backtop


Print 88 comment(s) - last by lyeoh.. on Sep 4 at 2:59 PM

All-electric Model S runs the 1/4 mile in 12.5-seconds at 110.9 mph

It’s doubtful that many people believe manufacturer estimates when it comes to fuel efficiency or driving range for electric vehicles. The driving range for electric vehicles obtained in government tests is often a far cry from real world numbers. On public roads, driving range for an electric vehicle depends on the terrain, how heavy the driver's right foot is, and even the temperature. 
 
The guys over at Motor Trend have laid hands on a Tesla Model S and set out to get a real world driving distance. The car used for the driving distance test is a Model S Signature Performance 85, and this particular vehicle happened to be Tesla CEO Elon Musk's personal ride. The test of the Model S also involved putting down some performance numbers, which enthusiasts will be interested to hear.
 
The big four-door Model S was able to hit 60 mph in 3.9 seconds. It also ran a virtually silent 12.5-second quarter mile pass at 110.9 mph. Those are impressive numbers for a gasoline-powered sedan, putting the Model S Signature Performance 85 in the same company as the BMW M5 and the Mercedes CLS 63 AMG among others.


Tesla Model S
 
The real question though is how far can the car drive. Being able to hit 60 as quick as an AMG badged Mercedes is impressive, but not so much if the battery pack is dead shortly thereafter. The largest battery pack available in the Model S is rated by the EPA at 265 miles in extended range mode.
 
After the performance testing was done, the car was completely recharged even though it is only consumed what the onboard computer said was 13 miles of range despite the quarter-mile passes and other performance tests. The real world driving distance test took place in California heading towards San Diego via Interstate 15 before hitting the I-5 and then the picturesque Pacific Coast Highway. The map showed the driving distance to be 240 miles.
 
Motor Trend says that the test was conducted with the air conditioner off, but ventilation on, cruise set at 65 mph, and the body lowered on its air suspension for driving distance. Apparently, the car was 1.7 miles short of making it the full 240 miles in real world traffic. Rather than run out of power the tester plugged the car and to get the extra few miles of driving range.
 
Motor Trend figures the real world driving range is 238 miles in their testing, 11% short of the claims 265. 

Source: Motor Trend



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

impressive
By GulWestfale on 8/29/2012 9:02:58 AM , Rating: 5
im a big fan of 'real' cars, you know, the ones with ICEs, but i have to say, 3.9 secs and 230 miles range are an impressive accomplishment.

but until they develop some sort of quick charger that lets you recharge the batteries in about 5 minutes, i still wouldn't buy one.




RE: impressive
By mchentz on 8/29/2012 9:10:57 AM , Rating: 3
Agree,

I don't care that its electric, but charging times are a big issue. As nice as this car is it is still only able to be used as a commuter car. Sides the range they got was with the AC off. How much more range will be lost with the AC on?


RE: impressive
By Jeffk464 on 8/29/2012 10:03:27 AM , Rating: 4
It can make it to trips to from LA to San Diego or LA to Santa Barbara. That's more than just commuting, which you only need a max 100 mile range for. This car looks great anyway you look at it.


RE: impressive
By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 8/29/2012 10:33:15 AM , Rating: 4
Yeah, but recharging an 85kWh battery on a 6.6kW 30amp 240v circuit (common enough in homes, for electric washer/dryer/oven) from empty will take ~12 hours. You can get double 10kW chargers, but having a 20kW 240v circuit installed at your home is.. Expensive and rare..

Recharging that on a 1.5kW 120v circuit, like you would find on a road trip at hotels?

Me, the house I'm fixing to buy actually has a 40A circuit for the well pump (which is only on currently to water the lawn) and I'd want to get a 40A 240V charger with a switch between the two, so that it'd be connected to the charger most of the time. My Volt wouldn't be able to take full advantage of that with its 3.3kW charger, but perhaps the next (ER|)EV would.


RE: impressive
By Jereb on 8/29/2012 5:55:04 PM , Rating: 2
No reason you cannot run or purchase a second connection and add a 100A or greater circuit for charging. It might cost a bit on an existing home to have an electrician install, but it would could be interesting if the gov could subsidise that cost with any purchase of an EV. On a new home you would hardly notice the difference.


RE: impressive
By Samus on 8/30/2012 2:09:01 AM , Rating: 2
Assuming parasitic loss is minimal, I would only have to charge this thing once every 6 days I commute with that mileage. However, I live in Chicago where it gets very hot and very, very cold, and that will definately reduce the range when you account for cooling/heating and weather conditions.

With Whole Foods announcing they are going to install at least two charging stations at every location by 2014 (and one being around the corner from where I live) I would probably pass having a charging station installed here since I don't even have a sheltered parking spot at my condo.


RE: impressive
By tayb on 8/29/2012 10:26:09 AM , Rating: 3
Your commute must really suck ass if 200 mile range won't cut it.

I'm sure the actual numbers are closer to 150 - 180 miles but even that, how long is your commute man?


RE: impressive
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2012 10:47:32 AM , Rating: 2
lol right, this is a "commuter car" now? Good one tayb!

I know you're a cheerleader for these things, but you aren't even trying to use common sense. The range for EV's need to be as high as possible because the recharging times SUCK, and there's barely anywhere to charge an EV in public (outside of California). Hello?

I drove to the beach this summer. This car wouldn't even get me there on a full charge. And you'll probably say something idiotic like "well just rent a car". I mean come on, how idiotic is that? The greatest thing about cars is that we can just get in them and go. Dealing with range anxiety for EV's and car rentals is just more inconvenience that I certainly don't need in my life. And I don't even have kids!


RE: impressive
By Jeffk464 on 8/29/2012 11:37:02 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, unless you can't afford it the easiest thing to do is fly any distance over 400-500 miles and rent a car from the airport. This is already what people like to do.


RE: impressive
By FITCamaro on 8/29/2012 12:15:19 PM , Rating: 3
400 miles to Orlando from Charleston. 6 hours to drive. 5 hours (with layovers and getting to the airport early) usually to fly. ~$100-120 in gas to drive. $400 to fly.


RE: impressive
By cknobman on 8/29/2012 2:08:04 PM , Rating: 2
Your claim is dubious at best.

I just flew from DFW to Chicago (800 miles fyi) round trip for $211 (after fees and taxes and baggage) with a layover in Kansas City.

Total time from DFW to Midway? Less than 3 hours.

Try not to over exaggerate please.

If I had driven in a freakin Prius getting 45mpg @ 3.89 a gallon it would have cost me over $140 in gas.


RE: impressive
By Nutzo on 8/29/2012 2:30:54 PM , Rating: 3
Plus you get to be radiated or molested by the TSA every time you fly.

No thanks. I'll drive even if it cost me twice as much.


RE: impressive
By Jeffk464 on 8/29/2012 4:18:02 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah flying does suck these days.


RE: impressive
By Manch on 9/1/2012 5:13:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Plus you get radiated by the prius, or molested by the TSA everytime you fly


quote:
No thanks. I'll drive a regualr car even if it cost me twice as much.


FIXED!!


RE: impressive
By Manch on 9/1/2012 5:39:42 AM , Rating: 2
The fastest flight I could find was 4hrs & 34 mins. What airline did you use?!


RE: impressive
By lyeoh on 9/4/2012 2:59:27 PM , Rating: 2
And how do you get to your various destinations from the airport? Do factor the cost and time of that in. I'll be happy if hybrid/electric cars become more affordable and practical.

In the future when petroleum becomes more expensive, flying might get rather more expensive and/or slower. It'll be a while before electric planes can travel at 900+kph and be powered by nonfossil fuels (the other option is to create hydrocarbons via nuclear power or some renewable source). That said mainstream passenger jets have generally been getting slower from the 1970s to the 2012, so I wonder what would be "still fast enough".


RE: impressive
By EnzoFX on 8/29/2012 1:43:16 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Some people here are idiots. Because anyone looking to buy a 50K car, well, it's going to be their first and only car right? They will of course have something for that rare long trip. But the tards here think that for it to be viable, it needs to do everything, because all cars now do everything, right.


RE: impressive
By Spuke on 8/29/2012 2:13:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
because all cars now do everything, right.
That's because all cars DO everything right now. LOL! Even a Veyron can be used to pick up groceries or visit relatives out of state. Not one EV, no matter what the pricetag is, can do what every friggin car from an 86 Accord to a Ferrari 458 can do. My issue is not so much with EV's but with idiots, like yourself, that can't see past your own noses. Why do you think EV adoption is nearly non-existent? Cause they DO NOT do everything a regular car can do today!


RE: impressive
By Jeffk464 on 8/29/2012 4:19:32 PM , Rating: 2
There is a long waiting list to pick up the testla. This thing is no nissan Leaf.


RE: impressive
By Spuke on 8/29/2012 4:44:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is a long waiting list to pick up the testla. This thing is no nissan Leaf.
LOL! What's your point?


RE: impressive
By tayb on 8/29/2012 1:43:00 PM , Rating: 3
Are you purposefully dense or is it just accidental? Maybe instead of making up your own arguments to respond to try reading, it might clear some things up. Responses to other people's posts are not to be taken in a vacuum, they should be taken in light of the original post to which they were responding to.

He said this...

quote:
Agree, I don't care that its electric, but charging times are a big issue. As nice as this car is it is still only able to be used as a commuter car. Sides the range they got was with the AC off. How much more range will be lost with the AC on?


...and I said this...

quote:
Your commute must really suck ass if 200 mile range won't cut it. I'm sure the actual numbers are closer to 150 - 180 miles but even that, how long is your commute man?


