Comments on: Audi A3 Sportback 1.9 TDI e – national media launch

By: Golfschwein

Golfschwein — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 09:16:00 +0000

He’s just turned 60, No name. Target market bullseye.

By: No Name

No Name — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 08:30:42 +0000

Aurion Golfie – what the blody hells going on

By: Golfschwein

Golfschwein — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 07:28:32 +0000

Okay, I’m here, I’m here!

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, my Golf has the 1.9 engine you apparently despised, but it is among the very best cars I have driven on the open road. There’s plenty of overtaking oomph.

Noise? Not as quiet as the Aurion I’ve been a passenger in all weekend, but well enough suppressed at freeway speeds. Around town is when the diesel noise is a constant companion.

By: alec

alec — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 01:19:39 +0000

Dont forget, best economy is achieved differently in each car but is essentially a combination of distance travelled vs fuel used. The faster you go, the further you travel. Due to gearing of modern cars allowing engine rpm to be kept low at higher speeds and the diesels ability to produce good torque at low rpm also, the audi would be at its optimum at ‘higher’ (more freeway like) speeds

By: alec

alec — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 01:09:50 +0000

For anyone who doesn’t believe the statement regarding average speed, you might just be very surprised when you check the trip computer of a car so equipped.
In normal 60km/h roads, mixed with stop start traffic & some intersections, the average speek I usually get is about 30-35km/h
However,
Once I mix some freeway driving in with that, I get surprise surprise about 65-70km/h.
Sounds like they were tested real world to me.

By: Cameron

Cameron — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 22:45:14 +0000

The write-up certainly gave me the impression that it was a competition to see who could return the best figures.
There is no doubt it is efficient and can return good figures, but to what degree do you have to “feather” the throttle to achieve it. The control car may not have been driven with “efficiency” in mind, but if its travelling in convoy I can’t see that it would have been driven with any zest.
Sorry, but the jury is still out in my mind.
That said – I’m extremely happy to see development of these vehicles with an efficiency focus.

Diesel-hybrid is the new buzzword. Tomorrow is exciting, just get the technology to market!

By: No Name

No Name — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 15:45:13 +0000

Captain – your missing the point of the challenge to get max fuel economy. I see what you saying but the trial was to achieve the maximum they could. Stop ranting pointlessly old bean.

By: realcars

realcars — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 11:41:07 +0000

This vehicle makes current hybrid tech look antiquated indeed. Bigger,more powerful,more stylish and a better drive than a Pirus no doubt.

This vehicle is for the true environmentalist.

By: Paul Maric

Paul Maric — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 09:23:05 +0000

Captain Mainwaring:

Yes, except they did measure the fuel economy under “realistic and comparable conditions.”

If you apply the simple mathematics to it, you would realise that it was in fact absolutely realistic and quite an impressive feat.

But, as you say. That’s life, dreams are free.

By: Captain Mainwaring

Captain Mainwaring — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 08:41:13 +0000

Nothing against Audis, in fact I love most of them, but fuel consumption needs to be measured under realistic and comparable conditions. Obviously not everyone subscribes to that.
But that’s life, dreams are free.

By: Reckless1

Reckless1 — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 07:44:43 +0000

The Captain is found wanting with his stupid tirade against the Audi.

They are not cheating anyone, but when they drive the A3 e the way Camrys are driven, they can return 3.5l/100

When they are driven without particular attention to economy, the cars return 4.5l/100 IN THE SAME DRIVE.

If you read the article properly, and apply some basic comprehension skills, you can deduce that. Shame you blot your copy book with insane ramblings.

By: Captain Mainwaring

Captain Mainwaring — Sat, 31 May 2008 19:47:37 +0000

What I meant to say was that if a lot of stop-start city driving was the reason for the average speed being only 64, then the fuel consumption achieved would be impossible. I stand by my contention that they would have only been doing about 75 on the open road. If you do 100 on the highway, even with a reasonable mix of city and town driving included, your average speed will be over 80.

By: Paul Maric

Paul Maric — Sat, 31 May 2008 13:15:26 +0000

Captain Mainwaring:

Do yourself a favour and reread what I wrote, it will help you look a whole lot less daft.

I suggested that stop-start city driving would in fact lower the average speed when driven in combination with highway driving.

City driving would also exhibit the greater level of fuel use in comparison to highway driving.

By: Mmmmm

Mmmmm — Sat, 31 May 2008 10:13:03 +0000

From what I can read, Captain Mainwaring – your the one who should make a bit more sense.

By: Captain Mainwaring

Captain Mainwaring — Sat, 31 May 2008 09:44:47 +0000

Attention Paul Maric, what the Hell are you trying to say?
Your assumptions are complete crap, because what you’re suggesting is that the city driving that lowered the average speed actually improved the fuel economy. This is utter bullshit, as traffic lights and stop-start driving use a lot more fuel than cruising at 100km/h. I think you need to go back to the pub, have five more pints, then come up with something that makes a bit more sense. But I won’t be holding my breath.

By: Paul Maric

Paul Maric — Sat, 31 May 2008 05:02:01 +0000

Captain Mainwaring:

Sorry to dash your corruption theory, but the average speed indicated – 64km/h – is a mix of country, city and highway driving.

This means that there was a great deal of driving under 100km/h to push the average down to 64km/h which makes this an even great feat as stop-start traffic will exhibit the greatest fuel use.

If the average speed was indeed closet to 100km/h, it would indicate a majority of highway driving – which wouldn’t make this anywhere near as interesting.

By: Liam

Liam — Sat, 31 May 2008 04:24:50 +0000

Just because the average speed was 64km/h doesn’t mean the cars were not driven at highway speeds, does it?

By: Fenno

Fenno — Sat, 31 May 2008 03:05:12 +0000

Aye-aye! the Captain has nailed it on the head. What’s the bet also that no aircon was used. Who drives throught the outback with the air off? (besides roo-shooters)

By: Captain Mainwaring

Captain Mainwaring — Sat, 31 May 2008 02:45:12 +0000

Now we get to the truth of it. Average speed 64. If these cars had been driven at 100 or so to keep up with normal traffic the average would have been 85-90 and the consumption would be about 5.0L/100, maybe 4.7 at best.
The best consumption I have ever achieved at 100km/h cruising speeds on relatively flat roads is 3.3L/100 in a Honda Insight and 3.6L/100 in a VW Polo BlueMotion. These are real figures, not contrived by an artificially low cruising speed, but the cars in question are optimised for fuel economy to the exclusion of just about everything else.
The most economical speed for any car on a flat road is the lowest speed that it will comfortably pull the highest available gear ratio, and this exercise proves it once again.
Then again, a car would probably be even more economical if you just trickled along at idle speed in second gear, foot completely off the accelerator. Even though that’s completely ridiculous, somebody will probably try it one day and publish the result as some sort of a record.

By: reality

reality — Sat, 31 May 2008 01:50:46 +0000

A couple of details from carpoint – average speed of 64 kph on country roads in SA.