[ds968]

Tesla needs to develop a solar panel roof which can recharge the battery :-) :-) But to get back to the thread topic ( somewhat ..) it's amazing to think that all this horsepower race we have seen from car makers in the last five years, seems rather silly when pitted against a car which runs on batteries ,lol . So maybe the new norm for cars is 650 ft/lbs of electric produced torque ..

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

fisker already did the roof thing.  no idea why other cars don't have them.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Rap]

I have not driven an electric car but I wonder if it is as much fun to drive as one of ours or any similar type car?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

i have to say that the i3, as goofy as it is, is a blast to drive.  i can't stop laughing.  i keep thinking i should have a drink in one hand.  it's also the quietest car we have.  it's almost too quiet.  really nice to not have the constant drone of road noise.  the phone interface is like being next to the person, and it takes very little to get good sound out of the stereo.  not what i would want to carve a canyon with, but that's not how the car was designed.  it wouldn't be a big deal to build a toy for such a use though.  tesla already did.  they just couldn't sell the idea, because with small size comes low range.

 

for the electric car to take over though, they have to get better at making the batteries, make them here, and figure out what to do with them when they are done.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[az968]

And have a bunch of aftermarket electric motor upgrades so you can take your Fiesta EV and turn it into a Fiesta EV STI.

 

Maybe Porsche's Mission E will be the answer.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Kim]

I, for one, can hardly wait to have an EV.  Currently, I drive my Cayenne diesel about 350 km/day, with some days about 600 km, way to far for an electric vehicle to be practical.  However, I plan to keep the Cayenne until I retire in about 4 years, at which point the only vehicle that I will have will be an EV.  My wife has a truck that takes care of the odd time when something else is needed.

 

At that point, even only 150 km day range will be more than sufficient for me. And, at say about 15K km per year, assuming that I can stave off senility for 10 years or at least fake a reasonable semblance of normality, that car should still be OK unless there is a major meltdown. 

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

350 km a day, with some days about 600 km ?!! Wow, short of truckers , lol, I don't think I've heard of anyone logging that kind of daily commute mileage .

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Kim]

I drove about 120,000 km last year, spread over 3 vehicles (Cayenne and 2 Fords).  Have only the Cayenne now.  Tire rotation every 3 weeks and oil change every 5 weeks!!  Not all commuting, I also "go out" a lot doing inspection work.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

So you drove the equivalent of going around the earth's circumference three times last year . Wow.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

i think it would have been cheaper to move, or at least get a place for during the week.  i know for sure i wouldn't ever think of spending that much of my life commuting.  i don't even spend that much time sleeping.  the one thing i have come to learn as i get older is that the one thing i cannot buy is time.  no chance i'm wasting that many hours commuting.  i don't care what car it is, or what road it is.  that's just nuts.  i know people that do it though.  they have a house in the mountains and they commute 3 hours to l.a.  i have convinced a number of them to get a place downtown during the week.  they have been much happier, and it actually saved them money too.  between fuel, insurance, and the expense of the cars themselves, they were actually able to get a place, and they gained back the time as a bonus.  choices

 

that was the entire reason we got the i3.  the wife's commute is 17.5 miles each way.  that results in a 45 commute each way.  now that she has the i3, she gets to travel in the commuter lane.  this cuts the commute down to 20 minutes.  i can't pay enough for that kind of time she gets back.  her attitude is better, and she gains 50 minutes a day.  that's huge.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Kim]

I enjoy driving. I get paid to visit buildings - its hard to get them to come to me. I live in Bugtussle and life is not so fast paced such that driving cannot be enjoyable. Its when I make my calls, listen to my tunes and plan my next adventures.  I don't measure each minute of my day in terms of money that can be made or wasted - that may be more of a big-city thing. I suspect that many here on the Forums commute to work, travelling 20 km in 2 hours and having very little enjoyment while doing it.  Most of my driving is at highway speeds.  So a lot of km doesn't necessarily equate to time as it might with you. But you should do what works for you.

 

As for the time, although it waits for no one, it's on my side. Just until it runs out.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

if the driving is part of the actual work, that's one thing.  if it's just commuting to get to the place you spend 8 hours, that's the thing i find nuts.  that means that you would spend half your life working.  that's not a life.  work is something you do so as to be able to pay for the things you want to have and do.  it's not life itself.  i know way too many people who think that because they enjoy their work, or have convinced themselves of it, that it excuses the expense of time. an awful lot of them are now suffering the results of that thinking, and are having serious health issues as a result.  i just went through it again.  i am a type a and workaholic.  i have being forced to slow down and regain focus on what is important.