..and then you said something idiotic.


RE: impressive
By EnzoFX on 8/29/2012 1:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
Who exactly do you think this is targeted at? People looking to buy their first and only car? Who's the one with no common sense...


RE: impressive
By FITCamaro on 8/29/2012 12:16:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yes it would work for a commuter car for most. If they could afford it.


RE: impressive
By bigi on 8/29/2012 9:12:02 AM , Rating: 2
5 minutes recharging will not be possible. Only a battery swap will do.

Drive in - swap battery - go. Kind of like gas stations where you don't pump fuel but swap your battery.


RE: impressive
By flyingpants1 on 8/29/2012 9:18:42 AM , Rating: 3
Which poses a problem since different batteries have different levels of wear and thus different valuation.. I'm surprised nobody EVER points this out.


RE: impressive
By StealthX32 on 8/29/2012 9:29:26 AM , Rating: 2
I agree not all batteries are equal and are in various states of wear, but what I think you'll start seeing is a minimum Wh on a pack, so you'll know (and your car will know) how far it will take you.

So you pay 50 bucks, get your pack with minimum X Wh. Anything your battery can fit above that is a bonus for you.


RE: impressive
By Spuke on 8/29/2012 9:52:14 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry but there's no way in hell I'd trade my brand new or nearly new battery with hardly any cycles on it for one that had a few hundred on it. Nope!


RE: impressive
By nafhan on 8/29/2012 10:46:45 AM , Rating: 4
Just a thought, but one way around this problem would be something along the lines of battery "rental" program, which could work something like this:

--You pay a subscription fee that allows you to swap out your battery for another one as soon as the charge density drops below a certain level.
--The only time you'd need to get a battery swap would be when the charge density starts dropping. The rest of the time you'd have the option to save money by charging at home or time by swapping battery packs at a service station.
--The service station would charge and test all batteries, and send the degraded batteries back to the OEM for refurbishment or recyling.
--A new car could come with, maybe, 5 years of battery rental service.


RE: impressive
By Jeffk464 on 8/29/2012 11:39:37 AM , Rating: 2
yup, that seem like the practical way of doing it. Plus it would lower the sticker shock of buying an electric car.


RE: impressive
By Spuke on 8/29/2012 12:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't solve my trade less cycled battery for more cycled battery "problem".


RE: impressive
By Jeffk464 on 8/29/2012 12:20:37 PM , Rating: 2
I think you missed the point you wouldn't own the battery, it would be provided to you as service.


RE: impressive
By nafhan on 8/29/2012 1:47:35 PM , Rating: 2
Sure it does, and it does so by making your "problem" irrelevant. As soon as you start having issues, you get the battery replaced as part of the battery rental agreement. As it seems likely that plans like this would not be mandatory, another "solution" to your problem would be to just buy the battery outright and replace it when it gets old. As is often the case, it would probably come down to cost vs. convenience.


RE: impressive
By Spuke on 8/29/2012 2:20:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sure it does, and it does so by making your "problem" irrelevant.
No it doesn't. LOL! Actually, it creates another problem (actually it's part of the original problem I just left this out on purpose). Why would I pay, in full, for a battery pack I don't even own then turn around and pay again to rent it?


RE: impressive
By mjdaly on 8/29/2012 2:31:35 PM , Rating: 4
He is likely arguing that you would purchase the car without the battery pack, then lease the pack for power. You would not buy a pack then lease another. This then ignores that a good number of people don't like to lease their vehicles, or anything about their vehicles.

It also creates yet another new problem. Lets say I do want to purchase my own battery and charge it myself. There is no way I am trading it out (as others have said) for an unknown battery. If I lease a battery and stop paying on the lease, they come and take the battery. My car can not drive anywhere. This is exactly what they want. You to pay the company forever. At least with current fuels we have a choice of which fuel company we would like to pay. And if I want to stop fueling my car, someone doesn't come by and take the gas tank.

The charging technology simply is not there yet for any of these schemes to work. We do not need swappable battery packs or leasing companies. We need a high capacity battery that can charge in 5 minutes. Setting up a convoluted swap out/leasing system only serves to screw things up. Remember to use the KISS method of planning kids.


RE: impressive
By Jeffk464 on 8/29/2012 4:21:43 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for understanding the concept.


RE: impressive
By nafhan on 8/29/2012 4:36:26 PM , Rating: 2
Of course some ideal technology we haven't invented connected to a power grid we don't have would be better. If you're imagining things, why would you imagine anything less than perfect? I don't agree that major technological and infrastructure changes are a "simple" solution, though, and even though I think we'll have what you describe at some point, there's no guarantee of when: it might be decades or more.

