Tesla Model S Gets Its EPA Rating

a large car like this that's fairly impressive. im sure some on here would argue otherwise. but a large full electric car getting 265 miles. coupled with recent breakthroughs in quicker charging. its not terrible. not perfect but not bad

Hell, I can only get about 260 miles to a tank on the CR-V.

yea. well you know people are going to nitpick the charge time saying "its not worth it" but like i said the recent breakthrough in charge time a public recharge station can now be as fast as 15 minuets for a full charge.

Checked out a production-ready Model S at the Tesla store in Palo Alto last weekend. Looks awesome, great tech, lots of attention to detail... only complaint I have is that rear headroom is a bit limited with that sloping roof. It's a rather large and imposing vehicle up close, about 4" larger than a 5-series, said the salesperson.

The cool thing is that there's an integrated charger built into the car, so you don't need a pricey home charger built into your garage. A normal 240-volt dryer socket is all that's needed for Level 2 charging.

on the fringe

Nice looking car but a toy still. This is NOT a GREEN car no matter what anyone says.

1) The battery pack produces 10 years worth of Green House Gas based on what a basic econo car running gas produces.

2) Except for the PNW - Pacific Northwest with all it's Hydro power, most of the country use Coal to generate Electricity and this produces mountains of green house gas.

End result, better to go CNG than Electric!

Pass on this limited range car with lousy recharge times.

In time Electric cars will get us there but not yet. Smart Stepping stone is CNG.

How about you guys do a review of the CNG Bi-Fuel Trucks and Vans from GM!

its not a toy. the point of a car like this is to remove the direct carbon emission of the car. how it gets its power may change. but getting rid of the carbon emission is key to the auto industry. there are many ways to do this. all of them have their flaws. it just so happens that this version looks nice. gets a good distance for its size. and for someone WANTING electric over a gas or oil car. this is a fine choice. you dont want it? fine don't buy it. but don't look down on them for trying.

its not a toy. the point of a car like this is to remove the direct carbon emission of the car. how it gets its power may change. but getting rid of the carbon emission is key to the auto industry. there are many ways to do this. all of them have their flaws. it just so happens that this version looks nice. gets a good distance for its size. and for someone WANTING electric over a gas or oil car. this is a fine choice. you dont want it? fine don't buy it. but don't look down on them for trying.

I am NOT looking down on them. I commend them for what they have done, but I feel they went the wrong direction when there are far better options out there for making Green Cars.

those options don't have perfect tech either. from what ive seen the alternates are on equal playing fields its just a matter of what you like. all of them have their flaws.

So except for the distance on this lone car, electric cannot touch CNG for driving. Both do not have power/pumping stations everywhere like Petrol. That is about the only draw back I can see.

a charging station would be a lot easier to install than a CNG station. not to mention you leave your house fully charged if you plug in every time you pull in your garage. the only drawback i see is the garage itself. those with on street parking are at a disadvantage. unless you have an extension cord out to your car lol.

There are PLENTY of drawbacks to pure electrics, son.

im not saying its perfect. my point all along is its what you like. oil cars wont be around forever. and ALL of the alternatives have drawbacks. i like electric because i dont like the idea of an compressed explosive in my trunk. sure cars today have the same danger. but compressed gasses have more boom behind them. this is MY TASTE. thumb me down idc.

and dont call me son. your not my father. i dont even know you.

Use good grammar, it will get you farther in life.

Batteries can and do explode.

good grammar is for professional papers and formal meetings. this is neither. i know batteries can explode. but i would much rather have a batter strapped to my car then a canister of compressed gas. again this is my personal preference. you may think gas is the better option. well guess what there will be CNG cars. you want a CNG car you buy one. if i want an electric car ill buy one. im just saying why i think the electric car is better.

Maximum range for a CNG Civic is 248 miles, and its trunk is tiny. Model S can go further and has two trunks, one of which is ginormous.

Model S can be charged anywhere there is a plug, whereas with a CNG car, you must go out of your way to find a fueling station. Best of all, you can recharge Model S at home and never waste time at a gas station.

There are PLENTY of drawbacks to pure electrics, son.

Plenty of advantages as well:

Lower center of gravity

Battery provides for additional structural rigidity

More space for passengers and cargo (no exhaust, driveshaft, bulky engine and transmission, etc.)

Instant torque

Lower NVH

Zero tailpipe emissions

Greater efficiency

Less maintenance

Well, I'm not sure I want a battery providing structural rigidity.

On a FWD vehicle, the motive mechanical parts are all up front. The fuel tank is under the back seat occupying negligible territory, and the exhaust system does not require a hump, the floor could be flat if the vehicle is engineered that way. I would prefer a RWD layout myself, with a floor hump and a differential under the back seat along with that gas tank.

Zero tailpipe emissions, perhaps, but I think automotive emissions standards are already pretty stringent, moreso than power plants.

What about the mining of materials used in battery manufacture, and all of the surrounding effort to extract and transport the raw material to the manufacturing plants (from finding minerals, to transporting workers, to earth moving machines, to ships, trains and trucks), and the disposal of all these batteries when they die?

Well, I'm not sure I want a battery providing structural rigidity.

On a FWD vehicle, the motive mechanical parts are all up front. The fuel tank is under the back seat occupying negligible territory, and the exhaust system does not require a hump, the floor could be flat if the vehicle is engineered that way. I would prefer a RWD layout myself, with a floor hump and a differential under the back seat along with that gas tank.

Zero tailpipe emissions, perhaps, but I think automotive emissions standards are already pretty stringent, moreso than power plants.

What about the mining of materials used in battery manufacture, and all of the surrounding effort to extract and transport the raw material to the manufacturing plants (from finding minerals, to transporting workers, to earth moving machines, to ships, trains and trucks), and the disposal of all these batteries when they die?

what i dont think you are looking at is that is such a small part of emissions. to make one car the mining of materials only create a fraction of what a normal car would produce in its lifetime. also to get that CNG the process is the same. i don't know what the fear is of batteries. what do you think starts your car in the morning?

Magic. Or perhaps witchcraft. Maybe both.

When an entire car can be powered by a battery the size of the one in my Patriot, your argument will be valid. Until then, pfffft.

Well, I'm not sure I want a battery providing structural rigidity.

On a FWD vehicle, the motive mechanical parts are all up front. The fuel tank is under the back seat occupying negligible territory, and the exhaust system does not require a hump, the floor could be flat if the vehicle is engineered that way. I would prefer a RWD layout myself, with a floor hump and a differential under the back seat along with that gas tank.

Zero tailpipe emissions, perhaps, but I think automotive emissions standards are already pretty stringent, moreso than power plants.

What about the mining of materials used in battery manufacture, and all of the surrounding effort to extract and transport the raw material to the manufacturing plants (from finding minerals, to transporting workers, to earth moving machines, to ships, trains and trucks), and the disposal of all these batteries when they die?

Model S is RWD; the motor (AC induction, so no rare-earth materials) rests between the rear wheels. Very compact.

The 85-kWh battery on the top model is 4" thick, and it's a flat slab mounted as part of the floor, making the chassis very stiff. It also lowers the center of gravity to that of a Ford GT's (the chassis, incidentally, was done by the same person who engineered that supercar). The flat battery, along with other aero tricks, gives Model S the lowest drag coefficient of any production vehicle on sale.

Only 15% of a BEV's life-cycle environmental harm comes from the battery. It's the operation, whether gasoline or electric, that makes up the majority of a vehicle's impact: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es903729a

Oh, and did I mention in Performance trim, it does 0-60 in 4.4 seconds?

Meh, but thanks. I'm glad you're excited.

ocnblu, on , said:

Well, I'm not sure I want a battery providing structural rigidity.

On a FWD vehicle, the motive mechanical parts are all up front. The fuel tank is under the back seat occupying negligible territory, and the exhaust system does not require a hump, the floor could be flat if the vehicle is engineered that way. I would prefer a RWD layout myself, with a floor hump and a differential under the back seat along with that gas tank.

Zero tailpipe emissions, perhaps, but I think automotive emissions standards are already pretty stringent, moreso than power plants.

What about the mining of materials used in battery manufacture, and all of the surrounding effort to extract and transport the raw material to the manufacturing plants (from finding minerals, to transporting workers, to earth moving machines, to ships, trains and trucks), and the disposal of all these batteries when they die?

Model S is RWD; the motor (AC induction, so no rare-earth materials) rests between the rear wheels. Very compact.

The 85-kWh battery on the top model is 4" thick, and it's a flat slab mounted as part of the floor, making the chassis very stiff. It also lowers the center of gravity to that of a Ford GT's (the chassis, incidentally, was done by the same person who engineered that supercar). The flat battery, along with other aero tricks, gives Model S the lowest drag coefficient of any production vehicle on sale.

Only 15% of a BEV's life-cycle environmental harm comes from the battery. It's the operation, whether gasoline or electric, that makes up the majority of a vehicle's impact: http://pubs.acs.org/....1021/es903729a

Oh, and did I mention in Performance trim, it does 0-60 in 4.4 seconds?

woah i didnt know that thats amazing. though that does bring out some other good things about EV. they dont have to work as hard to pick up speed. no mechanical engine chugging to push the car. so the mechanical friction is reduced as well. making them very impressive when it comes to speed.

Kills the range though, drag racing. And air conditioning on a hot day. And heat and defrost on a cold day. And going up hill. And stop-n-go city traffic, and on and on. But we won't talk about those, will we?

and yet it still gets an 88MPGe so all those still puts it MILES above a gas engine. and from what im seeing most CNG vehicles as well. point is all those things you mention STILL puts it above most cars

What are the testing conditions for that 88MPGeee though? Do you know?

what are the testing conditions of any other car? really you are doubting the reliability of the test itself? its still a car they would test it the same way. even still that 88MPGe is too great of a number to judge. if you drive it like an idiot whats it going to drop to 66? so what? that's still really impressive

Yes I am doubting the reliability of the test. Who wouldn't when they've read anything about electric cars? Get your noggin out of the sand. You show your maturity level with these red marks, too son.

get your noggin out of your butt. they test it the same and its a mathematical equation so obviously you have been reading some pretty crap material when it comes it the electric cars.

My noggin is not in my butt. What I've been reading is long term tests and real world accounts of electric cars in operation by real people, "when it comes it the electric cars", whatever that means. You're an excitable boy, aren't ya.

and you are senile, i'm done with you. I've proven my point and you have made yours and yours has proven unpopular not just by me. just another case of the cave man being afraid of the lightning in the sky.

Whoa. Lol. Easy there, folks.

But just to be factual, the EPA's test cycle for range and MPGe have been accurate and are rather conservative. It gets 265 miles and 89 MPGe under the 5-cycle test, which includes A/C usage, ambient temperatures from 20F to 95F, brisk acceleration, and high speeds.

Kills the range though, drag racing. And air conditioning on a hot day. And heat and defrost on a cold day. And going up hill. And stop-n-go city traffic, and on and on. But we won't talk about those, will we?

Energy regeneration.

Actually, a cool thing about Model S is that the brake pedal itself is purely friction braking; no blending of regen and friction like on a hybrid. Regeneration is triggered when you get off the accelerator, and effectively it acts like "engine braking." This allows for one-pedal driving in normal driving.

Gasoline vehicles converted into EVs tend to have a lot of compromises. This is a clean sheet design that avoids current EV downfalls.

EDIT: that roflmao was for 97, not Empowah.

Settle down guys it's only batteries.

Yes, of course it is, Dodgefan. Of course it is.

Maximum range for a CNG Civic is 248 miles, and its trunk is tiny. Model S can go further and has two trunks, one of which is ginormous.

Model S can be charged anywhere there is a plug, whereas with a CNG car, you must go out of your way to find a fueling station. Best of all, you can recharge Model S at home and never waste time at a gas station.

If you know your CNG, you can get a Home CNG Fueling Appliance and never have to go to a station except on road trips. Also compressed CNG is safer than a hot water tank.

All in all CNG can be refilled faster and more car like that people are used to than the extended charging times. Electric will be there some day, but this car is still a toy for the rich, not the average person, CNG auto's are far more cost affective.

There are PLENTY of drawbacks to pure electrics, son.

Plenty of advantages as well:

Lower center of gravity

Battery provides for additional structural rigidity

More space for passengers and cargo (no exhaust, driveshaft, bulky engine and transmission, etc.)

Instant torque

Lower NVH

Zero tailpipe emissions

Greater efficiency

Less maintenance

Pure Electric cars currently create MORE Emissions than a CNG auto. Just look at the WHOLE picture, the creation of the battery pack and the amount of coal needed to produce your electrical energy source.

Well, I'm not sure I want a battery providing structural rigidity.

On a FWD vehicle, the motive mechanical parts are all up front. The fuel tank is under the back seat occupying negligible territory, and the exhaust system does not require a hump, the floor could be flat if the vehicle is engineered that way. I would prefer a RWD layout myself, with a floor hump and a differential under the back seat along with that gas tank.

Zero tailpipe emissions, perhaps, but I think automotive emissions standards are already pretty stringent, moreso than power plants.

What about the mining of materials used in battery manufacture, and all of the surrounding effort to extract and transport the raw material to the manufacturing plants (from finding minerals, to transporting workers, to earth moving machines, to ships, trains and trucks), and the disposal of all these batteries when they die?

What i don't think you are looking at is that is such a small part of emissions. to make one car the mining of materials only create a fraction of what a normal car would produce in its lifetime. also to get that CNG the process is the same. i don't know what the fear is of batteries. what do you think starts your car in the morning?

If you look at the sources for Lithium, you will find it is a far more destructive process to get it out of the ground, then ship it to the plants, refine it and create a battery and then ship it to the auto company to be built into a car. The whole process creates far more Green house gas than burning CNG.

We will agree to disagree but you need to research better your electric short range love of a commuter car. They pollute far more than people are willing to admit.

ocnblu, on , said:

Well, I'm not sure I want a battery providing structural rigidity.

On a FWD vehicle, the motive mechanical parts are all up front. The fuel tank is under the back seat occupying negligible territory, and the exhaust system does not require a hump, the floor could be flat if the vehicle is engineered that way. I would prefer a RWD layout myself, with a floor hump and a differential under the back seat along with that gas tank.

Zero tailpipe emissions, perhaps, but I think automotive emissions standards are already pretty stringent, moreso than power plants.

What about the mining of materials used in battery manufacture, and all of the surrounding effort to extract and transport the raw material to the manufacturing plants (from finding minerals, to transporting workers, to earth moving machines, to ships, trains and trucks), and the disposal of all these batteries when they die?

Model S is RWD; the motor (AC induction, so no rare-earth materials) rests between the rear wheels. Very compact.

The 85-kWh battery on the top model is 4" thick, and it's a flat slab mounted as part of the floor, making the chassis very stiff. It also lowers the center of gravity to that of a Ford GT's (the chassis, incidentally, was done by the same person who engineered that supercar). The flat battery, along with other aero tricks, gives Model S the lowest drag coefficient of any production vehicle on sale.

Only 15% of a BEV's life-cycle environmental harm comes from the battery. It's the operation, whether gasoline or electric, that makes up the majority of a vehicle's impact: http://pubs.acs.org/....1021/es903729a

Oh, and did I mention in Performance trim, it does 0-60 in 4.4 seconds?

woah i didnt know that thats amazing. though that does bring out some other good things about EV. they dont have to work as hard to pick up speed. no mechanical engine chugging to push the car. so the mechanical friction is reduced as well. making them very impressive when it comes to speed.

WOW, I have never read such a lopsided one way to make everyone think their way of life is positive write up.

