“Audi of America President asserts that sustainable technologies, not ‘silver bullets,’ will drive automotive progress.” And there you have it: President Johan de Nysschen public clarification re: widely disseminated reports that he called the U.S. taxpayer-supported Hail Mary-shaped plug-in electric/gas hybrid Chevrolet Volt “a car for idiots.” [Press release after the jump.] Clearly, de Nysschen has only slightly modified his central contention; I guess he meant to say the Volt is built by idiots for intelligent people. And then the VW suit picked-up the phone to hash it out with Volt Kool-Aid purveyor Lyle Denis over at gm-volt.com. The Audi Prez tickled his tonsils with his other foot. “’I don’t think the Volt is a car for idiots,’ he said. He claimed the headline was a journalist’s misinterpretation, and that his point was that the Volt was ‘an idiotic business case,’ and not how he would refer to people. ‘We might as well have been taking about the Tesla,’ he said.” Oh, dear.
HERNDON, Va., Sep 8, 2009 – Finding practical ways to reduce automotive emissions and lessen America’s energy dependence isn’t something that can wait for technological breakthroughs years down the road, noted Audi of America President Johan de Nysschen. Instead, car companies and government policy makers should immediately embrace promising new technologies that can quickly add up to make a real difference. In a wide-reaching speech at Audi’s 100th Anniversary celebration in Sonoma, California, de Nysschen also discussed his thoughts on the future of luxury, asserting that the era of “legacy luxury” –products that convey status without regard to cost or resources consumed – is now at the end of its life cycle, with Audi representing the new era of “progressive luxury.”
Addressing journalists gathered to experience the latest Audi models and technologies, de Nysschen affirmed that Audi has an abiding commitment to bring sustainable automotive technologies to the world’s motorways. In particular, he noted several projects that increase the efficiency of existing internal combustion technology and could serve as effective bridges to a future that can deliver solutions to limitations found today on matters such as battery technology, energy production and well-to-wheel environmental impact. These technologies ensure that Audi will be the standard bearer of progressive luxury and the modern automotive industry.
Specifically, de Nysschen discussed the company’s clean diesel TDI engines which drastically reduce the need for petroleum products, light aluminum body designs, vibration dampeners to ensure the car effectively uses all energy it develops and smaller, high-performance engines that require less fuel to perform. Together, these systems ensure that the automotive industry will maintain until the next generation technology is more viable.
“Yes, we spend a lot of time ensuring that our owners drive something better,” said de Nysschen. “We and our consumers also want to drive at something better – a more sustainable future.”
Intrinsically tied to these sustainable developments, de Nysschen argued, is the need for the old concept of luxury to “recede into the rearview mirror” in favor of the “progressive luxury” that Audi strives to represent. He acknowledged that people of means will reward themselves for hard work with status symbols, but that those purchases must square “with the ethos of an era that has been called the end of excess.” To that end, Audi is providing products that are considerately-crafted inside and out – demonstrative of success without excess.
“This is the type of luxury that announces itself in aggregate. Everything just feels flawless, inside and out,” de Nysschen said. “You realize (that) when you get into an Audi, it’s not only the engine that moves you.”
Among the key quotes from Mr. de Nysschen’s speech (which is available in its entirety at www.audiusanews.com):
• We are thinking of a leadership position in terms of centuries, and so we must ask (questions about the sustainability of the industry), and answer them.
• As Audi enters our second century, we are answering these questions simultaneously – defining the future of luxury by redefining the future itself, to be more sustainable, more beautiful, and more progressive than ever before.
• When you look at the vehicles that defined luxury for the last several decades, you see size for the sake of size. Symbols for the sake of status. Aggressiveness bordering on arrogance. A “relentless pursuit of perfection” that somehow forgot about passion. How boring. These are all remnants of an automotive landscape that is fast receding into the rearview mirror. Progressive Luxury is what we see when we look through the windshield.
• We and our consumers also want to drive at something better – a more sustainable future.
• In pursuing sustainability, there’s no silver bullet.
• The challenge is that Americans, by and large, haven’t quite been willing to put their consumerism where their conscience is – sales of small cars have declined more than the average decline of all segments, meaning that sales are still migrating to small and medium size SUVs.
• The truly sustainable solution is to give today’s consumer a much more efficient version of what they already want – whether that’s performance, space, fine finishes, or all of the above.
“The challenge is that Americans, by and large, haven’t quite been willing to put their consumerism where their conscience is … ”
Nor have Europeans. European luxury car makers build the most fuel inefficient passenger vehicles available. Bugattis, Ferraris & Porsches routinely make an Escalade look like the very model of efficiency.
Tesla and the Volt are apples and oranges.
The Tesla is a super-quick sports car with a ~160-mile range, running on a single fuel (electricity). It claims to be a sports car. Buyers will get their money’s worth, but there may be better cars for the money.
