Are cars like the Tesla Model S the future?

[cannabineer]

Apparently, 141mpg average on no plug-in mode.

In that case, i am soundly impressed. I'd love to see a more practical iteration giving me 70mpg here in these hills with a tiny Turbodiesel and fully modern power management. i don't care to go fast; I just want to drive in terrain and at length.

 

[Beagler]

I had a volkswagon pickup that was good, miss that little old truck.

Many advances have been made on emissions and safety. Is it just me or do cars now weigh more and get about the same mpg as they did in the '80s? (traditional gasoline powered cars)?

 

[Dr Kynes]

I had a volkswagon pickup that was good, miss that little old truck.

Many advances have been made on emissions and safety. Is it just me or do cars now weigh more and get about the same mpg as they did in the '80s? (traditional gasoline powered cars)?

depends on the class of the car.

Econoboxes are WAY more efficient than they were in the 80's and way more tolerable.

family sedans, minivans, sensible midrange SUV's and "Sport Utes" (which used to be called station wagons) are incredibly more efficient, more comfortable and more reliable than the old 80's shitboxes. (lol, K-Cars)

Sports Cars are better faster and more efficient than ever before

trucks are variable, some are more powerful, yet LESS fuel efficient, others more efficient, but terribly weak, and still more split the difference with considerably more juice than the anemic powerplants of the 80's and much better fuel economy.
back in the 80's some truck lines were pathetically weak (looking at you ford and chevy) and marginally more fuel efficient than the standard V6 and V8 models of the 60's and 70's but they were finicky, laden with useless "smog" equipment, and nanny-state mandated computer controls that did more harm than good, while others were long on power and their "smog" controls actually resulted in poorer fuel efficiency than some 50's, 60's and 70's V8's

"Luxury" SUV's, Faux Retro Musclecars and "Luxury" Cars are all gas guzzling inefficient pretenders offering more status display and penis compensation than efficiency or power.
the "hybrid" models of sport, luxury and suv cars are even worse, often delivering poor fuel economy, and illusory power that only operates within a narrowly defined range.
these mid-life crisis mobiles are nearly as pathetic as the hair plug spangled spray tanned fools who drive them

Hummer, Cadillac and Lincoln "suv" Fail-Wagons: a whole new form of dandyism unto themselves. when i ascend to the Golden Throne, these heretics will BURN!

 

[racerboy71]

depends on the class of the car.

Econoboxes are WAY more efficient than they were in the 80's and way more tolerable.

family sedans, minivans, sensible midrange SUV's and "Sport Utes" (which used to be called station wagons) are incredibly more efficient, more comfortable and more reliable than the old 80's shitboxes. (lol, K-Cars)

Sports Cars are better faster and more efficient than ever before

trucks are variable, some are more powerful, yet LESS fuel efficient, others more efficient, but terribly weak, and still more split the difference with considerably more juice than the anemic powerplants of the 80's and much better fuel economy.
back in the 80's some truck lines were pathetically weak (looking at you ford and chevy) and marginally more fuel efficient than the standard V6 and V8 models of the 60's and 70's but they were finicky, laden with useless "smog" equipment, and nanny-state mandated computer controls that did more harm than good, while others were long on power and their "smog" controls actually resulted in poorer fuel efficiency than some 50's, 60's and 70's V8's

"Luxury" SUV's, Faux Retro Musclecars and "Luxury" Cars are all gas guzzling inefficient pretenders offering more status display and penis compensation than efficiency or power.
the "hybrid" models of sport, luxury and suv cars are even worse, often delivering poor fuel economy, and illusory power that only operates within a narrowly defined range.
these mid-life crisis mobiles are nearly as pathetic as the hair plug spangled spray tanned fools who drive them

Hummer, Cadillac and Lincoln "suv" Fail-Wagons: a whole new form of dandyism unto themselves. when i ascend to the Golden Throne, these heretics will BURN!

I completely agree with the cadiliac and lincoln SUV statement, but I fail to see why you called the retro muscle cars faux as a lot of the modern versions come with more horsepower then the og models did.. not all mind you, but a good enough % that I wouldn't just write the entire class off as faux..

 

[Dr Kynes]

Apparently, 141mpg average on no plug-in mode.

now thats interesting.

they should be able to drop that into a Honda Civic or a Mini and get a highly respectable 60-70 MPG without forcing the driver to throw out his groceries, and have his wife get out and push to go up a hill

0-60 in 12.5 sec is ok, if it actually can do it in a car made from more than cardboard and Popsicle sticks

 

[Dr Kynes]

I completely agree with the cadiliac and lincoln SUV statement, but I fail to see why you called the retro muscle cars faux as a lot of the modern versions come with more horsepower then the og models did.. not all mind you, but a good enough % that I wouldn't just write the entire class off as faux..

most of the cars in the retro-muscle category are weak as water.

the Chrysler 300 comes to mind, it LOOKS like the classic musclecars, but under the hood, it's a pansy. it's a luxury car in drag.

the new impalas are also a sad commentary on detroit's decline.

the venerable Mustang has been getting poncier and poncier every year, the new ones are just pathetic.

Edit: note i'm talking specifically the the Retro Musclecars which ARE fake, not some of the better models which i consider to come under the heading of Sportscars.

 

[NoDrama]

If my 5,350 pound, 1982 Toyota Land Cruiser that has a Carbureted straight 6 engine that puts out a whopping 130HP, and has the exact aerodynamics as a large brick can do 95 MPH... I am fucking positive a vehicle with 1/2 the HP and 1/4 the weight with super aerodynamics can easily attain freeway speeds. 0-60 in 12, the LC does it in 19.

313 MPG????

Sure, but can it do this?

[video=youtube;OiPg5DHeyNU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiPg5DHeyNU[/video]

 

[Beagler]

I've only owned 1 caddy, $200 and lasted for 2 inspections. Good ride but prefed a Buick 225 better back then. Had an awesome 2 door Polara with a 440. Still like watching, "grumpy old men" and seeing the 4 door version, mine was the same copper color with a black vinal roof

My '98 truck still runs well with 286k on it. Has body rust....."Old Green" is her name. Love the manual tranny and 4wd.

I do miss that little VW truck. They have become a bit of a collectors item for the deisel.

 

[Beefbisquit]

now thats interesting.

they should be able to drop that into a Honda Civic or a Mini and get a highly respectable 60-70 MPG without forcing the driver to throw out his groceries, and have his wife get out and push to go up a hill

0-60 in 12.5 sec is ok, if it actually can do it in a car made from more than cardboard and Popsicle sticks

popsicle sticks and carboard = carbon fibre?

This car shares the same monotub design as cars like the MacLaren mp412c.

 

[Beagler]

most of the cars in the retro-muscle category are weak as water.

the Chrysler 300 comes to mind, it LOOKS like the classic musclecars, but under the hood, it's a pansy. it's a luxury car in drag.

the new impalas are also a sad commentary on detroit's decline.

the venerable Mustang has been getting poncier and poncier every year, the new ones are just pathetic.

Edit: note i'm talking specifically the the Retro Musclecars which ARE fake, not some of the better models which i consider to come under the heading of Sportscars.

Doesn't much of that depend on engine/power train package?

I've ridden in some nice mustangs, challengers, and camaros, and seen some that are used are used as grocery getters.

 

[racerboy71]

popsicle sticks and carboard = carbon fibre?

This car shares the same monotub design as cars like the MacLaren mp412c.

John Banard was a true genius, a real game changer..

 

[racerboy71]

John Banard was a true genius, a real game changer..

john barnard, damn it, had it right the first time..

 

[Dr Kynes]

Doesn't much of that depend on engine/power train package?

I've ridden in some nice mustangs, challengers, and camaros, and seen some that are used are used as grocery getters.

im talking about stock production vehicles, not juiced up street rods.

back in 94 i one of my buds bought a new mustang 5.0 L "sports car" and my old '63 dodge dart GT smoked him. (standard 225 slant 6 and the classic pushbutton shift Torqueflight B tranny with an aftermarket rochester 4 barrel 2 stage carb )

the Dart GT was NOT a muscle car, but it burnt his Poontang like a campfire S'more.

Poontangs suck.

camaros are for college girls and trailerpark boys.

challengers are good if you can keep the electronic controls from slipping into Limp Home Mode, which means replacing every sensor every couple years.

 

[Beagler]

Had a '69 valiant I called "Snow White"
slant 6 (tuff engine), whith blue interior, 3 speed on the column. Did great in snow (put in higher gear) had to weight trunk in winter

 

[Beagler]

Never owned 1.. was always a fan of the Mercury Cougars' looks.
Guess I was a MILF lover before that term existed.

 

[twostrokenut]

Lol I have an 80s truck....F250 powerstroke 7.3 no turbo F350 front end conversion.
Some 80s trucks did not suck....love me some old powerwagons as well.

Had a sick ass merkur xr4ti as my first car....great mpg and very good power...rwd to boot.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Lol I have an 80s truck....F250 powerstroke 7.3 no turbo F350 front end conversion.
Some 80s trucks did not suck....love me some old powerwagons as well.

Had a sick ass merkur xr4ti as my first car....great mpg and very good power...rwd to boot.

in the 80's you could get a powerful but gas guzziling truck, OR a shitty swaybacked windbroke nag that didnt use quite as much gas, but struggled to go up hills.

and yes, Powerwagons FTW.

jeep also had some good ones in the 80's, and so did ford.

mostly though they were either gas hogs which were LESS efficient than an older truck from the 50's 60's or 70's, in good repair, or pathetic shitbox family car powertrains under a pickup truck body.

cars in the 80's sucked donkeyballs.

 

[twostrokenut]

yeah my mom had a 80's "mustang" it was a fucking four cylinder, how crass.

It was ironic....in the late 90's I had a danger ranger....2.3....moms had a 4.6 mustang GT....the stang actually got better fuel mileage.

Can I attribute this to power:weight efficiency?

 

[Dr Kynes]

yeah my mom had a 80's "mustang" it was a fucking four cylinder, how crass.

It was ironic....in the late 90's I had a danger ranger....2.3....moms had a 4.6 mustang GT....the stang actually got better fuel mileage.

Can I attribute this to power:weight efficiency?

firstly , back in the day, the GT package (for every manufacturer i am familiar with) used a leaner mixture, restricted intakes for lower volumetiric efficiency (hence lower compression), and fewer geegaws to increase it's "Grand Touring" appeal, plus a larger gas tank.
many "GT" cars these days use the GT "badging" to designate a particular trim package rather than it's proper use to describe a modified sub-model designed to let you cruise without stopping for gas every few blocks.
a standard "GT" package car was designed to get better fuel economy than the same car without the GT designation.
these days, not so much.


secondly, the ford ranger pickup often came equipped with a lower gear ratio differential and tranny, for towing and whatnot, while poontangs (as well as all passenger cars) come equipped a much higher gear ratio
the ranger "sport" package had the higher gear ratio (the same as was used in rear wheel drive passenger cars at the time), and was ill suited to heavy work.

thirdly, the ranger had a classic chassis/body design to support the bed and payload, stronger suspension, and was considerably heavier than a poontang, and thus would always lose out in fuel economy to any passenger car, even with the same engine and gearing package, while the GTpackage was even more efficient, but sacrificed some power and speed as a tradeoff.

you cant compare a truck to a passenger car (except "sport" trucks), even the dolts at the EPA figured out that doesnt work.

a ford ranger (non-sport package) could tow your trailer, haul hay or grain, and give good service when you had to carry lumber or concrete, but they were designed for work.

the datsun B2200 or chevy luv (similar in many respects to the ranger, but with a higher gear ratio and weaker suspension) were considerably faster, and more fuel efficient than a ranger, untill you put a load in the back. anything heavier than 500lb, and those turds became a bottom scraping, gas guzzling putt-putt mobile incapable of climbing the mildest of hills.

 

[Beagler]

A friend had a '68 Dart GTS that was very quick.