You can look up the details yourself, but the largest Lithium mine in the world, now owned by the Chinease and yet destroying a way of life for hundred of years is in Chile. The lithium lays under one of the worlds largest sources of natural salt. To get the lithium out, they are destroying the salt plains and how the local tribes have made money selling what is considered to be one of the purest and best salts around.

I have to wave the flag on this report! 15% impact my ass, like anything in looking at works cited, while only looking at 5 of the 26 cited, it is very clear this is one persons interpretation of the data. The reports I looked at clearly state there is not enough data to really gauge the impact especially once the material is taken out of the ground, refined and then made into a battery as well as recovery, etc.

But clear we will have various different camps on which technology is the next logical step.

For me, CNG is the next logical step and as Ocnblue has pointed out, once battery technology gets to a point of having a normal car battery in size with a 300 mile range, then we can truly say electric is the way to go. Till then, it is a commuter car special only IMO.

ocnblu, on , said:

Well, I'm not sure I want a battery providing structural rigidity.

On a FWD vehicle, the motive mechanical parts are all up front. The fuel tank is under the back seat occupying negligible territory, and the exhaust system does not require a hump, the floor could be flat if the vehicle is engineered that way. I would prefer a RWD layout myself, with a floor hump and a differential under the back seat along with that gas tank.

Zero tailpipe emissions, perhaps, but I think automotive emissions standards are already pretty stringent, moreso than power plants.

What about the mining of materials used in battery manufacture, and all of the surrounding effort to extract and transport the raw material to the manufacturing plants (from finding minerals, to transporting workers, to earth moving machines, to ships, trains and trucks), and the disposal of all these batteries when they die?

Model S is RWD; the motor (AC induction, so no rare-earth materials) rests between the rear wheels. Very compact.

The 85-kWh battery on the top model is 4" thick, and it's a flat slab mounted as part of the floor, making the chassis very stiff. It also lowers the center of gravity to that of a Ford GT's (the chassis, incidentally, was done by the same person who engineered that supercar). The flat battery, along with other aero tricks, gives Model S the lowest drag coefficient of any production vehicle on sale.

Only 15% of a BEV's life-cycle environmental harm comes from the battery. It's the operation, whether gasoline or electric, that makes up the majority of a vehicle's impact: http://pubs.acs.org/....1021/es903729a

Oh, and did I mention in Performance trim, it does 0-60 in 4.4 seconds?

woah i didnt know that thats amazing. though that does bring out some other good things about EV. they dont have to work as hard to pick up speed. no mechanical engine chugging to push the car. so the mechanical friction is reduced as well. making them very impressive when it comes to speed.

WOW, I have never read such a lopsided one way to make everyone think their way of life is positive write up.

You can look up the details yourself, but the largest Lithium mine in the world, now owned by the Chinease and yet destroying a way of life for hundred of years is in Chile. The lithium lays under one of the worlds largest sources of natural salt. To get the lithium out, they are destroying the salt plains and how the local tribes have made money selling what is considered to be one of the purest and best salts around.

I have to wave the flag on this report! 15% impact my ass, like anything in looking at works cited, while only looking at 5 of the 26 cited, it is very clear this is one persons interpretation of the data. The reports I looked at clearly state there is not enough data to really gauge the impact especially once the material is taken out of the ground, refined and then made into a battery as well as recovery, etc.

But clear we will have various different camps on which technology is the next logical step.

For me, CNG is the next logical step and as Ocnblue has pointed out, once battery technology gets to a point of having a normal car battery in size with a 300 mile range, then we can truly say electric is the way to go. Till then, it is a commuter car special only IMO.

so you want an electric car that runs on the same size battery as a normal car? if i read this correctly you are out of your freakin mind. to ask for that as a must is stupid. the point of the large battery is to get the distance. a battery the size of a normal car battery no matter what you do would only get you a couple of miles. nothing on earth can change that. the distance is NOT A PROBLEM. a 300 mile range isnt unthinkable but what they need to focus on now is faster charging. (new breakthroughs have proven to give us a 15 minuet charge time. thats amazing compared to the hours it took before.) they also need to focus on more efficient ways of keeping the car charged longer. the regenerative breaks are a good step. just little things to get those extra few miles out. these are the things they should be working at not making a battery the size of a normal car battery. im not saying CNG is evil and we shouldn't look into it at all. but in my opinion the electric is a better option. again this is MY opinion. to simply write off the electric car is close minded. and lets face it even if the electric car met your outrageous requirements you people STILL wouldnt buy into it because "durrr its not furst and loud gotta have me that speed and gotta hear dem pipes roar"

It's a moot point arguing with some people...some people will never embrace new and different ideas let alone understand them. They fear change.

ocnblu, on , said:

Well, I'm not sure I want a battery providing structural rigidity.

On a FWD vehicle, the motive mechanical parts are all up front. The fuel tank is under the back seat occupying negligible territory, and the exhaust system does not require a hump, the floor could be flat if the vehicle is engineered that way. I would prefer a RWD layout myself, with a floor hump and a differential under the back seat along with that gas tank.

Zero tailpipe emissions, perhaps, but I think automotive emissions standards are already pretty stringent, moreso than power plants.

What about the mining of materials used in battery manufacture, and all of the surrounding effort to extract and transport the raw material to the manufacturing plants (from finding minerals, to transporting workers, to earth moving machines, to ships, trains and trucks), and the disposal of all these batteries when they die?

Model S is RWD; the motor (AC induction, so no rare-earth materials) rests between the rear wheels. Very compact.

The 85-kWh battery on the top model is 4" thick, and it's a flat slab mounted as part of the floor, making the chassis very stiff. It also lowers the center of gravity to that of a Ford GT's (the chassis, incidentally, was done by the same person who engineered that supercar). The flat battery, along with other aero tricks, gives Model S the lowest drag coefficient of any production vehicle on sale.

Only 15% of a BEV's life-cycle environmental harm comes from the battery. It's the operation, whether gasoline or electric, that makes up the majority of a vehicle's impact: http://pubs.acs.org/....1021/es903729a

Oh, and did I mention in Performance trim, it does 0-60 in 4.4 seconds?

woah i didnt know that thats amazing. though that does bring out some other good things about EV. they dont have to work as hard to pick up speed. no mechanical engine chugging to push the car. so the mechanical friction is reduced as well. making them very impressive when it comes to speed.

WOW, I have never read such a lopsided one way to make everyone think their way of life is positive write up.

You can look up the details yourself, but the largest Lithium mine in the world, now owned by the Chinease and yet destroying a way of life for hundred of years is in Chile. The lithium lays under one of the worlds largest sources of natural salt. To get the lithium out, they are destroying the salt plains and how the local tribes have made money selling what is considered to be one of the purest and best salts around.

I have to wave the flag on this report! 15% impact my ass, like anything in looking at works cited, while only looking at 5 of the 26 cited, it is very clear this is one persons interpretation of the data. The reports I looked at clearly state there is not enough data to really gauge the impact especially once the material is taken out of the ground, refined and then made into a battery as well as recovery, etc.

But clear we will have various different camps on which technology is the next logical step.

For me, CNG is the next logical step and as Ocnblue has pointed out, once battery technology gets to a point of having a normal car battery in size with a 300 mile range, then we can truly say electric is the way to go. Till then, it is a commuter car special only IMO.

so you want an electric car that runs on the same size battery as a normal car? if i read this correctly you are out of your freakin mind. to ask for that as a must is stupid. the point of the large battery is to get the distance. a battery the size of a normal car battery no matter what you do would only get you a couple of miles. nothing on earth can change that. the distance is NOT A PROBLEM. a 300 mile range isnt unthinkable but what they need to focus on now is faster charging. (new breakthroughs have proven to give us a 15 minuet charge time. thats amazing compared to the hours it took before.) they also need to focus on more efficient ways of keeping the car charged longer. the regenerative breaks are a good step. just little things to get those extra few miles out. these are the things they should be working at not making a battery the size of a normal car battery. im not saying CNG is evil and we shouldn't look into it at all. but in my opinion the electric is a better option. again this is MY opinion. to simply write off the electric car is close minded. and lets face it even if the electric car met your outrageous requirements you people STILL wouldnt buy into it because "durrr its not furst and loud gotta have me that speed and gotta hear dem pipes roar"

YOU ARE WAYYYYY TOO FUNNY!!!

I am anything but closed minded and as I have stated many times before, down the road electric will and should be the end result.

Yet TODAY, Electric DOES NOT WORK for long road trips, we have the 2nd largest Natural Gas fields in the world. This is a stepping stone to bigger and better things, as they figure out how to make batteries last longer and stay charged and get an instant charge just like Gas or Natural Gas can be, this would be one, I think the best way to get us off Arab Oil and onto American Created Jobs and eventually onto electric cars. Green alone shows that Natural Gas is better than a battery in the short term solution till electric comes of age.

I believe in looking at the long picture with the needed steps to get there -> OIL -> CNG -> Electric. We should also then convert our power plants over to Natural Gas also so they are cleaner.

Thanks for the laugh, I needed one after this monday work day.

It's a moot point arguing with some people...some people will never embrace new and different ideas let alone understand them. They fear change.

Hey Cubical, so are you saying I fear change or fullmoon or both? Change is good, just need realistic steps to get to the end result of a cleaner world.

again you say it does not work for long trips. but the distance is not a problem. 260 is a reasonable distance. some gas cars don't even get that. i know mine doesn't. but it has its issues. the big issue is quicker charging. again like i said before i don't think CNG is evil or anything but we need more then 1 option. CNG is not and should not be the only answer to a short term question. i think the electric cars are fine the workings of the cars are fine. its the charging that needs work. and you didnt really answer the question i asked you. are you seriously asking the electric cars to have a battery the size of a normal car battery? if so then that truly is close minded and silly. if not let me know i read wrong.

97 misses my point, not a surprise. NO, you did not read it correctly.

And fear is not a factor here. Never was. Electric vehicles have been tried off and on for a century and the result has been failure every time. What is there to be scared of? The scales haven't tipped in their favor just because it is 2012.

When auto executives around the world only begrudgingly spend money on electric vehicle development because they KNOW they will not sell, (they're doing it to be questionably fashionable after all with huge negative return on investment), are they all wrong?

i wasn't talking to you. i already said i was done with you. my question was directed at Dfelt. btw nice calling me immature while acting immature. now go away.

Pardon me? I was the one that made the comment about the battery in my Patriot, not dfelt. His son has a Patriot though. Keep your antagonists straight.

You chose your screen name. I was just using shorthand.

And I have news for you. I'm not going anywhere. I've been hanging around this joint for nearly a decade.

For me, CNG is the next logical step and as Ocnblue has pointed out, once battery technology gets to a point of having a normal car battery in size with a 300 mile range, then we can truly say electric is the way to go. Till then, it is a commuter car special only IMO.

yea.... shut up... this is the text in question.

Jeez, grade-schoolers.

jeez... morons

jeez... morons

Jeez, grade-schoolers.

Sounds Like a Double Jeez Please!

So yes as Ocnblu has stated my son has an awesome black Jeep Patriot that is in the shop after some moron side swiped it over the weekend in a parking lot and did not leave a note.

Yes this car is cool on this thread, but currently for the Rich only, not the rest of humanity. The Electric cars that the rest of humanity can afford are sadly stuck to 40-80 miles on a charge and long recharge times. Will the Telsa technology get licensed to other Auto makers so they can add it to their version of electric cars? No one knows.

In regards to CNG, I stand by my long range vision that Gas -> CNG -> Electric.

If we are to reduce our carbon footprint, then we need to take logical steps for the mass of humanity while the few spend on the R&D to get us to electric.

Cheers from Rainy Seattle, Another Liquid Sun Shine Day!!!