[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by Quake4SMP

Except they're really really really slow. 0-60 in over 10 seconds. SO yeah, it would make it up the hill, but it wouldn't accelerate very fast.

Ever driven an Accord Hybrid? As it is, even the Prius makes it in 10, as does the Civic Hybrid. So much for over 10.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Quake4SMP

Except they're really really really slow. 0-60 in over 10 seconds. SO yeah, it would make it up the hill, but it wouldn't accelerate very fast.

Wtf are you talking about? For example, the new Ford Escape Hybrid is faster on the 0-60 than the 'normal' version. It also has more torque.

[Quake4SMP]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Read the fraking website Ca$h. it gives you all the info you need about the range, the weight of the car, even the way it is heated. The batteries are designed to last for 100.000 miles minimum and to be easily replaceable.

But of course, you will know better, again.

Whatever dumbass. If electric cars were such a good idea, how come less than .05% of america's population drives them?

Durrrrr...

But go ahead. Read the freaking website. It's not biased at all, they're only trying to sell you one. Seems like you've already swallowed.

[Y3a]

Perhaps the slowness has more to do with the drivers?

[Quake4SMP]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear

The Honda EV Plus had an extra standard 12V battery for accessories, taking some of the load off the main drive batteries. On the GM EV1, headlights at night would affect the range by about 10%, as I found quoted. A standard stereo system in a car probably uses less. On a car with a 250 mile range, that doesn't mean anything to a normal commute. Anyway, I'm sure you're more qualified to speculate about the viability of EVs than most engineers that design them, aren't you?

Old people use electric golf carts as cars in florida.

In WI, there are ZERO old people who use them as cars. Why? Crap range. Ever see the term CCA when buying batteries? That's cold cranking amps. The power of a battery drops pretty low in cold weather.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Perhaps the slowness has more to do with the drivers?

A car is only as good as the driver at the wheel

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Quake4SMP

Whatever dumbass. If electric cars were such a good idea, how come less than .05% of america's population drives them?
Durrrrr...
But go ahead. Read the freaking website. It's not biased at all, they're only trying to sell you one. Seems like you've already swallowed.

This is new technology, it is only just now coming to a stage where it is commercially viable to build electric cars. There was a time when 0.5% of the population drove gasoline powered cars. There was a time when the steam engine ruled. What's so difficult to understand?

And here's some more info on your 'hybrid cars are slow' statement:

Then there is the performance hook. Like its sister vehicle the Lexus RX 400h launched in late spring, the Highlander Hybrid does not play so much on its fuel-efficient econo-model credentials as it does the raciness of the two SUVs. The all-wheel-drive (AWD) Highlander Hybrid (268 horsepower) launches from 0-100 km/hour in about 7.5 seconds, about half a second faster than the AWD V6 gas model (230 hp). And the Hybrid does it with the fuel economy of a smallish car.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by Quake4SMP

Old people use electric golf carts as cars in florida.

In WI, there are ZERO old people who use them as cars. Why? Crap range. Ever see the term CCA when buying batteries? That's cold cranking amps. The power of a battery drops pretty low in cold weather.

Which is precisely why Tesla compensated for that problem. Try reading the site. 250 miles isn't that bad compared to some gas hog vehicles out there.

[Quake4SMP]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Wtf are you talking about? For example, the new Ford Escape Hybrid is faster on the 0-60 than the 'normal' version. It also has more torque.

Your point being? The regular ford escape has a puny 4 cylinder in a rather largish SUV. THe hybrid has a small engine PLUS motors, which are extremely torquey at low RPMs. If you honestly think just because something is a hybrid it makes it fast you need to set down the crack pipe and wake up the real world. Hybrids have an engine, as do normal cars, PLUS they have to carry around a shitload of heavy batteries, generators, motors, and all that regenerative braking bullshit. It's much more complicated, and much heavier.

[Quake4SMP]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear

Which is precisely why Tesla compensated for that problem. Try reading the site. 250 miles isn't that bad compared to some gas hog vehicles out there.

They ADVERTISE 250 miles in a best case scenario. In warm weather, during the day, no a/c, no heat, no headlights. Steady speed. Try accelerating a few times, with the lights on, in cold weather, and expect the range to be UNDER HALF THAT.

It's like APPLE dude. They advertise their **** as being faster than everyting else, bla bla bla. They are ADVERTISING 250 mile range. THATS PATHETIC. My SVX gets over 400miles to a tank, and the neon got over 380, my wifes car gets over 350 and that's WITH the heat, a/c, lights, in cold weather, etc.

[Mastrap]

No they don't, don't talk BS. They advertise 250 miles as the average, not a best case at all.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Quake4SMP

Your point being? The regular ford escape has a puny 4 cylinder in a rather largish SUV. THe hybrid has a small engine PLUS motors, which are extremely torquey at low RPMs. If you honestly think just because something is a hybrid it makes it fast you need to set down the crack pipe and wake up the real world. Hybrids have an engine, as do normal cars, PLUS they have to carry around a shitload of heavy batteries, generators, motors, and all that regenerative braking bullshit. It's much more complicated, and much heavier.

Hello?

Then there is the performance hook. Like its sister vehicle the Lexus RX 400h launched in late spring, the Highlander Hybrid does not play so much on its fuel-efficient econo-model credentials as it does the raciness of the two SUVs. The all-wheel-drive (AWD) Highlander Hybrid (268 horsepower) launches from 0-100 km/hour in about 7.5 seconds, about half a second faster than the AWD V6 gas model (230 hp). And the Hybrid does it with the fuel economy of a smallish car.

[Mastrap]

Oh ****. I am arguing with Ca$h on the internet. Sorry about that. So dude, whatever. You win.

[Quake4SMP]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Hello?

It's an SUV. They're big and heavy, so it'd be more of an improvement. Why? Torque. Electric motors produce a lot of it at low RPMs. It's instant. Torque moves heavy vehicles. A hybrid in something like a civic is NOT faster. Why? You don't need much torque to get a smaller car moving. Heavier vehicles require more torque.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by Quake4SMP

They ADVERTISE 250 miles in a best case scenario. In warm weather, during the day, no a/c, no heat, no headlights. Steady speed. Try accelerating a few times, with the lights on, in cold weather, and expect the range to be UNDER HALF THAT.

I saw no where on the site where they listed ideal driving conditions as anything other than not being aggressive. In fact, there wasn't really any fine print either. You can't just make assumptions about it. They said 250 would be under EPA Highway testing. Oops. For that matter, my Civic LX pulls higher than it's EPA highway rating for the kind of driving I do. I get around 450-500 miles on a single tank, but it's no high speed roadster.

[Quake4SMP]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Oh ****. I am arguing with Ca$h on the internet. Sorry about that. So dude, whatever. You win.

Oh ****. I'm arguing with some dumbshit who doesn't live and breath automotive information and thinks he knows what he's talking about. You win. You read the website that's trying to sell you something, so they MUST be right! No bias at all!

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by Quake4SMP

It's an SUV. They're big and heavy, so it'd be more of an improvement. Why? Torque. Electric motors produce a lot of it at low RPMs. It's instant. Torque moves heavy vehicles. A hybrid in something like a civic is NOT faster. Why? You don't need much torque to get a smaller car moving. Heavier vehicles require more torque.

With more torque you're going to move a small car faster. That's why all the Dodge SRT-4s can haul ass on a WRX in a straight line. They're rated similar in HP, but which one's got more torque? The SRT does. The reason the Civic isn't faster is because of the puny ass electric motor they put in there.

[Quake4SMP]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear

I saw no where on the site where they listed ideal driving conditions as anything other than not being aggressive. In fact, there wasn't really any fine print either. You can't just make assumptions about it. They said 250 would be under EPA Highway testing. Oops. For that matter, my Civic LX pulls higher than it's EPA highway rating for the kind of driving I do. I get around 450-500 miles on a single tank, but it's no high speed roadster.

It's funny you mention that. EPA's regulated MPG claims are coming under fire. The prius has trouble hitting it's numbers, and most people can very RARELY achieve what their car was told it would do on the window sticker. Because of this, there's going to be a huge reform in the way they test vehicles MPG, and it will probably lower everytihng to simulate more real life driving.

[Quake4SMP]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear

With more torque you're going to move a small car faster. That's why all the Dodge SRT-4s can haul ass on a WRX in a straight line. They're rated similar in HP, but which one's got more torque? The SRT does. The reason the Civic isn't faster is because of the puny ass electric motor they put in there.

Bzzzzt.

The SRT4 has MORE power than the WRX, more torque, and most importantly, a LOT less drivetrain loss. AWD= 25-30% loss in the drivetrain. FWD = 12-20%.

A wrx will own an SRT4 in the launch, but once they're moving, the SRT4 walks away.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by Quake4SMP

It's funny you mention that. EPA's regulated MPG claims are coming under fire. The prius has trouble hitting it's numbers, and most people can very RARELY achieve what their car was told it would do on the window sticker. Because of this, there's going to be a huge reform in the way they test vehicles MPG, and it will probably lower everytihng to simulate more real life driving.

This is because people drive mixed conditions. I don't. My commute is 98% highway.

[Quake4SMP]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear

This is because people drive mixed conditions. I don't. My commute is 98% highway.

Of course. But most people don't drive 98% highway.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by Quake4SMP

Bzzzzt.

The SRT4 has MORE power than the WRX, more torque, and most importantly, a LOT less drivetrain loss. AWD= 25-30% loss in the drivetrain. FWD = 12-20%.

A wrx will own an SRT4 in the launch, but once they're moving, the SRT4 walks away.

The late model WRX had 210-220 hp. The SRT-4 was rated the same. The SRT had more torque. That's why it walked the WRX. Drivetrain loss is completely debateable. I see people argue that up and down all day. BTW, look at the new model WRX. It has a larger engine now.

If torque didn't move a car faster, there'd be no reason for the SRT to have more torque. It's already a lighter car, and less weight alone isn't going to move a car.

[Shaddim]

Is there a place where we can actually see full pics of the Tesla roadster? I'm very impressed, but want to see something other than a renderings or sections.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by Quake4SMP

Of course. But most people don't drive 98% highway.

Then let them look at the EPA City rating. It's there for a reason. Interesting how the city rating on the Prius is higher than the highway. Hmm...I wonder why that is It really does meet its EPA rating well in the city, if you don't stomp the gas pedal like an idiot. That a lot of people drive aggressively doesn't reflect the kind of fuel economy you can get with the car if you drive reasonably.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Is there a place where we can actually see full pics of the Tesla roadster? I'm very impressed, but want to see something other than a renderings or sections.

I thought I saw some earlier. If I find them, I'll post a link. They ought to have some because the car does exist even though it isn't on sale until 2007.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Quake4SMP

Your point being? The regular ford escape has a puny 4 cylinder in a rather largish SUV. THe hybrid has a small engine PLUS motors, which are extremely torquey at low RPMs. If you honestly think just because something is a hybrid it makes it fast you need to set down the crack pipe and wake up the real world. Hybrids have an engine, as do normal cars, PLUS they have to carry around a shitload of heavy batteries, generators, motors, and all that regenerative braking bullshit. It's much more complicated, and much heavier.

The Escape is a 'largish' SUV? Not really.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

The Escape is a 'largish' SUV? Not really.

Plus it was made using unibody construction. No 'largish' SUV is.

[Gossamer]

Plus it has a V6 along with that 4cyl

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Plus it has a V6 along with that 4cyl

Yeah. Which is a nice option, but I've read it's not all that fast. Then again, it's still an SUV. Want a fast SUV? Porsche has one

[Gossamer]

The Mazda CX-7 is respectable too. I remember that Ford made a concept Expedition with the Lightning's supercharged 5.4 and IRS...I bet that thing hauled pretty well.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

The Mazda CX-7 is respectable too. I remember that Ford made a concept Expedition with the Lightning's supercharged 5.4 and IRS...I bet that thing hauled pretty well.

Yeah, the CX-7 doesn't look too bad. I didn't know about that Expedition. That's interesting. I'm not a big SUV fan (I'd rather save my gas money) but I wouldn't mind driving one of the performance ones once to see what it's like to haul ass in a tank

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear

Yeah, the CX-7 doesn't look too bad. I didn't know about that Expedition. That's interesting. I'm not a big SUV fan (I'd rather save my gas money) but I wouldn't mind driving one of the performance ones once to see what it's like to haul ass in a tank

It was on SVT's website under the 'concepts' category for a while, but that's been redesigned and I can't find it any more. Truck Trend talks about it, and builds a replica. Performance numbers were something like 5.6 to 60mph, 14.1s at 97.8mph in 1/4. Not bad for a tank.

[Mithras]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Is there a place where we can actually see full pics of the Tesla roadster? I'm very impressed, but want to see something other than a renderings or sections.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/07...-santa-monica/

[Gossamer]

Ahhnold!

[Quake4SMP]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear

The late model WRX had 210-220 hp. The SRT-4 was rated the same. The SRT had more torque. That's why it walked the WRX. Drivetrain loss is completely debateable. I see people argue that up and down all day. BTW, look at the new model WRX. It has a larger engine now.

If torque didn't move a car faster, there'd be no reason for the SRT to have more torque. It's already a lighter car, and less weight alone isn't going to move a car.

BZzzzz WRONG.

The WRX was advertised as having about 230hp. The SRT4 was advertised as having 250hp. That's a 20hp difference right there. HOWEVER, somehow, someway, the SRT4 was putting down 239hp to the wheels. Hrrmmmm...... why? Because it's underrated. It has MORE than 250hp at the crank.

Sorry. You lose. The WRX has higher drivetrain losses, less power, and more weight. The neon was (no longer made )lighter, more powerful, and had less drivetrain loss. You are talking to a person who was a neon fanatic, and now is a subie fanatic. I know both of these subjects quite well.

Yeah, the new WRXs with 2.5s are pretty badass. Torque is just as important as hp, but you have to remember HP= Torque X RPM.

Hence, for an engine to be powerful in the lower rpm band, ie, an engine designed to get HEAVY VEHICLES MOVING, it has to have a lot of torque in lower revs.

A honda civic or other small car does not need as much torque down low, so you can tune it to make bigger power up in the upper RPM range.

That said, having a torquey engine in a small car is blast. I drove a 2.4 liter 1st gen neon (stratus or minivan swap, I don't rmeember)... what a blast. Thing ran 14.1s, NA, and burned through tires in all three first gears. heh.

[Quake4SMP]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

The Escape is a 'largish' SUV? Not really.

It's quite large compared to a prius, civic, etc.

Pretty big compared even to the huge ass boat accord honda makes now.

[Quake4SMP]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear

I wouldn't mind driving one of the performance ones once to see what it's like to haul ass in a tank

Drive a musclecar.

[Buckaroo]

If scientists are able to make this nanotube batteries to work, then recharge time would be reduced to a fraction of the time of lead acid batteries.

[blackstar]

it looks really sexy...and it has nice spechs...i wonder where the catch is?
crash rating? ewww

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by Quake4SMP

BZzzzz WRONG.

The WRX was advertised as having about 230hp. The SRT4 was advertised as having 250hp. That's a 20hp difference right there. HOWEVER, somehow, someway, the SRT4 was putting down 239hp to the wheels. Hrrmmmm...... why? Because it's underrated. It has MORE than 250hp at the crank.

Sorry. You lose. The WRX has higher drivetrain losses, less power, and more weight. The neon was (no longer made )lighter, more powerful, and had less drivetrain loss. You are talking to a person who was a neon fanatic, and now is a subie fanatic. I know both of these subjects quite well.

For someone who calls himself a fanatic that knows everything, you don't know a damn thing at all. The early WRXs were NOT rated that high, and the SRT-4 was NEVER rated that high by Chrysler. From 97 on the WRX was rated 227, but the early models were 15-20hp less or so (this I actually had to look up, I was familiar with the old specs as I haven't followed Subaru too close for a while), for the SRT-4 the 2003 was 215, the 2k4, 2k5, and 2k5.5 models were rated 230 by Chrysler.

BTW, my last car was a 95 Neon, 5 speed. I know my Neons as well, and I followed the turbocharged Neon bandwagon since one of the early concepts before the SRT concept. You're an idiot.

[Stratus Fear]

Originally Posted by Quake4SMP

It's quite large compared to a prius, civic, etc.

Pretty big compared even to the huge ass boat accord honda makes now.

Right, because the Prius and the Civic are both SUVs.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear

For someone who calls himself a fanatic that knows everything, you don't know a damn thing at all. The early WRXs were NOT rated that high, and the SRT-4 was NEVER rated that high by Chrysler. From 97 on the WRX was rated 227, but the early models were 15-20hp less or so (this I actually had to look up, I was familiar with the old specs as I haven't followed Subaru too close for a while), for the SRT-4 the 2003 was 215, the 2k4, 2k5, and 2k5.5 models were rated 230 by Chrysler.

BTW, my last car was a 95 Neon, 5 speed. I know my Neons as well, and I followed the turbocharged Neon bandwagon since one of the early concepts before the SRT concept. You're an idiot.

I think Rob mistyped, but the SRT-4 was underrated.

And they are faster than a WRX.

Rob is an idiot though.

[Doofy]

Mmmmm... ...a discussion about Neons. Ca$h must have been in this thread.

[Quake4alwaysCrashes]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear

For someone who calls himself a fanatic that knows everything, you don't know a damn thing at all. The early WRXs were NOT rated that high, and the SRT-4 was NEVER rated that high by Chrysler. From 97 on the WRX was rated 227, but the early models were 15-20hp less or so (this I actually had to look up, I was familiar with the old specs as I haven't followed Subaru too close for a while), for the SRT-4 the 2003 was 215, the 2k4, 2k5, and 2k5.5 models were rated 230 by Chrysler.

BTW, my last car was a 95 Neon, 5 speed. I know my Neons as well, and I followed the turbocharged Neon bandwagon since one of the early concepts before the SRT concept. You're an idiot.

First off, you're right. The SRT4 was advertised as 230hp, so I give you that. But read this:

http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/fe...dge_neon_srt4/

It put 223 HP TO THE WHEELS. HOW? It either has the world's most efficient transmission, or it's making about 250hp. So, yeah, I got mixed up. But it DOES make 250hp, like it or not, if it's putting about 220 to the wheels. WRXs, for example, put about 160-175 to the wheels. That's a pretty drastic difference.

The WRXs have ALWAYS been rated at 227hp here in the states. Period.

The SRT4 was NOT 215hp. Ever. Again, read the sport compact car review. That was the year it came out, and it was pushing 223 to the wheels.

Lastly, big deal. I had a neon long before the SRT4 was even a twinkle in someone's eye. I've been to 3 or 4 neon conventions, I've been INTO the belvidere plant, and myself and a few other enthusiasts were treated to a special presentation by the PVO team before the SRT4 was even unveiled to the public.

The following pic is me sitting INSIDE a prototype SRT4, it didnt' even have a vin number. This was before the magazines even knew it was going to go into production.



So... blow me. I had my stats wrong about some ****, but I do know what I'm talking about.

[Quake4alwaysCrashes]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I think Rob mistyped, but the SRT-4 was underrated.

And they are faster than a WRX.

Rob is an idiot though.

I'm not the one who believes total bullshit like your stupid ass bible.

[Quake4alwaysCrashes]

Originally Posted by Stratus Fear

Right, because the Prius and the Civic are both SUVs.

Dude. Rav4. Isuzu Amigo. Geo Tracker. THOSE are small SUVs. The escape is pretty ****ing big. It's not large, but it isn't ****ing small.

[Quake4alwaysCrashes]

Originally Posted by blackstar

it looks really sexy...and it has nice spechs...i wonder where the catch is?
crash rating? ewww

It's electric. Hence total **** range (they're ADVERTISING 250 mile range. In real life it'll be hard to meet that unless you drive like a grandma, and 98% highway like mastrap)

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Quake4alwaysCrashes

I'm not the one who believes total bullshit like your stupid ass bible.

Thanks for showing us an example of your idiocy.

[Quake4alwaysCrashes]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Thanks for showing us an example of your idiocy.

My idiocy= believing in actual proof, rational thought, and scientific method?

And your 'rationality' is believing in something without proof, evidence, or reason, based on a book written by uneducated people 1900 years ago who's followers tormented, maimed, and killed millions of people for disagreeing with them or pursuing astronomy?

I guess I'm glad to be an idiot then, so long as I'm not in some group who's leaders molest children and who's followers prefer to remain ignorant morons.

[Kevin]

No you are ignorant by the things you say Rob.

Again this last post you made is another example.

You acting out like that doesn't make you smart, edgy or "cool"

It just makes people think you are an asshat.

If that is your goal, then you've reached it.