Coupe คือ 2022 Audi e-tron GT (อาวดี้ อีทรอน จีที) เริ่ม 3,621,000 บาท และ Audi RS e-tron GT (อาวดี้
270 นิวตันเมตร ระยะทางการวิ่ง 217 กม. 2021 Lexus UX300eLexus UX 300 e
2020 Audi e-tron Sportback 55 quattro S line (อาวดี้ อี-ทรอน สปอร์ตแบ็ก) เปิดตัวอย่างเป็นทางการในไทย
BMW Operating System เจนเนอเรชั่นใหม่ซึ่งข่าวระบุว่าผลิตด้วยวัสดุคริสตัล BMW iX Audi
Saya suka video @YouTube 2019 Audi E tron The First Sporty Full Size Electric SUV | TOP CAR
What size is that Audi e Tron in reality? Seems larger than mid size crossover.
With the Jaguar I-Pace launch coming up on Thursday this Swiss site has a table comparing its key known technical specs to the Audi E tron & Tesla model X. Each provides a sweet spot for different buyers based on size, price, charging times etc @Jaguar
You do realize the E Tron has a similar size battery to the Model X, yet is SIGNIFICANTLY smaller and lighter, yet gets LESS range? That’s not a debate, that’s fact. Look it up. ~220 vs 295. But whatever. You drive your E Tron cross country, we’ll drive the MX. Oh, cant do that?
Saya suka video @YouTube 2019 Audi E tron The First Sporty Full Size Electric SUV | BEST CAR
Audi E Tron Jigsaw Puzzle Game Free Download: Category: Games Subcategory: Windows Size: 414.9 kil... http://bit.ly/1cwYHRS
Audi E Tron Jigsaw Puzzle Game Free Downlo: Category: Games Subcategory: Windows Size: 414.9 kilob... http://bit.ly/1cwYHRS
About the same size as Mr Codsy Audi Q7, I'm not sure Audi's e Tron is too much smaller about Q5 length
Will the Audi E-Tron eventually outsell the Tesla Model X? Which year are we talking about? Today, near future or 2025? Well, let’s see, the Tesla Model X with the 100 kWh battery (95 kWh available to the user) has an EPA range of 295 miles (Wikipedia) or 325 miles in the recent, newest, upgraded version, according to Tesla. Audi E-Tron with the 95 kWh battery (84 kWh available) has an EPA range of 204 miles. If we account a few percent for degradation of the battery, less-than-ideal road conditions and higher freeway speeds and subtract 25% from the range of each car to get to real-life ranges, we get to 325 (-25%) = 244 miles for Model X and 153 miles for the E-Tron. That’s the range on which customers can actually rely on. If we get to winter conditions, subtract another 10–15%. Not only the E-Tron isn’t in the same league as the Model X, it actually disqualifies itself as a reasonable choice for this class / price segment. It will get only customers who absolutely don’t want a Tesla and absolutely want an Audi. At those differences in performance and range I don’t think that there are many. Yes, Audi does charge faster up to 80% (which is good) and it left a few percent more as safety in the battery to make it last longer, they could have “unlocked” a few percent more at the top, but still - its not even a competitor, yet alone a car that could outsell the Model X. This extra charging speed gets nullified by a much higher consumption, so as a result the Model X actually charges faster, especially if the user mostly charges on Superchargers in the (most common) 10% - 70% state of charge region. Leave aside that Tesla’s Supercharger is already up and running and Electrify America is still building it, it has the Autopilot that will have full self driving capability in a couple of years and it has over-the-air updates. The final point is - Tesla can produce as many Model X as it wants, it has no shortage of the 18650 battery cells. Audi - in contrast - has a shortage of their battery cells. I was asking whether we talk about the year 2025. Yes, by then Audi could start from scratch, massively redesign the car and give it a 130+ kWh battery. But these wouldn’t be the cars we are are talking about today. Edit: I have seen information that initial sales in Spain, Netherlands and Norway were quite good; but actually I am not surprised - first, it is a new car which some people like because it is new and second - it offers some features that Teslas don’t. Let’s not forget - the Model S is available since 2013 and Model X since late 2015. Many people who wanted those already have them. Norway has mostly roads with a speed limit of 80 km/h (50 mph) and people who bought the e-Tron obviously don’t drive very far very often and at those speeds the e-Tron can probably make close to those 300 km. But we are talking about 500, maybe close to 1000 cars per month. Globally. Early birds. Update 1: I wrote all of the above in May 2019. Now the opinion became a fact-based opinion. In US sales the Model X outsells the e-Tron at a ratio between 2:1 and 3:1. Final Update: Monthly Plug-In EV Sales Scorecard: July 2019 In Europe the E-Tron might have a slight home advantage, but don’t think that it is able to flip the ratio. Side note - Audi just recently announced another version of the e-Tron. With battery with 71 kWh gross capacity. Not 120 kWh, but 71 kWh. Less power, slower charging. I don’t think that this will boost sales. For this size and price category this is laughable.
