Five years after Tesla revealed their electric roadster The new and improved Tesla Model S has arrived! Aceman takes a look at all of its features and take it for a test drive.
Review:
Test Drive:
Specs: MSRB: 60,000$ + 7500 Tax Credit USD 0-60 MPH Approx 4.4 seconds Can go up to 300 Miles without a charge Seats up to 7 people Trunk and Hood Carrying Space Automatically turns on and off and self locks upon you leaving 17 inch touch screen for controlling car functions and surfing internet Zero Emissions
I was wondering if anyone would ever consider owning a car like this? I am a fan of Tesla but I find it hard to believe that they could become as big or successful as Mercedes, BMW, Lexus,Audi etc but I do admire them pushing the limits of car technology.
i would get one if i had a house and as a 2nd/3rd car, not to replace.
that said i do see bigger things coming for tesla if they keep innovating as they are, catching up to other major manufacturers is a long, long time away because of lack of platforms and the need for R&D for new tesla based (ev based) platforms. unless they slap things together like they did with elise/exige for cuv/suv/4d/2d/econ/van
On January 11 2013 05:53 DoomBox wrote: Seats 7? Someone please explain how...
They are heavily investing in the clown demographic in terms of sales. I imagine it is similar to how when a tent says it can sleep two people, you can do it only no one will be comfortable.
I currently own a RX-8, so my next step would be a family car as I already have my joyride. Having seen the Model S in person, and having been impressed by the Roadster, I would definitely consider the Model S for a family sedan if I were to compare with other sedans in the same price range - especially if I was living in the city.
Looks very cool and I'm very excited for the future of these. Unfortunately though, for anyone like me who lives in a cold climate it's not nearly as economical because it requires a crapton of power to heat the interior.
I read about the model S years ago when they were still planning it while selling the Roaster. I always thought it was a cool idea but limited by the battery technology. Lithium-ion is the best today has to offer, but it just have too many drawbacks in my personal opinion.
On January 11 2013 06:31 Pandemona wrote: I'll wait to see what Top Gear say on this before i even consider Electric Cars
Top gear is about as good for reviewing cars as the daily show is for actually being informative. They are going for the jokes not for exactly an unbiased fair review.
In theory a family could easily work off 1 electric car 1 gas powered car, or long trips could be done via renting cars and all cars be electric considering most daily driving fall in under 70 miles, the problem is where to charge for those without houses meaning market penetration past homeowners would be difficult till infrastructure is around, and in terms of energy per pollution even the most dirty forms of electricity in the US is still cleaner then gasoline in green house gases although a bit more noticed by people is smog. Which would work great for clearing up cities on hot days.
Anyways problem with tesla is they still haven't figured out their manufacturing process yet which is why these cars cost a bit too much I swear they could knock 10k off it easily in terms of just man-hours per car if they would streamline their process for making cars, too much of the work is done by hand. That also has to do with their limited production runs etc hell just a couple years ago they were only making like 10 cars a week, I think their most recent numbers and buying out the old nummi factory they started ramping up for higher volume I think around 500 a week currently? Either way tesla brand could benefit from being bought out and expanded by one of the bigger motor companies, but that will never happen just based off the guy who owns tesla would never allow that.
I really liked their Roadster, but I'm not quite sold on the Model S. The range is actually perfect for me. My only worry would be charging it not at home.
Tesla is a very cool company, however, the issue they face is that their cars are not easily ported to the general populace. The cars would greatly pay off in regards of how little electricity costs compared to oil, but the general cost fo the car makes it more of a luxury choice. I can't wait for Tesla to make a "people's" car.
On January 11 2013 06:31 Pandemona wrote: I'll wait to see what Top Gear say on this before i even consider Electric Cars
Top Gear crowned the Fisker Karma Car of the Year. It's electirc, costs about the same as the Tesla S and looks about 100,000x sexier.
karma does look good, i think they both look good and would depend on the viewer. tesla's starts at 52k, fisker starts at 96k.
also, tesla is installing charging stations in key locations throughout the country (USA) so cross country is theoretically possible. they also said these charging stations will fully charge the car in 30 minutes.
as for top gear, i think they will be positive with this one unlike with the roadster.
On January 11 2013 06:31 Pandemona wrote: I'll wait to see what Top Gear say on this before i even consider Electric Cars
Top Gear crowned the Fisker Karma Car of the Year. It's electirc, costs about the same as the Tesla S and looks about 100,000x sexier.
karma does look good, i think they both look good and would depend on the viewer. tesla's starts at 52k, fisker starts at 96k.
also, tesla is installing charging stations in key locations throughout the country (USA) so cross country is theoretically possible. they also said these charging stations will fully charge the car in 30 minutes.
as for top gear, i think they will be positive with this one unlike with the roadster.
As I understand it the Fisker Karma has a petrol engine that generates electricity. You can also charge some batteries in it from the mains but I have no idea how far that charge will take you. This probably isn't a big deal to anyone but I would like to point out that the Tesla S and the Fisker Karma are not exactly the same beast and if we're gonna talk about Fisker Karmas we may as well throw in hybrids as well. And diesels, hell why not?
On January 11 2013 06:31 Pandemona wrote: I'll wait to see what Top Gear say on this before i even consider Electric Cars
Top Gear crowned the Fisker Karma Car of the Year. It's electirc, costs about the same as the Tesla S and looks about 100,000x sexier.
karma does look good, i think they both look good and would depend on the viewer. tesla's starts at 52k, fisker starts at 96k.
also, tesla is installing charging stations in key locations throughout the country (USA) so cross country is theoretically possible. they also said these charging stations will fully charge the car in 30 minutes.
as for top gear, i think they will be positive with this one unlike with the roadster.
As I understand it the Fisker Karma has a petrol engine that generates electricity. You can also charge some batteries in it from the mains but I have no idea how far that charge will take you. This probably isn't a big deal to anyone but I would like to point out that the Tesla S and the Fisker Karma are not exactly the same beast and if we're gonna talk about Fisker Karmas we may as well throw in hybrids as well. And diesels, hell why not?
yeah i agree, i was just pointing out the price range of the two, though the end price is similar, starting price is very different.
On January 11 2013 06:31 Pandemona wrote: I'll wait to see what Top Gear say on this before i even consider Electric Cars
electric is superior to gasoline power for performance purposes too.
although this is out of reach for most consumers its nice that they use the lotus body which looks fuckin sexy as hell.
i have no idea why almost all hybrids look like fuckin turds.
if you want a fuel efficient practical car i'm pretty sure the VW TDI is better than any hybrid out there in terms of price.
electric is superior to gasoline power for performance purposes too.
Not for top end performance. Power to weight ratio coupled with endurance is just not matchable by electric at the moment. Thats why you dont see it in racing.
although this is out of reach for most consumers its nice that they use the lotus body which looks fuckin sexy as hell
I dont see why anyone who could afford it would choose this over a quattroporte, the only advantage at that price point seems to be upkeep cost and why would that matter if your rich enough to buy one?
i have no idea why almost all hybrids look like fuckin turds.
Because they are designed to be sold on the hook that they are hybrids, not that they are good cars. My parents were considering buying an electric car (designed for inner city low impact runs) for a while, took me ages to make them realise that because they live up a 1 mile rough farm track the chassis wouldnt be able to handle it day in day out and would be an economic and environmental waste (they have already had problems with trim pieces and the clutch on a 1.4 fiesta and have since bought a late 80s LR Defender 90 TDI which has no troubles at all)
if you want a fuel efficient practical car i'm pretty sure the VW TDI is better than any hybrid out there in terms of price.
Pretty much this, unless you do less than 50 miles a day and always end up at home in which case an electric car is better.
On January 11 2013 08:25 jinorazi wrote: not sure why usa dont like diesel models
Also the US infrastructure for refining crude oil is specialized for gasoline for the most part not diesel, gas ends up cheaper then diesel. And you just can't swap out a few parts to change a refinery that specialized in refining gasoline into one that refines diesel. Europe is more of an opposite to that where the majority of their refineries are for maximizing the yield of diesel. Although in the mid west you see more E85 and flex fuel vehicles that benefit from corn subsidies turning the starches there into ethanol to mix into the gas. So it's a matter of what is cheaper for a market.
