backtop

Print 155 comment(s) - last by tmouse.. on Sep 12 at 11:42 AM
New gearbox will increase performance and driving range

The dawn of the all-electric car age is getting closer with every day and every dollar spent on research. Some automobile makers, like Tesla Motors, are already offering full electric cars. The Tesla Roadster offers two features you might not expect to find in an all-electric car -- long driving range and high performance.

While the typical all-electric car can travel a mere 40 to 60 miles on a full charge, the Tesla Roadster is good for about 220 miles between charges. The biggest downside is that electric cars take much longer to recharge than it takes to refuel a gasoline-powered vehicle. Even the Tesla Roadster needs about 3.5 hours for a full recharge.

The other very interesting aspect of the Tesla Roadster is that it offers great performance. Better performance in fact than many world-class, gasoline-powered sports cars can muster. Tesla says that its Roadster can hit 0 to 60 MPH in a mere 3.9 seconds. By comparison, the Lamborghini Gallardo LP560-4 hits 0-60 MPH in about 3.5 seconds swilling fuel from a 5.2 liter V-10 engine.

Tesla Motors says that it has selected BorgWarner to produce a new gearbox for the Tesla Roadster. Tesla says to date is has delivered 27 Roadsters to customers. Now that the specifications for the new gearbox have been provided to BorgWarner, Tesla predicts that it will be able to produce about 40 Roadsters per week by early 2009.

The new single-speed gearbox will both increase efficiency and performance of the Roadster. Efficiency is said to increase by about 10% for EPA combined range and the powertrain will be able to deliver 30% higher motor torque.

Torque for the new gearbox will be 280 foot-pounds -- up from 211 foot-pounds on the original. The powertrain increased the EPA combined range to 244 miles on a single charge -- up from 221 miles on a single charge with the original powertrain.

Ze'ev Drori, CEO of Tesla Motors said in a statement, "Successfully implementing the new gearbox in less than a year was an incredible technical challenge and huge accomplishment for Tesla’s engineers. Now that we have a final powertrain design, in a matter of months there will be hundreds of Tesla Roadsters across the country. We’re heralding nothing less than a new era of the automobile.”

The Tesla Roadster entered production in March 2008.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
All-Electric Age?
By strikeback03 on 9/10/2008 11:02:07 AM , Rating: 2
When an all-electric car can be driven a few thousand miles with no stops longer than 20 minutes then they can replace gas as the road trip vehicle of choice.




RE: All-Electric Age?
By Mystery Meat on 9/10/2008 11:33:58 AM , Rating: 2
This is from professor Richard Muller's book, "Physics for Future Presidents."

"The cost savings are illusory. High-performance batteries are very expensive and need to be replaced after typically 700 charges. Here is a simple way to calculate the numbers. The computer battery for my laptop (on which I am writing this) store 60 watt-hours of electric energy. It can be recharged about 700 times. That means it will deliver a total of 42,000 watt-hours, or 42 kilowatt-hours, before it has to be replaced for $130. Put those numbers together to get the batter replacement cost: $130/42= approximately $3 per kilowatt-hour. That's 30 times more expensive than the 10 cents per kilowatt-hour to charge it. The real expense for fancy batteries is not the cost of recharge them, but the cost to replace them. The same factor will be true for the Tesla Roadster. Driving it will seem very cheap, until the time comes to get new batteries. They are by far the most expensive component of that car."


RE: All-Electric Age?
By bobsmith1492 on 9/10/2008 11:47:10 AM , Rating: 5
Those battery calculations are way off. Laptop batteries are way overpriced because they include control electronics, packaging, and lots of markup.

This cell: http://www.batteryspace.com/index.asp?PageAction=V...

Goes for about $1/WH in quantity (an electric car would need a lot), which results in less than half the price of the laptop battery used for comparison. It could then scale down more with quantity.

The point is still valid, though; Li-po and Li-ion cells are still expensive. There's plenty of research going on and incentive to build better batteries, though. We're just starting to hit the age where batteries are viable and they're only going to get better.


RE: All-Electric Age?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/10/2008 12:03:05 PM , Rating: 2
> "Those battery calculations are way off. Laptop batteries are way overpriced because they include control electronics, packaging, and lots of markup"

They're even further off because the control electronics on battery packs for autos are tuned to allow significantly more charge cycles.

Still the *underlying* point is correct. You'll spend much more on replacing the batteries than you ever will on just the energy to charge them.


RE: All-Electric Age?
By DeepBlue1975 on 9/10/2008 4:37:48 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, that's correct, but as of today's standards.
If all electrics like this one start getting more popular, I think price on batteries will start dropping AND much more efforts on R&D will be put so that the technology will improve by leaps and bounds over the years.

First ICE cars weren't particularly efficient, gas was expensive and harder to find and you had to start the car using a pretty comfortable swivel, and now they're pretty different (though still utterly inefficient IMHO)


RE: All-Electric Age?
By randomly on 9/10/2008 4:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
The comparison is also skewed because it's comparing different chemistries. The LiFePO4 cells in the Volt and Testla have cycle lifes in the 2000-5000 range, not 700 like the old LiPo laptop batteries. There are some Lithium batteries with cycle lifes exceeding 10,000 cycles.

So the technology is improving fairly rapidly, and manufacturing batteries on an automotive scale will also bring prices down a great deal. There are no inherently expensive materials in the LiFePO4 cells unlike the Cobalt based laptop cells.

The comparison to laptop batteries is flippant and does not give a realistic idea of the potential economics of the technology. Give it 10 years.


RE: All-Electric Age?
By vapore0n on 9/10/2008 11:43:15 AM , Rating: 3
220 miles is plenty.

Lets see. From Boston, MA to NYC, NY its 215 miles, 4 hr trip.

You can even make a pit stop in CT to eat and recharge for 30 mins. (eating, bathroom, etc). Recharge could give you an extra 30 miles. I think their system works so that the first hr charges up to 80%, and the other 2 hrs charge the rest of the 20%. Was that right?

Adoption. Thats whats missing.

(and lower price of course ;) )


RE: All-Electric Age?
By Runiteshark on 9/10/2008 11:48:05 AM , Rating: 3
Lets see you get 220 miles with spirited driving. For reference, look up the killacycle.


RE: All-Electric Age?
By Spuke on 9/10/2008 12:07:05 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. 220 miles is the EPA test number. Some Tesla owners get only 120 miles on a charge. Range depends on driving style and environmental conditions.


RE: All-Electric Age?
By Suntan on 9/10/2008 1:15:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Lets see you get 220 miles with spirited driving.


Let's see you get 220 in feburary, in Minnesota...

-Suntan


RE: All-Electric Age?
By FITCamaro on 9/10/2008 12:33:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Lets see. From Boston, MA to NYC, NY its 215 miles, 4 hr trip.


So what about when you wanna go back and you weren't anywhere that had somewhere to plug it in?


RE: All-Electric Age?
By jjunos on 9/10/2008 1:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
uh...

I mean, what happens when you run out of gas and there's no gas station to gas up?

Hell, I don't even think electrical cars (at least the electrical cars of now) will replace gas cars...but that was just a silly comment.

And even if you did run out, I'm betting you'll find an electrical plug sooner than a gas station.


RE: All-Electric Age?
By JustTom on 9/10/2008 1:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
It is hard to go 20 miles with a chance to gas up. How far do you need to drive to find an electric station? And it takes me 5 minutes to fill my tank, it takes hours to charge an electric car.


RE: All-Electric Age?
By FITCamaro on 9/10/2008 2:15:03 PM , Rating: 2
Gas stations are all over the country. But there are stretches in certain parts of the country where there isn't a gas station for over 200 miles. But nearly every car out there can go 300 miles a tank. This electric car can at best do 240.

And just because you find an electrical outlet, that doesn't mean you can plug your car into it. A gas station isn't going to let you plug in your car for a few hours because you're running low on juice.


RE: All-Electric Age?
By JediJeb on 9/10/2008 6:01:00 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and what happens when you run out in the middle of nowhere? Gas can be taken to your car in a container, but you will need a VERY long extension cord or portable generator to get your electric car going again.


RE: All-Electric Age?
By BeastieBoy on 9/11/2008 4:08:52 AM , Rating: 2
If you're driving many miles to the middle of nowhere, don't take the Tesla. Borrow your wife's car or something.
Just make sure you pack a shovel in the trunk to beat off the crazed psychopath who's waiting to pray on dumb stranded motorists.

It's horses for courses.


RE: All-Electric Age?
By Spuke on 9/10/2008 3:48:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And even if you did run out, I'm betting you'll find an electrical plug sooner than a gas station.
LOL! Really? I don't know about where you live but where I live there aren't electrical outlets on every street corner. LOL!


RE: All-Electric Age?
By Samus on 9/10/2008 7:26:25 PM , Rating: 2
Most interstates in Illinois, specifically I294 (toll road) and I90/I94 have power outlets at all accident investigation sites, oasis stops and gas stations. They're also on bridges and some authorized-vehicle u-turn junctions.

I don't think they'd be too happy with you plugging in for a long time, but I've plugged my portable compressor into power at an Oasis before to fill my spare and didn't get a single look from anybody. It was 20A too!


RE: All-Electric Age?
By tmouse on 9/12/2008 11:42:57 AM , Rating: 2
Probably would happen so infrequently it would not matter. Most trips are less than 40 miles for the vast majority of people. You can always find examples where something will not work. Remember the Arab oil embargo, did not matter how many stations there were no one had gas, there was 2-3 hour average waiting lines and if your license plate was odd on an even day you could not get any gas period. In a few years as more affordable models come out there will be plenty of recharge stations I recall an article somewhere about some large motel chains planning to offer recharge stations to their customers, and there will probably be some entrepreneurs who will come up with the idea of recharge parking lot chains.


RE: All-Electric Age?
By strikeback03 on 9/10/2008 4:39:32 PM , Rating: 2
I've personally driven over 700 miles in a day plenty of times, and some friends drove from Denver to Rochester, NY with only stops for gas. 215 miles is day-trip range, not road trip. And you would have to leave the car somewhere to charge during the day for the return trip.


RE: All-Electric Age?
By Hoser McMoose on 9/11/2008 12:53:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think their system works so that the first hr charges up to 80%, and the other 2 hrs charge the rest of the 20%. Was that right?

It's much more linear than that. More like the first 2.5 hours to charge it 80% of the way and the last hour to charge the last little bit.

Note though that these charge times are TOTAL BS.

Tesla's stated charge times are based off a 230V/70 amp circuit! That is NOT standard household wiring and certainly not what most people might have in their garage! Even a 'stove and dryer' circuit is only 240V/30A. Installing a 230V/70A circuit would require some fairly substantial rewiring for most people. In some cases it may even require a new drop from the electricity company.

On a standard household 115V/20A circuit the Tesla takes 24 hours for a full charge.


RE: All-Electric Age?
By lagomorpha on 9/11/2008 4:25:07 AM , Rating: 2
"On a standard household 115V/20A circuit"

Even that's optimistic. Most American outlets use cheaper wiring that's only rated for 15A.


RE: All-Electric Age?
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 9/11/2008 7:45:44 AM , Rating: 2
Battery maxim: Low cost, long range, high output: Choose any TWO. Tesla chose long range and high output. Therefore high cost remains.

This thing costs way too much for the average commute, or jaunt from Boston to NYC, for most people.

The battery maxim is not broken with this vehicle, therefore it is not remarkable for any reason.


RE: All-Electric Age?
By adiposity on 9/11/2008 11:40:09 AM , Rating: 2
If the first hr charges 80%, wouldn't a half hour charge 40% or more? That would add 88 miles, not 30. If this number is correct, you could in theory keep driving indefinitely @60mph stopping for half an hour out of every 2 hours.

3.5 hours, .5
1.5 hours, .5
1.5 hours, .5
-------------
6.5 hours, 1.5 rest

So you could do 390 in 8 hours, give or take, using the convenient speed of 60mph. Not a great road-trip car, but certainly doable, if you can find a pit-stop every 90 miles.

-Dan


Is it just me...
By consumerwhore on 9/10/2008 2:48:18 PM , Rating: 2
Is it just me or anytime we have a car-related news, the comment threads are pretty much always the same four posters having the same tired conversation again?




RE: Is it just me...
By HeavyB on 9/10/2008 4:08:39 PM , Rating: 4
Yup, the same few neocon bruncles spouting off about how you are a spineless sissyboy liberal if the car you drive doesn't burn 10 gallons per mile.


RE: Is it just me...
By Runiteshark on 9/10/2008 5:39:29 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand what you are saying. I don't see FITcamaro or anyone else saying ZOMG IF U BIE CAR U R IDIOT!!!!111111

I do see them saying that in comparison to existing tech and what can be achieved with efficient engines, its possible to have a car that is gas efficient and powerful at the same time.

I personally don't give a damn what anybody drives, I like my 350z, I like my RSX, and I like the Corvette too. I don't care for the Tesla because I can't really modify it, and I don't see any value in it to me.

Someone else in this thread mentioned that there needs to be a Model T of electric cars, and I totally agree. However, as someone else mentioned, "every one of these cars that people buy they will use the money for research!!!" is totally mislead. Tesla I can see continuing to build vehicles with existing tech, but I do not see them researching and innovating much of anything. In fact, I don't really see what they did with the Tesla as anything special. They hooked up batteries onto a frame and powered a motor. Big deal.

Show me a company that made a huge advance in battery tech, and that's where the electric cars will come, not from people doing something on the equivalent of a kit car.


RE: Is it just me...
By Jedi2155 on 9/10/2008 10:46:04 PM , Rating: 2
They're buying the batteries from a company who innovated in developing a automotive safe lithium chemistry. I say some of that money is going into R&D while Tesla is just the middle man.

However they are better than most R&D companies in that they are producing a product that the consumer wants and are willing to spend enormous sums to attain thus gears and grease of our technological society continues to turn :).


RE: Is it just me...
By HeavyB on 9/11/2008 10:25:55 AM , Rating: 2
You get a cookie for naming one of the usual bruncle suspects.


RE: Is it just me...
By Cullinaire on 9/10/2008 4:09:31 PM , Rating: 4
It's just you.

Just kidding; anybody can see this, but nobody wants to point it out since that'd ruin all the "fun"

I think you'd agree that it'd be fun to list the usual talking points though:

-Whenever the topic of fuel efficiency comes up, it is inevitable that the Corvette (more specifically, the Z06) will be brought up as a shining example of American cars/Sports cars/Large Engined cars/Gas powered cars being more than competitive (relatively) to whatever started the conversation.
-Someone is going to mention the cars they actually own (Solstice, the Civic/Lancer combo, Cobalt, Dad's TA, to name a few recurring characters) and naturally it will be in a very positive light compared to what is being discussed. Whatever happened to that guy who'd always mention his Mustang Cobra whenever he could (even in non-auto related topics sometimes)? I think he saw the light and went away.
-The usual "I'd buy/not buy" comments like they were actually in the market in the near term. Probably 10% actually are, and 10% of that are probably in the market for the vehicle in question.
-Big Three (is this term still valid?) bashing/defense.
-Hyundai bashing/small but growing defense.
-Hybrid bashing/defense (appearance and character of typical customers)
-Various attempts at calculating amortization.

-Anything other than the above can be considered new and refreshing discussion.
-Most auto comment threads with more than 100 replies will be composed mostly of the above.


RE: Is it just me...
By Spuke on 9/10/2008 5:44:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Anything other than the above can be considered new and refreshing discussion.
Interesting how people with nothing to say are the most critical of those with something to say, rehashed or not. How about you putting your money where your mouth is and actually POSTING (I know, novel idea) something "new" and "refreshing"? But you won't. You'll simply criticize my (and others) post. Which is no more new or any more refreshing than my (or others) posts in this thread.


RE: Is it just me...
By consumerwhore on 9/10/2008 7:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How about you putting your money where your mouth is and actually POSTING


That wouldn't help. It would still get drowned in the ocean of repetitive pointless arguing. We first have to get rid of that, and then we can have comments ABOUT THE ARTICLE (I know, novel idea).


RE: Is it just me...
By Spuke on 9/10/2008 7:20:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We first have to get rid of that, and then we can have comments ABOUT THE ARTICLE (I know, novel idea).
How about making an interesting point and ignoring the drivel? If it's interesting, others will comment.


RE: Is it just me...
By Cullinaire on 9/11/2008 1:01:07 PM , Rating: 3
I disagree. Criticizing the repetitive drivel is new and refreshing, if done in a new and refreshing way. I like to think I've succeeded. Sorry if you don't. Now, if I do this again in a future auto thread, please feel free to point it out victoriously.
If I have something to add regarding the topic (that is not the usual drivel) then I will. Until then, I'll keep searching for new and refreshing ways to contribute.

quote:
But you won't. You'll simply criticize my (and others) post.

Really clever, maybe you were hoping I wouldn't reply to your equally on-topic post! Boy I really walked right into that one!

quote:
Interesting how people with nothing to say are the most critical of those with something to say, rehashed or not.

Sorry, but just because people don't have diarrhea at the mouth (or fingertips) doesn't mean they have nothing to say - they are simply more selective of what they choose to say, if anything. I try to read the entire thread if I feel a need to make a comment. Usually, someone's already said it (followed by 4 other guys).

Finally, please note that I am not criticizing every single post in this thread. There were more than few that fell well outside the criteria I listed that I enjoyed reading. And really, look up tongue-in-cheek sometime. I know at least some people got it. (probably those with less reason to take anything I've posted personally ;)


RE: Is it just me...
By consumerwhore on 9/10/2008 7:20:00 PM , Rating: 1
You forgot two important ones:

-The EPA numbers all are bullshit!!!
-But... But... My TDI!


Operating costs
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 9/10/2008 11:53:49 AM , Rating: 2
According to Tesla's website, the Roadster costs less than 2 cents per mile to operate. They give this stipulation for their statement:

quote:
Range is based on our most recent testing with a Validation Prototype car at an EPA-certified location in February 2008. EPA range is subject to change pending future testing. Actual range will vary with driving style and conditions. Conversion from electric consumption to gallons of gasoline equivalent is calculated using the Department of Energy equivalence factor documented in the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 10, Part 474.


The cost for a Corvette Z06 (FITCamaro's example) is 22 cents per mile according to the EPA.




RE: Operating costs
By Spuke on 9/10/2008 12:09:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
According to Tesla's website, the Roadster costs less than 2 cents per mile to operate. They give this stipulation for their statement:
Does that include battery replacement cost?


RE: Operating costs
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 9/10/2008 12:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
I seriously doubt it.


RE: Operating costs
By masher2 (blog) on 9/10/2008 12:27:18 PM , Rating: 2
Assuming 10K miles per year, just the cost to replace the batttery pack alone works out to 40 cents/mile -- about the cost to drive a Hummer H2 with $4/g gas.


RE: Operating costs
By jRaskell on 9/10/2008 12:18:52 PM , Rating: 2
To date, I have not seen one single statement from Tesla regarding the cost of battery replacement. Considering that the batteries in today's hybrid cars are a fraction the size, and cost 5k+ to replace, it's not all that hard to figure out why they're avoiding that particular subject.

Until we have hard information on expected total range over the lifetime of a battery and it's replacement costs, talking about costs to operate is totally pointless. Tesla's 2 cents per mile figure is utter garbage and in my opinion represents a clear intent to mislead the consumer base in general.


RE: Operating costs
By Spuke on 9/10/2008 12:40:32 PM , Rating: 2
Tesla spokesman, Mike Harrigan, said it costs $20k to replace the battery pack and it's expected life is 5 years or 100k miles. He also said that the batteries EOL is when it can only achieve 80% of it's rated capacity after a recharge.

http://tinyurl.com/6h839j


RE: Operating costs
By FITCamaro on 9/10/2008 2:05:35 PM , Rating: 2
$20,000 every 5 years or 100,000 miles.....wow. And some of you are praising this car? Even at half that, that's ridiculous. I think I'll take my 33 $30 oil changes (5 quarts Mobile 1 full synthetic 5W-30 + filter) and few hundred dollars in tune up costs over the same time period.


RE: Operating costs
By Moishe on 9/11/2008 10:00:35 AM , Rating: 2
Here's your problem... (sarcasm)
The Tesla is the "cool" tech of the green movement. It can't have flaws and it can't be spoken about negatively. *Fact* is trumped where people's heart overrides their mind.

Truth is, the Tesla is cool and it's fast. And it's the best purely electric car ever. As long as that is the statement we should be all on the same page.

Where compared to regular cars, the Tesla's shine starts to wane. Can't drive as far, takes MUCH longer to recharge and requires a different infrastructure... All of a sudden the "cool" factor falls to practical needs that even the hardiness environmentalist must acknowledge.

Anyone denying the problems with electric cars right now is either an idiot or just a liar. There is no need for extremist black and white views... all electric=good, any use of gas=bad. That's pure foolishness.

If environmentalists want to get really picky I'll respect them far more when they ride horses and completely live off grid without any technology. At least that way I can see that they really believe and aren't just trying to make themselves feel better.

The best middle ground seems to be the Volt because it acknowledges that we're not in some dream world where free electricity is located on every corner and batteries can recharge instantly.


I'll take the lambo
By Spuke on 9/10/2008 11:59:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tesla says that its Roadster can hit 0 to 60 MPH in a mere 3.9 seconds. By comparison, the Lamborghini Gallardo LP560-4 hits 0-60 MPH in about 3.5 seconds swilling fuel from a 5.2 liter V-10 engine.
The difference between 3.9 and 3.5 seconds to 60 mph is about 5 or 6 car lengths. I would rather see 1/4 mile times compared as I'm not a big fan of 0-60 times. They can be a bit misleading.

I went to dragtimes.com and someone posted a 13.2@104 mph for their Tesla. The Lambo LP560-4 does 11.4@127mph. That straight up smokes the Tesla and most any other car for that matter. The new gearbox Tesla is more than likely somewhere in the mid to high 12's. Quick enough to be loads of fun but surely not exotic car or even high end sports car fast.

More perspective. My Solstice with $1000 in mods can match the NEW Tesla's acceleration easily. Matching the Lambo's 11.4 on street tires would take a LOT more money and some ingenuity (how to get 11.4 sec 1/4 mile grip using street tires).




RE: I'll take the lambo
By Jimbo1234 on 9/10/2008 1:44:39 PM , Rating: 2
Also, straight line performance isn't necessarily what makes a car fun to drive. Cornering performance of the telsa is relatively poor due to its severly skewed weight distribution. I think Autoweek or C&D wrote about that.


RE: I'll take the lambo
By Spuke on 9/10/2008 5:49:35 PM , Rating: 2
I agree and the Gallardo is an EXCELLENT handler. I've even seen them in action at the track and their straightine speed is matched by their excellent handling, feel, and grip. Awesome car really.

BTW, 1/4 miles in 11.4 seconds is an absolute BLAST!!! hell my car only does high 13's and I find it exhilarating. I have had the opportunity to ride in high 10 second cars and the acceleration is almost at overload level. It gives me goosebumps!! Like riding a roller coaster on the street.


RE: I'll take the lambo
By Runiteshark on 9/10/2008 7:13:08 PM , Rating: 2
Where at? Most people here in the Denver area who have Lambos or Ferrari's are too much of a sissy to do anything at the track. They are the kind of people who get it up to 6krpm and shut down.

Poor cars.

I wouldn't mind having a Gallardo twin turbo.


