasn't meant to take on an Elise, it just happens to share parts with it.

About the E-Tron: The quoted 0 - 100km/h time is 4.8 seconds while top speed is 200km/h (124mph). A range of around 248km (154 mi) is expected from a full battery.

Source: http://www.worldcarfans.com/109120823444/audi-e-tron-on-sale-in-2012-limited-to-1000-units

Limited top speed, limited range, dearer than an R8. How is this better than a Tesla Roadster again?

 

[Radracing]

My only problem with hybrid cars is the same reasons I have problems with the kei-cars. Basically, the only reasons they're there is for completeness and so that people who own one can feel good that their own car is in.

The reasons that hybrids are important cars (fuel economy, family practicality etc) just aren't important in a game like GT, where the driving experience is nearly everything. There's got to be heaps of cars out there that would be more fun or interesting to drive than a Prius. For example, a Model T would be far worse to drive than a Prius but much more interesting from a historical perspective. Ditto any number of wildly successful production cars from the past, famous racing cars or rare supercars.

I understand that they're probably told they have to have these cars in because they're advertising for Toyota/Honda/whoever and they're a important part of the market. But purely from a driving perspective I wish they wouldn't bother.

Ehh! wrong. That's what they are there for in the game to give you a driving experience of what hybrids are all about. You don't have to drive it if you don't want to but if you don't drive it you can't get the experience of what kind of fun you can get out of them. So it's just all ignorance from that point.

If you take a bunch of boring cars and race them in a short track for close racing it can be fun. Hell, one guy took the 19"0" something Mercedes Carriage from GT4 just to see how long it took to do one lap in the "Ring" and got a kick out of it. So you can't really say the Prius is boring if you don't use your imagination.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=61340

 

[SETWAVE]

Limited top speed, limited range, dearer than an R8. How is this better than a Tesla Roadster again?

Because the Tesla is far far worse than an Elise, but the Etron is at least on a par with the R8. Top speed for me is irrelevent, 60mph is top speed on best UK roads, 70mph on straightish boring roads. As for on a track 130mph is a decent fun speed.

 

[the Interceptor]

Because the Tesla is far far worse than an Elise, but the Etron is at least on a par with the R8. Top speed for me is irrelevent, 60mph is top speed on best UK roads, 70mph on straightish boring roads. As for on a track 130mph is a decent fun speed.

But you see, you choose the arguments to your personal liking pro E-Tron and contra Tesla. You, who was claiming that the E-Tron is R8-ish where the Tesla fails to beat an Elise in every respect, now say that range, top speed and price suddenly are irrelevant. You argue that top speed is a figure noone really needs anyway since there are speed limits, when earlier, you were clearly talking about track performance (where else would an Elise beat a Tesla since the latter accelerates faster?). You say top speed doesn't matter to you, which is fine, but again leads me to believe that you're argumenting solely for yourself. Yet, you claim that the Tesla generally "fails" whereas the E-Tron is "equally good than an R8".

And by the way: whether the E-Tron will actually be equal to an R8 on a track remains to be seen. Also, as I said, the Tesla Roadster was not designed to take on an Elise, let alone to be a track car. The Tesla designers chose the Elise chassis as a basis, because it has the appropriate size, is known to be very rigid and was light to begin with. An Elise offers much less comfort and was born as a corner-affine featherweight, which Tesla never intended to challenge. The Tesla Roadster is just that - a roadster. And it happens to be an electrical roadster. If you want that, an Elise won't do.

You may of course have your very personal opinions on both cars. But then, for the love of god, please don't sell them as facts.

 

[SETWAVE]

(where else would an Elise beat a Tesla since the latter accelerates faster?).
You may of course have your very personal opinions on both cars. But then, for the love of god, please don't sell them as facts.

