RE: Audi Q6 concept gets 517hp; 9,883lb ft of torque
RE: Audi Q6 concept gets 517hp; 9,883lb ft of torque
Monday 27th January 2025

Audi Q6 concept gets 517hp; 9,883lb ft of torque

Portal axles are as old as the hills. Or they were before Audi got to them...


You may have seen pictures of the Audi Q6 e-tron off-road concept toward the end of last week when its maker previewed the ‘highly emotive’ and heavily modified prototype on social media. Now, with its dynamic reveal confirmed for the F.A.T Ice Race this coming weekend, Audi has revealed considerably more technical details about an EV that’s intended to give ‘a taste of a potential vehicle in the progressive off-road segment’. 

As many suspected, the concept’s electric powertrain is based on the (overboost-enabled) 517hp dual-motor setup found in the new SQ6. Clearly, though, with ride height increase of 160mm and 250mm in track widths (yep - 6.3in and 9.8in in old money) the chassis veers dramatically away from the production model, thanks mostly to the introduction of portal axles. 

While we’ve seen these deployed elsewhere recently (most notably in extreme versions of the Mercedes-AMG G63), Audi is not typically associated with such an uncompromising solution for going off-road - which, of course, is part of the point, and presumably the reason they’ve been developed from scratch. The firm says changes to the suspension links were required to integrate the four portal axles into the front and rear wheel hub assemblies (no kidding); more interestingly, it claims to have reaped significant benefits from their new design. 

Where a conventional portal axle might deliver a torque increase of around 20 to 30 per cent, says Audi, its prototype has increased torque by 50 per cent. Apparently the end result is a weighty EV that can climb 45-degree gradients, although it’s the numbers that boggle the mind: ‘The portal axles increase the combined torque at all wheels (10-second peak) to 9,883 lb ft, a total increase of 3,245 lb ft.’ 

Little wonder it gets up hills like a mountain goat in crampons. As you might expect, the concept’s top speed has taken a hit - it’ll now only do 108mph - but you’d likely accept that limitation for the amount of go-anywhere talent on offer. Not that anyone suggests it is being offered. Audi’s hints aside, you’d have to imagine the public’s response being pretty dramatic for it to lift up a production Q6’s skirt quite so dramatically. Still, according to CEO Gernot Döllner, it’s done its job. 

“The Q6 e-tron offroad concept is a reinterpretation of quattro,” he said following a turn behind the wheel. “The model shows the potential that our platform for all electric vehicles already has today. This vehicle can claim new ground. We look forward to seeing our customers’ reactions to this highly emotive car.”


Author
Discussion

Jamesas86

Original Poster:

36 posts

123 months

Monday 27th January 2025
quotequote all
That looks like it could be fun!

anonymous-user

83 months

Monday 27th January 2025
quotequote all
Oh, yes please!!

f1nn

2,694 posts

221 months

Monday 27th January 2025
quotequote all
Eh?

Almost 10k pound foot for 10 seconds???


Gary C

15,238 posts

208 months

Monday 27th January 2025
quotequote all
Lets multiply the torque output by the overall gearing to get a headline figure that's a bit meaningless !

Yay.

even my 1.0l polo does 1000lbft at the axle.

Edited by Gary C on Monday 27th January 07:49

Kipsrs

705 posts

78 months

Monday 27th January 2025
quotequote all
Is it just me or? I can’t help but thinking these manufacturers that make great big SUV’s with sloping backs are somewhat missing the point! I thought the whole idea is to have more space with an SUV, surely with the roof sloping like that it takes away the load space? I know from experience that the squarer the back the more gear you can get in, no?

Dingu

4,893 posts

59 months

Monday 27th January 2025
quotequote all
Kipsrs said:
Is it just me or? I can’t help but thinking these manufacturers that make great big SUV’s with sloping backs are somewhat missing the point! I thought the whole idea is to have more space with an SUV, surely with the roof sloping like that it takes away the load space? I know from experience that the squarer the back the more gear you can get in, no?
You’re right on space.

I guess they sell ultimately though - which is the ultimate point of making cars.

Motormouth88

782 posts

89 months

Monday 27th January 2025
quotequote all
Heck yes! That’s awesome and looks a load of fun.

Gareth Mallory

42 posts

20 months

Monday 27th January 2025
quotequote all
Kipsrs said:
Is it just me or? I can’t help but thinking these manufacturers that make great big SUV’s with sloping backs are somewhat missing the point! I thought the whole idea is to have more space with an SUV, surely with the roof sloping like that it takes away the load space? I know from experience that the squarer the back the more gear you can get in, no?
I'm with you, but the car buying public isn't sadly. The logical conclusion of having the most efficient load space was MPV's, which died on their arse. With the advent of EV's you'd have thought some fairly cool MPV style vehicles would surface now there's no gearbox and engine as such to accommodate.


jhonn

1,697 posts

178 months

Monday 27th January 2025
quotequote all
Meh, the concept of bolt-on portal boxes has been around for years; I'd have been impressed if Audi had managed to incorporate them, without increasing the vehicle track by (almost) 10 inches, making an already wide vehicle even wider.

Looks like they wanted some of the 'Look at me!' attention that Mercedes got when they did it.

anonymous-user

83 months

Monday 27th January 2025
quotequote all
Coming soon to a school run near you

Lotusgone

1,654 posts

156 months

Monday 27th January 2025
quotequote all
That is truly horrible. It looks like a large version of something my four-year-old grandson would play with.


budgie smuggler

6,054 posts

188 months

Monday 27th January 2025
quotequote all
Who_Goes_Blue said:
Coming soon to a school run near you
This will be perfect for parking on zig zags!

Twoshoe

998 posts

213 months

Monday 27th January 2025
quotequote all
Kipsrs said:
Is it just me or? I can’t help but thinking these manufacturers that make great big SUV’s with sloping backs are somewhat missing the point! I thought the whole idea is to have more space with an SUV, surely with the roof sloping like that it takes away the load space? I know from experience that the squarer the back the more gear you can get in, no?
Quite. So what you end up with in effect is a normal car that sits 6 inches higher than it needs to. Not so much SUV, rather UTV (unnecessarily tall vehicle).

mrclav

1,645 posts

252 months

Monday 27th January 2025
quotequote all
Kipsrs said:
Is it just me or? I can’t help but thinking these manufacturers that make great big SUV’s with sloping backs are somewhat missing the point! I thought the whole idea is to have more space with an SUV, surely with the roof sloping like that it takes away the load space? I know from experience that the squarer the back the more gear you can get in, no?
You DO realise the Q7 exists, right???

Choice is a good thing.

Galego

40 posts

24 months

Monday 27th January 2025
quotequote all
Gary C said:
Lets multiply the torque output by the overall gearing to get a headline figure that's a bit meaningless !

Yay.

even my 1.0l polo does 1000lbft at the axle.

Edited by Gary C on Monday 27th January 07:49
You could argue that torque at wheel is all that matters, and torque at torque-producing method is the meaningless statistic.

Certainly in the BEV world torque at axles should be more frequently mentioned

tramart50

49 posts

70 months

Monday 27th January 2025
quotequote all
If imagine with that much torque it would only accelerate downwards towards the centre of the earth🤣

Gary C

15,238 posts

208 months

Monday 27th January 2025
quotequote all
Galego said:
Gary C said:
Lets multiply the torque output by the overall gearing to get a headline figure that's a bit meaningless !

Yay.

even my 1.0l polo does 1000lbft at the axle.

Edited by Gary C on Monday 27th January 07:49
You could argue that torque at wheel is all that matters, and torque at torque-producing method is the meaningless statistic.

Certainly in the BEV world torque at axles should be more frequently mentioned
Actually, you could argue the torque at the wheel is irrelevant and its the force at the tyre contact patch that matters (and even that is trite)

My point was quoting torque at the wheel to try to amaze people as to the massive amount of torque this vehicle has is bks without explaining what they are measuring and why.

I have always argued that quoting the torque output of the primary mover is largely pointless and so is this.

Edited by Gary C on Monday 27th January 12:38


Edited by Gary C on Monday 27th January 12:39

_ppan

649 posts

98 months

Monday 27th January 2025
quotequote all
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That being said, I always found and still find coupe SUV's vile. This though is outright disgusting, makes your puke puke.

_ppan

649 posts

98 months

Monday 27th January 2025
quotequote all
Kipsrs said:
Is it just me or? I can’t help but thinking these manufacturers that make great big SUV’s with sloping backs are somewhat missing the point! I thought the whole idea is to have more space with an SUV, surely with the roof sloping like that it takes away the load space? I know from experience that the squarer the back the more gear you can get in, no?
It's one of the reasons I don't understand SUV's. MPV's are lighter, roomier, cheaper. All that is thrown away just for the looks of an SUV (which arguable suggests a level of off road performance it doesn't have at all). But who cares for an appliance? You choose the best tool for the task right? There is just no advantages in choosing an SUV (most of them, not talking Land Rover or so), only disadvantages. Boggles the mind. Smart play by the industry though, makes them more money just by playing emotions.

Gary C

15,238 posts

208 months

Monday 27th January 2025
quotequote all
_ppan said:
Kipsrs said:
Is it just me or? I can’t help but thinking these manufacturers that make great big SUV’s with sloping backs are somewhat missing the point! I thought the whole idea is to have more space with an SUV, surely with the roof sloping like that it takes away the load space? I know from experience that the squarer the back the more gear you can get in, no?
It's one of the reasons I don't understand SUV's. MPV's are lighter, roomier, cheaper. All that is thrown away just for the looks of an SUV (which arguable suggests a level of off road performance it doesn't have at all). But who cares for an appliance? You choose the best tool for the task right? There is just no advantages in choosing an SUV (most of them, not talking Land Rover or so), only disadvantages. Boggles the mind. Smart play by the industry though, makes them more money just by playing emotions.
The wife has a Peugeot 2008 and after Christmas in the snow we met the Grandkids at the Strawberry Duck at Entwistle in the hills near Darwin.

Went the wrong way and ended up on a badly rutted rough track on snow and ice and I must say, it performed exceptionally well. I normally put confidence above ability wink but even I was wondering if I could make it, but plenty of ground clearance and good all weather tyres meant it coped really well for a fwd fake smile

Not my cup of tea but she likes it for its elevated driving position (really useful in the Lakes) and it does the job. My polo certainly would not have made it.