 

back on topic, i'm not sure about 650hp being the new norm, but it sure seems that over 300 has become the baseline.  400 is very common.  if only the engineers would put that much energy into building engines that consumed less gas, rather than encouraged people to drive their new rockets, then we would really have something.  unfortunately people are stupid, and they would rather have that gas guzzling, seat crushing machine, than solve the global warming issues.  they would rather cry about the economy, and complain that we can't afford to get off of fossil fuels, and somehow put that ahead of the planet being able to support life.

 

i'm as guilty as anybody of this too.  however, i am considering getting rid of the X5, just to trim down on my consumption, and simplify life.  i find myself thinking about power upgrades for it, and that's just nuts.  i really only drive it to keep the miles off the targa, and to take the dogs to the groomer.  it means i would have to drive the targa more, but i think i can manage that one.  i can swap cars with the wife on the day i have to go to the groomer, or i can walk them across the street to the groomer.  we really don't need that car.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

Watching this video I conclude that this car simply does not have enough torque to climb up a 10 degree incline ramp...they really should have given it more power .


http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a22...r/?ref=yfp

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

To rain on Tesla's parade and claim to fame of 0-60 in 2.5 sec and the 1/4 mile in 10.7 sec ( tested ) , Koenigsegg Agera RS street legal version in 2017 boasts a 1.8 sec. 0-60 but more importantly ( and let me say this now - no way , no how will they pull this off ) , a sub 9 sec. Q mile . Of course there will be more than a tiny price difference between these two cars, lol.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

According to the Oklahoma Highway Patrol , they clocked a " heavily modified " 2011 Mustang , first at 176 mph, and a couple of minutes later at 208 mph ! At night !! When he noticed the patrol cars he tried to elude them by turning off his headlights and tail lights.

Of course they eventually nabbed him .


" heavily modified mustang " ... no sh*t !


the dude is lucky to be alive , he should go out and buy a lottery ticket ( soon as he gets out of jail )

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Rap]

Some of these new mustangs are pretty neat. On the track they are monsters and even handle well. The growl emanating from these cars is heady!

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[94SilverCab]

And, Mustangs seem to crash at an alarming rate at Cars & Coffee events, maybe because the demographic is "Meathead"?

 

http://www.carbuzz.com/news/2016/4/11/Wh...s-7732969/

 

Jay

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

The growl emanating from these cars is heady!

Agreed, I can't think of too many cars ( maybe five others , if that ...) whose stock exhaust note I like better . Of course those other cars are priced way out of the Mustang's league . It's all subjective of course . Back to 208 mph though .. even the new 850 HP GT500 super snake barely reaches that top speed capability, but It'll cost you $ 100 K to buy one .

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

i like to go fast as much as the next guy, but i have yet to find any place i can take the targa much up over 100.  i definitely have not "needed" to in the last 15 years.  i went up to paso robles up the 5 a few days ago, and there was no way of doing that safely, and more importantly without getting arrested.  i narrowly escaped a ticket a few times on that trip.  that road is now full of cops.  i saw no less than 6 each way, and while the radar detector caught them all, it did not catch the airplane overhead.  the real question though is how fast do we really need to go?  why would anybody build a street car that goes 200mph?  that's just irresponsible.  i would not be surprised if there a movement to limit top speed capabilities.  there is an argument to be made that selling cars like that is reckless endangerment.  it has worked on guns.  you can't buy high capacity magazines or automatic weapons anymore.  i think 120 is plenty for anybody for public roads.  i'm not happy with the idea of the government telling me what i can and can't do, but there is the reality of people too stupid to make that decision for themselves.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

before anybody pops off and says something silly like "i've gone 150 plenty of times, and it was safe" remember that at 150mph, you are traveling 14 car lengths every second.  test your reaction time some time.  you will find that on a good day, the average reaction time is 1/4 second.  that's over 3 car lengths.  factor in real world factors, and it becomes more like 1.5 seconds.  that's 20 car lengths ahead you have to be focused on, just to avoid a pothole or a rabbit, and then you have to meter your response, so as to not lose control of the car.  most drivers are not looking very far down the road, nor are they capable of not over-reacting.  keep in mind too that when you double speed, you multiply impact force by 4 times.  a rabbit at 60mph will mess up your grill work.  at 150mph it will destroy the front of your car.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.