Tesla 0-60mph 3.9 to 5.0 seconds
Lotus Elise/Exige 218-246bhp SC 0-60mph 3.9 seconds

Autocar test of a 189bhp Exige V Tesla
Tesla

* 0-30mph 2.2 sec
* 0-60mph 5 sec
* 0-100mph 14.3 sec
* 0-400m 18.5 / 76 sec/mph


189bhp Lotus Exige

* 0-30mph 1.9 sec
* 0-60mph 4.9 sec
* 0-100mph 13 sec
* 0-400m 13.9 / 102 sec/mph





Anyway i dont want to give the impression i'm against electric cars i'm not.
But i think Tesla missed an opportunity to make a better car by halving the weight of the battery pack and giving it 124bhp, more than the original Lotus Elise, it would have been a lot cheaper, more fun to drive and better handling and would still have had decent acceleration.

 

[the Interceptor]

Tesla 0-60mph 3.9 to 5.0 seconds
Lotus Elise/Exige 218-246bhp SC 0-60mph 3.9 seconds

Autocar test of a 189bhp Exige V Tesla
Tesla

* 0-30mph 2.2 sec
* 0-60mph 5 sec
* 0-100mph 14.3 sec
* 0-400m 18.5 / 76 sec/mph


189bhp Lotus Exige

* 0-30mph 1.9 sec
* 0-60mph 4.9 sec
* 0-100mph 13 sec
* 0-400m 13.9 / 102 sec/mph

Aside these cars were not meant to compete (which you're still ignoring), how is a standard model of a car meant to compete with a track-prepared race model with semi slick tires?

And I don't want to defend the Tesla to the death either. It surely does have its shortcomings, and it probably could have been better with handling some details differently. But it does what Tesla wanted it to do, and for a special-interest car from a small manufacturer, it sells quite well, too. Therefore, I think it has done its share.

 

[ShawnPhillips]

Has everyone forgot that the GT by Citroen in GT5P is powered by a prototype hydrogn fuel-cell?
I don't mind electric cars, they are the way of the future. In fact I would like to see more eletric/hybrid/fuel-cell cars in GT5.

 

[homeforsummer]

Co2 cools the atmosphere because co2 is heavier than oxogen. So when a car emits co2, the co2 simply stays on the earth. When the sun's rays penetrate the atmosphere, the rays themselves hit the oxygen(plus other atmospheric chemicals) first, then as the rays get closer to the earth, the rays hit the co2, which effectively slows down the rays (because co2, like I stated before, is heavier and denser than oxygen), and in the process doesn't allow the full blast of the suns rays to get to the ground. This is why co2 cools the earth.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt for your complete homicide of science in that paragraph and allow you to find a link that substantiates all of that...

This is correct and that is why i will never buy a new car and i think anyone that does is insane, financially speaking.

I was being tongue-in-cheek. Without new cars we wouldn't have the second-hand cars of the future. People are prepared to take a small financial hit in order to buy something that's objectively better, which is just as well as otherwise we wouldn't have such a varied range of second-hand cars to buy...

But the point remains that irrespective of price the Tesla fails miserably against petrol in performance terms.

Exactly how does it fail miserably? It accelerates as quickly as many other cars costing the same price so it has the performance to match it's price competition. Top end isn't brilliant but then it performs perfectly adequately all the way up and you can hardly call 100mpg+ "poor" when you rarely reach those sort of speeds anyway. And in case you missed my previous comment, range isn't even that bad either, not to mention that you can "fill it up" for a couple of dollars. Try doing that with any other car with the same performance.

What is worse are the family/supermini sector of EV cars which Audi themselves have been quoted as saying are for "idiots".

Firstly - find this quote for me. Until you do I will treat it as BS. Secondly, VAG and Audi by extention have a vested interest in creating economical small cars with diesel engines. It's going to take more than a couple of half-assed small cars to wean VAG off diesels.

In my humble opinion, electricity makes more sense in city cars and family cars than it does for performance cars. And lets face it, as car enthusiasts, would you really rather supercars and sports cars were electric, or family cars?...

Which is why Audi will be making an electric supercar similar in size to the R8 called the E-tron. Electric has to offer something to a customer that they can be excited about and specifically desire over a petrol model, hopefully by 2013 Audi will show us how.

No, electric has to offer cheapness and range, with performance no worse than an equivalent ICE car. We'll only ever get serious electric cars when they sell in great numbers, and you don't sell ridiculous supercars in great numbers. More likely to be relevant are Renault's efforts to get four electric cars onto the market by 2012 - one a tiny city car, one a supermini, one a family car and another a van.

The Tesla offers nothing but an idea, its a great idea but it failed.

How exactly did it fail? The order books are full, and they've pre-sold hundreds of Model S cars too. Tesla as a brand and as a manufacturer are doing pretty damn well and it's because they've created some very good products.

Audi aim to build an electric R8 style supercar with equal weight and performance as the petrol. Should be great.

By 2013. Big deal. They're taking their sweet time over it. Tesla were a fledgling company and they'll have been producing the Roadster for five years before that Audi arrives. Do you not think they'll have improved it significantly by then?...

 

[SETWAVE]

Aside these cars were not meant to compete (which you're still ignoring), how is a standard model of a car meant to compete with a track-prepared race model with semi slick tires?

And I don't want to defend the Tesla to the death either. It surely does have its shortcomings, and it probably could have been better with handling some details differently. But it does what Tesla wanted it to do, and for a special-interest car from a small manufacturer, it sells quite well, too. Therefore, I think it has done its share.

Nothing wrong/special with semi slick tyres, i run them on my pretty much standard city car (lupo gti). Anyway there are many versions, all road versions of the Elise/Exige that are quicker accelerating than the Tesla. Top engine in the range is the 1.8 supercharged toyota unit, 218-256bhp.

 

[SETWAVE]

find this quote for me. Until you do I will treat it as BS.

In relation to all electric cars, particularly family cars,specifically the Volt:


"Audi of America president Johan de Nysschen has dismissed General Motors' Chevrolet Volt as "a car for idiots"."

""No one is going to pay a $15,000 (£9000) premium for a car that competes with a (Toyota) Corolla,” said de Nysschen. "So there are not enough idiots who will buy it."

De Nysschen, a long-time advocate of diesel power, admitted that plug-in hybrids are good in concept and hold advantages over diesels in stop-and-go driving. However, he maintained that electric cars are more about making a statement at present.

“They’re for the intellectual elite who want to show what enlightened souls they are,” he said."



Separately from that in Europe Audi have talked about their philosophy of technology and they only want to make an electric car if it is justified in a technological way not for marketing to environmental peer pressure. I'm sure they wont put the E-tron on sale if it can't perform at least aswell as a petrol R8.
But also Audi have also said the car is just for those making a statement, so one Audi boss will say they are idiots aswell. But i have some hope for the E-tron.
Them taking their time is absolutely the right thing to do, if it's not powerful enough by 2013 they should wait for the right time, at the moment that is exactly what they are doing, they are wating for the battery technology to be good enough for the car. I call that sensible.

 

[homeforsummer]

Firstly - learn to use the edit button.

In relation to all electric cars, particularly family cars,specifically the Volt:

"Audi of America president Johan de Nysschen has dismissed General Motors' Chevrolet Volt as "a car for idiots"."

""No one is going to pay a $15,000 (£9000) premium for a car that competes with a (Toyota) Corolla,” said de Nysschen. "So there are not enough idiots who will buy it."

De Nysschen, a long-time advocate of diesel power, admitted that plug-in hybrids are good in concept and hold advantages over diesels in stop-and-go driving. However, he maintained that electric cars are more about making a statement at present.

“They’re for the intellectual elite who want to show what enlightened souls they are,” he said."

Firstly, the Volt isn't an outright electric car. It uses an ICE as a generator. A pure electric car doesn't use that middle step.

Regardless of that, just because a big-wig at Audi has said it, it doesn't make it true. Plenty of big manufacturers are investing a lot of money in electric cars, so it's obviously not industry consensus.

Mr Audi also conveniently misses the irony that with regard to Audis... "No one is going to pay a £3000 premium for a car that competes with a Volkswagen”

...yet they do. People aren't idiots for going electric - they're early adopters. Any technology requires early adopters. Including the internal combustion engine, originally. The first cars were ridiculously slow and expensive compare to horses and carts, but people still took the plunge, and look where we are today.

The really obvious bit is this:

De Nysschen, a long-time advocate of diesel power, admitted that plug-in hybrids are good in concept and hold advantages over diesels in stop-and-go driving.

...so yeah, he's hardly going to say that electrics are miles better than diesels (as I already mentioned, VAG has a vested interest in diesel tech), and even he has to admit that hybrids and electrics have their advantage in stop/go traffic... exactly the sort of environment in which small cars and family cars spend most of their time.

Mr De Nysschen might be a good businessman but he also appears to be a bit of a moron...

Separately from that in Europe Audi have talked about their philosophy of technology and they only want to make an electric car if it is justified in a technological way not for marketing to environmental peer pressure. I'm sure they wont put the E-tron on sale if it can perform at least aswell as a petrol R8.

They'd be better off not building it then, otherwise the only people who buy the E-tron will be "more about making a statement" and “for the intellectual elite who want to show what enlightened souls they are"...

 

[SETWAVE]

I like to play "devils advocate". Probably my views are not much different from yours.
The only thing i will wildly fight against is diesels...as per my signature.

 

[homeforsummer]

The only thing i will wildly fight against is diesels...as per my signature.

Well, that's equally as puzzling if I'm honest...

 

[SETWAVE]

Basicaly 3 branches of hate, 1st is the claim "modern diesels perform as well as if not better than petrols these days.." type comments when clearly like for like they are still puny in power terms. The other is the deluded praise for economy when it's proven you have to do extremely high mileage to get the money back spent on the premium a diesel engine costs, for most people the premium is never recouped in the lifetime of owning the vehicle. Thirdly and most importantly is the pollution diesels make (noise and atmospheric), its dreadful.
The first 2 maybe UK specific due to pump prices and car list prices, but as for pollution that's largely universal.

 

[Sam48]

Well, that's equally as puzzling if I'm honest...

Your just the most impossible person to argue with. Your to indoctrinated to see both sides of an argument, and when the argument doesn't seem to go your way, you do the liberal thing, and digress.

I don't have anything against you for what you believe in. Support what you believe in and give us reasons why, instead of just making everyone look like they have no idea what their talking about. thanks

 

[brainfade]

Why? What exactly makes it a "terrible" car?

Comedy handling only the likes of USF1 would be proud of...

 

[the Interceptor]

Nothing wrong/special with semi slick tyres, i run them on my pretty much standard city car (lupo gti). Anyway there are many versions, all road versions of the Elise/Exige that are quicker accelerating than the Tesla. Top engine in the range is the 1.8 supercharged toyota unit, 218-256bhp.

Then how did this happen?


(watch from 1:00)

I'm aware that Top Gear is hardly a factual show, but since they were making a point against the Tesla Roadster with that film, one wouldn't expect them to let an Elise lose a drag race on purpose.

 

[homeforsummer]

Basicaly 3 branches of hate, 1st is the claim "modern diesels perform as well as if not better than petrols these days.." type comments when clearly like for like they are still puny in power terms.

They do, generally. And on the road, torque is more useful than power.

The other is the deluded praise for economy when it's proven you have to do extremely high mileage to get the money back spent on the premium a diesel engine costs, for most people the premium is never recouped in the lifetime of owning the vehicle.

Partly true, but remember that here in the UK you generally pay less in road tax on diesels than you do on petrol, and the difference is in the hundreds sometimes thanks to the government's latest. So that difference quickly diminishes.

Plus, economy is now no longer the only appeal of diesel. Their power and torque characteristics are favourable even if you've had to spend more to get them.

Thirdly and most importantly is the pollution diesels make (noise and atmospheric), its dreadful.

Diesels produce different atmospheric pollution to petrols, but not necessarily more of it. As for noise, modern diesels are no noisier than petrols, even on the outside. Modern cars are pretty quiet as a rule, I'm often amazed at how quiet a line of cars at a traffic light is. Go back ten years and cars were so much noisier.

Your just the most impossible person to argue with.

Perhaps you're just not very good at argueing? Yes, I think that must be it. If your points are unsubstantiated then you're fighting a losing battle right away.

Your to indoctrinated to see both sides of an argument, and when the argument doesn't seem to go your way, you do the liberal thing, and digress

Incorrect. I do the logical thing and prove you wrong, or just ask you to back up your claims, which you've not yet done. And it's "you're".

I don't have anything against you for what you believe in. Support what you believe in and give us reasons why, instead of just making everyone look like they have no idea what their talking about. thanks

I have no need to make you look like you've no idea what you're talking about. You're doing a perfectly good job of that yourself.

Also, I'm at no liberty to support claims that I've not made. You, on the other hand, have made several unsubstantiated claims. Back them up, or back down.

Comedy handling only the likes of USF1 would be proud of...

Examples? I'm sensing a common theme here - people making claims based on heresay, rather than fact.

 

[SETWAVE]

Top spec road petrol engines make 200bhp per litre, top end diesels make about 100bhp per litre.


An example of ordinary mass produced road cars:
The Seat ibiza cupra has 1.4 petrol engine with 177bhp and 250NM.
The diesel ibiza 1.4 has 78bhp and 195NM.
The petrol has nearly 100bhp more power for the same size engine and has over 25% more torque than the diesel. Yes the diesel is not very tuned, but that reflects the reality that petrol is more suited to performance and diesel just cant compete anywhere close. This is confirmed by motorsport diesel has no chance against petrol engines like for like, so the rules are specially changed to make them compete, for example giving them much bigger engines. The latests regulations for Le Mans for the SAME class are 2.0 petrol single turbo Vs 3.7 8cyl twin turbo diesel engines... why the difference if they have the same performance and there torque is so good? They are not good and torque is not as important compared to power.

 

[the Interceptor]

Top spec road petrol engines make 200bhp per litre, top end diesels make about 100bhp per litre.

... which ignores that diesels can not reach as high revs as petrol engines and therefore will not produce horsepower figures as high as petrol engines. So a diesel engine with the same hp figure will likely produce much more torque.

Also, I don't see in which way the hp/l figure is important. It can be impressive at times, but mostly, it means nothing. Classic case in point: the current Corvette Z06. The LS7 surely is a great engine, and noone would complain about it not having enough grunt. But 72 hp/l doesn't sound that impressive, does it?

An example of ordinary mass produced road cars:
The Seat ibiza cupra has 1.4 petrol engine with 177bhp and 250NM.
The diesel ibiza 1.4 has 78bhp and 195NM.
The petrol has nearly 100bhp more power for the same size engine and has over 25% more torque than the diesel. Yes the diesel is not very tuned, but that reflects the reality that petrol is more suited to performance and diesel just cant compete anywhere close.

Again, apples and oranges. You just said "ordinary mass produced cars", yet, you chose the most technicised, turbo- and supercharged downsizing-engine the VAG group currently makes and put it up against a regular diesel.

This is confirmed by motorsport diesel has no chance against petrol engines like for like, so the rules are specially changed to make them compete, for example giving them much bigger engines. The latests regulations for Le Mans for the SAME class are 2.0 petrol single turbo Vs 3.7 8cyl twin turbo diesel engines... why the difference if they have the same performance and there torque is so good? They are not good and torque is not as important compared to power.

Audi might have a word in that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_R10_TDI

 

[SETWAVE]

well, i am one that thinks it's not impressive it's a stupid engine. 72bhp/l is a laughing stock.
I appreciate compact small and lightweight engines that produce good power.

 

[Dan_]

This is not true, but there is an quite high initial torque from start that no internal combustion engine has. Torque curve depends how your dc/ac drive is made to work. (pwm, f/u.....)

Interesting, I've read some information on the net that refers to a plane torque curve on electric engines, but apparently I was provided with unreliable info. Anyway, by looking at the graphic you just posted you can see my point, the % amount of torque is just immense from the start of the engine when compared to regular petrol engines, even if this torque it's necessary to balance the absurd added weight of the batteries.

This thread has been transformed in a multi-way discussion, from C02 saving the atmosphere to the Top Gear Exige vs Tesla drag race, but as long as Evs and hybrid vehicles are considered cars, they must be on GT5 and in big numbers, so bring them because this game is about driving cars. ( BTW: It is much more well styled than the elise...)

 

[the Interceptor]

well, i am one that thinks it's not impressive it's a stupid engine. 72bhp/l is a laughing stock.
I appreciate compact small and lightweight engines that produce good power.

And again, I must stress that you should not mix your personal opinions with facts. You don't have to like the LS7, but it's not a fact that diesels are generally bad and not good for racing, and that the Tesla roadster is a failure just because you think so.

 

[SETWAVE]

Well i will gladly challenge anyone in GT5 to race their chosen diesel against my petrol car on equal terms.
As i have already said, diesels are bad for racing, and i'm not sure what point you wish to make in referring to the Audi Le Mans car?
I already mentioned the engine size differences 2.0 to 3.7 new regulations ( the regulations over the last few years also favoured the diesel engines massively), but i also forgot to add that even with that gap they have to change to rules even more by making the petrol carry many kgs of ballast so it weighs the same as the diesel!.

 

[TBR 427]

well, i am one that thinks it's not impressive it's a stupid engine. 72bhp/l is a laughing stock.
I appreciate compact small and lightweight engines that produce good power.

Compared to most other engines, the LS7 IS compact, small and lightweight. Really, it's an all-alloy tiny thing that usually sits right at the back and down the bottom of an engine bay. Take the plastic cover off and it's really not that big dude.

Oh, and it produces what some would call 'good power'

 

[Sam48]

[QUOTE Perhaps you're just not very good at argueing? Yes, I think that must be it. If your points are unsubstantiated then you're fighting a losing battle right away.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you forgot to include my entire quote. hmmmm... page 4
Your trying to hard, just listen to someone else's opinion for once instead of just bashing us with all your liberal ideas.

 

[niky]

"Audi of America president Johan de Nysschen has dismissed General Motors' Chevrolet Volt as "a car for idiots"."

“They’re for the intellectual elite who want to show what enlightened souls they are,” he said."

Look at me! I'm buying an overpriced Audi instead of settling for a cheaper VW version! I'm not an intellectual elitist!

Separately from that in Europe Audi have talked about their philosophy of technology and they only want to make an electric car if it is justified in a technological way not for marketing to environmental peer pressure. I'm sure they wont put the E-tron on sale if it can't perform at least aswell as a petrol R8.

Pot - Kettle: black. The reason Audi makes R8s, RS4s and RS6s is for marketing purposes, as halo-cars. The reason they made the R10 TDi racecar is for purposes of marketing their diesels.

Electrics and hybrids are also a marketing strategy. Toyota lost (probably still loses) money on every Prius sold, but they swallowed that loss and are now reaping the rewards of the amount of marketing muscle and goodwill that having the best hybrid in the world gives you.

Doesn't mean I'll ever buy a Prius... it's a nice car (shocking, huh), but it's way too expensive for what you get.

Audi's stand is half-truth and half-BS. They're basically taking potshots at other manufacturers' marketing strategies.

Them taking their time is absolutely the right thing to do, if it's not powerful enough by 2013 they should wait for the right time, at the moment that is exactly what they are doing, they are wating for the battery technology to be good enough for the car. I call that sensible.

When is that? When pigs fly? Manufacturers have been working on batteries for over a century, and have been selling battery-driven vehicles for nearly the same amount of time. There has been only incremental development in battery technology in electronics in the past two or three decades... with more advances in electronic battery life coming from better controllers and more energy-efficient chips.

I'm not holding my breath for better batteries. If, however, research cracks the problem of reliable ultra-fast charging, then batteries won't be as big of an issue as they are now.

Tesla waited for the proper batteries. They still ended up with a lithium ion pack the size of Texas.

Your just the most impossible person to argue with. Your to indoctrinated to see both sides of an argument, and when the argument doesn't seem to go your way, you do the liberal thing, and digress.

I don't have anything against you for what you believe in. Support what you believe in and give us reasons why, instead of just making everyone look like they have no idea what their talking about. thanks

Errh... he is? HFS isn't arguing that he likes electrics, just that the reasons given to him seem spurious.

Basicaly 3 branches of hate, 1st is the claim "modern diesels perform as well as if not better than petrols these days.." type comments when clearly like for like they are still puny in power terms. The other is the deluded praise for economy when it's proven you have to do extremely high mileage to get the money back spent on the premium a diesel engine costs, for most people the premium is never recouped in the lifetime of owning the vehicle. Thirdly and most importantly is the pollution diesels make (noise and atmospheric), its dreadful.
The first 2 maybe UK specific due to pump prices and car list prices, but as for pollution that's largely universal.

1. True. A modern petrol built to the same standards with the same technology as a modern turbodiesel will make much, much more power... but even then, diesels are getting close. Turbodiesels are now pushing the 100 hp/liter mark... and while turbo-gassers can do 150-200 hp/liter, most road-going turbo-gassers (not performance cars, but regular models) are at 100 hp/liter.

2. Deluded praise depends on use. Diesel vehicles make sense for higher mileage users (like me!) who do lots and lots of travelling.

In fact, go higher mileage... up to the taxi level (taxis do hundreds of hours a month of service in rush hour traffic), and you can even make a case for hybrids... which use less fuel... less in terms of brake pads and discs... and wear their engines less quickly. Of course, for anyone but a taxi service,the high entry cost (sans tax breaks) and cost of maintaining the battery pack past eight years makes it a questionable buy.

3. Depends on your market and standards. The US market has terrible pollution standards for diesel, and they really ought to just adopt the European ones. Remember: all ICE engines (with the exception of the largely-impractical-because-the-infrastructure-and-fuel-cells-are-so-damn-expensive-hydrogen) spew pollution out the tailpipes. It's how you treat what comes out of the tail-pipes that determines how bad it'll be. Just wait until tailpipe standards force us to all adopt direct-injection petrols... then complain about how expensive diesels are compared to gassers... but by then, they won't be.

-

At the market price you can buy a diesel at, which is typically more than the top regular gasser in the same range but much less than the turbo model... you've got a vehicle that gives you punchy performance and good range (better economy, same tank size), which makes them immensely practicality.

And when you go up to the luxury level, buying a 5-series or a Q7, for example... you're not penny-pinching for options, so the choice is a no-brainer. And if you're pinching pennies... the BMW 520d is an exceptional car. Decent road performance (8 and a half seconds to 60 mph... nearly 8 flat with the newer 2.0) and mpg in the 40's. And it handles quite well, too.... with the smaller aluminum-engined four-pot, it's got a rearward weight bias that makes it absurd fun to chuck between cones.

No, it's no M5... it's not even a 535i or 535d, but it's more than enough car for anyone who likes to drive... and a more reasonable long-distance cruiser (it can hit and hold 140 mph).