hyperv6

Until you have driven or been in the new model you will not know the truth of anything. Weight loss is a bigger move than performance and even if it were just 300 pound it would be noticeable. Second the packaging inside may prove to be more efficient than you think. Again just how many of these daily do you see with someone in the third row that is not a single kid with the front seats empty or open. From what has been reported the seats fold up better the change is nice nets little loss due to better use of the space left. Third it is expected a new RWD model will move into the slot this one had and you can have that extra empty seat to haul around that seldom get used. Forth they sold well but today the models that look more like a truck are starting to sell even better. This is still a make it look like a truck and it will sell better market. I think you really need to let GM finish their moves as I think you will find that they are vacating nothing once they are done. You only base your ideas on emotions of what you see and not the rest of the plan we most likely will see. I will see this one this weekend in person to really get a better feel for it. Based on already owning a Terrain I can say they will still sell the hell out of this even with the 4 as that is the most popular engine on the present Nox and Terrain. But if that engine is a problem they can still order the V6 like I did so where is the issue? I mean if you want to hate this one that is fine but I think in the end you claims and emotions will prove groundless once every thing is completed. You will find a market that will embrace this one as well or better than the last and you will find the slot it moved from filled with a new and more capable model in the near future. The fact is the shapeless mini van model did well but I think this one re sized and replaced in the original slot with a model that could take on a Grand Cherokee with the precious 9/8th passenger. will do better. Also with the Bronco coming the old Mini van model would be as dated as the Checker Cab. As for looks they are subjective. I think you will find the new model will sell just fine and be more than crazy profitable with the new Denali package added. Never underestimate GM and SUV/CUV models as they have almost always sold well less the extended version of the one you describe that was a desperate model done at a time they could not afford to do anything else. The smaller model sold just fine and made a lot of money. The real issue was the MPG that sucked. It is fine to hate if that is your choice but at least have a legitimate proven points before you try to use them. Let the public decide as they are the ones who pick winners and losers. Of later they have made GM winner with many things some people piss and moan about.

You don't suppose I could just figure out where I will run out and then just call Tesla to take me the rest of my trip there? Whats the range 200 miles and then 500 on the hook that is 700 miles in one day I could do that. LOL!

I am ok with no charging stations as I would not travel with a Tesla. Why? Because say I am going to leave for Charlotte NC I am not going to stop for over an hour to get a charge. Then I am not going to hunt down a charging station to plug my car into once I ma there and then stop for over an hour coming home. I can gas, piss and get a drink in 7 min and be on my way. When I travel I travel and spend my time at my destination not the path there. For me it would be life style changing and I am not willing to do that. Like one year we left the race at 2 AM in the Morning. It ran over due to weather. I decided just to drive home. So we hit the road and drove it home. Only one stop for gas and a piss and kept going. Same for Indy as it is 500 miles and I mean 500 miles from my drive to the speedway. We stop around Dayton and then we gas up before the race. We do not want or need to be searching and waiting for a charge some where if we are doing a race. These are 20-24 hour days and we go we see and we come home. That is if we do not take my buddies plane and then it is a 6 - 7 hour day.

The cars run at near 200 MPH with less HP due to the fact that the gearing is different, The engines are built different to run plates. The cars also can not use all the power they have to start with. Finally drag is also a big part. The power it takes to get to 100 MPH and then as you increase speed the number of HP it takes to climb multiply for every MPH you gain. It takes twice the power to get to 200 vs 100 and that extra to get to 250 can take up to 3 times the power. Drag multiplies force needed. I do not have the figures handy but it has been published to the exponent that it increases for every MPH. The truth is you can do 195 MPH on 450 HP easy with the way the cars are set up. Hell we did 150 MPH in a 65 GTO with just over 400 HP and the wrong gearing for it. Nascar sets the ratio to be used and it helps limit power. You may get up to 200 MPH faster but you will not go over it even with more power. Note too the drag on these cars are very low on these tracks too. Keep in mind too the track also limits speed as does the tire size too. Cases like Tim Richmond drove his 1987 Monte Carlos Stock car at the TRC track in Ohio. They taped up the hood gaps and head light buckets and got to 240 MPH. This is a That track is 7 miles a lap. This was a car shaped like a brick back then and it out ran Al Holberts 962 with the Le Mans tail. Nascar at Michigan with no plates are hitting 218 in the straights. Patty Moise ran 217 in a Buick Regal Bush car at Talladega in 1990 and power was lower back then. Rusty Wallace hit 216 MPH lap speeds in a heavier cup car with trap speeds at 228 MPH. He said the trap speeds could hit 235-240 with some tuning for the extra speed. The bottom line is these cars do not use all their power they contain so even restricted they can easily hit the 190's. While the technology is not sexy turbo charged 16 cylinder quad turbocharged it is still very advanced to meet the rules they run under. The work that goes into the heads alone is amazing as thousands of hours and untold dollars are poured into them and the intakes to gain power taken away from the restrictor plates. If you have not ever seen a plate it is amazing what power they do make with such small holes. Making the cars fast is a challenge but keeping them on the ground is tougher. Once they get to 200 they are so easy to get in the air and into the stands. These are not like many cars with tons of down force and it is up to the driver to get the most out of the grip as possible. Cars like Indy and even Donahue's 917 were restricted by drag and down force. AJ Foyt Aerotech car was a good example of lower drag and an Indy car as it could hit 267 with only 2.0 liters. Under the body was nothing but a March Indy car.

Good points. I have heard ramblings of a Canyon/Color based SUV on the way.. and why not?? Its another no brainer considering GM can't possibly justify having a platform that good.. all by itself selling only two truck names. You would do the GMC just for the Denali profits alone.

Well this would be more impressive if the car with out the strut would do more than slight damage to 2 of the balls. This reminds me of the Ford Truck commercial that show the twin I beam suspensions breaking light bulbs but the cab not breaking any from around 1970. Such a big deal for something most other trucks would also do.

Well until you can change a battery in 11 seconds it will be out of most racing series that do pit stops. The key will be to have a battery that will last a race and only pit for tires. Motor cooling will be an issue too. They will really have to focus on this as these motors will under a load and heat up fast same for batteries in a long term use. Anyone who has raced RC cars can tell you about the hear. We even had a boat catch fire once because it over heated racing.

Well here is a focus on the Camaro styling and it is not my opinion but GM's researched opinion on styling. http://gmauthority.com/blog/2016/02/explained-why-the-chevrolet-camaro-has-such-poor-visibility/#comment-677167 The coolness factor in some cars just over reaches the side effects. Nothing wrong with hating the bunker look but when it sells more cars in the segment others see it different.

It comes down to this. Coupes are hard sells. 4 door coupes are a niche but do better due tot he rear doors. Normal 4 door sedans are doing better because there are no limitations and most customers are ok with average styling. In the end SUV/CUV are the main product or soon to become the norm for the mainstream product. It is what it is. The coupe like styled sedans do well in limited number of models and normally are offered along with a CUV and normal sedan like at VW. It is a add on sale and makes money. sell it at a higher price you make money more easily at lower volumes and can better make a business case. The VW CC has done well and the other VW sedans take up those who what more head room. This is how I see it and I am not going to argue it. If you agree fine if not so be it. Also one other trick used by auto makers is to raise the side of the car higher and lower the window opening area. The Camaro has good head room but the screwed down look. Yes it feels like a bunker that some hate but most have no issue with it. Also it helps make side crash numbers better.

My point is head room can be worked around. It would be the fuel tank more than the drive shaft as you can use a two piece drive shaft as most cars use now to lower the shaft. Head room is going to be compromised but that is one thing most people can live with but climbing into a back seat over the driver seat with a door the size of the side of the car. Styling often will compromise ergonomics but only some are more important than others to customers. The lower roof and compromised head room has proven to be one that is not as important. Lets face it if this car is expected to sell 75K units it will do fine. If it were to take on the Camry at 350K units then it would suffer. Higher prices and lower volume can help this but it still has to better than what coupe sales have shown. Also if head room is important GM still offers the Impala and the CTS or ATS with higher roofs.

Well the market is sedan driven for the most part as only a couple coupes hold much volume today like the Camaro and Mustang. The coupe 4 door styling has proven popular as people if given a choice will always love the coupe styling but most will take the 4 doors to live with. I wish it were different but that is the reality of today's market. To get a business case passed Buick stands the best chance with a Avista styled sedan. Head room can be adapted with lowering the rear seat. Leg room will be fine and no climbing into the back seat issue. They would have a difficult time making a business case for this just due to the last CTS coupe. It was cool and dramatic but sales were tepid at best. Lets face it most sedans can give a little in Ergo for styling but at the end of the day they still need to deliver utility. Today's market has changed and most people while they want a good looking car will take utility. How else did Chrysler sell so many crappy mini vans? Real world consumers buy the most cars and they see them as an Appliance. You can give them some styling but they will limit you. The Benz and VW CC have proven there is a market for this. Buick could do the same easily. Also factor in there is no Chevy Alpha sedan. At this price point a cool looking Buick sedan could fill in just fine. Some of this also will be based on timing for Cadillac to also take the ATS and CTS to the AT4-AT5 where they want them. The cars we have today are not the Johann cars and that is what is needed before we get a Buick. Start on the Buick now and it would be ready just after the Cadillac revamp.

Most races are four hours with no delays. You also don't factor in these little things called "cautions". Also, only a couple of races a year are 300 miles. The rest are 400-500 (and don't forget the 600 miles Coca Cola 600 race in Charlotte, NC). You are wrong and clearly have never even watched these races. The Veyron also weighs way more than your average stock car so you just go ahead and get a lesson in physics there (the Veyron weighs 700 lbs MORE than any NASCAR stock car). Besides, that MPC wasn't that close in an obviously "staged for TV" race. What I love is how some like to talk smack about stock car racing saying "it's the easiest style racing out there". Well, if it's so easy, how come outside racers (F1, Indycar, etc) have never succeeded in NASCAR (for the most part anyway)? Sunday's Dayonta 500 was 3 hours and 17 minutes. A Veyron also has 1200 hp vs about 450 hp for a stock car with the restricter plate, the 700 or 900 lb weight difference would be easily overcome. . I think the top speed Sunday was 201 mph, a Veyron would crush those cars on the straights, the question is what speed the Veyron would hold in corners. A Veyron also has a larger fuel tank but 8 or 9 gallons. As far as other racers being successful, I think most drivers are conditioned and geared to one style racing. I don't see Earnhart Jr or Kyle Busch winning any F1 championships either. Race car drivers rarely cross over and there is no way that Richard Petty or Dale Earnhart Sr (for as good as they were) are better drivers than Ayerton Senna or Michael Schumacher. Like the old saying goes you are only as smart as where you come form. The truth is most drivers today have to pick and choose where they go as it is difficult to find sponsorship to take you in more than one series. Also it is difficult to run more than one. In the old days many drivers crossed over and were sucessful in all mediums of motorsports. Parnelli Jones won on dirt Open wheel indy and stock car. Foyt won on dirt, open wheel, Stock cars, endurance and I bet he would even win in a bulldozer race if they had them. Mario. Hell he started out on Pennsylvania dirt and won. Went to Open wheel and won, endurance and won, stock cars and won and even some series called F1 and won. Dan Gurney started out on dirt in for speed trials and then went road racing and then went to Indy, Can Am, Trans Am and even NASCAR and won in all. All the Unsers started on dirt and won in nearly anything in America. Fangio he even started out on what? Dirt in South America. The fact is most of the best drivers ever started on dirt. Today even Gordon, Johnson Stewart, Harvic and almost half the NASCAR Field started on dirt. Earnhardt while he stayed in one series of his own choice even ran the Pratt and Miller Corvette a 2 weeks before he died. He had tested the car and loved it. He had won on road tracks and was planning to retire at the end of 2001 to drive for Pratt and Miller. He wanted to win the 24 Hours of Le mans and may have done it with the P&M team. Hell he qualified on the pole and almost won the race at the Glen with a broken Sternum. Prost has not proven himself out side F1 much and he won only when he was in a good car. Senna on the other hand I believe was one of the greatest as he even did well in some of the bad cars and his car control was the best since Gilles Villinueve. He was truly gifted and could have won in anything he attempted. Not many F1 drivers could say that. We have seen several F1 drivers come to NASCAR and fail, Indy come and fail and most other drivers who had driven nothing but down force cars fail as they have little car control. Even the great F1 driver Jimmy Clark and only moderate sucess in a stock car and he came even from a no down force era. He could only qualify 25th and even said he was struggling and it would be much more difficult to adapt to than Indy. To his credit he wanted to come back and try to learn the series but was killed before he could Rindt was there too but faired much worse. But racing is much like life. You can take a country boy to the big city and make him a fool but you also can take a city man and take him to the country and make as great of fool of him. Some people adapt and some don't those with dirt back grounds tend to adapt best to any kind of racing be it sprints or rally drivers. There are always an acceptation like Senna but they are rare. One underrated driver I feel is John Andretti. He has driven Indy and won, NHRA Top Fuel and won, Sprints and Won, NASCAR and won IMSA and won. He mostly has been on secondary teams and won with these teams. Even Kurt Bush dropped into Indy driving a Indy car for the first time and finish in the top ten if I recall. As for F1 today it is all about the cars and strategy. Most drivers today only have to be in good condition to handle the G forces and bring enough money to get put on the team. There are many drivers that could easily drive F1 but they just don't have the money sponsor with them. It is a shame as only half the drivers there really should be in the series as better drivers labor in lesser series.

I would rather see them offer this regionally as a driving class for owners who have purchased said vehicles. Have instructors and let them test just what the cars could do. A silly placard and a photo in victory lane is ok but hell if I would go all the way to Florida for that. Get Ron Fellows at the Corvette track at Bowling Green and have him take you on a ride around and then you with instructors learn to take laps. Add a little to the cost and offer a special personalized crash helmet. to the deal or even a harness deal. Racing is down due to the economy and other issues as ratings are down on TV and sponsored have gone elsewhere. I think even if the economy was better all racing would still be struggling. I work in the racing industry and we have seen this one coming and to be honest few have any real answers. Cost are high in racing, viewership are down. Many of the big name racers are retired now. To be honest it was over marketed too. A lot of people got sick of it. As for NASCAR it has been on a decline since Earnhardt's death. They have tried to MFG a championship race but it has turned off many long time fans like myself to where we just don't tune in anymore. Like last year Bush was out half the season but wins a championship???? I am sorry that is BS. The best racing in NASCAR are the trucks as they can pass and beat on each other like the old days. Drag Racing is in real trouble as they are losing teams to lack of sponsors and such high cost along with the messed up TV hours. Mix in a weak economy we still have and it just adds to the grief. As for young people most do not care and I don't see it changing much. Many of our customers are getting older and older. The young have little interest and also can not afford to play with cars these days. Nothing is cheap anymore as even an old rusted out Malibu can set you back $8K and where can many of them get a job as since they raised the min wage the jobs have been cut back. Even Gas stations anymore do not hire kids as they have to be able to sell beer and do not pump gas anymore. I grew up at the race track but today so many tracks are closed and even local racing is so expensive. Now with the EPA pulling crap with the laws that were written with road cars in mind pushing to ban modifications to off road race cars that is some dangerous ground.

Most races are four hours with no delays. You also don't factor in these little things called "cautions". Also, only a couple of races a year are 300 miles. The rest are 400-500 (and don't forget the 600 miles Coca Cola 600 race in Charlotte, NC). You are wrong and clearly have never even watched these races. The Veyron also weighs way more than your average stock car so you just go ahead and get a lesson in physics there (the Veyron weighs 700 lbs MORE than any NASCAR stock car). Besides, that MPC wasn't that close in an obviously "staged for TV" race. What I love is how some like to talk smack about stock car racing saying "it's the easiest style racing out there". Well, if it's so easy, how come outside racers (F1, Indycar, etc) have never succeeded in NASCAR (for the most part anyway)? Ask Matt Kennseth how easy it is to win a NASCAR race today. There were more passes on the last lap than F1 all weekend. What many miss is F1 is all about technology and strategy not the race where NASCAR is all about the driver and the race itself. Both are great series but they both have different agendas. Like soccer and NFL both have players and balls but they both are much different in how they use it to entertain. That is what most people forget Racing anymore is entertainment like any other sport.

Here is some things to consider. The 2017 Acadia has lost 700 pounds compared to its predecessor thanks to high-strength steels allowing redesigned parts, and the fact that it overall, the vehicle is actually smaller. Length is reduced by 7.2 inches on a wheelbase diminished by 6.4 inches, it is 3.5 inches narrower and sits 3.9 inches lower. The 2016 Acadia was 4,656 pounds, the 2017 is 3,956 pounds. GMC says it will still swallow people, Not Eight but still seven-passengers. While you lose one person, you gain convenience with a split-folding second row featuring tilt-and-slide for both sections. The third-row seats fold flat into the cargo floor, and if the second row is folded as well, cargo capacity improves over the 2016 Acadia, 79 cubic feet compared to 70 cu-ft. So basically they repackaged the vehicle to where you lost one person but you gain more cargo room. What do most people do the most haul 8 people or cargo? Like my Terrain has a lot of wasted space that does little. The sliding rear seat is neat but in truth once you set it you never move it forward or back and even all the way forward you are never crowded. I would trade it for better cargo use in the back and a fold flat seat. Then as for badge engineering it is not being done here. This is the same platform as the XT5 and they are worlds different. http://gmauthority.com/blog/2016/02/comparing-the-exterior-proportions-of-the-2017-cadillac-xt5-to-the-2017-gmc-acadia-dimensional-brief/ The C1XX is very flexible and will do a lot and even more than we have seen so far. Also we will see a Bronco competitor as GM knows it is coming. It should slot right in over this and just under the Yukon. Do before some of us get into a panic attack lets consider the reality here. To be honest this one may just sell better because it looks like a real truck and not an over sized minivan. While not hideous it was never the most stylish machine on the road. practical but not a real truck like vehicle like is so popular today. Today it is more important to make it look like a truck than anything else in many cases. Just look at Fords Explorer and how well it is moving. It is not a truck but a Uni-body FWD based vehicle but that is what people like.

Not the same thing. The GM deal in the 80's was a knee jerk reaction to a fuel crises issue that never happened. On top of that the cars they came up with were strictly all badge engineered to the point of being a joke. The fact was all their cars looked the same and really were poorly built. Two issue today that is not in play. Factor in the changes are not done yet and we still have more models to come before we panic too much. It is what you don't know that rationalizes the changes that are made today. The fact is everyone is going to have to down size. A smaller RWD SUV will be needed at a Yukon will not be able to do it all anymore. Ford will have a new Bronco that will be slotted over the Explorer that is now competing with the Acadia. To be honest with the number of people defecting from the large SUV models to the smaller CUV models just on price alone may make this a good move. People are just tapped out and are now wanting to give up the SUV but they are unable to shell out the $55K-$65K it takes anymore. The cost of living is rising faster than wages and it is not going to change soon and if some people running win the oval office it will only get worse but that is a whole other argument.

The Yukon starts $17,000 more than the Acadia and with the 2k price drop it will be 19k difference. That's pretty significant to most people, probably all buying the Acadia. So while it is only a step away it is an un-affordable jump for most. So size per dollar is why people are upset about it. Personally, I like it because I like the Edge and Grand Cherokee size vehicles. Larger, 2 row SUVs. Note another model can fill that price gap very easily with RWD/AWD! This is why we should not panic and slashing our wrist and gnashing of teeth in fear of dooms day like some project. And yes it will have a third row.

Note even an issue here as the CUV class is not the same thing as what happened in the 80's. Also the new regulations will drive all MFG to down size at some point. I think what is missed here is that there will be a larger model between this one and the Yukon that is coming to fill the gap based on the Canyon. As for size that matters little as it is all about packaging and useful space. GM has had an issue with that like in my Terrain where it has lots of wasted space but being built on an old platform I understand why. Today they have new models that may be smaller in foot print but much larger in usable room. As for the third row I am sure there are some that need it but for the most look around and generally I see them empty or with a kid that just wanted more space between the parents leaving the second row empty. I know in our case as with most others the space would get used only a few times over the life of the vehicle in the family. The increased sales of smaller SUV and CUV models are not flukes as this is where people want to be. They want cheaper to buy and operate as well as easier to drive but retain most of the utility. They will do fine here and just keep in mind we have yet to know or see all their moves. GM is far from done with the SUV market moves.

