โNov-16-2019 06:33 AM
โNov-22-2019 06:03 PM
rjstractor wrote:
You're right, Google shows no Superchargers but Tesla lists 3, including the one in Ritzville. I saw two more in Eastern Wa but not along I90. Anyway, I'd happily lose a case of Canadian beer as long as the winner shared! ๐
โNov-22-2019 04:58 PM
โNov-21-2019 05:22 PM
rjstractor wrote:Reisender wrote:rjstractor wrote:Reisander wrote:
I would take that bet...if I owned a model S.
The model S would have to make it the 280 miles on a charge to win the bet. No problem if we stayed at legal speeds, but could an S go that far on a charge through the winds and rolling hills at 100+ mph? I would think that speed affects range in an EV like any car.
Speed definitely affects range. I would think at that speed the gasser would get half the gas mileage as well though. No idea how big a gas tank is on that car so hard to say. The range of a model S is 370 miles at highway speeds. Might be a quick 10 minute Supercharge involved. I think the model S would be way more fun though. Nice cars.
Ok, you're on! ๐ No Superchargers between Seattle and Spokane. There is a public EV charging station in Ritzville but I don't know how fast that will charge a Tesla. Maybe 2 hours? I'll have to stop for fuel there too but that only takes 5 minutes.
All joshing aside, the performance of the new EVs is incredible. I think most, especially the Teslas are much more powerful than they need to be and have sort of become playthings for the rich. I'd like to see more affordable and readily available EVs on the market. Right now my local VW dealer has 12 eGolfs sitting on the lot for about $30K. If I were in the market for a new car I'd seriously consider one, although their practical winter range is a little too short for comfort.
โNov-21-2019 05:03 PM
Reisender wrote:rjstractor wrote:Reisander wrote:
I would take that bet...if I owned a model S.
The model S would have to make it the 280 miles on a charge to win the bet. No problem if we stayed at legal speeds, but could an S go that far on a charge through the winds and rolling hills at 100+ mph? I would think that speed affects range in an EV like any car.
Speed definitely affects range. I would think at that speed the gasser would get half the gas mileage as well though. No idea how big a gas tank is on that car so hard to say. The range of a model S is 370 miles at highway speeds. Might be a quick 10 minute Supercharge involved. I think the model S would be way more fun though. Nice cars.
โNov-21-2019 07:10 AM
rjstractor wrote:How about see who goes further on $100 of fuel?
All depends on how far you're racing. I'll take my wife's 120K mile Kia Forte and race any just about EV from Seattle to Spokane. ๐
โNov-21-2019 07:07 AM
โNov-20-2019 07:39 PM
rjstractor wrote:Reisander wrote:
I would take that bet...if I owned a model S.
The model S would have to make it the 280 miles on a charge to win the bet. No problem if we stayed at legal speeds, but could an S go that far on a charge through the winds and rolling hills at 100+ mph? I would think that speed affects range in an EV like any car.
โNov-20-2019 06:37 PM
Reisander wrote:
I would take that bet...if I owned a model S.
โNov-20-2019 02:43 PM
JRscooby wrote:danrclem wrote:
The Mustang isn't completely about speed. To me it's about a small sporty car that can be used for anything from getting groceries to racing down the 1320. A lot of the early Mustangs had a 170 cid inline six and that certainly wasn't a fast car. The Mustang didn't lead drag racing until 1968 1/2 when they released the 428 Cobra Jet. Most of the 1964 1/2 thru 1973 Mustangs either had six bangers or small V8s.
They may put the Mustang tag on the EV but it won't be considered a Mustang by many.
Carroll Shelby took used Mustangs, rebuilt them and called them a Shelby. To me they aren't a Shelby and never will be a Shelby. They originally went down the assembly line and had a Mustang vin stamped on them and not a Shelby.
I tried to make the point about the economy roots earlier.
As for the Shelby, IIRC Shelby bought new cars without engines, and the engines, and built the cars with his name on them.
Not sure about Ford, but any A body GM car before model year 1970 with over 400 CID was built by a 3rd party.
โNov-20-2019 02:16 PM
Fordlover wrote:I sense a bit of sarcasm. For around town there is no reason to spend the time as you saw because you would be full every morning as you charge overnight. Fuel saving would pay for your BBQ fix.
Honestly I was a bit jealous, I wish I could just hang out in the middle of a work day in a parking lot for a half hour+ or so to refuel my vehicle. In the mean time I'll have to rely on my ICE vehicle and rely on the <4 minute refill time.
โNov-20-2019 01:42 PM
โNov-20-2019 09:46 AM
danrclem wrote:
The Mustang isn't completely about speed. To me it's about a small sporty car that can be used for anything from getting groceries to racing down the 1320. A lot of the early Mustangs had a 170 cid inline six and that certainly wasn't a fast car. The Mustang didn't lead drag racing until 1968 1/2 when they released the 428 Cobra Jet. Most of the 1964 1/2 thru 1973 Mustangs either had six bangers or small V8s.
They may put the Mustang tag on the EV but it won't be considered a Mustang by many.
Carroll Shelby took used Mustangs, rebuilt them and called them a Shelby. To me they aren't a Shelby and never will be a Shelby. They originally went down the assembly line and had a Mustang vin stamped on them and not a Shelby.
โNov-20-2019 08:59 AM
FishOnOne wrote:dodge guy wrote:
This wouldโve been better off as an Explorer with the Mach E name. This is not and never will be a Mustang. Ford tried to kill the Mustang back in the 90โs and we said no. We were fine for 25+ years! Now they are trying again. Trying to pass off an all electric crossover as a Mustang to the Hipster crowd. This is going to be deadly to the Mustang.
Donโt do it Ford! Youโll be sorry.
Can't have a Explorer that's faster than the Mustang. Anyways this name will not do any harm to the Mustang car, but perhaps Ford is anticipating a decline in car sales as we now know the Camaro will most likely get the axe and the future of the Dodge Charger is questionable.
โNov-20-2019 08:53 AM
FishOnOne wrote:This is a big reason to enjoy electric vehicles. Those SUVs will drive with far more spirited acceleration and handling. No more lumbering bread wagons.
Can't have a Explorer that's faster than the Mustang. Anyways this name will not do any harm to the Mustang car, but perhaps Ford is anticipating a decline in car sales as we now know the Camaro will most likely get the axe and the future of the Dodge Charger is questionable.