Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Automotive' started by HadACoolName, Mar 6, 2015.
Honestly, i think a Tesla truck is far fetched, it's not going to be very popular or even sell well.
Electric vehicles have been in Europe since the late '80s, and still the infrastructure is lacking. For the truck to get more common, an adequate infrastructure is necessary. Vicious circle, really.
Existing infrastructure is also almost exclusively concentrated in urban settings. Not exactly what you need when moving goods around.
Except it can carry the EU weight limit??? So yes it can carry as much.
Thing is I used to work in warehousing and goods distribution. Most trucks you see on the roads are empty. Also that thing can carry a 40ft container within the EU length limit, most loads are designed around 40ft containers.
--- Post updated ---
Depends on where you're moving goods between. Tesco for example I did napkin math for last night. Their distribution centre is under 400 miles away. Stick a supercharger at the supermarket and one at the distribution centre. Charge while loading up. Charge while unloading. It takes 30 minutes to charge to a 400 mile range, asking an employee, it takes about an hour to unload the truck.
--- Post updated ---
It doesn't need to charge in the road network. It only needs to charge at the destination and source. Shorter trips (common in UK at any rate) might not even need charge at destination. Stepdad reckons most of his trucks ran 400 mile round trip usually.
--- Post updated ---
Honestly, 250 mph top speed, you know how they're managing that right, 10000Nm of torque does a lot. It's gonna have so much at 0rpm that by the time you've hit 250 you've still got plenty of torque left with the taper off. Also did some napkin math and reckon that 620+mile range? That's not because they wanted it to be long range.
There's a maximum discharge rate on a battery which limits how much current it can supply. Easiest way to increase that is simply get more batteries in parallel. 10000Nm must require immense current. They've likely doubled up on batteries just to be able to supply it. With that you also happen to get a boost in capacity
Which means more weight, which means longer braking distances and possibly degraded cornering performance, plus it'll chew up brakes and tires. Simply put, on a twisty course it won't be able to use its power very well. Granted, if it can do what they say it'll do, it'll get very annoying very quickly on the highway, because even if you do manage to turbocharge and tune your way to the 1500+ horsepower it would take to get that kind of speed from an ICE car, it's still so fast that there's no ethical way to outrun a determined driver of one unless you have some way of knowing for absolutely sure that the road is dead empty.
I think it's officially reached the point where instead of trying to figure out how to beat this car, maybe we should be figuring out how to keep this or anything like it from ever being built in the first place. It's one thing to hate electric cars for emotional car-guy reasons, but if electric cars can develop to the point where they're "good enough" for at least 85% of what Joe and Jane Average want to do, most of them will never look at an ICE car again. You think it's bad now with manual transmissions disappearing and eco-turbos taking over everything, just imagine a world where only dedicated performance cars even have combustion engines in the first place. Now imagine that the electric cars are suddenly better at performance too and become the gold standard everyone wants to upgrade to rather than the dweeby sideshow that only died-in-the-wool tech enthusiasts and environmentalists even realize exists. Car culture might not technically die but such an extinction level event for the combustion engine can't really be called a good thing for it.
The scariest part is, there are even circumstances in which I myself could see myself enjoying driving an electric car, despite the lack of noise and shifting. Do any of you understand how bad that is, how dire this situation is? Electric propulsion needs to remain useless so that the combustion engine can remain dominant.
Take Italy for example: about 95% of the goods are moved on trucks. Goods go from north to south (1000-1200km) and back with little to no charging options inbetween.
I can see the Tesla lorry becoming a good option for set routes like the one you mentioned (starting point and destination both belonging to the same organization, so an ad hoc infrastructure can be created), much less in any other scenario.
Guys,what do you think about Bmw e36 320?Are they good? I might sell lacetti in order to buy one in mint condition.
If you care about safety, steer clear of it. It is unsafe even for a 90s car.
You've got serious problems man
They can be unreliable and arent that safe the engine can be reliable but they are starting to get to old to be daily driven
Also it's heavy and get the same fuel mileage as a Monte Carlo from the same time no really
Monte Carlo gets 18 MPG city (or about 7.65 KM/L) / 24 MPG highway (or 10.20 KM/L) for the 1997 model
while the BMW gets 17 MPG city (or 7.23 KM/L) / 24 MPG highway for the same year now these number where from when it was brand new so it might not be true now but
the Monte Carlo's curb weight is 3,306 to 3,436 lbs
while the BMW's curb weight is 3,450
Now why do this small ass car makes mpg as is just as heavy as this big ass boat the answer is shitty 90's tech that does not work. Sure it might've been better than the Monte Carlo when it was new but now they're basically the same, I guess the BMW is better if you have car friends but in the other hand you can be more original if you where to do something with the Monte Carlo but that last part i just my opinion.
Let's see: engine & engine managment, aerodynamics, gearing, crappy vs grippy tires etc...
Also, while Chevrolet was probably going after those sweet EPA ratings, BMW couldn't give more of a crap because that was not the reason people bought BMWs for at the time.
What about e 46 325?
No car is too old to be daily driven. Remember that cars are designed and engineered to be driven, sitting is what causes them reliability woes.
While yeah that might be also the case but seeing it as a daily the BMW might be better as a daily but that's only because it's smaller but the Monte Carlo is FWD and can fit 6 people in it thanks to it being based on the Lumina. It really just comes down to where you live (In America/Canada) and do you have friends.
Conclusion: both cars are now too old to be reliable daily drivers while burning way too much fuel, too.
Unless you're talking about the 95 Civic, that is making better MPG/KM/L than the new models.
Not surprising. The new model is much bigger and heavier, engine is likely bigger and more powerful, too.
I know but a e36 is way to expensive to be daily driven as they break alot so if id have to go for a daily driver from the 90s id say get japanese unless you can afford a more special car. Also @Pervin.M a e46 is more reliable you could also try to look for a a4 theyre alot more reliable and can be often cheaper espacially the 1.9l diesel ones are built like tanks and can go up to 250k kilometers do unless you want the design of the beamer id say go for the audi
Main reason i wanted an e36 because they are super fun,even 318i with 115 horsepower is enough to get fun.Their chassis are great and all of their engines are high revving.Once i drove an 318i and i fell in love with it and i would even sacrifice my lacetti to get a one with 5 speed manual.But thanks for the help.
Got approved for a loan from the bank so now I'll be heading to look at a 2007 G35x tomorrow. 58k miles on it.