Slashdot Mirror

Tesla is different, they are actively being attacked by the fossil fuellers via hedge funds, for obvious reason, they do not want an electric car company to succeed. Problem is it is too late, https://www.caranddriver.com/b..., Tesla are no longer alone in that field and are now facing real competition from other electric vehicle manufacturers. Honestly, depending upon how long you expect to keep you vehicle, it is starting to become unwise to buy and infernal combustion engine because the resale value is very likely to be impacted quite negatively going forward.

Double bonus if either of you could spell Csaba Csere

https://www.caranddriver.com/f...

Since you mentioned it:

ZR1–Powered 1973 Chevy Chevelle Laguna

Ok.
P90D Model X does 3.3 secs and P100D Model X does 2.9 secs.

Top of the line stang does 0-60 in just under 4.0 secs. So no. Not even close
Demon does 2.3-2.6 (while model S, the better comparison, does 1.9). So yes, a top-of-the-line ICE muscle car finally beats the fastest SUV. Barely.
SLG does 3.3 sec, which means it beats P90D, but loses to P100D

And the Model S is faster and outhandles all of those that you mentioned.
I will be curious to find out how the Model 3 does in terms of handling vs. others. So far, handling on the track is one of its big points.

Ok.
P90D Model X does 3.3 secs and P100D Model X does 2.9 secs.

Top of the line stang does 0-60 in just under 4.0 secs. So no. Not even close
Demon does 2.3-2.6 (while model S, the better comparison, does 1.9). So yes, a top-of-the-line ICE muscle car finally beats the fastest SUV. Barely.
SLG does 3.3 sec, which means it beats P90D, but loses to P100D

And the Model S is faster and outhandles all of those that you mentioned.
I will be curious to find out how the Model 3 does in terms of handling vs. others. So far, handling on the track is one of its big points.

ESTIMATED BASE PRICE: $37,000 Wheelbase: 102.4 in Length: 164.6 in Width: 70.9 in Height: 61.2 in Passenger volume: 93 cu ft Cargo volume: 19 cu ft Curb weight (C/D est): 3715 lb PERFORMANCE (C/D EST) Zero to 60 mph: 7.6 sec Standing ¼-mile: 16.0 sec Top speed: 104 mph EPA FUEL ECONOMY Combined/city/highway: 120/132/108 MPGe EV range: 258 miles

THis speaks more about the MSRP on the Kona based on what they are charging in norway.

Luckily, local media is reporting that in Norway, the 64kWh is going to be 325.900 kr. At today’s exchange rate, that translates to $39,852. But it isn’t that simple.

How does this compare to Model 3? Wheelbase 113.2 in (2,880 mm) Length 184.8 in (4,690 mm) Width 76.1 in (1,930 mm) Height 56.8 in (1,440 mm) Curb weight Standard RWD: 3,552 lb (1,611 kg)[5] Standard Dual-Motor AWD: 3,757 lb (1,704 kg)[5] Mid-Range RWD: 3,686 lb (1,672 kg)[5] Long-Range RWD: 3,814 lb (1,730 kg)[5][6] Long-Range Dual-Motor AWD (including Performance): 4,072 lb (1,847 kg)[5] Electric range 220 mi (350 km) Standard[3] 260 mi (420 km) Mid Range (est. EPA-rated)[4] 310 mi (500 km) Long Range (EPA-rated)[3] Here is info on Model 3's performance

It looks like it can be pushed to accelerate from 0 to 60 mph in 3.3 seconds and travel a quarter-mile in 11.8 seconds without any mods. ... Last month, Musk said that Tesla Model 3 Performance’s 0-60 mph time could improve to under 3.3 seconds with even better tires.

Of course, at the track, the model 3 is being improved to take on and beat Ferrari, Porsche, Lamborghini, etc.
Of course, the $35,000 Model 3 has yet to show up, but then again the $37-40K Kona is not out either.

As to the other that you list, you have to be kidding. Nissan/Renault started much later than Tesla and has pure junk. Same with BYD.
And as to reliability, MS is great. MX has issues early on with manufacturing, as did M3. All of those have been fixed (though I question it when Musk pushes the lines).

Yeah, well, I think if that was actually the case, a lot of Tesla drivers would have noticed and been raising hell. They haven't.

edmunds.com sure is raising hell about their Model 3 LR 36.8 kWh/100miles.

Motortrend don't seem pleased by their 34.9 kWh/100miles (103.7 MPGe) Model 3.

