Porsche Approves Tesla Killer For Production

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
I’m convinced that it’ll at least beat the Tesla in terms of aesthetics.

Charged via an 800-volt charger unit specially developed for the car, which is twice as powerful as today’s quick-charge systems, the lithium-ion batteries integrated within the vehicle floor have enough power again for 80 percent of the range after just 15 minutes. The vehicle can optionally be ‘refuelled’ wirelessly by induction via a coil set into the garage floor.
 
Porsche? Owned by VW... which was just like their brethren plagued by the emission test scandal?

Porsche had better do more than start producing a spiffy ride to make up for their - VWs - potential debacle in the automotive sector.
 
aShrubbery! said:
Porsche? Owned by VW... which was just like their brethren plagued by the emission test scandal?

Porsche had better do more than start producing a spiffy ride to make up for their - VWs - potential debacle in the automotive sector.
Click to expand...

Porsche is one of the most profitable automaker already...i think Porsche account for like less than 2% of VW group's sales but account for more than 20% of profit..
 
Fact of the matter is Porsche is in a niche, it's pretty insulated. Even Audi which has a long track record of unreliability is going to be fine because end of day the initial build quality and design is superior to other makes. This may even force VW into fully embracing the EV market, which ironically might save them in the long run.
 
Since when have Porsche cared about aesthetics, the Panamera still exists.
 
closers said:
Fact of the matter is Porsche is in a niche, it's pretty insulated. Even Audi which has a long track record of unreliability is going to be fine because end of day the initial build quality and design is superior to other makes. This may even force VW into fully embracing the EV market, which ironically might save them in the long run.
Click to expand...

People who buy these types of cars don't care about build quality. If it sucks, they trade it in for a new car. As much as I covet a Model S, I have no idea how reliable it is, because there are so few of them. OTOH, I do know that Tesla will recall an entire model over a single problem, which is reassuring for some.

Kor said:
Since when have Porsche cared about aesthetics, the Panamera still exists.
Click to expand...

Just looked that up, and all the reviews seem pretty solid.
 
Wireless charging wastes all the efficiency that gives electric vehicles a point in existing in the first place.
 
EODetroit said:
Wireless charging wastes all the efficiency that gives electric vehicles a point in existing in the first place.
Click to expand...

Many of the people who buy these cars do not really care about that. Many people who truly care about things like that cannot even afford cars like this.

I will say that I do not see Tesla being viable for the long run. Due to CAFE and other regulations in the US and other markets, Tesla is going to have a very hard time as more of the true luxury brands put out very compelling and competitive EV's.
 
amdgamer said:
Many of the people who buy these cars do not really care about that. Many people who truly care about things like that cannot even afford cars like this.

I will say that I do not see Tesla being viable for the long run. Due to CAFE and other regulations in the US and other markets, Tesla is going to have a very hard time as more of the true luxury brands put out very compelling and competitive EV's.
Click to expand...

I agree. When it comes to luxury hybrids, people are looking for a performance car that gets better mileage than a gas version of the same car. As for Tesla's future, I think what will hold them back is the limited range. I know that I'd love to own one, but the reality is that it's range is way to limited. Even if you drive in a way that nobody drives, you couldn't make it 400 miles and if you live in TX, that's a HUGE problem, because you can't get from Dallas (or Houston) to El Pass and you can't get from Dallas to New Orleans either (unless you're willing to drive several hours out of your way get to a Super Charger. When Tesla (and other all electric cars) can hit 400 miles on a single charge, they become viable for more than commuting/west coast (i.e the place that has an insane amount of charging stations)car. I suspect by then there will be a lot of competitors.

For now, i think hybrids are our future.
 
Food for thought.

You are talking shoving in 60 kWh in 15min using 800v...

Charge rate of 240kw
Charge rate of 300 amps

Ill let your imaginations take over on this magical connector that can sustain this. Oh and to add fuel to the fire those charge rates are "averaged", batteries have an internal resistance.

Then there is the matter of the batteries. charging current/voltage varies based on pack charge. If its at 20%, its going to suck a massive amount of current. However at say 70% charges, the only way to keep shoving in massive current is to increase the voltage massively.
 
closers said:
Fact of the matter is Porsche is in a niche, it's pretty insulated. Even Audi which has a long track record of unreliability is going to be fine because end of day the initial build quality and design is superior to other makes. This may even force VW into fully embracing the EV market, which ironically might save them in the long run.
Click to expand...

VW isn't going anywhere. They were on pace to become the largest manufacturer in the world until this whole diesel software mess.

Also, Porsche's sales have increased steadily year after year...:confused:
4KzSWdv.png
 
Other than being electric, it's a stupid comparison. A better comparison would be to the BMW i8. Haven't driven one, but plenty around where I live; it's a great looking car.
 
Hey, the more competition, the better. That said, I take the "Tesla Killer" terminology as over-exaggeration. I doubt this Porsche will come even close (re: as low) as the price of the Model S and will serve an entirely different category of people.
 
Kor said:
Since when have Porsche cared about aesthetics, the Panamera still exists.
Click to expand...

Looks are subjective (I'm neutral on the Panameras styling) but there is no denying it's a fantastic drive for a large sedan.
 
aShrubbery! said:
Porsche? Owned by VW... which was just like their brethren plagued by the emission test scandal?

Porsche had better do more than start producing a spiffy ride to make up for their - VWs - potential debacle in the automotive sector.
Click to expand...

You got that wrong, bruh. It's Porsche that owns VW.
 
dgz said:
You got that wrong, bruh. It's Porsche that owns VW.
Click to expand...

Was gonna call you out on this and then I checked. Looks like the VW group is owned by multiple other firms/groups. Interesting, learn something new everyday :eek:
 
dgz said:
You got that wrong, bruh. It's Porsche that owns VW.
Click to expand...

i think if i read it right, it was basically an investment group named or created by the the family that started porshe, broke away from them bought/created vw and then bought porshe car back ... its kinda funny how it all circles back. one of the most interesting posts i read about car manufactures, it seems almost like every one of them is owned/partially owned as stock holder or such.
 
dgz said:
You got that wrong, bruh. It's Porsche that owns VW.
Click to expand...

not exactly. 52.2 of common stock of VW is owned by the so called Porsche Automobil Holding SE, which - while founded by Porsche AG - has nothing to do with Porsche AG that produces cars.

This Porsche Automobil Holding SE is "Porsche" in name, but its chairmen are Matthias Müller, the CEO of VW AG and Hans Dieter Pötsch, the chief of the VW supervisory board.

which boils down to: the CEO of VW AG is chairman of a company that is called Porsche SE which owns a majority share of VW AG.

do you follow? :D

(Porsche AG tried to take over VW in 2009, but due to some miscalculation on the stock market and interference by the EU this did not work out.)
 
Zarathustra[H];1042014057 said:
To eachtheir own I guess,


The Tesla Model S loos nice and sleek.

This Porsche looks like some sort of outrageous boy racer.

I'd go with the looks of the Tesla 10 out of 10 times.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is going to appeal to a much narrower audience (and will likely be much more expensive) than the Tesla line.

The S and even the X are cars I'd almost consider for day-to-day driving. This is not that.
 
I always laugh at morons who think they're saving the planet by buying a new car :D

It's exactly the opposite. The resources needed to ship all those battery packs from China to where ever the cars are buitl is alone more than the gas the car is going to burn. Not to mention that coal is used to create electricity (increasingly so when wind powers fluctuations need corrective power).

I've always also wondered how the same electricity that is so polluting and so bad if you use it to warm your house, becomes 0% emissions when used in a car engine.
 
Megalith said:
I’m convinced that it’ll at least beat the Tesla in terms of aesthetics.
Click to expand...

VW group (Audi/Porsche/VW) have been the kings of Vapor EV announcements for years.

Basically these announcements are aimed at stopping people from buying EVs from competitors, while they wait for the VW EVs that might show up some day.

Here is Audi announcing they have the fastest "production" electric lap record at the Nürburgring:
http://jalopnik.com/5922335/the-electric-audi-r8-e-tron-set-an-809-nurburgring-lap-record

Minor issue. That car like most VW group electrics never actually entered production.

It is easy to make big claims about vapor products.
 
B00nie said:
I always laugh at morons who think they're saving the planet by buying a new car :D

It's exactly the opposite. The resources needed to ship all those battery packs from China to where ever the cars are buitl is alone more than the gas the car is going to burn. Not to mention that coal is used to create electricity (increasingly so when wind powers fluctuations need corrective power).

I've always also wondered how the same electricity that is so polluting and so bad if you use it to warm your house, becomes 0% emissions when used in a car engine.
Click to expand...

Because people love hypocrisy so long as none of their own are willing to call them out on it.
 
B00nie said:
I always laugh at morons who think they're saving the planet by buying a new car :D

It's exactly the opposite. The resources needed to ship all those battery packs from China to where ever the cars are buitl is alone more than the gas the car is going to burn. Not to mention that coal is used to create electricity (increasingly so when wind powers fluctuations need corrective power).

I've always also wondered how the same electricity that is so polluting and so bad if you use it to warm your house, becomes 0% emissions when used in a car engine.
Click to expand...

It depends where you live. Most states derive most of their power from coal, but most of us live in states where the top power source is not coal (e.g LNG, Renewables (ME), Hydro or Nuclear). If you live in CA, for example, an electric vehicle is essentially an LNG car. It's not carbon free, but it's better than Gas (and not even close to Coal). In Oregon or Washington, you very well may be carbon free (but the Salmon still hate you).

No doubt Coal still supplies a plurality of our energy, but it's going down. Personally, I think Hybrids are the way to go. They get better mileage and if you're into performance, then they can provide you with a faster car (with marginally better mileage).

Electric is great if you live in areas with superchargers, but I know for me, I couldn't visit my parents with a Tesla...and even if there was a super charger in the right place, it'd take me much longer to get home. Need at least 400 miles of range at 80MPH or it's an expensive commuter car (which probably explains why so many used Teslas have less than 10k miles on them.
 
nilepez said:
When Tesla (and other all electric cars) can hit 400 miles on a single charge, they become viable for more than commuting/west coast (i.e the place that has an insane amount of charging stations)car. For now, i think hybrids are our future.
Click to expand...
That's the major issue. Why should I have to spend more time charging than driving? Many people's daily driving exceeds what EVs are capable of between charges. Also, it can potentially take extra DAYS to drive coast to coast in an EV. Not exactly an "economical" use of time. Add in cold weather and it gets much worse.
 
Damn nice looking concept, they got the rear right for once and it looks great even for a four door. Only exception is that kludgy panel for charging.
 
B00nie said:
I always laugh at morons who think they're saving the planet by buying a new car :D

It's exactly the opposite. The resources needed to ship all those battery packs from China to where ever the cars are buitl is alone more than the gas the car is going to burn. Not to mention that coal is used to create electricity (increasingly so when wind powers fluctuations need corrective power).

I've always also wondered how the same electricity that is so polluting and so bad if you use it to warm your house, becomes 0% emissions when used in a car engine.
Click to expand...

Well, cars don't last forever. All cars will have to be replaced at some point. All cars incur a carbon footprint during production.

Electric cars incur a LESSER production carbon footprint than traditional internal combustion cars due to having fewer parts due to their MUCH simpler drive train, and that's before you even consider the lifetime impact of emissions.

Yes, most of our electricity is coal based, but 30-35% of it is either renewable or nuclear. Even the coal and gas plants are less polluting than internal combustion engines though, as internal combustion engines are usually at most 30% efficient on paper (and in practice only about 15%) whereas modern large scale gas turbines as found in most power plants are pushing 70% efficiency these days,

Even when considering line losses (about 6%) and charging inefficiencies (about 10%) emissions are lower for electric vehicles due to motor efficiencies in the high 90's% and other features, such as regenerative braking.

Buying a new electric car doesn't per se have a net positive impact on carbon emissions, but it has a much lower impact than buying an equivalent internal combusion vehicle, bot during production and further during its lifetime of emissions.
 
mynamehere said:
That's the major issue. Why should I have to spend more time charging than driving? Many people's daily driving exceeds what EVs are capable of between charges. Also, it can potentially take extra DAYS to drive coast to coast in an EV. Not exactly an "economical" use of time. Add in cold weather and it gets much worse.
Click to expand...

I think that is a small minority actually. According to DOT statistics the average U.S. commuter travels ~15 miles each way. In fact, only about 10 million Americans travel more than an hour each way to work. With 122.5 million Americans currently full time employed and countless more part time employed, that makes them a rather small minority.

So, yeah, electric vehicles are not for everyone. But the larger battery varieties (like those Tesla makes) should work for most people. Heck, even the 60mile smaller models will work for the average worker who commuted 15 miles each way. They can get two days out of one charge if they don't do any other driving :p

Personally, I have a 25 mile drive to one site I work at and a 45 mile drive to the other. If I only had my 25 mile commute I guess one of those short range models would actually do the trick.

But since I have a longer commute as well some days, I guess I'd need a model with a ~110 mile range. (45miles *2 + 20% safety margin)

To me, price is the bigger impediment to getting one right now. If I look at cars on the market today, a Tesla Model S is by far the most desirable vehicle at any cost to me. The problem is, a well equipped one will cost me north of $100k.

For the lesser models, like the Nissan Leaf, you're paying $30k to drive what otherwise would have been a $14k econo-bucket. No one wants to do that.

Yes, you save on gas long term, especially if you live somewhere with good electric rates, and time of use billing where you can charge cheaply during off-peak hours, but IMHO, we won't see electric vehicles gain popularity until they are price equivalent with gas models of the same level of performance/premium/etc.

Range will still be an issue for some, but that shouldn't prevent the majority of people with shorter commutes from using them.

There's always the "range anxiety" that turns people off though. This one is tough to combat. Maybe you never drive more than 150 miles a day. Haven't done so in over a decade since that last time you did a road trip to Disney world with the family (and you swore you'd never do that again), but what if you had to? What if something came up?

Doubts like the above are what make it difficult for many to commit to electric cars.

Me? I've done all my calculations and I could get a way with a large battery Tesla model no problem, even including my longer drives (holidays to family parties). For me it's the price that is the problem.
 
Zarathustra[H];1042016656 said:
Well, cars don't last forever. All cars will have to be replaced at some point. All cars incur a carbon footprint during production.

Electric cars incur a LESSER production carbon footprint than traditional internal combustion cars due to having fewer parts due to their MUCH simpler drive train, and that's before you even consider the lifetime impact of emissions.

Yes, most of our electricity is coal based, but 30-35% of it is either renewable or nuclear. Even the coal and gas plants are less polluting than internal combustion engines though, as internal combustion engines are usually at most 30% efficient on paper (and in practice only about 15%) whereas modern large scale gas turbines as found in most power plants are pushing 70% efficiency these days,
Click to expand...

It depends where you live. If your energy comes from Coal, then you have a negative impact. If you get it from anything other than Coal or Petrol (Hawaii), then you're probably doing better than combustion. The bottom line is if you're buying an electric vehicle to reduce your carbon output, you have to look at where your energy comes from, not the national averages.

Zarathustra[H];1042016693 said:
I think that is a small minority actually. According to DOT statistics the average U.S. commuter travels ~15 miles each way. In fact, only about 10 million Americans travel more than an hour each way to work. With 122.5 million Americans currently full time employed and countless more part time employed, that makes them a rather small minority.

So, yeah, electric vehicles are not for everyone. But the larger battery varieties (like those Tesla makes) should work for most people. Heck, even the 60mile smaller models will work for the average worker who commuted 15 miles each way. They can get two days out of one charge if they don't do any other driving :p
Click to expand...

You have to look closely at those estimates. I know, for example, that the 400 mile range of the Tesla Roadster is based on driving at something like 50 MPH. Can you imagined driving a roadster that looks like a Lotus on the highway at speeds slower than a Civic?

Money aside, i couldn't justify a Model S/X to tool around town. I want luxury when I'm in the car for a long time and there's just no way I could use it that way. For much of the country things look great, but if you look at i10, there's 1000 miles between the one near Tucson and the one between Houston/San Antonio. Live on i20? You better be in Atlanta. i55? Hope you live in Illinois (Maybe St Louis).

Of course if these were cheaper cars, then you could just buy electric for commutes and something else for everything else.
 
nilepez said:
It depends where you live. If your energy comes from Coal, then you have a negative impact. If you get it from anything other than Coal or Petrol (Hawaii), then you're probably doing better than combustion. The bottom line is if you're buying an electric vehicle to reduce your carbon output, you have to look at where your energy comes from, not the national averages.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I'd argue that even if you lived in an area that got 100% of its electrical supply from fossil fuels, the fact that large scale gas turbines are more than double as efficient than a internal combustion engine, means that you are still ahead of the curve with an electric vehicle.

That being said, not all plants are operating with the latest greatest and most efficient technology, so there is some variability here.
 
nilepez said:
It depends where you live. If your energy comes from Coal, then you have a negative impact. If you get it from anything other than Coal or Petrol (Hawaii), then you're probably doing better than combustion. The bottom line is if you're buying an electric vehicle to reduce your carbon output, you have to look at where your energy comes from, not the national averages.
Click to expand...

But wouldn't that only be if they're burning more coal than they would otherwise? For example, they don't cycle those plants down at night, so if you're plugging in overnight, isn't there still a net positive impact as that electricity would have just been wasted?
 
Zarathustra[H];1042017115 said:
Not necessarily. I'd argue that even if you lived in an area that got 100% of its electrical supply from fossil fuels, the fact that large scale gas turbines are more than double as efficient than a internal combustion engine, means that you are still ahead of the curve with an electric vehicle.

That being said, not all plants are operating with the latest greatest and most efficient technology, so there is some variability here.
Click to expand...

So you're arguing that coal firing plants are cleaner than a gas powered car?
 
TwistedAegis said:
But wouldn't that only be if they're burning more coal than they would otherwise? For example, they don't cycle those plants down at night, so if you're plugging in overnight, isn't there still a net positive impact as that electricity would have just been wasted?
Click to expand...

In that case, you might be right, but I don't know what percentage of coal plants are load following. One could argue that's an additional variable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top