First off cars are built to many series so it is hard to pit one car vs another. Second some cars take a lot more skill as some series are centered on the driver and not so much the car. For example an F1 car is more about the car than the driver skills. F1 is not like it was when Gilles Villenuve drove in the rain with his front wing off to finish a race in Canada. That was one great driving exhibition. Today a computer dies and the F1 car is undrievable. Today there are still some series that are really driver focused and these series are where the cars have less down force and generally smaller tires. These drivers can go and usually drive anything but the ones that have high down force generally fail at other modes of racing. NASCAR stock cars are not just out there driving around in circles just riding. They are normally if competititve on the edge at all tims sliding and on the edge of control. Think of it as driving on ice at 197 MPH with the air from other cars just inches away pushing you around. These cars are built of steel Carbon Fiber and some very advanced technologies. They use Fuel Injection and are some of the most powerful and durable engines in the world. Just look at Martinsvile Each lap is like a drag race to each corner. They can rev up to 9500 RPM a thousand times a race and never break a single part while pushing 800-900 HP. I have been lucky to drive a Late model stock car as well as drive road courses, auto cross and even Drag Raced. The stock car is no less easier or simpler to drive. Knowing first hand it is not just riding around in circles. I love road racing. It is a blast and the skill level is about the same as circle track. Autocross is also a blast and the most affordable racing one can do. I highly recommend giving it a go. Drag Racing is fun but The racing is so short and the wait between rounds can be boring. It is like golf ok to do but not as much fun to watch. I helped on a Sprint Car team a while back and that is just amazing. When they has really no limits these cars were very high tech in weight loss. The materials used were much like a F16. The power to weight was staggering. Then put them on a slick dirt track with 700-800 HP with little weight and 24 cars that is one amazing sight. Then they can flip and go bolt on a new suspension and wings and go right back out and qualify for the main race. That takes some skills and balls. Same with Rally. These guys hold a big pair to do what they do. The Group B cars have never been matched but today rally drivers are some of the most skilled. To make a statement about a Veyron is just a good example you really need to do some home work. You put a Veyron on the track at Daytona with cars prepped for the race and you will be lucky to come back with a steering wheel. I remember Jay Leno at Talladega in a Carrera GT after he came off 4 and spun all the way down the front stretch. It appears the car did not like going that fast there. Just look a the Ford GT at Daytona. While it was a race prepped model and not a street car it was fast but so much of the car broke. Technology also extends to durability over time, distance and speed. Something to remember.

The fact is no racing is easy or cheap anymore. Technology has often like F1 made a driver an operator. Even NASCAR cut the down force to make it to where the drivers have to drive again. But none of them are easy and non of the are archaic. Today to build a competitive NASCAR Stock Car they are often using many of the same things INDY, and Prototype racing uses. Nor are they easier to drive as too often we have seen indy car drivers come over and fail while Nascar drivers go to indy and drive a good rave. That is the one thing with NASCAR is car control is still a greater factor in the drivers hands. Hell my son drives Soap Box Derby and it is no longer cheap and easy. I have a car out there now that has over a grand in it not counting all the tools I have. Heck our scales just to balance the car out cost $800. That is just to get the cross bind out. We lost the biggest race of the year two years ago that consisted of two runs by .003 of a second to the eventual winner and we ended up in third. Part of it is his driving as you have to make sure to hold it straight as that is not as easy as you think and you have to have the correct set up of weight balance and alignment. Bumps wind and other factors really put it into the drivers hands. Also the steering is very fast do just a light tough can send you off line and out of the race in the first few feet of 1,000 feet. We have had to apply the principals of physics here as moving weight from nose to tail is different in each car and the shape of each hill can change that balance. You have to test it and just see what works with you car as they are all a little different. As for drivers the most skilled anymore are rally and sprint car drivers. these guys have to have total car control. I have been to every kind of racing and to see 4-5 sprint cars come off a corner sideways with in inches with the front wheels off the ground sideways at over 100 MPH is a real sight to see. This is why someone like Tony Stewart can get out of an indy car go to NASCAR and be competitive and then get into a Mclaren F1 car and match times with Lewis Hamilton while Lewis struggled to come close to Tony's time in a stock car. None of the racing is easy or cheap anymore due to technology. But the ones thst put the car control in the racers hands ten to be the most satisfying. Just look at Ford and how they tossed a ton of money and tech at the 24 hours of Daytona and how their cars struggled. It is proof none of it is easy and has to be earned. It is not unlike the EV cars to get back on topic. In their case making a larger expensive car was not hard to do. The real trick was to take the shot and prove that someone would buy them when few thought they would. Tesla really did not break much new ground as they did nothing but add the expensive parts to a larger car and proved people would buy it. the real struggle will be to make a car cheaper and still do the same things at the price of a compact car. Also one that would satisfy the demands of more average people. That is where it is difficult. To their credit Tesla has extended the conversation but until some one can build yearly 100,000 units or more of a car costing in the $30K range and increase sales each year there will be more work to do. Like racing even NASCAR it is not easy nor is it cheap or something that just anyone can do at least at a real profit. Yet. Like the old racing adage here. If you want to make $10 Million with electric cars you need to spend $100 Million to do it. That is the challange and it will change with advancements now that they are happening.

It is a long story. Drew you are smarter than that comment and I know it.

Let's see a NASCAR do 500 miles without stopping for a refuel. An electric race car could be made to beat a NASCAR if they had a battery pack swap feature. It can be easily done if they wanted. NASCAR as it is now cut the fuel cells size down to make sure they have to stop more often. They also regulate that the tires need to go so many miles. Goodyear could make a race tire for Daytona that would last 500 miles with no issue. It is has already happened that they have had teams go the entire race with no left changed or only one change just to make sure the tires are fresh. Pit stops were made a part of the competition and to mix up the field so they are regulated to happen when they do. Now lets see someone change 4 tires and a battery in 12 seconds. They do have that new formula electric open wheel series but they change the cars at half way not the battery. Each team has to enter two cars to finish the race with one driver. If they were to race for miles they would use larger tanks and lean out the engines more. It is all in how you tune and what you are racing for. As of now they go as fast as they can and make the stops. target it for no stops or one stop they could do it too. Goals and rules make it what it is. True but at the same time at ~5mpg they would need a 100 gallon tank and that's not realistic. They're 22 gallon tanks. I remember a few years ago they experimented with 12 gallon tanks to break up the field a lot more often in hopes o avoiding "the big one". I don't think it worked and they went back to the 22 gallon tank. They've had races in the Sprint Cup that a team has gone an entire race without changing their lefts??? How long ago was that? Have you ever watched the Formula E races? Pretty neat stuff going on. Completely different racing but entertaining nonetheless. What you are missing is that NASCAR is constructed with rules to make them what they are and do what they do. the Carbs they ran at a track like Daytona were very small CFM and the restrictor plates even smaller. If Nascar wanted to go for MPG they would change the fuel settings on the new FI and tune the engines to still make good power with less fuel. Their intent is to use gas not save it. If they mandated the other 500 miles is very easy to do and they still would be going pretty fast. As for tires they are formulated for each track to last about the length of a full load of fuel. Goodyear works hard to hit these numbers and most the time they hit it. Once in a while they miss it. In recent years here Goodyear goes conservative on compounds they may change lefts only once and even then they are far from worn out. Last nigh they ran 150 miles and most teams did not change a single tire and those that did really did not hold much advantage. If NASCAR said Ok at the July race we want a tire to last all 500 miles Goodyear would have one there. Even some Indy 500 races have gone in the past with no change on the left front at times. The rules regulate fuel usage and tire wear not the technology. Hell just look at a new Corvette and the kind of miles it could get going around Daytona with Z06 power and technology. A little larger cell and with a little leaned out tuning for running at a specific RPM it may do the 500 miles with no issue. But the rules will not let that happen unless they say to do it. I have seen the Formula E and it is interesting. Different but interesting. Rules in most racing shape the ability of the car. Take todays technology and you could just about do anything you like anymore if you set the rules to use it. The only things that can not be overcome are the rules of Physics. This is why FWD cars are still not seen much in racing accept in their own classes or series. Traction is just tough to come buy in a performance application with weight transfer and side loads. Asking front tires to turn, stop and go with unfavorable load transfers make it even harder to put it down to the track. What I'm missing? I'm not missing anything.. I understand the sport completely. The intent is to find the best combination to win the race be it fuel savings or power. The intent is not "to use gas and not save it". If you think that is the case then you have not been following the sport very closely as most every race comes down to fuel mileage one way or another. Yes, each tire is different for each track. I wouldn't necessarily say that they are designed to last one fuel run based on watching the races. Close, absolutely. But some tracks are waaaay worse on tires than others. Tracks such as Darlington, eats tires up and lap times will slip 3-4 seconds A LAP after only 15 or so laps on a set. Then there is Daytona were the fall off isn't drastic at all. What race was it that somebody/anybody did not change the left sides(NASCAR and Indy500)? lol.. no $h! a factory car could do 500 miles on a race track. A Z06 wouldn't win or even be on the same lap as a Sprint Cup car though. Just because it's got the power doesn't mean anything. It can't even do 200mph in a straight line let alone around a track. Also, you think a Z06 going full tilt will get any better than 5mpg? At 18.5 gallons of fuel on board a Z06 It'll be stopping more than a Sprint Cup car while running slower laps. My car can do 500 miles with only one fill up and NO stop for tires, does that mean it can race in the Daytona 500? I'm not sure what you're getting at with that statement about the Z06. I thought the initial point of somebody saying Daytona 500 was a slap in the mileage/fill up department. What is getting missed is that the rules and specifications of most racing is to the benefit of entertainment. The fact is most racing is done with rules to level the playing field to keep things close and to add elements to make it attractive to MFG's and fans alike. The only one that is all out bring all the tech you can is F1 and the cost there are off the charts the passing there is limited and even they are now adding rules to help control cost. Drag racing just measures accelerations and and timing. It is a basic form of racing that test the drivers coordination and the just how much power you can get to the ground. It is cheap for the grass roots and you can run just about what ever as they class cars based on speed so there is something for anyone. As for the Tesla any electric motor is just instant torque. I had a guy at work who added a larger batter and opened up the circuit more for his kids Bigfoot power wheels. He had to add wheelie bars to it as it would flip over. He did it for the kiddies race at the track. With tat being said I am sure someone at some point will take a Volt or Bolt and play around with it so it puts out more power and make it much faster. I highly anticipate a performance industry for the EV vehicles at some point when they are more common and not mostly owned by people of green energy. I guess the point is that what the Tesla is doing is not really all that special for an EV car with enough power and battery to do it. Most of the EV cars are so small and they are all tuned for range with less battery. When the Porsche sedan arrives I am sure it will beat the Tesla and the Cadillac version at some point will match or beat it too. There is no real trick technology here. It is cool but with the nature of EV motors it should be expected. The thing is with this use of power the time you have and range is shortened much. I have seen test with Tesla cars where when driven hard the range is cut very short from normal driving. Like a Corvette the harder it is driven the more fuel it will use. The one thing with electric motors is that they do hit the max torque fast but once they hit it that is all they give and often the ICE will continue to build. That is why the Z06 often catches the Tesla at the end of the track. There is no right or wrong just different ways.

