audi-introduces-new-model-naming-system

[Archer]

just like ?

You still haven't explained how the 30 relates to performance of the 1.6litre engine capacity. Other than that you and VAG agree it's a completely arbitrary number designed to obfuscate and confuse?

Um... did you read the article? It tells you right there. So I guess we circle back to, how does a number that relates to real world performance end up confusing and obfuscating things? Vs engine size that could provide power outputs with differences of 100% or more

 

[Kloofvreter]

Um... did you read the article? It tells you right there. So I guess we circle back to, how does a number that relates to real world performance end up confusing and obfuscating things? Vs engine size that could provide power outputs with differences of 100% or more

It's not about real world performance.

 

[Archer]

Ag, just wake me up when someone starts complaining about Volvo with their T# system... very confusing too

 

[Kloofvreter]

Ag, just wake me up when someone starts complaining about Volvo with their T# system... very confusing too

It's the same thing. They've also dropped the engine displacement badges.

 

[pinball wizard]

Um... did you read the article? It tells you right there.

I did, and yes, I re-read it now, and am even more convinced that it's a completely random number assigned to performance, with it's only real purpose being to confuse the buying public. This needs a test case. I wish I was in America right now.

 

[SauRoNZA]

This to me sounds and looks very misleading. Why not use the output then instead of the random number of 30 - 70. It gives the illusion that a 1.6 now is a 3.0 why not call it the 96, 120, 150, 185, 230, 340, 400?

Exactly.

I've hoped for a convention like this for ages because the capacity thing has been daft forever and a day.

But to not line it up with HP or KW is a bit silly.

Ford was ahead of the game with their ST220 and the like.

 

[The_MAC]

70KW

http://www.audi.co.za/za/web/en/models/a1/a1/engines.html

My bad, but you get the point

 

[Ho3n3r]

Whats-with-the-title?

 

[ttygt]

Whats-with-the-title?

to-lazy-to-r

 

[Ho3n3r]

too-lazy-to-r

F-T-F-Y.

 

[ttygt]

sorree-two-lazy-too-r

 

[A3@MBB]

Exactly.

I've hoped for a convention like this for ages because the capacity thing has been daft forever and a day.

But to not line it up with HP or KW is a bit silly.

Ford was ahead of the game with their ST220 and the like.

Erm, I would say Renault would have a better claim to that torch.

Clio RS 172, 182, 197 etc
Megane RS 225, 265, 275
Dating back to 1999 for the Clio...

 

[SauRoNZA]

Erm, they have?

16, 18, 20, 23, 25, 28, 30, 35, 40, 45 are all engine capacity

316 - 1600
318 - 1800
320 - 2000

You get the idea.

Actually in most cases they aren't even.

Mercedes used a 1600 in a 180 model and I think a 1.8 in a 200 model.

BMW also used various confusing ones branded as 318 but actually a 2.0 etc.

But it was more to align the turbo cars with the NA cars that with HP/Kw.

So they were basically saying a 1.6T would be equivalent to a 200 N/A.

The C230 Kompressor for instance was a 1.8 Supercharged engine which they aligned with a 2.3L N/A motor. The 230 certainly didn't line up to Kw/HP.

So I still think Audi are playing a better gave of throwing capacity out the window and using power figures instead. Wish the numbers just actually lined up.

 

[TheChamp]

My mistake. I didn't even realised it changed. Not a big change though. And does this apply or all models or just the lower end of the spectrum.

Most, the M140I is a 3l but the 120d is still a 2l, on Merc's side the C180 is a 1.6 but the C200 is still a 2l, it's the smaller engines that seems to be embarrassing them.

 

[SauRoNZA]

Erm, I would say Renault would have a better claim to that torch.

Clio RS 172, 182, 197 etc
Megane RS 225, 265, 275
Dating back to 1999 for the Clio...

Good point.

Ford just came to mind first.

 

[Sinbad]

...

 

[FiestaST]

Audi’s reasoning for revising its naming strategy…

Audi recently announced the adoption of a new, somewhat confusing “standardised nomenclature” for the power output designations of its range of vehicles. That means that within each model line, a new combination of two numbers will be introduced to effectively replace engine displacement badges.

The new two-digit numerals will range from “30” to “70”, in increments of five.

Why the change, you ask? Well, as the studious folks over at Inside EVs point out, the decision to launch the revised naming strategy is due to the fact that the Ingolstadt automaker is in the process of extensively diversifying its powertrain options.

The new naming structure, the report explains, will allow customers to directly compare Audi models that use traditional combustion engines to those that employ hybrid and electric powertrains. In short, Audi believes this will make it easier to understand exactly where each model – be it petrol, diesel, hybrid, full-electric or natural gas – fits into its respective range.

So, in theory, you’d be able to see that the 150 kW plug-in hybrid A3 Sportback e-tron (which uses a 1,4 TFSI combined with an electric motor) offered in some markets provides similar performance to the 140 kW A3 Sportback 2,0 TFSI. As we understand it, both would wear the new “40” badge: i.e. they’d be branded the A3 40 e-tron and A3 40 TFSI, respectively.

In addition, as Dietmar Voggenreiter, board of management member for sales and marketing at Audi, points out, engine displacement is no longer necessarily a reliable indicator of outright performance, thanks to both downsizing and the use of alternative power sources.

“As alternative drive technologies become increasingly relevant, engine displacement as a performance attribute is becoming less important to our customers.

“The clarity and logic of structuring the designations according to power output makes it possible to distinguish between the various performance levels,” said Voggenreiter.

Still, we can’t help but think that this nomenclature change will end up actually creating even more confusion…

http://www.carmag.co.za/news_post/audis-reasoning-for-revising-its-naming-strategy/

 

[pinball wizard]

So, in theory, you’d be able to see that the 150 kW plug-in hybrid A3 Sportback e-tron (which uses a 1,4 TFSI combined with an electric motor) offered in some markets provides similar performance to the 140 kW A3 Sportback 2,0 TFSI. As we understand it, both would wear the new “40” badge: i.e. they’d be branded the A3 40 e-tron and A3 40 TFSI, respectively.

What muppets. Ignoring their own naming convention. Surely one should be the A3 hatchback 50 and one the A3 hatchback 40?

Yes, you may refer to that other old thread and you will find I am pathologically incapable of calling a hatchback by the incorrectly applied sportback moniker.