Chevy Spark EV 90 miles range @100 kph

Matt Simis

Matt Simis wrote: »

I thought we already explained to you how thats not a correct assumption based on the arbitrary "400 lbs torque" paper stat? :pac:
Chevy should be shot for the Marketing spin on this.
Idiots. Real cars always quote peak BHP and torque at X RPM, Chevy dont as it undermines their BS.


http://insideevs.com/gm-general-says-spark-evs-400lb-ft-of-torque-no-misprint/

Call a spade a spade, its an urban runabout with 130bhp. Lots of torque low down (peak torque at 2000rpm would be considered brutal in any performance application) makes for a car that springs off the line for the first 10m then bogs down. So if your definition of fun driving is accelerating in a Town from traffic light to traffic light quickly but at a low actual speed, then yeah, the Spark is awesome and better than many other cars. If you actually plan to do real driving on real roads, then its the opposite. Its all the worst characteristics of Diesel's power delivery.

Max I told you before, you can't compare the torque of an electric motor with that of an ICE, it's just completely different.

Torque of the AC Synchronous Motor is also not a function of RPM but of Current applied to the coils and that is available at all rpm.

HP of 130 is enough to bring the Spark to 90 mph but it's the torque that gets it there in 7.5 ish seconds, and it's heavy. If it was half the weight could be 5 seconds or less.

in EV volts x amps = watts

amps = torque and volts = speed

hp is a unit of power in this case being volts x amps = watts = HP

So if they want more torque they will add more amps and it may or may not go faster depending on the final gear but all they have to do is increase the volts.

Max Power1

Max Power1 wrote: »

For me, the sound of the gear change in the 535 at 5000 rpm, foot flat to the floor, getting tunnel vision, is what I would miss.

You couldnt powerslide in a leaf :P

But it goes back to what I said earlier. The leaf/ev could be used for the boring stuff like 40km motorway trips to work and back. But, if I had to rush into hospital or someone told me I had to be in cork in 2hrs I know what I would want and it would not be the ev.

For the laugh, is there anyone with an EV that is going to the trackday!!!:D:D:D

NO you won't get the tunnel vision in the Leaf, that's for sure but it was not built to compete with the 535.

I think what you will find most impressive with the Leaf is the instantaneous torque at the tap of the throttle.

Coming up to a busy roundabout and 100% torque immediately is very satisfying, you're off before someone else has lifted the clutch and hit the accelerator and then changed into 2nd.

But you won't get the shove of the 535.

Maybe you can buy the 60 kwh model S ?

Mixed up Matt and Max again !

Idbatterim

Idbatterim wrote: »

Is it not possible to have an extra battery that you could pop say into the boot of the car etc if you needed more range the odd time?

You could, but it would be difficult, it would have to be the same battery chemistry and you won't get your hands on those batteries.

Besides, why would you pay more for the occasional long trip when you can fast charge ?

CiniO

For me range would suffice no problem.
At the moment we have 2 cars in our household. One is used rather for longer journeys, while second car over last 3 years never did more than 120km per day. In vast majority of days it's only 40km - 50km, while some days it's 80km - 90km, while other days it's 0.
This second car is 01 Fiat Bravo 1.2, but I suppose EV could do it's job perfectly...

The only question is would EV be cheaper to run, and more fun to drive, than 1.2 bravo (with lowered eibach suspension)?

I have quite precise calculations for this bravo.
Over last 5.5 years we owned that Bravo it travelled 76k kilometres (it has nearly 215k km on the clock now).
Cost of purchase in 2008: 1300 euro
Cost of maintenance over 5.5 years: 2675 euro (and that includes everything from tyres, oils, servicing, repairs, nct fees, screenwash fluids, etc).
Cost of insurance: 2130 euro
Cost of tax: 1568 euro
Cost of petrol: 7127 euro

Total: 14800.
I could probably sell it now for around 800, so 14000 euro to run a car for 5.5 years which travelled 76k kilometres...