CarAndDriver sound disappointed by their 200miles range Model 3.

This German Environment Minister (and Green Party Tree Hugger)rejected his Tesla (not a Model 3 this time but a Model S P100 (100kWh battery, Model 3 LR only has a 75 kWh battery)), due to 190 miles range (300km), among other quality issues.

Fact of the matter is, reliable sources are getting ~200miles range from Tesla big battery offerings.

I kind of favor reliable sources with known track records rather than anonymous cowards like Rei/KarenRei/Karen Pease, or even yourself Kyr Arvin.

Cars? No, tried that several times over many decades, not safe, not efficient, not very good.

Citroen had a compressed air hybrid, here's the marketing blurb about the core of it: https://www.groupe-psa.com/en/...

Challenges: safe, light storage tanks. That's quite challenging, they couldn't find enough backing to figure out how to produce it at scale: https://www.caranddriver.com/n...

Which is too bad, because: Wins: much more efficient at storing inrush energy from regenerative braking than the batteries in your electric hybrid. Batteries are bad at dealing efficiently with lots of current at once. Compressed air: it's jut thermodynamic efficiency, something humans have industrialized for a couple centuries now. Also, far less nasty to build than batteries. Remember, your Prius is only saving the earth around where you're driving it: the environmental cost to make the thing is substantial to the neighborhood around the rare earth mines.

So, I'd say: safe, efficient pretty good: but tooling up to make it profitable, not so much. Not profitable is different than those other things.

Not interested in who's right here, but came across a related article...
https://www.caranddriver.com/n...

I've got a 2014 Impreza, and was looking into an Outback for a bit more refinement, but man, the Levorg looks nice. Kind of reminds me of the Saabaru.

It actually gets very good but not rave reviews...see https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/... or https://www.caranddriver.com/t...

Are you maybe thinking of the Ford Taunus? I can see Ford Europe being concerned with European competition (and thus Ford Europe producing the Sierra), but in the US market the Europeans weren't big players - especially the notorious Audi 5000. There's no doubt that it was inspired by European styling, but Ford already was making the Sierra in Europe - which I think predates the Audi 5000 slightly. Ford was indeed in a panic, but it was more driven by Chrysler's K-car, GM's A-bodies, and the Japanese imports, most with front-wheel drive.

The styling is very consistent with other, preexisting Ford cars:
1982 Ford Sierra
1984 Ford Mustang
1986 Ford Taurus

Where does it say Neighborhood Electric Vehicle? A Neighborhood Electric Vehicle is basically a golf cart, capable of up to 25mph. Article says up to 90km/h (55mph) and 90km (75 mile) range so I don't know where this "Neighborhood Electric Vehicle" suggestion in the description came from.

12,000 euros is only $13,700 which is a great price point, $10,000 less than the next cheapest electric car, the smart fortwo ED, but I really think it needs at least a 70mph top speed so it can attempt to drive safely on US highways. Even if the range decreases some, the greatly increased usability is worth it.

Also, after seeing that the smart fortwo ED has a 80hp electric motor, are they sure that 20hp electric motor they're planning on using can reach 55mph? They look roughly the same size and that's 1/4th the power, 55mph might be optimistic, or it might take a very long time to reach 55.

And maybe $13,700 isn't that great, considering you can get a 4 door Fiesta for the same price, but it's nice seeing EVs drop to the prices of the cheapest ICE vehicles even if they aren't quite as practical.

We will very shortly have camping mode in our Teslas as well as gaming... if only there was a toilet mode in the next software update (and electrically tinted windows)...

Hmmm. Lets see:
1) wiki The Tesla Model 3 is a mid-size (US) / compact executive (EU)[7] luxury all-electric four-door sedan manufactured and sold by Tesla, Inc.
2) Car and DriverHowever, in its current form (only models equipped to a price of $50,000 and up are available as of this writing), it is actually more of a compact luxury sedan competing with the BMW 3-series in size and price.
3) Top Gear What is it? Oh, just some sensibly priced electric BMW 3 Series rival from a little-known American start-up.
4) Motor Trend This shows the luxury compact cars, which includes Tesla model 3.
5) Edmunds There's 15 cubic feet of trunk space, again similar to what other entry-level luxury cars offer.

So, the gov, all the other car makers, and all the experts consider the TM3 to be a compact luxury car. You can claim whatever you want, but ...

If only Tesla would do the right thing and let you get it repaired where you want like all other manufacturers. But I guess vendor lock-in is a good thing?

There are so many stupid things said on /.
A 133-hp electric motor drives the front wheels and is powered by a 39.2-kWh battery pack, which should offer around 150 miles of driving range. With the larger 64.0-kWh battery, power and range increase to 201 horses and about 250 miles, respectively.
As we previously reported, the new Kona Electric compact SUV will be offered in a ‘Short-range’ battery pack option, which consists of a 39.2 kWh battery pack enabling a range of 300 km (186 miles) on a single charge.

That version of the vehicle will also be equipped with a 99 kW permanent magnet synchronous electric motor putting down 395 Nm of torque and a top speed of 167 km/h (103 mph).
...
Another higher-performance version with a ‘Long-range’ battery pack option will also be available. Under this configuration, the Kona Electric will be equipped with a 64 kWh battery pack, which will enable “nearly 470 km (292 miles) of range.”

So, not only does this have much lower range than M3, BUT, wIth such a small motor in there, the performance will be similar to any $20K car. IOW, a 0-100 of around 10 seconds, and for the 'high-performance' version, I would expect somewhere between 7-8 secs. This makes Hyundai similar to fiats or tatas.

This is while Tesla M3 is blowing the doors off BMWs 3 series in performance and luxury.

According to Consumer Reports, they used an industry standard test which they have used on more than 500 other vehicles. When the results came up weird they borrowed another Tesla Model 3 and got nearly identical results.

Car and Driver also reported abnormal braking in their Tesla Model 3.

According to this, you cannot buy a sub-$50K Tesla that has 320 miles of range. They start at just above $50K, and that model has closer to 200 miles of range.

Nothing new on the suspension front since the introduction of the Citroen DS.

False. There are two new things actually being put on vehicles: the magnetorheological damper, and multimatic dssv. In the not-too-far future, we will be using dampers that generate electricity, which should also open up some new options for tunability. It's also possible to have regenerative suspension using hydraulics, but that approach is unlikely to see production now that every automaker is planning to electrify basically every vehicle in the future. If you're going to have a battery with a high charge/discharge rate onboard anyway, you don't need to fool around with hydraulics.

It is not used because it is inefficient.

Diesel electirc isn't used in road going vehicles because they currently are expensive to make. Their potential efficiency is not actually in question. There are already diesel hybrids that have been developed and some are already in use and they are more fuel efficient and less polluting than their diesel only counterparts. The obstacle to them is price and to a lesser extend emissions restrictions on diesels in general in comparison to gasoline-hybrids.

You seem to have missed the point. I'm not suggesting scaling down locomotive engines. I merely used that as an example to explain the concept of using a diesel engine to power electric motors rather than to drive wheels directly. The technology in such a hybrid for a truck would obviously be quite different in actual practice.

Diesel electric locomotives (and very large mining trucks) are this way because a conventional transmission would be far too large and heavy and would require the engine to be used in a large range of engine speeds.

Apples to oranges. That says nothing about why diesel-electric would or would not work in road going vehicles. The economics are a limitation but there is clear evidence that efficiency is not the limitation. They don't use it on larger more powerful locomotives because the cost and difficulty of scaling a mechanical transmission does not scale linearly making the designs that have been tried uneconomical. In smaller applications mechanical drive is sometimes more competitive BUT that does not mean that a diesel-electric cannot surpass them in efficiency and/or cost depending on the application.

Smaller diesel trains do use a conventional transmission because the fuel consumption is lower.

Diesel mechanical get used for cost reasons because of the application. Mechanical transmissions are often simpler than and generally less expensive so for certain corner case applications they can make sense. They are used mostly in switchers where fuel efficiency is not the paramount concern. Switchers are analogous to tug boats - tractive effort and repairability are paramount concerns over fuel economy. But again this does not necessarily translate to the requirements of road going trucks.

Good point on the average age of vehicles still on the road, and to be fair, we would also need to quantify what still on the road means precisely... driven X km per year or merely registered, for instance.

FTL: (US numbers)

The number of vehicles on the road that are at least 25 years old is about 14 million. That's up from about 8 million in 2002. Those are vehicles made in 1990 or earlier. Meanwhile, the number of vehicles that are 16 to 24 years old is 44 million. That's up from 26 million in 2002, according to IHS.

This suggests the types of vehicles coveted by collectors make up the smallest sample, and Car and Driver suggested the number was about 5 million in 2014.

Cellphones exponential growth is difficult to rival, but in the production life of the Ford Model T (1908-1927), automobile registrations rose from less than 200K to more than 23 million.

> Do you have a link? https://blog.caranddriver.com/...

So, would you care to explain how I can go 400 miles between refueling in the summer, and less than 350 in the winter with my ICE car? I call that significant.

Because they change the fuel blend between summer and winter. Plus you lose a bit of mileage to traction slippage on snow if you live in an area where that is a thing. The winter blends are well understood to get worse MPG. Run the same fuel blend and you'd see fairly similar MPG, conditions allowing.

How much environmental damage did this cause? Quantify it. If you're going to assert that he should be killed for his crime, you should be able to identify exactly what his crime was.

This seems like a silly argument. Sort of like telling the traffic court judge that you didn't kill anyone or cause any property damage, so the running the red light ticket should be dismissed.

It's not at all analogous to running a red light. Running a red light creates a probabilistic bifurcation - a chance that someone will suffer dire or fatal consequences if you run a red light. Exceeding emissions standards raises the average pollution levels (unless you're standing directly behind the vehicle and taking deep breaths of its fumes)

To address GP, the environmental damage varied by vehicle model year. Some of the older vehicles were especially egregious in exceeding the EPA and CARB standards. But the 2015 vehicles were actually within EPA limits and just barely exceeded CARB limits. In particular, the emissions were under the EPA/CARB limits in previous years, and (for the large part) within EU limits (they have much more lax diesel emissions standards than the U.S., while the U.S. uses the same limits for both gas and diesel).

But that is not the point. You can argue that the limits are arbitrary or unnecessarily low. But the venue for making that argument is in the political arena - by electing the politicians who help decide those limits and/or sending them letters/phone calls expressing your opinion, or voting out the politicians who enacted the law. Once those limits are codified into law, it is the responsibility of citizens and companies to abide by the law even if you disagree with it. The only time violating the law in protest of it (civil disobedience) is justified is when all political avenues of protesting the law have been cut off or rendered ineffective.

Gas tanks are not interchangeable, not all the same size

Because they do not need to be.

Compared to a gas tank, a battery pack is huge and heavy, so it's .. important to .. integrate the design of the battery pack with the car.

So you integrate a standard battery pack design into the car. TBH, in the UK at least, 75% of cars are pretty much the same in general size and layout anyway. In fact car makers use certain standardised "platforms" to cover a suprising range of models https://www.caranddriver.com/c.... The exceptions are the ultra-small bubbles, and the big SUVs - but even the latter are beginning to look like standard cars. I'm sure we could manage with two or three standard interchangeable battery packs, and let any odd ball cars stick to plug-in charging as now - no need to ban it.

It does not "stifle" battery improvements. Such improvements will tend to reduce the size of batteries, which will not cause a problem (just leave some empty space in the module), or increase the range for the same module size.

A sole proprietor in the US is liable for what they do. Small businesses are liable.

Once you issue stock, everything changes. The public corporation could knowingly kill and maim hundreds of customers, but nothing will happen to the owners of the company.

If, say, a dentist knowingly killed 124 and maimed 274 people, that dentist would go to jail, and his/her assets would be taken and wages would be garnished for the rest of his/her life.

If you're referring to this article,
https://www.caranddriver.com/r...

That's not really what they're saying. They are saying if you can't replace your own brake fluid or cabin air filter, or take it to a Firestone to do it, they will charge you $700 for it, which isn't terribly unlike any other luxury car service. What they don't tell you is how much they spent on oil changes, or transmission fluid, or brake service. Hint: they didn't spend anything on it. So including the savings on gas, that's a good deal less than an ice.

I literally don't have the time to look up all of the vehicle curb weights right now (I've done it on many other threads), but just as an example: Audi A4 is 3626 pounds base curb weight (1644kg), not 1295. 318i is a smaller vehicle than Model 3, and poorer performing. Even the Mercedes doesn't perform as well as the Model 3 in its base version.

Mitsubishi Fuso Truck and Bus Corporation is owned by Daimler. So it's German AND Japanese.
Also, these very same trucks were presented in US as well, about a month ago.

While automakers focus on defending the systems in their cars against hackers, there may be other ways for the malicious to mess with self-driving cars. Security researchers at the University of Washington have shown they can get computer vision systems to misidentify road signs using nothing more than stickers made on a home printer.

UW computer-security researcher Yoshi Kohno described an attack algorithm that uses printed images stuck on road signs. These images confuse the cameras on which most self-driving vehicles rely. In one example, explained in a document uploaded to the open-source scientific-paper site arXiv last week, small stickers attached to a standard stop sign caused a vision system to misidentify it as a Speed Limit 45 sign.

https://blog.caranddriver.com/...

The BMW M3 over its three-decade history has produced something like 100-150k total vehicles (it was around 100k as of 2010, so estimating 150k as an upper bound is being generous). The Tesla Model 3 will be produced at 500k per year as of next year.

Naturally the M3 has lower production numbers than the model 3: it's a premium automobile out of the budget of most and with performance and handling features most would have a difficult time appreciating.

Better plan on starting to call it the BM3, to distinguish it from the soon-to-be-more-widespread (Tesla) M3.

First off, it's not 260k according to this article. Secondly, you say 260k total like that's a large number. That's half a year's Model 3 production. At the 500k rate (the target is to eventually raise it to 700k, once they actually start advertising).

The BMW M3 over its three-decade history has produced something like 100-150k total vehicles (it was around 100k as of 2010, so estimating 150k as an upper bound is being generous). The Tesla Model 3 will be produced at 500k per year as of next year.

Naturally the M3 has lower production numbers than the model 3: it's a premium automobile out of the budget of most and with performance and handling features most would have a difficult time appreciating.

Maybe in your corner of it, homie.

The BMW M3 over its three-decade history has produced something like 100-150k total vehicles (it was around 100k as of 2010, so estimating 150k as an upper bound is being generous). The Tesla Model 3 will be produced at 500k per year as of next year.

it's much more similar in refinement to a Dacia or a Hyundai

Not according to literally every reveiwer who has been in in the vehicle, which is over a dozen. A base Model 3 is also more feature-rich than its competitors such as the 3-series (there are also comparisons to the A4 and C300 if you'd like)

Now, you can spout nonsense that doesn't correspond at all to any reviews, but that's not to your credit. Seriously, the concept that a soft-touch sports sedan with a 5,6 second *base* 0-60, eight cameras, a dozen ultrasonic sensors and a radar *standard*, automatic crash avoidance *standard*, and a ton of other things is equivalent to a Dacia... why not just call it a used Yugo while you're at it?

Tesla Model 3: 1740kg (claimed)

Wrong. The base curb weight of the Model 3, according to the official press kit, is 3549 lbs, which is 1610kg. 1730kg is the LR version, the heavier version. The BMW 3-Series ranges from 1475-1770kg. The A4 ranges from 1410-1695 kg. I can't find an official total range for the C300, but find values ranging from 1630 kg to 1688kg to 1695kg to 1715kg. While the 1630kg is described as the "base weight" (analogous to the M3's 1610kg), I have no clue what the heaviest C300 config is, there could easily be configurations heavier than the 1715kg one.

To sum up:
Tesla Model 3: 1610-1730kg
BMW 3-Series: 1475-1770kg
Audi A4: 1410-1695kg
Mercedes C300: 1630-1715+kg

I'll repeat: The Tesla Model 3's curb weight comes in at pretty much the same as its ICE competitors in its class (BMW 3-Series, Audi A4, Mercedes C300, etc).

Only a RX7 fan would go this route.

Mazda new wankel engine patent (Mar 16)
http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?P...

Story on patent
http://blog.caranddriver.com/n...

Animation of Wankel engine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The abundant test drive reviews disagree with you.

Motor Trend - Exclusive: Tesla Model 3 First Drive Review - Motor Trend

Top Gear- Tesla Model 3 review: first drive of Elon Musk's affordable EV

The Verge - A closer look at Tesla Model 3's spartan interior

The Verge - Tesla Model 3 first drive: this is the car that Elon Musk promised

Bloomberg - Tesla’s Model 3 Arrives With a Surprise 310-Mile Range

Bloomberg[/COLOR] - Driving Tesla’s Model 3 Changes Everything

Car and Driver - 2018 Tesla Model 3: Everything We Know | Feature | Car and Driver

CNET - Tesla Model 3 is well worth the hype

Car Advice - Tesla Model 3 quick drive review | CarAdvice

Fortune - Here’s What Reviewers Think About Tesla’s Model 3 So Far

Ars Technica - All the things the Internet hates about the Tesla Model 3 have me excited

Mashable - Driving a Tesla Model 3 is pretty damn awesome

TechCrunch - Your smartphone is the key for the Tesla Model 3

But hey, feel free to live in your own little world and deny reality to your heart's content.

No, it doesn't work that way. These are to be sold as actual product, and you can't equate this to R&D through funny logic.

Yes, it very much does work that way. It works exactly that way, especially in the auto industry. For example, right now Honda is selling (well, leasing) an unprofitable fuel cell vehicle in California (where the infrastructure is) and then going on to pay for customers' fuel . If you manage to use all the fuel they will give you, then you will be effectively paying something like $99/mo for the lease. Dealers will make a trivial amount of money, just enough to bother with getting the vehicle in the door, and Honda will actually lose money given the cost of supporting the venture and doing the R&D, but the R&D is what the project is actually about.

The next generation of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle is going to actually be profitable due to a joint venture between GM and Honda to pool their knowledge (and patents) and build a cost-effective fuel cell. GM took the tack of taking their HFCV technology to the military with the Colorado ZH2 technology demonstrator program. Instead of commuter sedans, they built a handful of million-dollar military test vehicles. They're taking the approach that you imagine automakers have to take, while Honda is taking the other approach that they can choose to take. But GM has [in?]famously gone the other way on that, as well. Perhaps they're just a little leery now, when it comes to advanced technology vehicles. Regardless, by the time it's actually profitable to sell a HFCV to the public, Honda will be the automaker with the most experience with them.

Uh, it was later proven that it was a software glitch. First it was user error, then it was floor mats, then the truth came out.

[citation needed]

This article from 2010 says it was just floormats and stupidity based on a DOT report, and the the Wikipedia article states that Toyota was prosecuted and fined for misleading people about the floormat problem and may have covered up a third cause (sticky gas pedal) but there is nothing about a software defect. Do you have a reference for your claim?

I used to think that as well, but there is some really interesting hybrid technology coming down the pipe. Combining an electric motor with a gas engine enables designers to get away from the Otto cycle and exploit far more efficient cycles such as the Atkinson cycle without sacrificing performance.

http://www.caranddriver.com/fe...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Such as the 2017 Mercedes CLA45-4Matic? Quarter mile in 12.8 seconds, according to Car and Driver.

"No, the 5G network will be what the The Next Generation..."

Oh, bullshit. You've fallen for marketing. No one voted them in charge of the dictionary, and what "generation" means. They're like the advertisers who decided "synthetic" oil doesn't have to be synthetic, that it can be whatever suits their purposes.

Then what's the point? If my hands are already there, I might as well steer the car.

Because sometimes you don't see something for a variety of reasons. Maybe you have your mirrors adjusted wrong (most people do, actually). Maybe you're hauling a bunch of party balloons and your rear view is obstructed. Maybe you're watching someone being a moron to your right and something else suddenly comes up on the left?

The Tesla system can see an take proactive measures to attempt to save you when you might not have a chance to react.

That's not the same thing as "Ohhh, this isn't good, but I'll just let the car handle it...' like what sounds like happened here.

Apart from the Porsche's 918 Spyder which managed managed 0-60 in 2.2 seconds in independent tests.

Unless the thingy is 98%+ safe it _is_ 100% crap for normal purposes.

"98%+ safe" is incredibly unsafe for an automobile presuming you are using any reasonably standard measure of safety like deaths per 100 million miles traveled. That means that it would get into an accident once every 50 miles! For reference current human driven vehicles in the US experience 1.13 deaths per 100 million miles traveled. That is 99.99999998% safe by that measurement. Any automated driving system will have to beat that number and beat it by a lot.

People tend to think that saying something is 99% successful is a good thing but in reality that can be a terrible outcome. A vehicle that was 98% safe under any reasonable measurement would be immediately and rightly labeled a death trap.

The Porsche 918 is not a production car. It is largely built by hand in very limited production runs. Here...watch a video of its production.

The Porsche 918 Spyder cannot be purchased new anymore. And I don't think you could call it a production car even when it was being made, as it was not made on a mass production line. There were only a relatively small number built.

AmiMoJo is full of shit. 0-60 in a Leaf is over 10 seconds. She might be beating people off the line for a second or two, but after that it's ZZZzzzz..... http://www.caranddriver.com/ni...

And meanwhile they go about their day after wondering why this jackass in their little car is acting like they have something to prove.

AmiMoJo is full of shit. 0-60 in a Leaf is over 10 seconds. She might be beating people off the line for a second or two, but after that it's ZZZzzzz..... http://www.caranddriver.com/ni...