It also sounds like both you and Spuke would prefer to own the battery in an electric car and deal with that set of problems. Since I'm certainly not advocating making battery ownership illegal, that's also irrelevant. I merely proposed a solution to the charging time problem that would be feasible and relatively easy to implement, today. I'm also missing what exactly is convoluted about this. You want a new battery: you get one. You need a new battery: you get one. Paying a fixed rate up-front to do that is almost certainly simpler than attempting to deal with used battery valuation.

Also, the solution I described would not lock you into a provider beyond the term of the lease. In fact, it seems likely that legislation mandating interoperability between different manufacturers would be a good idea and a necessary prerequisite. Seriously, OEM only batteries that are different for every vehicle on the road would be it's own kind of vendor lock in hell.


RE: impressive
By Spuke on 8/29/2012 5:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It also sounds like both you and Spuke would prefer to own the battery in an electric car and deal with that set of problems.
Nope! I would prefer to own a car that meets my needs (and desires since I'm an enthusiast). Gasoline cars do everything I want with no trade-offs. There might be an EV in my household (it won't be my car per se...probably the wifes) but a few things have to happen.

1. Overall costs less than an equivalent gasoline car. If I'm going to save money by not using gas there MUST be a cost savings over an equivalent gas car.

2. Performance must be the same as an equivalent gas car. Most EV's are much heavier than gas. The weight has to come down. I don't care if it's faster in a straight line I'm not driving a slammed pickup truck. No pigs.

3. Range must be at LEAST 120 miles in all conditions and environments. That means A/C in 120F going up a 6% grade, heater on in 20F, radio on loud, charging my phone, all at 85 mph. I do this in my vehicles will no issues whatsoever.

For me to drive one personally, there is an additional requirement:

4. Must be under $15k used with acceptable miles. Sometime in the future I'm buying an older, classic car (there's a certain '69 BMW I'm hoping will come back on the market) and I'm wanting a commuter type car to go with it. I might be willing to buy an EV provided the above is met.


RE: impressive
By nafhan on 8/30/2012 10:19:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nope! I would prefer to own a car that meets my needs
I can't say I disagree with any of the four "needs" you require in a possible electric car. If I came up with a list like that, it'd probably be very similar. However, that's not really what we were talking about. None of those points appear to be directly related to the battery ownership vs. leasing discussion we were having.


RE: impressive
By nafhan on 8/29/2012 4:38:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why would I pay, in full, for a battery pack I don't even own then turn around and pay again to rent it?
I don't know why you would do that. It sounds like a bad idea, though. It's also not what I was suggesting.


RE: impressive
By Jeffk464 on 8/29/2012 10:06:06 AM , Rating: 2
Battery packs could be owned by the swap out companies and you could basically just be renting them.


RE: impressive
By mjdaly on 8/29/2012 2:11:25 PM , Rating: 2
And the problem with that is I get a swap out from company A that owns the battery, then my destination only has company B. Why would company B take their competitors batteries and charge them? If you think they can work out an agreement for charging one each others batteries, then why have separate companies in the first place?

What I am trying to say is that your swap out and lease system will only work if a single third party owns every single battery independent of the stations doing the swap outs and charging. Even then, there are only so many charged batteries that can be stored on site, so after a rush the station will eventually have no fully charged batteries. Then there is the fact that the battery packs are not one large removable unit all of the time. They can be distributed throughout the car to balance out weight problems.....

Basically, too many compromises. It will not work.


RE: impressive
By Jereb on 8/29/2012 6:02:02 PM , Rating: 2
Do you guys have the gas cylinder swap thingo at gas stations over there? You buy a bbq with empty cylinder, go to a gas station and swap it for a full one. You can do it at just about any gas station in Australia.


RE: impressive
By mjdaly on 8/30/2012 1:00:49 AM , Rating: 2
We do, however the cost of a propane cylinder is trivial compared to the cost of a battery pack.


RE: impressive
By Jeffk464 on 8/29/2012 10:05:07 AM , Rating: 2
You know for how often people go on road trips most people could even rent a car if they had to, preferably just hop on an airplane for long trips.


RE: impressive
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2012 9:59:53 AM , Rating: 1
They were basically cruising the entire time. They specifically picked a Scenic Highway where there would be no stop and go driving or traffic whatsoever. They even turned the AC off.

Seriously their Volt "review" was bad enough. Full of half-truths and material straight from GM's PR department. But this Model S review of theirs is even worst. It's hard to even take them seriously at this point.

Last time Musk received an unfavorable review, he sued Top Gear twice and lost. Why do I have the feeling the only media outlet he would grant this "exclusive" to is one that would agree to be overly positive, and not mention any negatives?

"real world" my ass.


RE: impressive
By Ammohunt on 8/29/2012 10:19:05 AM , Rating: 1
I agree, they forgot to add coasting Downhill with a tail wind, 120lb driver to the list to get the range they claim. Lets see the range with a normal driver in the summer A/C and radio on crusing at 75mph talking on the cell phone. Either way this is not an everyday car for everyday drivers its an elite upper crust type car excluding 99% of consumers.


RE: impressive
By Dr of crap on 8/29/2012 10:30:14 AM , Rating: 2
This statement is right on the nose -

"Either way this is not an everyday car for everyday drivers its an elite upper crust type car excluding 99% of consumers."

And the price sets that way.

BUT this is just for close to home driving. IT IS NOT MADE TO GO ON LONG TRIPS.
We ALL know that, yet everyone has to point it out.
You would still need a gas powered car for those kind of trips.


RE: impressive
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2012 10:40:49 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
"Either way this is not an everyday car for everyday drivers its an elite upper crust type car excluding 99% of consumers." And the price sets that way.


Yes except the 99% are the ones helping to pay for the 1%'s toys in this case.


RE: impressive
By MadMan007 on 8/29/2012 10:44:11 AM , Rating: 2
This car isn't made for going on long trips.


RE: impressive
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2012 10:49:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This car isn't made for going on long trips.


Tell that to Motor Trend then. Because the entire article was a long road trip! Hello?


RE: impressive
By Masospaghetti on 8/29/2012 10:24:41 AM , Rating: 1
The highway cycle is more punishing for an electric vehicle compared to the city cycle because aerodynamic drag is higher and there's no ability to use brake regeneration. Lower speeds and stop-and-go driving would have improved their numbers, not worsened them.

Speaking of the Volt - 1,849 units were sold in July (~22,200 annual volume). I thought there was no demand for the Volt? Let me guess, they were all government orders, right?


RE: impressive
By ksherman on 8/29/2012 10:30:47 AM , Rating: 2
I was going to mention the regenerative braking as well.

I'm still pretty impressed with this Tesla and am excited for the future when they can start getting the prices another $10-20k lower.

I agree with another poster that the really big challenge is charging. The university I work at has electric car charging spots (which I don't have to pay for, which is cool!), but I think they're of a 240V variety so it would be a pretty slow charge. But at home, I live in a townhome and short of a 100ft extension cable I won't be able to charge there, which is a big issue. Fortunately, my one-way commute to work is only about 45 miles, in theory with charging at the office I shouldn't run into any issues...


RE: impressive
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2012 10:36:08 AM , Rating: 2
Physics wasn't your best subject was it? There's a reason Teslas city MPGe is listed as lower than it's highway mileage.

Plus these guys were driving downhill. So we have a body in motion staying in motion, also going downhill. Physics dictates this will be far more efficient than stop and go driving. Aerodynamic drag is simply not a bigger factor than those variables. It requires more energy to get something moving than to keep it moving.

quote:
Speaking of the Volt - 1,849 units were sold in July (~22,200 annual volume). I thought there was no demand for the Volt? Let me guess, they were all government orders, right?


Yes and for the second time this year, they've put production on hold for a month. If demand is so high, how could they stop production? So nice try lol. And the idea that less than 2k units sold monthly in this country is somehow good...uhhh, right.


RE: impressive
By Masospaghetti on 8/29/2012 11:21:25 AM , Rating: 1
If you actually looked at the EPA test cycle you'd see that the average speed of the highway and "high-speed" circuits is less than 49 mph, much less than the 67 mph that Motor Trend had in their test.

Source: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.s...

In other words, the Model S surely gets better economy at 49 mph compared to city driving, but at 67 mph it's going to be significantly worse. Speaking of physics, remember how drag is a function of velocity, squared?

quote:
It requires more energy to get something moving than to keep it moving.


This ignores regenerative braking, which if used properly, captures between 50%-75% of the kinetic energy, 75% being the upper limit for the Volt.

quote:
And the idea that less than 2k units sold monthly in this country is somehow good...uhhh, right.


Yep...considering its only competitors are the Leaf, which sold 532 units, and the Prius Plug-in, which sold 688. BTW, the Volt line was idled in July for retooling related to the new Impala line, not because of oversupply of the Volt.

Source: http://www.plugincars.com/chevy-volt-sales-stay-st...

http://www.plugincars.com/chevy-idles-volt-media-s...


RE: impressive
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2012 11:40:33 AM , Rating: 2
When the Leaf and Prius Plug-in are your examples of the Volt's competition, I see you've sorely missed the point.

quote:
This ignores regenerative braking, which if used properly, captures between 50%-75% of the kinetic energy, 75% being the upper limit for the Volt.


Of that about 5% is actually converted into electricity for the vehicle. Regenerative braking is nice, but not very efficient. Certainly not enough to make up for cruising vs stop and go driving.

This debate is stupid. You are WRONG! Cruising downhill on a highway will always be more efficient than real world city driving.


RE: impressive
By Masospaghetti on 8/29/2012 12:35:08 PM , Rating: 2
I know you love to compare the Volt to $15,000 subcompacts and $25,000 standard hybrids. Would you consider the Ford Taurus a failure because it sells less than 10,000 units a month, when the Civic sells 30,000?

quote:
Of that about 5% is actually converted into electricity for the vehicle. Regenerative braking is nice, but not very efficient. Certainly not enough to make up for cruising vs stop and go driving.


Most hybrids have a higher city MPG rating than highway MPG rating. Why do you think this is? The Tesla is an outlier and I provided a perfectly reasonable explanation of why the numbers exist the way they do, which you haven't addressed at all.

quote:
This debate is stupid. You are WRONG!


This sums up the extent of your logic and reasoning in most conversations.


RE: impressive
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2012 1:16:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I know you love to compare the Volt to $15,000 subcompacts and $25,000 standard hybrids.


Huh?? Whatever lol. The Volt is a $45k+ sedan. At that price it fails horribly compared to pretty much any car in that bracket. Maybe that's why nobody is buying it? It's basically a Cruize Eco for twice the money!

quote:
Most hybrids have a higher city MPG rating than highway MPG rating.


The Model S isn't a hybrid. Point?

quote:
The Tesla is an outlier and I provided a perfectly reasonable explanation of why the numbers exist the way they do, which you haven't addressed at all.


How did I not address this? It's right here in the article, and I directly quoted the Tesla website. The Model S get's 88MPGe in the city, and 90MPGe on the HIGHWAY!! Now you tell me, which number bigger?

Again, YOU ARE WRONG. I think Tesla knows more about their own car than you. And they are telling you in black and white that, like all vehicles, it gets better efficiency highway driving.

Are you going to stfu and just admit you're wrong? If the freaking fact sheet FROM Tesla won't convince you, than I guess I sure as hell can't.


RE: impressive
By Masospaghetti on 8/29/2012 2:55:16 PM , Rating: 4
Stop foaming at the mouth for ten seconds and you might understand what you're being told.
quote:
...like all vehicles, it gets better efficiency highway driving.

2012 Nissan Leaf: 102/96 MPGe
2011 Fusion Hybrid: 41/36
2011 Toyota Prius: 51/48
2011 Ford Escape Hybrid: 34/31
...

Do I need to keep going?
quote:
The Model S get's 88MPGe in the city, and 90MPGe on the HIGHWAY!!

And as I already posted, the HIGHWAY test averages less than 49 MPH where aerodynamic drag is minimal. Motor trend tested at 67 MPH which has much more drag. Had Motor Trend done lower speed and local driving their range would have been increased.
quote:
Again, YOU ARE WRONG

quote:
Are you going to stfu and just admit you're wrong?

I'm done here. You clearly have no capacity for logical discussion.


RE: impressive
By Solandri on 8/29/2012 6:32:30 PM , Rating: 2
This is correct. Aerodynamic drag at 65 mph is pretty substantial, accounting for a 10-15% drop in MPG over moving at 55 mph.

The Tesla S getting lower city MPGe than highway, while other electric/hybrids get higher city MPGe makes sense too. Due to the extra batteries in the Tesla S which give it the 200+ mile range, it's got a bigger weight-to-drag ratio. Tesla S = 4600 lbs, Leaf = 3400 lbs, Fusion hybrid = 3600 lbs, Prius = 3000 lbs, Escape hybrid = 3600 lbs.

That means the Tesla S needs more energy to get up to speed from a stop than these other vehicles. While regenerative braking is good, it is not 100% efficient. Assuming the Tesla's regenerative braking is just as efficient as the other hybrid/electric vehicles', the additional vehicle mass means the Tesla S loses more energy per start/stop cycle than the others.

Meanwhile its cross-sectional area and drag coefficient are not substantially worse than the other vehicles. Weight is less of a factor when you're traveling at steady highway speeds. So you end up with similar highway performance and comparatively worse city performance versus a lighter vehicle.


RE: impressive
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2012 7:08:14 PM , Rating: 1
Tesla says the goddamn thing gets better mileage on the highway. I'm not going to allow you to obfuscate the facts with nitpicking about testing methodology. If the methods are good enough for every other car out there, they're good enough for the Model S! End of discussion.

quote:
Motor trend tested at 67 MPH which has much more drag. Had Motor Trend done lower speed and local driving their range would have been increased.


Another logic fail. They picked that highway specifically BECAUSE it was the most ideal for the longest range drive as possible. If city driving revealed longer range, they would have done a city drive! Hello? The entire point about the article was to brag about the Tesla S.

Just admit you're making crap up and ignoring physics, that you're wrong, and then shut up forever.


RE: impressive
By toffty on 8/29/2012 1:24:01 PM , Rating: 2
Reclaimer you're such an idiot. The reason GM stopped production is to retool the facility. Not because there is no demand.


RE: impressive
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2012 1:29:03 PM , Rating: 2
Uh huh "retooling". Sure. For some reason the Volt is SO amazing, it's also the only production car that needs production halted for one reason or another like every 6 months.

It would be unacceptable to stop production on a vehicle for 4 weeks that's in massive demand. Use some logic here. If Toyota stopped Camry production, or Ford halted F-150 production for 4 weeks, there would be riots and protests. There would be angry consumers, gnashing of teeth, and outrage everywhere.

The Volt? All we hear is the vacuum left in the wake of an implosion.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/image...

Yeah GM is just spot on with that whole supply and demand concept as you can see.


RE: impressive
By toffty on 8/29/2012 2:09:22 PM , Rating: 2
I'll make it easy for you by putting the quote here. The person quoted is Chevy spokesman David Darovitz.
quote:
We are not idling the plant due to poor Volt sales. We're gearing up for production of the new Impala

Let me spell it out for you:
- A 'plant' in this context is not a green living thing with leaves, it is a factory where cars are made
-The Volt is made in only one plant
-That one plant also makes Impalas
-There is a new Impala model coming that requires changes to the production line
-Therefore the plant needs to shut down so those modification can be made

Source:
http://www.freep.com/article/20120828/BUSINESS0101...


RE: impressive
By wookie1 on 8/29/2012 4:07:25 PM , Rating: 2
Right, they're replacing the tooling needed to produce the car that's not selling with the tooling needed to produce a car that will sell. They sold 2,870 Volts in 2011 and that's increased to 10,600 through July, which is way below the 45K that was projected for this year. Apparently there was a blip in sales when California approved single-driver Volts to use the carpool lane.

Do you see, though, the basic contradiction:
1) Volt sales are doing great, they're only shutting down to retool for the Impala
2) The Volt is only made at one plant

How can you sell cars that aren't being produced?
If there is so much dealer stock that more production isn't needed, how can you say that sales are great?


RE: impressive
By Jeffk464 on 8/29/2012 11:42:08 AM , Rating: 2
Yup, regenerative breaking and not wasting energy while idling in traffic like a gas car. Kind of like the prius city driving and hwy driving get about the same mileage.


RE: impressive
By Nutzo on 8/29/2012 2:35:22 PM , Rating: 2
Alot of them (outside of the government and GE) have been sold in California. The main reason is that they qualify for special car-pool stickers that allow them to use the carpool lanes.


RE: impressive
By taichou on 8/29/2012 1:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
While that drive down PCH from LA to San Diego is scenic, it is nothing but tourist and rich people in their expensive cars on a two lane highway. At any given time between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. could be stop and go traffic for a few miles. So the "real world" driving conditions were pretty much there. Also the strong and steady ocean winds would make turning on the AC similar to being a deady body in the morgue. And no I'm not from Cali I just did some contract work in the Socal area.


RE: impressive
By tayb on 8/29/2012 10:23:08 AM , Rating: 2
How often do you ever drive more than 200 miles in a single day? Personally, the farthest I have ever driven in a single day is 186 miles. I can imagine scenarios where I would need to drive farther but my fiance has an ICE car for that. The biggest problem for me is I have no place to charge it at my apartment.


RE: impressive
By Spuke on 8/29/2012 12:13:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How often do you ever drive more than 200 miles in a single day?
When I drive to Arizona to see relatives (450 miles) or to the central coast on vacation (right around 200 miles). I do both a few times a year. Not often but I do it. I take my car typically because it's a convertible sports car and hills of the central coast are fun to drive on. I worked out the math for renting a car for Arizona trips and it ends up being more money, even if I take my truck (basically I pay an extra $50 over just taking the truck) so we just take my car because it gets much better gas mileage. We save about $75 doing that. Any car of mine has to get 350+ miles range plus about 5 minutes to fill. I could even do 20 minutes to fill cause we usually stop to eat on the way out to AZ.


RE: impressive
By Jeffk464 on 8/29/2012 4:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
People that buy this testla are in a financial position where they are not going to worry about a few hundred dollars difference in their vacation cost.


RE: impressive
By Spuke on 8/29/2012 5:45:32 PM , Rating: 2
I'm in a financial situation where I don't have to worry about a few hundred dollars difference in my vacation costs. Why does "everyone" think that having money automatically equals I don't care about costs or savings. Read "The Millionaire Next Door" and get back to me.


RE: impressive
By bildan on 8/29/2012 10:38:30 AM , Rating: 2
Don't worry about range. People who buy the Tesla Model S will take their private jets for longer trips.


Air conditioning off?
By JackBurton on 8/29/2012 9:08:56 AM , Rating: 4
Let's run a range test with the air condition ON, as I never turn it off when I'm driving. Having it turned off is not a "real world" test to me. And turn the radio on too...and also connect a radar detector. :)




RE: Air conditioning off?
By chmilz on 8/29/2012 10:44:41 AM , Rating: 2
Canadian here (Edmonton to be specific). Our weather is either -20 or +30, sometimes in the same day. So either the AC is on, or the heater and heated seats are on. Stereo needs to be cranked up to hear over the noise of the climate system, and in the "real world" I'm probably charging my MP3 player or phone as well.