Could EV do any better (cheaper)?
Meaning if I buy EV now, and sell it in 5.5 years after travelling 76k kilometres, will it cost me more or less than 14k?

CiniO

CiniO wrote: »

For me range would suffice no problem.
At the moment we have 2 cars in our household. One is used rather for longer journeys, while second car over last 3 years never did more than 120km per day. In vast majority of days it's only 40km - 50km, while some days it's 80km - 90km, while other days it's 0.
This second car is 01 Fiat Bravo 1.2, but I suppose EV could do it's job perfectly...

The only question is would EV be cheaper to run, and more fun to drive, than 1.2 bravo (with lowered eibach suspension)?

I have quite precise calculations for this bravo.
Over last 5.5 years we owned that Bravo it travelled 76k kilometres (it has nearly 215k km on the clock now).
Cost of purchase in 2008: 1300 euro
Cost of maintenance over 5.5 years: 2675 euro (and that includes everything from tyres, oils, servicing, repairs, nct fees, screenwash fluids, etc).
Cost of insurance: 2130 euro
Cost of tax: 1568 euro
Cost of petrol: 7127 euro

Total: 14800.
I could probably sell it now for around 800, so 14000 euro to run a car for 5.5 years which travelled 76k kilometres...

Could EV do any better (cheaper)?
Meaning if I buy EV now, and sell it in 5.5 years after travelling 76k kilometres, will it cost me more or less than 14k?

You need to take the Leaf for a drive to know if you'll like it or not and try get it for a day at least.

But remember your winter range in the Leaf will be around 60 miles @60 mph and that's on a new battery!

Currently the Leaf in Ireland will cost around 18,000 Euro's 2nd hand for a 2011. You'll get one in the U.K for around 13-14K -transport and inspection costs.

Cost to fuel in winter will be around 1.80 on night rate for 60 odd miles, you may get more, you may get less, that's the average.

Summer range is anything from 75-95 miles @20 deg C.

Service is around 100 a year for a battery report. And you got to do it for the warranty. They do other (checks) too.

Nothing needs to be serviced or replaced on an e.v, brakes should last a long time. Brake fluid would probably need to be changed every 2 years as normal, coolant ? probably 100,000 miles at least.

Road tax 104 a year I think ?

Battery life is something we just don't know much of yet, certainly Arizona had problems due to heat we'll never experience. There is a rumour of a Leaf loosing the first capacity bar at 75,000 miles in Seattle meaning a 15% drop in capacity. Now no one knows yet how many fast charges were done etc. there just isn't enough data to tell.

But whatever the results are with the leaf battery that means nothing, because every electric car will have some different battery.

The Spark will have a much better battery, one of the reasons GM can get 400 or so lbs of torque is because they can suck a lot of amps form those A123 battery cells. Amps give you torque in an EV. And it can charge 10 mins quicker on a fast charger.

The greatest disadvantage is there will probably be 0 SAE chargers by the time we get it.

But the best way for you to save would probably be to keep the Bravo as it's paid for and not worth a lot and to spend 14-18K on an e.v will be around 10 years of petrol at today's prices.

2500 € or so maintenance over 5 years would be another 5 grand including 7.5 grand for 5 years petrol would be 17.5 K euro's.

So the question is, will the battery meet your needs in 10 years ?

Nissan will repair your battery once it reaches 70% capacity it is unfortunate that that they at this time, will not install a new one and give you some money for the old one which can be used for renewable energy storage.

IF you're buying a new/2nd hand car and it costs around the same price as the EV then The ev is worth serious consideration.

Max Power1

Max Power1 wrote: »

Might head down next weekend so. I'll tell 'em some mad lad from the internet sent me!

Missed this post.

Yeah do, I think you'll like it one way or another. don't be afraid to plant the throttle make sure it's "NOT" in eco mode.

Days 298

Days 298 wrote: »

Couldn't the EV1 do between 70-90 miles per charge depending on conditions? Thats nearly 15 years ago at this stage. It's disappointing how slow progress on range is being made, if proper strides could be made petrol prices could come down gradually. If the range could be got to 200 miles then I could see them taking off hugely if the price was right.

I got it wrong, well partly.

I was looking up the EV1 Gen I which had 16 kwh lead acid of all batteries.

The Gen II had NiMh 26 kwh, so yeah it was amazing for it's day but it's such a shame that the EV movement was killed by an oil company. God knows what we could have had by now !

The GM Spark EV will have 21 kwh but much better power density for great acceleration in a lot smaller battery. And much, much faster charging. 20 mins to 80 V 4 hrs to 100%.

Matt Simis

Deleted User wrote: »

Max I told you before, you can't compare the torque of an electric motor with that of an ICE, it's just completely different.
Torque of the AC Synchronous Motor is also not a function of RPM but of Current applied to the coils and that is available at all rpm.
HP of 130 is enough to bring the Spark to 90 mph but it's the torque that gets it there in 7.5 ish seconds, and it's heavy. If it was half the weight could be 5 seconds or less.

in EV volts x amps = watts

amps = torque and volts = speed

hp is a unit of power in this case being volts x amps = watts = HP

So if they want more torque they will add more amps and it may or may not go faster depending on the final gear but all they have to do is increase the volts.

For the love of god, we already did this?! You can compare torque on a donkey , an EV, a Diesel, a petrol etc. When the term "Horsepower" and "Torque" were coined there were neither ICE or EVs. Im not saying Torque is a function of RPM (as its not directly, even on ICE), Im trying to get you to understand what the hell you are posting, the relevance of the figure on the Spark and how it relates to other cars.

If you cannot grasp this please stop quoting it. If you cannot compare them, then why are Chevy doing so, I quoted it direct to you? Also why are you comparing them (you already said its "way more than most cars")?

The reason the Spark has such pants HORSEPOWER (which is the more important stat) is because the TORQUE is at a crappy low RPM. Rotating force doesnt care if the drive is electric or animal or ICE.

Torque, moment or moment of force (see the terminology below), is the tendency of a force to rotate an object about an axis,[1] fulcrum, or pivot. Just as a force is a push or a pull, a torque can be thought of as a twist to an object. Mathematically, torque is defined as the cross product of the lever-arm distance and force, which tends to produce rotation.
Loosely speaking, torque is a measure of the turning force on an object such as a bolt or a flywheel. For example, pushing or pulling the handle of a wrench connected to a nut or bolt produces a torque (turning force) that loosens or tightens the nut or bolt.

I mean just read it. If the Spark had 400fb-lbs torque at 6000rpm, them we would all be excited. It doesnt and to highlight an apples to apples comparison, which closes this circle on comparisons, look at the Tesla.
The Tesla Model S, baby version, has: 317 lb·ft (430 N·m) @ 0-5000 rpm
Which means its faster at accelerating, has a higher top speed and also would offer a much wider (longer) power band despite having considerably lower peak torque. Since it has much much higher RPM (though the older Tesla Roadster had 14,000rpm) they could even use gearing for torque multipliers to have higher axle torque. But they dont have to as high torque at high RPM is high Horsepower, the only stat worth caring about on a car.

Again, you can compare torque and horsepower as they are mechanical ratings of movement and force. How you generate them is irrelevant.

Having $hitloads of torque at 0-2000rpm is for drills and boats.


PS: The Spark doesnt get to 90mph in 7.5seconds, are you mad? Its advertised as around 8seconds to 60, which is a long way off. My "baby" commuter car has a 258ft-lb peak torque engine that gets to 60mph in about 5.5seconds. Its also heavier than the Spark Ev. How - the magic of RPM and Horsepower and Torque + gears.

Matt Simis

Matt Simis wrote: »

For the love of god, we already did this?! You can compare torque on a donkey , an EV, a Diesel, a petrol etc. When the term "Horsepower" and "Torque" were coined there were neither ICE or EVs. Im not saying Torque is a function of RPM (as its not directly, even on ICE), Im trying to get you to understand what the hell you are posting, the relevance of the figure on the Spark and how it relates to other cars.

If you cannot grasp this please stop quoting it. If you cannot compare them, then why are Chevy doing so, I quoted it direct to you? Also why are you comparing them (you already said its "way more than most cars")?

The reason the Spark has such pants HORSEPOWER (which is the more important stat) is because the TORQUE is at a crappy low RPM. Rotating force doesnt care if the drive is electric or animal or ICE.

I mean just read it. If the Spark had 400fb-lbs torque at 6000rpm, them we would all be excited. It doesnt and to highlight an apples to apples comparison, which closes this circle on comparisons, look at the Tesla.
The Tesla Model S, baby version, has: 317 lb·ft (430 N·m) @ 0-5000 rpm
Which means its faster at accelerating, has a higher top speed and also would offer a much wider (longer) power band despite having considerably lower peak torque. Since it has much much higher RPM (though the older Tesla Roadster had 14,000rpm) they could even use gearing for torque multipliers to have higher axle torque. But they dont have to as high torque at high RPM is high Horsepower, the only stat worth caring about on a car.

Again, you can compare torque and horsepower as they are mechanical ratings of movement and force. How you generate them is irrelevant.

Having $hitloads of torque at 0-2000rpm is for drills and boats.

Here is a quote to obviously more knowledgeable people than I.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=388750

"An automobile ICE engine, by design, has to be spinning to make torque. It has to suck in air, compress it, and expel it, and it's not going to do that at 0 RPM. It's not going to do it at 10 RPM either, or even 100 unless it's some huge marine engine. Remember, a piston only makes power 25% of the time, and this power has to pay for the remaining strokes, including compression, which slows it WAY down. So in general, it has to spin at a decent speed to make enough power to be able to even pay for itself. Once it gets there, it has to spin faster to make extra power, and even faster to make the kind of power you want. Depending on design, you'll usually end up being in the thousands of RPM before you get there....

Electric motors, on the other hand...they're just some wires and magnets. You run a current through a wire and it becomes a magnet, which pushes against another magnet and vuoila! you've got force.

The more current you supply, the more force. I'm guessing the greatest current usually runs at 0rpm, since there's practically no resistance in the wires. Once the motor starts spinning, the moving magnetic field slows the current down. "

Matt Simis

Matt Simis wrote: »

PS: The Spark doesnt get to 90mph in 7.5seconds, are you mad? Its advertised as around 8seconds to 60, which is a long way off. My "baby" commuter car has a 258ft-lb peak torque engine that gets to 60mph in about 5.5seconds. Its also heavier than the Spark Ev. How - the magic of RPM and Horsepower and Torque + gears.

Settle down there matt, I said 0-60 mph !

Actually under 8 seconds.

Here's another explanation

This post, part of a series we're running all about electric cars, was written by Patrick E. George from HowStuffWorks.com.
Just like a gasoline-powered internal combustion engine, an electric car's motor generates power that drives the wheels to put things in motion. Unlike a gasoline engine, electric vehicles (EVs) deliver power a little differently.
Power output from an electric motor can be measured in either horsepower or kilowatts -- the latter a measurement of electricity. Nissan says their LEAF EV puts out 80 kilowatts, while Toyota says the Prius hybrid's electric motor has 60 horsepower. Remember, one kilowatt is roughly 1.34 horsepower, so power can be measured either way, although for now most American drivers understand horsepower a little better.

Let's talk a little bit about how electric motors and gasoline engines send power to the wheels. The main difference is immediate power and torque. A car company may say that one of their gasoline-powered engines has 300 horsepower, but that's actually peak horsepower. That number is the highest amount of power the engine can deliver at a certain number of revolutions per minute (RPM), and that number is usually pretty high on the tachometer.
The downside to a gas engine is that it must build RPMs through acceleration until it reaches its maximum power and torque. Not very efficient when you think about it! This also necessitates transmissions with several gears that optimize power output at different engine speeds.

In contrast, switching on an electric motor is similar to turning on a light bulb. A bulb turns on immediately when you flick a switch; it doesn't need time to build up power. The peak power of an EV is always at zero RPMs, which on the Tesla Roadster is 288 horsepower and 295 pound-feet of torque -- all of it as soon as you hit the throttle.
What does all that mean for how horsepower is rated on electric cars? It means that since power is available immediately, we may not need cars with massive horsepower figures anymore. Remember, the Tesla Roadster S is about as fast as a Corvette Z06 with almost half its horsepower. So when the Nissan Leaf is said to put out a "mere" 107 horsepower, the same as their efficient (but not exactly racy) Nissan Versa, odds are the Leaf will be quicker in many situations. The driving experience will also be smoother, quieter and possibly with less maintenance since an electric motor has so many fewer moving parts than an internal combustion engine.
Print Cite Feedback

CiniO

Deleted User wrote: »

In contrast, switching on an electric motor is similar to turning on a light bulb. A bulb turns on immediately when you flick a switch; it doesn't need time to build up power. The peak power of an EV is always at zero RPMs, which on the Tesla Roadster is 288 horsepower and 295 pound-feet of torque -- all of it as soon as you hit the throttle.

This is pure bullsh1t...
At zero RPMs power is 0.
Power = torque * revolutions (obivously assuming compartibile units)
If torque is constant through all RPM range in EV, then power chart would be a straigh rising line up to max rpm.

But I don't think that EV has constant torque over all rpm range.

CiniO

CiniO wrote: »

This is pure bullsh1t...
At zero RPMs power is 0.
Power = torque * revolutions (obivously assuming compartibile units)
If torque is constant through all RPM range in EV, then power chart would be a straigh rising line up to max rpm.

But I don't think that EV has constant torque over all rpm range.

Current gives an AC synchronous motor torque NOT RPM.

But it's true electric motors don't have constant torque through the rev range, but it;s still a much wider torque curve than an ICE.

Peak torque is always at 0 rpm and reduces gradually as the revs rise. and as the revs rise the currents drops. Current, amps = torque.

Matt Simis

Deleted User wrote: »

Settle down there matt, I said 0-60 mph !
Actually under 8 seconds.

Maybe you meant to, but you implied 90mph:

Deleted User wrote: »

HP of 130 is enough to bring the Spark to 90 mph but it's the torque that gets it there in 7.5 ish seconds, and it's heavy. If it was half the weight could be 5 seconds or less.

You are posting long volumes about Torque and EVs and, not trying to sound like a dick, you already had a dreamlike view of EVs beforehand and have a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire theory and are quoting things that are contradicting your own understanding.

The somewhat rose coloured text you quoted is trying to make a "big deal" out of the simple point that the torque ratings of Electric motors have a one fundamental difference to the meaning of rating on a combustion engine. This is true but not what you think/are saying. You somehow took the notion that they arent the same rating of twisting force, this is false.

An ICE, at a given point performing 400ft-lbs of torque to turn a nut/flywheel is the same as an Electric motor doing 400ft-lbs (or a super strong man) . In the most simplest of terms, the difference is:

- The Electric will do that from stall speed to some low RPM (usually, there are high RPM, low torque electrics). This is good for moving a train or boat, heavy slow things.
- The ICE will do that in a specified power band of RPM and will increase the speed at which it turns the nut (or flywheel) as it continues to spin. It cannot do it from the point the engine starts up. However the ICE can spin so fast, it can use gear torque multipliers to put out vastly more torque (with the limitation of a specific power band which doesnt start at stall speed) than an Electric drive, this is usually called Axle Torque.
This is good for moving a car or truck.

RPM is important to EVs and ICE alike as the whole point of motors/engines in cars is to rotate wheels per minute. High RPM and low torque will utilise gear multipliers, High Torque at low RPM kind just sucks as putting in a gear reducer kills the high torque.

