Just remembered, that your options choices may affect the co2 rating, as they add weight. Only marginally, but if the standard model is only just under the limit, it could be significant. I think my sister's A4 was officially 149 but it says 151 on the sticker.
New price list on Audi UK website
- Thread starter h5djr
- Start date
You think they test the CO2 of every possible combination of options on each car, with each engine? Options have no effect on the figure on your V5, real life is a different matter.
I think a revised set of tests that were more representative of 'normal' driving would be appreciated by everyone.
I also think any tests on electric and hybrid models should include some standard C02 figure for the generation of the electricity in the first place. To say that an electric car produces zero C02 is very misleading.
I also think any tests on electric and hybrid models should include some standard C02 figure for the generation of the electricity in the first place. To say that an electric car produces zero C02 is very misleading.
The trouble comes when having to account for every car type out there - it's no good having a test that requires you to accelerate more than some other cars might be able to handle. Perhaps it should be done on number of revs (or %age of max revs) over time.
But not all electricity is generated in that way, therefore a figure could be worked out that would take this into account as well as that which is generated which does produce C02. It may have to be a different figure for each country, but again this should be possible as an add-on to any basic figure and used for Road Tax assessment.
No, but since you don't know how the consumer is going to purchase (green tariffs exist) or generate their own electricity, it would be impossible to put a figure on. In any case, the ratio of carbon producing to non carbon producing generation methods changes over time in a country, so even if a car used CO2 generating electricity now, doesn't mean it always will.
The equivalent to what you're saying for petrol cars is that the CO2 used to explore the sea, drill for oil, transport it to land, store it, refine it, store it some more, transport it, store some more and then pump it into your car isn't taken into account - and I'm sure people would complain if it was and their tax suddenly shot up as a result. Electriciy generation has none of these associated costs in its generation or transfer.
Fair enough, but perhaps the manufactuers should add a note to their documentation to indicate to buyers that assuming an electric car has zero emissions is not quite correct. The electricity has to be generated somewhere.
I'm sure people know that, just as they know petrol doesn't grow on trees! The car really does have zero emissions, and it's very easy to ensure that the electricity used to power it is emissions free as well.
I'm not sure that they do. The charity for which I do volunteering keeps on about it's zero emissions electric vans with never any mention of how the electricity they use is generated and I'm not sure that 'jo public' is aware either. They just assume electric cars equal zero emissions and petrol and diesel greater emissions and never really consider that the electricity does not grow on trees either.
At the moment, apart from anyone who never drives more than a few miles and never leaves a large city, electric only cars are totally useless. Hybrids may be useful but they still produce the same emissions when running on their non-electric engines.
I'm sure if electric cars become popular the government will devise a way of taxing them based on something other than emissions.
At the moment, apart from anyone who never drives more than a few miles and never leaves a large city, electric only cars are totally useless. Hybrids may be useful but they still produce the same emissions when running on their non-electric engines.
I'm sure if electric cars become popular the government will devise a way of taxing them based on something other than emissions.
Last edited:
I disagree - EVs are the future I think (and in fact the past - they've been around for a long time), and it's nothing to do with cost or even emissions, but the availability of oil in the future. I want my new A3 to bet he last ever internal combustion engined car I buy. The only reason I'm not buying an electric car now is becasue I live in a flat with a communal parking area - ie, nowhere to charge one at home!
Range anxiety / lack of practicality are always the criticisms usually by people who've never owned an EV, yet all the people who do own and run one (and drive long distances with them) are there at the back of the crowd trying to say that yes they do work, and no there are no range issues, and yes living with them is fine... and the technology will only get better with time as well.
Range anxiety / lack of practicality are always the criticisms usually by people who've never owned an EV, yet all the people who do own and run one (and drive long distances with them) are there at the back of the crowd trying to say that yes they do work, and no there are no range issues, and yes living with them is fine... and the technology will only get better with time as well.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2013
- Messages
- 501
- Reaction score
- 123
- Points
- 43
Lack of range in EVs is still a valid concern. Especially when combined with long charge times and sparse charging points. Granted all three of these are likely to improve, but they're not good enough to replace a hydrocarbon burner yet. As a second car, yeah no problem.
Is it surprising that people who criticise EVs have never owned one? Put it another way - people who have considered an EV and found them lacking decide not to buy one.
As for exhaustion of oil - there is always synthetic hydrocarbon fuels.
Is it surprising that people who criticise EVs have never owned one? Put it another way - people who have considered an EV and found them lacking decide not to buy one.
As for exhaustion of oil - there is always synthetic hydrocarbon fuels.
Yet people with EVs manage long journeys all the time? The latest generation of them can quick/change in 30 mins, have a 300 mile range (more than my current petrol car) and can swap the batteries out in 5 mins.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2013
- Messages
- 501
- Reaction score
- 123
- Points
- 43
I didn't think that was available just yet in the UK? Pretty soon though.
How much is the cheapest version with the 300 mile claimed range? Oh, and what is the real world range? 300 miles is at a constant 55 mph. The EPA reckon you can do 265 miles, but even that is probably as optimistic as the official MPG figures. So I'd guess 200 miles is more like it.
How much is the cheapest version with the 300 mile claimed range? Oh, and what is the real world range? 300 miles is at a constant 55 mph. The EPA reckon you can do 265 miles, but even that is probably as optimistic as the official MPG figures. So I'd guess 200 miles is more like it.
Reviews have said the figure is pretty accurate - either way, it's enough. I bet 90% of people don't do more than 100 miles a day anyway so it's irrelevant.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2013
- Messages
- 501
- Reaction score
- 123
- Points
- 43
Don't get me wrong. They are getting there and if I was offered a Tesla S for free I'd gladly take it as a second or third car. For most people they would be fine for more than 90% of journeys. However, until they are good for 100% of journeys they are not going to be considered a replacement.
Real World Range - 2013 Tesla Model S Long-Term Road Test
I think we may have wondered off topic slightly.
Real World Range - 2013 Tesla Model S Long-Term Road Test
I think we may have wondered off topic slightly.
Last edited:
Why not? It'd be far cheaper to run that as your only car and hire a Diesel or something for the 1 or 2 trips a year where the EV doesn't have the range.
Don't worry, their next vehicle will be on the same platform but much cheaper apparently, going for under $30,000
Perhaps a better bet would something like the A3 e-tron...
The Toyota Prius-rivalling hatchback, which goes on sale next year, pairs a 1.4-litre 148bhp petrol engine with an electric motor to produce a combined output of 201bhp. The A3 E-tron can run on electric power alone for 30 miles or just the petrol engine, but in most conditions it will draw power from both sources.
Audi's head of development, Wolfgang Durheimer, claims the Audi A3 E-tron will be extremely efficient, with average economy of 188mpg and CO2 emissions of just 35g/km. It will sprint from 0-62mph in 7.6 seconds and go on to 139mph.
The Toyota Prius-rivalling hatchback, which goes on sale next year, pairs a 1.4-litre 148bhp petrol engine with an electric motor to produce a combined output of 201bhp. The A3 E-tron can run on electric power alone for 30 miles or just the petrol engine, but in most conditions it will draw power from both sources.
Audi's head of development, Wolfgang Durheimer, claims the Audi A3 E-tron will be extremely efficient, with average economy of 188mpg and CO2 emissions of just 35g/km. It will sprint from 0-62mph in 7.6 seconds and go on to 139mph.
188mpg is total nonsense - hybrids are able to do nearly all the mpg test on electric only mode and get a ridiculous figure that is totally unrelated to reality!
Yes I think I read the A3 e-tron can do 31 miles on electric power alone. So it could easily do the 6.8 miles of the current tests on electric power alone. Makes a nonsense of the current testing setup.
Who said anything about testing ever combination? Options = additional weight = additional fuel consumption. I am sure manufacturers can estimate the impact.
From the A5 brochure:
Which is the better way of doing it, so you are assured at most the rating quoted.
Looking back at the brochure for a 2001 A4 (because I'm a hoarder!), it does say the CO2 figure ranges 149-151 for the 130 tdi, depending on options.
