Originally Posted by FikseGTS

Tesla claims 265 miles on a full charge. Typical mix of driving gets me around 230 miles...

Originally Posted by ersin

The $62K model is not the one that goes very fast or as far. You would need to spend at least $86K (after the $7.5K credit) for that. Tesla claims over 200 miles on a full charge, but that is under ideal conditions. Reports I find on the internet of useful range are more like 180 miles when it's warm, and 150 miles in the cold.

Actually the base model is rated at 0-60 5.9 seconds and over 200 mile range. Seems pretty fast for a 4 door sedan.

No, it's more like $50 billion. While that is huge, it's nowhere near a trillion. But since we are all desensitized to federal budgets measured in trillions, I guess these numbers don't mean much to anybody anymore.


Cheers.

Originally Posted by steel_3d

I think people overstate the deficiencies of electric cars. The world was not able to achieve in 100 years what Tesla has achieved in the last two or three years. I would say they're there.

Let's start off by saying that according to tens of thousands of people, the Tesla already is a better CAR than any other car on the market. Why else would they give away their hard earned money for one? In fact it outsells all other luxury sedans. That is dramatic, in my book. They did it on essentially their first try (the Roadster wasn't really a Tesla, it was a Lotus with an experimental Tesla drivetrain; but the model S competes on its own merit as a newcomer, and beats the entrenched internal combustion patriarchs on its first try).

Even the cheapest model offers plenty of range for even the gnarliest commute, especially if you plug in at work. Tesla even alleviated roadtrip anxiety with tons of new supercharger stations, soon to be battery swap stations. What has been a dream of electric car dreamers, journalists, etc., Tesla is about to achieve in the coming months with battery swapping. Nowhere near the territory of the murky, distant future, as some would still like us to believe. The mainstream media has spent decades, a century, explaining how much of a chicken and egg problem infrastructure is for the electric car to become a reality. Well, Tesla has single-handedly proven that it's not such a big deal. What the governemt of the wealthiest nation on earth could not achieve (did not want to), and certainly none of its mega-corporations, or any coalition thereof - a fledgling company did, and is doing.

Just the concept of free fuel would be unfathomable in classic capitalist thinking, yet Tesla (shrewdly, of course) has had the ***** to step beyond the stigma, with its eye on the future.

Sure, you can't go everywhere in a Tesla, yet. You can't go to the north pole either with your Vette (even a dirt road is a challenge). So what? You use the Tesla for what it's best for: getting you to work, on your daily errands, and possibly on the occasional road trip up and down the coast... maybe hit the drag strip. All this for a fraction of the fuel cost of an internal combustion car. If you have the foresight, you'll install solar panels on your roof, which will pay for themselves over a couple of years' equivalent gasoline costs (I spend 4k a year on gas in my Vette), and you'll have essentially free fuel AND electricity for a few decades, as long as the panels last. Or very cheaply over your lifetime, if you like to think of it as amortizing the cost of maintaining and refurbishing a solar installation. Alternatively, I like to think of it as amortizing the cost of an electric car against gasoline costs for an equivalent car (ie: I can afford a more expensive electric car than IC car).

Last, but not least, I think people will find it very liberating to be free of the maintenance and reliability issues that come with internal combustion drivetrains. One reason why I'm not hot on plugin hybrids - I consider the IC engine redundant, though they may make sense for others.

And we haven't even talked about environmental benefits.

The performance is basically on par with internal combustion.

Suffice to say, for all its drawbacks, it has many advantages. Different strokes for different folks. In my opinion, the electric car is a reality as of last year! The Model S' versatility and Tesla's investment in infrastructure is simply a game changer!

Somebody in the thread said no one would be cross-shopping these two cars. Well, I am. Especially since the C7 hasn't really blown me away that much. The base Tesla has enough range, and is within the price range of a c7. But I'm more likely holding out for the smaller, hopefully sportier Tesla, which won't be coming for a few more years, unfortunately.

My ideal car would be an all electric Vette, or equivalent. Something tells me I'll be waiting a while... Which is a pity.

Originally Posted by Second Vette

I was using the Tesla Price quoted by the previous Poster, $84,000 after a $7,500 Tax Credit (or is it a Rebate) which equals $91,500.

Foreign Oil? We have more Oil than anyone right here in the USA. Unfortunately, we have certain people in Power that frown on us developing it, especially on Federal Lands.

The only people that benefitted from our Military protecting supplies of Foreign Oil are Europe and Japan. We depend on Mexico and Canada for most of the Foreign Oil we consume, not the Middle East.

Besides, refusing to defend Energy sources would put us at a disadvantage. China and Russia are both developing Arctic Oil and we sit back like idiots watching them plan for their future because of the Environmental Lobby.

Tax Credits for Electric Cars (THAT RUN OFF THE GRID), yeah that makes about as much sense as Subsidizing Ethanol, Windmills, Solar and Unicorn Farts.

Like I said in my Post, this is a subject for another Thread.

Originally Posted by Lawnchair

You pretty much nailed it. The story here isn't that a luxury sedan can go high 12.3's @ 110, it's that some guy in an auto only ran 12.0's @ 116!

The cameras were set up too perfectly, the corvette driver is "in on it" if you ask me

Originally Posted by rockethead7

First of all, the topic was electric cars, so I didn't understand the statement about developing another power source for electric cars. Of course I've heard of fuel cells.

But, if you're going to bring up fuel cells, well, fuel cells are not "all that and a bag of chips."

They're viable. Don't get me wrong. There are tons of advantages, the main ones being the virtually endless supply available from water, and the complete lack of any harmful emissions. They might win the race over batteries. Who knows? But, it's not as simple as just converting your gas engine to hydrogen fuel cells. There are many many many many shortcomings that they need to overcome:

1) It's dramatically expensive to produce, and very inefficient. It takes about 8x more electric energy to produce the hydrogen for the fuel cells than you can ever get back in energy from a combustion engine. Fuel cell engines are only about 12% efficient, while battery drive systems are about 50% efficient. Basically, this means that, if you're comparing battery drive vs. hydrogen drive, your electric infrastructure needs to produce 4-5x more electricity to support hydrogen driven vehicles than battery driven vehicles. And, it's not a matter of simply increasing efficiency. It's not a matter of human invention. It's just plain physics/chemistry. Electrolysis on water takes a certain amount of energy, period. You can use aluminum to help it use less electricity, but then you consume the aluminum (which is just shifting the problem). Water is just a really really really stable molecule (you use it to put out FIRES, that's how stable it is). The more stable a molecule is, the more energy it takes to break it apart. So, in the bigger scheme of things, **if** battery technology can be advanced, it has a clear-cut advantage over hydrogen, just purely due to physics.

2) Distribution systems are an issue. Distributing hydrogen for fuel cells consumes a lot of resources, and all new infrastructure needs to be installed and developed. But, the electric distribution system for battery powered cars is already there, and can handle the extra capacity (they'd need to build more power plants, but the distribution system has tons of capacity).

3) Danger is an issue. Hydrogen (H2) is a very unstable molecule. It basically is just begging to explode with Oxygen (O2). Don't get me wrong, high capacity batteries are no picnic either. But, hydrogen is many magnitudes more dangerous, especially in crash conditions. Those hurdles would need to be solved.

4) The explosion of H2 in combustion causes a ton more metal fatigue (when compared to gasoline). H2 explodes far hotter and more violently than gasoline. This takes a massive toll on engines. A similar engine that you're getting 100K-200K miles out of for gasoline is getting about 10K-20K miles if it's converted to H2. Much harder metal alloys need to be developed, and are being developed, but even then, nothing yet has been developed to give those H2 engines any real longevity.


Anyway, hey, the truth is there's no real easy answer. If there was, it would have been done by now. Oil is cheap (relative to the other technologies), still available, and it works. On the flipside, hydrogen fuel cells need to clear tons of hurdles before they can displace gasoline. And, batteries just don't last long enough, and are still too expensive.


We're actually *not* arguing here (at least in my opinion). Neither battery powered cars, nor hydrogen powered cars, are ready to displace gasoline powered cars. Both of those alternative technologies need TONS of development before either one of them could completely surpass gasoline. Personally, if I was to wager on it (hypothetically), my money would be on battery technology advancement. But, it's not as if it's a crystal clear sure bet. I'm not an expert, but in my casual armchair opinion, I'd say the odds are around 80/20 for battery technology advancement taking the lead before hydrogen fuel cell technology can take the lead. And, yes, I believe it WILL happen sooner or later. But, NEITHER can take the lead yet, so there's a little bit of "crystal ball" effect in either argument.

Originally Posted by MisterMe

Wow. For the better part of the last decade, real live drivers leased FCX Clarity FCEVs as their automobiles. In 2015, Hyundai, Honda, and Toyota will begin selling FCEVs to the general public. Obviously your knowledge of hydrogen is far superior to that of the scientists and engineers employed by those manufacturers. Have you shared your knowledge with them? You have an obligation to do so because you will save them tons of money. You will be a hero!

Enough with the fun and games. Let's get real. Much if not most of your post responded to here is nonsense. Before the automobile manufacturers settled on fuel cells as the best candidate for transitioning from hydrocarbons to hydrogen, BMW has a test fleet of 7-Series sedans featuring V-8 ICEs that have been converted from gasoline to hydrogen. The conversion is very similar to the conversion for CNG.

You, like just about every other hydrogen opponent that I have encountered, have a theological opposite to the simplest of all atoms. Theology tempts its adherents to rely on their interpretation of the faith rather than facts and reason to promote their positions. Take the example of your contention that the conversion efficiency of the electrolysis of water is 12%. The theoretical maximum conversion efficiency of electrolysis is 80-94%. In practice, it is 50-70%.

Let's pretend for a second that you are correct about the 12%. This would be important only if electrolysis is a variable cost for hydrogen production. This is the case if the source electricity is purchased from the grid or produced by an electromechanical generator. However, that is not necessary. Solar cells are increasingly used to provide electricity for businesses and private dwellings. There is no meter on the Sun. Once the solar array is installed, each joule of energy produced is incrementally cheaper than the last.

FCEVs will be available at select Honda, Hyundai, and Toyota dealers during MY2015. Customers will buy them. There is nothing that you can do to stop them.

Originally Posted by texex91

...and you didn't pay $90k++

The guarantee is about on par with residuals as most cars in its class--not a big deal. an lot of requirement to get that buy back. Again I owned one so know all of the hype.

However, Tesla stock $178, GM $35

Originally Posted by AFVETTE

Seems like a WIN - WIN to me. Both cars are awesome and designed and manufactured in America. Instead of some of the childish bickering we should be applauding both manufactures.

These two cars represent the best of America's engineering prowess.

We should be celebrating these two cars.

Originally Posted by zland

You have to give Tesla their due. Just a few years ago, any electric or hybrid was considered a joke in performance compared to a typical 6 cylc sedan or even 4 cycl. Now we got a thread where ownders of the best performing generation of Corvettes is trying to rationalize why the Corvette is having trouble keeping up with the Tesla.

Originally Posted by ersin

That's not what others are claiming but I'm glad it's working for you. May I ask how much you paid for it?


Cheers.

Originally Posted by FikseGTS

my car was $103k minus the $7,500, so $95.5k.... also save about $450 month between gas and free tolls over my previous commuter car... I typically plug it in each night so I start with 230 miles to drive each day....

Originally Posted by C7Amaybe

Don't know if this is mentioned, the lithium ion batteries the Tesla Model S relies on for its performance and driving range, is highly toxic to manufacture due to the destructive nature of the mining operations. So much that mining operations can not happen in the US or countries with more stringent environmental protections.

I know most people don't think about it as long as it does not happen here, but then a lot of Tesla drivers do pride themselves in reducing carbon footprint, therefore presumably are more conscientious about such environmental issues.

Originally Posted by texex91

Actually you will find most Tesla drivers could careless about that aspect (when I had mine, spent a lot of time on their forum--you'll find it's the last reason they bought the car). Leaf and Prius drivers do...also why they don't like Tesla drivers.

Originally Posted by senah

http://www.teslamotors.com/models

you can click on the order "button" and then "cash" to see what the car and options cost, along with getting the specs for each model.

there is an interesting comparison on youtube between tesla and aston martin made in the uk. 250 miles in the former cost 8 pounds for electricity to recharge and 130 pounds for the aston martin for gas.

tesla has an unlimited miles for 8 years battery guarantee. if you drove 500000 miles in that period of time, you'd save about 80000 dollars in gasoline costs over a car that got 20 mpg, so it would be almost like getting the car for free if you drove 60+ thousand miles a year.

I expect government to start charging fees for electric cars to offset the buck or so per gallon they are collecting from gasoline sales. also, I would expect tesla to start charging for electric recharges at some point. some of his recharging stations are solar powered and create enough electricity to provide all that is necessary for recharging at this point in time.

any vehicle that provides free energy for a r/t coast to coast trip at this point in time is quite amazing, no matter what the minor inconveniences associated with it are. if you have to wait in line for fillups at these supercharging stations as the cars become more numerous, the appeal could fade quickly.

Originally Posted by C7Amaybe

How many people buy $100K+ cars to drive them over 60K miles a year, presumably on highways almost all the time at such high miles? Not to mention as said above, fuel cost is probably one of the last things on Tesla Model S drivers' mind, even though they do talk about it.

But if fuel cost is imporant, there are plenty of good gas powered cars that can pile on 60K miles a year with very little fuel consumption.

I am not against the Model S at all, in fact it is on my list. I just don't buy into all the claimed savings on Tesla website. A fair comprison would be a $100K+ model S, to buying a C7 for the weekend, with money left for a Cruze Eco for highway duties. The results may be very different.