• Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0

    Tesla Model S Gets Its EPA Rating


    William Maley

    Staff Writer - CheersandGears.com

    June 21, 2012

    The EPA gave its ratings for the Tesla Model S are they are very good. The EPA rates the new Model S at 88 MPGe (miles per gallon equivalent) in the City, 90 MPGe on the Highway, and 89 MPGe combined. Range is estimated to be 265 Miles, a 12% decrease from Tesla’s original estimate.

    (Note, these EPA ratings are for the the top of the line Model S. We’ll learn what the ratings for the other Model Ss in time.)

    So where does the Model S fall into the EV MPGe ratings? Well it's behind the Honda Fit EV (118 MPGe), Mitsubishi i (112 MPGe), Ford Focus EV (105 MPGe), and Nissan Leaf (99 MPGe). But well ahead of the Coda Sedan (73 MPGe).

    However, the Model S is larger than any of the vehicles listed and can seat up to seven (five + two jump seats).

    Source: Autoblog

    William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at william.maley@cheersandgears.com or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.

    0


    Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0


    User Feedback




    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

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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! :D

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    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.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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?

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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?

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    -3

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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?

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    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?

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor




  • Popular Stories

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. 2005 EquinoxLS
      2005 EquinoxLS
      (41 years old)
    2. Shaula
      Shaula
      (36 years old)
  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      The Environmental Protection Agency has today proposed to keep its vehicle emission targets through 2025, shocking a lot of people and possibly setting up a major fight between regulators and the automotive industry. 
      According to Automotive News, the proposal will now enter a 30-day comment period. After this period, the EPA administrator could finalize this proposal and begin enforcing these standards a bit quicker. By 2025, automakers will need to increase their  to 54.5 miles per gallon corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) numbers to 54.5 miles per gallon.
      Why move the proposal up now? A proposal was expected next year with a final decision in 2018. The EPA said in a statement their “extensive technical analysis” has shown no reason as to why the timeframe or standards should be changed. Also, automakers will be able to achieve those 2025 standards at “similar or even a lower cost”.
      “Due to the industry’s rapid technological advancement, the technical record could arguably support strengthening the 2022-2025 standards. However, the administrator’s judgment is [that] now is not the time to introduce uncertainty by changing the standards. The industry has made huge investments in fuel efficiency and low emissions technologies based on these standards, and any changes now may disrupt those plans,” said Janet McCabe, acting assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation on a conference call.
      That analysis started back in July and is used to determine whether or not the EPA needs to make adjustments to the regulations or schedule.
      But there might be another reason. With President Obama leaving the White House on January 20th and President-elect Donald Trump, there are concerns that Trump's administration could challenge the regulations. By doing this now, it would make the process of undoing these regulations more complicated - notice and comment requirements, possible court battle with environmental groups, etc. McCabe denied this, saying the decision was based on analysis and a “rigorous technical record,”
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)
      Pic Credit: William Maley for Cheers & Gears

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      The Environmental Protection Agency has today proposed to keep its vehicle emission targets through 2025, shocking a lot of people and possibly setting up a major fight between regulators and the automotive industry. 
      According to Automotive News, the proposal will now enter a 30-day comment period. After this period, the EPA administrator could finalize this proposal and begin enforcing these standards a bit quicker. By 2025, automakers will need to increase their  to 54.5 miles per gallon corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) numbers to 54.5 miles per gallon.
      Why move the proposal up now? A proposal was expected next year with a final decision in 2018. The EPA said in a statement their “extensive technical analysis” has shown no reason as to why the timeframe or standards should be changed. Also, automakers will be able to achieve those 2025 standards at “similar or even a lower cost”.
      “Due to the industry’s rapid technological advancement, the technical record could arguably support strengthening the 2022-2025 standards. However, the administrator’s judgment is [that] now is not the time to introduce uncertainty by changing the standards. The industry has made huge investments in fuel efficiency and low emissions technologies based on these standards, and any changes now may disrupt those plans,” said Janet McCabe, acting assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation on a conference call.
      That analysis started back in July and is used to determine whether or not the EPA needs to make adjustments to the regulations or schedule.
      But there might be another reason. With President Obama leaving the White House on January 20th and President-elect Donald Trump, there are concerns that Trump's administration could challenge the regulations. By doing this now, it would make the process of undoing these regulations more complicated - notice and comment requirements, possible court battle with environmental groups, etc. McCabe denied this, saying the decision was based on analysis and a “rigorous technical record,”
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)
      Pic Credit: William Maley for Cheers & Gears
    • By dfelt
      G. David Felt
      Staff Writer Alternative Energy - www.CheersandGears.com
       
      Tesla / Solarcity merger, Brilliant or Disaster?

      Tesla announced their intent to buy SolarCity and some screamed the sky is falling. Tesla moves forward with offering a complete home solution of Solar panels, battery bank and 220V charging for your Tesla and believes they have the future tied up in a single one stop shopping solution that beats all the other Auto OEMS.

      The merger final vote by Solarcity shareholders is scheduled for Nov 17th 2016. Yet with this deal not done yet, there are many that have divided into two camps, those that think this is brilliant such as reported by Barron's yesterday that ISS one of the largest outside analyst groups that advises shareholders on mergers gave it's blessing to what they believe is an outstanding tie up of two companies that can maximize return on investments. Barron's believes that Tesla has addressed all the concerns that allow for a successful merger of the two companies and a maximizing of complementary products.
      Barron's Story
      One CNBC story feels that this merger might even be a little late. They agree that Solarcity will provide about $1 Billion next year in revenue to the new merged company and add about $500 million in cash to the Tesla corporation over the next 3 years.
      CNBC Story
      Then you have the latest story also from CNBC where a different analyst believes this is nothing but one large mistake and that is due to what he sees as an impossible return on the investment. Yet even with that he also points out to strong supporters such as Ron Baron who ownes 1.5 million shares that see a 30 to 50 times return on the stock due to the merger. 
      CNBC Story 2
      Yet with all this,  “Playing Amish Paradise in my Tesla,” Musk shared with his 5.8 million Twitter followers on Sunday we have the man himself seeing a much simpler life for us all in the new EV world.
       
      So what is your thoughts on this whole merger and the new EV world Musk sees for us all?
       
    • By dfelt
      G. David Felt
      Staff Writer Alternative Energy - www.CheersandGears.com
       
      Tesla Ends Free Charging Jan 1st 2017

      Tesla has announced the end of their free supercharging for all new auto's starting January 1st 2017. CNBC has reported that Tesla has informed them that all auto's sold starting Jan 1st 2017 will only come with a free yearly use of 400KWh or equal to about 1000 miles of driving. After this users of their Supercharging stations will have to pay local electrical rate fee's up to a certain point. This is to allow Tesla to grow their north american network from the current 734 stations with 4600 superchargers. Their superchargers charge a 170 mile range in 30 min. Tesla also has stated that the cost to charge can and will fluctuate over time depending on the time of year and regional area due to the costs of electricity in that area. With Tesla planning to product annually 500,000 cars a year starting in 2018, many think this is necessary to grow. Others feel differently and further yet some wonder if they sell their existing Tesla S, does the life time of free charging transfer with the car to the new owner? This in itself could enhance resale of older tesla's built before January 1st 2017. 
      Tesla has stated that more defined details will be released by the end of 2016. At this time, if you want lifetime free charging, buy your Tesla S or X now and take delivery by April 17th 2017.
      CNBC story
    • By ccap41
      "Tesla has created its own glass technology group, CEO Elon Musk announced this week on a conference call, reports Eletrek. Not only will this special glass be used for solar roof tiles, but it will also have automotive applications. In fact, the first car to receive the new glass will be the Model 3, Musk confirmed.
      Last week, Tesla announced it would create actual solar roofs (as opposed to solar panels) that are highly durable and can provide power for homes. In a video posted to Twitter, Tesla showed off the strength of its new solar roof glass tiles. But the ultra-strong glass technology will apparently trickle down to the roof or windshield of the Model 3. The entry-level sedan offers a full-length glass roof spanning from the windshield to the rear window, making it the perfect vehicle for this tech. Then again, the Tesla Model S already features an open, airy panoramic roof, and the Model X has the largest glass panoramic windshield in production.
      Musk took to Twitter to explain the benefits of the special glass.
      Ads by ZINC                                                       The director of Tesla Glass is Mike Pilliod, who was a top materials engineer at Apple. He has patented innovations relating to glass, including glass touchscreens.
      Source: Eletrek, Business Insider "
      http://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-model-3-use-glass-technology-solar-roofs/
      I just thought this was waaaay too cool not to share!
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online