Motor Trend car of the year: Tesla S electric

Motor Trend’s panel of 11 judges voted unanimously for the Tesla Model S after testing 25 contenders in a closed-course environment. Motor Trend tested acceleration, brakes, handling, noise, suspension tuning, among other factors.

The Tesla S, seats up to 7 and has three battery choices–40 kWh, 60 kWh, and 85 kWh. Travelling at 55 mph, the kWh figures can be translated to the stated range capabilities of 160, 230, and 300 miles, respectively, according to the manufacturer’s website. The firm plans to make 20,000 of the cars next year.

See: Tesla S Electric is Motor Trend’s car of the year

 

 

 

 

 

 

Elon Musk, Tesla Motors co-founder & CEO, discusses how the award will impact sales and elevate the electric car profile. Here is a direct link.

This entry was posted in Main Page. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Motor Trend car of the year: Tesla S electric

  1. John C says:

    While I applaud the initiative to find alternatives to our dirty, inefficient internal combustion engines, I’m disappointed in the electric car. Some of the very first cars ever made were electric. Yet, a century later we still have difficulty producing a viable electric car for the masses. This past summer I was looking for a new car. The salesmen at GM dealerships wouldn’t even bother showing me the Volt. I’m tempted to say, “The future belongs to the electric car, and always will.” But one can hope. It’s about time we get a viable alternative go the status quo.

  2. falsedata says:

    More liberal fantasies! Let me count the ways.

    -Resource inefficient. Materials must travel 100 times further for assembly.
    -Exploding batteries, that only last 5->8 years.
    -Almost impossible to fix.
    -Heavily subsidized from U.S. government and auto manufactures, the real cost is close to $250,000
    -Unrealistic range.
    -Not built for winters and salt. (corrosion will eat this puppy alive…..then the fun starts.)
    -Battery explodes into burning jelly on impact, occupants are burned to death.
    -Fire departments refuse to touch these vehicles due to high voltage shocks and lithium batteries that explode when exposed to water. (Have a look at Fisker http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2OQZcYxNas)
    -…….I can go on but I will stop here.

    P.S. The Ford Taurus was also car of the year at one time. Shortly after which Ford was sued for millions because of faulty ignition systems that killed dozens of people!

  3. Cory Venable says:

    I’m sure that folks ridin horses back in the day felt the same way. Thanks for the enlightened feedback…step aside so your toes don’t get run-over.

  4. John C says:

    Interesting comment. You are drawing a comparison between Tesla cars v. internal combustion engine cars today and automobiles v. horses “back in the day.” A bit of a stretch, don’t you think?

  5. Cory Venable says:

    It isn’t the car/horse so much as behavior and commentary I was referring too. Often disruptive and/or new technologies outside the reach of the mainstream (due to cost as a result of poor economies of scale) have been scorned…early adoption is frequently relegated to the wealthy which triggers a socioeconomic divide, (not a good thing) but something that happens nonetheless. As an example of the short term divide, early adopters of the horse-less carriage were often ridiculed for owning expensive clunky machines that were too damned slow, unreliable and frequently back-fired scaring the horses. Early adopters were told to endure ridiculous state laws, some never repealed. For example when approaching a crossroad, some state law makers insisted that the owner of the vehicle shot a gun into the air to notify folks of the horseless carriage. Pennsylvania car owners upon seeing an on-coming horse would have to pull-over, turn the car off and hide it with a tarp until the horse was past.
    See quotations section…funny quotes…
    http://www.moah.org/exhibits/archives/horseless.html

    Its our behavior and our discomfort with new things we do not have the option to afford…C.

  6. michael says:

    My son drives an SRT8 Jeep “murdered out” ….I guess it depends on who’s head you want to turn, especially when he opens the exhaust cutouts and you hear that hemi purr. As a bonus he keeps those sustainable job creators, the oil companies, purring.

  7. Cory Venable says:

    I do enjoy the sound on occasion…it’s the, not being able to be in the garage while the car’s running and the garage doors are closed buggaboo that’s the problem.

    But I hear you on the Hemi…1970 Hemi Cuda is a personal favorite…maybe we could get Tesla to have that sound come through the stereo activated by the “gas” pedal. A little rumble in the seat would also be a good idea when selecting the 1960’s Italian 12 cylinder engine sound menu option IMHO, that way no one has to hear it but the driver and you get to pick and chose the music as it were. No harm no foul.
    C

  8. John C says:

    Yeah, some funny stuff re: the early days when autos shared the roads with horses.

    And I agree with you in principle, except I don’t think it’s so much about fearing the ‘new’ as it is fearing change (but maybe that’s what you meant). Ever since the industrial revolution, when ‘progress’ became part of life, we have heartily embraced the ‘new’ but were often suspicious of technologies that changed the status quo. For example, the television was a new thing and beyond anyone’s previous experience. The car was a new thing as well, but it challenged a trusted, tried and true form of personal transportation. It’s the same in the realm of knowledge. There are always vested interests in adhering to old knowledge or old ways of doing things because change is disruptive.

    But ultimately, in order for a new and non-essential technology/product to succeed in the mass market, it has to be affordable and self sustaining (i.e. not dependent on subsidies for sales). The electric car has been a dream for decades. It may be getting closer to viability with the latest battery technology, but it’s not quite there yet. I doubt the first automobiles––those playthings of the rich, early adopters––came with generous government subsidies. Hybrids? Maybe, but apparently they are not quite as efficient in the real world as promised.

    I’ll be among the first to cheer when we have a viable, price-competitive alternative to the current internal combustion paradigm. Who wouldn’t want a vehicle that saved energy and was better for the environment? And whatever technology/system prevails, thanks to the early adopters who will have set the change in motion.

  9. michael says:

    Well….. sort of like Wii golf I guess.
    I certainly appreciate your enthusiasm for the technology but I think that industry is still in the early stages of developement.
    Have always been a Chevy fan myself. The Beach Boy’s may have immortalised the 409 but the 427 Rat was the last of the best.
    Some times I still pine for my 67 Camaro SS 350/350HP.
    Good luck with the Tesla I wish you well with it…..but Red??

  10. Cory says:

    Check out IBM’s project 500 (lithium air battery technology) tech and science folks are just starting to get serious about this stuff. The advancements are coming fast and furious as they are using their Big Blue super computers to determine best materials and combos for cathodes etc…fascinating area…energy storage of all kinds I mean.

    ps. If I could ever afford one it would be dark green w/ tan leather…gun metal grey rims.
    Reminiscent of the old E type Jag colors…w/out the knock-off wire wheels of course.
    Over and out. C.

  11. William says:

    Electricity is only an energy carrier, NOT an energy source. And how is that electricity generated ? By nuclear power plants ?

  12. Roberta says:

    That Tesla is no doubt a nice car and will be a fun toy for the few who want one and can afford it. If your retirement is fully funded (defined as having at least one ounce of gold in your possession for each month you, and your spouse if you have one, might expect to live) then you can afford it. If you are 60, you might expect to live 30 more years, or 360 months – if you are married and your spouse is also 60, then you need a minimum of 720 ounces. If you also have other assets, they will be icing on the cake – the PMs are the core, real assets.

    Honda produced the ~ 70 mpg Insight around the early 90s and the ~60 mpg CRX HF. Those mpg ratings were actual, slightly higher than EPA. Both were 2 seaters. They didn’t sell that many.

    I cannot afford a car for city driving and one for highway driving. Electric can’t go long distance so is of limited usefulness.

    Gasoline prices will have to go up significantly in the US before the sales of gas hogs decline. That isn’t the way it should be; just the way it is. With all the monster trucks and SUVs on the roads today I cannot blame people for not wanting a small fuel efficient vehicle – you are safer in the monster rig. It may take a nearly total economic collapse to force Americans to choose more fuel efficient vehicles – they are unlikely to do it until they have no other choice. They’ve known since the oil embargo of ~ 1973 that we needed to cut oil consumption, yet they still drive gas hogs. The people who do drive fuel efficient vehicles have allowed the price of gas to remain low so the rest could drive gas hogs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.