Nonsense...500 miles at Daytona are custom built race cars. These are stock street cars. Oh my God you are turning into one of those Musk Zealots. LOL! They do race GT cars that are nearly stock there at the 24 hours. The fact is EV are making progress and do some things very well but they still have other things they need to work on and it will take time and more investment. Just the way it is. I would not say good bye to ICE yet and I would not dismiss EV all together. This is going to be a market of many options so enjoy them all. It is sad in the single seat racers they have to change cars half way to run a full race. When they get to the point they can run a full race with one car then we will call that progress. I just loved how that one magazine took a Model T and a Tesla and the T just about beat the Tesla to NYC even on back roads. That is a sign of more work to do. I have nothing against EV cars aspect for some of the wack jobs that like to declare them perfect. That discredits them and hurts the EV movement more than helps. That is like me claiming my Fiero is as good as a Ferrari. The truth is it is best to be honest and not try to make things into what they are not at least to this point. I see your point on this...but in reality....its not as different as anti-EV or anti-Musk zealots claiming that EVs are worthless. THAT also does not help... Its just blurry images and static noise for both sides of the fence. With that being said...because that is not what I wanted to talk about... I slept on the next thing you said...I let it sit and ferment in my brain and Ive come to an intelligent rebuttal. When I first read this part: it did not sit well with me...I did not know why at the time I read it... (The "more work to do" part I agreed with 100%) But by pondering at that thought for a awhile, I now know why I dont like that contest. The Ford Model T. It put America on wheels. Not because of mass production, this discussion does not revolve around that. The Model T put America on wheels on how it was engineered to move the people around this vast continent. Back then, America...and Canada, was not paved....and the Model T actually was engineered to go where no other car...or horse...COULD go. This video might help for what it is Im talking about. Also...the Model T...is a very versatile vehicle... The Tesla Model S...is not a pioneer of any sorts as to lead anybody on any expedition successfully to tackle the unknown world and to lead an entire nation into an economical super power. Its a little disingenuous to put those two together. The Tesla Model S is just an engineering exercise that pushes electric vehicles further...and like you said, a lot of work still needs to be done. The Ford Model T...was just PERFECT right out of the box for that time. It was the PERFECT PACKAGE for America's needs for that time. It was the PERFECT SOLUTION for America's needs for that time. It was simple. Other than the way the driving part of it was concerned. Hence its 20 year production run and its success WORLD WIDE almost IMMEDIATELY. Also...another little tid bit that Im not satisfied with... The Model T had excellent gas mileage. Put that aside though. There were no gas stations at every nook and cranny in America...just like there is no electric charge stations for the Model S...so...I havent read about how the Ford Model T was gassing up and how the Tesla was charging up...but for it to be fair, the Ford Model T should have been dummied down to 1920 levels of gas stations, not 2016 levels, so if the Model T ended not having gasoline in its tank and its in the middle of nowhere, at least let the Model T driver experience the real world of 1920s range anxiety like how the Tesla Model S driver faced...and then the Model T driver would have to calculate where the other gas station would be to make his next stop...maybe even drive a tad slower to conserve gasoline...or whatever... And one last thing... I view the Model S...especially how people drive it on the drag strip...once with a Hellcat and this time around...a Model S versus a Model X... I view the Model S as Bonneville racers... Rather than a Model T...why? Because Mercedes' first car, Oldsmobile's first car, the Model T...the horseless carriage...had already put the world on wheels eliminating the horse, the Bonneville Salt flat racers and the first hot rods, just perfected the horseless carriage to go faster... And maybe THAT is what the problem is with the Tesla Model S amongst some anti-EV people...is because they dont view the Model S as a trailblazer like the Ford Model T was or the Volkswagen Beetle, or the Renault 2CV. Well I normally have you blocked as it saves me time on wasted reading but I will answer this a bit because I did not want to waste anymore time reading this. First of there are over the top people on both sides and they do more damage than good. Most people are realistic and understand there is work to be done and it will get there but Musk is not curing cancer here either. While I am not a Musk fan I am not totally Anti EV. I would like to see them all progress and become a viable option. As for the hype of Tesla Sorry they all they did was prove an expensive EV luxury car had a small segment. when few companies believed it. Now that it is proven the others will harvest this market and may squeeze Musk out in the end. It takes deeper pockets than what he has to make cars today with the big boys. As for the model T story you were way over thinking this. Read the story and learn. It is just to show a car nearly 100 years old could cover the similar long distance in about the same time as the Tesla. Both cars were out of their element of just beating around town cars. All it proves is an interesting read and that the Tesla and EV still have work to be done yet to become a car that does not have to change your life style to live with in all applications. While most cars today are like a Swiss Army knife where they can do many jobs well some like the Tesla do some selected ones well. To improve technology will have to advance a little more. Is the glass half full or half empty? It is a matter of how you look at it. If I don't answer it may be because I am not bored. The whole EV segment is a slow growth segment that will continue to grow and improve. It may be years before it gets to where it needs to be or it could be in a couple years depending on how technology advances. You can not rush this as it will happen when it happens. The reason we made no progress in the past is because there were no products. Today GM, Tesla and others have products that proves the Chicken came before the spending egg arrived. Now that there is product MFG will invest. This is why GM and others are not worried about profits now as they will come in time. It is just part of investment. On the other hand Tesla needs profits soon or they will have issues. They have no other product to fall back on to provide income. Their clock is ticking. http://www.caranddriver.com/features/2013-tesla-model-s-vs-1915-ford-model-t-race-of-the-centuries-feature

