Audi most like will stop using V10 engines in the near future.
The V10's in the S8, S6 and RS6 can end there life time when the present models ending production.
Next Gen S8, S6 and RS6 can get V8 TFSI (Supercharged/Bi-turbo) engines. (up to 550 hp and 700 Nm of torque)
There are pretenders among us.....
Geniuses with the ability to become anyone they want to be.....
I read on the autobild article that also v12 tdi on q7 will be cancelled
There is no need other than an ego trip for continuing to use large capacity V10s or V12s. Modern technology have proven that smaller, lighter turbo engines are equally as good at providing the same amounts of power and are more economical.
Search and you will find the truth.
It isn't just V-10s that are dead. I think we are witnessing the death throes of the internal combustion engine. Here is how it's playing out:
1. Lithium-ion battery technology. Battery technology is rapidly advancing to give us rechargeable lithium-ion cells that deliver three magic numbers:
a. Range of 300-400 kilometres
b. Recharge within 3-4 hours
c. Weight under 100 kilogrammes
2. Electric motors. When the above battery technology goals are achieved (and we're still 4-5 years away) cars will only need very small on-board petrol engines (2 or 3 cylinder units). Electric motors will provide the principal means of propulsion with petrol engines used only to charge the batteries and provide emergency back-up power. (This is how the Chevvy Volt works). All hybrids will work this way within 10 years, with auxiliary power units getting smaller as battery capacities increase.
3. Hydrogen fuel cells. The fuel cell concept was invented as long ago as the internal combustion engine. It didn't take off because oil was so freely available and hydrogen wasn't. We now have the means to easily generate hydrogen. Fuel cells are so simple and inexpensive to produce that, within 20 years, they will replace the internal combustion engine entirely. Lithium-ion batteries still be needed to store electricity, but will become smaller as battery technology increases capacity. Fuel cells, batteries and electric motors will create a combined drivetrain package that weighs about the same as current drivetrains.
As of this moment, only three things prevent the mainstream adoption of fuel cells vehicles:
- Hydrogen generation: Moving to a hydrogen economy will require massive quantities of the gas which don't presently exist. But hydrogen can easily be generated as a by-product of electricity generated by nuclear power stations. Many countries, particularly the USA, are investing in new nuclear energy generation plants. (Another solution is to convert solar energy into hydrogen using a reverse fuel cell process. This is what is driving top level research at leading global universities, so we won't need to depend on nuclear energy, although it is likely to be a few years before solar power comes of age.)
- Hydrogen storage: like gasoline, hydrogen is highly volatile, so the development of fuel tanks that can safely store it as a gas at very high pressure in cars is essential.
- Hydrogen Infrastructure: the widespread availability of hydrogen at gas stations will grow as adoption of fuel cell cars increases. It will take 20 years for this to happen, but when it does happen, it'll be as instantaneous as the switch from videos to DVDs.
Audi's next V8 is likely to be its last. It will more than likely be obsolete as soon as it hits the market. Highly efficient 3-cylinder turbocharged petrol engines will punch well above their weight. Small and powerful, when combined with lithium-ion batteries, they'll offer incredible outputs. (I hate to say this on an Audi website, but BMW's supercool concept car previews exactly what we can expect: 1-litre cars that weigh nothing and have 400 bhp.)
The truth is, we should expect one maybe two more generations of hi-performance Audis with petrol engines and that's it.
The winners of this game will be the companies that develop the best batteries and safest hydrogen tanks and offer them to us at the cheapest price. Audi, or rather VW, must surely have its finger on the pulse of developments in this area, so I am sure we will see some pretty exciting stuff appear in the near future.
Before jumping to any conclusion as some members already did read following:
http://www.i4u.com/article26888.html
http://www.lichtblick.de/h/Ueberblick_286.php
So, good for homes but, not for cars?
One of the issues about replacing internal combustion engines is not merely that oil is running out, but because of their emissions. Co2 is an unavoidable and undesirable by-product of all carbon-based fuels. With Indian and Chinese consumer demand for cars rapidly growing, internal combustion engines will become unsustainable environmentally, long before gasoline runs out. That's why we urgently need an alternative. Even before millions of extra cars clog up roads in Asia, environmentalists at 19 of global top 20 universities are convinced we are on the brink of catastrophe. I hope they are wrong. Whatever, i don't feel i can drive around in a big thirsty V8 let alone a V10 or V12 anymore.
While your ecology friendly attitude is nice thing IMHO you need to do your research little bit better...Originally Posted by tailpipe
First, airplanes-specially military ones are polluting the air much, much more then any comerical car. Civil airliner are not any better. Industry is some countries also.
Nuclear tests done in 20th Centuary by USA, Russia(then Soviet Union), France and UK did more damage to climate then any car...
This thread is going to the WC...
+1.
The last fire in California created more CO2 pollution then all the cars in the past 100 years in that State.
With more plug-in electric cars being registered there,there is another problem of significant electricity shortage.
Enviromentalists have this stupid belief that if you drive an electric car you are not polluting ,conveniently forgetting that the electricity has to be somehow produced.
Btw,I don't really care if my car is 6,8 or 12 cylinders as long as it produces enough power to satisfy my needs.
There is nothing wrong with using turbos or supercharging to get to that goal.
S63TT
no car is more harming the environment then the prius, as the material which the car is build of travels almost around the planet before to several destinations before finally arrives in Japan where all the components are assembled.
The analysis I have seen making the Hummer have less of a carbon footprint than the Prius is because the nickel batteries require the mining of nickel in Canada, the export to Wales to be refined, shipped to Japan to be made into batteries, that are then shipped in vehicles to be sold in Canada,... and the shelf life of the batteries are about 100K. Therefore 3 batteries required in the 300k lifespan of a Hummer.
The bottom line is that Prius and other technolgies will not save us from the hard choices we ultimately have to make for real change.
saluto da mike the Nougatilicious marker
switzerland - a land flowing with milk and honey
i have zero concern for the "environment" unless it is the dowright pollution of hard trash. that emissions bullsh*t and greenhouse crap is for coo coo heads. the volume of the biosphere eats emissions for breakfast. unbelievable that it has turned into such a myth.
that oil is running out- that is another story. THAT is the only valid reason to find another source of energy for cars. the more cylinders it has the more fuel it needs. so i agree that V10's will be limited but not eliminated. there will always be a need for halo cars and multi cylinder cars will always have that cachet- even if they only exist in bentleys and lambos.
i still think that the thread is relevant as long as it continues to discuss the reasons why the V10 is dead. any further strictly environmental discussion should be threaded in the off topic section, though.
Past- A4, TT, S4
Present- R8 V10
I tend to think that the real situation with V-10s is that all the major manufacturers are trying to hedge their bets about what engine tech to invest in next.
What anyone here thinks abut emissions is irrelevant. We performance junkies are a profligate minority and a tidal wave of global public opinion has created a green bandwagon that many drivers feel a moral responsibility to jump on. The manufacturers have to respond to that.
I totally agree with Ti-Mike that the Prius is a massive con-trick. Luckily, I think the motoring world is starting to get wise to it. I feel sure that the leading western manufacturers will develop better, more long-term solutions.
I hope the doom merchants are wrong, and we are not close to an irreversible global catastrophe, but in case the environmentalists are right, I feel a responsibility to take care of our fragile planet. So as much as I like performance, I'd rather drive a 2.0 litre I4 engine putting out 260 bhp and less than 200 g/ km of CO2 than a V8 putting out 450 bhp and in excess of 400 g/ km of CO2.
Kreso, you're right about aircraft emissions. Perhaps I should have pre-emptively made mention of this, but as this an automotive forum not an aviation one, I was concerned about going too far off-topic. Since you raise the subject, It goes without saying that aero-engine manufacturers are similarly engaged in investigating future technologies. Who knows, in the absence of viable technology, which seems a long way off, we may see a ban on air travel or massive taxes. But be sure of one thing, we're witnessing a drive to cut CO2 as much as we can, wherever we can. Politicians everywhere know that green policies are increasingly the key to election victories.
And against this backdrop, RXBG, the issue isn't that the world will run out of oil. It may never, but the cost of extracting deeper deposits from more remote locations may already be starting to outweigh investment in alternative technologies. This is why the fuel cell, an old technology, is now reaching maturity more than a century after it was first conceived.
Do I lament the possible death of V-10s? No, but I would miss cars without 500 bhp.I look forward to buying electric cars that have that kind of power. And i'm sure they're coming.
One other technology that may yet save the V-10 is liquid hydrogen fuel. BMW has experimented with it. The downside is that liquid hydrogen needs to be stored at -273 degrees Celsius. So the fuel tanks are very expensive and very heavy in order to have sufficient insulation and robustness.
An interesting perspective have emerged with this thread. Few have actually written on the primary topic-purported news of the demise of the Audi V10. Instead, this thread has morphed into an environmental discussion and, without looking at the posters' names, I am able to ascertain the location of that poster.
Everyone can discuss ad nauseum human induced global warming/climate change or whatever term is the "it" word of the moment for politician and celebrity alike; however, no one here has focused on the economics of this proposed change. The Volkswagen empire has increased in size, scope and breadth with the addition of Porsche. There are published articles stating that Porsche will stop producing the Cayenne and Panamera at the end of each model's current product cycle, to return to focus on sports and GT type vehicles.
Audi, no longer has to compete directly with Porsche in these sectors. Likewise, Porsche and Lamborghini have overlapping product ranges that need to have clearly defined unique product differentiators. When Porsche was an independent automaker, it was important, from a marketing standpoint, for Audi to allude to a spiritual connection between its V10 and that of Lamborghini. Now that distinction is less important. Additionally, the changing economic conditions, and the continuation of constrained lending, has significantly diminished the base of prospective customers for each particular model. Thus, to maintain sales volumes and margins, automakers are concentrating on de-contenting the automobile. For a luxury sports sedan, there are significant cost benefits in reducing engine cylinder count, and consequently, displacement. Technology offers a band-aid to recoup lost horsepower and torque.
Audi in North America, for example, has simplified the A4 to exclusively focus on the 2.0 liter four cylinder engine, while the S4 has the only six cylinder engine available in the B8 A4 line. Similar changes are made for the A5 in MY 2010. With this downsizing approach, Audi is able to maintain strict control over price, while at the same time convincing the customer, that the changes were made with the environment in mind! In the United States, many luxury car purchases were funded using mortgage equity withdraws ("MEWs"), commonly called home equity loans; however, with dramatically falling home values, these funding activities are non-existent. Correspondingly, luxury car sales have suffered proportionally. See Lexus as an example.
Tailpipe-in an earlier posting you had stated that the United States is transitioning to "green" electricity generation, including nuclear energy. Unfortunately, this is not true. There are no new facilities currently under construction, and any plans for new nuclear facilities require exhaustive regulatory interface for the necessary permits. This process would mean that any new facility would not begin construction until approximately, 2020, if the DOE license process was started today.
Something more bout the subject...
http://www.worldcarfans.com/10909252...-twin-turbo-v8
Great, well I've obviously won the most powerful station wagon award then, being lucky enough to be able to buy the current v10 RS6 avant with ceramic brakes. Nothing else will ever come close. Power is extremely fun. Odd that my other passion is gardening. Just remember that the dinosaurs died out. They grew grapes in London once. Greenland was called that for a reason (a long time ago). Change is surely coming. Perhaps we will go back to the horse and buggy!
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html
I think this link will provide you with the information you should have checked-up on before posting.
I wonder if the RS6 will be the first RS model not to outsell its predecessor?
I direct your attention to footnote e of the world-nuclear-org website. The TVA's Watt's Bar reactor 2 is the only active reactor construction project in the States; however, the TVA has restarted construction on an almost finished reactor that was stopped in 2005. One would not consider this new construction since the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") has only issued an extension to the existing construction license.
Many in the industry consider this facility to be the last "stick built" facility before any pre-assembled modular reactors receive design certification. Stick built refers to a reactor built on-site.
The others are defined as either planned or proposed facilities, many have filed for construction and operating licenses with the NRC, but none have received a license and have begun construction. As I mentioned above, the new reactor designs have yet to receive design certification from the NRC, a necessary step before the utility can receive a construction license.
Even if a construction license was granted there are still the hurdles of raising financing in the currently tight capital markets. No utility has enough capital to even contemplate undertaking such a project without issuing debt. Second, the political environment has for nuclear energy has changed with the new administration in office. The previous administration was more pro-nuclear than the current administration. This administration has placed a greater emphasis on wind and solar for energy generation. Without support of the Yucca Mountain Storage Facility, long-term storage of nuclear waste is a major obstacle for the population to accept new nuclear facilities. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, is from Nevada and is opposed to the Yucca Mountain facility.
Based on the above, I retain my response that the probability of new nuclear facilities in the United States coming online before 2020 is virtually nil. The lack of sustainable electricity generating facilities in the U.S., as well as additional generating capabilities, will temper electric vehicle development in the States for the next decade.
Unfortunately I have to second the above...
S63TT
any further posts on this not related to the V10 will close the thread. sorry.
Past- A4, TT, S4
Present- R8 V10
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote