Frankfurt 2009: Audi A4 and A4 Avant go biofuel in Germany
Audi A4 - Click above for high-res image gallery
Audi's big green reveal from the Frankfurt Motor Show is undoubtedly the e-Tron electric supercar – especially considering the recent comments about electric cars and diesels made by Audi North America President Johan de Nysschen. But there's another type of fuel/energy that Audi drivers in Germany can now use to move their four-ringed vehicles around: ethanol. Audi has never been a particularly strong proponent of the biofuel, but the A4 and A4 Avant 2.0 TFSI flexible fuel models are not the first to get the ethanol treatment.
The flex-fuel engine is a modified version of the standard 2.0 TFSI with Audi valvelift and start-stop system and both engines have the same torque (236.02 lb-ft between 1,500 and 4,200 rpm) and horsepower (180) outputs. A new A4 running on E85 will get 26 mpg (U.S.) on the European cycle, while the A4 Avant gets just 25.5 mpg (U.S.). Super unleaded petro-gasoline turns these numbers into 36.7 and 35.6 mpg (U.S.), respectively. Germany currently has around 300 E85 stations.
Gallery: First Drive: 2009 Audi A4 Avant
Photos Copyright ©2008 Sam Abuelsamid / Weblogs, Inc.
[Source: Audi]
PRESS RELEASE:
Ingolstadt, 2009-09-15
Audi News Frankfurt Auto Show (IAA) 2009
The Audi A4 and the A4 Avant 2.0 TFSI flexible fuel –bioethanol as fuel
* 2.0 TFSI with 180 hp now also suitable for operation with E85
* Biofuel with significantly better CO2 balance
* Cost advantages for customers
Audi has added a new, particularly economical version to its A4 model series: The A4 and A4 Avant 2.0 TFSI flexible fuel can be operated on bioethanol. The fuel, designated E85, lowers operating costs and features a good CO2 balance.
The 2.0 TFSI flexible fuel engine is based on the 2.0 TFSI with Audi valvelift and start-stop system. Like that engine, it produces 320 Nm (236.02 lb-ft) of torque between 1,500 and 4,200 rpm and puts out 132 kW (180 hp).
The four-cylinder engine is designed for operation on E85 – the typical European mixture of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. E85 is currently available at nearly 300 gas stations in Germany, with Norway and Sweden having the densest network of E85 filling stations in Europe.
Today bioethanol is produced via the alcoholic fermentation of energy crops such as wheat, corn and sugar cane. Thanks to the high renewable fraction, its CO2 balance in the total vehicle is as much as 75 percent more favorable than that of conventional petroleum-based fuel. The Volkswagen Group is actively participating in the research and development of new ethanol production processes from crop wastes for an even better energy balance in the future.
Audi takes advantage of the higher RON 110 octane rating of bioethanol to operate the engine at optimal efficiency. This significantly reduces the roughly 40 percent greater consumption by volume that is a consequence of the lower energy content of ethanol and thus decreases the loss in range.
The advantage of the Audi concept is that the engine can be operated on fuel with any concentration of up to 85 percent ethanol with no noticeable differences in drivability or performance.
The flexible fuel philosophy requires a series of technical modifications. One of the chemical properties of E85 is that it is highly corrosive to certain metals. The base engine had already been designed with these properties in mind, so no modifications to the fuel lines or seals were required.
A different material was required only for the valve seat rings due to the lower lubricating action of the ethanol. A sensor in the fuel line reports the ethanol concentration to the engine management system, which adjusts injection and ignition accordingly.
With E85, the ultra-modern four-cylinder unit achieves a fuel consumption of 9.0 liters per 100 km (26.13 US mpg) in the A4 Sedan and 9.2 liters per 100 km (25.57 US mpg) in the A4 Avant. With super unleaded gasoline it records figures of 6.4 liters per 100 km (36.75 US mpg) in the Sedan and 6.6 liters per 100 km (35.64 US mpg) in the Avant. Because taxes on ethanol are significantly lower than on fossil fuels, however, its use reduces operating costs.
The Audi A4 and the A4 Avant 2.0 TFSI flexible fuel offer the sporty driving enjoyment that characterizes Audi. The sedan accelerates from zero to highway speed in 7.9 seconds on its way to a top speed of 236 km/h (146.64 mph); for the Avant these figures are 8.1 seconds and 228 km/h (141.67 mph). Both models transfer power to the road via the front wheels and a six-speed manual transmission.
The equipment and data specified in this document refer to the model range offered in Germany. Subject to change without notice; errors and omissions excepted.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Carney 11:17AM (9/15/2009)
A raised glass of tasty ethanol to Audi!
We'll have to content ourselves with such piecemeal, one at a time announcements for now it seems.
But to make a real difference we need a legislative mandate (like the Open Fuel Standards Act being considered by Congress) that all new cars leave the mono-fueled, no-choice petroleum-only past behind and embrace flex-fuel, multiple options, and alcohol.
Only when it's an across the board standard feature in cars, like seatbelts, will renewable, clean-burning, non terrorism funding alcohol fuel be routinely available at every local "gas" station.
Reply
Mark Kiernan 2:11PM (9/15/2009)
Biofuel, great but where can I buy biofuel? Biofuel is pretty much like H2, it is much better than gas but you can't find it for sale anywhere.
Reply
DasBoese 8:39PM (9/15/2009)
The cool thing about flex-fuel is that unlike hydrogen cars, you can run them on regular gasoline just as well if you like, or any mix of the two. The choice is all yours.
Ethanol doesn't require nearly as much infrastructure investments as hydrogen because you essentially need to just upgrade the existing fossil fuel infrastructure, which can and is happening gradually.
Here in Germany, just 10 years ago there were maybe a handful of ethanol pumps, now there are already hundreds and new ones keep coming.
In the USA I imagine you might have a problem finding E85 in rural areas due to the sheer size of the country, but I bet all of the major urban areas have at least one.
Carney 11:17AM (9/16/2009)
There are 2,000 ethanol stations in the US, up from only a few hundred a few years ago. Still, that's only a small fraction of the 250,000 total stations.
It's not surprising that E85 is hard to find, especially outside the Midwest where the corn lobby has gotten state governments to subsidize it heavily. After all, only 3% of cars on the road can use it!
Very few gas station owners will dedicate one of their pumps to a fuel only 3% of cars can use. For a four-pump station, that's 25% of sales capacity. Even for a huge 12 pump station, that's over 8%, again, for only 3% of cars. Obviously, switching means a big hit in sales, so few do it.
The only way to solve the problem of the availability of biofuel is to increase the marketshare of biofuel compatible vehicles. The most practical, effective, rapid, and ironically least intrusive way to do that is to simply mandate that all new cars sold in America be fully flex-fueled, able to run equally easily on any alcohol fuel as on gasoline. Ethanol is always a biofuel and methanol and other alcohols can be depending on their source feedstock.
Since about 10% of cars on the road are sold new that year, within just 3 years, 4 allowing for the current slowdown, 30% of cars would be flex-fueled, enough to convince even a four-pump station to switch one pump to alcohol, if only to undercut its cross-corner rival with cheap methanol fuel.
Carney 11:27AM (9/16/2009)
And H2 is FAR from being better than gasoline.
It's made from fossil fuels or extremely expensive and energy-intensive electrolysis.
If the former, you might as well just use fossil fuels, since you actually use less fossil fuel that way rather than lose a big overhead in the conversion to hydrogen. If the latter, you're burning lots of coal and NG to generate the power, and even if you're using nuclear, hydro, or whatever, the cost is so sky-high as to make it pointlessly impractical.
There are many other show-stoppers as well in transporting, storing, selling, and using hydrogen on the road (and parking the cars), any one of which is a total deal-killer. Combined, they make H2 a non-starter.
For an engaging and sometimes darkly humorous take on this, see here:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax
Sam 2:37PM (9/15/2009)
With E85, the ultra-modern four-cylinder unit achieves a fuel consumption of 9.0 liters per 100 km (26.13 US mpg) in the A4 Sedan and 9.2 liters per 100 km (25.57 US mpg) in the A4 Avant. With super unleaded gasoline it records figures of 6.4 liters per 100 km (36.75 US mpg) in the Sedan and 6.6 liters per 100 km (35.64 US mpg) in the Avant. Because taxes on ethanol are significantly lower than on fossil fuels, however, its use reduces operating costs
Ethanol to me seem like another scam. You put in a renewable fuel. Great right? But out the tailpipe comes 20-30% more C02 than if it were fueled by Gasoline. The point is to improve efficiency not lower it. I think it's rediculous. Biodiesel people Biodiesel!
Reply
DasBoese 9:04PM (9/15/2009)
You may emit more CO2 at the tailpipe, but only the part of it that comes from fossil fuels counts against atmospheric CO2 increase.
For E85 that'd be 15% gasoline content directly plus a certain percentage of the ethanol content indirectly, due to fossil fuels used during ethanol production. That number probably varies wildly with different production methods and geographical regions and I have no idea as to what its average is, I'll just estimate it at 20%.
That is 35% fossil CO2, now factor in a 30% increase in fuel consumption and you arrive at 45.5%. That still means a NET REDUCTION of over 50% in fossil CO2 released!
Lower operational costs (that'll offset the few hundred dollar markup of a FF system quickly) and a significant net decrease in CO2 emissions... doesn't sound like a scam to me.
Sam 8:08AM (9/16/2009)
Ok, Co2 is Co2 weather it comes from a renewable source or not. And an increase in CO2 output weather it's from a renewable source or not is BAD. Just because you balance out your Co2 with fancy numbers doesn't change the fact that the engine is less efficient and in effect your going backwards with technology.
Carney 11:34AM (9/16/2009)
You don't understand the point here. It makes a BIG difference where the CO2 comes from.
The CO2 from fossil fuels has been effectively sequestered deep underground for basically forever in human terms, and stays there basically forever until we go get it. So it hasn't in the life of man been in our atmosphere or climate or carbon cycle. Drilling it up, refining it, and burning it into the air adds more CO2 than there would otherwise have been - adds new net CO2.
By DRAMATIC contrast, the CO2 from plant material was NOT sequestered deep underground. It was already part of the carbon cycle, already part of the biosphere our climate system, and WOULD HAVE RETURNED TO THE ATMOSPHERE ANYWAY. Regardless of whether that CO2 is breathed out by animals or comes out of a tailpipe, that CO2 is not NEW, additional, net more CO2 that adds more greenhouse gases.
See now?