Jump to content
William Maley

Industry News: Tesla Model S Gets Its EPA Rating

Recommended Posts

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.

Click here to view the article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are PLENTY of drawbacks to pure electrics, son.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Use good grammar, it will get you farther in life.

Batteries can and do explode.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
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?

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, but thanks. I'm glad you're excited.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  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

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We  Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×