Which Elroq version to buy
If the decision is “enough performance for daily RWD electric SUV use,” 60 AT is the middle of the arithmetic: one second faster than 50 AT without the 85 AT’s torque jump. If the decision is “lowest measured mass,” 50 AT is the only answer. If the decision is “shortest 0–100 and the only 180 km/h cap,” only 85 AT qualifies.
50 AT is the lightest and least powerful: 170 hp (125 kW), 310 Nm, 9 seconds to 100 km/h, 160 km/h top speed, kerb weight 1874 kg. 60 AT keeps the same 310 Nm and the same 160 km/h cap, but adds 33 hp (203 hp / 149 kW versus 170 hp) and cuts 0–100 by 1 second (8 versus 9). That extra power costs 104 kg of kerb weight (1978 versus 1874). 85 AT is the only version that changes the character of the car: 286 hp (210 kW), 545 Nm, 6.6 seconds to 100 km/h, 180 km/h. Versus 50 AT that is +116 hp, +235 Nm, 2.4 seconds quicker to 100 km/h, and +20 km/h of top speed, at +170 kg kerb (2044 versus 1874). Versus 60 AT it is +83 hp, still +235 Nm, 1.4 seconds quicker, +20 km/h, and +66 kg.
If the decision is “enough performance for daily RWD electric SUV use,” 60 AT is the middle of the arithmetic: one second faster than 50 AT without the 85 AT’s torque jump. If the decision is “lowest measured mass,” 50 AT is the only answer. If the decision is “shortest 0–100 and the only 180 km/h cap,” only 85 AT qualifies.
Specs: 50 AT vs 60 AT vs 85 AT
| Version | hp | kW | Nm | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50 AT | 170 | 125 | 310 | not measured | Electro | not measured | not measured | not measured | Automatic 1 | RWD |
| 60 AT | 203 | 149 | 310 | not measured | Electro | not measured | not measured | not measured | Automatic 1 | RWD |
| 85 AT | 286 | 210 | 545 | not measured | Electro | not measured | not measured | not measured | Automatic 1 | RWD |
Displacement, cylinders, cylinder layout, and boost are not measured on any Elroq version. Do not treat those blanks as petrol architecture; the fuel field is Electro on all three.
Torque is the split that matters more than the 33 hp gap between 50 AT and 60 AT. Those two share 310 Nm. 85 AT is the only one at 545 Nm — 235 Nm more than either sibling. Power per litre cannot be calculated: engine displacement is not measured.
Performance, not mpg: 0–100 and top speed
Fuel consumption (city, highway, mixed) is not measured for 50 AT, 60 AT, or 85 AT. There is no mpg figure in the data to rank economy. CO2 is 0 on 60 AT and not measured on 50 AT and 85 AT. Tank capacity is not measured on all three.
What is measured:
- 50 AT: 9 s to 100 km/h, 160 km/h.
- 60 AT: 8 s to 100 km/h, 160 km/h.
- 85 AT: 6.6 s to 100 km/h, 180 km/h.
50 AT and 60 AT share the 160 km/h limit; buying 60 AT does not buy a higher top speed. The 1 second 0–100 gap is the whole performance gain between those two. 85 AT is the only version that raises the speed cap (+20 km/h) and is 2.4 s faster than 50 AT and 1.4 s faster than 60 AT.
Weight per horsepower (kerb kg ÷ hp):
- 50 AT: 1874 ÷ 170 ≈ 11.02 kg/hp
- 60 AT: 1978 ÷ 203 ≈ 9.74 kg/hp
- 85 AT: 2044 ÷ 286 ≈ 7.15 kg/hp
60 AT is about 1.28 kg/hp lighter per horsepower than 50 AT despite weighing 104 kg more. 85 AT is about 2.59 kg/hp lighter per horsepower than 60 AT and about 3.87 kg/hp lighter than 50 AT. The extra 66 kg from 60 AT to 85 AT is more than offset by +83 hp in this ratio.
Dimensions, weight, and what the extra mass buys
Ground clearance is not measured. Wheel sizes are not measured. Tank is not measured.
Kerb and gross:
- 50 AT: kerb 1874 kg, gross 2427 kg. Payload from those two numbers: 2427 − 1874 = 553 kg.
- 60 AT: kerb 1978 kg, gross 2115 kg. Payload: 2115 − 1978 = 137 kg.
- 85 AT: kerb 2044 kg, gross not measured. Payload not measured.
This is the sharpest non-power difference. 50 AT has 416 kg more calculated payload than 60 AT (553 − 137). 60 AT is heavier at the kerb than 50 AT but has a lower gross (2115 versus 2427), so the extra 104 kg of kerb weight on 60 AT does not buy more rated load — it buys 33 hp and 1 second of 0–100. 85 AT is the heaviest kerb (2044 kg) and has no gross figure; you cannot claim a payload advantage for it from this dataset.
Chassis hardware does not separate the versions: independent, spring front and rear; ventilated disc front; drum rear — identical wording for 50 AT, 60 AT, and 85 AT. Buying a stronger motor does not, in these data, buy a different suspension or brake type.
Generation comparison
There is only 1 generation (start 2024-10-01, stop not measured), SUV 5-doors, three versions. No restyling row. Nothing later to “wait for.” The generation question collapses to: all three versions are current, all RWD Electro Automatic 1-speed, all from the same start date.
Practical pick from the numbers
- Choose 50 AT if kerb weight and calculated payload dominate: 1874 kg, 553 kg from kerb/gross, 170 hp, 310 Nm, 9 s, 160 km/h. You give up 33 hp versus 60 AT and 116 hp versus 85 AT.
- Choose 60 AT if you want the middle power step without 85 AT torque: 203 hp, still 310 Nm, 8 s, still 160 km/h, CO2 measured at 0. You pay 104 kg extra kerb versus 50 AT and drop calculated payload to 137 kg. You do not get a higher top speed than 50 AT.
- Choose 85 AT if 0–100 and top speed are the ranking: 286 hp, 545 Nm, 6.6 s, 180 km/h, 7.15 kg/hp. Versus 60 AT the extras are +83 hp, +235 Nm, −1.4 s, +20 km/h, +66 kg. Gross weight, payload, consumption, tank, clearance, and wheels remain not measured.
Prices are not in the data, so “what the extra money buys” can only mean what the extra horsepower, newton-metres, seconds, kilograms, and top speed buy between 50 AT, 60 AT, and 85 AT. Reliability and known problems are not in the data.