Print 53 comment(s) - last by web2dot0.. on May 23 at 4:46 PM

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. 
Motor Trend 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 Nissan Leaf, 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.

Source: MotorTrend

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: Need some Keeir math
By FITCamaro on 5/16/2012 4:42:19 PM , Rating: 2
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.

"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki