I wonder how much thought has been given to the electrical grid during this push for electric cars. Everyone seems to forget the rolling blackouts California had a few years ago, what happens if the electric car model is a success and a 1/4 of the cars on the road are on the grid.
Not hating on electric cars, just food for thought.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
You know damn well I meant that it was unpatriotic to root against an American company in and of itself, not Tesla in specific. To say otherwise is fucking ridiculous.[/quote]
And the damn funny part is that you act like Tesla can stamp ‘Made in America’ on the underside of every vehicle or that Tesla is somehow more American than the Subaru’s or Honda’s that roll off assembly lines here in the Midwest.
IMO, the proposition of bundling the fuel network with vehicle manufacturing under one corporate umbrella is, or very well could be, as much an anti-trust liability as bundling your browser with your OS. It’s easily possible that Tesla could, effectively, cut off major parts of the network relatively whimsically, no?
Or not bought by Ford or GM like Fisker, Venturi, Coda, etc., etc. Ford/GM won’t buy them (the same way Wal-Mart wouldn’t buy up Whole Foods), BMW would be an outside shot, Nissan would if they weren’t their competitor, VW is probably the most likely taker, if any.
Take the best selling US car, convert it to electric (thereby doubling it’s price) and you have one of the worst-selling vehicles in the US market. And it’s sales are nearly a third of Tesla’s. The car costs $13K after incentives and they can’t sell them.
Tesla will be bought by Ford or GM right after Wal-Mart buys Whole Foods and hell freezes over. Toyota, Nissan, or Honda are a possibility, but highly doubtful. There’s an outside chance BMW would buy them, Audi possibly, Daimler AG also, but my money would be on VW.
Pat and I have been on the same or similar pages about electric cars for quite a while. I may be a little more… jaded, cynical, or irritated by it than he is but, to me, it’s the newest shiniest lie. I guess it’s okay that the vehicle emits zero carbon, but it’s fundamental thermodynamics, that energy has to come from converting some useful natural resource into a waste product. Depending on the grid, the natural resource may be coal, if the grid runs on magic pixie dust (or nuclear), it’s the battery components (as well as the tires and other electrical components in IC vehicles).
Also, for Tesla specifically, money was taken as part of the clusterfuck known as the TARP program. Even if I didn’t hate (the) government, the collusion and blamestorming surrounding TARP would still piss me off. I don’t hate Tesla because of their involvement in TARP, but they don’t come out of the whole TARP ordeal as clean as Ford or even VW. This aspect tends to rub me this way, we spent all the TARP money and this is the economic recovery we got out of it? $465M loaned to Tesla and this is the car (company) of the future?
Maybe some of us have been spoiled by (e.g.) the DMC-12. If you’re gonna take a loan and fail as a car company, do it from a private bank and spend the money on stainless steel and gold plating
Daimler AG already owns a portion of Tesla, so I think that BMW would be the last company they allow it to be sold to. And while I agree that the whole TARP fiasco was just that, Tesla is still a success story to come from that. We aren’t talking about Solyndra or Fisker here. Besides, they paid back the entirety of the loan, plus interest, so if they fail now it won’t be at the expense of the tax payers who footed the bill for the original loan.
As far as the emissions thing goes, sure, it isn’t actually a zero-emissions car. But it still represents a very significant drop in emissions produced even when considering its production. Think about it: what cars are Tesla competing with? They aren’t competing with the Honda Civic or the Prius, both of which have comparable carbon footprints at a much lower cost to the consumer. They compete with Mercedes and Audi and BMW, and the cars they go up against have MUCH larger carbon footprints than the Tesla. The fact is that every Tesla on the road means one less large luxury sedan with a much bigger carbon footprint on the road, not one less Prius or hybrid Civic.
There’s what Tesla says, then there is reality:
http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/electric-shocker
[quote]pat wrote:
There’s what Tesla says, then there is reality:
http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/electric-shocker[/quote]
How is this any different than what Tesla has said about its vehicles? Did you really just post a video from a company that is being sued by Tesla for malicious falsehood and call it reality?
The reality is that people don’t ever drive their cars as hard as those guys were driving the Roadster. How often do you do a G test on your car? How often do you travel from 0 to your car’s top speed as fast as possible?
Yeah, if you drive your car like you’re Mario Andretti it’s going to break down.
As far as the charging time goes, again, totally irrelevant in this case. People simply do not drive so hard and fast that they are going to wear out the battery that fast. If you buy a Tesla with the intention of driving it like that then you’re the idiot, not the manufacturer.
[quote]pat wrote:
There’s what Tesla says, then there is reality:
http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/electric-shocker[/quote]
not to be a cheerleader for Tesla but that wasn’t real life testing either. You wouldn’t expect to get good mileage out of your ICE driving at WAT either. Also, they charged it with a thirteen amp circuit, you can’t even get a household circuit that low here. If you are charging at home it would most likely be a dedicated 220vac/30,40, or 50 amp circuit.
I am surprised about the handling though with it’s low center of gravity and centralized mass.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
There’s what Tesla says, then there is reality:
http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/electric-shocker[/quote]
How is this any different than what Tesla has said about its vehicles? Did you really just post a video from a company that is being sued by Tesla for malicious falsehood and call it reality?
The reality is that people don’t ever drive their cars as hard as those guys were driving the Roadster. How often do you do a G test on your car? How often do you travel from 0 to your car’s top speed as fast as possible?
Yeah, if you drive your car like you’re Mario Andretti it’s going to break down.
As far as the charging time goes, again, totally irrelevant in this case. People simply do not drive so hard and fast that they are going to wear out the battery that fast. If you buy a Tesla with the intention of driving it like that then you’re the idiot, not the manufacturer.[/quote]
Tesla lost the lawsuit as far as I could tell.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
How much is debatable and the charging time is a problem that won’t improve significantly. No matter the capacity of the battery the charging of them still take hours and the larger the capacity of the battery the longer the charge. That’s an inherent flaw that won’t go away. The idea of instant charge sounds wonderful in theory, but the only way to make that work is to be able to mix chemicals that produce lots of energy. The problem with that is we’re back to square one, pollution.
[/quote]
http://feministing.com/2013/05/23/brilliant-teen-creates-device-that-charges-cell-in-30-seconds/
LOL I love listening to people that know next to nothing about science actually try to talk about it…[/quote]
So you admit to talking to yourself?
[/quote]
Apparently, seeing as how a quick charging capacitor for a cell phone which uses a whopping 3.67 volts and 3000 mah is no where near the same as a 12 volt lithium ion battery that can pack as much as 2000 amps (though most float around 600 to 1200 amps). That’s going to be quite a large set of capacitors. Of course, you also have to charge the capacitors so that then you can do a quick discharge in to 12 massive batteries.
Then of course you have the issue of quick charges destroying batteries. Batteries get hot enough from a normal charge, discharging that much power in to a battery as such a short burst has to make it really hot. I am sure I can take the capacitors from my car and quick charge my phone with them, but I don’t want to fry my battery. I solved my problem with a 7000 mah battery. Sure it’s a little heavier, but I only have to charge my phone once every 3 days, using it as much as I want. [/quote]
Uh oh, Pat. Looks like Tesla is already moving toward the unthinkable!
Keeping you on a carefully prepared path, that you cannot veer from. And sure, you can charge the care then in 20 minutes for 3 hours of drive time, or you can gas up in less time and spend more time on the road.
Then of course you have the issues of Tesla’s adverts vs. the reality that the car can only do what they say it can in premium conditions. To cold, the car will discharge, to hot, the car will discharge. The electric motors also tend to over heat which is an interesting feat since they are run on magnetism and have no friction, so I am not sure how they are managing to over heat. Then there is the issue of reduced battery life from quick charging. Throwing a shit load of current at a battery will reduce it’s life, that’s not a big deal when you can pick up a new cell phone battery for 20-30 bucks, but the tesla’s battery packs cost $40,000. So if you constantly quick charge your car, you will reduce it’s battery life, then you have to pay $40,000 for a new set. If the car sits to long it fries the batteries and they then have to be replaced. Now normally Tesla would cover such a thing, however their warranties stipulate they do what they tell you or you foot the bill.
Quick charging stations every 3 hours sounds great unless you have been on the road for 4. Then trading a quick charge for a reduced battery life, at the cost of those batteries, is not an appealing proposition. Nobody who can drive a car normally can get the distance out of them Telsa reports. The only way to do that, is to shut everything off and drive the car very carefully, in mild weather, then the car can do the distances Tesla claims. Of course, Telsa likes to control the message about their cars, they sue anybody who says anything negative about them. It’s not elegant, but it works.
Tesla won’t go under because they make electric cars, they will go under because of their business model. They see themselves as a technology company, they are not, they are a car company. All their shit is proprietary. Which is okay to a point, but when it comes to refueling, it’s becomes a bigger burden on the consumer. The cars are prohibitively expensive. They break easily largely due to software issues and they refuse to play nice with other electric car manufactures. Their current boon was largly due to (finally) filling their back orders. A large, proprietary supercharging network will not be able to be maintained.
I give them 5 years before they swing on the rope they have made for themselves.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
There’s what Tesla says, then there is reality:
http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/electric-shocker[/quote]
How is this any different than what Tesla has said about its vehicles? Did you really just post a video from a company that is being sued by Tesla for malicious falsehood and call it reality?
The reality is that people don’t ever drive their cars as hard as those guys were driving the Roadster. How often do you do a G test on your car? How often do you travel from 0 to your car’s top speed as fast as possible?
Yeah, if you drive your car like you’re Mario Andretti it’s going to break down.
As far as the charging time goes, again, totally irrelevant in this case. People simply do not drive so hard and fast that they are going to wear out the battery that fast. If you buy a Tesla with the intention of driving it like that then you’re the idiot, not the manufacturer.[/quote]
They sue everybody who says anybody negative about their cars. They are suing the NYT because they said their test car discharged in the cold.
The company claimed if could be driven fast for 200 miles. The reality is that they cannot be driven fast for 200 miles, no where close.
Who drives around like that? People who buy sports cars, which that piece of shit is supposed to be. So let me get this strait, you buy a sports car, but you cannot drive it like a sports car?
People take their sports cars to the track all the time. Obviously, you cannot take your model S to the track because you will stop in the middle of the race.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
There’s what Tesla says, then there is reality:
http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/electric-shocker[/quote]
How is this any different than what Tesla has said about its vehicles? Did you really just post a video from a company that is being sued by Tesla for malicious falsehood and call it reality?
The reality is that people don’t ever drive their cars as hard as those guys were driving the Roadster. How often do you do a G test on your car? How often do you travel from 0 to your car’s top speed as fast as possible?
Yeah, if you drive your car like you’re Mario Andretti it’s going to break down.
As far as the charging time goes, again, totally irrelevant in this case. People simply do not drive so hard and fast that they are going to wear out the battery that fast. If you buy a Tesla with the intention of driving it like that then you’re the idiot, not the manufacturer.[/quote]
Tesla lost the lawsuit as far as I could tell. [/quote]
I was about to say that they lost their suit and the video is available. They didn’t even say anything really bad about the car. They said it can go fast, it’s just heavy, unreliable and has no range at speed. They don’t like the message they should make a better car. Or don’t make a sports car that cannot be driven like one.
I like the message, buy a sports car but don’t drive it like one.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
There’s what Tesla says, then there is reality:
http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/electric-shocker[/quote]
not to be a cheerleader for Tesla but that wasn’t real life testing either. You wouldn’t expect to get good mileage out of your ICE driving at WAT either. Also, they charged it with a thirteen amp circuit, you can’t even get a household circuit that low here. If you are charging at home it would most likely be a dedicated 220vac/30,40, or 50 amp circuit.
I am surprised about the handling though with it’s low center of gravity and centralized mass.[/quote]
Again, it’s a sports car. People take their sports cars to the track all the time, that certainly isn’t unusual. And if you pay $100,000 for a sports car, should you not be able to use it like one? You think people would by the Porsche 911 Carrera S, which has a similar price point if they could not actually use it? That makes not sense.
If you don’t expect your car to be driven like a sports car, don’t make a sports car. The Lotus Elise, on which the roadster was based off of is huge on the track. People race them all the time.
So in terms of sports cars, this most definitely a real world test.
Even if you just like to run stop light to stop light, it’s clear you won’t get very far with that car.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
There’s what Tesla says, then there is reality:
http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/electric-shocker[/quote]
How is this any different than what Tesla has said about its vehicles? Did you really just post a video from a company that is being sued by Tesla for malicious falsehood and call it reality?
The reality is that people don’t ever drive their cars as hard as those guys were driving the Roadster. How often do you do a G test on your car? How often do you travel from 0 to your car’s top speed as fast as possible?
Yeah, if you drive your car like you’re Mario Andretti it’s going to break down.
As far as the charging time goes, again, totally irrelevant in this case. People simply do not drive so hard and fast that they are going to wear out the battery that fast. If you buy a Tesla with the intention of driving it like that then you’re the idiot, not the manufacturer.[/quote]
They sue everybody who says anybody negative about their cars. They are suing the NYT because they said their test car discharged in the cold.
The company claimed if could be driven fast for 200 miles. The reality is that they cannot be driven fast for 200 miles, no where close.
Who drives around like that? People who buy sports cars, which that piece of shit is supposed to be. So let me get this strait, you buy a sports car, but you cannot drive it like a sports car?
People take their sports cars to the track all the time. Obviously, you cannot take your model S to the track because you will stop in the middle of the race.[/quote]
Hey, it’s a new product that needs refining. You think the first Ferrari or the first Corvette was a finished product? Of course not.
The other thing is that the Roadster is not the model making all the waves these days. The Model S is the one that everyone is buying and is the one that I’ve been touting primarily in here. Tesla has sold a grand total of about 2400 Roadsters, but they’ve already sold more than 4500 Model S’ last quarter alone.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
There’s what Tesla says, then there is reality:
http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/electric-shocker[/quote]
How is this any different than what Tesla has said about its vehicles? Did you really just post a video from a company that is being sued by Tesla for malicious falsehood and call it reality?
The reality is that people don’t ever drive their cars as hard as those guys were driving the Roadster. How often do you do a G test on your car? How often do you travel from 0 to your car’s top speed as fast as possible?
Yeah, if you drive your car like you’re Mario Andretti it’s going to break down.
As far as the charging time goes, again, totally irrelevant in this case. People simply do not drive so hard and fast that they are going to wear out the battery that fast. If you buy a Tesla with the intention of driving it like that then you’re the idiot, not the manufacturer.[/quote]
They sue everybody who says anybody negative about their cars. They are suing the NYT because they said their test car discharged in the cold.
The company claimed if could be driven fast for 200 miles. The reality is that they cannot be driven fast for 200 miles, no where close.
Who drives around like that? People who buy sports cars, which that piece of shit is supposed to be. So let me get this strait, you buy a sports car, but you cannot drive it like a sports car?
People take their sports cars to the track all the time. Obviously, you cannot take your model S to the track because you will stop in the middle of the race.[/quote]
Hey, it’s a new product that needs refining. You think the first Ferrari or the first Corvette was a finished product? Of course not.[/quote]
Yes they were, and they are worth millions. Well, not the Vette, the '53 Vette is worth several hundred thousand dollars. And for there times they were exceptional…
Fun facts, the Ferrari 125 S was made in 1947. It had a 1.5 L V12 with an output of 100 HP. Smallest V12 made, only 3 were made. By 1947 standards, this car flew.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
The other thing is that the Roadster is not the model making all the waves these days. The Model S is the one that everyone is buying and is the one that I’ve been touting primarily in here. Tesla has sold a grand total of about 2400 Roadsters, but they’ve already sold more than 4500 Model S’ last quarter alone.[/quote]
They actually quit making the roadster this year.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
And while I agree that the whole TARP fiasco was just that, Tesla is still a success story to come from that. We aren’t talking about Solyndra or Fisker here.[/quote] Or Venturi or Coda or Byd or or any of the other dozen failed electric car companies. This definitely remains to be seen. [quote]Besides, they paid back the entirety of the loan, plus interest, so if they fail now it won’t be at the expense of the tax payers who footed the bill for the original loan.[/quote] This isn’t so much Tesla’s fault and I don’t have anything but suspicions, but; bullshit. Money was flowing out so far and fast Bernanke even admitted his head was spinning. And then two of the Big 3 turn around and use TARP money to pay off TARP loans… again Tesla’s by no means guilty of anything but they sure don’t smell like a rose to this nose.
I guess spent batteries don’t count as emissions. Seriously, you addressed that issue like pretty much everyone else in the industry, by focusing on carbon. What’s worse, is the “Who cares about lithium? No Carbon!” mindset demonstrates the same industry-fueled ‘ignore it until it is a problem’ groupthink that ICE makers are reviled for. Relative to the waste generated by rare-earth metal mining and lithium production, I’ll take waste carbon all week and twice on Sunday.
Lastly, Tesla’s foisting cars on the most wasteful part of the market. Marketing to the luxury market is synonymous with marketing to the most likely to ditch the batteries after 5 yrs. if they don’t ditch the whole car. Tesla hasn’t twiddled their noses and solved any problems, they’ve twiddled their noses and bewitched a small share of a niche auto market notorious for wasting money.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Sounds like NC just wants Tesla to be regulated by the DMV like all other dealers. What’s wrong with that? [/quote]
Nope, “independent” dealers don’t want competition.
They’re one of the biggest lobbying groups in the US at local, state and federal level.
They’ve been distorting the car market from almost the beginning.
We all pay far more for vehicles due to their rigging the laws, particularly state laws.
It was one of the largest “costs” for GM prior to and during the Bankruptcy. Buying out the “independent” dealers…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What gives? I thought this was a capitalist society we live in? Why is it that Tesla is being barred from directly selling to customers in NC, amongst other states? They’ve found a business model that works, they are turning profits, providing a product that the consumers who have bought it are thrilled with, and the NC govt is going to try and keep them out?
Because electric cars suck ass and should be put in a pile an burned out of existence.[/quote]
Ignorance is bliss, isn’t it?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/york-hedge-funds-lost-shirts-100000529.html[/quote]
I am not making the case that what they are doing is right. I am making the case that electric cars suck dick and should be destroyed and banished from the earth like a disease. Electric/ hybrid cars are stupid. All they do is shift the pollution from your car to the power plant. The contents of the batteries are 10 times more caustic than the shit that comes out of an exaust pipe. And they exemplify all the gayness and stupidity society has to offer. If I could afford a '64 GTO, it would be my daily driver and I would put lead in the gas. '64 because that’s the last year before there was any pollution control.
When you get to wear T-shirts and shorts in January, I’ll accept the thanks.[/quote]
Still bitter about the NFC Championship Game, aren’t you? That’s okay, if you want to make ignorant statements in a childish attempt to bait me, that’s your prerogative. You’ve already admitted that you try to bait me with your farcical ramblings, so why I should lend any credence to anything you ever say in my direction is beyond me. Have fun wallowing in whatever misery it is that you’ve created for yourself which you think can be minimized or glossed over by provoking me.[/quote]
I am not baiting anybody. Sports are compartmentalized in their own little box, there is no carry over. Trust me, I get over sports pretty quickly. It’s ridiculous to think that bothers me that much. It’s football, it’s a game, it’s not life. I got bigger fish to fry then how my favorite team does. It bothers you more than it will ever bother me.It does not permeate or bother my everyday life. Just saying I hate hybrid/ electric cars. The only reason to by a hybrid is to power a 5000 watt system. Otherwise they are useless slow pieces of shit. I am all for the prius, if you drop a blown 454 in the mother fucker. [/quote]
See? That’s what I mean by ignorant statements. You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about when you say that electric cars are slow. The Teslas are faster than pretty much any muscle car from 1964. In fact, the Tesla Model S Performance IS faster than any muscle car from 1964.
2008 Tesla Roadster: 0-60 mph 4.6 Quarter mile 13.4
2011 Tesla Roadster 2.5 S 0-60 mph 3.7
2012 Tesla Model S Base (225 kW) 0-60 mph 5.9 Quarter Mile 14.2 (this is the slowest Tesla)
2013 Tesla Model S Base (270 kW) 0-60 mph 5.4 Quarter Mile 13.7
2013 Tesla Model S Performance (310 kW) 0-60 mph 3.9 Quarter Mile 12.4
5000 watts? More like 250000 watts, pal. I love how sexy you look with egg all over your face.
edit: actually, I take that back. The 1964 Ford Fairlane Thunderbolt 427 and the 1964 Dodge Hemi were faster than the Tesla S Performance. But that was it. And that only takes into account their 1/4 mile times. Both of those cars were slower at 0-60.[/quote]
I suppose you didn’t realize that I was talking about a stereo system?
And no they weren’t. The only sub 5 second car in the muscle car era of old was the '70 Super Bird with the 427 hemi. Only 50 were made.
Further, fat load of good it will do, that performance, which the roadster is the shell of a lotus Elise, w if you push full bore will get you a whopping 25 miles of range. Sounds exciting. If you can keep your foot out of it, you can almost get 100! That means you will only have to hitch hike part of the way home if you use your A\C.
At least it’s light when you have to push the piece of shit off the golden gate bridge when you get stuck in traffic.
[/quote]
b.s.
1965 Shelby Cobra 427 S/C 0-60 mph 4.5 Quarter mile 12.5
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I am now wondering if the Tesla business model will change the way we all buy cars. Cut out the middle man.
Kind of like the auto industry putting the horse drawn carriage businesses and buggy whip businesses out of business.
I actually like this business model.[/quote]
I like it, too. I bought a new F-150 at the local Ford dealer several years ago and it was a total hassle. Buying a brand-new car/truck is probably one of the biggest purchases most people will ever make in their lives, and with the Internet these days you can go into a showroom already armed with more knowledge than the pimply-faced salesman reeking of desperation about the car you want to buy. That was definitely the case when I bought my truck.
So having to go through a dealership is a waste of time for people who are willing to do a little research on their own before they go to the lot. Why not just remove that unnecessary step and save everyone involved a little bit of time and money?
I’m really excited for Tesla’s future. They represent a clear drop in emissions, they’re an American company, they produce a product that apparently everyone who has used has nothing but excellent things to say about them, they’re poised to further improve their battery technology, their plan to build supercharging stations all over the country will radically change the way we drive ourselves around and probably the whole car culture in general, and they look pretty damn stylish, too.
I love it. It’s about time an American company made a big splash in a major industry like this. Now, if only we could convince the Obama administration to quit placing every roadblock imaginable in front of natural gas acquisitions.[/quote]
Natural Gas cars is where I can see huge growth. You can fill up at your house if you have a gas line. Very easy, but would put a lot of gas stations out of business and individuals out of a job.[/quote]
Yeah. Most people don’t even realize that there are already natural gas cars on the market, too. I think another big step in the near future is for more of these charging stations to be run on natural gas instead of electricity provided by coal-burning plants. A large move toward natural gas in general, coupled with electric cars slowly displacing gas-powered ones, will really change things.
Unfortunately, I suspect that as we use more and more of our own natural gas, Saudi Arabia in particular will start dumping tons of oil onto the global market and drive the price down so far that it won’t make economic sense to pursue natural gas alternatives. The U.S. and Canada need a minimum cost of $75 per barrel to pull natural gas out of the ground and still make economic sense. Saudi Arabia needs that same price, but that is to maintain their current domestic budget, not to achieve economic viability. They really only need to get about $5 per barrel to make a profit, so they could bombard the global market with a shitload of oil and drop the price by 50% if they wanted to, and that would ruin natural gas’ economic viability.[/quote]
Not many NG cars are available. Making a big impact in fleet vehicles; Local haul, busses etc. Much cheaper to fuel, but it seems the vastly reduced maintenance and increased service life seal the deal.
T. Bone Pickens plan makes a lot of sense. NG works GREAT in diesel engines. Tanks are a limiting factor as is refilling and leakage.
[quote]pat wrote:
There’s what Tesla says, then there is reality:
http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/electric-shocker[/quote]
Tesla’s engine management records show the car never ran out of charge. Top Gear faked it and LIED.