The size of the battery is important, but there’s more to it than that. The Tesla Model 3 Long Range has a 75 kWh battery and a range of 310 miles. The Audi e-tron has a 95 kWh battery and a range of 204 miles. The e-tron is a bigger and heavier car, but the larger and heavier Tesla Model S has a slightly larger 100 kWh battery pack but with a range of 370 miles! A 5% bigger battery gives 80% more range. The smaller and lighter the car, the less energy it takes to propel it, but other factors such as drag, electronics, charging efficiency, strength of regenerative braking and motor efficiency also make a difference. People ask what the “secret sauce” is that makes Teslas so efficient, and the Tesla Model 3 in particular more efficient. Some point to the Halbach Array magnets in the Model 3 motors, but Model S was superior even before it gained a Model 3 motor as one of its two. I think it’s the whole package. But battery size matters too. Update: And now the 370-mile Model S is rated at 390, and the 310 mile Model 3 is up to 326.
Not anymore. At first it certainly was. This is what electric vehicles looked like before Tesla came along. This is the Th!nk City, a Norwegian EV that was in production between 2001 and 2012. It had a range of 160 km, 46 hp and a top speed of 110 km/h. Now, you may or may not like the design, but I would hardly call it sexy. This is a 2010 model Buddy, another Norwegian car (don’t ask): Let’s just face it. EVs pre-Tesla were tiny, slow and not particularly good-looking. And here is what the Tesla Model S looked like when it was introduced in 2012: It had a range of around 400 km and over 400 hp, 7 seats, good storage capacity, was affordable and it looked amazing compared to every other EV that had come before it. It totally blew people away. Fast-forward a decade, and the Model S looks like this: Pretty much the same car in terms of design. It’s undergone a couple of facelifts, but nothing drastic. The current Model 3 looks like this: More of the same really, just a bit smaller. And here is the current Model X: Again, the same design just in a different size. At this point, the design of Tesla cars have become a bit, dare I say it, boring. There is really no innovation in the design department. Meanwhile, the competition among good-looking EVs have become quite stiff. Here is the Audi e-Tron: The Jaguar I-Pace: And of course the Porsche Taycan: These days, I would say people don’t buy Teslas for their design, but for the technology and the incredible performance. When I talk to Tesla owners, they talk mostly about the software and the cool features of the car. The design is neutral, and no one would look twice if they saw a Tesla at this point.
Part of the e-tron’s charging speed is an illusion. Let me give an example. Let’s say that I fill a glass of water at my sink and it takes 8 seconds. Now let’s fill a 1000 gallon tank with a fire hose and it takes 2 minutes. So which is faster, 0–100% in 8 seconds or 1–100% in two minutes? Would you say that my kitchen faucet fills faster than a 500-gallon-per-minute firehose? You wouldn’t say that. That’s not as extreme as comparing a Tesla Model 3 with an Audi e-tron, but there are similarities. Usually when Audi publishes charging comparisons, they compare going from 0 to 100% in their car and in the Tesla car. What is not apparent is that the Audi only has 204 miles of range, compared to the Tesla which, depending on model, might have 370 miles of range. The other trick that blurs the comparison is the display of a charging curve. Audi does two things with the curve. First they show the Tesla along its entire charge cycle, and stretch the Audi curve to match it, when in fact the Tesla had already added as much range as the Audi much earlier in the curve. You can see in this charging curve illustration from Audi that the Tesla Model 3 (the dark gray curve that starts out on top) only goes to about 88%. I’m assuming that Audi is using the Tesla Model 3 Standard Range Plus in the test because of they way they cut it off. If they had used the Long Range model, Tesla would have done better, and if Audi had used their Quattro 50, they would have done worse. The other thing has to do with how lithium-ion batteries charge—faster at first and then a lot slower at the very end. Tesla cars charge much closer to the top than an Audi does, so the charge curve shows the Tesla charging very slowly at the end. Audi doesn’t charge to the full capacity of the battery, so that slow charging region is hidden. They top off at 96% (which they call 100%). If I recall correctly, if you take a Model 3 Long Range Tesla at a V3 Supercharger (250 kW) and compare charging it from 0–204 miles (the max on the Audi) at an Ionity 340 kW DC fast charger, the Tesla finishes first. To be fair, I’ve been talking about the size of the tank in terms of range, rather than energy. The Tesla looks much better because it’s more energy efficient. If we talked about how much energy the battery can hold, then the e-tron does charge faster (although they still don’t charge their battery all the way). That difference probably comes from a more efficient cooling system. Tesla Model 3 charges faster than Model S for just that reason, a more efficient cooling design. To me, the important question is which car gets from Point A to Point B the fastest, and which car spends more time charging to get there. YouTuber Bjørn Nyland runs what he calls the 1000 km challenge with various cars. The Audi e-tron Quattro 55 completed 1000 km in 10 hours 15 minutes. The e-tron 50 took an hour longer. His Model 3 took 10 hours even. Here is his spreadsheet: Nyland notes that the e-tron 50 was tested in wet cool weather, and he estimates between 11:15 and 11:30 for dry roads in summer. The data doesn’t cover what would happen with Tesla V3 Superchargers. Here is the complete list of Nyhand 1000 km challenge videos . The point is that any advantage e-tron has in charging speed is lost due to its lower energy efficiency. In the real world, the Tesla spends less charging time and gets you there faster.
Primarily from superior aerodynamics, but also from superior EV technology and engineering. The EVs with similar battery packs are the Jaguar I-Pace (90kWh) and Audi e-tron (95kWh). They’re both smaller than the 100kWh pack in the long range Model S, but not by a lot - basically within 10%. Still, the EPA range of the I-Pace is a mere 234 miles, and the e-tron gets a relatively pitiful 204 miles. Relatively speaking, both the I-Pace and the e-tron are bricks compared to the Model S, which is the most aerodynamically efficient car in its class. This is evident when you look at their consumption numbers at various speeds. At low speed, where aerodynamics are not a big factor, the I-Pace is actually quite efficient, but at highway speed an I-Pace has higher consumption than the much larger Model X. The e-tron is in a whole other league of awfulness in the aero department, and that’s why it gets such a low EPA range out of its big battery. Then there’s the EV technology and engineering. Like the old Model S, the Audi uses AC induction motors, which are less efficient than the permanent magnet motors used in the Jaguar. However induction motors have the advantage that they can be idled without creating much drag. Back when Tesla introduced the dual motor version of the Model S, they also introduced something they call “torque sleep”, which essentially means that they disconnect the rear motor of the car in normal driving, not by using a clutch or anything mechanical, but electrically. The front motor drives the car, and is geared at lower ratio than the rear motor which allows it to consume less energy. This is why the dual motor Model S actually has better range than the single motor versions. The Jaguar uses permanent magnet motors, which cannot be torque slept. Both motors must be powered at all times, or they will create drag. The Audi uses an induction motor, but it’s just too heavy and aerodynamically inefficient to be saved by torque sleep (though I believe they do the same). Tesla’s stroke of brilliance in the updated Model S is that they’ve replaced the front induction motor, which is always running anyway, with a more efficient permanent magnet motor, while retaining the induction motor in the rear for the crazy performance and ability to torque sleep. It’s the best of both worlds. Furthermore, they’ve used their superior knowledge and experience in EV engineering to create a new inverter for the motors which is more efficient than the old one. All in all they’ve been able to squeeze out a fairly significant range increase by working smarter instead of harder. It’s very, very impressive.