davepl

Time to replace the Audi S8 V10 which means it's time to ask my Corvette friends for their opinion of the Tesla relative to the Audi S8 from other C7 owners.

Going in, here are my assumptions:

- The Audi has a much nicer interior
- The Tesla is even a bit faster than the S8
- The Audi is lighter but the Tesla has a lower CG
- Styling is personal so can be largely ignored
- The Telsa probably has a better electronics stack and self-driving

The worst part about the Tesla is probably the tree hugger stigma that goes along with it. I'm all for helping the environment but prefer to shut the hell up about it if I do.

Anyone with a Tesla care to comment on their experience with it? I don't really care about how much money I'll save on gas, it's a $140,000 car either way so fuel isn't a big deal with either, really.

Red Devil Z51

Saw a tesla SUV the other that a friend of a friend has. Man what a piece of **** inside. Not at all nice was very cheapo. As in no carpet etc. Looked very cheap inside on all surfaces and it cost him 110K. Also it's only good for in town period. You can't make a trip of 500 miles in it since you have to recharge it in 230 miles max range and that i think is if you don't use the heater or air conditioning.
So if you plan to travel at all skip all electric cars. I made a trip from chicago to spokane wa. a few years back total was way over 6000 miles. I can't even begin to think what a mess a tesla would be trying to do that.

So GL if you plan on any trips.

Foosh

Just keep reminding yourself that the "tree-hugger" badge of honor medal many owners wear is delusional. The majority of electricity generated in the US still comes from coal, petroleum, and natural gas. By some accounts, they are dirtier than modern gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles because they increase the demand for electricity.

However, automakers don't get dinged for the pollution generated by electric power generation.

mschuyler

My cousin has a Model S. It is simply not true that you "can't take a 500 mile trip." Of course you can. Recharge once half way there. My cousin just went from Seattle to Montana and back with no problems whatsoever. But the whole issue is a red herring anyway. How often do you take 500 mile trips? Oh, yeah, there are SOME people who do so every day. I get that, but MOST people drive locally 99% of the time, and when you do that, recharging is a non issue. It's called "range anxiety" and is completely overblown.

P.S. And this thread is in the wrong forum.

xxaarraa

Yes. However, petroleum used to generate electricity that propels a vehicle goes farther per mile than petroleum burned directly in vehicle. Electric motors are just more efficient than internal combustion engines so electric cars are friendlier to the environment just due to efficiency.

yeller z06

I test drove the model S twice, loved driving it. I concur with point #1.

I do take occasional trips of more than 300 miles, and the inconvenience or just plain inability to recharge diminishes the appeal for me. Plus, my house has no available circuits, so I'd have to get an additional breaker box for all of the charging stuff, just increasing the cost.

I'll be interested to read your impressions after the test drive.

vdavenp802

I think this should be moved to the 'TESLA' forum.
Thank you.

Billy346

Most of the tree huggers and hipsters that I know drive a Subaru or a Prius, complete with leftist bumper stickers plastered all over the back end.

If you think you want a Tesla, just make an appointment with the nearest store and take one for a ride. I guarantee when you see how those things pin you back in the seat at over 100 MPH, you won't be thinking about saving the environment.

Foosh

Yes, they are impressive, and perhaps even cleaner, just not as clean as they are portrayed.

yeller z06

A friend of mine who works at Ford (bean counter but car enthusiast) used to go on long rants about how the Prius and other "green" cars are actually worse for the environment d/t the toxic batteries.

iclick

Saw a Tesla SUV at Cars and Coffee recently, and the owner showed me how the computer calculates the charging stops on a trip based on contemporaneous usage, a one-hour proposition for each. I could deal with that considering how many long trips I take (few). This may be my next car (Model S, probably), but it's not in my short- or medium-term planning just yet.

GOC

I never drove a P100D but a friend of mine had a Model S 70D and along with what I've read and watched in reviews, here is what I know.

The range that Tesla tells you is not accurate as it is based on best case scenarios under controlled environment. If it tells you 280 miles range, you are likely to get about 180-200 miles in real life NORMAL driving, meaning without babying the throttle and using the AC and stereo etc.


If you push the car hard, it will overheat and reduce performance. When the battery level goes below a certain point, it will also limit performance. Most likely you won't take the P100D to the track, but if you plan to, google to see how Tesla PXXDs do on track situations .

I think that EVs can be good in the future, but it's really still at it's infancy no matter what Elon musk tells everyone. Batteries still doesn't get a comparable range as gas engines and they just don't hold up under any hard driving. Range drops dramatically when the temperature is cold, the list goes on.

As far as the tree hugger stigma, to me it's more like someone who's drawn by the whole Steve Jobs/Apple mystique would be drawn the same to Tesla because Elon Musk is the new Steve Jobs right now. Maybe that's not you, but many including my friend is drawn to it.

I would be interested in an EV in another 10 years or so when they've really figured it out. By that time, you would have a lot more choices from other manufacturers to choose from. Porsche, BMW and others all have more EVs in development. I would wait and let the technology advance before I jump in.

vader86

I do not own one but the Colonel I work with does and she loves it. She says that the braking system takes a little getting used to, no more letting off the gas to coast and regulate your speed, now if you let off it will kick in the regen brakes.

Everyone else who I know has one likes them, they get them towed to Nashville for service. All outlay the expense to have the charger station in the garage. All say the projected range by the factory is junk, youre not getting there (just like EPA fuel econ)

Personally I think the fit/finish can be hit or miss, and for the price I'd expect it to be nicer inside.

flenn

Taking into account how they get their power, in most of the country the emissions footprint of a Tesla is smaller than the greenest hybrids on the market. It's only in the heavy coal-burning states that this doesn't hold true. And Musk is committed to taking all superchargers off the grid and powering them by solar.

bigsapper

There's one flying around space, so there's that.

TEXHAWK0

/
Why does he think a C7 owner would ever own a Tesla?

Bill Dearborn

That statement actually doesn't stand up that well. Electrical generators are more efficient than ICE used in cars but they are not that more efficient. A gas turbine with a waste heat recovery steam generator combined with it can reach an efficiency of about 62.2%. Gas piston engine efficiency can vary between 25% and 50% depending on whether they are operated at wide open throttle or not. Efficiency is highest when the throttle permits the maximum amount of air into the cylinder.

So we have an overall loss of energy when the oil is converted to gasoline or fuel for the turbine. Let us assume the loss is approximately equal. Then of course we have the loss in the distribution system that gets the fuel into the tank of the vehicle or the tank of the generating station. The generating station scenario may be more overall fuel efficient but that probably varies with each individual fueling situation.

So for one gallon of fuel burned in a ICE piston engine we get 25 to 50 % actual usage in driving it down the road. With the electrical generator we get 62.2 % of the fuel's energy dumped into the electrical distribution system.

The grid costs about 8% of that energy. Then we have to load it into a battery pack and use it in the electrical motor in the car. We lose about 20% of that power putting it into and taking it out of the battery. Then of course we have the 90% efficiency of the electric motor.

That means from a true energy efficiency standpoint the difference between ICE Piston engines and Integrated Gas Turbine generated electricity is incrementally better than useless.

From an environmental standpoint we have two kinds of pollution CO2 and all of the other stuff (particles, Oxides of Nitrogen, CO, etc). From the CO2 standpoint there is no difference since the same amount of fuel is burned in both scenarios. The difference is where the fuel is burned. Gas turbine power generation is more single point than ICE piston engines which can be all over the place so it might be better from a pollution standpoint since the electrical generating station can control operating parameters better than thousands of ICE piston engines in various states of tune and condition spread around the countryside.

We aren't going to break away from our dependence on fossil fuels for a very long time no matter how many electric cars we drive. Solar/wind power can't address the need for constant power production due to lack of energy storage capabilities. It will be a very long time before we reach that capability. Besides Solar, Wind and battery technology have their own environmental issues. If we want to stop Global Warming we will have to do something now and that doesn't mean we turn off all of our machines. We have to practice Global Dimming by cutting down on the amount of energy coming in from the Sun. We can actually do something about that by increasing upper atmosphere particle pollution so energy is reflected back into space Vs being absorbed into the atmosphere.

There was a very good analysis of the affects of Global Dimming right after 9/11. When the US grounded all commercial and private flights for about a week. There was a measurable increase in the amount of energy being received from the sun. All we need is a lot more pollution and we know how to do that in spades.

Bill

fourmat

also what is long term plan for batteries that are no longer usable the recycling process is also dirty

Dyn

In my little fleet, I have an all electric vehicle. It is not a Tesla, spent all my money on a vette. It is a Ford Focus electric. So my thoughts are based on that.

1) Tree Hugger stigma is a fiction. I have never experienced it. I don't even know what it is.
2) Way cheaper in gas, and for a $40,000 car, it does become significant. Maybe not in a $140,000 car tho.
3) Range anxiety is real, but when you have multiple cars, it is reduced accordingly.
4) Fossil fuel plants are more efficient than Internal Combustion Engines. So, less pollution. So much so that it even negates the battery production pollution. But, I admit, there is way more pollution making batteries than I thought.
5) Where electric cars really shine is with non-fossil fuels. I know Nuclear energy really freaks out the hippies, but it pairs great with electric cars. A win for humanity, imho.

Cygnus

My neighbor has the Tesla P100D and other than it doesn't look like a 150K car inside or out, he's never had any issues with it. Loads of trunk space, plus the front trunk space.

For such low production numbers, it would be easy to assume that there would be a better build quality. They seem to focus so much on the electronics that other things get overlooked.

Granted, most people won't know or see what quality should look like in a six figure car, but sit in the Tesla and then go sit in something like the BMW M760i and you'll see the difference in attention to detail.