Let's see a NASCAR do 500 miles without stopping for a refuel. An electric race car could be made to beat a NASCAR if they had a battery pack swap feature. It can be easily done if they wanted. NASCAR as it is now cut the fuel cells size down to make sure they have to stop more often. They also regulate that the tires need to go so many miles. Goodyear could make a race tire for Daytona that would last 500 miles with no issue. It is has already happened that they have had teams go the entire race with no left changed or only one change just to make sure the tires are fresh. Pit stops were made a part of the competition and to mix up the field so they are regulated to happen when they do. Now lets see someone change 4 tires and a battery in 12 seconds. They do have that new formula electric open wheel series but they change the cars at half way not the battery. Each team has to enter two cars to finish the race with one driver. If they were to race for miles they would use larger tanks and lean out the engines more. It is all in how you tune and what you are racing for. As of now they go as fast as they can and make the stops. target it for no stops or one stop they could do it too. Goals and rules make it what it is. True but at the same time at ~5mpg they would need a 100 gallon tank and that's not realistic. They're 22 gallon tanks. I remember a few years ago they experimented with 12 gallon tanks to break up the field a lot more often in hopes o avoiding "the big one". I don't think it worked and they went back to the 22 gallon tank. They've had races in the Sprint Cup that a team has gone an entire race without changing their lefts??? How long ago was that? Have you ever watched the Formula E races? Pretty neat stuff going on. Completely different racing but entertaining nonetheless. What you are missing is that NASCAR is constructed with rules to make them what they are and do what they do. the Carbs they ran at a track like Daytona were very small CFM and the restrictor plates even smaller. If Nascar wanted to go for MPG they would change the fuel settings on the new FI and tune the engines to still make good power with less fuel. Their intent is to use gas not save it. If they mandated the other 500 miles is very easy to do and they still would be going pretty fast. As for tires they are formulated for each track to last about the length of a full load of fuel. Goodyear works hard to hit these numbers and most the time they hit it. Once in a while they miss it. In recent years here Goodyear goes conservative on compounds they may change lefts only once and even then they are far from worn out. Last nigh they ran 150 miles and most teams did not change a single tire and those that did really did not hold much advantage. If NASCAR said Ok at the July race we want a tire to last all 500 miles Goodyear would have one there. Even some Indy 500 races have gone in the past with no change on the left front at times. The rules regulate fuel usage and tire wear not the technology. Hell just look at a new Corvette and the kind of miles it could get going around Daytona with Z06 power and technology. A little larger cell and with a little leaned out tuning for running at a specific RPM it may do the 500 miles with no issue. But the rules will not let that happen unless they say to do it. I have seen the Formula E and it is interesting. Different but interesting. Rules in most racing shape the ability of the car. Take todays technology and you could just about do anything you like anymore if you set the rules to use it. The only things that can not be overcome are the rules of Physics. This is why FWD cars are still not seen much in racing accept in their own classes or series. Traction is just tough to come buy in a performance application with weight transfer and side loads. Asking front tires to turn, stop and go with unfavorable load transfers make it even harder to put it down to the track.

Let's see a NASCAR do 500 miles without stopping for a refuel. An electric race car could be made to beat a NASCAR if they had a battery pack swap feature. It can be easily done if they wanted. NASCAR as it is now cut the fuel cells size down to make sure they have to stop more often. They also regulate that the tires need to go so many miles. Goodyear could make a race tire for Daytona that would last 500 miles with no issue. It is has already happened that they have had teams go the entire race with no left changed or only one change just to make sure the tires are fresh. Pit stops were made a part of the competition and to mix up the field so they are regulated to happen when they do. Now lets see someone change 4 tires and a battery in 12 seconds. They do have that new formula electric open wheel series but they change the cars at half way not the battery. Each team has to enter two cars to finish the race with one driver. If they were to race for miles they would use larger tanks and lean out the engines more. It is all in how you tune and what you are racing for. As of now they go as fast as they can and make the stops. target it for no stops or one stop they could do it too. Goals and rules make it what it is.