Give us the range with the bells and whistles being used.


RE: Air conditioning off?
By Jeffk464 on 8/29/2012 11:43:53 AM , Rating: 2
Batteries don't like to work well at those temps, come to think of it engines don't like to start up at those temps anyways. I suggest you move to Vancouver.


RE: Air conditioning off?
By FITCamaro on 8/29/2012 12:21:33 PM , Rating: 1
Thanks for showing that these vehicles becoming mainstream is a bad idea. Because they don't work everywhere.


RE: Air conditioning off?
By toffty on 8/29/2012 1:32:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thanks for showing that these vehicles becoming mainstream is a bad idea. Because they don't work everywhere


You're talking about ICE vehicles right?

EVs start up np in -30 weather. Sure the range will be decreased but you'll still get home while those silly ICE vehicles remain frozen.


RE: Air conditioning off?
By Spuke on 8/29/2012 2:35:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sure the range will be decreased but you'll still get home while those silly ICE vehicles remain frozen.
Because no one drives anywhere north of SoCal in the winter. :rollseyes:


RE: Air conditioning off?
By toffty on 8/29/2012 1:28:50 PM , Rating: 2
The AC would have made very little difference. Maybe taken 2 or 3 miles off of the driving range.

In my Leaf, the AC uses about 0.1 kWh. That's about .5 miles less per hour. (I get 4.8 miles/kW in my Leaf)


The elephant in the room
By Isidore on 8/29/2012 11:47:03 AM , Rating: 3
You've all missed the elephant in the room. It's the cost of replacing the battery. How much will one of these cars be worth after two or three years with the looming uncertainty of how much longer the extremely expensive battery will last? It will make the depreciation of even Italian cars look like nothing...




RE: The elephant in the room
By toffty on 8/29/2012 1:41:10 PM , Rating: 2
Battery life does not decrease that fast. After 10 years the batteries are covered under warrenty to be at 75% of their original capacity.

Also you will never replace the entire battery. The battery is made of cells. In tesla's case, thousands of cells. If a cell goes bad, that one cell can be replaced at a low price. Much better than having to replace the entire transmission ;)


RE: The elephant in the room
By Spuke on 8/29/2012 2:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Much better than having to replace the entire transmission ;)
So let's hope you don't have to replace the Tesla's transmission at the same time as the battery pack. BTW, who says the entire battery pack won't be swapped out. That's what they do now on hybrids when the rare failure occurs. And I don't see anyone charging only $6 to swap out a cell including Tesla.


RE: The elephant in the room
By toffty on 8/29/2012 5:22:47 PM , Rating: 2
Enjoy ignorance? Please skip this.

Simple answer: Hybrids used lead-acid batteries. Lithium batteries are a completely different archetecture. With Li batteries they have cells and the cells are what are replaced.

As for the transmission: There isn't one in the Tesla. All current EVs are one-speed

Educate yourself before you make a bigger fool of yourself ;)


RE: The elephant in the room
By Spuke on 8/29/2012 5:56:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Educate yourself before you make a bigger fool of yourself ;)
Quit making assumptions because you ARE making an a$$hole of yourself. :)

1. The Tesla has a transmission. It's not called a transmission when you have more than one speed. It's called a transmission when it performs the functions of a transmision. Here's a pic of it.

http://www.hybridcars.com/files/tesla-transmission...

Hmmm. Looks like a transmission to me! LOL!

2. LI, lead acid, whatever. Those cells in the Tesla are in a...wait for it...battery pack. A self contained enclosure for the simple minded (you). In hybrids and EV's, those battery packs are removed en masse (unless you're in the DIY EV group...they install the battery cells without an enclosure for the most part). How do you think those cells get air and water cooled?


nice
By FITCamaro on 8/29/12, Rating: 0
RE: nice
By toffty on 8/29/2012 1:37:54 PM , Rating: 2
The model reviewed here is $100k US.

There will be a 160 miles (probably closer to 140 real world) starting at $57k US.

I will wait to buy a Tesla until the Bluestar comes along in a few years (2015 iirc). Aiming at a 30k price range.

With the advancements being made with solid state batteries, the cost of EVs and their ranges should grow considerably in the coming years.


RE: nice
By toffty on 8/29/2012 2:24:34 PM , Rating: 2
Edit for last paragraph:

With the advancements being made with solid state batteries, the cost of EVs will decrease and their ranges will grow considerably in the coming years.


How about the windows?
By HoosierEngineer5 on 8/29/2012 10:37:36 AM , Rating: 2
If they were down, I could see an 11% range drop at highway speeds.




"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki