Skeptic Applauds Tesla Following Reveal Of Lackluster Audi e-tron Specs

SEP 19 2018 BY DOMENICK YONEY 196

UBS issued an unflattering note after the reveal

Audi spared no expense in the lavish unveiling of its all-electric crossover SUV, the E-tron, last night in San Francisco. While there were many a kind word from assorted media this morning, one outfit was less than impressed: UBS. In a surprising turn of events, the Swiss investment bank which CNBC calls “one of Tesla’s biggest skeptics,” issued a note in which it said the E-tron is evidence that the German automaker is falling short of its Silicon Valley competitor.

Titled “Audi e-tron launch – another lap Tesla wins,” and authored by analyst Patrick Hummel, the missive points to an apparent drivetrain inefficiency and the freshly-revealed crossover’s 0-to-60 time (5.5 seconds, .6 seconds slower than the larger Tesla Model X 75D) to make the case the four-rings brand is technologically behind. Said he,

While we appreciate that a solid EV product is not only about acceleration and range, there is still a gap to Tesla in the powertrain efficiency ratios that reflect the degree of innovation. The electric powertrain is not a commodity yet and Tesla might be able to sustain its lead for longer.

The seemingly poor efficiency is betrayed by the fact that, despite a 95 kWh battery, it supposedly has a range of only 249 miles under the WLTP cycle. The Tesla Model X 75D, despite being larger and carrying 20 kWh less energy storage in its battery pack, has an EPA-rated range of 237 miles. That’s almost assuredly more the E-tron will achieve under that testing regime.

Hummel summed up his E-tron criticism with,

At the margin, the not-so-impressive key stats could dampen the sales outlook and make it more difficult for Audi (or the premium OEMs in general) to break even with their EVs. This plays into Tesla’s hands and in China, into the hands of the emerging local EV players.

And while Audi was the target of most of the analyst’s castigation, his take on Tesla’s prospects, vis-à-vis the Model 3, wasn’t especially positive either. Maintaining a $190 price target for the California company’s shares, he predicted, “We think Tesla will not create enough Model 3 demand at the envisaged price point of >$50k, which would be required to meet 2019 consensus expectations.

Audi E-tron

23 photos
17 photos

Source: CNBC

Categories: Tesla

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

196 Comments on "Skeptic Applauds Tesla Following Reveal Of Lackluster Audi e-tron Specs"

newest oldest most voted

Why not criticize the efficiency after the official numbers are known? The trend seems to be to under promise and over deliver.

Exactly, most people criticise that the Model X doesn’t even get close to the advertised range in everyday driving. Luckily they didn’t do that with the Model 3

Please name or identify where we can find these “most people” who criticize Model X’s range.

This is garbage, x gets epa range

They may know the official numbers. It’s UBS, not Fred down the street.

There is simply no official numbers yet. It has not yet been tested.

It is not too early to draw proportions. We all knew, or should by now, that EPA and NEDC (the outgoing Euro standard) required multiplying .625(NEDC) to get the approximate EPA equivalent. IEV staff has seen enough WLTP and EPA range statistics, to arrive at a similar ratio.

The key pattern seems to be European over-statement of efficiency, versus EPA being closer to “real-world” numbers.

No the in Europe the surburbia is much closer to the city and and there isn’t a lot of motorways as in the US

For short-range commuting, the range doesn’t really matter anyway. Highway range is what’s important — and so far it looks like WLTP is useless for that.

As for Tesla demand, UBS does know that Leasing is not yet available, correct?
Tesla may get 2x to 3x more demand after Model 3 leases are available.
This is why UBS “analysis” is suspicious.

When the Model 3 opens for leasing, BMW stores will start to sport tumbleweeds and spider webs.

They cannot offer a good lease deal unless the car has wide margins. That is if they want to make money on the lease.

Prsnep, People should criticize the numbers, because,
-they are false.
-uncorrected, they still look relatively weak.

That you get 10 up votes, to 1 down, betrays who is reading this comment section. This seems simple, to me. European makers toss around over-stated efficiency stats, like Musk implies power and torque.

Audi should know what the range will be, +/- a mile or two. If they can get anywhere near 270-300, then I can’t imagine any reason why they wouldn’t be at least ball-parking that number (e.g., we expect better than 250!).

This is a car that is rolling down the production line. The marketing department will be doing everything they can to make it competitive with both Tesla and Jaguar.

Audi has a tendency to provide lower claimed figures. There is also the possibility that Audi is intentionally reducing the available KW to prolong the battery life. We won’t know what the E-Tron is capable of until there’s a production version available to be tested.

That sounds like wishful thinking. There is no reason why they would be stating numbers based on lower usable capacity than the actual production version will get…

Why would it be wishful thinking? If I were an owner of the E-Tron and I was able to exceed the 400 km range, I know I would be very happy. No so much if the stated range was say 500 km and I couldn’t meet that claimed range.
They do that now with their ICE and PHEV lineup.
The A3 e-tron sportback has a 8.8kwh battery but in N.A. they reduced the available kw to around 6.6. The range is much lower than in N.A. than in Europe (28 km compared to 45 to 50 km).

…. Marketing never did production! Marketing is shouting promisses which will be kept – sometimes

It is a great looking vehicle, but other than appealing to existing Audi customers it is a bit lacking. When we see the EPA range and it is a tad over 200 miles it won’t look as nice for the price. The efficiency will also hurt charging rate (miles per minute). It appears similar to the upcoming Q8?

The vehicle is nice, but don’t see it fitting its price point. For the specs I think it needs to be $20k cheaper, same as EQC. And we thought the IPace had bad efficiency (they all do).

If I had to guess where things would land. I may look at sister-brand Porsche and its Cayenne PHEV delivering 14 EPA range-miles, on about 10KWh of storage. Very inefficient. I’m sure Audi has done better than this, but those who assumed that VW Group’s power-dense batteries lack the energy-density of Tesla’s, were correct.

If you are going to cheer Audi, maybe look at the C-rates the German batteries can deliver. With the right motors and 95KWh of power-dense battery, acceleration and top end should be no contest vs. Tesla.

Every time an EV maker selects batteries, that can do 200+ miles, they are half way to offering a very quick car. It’s inadequate motor selection (for an additional “parts bin” cost that I’d assume is nominal, relative to ICE) that is the reason these cars won’t achieve Tesla specs. They aren’t accessing all the “goodness”, as Jay Cole might say.

I saw this article and thought “InsideEVs is doing a story about one of the vocal Tesla skeptics who comments here, this will be rich.” Sadly, nobody I’ve ever heard of or care about. Can’t say the same about you lot.

I love analysts. They have zero accountability to their spit-balling, are wrong as often as a coin flip, and never speak of past analysis unless it happened to fall on the happy side of the coin flip. If one reads the TMZ-esque daily market analysis of any major company, they’d find daily flip-flopping from folks who bounce from McDonalds to General Electric to Apple, etc, without any real understanding of any. Analysts know nothing beyond the Cliff Notes they’ve scanned and read from other ‘analysts.’ Ironically, lay persons read the ‘analysts’ takes and that drives the market. Not reality.

Exactly, hysterical teenager mentality typically, especially Twitter stock “analysis”.
Total waste of time to follow.

Patrick Hummel is a different analyst. Collin Langan, the bearish analyst, seems to have left. So it is not a “skeptics view” at all.
He could very well be a Tesla fanboy who is hired there. 🙂

Analysts are analysts. None are accountable, that’s the problem.

The problem with analysts is that anyone can become one. So naturally, there is a large variance in quality of analysts.

I think, rather, the problem is that most people who claim to be “analysts” but are giving their opinion away for free in articles or blog posts to the internet, are not making the slightest attempt to offer sound financial analysis. They’re just pushing somebody’s stock buying or selling position, and they’re calling themselves an “analyst” because it appears to give them more credibility. (Or, like Jim Cramer, they’re just attracting attention by yelling and waving their arms in an manner some find entertaining.)

Real financial analysts don’t give their advice away for free. They charge for it; that’s how they make a living!

Neither are commenters resposible for what they claim

The 95 kWh battery size and 249 mile range on the easier-than-EPA WLTP cycle was certainly eyebrow raising. You’d figure the efficiency would be better than that.
But the e-tron makes up for it with its charging specs. On paper, the e-tron can charge faster than a Tesla hooked up a Supercharger (150 kW vs ~135).

But either way let’s wait for the real numbers issued from the future homologations.

Actually, Audi said “more than 400km WLTP”. These 249 miles/400km are a lower bound. 10% more would be 440km/273miles. Since the conversion between WLTP and EPA range is fuzzy, there is room for significant upside…

It could also really disappoint, too…

Hyundai Kona EV got 301 WLTP and 250 EPA. AFAIK that is the first real-world conversion we have seen. If the ratio holds, the eTron will be at 206 EPA miles.

🤔

Isn’t it 300 WLTP and 259 EPA for the Kona?…

And smart money is on the lower end of the range. Let’s make the obvious point that Audi already knows what it expects will be the EPA range (they test this internally). Just like with WLTP they could tell us but they have chosen not to do that.

At the risk of appearing to be an apologist for Audi, European auto makers in general don’t put estimates of EPA range into their press releases for their EVs. They wait for the EPA to issue official numbers. It would be nice if that wasn’t the case, but it seems a bit unfair to single out Audi for following industry standard.

The faster charger benefit will be lost by worse efficiency, and I would also expect the old spec charging in the X to be upgraded soon as well. Model 3 already charges faster than that I believe.

The Models S and X won’t get upgraded efficiency until they are switched to using the new 2170 cells from Gigafactory 1. We can hope that will be soon, but I think from what Tesla said, it won’t be happening until next year.

WRT e-tron charging specs:

• This is a pre-production estimate; we have no idea if it will hold true on a production model
• Even assuming the speed holds, we have no idea what this will do to battery longevity
• We don’t know if these charge speeds can be sustained in multiple charge sessions on a single long trip
• So far as I know, there are no commercial chargers available that will charge at these speeds
• As with other non-Tesla EVs, the e-tron does not have access to an existing fast-charging network set up for long trips

“• So far as I know, there are no commercial chargers available that will charge at these speeds”
Just call ABB, Tritium or Hypercharger for a quote. There are possibly more manufacturers but those ones definitely sell to everyone that wants to buy one or one hundred.

There should be several hundred chargers in the US by the time it ships. Check Electrify America network on plug share. Not Tesla level, but expanding rapidly. Unfortunately they are more expensive, although the Audi includes a few thousand miles for free.

The Electrify America chargers are suppose to be 150KW to start.

https://www.electrifyamerica.com/our-plan

In Europe Ionity has started building the 350 kW charger network.
https://ionity.eu/ (scroll down a bit)
So far 9 stations are live with 16 being built.

James talking out of his butt

So much fud and false arguments in one post.

You don’t seem to know what pre-production means. You don’t have to estimate their performances. You just have to measure / verify them.

175 kW chargers are already installed https://insideevs.com/fastned-opens-first-fast-charging-station-in-germany/.

Audi seems to have particularly work on efficient systems to manage the temperature of the battery (and motors) as stated in a day old article on this site.

Your last argument was still used a couple years ago by Tesla skeptics.

Ionity, Porche Network, Fasted, Electrified America, ChargePoint, EVgo

Does each one of those need their own credit card linked and password protects member card?

Audi claims they have a billing system that works across providers.

Pre production estimate? Really?
They started production 2 weeks ago.

Wow, that’s an impressive list of FUD…

Can we not grant the e-Tron the one (small) edge it seems to have?

“• So far as I know, there are no commercial chargers available that will charge at these speeds”

On the other hand, future-proofing your car by allowing it to charge faster than currently available chargers is a good long-term marketing strategy. If that’s true, then kudos to Audi for smart engineering!

“• We don’t know if these charge speeds can be sustained in multiple charge sessions on a single long trip”

That seems to be at least verging on concern trolling. The only car that has a problem with multiple fast-charging sessions is the Leaf, and that’s because it lacks an active battery cooling system. Unless you’re claiming the e-Tron is similarly lacking, there’s no valid reason to raise that concern.

Afaik Audi only employs 83-84 kWh as usable battery capacity. This explains the lower range but should also make the battery last very long and enable a long period of the 150kW charge rate before tapering (and maybe no or only short tapering from “0%”.

How you know?

The usable capacity of the Model X75D is also less than the nominal 75 kWh. That’s true for pretty much any EV.

Going by the claimed numbers, it seems true though that the e-Tron has little taper towards 80%.

(I’d be surprised though if it doesn’t trickle-charge in the lowest few percent. Since people generally only use that in emergencies, making that part of the capacity unavailable would be a total waste.)

It is well known feature of Li Ion batteries (or many things in the world for that matter). You optimize for power, loose capacity, and vice versa.

Good Unproven Charging Specs .., “N0 CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE” ….That will get You Places ! ….That is Very Comforting to know , when you Spend $80.000.00 Plus on a Vehicle that you CAN”T Drive Anywhere…

Amy is a troll. Get him out

Audis at RV parks will become a thing.

“But the e-tron makes up for it with its charging specs. On paper, the e-tron can charge faster than a Tesla hooked up a Supercharger (150 kW vs ~135).”

Not really. Yes, the charging rate is faster in terms of kwh (at least on paper) but if you translate that into miles per hour (ie how much additional range does a person get if they fast charge for, say, 20 minutes), the Audi is meaningfully slower to charge than even Tesla’s least efficient vehicle (the Model X P100D) which will charge at a rate of 349 miles per hour (@ 120 kw based on 100 kw = 289 miles). By contrast, the Audi charges at 326 mph (@150 kw based on 95kw = 206 miles EPA range).

Also, for comparison, the Model S 100D charges (theoretically) @ 403 mph on the supercharger and the model 3 LR @ 492

X 100D doesn’t charge at 120 kW. It is UP TO 120 kW. At 50% SoC the 120 kW peak power goes downhill and reaches 53 kW at 80%. More comparable 75D may be even less, can’t find graph now.
Audi is supposed to charge at 150 kW all the way to 80%, i.e. it is AVERAGE, not peak. 80% of 95 kWh in 30 minutes. I would also expect that Audi will not restrict your charging to some 70 kW if you use DC too often like Tesla does.

https://forums.teslarati.com/attachments/50c-png.429/

It may be that they have chosen to use power cells to have higher power DC charging at the expense for some capacity. Ability of street parking in city and high power highway driving is assumed feature for expensive cars in Germany, so you need to provide consistent fast charging. But you don’t really know the Audi EPA range yet, let’s wait for it.

Of course your assumption that Audi’s cells don’t deteriorate from frequent fast charging is entirely baseless…

I agree though that the numbers Audi claims indicate little tapering, meaning that depending on usage pattern, it could have a slight edge in some situations.

“I would also expect that Audi will not restrict your charging to some 70 kW if you use DC too often like Tesla does.”

So, you’re arguing that Audi will allow the e-Tron’s battery pack to prematurely age due to too much fast-charging, rather than to slightly reduce the maximum rate of fast-charging to prevent that from happening, as Tesla does?

Not exactly a recommendation for Audi’s engineering there, Mr. Serial EV Basher.

It will have to be on paper because there are just a handful of very fast charging points. And of course Tesla will be upping their charging point speeds, and have many more available, for years to come.
I’ll likely be getting a Niro next year which whilst it wont charge as fast as this, on a journey between 200-300 miles long would beat this, the EQC, the iPace since it wont have to charge at all, and at half the price.
I suppose you could argue they need the faster charging speed since they will have to charge 50% more often than non “premium” cars like that (and yet still have to queue at chargers with the hoi polloi)
Imagine the shame of being behind a Niro, or worse, a Leaf* in your swanky car . I reckon that by itself will encourage quite a few early adopters to go Model Y in a couple or three years time.

* no offence meant to Leaf owners, i drive a Soul !

Faster charging is meaningless if you don’t have the chargers to do it, it will be years before the CCS network catches up to the Tesla network, and even longer before 150KW CCS chargers are widespread. Ideally you want enough range so that you don’t have to charge at all, or at least only do it on rare occasions. The problem here is that it’s range is no better than a Chevy Bolt which was released two years ago and has a battery that’s less than 2/3rds the size. With a 95KW battery they should have been able to get more than 300 miles, maybe 350, on the EPA cycle but it’s nowhere near to that. What this shows is that Audi doesn’t know what they are doing yet.

Lol you funny

Not yet. Perhaps they’ll learn as they develop more iterations and maybe fire underperforming engineers.

350 miles EPA from 95 kWh in a somewhat large SUV? You are dreaming. Anything around 300 would be excellent.

The e-Tron is very far from being a “somewhat large SUV”. It’s only a 5-seater. Like the Jaguar I-Pace, it’s a hatchback labeled a “compact SUV” for marketing purposes. Heck, it’s over a foot shorter than the I-Pace!

I’m pretty confident you got the number wrong.

If you drove one on paper, that would matter.

What is the coefficient of drag for the eTron? It must be much worse than a Tesla with these nubmers. The model 3 weighs the same as this car, and can go almost 50% longer with only a 75kWh battery!

I read 0.28 with the rear view mirrors and 0.27 with the cameras.
The Cx is important but ultimately it’s the SCx that matters.

Where did you see a weight figure for the e-Tron? I haven’t seen one yet. And I *very* much doubt it’s as low as Model 3. In fact weight is probably responsible for the poor range almost as much as air drag.

(Along with less efficient motors, of course… Though Model X also has induction motors — so that’s only part of the story.)

It’s a head scratcher how they managed to miss on efficiency and performance at the same time. In their ice models usually they sacrifice the first for the second, admittedly they got much better in the last decade at efficiency. The car however does bring something good to the market and that is the 150kWh charging speed which is top notch! Maybe this is good enough for their brand fans.

It looks like they’re following MB design. Make it nice, but not too nice. We don’t want to lose too many of those ICE sales.

And this is how you give the market to Tesla.

The performance number is not surprising as they are a legacy manufacturer and are going to play by all of the old rules – specifically, they have de-tuned, or under-tuned the “base model” so that after the early buyers have all been fulfilled, they can release the premium trim (the “S” model, or whatever) that gets 3.9 second 0-60.

Audi (and others) have done this for years with *identical* engines in different trim levels of car, where the lower cost model is de-tuned, or under-tuned and gets different output while being an *identical engine*.

Mark my words – e-tron “S” model @ 3.9 second 0-60 in 12 months or less.

Some are saying that this was intentional and done so this model doesn’t make the gasser models look too bad.

I was wondering when this would happen, and it didn’t take long.
Two years ago the release of this vehicle would have been impressive, it’s released now and the only impressive thing
was the light show. Still, I think it’s a decent try, just not a game changer by any means.
I think it will be around 215 EPA, which is respectable, but again not impressive.

I guess it fits the demographic that’s too afraid to look at a Tesla.

Which would include many of the anti-Tesla people that post here.

Speaking of David Green, has he gotten his Jaguar yet?

Yes what happens to short seller David Green posting 20 times a day here before ?
After TSLA crushed from max 387$ to min 255$ David dropped out from here, maybe he earned so much from shorting TSLA that he is now in Europe to test-drive Koenigsegg versus Rimac ……

I’d guess he exited his Tesla “short” position, so no longer has any motive to spend time writing Tesla bashing posts. Either that or he was finally banned here, without the staff letting us know.

But Nix said he was seen Tesla bashing on other websites — I myself noticed him posting 40+ anti-Tesla comments to a single Clean Technica comment thread. So if he shows up posting more Tesla bashing comments elsewhere, that would be an indication he’s been banned here.

Not sure why it would have been more impressive two years ago?…

Where does efficieny-crazyness comes from? Efficiency isn’t everything, there’s (so) much more to a vehicle than this. Who cares if it goes from 0-100 in 5.6 or 3.6 or 6.6? Who even does that??

Efficiency is miles per kWh of driving not the 0-60 times. In the EV world efficiency does matter and is important.

I know what efficiency is. Maybe I should have talked about ther performances on another line.
I guess most people are more interested in a higher quality product than a higher efficiency one, that’s why most of them prefer those $5000 to get the same efficiency, go somewhere else (product quality, comfort, technology, reliablity, etc…)

It just means they are not competitive if they have to charge $5000 more for the same thing. Cost to manufacture this vehicle has to be similar to Tesla X 100D, but it sells for the price of the 75D. They make it a smaller vehicle to cut some costs, but in the end it means it is less competitive.

Tesla is going to make a lot more money long term which will drive the brand in the future as Audi will still be trying to sell more profitable gas vehicles. They have to get efficiency in line to be competitive.

Yeah but not for the same price range! Between the eGolf and the Ionic i will go with the later without hesitation. Gas savings is still one of the main points in owning an ev.

How much mileage for money is what matters most.

Efficiency is how much energy a vehicle uses. This one uses a lot. If it gets an EPA rating of 215 mi using say 95 kWh (about 82 kwh usable plus charging losses) from the wall, that amounts to 2.3 miles/kWh. The Model X gets 2.8.

This is not a huge difference, but it isn’t really competitive either. Would you buy a better performing car that also got better gas mileage? This ~20% efficiency difference will also hurt the rate the Audi charges (miles/min). Also, the Model X is not particularly efficient relative to Model 3, so room for improvement with the X too.

Efficiency is far more important with an EV as it dictates how large of battery you need, and accordingly price of vehicle. The 20% efficiency hit would add about $5,000 to the vehicle to get similar range as Model X to cover the larger battery. Makes it not competitive in price.

So, this comes down to decisions made my management. They could have engineered better.

Since they didn’t have the option of polluting more, they had to fail in other ways.

They could have went with smaller battery and lighter frame a more aerodynamic front like Lambo. SUV are very inefficient cars to start with

Right. Everybody complains about the curved roof of the Model X, and about it looking like a “pregnant whale”, but giving priority to low drag over a flat roofline is how Tesla achieves superior energy efficiency in a larger car.

Efficiency is how much energy compared to size (space), weight and performance. (And tech like falcon wing, safety, etc)

Efficiency does have an important role to play in that you need less battery to go farther, and at this stage in the game battery cost is a huge factor in the price of the vehicle.

For some folks, a certain amount of wow is expected in a high performance vehicle, and gets them talking. Think of it as free advertising. At the price this vehicle will sell for, a faster acceleration may make a difference.

Personally, I think the 0 to 60 time is fine. This is an SUV and 5.5 seconds is quicker than most sportscars a decade or so ago. Certainly a lot quicker than most cars on the road today.

Efficiency isn’t everything, true, but it is somewhat important, as it speaks to engineering capability, not to mention environmental concerns.

Let’s be real, most people don’t have environmental concerns. If they had, we wouldn’t have so many SUV’s or big diesel trucks. And what’s brining more people to EV’s is not their eco concerns, but the lower price/km for these vehicles.

Agree. For me it was the power, efficiency (fuel), lower TCO, and the ability to function with only one vehicle (that has a low TC) vs a sporty car and second vehicle for bad weather and hauling a lot. I have a 4.5yr old P85 S. It races, it drives, it hauls, it people transports, it’s ready every morning, and just requires tires for the most part.

So will ETron

Nope, it fails the “races” part. That was the point of the discussion at hand…

Or maybe until now thay didn’t have a choice. Did you think of that? Hell, the truck drivers still don’t.

Agree

It’s not just one or the other. I’m pretty sure the eco aspect plays at least *some* role for most EV buyers.

(At least outside of regions with extremely strong incentives, such as Norway and China…)

You right that many premium buyers don’t care that much if the car use more gas then other brand. But that´s different with electric cars. Most exisiting fast chargers delivers only 50 kwh and you will use more time charging when traveling. Or you are limited in your house how much kwh you can have in a home charger…

Efficiency = freedom if you’re trying to get somewhere. If your goal of owning a car is for it to fit in at drop-off, then this Audi is killing it.

They should stick to the figures buyers care about:
– how far on a charge
– how long to charge for a given range
– how much does it cost
– what creature comforts does it have
– etc

Battery specs, motor tech, etc mean virtually nothing to the vast majority of buyers.

The way many buyers obsess over combustion engine specs seems to suggest otherwise…

Is Audi using less of the battery capacity than Tesla? Maybe only allowing the e-Tron to charge to 85% or something? I guess we won’t know anything until the EPA specs are released.

Beautiful car either way.

I’m just excited there will be a dozen 200+ mile electric vehicles on sale next year.

It could be that it only uses 80 kWh of its 95-kWh battery and the Model X 75D could use 70 kWh of its’. Being larger, one would still expect the X to have less range.

Unfortunately, most of those models will be production limited and available largely in states that require their sales to comply with clean air standards.

What makes you think that? So far it looks like Audi is rather keen on promoting it to a wide audience… And they claimed some pretty decent production numbers, too.

“…they claimed some pretty decent production numbers, too.”

But Volkswagen (and Audi is a division of VW) has a well-established record for vaporware in EV production. Also, not so long ago VW was crying long and hard about there being very insufficient amounts of EV batteries available. More recently they have announced goals of first $25 billion, then $48 billion devoted to future battery production; apparently they plan to pay battery makers to build out lots more capacity.

I’ve seen recent comments about Audi having the capacity to produce up to 50,000 units per year. Well I think that’s absurd; where would they get all those EV battery packs? That additional production capacity from battery makers won’t appear overnight, and probably not for a couple of years.

In the meantime, before 2020, when it comes to Audi producing more than (let’s say) 20-25k units of the e-Tron per year… I’m from Missouri; SHOW ME!

There are at least four major battery makers who have built, or are in the process of building large factories in Europe. No doubt Audi is among the customers who reserved part of that capacity.

Let’s wait for third party range and acceleration tests.

What’s the drag coefficient of the e-tron?

The prototype was reportedly .28, but I’m not seeing a number for the production version. Model X scores .24 and supposedly has a CdA of 6.7 square feet.

Not as good as they would want it to be, to Tout it over the Tesla, it seems!

Has there ever been a third party test the drag coefficient of Tesla’s cars. I know GM tested the Prius once and couldn’t get near the drag coefficient Toyota claimed.

Yes.

> 0.40

Specs apart, i-Pace, Mission E, and all combo-DCS and ChadeMO citycars don’t hold a candle to Tesla, as without a widespread fast charnging network they will remain citycars. Shame really!

The number of DCFC is growing. This isn’t the end of the race – the race has just begun.

And companies that establish an early lead in the market never lose that lead.
Just ask Blockbuster Video.

Analogies should make at least a weak effort to fit the case they are intended to describe.
Yours doesn’t even do that, the bare minimum, so it’s not worthy of any refutation, as the premise itself is so flawed as to self refute its own argument.

“Just ask Blockbuster Video.”

In a few years, let’s ask how GM is doing vs. Tesla. Hopefully not as badly as Blockbuster vs. Netflix, but obviously that’s what you’re worried is gonna happen. Otherwise, a GM apologist like you wouldn’t spend so much time and effort attacking Tesla.

By the time of US release the Electrify America network should have around 60-70% of the 150-350kWh stations Tesla has Supercharger stations. Then that’s going to double again in 2021, so it’s quite likely that within 3 years it’ll be larger than the supercharger network (at least on a stations, rather than charger count).

The Supercharger network isn’t standing still. Tesla has accelerated the pace of adding new stations over the past year or so; and they claim they will step it up further once they start rolling out v3.

I agree that EA should be decent in a not too distant future — but not likely larger than Tesla any time soon.

Same argument as the anti-Tesla used a couple years ago.

The usable battery capacity of the eTron is only around 84 kWh.
They advertise it with more then 400 km (WLTP) which should be at least! 210 miles after EPA.
So the effiency should therefore be at 40 kWh/100 miles but probably somewhat better. Maybe in a range of 36-38 kWh/100 miles.
I know we have to wait for the official data but that doesn’t sound to bad for me.
Of course it could be better.

More the 400 km. Did you hear it

When GM first announced the production Bolt, they said at the time it had “200 miles of range”. It turns out 200 miles really meant 238, or 20% more than the initial announcement.
Audi could be doing the same thing, giving a low end range figure initially until the EPA # is certified.

Let’s hope so.

We’ll hope it’s like GM lowballing the range of the Bolt EV… and not like GM overstating the “up to 50 miles” of EV range for the 2011 Volt… which was given a 35 mile range rating by the EPA.

The Audi costs less than the X. That explains why the specs aren’t of the “money losing” variety. You get what you pay for. Or, in Tesla’s case, you also get what *investors* have paid for.

I disagree, the larger battery due to poor efficiency means Audi is going to struggle with this, and worse they don’t have packages that drive up the price by $50k with little added marginal costs (P100D).

The X has a ton more cargo space in their base versions. I’m not quite sure the two vehicles are comparable to begin with. Also, as you know, the X has a huge positive margin and Tesla was profitable in Q3 2016 based just on S and X sales before the 3 ramp.

I agree, Audi, Jag, MB are intentionally trying to draw that comparison to justify their exorbitant price, but really they are more like more luxurious Model Y competition. How much will an ETron Q7 cost?

My guess is Audi, MB, Jag downsized their cars to make range less bad, but larger batteries mean they have to make them more expensive. These are not competitive and poor efficiency is driving price up and size down. EV efficiency is directly tied to vehicle battery cost, unlike gas cars (larger fuel tank doesn’t cost much).

The e-Tron is smaller than the Model X, but larger then EQC, and much larger than I-Pace. I don’t think they Model Y will be as large.

“EV efficiency is directly tied to vehicle battery cost, unlike gas cars (larger fuel tank doesn’t cost much).”

But gasmobile fuel efficiency is directly tied to the size/weight of the car, just as EV energy efficiency (and range) is greatly affected by the aero drag of the car. And aero drag is affected as much by size (frontal area) as it is by streamlining (Cd).

Yes, it’s ridiculous for Audi to compare the e-Tron to the Tesla Model X, just as ridiculous as it is for Jaguar to compare the I-Pace to the same Tesla car. In both cases, they’re trying to compare a 5-seat hatchback labeled a “compact SUV” for marketing purposes, to Tesla’s much larger, more expensive CUV.

Both are clearly doing that just to positioning themselves as “competing” with Tesla for the marketing value. But hey, at least they are showing they know who is leading the EV revolution… and it’s not them!

You certainly don’t get what you pay for with your week anti-Tesla FUD.

I doubt you are paid by Tesla for your forum censorship efforts either.

If they would pay you, they should ask for their money back as your personal attacks to suppress free speech just give bad impression about them.

But keep trying anyway, shorts must be happy about Tesla zealotry, it plays with their position.

I don’t think you understand the term “censorship”.

UBS- they funny. Not everyone wants a performance ev. Plus the wltp is close to the epa. He even said it

Actually u funny! Not even sure if you are just trolling or actually believe the crap you say.

No that was NEDC you like to verify

I hope that WLTP range ratings for EVs will turn out to be as accurate as the EPA’s… but the one comment I’ve seen on the subject suggests it’s not much of an improvement over NEDC. 🙁

There’s was another article here in the blog that mention how close Wltp and EPA ratings

Jaguar IPace, WLTP 292 mi, EPA 220 mi (jaguar claim).

My hunch is less aerodynamic vehicles will have a larger discrepancy between EPA and WLTP. I think EPA US06 test spends more time at higher speeds

Instead of trashing E-Tron and reverse FUD how about support the vehicle. It is an EV and pretty good one. So what it inefficient it’s an SUV. At least they making and EV. More EVs the better

Transport Evolved has a good video on the “reverse FUD” phenomenon. Primarily perpetuated by TSLA fanbois.

Yelp, I seen it too. They like Bush, if you not with Tesla you are against Tesla

…says the serial Tesla bashing GM fanboi.

No. I want Tesla to succeed but Elon is putting his foot in his mouth. Now it’s between Model3 SR whenever it comes out, Bolt EV, i3 Rex 94ah

I was responding to Bro1999’s comment, not to yours. Apologies if you think my pejorative remark was directed at you, but it wasn’t.

I think there is plenty of room in the EV market for true competitors to Tesla’s cars, and I’d love to see some. I’m not a Tesla fanboi because of any brand loyalty, but because of what Tesla has accomplished in leading the EV revolution. If other companies emerge that similarly push forward the rEVolution, then I’ll be fans of them too!

You’re shooting from the hip. This article does not reflect InsideEVs opinion.

This is reporting about a 3rd party opinion.

For your information: negative opinions about Tesla are reported here as well (like the latest Lutz brain farts). You have no basis for accusing InsideEVs of bias.

Did I say it was from InsideEVs I was talking about the crowd in the comments section. It’s an SUV true design with old Tesla Tech and modular batteries instead of Cylindrical batteries 🔋. It’s an EV and that’s all care about right now

Why the downvotes? It’s another EV in the Market which this US administration is trying to destroy with the cohorts of big oil and legacy automakers. Looking at you Ford

Another Euro point of view

I agree a bit with UBS in respect of battery density issues all those new SUV (Jaguar, Audi, Merc.) seems to have. To carry along a super heavy battery is not the way for efficiency. I don’t really agree with the performances thing. Many customers do not care about any perf. that would get your car under 7 sec. from 0 to 62mph. My current car needs 8sec. and anytime between October to late April using those perf. on wet and dark roads is a sure way to be involved into an accident.

And yet many buyers — especially of premium brands like Audi — pay a lot extra for ever more powerful motors…

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: old-school car companies can’t afford to alienate their petrol head crowd. Does anyone think Ford could make an electric F150 or Mustang that was faster and better than the idiotic coal rollers and puffed up Cobras? No. Those companies are stuck making nice electric cars that aren’t their best cars and aren’t a reason their customers would pay a premium over the gas model.

Quite true; see The Innovator’s Dilemma. And you didn’t deserve any down-votes, either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator%27s_Dilemma

They should at leas wait until EPA range for Audi, or WLTP range for Tesla Model X become available. In addition, the 95kwh or 75 kwh are often nominal capacities, and the actual cell capacity could be different. Finally, the Audi will be less efficient due to more conventional shape, Tesla Model X has a low drag, but looks like a giant egg. At the end of the day, how many people shop ICE cars based on range on a tank? There are other factors, e.g. reliability, quality, technology etc. Finally, based on the price, e-tron is the mid pac model in this range. There will be a performance version at some point, with higher range and faster acceleration. Audi is fully competitive with Tesla at the price point.

The difference is the range of the “tank” in the EV is a large factor in cost. With an ICE poor efficiency is passed only to consumer, doesn’t cost much to add a larger fuel tank, but adding 20 kWh of battery adds maybe 200 lbs and costs maybe $5,000 to consumer.

So in once case it is passed to the consumer, but in the other case it costs the consumer. Sounds about the same to me. If Audi was more expensive than Tesla, I could understand, but it is cheaper and has similar specs, although battery is larger.

It is smaller and has poorer specs. In view of that, I’d say the price is not terrible, but not quite competitive either.

A Chrysler 300 is bigger than a BMW 5 series, but cheaper. Audi is at least a step above Tesla in terms of luxury and build quality.

“At the end of the day, how many people shop ICE cars based on range on a tank?”

Well, things would be quite different if the average tank size was around 10 litres and it would cost 30-45 minutes to fill up…..

Well said. There’s a reason why all production gasmobiles have a large enough tank to give them at least 300 miles of range. The reason is that with range that high, it generally isn’t an issue for buyers.

If you think range for a gasmobile with a small tank wouldn’t be an issue, just look at how many American BMW i3 REx owners have hacked their car to increase the effective gas tank size from 1.9 to 2.4 gallons!

Yelp GT model is coming out at The LA Auto Show

Why would anyone buy this over a Model S 75D? It looks like a $43k Q5 and falls short of Model S 75D (Tesla’s oldest offering) in every technical and performance specification.

Where is the originality? I expected more from German engineering talent. Its a me-too car that seems daring only to Audi fans.

They don’t need to be original. This would be a lot riskier.

This wasn’t a high-priority project when it started. Expect more serious engineering in upcoming products staring in 2021 or thereabouts…

Yeah, and they don’t appear to even be copying Tesla. They’re copying Jaguar’s second-rate copy of a Tesla car, the I-Pace!

One thing this shows is that experience counts. This Audi and the Porsche are VW’s first serious attempts at an EV, the eGolf was clearly just a compliance car. A car with a 95KW battery should be able to get well over 300 miles on the EPA cycle, but it looks like this one will do no better than a Chevy Bolt with a 60KW battery. If you look at the improvements in MPGe between the Chevy Volt and the Chevy Bolt, 103MPGe vs 119 MPGe, you can see that Chevy has learned something by doing multiple generations of EVs. The Model 3 is a little smaller than the Model S but the difference in MPGe is similar to what you see with Chevy, the Model S 75 is 103 the Model 3 is 126, Tesla has learned things by building multiple generations of EVs. VWs first efforts are really underwhelming, hopefully they will figure out how to do better in the future.

I don’t think this is a serious attempt. They are now trying to make it look like one; but when it started development, it surely wasn’t. The Taycan will probably be the first serious one, along with the various I.D. models.

(Also, “well over” 300 miles EPA from 95 kWh for a car of this type seems illusory.)

Seems like Tesla knew the „teslakillers“ would disappoint.
Thatks why they decided not to go > 100kWh

Why do they have to be killers? Not all evs have to be as good as Tesla in order to sell….cheaper is enough…..or maybe faster charging in this case?

I agree; but it’s beside the point that Tesla thus far has no pressing need to step up their specs…

Exactly Mark. We can’t just be happy with another EV in the market

The comparison on the battery capacity should be done on the same data (usable capacity)
Indeed the DoD (Depth of discharge) is limited by each carmaker to improve the battery lifetime
97% for the Model X 75
~90% for the e-tron

If you look for example to the Mercedes B Class ED :
by using the total capacity : 36kWh of battery for a range of 140miles with a Tesla Powertrain (I am also a owner for this car)
If you take now the usable battery (28kWh for a range of 140miles)

It’s 140km Instead of 140miles

“…DoD (Depth of discharge)… 97% for the Model X 75…”

No. Just no. I’ve seen what appears to be authoritative measurements of usable-versus-full capacity in various Tesla battery packs, and that estimate varied between 92-96%. I personally rather doubt that Tesla reserves as little as 4% in any of its battery packs, but at least that’s slightly more believable than 3%!

How’s the B Class. I don’t mind getting one for $12-14k

I doubt drive unit efficiency is the issue.
Tesla range is optimistic (i-pace a lot more). Bjorn Nyland just did a range test with a P100DL and he got a little above 300 miles cruising at a slow 90km/h. There is no way that a X 75 will do 250 miles under the same condition, just the smaller battery would be a reason for less range – add weight and worst aerodynamics.

Electric motors are all (at least the ones in cars) very efficient. The differences in range must be more to how batteries behave in different conditions. Tesla/Panasonic batteries are very good.
Batteries are not just 100kWh, batteries have a capacity under some conditions, temperature, power delivered, … influence capacity. That difference is hidden to the driver, but it’s there.

“The differences in range must be more to how batteries behave in different conditions.”

No, the difference between the high energy efficiency of Tesla cars, versus the comparatively low energy efficiency of this Audi car, must be mainly due to poor aerodynamics on the Audi. Just look at how flat the roofline is on the e-Tron hatchback! That comes with a great penalty in increased drag and decreased range.

Tesla didn’t put a curved roof on its Model X crossover because it hates flat rooflines, or because it likes people criticizing the MX for looking like an egg, or “like a pregnant whale”. It did that to reduce drag.

That’s not to say that Tesla doesn’t have other advantages. Tesla has improved the efficiency of its inverters, and in the Model 3 it has shown several other improvements. But I think poor aerodynamics is the main problem dragging down (pardon the pun) the energy efficiency of the e-Tron.

Somehow, I think this has far less to do with the relative virtues of the Audi e-Tron as compared to Tesla’s cars, and far more to do with Swiss investment bank UBS’s current position on investing in Tesla stock.

But it’s interesting to see that apparently we are seeing a second-rate tier of BEVs appearing on the market; BEVs such as the Jaguar I-Pace and now the Audi e-Tron. That is, cars which pretty plainly don’t challenge Tesla for the lead in the EV revolution, but are closer to that ideal than third-rate (or worse) efforts such as the Leaf and the Bolt EV.

They are first rate cars and companies. Lesson 1 don’t blow it all in the first try( don’t blow your wad). Build up from lesson 1. GM and Tesla have learn from lesson 1

Forced Volt->Bolt Conversion

Funny that Audi has bought into the hypertrophied grille to the point they simply can’t walk it back fast enough to make this car look like other than a traditional thrasher model. Too much of a jolt to the Audi enthusiast.

They are probably cheating about the battery capacity. There are many different ways of calculating the battery capacity. It gets a higher capacity rate if it gets discharged at a lower power rate.

“There are many different ways of calculating the battery capacity.”

Actually, the battery cell industry’s method of calculating capacity is a true standard, and isn’t subjective at all. Where the “fuzzy math” comes in is where EV makers may give us the actual nameplate capacity for the cells, as Tesla did with the Model S and Model X*, or the EV maker may list the lesser usable capacity.

*Well actually, Tesla rounded off their battery packs’ capacities to the nearest 5 kWh. So that’s actually a bit fuzzy too! 🙂

This is going to sell like hot cakes to people who want an electric Audi. The quality of metalwork, cabin, etc, is going to shatter that of the Tesla. The specs are good enough; the brand is very strong, the price acceptable. Watch this space.