RE: I'll take the lambo
By FredEx on 9/11/2008 12:44:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The difference between 3.9 and 3.5 seconds to 60 mph is about 5 or 6 car lengths. I would rather see 1/4 mile times compared as I'm not a big fan of 0-60 times. They can be a bit misleading. I went to dragtimes.com and someone posted a 13.2@104 mph for their Tesla. The Lambo LP560-4 does 11.4@127mph. That straight up smokes the Tesla and most any other car for that matter. The new gearbox Tesla is more than likely somewhere in the mid to high 12's. Quick enough to be loads of fun but surely not exotic car or even high end sports car fast. More perspective. My Solstice with $1000 in mods can match the NEW Tesla's acceleration easily. Matching the Lambo's 11.4 on street tires would take a LOT more money and some ingenuity (how to get 11.4 sec 1/4 mile grip using street tires).


Not so hot when the Lambo costs damn near double the price of the Tesla. As far as straight line you can save a lot of money. I had a 65 GTO with a 64 421 CI Police Special engine. Besides the $1200.00 to buy it, I put $800.00 in the car and used to turn 9.8 in the 1/4. It turned 12.5 stone stock on street tires. The mods beside the engine and exhaust were just a 12 bolt posi Chevelle rear end, a good Hurst shifter and 8" cheater slicks for the track.

You all with your comparisons are tired, real tired.


RE: I'll take the lambo
By Noya on 9/11/2008 4:28:17 AM , Rating: 2
Hick.


Temperature effects
By pityme on 9/10/2008 12:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
Will the Tesla be sold in cold climates? Temperature plays a big role in battery ability and life. Also true for Houston and hot climates.




RE: Temperature effects
By bobsmith1492 on 9/10/2008 12:38:31 PM , Rating: 2
Li-po cell life is down to 60% or less going from 25C to -20C.

Also they probably don't run all the way down to 3V to help increase battery life which would push it down to <50%.

Heat isn't such a big deal (up to 60C) except it will kill the cells more quickly in the long run. That is, your range will be not much shorter on a single charge but your battery pack will not last as many years.

http://www.ibt-power.com/Battery_packs/Li_Polymer/...


RE: Temperature effects
By Suntan on 9/10/2008 1:39:53 PM , Rating: 2
Don’t forget humans like to use heaters in the cold and AC in the heat.

-Suntan


RE: Temperature effects
By Hoser McMoose on 9/11/2008 12:43:11 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget that using the AC in the heat on a conventional vehicle burns gasoline.

Heat is slightly different as an internal combustion engine wastes so much energy as heat that there is LOTS of extra to go around. However for AC an electric car will probably be better than a gasoline powered car for this exact same reason, less waste heat from the engine raising the ambient air temp around the AC unit.


RE: Temperature effects
By Suntan on 9/11/2008 8:41:41 AM , Rating: 2
First, the condenser is always placed in front of the “radiator” so the engine heat does not impact the AC system to a very large degree (although it does some.) Second, the efficiency of ICE powered cars already have the fact that the engine stays idling even at stop lights baked into it. For the Tesla, it now requires a secondary motor to power the AC while stopped (because the main traction motor stops when the vehicle stops), decreasing its already limited range even further. Third, a motor to drive the AC compressor will be at most 50 to 60% efficient, compared to a belt driving the compressor off of the accessory end of an engine being up to 90-95% efficient. Lastly, even if the AC systems in both types of cars happened to use the same amount of energy, a 20 mile hit to a car that only gets 220 miles per “fillup” to start with is a bigger loss than a 20 mile hit to a car that normally gets 350-400 miles per trip.

As for heat, the battery pack does give off heat while discharging and to my knowledge it is liquid cooled so this heat can be used to warm the interior, but sitting in commuter traffic on a cold morning (-18°F a couple of mornings last winter as I recall) will require significant amounts of battery charge just burned up in resistance heat.

Not big issues for a special purpose weekend toy like the Tesla roadster currently is (when its too hot or too cold, you just take one of your more functional cars – and the people buying these Teslas have plenty of other cars to choose from) but it does point out that this car, this propulsion system, has a very long way to go to being accepted as a main stream contender, even if a bunch of out-of-touch Hollywood types are given free airtime to tell us how great it is.

-Suntan


RE: Temperature effects
By randomly on 9/10/2008 9:38:44 PM , Rating: 2
They are LiFePO4 chemistry, not Li-po. Cell voltages are lower than Li-Po. Operating temperature range is -30C to +60C. Temperatures above 40C starts to have a significant impact on cell cycle life. I'm not sure how that particular chemistry responds at low temperatures. It could be substantially different than Li-Po.

I do know the Tesla battery pack is temperature controlled, both from getting too hot or too cold. Controlling the battery pack temperature is a realistic approach to maintain capacity, performance, and cycle life under all conditions. I'm curious what the GM Volt does in this regard.


apples to apples
By chalupa on 9/10/2008 12:40:33 PM , Rating: 2
If you want to talk about battery life why dont you include maitanece cost on the regular car. Im sure replacing clutch or blown engine gasket will run you about the same as battery replacement. And after 150k miles most of the cars start to break down and approach resale value close to 1 to 5k. So battery replacement should not be factored into milage cost. Really the way it should be calculated is (Original price of the car + re-fueling)/Miles driver. That's your true cost per mile.




RE: apples to apples
By Spuke on 9/10/2008 1:05:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Im sure replacing clutch or blown engine gasket will run you about the same as battery replacement.
LOL! Sorry but clutches and head gaskets don't cost anywhere near $20k or even the $4k of a hybrid car battery pack. Hell, BOTH parts together don't even cost $500. On a manual transmission car, you might replace the clutch once in the life of the car. The head gasket may not be replaced at all in the life of a car. I can replace an entire engine with labor included for less than the cost of a Prius battery pack let alone the Tesla batter pack.

Some of you guys must have owned some crappy cars if you can even think to compare a battery pack replacement cost to maintenance costs on a gas engined car.


RE: apples to apples
By chalupa on 9/10/2008 2:08:54 PM , Rating: 2
Ok even if according to you it does cost 20k to replace battery (which by the way is current price not 10 years from now). Id assume both cars will have about the same value after 150k miles. So if I owned electric and you owned regular car and we both sold them after 150k miles. My total money spent would be original cost of the car+electicity-sale price and yours car+gas-sale price. If my total less than yours I got lower cost per mile that you. Battery doesnt even enter this calculation. All im saying is that people should not factor in battery cost in $/mile calculation, thats all.


RE: apples to apples
By Spuke on 9/10/2008 5:37:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All im saying is that people should not factor in battery cost in $/mile calculation, thats all.
Why? You'll HAVE to replace the battery in the cars lifetime, why is that cost irrelevant? $20,000 is a good chunk of money to simply ignore LOL!

PS - Tesla says their battery pack costs $20k and lasts 5 years or 100k miles. I provided a link in another post in this thread.


RE: apples to apples
By rhangman on 9/11/2008 6:51:06 AM , Rating: 2
Clutch, master/slave cylinders, timing belts, etc. plenty of stuff that needs replacing. Last service I needed new cylinders and my car has done less than 27,000 miles. Also needed new tyres, new brakes before that. Should be a weight saving with all electric? If so then tyres and brakes should last longer (even for someone who drives as hard as me).

Anyway, I would think that the battery replacement will factor more into resale value than the actual cost of replacing. Also the price of a new pack in five years should hopefully be less than it is now. Can't really see the same thing happening with the price of oil, clutches, brake rotors, etc.

How long were people driving EV-1's, etc. for? No real issues there and that was older technology.


I don't know about this car...
By amanojaku on 9/10/2008 11:53:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"We are the BorgWarner. Lower your roof and surrender your automatic. We will add your eco-friendliness and tree-hugging instincts to our own. Your culture will adapt to save the planet. Resistance is futile."




RE: I don't know about this car...
By HOOfan 1 on 9/10/2008 12:56:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I did miss the resistance is futile reference...I was an hour late and a quarter short


By marvdmartian on 9/10/2008 4:26:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tesla Roadster to get New BorgWarner Gearbox


Does that mean it's cube shaped and quasi-robotic??


2 spd?
By Sulphademus on 9/10/2008 11:23:07 AM , Rating: 2
I thought I had read somewhere that they were awaiting arival of 2 speed boxes for these cars?