The Volt is a 4-door sedan with two performance levels (medium and slow), requiring two fuels (electricity and gasoline), with a ~350-mile range. It claims to be an economy car. Buyers will not get their money’s worth, and there are certainly better cars for the money.
“I guess he meant to say the Volt is built by idiots for intelligent people.”
I don’t know if his later comments gave the above impression, but if you look at his original comments, he explained his harsh characterization by saying that nobody would buy a Corolla (in size and quality) for $15,000 more, (or $25,000 more, if the taxpayer did not provide the generous $7,500 subsidy!)
The above tells me he thinks that any consumer who bought it was not exactly econ literate. It does not say that those who biult it were idiots, they might well be geniuses, but it does imply that those CEOs that chanpioned it sure were.
Didn’t some commenter here on TTAC point out that the Corvette OHV engine was lighter, physically smaller, yet more efficient and more powerful than an M3 DOHC V8?
I have seen a A8 with the 5.2. Lovely car, impressive display of the engine, but supposing you are a bluenose about appropriateness of the power source, isn’t it also a car for idiots? (Not that I believe that, but it would be a consistent position).
chuckR – the OHV vette engine is more efficient in the vette chassis than the BMW DOHC is in the M3 chassis. When you compare weight, allowable gearing, aerodynamics, etc, of the two chassis, it is pretty clear why the vette can get a 28mpg highway rating while the M# likely can’t break 25mpg. The weight of the engine has more to do with the dynamics of the car than the fuel economy, as well (rotational moment of inertia). Comparing the M3 V8 to the vette V8 is pretty unfair in general based on the nature of the car. The M3 is supposed to be a high RPM engine, thus the small displacement (4.0L versus the Vette’s 6.0L). The LSX does not suit the nature of what the M3 is supposed to be.
In the same chassis, over a variety of uses (not just the EPA cycle), the DOHC with variable valve timing is going to be more efficient and make more power across the rpm range than an OHV.
Well what do you expect? It’s his job to sell tarted up Golfs.
Don’t be such haters. J to the N is just keeping it real.
Think of him as a Euro Bob Lutz.
The world appears to be changing. Johan de Nysschen is not changing. My money’s on the world. :-)
I’ve done a lot of reading and a little bit of experimenting with alternative energy gadgets and high-efficiency devices. There’s no silver bullet. This isn’t news to those of us who are interested in these technologies. But, even if nothing is as universally useful as gasoline-powered cars and large amounts of electricity, there is a lot of high-efficiency methods and devices out there, and it’s a truly interesting way to do things. You can buy power if you have the money, but you have to be clever to get efficiency.
Back to the point. If you think that global warming and peak oil are possibilities, then engineering an optimal-for-your-needs solution from a variety of non-silver-bullet technologies makes a lot of sense — and it’s a good geeky hobby, too. On the other hand, if you think both peak oil and global warming are a crock of $#!t (as Bob Lutz does, and I’m guessing Johan de Nysschen would agree), then you can write off those of us who are interested in this kind of thing as hopeless geeks and/or clueless greenies. It’s all good. :-)
P.S. Loved my Jetta TDI. But it went through 5 rebuilt transmissions in 20k miles. Since Audi is an expensive Volkswagen, there’s NFW I’m buying an Audi. I can afford a Lexus (even though I’d rather drive a Prius), but I can’t afford a Volkswagen. The Jetta was a beautiful ride when it ran, though!
Quentin
That doesn’t explain the mileage my Cayman S gets versus the Corvette. Best mileage ever on a 400 mile Interstate trip was only 25.5 mpg. But I may get better around town mileage than a Corvette….
As to the M3 vs Corvette – I suppose part of the M3 problems is that its porkier and probably has a worse Cd/frontal area… Stirring the pot ;);) J K
Luke42 wrote:
“I can afford a Lexus (even though I’d rather drive a Prius), but I can’t afford a Volkswagen”
Priceless!
“If you think that global warming and peak oil are possibilities”, then
1. You have not paid attention to the dismal record of failure of the charlatans that predict, with amazing confidence and precise up to the day, each “peak oil” date, starting from untold years ago, until recently (they said Thanksgiving 2005, I believe, and then moved it to christmas 05..LOL). And of course they were not correct ONCE about WORLD peak oil production, EVEN if the term actually meant something of importance.
But the shameless news media (if it bleeds it leads) that invide the charlatans to their shows love them, because they predict gloom and doom, BUT do NOT invite them again when they (as usual) have egg all over their faces, and take them to task for their failed and clueless forecasts!
2. You do not realize that the two (alleged global warming and alleged oil shortages implied by the “paek oil” charlatans) are CONTRADICTORY! So you may sleep well at night.
And PS, if you have any common sense and even a basic Econs 101 background, you’d know that regardless of when we will indeed reach peak world oil production (probably late 21st or early 22nd century?), regardless, we will never, ever run out of oil. Do you see why?
gslippy :
September 8th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Tesla and the Volt are apples and oranges.
The Tesla is a super-quick sports car with a ~160-mile range, running on a single fuel (electricity). It claims to be a sports car. Buyers will get their money’s worth, but there may be better cars for the money.
The flaws of the Tesla are the same ones of the Lotus it’s based on: it’s a purpose-built track star. That means a darty ride, no luggage space, no frills or toys, and no passenger room.
And when you say Tesla owerns “get their money’s worth,” let’s keep in mind that the money in question is 100 large.
Yes, the Tesla is a technical knockout, and it is indeed fast, but for that money, you can park some truly face-melting rides in your garage (Porsche 911 Turbo, Nissan GT-R, Corvette Z51, Mercedes SL, BMW M3, plus an assortment of lightly-used Astons and Maseratis) that offer stratospheric performance that you can actually use every day without causing kidney damage.
Plus, any of them will fit two people and their luggage (sometimes more) with supreme comfort, they’ll have every toy imaginable, and don’t require you find a plug every 170 miles.
The problem with de Nysschen’s “analysis” not the analysis per se, but his solution: all diesel, all the time.
What he doesn’t understand is that diesel buyers in this country are a subset of the larger market, versus in Germany, where they ARE the market.
Why? Because in Germany, fuel of any kind costs about three times what it costs here, and diesel is a buck a gallon cheaper than gas. So, diesel makes absolutely perfect sense for the German market.
But here, where fuel is radically cheaper to begin with, and there’s no major price advantage to diesel, there’s no real percentage in buying a diesel car, unless you routinely make long commutes over interstates every day.
Finding practical ways to reduce automotive emissions and lessen America’s energy dependence isn’t something that can wait for technological breakthroughs years down the road, noted Audi of America President Johan de Nysschen.
Perhaps he hasn’t noticed, but Toyota and Ford have been selling very good hybrids for several years now.
This was a very revealing article…but perhaps note in the way that he intended.
I love this point: A “relentless pursuit of perfection” that somehow forgot about passion. How boring. These are all remnants of an automotive landscape that is fast receding into the rearview mirror.
Soooo…the traits brought to the table by Lexus – great reliablity and build quality – are remnants of an automotive past? If he believes that, HIS company will part of the automotive landscape that includes Studebaker, Hudson and Packard.
And then we get to this: The challenge is that Americans, by and large, haven’t quite been willing to put their consumerism where their conscience is – sales of small cars have declined more than the average decline of all segments, meaning that sales are still migrating to small and medium size SUVs.
What set of figures is he using?
Note that small car sales were booming in 2008, in reaction to higher gas prices. The Civic sold over 50,000 units in one month. But sales of trucks and SUVs had already collapsed by that point.
Now the main force driving the new-car market is the severe recession. Sales of ALL vehicles have been down. But since small car sales were healthy through most of last year, while sales of light trucks had already collapsed, it stands to reason that small car sales will show more of a decline for this year when compared to 2008.
Autosavant:
The word I used was “possibilities”, not “certainties”. The “contradictions” that you point out come from several assumptions about things that I didn’t say, including the assumption that these “possibilities” both happen, and happen in a particular order. I’d be happy to explain my worldview over a beer. Bud Light if necessary, but I prefer Guinness.
The truth is that I don’t know what the future holds — and I sleep fine knowing that. But I’m an adaptable sort.
Author: Luke42
Comment:
Autosavant:
The word I used was “possibilities”, not “certainties”. The “contradictions” that you point out come from several assumptions about things that I didn’t say. ”
No, they came from a statement you did write, the one that included both global warming and an alleged “peak oil” shortage together. My point is that one of the two would logically neutralize the other, and vice versa.
“I’d be happy to explain my worldview over a beer. Bud light if necessary, but I prefer Guinness.”
My preference too. If a 12-yr scotch or better is not available.
“The truth is that I don’t know what the future holds — and I sleep fine knowing that.”
You are very correct here, on both counts. Nobody knows, even the CEOS and the experts, and nobody could POSSIBLY know. And because there is little you can do worrying about what you do not know, it makes sense to sleep well. This is exactly what bugs me about the peak oil crowd (that seems to pop up mostly when prices rise, and hide when they inevitably fall… LOL. They know even less than we do, and in place of knowledge, they offer conspiracy theories, such as, why don’t the Saudis let us look at their State Secrets. DUH, Peak oilers, exactly because they ARE state secrets! If I was the Saudi Oil Mimister, I’d not show you one word, let alone one page, of my Reserves and production extimates.