ccap41

155 mile range.. They're slowly getting there. The're slowly becoming more and more practical.

I don't think the concept 8 looks good at all. If they ditched the GTE race car fender flares and front fascia it would look better. The area right around the headlights looks terrible and like they put a wide body kit over the OEM headlights. It genuinely looks bad to me. Not just bad in comparison to the S-Class coupe and El Miraj but just not a good looking front end and "fender flares". The cabin shape looks super sharp and like it has A LOT of potential though. I genuinely think the S-Class Coupe looks slightly better than the El Miraj and the thing I like most about it(and most other MB siblings) is the body lines through the doors and onto the rear 1/3 behind the doors but in front of the wheel. Don't get me wrong, I love the look of the El Miraj, I just think the S-Class Coupe is one of the cleanest, sexiest cars to have been produced. It's large enough that they got to scuplt it as they wanted so it's got some curves and because it's large it has a presence to it. I just love it. The El Miraj has just a tad more "gnarly" to it that takes away just a bit for me. It's super cool but the lines instead of curves don't work as well on THIS TYPE of car. CTS-V and E63 AMG... the lines look MUCH better than the curves of the AMG.

I think it will take a long time to get down to the dirt racing. Very intriguing stuff though.

No way does BMW have the ability to make a car look as good as an S-Class Coupe. It's elegant and powerful looking, gorgeous car. Good luck BMW.

Impala, ATS, and CTS look like garbage compared to this though.. And I like the ATS/CTS. But this is pretty. My point was it isn't that easy to 'just make it work' when it comes to adding space to the back seat. Whether it's roof restrictions, fuel tank, or drive shaft, I honestly do not know at all but I'm just saying that regulations have put manufacturers in a tough spot.

Ab-so-freakin-lutely! That's what makes the sport great if you ask me. That and just the close quarters racing and passing. No other form of racing(dirt excluded as it isn't nationally covered as well but is crazy intense) has passing like NASCAR. I bet NASCAR had more passes at Daytona than F1 will have all season.

Oh there's no reason for any more gears than 4 in NASCAR. For all but the road courses, Pocono, and I think Phoenix..maybe.. they get to top gear and leave it until a restart. Maybe one of the big ovals like Michigan or California instead of Phoenix.. I'm not sure where it is but there are a small handful o non-road courses that they shift at. That is only by choice though. In fact, my ingnorant sounding statement should have made me look into it a little more but with the technology flowing through the rest of the car I bet they are using one fantastic transmission it just sounds bad saying "4 speed". They are fuel injected. I believe it was te 2013 season they made that switch and I think it was more for efficiency than power but don't quote me on that.

I don't think it is that simple to just lower the rear seat. There would be a driveshaft down there and I can almost guarantee there are restrictions on how much space is necessary around it for safety or some crap.Lowering the rear seat would also force a laying down seating position as well. I'm not sure how comfortable that would be for a car like this. Now making something as gorgeous as this under the Buick name and leaving the top GM line(Cadillac) out of the mix seems like a tough sell because this won't be cheap if it's done correctly therefore stepping all over Cadillac's feet. That's just my opinion though...

3300/750= 4.4lbs per hp 4486/1001=4.48lb per hp Prior to 2016 they were ~850hp and 3350lbs = 3.94lb per hp So even your straight line theory isn't the greatest. I'll give you that they still use very old school 4 speed transmissions though.

Most races are four hours with no delays. You also don't factor in these little things called "cautions". Also, only a couple of races a year are 300 miles. The rest are 400-500 (and don't forget the 600 miles Coca Cola 600 race in Charlotte, NC). You are wrong and clearly have never even watched these races. The Veyron also weighs way more than your average stock car so you just go ahead and get a lesson in physics there (the Veyron weighs 700 lbs MORE than any NASCAR stock car). Besides, that MPC wasn't that close in an obviously "staged for TV" race. What I love is how some like to talk smack about stock car racing saying "it's the easiest style racing out there". Well, if it's so easy, how come outside racers (F1, Indycar, etc) have never succeeded in NASCAR (for the most part anyway)? Sunday's Dayonta 500 was 3 hours and 17 minutes. A Veyron also has 1200 hp vs about 450 hp for a stock car with the restricter plate, the 700 or 900 lb weight difference would be easily overcome. . I think the top speed Sunday was 201 mph, a Veyron would crush those cars on the straights, the question is what speed the Veyron would hold in corners. A Veyron also has a larger fuel tank but 8 or 9 gallons. As far as other racers being successful, I think most drivers are conditioned and geared to one style racing. I don't see Earnhart Jr or Kyle Busch winning any F1 championships either. Race car drivers rarely cross over and there is no way that Richard Petty or Dale Earnhart Sr (for as good as they were) are better drivers than Ayerton Senna or Michael Schumacher. Have you seen any of the open wheeled guys be successful in NASCAR? I think JPM had 2 wins and they were at road courses. Danica? Nope. Tony Stewart is by far and away the only one with any sustained success. Okay while researching I got a good list of drivers who've done the open wheeled thing and the stock car thing. "Here are four great drivers who have met that challenge successfully: Mario Andretti: Famously frustrated at the Indy 500, with only one victory in 29 starts, Andretti won everywhere - 109 times in major series. That includes 52 in USAC and CART and the '67 Daytona 500. He only raced 14 times in NASCAR, but had three top 10s. A.J. Foyt: Between 1963 and 1997, Foyt moonlighted NASCAR, with seven wins and 36 top 10s in 128 starts. He won back-to-back Firecracker 400s at Daytona, then won the Daytona 500 in 1972. He's a four-time Indianapolis 500 winner and the only man to win Daytona, Indy and the 24-hour races at Daytona and LeMans. Dan Gurney: Any conversation about the best driver ever must include Gurney. Yes, his five NASCAR wins were at the old road course at Riverside, Calif., but he had three top 5s in six Daytona starts. In 16 stock car starts, he had 10 top 10s. Add that to seven USAC wins in 28 starts and a Formula 1 victory. Tony Stewart: His success in the leap to NASCAR spawned a dozen imitators since the mid-1990s, none of whom has come close. Stewart is the only driver to earn series titles in IndyCar (1997) and NASCAR Sprint Cup (2002, 2005, 2011). After his three Indy victories in two years as a full-time driver, he has 48 in Sprint Cup, 13th all-time. There's a long list of drivers who have tried to cross over from IndyCar racing into NASCAR - and vice versa. Here are notable ones: Bobby Allison: The NASCAR Hall of Famer twice skipped the Charlotte race to try his hand at Indy, with 32nd and 25th place finishes. Donnie Allison: The 10-time NASCAR winner was fourth and sixth in his two Indy 500 attempts and had three other open-wheel starts. A.J. Allmendinger: After five Champ Car victories in 2006, he made the jump to stock cars and twice won in Nationwide, but mustered only31 top 10s in 199 Cup starts. After a suspension in Cup, he raced IndyCars last year before returning to NASCAR this year. John Andretti: The first driver to attempt the Indy 500-Coca-Cola 600 double-duty on the same day. He only had one Indy series victory, in 1991 at Queensland, and won twice in Sprint Cup, driving for Richard Petty in one, Cale Yarborough in the other. Patrick Carpentier: He won five times in CART after the open-wheel divorce of the 1990s, but never cracked the top 10 in 40 Sprint Cup starts. Dario Franchitti: The three-time Indy 500 winner was 0-for-10 in Sprint Cup starts, then broke his ankle in a Nationwide race at Talladega that effectively ended his stock car career. Robby Gordon: One of the most well-traveled and versatile drivers, but only had three Sprint Cup wins in 396 starts (and 39 top 10s) to go along with a pair of Indy series victories in 1995 (Phoenix and Belle Isle) Janet Guthrie: The first woman to compete in the Indianapolis 500 and the Daytona 500, she had five top 10s in 33 NASCAR events and finished as high as ninth in three Indy 500 starts. Sam Hornish Jr.: The 2006 Indy 500 champ and a 19-time winner in IndyCar was runner-up for the Nationwide Series title last year after some hard luck in Sprint Cup. At 36, he has time to become the next break-through crossover driver. Bobby Johns: He finished seventh in his Indy 500 debut in 1965 and was 10th in 1969, and had two wins (Atlanta and Bristol) as NASCAR journeyman. Juan Pablo Montoya: The Formula 1 ace had victories at both of NASCAR's road courses (Sonoma and Watkins Glen) but otherwise seldom contended. His average Cup finish was 19.8. Danica Patrick: The sport's glamour gal, who had one IndyCar victory, earned the Daytona 500 pole in her first attempt in 2013, but has an average Sprint Cup finish of 26.5. Johnny Rutherford: An Indy legend, he did win a Daytona qualifying event, but collected only five top 10s in 35 NASCAR starts scattered over 12 seasons. Tim Richmond: He was the "Rookie of the Race" for the Indianapolis 500 before making leap to stock cars. He won 13 Sprint Cup events before his career and life was tragically cut short. Jacques Villenueve: A Formula 1 superstar and five-time winner in 33 CART events, he had a couple of infamous incidents in Nationwide, causing wrecks, and was a non-factor in four Cup starts. Cale Yarborough: The NASCAR Hall of Famer was the first man to race in both Charlotte and Indy in the same year, but he crashed in his first two Indy 500 and never finished higher than 10th in four tries. Lee Roy Yarbrough: A wreck and two engine failures spoiled the three Indy 500 tries for the NASCAR stalwart who finished in the top 10 in nearly half his starts. http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/04/few_drivers_have_made_successf.html If you're actually trying to say a Veyron would hold a stick to the Sprint Cup guys you just don't understand the sport or any form of professional auto racing. A Veyron is set up to handle very neutral and it probably plows into every turn. There is no way it could maintain the 190mph in the corners like the Cup guys or probably even the Nationwide or Truck guys. It'll have to pit more often, it would probably overheat as it isn't a track car, mechanicals aren't designed to be run all out for 500 miles consecutively.. all sorts of things working against the Veyron. 3300lbs w/o driver vs 4486lbs(C/D tested - also w/o driver).

I think GM will hit the sweet spot with the BOLT. Here in washington state, all new Homes have to have a 220V 30amp charger in the garage now. Also all apartments have to offer the option for a renter to have access to a charger. It is very easy to go and find charging spots all over. The west coast has made huge strides in building out an electric highway system. I did a whole story on the Electric Highway West Coast Style. http://www.cheersandgears.com/topic/84688-electric-highway-west-coast-style/ You can see the maps and check out the updated info. It is expanding all over the US. I truly think it will grow much faster than it took to build gas stations all over. Too bad there isn't an infrastructure like that around here. From my house to work(granted I rarely drive but if I had to) is 35 miles and there is no chargers at the parking garage, or a school(that I know of) and there are none other than my house where I live. There is none really on my side of the Mississippi to make it all that practical. It would basically be home or nowhere, for the most part. Check the STL area on a EV charging station map..and then look about an hour east and see how little there is in between there and STL. I would definitely have 2 of the larger 220V chargers in my garage(one on each side - 2 car garage) installed. Not because I exactly plan on owning two electric cars but if I plan on living in the home for 20-30 years then..there will be a lot more electric cars or plug-ins by that time so best to be prepared to save money down the road. So then check this out, Here is the site that shows the incentives to install home or business chargers. http://www.pluginamerica.org/incentives Nissan has incentives on top of the federal for installing a home charger. It is amazing but you can pretty much get a home charger for free in many states. http://www.nissanusa.com/electric-cars/leaf/owner-questions/ev-incentives Check out the Spark EV, Mini-e, Fiat 500e, Focus E, seems many of the EV auto's have rebates / incentives on top of the federal ones. Oh nice! "Covers 80% of cost premium or conversion price, with maximum rebate of $4,000." - IL That would be a HUGE help in setting up a garage. I wonder if that is "per year" or total? Like, if my theoretical garage would cost $10,000 total(completely theoretical numbers) and 80% is $8,000. Clearly above the $4,000 maximum. But if I did one side one year and one side a few years later(let's also say theoretically it splits evenly at 50/50). Could I get the $4,000 each time..? Because I would be converting twice. I would assume the answer is an easy "no".

I think GM will hit the sweet spot with the BOLT. Here in washington state, all new Homes have to have a 220V 30amp charger in the garage now. Also all apartments have to offer the option for a renter to have access to a charger. It is very easy to go and find charging spots all over. The west coast has made huge strides in building out an electric highway system. I did a whole story on the Electric Highway West Coast Style. http://www.cheersandgears.com/topic/84688-electric-highway-west-coast-style/ You can see the maps and check out the updated info. It is expanding all over the US. I truly think it will grow much faster than it took to build gas stations all over. Too bad there isn't an infrastructure like that around here. From my house to work(granted I rarely drive but if I had to) is 35 miles and there is no chargers at the parking garage, or a school(that I know of) and there are none other than my house where I live. There is none really on my side of the Mississippi to make it all that practical. It would basically be home or nowhere, for the most part. Check the STL area on a EV charging station map..and then look about an hour east and see how little there is in between there and STL. I would definitely have 2 of the larger 220V chargers in my garage(one on each side - 2 car garage) installed. Not because I exactly plan on owning two electric cars but if I plan on living in the home for 20-30 years then..there will be a lot more electric cars or plug-ins by that time so best to be prepared to save money down the road.

Man, deflt. You have me on an electric kick right now. I wish I was looking to build a home or had a really good way to get actual pricing figures on this stuff(because it can vary so much from house to house and location to location). I mean I can read national averages and stuff but because every city is different the numbers can sway quite a bit in any direction. I'd love an electric smaller car for everyday use with a range of 150-200 miles and then something else that burns the coal as either a toy or larger vehicle that doesn't get driven much.I wish the e-Golf had a longer range because that is actually very affordable but with a sub 100 mile range..no thanks yet.

If EVs had a 300-400 miles of range and could fill up as easily as gasoline, what doesn't "work" about that? Yes, we are not there yet. But we can't get there without continued research and development of the technology. Gasoline cars used to not have much range or efficiency either until we needed it for high fuel prices. What happened? R&D and now we have small diesel TRUCKS getting 31mpg(rating) with " 21-gallon tanks mean a maximum range of 651 miles."-C/D. That wasn't happening 30 years ago.

The mandate would be to attempt to "repair" something that is un-repairable that they caused...pollution. I don't think it is a bad idea. For what they did, something that is un-repairable, un-fixable, money can't just be thrown at people to fix what they've done. One way to attempt to actually fix what they did would be to advance the EV field of zero emissions(the electric source is another issue because if it is burning coal for electricity then..well..that's another story all together).

Hey dfelt, This is fairly random, at least for this thread, buuuuuut what's it cost, roughly, to have a 220v outlet installed in a garage? and would it cost twice as much for two or would the price for the second one not really double? I've been thinking about the plug-in and full EVs a lot lately and when I build a house or even just move into one I would seriously consider something like an e-Golf or Volt for the majority of my driving. Ideally, If I'm building the house I'd like to supplement some of the electricity with a few solar panels as well but I know I'm not making a ton of money as it is so.. yeah.. I'd have to look into the tax credits for stuff like that real hard.

"...and to help build out a network of chargers across the U.S." That is what's needed for EVs to really take off.

Yep. I mean it's no secret the Giulia IS being built it's just a matter of who/what/when/where. The Bronco and Ranger are more mysterious than that still. Anyway, 1LE/GT350, right?

Jeez, VW really screwed up on this one.. It's still hard to believe that they let a system out like this(VW). Did they honestly think it would just slide under the radar for ever?

C'MON EL K... You went from dissing the Ford Mustang GT350 and how to fix it to straight trolling Ford and their lack of RWD platforms... You know...Wings is no longer posting here, there is no Ford PR fluff master to "put into place"... MOPAR...you did mention the Giulia...HA! the Giulia is POSTPONED... But...lets talk about MOPAR... With an "old" platform, MOPAR still manages to keep the Challenger cool and hip. Even with Euro badge snobs, this car is revered... Ford...albeit not in the point in time I was looking at the GT350 at the Montreal auto show...the GT350 EL K...lets get that clear... Ford has made the GT350 into a lustful machine...Euro badge snobs look at it and wished their Euro trashed car was more like it...Jay Leno's words, not mine...and lets be honest...his circle of car guy friends sure makes yours and my car guy friends look like pansies... Lets be honest about the Camaro... Its a car with a CORVETTE engine under the hood. Yeah...you think that is a good marketing angle? Id rather just buy a Corvette and I could stop pretending owning a Corvette by driving a Camaro... And I aint even gonna talk about the bag over the head looks its got... You see EL K...I could troll Chevy just as good you try to troll Ford... Now...you know I dont want to do that. Just to correct one thing, they start building the Guilla next month...... With production delayed for several months back in November and reports of failed crash tests, I'll believe it when it actually happens. Yeah, kind of like Ford and the Bronco. Rumors rumors rumors for years.. Apparently they'll make one but I'll believe it when I see it, or at least a practical concept car.

It is a long story.Drew you are smarter than that comment and I know it. Have to agree with hyper. It was a standard for endurance racing as much as a race to 500 miles. Personally, I don't see any level of professional racing being easier than another. The one I'd hold above all is F1 because those cars are the pinnical of technological advancement..even though that also takes skill out of the drivers' hands as well with all of the nannies. Easiest of mechanical requirements..? They're the longest of races(excluding the 12 and 24 hour races) and as any form of auto racing it is about making every component work together in perfect harmony.

I'd be doing this if I were buying a Vette. Fo Sho.

lol sweet, tacky victory BMW. Be proud of that.

Let's see a NASCAR do 500 miles without stopping for a refuel. An electric race car could be made to beat a NASCAR if they had a battery pack swap feature. It can be easily done if they wanted. NASCAR as it is now cut the fuel cells size down to make sure they have to stop more often. They also regulate that the tires need to go so many miles. Goodyear could make a race tire for Daytona that would last 500 miles with no issue. It is has already happened that they have had teams go the entire race with no left changed or only one change just to make sure the tires are fresh. Pit stops were made a part of the competition and to mix up the field so they are regulated to happen when they do. Now lets see someone change 4 tires and a battery in 12 seconds. They do have that new formula electric open wheel series but they change the cars at half way not the battery. Each team has to enter two cars to finish the race with one driver. If they were to race for miles they would use larger tanks and lean out the engines more. It is all in how you tune and what you are racing for. As of now they go as fast as they can and make the stops. target it for no stops or one stop they could do it too. Goals and rules make it what it is. True but at the same time at ~5mpg they would need a 100 gallon tank and that's not realistic. They're 22 gallon tanks. I remember a few years ago they experimented with 12 gallon tanks to break up the field a lot more often in hopes o avoiding "the big one". I don't think it worked and they went back to the 22 gallon tank. They've had races in the Sprint Cup that a team has gone an entire race without changing their lefts??? How long ago was that? Have you ever watched the Formula E races? Pretty neat stuff going on. Completely different racing but entertaining nonetheless. What you are missing is that NASCAR is constructed with rules to make them what they are and do what they do. the Carbs they ran at a track like Daytona were very small CFM and the restrictor plates even smaller. If Nascar wanted to go for MPG they would change the fuel settings on the new FI and tune the engines to still make good power with less fuel. Their intent is to use gas not save it. If they mandated the other 500 miles is very easy to do and they still would be going pretty fast. As for tires they are formulated for each track to last about the length of a full load of fuel. Goodyear works hard to hit these numbers and most the time they hit it. Once in a while they miss it. In recent years here Goodyear goes conservative on compounds they may change lefts only once and even then they are far from worn out. Last nigh they ran 150 miles and most teams did not change a single tire and those that did really did not hold much advantage. If NASCAR said Ok at the July race we want a tire to last all 500 miles Goodyear would have one there. Even some Indy 500 races have gone in the past with no change on the left front at times. The rules regulate fuel usage and tire wear not the technology. Hell just look at a new Corvette and the kind of miles it could get going around Daytona with Z06 power and technology. A little larger cell and with a little leaned out tuning for running at a specific RPM it may do the 500 miles with no issue. But the rules will not let that happen unless they say to do it. I have seen the Formula E and it is interesting. Different but interesting. Rules in most racing shape the ability of the car. Take todays technology and you could just about do anything you like anymore if you set the rules to use it. The only things that can not be overcome are the rules of Physics. This is why FWD cars are still not seen much in racing accept in their own classes or series. Traction is just tough to come buy in a performance application with weight transfer and side loads. Asking front tires to turn, stop and go with unfavorable load transfers make it even harder to put it down to the track. What I'm missing? I'm not missing anything.. I understand the sport completely. The intent is to find the best combination to win the race be it fuel savings or power. The intent is not "to use gas and not save it". If you think that is the case then you have not been following the sport very closely as most every race comes down to fuel mileage one way or another. Yes, each tire is different for each track. I wouldn't necessarily say that they are designed to last one fuel run based on watching the races. Close, absolutely. But some tracks are waaaay worse on tires than others. Tracks such as Darlington, eats tires up and lap times will slip 3-4 seconds A LAP after only 15 or so laps on a set. Then there is Daytona were the fall off isn't drastic at all. What race was it that somebody/anybody did not change the left sides(NASCAR and Indy500)? lol.. no $h! a factory car could do 500 miles on a race track. A Z06 wouldn't win or even be on the same lap as a Sprint Cup car though. Just because it's got the power doesn't mean anything. It can't even do 200mph in a straight line let alone around a track. Also, you think a Z06 going full tilt will get any better than 5mpg? At 18.5 gallons of fuel on board a Z06 It'll be stopping more than a Sprint Cup car while running slower laps. My car can do 500 miles with only one fill up and NO stop for tires, does that mean it can race in the Daytona 500? I'm not sure what you're getting at with that statement about the Z06. I thought the initial point of somebody saying Daytona 500 was a slap in the mileage/fill up department.

Let's see a NASCAR do 500 miles without stopping for a refuel. An electric race car could be made to beat a NASCAR if they had a battery pack swap feature. It can be easily done if they wanted. NASCAR as it is now cut the fuel cells size down to make sure they have to stop more often. They also regulate that the tires need to go so many miles. Goodyear could make a race tire for Daytona that would last 500 miles with no issue. It is has already happened that they have had teams go the entire race with no left changed or only one change just to make sure the tires are fresh. Pit stops were made a part of the competition and to mix up the field so they are regulated to happen when they do. Now lets see someone change 4 tires and a battery in 12 seconds. They do have that new formula electric open wheel series but they change the cars at half way not the battery. Each team has to enter two cars to finish the race with one driver. If they were to race for miles they would use larger tanks and lean out the engines more. It is all in how you tune and what you are racing for. As of now they go as fast as they can and make the stops. target it for no stops or one stop they could do it too. Goals and rules make it what it is. True but at the same time at ~5mpg they would need a 100 gallon tank and that's not realistic. They're 22 gallon tanks. I remember a few years ago they experimented with 12 gallon tanks to break up the field a lot more often in hopes o avoiding "the big one". I don't think it worked and they went back to the 22 gallon tank. They've had races in the Sprint Cup that a team has gone an entire race without changing their lefts??? How long ago was that? Have you ever watched the Formula E races? Pretty neat stuff going on. Completely different racing but entertaining nonetheless.