Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News' started by v12 to 12v, Nov 14, 2012.
Tesla Model S - The electric car that shatters every myth
We are on a roll!
wow, a roll indeed :tongue:
Another article on the S from CR:
Inside the impressive Tesla Model S electric sedan
They say they clocked the 0-60 in 4.6 seconds though. That's even slower than Tesla's true 0-60 time.
Great review for Tesla though.
They look forward to spending more time with the car once they buy their own?
it will be a long wait!
It's within the expected margin. The car was heavily optioned, and the supposed decrease could be a result of additional weight. Plus, a 240lb driver will go slightly slower than a 140lb driver. And the road surface matters a lot as well. 2 ticks is just float and shouldn't have a lot read into it.
The only number that has bugged me is Car and Driver publishing 4.6 0-60. Mainly because their methodology should have put them right around 4.0 0-60 along with MotorTrend. 6 ticks is a lot and I've never seen an explanation. At the same time it was a video, not an article, so they might have just put up the true number instead of the mangled number required to hit 4.0.
Thanks for posting. Unless I missed it elsewhere on the forum, the EPA numbers appear to have been released for the 40 & 60 kWh.
Having read Consumer Reports since I was a sprat, this is huge. These folks are sober, slab-sided, hard-to-impress testing geeks, and not given to gushing. In terms of CR-speak, this report is over the moon.
Iz I saw that too. I doubt that these are EPA numbers. the same article said the Supercharger restores 80% charge in 30 minutes. while CR is all the things stevezzzz mentioned, I think this web article got posted with some haste and errors. I still agree a review like this from these folks is very strong +
I assume they're already "in line" for a delivery. Wonder if they're getting a Sig or a P. I assume they ordered the 85, of course. But maybe a Performance? Hmmm...
Thanks. Based on the CR segment there is big disparity between the 85kWh and 60kWh EPA ratings. I would expect the 60kWh to be at 200-miles or slighly more, given the 60kWh battery pack should weigh less than the 85kWh.
I don't think it weighs less. The original word I remember is the 40/60 used a different chemistry than the 85kwh and the 60 would have about the same number of cells as the 85kwh. This was a while ago though, so that might have changed.
Even if it did use fewer batteries, you're not talking all that much weight difference to the car as a whole and basically zero difference to wind and rolling resistance which are the primary factors in highway range.
That matches my understanding as well.
As a long-time reader, I agree completely. Also, "a hoot to drive"--LOL! And I loved this comment on their YouTube video: "LOL, I've never seen this man so excited about reviewing a car, usually hes very monotone and dull, but his face is ecstatic." ;-)
In fairness, they did ding Tesla for the lack of map pockets. But that (and the browsing from dash comment) is a pretty minor ding for CR. We'll see how much they like it once they get their own. I expect they'll buy an 85 and either a 40 or 60.
They still think cars should have map pockets? What century are thy living in?
Map pockets would have reduced the safety rating. That should have been mentioned in the review, although perhaps CR doesn't know that. I generally don't bother with CR because they either get it wrong or miss the point most of the time.
I agree. When I sold my Jetta, I took out maps from states I haven't been in for over 10 years (that were 15 years old) since I just transferred them from car to car and used a series of different GPS devices over the years. If Tesla adds back small storage for glasses, coins...etc, I don't think many people will miss map pockets with a 17" Nav screen.
Didn't they test the no-clog Dyson vac and not even comment on that feature? Giving it a low rating on suction?
I'm pretty sure they mean it more generically, as in, "there's almost no pocket/compartment storage." Just guessing, though.
- - - Updated - - -
I disagree (re. CR), but anyway, re. the pockets--is that the official explanation? I don't care about them much, though I'd've liked them, but I didn't know that and I've read grumping here about the lack of any kind of pocket. Interesting, if true, thanks.
- - - Updated - - -
I think y'all are taking the term "map pockets" too literally; I think that's just the general term for pockets on a car door, like we call it a "glove box" or "glove compartment" even though few people use that area for gloves. ;-) IMHO anyway.
- - - Updated - - -
Heh, I've rarely had clogging issues with any vac--but if it doesn't do well at its core purpose (suction) then I'd rate it low, too. ;-)
If they say map pockets, then they mean map pockets, otherwise I'd think they'd say storage.
If you mean "Is that in writing from Tesla", then no. However, map pockets could contain items that could become projectiles in an accident. A short search didn't find the NHTSA information on this though, but it has been posted in the forums somewhere.