This is lovely. Audi has got it. They turn out much greener vehicles and they do it profitable. Porsche should watch and learn.

congratulations to audi for pulling their heads out of their asses. shame, shame on the rest of the big marques for not jumping on the bandwagon 10 years ago when vw really began pushing tdi technology in the US, with the introduction of the new beetle.

i hope the american makers feel slapped in the face right now.

Two things I am not clear on:

How much $$$ ?

Is this a clean diesel for sale in U.S.?

I don't understand this "the first series-production sports cars to feature diesel engines." What are Alfa Brera/Spider and GT then? BMW 6 series, anyone?

If I remember correctly, Audi Cabrio from early nineties (B4 platform) was first diesel convertible in the world.

Anyway, great development. I myself would rather pick TFSI that runs on methane or LPG (and does not die at 4000rpm), but it is good to have a choice.

"and does not die at 4000rpm"

4000rpm, dude you need to shift, the turbo peaked out back at 2000rmp anyway.

Real engines don't use spark plugs.

Joseph,
I prefer to shift my Alfa Twin Spark (with hard working 16 spark plugs) on 7300 rpm when I feel like it.

I agree that diesel is easier to drive sedately, due to 2000rpm peak in torque, but I find it harder to drive it quickly, because of such a narrow power band. But it is also not a problem for me to downshift my "screamer" before passing, so I don't see a benefit of a "real engine" except fuel consumption. Which can be offset with LPG/CNG. And spark plugs :)

As I said, freedom of choice.

@ Schmeltz -

the press release over here

http://jalopnik.com/361132/audi-tt-20-tdi-quattro-announced

makes no mention of US sales, so most likely it won't be offered there - at least not anytime soon. I expect VW AG will want to gauge actual consumer demand for small T2B5 diesel engines with the VW Jetta TDi first.

Meanwhile, Audi gets to test its belief that sports car buyers will even consider an oil burner. Historically, this segment of the market has been the exclusive preserve of gasoline engines with high power-to-weight ratios and eager throttle response, fuel economy be damned.

@Mirko
"and does not die at 4000rpm..."
Read the story again & you'll clearly see a 5k RPM rev limit...

"not a problem for me to downshift my "screamer" before passing..."
Doubt your 'screamer' would beat 7.5sec 0-62mph or a top speed of 140mph. Add that you wouldn't need to downshift in this to pass, as it has both high torque (that your Alfa is lacking) and 'Relatively long final transmission ratios have been employed to bring the drivetrain in line with the character of the TDI engine'.

We're not talking about your old POS - we're talking about a new vehicle & the technological advances therein.

"Meanwhile, Audi gets to test its belief that sports car buyers will even consider an oil burner. Historically, this segment of the market has been the exclusive preserve of gasoline engines with high power-to-weight ratios and eager throttle response, fuel economy be damned."

true, but then the typical buyer of an audi TT is likely to be more preoccupied with how it looks than what's under the bonnet; generally buyers who are looking for a real seat-of-the-pants driving experience will opt for a BMW M-series or Porsche 911 (secondhand).

My Friends and the rest of YOU

You can run a diesel engine on hydrogen. A diesel engine compresses air in it's cylindars to 2700 degrees farenheight. Anything you inject, that is flamable, will ignite and turn the crankshaft.

Hydrogen & Oxygen are compressed in water.

You can decompress the hydrogen & oxygen through simple electrolisis, to be used for motor fuel.

Just put a container with water under the hood, install electrodes and run a wire to the ignition and one to a ground.

A simple tube can convey the hydrogen and oxygen to the motor. The deisel will run quieter and smoother on hydrogen than it does on petrolium diesel fule.

HOW MUCH DOES WATER COST????

Wells: I'll repeat the reply I had to your last (similar) post.

The electricity for the electrolysis comes from a battery? Then it splits the water with about 50% efficiency? Then it puts the hydrogen into an ICE running at about 20% efficiency? Leaving you with just 10% of the energy of the battery being used for motive power. You'd might as well just run the electricity to an electric motor at over 85% efficiency and save yourself a lot of time. Water is a product of combustion, not a fuel.

AGAIN, REVIEW THE FACTS

ELectricity to run a motor comes from the alternator, Alternators come in any ampridge you want. The battery is only used to start the motor.

Hygrogen is several times as efficient as a motor fuel than gasoline. That's why they use hydrogen to power missles launched into space instead of gasoline.

Water alsoi runs out the tail pipe of cars powered with hydrogen fuel.

Leo: You're trying to create a perpetual motion machine here. Alternators only create energy by turning mechanical energy from the engine into electrical energy.

SO, you can take electrical energy, turn it into stored chemical energy (hydrogen from water by electrolysis) then convert it into mechanical energy (combustion) which you then use that to drive an alternator to generate more electricity. There's your circle.

The problem here is that at each and every step you lose some of that energy to heat/noise/vibrations. By the time you get back to generating electricity from your alternator there won't be much left. Since water has no energy of its own, the only energy input into your system is the original battery energy. Clear?

Guys like Leo make me weary... I often think our (U.S.) politicians have similar delusions.

On topic, hat tip to Audi. I'd buy this vehicle if it were available in the states. Two seats, good sized trunk, good looking, really nice interior, 40+ mpg, and a lot of low end torque. What else can you ask for in a daily driver?

I will probably regret posting this, but since Leo brought it up... what about a solar "fuel extender" where you use solar panels to power the electrolysis. To be fair to Leo, we've seen long range trucking electrolysis setups on GCC and numerous articles about hydrogen injection. Also BMWs Intelligent Alternator Control (IAC) suggests to me there is some wasted energy that could be put to use in non-IAC vehicles (although nothing like Leo's perpetual motion :-) And since we are on this topic, I am also wondering about introducing "unfiltered" biogas into the air intake as an additional range extender. Has anyone seen this done?

YOUR RIGHT ON. BIOGAS IS SIMILSR TO NATURAL GAS THAT THEY BURN IN AUTOS, TRUCKS AND BUSES ALL THE TIME.
LEO

This is not a T2B5 turbo diesel so it emits pollution like an unregualted gasser from the 1960s or worse.

Who wants it? I don't.

Call me back when they put soem pollution controls on it. Oh I forgot. The EU has none. EU 4 is not a genuine polution standard. It is an excuse for phony greens...

I thought this was T2B5, so it would be cleaner, maybe not, whatever.

Can this be suped up? Run more boost? Can it run Biodiesel?

@Elliot: This is supposed to meet future Euro5 norms - for diesel this would be approximately equal to T2B9, as the EU allows about 6 times more NOx in the diesel exhaust than the US. I believe car manufacturers are no longer allowed to qualify cars against T2B9, thus this development is nothing you`ll ever see in the US (despite the claimed 60% EGR rate). A particle & catalytic converter would be needed at the least, driving up cost, and down effective power and milage...

@Finnloag: A car has at most 3 m² of roof/hood space where you could possibly put solar cells. Assuming perpetual noon, that would mean about 0,3 kW of power (when the sun is not in zenith, or if it`s cloudy, much less).

Unless your car is really that frugal at highway speeds, such a feat is simply not worth it; typically, cars need between 20 and 50 kW at highway speeds (the latter for the in the US very popular driving bricks - aka SUV).

@ Stan Peterson -

European emissions standards are not quite as strict as those in the US, for diesel engines in particular. However, your assertion that a Euro 4 diesel emits as much CO, HC and NOx as a 1960s vintage gasoline vehicles is point blank wrong by at least an order of magnitude.

@ realarms -

diesel oxidation catalysts (for CO and HC emissions) have been mandatory standard equipment in the EU since the early 90s. Euro 5, due to come into effect in 2009, sets PM standards so low they can only be met with DPFs. Many models are already available with them today, either as standard equipment or as options. Getting a Euro 5 diesel engine to meet US T2B5 regs requires additional equipment to sharply reduce NOx as well, which is indeed expensive.

@Realarms, if you assume 3 m2 of solar panels on the vehicle, they will be exposed to 3 kW peak incident solar power (at noon on a sunny day), and can make 600 watts from that (using 20% efficient Sunpower A300 cells).

This power would not used to power the vehicle directly, but rather to charge up an onboard battery while the vehicle is parked. Over an average day in the USA, a 600 watt array would yield about 3 kWh. That's enough for about 12-15 miles in EV mode, or about 5,500 miles per year.

A car spends far more time parked than being used. And yes, before anyone corrects me, I do agree that putting the solar cells on a south facing house roof is more sensible!

If you wanted to do all your 15,000 miles per year from solar energy only, you would need about 3,500 kWh of electricity. That can be generated in one year by a 2 kW (peak) solar array in most of the USA.

How much does a 2 kW solar panel cost? Well Nanosolar say they are already shipping solar for $0.99 per watt, or $2,000 for zero driving fuel bills for ever more!

Alfa Brera and BMW 6 series are not sports cars.

RUN CAR ON WATER

WATER DECOMPRESSES INTO HYDROGEN & OXYGEN THROUGH ELECTROLOSIS. BOTH GASOLINE AND DEISEL RUN WELL ON HYDROGEN.

PUT A CONTAINER OF WATER UNDER THE HOOD, STICK IN TWO ELECTRODES, ONE TO THE IGNITION, ONE TO A GROUND; THAT MAKES HYDROGEN GAS.

RUN THE HYDROGEN TO THE MOTOR THRU A TUBE.

IT'S THAT SIMPLE TO RUN A CAR ON WATER

LEO WELLS

@clett: 3 square meters and your efficiency numbers would be quite optimistic; I would assume 10% efficiency for the cells, and a correction factor of 0,5 for the average geometric alignment between the root and the direction to the sun. Many people (especially in the city) park in garages or at least not in direct sunlight...

So, solar cells on a vehicle will not be economical for a long time to come. It`ll be much more effective, to invest that money into a fixed stationary solar panel (perhaps w/ heliostat), and use the energy collected over the whole day to recharge the vehicle during the night. Again, efficient energy storage systems are required - either batteries, flywheels or using the grid as means of storage.

Why is not the same funding going into advanced battery research as is poured into the hydrogen hype?

@Leo BTW: Stop this perpetuum mobile crap and get a real life. Don`t continue your scheme or you risk getting sued for fraud...