Audi E-Tron...torque like a tank

[colslaw87]

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/09/audi-e-tron/
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/15/frankfurt-2009-audi-e-tron-is-red-outside-nice-inside/

Audi E-Tron
- Electric
- AWD
- 0-62 mph : 4.8 secs
- 124 mph limited top speed
- 313 HP
- 3,319 TQ

TORQUE COMPARISONS
Tesla Roadster : 276 tq
Dodge Viper : 600 tq
Bugatti Veyron : 922 tq
M1 Abrams Tank : 2,750 tq

 

[Juice]

Vaporware.

 

[Vega$ NSX]

It probably will never happen. But the more important bigger picture is what I have been trying say in this thread: That the potential for alternative fueled and electric vehicles is staggering. There are simply limitations with internal combustion engines (ICU's) and we've milked the bejesus out of them. I've always have been excited about electric motors powering vehicles because of the the high and instantaneous torque, ever since I built one in HS well over a decade ago. These numbers (like torque) seem outlandish, but only in comparison with ICU's and their limitations. Once we get used to this new world of alternative powered vehicles, I think these kind of numbers will become more and more of a common place.

 

[Hasdrubal]

We won't see cars like that in production until there are some changes in the infrastructure. Namely, some dramatic increase in the energy density of whatever is used to power the electric motor. Batteries are too bulky and heavy right now. If you go with fuel cells, then you probably need to wait until commercial fusion reactors make electrolysis cheap enough to make hydrogen wherever you need it.

Nothing inherently wrong with electric- I wouldn't mind a Tesla. But right now, I sure wouldn't want to pay for one.

 

[colslaw87]

When we see a torque number that high, we compare it to a gasoline engine. Like WOW soo much torque.

But with an electric engine, the motor puts out 100% torque instantaneously, so 3,000 lbs ft of torque isn't far fetched.

 

[ncbluetj]

While 3300 ft-lbs sounds impressive, it clearly doesn't do much. The car only gets to 62mph in 4.8 seconds. While certainly not slow, I'd think that an AWD vehicle with more torque than 10 normal cars would get off the line like a cork out of a champagne bottle. The torque must taper off drastically with RPM; after all, it only has 313 horse.

 

[Vega$ NSX]

While 3300 ft-lbs sounds impressive, it clearly doesn't do much. The car only gets to 62mph in 4.8 seconds. While certainly not slow, I'd think that an AWD vehicle with more torque than 10 normal cars would get off the line like a cork out of a champagne bottle. The torque must taper off drastically with RPM; after all, it only has 313 horse.

Generally speaking electric motors will have full torque up to its synchronous motor speed and then linearly drop off. I.E. A 1750 RPM motor will have full torque from 0-1750 RPM and then as it is over sped beyond 1750 RPM will linearly drop off. The main problem is this is the usability and actually applying the full torque instantly. As with this Audi, even though 3000+ ft-lbs of torque are available, the tires are probably only capable of actually applying a fraction of that on launch. Therefore the effective torque applied to the ground is far less, due to either traction control or wheel spin. In this regard, the torque and power curves are at a disadvantage to ICUs because they are not conducive to how we actually drive. But given development in technology, it will be only a matter of time before we develop some means to take advantage of an electric motor’s unique torque and power curve characteristics.