^No, its true. I read a ton about it because I also didn't believe at first. Thing is, the car is loaded with a LOT of batteries. It makes the thing heavy but actually very powerful as well.
If the price of batteries continues to fall, then we are looking at the future, gentlemen.
On January 11 2013 09:09 TheFish7 wrote: ^No, its true. I read a ton about it because I also didn't believe at first. Thing is, the car is loaded with a LOT of batteries. It makes the thing heavy but actually very powerful as well.
If the price of batteries continues to fall, then we are looking at the future, gentlemen.
That youtube video had 211 verified. Trust me, all car companies fuel economy ratings are bullshit. The ratings they provide are at absolute optimal conditions and even then are dodgy at best. Look at the lawsuit involving the elantra.
I also don't think pure electric is ever the way to go. You always want to have some other type of backup plan with the amount of shit that can go wrong with electricity.
The volume of these cars is also so low you can bet repair parts are expensive as hell as well.
the EPA should not be allowing companies to self test the vehicles ( or at least there needs to be WAY more audits).
On January 11 2013 09:03 Sadist wrote: im calling bullshit on the 300 mile range. I would like to see it independently verified.
I'm not a fan of the way cars are rated here in the US btw -___-
Like most things it depends on where you live, i know driving my chevy cruze i get on roads with a slight decline well over 50mpg and roads with a slight incline on the high way lead to more of 30mpg ofc those are computer estimations. When you throw batteries into the mix things like weather can also matter a bit more then a gas powered car if it's especially hot or cold. There are other factors all listed under that your miles my vary tag line from the epa. All of which is sorta tested using dynamometers to stress the car taking into the cars drag coefficient and weight but it's still all best guesses.
I wonder if auto manufactures will have an independent tester like they do for horsepower under the SAE
Also it's to not that sense it says 300 mile range at 55 mph this isn't independently verified testing would probably be set up similar to conditions of highway testing done by the epa to reach empg.
On January 11 2013 09:03 Sadist wrote: im calling bullshit on the 300 mile range. I would like to see it independently verified.
I'm not a fan of the way cars are rated here in the US btw -___-
i've heard of the 300 mile tested range in articles, not sure how truthful they are but i did see a part where jay leno drove one and after 15 minutes (maybe 30, dont recall) of driving, "estimate range remaining" didnt falter because how efficient the car was in converting (braking)heat to energy.
still 200+ miles on a single charge for a ev makes it very viable for many people
On January 11 2013 09:03 Sadist wrote: im calling bullshit on the 300 mile range. I would like to see it independently verified.
I'm not a fan of the way cars are rated here in the US btw -___-
i've heard of the 300 mile tested range in articles, not sure how truthful they are but i did see a part where jay leno drove one and after 15 minutes (maybe 30, dont recall) of driving, "estimate range remaining" didnt falter because how efficient the car was in converting (braking)heat to energy.
still 200+ miles on a single charge for a ev makes it very viable for many people
Maybe,
but 5 hrs to charge is still to long. I'm all for hybrids, but pure electrics seem kinda shit to me.
It is really odd to drive an electric car though, I have driven a volt and it made basically 0 noise (except for a very slight wine) and was about as loud as an electric golf cart o_O
On January 11 2013 09:03 Sadist wrote: im calling bullshit on the 300 mile range. I would like to see it independently verified.
I'm not a fan of the way cars are rated here in the US btw -___-
i've heard of the 300 mile tested range in articles, not sure how truthful they are but i did see a part where jay leno drove one and after 15 minutes (maybe 30, dont recall) of driving, "estimate range remaining" didnt falter because how efficient the car was in converting (braking)heat to energy.
still 200+ miles on a single charge for a ev makes it very viable for many people
Maybe,
but 5 hrs to charge is still to long. I'm all for hybrids, but pure electrics seem kinda shit to me.
It is really odd to drive an electric car though, I have driven a volt and it made basically 0 noise (except for a very slight wine) and was about as loud as an electric golf cart o_O
Reducing noise pollution i think is a good thing not like it make cities any quieter outside of cali it's not many states were using your horse like a jackass is a ticket-able offense.
5 hour change isn't too long for most people that is the 200-300 range of 99% of what they would be doing with their car in one day, so 5 hours over night isn't a big deal. The problem is that outside of houses it's inconvenient to charge the car in most places. Does it fill everyone's needs nope i mean i drove cars cross country doing 700miles a day, but that's rather unusual and one in a blue moon sorta deal.
I said it before tesla's cars would do better if they were cheaper which they can get if they optimized their production which at this point is still in large part done by hand which makes it slow. They also are still in the process of changing how they put the car together just about every week which has it's own slow downs. In part this is also why tesla's market is in the high end of cars just because they can't do cheap at the moment atleast not cheap and compete with quality of build levels of major manufacturers.
This is not necessarily 100% related but back in the day, Tesla already presented a vehicle that can drive on electricity. This knowledge has been kept from us successfully since then because it is hard to make money off of it.
On January 11 2013 09:03 Sadist wrote: im calling bullshit on the 300 mile range. I would like to see it independently verified.
I'm not a fan of the way cars are rated here in the US btw -___-
i've heard of the 300 mile tested range in articles, not sure how truthful they are but i did see a part where jay leno drove one and after 15 minutes (maybe 30, dont recall) of driving, "estimate range remaining" didnt falter because how efficient the car was in converting (braking)heat to energy.
still 200+ miles on a single charge for a ev makes it very viable for many people
Maybe,
but 5 hrs to charge is still to long. I'm all for hybrids, but pure electrics seem kinda shit to me.
It is really odd to drive an electric car though, I have driven a volt and it made basically 0 noise (except for a very slight wine) and was about as loud as an electric golf cart o_O
Reducing noise pollution i think is a good thing not like it make cities any quieter outside of cali it's not many states were using your horse like a jackass is a ticket-able offense.
5 hour change isn't too long for most people that is the 200-300 range of 99% of what they would be doing with their car in one day, so 5 hours over night isn't a big deal. The problem is that outside of houses it's inconvenient to charge the car in most places. Does it fill everyone's needs nope i mean i drove cars cross country doing 700miles a day, but that's rather unusual and one in a blue moon sorta deal.
I said it before tesla's cars would do better if they were cheaper which they can get if they optimized their production which at this point is still in large part done by hand which makes it slow. They also are still in the process of changing how they put the car together just about every week which has it's own slow downs. In part this is also why tesla's market is in the high end of cars just because they can't do cheap at the moment atleast not cheap and compete with quality of build levels of major manufacturers.
This makes some sense. Seeing a full scale assembly plant cranking out 600 cars a shift is actually quite amazing if you haven't seen it before. When you watch a car get built for the first time and see how shitty things go at first, it makes you realize how you can take for granted the fact that the plant runs properly.
I wasn't aware of Tesla's production facilities. I wonder what their build rate is. It makes sense that they are doing a lot of things by hand as the startup costs for a plant are astronomical. Its too bad they don't make the Tesla in the Detroit area where you could find the type of manufacturing facilities they would need without having to build an entirely new one.
Read somewhere that their build rate goal was something like 1500 a month. Thats incredibly low volume (for a example, some assembly plants build as many as 1500 a day (with 3 shifts). Im sure their facility is one shift if they are only building 20-25 a day but damn. Maybe its just a demand issue and a limited market so they arent going to invest when the demand isnt there.
This is without a doubt the future of vehicles. Once the infrastructure is established, batteries becomes more efficient, and production methods become more economical a vast majority of the middle class will own one or more electric vehicles.
Okay time to do some critiquing of these posts.
On January 11 2013 08:04 BluePanther wrote: The range makes this impractical for anything other than a second care, which most people cannot afford (or aren't going to buy).
If you are going to buy this car, it is obviously not your first car. People who are not the slightest bit wealthy are not going to buy this car. This car is not aimed at the family making 40k a year... this is aimed at the households making over 80k+. As for the range being impractical this car is not for traveling 400+ miles a day this is for your around town errands, taking the kids to school, going to the movies etc. which is what most people do with their cars anyhow. Note that the average person drives 33 miles a day.
