Audi aims to produce electric car within ten years
By Darren Murph 
posted May 5th 2008 10:53AM
posted May 5th 2008 10:53AM
Although Audi isn't aiming to beat Chevrolet to the punch with an electric whip, it does plan on joining the party a bit further down the road -- according to company bigwig Rupert Stadler, that is. Based on an interview with Germany's Welt am Sonntag, Mr. Stadler noted that he expected diesel and battery technology to dominate within five to ten years, and he made mention that "by then, [Audi] would offer cars without exhaust emissions." Curiously enough, he also stated that "electric cars offer opportunities, which [the company has] already seized on," but alas, he didn't elaborate beyond that. Just to confirm, we've got you, me and a whisper-quiet ride in five- to ten-years? It's a date.[Via News]
This "news" would be a helluva lot cooler if it was from....10 years ago. Granted, clean technology for cars isn't easy, but the luxury car companies (among others) are being inexcusably slow with their advances. So BMW has a production hydrogen car that's "just waiting for the world to catch up." Umm...so how exactly is this helping us with global warming NOW?
Well anybody that drives their luxury cars shouldn't really have to worry about the current gas prices, so I imagine it's a lot easier for them to keep enjoying gasoline while it's still around then other companies.
THE ONLY POWER SOURCE That is going to save the world is NUCLEAR POWER...
more specifically - we need to invest in FUSION technology research. There really is nothing else short of figuring a way to use salt water for fuel, that the world will get any cleaner and fuel costs will be lowered.
I'll agree with you as soon as you tell me how to dispose of nuclear waste. Safely.
@Flashpoint: not in cars...right? I sure don't want to be the one to hit your nuclear-powered car in an accident.
I could have thought of and set up a factory to produce electric cars in less than 10 years....
And dumping nuclear waste in the sea in lead containers is safe.
The leakages etc are just exaggerated by the tree hugging assholes.
Fusion is a long way off. Most estimates I've heard are 50+ years before we can safely contain a reaction big enough to generate enough power to be useful.
Though I agree that fusion is a long term goal, we should concentrate more on solutions we can achieve more quickly such as solar, wind and fission reactors
Agreed with jandalf. 10 years ago, not 10 years from now. Why is it going to take them 10 years?
Nuclear powered rockets to shoot it all in the Sun. :p
Jandalf: Reprocessing, glassification, and salt-dome storage.
Irene Rojas: In cars would work for me if it would eliminate the damn tailgaters.
What global warming? There's been no increase in global temperature for 10 years now.
@jeebus:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
10 years ago? I don't think so. This would have been news when Audi was still in its infancy. Electric cars are old.
AndyM: Reprocessing is not viable on a mass commercial scale. It been tried before. Storage is not an option.
BigD145: Empty assertions, and wrong ones at that.
Your chart shows a drop, starting in 1998, then up again, and then slightly down. Let me reiterate: THERE HAS BEEN NO RISE IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE SINCE 1998, which your graph shows.
so long as the sizes of these cars are A6 or A8l, I wish them good luck.
It'll be another Volkswagon with a BMW price tag... that we can guarantee.
Southland Tales anyone?
Do people actually believe that electric cars are clean burning? Is the old addage, "out of sight, out of mind" really true in this case? How is offloading ALL energy production to the coal burning and nuclear power plants good? If people were "fueling" up on electricity, our nations ability to produce electricity would increase by leaps and bounds! So, we would be building more coal burning plants and nuclear plants.
Just watch "Who Killed the Electric Car?" and see the BS of this announcement for what it is.
The tech was here when many of you were still on the playground. To say 5 to 10 years to get a car on the road just makes this a hokey PR statement.
Agreed. I would have titled this article:
"Audi: The last horse to cross the finish line."
10 years!!! I think Audi needs to hire some more forward thinking peeps.
It's interesting to see how Audi has a great reputation in Europe and in the States people say that they are overpriced VW.
10 years BS. The tech is already here.
Of course it's not. When I can drive 300 miles per charge AND recharge in 1-2 minutes THEN the technology will be here.
This is the fundamental problem with making positive environmental policy and practice happen: people say "if it's not just as painless/quick/easy as what I have now, I won't even try it."
What ever happened to the human race - and particularly the "advanced" societies - being adaptable, innovative and forward-thinking? Are we really going to let the world turn into a monumental sh*tpile because we don't want to be inconvenienced into making changes in our lives, even small ones?
Actually, don't answer that.
*cough*tesla*cough*motorsports*cough*
Audi can't figure out the electrical systems in their own cars and they want to try for a fully-electric car? Hilarious.
Sorry, what are you talking about? Audi seem to have their electrical systems licked. As do every other German (and Japanese) brand. You must be thinking of the French or Italian cars.
Or, some of those hilarious American brands. You know, the ones that do so well in the rest of the world. You must have seen them before... interiors made of recycled plastic milk bottles... 6 litre V8s to give the same power as a 4 cyl European car. 18 mpg instead of 50 plus. Oh wait, you haven't? You must be a red-neck... How's that NASCAR working out for you? Enjoying being married to your sister...?
The company that produces an AFFORDABLE car, that runs on hydrogen, electricity, that doesn't look like a moped with a fiberglass shell, will clean up (bad pun).
Now that gas is up and most likely will not come down, the price for research & development versus return on investment is cheaper.
If they can work out the bugs, there should be no reason to offer something else. I look for my "biofuel" options first (but not corn ethanol), simply because the infrastructure is already in place. Hydrogen would mean that
companies would have to build a completely new delivery system, but biofuels would not.
Oil prices will crash the next 10 years. Brazil has recently discovered 2 of the world's 3 largest oil reserves. They plan full pumping in 10 years.
Let's not forget that Audi released the Duo in 1997 as the first commercial hybrid ever, way before anyone else. Sure, more primitive than current hybrids, but it also shows that the company has certainly spent thought and money on the topic. The problem for European car manufacturers is that current hybrid technology simply doesn't make sense for the European market. The R&D and final product costs are high, and the final product only rivals current diesels in effective mileage. Diesels are already a highly established market segment in Europe, so you are essentially asking people to shell out more money on new and less proven technology for no net tangible benefit. It is interesting to note that most European manufacturers planning to release hybrids in the near future are primarily targeting the US market.
Patsy, no net tangible benefit? How about the benefit to the only planet we have? Care for the environment is likely yo be a major deciding factor for anyone choosing a hybrid at this point.
Right, so how about an intermediate step then? A diesel-hybrid would be the most efficient option on the planet right now: very little infrastructure change, likely 60+ mpg for a 4DR sedan (the diesel Jetta already gets 50mpg I hear) and with the new low-particulate diesel fuels, the emissions could be kept at least much lower than current, if not exactly "zero." Then we could move on to an electric/hydrogen solution from there.
I just can't believe that a many of the wealthy people of the world wouldn't buy a more efficient car if it were available with all the build quality, panache and extras that luxury makers provide. My uncle does quite well for himself and ended up buying a Lexus hybrid SUV recently - granted, it still only gets 25 mpg, but at least it's a ULEV and it sure as hell feels and looks all Lexus.
The benefits of a hybrid over a Diesel with particulate filter are less clear-cut, particularly once you factor in eventual battery disposal. Making such knee jerk judgments makes me think you're more in love with the concept of the technology than any real benefits it may provide. Besides, for any new technology to become dominant it has to provide clear and indisputable benefits over the old one, not least in the pocket book. Most buyers are not terribly ideologically driven, as can be seen by the continuing popularity of ridiculously unnecessary vehicles such as the Hummer or the Suburban.
@Jandalf:
Hybrid diesel-electric may very well be the ideal combination, but apparently it's also a more difficult combination judging by the fact that no such vehicles have been created yet. It may have to do with the combined higher costs: the higher cost of diesel engines, plus the higher cost of hybrid technology may push it just a tad beyond viability at the moment. If they could miniaturize a series arrangement like in locomotives and mining trucks to the point where it would run 100% electric all the time, thus eliminating a (traditional) transmission and storage batteries, that may be the ideal solution. From what I've been reading charge compression engines can be simplified and optimized by running them in a narrow efficiency band (i.e. mostly fixed RPM), thus requiring a smaller diesel for a given target output.
@ patsy:
Actually, I thought I read of some small trucks in Europe being run on diesel-electric engines, but you can correct me if I'm wrong on that...
You raise some good points - I appreciate the criticism and your clearly superior grasp of diesel technology. You're right, too - simply saying "change!" doesn't indicate intelligence or incisive thinking. I'm certainly not advocating change for change's sake: take ethanol, which is clearly problematic beyond reproach but which certain insincere leaders - ahem, Bush - are pushing because it is easy to produce and stimulates the domestic economy (just don't think about the countries that rely on corn for food, or for that matter our own food prices, or the water shortage, or land use, or...).
The one, simple point I want to get across is this: a silver bullet has not been found (and likely won't be), so what we need to do is move past our inertia and start doing things to lessen our impact on the environment. And as much as I applaud Audi for at least moving in that direction on paper, I think that Audi and most other car companies are way behind the eight-ball, economics of change notwithstanding. It's time we all step up.
One of the reasons the German car manufacturers have been slow(er) on the marketing of hybrids probably has a lot to do with the German risk aversion in general. They are much more inclined to pour large R&D sums into incremental improvement of established technologies than into new technologies that may or may not pan out. The Japanese are less conservative in that respect.
Jandalf:
If I may say so, I am impressed that you haven't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. On the various "green" boards, I all too often see people getting slapped down for what some people consider to be half-measures.
Your comments on infrastructure are good ones, IMHO. People don't want to buy cars unless they know that fuel will be available, and companies don't want to build fueling stations unless they know that people will be buying their product. Nothing wrong with incrementalism, say I, provided we are going in the right direction.
Hear hear.
The key is to make intelligent choices with regards to that incrementalism. Certain new car technologies, wind power and hydro (with respect to local ecosystems), solar (did you see that Engadget post about using lenses to increase solar efficiency??) are all good options, and all are at least somewhat accessible. Ethanol, meanwhile, needs to be stopped in its tracks, and fast. And my lord, somebody start slapping scrubbers on coal plants or this is all a waste of time.
And then there are the far-out concepts like "drive less," "carpool," "use public transportation," "turn off your lights," "recycle," "buy local/organic"...all of which are completely irrational, annoying to do and commercially disastrous, I know ;)
@ Patsy
dude the koreans are the BEST in that respect..............no R&D just copy paste and lots of marketing to it.
Jandalf,
What gets me is that I am almost 42 and I heard "turn off those lights" from the time I was in the womb. My dad was no environmentalist, but he _was_ a penny-pinching Scotsman. We didn't recycle, per se, but we did return the glass Coca-Cola quart bottles for a dime each, which is more like a quarter or so today. So many things one can do that simply spring from not having a lot...
10 years? Why not now? We need an electric car to commute to work and for city driving. Most families have two cars. The ideal scenario would be one traditional sedan for long trips, and one electric for work and city excursions.
am i the only one who is scratching my head at that DIESEL statement?
Probably not the only one. Most Americans don't use diesel on family cars though in Europe most cars bought nowadays are diesel. Even some sports cars are diesel. Diesel motors in Europe are a lot more evolved than in the States, partially because nowadays gas is more than twice the price in Europe than in the States.
In Europe, most cars have diesel engines. Hybrid cars don't make that much sense because those diesel engines are already pretty efficient. A hybrid Lexus takes about the same amount of fuel as a diesel powered Audi with same power. That is why Lexus doesn't have much success with its hybrid cars in Europe.
My 2001 Audi A4 Avant TDI engine takes about 6 liters per 100 kilometer (about 40 miles per gallon) with 75 kW power which is quite efficient compared to gasoline engines... Newer versions take even lesser fuel...
I have to agree with the "so what" comments.
Companies of this size and maturity spend m(b?)illions of dollars (or should be) on predicting what the future market will require and desire. It's not like the electric car is a new idea, it's been around in some form or another for 100 years.
For a luxury car company that fills it's cars with high tech and wiz-bang electronics to still be 10 years from an electric car is just poor planning (I'm including Audi, BWM, MB). We should at least be seeing prototypes in real world conditions / trade shows / sponsored races etc, from these companies.
Hmm... the future is in hydrogen fuel cell...
Fisher Price beat them to it...
http://www.csnstores.com/asp/show_detail.asp?sku=FIS1038&refid=YP49-FIS1038
:)
Greatest. Post. Ever.
The problem here isn't that they don't have the technology now. As many are saying, and many know....the technology has been around in some form for many years.
I hypothesize the problem to be, people. People who prefer luxury vehicles tend to go for...well, luxury. Not only that but the market here in the U.S tends to prefer bigger, faster vehicles. Bigger and Faster don't go well with being electricity powered, not at the pricepoint most are comfortable with anyway.
Hybrids, and even pure electric cars are a long way from efficient when 1 zillion gadgets have to be powered on the inside and when the car weighs tons due to size and said gadgets. We're coming into an age where cars can almost drive themselves on roads. Many already park themselves unassisted. We're paying the price for 'icing' on our cake.
So Audi may just have it right...whereas people arent willing to sacrifice certain luxuries/conveniences/size/speed/etc. right now, perhaps they will a decade later when hopefully every gas station has some kind of power refill for electric cars and luxury and convenience are home within electric vehicles....by then the electric vehicle will probably 'feel' like todays gas vehicles and people who don't 'care' about the environment per se, will still buy one because 'it looks good', 'performs well' and 'has all the luxuries and features' they want.
I say bring horse and carriage back. Along with bike & carriage. Most cities/suburbs have smooth roads. We can do it. Plus I want to see what's new and luxurious in horse carriages in 2008. Toyota, Honda, Ford horse carriages. Suspension. Air Conditioning. Solar goodies. Modular parts replacement. Yesssir. Frankly I think we've ignored them for too long.
Please bring your own horsie bag for the horse waste.
and/or come by bike.
Horse poop FTW!
Also, don't forget that 5-10 years are really only about two model generations for most manufacturers. That's not terribly much time to develop an essentially completely new technology for market readiness. Coming up with a concept show car is easy, where cheap manufacturability is not a concern.
PS. $2 horse parking all day.
(and please visit my horse dealership. Look at this beauty. Low kilometres. Clean bill of health. Service log...)
The big problem with electric cars will always be "refuelling". Even if you get an electric car with reasonable range and performance no one is going to want to stand for 4-6 hours (or even 1 to 2 hours) on a garage forecourt waiting to "fill up" before you can continue on the next part of your journey. Not everyone lives in the city, you know!
HFC's are the way to go for "clean" cars, but of course (like electricity) you still have to produce the fuel somehow and that somehow will almost always involve carbon fossil fuel.
Jandalf
FUSION power produces waste with considerably lower half life than FISSION power.
You could take the waste from FUSION and dump it in a special area for just a year and it would be completely harmless.
Furthermore, Fusion reactors don't explode or go critical as easily as Fission reactors.
I'm listening...so what's the holdup at this point?
Fusion is decades away from usability, most of it is still theoretical.
Thanks, Bob P. So to return to my original point about doing something now rather than in decades...
and honda aims for mass produced hyrogen cars with proper infra-structure to support it.
How about we ride about on piggybacks on Honda's to-be-confirmed army of Asimos.
If I recall correctly, Audi has been dismissive of hybrids in the past, believing the future lay in diesel.
This is a very interesting development.
Yeah, you're right. Oh, wait:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_Hybrid_Vehicles
I guess not, after all.
Diesel / electric has been around for ages in trains. What's the hold up with the cars?
Oh that'll be a treat, an Audi that is nothing but electronics. Might not be in the shop for 6 months out of the year.
10 years? Gas will be $9/gal by then and Honda will be on its 6th generation of electric vehicle. You Audi folks certainly aren't in a hurry.
More likely gas will be $1/gallon.
First of all, fission reactors don't "explode" in any nuclear sense. Chernobyl was a steam explosion.
Second, one cannot compare a fusion reactor to a fission one because, except for that big one in the sky we call the sun, there aren't any production fusion reactors in our solar system. Not a lot of safety data on reactors that don't exist.
Third, going critical is a good thing. Critical means that the reactor has achieved a self-sustaining chain-reaction. What is being touted as a virtue is actually the problem. With fusion, we have only been able to achieve break-even for a few nanoseconds. Not too useful for anything other than research.
Fourth and last, it is unfair to compare fusion products with fission products. The problem with fusion is not the materials produced during the reaction, but neutron activation of the concrete and steel used to house the reaction. Those hang around for a long time, and because neutrons have no charge, no magnetic field in the world will stop them.
An electric car that can charge it's batteries while on the go with a small Bio-Diesel generator is the answer. I don't get why it's so difficult. There must be some heavy duty corruption going on at the top! What else can explain the raping us poor sheeples are taking from the Auto Industry, Oil Industry, Government, you name it. Ten years...how pathetic!
We are indeed still waiting on the technology - specifically large-format (not laptop-size) lithium batteries.
No, Ni-MH is not good enough for a 4-5 passenger series EV - it has a much lower energy density, and is much less efficient (charge/discharge) than lithium-based technologies.
For consumer acceptance, the battery in a series EV like the Volt will have to have a warranty no less than current hybrids - realistically, 8-10 years/80,000-100,000 miles.
Which means a LOT of accelerated testing of battery packs from different manufacturers, both in the lab and on the road, before the final candidate is selected.
They had an electric car... it was called the EV1!
It looks like I might have been thinking of BMW:
http://www.mlive.com/naias/index.ssf/2008/01/bmw_launches_first_hybrid_push_1.html
2009-2010 Analog shutdown.
2011 end of the xp lifecycle.
2012 end of the world.
2018 Audi launch the first (prototype) of their electric car.
Too late Audi. Tesla's doing it NOW. And they just opened a dealership in L.A.
dude. that dude SO wears shoulder pads
Well, don't understand some of the fuss about hybrids.
I drive a peugeot 206, that is three years old and i make an average 50mpg...
Just wanted to state how different are some of the european cars from american ones.
10 years!?!? there is already battery technology out there that is not being used. This is crazy. All electric vehicles that get 250 miles per charge and have solar cells and wind turbines to recharge should be out on the market by now. Im no conspiracy theorist but come on Thanks big oil for paying for the car executives.