• 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

      Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

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

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor




  • Popular Stories

  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      The Model 3 is Tesla's most anticipated vehicle and biggest gamble the company has undertaken. But this gamble has become more risky thanks to a decision concerning the production line.
      Reuters reports that Tesla is skipping a step most automakers undertake when producing a new vehicle. Prototype tools are bought in on the production line to help determine issues in terms of fit and finish. Once these issues are worked out, the prototype tools are scrapped and automakers place orders for permanent and expensive tools. But Musk told investors last month, Tesla was jumping into the permanent and expensive part first so they can meet their self-imposed volume production deadline of September.
      "He's pushing the envelope to see how much time and cost he can take out of the process," said Ron Harbour, a manufacturing consultant at Oliver Wyman.
      According to a source, this 'soft tooling' caused problems for Model X. Due to a tight timeline to get the vehicle into production, Tesla was unable to take any of the lessons learned from this before ordering the final production tooling.
      "Soft tooling did very little for the program and arguably hurt things," said the source.
      Musk said computer simulations has helped with skipping the prototype tooling stage.
      This move fits Elon Musk's tendency to take big gambles and do things a bit different than what is expected in the industry. Most of the time, it has paid off. 
      The problem is if this equipment proves to be flawed in some way, it could cost Tesla millions to fix the issue and introduce production delays. 
      "It's an experiment, certainly," said Jake Fisher from Consumer Reports. Tesla could possibly fix these errors quickly, "or it could be they have unsuspected problems they'll have a hard time dealing with."
      Source: Reuters

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      The Model 3 is Tesla's most anticipated vehicle and biggest gamble the company has undertaken. But this gamble has become more risky thanks to a decision concerning the production line.
      Reuters reports that Tesla is skipping a step most automakers undertake when producing a new vehicle. Prototype tools are bought in on the production line to help determine issues in terms of fit and finish. Once these issues are worked out, the prototype tools are scrapped and automakers place orders for permanent and expensive tools. But Musk told investors last month, Tesla was jumping into the permanent and expensive part first so they can meet their self-imposed volume production deadline of September.
      "He's pushing the envelope to see how much time and cost he can take out of the process," said Ron Harbour, a manufacturing consultant at Oliver Wyman.
      According to a source, this 'soft tooling' caused problems for Model X. Due to a tight timeline to get the vehicle into production, Tesla was unable to take any of the lessons learned from this before ordering the final production tooling.
      "Soft tooling did very little for the program and arguably hurt things," said the source.
      Musk said computer simulations has helped with skipping the prototype tooling stage.
      This move fits Elon Musk's tendency to take big gambles and do things a bit different than what is expected in the industry. Most of the time, it has paid off. 
      The problem is if this equipment proves to be flawed in some way, it could cost Tesla millions to fix the issue and introduce production delays. 
      "It's an experiment, certainly," said Jake Fisher from Consumer Reports. Tesla could possibly fix these errors quickly, "or it could be they have unsuspected problems they'll have a hard time dealing with."
      Source: Reuters
    • By dfelt
      G. David Felt
      Staff Writer Alternative Energy - www.CheersandGears.com
       
      200 MPH plus EV, Do we care?
       
      Yesterday April 13th 2017, Lucid sent out an email about how their near production test car hit a top speed of 217 mph at the Ohio's Transportation Center banked oval test track. Many of us that follow the industry know that Tesla limits their auto's to 155 mph.  Lucid is on record that they intend to meet the needs of the high-speed cruising market of Europe and Middle east. Simulations can only go so far on a computer and then you have to put rubber to the road. This allows the engineers to monitor and tweak everything from the power train, suspension, body fluidity and so much more. This will allow them to review the data, make adjustments and come back later to push the limit even higher.
      We know that Lucid is planning on a $60,000 dollar 400hp, 240 mile range RWD EV with the top model being a six figure AWD 1,000 HP and 400 miles of range on a super dense battery pack.
      This begs the Question, other than the few places you can push this kind of Speed, Does it matter any more if an auto can go over 100 plus mph?
      This question comes from seeing so many auto's that are now breaking that 6 second 0-60 speed showing they have the torque and hp to maintain the speed needed for daily driving.
      Lucid News 
    • By dfelt
      The first hyperloop test bed is built and ready for it's first run according to this story.
      http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/high-speed-hyperloop-track-ready-for-first-trial-run/ar-BBzziBe?OCID=ansmsnnews11
    • By William Maley
      More good news for Volkswagen as the EPA has finally given the ok for the company to start selling repaired TDI vehicles. Bloomberg has learned from Volkswagen Group of America spokeswoman Jeannine Ginivan that dealers can sell TDI models from the 2015 model year once they have been updated with new software. The fix will also include new hardware for the diesel engine, but dealers don't have to wait for the parts to come in early next year.
      "We are still finalizing the details of this program and will provide more information on its implementation at the appropriate time,” said Ginivan.
      It should be noted this is only a symbolic step as only 67,000 vehicles are eligible for this - 12,000 of which are currently sitting on dealer lots. The big question is whether or not anyone is interested in buying a Volkswagen TDI vehicle considering all of the trouble it has brought.
      Source: Bloomberg

      View full article
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online