Charging Comparisons
 

Looks like Audi has a little egg on it’s face; see cleantechnica.com, “Correcting Audi: Tesla Model 3 Charges Over 2 Times Faster than Audi e-tron.”

Here's a link directly to the article: Correcting Audi: 2 Fanboys Get Their Knickers in a Twist

You can just imagine the authors working themselves into a lather at the employee cafeteria. It's a poor read with as many false assumptions as the Audi data they are trying to refute. If I'm not mistaken, V3 Supercharging has yet to roll out while e-trons are being charged at 150 Kw right now. So their argument is specious on the face of it. Light efficient vehicles that charge fast will reach their destinations faster than heavy inefficient vehicles that charge fast. That is as true for the Model 3 versus Model X as it is for the Model 3 versus the e-tron. I guess that is a revelation for the non pocket protector crowd. :rolleyes:

Yes, the Audi marketing rhetoric at that auto show by those marketing clowns was misleading. Yawn.

This seems like a case of old school PR meeting new technology. They need to understand EV technology better before they make misleading claims. The e-trons charging rate is really quite impressive at 150kw. However, they're pushing a narrative that charge rate is the only thing that matters. You need all four: range, efficiency, charge rate, and infrastructure access (locations).

I've personally talked to Audi salespeople that provided incorrect information before I purchased the e-tron. The worst was claiming that the e-tron could charge at Tesla Superchargers. I immediately corrected them but they said it again later and will likely give that information to the next customer.

Tesla's can charge at 250kw just like they can drive themselves and cost 35 grand. It's not new to have Tesla lackies comparing what Musk claims will happen some day against what actually is happening elsewhere.

Love how these Tesla fanboys ALWAYS make these comparisons with the Model 3. PLEASE, these are in totally different class, weight, efficiency, etc. Why don't they do this with a Model X? Real world X performance is not much ahead of the e-Tron.

It is informative to read all of the postings re: comparing the e-Tron with Tesla. When looking at the Tesla S at 5,000. lbs. and e-Tron at 5,600 (curb weight per Wikipedia); Tesla S at .23 drag coefficiency and e-Tron at .28; Tesla S at 375 miles of range and e-Tron at 204. I see Tesla has less weight and less drag so it should have more range. Is it fair to ask the question: are the weight and the drag coefficient the only substantial reasons for Tesla getting 80% greater range over the e-Tron? PS. I am not interested in buying a Tesla. I think the e-tron is a phenomenal vehicle.

Tesla has more efficient drive electronics, uses more of it's battery capacity buffer, and splits drive power between an inductive ac motor and a permanent magnet ac motor for optimal efficiency. These all add up to greater efficiency and longer range.

Neither approach is right or wrong. It just depends on the engineering and sales goals of each specific design.

Similarly, I chose the e-tron based on my priorities which may differ from someone else's. However, I'm not an Audi fanboy and appreciate and respect the engineering associated with Tesla's designs.

Everything I read seems to point to the fact that the eTron's powertrain is not really that inefficient. I used to routinely get some 75-ish percent of the advertised range in normal driving in mild Texas fall weather in my Model 3. This was with those skinny eco-garbage tires that came with the 18" wheels and just the driver in the car. Owners who switched to stickier (i.e. normal) compound on 20" wheels, after driving some on the original Michelin Primacy MMX, reported a 20% drop in range. Tesla further games the system by forcing owners to pump the tires up to rather excessive pressures (the TPMS would constantly make a fuss below 40-ish PSI cold). On top of that, the rated range is given for charging up to 100%, with a smaller buffer than that reserved by Audi.

The recommended charge level on my old Model 3, at the time rated for 310 miles of range, would give me some 260 rated miles, i.e. less than 200 miles in real-world driving. That's not too far off the real-world range of the eTron, a much heavier car with a larger cross-section and a less-favorable CD.





The eTron comes with real

How does one edit a post here? Is that going to be enabled automatically after a certain number of posts?

Top Gear recently did a range comparison of the etron, ipace, and model x: https://www.topgear.com/car-news/big...-jaguar-i-pace

Spoiler: They all wound up with the same range. ~200 miles.