So the cost of all that carbon fiber won’t be translated to the consumer right? Yeah right. Otherwise the mileage gains are not worth it. I also have trouble believing that a 2.0L can produce the same performance as a 3.2L V6, weight reductions aside.

The article says: “Based on weight alone, the prototype gains 8mpg.” I take that to mean with less weight the original V6 gets 8mpg better, not that the 2.0L gets 8mpg better. Slightly misleading in the way it’s described, imo……

8mpg if that true that is an impressive gain with very little sacrifice well done Audi. 2888lb is light for today even for a relativity small luxury car today.

8mpg with weight reduction and 2.0L maybe, i dont see 8mpg just from 240lbs… if that was the case, back seats and spare tire are coming out of my car… hell why not the passenger seat too, those damned passengers just add weight and leave me standing at the pump

8 MPG is amazing.

Now let’s see the price increase to see if it justifies the MPG gain. Will it be like low-fat food. Remove the fat, but charge more for a lesser product? Nothing ever comes free dang it

The car is less then 1 year old, what took them so long to come up with this? Why not originally drop 240 lbs from the car and not even bother with V6? Was gas so much cheaper a year ago?

Well, DenverGuy217, if economy or fuel-efficiency dictates price, it explains why the hybrid versions of cars are generally so much more $$$$. Which makes the option much less financially sensible for alot of people. The same thing with diesels, companies like VW charge so much more for the diesel powerplant. Enough to offset the efficiency gains to get people saying ‘what’s the point?….’

And it costs how much more than the original model?

God… Why you are using Liter as Engine displacement volume but stick to the bloody lbs for weight, especially when the figure from Audi was probably in kg. So 110 kg less, down to 1.3 t, not bad for the size of this car.
And yes I concur with you, it mean 8 mpg especially due to the 3.2L V6 getting replaced by the 2.0L, plus the weight gain.

^^you are complaining about the use of lbs but use the term mpg freely? Do want everyone to use mpl? lol

It regards to the car: as long as Audi keeps the power the same, weight loss is always welcome!

sorry, that should be km per litre I guess for you foreigners!

*yawn* it’s still just another FWD bias Audi.

When Audi makes the A4 and A5 RWD bias, I’ll consider paying attention to them. Ditto for the TT.

its actually L/100km…

Lets see: A BMW M3 like pricetag + performance numbers of the TT-S usually equals Audi Success. Not justifiable but can you blame them? they make perfect cars!

denverguy there shouldnt be that much of a price increase because theyre downsizing to a 2.0t, which also removes a lot of excess weight from engine size

yes it is L/100km, and mpg to L/100km is a tricky conversion to do, as more MPG = better fuel consumption, and in L/100km, it must be inverse (low L/100km = better fuel consumption).
But still, L/100km is WAY more precise: If you do like I do, read car website, You have to know from what country is the author! When Ford Europe state that the their new vehicle make 60mpg, you have to bear in mind that it is UK Gallons and it is totally different that what you can read here on LLN. By the way I’m sure that when LLN reports MPG from europeans cars, they take the UK mpg and do not convert them…

And that’s without even mentioning how nice the handling will be. This car with the TT-S 270hp 2.0T will be amazing to drive, and lighter engine will help the car weight balance. The gas mileage is only a bonus for me, and it’s also so for Audi and passing EPA fleet regs.

Like some mentioned, I’m only worried about the price increase really, and repair prices too, but that should drop as it generalizes anyways.

Go Audi!

Bosley… if you have doubts about the 2.0T versus the 3.2 that audi uses… compare the two versions of the 2009 A4. Theyre virtually the same performance wise, and the 2.0T can outgun the 3.2 with nothing more than a chip. The 3.2 is a dead engine for Audi.

Ok, chassis rigidity is going way down but overall way to go Audi for thinking something up for a prototype on your lunch break, I guess. Stop locating your engines ahead of your front wheels on all your vehicles, especially your performance sedans and you’ll impress me.

the only reason i would buy this car is so i could buy a crashed RS4 and put that engine into this lightweight, but i’d probably want to do that if they make an a5 sportback light weight.

I had a 2007 A4, and for the life of me, I couldn’t figure out why anyone would buy the V6, especially considering the price premium. Power differences are minimal, and the four pot has far superior fuel efficiency. I suppose engine longevity is a consideration with any forced induction setup, but I was leasing, so f*** if I cared. I opted for the 2.0T with a 6 speed. Let me tell you that is one sweet, peppy little motor.

Carbon fiber is expensive now, but it’s the way of the future, especially as manufacturing technology improves. I’m glad to see Audi on the vanguard, exploring new methods of production and product optimization.

I really do not believe carbon fiber will be used commonly in the future or a “way of the future” feature. When carbon fiber experiences the stress of an impact it shatters. Into hundreds of pieces literally. That would be detrimental towards passengers, podestrians, and material value alike. Unfortunately. However, perhaps they could, in the future, incorperate some kind of transparent film to bind shattered pieces and eliminate deadly debris, although I would doubt that alltogether.

Yeap, drop the V6, use the 2.0T and the new space frame. You’ll see the A5 doing some magic numbers both in fuel economy and 0-60. The issue is still the repair of alum and carbon fiber panels. You’d have to replace the whole panel…

@comp.mode Well, then I supposed you won’t fly on any of the latest large size aircraft from Boeing or AirBus. It’s the usage of carbon fiber by the large corporations for their products that is creating the higher prices and the shortage of available carbon fiber.

You’ll have to forgive comp.mode. He was busy driving his 2009 Monte Carlo.

@Game Traveler Well, no I wont be flying anytime soon. Really not sure how that relates to me, but, I’m sure most people driving cars day to day won’t be either. Not sure how to satisfy that itch for you.Your following comment makes no sense as well since the fact that I can order as much carbon fiber material delivered to my shop in central Illinois and have it this week. Carbon materials are basicly costly but I dont get how my comment towards crash safety relates at all.

I dont have a Monte Carlo dip ****. Wtf?

Stfu, comp.mode

Why? what is your problem? Never seen someone defend themselves?? Would you like to start?Those little words you type would make anyone just want to talk more and more. Is everyone menstrating today?

@****sterS:

I’ve got a 1999 A4 with the 1.8 turbo and I’ve got almost 175,000 miles on it with NO engine problems at all… even with an APR chip since 50K. Reliability is *really* good on these machines… once you replace the clutch at 95K, the fuel pump at 105K and the front control arms bushings at 135K…

Sure hate it…

I’m not saying that the engine is unreliable. I’m just saying that fundamentally, forced induction engines are less durable than naturally aspirated ones. My point was that engine durabiltiy is one of the ONLY reasons that someone would opt for the NA 3.2 over the 1.8/2.0T, and that this is usually a small consideration. (Although in terms of anecdotes, a close friend has a GTI with a 1.8T and has had to replace the turbo twice). Anyway, we’re on the same side on this issue. The turbo four pot is a good engine.

@comp.mode. Formula 1 cars make extensive use of carbon fiber, in both structural and body shell applications. I’d like to see you argue that the safety demands of an F1 monocoque are any less rigourous than those of Joe Blow’s mid-sized sedan.

comp.mode,
carbon fiber does not shatter, it spiderwebs and cracks. One good example is mountain bikes, something i ride frequently. The high performance models almost always come with a carbon fiber frame. Go out, and use a carbon fiber Specialized Stupjumper Comp model. After going off cliffs, rocks, and various dirt jumps, you tell me if it is not strong. Carbon fiber has MORE rigidity and strength than steel. It also does not explode into pieces because it is usually covered with an apoxy, or resin, binding it together. The body of this audi would also probably still use aluminum heavily, a full carbon fiber structure would save more than 240 lbs.
Know your stuff before you try to scare people into thinking your way.

Ive watched F1 for 27 years. they wreck it shatters. Carbon fiber shatters. I’ve formed it myself. Everybody knows its stronger and lighter than steel. Alot of materials are. The impact between mountain bikes and cars are so different in so many areas. The resin your thinking of doesnt bond well enough for vehicle collisions. The resin, just like with fiber glass is pretty much the same and offer mostly a base for painting not much protection. When cars sporting a carbon fiber body it shatters upon collision, sorry.

@****ster s: Alright hears your arguement. Many F1/Indy racecar drivers have been injured because of shattered carbon fiber flying through the air. And yes, unfotunately I have to go through it again, carbon fiber debris flying through the air from Joe Blows sedan will injure pedestrians.

@ comp.mode: often times layers of kevlar are added to the carbon fiber so that the broken carbon stays attached to the more flexible kevlar.
@ reedfast: yes it does. look at any tensile testing results and they’ll show with very little doubt that cf is very brittle. the spiderwebbing/cracking is whatever has been applied over the carbon (gelcoat, paint, etc) and not the material itself

^ yeah, but it doesn’t shatter-or shrapnelize like you said it would, it breaks into pieces just like glass.
I don’t think an f1 car slamming into a wall at 200 is really the same thing as a 2000 pound sedan hitting a biker. If carbon fiber wasn’t safe, why would it be used on almost every high performance car money can buy? it’s not legal in this country to sell people products that are as unsafe as you said they are, because, like comp.mode said, it could seriously injure people who aren’t in control of what you bought.

Seriously reedfast. Lets get real, Ok. I’ve personally with my own damn eyes, in the Pit Lane, at Indy, the impact, of a F1 car, hitting the left Pit Lane wall, at the 50mph speed zone, shattering, shrapnelizing, just like glass, just like carbon fiber! That being proof to you what more do you need to know? This is kinduv dumb. In addition, how many intersections have you personally come across Pagani Zonda’s. How many Enzo Ferrari’s do you have in your town?? C’mon man. I’ve read articles in automotive news alerting track car owners of how potent on-road collisions can be. Do you think that there would be more articles on this topic if manufacturers used carbon fiber body panels on the outside of thier cars? The fact that you have a car that can probably reach 100mph, and and you can drive it flat out wasted poses a bigger threat than flying carbon fiber bits. But they havnt taken your car away right? No, they just flood the earth with information that suggests you drive sober or dont drive. Therefore you may still drive that car.

@ Zorlox: Cool. I was not aware of that. I have done carbon fiber work and didn’t even know that. I still wish it were enough though.