Or a Seattle one

 

Have you ever tried a gas golf cart with a bigger gasoline engine than the stock 7-10 hp? I have. It had a 20hp engine transplant and it was a blast.

 

I also considered the P85D, but I really wanted a sports car this time around. If the P85D had come with a convertible option it would have been a harder choice, but the range problem would have been the deal killer.

I also test drove a used Tesla Roadster 2.0, but the tech felt a bit too dated for that kind of vehicle. Though Tesla has announced a new Roadster in 2018, so that might be my next vehicle purchase if I haven't found a better option before then.

 

+1

 

I thought the politically correct pseudo science crowd was calling it "climate change" now that the data shows the planet is actually in a period of cooling.

There are lots of good reasons to reduce dependence on fossil fuels but the jury is still out on global warming.

Personally, the prospect of oil-rich zealots armed with black market H-bombs frightens me more than the remote possibility that the planet cannot cope with fluctuations in atmospheric carbon.

 

Let's get back to the topic.

 

I was referring to the whole planet, not just the U.S., since air and water are everywhere. World population is increasing pretty much out of control because each person born for some reason seems to feel the need to create several more people. When the world environment breaks down to the point where food production can no longer keep up with population growth, things are going to turn ugly fairly quickly. And you can't eat money...



We expect nothing less of you.



Kind of like climate change, huh?

 

And reality!

 

Your right, our children and grand children are under much greater threat from ISIS and those kooks than climate change.

When its too hot out, I like to crank up the AC up and open the windows, really helps cool the atmosphere.

 

 

No, I don't think there's any doubt about that. As far as I'm concerned, the science is definitive.

 

Decided science except on wacko radio. What cooling? We are having the 2 hottest years world wide ever recorded, unless you go go by the renown scientist drug addict Rush limbaugh. Don't understand why oil industry doesn't own alternative energy industry with billions in excess profits made in rise in oil prices after start of Iraq war. That way we maintain current while growing the future profite.

 

There is no specific legislation regarding the number of cylinders a car engine can have. You can make a 5.0 liter I6 or a 3.0 liter V10. Dealer BS. Just like my local LR dealer sells Kobe Bryant all his personal vehicles. Because a guy worth $200 million just buys a fleet of Land Rovers.

 

Ha, this thread is hilarious! Keep it up. Could soon be Internet gold. Some of you folks should definitely join your brothers in arms and have a corvette in the garage!

A point that has not been mentioned: electric cars take a hell of alot less maintenance than their internal combustion counterparts. The regular requirements for a model S are:

- Rotate the tires every 5k.
- Replace the brake fluid ever 2 years.
- Replace the cabin air filter every 24k.
- Replace the battery coolant every 4 years.

Had a water pump fail? I have. A timing belt fail? Representing. How about a coolant leak and overheat? Here! Belt slip? Here. Alternator fail? Oh yeah. Plugs fouled? Yes. Fuel filter? Uh huh. Air filter replacement? Yep.... The list goes on.

Current franchised dealers fear tesla not because of the brand itself but because Tesla is showing that EV cars can be good cars and those ev cars have a dramatic lack of maintenance revenue stream. I like my mechanic and all, but I'd be OK telling him goodbye.

There's also a lifestyle appeal. Maybe you like driving to the gas station and pausing your day for 10 minutes to stand in whatever weather. Not me. Park in garage, glance at range, plug in if needed, get up the next day and drive. I could leave my gas station in the careful hands of my mechanic without a second thought.

I like the f-type R but there's no denying that the Model S is a hell of a car for all but long roadtrips.

 

That is my opinion as well. If I end up needing another commuter car at some point in the future I'll probably get a Tesla or i3. But it doesn't meet my current requirements for a convertible sportscar and the range and charging times limit my confidence in using it for long trips.

I'm very interested in the Tesla Roadster that is slated for 2018 (though that probably means 2019 or 2020 given their track record on meeting release dates.) I'll be keeping a close eye on that project and will have to see how much the range has improved for that model. If they can get up to 500 miles on a charge that would be perfect, though I'm expecting closer to 400. My FTR will be at least 3 years old by the time it is ready to go into production, so I'll be looking to replace it with another convertible sportscar around that time.

 

I don't know what thread you've been reading, but it doesn't sound like this one. I don't think anyone has said the Tesla Model S is not a good car or a remarkable acheivement. It is, other than the fact, I've never seen a place to charge one anywhere on the east coast. I'm sure there are places, but not many.

For me, the real debate pertains to whether electric cars are actually "green." Sure the driving of the car per se is, but what is required to produce and "re-fuel" the car isn't all that green. The mining of lithium and other substances necessary for producing the batteries is a massive polluter, and then there is the dirty little issue that in the a large percentage of the world's population centers, their fuel (electricity) comes from the burning of coal and fossil fuels releasing greenhouse gases.

From the U.S. Department of Energy Website:

In 2014, about 67% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, petroleum)

Coal - 39%
Natural gas - 27%
Nuclear - 19%
Hydropower - 6%
Other renewables - 7%
Biomass - 1-7%
Solar - 0.4%
Wind - 4.4%
Petroleum - 1%
Other gases < 1%

If every car on the road were electric today, not only might there not be enough electricity to go around, some have argued we might actually be increasing the volume of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere due to ramped up coal power generation.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a technological "hail mary," that really is good for the planet. I'm routing hard for truly green technology

 

The argument that EV are just as dirty as petro cars is old and based on ignoring the cost of gasoline production. Sure, if you ignore the environmental cost of gasoline production and assume that gasoline just magically appears, then EV are not that great since it cost energy to produce electricity. But you need to compare apples to apples: cost of gasoline product to cost of electricity production. And here gasoline production fails. Dig up oil, ship it, refine it, transport it to gas stations, etc. Gasoline production cost is enormous! Yes, electricity is not free, but neither is gasoline!

 

It's not an old argument any more than the argument that EVs are cleaner, and you missed the point on at least 3 levels.

1) People claim electric cars are significantly "greener" and that doesn't necessarily hold up under scrutiny, given where electric power comes from today.

2) My post had nothing to do with cost, but with the release of greenhouse gases. You should also look up what lithium mining does to the planet.

3) If internal combustion engines in autombiles were banned, there would still be a significant greenhouse gas problem that wouldn't necessarily be better than it is today if all of those IC vehicles were replaced by EV vehicles.

 

Consumer Reports just rated latest Tesla highest in their history! They are just great cars of any kind. If they even partially replicate in their volume model the trend will continue.

 

People keep talking about large-scale hydrogen as though it's something that could actually work, and it simply can't for so many reasons. They might as well be touting fairy dust as a solution. It's actually worse than ethanol...ethanol, while a total boondoggle, at least has an existing infrastructure. If we all woke up tomorrow morning and all of the deserts of the world were suddenly lined with solar panels, we might have enough excess energy to be able to consider hydrogen extraction on a large scale. But backing up one step, if we did have all that solar capacity, there would be no need for hydrogen because it would be far more efficient to just use the electricity directly to charge all the transportation batteries we would ever need. People who refuse to consider the unworkable energy requirements of large-scale hydrogen extraction then look at (what they consider to be) our "limitless supply of water" as their proposed source for hydrogen. But it isn't limitless, any more than the atmosphere is limitless. Back when Otto, or whoever is currently credited with inventing the ICE, fired up the first engine for the first time, he didn't consider his engine's effect on the air around him because it seemed like air was in limitless supply. We now know better, and would do well to think of our water supplies in the same enlightened way. Even without using water for fuel, we're already killing the oceans of the world. Hydrogen, environmentally-neutral? Talk about "true believers"...



The first video is preceded by an opening b&w clip...a clip that depicts the front end of what may or may not be a Tesla. The car appears as though it was probably involved in some kind of front end fire...the unnamed source of which could have been either internal or external...a fire that, notably, never reached either the passenger compartment or that supposedly hair-trigger incendiary device, the battery pack (if it was a Tesla).

In the second (very low grade) video, we have only the superimposed title as proof that what we're seeing on fire is really a Tesla. The front of the vehicle is engulfed in a ball of fire that's too bright/intense to allow us to see what it is that's burning along with the vehicle. There are no flames coming from, or under, the passenger compartment. The report's voice-over suggests that the vehicle was driven into a concrete barrier, and we can see that the left rear suspension/wheel has come adrift. Looking at this video, my conclusion is that any vehicle (Tesla, Jaguar, Chevy, whatever) that is driven frontally into an immovable barrier with enough force to dislodge its rear suspension might reasonably be cut a bit of slack in the "catching fire" department, though obviously some serious effort to prevent fuel leaks, etc, in such circumstances would be expected.

Then, the actual report goes on to explain that, while the government is investigating the battery as a possible source in all 3 Tesla fires (with Tesla's full cooperation), Teslas are, statistically (including all 3 fires), still less than 1/4 as likely to catch on fire as modern petroleum-powered vehicles are, and further, that Teslas (including all 3 fires) are still the safest cars ever tested.

Jeez, I really wish you hadn't posted these links. After watching them and understanding what they're actually saying, I find that I now would really like to own a Tesla...and I can't afford one! Damn you...

I am left wondering why these videos are only showing fires that occur well forward of the battery's location, yet the government chose the battery as the center of their investigation. Did CBS "pull an NBC"? Remember this: