By on September 15, 2009

3,319 lb·ft of torque from four electric motors, and the best 0-60 time Audi came up with for its E-Tron concept was 4.8 seconds? Thanks but, uh, we’re not idiots.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

11 Comments on “Audi Unveils Concept Car for Idiots...”


  • avatar
    TZ

    It’s probably torque-limited at low speeds to avoid melting the tires.

  • avatar
    wsn

    Yep, some Germans just over-emphasize torque.

    Power is measure in Watt (or hp).

  • avatar
    TR4

    First, there is no relationship between torque and 0-60 time. I could generate that much torque by standing on a 15 foot long wrench. 0-60 time is more related to power than torque.

    Second, the quoted torque is more than likely at 0 rpm as this is typically where electric motors generate peak torque. At 30 mph the available torque is probably much lower.

    Is there a horse power (or kilowatt) rating available?

  • avatar
    twotone

    Electric motors (steam engines too) have maximum torque at 0 RPM. As RPMs build, torque goes down and power goes up. Hence, the high torque but low 0 – 60 time. Torque gives acceleration, but HP gives speed. The electric Audi produces high torque but low power.

    Twotone

  • avatar
    TR4

    FRANKFURT, Sept. 15 /PRNewswire/ — Audi presents the highlight of the IAA 2009: the e-tron, a high-performance sports car with a purely electric drive system. Four motors – two each at the front and rear axles – drive the wheels, making the concept car a true quattro. Producing 230 kW (313 hp) and 4,500 Nm (3,319.03 lb-ft) of torque, the two-seater accelerates from 0 to 100 km/h (0 – 62.14 mph) in 4.8 seconds, and from 60 to 120 km/h (37.28 – 74.56 mph) in 4.1 seconds. The lithium-ion battery provides a truly useable energy content of 42.4 kilowatt hours to enable a range of approximately 248 kilometers, or 154 miles.

    Given the 313 horsepower rating, the 0-60 time seems more reasonable.

  • avatar
    Tommy231

    3319 lb-ft is probably collective wheel/axle torque. On a conventional car… a single 500 lb-ft engine through a 3:1 first gear and a 3:1 final drive would yield 4500 lb-ft (9×500) at the axle, without even considering what an automatic transmission torque converter would add to that (perhaps another 2x). So with 830 lb-ft per wheel 4.8 seconds seems OK.

  • avatar
    guyincognito

    Yeah but I hear it gets 4000 mpg.

  • avatar
    tauronmaikar

    Anything above ~ 700 lb-ft is pointless as it would just cause wheelspin and rubber burning.

    Audi’s claims are just as meaningless as Tesla Roadster claims of 256 mpg economy.

  • avatar
    Tommy231

    Again… the reason >700 lb-ft is “pointless” is due to the >9:1 torque multiplication at the wheels with a conventional car. This the total torque in the motors of this Audi vehicle is the equivalent to less than 400 lb-ft on any car we’re otherwise familiar with.

  • avatar
    PeteMoran

    @ TR4

    …. there is no relationship between torque and 0-60 time.

    That statement makes no sense. Check here.

    Assuming the correct gearing and a little simplistically; torque = acceleration, while power = maximum speed.

  • avatar
    TR4

    Well perhaps I should have said “the relationship between peak torque and 0-60 time is very tenuous”. The fact that it is not a good predictor of 0-60 time is obvious from Mr. Neidemeyer’s original story.

    Of course torque must be applied to a wheel to make the vehicle accelerate. However once the vehicle is moving one must apply torque at increasingly higher RPM. And the product of torque and RPM is… guess what…power!

    What most automotive journalists and many others fail to understand is that it is drive wheel torque (not engine torque) that is important. The best acceleration AND the highest top speed will occur when a gear is selected to put the engine at its peak horsepower. The engine will not be producing peak torque but when combined with the gearing the drive wheels will be getting peak torque (AND power).


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

  • Re: Reader Review: 2014 Cadillac ATS

    Lie2me - “The electrics are infuriating but the I have every confidence that the rest of the car will be very durable.” You’re very kind carguy, but to...
  • Re: Reader Review: 2014 Cadillac ATS

    Fred - @carguy: Except I had no problems with my Audi, and based on my 1999 Chevy truck I’m leery of GM products.
  • Re: Reader Review: 2014 Cadillac ATS

    bunkie - In general, I can confirm this. I have put over 50K miles (total mileage is 64K, I got it as a low-mileage CPO car) on my 2010 CTS. It had some noisy suspension...
  • Re: Reader Review: 2014 Cadillac ATS

    bball40dtw - “I’d be ok with that as long as its quick” -my wife twice a week-
  • Re: Junkyard Find: 2001 Pontiac Aztek AWD

    Duaney - Not mentioned is the legal system that allows tow companies to remove private parked vehicles and apply for ownership. It’s possible that the owner is...
  • Re: Bark’s Bites: Viva La Fiesta!

    spreadsheet monkey - ^^ This. Can’t you grab a Fiesta ST from Ford’s press fleet for a week, if you just want to scratch the hot hatch itch?
  • Re: Reader Review: 2014 Cadillac ATS

    Fred - Both my Audi and Acura allow you to turn off the AC. Can’t say for sure but I think most of the cars I tested had a manual mode that would turn off the AC....
  • Re: Bark’s Bites: Viva La Fiesta!

    Land Ark - Add me to the “Why not a Focus?” list. While haven’t driven the Fiesta, I have driven the Focus a few times. I enjoyed it and it is on my...
  • Re: Junkyard Find: 2001 Pontiac Aztek AWD

    Roberto Esponja - John, I realize you’re being ironic, but I agree with you in the sense that since the Aztek there have been other notably ugly vehicles that...
  • Re: Reader Review: 2014 Cadillac ATS

    CJinSD - This is a particularly hilarious idea to express in a review of a Cadillac. V8-6-4, Olds diesel, HT4100, Northstar; Cadillac’s last good engine was...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States