Tesla Tops 250

Discussion in 'American Cars' started by ajzahn, Sep 26, 2007.

  1. A new mileage mark for an electric production car
    By MARK VAUGHN/Autoweek


    Blowing away all previous mileage marks by production electric vehicles, the Tesla announced that its upcoming roadster recorded 255 miles on a single charge in a recent EPA City test cycle. It hit 235 on the Highway portion of the test. That gives it an EPA combined rating of 245 miles.

    All that and Tesla still claims 0-60 in under four seconds. We have yet to drive one.

    The Tesla two-seater is powered by 6800 tiny lithium-ion batteries. While the first lead-acid GM EV1s generally got 40 to 60 miles on a charge, subsequent nickel-metal hydride (NiMH)-powered units could usually go over 100 miles between plug-ins. The NiMH-powered EV1 went 140 miles in its EPA certification run in 1999.

    The first 50 Tesla Roadsters will be produced in the first quarter of 2008, with another 600 planned by the end of that year. The roadster was originally planned for a summer ’07 debut, then fall of ’07.

    Next up from Tesla is an electric-powered sedan called the WhiteStar, which was expected in 2009 though no update on its arrival date was given.

    The roadster is to be built by Lotus in England, while the WhiteStar will come out of a new plant in New Mexico. A smaller sedan is next on the plate, with the goal being a full line of electric vehicles at some point in the future.
     
  2. Pretty sweet. I think I remember hearing that it was about 2 or 3 cents per mile to recharge with electricity at current (undoubtedly some kind of average) prices. A practical comparison:

    Current gas price for 93 is $2.99 per gallon. My car holds 18.5 gallons. I average a combined 15mpg if I'm not romping it TOO badly (as low as 12 if I'm mashing it fairly often), which would give me about 225-275 miles on a full tank. $55.32 fillup, coming out at 20-24.5 cents per mile.

    At current electricity prices, the Tesla would fill it's "tank" for about $7.35 and has a comparable traveling distance on a full charge. Sure, you can't fill the tank in 3 minutes like you can in a petrol-powered car, but I would sure as hell fill my gas tank at home if I could. My car also doesn't go zero to sixty in 4 seconds.
     
  3. <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/grin.gif"></A> I love this car.
     
  4. It would be cool to have this, and another gas powered car for road trips. but this could totally commute and go on smaller weekend trips.
     
  5. Awesome. What an incredible car.
    255 miles is *almost* what a regular car gets, and even so.. filling up your car at half a tank is not that much of a pain in the ass.
    If I had the money, I'd put myself on that list. I really hope this turns out well for Tesla and all the investors involved.
    I can imagine the WhiteStar will be a big deal indeed.
     
  6. IT'S SHIT; it shifts pollution from your tailpipe to the Generating Station were COAL will have to used to generate electricity*.



    *You can't generate electricity if it's not with COAL.
     
  7. Did somebody actually say that?
     
  8. SaabJohan. Ask VICOSU.
     
  9. SaabJohn is totally against electric cars because he claims that the strain on the power grid will be spilled over into coal-fired plants.

    I did a quick calculation, and to drive a Tesla for a year would be about the same amount of energy as it takes to heat and cool an average home for a year (generously).
    I meant to say that buying a Tesla would be like building a home.

    Apparently, if the strain increases, they won't build any more hydroelectric dams or nuclear reactors, (etc..).

    So, no Teslas, no building new homes, etc..
     
  10. Ok ok. So now I would buy one if gasoline disappeared, but I am still very unsatisfied with the battery in terms of production and recycling.

    There would be no power grid problems if the fvcking enviromentalist did not have nuclear power plants by the balls.
     
  11. Yes, battery disposal.
    Has that been addressed?
     
  12. I'd address it by throwing them to bums.
     
  13. +1, but srsly I think that is the only REAL issue with these cars.

    Like a Lotus Elise with a dirty diaper.
     
  14. Send the batteries to afrika or something so those poor kids can play.
     
  15. I like the idea of having a maintenance free, extremely low cost of consumption, very good handling and under 4secs 0-60 car.
     
  16. STILL CAN'T AFFORD ONE!
     
  17. #19 bucknutz, Sep 26, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Is he saying that the grid couldn't support that much extra electricity going through it or that we'd need to generate extra electricity, so we'd need to use coal?

    If he's saying that it'd put too much strain on the grid, then I've got to take a pass on that one because I really have no idea how it would affect the actual power grid itself, whether it could handle the extra electricity, etc. I just don't have any idea about that.

    But if he's talking about us needing to generate more electricity to power the cars and having to use coal to do that, then I don't see it. If we started using electric cars instead of gas, oil refining would take a huge drop. We wouldn't have to use all the energy we do to refine it, we wouldn't have to transport it all over the world, etc. I would think it would at least even out.

    Besides, aren't the newer coal plants pretty clean anyway?

    edit: I was just reading up on coal power plants. Thought this was pretty interesting: "A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could release as much as 5.2 tons/year of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons/year of thorium. The radioactive emission from this coal power plant is 100 times greater than a comparable nuclear power plant with the same electrical output; including processing output, the coal power plant's radiation output is over 3 times greater."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_plant#Environmental_impacts
     
  18. *you can if it's nuclear.
     
  19. anyone complaining about not being able to fill up mid trip is retarded. obviously this is not a car for road trips, but on a regular bases, nobody drives more then 200 miles a day. at most, maybe 100 in a day, and then come home at plug it in for a few hours and you're good to go
     
  20. #22 Rigidreaves, Sep 26, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Interesting about the radioactive waste from coal fire plants. I never knew it, but it makes sense with as much coal as they burn. Its not like they are just burning coal, but they are also burning shit they did not refine out.

    We need to start a movement for nuclear power plants and kill all those who oppose it. All these hippy liberal enviromentalist wanna drive ecological disasters like the prius, but refuse nuclear fission plants.
     
  21. And thats funny, because a company is proposing a new Nuclear power plant in the Peace river area, and another hydro station on the island, and possibly a windmill farm on the coast. BC is already 92% hydro, so that coal fire theory is bunk, here at least.
     
  22. Amen. Nuclear is the best, its the simple pathetic greenies who think all hell will break lose if by god a little something goes wrong.

    OMG what IF IT ESSPLODES!! THNINK OF TEH ANIMALS!! THE PLANTS!!.
     
  23. i bet a few people would get run over because they wouldn't know to run
     

Share This Page