I know that electric motors can spin very fast but so does the turbine of the Y2K (50k rpm+) and it has a 2 speed tranny.




RE: 2 spd?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 9/10/2008 11:29:25 AM , Rating: 2
They changed their mind and went with a revised 1-speed b/c they were having reliability issues with the 2-speed unit.


Like the tech, hate the spin
By Suntan on 9/10/2008 1:29:44 PM , Rating: 2
I have to say, I am really getting tired of hearing about how marvelous Tesla is. To be clear, the car is pretty impressive on its own. The charge and discharge technology is really impressive.

That doesn’t give all these DBs the right to constantly talk about how this car is better than all the current cars available. First and foremost, its not like a handful of silicon valley tech guys just went about designing a car on their own. They hired a bunch of car engineers to work at their company (a good number of them worked on the GM EV1.) General Mills could put out a fancy car if they hired a bunch of car engineers and pored a lot of money into the project too.

Second, yes a big electric motor will give you big torque down low and make a showy display of 0-60 times. That’s not to say that this thing could keep up to a similarly priced gas powered sports car in a full on track event. Point is, it has advantages to being electric, but it is not universally dominating.

Third, from reading the background of the development project, it certainly looks like they pissed away a lot of R&D money for silly things. Its not a problem when you have a very rich CEO handing money out to continue playing carmaker, and a lot of Hollywood types ready to hand money out site unseen because it is promised to be flashy, kitchy *and* increase their eviro-cred. It would be a big problem if you actually worked at an automotive company where projects were expected to make money.

How many news reporters would give a GM or VW a pass if half the cars built and delivered were expected to be brought back in to have the transmission added *after* they were sold?

-Suntan




RE: Like the tech, hate the spin
By Ringold on 9/10/2008 8:16:49 PM , Rating: 2
To make it worse, I don't believe any of this talk about the Tesla cars advancing technology. It's just advancing Tesla's wallets, that's all. I'm not an engineer, I admit, but I see nothing fundamentally novel about the Tesla's that GM has not already done for the Volt except simply scaling up the batteries enough to toss out the gas engine. Maybe we'd agree Suntan that GM's Volt is actually the more impressive technological creation, because it actually has a hope of being a mass market success.


The Thing To Take Away....
By UppityMatt on 9/10/2008 10:58:53 AM , Rating: 2
Is that technology like this is one day going to be in what the domestic and foreign car companies (Ford, Honda, GMC..whoever you like) will develop one day. So any technological improvement (even in an expensive car) will someday migrate to hopefully a 20k-30k dollar car a few years from now.




Did I miss the obligatory
By HOOfan 1 on 9/10/2008 12:54:34 PM , Rating: 2
We are Borg resistance to torque is futile.

Amongst all of these comments?




I just want to know one thing
By jimbojimbo on 9/10/2008 3:33:58 PM , Rating: 2
When is Zip cars going to get one?




Performance numbers...
By Fallen Kell on 9/10/2008 4:55:00 PM , Rating: 2
Is it just me or am I not the only one who read the performance comparison of 0-60 speeds of 3.9 sec for the Roadster vs the 3.5 sec for a Lambo and said what a crock of crap? The difference between 3.5 and 3.9 is huge in terms of what is needed to change to get that. That is a 10% difference in performance in just the 0-60 speed.

Let us go the 10% in the other direction to 4.4 seconds, well, you can do that in a Subaru WRX STI 330S. And if we do a performance/price comparison, well, lets just say that the $110,000 Roadster has a very tough sell compared against $70,000 Tiger Z100, which does 0-60 in 2.8-3.1 seconds (depending on who tested it).




Don't be ridiculous!!
By bobny1 on 9/10/2008 5:28:35 PM , Rating: 2
The technology is just beginning to take off. this is actually the first full electric car to go into production. It is a remarkable step in the right direction. Just like television a few years ago. Only the rich and famous could afford a black and white TV. Now, even the entry level sets can offer HD quality. Instead of being so critical, lets focus on long term achievement for human kind.




By Motoman on 9/10/2008 11:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
Electric cars will be a sensible choice if and only if the USA starts getting the vast majority of it's electricity from clean sources - whether wind, hydro, geo, nuclear, whatever.

Granted the amount of coal-fired electricity we have, putting electric cars on the road screws our environment even harder. It boggles the mind how people turn off their brains when they see "electric car" and go "Ooooo it's emission-free!" without bothering to think where the electricity came from in the first place.

You want to save the environment? Keep driving your internal combustion engines up until the moment that we aren't using coal (or other polluting) energy sources. Because if you switch to an electric car before then, you're making things worse - not better.

Put that in your smug pipe and smoke it.




By kilkennycat on 9/11/2008 12:49:21 AM , Rating: 2
... to charge up all these cars?? In the US, the power-grid has been a totally neglected infrastructure. Any new power-sources, especially wind generation will need many billions of $$-worth of new power-grid. You can bet that the power-companies will raise electric rates substantially to finance both the new power-generation required and the infra-structure to support it - or the government will subsidize much of it with taxpayer ( i.e your) money. Thus everybody will pay whether they own an electric car or not!! The long-term and equitable solution for the US is a massive investment in mass-transit not the continuing worship of the private motor vehicle. Rail holds the record for minimum fuel cost per mile per unit weight.




I'll stick with gas
By FITCamaro on 9/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: I'll stick with gas
By steven975 on 9/10/2008 10:52:29 AM , Rating: 2
That, and through the years the range will stay consistent. In 5 years this thing would be lucky to manage 50 miles, especially in the south or CA, where the battery will be sitting there cooking at 50-60C.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By cochy on 9/10/2008 10:55:11 AM , Rating: 2
That's well and good. Though this car is obviously marketed towards the demographic of those who'd like cool toys and don't really care how much they cost.

Like that dolphin sub we read about the other day.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By djc208 on 9/10/2008 11:09:38 AM , Rating: 5
Yes, the big deal here is that every one of these sold helps to fund future development of the technology. Does it make economic sense? No, but neither did the horseless carridge when it was new either. It's amazing what 150 years of development can do for a technology.

Why buy one of those ICEs when horses were more reliable, self replicating, and could be refueled anywhere there was stuff growing? Once they were reliable they were too expensive, just toys for the rich, we're right about there now I think. Then the Model T came along and everything changed. We're just waiting for the model T.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Oregonian2 on 9/10/2008 2:49:01 PM , Rating: 1
Then, like now, change of technology was driven by engine emissions and ... uh ... (carbon) footprints.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By theapparition on 9/10/2008 12:35:48 PM , Rating: 2
As the owner of a Z06 and former owner of a Lotus, I can honestly say that the Lotus is an expensive toy. Not practial, and barely safe for the road. It was an autocross monster, but a pothole could cause you to lose control. Not to mention spartan interior and ergonomically unfriendly as you can get. Sold it and don't regret it one bit.

In contrast, the Z06 is signifigantly more refined. Much easiser to live with on a daily basis. In fact, it's my primary daily driver, something I would never had done with my Lotus.

I'm asuming that this tesla will pretty much be identical in character to the lotus. If so, I'll pass.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Spuke on 9/10/2008 1:23:45 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm asuming that this tesla will pretty much be identical in character to the lotus. If so, I'll pass.
It weighs about 1000 pounds more but is still spartan with the same ergonomics. Not to mention, it really isn't all that fast. And I haven't read about anyone that's tracked them yet so I don't know how they perform there.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By FITCamaro on 9/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: I'll stick with gas
By jimbojimbo on 9/10/2008 3:21:49 PM , Rating: 2
That's one hell of a track with one time around being 100 miles. Yeah, you're right.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Spuke on 9/10/2008 3:52:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's one hell of a track with one time around being 100 miles. Yeah, you're right.
Road course driving is the most stress you'll put on any motor. I doubt would last even 100 miles under those conditions. I think you have to recharge at least once, maybe more, on a track day weekend but I have no idea how those batteries would respond under those conditions.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Runiteshark on 9/10/2008 3:55:40 PM , Rating: 1
Shhh, let him think that he knows something about track driving.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Cullinaire on 9/10/2008 4:12:15 PM , Rating: 2
It's 13 miles.

Anyway, full out driving for 13 miles will probably use more gas/electricity than steady state driving for 100.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By icrf on 9/10/2008 9:05:43 PM , Rating: 2
well, 17 miles, but still, point remains


RE: I'll stick with gas
By FITCamaro on 9/10/2008 4:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
What I love is that my statement which, while maybe not being entirely accurate in terms of how many laps you'd get, is truthful in that the battery would drain extremely quickly if one were to road race a Tesla gets rated down while this idiots comment stays normal.

Just goes to show...


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 9/10/2008 11:01:36 AM , Rating: 5
"Go You!"

If you can afford a Z06, then you can likely afford a Tesla Roadster as well. And I like the fact that you don't have to worry about engine maintenance, changing the oil, or any other that other crap. Not to mention not having to go a gas station any more. And a range of 220 miles? Hell, that's plenty.

It's people like you that look down on next-generation technology while touting existing tech that holds back advancement. Without public interest or backing, companies have no incentive to invest in alternative powertrains -- I bet the big oil companies would love to have you as a spokesman :)

That being said, GT-R > Z06 ;)


RE: I'll stick with gas
By masher2 (blog) on 9/10/2008 11:06:00 AM , Rating: 4
> "And I like the fact that you don't have to worry about engine maintenance, changing the oil, or any other that other crap"

The factor that most appeals to me is that, once electric cars become widespread, I think we'll see a huge resurgence of the botique car makers, similar to what existed in the 1920s, before the rising complexity of the car forced manufacturers to consolidate. A battery and a few electric motors are fairly simple engineering-wise. . . its much more practical for a small-car maker to exist.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By djc208 on 9/10/2008 11:23:46 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunatly I think government regulations will prevent that from really hapening. It costs a fortune to develop and prove out the crash structures and various DOT requirements for a car. Current ones get by that because I think there are loop-holes for low production vehicles, other's just use an existing chassis with re-worked body (like the Tesla).

I'd expect the government would close or restrict those loop-holes if it became widespread. Too many people getting killed because the "Joe's electric car compay" decided to save a few bucks on their SUX electric coupe and used those shear bolts they got on sale to bolt the seats down.

You'd have a lot of cool options with small manufacturers but a lot of questionable companies too.

Could be a small market for companies offering to convert existing gas cars to an electric drivetrain though.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By masher2 (blog) on 9/10/2008 11:45:49 AM , Rating: 2
> "other's just use an existing chassis with re-worked body (like the Tesla)."

That's just what I think will happen. Buy a semi-standard chassis, battery pack, and electric motors from a larger company, then put your own body and interior on it. The economics of that should make sense with production runs of a thousand or so. . . small enough to allow botique manufacturers to exist.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By danrien on 9/10/2008 2:50:05 PM , Rating: 3
yeah this could be very similar to the PC industry - build your own car using a government approved chassis... hehe. technology's great. when will newegg start carrying tesla car battery packs?


RE: I'll stick with gas
By UNCjigga on 9/10/2008 2:09:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Too many people getting killed because the "Joe's electric car compay" decided to save a few bucks on their SUX electric coupe
Is that a 6000 SUX?!! I want one!


RE: I'll stick with gas
By UNCjigga on 9/10/2008 2:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, I meant to say "I'll buy that for a dollar!"


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Runiteshark on 9/10/2008 11:11:41 AM , Rating: 2
I don't really think so anymore. With Nissan raising their MSRP on the GT-R another 10k, it is more viable to buy a Z06 and put a little money into it.

This does not include Nissan stealerships raping the hell out of you with their markups. I'd much rather get an Audi R8 GT3.

Oh and in addition, Screw R35s, get a R34.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Mitch101 on 9/10/2008 12:39:49 PM , Rating: 5
I think they are all fueled by egos.

All of the above mentioned cars failed to include the high priced costs of the women attracted to you when you drive such vehicles. Usually labeled as Gold Diggers they can cost much more than the vehicles themselves. Given the ego's behind the drivers of such cars paves a way for your money to deplete even faster as one shows off to the world how great a car you drive and how you can walk the walk and spend away in order to impress total strangers. Each car comes with an imaginary story of how you onced raced in the hood like that movie series fast and furious. More like made a wrong turn and paniced racing to get out of there before they killed your sorry arse. And forget about the girl doing those freaky things either as she will tell you that she is above that as she sips white Zinfandels and reminds you that you have not bought her anything expensive this week. At the end when your money is gone so is the girl. But you looked cool while doing it.

Give me a reliable efficient car and a girl that drinks beer any day. The best cars I ever owned were junk. The door ding doesn't bother you and an expensive car is just a target.

I was a bartender and trust me its better than any car you could buy and it comes with a paycheck.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By s12033722 on 9/10/2008 3:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
Some of us like fast cars because we enjoy driving performance autos, not for the looks or attention.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Spuke on 9/10/2008 3:56:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Give me a reliable efficient car and a girl that drinks beer any day.
Given the low volumes of exotics and sports cars in general, you are more apt to find some large ego a$$hole driving a Camry or Accord than any other type of vehicle.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Xavitar on 9/10/2008 7:34:14 PM , Rating: 2
Right, but if you have one a$$hole who drives a Tesla then he represents roughly 50% of the population of Tesla drivers. ;) One a$$hole in a Camry represents 0.00000001% of the population of Camry drivers.
quote:
Given the low volumes of exotics and sports cars in general, you are more apt to find some large ego a$$hole driving a Camry or Accord than any other type of vehicle.

Besides that, there's nothing inherently wrong with being an a$$hole, so it's kind of a moot point.

Things that go fast are fun. They need to make an electric car with Tesla-like performance that can go over 400 miles and comes with a free chicken-pot-pie maker.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By therealnickdanger on 9/10/2008 11:19:30 AM , Rating: 2
Now that the GT-R's official asking price is $79,090, the Z06 is the better buy, IMO. Depends on your "needs" though. If you're a trap junkie, the Z06 dominates, but on the twisty track, the GT-R prevails. It's hard to argue with a big Chevy NA V8. Overall, I would prefer the Z06 primarily because I like the styling more but its ability to behave very well as a daily driver is also very welcome. Dare I say that the GT-R looks too... generic? Different strokes...


RE: I'll stick with gas
By bhieb on 9/10/2008 11:35:09 AM , Rating: 3
Your both wrong the 09 CTS-V will be the bargin @ $62K. 0-60 3.9 sec and 4 doors and a big trunk. Not to mention the fastest sedan Nurburgring time, and a mear 20 secs behind the GTR. Bang for your buck and utility too, no doubt about it this is the best all-round performer. Unless you really need a dedicated track car, me I would like to actually like to throw a kid in the back seat once and a while.

Oh and there is the side benefit of that punk in his mustang GT that thinks he's racing a grandma mobile :) TOAST!

http://www.automobilemag.com/new_and_future_cars/2...

http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/0805_20...


RE: I'll stick with gas
By therealnickdanger on 9/10/2008 11:41:46 AM , Rating: 4
I love the V, it's great. Not exactly mistakeable with grandma's car, but I see your point. However, it's not in the same class at all as the Z06 and GT-R. You could just as well argue buying a Chrysler 300C SRT-8 for $40K. Sure, it's not quite as fast, but it's even cheaper...

Ultimately, it's just a question of taste. How much do you want to spend to get the look and speed you want?


RE: I'll stick with gas
By bhieb on 9/10/2008 12:28:54 PM , Rating: 2
True especially if you don't care about the utility, then sure go for the 2 seaters, but I still think it blows away anything with 4 doors by a long shot price/performance wise.

Of course I am biased I own a 2004 V now :) And all the complaints I have about it (most are fit and finish) have been resolved and then some on the new platform.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Runiteshark on 9/10/2008 11:43:01 AM , Rating: 2
I've been keeping tabs on the CTS-V, that car is a BEAST. Especially since all the aftermarket companies already have a platform they know to work with. I'd love to own one.

I expect to see a nice supercharged version putting out silly amounts of power soon, and someone like me who hates screws to put two turbines onto it.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Spuke on 9/10/2008 12:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
The new CTS-V is supercharged.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By bhieb on 9/10/2008 12:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
Think he is referring to an upgraded charger and/or more aggressive pullys. Historically OEM chargers have had lots of room for improvement.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Runiteshark on 9/10/2008 1:12:30 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, it was the same story with any of the supercharged Chevy platform that I can't remember the name of. Lambda I think?

Cobalt SS SC
Sky
Ion Redline
Solstice

Those cars' Ecotec engine with a supercharger. They all had quite a bit of expandability, which is what makes them popular.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By FITCamaro on 9/10/2008 2:07:43 PM , Rating: 2
The Solstice does not have a supercharged engine. It is turbocharged. As is the Sky.

But yes you can easily modify them. The Ecotec engine is one tough little motor. In stock form the 2.0L motor built for forced induction is good through about 500 hp.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By bhieb on 9/10/2008 3:09:51 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, great little engine. My guess is the V's will have some headroom but not nearly as much, it is not like GM is trying to leave much performance out. Maybe a little that was sacrificed to meet emission regs can be recouped, but nowhere near as much as the ecotech.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By lightfoot on 9/10/2008 3:44:19 PM , Rating: 2
The Sky and Solstice are Kappa platforms.

"Lambda is General Motors' full-size crossover SUV automobile platform" according to Wikipedia.

In any case the engine is seperate from the platform and in the case of the Kappas it is turbocharged, not supercharged.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By FITCamaro on 9/10/2008 12:34:09 PM , Rating: 2
The CTS-V is definitely sweet. Would definitely be the ultimate family sedan.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Polynikes on 9/10/2008 11:32:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That being said, GT-R > Z06 ;)
Blasphemy!! Burn the witch!

But seriously, it would be a tough choice for me. I love the 'Vette. Love it. But the exotic Nissan certainly has allure. And a faster 0-60. It's not like I'd drive either one to its top speed, so that's not much of a factor. I guess the test drive would determine it for me.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By jimpaka on 9/10/2008 11:35:09 AM , Rating: 2
Word. But then what did you really expect from FITCamaro?


RE: I'll stick with gas
By FITCamaro on 9/10/2008 12:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
I don't look down on it. I just don't think $100,000+ all electric cars are going to be what pushes the technology to the next level. 240 miles is enough for a commuter car to be sure. But as I've said, typical parents of a family don't buy 2 commuter cars and one car for long trips. They buy two cars that balance the best of both.

Yes the idea of no oil changes and what not sounds nice, but the idea of if something breaks, you have no idea what it is doesn't. Not to mention the repair costs will probably be astronomical.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By lightfoot on 9/10/2008 4:05:49 PM , Rating: 2
Most electric vehicles have the advantage of having fewer moving parts and therefore are generally less likely to break down, and are simpler to troubleshoot. It is true that if a part like the motor or power pack fails it will be costly to replace and it might feel odd having to take your car in to the electrician instead of a mechanic.

The problem with hybrids is that they have both the best and worst of both worlds. Better fuel economy, better range, but far more parts and greatly increased complexity. This results in hybrids being slightly less reliable than comparable ICE vehicles. Pure electric vehicles (like the Tesla Roadster) are far simpler and should be far more reliable.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Spuke on 9/10/2008 6:49:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is true that if a part like the motor or power pack fails it will be costly to replace and it might feel odd having to take your car in to the electrician instead of a mechanic.
More than likely the control electronics (proprietary) would fail or maybe a portion of the battery pack. And you'll be taking these cars to the dealership (see the Prius) for any work that needs to be done. I doubt seriously that the automakers will honor warranties done by anyone else at least until a significant portion of the market is driving all-electrics.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Shark Tek on 9/10/2008 3:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That being said, GT-R > Z06 ;)


Oh well, there are plenty of videos out there that proves that Nissan lied about the performance of the Hyped GTR. A car that mostly drives itself it only needs someone who press the gas pedal and steer. And I still seeing videos of fully manual driven Z06 making fun of GTRs. In straight lines or curves just take a look to streetfire or youtube repositories you will fall off the chair.

Just take a look here
http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/2913/zo6vsgtrhi...
the only thing that the GTR does better is in handling and is very close to what the Z06 can do. The extra power of the Z06 close that gap easily.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Spuke on 9/10/2008 4:23:13 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, Car and Driver tested 5 cars and three duplicated the magazine times. One of cars was unable to get into launch control mode. All cars had the same boost curves and dyno numbers. That said, the DRIVER still needs to DRIVE the car to get the performance. And street racing is NOT a test of a cars performance. Why? Because of simple things like, is the other guy actually racing?

If it ain't on the track, it ain't sh!t!!


RE: I'll stick with gas
By therealnickdanger on 9/10/2008 11:02:28 AM , Rating: 2
Well, technically you'll spend well over $20K on gas over 10 years as opposed to a fraction of that amount on electric recharging... of course this will vary according to your observed fuel economy, the price of gas, and how often you drive it.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By masher2 (blog) on 9/10/2008 11:09:51 AM , Rating: 1
> "Well, technically you'll spend well over $20K on gas over 10 years "

Eh? That's 5000 gallons at $4/g. At 20mpg, that's 100K miles. Add on 30% for charging costs, and you're at 130K miles -- almost exactly what the average American drives in 10 years.

And yes, gasoline will rise in price. But if electric cars become widespread, electricity prices will be inflating much faster than gas.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By therealnickdanger on 9/10/2008 11:37:40 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure exactly what you're arguing here, we would need to know a few factors regarding FIT's driving habits before coming to any real numbers.

The Z06 gets about 16MPG on average (mixed daily driving). At $4/g, let's assume he drives 130,000 miles in 10 years. That's $32,500 in gas over 10 years. That's $12,500 more than the $20,000 difference for the Tesla's asking price. Fuel prices will certainly go up and I've got no idea what Tesla's battery/powertrain warranty is... so it could all be wash after 10 years?


RE: I'll stick with gas
By masher2 (blog) on 9/10/2008 11:57:16 AM , Rating: 2
> "I've got no idea what Tesla's battery/powertrain warranty is."

5 years, with a replacement cost of $20K. Over 10 years, thats two batteries. Add in $10K in charging costs (1/3 the price of gasoline) and you come to a round total of $50K in maintenance/operating costs that your earlier numbers didn't reflect.

You're not going to save money with the Tesla. Buy it because it's beautiful, not because you're trying to save in fuel costs.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By therealnickdanger on 9/10/2008 12:05:09 PM , Rating: 2
Let's be clear, I wouldn't buy EITHER car to save anything! LOL

FIT said he would save money by getting the Z06, I was just pointing out that would not be the case. I agree with him though, Z06 FTW.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By lightfoot on 9/10/2008 4:38:53 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that you are counting three battery packs in your calculation - the original battery is included in the price of the car. 5 years later you buy another battery pack that will last another 5 years. IF you buy a third battery pack it should be considered part of the cost for the miles driven in years 11-15, not in the original 10 year driving cost.

You should include depreciation as part of your total cost of ownership and total cost per mile driven. If you do then you are counting the first battery's cost twice.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By masher2 (blog) on 9/10/2008 4:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
If the lifespan of the battery pack is 5 years, then the car will consume two in a 10-year period. Whether you are selling or keeping the car, you'll still need to buy that third pack.

Now for any truly accurate calculation, one should factor in an estimated cost reduction for future battery technology, as well as a lower deprecation rate (a 10 year old car with a new battery pack is certainly worth more than one 9.5 years old without one). But the point is simply to illustrate that the O&M costs for this vehicle are substantially higher than a gas-powered model. . . even if you are paying peanuts for the juice.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By ciparis on 9/10/2008 10:00:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Buy it because it's beautiful, not because you're trying to save in fuel costs.

How about because it's just plain fast?

