ccap41

While that is a super long time if you're traveling and stop at a hotel at night and sleep for 8hrs, wake up, eat and leave in another hour... 9-10hrs of charge isn't all that bad. Plus, it isn't like you got there at 0%. I assume that would be a good 10% to 85% charge? I'm just thinking of the mid-travel type of situation because other than that 700 miles of range will cover anything else.

Fear mongering in this thread made it into a range anxiety thing...even a reliability thing...FAP TURBO has got the right idea... But..when humanity has no knowledge of something, humanity fears it, ridicules it and is biased against it. And yes SMK...when people are pressed for time, and in today's society, it seems that they are always pressed for time...people hardly drive long distances anymore, the take the airplane... And if they must drive for whatever reason, people actually rent cars...in other words, people hardly ever use their personal vehicles for long distance traveling anymore...but...it makes for a more interesting thread to whine and complain... This is the latest whine fest at Cheers and Gears....be sure to turn in tomorrow...as these are the days of our lives at Cheers and Gears. That is how the world turns, at Cheers and Gears. So you're saying I should spend something like a minimum of $80k on a Model S, but if I want to go on a road trip of any distance, I should spend more money to rent a gas powered car SO I CAN TRAVEL AT MY OWN WHIM? Very sound reasoning there. Holds the Tesla up as an $80k toy that has to be put away when shit gets real. No whining here. O get a real auto like a Suburban, convert it to Eletrical and put in the proper battery packs that give you a 600 to 700 mile range. Enjoy your road trip and charge at the hotel that night. How long would it take to charge massive battery packs like that from a 110 outlet?!?!?

You're right but if they're trying to appeal to everybody, which I think that is the long term goal because they're making a sub 40k car, there will be people who will actually made that drive. And honestly the 4.5 hour trip to drive is about the time it would take to drive to the airport, park, get to airport early for check in and crap, fly, get bags, and pick up a rental car. Or drive on your own and not deal with any of that crap and you're on your own schedule.

The current Sprint cup series cars make 725 hp, they lowered it from around 850. I read one of the Waltrips said that 204 mph is the about the max speed for a stock car to stay on the ground with the air flaps they have on them. Elliot's all time record speed is 228 mph, but today's cars are slower. I think they can still hit 200 mph with 450 hp because a lot of that is based off the draft, in a group you don't have as much air so the cars use that draft to add speed and maintain it. Plus gearing comes into play, on Talladega or Daytona they are mostly running a constant speed or in the 175-200 mph window. A Corvette can hit 180 mph or so with 450 hp and it isn't made for a race track. An AMG GT has a top speed of 190 mph with 500 hp. So with racing in mind and the drafting I think 200 mph is doable on 450 hp. The acceleration is lessened, but they don't need acceleration at Daytona. A Veyron has a 268 mph top speed though, in a straight line it would destroy any race car, F1, Indy, LeMans, NASCAR doesn't matter. The Veyron isn't good in corners, but on a track like Talledega or Daytona where corning ability is not really needed, I think the Veyron could compete with a Nascar. Not an Indy cary though as they would hold their speed in the turns better. What we need is someone to lap a Veyron around Indy speedway, Daytona or Talledega so see how fast it is. 190mph in the corners isn't exactly slowing down much for the Sprint Cup cars at Daytona and Talladega. There is no way a Veyron could take those turns at that speed. Actually, it probably couldn't go through the tri-ovals without letting off. Indy would be a no-contest for a Sprint Cup car. Those are real corners which the Veyron would look stupid. Full horsepower and real turns. I actually don't know i it would destroy an F1 car to 100, 150 mph. An F1 car can do 0-100-0 in under 5 seconds. "The 2006 F1 cars have a power-to-weight ratio of 1,250 hp/t (0.93 kW/kg). Theoretically this would allow the car to reach 100 km/h (60 mph) in less than 1 second. However the massive power cannot be converted to motion at low speeds due to traction loss and the usual figure is 2 seconds to reach 100 km/h (60 mph). After about 130 km/h (80 mph) traction loss is minimal due to the combined effect of the car moving faster and the downforce, hence continuing to accelerate the car at a very high rate. The figures are (for the 2006 Renault R26):[citation needed] 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph): 1.7 seconds 0 to 200 km/h (124 mph): 3.8 seconds 0 to 300 km/h (186 mph): 8.6 seconds" "Britain's Autocar magazine recently gathered a formidable roster of supercars (and one of the greatest sportbikes ever produced) for its annual 0-100-0 showdown. The winner of the gathering was the Bugatti Veyron, which continues to walk the walk like no supercar before it. Consider the breakdown of the Veyron's performance: 0-60: 2.8 seconds (!) 0-100: 5.5 seconds (double-!) By the time the car came to a stop, 9.9 seconds had elapsed." The bottom line. The Veyron is not a race car. It will not beat true race cars at what they are designed to do, race. Hahaha There are always the enthusiasts who get their hands on anything they want.. In this case, Teslas.

The article was written in 2004. http://www.caranddriver.com/news/rusty-runs-unrestricted-car-news You had me second guessing my reading there! lol

There would definitely be range anxiety for me still. Check the maps above for how close I am to stations. Yes, it would be VERY seldom that I'm driving more than 200 miles in one day but outside of the STL area, it gets pretty sparse... I could travel to Chicago from where I'm at though!

This is my issue and why they aren't viable for a lot of people yet. This is just where I am in reference to the nearest charging stations. This one is roughly my trip from IL to IA to visit my sister. She doesn't live in Des Moines but about an hour east of there. As you can see.. past SLT it gets sparce to say the least. And the way we travel is up through MO along the IL/MO border. To drive to Columbia to charge me car is out of the question, almost 2 hours out of the way.

There may be plenty of them, but not across the whole US. Those ones out west don't help me at all nor help me decide whether I will consider buying an EV or not.

I thought it would have been 4WD but I read this, "The full-time 40/60-split all-wheel drive is basically unchanged (a rear-drive model comes later)". Granted that was a Denali review I was reading..but still.. Personally, I think the Tahoe of that generation looks better than the Yukon but if you want a little more luxury to your BOF SUV then get the GMC. Was yours a 5.3 as well? It looks like they offered a handful of engines back then.

^ LOL that's the only part about it I like. I've never really been a fan of anyting BMW outside of their bread and butter 3/4 and 5 series, and their M variants. Nothing else grabs my attention and the only reason those do. Maybe their design language just doesn't work on bigger vehicles for me. 110% agree. Looks like they tried to make a little GTE Z4 out of a barge.

I like it. I like they are starting small and seeing how the program does or does not take of before going too deep into it. It would be nice if the gains were a little better but for 500 bucks its a bargain, imo.

The Yukon starts $17,000 more than the Acadia and with the 2k price drop it will be 19k difference. That's pretty significant to most people, probably all buying the Acadia. So while it is only a step away it is an un-affordable jump for most. So size per dollar is why people are upset about it. Personally, I like it because I like the Edge and Grand Cherokee size vehicles. Larger, 2 row SUVs. I got cha... but if U read my post.. I did include the ENCLAVE in those "steps away.." You're right. I guess I just assumed staying with the GMC family because GMC's and Buick's styling is very different. Hey kind of random, kind of not, my sister and her husband are buying a used '09 Yukon SLT. gimme the down low on it. Ups and downs to it? I don't really know much about it yet as that's about all they told me so I'm assuming the 5.3 and 4wd. Back then was their 4wd a form of an AWD system but 'stronger'?

GM's all come with a tow truck on speed dial as well. OnStar. They've had it for decades at this point. Does that mean they aren't reliable vehicles or does it say they offer great customer support? In defense to the infrastructure, which I COMPLETELY agree that it needs to expand before I will consider an EV, you can "fill" your vehicle up at home, at night, while you're sleeping, any time you want, and never step foot into a gas station for weeks or months unless you plan a trip anywhere making fill-up stations useless to most. Now for the smaller 80-100 mile range Focus/Golf/Leaf..they need the stations more than Teslas do with their smallest batter yielding 240 miles of range.

Those were also back in the times when they were running COMPLETELY different cars where the aero, tires, chassis, weight and everything aren't as finely tuned as they are now(meaning it took more raw power to achieve those peak speeds). Back then they also weren't 900hp cars probably more in the 750-800 range. I don't know if any ever made claims of quite 900hp. (edit before I even post - some are making the claims of touching 900hp but this was pre '16 where it appears there is an 850hp limit now) So I'm trying my damnedest to look up about how much power they were making back in 2004 but it's quite difficult to get anything before 2007 when they went to the COT crap. Anyway, in 2013 they were making around 850hp. Elliot's run was not just a flat out 0 to as-fast-as-it-can-go. He was coming off of a turn and had to slow back down to another turn. He said with tuning and tweaking they could probably hit 235mph with that same car and track(Talladega). So the modern cars can keep them wound up more in the corners with the aero and tire packages.

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".