This short article about the new Tesla sounds like it could be a real challenger (at least on drag strips!) for the Panamera.

http://www.gizmag.com/tesla-model-p8...-assist/34123/

Amazing acceleration for the cost of the car., top speed of 155, and lots of range.

 

Very cool! I drove a model s last year and was impressed. I hope tesla keeps raising the bar. I could see my self in one of these as a daily driver.

 

Technically impressive with fantastic performance, but it weighs nearly 5,000 pounds! Holy cow.

Hugo

 

I've been very impressed by what Tesla have achieved so far. It's not an easy industry to enter with the level of regulation. I particularly like the styling of the Model S, which I think appeals to non-US taste too. I suspect that they've only just started, so are a company to watch.

I'm not a Californian cheque book green, but Tesla are giving a very high performance at competitive prices, which does appeal to me. They look be selling well around here - it's much nicer seeing Teslas than Priuses!

 

Not even in the same league.

Nope.

 

Remove two doors and a foot of wheelbase from the Tesla D and I'd be on it like stink on a skunk.

 

I agree, I'd take the Tesla over the phatP in a heartbeat.

 

To me, the Model S represents a similar leap in automotive engineering as the 928 in the 70ies - the Model S just doesn't have the radical styling change that scared people away from the 928 at the time. And - relative to income - it is less expensive than a 928 in its day, and much cheaper to run.

While all the traditional auto makers just keep offering more of the same (yawn), Tesla offers a new way of motoring. Smooth, super quick, quiet, and none of the traditional maintenance requirements. No more oil changes, or expensive engine overhauls because you ignored that rattle that you didn't understand as a warning sign. Just plug-in, charge, and drive. Plus buying and service experiences that the dealer model cannot duplicate.

Regardless of how "green" a Tesla truly is, there are enough reasons why it's the better solution for daily transportation - unless you are a gear head or regularly drive long distances. The question is now, whether they can bring the cost down and the range up. VW claims that by 2020, EVs will have between 300 and 400 miles of range.

Here is the official announcement of Tesla's latest innovations:



When one of the most reputable German auto magazines compared the Tesla Model S P85 with the Panamera Hybrid, the Model S got 500 point, and the Panamera 510. That's a 2% lead by the Panamera.

They were impressed with the Tesla's level of perfection, but me thinks that is no wonder, given they are linked (by investments) to Daimler and Toyota, and it is know that they got help from Mercedes to get the Model S production ready.

However, the same magazine also criticizes the loss in range in high or low temperatures. Depending on weather, they saw drops of 50% in range (with AC or heater on). Which is probably OK, if you have the 85kWh model and/or don't plan on driving very far. But it's not practical (yet) for a traveling salesman who has to visit clients any day of the year, in any weather.

That would also mean less range.

 

Coal powered cars are the wave of the future...?

Electric motors produce instant torque, so they're quick, but run the quarter, recharge, rinse and repeat. Had a Tesla pass me on the right the other day then cut back in front of me - he advanced exactly one car length on the freeway - jerk.

James

 

Hi James:

Have you heard of solar energy? It's really cool technology that allows you to make your own electricity - you should check it out...

Besides, CA energy mix doesn't contain a whole lot of coal:


Source: http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-4

That leaves some room for charging an EV.

 

Well, such a VERY BAAAAD comment.
Why :

1) Nicole gave you already a very good answer just above about the sources of CA electricity.

BUT, even “worse” :

2) If the CA electricity would be 100% coal based, I feel that you better learn the following :

A modern Coal power plant with a “combined cycles” turbine has a ratio of efficiency close to 60%. Ok, you heat up the planet with about 40% of coal that you burn.

BUT, this is a LOT BETTER than a modern gasoline engine of any cars.

First, a gasoline engine (based on the Carnot cycle) have in theory a maximum ratio of efficiency in the range of 30%.
One problem is that humans have not find a way to suppress friction losses, nether know how to suppress all the losses of the ancillary equipment, …forgetting all the power lost to turn cams to push (the springs) of the valves, and not counting the losses in the gearbox, etc..
Also the 30% perfect ratio of efficiency would only occur at an optimal temperature, at an optimal rpm and with an optimal load.
Now, to make the story short, in a car, on a daily use, if your engine will gave you a ratio of efficiency in the range of 15%, I think your are very lucky.
(Yes, 85% of the gasoline you put on the tank of your car does nothing else than heating up the planet, ..sorry for that.)

Now, I you have a little doubt about the above, just think about the following:
Fact (physics) : One liter (about one quart) of gasoline is about 10kWh of energy
Think that the gas tank of a Panamera contain about 1’000 kWh.
How far it goes with that ?
And, compare “this” to the “tank” of a Tesla P85, ..which contain 85 kWh, and, I suppose you know how far you can go with such car, right ?

I hope, that if you were able to read my (poor) English (sorry for that) up to here, you will get a good feeling about the differences of efficiency !

Summary : Even if you drive a Tesla in a place where all electricity is made with coal, (yes, it is very bad, or ..the worse case !) ..it is still in the range of 4 (yes four) time BETTER ..than if you drive a gasoline based car !

Hard to digest when we love V8's big time (like me!), ..but it is the truth.

 

The Tesla Model S has impressive acceleration, having had a ride in one. The fewer moving parts is also an achievement. Intriguing alternative, especially for a DD -- albeit a pricey one.

Still, the car leaves me cold. It sounds like a hair dryer, has an unbelievably fugly interior with a pancake grill doubling as a touch screen for navigation,etc., and the build quality/fit & finish isn't close to Porsche standards. And yeah, the car is very heavy.

 

Steve and Nicole - both of you gave well played responses to the naysayers.

Yeah...the Tesla really sucks...that's why sales of the Model S have out sold Porsche's, Audi's, and MB's big sedans for most of 2014 in California (It would be the same in Virginia if the dealers lobby hadn't blocked Tesla's direct sales model...still plenty of Teslas roaming VA).

I just had some fun doing some research on what naysayers said about the introduction of the first automobiles, and even after the first few years of Ford Model T production (Ford's sales were increasing 100% year over year). Amazing how similar the naysayers today sound regarding the Tesla. It's deja vu all over again

I will not be surprised if we soon hear the following argument after the "affordable" Tesla Model 3 arrives in 2017-18:

"The Tesla Medel 3 is a disaster for our economy...putting gas station owners, fuel deliver truck drivers, mechanics, Jiffy Lube, auto parts stores, etc. etc. out of business".

Oh well...the railroads put canals out of business...the interstate highways made 18 wheelers possible and put smaller railroads out of business. iTunes put record stores out of business. And in every case people lost jobs connected to those obsolete industries/technologies. And it will happen again...and again..and again.

Four or five years from now my 928 and Subaru Forester may be replaced by a dual motor AWD Tesla. If I need a larger mini van or SUV for a road trip to areas without Tesla Superchargers I'll rent one.

The range issue will be a non issue within a decade, as the cars become more efficient, batteries improve, and the Supercharger network expands. Even now "charge sharing" owners have formed a Tesla online community (much like this one) and a mobile app so they can find each other. Most Tesla owners who kept their fuel burning cars because they had "range anxiety" wish they hadn't. Some simply installed chargers for a a few hundred bucks at their relatives' or more distant friend's homes (and how many of those friends and relatives took a ride in the Tesla and wanted one immediately?)... Funny how problems have a way of solving themselves in unexpected ways.

I can't afford a Model S, nor do I want a big luxury daily driver. But I want a Model 3 like nothing I've ever wanted before. I can't wait for the time when servicing my car means connecting it's WiFi to my home WiFi network and letting Tesla send it automatic software updates.

 

From the same source you quote:

Nationwide, solar amounts to a mere 0.23% of electricity production.

67% comes from burning fossil fuels.

At 39% of total production, coal is still, by far, the largest single source of electricity in the US today.

So, yeah, your electric chair runs on coal. Things are always greener in Cali

James

 

There a lot of scope for solar in California, and it should be greener than fossil fuels. Even using electricity from the current power stations, I would expect an electric car to be much more efficient overall, especially for shorter journeys. It would be nice to see some proper analysis though, including the energy required to produce and recycle the car and its batteries.

I like the performance that electric cars are beginning to offer (I'm sure that more will come) - that makes them exciting for me. My ideal car would have an electric motor per wheel, powered by batteries and some other high-power supply (gas turbine + generator, or power from the road). Being able to computer-control the torque to each wheel will enable some nice features.