Were this a conversation about turning rusted old nuts then the low RPM high torque electric drive looks great. However its about automobiles, where the point is to spin wheels faster and faster.

Again, consider (actually think about why this is):
- 2014 Spark EV - 400ft-lbs @2000rpm - 1394kg = 0-60 in 7.5 to 8seconds and top speed: 90mph
- 1995 BMW E36 M3 Evo - 258ft-lbs from 3200rpm (but tailing off at 8000rpm) - 1460kg = 0-60 in 5.3s and top speed delimited around 180mph.


The answer is af course, horsepower, which is a function of Torque and RPM (and specifically axle torque and the lack of it on the Spark). The M3 engine has 322bhp and the Spark has a weak wristed 130bhp. The M3 engine also puts out far more torque on the road via Axle Torque. Lots of torque at tiny movements (low RPM) - meaningless. Now look back at what you posted and Chevy and see how absurd it looks. 400ft-lbs, more torque than most cars, Ferrari 458 etc. The Spark and Leaf and Volt are good for nipping around City traffic as you cannot drive fast in the city. The same way a Fiat 500 Arbath would make a faster Urban car than my 2ton V12. But on a real road at real speeds, not even in the same ballpark.

You should be angry at Chevy and the rest of the EV zealots for completely misleading you, its a marketing BS piece thats suckering people in.


PS: Please stop talking about Volts + Amps and Torque, the rest of use dont talk about CFM and IDC when talking about ICE and Torque. It has nothing to do with what Torque is a rating of, its just the "fuel" to get there. Also the "25% efficiency" crap has nothing to do with anything, thats just something EV-heads throw out that has no bearing in the real world on anything at all.

Matt, the chevy doesn't need 350 hp because it is restricted to 90 mph.

It's got 130 hp by the way not 90.

dgt

Sounds like its great in the city but useless otherwise. Sure look at the size of it, not meant for munching miles on a motorway. Not a hope of that being any use to me in my world.

What if I wanted to tow a cement mixer with it? Carry several bags of coal in the boot? Lash the tools, spare parts and other people in and comfortably go to the arse end of nowhere 400 miles down the road to buy a car? Tow another car with it? Go off roading and drive through floods with it?

It will take a lot more than that to coax me away from diesel

dgt

dgt wrote: »

Sounds like its great in the city but useless otherwise. Sure look at the size of it, not meant for munching miles on a motorway. Not a hope of that being any use to me in my world.

What if I wanted to tow a cement mixer with it? Carry several bags of coal in the boot? Lash the tools, spare parts and other people in and comfortably go to the arse end of nowhere 400 miles down the road to buy a car? Tow another car with it? Go off roading and drive through floods with it?

It will take a lot more than that to coax me away from diesel

:rolleyes:

unkel

Deleted User wrote: »

The Leaf for instance weighs about the same but with a 24 kwh battery

That really is what it boils down to.

24kWh is a pathetic amount of energy for use in a car. It's the equivalent of just over 2l of petrol...

Most of the cars I've owned have a fuel tank of about 70l, so store about 700kWh.

Wake me up when electric vehicles pack about 200-300kWh of stored energy, until then they are useless. It's no surprise nobody is buying them tbh, even with the massive subsidies and generous infrastructure in place

jackofalltrades

This survey spells out consumer opinions of current electric cars quite clearly.

http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_auto_DTTGlobalAutoSurvey_ElectricVehicles_100411.pdf

The reality is that when consumers actual expectations for range, charge time, and purchase price (in every country around the world included in this study) are compared to the actual market offerings available today, no more than 2 to 4 percent of the population in any country would have their expectations met today based on a data analysis of all 13,000 individual responses to the survey.

Matt Simis

Deleted User wrote: »

Matt, the chevy doesn't need 350 hp because it is restricted to 90 mph.

Translated into Reality wrote:

Matt, the chevy doesn't exceed 90mph as its only got 130bhp and not 350 hp

Apart from the above being phrased conveniently backwards and largely irrelevant, do you now accept that the Spark does not infact put more torque to the road than anything remotely interesting and that Torque is Torque, no matter the fuel?

pred racer

Thanks for the explaination Matt, it makes alot more sense now.

unkel

unkel wrote: »

That really is what it boils down to.

24kWh is a pathetic amount of energy for use in a car. It's the equivalent of just over 2l of petrol...

Most of the cars I've owned have a fuel tank of about 70l, so store about 700kWh.

Wake me up when electric vehicles pack about 200-300kWh of stored energy, until then they are useless. It's no surprise nobody is buying them tbh, even with the massive subsidies and generous infrastructure in place

You're forgetting that electric cars are a lot more efficient so you don't need the equivalent of petrol or diesel.

If the Leaf has an efficiency of 30 kwh per 100 miles then you'll need 150 kwh for 500 miles and less for the spark because it's more efficient.

Tesla have the option of an 86 kwh for the Model S for 260 average miles, some have got the 300 miles but the average is 260. The Model S is also a lot less efficient and it's huge.

The spark can get 90 miles but you'd want to be pretty close to the fast charger at that stage. But that's with 20 kwh.

So with a 40 kwh battery the spark could go about 150-180 miles.

Lithium air will most likely be the nominated battery for that kind of storage because it theoretically has the energy densities of petrol.

I would almost certainly settle for a 40 kwh battery in the Leaf for an average of 160 miles but I would like the next battery to be heated for similar winter range.

If that 40kwh could be charged to 80% in 20 mins I'd be happy compared to 30 mins now for a 80% fast charge for 60-80 mile range.

If Nissan are listening to Tesla then they'll know that they are serious about releasing an affordable 200 mile range in the next 3-4 years, that will be around the same time Leaf II is due. Nissan will have to have similar range by then. But my guess is they will have around 30 kwh and a more efficient drive train and thermal battery management. Perhaps they'll use lighter materials too.

Tesla want to produce battery cells themselves, imagine what will happen the price of batteries then ?

200 miles range and 5 min charging ? I'd easily settle for that.

Matt Simis

Matt Simis wrote: »

Apart from the above being phrased conveniently backwards and largely irrelevant, do you now accept that the Spark does not infact put more torque to the road than anything remotely interesting and that Torque is Torque, no matter the fuel?

Matt I know torque is torque.

I think we need to see results, drag races etc to see what the spark is like against some fast cars.

In fact I'd love to see dyno results.

Max Power1

Deleted User wrote: »

Matt I know torque is torque.

I think we need to see results, drag races etc to see what the spark is like against some fast cars.

In fact I'd love to see dyno results.

Are you actually serious?

I damn near spat my morning coffee all over the screen when I read that!

I don't mean to be condescending btw, genuine question/

Matt Simis

Max Power1 wrote: »

Are you actually serious?
I damn near spat my morning coffee all over the screen when I read that!
I don't mean to be condescending btw, genuine question/

I had a reply typed too but I reined it back in.

keithclancy

If your into saving money you could just buy and older car and convert it to LPG.

If your into saving the environment, its better to give an old car more use than to buy a new one and convert it to LPG.

Plus you don't have the massive cost of buying a new car and the fuel tank doesn't wear out.

I'd join up to a car pooling system of electric cars but owning one for me doesn't really make sense.

Joe 90

galwaytt wrote: »

Sorry, but its not. That test was done with no heat or ac. That might work in Arizona,

With either heat or ac on the range would be pitiful.

And no vehicle here would usefully function without heat. Work it out: when was the last time you used a car with neither?

In the 1950's my mother's first car had no heater. I know that heaters were listed as an extra in the 60's but I haven't seen a road going passenger car without a heater since that one my mother had.

SV

Deleted User wrote: »

Matt I know torque is torque.

I think we need to see results, drag races etc to see what the spark is like against some fast cars.

In fact I'd love to see dyno results.

lol. LOL.
This really has just summed this thread up in terms of how ridiculous the argument is.