Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > New Electric Car

New Electric Car (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Stratus Fear
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2006, 08:31 PM
 
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.
Oh yeah, I know they're faster. I wanted one. Wish I wasn't in college, then I could have bought one The 2003 model put about 255 at the crank and the 2k4/2k5 models did around 275 at the crank, to put 230-240 (<-- edited. people had varying dyno runs) to the wheels which is what Dodge rated at the crank those years. That thing was a beastly car.
( Last edited by Stratus Fear; Jul 20, 2006 at 08:48 PM. )
     
Stratus Fear
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2006, 08:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Quake4alwaysCrashes
The WRXs have ALWAYS been rated at 227hp here in the states. Period.
The years 1992-1996 disagree with you.

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 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.
Holy crap, you messed up the years and you missed the part where I said it was RATED 215 BY CHRYSLER (edit: in 2003). Don't assume I don't know what I'm talking about. I know how highly it was underrated, and I know what Dodge rated it, and I know it was rated lower in 2k3 than later years because they increased the boost on the later models. Thanks for playing but no prize for you this time.

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.

snip

So... blow me. I had my stats wrong about some ****, but I do know what I'm talking about.
That's great. You can sit inside the effing car but that doesn't mean you know anything. I have a friend who is a journalist and claims to be a game nut, goes to E3 and he's still a retard when it comes to some things about video games. Same thing really.
     
Stratus Fear
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2006, 08:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Quake4alwaysCrashes
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.
Well that's great, but that has nothing to do with how the Prius and Civic are suddenly SUVs.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2006, 08:39 PM
 
Yeah um Rob I don't think Stratus is arguing with you.

He knows it was rated lower.

I think it's a case of Rob knee-jerking again.
     
Stratus Fear
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2006, 08:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Quake4alwaysCrashes
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)
That's great. When somebody driving normally gets 250 (because they will) you can come back and eat my poop. According to a video I saw, they said 250 on the EPA driving cycle, which I'm pretty sure includes city and highway conditions, with normal driving. The EPA stuff is off the mark for pedal to the metal people, but it should be, because people who aren't idiots don't drive that way on a daily basis.
     
Stratus Fear
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2006, 08:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
Yeah um Rob I don't think Stratus is arguing with you.

He knows it was rated lower.

I think it's a case of Rob knee-jerking again.
Yes. Rob's also going to help me get the five star post count, apparently.
     
aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2006, 11:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Gossamer
Well if it doesn't have any head, maybe someone will have to give it some.
LMAO!!!

Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
The Godfather
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Tampa, Florida
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2006, 11:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by stevesnj
Does this car even have heat for us winter drivers?
Winter drivers can lick my Florida T-shirt

Some people here complain about how an electric car will be more complex than a gas car. In fact, they are under estimating the intricate functions of the reciprocating engine and all the supporting systems. Electric cars are actually simpler than gas cars.

When electric cars are mass produced in Mexico and become cheaper than gas cars, no one is going to care that they need to be recharged every 3 days.

I can't wait until we nail the coffin on the internal combustion engine car
( Last edited by The Godfather; Jul 21, 2006 at 12:55 AM. )
     
aberdeenwriter
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2006, 11:45 PM
 
For heat couldn't they just throw in a couple of Titanium Powerbooks under the seat cushions?

That should warm things up, right?
Consider these posts as my way of introducing you to yourself.

Proud "SMACKDOWN!!" and "Golden Troll" Award Winner.
     
Stratus Fear
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2006, 12:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Godfather
I can't wait until we nail the coffin on the internal combustion engine car
I think the only thing I'd miss is the sound of one. I've always loved the sound of a nice combustion engine. I also like the way that some brand engines have kind of a "signature" sound.
     
a2daj
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Edmonds, WA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2006, 12:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Stratus Fear
The years 1992-1996 disagree with you.
The WRX wasn't out in the US until 2001 (for the 2002 model). The previous top end Impreza in the US was the 2.5RS.
     
Stratus Fear
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2006, 12:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by a2daj
The WRX wasn't out in the US until 2001 (for the 2002 model). The previous top end Impreza in the US was the 2.5RS.
Yeah. They've been available in Japan and Europe before that, though.
     
Gossamer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "Working"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2006, 12:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter
For heat couldn't they just throw in a couple of Titanium Powerbooks under the seat cushions?

That should warm things up, right?
I would say just use a couple MacBooks, but those would probably start a fire.
     
a2daj
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Edmonds, WA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2006, 12:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Stratus Fear
Yeah. They've been available in Japan and Europe before that, though.
Yes, I know that. The last thing I'd want to do is defend Rob, but when you claimed he got the years wrong he was clearly references the WRX with respect to the US release.
     
Stratus Fear
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2006, 02:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by a2daj
Yes, I know that. The last thing I'd want to do is defend Rob, but when you claimed he got the years wrong he was clearly references the WRX with respect to the US release.
My claim about the wrong years ("Holy crap, you messed up the years") was about the SRT-4 in regards to what years the car was rated X horsepower by the manufacturer, where Rob said it was always rated Y and never X, which wasn't true. It had nothing to do with the WRX. Reading it again, I didn't make it very clear. My bad.

The other part where I listed 92-96 was about the Japan thing. I knew he was referencing the US market, but I really don't care. He claimed to know his stuff so I offered a counter.
( Last edited by Stratus Fear; Jul 21, 2006 at 02:29 PM. )
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 21, 2006, 10:27 PM
 
Pictures of the car available now. Reminds me of Lotus cars.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Stratus Wrong
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2006, 12:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by Stratus Fear
The years 1992-1996 disagree with you.
Are you ****ing retarded? Seriously. Reread what you just quoted:

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

Here, I'll even bold it for you "The WRXs have ALWAYS been rated at 227hp here in the states. Period."

The usa didn't HAVE WRXs from 1992-1996, dumbass.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2006, 12:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Stratus Wrong
dumbass.


BYE BYE
     
Stratus Wrong
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2006, 12:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Stratus Fear
I think the only thing I'd miss is the sound of one. I've always loved the sound of a nice combustion engine. I also like the way that some brand engines have kind of a "signature" sound.
Don't hold your breath. They'll be around until we have a viable alternative, and current battery technology = electric cars are for idiots.

Actually... wait... take that back. Hold your breath. Everyone will spend 80k on this thing that ha s a range of 250miles on a good day in warm weather. I promise.
     
Stratus Wrong
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2006, 12:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by Stratus Fear
Yeah. They've been available in Japan and Europe before that, though.
So what is your point? I said IN THE STATES. We were comparing WRXs to SRT4s, correct? You and I both live in the states correct? So when I say the WRX has x amount of power, and the SRT4 has y amount, why are you attempting to bring japanese and european WRXs into the argument???
     
Stratus Wrong
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2006, 12:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Stratus Fear
My claim about the wrong years ("Holy crap, you messed up the years") was about the SRT-4 in regards to what years the car was rated X horsepower by the manufacturer, where Rob said it was always rated Y and never X, which wasn't true. It had nothing to do with the WRX. Reading it again, I didn't make it very clear. My bad.

The other part where I listed 92-96 was about the Japan thing. I knew he was referencing the US market, but I really don't care. He claimed to know his stuff so I offered a counter.
I said it has ALWAYS had over 230 hp. I will quote myself for you. "First off, you're right. The SRT4 was advertised as 230hp, so I give you that.... ... ... 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.

I do know my ****, which is why I clarified that the ****ing WRXs we get HERE IN THE STATES (did you see that part yet?) have ALWAYS been rated at 227hp. Til recently anyway, now they have a bi tmore.
     
Stratus Wrong
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2006, 02:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin


BYE BYE
     
Mithras
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: :ИOITAↃOâ…ƒ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2006, 11:23 AM
 
One question: So if this thing has a top speed of 130mph and a range of ~ 250mi, that means you can drive it about an hour before you have to turn it around? Okay, so you probably aren't going 130mph the whole time; let's say you're doing 90. Then you get about an hour and a half before you better turn back around and get back to the 'lectric socket?
     
Stratus Fear
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2006, 12:44 PM
 
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.
It was rated 215 by Chrysler in 2k3. You can either look it up, or keep making a fool of yourself.

I do know my ****, which is why I clarified that the ****ing WRXs we get HERE IN THE STATES (did you see that part yet?) have ALWAYS been rated at 227hp. Til recently anyway, now they have a bi tmore.
That's great. I did read it, and I did indeed, for some reason, miss that you said the states. I don't know why, but it doesn't really give you the right to be an ass. You'll get banned again. Have a nice trip.

You're still wrong about the SRT4. I don't care what the auto magazine observed. I stated WHAT IT WAS ON PAPER. You never addressed that at all, but danced around the point so you could do some name-calling. http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...dge_neon_srt4/

You're an idiot.

Edit:

http://www.internetautoguide.com/car...t-4/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_SRT-4
http://www.elepent.com/review.php?nr=589
( Last edited by Stratus Fear; Jul 22, 2006 at 12:52 PM. )
     
Stratus Fear
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2006, 01:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mithras
One question: So if this thing has a top speed of 130mph and a range of ~ 250mi, that means you can drive it about an hour before you have to turn it around? Okay, so you probably aren't going 130mph the whole time; let's say you're doing 90. Then you get about an hour and a half before you better turn back around and get back to the 'lectric socket?
That's really how it is for now, but there are some vehicles out there with ICEs that get about the same range (gas hogs). The real difference is that you can stop at a gas station with a normal vehicle (like you said, you'd have to turn around and go to an electric socket) -- for longer ranges, the battery technology will need to improve to charge faster and we'll need charging stations as well. These things don't at all make the car not viable. It's just not for long ranges. The majority of Americans don't travel long range every day. There are still people out there with RAV4 EVs that use them every day for work with no problems (they have about 120-130 mile range if my memory serves).
     
Stratus Wrong
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2006, 01:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Stratus Fear
It was rated 215 by Chrysler in 2k3.
And again, they can rate it whatever the **** they want. It doesn't change the fact that it HAS MORE THAN HP THAN A WRX.

It is RATED 215, sure, whatever, but when it puts 223 TO THE WHEELS, then it is obviously making more like 250.

So if you want to say the SRT4 is faster because of torque and that it has less HP than a WRX, that is only true on paper.

But in the really real world, ie, the world that matters, ie, reality, ie the place we actually live in, it (the srt4) is a lighter car with MORE horespower, MORE torque, and less drivetrain loss.

But keep throwing that 215 spec around. It makes you seem like a retarded christian who believes in bullshit.
     
Stratus Wrong
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2006, 01:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mithras
One question: So if this thing has a top speed of 130mph and a range of ~ 250mi, that means you can drive it about an hour before you have to turn it around? Okay, so you probably aren't going 130mph the whole time; let's say you're doing 90. Then you get about an hour and a half before you better turn back around and get back to the 'lectric socket?
Now imagine the scenario at night. With the radio. And heat. In the cold. You can now drive about 20 minutes before having to turn around. Yay. What a way to spend $80,000.

Here's a better idea: Spend $63,000 on a freshly tuned up testarossa (saw one the other day, drooled on it), then buy an SUV with the rest fo the money, and destroy the SUV.

You now have an earth friendly ferrari, that is way ****ing cooler than that electric piece of ****.
     
Stratus Fear
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2006, 01:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Stratus Wrong
And again, they can rate it whatever the **** they want. It doesn't change the fact that it HAS MORE THAN HP THAN A WRX.

It is RATED 215, sure, whatever, but when it puts 223 TO THE WHEELS, then it is obviously making more like 250.

So if you want to say the SRT4 is faster because of torque and that it has less HP than a WRX, that is only true on paper.

But in the really real world, ie, the world that matters, ie, reality, ie the place we actually live in, it (the srt4) is a lighter car with MORE horespower, MORE torque, and less drivetrain loss.

But keep throwing that 215 spec around. It makes you seem like a retarded christian who believes in bullshit.
I threw it around because before now, all you did was deny it and throw out insults. I never denied that the SRT-4 is a faster car in the real world. The point was it was underrated, and that rating did in fact exist. You missed it completely.
     
Stratus Fear
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2006, 01:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Stratus Wrong
Now imagine the scenario at night. With the radio. And heat. In the cold. You can now drive about 20 minutes before having to turn around. Yay. What a way to spend $80,000.

Here's a better idea: Spend $63,000 on a freshly tuned up testarossa (saw one the other day, drooled on it), then buy an SUV with the rest fo the money, and destroy the SUV.

You now have an earth friendly ferrari, that is way ****ing cooler than that electric piece of ****.
If you can prove the claim, you're absolutely welcome to it. So far you've offered nothing but speculation and your own opinion. They said the damn thing doesn't have a heater anyway. If it ever gets one, there are always creative and efficient ways to do it.

Here are a few points.
1. It already has heated seats.
2. You don't know the capacity of the batteries. You don't know the power draw of the engine. All you know is the drain the engine has on the battery.
3. Based on two, you don't know how much range you'll lose from accessories. Because you don't know the capacity, you don't know what %age range you lose from said accessories. It could be as insignificant as 10 miles (which is 4%).
4. Without external amps or huge subs, the radio is barely going to do squat.
5. The manufacturer didn't state whether or not their testing implied simultaneous usage of accessories, last I read (and as far as I remember -- I could be wrong, and that's why you should actually make an argument rather than a bunch of conjecture in response). Based on how they were going on a fairly normal driving scenario to quote the range, it's safe to assume said range includes usage of at least some accessories.

If you can debunk any of that with facts to the contrary (like actually quoting and showing the real capacity in amphours or something) and without name calling, then good. That said, I'm not expecting much.
( Last edited by Stratus Fear; Jul 22, 2006 at 02:01 PM. )
     
Stratus Wrong
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2006, 04:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Stratus Fear
I threw it around because before now, all you did was deny it and throw out insults. I never denied that the SRT-4 is a faster car in the real world. The point was it was underrated, and that rating did in fact exist. You missed it completely.
No, you said the SRT4 was faster because it has more torque. I said it was faster because it is lighter, has more horespower, more torque, and less drivetrain loss.

You claimed the SRT4 only has 215hp, which it was rated at, but in the real world it has more power than the WRX. Quit backpedaling.
     
Stratus Wrong
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2006, 04:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Stratus Fear
That said, I'm not expecting much.
You won't be getting much. Your points are all well and good, but you forget point 1b: All the information on this website is trying to SELL the car. Thus, we are provided with great pictures, design details, and what makes this car awesome. It is designed to coerce the viewer into wanting this car by presenting it in the BEST POSSIBLE way. So they will give the BEST performance numbers (not how fast it is at half a charge, or in cold weather), the BEST looking pictures, the BEST statistics, and the best range. Electric cars have ALWAYS had a problem with range, and dealing with cold weather (adding heat makes it even worse), so they're going to want to try to make it look like their car does not have these electric car problesm by presenting a number that's definitely on the upper end of what this car is capable of. Could it do 300 miles in one charge? Maybe. But most of hte time, no.

You are failing to realize COMMON SENSE and business practice.
     
Stratus Fear
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2006, 06:23 PM
 
I don't think I ever denied that it wasn't faster for other reasons as well. I placed emphasis on a particular reason over others, and if you read my statements, I even said "less weight alone isn't going to move a car". You try too hard.

This isn't me failing to realize those things; it's you failing to realize that everything you've said is based on a bunch of assumptions, while I at least have something of substance to back up my ideas, whether or not the entirety of the information is there. I'm arguing as far as the information goes, and your entire argument is you *believe* things about the car are otherwise. You also *believe* that the information they're giving is is skewed. Marketing info is usually skewed a bit, but you can't skew it so much that it becomes an outright lie (and hence would no longer be legal - consumer protection laws most likely), which seems to be what you think they're doing. Your argument is exaggerated and really isn't more than a bunch of assumptions.
     
Stratus Wrong
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2006, 06:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Stratus Fear
Your argument is exaggerated and really isn't more than a bunch of assumptions.
It isn't exaggerated. There is a reason old people don't use golf carts in the midwest. Cold weather KILLS electric cars.
     
The Godfather
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Tampa, Florida
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2006, 10:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by TFW
Don't electric vehicles actually just move pollution to another location? And therefore don't EVs still use oil?
Not to fear:
http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/
Fossil fueled generators (which are not all of them generators) have the potential of being twice as efficient (as in Joule/liter) as car engines.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:07 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,