On January 11 2013 11:52 peekn wrote: This is without a doubt the future of vehicles. Once the infrastructure is established, batteries becomes more efficient, and production methods become more economical a vast majority of the middle class will own one or more electric vehicles.
On January 11 2013 08:04 BluePanther wrote: The range makes this impractical for anything other than a second care, which most people cannot afford (or aren't going to buy).
If you are going to buy this car, it is obviously not your first car. People who are not the slightest bit wealthy are not going to buy this car. This car is not aimed at the family making 40k a year... this is aimed at the households making over 80k+. As for the range being impractical this car is not for traveling 400+ miles a day this is for your around town errands, taking the kids to school, going to the movies etc. which is what most people do with their cars anyhow. Note that the average person drives 33 miles a day.
I think if you bump that up to 75miles a day you hit like 90% of US drivers. So i mean they aren't impracticable for a family with 2+ cars and a house, i again say house because how do you charge this thing if you park on the side of a street or in an apartment parking structure overnight. Infrastructure in large part limits potential buyers.
On January 11 2013 05:19 Ubiquitousdichotomy wrote: MSRB: 60,000$ + 7500 Tax Credit USD
I think you meant MSRP: $60,000 - $7,500 Tax Credit.
This car is pretty meh to me; it's nice that it's a practical, spacious middle-class electric car with competitive performance, but it's still a fatass at over 4700 lb, as is the Karma at over 5200.
I don't like audio and HVAC controls being touch-screen operated. It takes way too much attention.
Obviously this car will fail to win over driving enthusiasts like me but it does represent a nice next step for EV technology.
On January 11 2013 11:52 peekn wrote: This is without a doubt the future of vehicles. Once the infrastructure is established, batteries becomes more efficient, and production methods become more economical a vast majority of the middle class will own one or more electric vehicles.
Okay time to do some critiquing of these posts.
On January 11 2013 08:04 BluePanther wrote: The range makes this impractical for anything other than a second care, which most people cannot afford (or aren't going to buy).
If you are going to buy this car, it is obviously not your first car. People who are not the slightest bit wealthy are not going to buy this car. This car is not aimed at the family making 40k a year... this is aimed at the households making over 80k+. As for the range being impractical this car is not for traveling 400+ miles a day this is for your around town errands, taking the kids to school, going to the movies etc. which is what most people do with their cars anyhow. Note that the average person drives 33 miles a day.
I think if you bump that up to 75miles a day you hit like 90% of US drivers. So i mean they aren't impracticable for a family with 2+ cars and a house, i again say house because how do you charge this thing if you park on the side of a street or in an apartment parking structure overnight. Infrastructure in large part limits potential buyers.
I don't think that living in an apartment is going to limit the customer base. I don't think that they are marketing the car towards that demographic. I feel like this car is for the families with BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, etc and they want to have something new and exciting like a fully electric sedan.
On January 11 2013 11:52 peekn wrote: This is without a doubt the future of vehicles. Once the infrastructure is established, batteries becomes more efficient, and production methods become more economical a vast majority of the middle class will own one or more electric vehicles.
Okay time to do some critiquing of these posts.
On January 11 2013 08:04 BluePanther wrote: The range makes this impractical for anything other than a second care, which most people cannot afford (or aren't going to buy).
If you are going to buy this car, it is obviously not your first car. People who are not the slightest bit wealthy are not going to buy this car. This car is not aimed at the family making 40k a year... this is aimed at the households making over 80k+. As for the range being impractical this car is not for traveling 400+ miles a day this is for your around town errands, taking the kids to school, going to the movies etc. which is what most people do with their cars anyhow. Note that the average person drives 33 miles a day.
I think if you bump that up to 75miles a day you hit like 90% of US drivers. So i mean they aren't impracticable for a family with 2+ cars and a house, i again say house because how do you charge this thing if you park on the side of a street or in an apartment parking structure overnight. Infrastructure in large part limits potential buyers.
I don't think that living in an apartment is going to limit the customer base. I don't think that they are marketing the car towards that demographic. I feel like this car is for the families with BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, etc and they want to have something new and exciting like a fully electric sedan.
Well i was thinking city use those who live in cities and have the money to afford a luxury end car.
On January 11 2013 15:31 Rassy wrote:...How can one not become a conspiracy believer.. Sry but i cant get excited about this model s at all.
Seems a bit unlikely. After all, Tesla's first model had a sort of rough start. The revenue was very small due to how expensive the car was to create. But as technology progresses, the costs of these sorts of things decrease a huge amount. Just look at SSD hard drives. I bought one years ago for $150. It only had 60 GB, but now a 225 GB SSD can cost about the same price. Plus, it's SATA3 now.
More on-topic... I do like the Tesla cars. All of them are gorgeous compared to many cars nowadays. Hybrids always seem to look like total shit, as mentioned earlier. The only thing I don't like about electric cars is the fact that electricity mostly runs off of fossil fuels (coal). Coal =/= green either. Obviously, I have no idea how much of an impact on the environment. I imagine the generation of electricity from coal is still a fair bit greener than gasoline + cars, but who knows?
Also, I wonder how long the batteries last. Will the life of one of the car batteries be close to what it was after 5 years? Or are they somewhat replaceable?
I'm looking forward to the day we are rid of gasoline cars. Just think about how much nicer it would be to walk around in cities if your ears were never assaulted by engine noises, your nose by exhaust fumes, your eyes by stained buildings and walls. If I'm rich one day I'll buy a top electric car for sure. Love the quiet and the performance.
On January 11 2013 15:31 Rassy wrote: Lol electric cars, everything whats wrong with the world is shown in the history of the electric car. In 1920 there was a 100% electric car wich had a range of 80 miles. Yes i was extremely suprised when i found this out, in 90 years of technological advance we have not increased the range for electric cars at all, kinda funny isnt it?
The perfect electric car (or rather hybrid) can already be made.it has a fuel efficiency of 50 km/litre+ without anny drawbacks of limited range. The first version of the opel ampera (think the equivalent of the chevvy volt, though not 100% sure) was designed in this way but the final production version was a joke, since they abandonned the perfect system to fall back on the same hybrid crap toyota and honda also produce.
You have the petrol or diesel engine running at a fixed efficient rpm, and this engine drives a generator wich generates the electric current to power the electric motors and recharge the battery. This is extremely fuel efficient and 50km/litre is easily achieveable (the test version of the opel ampera with this system did 1/60) Most modern ocean going ships are designed in this way.
Now you can wonder why noone makes such a car, elon musk could make it easily, it would be a huge succes for everyone but the oil companys. How can one not become a conspiracy believer.. Sry but i cant get excited about this model s at all.
Various reasons, first off make a car with creature comforts and safety standards of a modern car then talk about how range hasn't improved. Along with things like top speed and smooth acceleration etc.
As far as the idea of series set ups they were explored like electric vehicles etc during the 90's and early 00's when the ideas of higher mpg were first hitting the scene what we ended up with is they were dropped due to cost to produce and profit returns. Toyta hit the market with it's hybrid set up with a complex parallel set up which is a mess to make the drive train and transmission but ended up working for them in the cost structure, it also benefited from that you don't need to change things. Take into account current automotive structure unless you own a house with a garage to park you car plug in cars aren't ideal for you. When you set it up in series you can really simply parts of the car like drive train but you have to add new things in there.
Electric cars went out of fashion because of ford, they made an everyman's car cheap and efficient, it's the reason why US cars are also gasoline driven instead of diesel what becomes established at the birth of a technology and gains a big enough foot hold pretty much sets how it will play out for a long long time. Electric cars at the time were for only the very rich they cost more then hell steam cars.
On January 11 2013 15:31 Rassy wrote: Now you can wonder why noone makes such a car, elon musk could make it easily, it would be a huge succes for everyone but the oil companys. How can one not become a conspiracy believer.. Sry but i cant get excited about this model s at all.
Because there must be more factors involved than what you listed, that is why it isn't feasible, or good enough to be the new stadnard.
It's not some sort of conspiracy that companies are introducing technology is a limited rate, the competitions are so huge they would've use the opportunity to create a hit, but if it isn't a hit, there must be more than you see.
Automatic getting your car towed because it parked is a poorly marked handicapped/babys/ev spot XD
On January 12 2013 05:41 Rassy wrote: Ok, but why is noone building a car with the system where the engine runs at fixed rpm to power a generator? Look up some info on this system, and the first concept version of the opel ampera (if info about that is still available on the web) i can not think of one reason to not make such a car. Would love to be prooved wrong btw, i am not into conspiracys at all but this situation i can not explain at all.
Annyway about the car.
It looks great wich is the most important feature of anny car.
Actually that's not all that new I think early 00's late 90's GM was testing that sorta design with the GM Precept and ford prodigy although most just remember GM's EV1 series they were messing around with, although most people just think of the pure electric model that was some what made in mass and actually tested handed out to people to test drive under a leasing agreement.
Anyways what happened probably didn't drum up enough buzz at car shows so the car wasn't made or when the started crunching the numbers for research and development into manufacturing such a car they ran into a wall. Considering that currently the Opel Ampera on the market today is just a chevy volt essentially. Concept cars are about the outer limits of what is possible to drum up buzz, when trying to bring them down to production models things often get left out or changed.
"Zero Emissions" is a very misleading thing to say about electric cars.
Charging an electric car isn't actually connecting the car to an electricity god praying service, it's taking power from power plants, many of which emit greenhouse gases, and giving it to its self.
$52500 is also a quite a lot of money to be paying for a car that doesn't even come with leather seats stock and can only go 160 miles @55mph on a single charge. I also don't really like the way the car looks too much. From a pure performance standpoint, this car doesn't look too great to say the least. It weighs 4,647lbs, which is getting into pickup truck territory, so it will handle like a boat. The base model also only goes from 0-60mph in 6.5 seconds, only gets up to 110mph, only does a quarter mile in 14.7 sec, and only has 235 hp, which is truly abysmal price/performance considering the base Corvette and Lotus Elise are around the same price and an Evo X is much cheaper, all of which are vastly superior cars performance wise to this one.
It only gets worse when you look at the "performance" package, which puts the price up to $87,500. Sure, it's a better car than the one that it costs $35,000 more than, but it is a really bad deal when compared to some other cars for around the same price like, oh I don't know, a fucking Corvette Z06, Jaguar XJ, Mercedes S Class, BMW M5 or literally fully loaded M3. I could probably go on for a very long time just naming cars that are better than this one for less money, it's just that bad.
On January 12 2013 08:42 Ettick wrote: "Zero Emissions" is a very misleading thing to say about electric cars.
Charging an electric car isn't actually connecting the car to an electricity god praying service, it's taking power from power plants, many of which emit greenhouse gases, and giving it to its self.
$52500 is also a quite a lot of money to be paying for a car that doesn't even come with leather seats stock and can only go 160 miles @55mph on a single charge. I also don't really like the way the car looks too much. From a pure performance standpoint, this car doesn't look too great to say the least. It weighs 4,647lbs, which is getting into pickup truck territory, so it will handle like a boat. The base model also only goes from 0-60mph in 6.5 seconds, only gets up to 110mph, only does a quarter mile in 14.7 sec, and only has 235 hp, which is truly abysmal price/performance considering the base Corvette and Lotus Elise are around the same price and an Evo X is much cheaper, all of which are vastly superior cars performance wise to this one.
It only gets worse when you look at the "performance" package, which puts the price up to $87,500. Sure, it's a better car than the one that it costs $35,000 more than, but it is a really bad deal when compared to some other cars for around the same price like, oh I don't know, a fucking Corvette Z06, Jaguar XJ, Mercedes S Class, BMW M5 or literally fully loaded M3. I could probably go on for a very long time just naming cars that are better than this one for less money, it's just that bad.
I'm hardly impressed.
reminds me of when i was shopping around my second car...looked at audi a4...35k, luxurious, looks good...190hp...WTF!??? pass.
only thing good about this car, imo, is the range of the top model, 200+ miles for mid range, making it a very practical ev. this is a first from what i understand. the car is indeed heavy, 1000lb more than e60 5 series but expected because of batteries. however because the battery layout, it has one of the lowest center of gravity of any car. i think the control system is interesting, though i'd prefer analog controls for much easier accessibility. the interior is subpar. but overall, i think its a good start and in good price range for a mid to high car choices that would compete with 5 series, e class, etc. i think tesla will do well if they continue on at the current pace
? Weird comparisons you're looking to compare upper end luxury sedans not exactly sports cars esp considering they sell sport models or at least sold them I think their new model comes out in 2014, acceleration is just a result of how electric motors differ from gas/diesel engines and how it results in changes to the power train. And either way you're missing the point of a EV.
Just thought it was cool to point out how powerful the thing is at lower speeds. I'm well aware that the M5 would be better on the autobahn, and faster once you get up to speed.
Slightly off-topic, but they are considering implementing rules stating that electric/hybrid cars have to make some kind of noise at low-speeds so people can hear them approaching. Probably not a bad idea, but if I ever buy an electric car and they end up putting into effect a rule like that, I'm making this my car sound.
Wish they'd make it more affordable. Here in Iceland, electricity costs basically nothing(and electricity here is very green) and gas prices are a joke(~9$ per gallon with a bad currency) so it'd be a huge hit.
Really don't understand why people are so upset about the range. Suppose maybe it's just since Iceland is so small, but 300 miles to me is like a fuckton if I'm just using the car to do day to day errands.
On January 12 2013 10:41 Zarahtra wrote: Wish they'd make it more affordable. Here in Iceland, electricity costs basically nothing(and electricity here is very green) and gas prices are a joke(~9$ per gallon with a bad currency) so it'd be a huge hit.
Really don't understand why people are so upset about the range. Suppose maybe it's just since Iceland is so small, but 300 miles to me is like a fuckton if I'm just using the car to do day to day errands.
Living in the US 300 miles I make for various reasons every other week or so. In other words not the main car for me but Iceland is that even 300 miles across XD be perfect for electric cars along with I believe all icelands electricity is thermoelectric.
On January 12 2013 10:41 Zarahtra wrote: Wish they'd make it more affordable. Here in Iceland, electricity costs basically nothing(and electricity here is very green) and gas prices are a joke(~9$ per gallon with a bad currency) so it'd be a huge hit.
Really don't understand why people are so upset about the range. Suppose maybe it's just since Iceland is so small, but 300 miles to me is like a fuckton if I'm just using the car to do day to day errands.
Living in the US 300 miles I make for various reasons every other week or so. In other words not the main car for me but Iceland is that even 300 miles across XD be perfect for electric cars along with I believe all icelands electricity is thermoelectric.
Things I just learned: Area: 39,769 mi2 (103,000 km2). Greatest distances—east-west, 300 mi (483 km); north-south, 190 mi (306 km). Coastline—1,243 mi (2,000 km).
So I guess, yes it is 300 miles across. A quick study of the map of roads: http://goo.gl/maps/cGYN7 It doesn't look like you can just go right through the middle, so a hypothetical trip from Miklabraut to Þjóðvegur will be just outside the Tesla's range (google is saying about 400mi http://goo.gl/maps/JMK5J )
That said, given the plethora of electricity and the relatively small size of the geography (perfect for optimizing charging stations), Iceland would be a fun place to have Tesla invest in, though given the smaller economy (actually recovering really well), maybe not the best business decision for the company
On January 11 2013 05:53 DoomBox wrote: Seats 7? Someone please explain how...
They are heavily investing in the clown demographic in terms of sales. I imagine it is similar to how when a tent says it can sleep two people, you can do it only no one will be comfortable.
So cool, although I couldn't really tell where/how the battery swap happened... Now tell me when they are going to come out with a car that I can afford?
Tesla founder Elon Musk has mentioned battery swap service stations as an even faster alternative to charging for EV drivers, and tonight the company showed just how efficiently it can be done. In a demonstration at its design studio, it beat what it claims is the fastest gas pump in LA by exchanging a drained car battery pack for a fresh fully charged one in just 90 seconds. When the $500,000 stations start rolling out, owners will stay in the car the whole time then either swap the battery back for their original on a return trip, or get a bill for the difference based on how new their battery is. According to Reuters, the exchange is expected to cost owners between $60 - $80 each time or about the cost of 15 gallons of gas.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/fisker-karma-car-0h02.jpg)
