Tesla Model S Could Land 265-Mile Range Rating from the EPA
May 15, 2012 6:27 PM
comment(s) - last by
High-end Tesla Model S could be the most efficient EV in the land
Tesla is set to put its Model S all-electric sedan on the market a few months ahead of schedule, with the first customer deliveries taking place next month. Another bit of good news for Tesla and the people who are waiting for their Model S to take up residence in their driveway has surfaced.
reports that the top-of-the-line (85 kWh) Model S is expected to earn a window sticker rating from the EPA showing a 265-mile driving range.
There has been confusion on the driving range for a fully charged Model S, mostly because multiple numbers have been thrown around since the vehicle was first unveiled. The driving range has been at different times said to be 160-miles, 230-miles, and 300-miles depending upon the size of the battery pack installed. Tesla also recently noted that the car was able to achieve a 320-mile driving range on a full charge in the EPA's 2-cycle driving test.
The new 265-mile range for the window sticker is based on the EPA's new five-cycle test. If Tesla is able to land that 265-mile driving range on the EPA's new test, the Model S will be massively superior to other electric vehicles, such as the
, which was only able to muster a 73-mile driving range on the same test. Granted, the high-end Model S is much more expensive than the Leaf.
The real world driving distance will likely vary significantly, depending on where the vehicle is operated and how heavy the driver's right foot is.
The Model S is also available with smaller 40 kWh or 60 kWh battery packs. The
base Model S will sell for $57,400
and range up to $105,400 for higher end versions with an 85 kWh lithium-ion battery. Tesla has 10,000 orders in hand for the new Model S EV.
Word that the car may come early sent shares of
Tesla stock surging
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
RE: Need some Keeir math
5/16/2012 1:26:07 PM
Ah so now we're on to insulting people and saying they're brain dead unless you believe in man made global warming. And your comment on oil being bad economically is founded in what exactly? That we get a lot from foreign sources because people like yourself stop us from developing it here in the US?
I do not "love" oil. I love being able to freely move around this great country to go where I want. Gasoline allows me to do that cheaply and effectively. Batteries do not.
You offer no solution. You offer a heavily subsidized fantasy. Even if electric cars could do the job, the fact remains that you are moving from one relatively rare resource to a larger set of much rarer resources. The materials required to make batteries are in short supply globally and we have far less of them here in the US than we do oil.
In case you try to say we have none, yesterday the GAO itself testified to Congress that in oil shale from the south west states alone we have more oil than all the rest of the worlds known oil reserves. And they estimate at least half of it is recoverable with existing technology.
Now I've said multiple times that I support a true solution like diesel made from algae. But eco-nuts don't want anything that burns period. Nevermind the thousands of jobs that market would create and the highly efficient, fun to drive, and practical cars we could drive as a result. And it would require very little change to our existing infrastructure to implement.
RE: Need some Keeir math
5/16/2012 2:36:36 PM
Did I say anything about global warming? Why in hell do you keep putting words in my replies?
I'll go with something much simpler: lock yourself in your garage and turn on your car. We'll talk tomorrow. No? :|
And do I really have to explain the economical consequences?
Everything is a freaking fantasy until someone comes and shift paradigms. That's the history of the world.
We have a bunch of things being researched, but unfortunately without money it is hard to revolutionize the world.
I love the idea of solar roadways (
especially because it is something designed to fit into a process already in place (repaving our crappy roads) and presents so many more benefits while costing (theoretically) not much more. That is not a heavily subsidized fantasy, just a possible solution that needs investment, like almost anything else that we have out there today.
There's is so much more going on out there, not just freaking EVs. That's the topic of THIS article, but not of the whole renewable energy movement.
The real problem is that what most people care is "to move freely around this great country" while doing that "cheaply and effectively". Who the hell cares if we
sacrifice a little in order to maybe provide a better future for ourselves and our descendants? Nah, I'll just take the easy and cheap route. With a coke to go, please. :|
RE: Need some Keeir math
5/16/2012 4:42:19 PM
the consequences of its use are extremely damaging to our planet
That implies you believe that the burning of fossil fuels is damaging the planet. I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm saying what you're not but still believe.
And carbon monoxide poisoning has nothing to do with whether or not fossil fuels are damaging the planet. Seal your garage and start filling it with water. Talk to you tomorrow.... That was your logic there. Now water is bad for the planet too I guess.
Things you say make no sense because they are not feasible due to cost. Solar roadways? Who's going to pay for it? How long would it last? It would require incredible subsidies to even be remotely feasible. And it would mean roadways would have to be completely replaced every 15-20 years after they're put down since the solar cells would wear out.
The vast majority of the "renewable" energy movement is full of grand ideas that are completely infeasible and/or unaffordable. They never think about the trillions of dollars required to implement them. And then all the issues with the idea even if it was implemented. Solar and wind power doesn't work and still requires other sources of energy to be built. Batteries currently don't meet most people's needs. Now when those things change, they shouldn't need subsidies to survive and I won't have a problem with them. Until then, I'll stand against my money being used to pay for them. Period.
If you believe in them so much though, you're free to use your money to invest in them.
"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive
Tesla Model S Arrives Ahead of Schedule, Stock Surges
May 10, 2012, 10:01 PM
Tesla Model S Officially Priced from $49,990 after Tax Credit, Available Summer '12
December 20, 2011, 9:44 PM
Nissan Jacks Up the Starting Price of All-Electric Leaf
July 20, 2011, 6:19 PM
Ford, Toyota, and Universal Pictures Celebrate "Back to the Future Day' in Style
October 21, 2015, 4:19 PM
Consumer Reports Flexes Muscle, Hits Slumping Tesla Motors Stock
October 20, 2015, 4:13 PM
Debunked: Beneath the Lies, Nigerian "Pee Generator" Is Still Pissing Into the Wind
October 19, 2015, 7:53 PM
Hot Air? President Obama, G7 Pledge to Eliminate Most Fossil Fuel Use by 2100
June 8, 2015, 5:40 PM
Study Predicts Self-Driving Vehicles Could Rake in Billions
March 6, 2015, 8:34 AM
Dual-Motor Tesla Model S P85D's "Insane Mode" Shocks Passengers
January 28, 2015, 11:18 PM
Latest Blog Posts
Sceptre Airs 27", 120 Hz. 1080p Monitor/HDTV w/ 5 ms Response Time for $220
Dec 3, 2014, 10:32 PM
Costco Gives Employees Thanksgiving Off; Wal-Mart Leads "Black Thursday" Charge
Oct 29, 2014, 9:57 PM
"Bear Selfies" Fad Could Turn Deadly, Warn Nevada Wildlife Officials
Oct 28, 2014, 12:00 PM
The Surface Mini That Was Never Released Gets "Hands On" Treatment
Sep 26, 2014, 8:22 AM
ISIS Imposes Ban on Teaching Evolution in Iraq
Sep 17, 2014, 5:22 PM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information