Audi A4 2.0 TFSI flexifuel

Finally an Audi A4 that runs on ethanol (E85) and comes with an optional Quattro four wheel drive. So what do I have to complain about? Well, first of all the E85 version doesn't come with any automatic transmission option, which is a bummer. Although the start-stop system is nice, and should bring you under 10 l/100km in E85 consumption (6.6 l/100km on petrol), making the A4 flexifuel the best E85 option out there. Quattro will add another 0,5 liters or so.

What's really annoying though is that some genius decided to fit the car with the 180 hp 2.0 TFSI engine instead of the brilliant 211 hp version!!! What the f*ck? The fuel consumption is the exact same on these two engines, so there would be absolutely no disadvantages going with the most powerful of them.

In short, if you get the 180 hp E85 version instead of the 211 hp version you're losing:
- 1 second on the 0-100 km/h run (8.1 seconds instead of 7.1!)
- 22 km/h top speed (228 km/h versus 250 km/h)
- 30 Nm of torque (320 versus 350)

And you gain absolutely nothing. Why oh why, Audi??? I want an A4 Avant 2.0 TFSI 211 hp E85 Quattro with a DSG transmission, thank you so much.

Photo: proforged

The small SUV segment - Will Volvo make it?

We've got some really interesting small SUV's coming this fall, all competing within the same "premium" segment: Audi Q5, Mercedes GLK and Volvo XC60. I've already expressed my frustration with the Volvo and its hopelessly outdated engines. This frustration isn't getting any better after looking up some numbers:

Audi Q5 2.0 TDI (170 hp/350 Nm) - Fuel consumption: 6,7 l/100km CO2: 175 g/km
BMW X3 2.0d(177 hp/350 Nm) - Fuel consumption: 6,5 l/100km CO2: 172 g/km
Mercedes GLK 220 (170 hp/400 Nm) - Fuel consumption: 6,9 l/100km CO2: n/a
Volvo XC60 D5 (185 hp/400 Nm) - Fuel consumption: 7,5 l/100km CO2: 199 g/km

All these cars are equipped with four wheel drive, and have comparable engine specs and prices, although the Volvo is a bit on the slow side when it comes to acceleration, and a bit expensive (comparable to the Merc and BMW, and more expensive than the Audi). And if you want an XC60 with fuel consumtion on par with the other competitors, you'll have to wait until the spring, and buy a 2,4D with 163 hp and front wheel drive only (consumption: 6,5 l/100km). Now, who will buy that, instead of a proper four wheel drive from Audi, BMW or Mercedes? And why on earth didn't Volvo keep the brilliant ethanol-enigine from the prototype, that could have given it an advantage amongst its competitors? I don't know. I just don't know.

No Audi Q7 Hybrid

According to sources, the production of the long-awaited Audi Q7 Hybrid, shown as a concept car as early as 2005, has been put on ice. Apparently this decision is based on a "lack of interest" from the customer base. Although Audi hasn't verified this, they did verify in March that the Q7 Hybrid wouldn't be coming to the US. The problem at that time was the low value of the dollar.

Now, I'll tell Audi about "lack of interest": I'm definitly not interested in buying a conventional petrol car today that guzzles 13 l/100km, and I can't see how the Q7 sales will rise without the introduction of hybrid technology, or other technology that will make the car independent from oil (such as ethanol or bio-gas, for instance). The oil won't become cheaper, you know, and people want to be liberated from the greasy paws of the oil industry.

On the positive side, Audi will be focusing on hybrid technology for the new A4, A5 and Q5, and this will probably involve lithium-ion batteries. Do we dare hope for an Audi Q5 Plugin Hybrid, with a range of 70-80 kilometers on battery power alone?