The Rapide is a $150k car that is outperformed by a $25k Ford Mustang. No one has ever gone into the draft room and thought to themselves "If only I could design a vehicle that cost less to produce than the Rapide AND was sportier!". Outperforming it is not an achievement.
I actually revel in wildcard comparisons that demonstrate just how remarkable the Model S is.
And let's not overlook the obvious: they are both upscale sedans with a penchant for spirited driving. This isn't a sedan vs coupe or sedan vs pickup truck comparison. It is actually conceivable that a Rapide buyer would cross-shop a Model S because of the unique cache of the Model S, and much less conceivable they would cross-shop a Mustang.
Now, when Tesla starts slogging it out in the 30 to 40k range write me, until then they are just skimming off the crowd that with excess money who expect the same in their cars.
Hats off to their accomplishment, but maintaining quality and luxury at that price range is baked into the price.
I don't think it's fair to compare the Model S with the M3. The M3 (well, the M4) aims to be a compact executive. In terms of wheelbase, the Model S is much closer to the M5 and the Rapide.
What I really want is the Tesla S4/S5 or 335is-equivalent, though.
Sorry, I don't think the tech is there. Either the range would suffer (due to more compact frame allowing for fewer cells safely) or the power would be gimped (to allow for lower overall battery capacity).
Electric cars are competing with the entire petroleum-fuel supply chain, and as such, are fighting a david vs. goliath battle.
That Tesla does this, has won consistently, and wins with style is why their stock is up 500% over the past year.
Of course, they've picked their battles, and fighting the S4 or 3 series isn't one of those they're ready to fight (yet). Maybe, like Apple, they never will (Apple ceded the enthusiast/gaming desktop market years ago).
Of course here in the Seattle area there are tesla model S cars on every other street so the curb appeal story is a little different.
You are comparing cars that don't really compete, yet the Tesla matches or outperforms them. I personally like to know that it's faster than X or better equipped than Y or drives better than Z.
Maybe putting the Aston into 1st would be more fair, but that's not a realistic real-world test. You don't mill around town in 1st gear. It's a surprising result because having full-torque at all times still helps when you are milling around at local-town speeds. It's not just an electric-car pony trick.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html
"Electricity is a significant source of energy in the United States and is used to power homes, business, and industry. The combustion of fossil fuels to generate electricity is the largest single source of CO2 emissions in the nation, accounting for about 38% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 32% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2011. The type of fossil fuel used to generate electricity will emit different amounts of CO2. To produce a given amount of electricity, burning coal will produce more CO2 than oil or natural gas."
A lot of people don't realize the amount of CO2 that electricity produces.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2013/08/21/with-the-...
"The Tesla’s state-of-the-art materials, particularly that $30,000 battery, take a massive amount of energy to build–and that energy comes from fossil fuels, particularly coal. In fact, some studies argue that the Tesla battery takes so much fossil fuel energy to make that the car over its lifetime emits more CO2 than a gasoline-powered car."
There are many factors that this statement fails to take into account. Perhaps most importantly, the efficiency at which that energy is turned into useful power to propel the vehicle. Further, this is speaking very broadly about these fuel sources, and so is not directly applicable to specific complex. A quick google search surfaced a DOE primer[1] on EVs that claims that they are both "Energy Efficient" since "Electric vehicles convert about 59–62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels—conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17–21% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels." and "Environmentally Friendly" because "EVs emit no tailpipe pollutants, although the power plant producing the electricity may emit them. Electricity from nuclear-, hydro-, solar-, or wind-powered plants causes no air pollutants." On the latter point, power plant technology is increasingly moving away from dirty coal generation processes in the developed world, so gas powered vehicles will be at an increasingly great disadvantage.
The EPA also uses a method for rating vehicle fuel efficiency of non-petrol burning vehicles called eMPG[2] (effective miles per gallon) that takes into account the energy potential of the ultimate fuel source/sources used by the vehicle and converts them to the MPG (miles per gallon of petrol) scale. Electric vehicles rule the top of the rated vehicles followed by a couple hybrids and deisel compacts. EVs tend to be ~2x more fuel efficient than similarly sized petrol vehicles when compared by this particular method.
Concerning the Model S in particular, the EPA rates it as the most fuel efficient large sedan at 95 eMPG. Speaking generally, the only car class (does not take into account trucks and SUVs) that is led in fuel efficiency according to the EPA is the Midsize Station Wagon class. It is led by the Prius Model V, and the class does not seem to have a pure EV option. Every other class is led in fuel efficiency by an EV.
Finally, according to the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions calculator, the 2013 Tesla model S generates a US average of 250 grams per mile driven of Greenhouse gas emissions compared to the average new car at 500 gpm[3]. So half as bad as the average new vehicle in terms of GHG emissions.
P.S. Sorry for the somewhat poorly structured nature of this comment. It evolved organically along with the research used to produce it.
[1]http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml
[2]http://www.epa.gov/carlabel/electriclabelreadmore.htm#2
[3]http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?zipCode=78641&year=20...
[edit: I can never seem to remember that the editor eats up single newlines, fixed the footnotes section so that they don't all appear on the same line.]
>"In fact, some studies argue that the Tesla battery takes so much fossil fuel energy to make that the car over its lifetime emits more CO2 than a gasoline-powered car."
That car being a Prius, not a comparable full-size sedan.
The study also assumes a vehicle lifespan of 100,000 miles, or about 8 years of driving. I would be quite surprised if an all-aluminum car with few moving parts dies 3 years before the average age of cars on the road today (11.4 years).
Link to the actual report: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/a-roadmap-to-climate-frie...
Edit: digging deeper, their whole argument ultimately rests on this report: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es103607c
GreenCarCongress reviewed it, saying
>They also found higher life cycle global warming emissions than have been previously reported.
And they are actually doing it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#Renewable_ene...
The share of electricity produced from renewable energy in Germany has increased from 6.3 percent of the national total in 2000 to over 25 percent in the first half of 2012. Renewable energy share of gross electricity consumption rose from 10% in 2005 to 20% in 2011.
The second link is a propaganda piece on a guy's blog.
So for 1 year that's 1,514L. And 1L of super unleaded = £1.43, so you're spending £2,165.02 per year on petrol. You can make your own figures up for insurance and what have you - let's call it £5,000 per year, averaged out. Assuming the Tesla is £80,000, you don't break even until year 6, assuming the Tesla's running costs are £0/year.
If you do drive a lot you'd probably buy some kind of diesel car, so then you could expect more like 30mpg, perhaps, assuming you're going for the equivalent of this 20mpg thing. And the break-even part recedes further into the future, or you can just drive more.
(I've no real feel for what sort of car you'd get for £50,000 though. At a guess: BMW 530d, Jaguar XF, Range Rover TDV6...? Something like that. Are those really the Tesla Model S's natural competitors?)
It's already happening in the US:
http://www.npr.org/2013/08/15/212311986/states-targeting-hyb...
One reason it would be cool to all switch to electric powered vehicles is that we'd centralize practically all consumer energy to one source (not counting the relative bit of natural gas used for home heating). This means that we'd only have to worry about energy reform of one source.
Yes, but 60% of the cost of petrol in the UK is taxes & VAT.
Don't get me wrong, I believe Tesla is an incredible company and doing something awesome. But there's more to a car than just performance specs.
All that stuff is fine, I guess. There will always be luxury markets, and that's where the Rapide is aimed, and I'm sure the purchasers like them just fine.
But that's not where Tesla is aimed. I think there was a Matthew Yglesias post a few days back about exactly this: look at Tesla's stock price. They're looking to be another GM or Toyota or Daimler, not just another spit-and-polish luxury vendor (or Ford subsidiary in this case, I believe).
The real point here is that there's an existing market for performance sedans, performance is something that can be measured objectively, and Tesla's offering competes very well.
That's the point of your parent's comment. Acknowledging that the two vehicles are designed with different things in mind, and thus are sort of like racing apples and oranges.
That being said, the reviewer mentions that the interior and exterior is on the same level as the AM, yet the AM feels dated.
Honestly, its Detroit that should be dead scared, the Volt is a piece of crap, and I don't see anything Hybrid that's interesting.
VW's position is more interesting. According to them, Diesel is preferrable over electric for a wide range of use cases. And I guess they are right as long as battery technology does not significantly improve.
I was going to go pick up one in a few hours to see how it handles. Benefit being free HOV lane access.
i've heard numerous people (i live in LA) and seen numerous comments on the internet say that now they "get it" - that is - they "get" why people would be "into" cars. like it was a huge mystery before, why someone would be passionate about automobiles.
it's mind blowing. how can you not "get" why people are into cars (even if you yourself aren't into cars?)... like, i understand perfectly well why people are "into" things that i'm not.
That's a huge but necessary undertaking to make it a viable alternative to traditional cars with their vast network of petrol stations.
These comparisons between expensive performance cars are fun but they're only done for entertainment value. Ultimately this car is changing the industry and the fundamentals to how automotive transport is designed and serviced.
If ever there was a collectors car, decades into the future this will be it.
Actually if car manufacturers take an existing, good looking car and swap the engine with a battery bank it would be something I would be interested in driving. But instead they somehow make their hybrids and EVs as ugly as possible.
If only Tesla manufactured auto-rickshaws which is popular in cities like Bangalore. We would have green, silent and "cool" mobility. We would be still stuck in traffic jams but hell, it would be a walk in the park compared to now.
Of course, take heed from the Insight and Prius of the late 90's vs. the Prius of the 2000's. You have to hit just the right mark of ordinary but not too ordinary- if it is too weird, people won't buy, but if it's too normal nobody will notice how progressive and smart and cool you are for buying it.
But Autocar also do comparisons that don't really mean much, like a track race between an SUV and a trackday special. The rolling start race with the Aston isn't meant to signify anything other than the real world result of the huge torque in an all electric. When the Model S ships in the UK their review will be a must read. This is just a little fun.
They could murder it on the very top and low end of the market.
So the article seems more like a backhanded compliment.