Elon Musk giving Robert Scoble a ride in Tesla #1:
http://qik.com/video/22264

Jason Calacanis in his Corvette trying to keep up:
http://qik.com/video/22262


RE: I'll stick with gas
By FITCamaro on 9/10/2008 12:25:51 PM , Rating: 2
How do you figure 16 mpg average when its rated at 16 mpg in the city alone? And 26 on the highway.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Spuke on 9/10/2008 12:31:48 PM , Rating: 2
The Z06 is 19.2 mpg combined.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By therealnickdanger on 9/10/2008 1:38:29 PM , Rating: 2
As Brandon already posted below, it's actually 18MPG according to EPA guidelines:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp?...

OK, so $4/g getting 18MPG for 130,000 miles over 10 years:

$28,889 on gas alone.

However, it uses premium fuel and I guarantee you'll get well under 18MPG on average! The EPA doesn't account for any form of racing, be it auto-cross, 1/4-mile, stoplight showoff... Nürburgring... Let alone burnouts... ;-)


RE: I'll stick with gas
By FITCamaro on 9/10/2008 2:01:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, it uses premium fuel and I guarantee you'll get well under 18MPG on average!


What are you basing that on?

My dad's Trans Am is rated at 17 and 27. It gets those exact targets in pure city and highway driving. For mixed driving it gets around 22-23. What makes you think the Z06 is any different?


RE: I'll stick with gas
By therealnickdanger on 9/10/2008 3:34:16 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you go based off your experience... I go off mine.

Whether it be my '96 Impala SS or Dodge Magnum (both 5.7L V8s... hmm weird), I typically get a few MPG under the city rating for an overall average due to occassional "spirited" driving. If I take either to the track, then it's just abysmal.

But don't just take my word for it:

Edmunds' "observed fuel economy" was 16.2MPG
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Compar...

JDPower Observed 13.7MPG
http://www.jdpower.com/autos/powersteering/modelBl...


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Spuke on 9/10/2008 4:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
I thought we talking about the Corvette here?


RE: I'll stick with gas
By FITCamaro on 9/10/2008 4:45:35 PM , Rating: 2
You happen to look at some of the pictures? They're punching it on those cars constantly. That's included in that combined fuel economy. You think that accurately reflects the average guy driving it to work every day?


RE: I'll stick with gas
By cherrycoke on 9/10/2008 6:58:43 PM , Rating: 2
follow obama's advise and keep your tires inflated!


RE: I'll stick with gas
By cherrycoke on 9/10/2008 6:59:25 PM , Rating: 2
"advice" rather... doh


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 9/10/2008 11:11:34 AM , Rating: 3
Z06 average fuel cost: $3,319 x 10 years = $33,190. Throw in oil changes, transmission maintenance, or anything other maintenance costs related to the drivetrain.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp?...


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Runiteshark on 9/10/2008 11:14:43 AM , Rating: 2
I kinda don't agree with the prices. The Z06 as well as the regular vette have a great od gear which allows them to get stupidly high highway mileage. Most people I see driving vettes are either old people, people in their mid life crisis, or gangsta youth with bling bling around their neck.

The only one that I could see getting poor gas mileage is the youth.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 9/10/2008 11:17:56 AM , Rating: 3
What is there to argue? The prices are based on EPA ratings of the Z06:

quote:
Based on 45% highway, 55% city driving, 15000 annual miles and a fuel price of $ 3.98 per gallon .


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Runiteshark on 9/10/2008 11:28:59 AM , Rating: 2
I don't really go by EPA numbers, primarily because they don't mean much of anything; example:

My RSX when stock got 27/27 Shift above 2k shift below 6k (21/28)
My 350z On the highway is 30mpg below 85mph and 22mpg in the city (18/24)
My dads old Chevy Mailbu (2005) gets a good 35-36mpg somehow on the highway, and around 29 in the city. This is the LS V6 model. (20/29mpg).

Now, granted whenever I actually drive my car my milage in my RSX (currently) dips to about 7mpg, and in the 350z about 11, this is going full out on the track.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Runiteshark on 9/10/2008 11:32:52 AM , Rating: 2
Oh and as a note the gas used in the RSX is C12, and regular 91 for the 350z.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 9/10/2008 11:32:55 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but when you're talking about something like this, it's better to use controlled test which should simulate what the average person should get under general condition vs anecdotal evidence from Tom, Dick, and Harry.

Of course, that's just my opinion :-)


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Runiteshark on 9/10/2008 11:46:15 AM , Rating: 1
While that is true, its all a matter of how people drive. I get good gas mileage because on the street I don't drive like a dipshit and rev at everybody. My dad gets good gas mileage because he maintains his speed, and does this neat thing called change lanes before he needs to slow down (and accelerate again).

So I suppose I'll concede you that point, that most dipshits are going to get that gas mileage.

I NEVER NARCED ON NOBODY


RE: I'll stick with gas
By FITCamaro on 9/10/2008 12:29:53 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. I drive conservatively most of the time. As such my mileage is 29-30 mpg average to work and back. On the highway I get the cars factory rating at 75-80 mph when those ratings are taken at 55 mph. I've tested driving my Cobalt consistently at 55 mph on a highway. It gets 38-40 mpg.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Spuke on 9/10/2008 12:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
FIT,
You need to get the new Cobalt SS. Same gas mileage as your present car but at least 100 more hp plus goodies like launch control, no lift shift, Stabilitrak, and a LSD.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Runiteshark on 9/10/2008 1:15:21 PM , Rating: 2
I still can't believe they only just put a LSD in. One wheel burnouts suck.

Personally I'm keeping my eye on the 2l turbo 4 banger that hyundai is going to put in its Genesis coupe.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By FITCamaro on 9/10/2008 2:11:12 PM , Rating: 2
I'm laughing my butt off at the idea of people being stupid enough to pay over $40,000 for a V8 Hyundai. I don't know what the 2.0L turbo model is supposed to cost.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Runiteshark on 9/10/2008 2:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
About 20k, I want to see how it will turn out, especially since several tuning groups (HKS for one) is standing behind it.

If its typical Hyundai crap, then no thanks, but all the pictures I've seen are pretty nice.

As for the Genesis sedan, don't kid yourself, its pretty damn nice. Time will tell if they have a winner on their hands or not.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By FITCamaro on 9/10/2008 4:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry but I don't see the sedan being any nicer than a G8. And the G8 can be had for $30,000. The Hyundai has 375 hp vs. 365 hp in the G8 but less torque. If you care you can always use the money saved to get that power out of the G8.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Spuke on 9/10/2008 4:33:52 PM , Rating: 2
That car gets awesome reviews. The interior quality is on par with Lexus!! Hyundai really hit a home run with the Genesis. Dude, it's not what you think. It's a great deal for a luxury car.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By FITCamaro on 9/10/2008 4:42:46 PM , Rating: 2
Well being how they basically slapped a Hyundai badge on a Lexus I'm sure it might compare. But Lexus's don't really impress me all that much either since they're just overpriced Toyotas.

Sorry but the suppleness of the leather doesn't sell a car to me. The quietness of the engine doesn't sell it to me. The attitude of the car sells it to me.

(Yes I drive a Cobalt now but that's because life threw me a curve ball which had me driving 150 miles a day so I had to deal. Now I'm looking to go back where I started and satiate that desire for a V8 that I've had since I got rid of my 430hp 89 Camaro).


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Spuke on 9/10/2008 7:16:32 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say it was my style. I'm just saying it's initially turning out to be a good car. Actual miles on the road will tell for sure. I prefer sports cars.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By Cullinaire on 9/10/2008 4:43:19 PM , Rating: 2
If I can find it in me to approach a Hyundai dealership, I'm definitely going to test drive one (V8 model only).


RE: I'll stick with gas
By FITCamaro on 9/10/2008 2:01:57 PM , Rating: 2
Nope. Gonna get rid of my Cobalt and get a 2005-2006 GTO.


RE: I'll stick with gas
By strikeback03 on 9/10/2008 4:57:41 PM , Rating: 2
My 02 RSX-S is averaging 31.5 since I bought it in March. Pure highway is 33-34. I haven't driven far enough in a city to get a city average yet. I got 27 while towing my boat on the interstate.


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki