Again.
This is harder than figuring out that the BMW 328i has a 2.0 liter or that the 335i has a 3.0 liter or that a 340i also has a 3.0 liter? Because the numbers are shockingly similar to Audi's, but don't seem to have a predictable pattern. Audi has adopted a QUITE similar system, but made it uniform.
Thinking Audi's system is completely daft doesn't automatically mean I'm giving BMW a free pass from its own daftness.
But BMW's numerics are at least based around a system people already understand: capacity. While they rarely correlate with an actual capacity any more, people know that a bigger number effectively has the same result as a bigger engine.
Audi has simplified the willy-waving contest: A6 45 < A6 50. Nice round numbers to establish clear superiority over your neighbor in the suburbs.
Right - one number is bigger than another.
That's literally the
only logic applied here - and if they're to do that, why not just use power outputs in kW or PS, which also (unsurprisingly) feature numbers that are bigger and smaller? And unlike Audi's new system, are linear? And would theoretically make as much sense at "1" as they would at "1000" - compared to the current system, which inexplicably starts at 30 for a fixed output but stops at 70 regardless of whether a car is making 400kW or 4000kW.
Or did you guys think a typical Audi buyer knows or cares what 2.0 TFSI means?
If you read the story in full, you'll notice that TFSI remains as it was, as does TDI. Mathematics allows us to simplify equations, so we can remove those parts of the badge from this conversation entirely.
What we're left with in the old system is "2.0". This means 2 litres, just as 1.6 means 1.6 litres and 3.0 means 3 litres - all Audi's old numerics made sense (and, you'll note, are uniform. More so than a non-linear scale using five-point jumps between 30 and 70). The new ones don't.
AND YET, this isn't even touching on the electrified future when power will mean basically nothing and displacement won't even exist. The double digit numbers sure seem like they will work well when translated to KHW, don't you think? A good way to transition right?
I've literally just covered this.
They don't equate to kilowatt outputs (or kilowatt-hour outputs, which is a different thing - see below). 30 here means 81-91kW, 35 means 110-120 and so-on (again, we'll gloss over entirely that that leaves a whole 92-109kW range
with no badge whatsoever - something that happens throughout the naming scheme). The scale isn't linear - if it was, 60's output would be double that of 30's, which it isn't - and no actual kilowatt output can be divided in any easy, meaningful way by the new numbers.
And, to my knowledge, the numbers will mean nothing more relevant when they're applied to electric vehicles.
The thing they definitely don't equate to is battery capacity, as 60, 75, 100 etc do with Tesla (remember, kilowatts are different from kilowatt-hours - one refers to power output, the other to capacity). What does Audi call an electric car with a 100kWh battery pack, if its numbers stop at 70?
They'll be no more accurate for power output, since they'll presumably mean exactly the same as they do at the moment. An Audi e-tron "40" will have the same 125-150kW output as an Audi 40 TDI... only you can't tell exactly what output each develops, just that both sit within a broad 25kW range. The electric car might have 201hp and the diesel 167hp according to the new system, but who can tell from "40"? Where's that willy-waving you mentioned gone if two cars can be 34 horsepower apart and nobody is any the wiser?
So no, it's not a good way to transition. It's completely meaningless, other than the very simple "one is bigger than the other", in which case an actual power output would do that much more effectively and more accurately.
, it has no numbers, although mine does >>> ST220.
