motor

HeilSvenska · 02-06-2008, 08:06 PM

^Yeah. I read Motor Trend today and they said they saw the car do 0-60 in 4sec. I figured they were too lazy to actually measure that and just quoted the original brochure...

ferrarif1fan89 · 02-06-2008, 08:12 PM

I think whether this car is a success or not cannot be determined at the current time. I think it is foolish to come to conclusions so early in the car's production lifespan. Let the car be delivered, let the numbers speak for themselves. It is then, and only then, that you can conclude whether or not this car is a success or not, financially, economically, and emotionally.

HeilSvenska · 02-06-2008, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by ferrarif1fan89

I think whether this car is a success or not cannot be determined at the current time. I think it is foolish to come to conclusions so early in the car's production lifespan. Let the car be delivered, let the numbers speak for themselves. It is then, and only then, that you can conclude whether or not this car is a success or not, financially, economically, and emotionally.

You say that, but it's a limited production car that costs $100,000. So we can't really see if it's successful in the traditional sense. Of course, I call it a failure because it failed to meet the promises that the Tesla execs made years ago.(except for the superior chassis from Lotus) If there's one car that completely fulfilled its promise, it's probably the Bugatti Veyron.(after much much delay)

Go on everyone! Skip to the conclusions!

Don't get me wrong, though. I'm growing warm to this...thing.

ferrarif1fan89 · 02-06-2008, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by HeilSvenska

You say that, but it's a limited production car that costs $100,000. So we can't really see if it's successful in the traditional sense. Of course, I call it a failure because it failed to meet the promises that the Tesla execs made years ago.(except for the superior chassis from Lotus) If there's one car that completely fulfilled its promise, it's probably the Bugatti Veyron.(after much much delay)

Go on everyone! Skip to the conclusions!

Don't get me wrong, though. I'm growing warm to this...thing.

Even on that basis, we cannot judge entirely. There have been no official track tests of this car, no official battery of tests. Also, the car is not in its final stages, what with new transmissions being developed as we speak. It is too early to consider this a failure in any respects, as the numbers on the car have not yet been finalized.

graywolf624 · 02-06-2008, 09:40 PM

Even on that basis, we cannot judge entirely. There have been no official track tests of this car, no official battery of tests. Also, the car is not in its final stages, what with new transmissions being developed as we speak. It is too early to consider this a failure in any respects, as the numbers on the car have not yet been finalized.

Read it again. This is the production car we are talking about, not the test mule. The car goes to production in a little over a month and the CEO said it will ship with this poor acceleration. He made some words with respect to retrofit, but that doesnt change the fact that the delivered product falls far short of what was promised. If id put money down id want it back right about now. 5.7 has been finalized by the manufacturer and will be the rating for the production car.. What happens a year further down the road is inconsequential.

As for handling. Its a heavier car with 1 speed... If you really think its going to handle like an elise you must have failed physics.

Its a heavier, slower, more expensive, less practical (as if that were possible) Elise. If you can rate that a success youve got one hell of a rap.

dutchmasterflex · 02-06-2008, 10:58 PM

By saying it failed just because it is going 0-60 1 second slower than first projected is just the hater in you

Sure it does not have the all around practicality of a regular car, and of course no where near the practicality of a GT like a Corvette. But with a ~200 mile range, good looks in a package that will be fun to drive, it sure makes for a fun car to commute in.

All in all, this is a very expensive toy.

nthfinity · 02-06-2008, 11:14 PM

What is sad is that the technology that drives this car is the same technology that has been around for over 100 years already.... the only improvements have been in the size of the battery, and circuitry.... efficiency, and usability is about the same as it's always been :-\

I saw and discussed GM's own electric cars dating back for the last 45 years... smaller, not longer, not faster...

dutchmasterflex · 02-07-2008, 12:31 AM

Battery life has certainly gotten better within the last 100 years... and that is the most important factor when it comes to building electric cars. I don't know whether or not this Telsa uses the latest and greatest efficient batteries, but it damn well should for what they are charging for the car.

graywolf624 · 02-07-2008, 07:26 PM

ure it does not have the all around practicality of a regular car, and of course no where near the practicality of a GT like a Corvette. But with a ~200 mile range, good looks in a package that will be fun to drive, it sure makes for a fun car to commute in.

No ones comparing it to the Vette. I am comparing it to the Elise since it is essentially a tuner Elise.

Now lets pretend for a minute that smugness is out. Would you consider a tuner car a success if it: had limitations on the distance traveled, was double the cost, cost more to maintain, was worse for the environment, was at least a second slower, and handled worse. Tell us point blank youd consider that a success in anything and you have your answer.

As a 4 sec car the tesla would have competed with supercars.. it would have been a success to improve one aspect of the elise and supercars dont need to be as practical.
As a 5.7 sec car the tesla competes with the hot hatch miatas and s2000s of the world.... with a price point of 100k. Theres not a redeeming positive for it over its competitors in this market. Therefore its a failure. Ignore for a second the smugness and name one category where it one ups what it is based on. Thats a challenge.

RC45 · 02-07-2008, 07:49 PM

I drove 130 miles today (which included a few rollons and dices with some other sportycars on the road - I won, but would have lost if I had been driving my Tesla) , and have to still drive 35 miles home in stop and go traffic... if I had been driving my Telsa I would be stranded on the side of the road at around 8pm tonight

Hardly a success

dutchmasterflex · 02-07-2008, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by graywolf624

No ones comparing it to the Vette. I am comparing it to the Elise since it is essentially a tuner Elise.

Now lets pretend for a minute that smugness is out. Would you consider a tuner car a success if it: had limitations on the distance traveled, was double the cost, cost more to maintain, was worse for the environment, was at least a second slower, and handled worse. Tell us point blank youd consider that a success in anything and you have your answer.

As a 4 sec car the tesla would have competed with supercars.. it would have been a success to improve one aspect of the elise and supercars dont need to be as practical.
As a 5.7 sec car the tesla competes with the hot hatch miatas and s2000s of the world.... with a price point of 100k. Theres not a redeeming positive for it over its competitors in this market. Therefore its a failure. Ignore for a second the smugness and name one category where it one ups what it is based on. Thats a challenge.

I get your point. The car has truly failed to be a replacement for a supercar, but then again, it never really was supposed to be a supercar replacement. True motorheads will compare it to similar gasoline sports cars, but the Tesla is really in its own market as an electric. Do you really think the 99% of the people who are even considering coughing up the $100k for this car care about the extra second to 60mph?

RC45 · 02-07-2008, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by dutchmasterflex

I get your point. The car has truly failed to be a replacement for a supercar, but then again, it never really was supposed to be a supercar replacement. True motorheads will compare it to similar gasoline sports cars, but the Tesla is really in its own market as an electric. Do you really think the 99% of the people who are even considering coughing up the $100k for this car care about the extra second to 60mph?

NO, but they would car about getting their arses kicked by these 2...

And would care about not being able to get out of their own way, or drive more than a few blocks on a charge

The car is a stupid engineering excercise... how is it innovative at all? I am guessing they had to go ahead and make/sell the car in its current pathetic form, or face devastating lawsuits for non-delivery.

graywolf624 · 02-07-2008, 10:51 PM

True motorheads will compare it to similar gasoline sports cars, but the Tesla is really in its own market as an electric. Do you really think the 99% of the people who are even considering coughing up the $100k for this car care about the extra second to 60mph?

Your cheating and again using the smugness.. An intangible quantity that has no real value.

As for 100k... I like to think most of the people that have that type of money, outside of movie stars, arent dumb enough to waist their money on a 100k elise. If they are.. Well maybe I should start trying to sell swamp land or something. Maybe the first ever electric toothpick...

styla21 · 02-08-2008, 02:05 AM

Originally Posted by graywolf624

Maybe the first ever electric toothpick...

Now why didn't I think of that?

79TA · 02-08-2008, 03:31 AM

Both MotorTrend and Road and Track haven't actually tested the car. They've just done the "first drive" thing where they get some initial impressions. Both magazines printed the 4.0 second 0-60 time and had a ride in an earlier prototype, although, no actual tests were done. I haven't read my new issue of Car and Driver yet, so I'll see what they reported later.