Audi e-tron summer range test



Results:
90 km/h, 56 mph: 370 km, 230 mi, 225 Wh/km, 362 Wh/mi
120 km/h, 75 mph: 270 km, 168 mi, 308 Wh/km, 496 Wh/mi

My Tesla referral code (yes, it’s back again):

My other YouTube channel for general vlogs:

My Artlist playlist:

Most of my music is from Artlist.io. If you sign up for one year and use my referral link, you will get two months free:

Donation links:

My live channel:

Teslabjørn Discord server:

Reduce food waste and get great deals on food:

20 Replies to “Audi e-tron summer range test”

  1. Ole-Christer Melvold

    I did a short TBTP test of the e-tron quattro 55 on the northern route last night, with no wind , (at the same time Bjørn did the 62 kWh Leaf range test). I did one round trip, the result was 205 Wh/km for an estimated 405 km. (252 miles) of real life, combined summer range. The high speed result was 266 Wh/km. Similar car with conventional mirrors, 20 inch wheels with the same Bridgestone Alenza tires. Efficiency Mode, AC ECO, fan speed 1.

    It is probably possible to do even better. I had only 18,5 C outside temperature, which leads to some extra air resistance. I also had low SoC at both attempts, which is said to cause higher internal resistance.

  2. K G

    Did a test on the same stretch of road with my E-tron today.
    – 21" wheels with 3.0/3.2 bar.
    – Outside temp was between 20-21°C.
    – 20km/h wind from the south (according to the cars weather app).
    – Efficiency mode.
    – AC on ECO at 21°C.
    – Alone in the car.

    Drove from Shell Ås and turned around at Sarpsborg Hospital, exactly 100km round trip. First run I set the ACC at 93km/t with maximum distance to the car in front, second run same settings but at 123km/h (equal to 90 and 120km/h at GPS).
    Result @ 90km/h: Ø20,7kWh/100km.
    Result @ 120km/h: Ø27,5kWh/100km.

    What could be the reason for the different result compared to Bjørns test? Does not look like the wind was any stronger on the day he did his test.
    I have driven the car close to 7000km now. Looks like the car Bjørn tested had only done 5-600km when he started the test? Could this have any impact on the consumption?

  3. Thor Arne Rugsveen

    I think the southern route is more flat than the northern route so the effiency will be better, than on the ordinary northern route.
    The temperature will also be higher and the route have fewer bends.
    I think the brown leather seats looks awful, typical german bad taste.

  4. Alejandro Jorge Pérez Alvarez

    Hello Bjorn, I think you are wrong, the e-tron have asynchronous motors, not permanent magnet motors….

    "The electric drive motors in the Audi e-tron are asynchronous. The
    main components of each electric drive motor are the stator with its three copper windings (U, V, W), which are 120° apart, and the rotor (an aluminium cage rotor). The rotor transmits the rotational movement to the transmission unit. The air gap between the stationary stator and the rotating rotor is very small in order to achieve a high power density. The electric drive motor and the transmission are combined in a single axle drive unit. There are two different versions of the axle drive. The difference relates to

    the axial orientation of the motors. A parallel-axis electric drive
    motor (APA250) drives the wheels on the front axle. A coaxial electric drive motor (AKA320) performs this task on the rear axle. Each of the three-phase drives on the front and rear axles is connected to the body via a potential equalisation line"

  5. Dom Croatian

    Bjorn, your idea about permanent magnet motors not being able to switch off is probably wrong. Afaik they use permanent magnet only on one pole (stator OR rotor), so current through other pole determines magnetic induction. Permanent magnet motors are more efficient since one pole doesn’t need current.

    Another thing: I have tested my Jaguar I-pace on 90 and 130 (22” wheels, in comfort mode). It is slightly more efficient than e-tron.

  6. William Kalderon

    Nobody:
    Me: hold up, I can make a tenuously relevant point on the internet

    TL;DR: the consumption will increase by about 3/4 * ((wind speed)/(vehicle speed))^2 for a realistic trip that finishes back where it started. Though of course the wind is anything but constant in strength so YMMV…

    A "there and back" route doesn't cancel out the wind's effect because air resistance goes as the square of (vehicle speed v + wind speed w). Energy consumption = force times distance, so to compare the two cases (when air resistance dominates) we have (v+w)^2+(v-w)^2 = 2v^2 + 2w^2 compared to 2v^2 with no wind. So the fractional extra consumption = (w/v)^2. In a 90 km/h test with 30 km/h head/tail wind, this comes to an increase of 11%, which isn't negligible. The impact of wind is smallest on a return trip with a sidewind, in which case the increase is 5% at w/v=0.33. If you drive in something approximating a circle, then (by integration) it's around a 7% consumption increase for w/v=0.33. Plotting various angles of there-and-back trips, and a circle, for various wind speeds, it turns out that a circle is very close to a 45-degrees-to-the-wind trip (no big surprise) and to about 3/4 of the simplest head/tail-wind case. Since no road is straight, and the wind direction varies, this is probably a semi-acceptable rule of thumb even in a there-and-back test like this.

    TS;WM: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3x174zbctzlmhmz/WindResistance.xlsx?dl=0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *