Slashdot Mirror
World's Fastest Hybrid OK'd For Production
thecarchik writes "The Porsche 918 Spyder hybrid supercar, first shown as a concept at this spring's Geneva Motor Show, got official approval as a production model today from the company's board of directors. Just consider the specs: a 500-horsepower, 3.6-liter V-8 engine with a 9200-rpm redline, 0-to-62-mph acceleration of 3.2 seconds, and top speed of 198 miles per hour. Oh, and did we mention it gets 78 miles per gallon on the European cycle? The astounding fuel efficiency comes courtesy of an E-Drive mode that lets the 918 Spyder drive up to 16 miles on pure electric power, though [ahem] not at 198 mph."
Tesla, nice to have known ya! By the way: Hugh Pickens is the new Roland Piquepaille
allready overklocking electric cars. cool.
And in only 150 years, the gas you save pays for the car!
--Assuming you drive an earth mover to work today.
Will it even do 120, or a 12 second quarter mile on the electric motor?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
78 miles per gallon is about 3 liter for 100 km.
198 miles = 319 kilometers
"78 miles per gallon on the European cycle"
Sure, and my plug in golf car gets mpg on any test thrown at it. Really that's poor and deceitful advertising. This car is a plug in car - it doesn't generate it's own electricity. It's not like a prius where you just fill it and forget about it, you're supplying another form of energy yourself. Saying what MPG it gets is redundant unless you also show how many Joules of electricity it used in the process as well.
Hybrids seem particularly well suited to a racing car, since you get the amazing torque of the electric engine combined with the range of a gasoline car... I just wonder if the weight of the batteries offsets all that torque or what specific compromises (like a smaller battery pack) you would make for a performance specific hybrid (beyond even the Telsa since that is still targeted primarily at normal use on the highways).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The other modes (Hybrid, Sport Hybrid, and Race Hybrid) sound interesting, but consider:
Ahhh, who cares - just park one in my driveway, and let me do an in-depth product test!
I need trepanation like I need a hole in the head.
Zero to sixty-two? Why sixty two? Since when did we start measuring 0 to 62 instead of to 60? Did it just go instantly from 59 to 62, skipping all other speeds in an instant? What's the deal?
This is another sign that the Fapture is coming!
It accelerates so fast they can't even stop the timer before it reaches 62.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Will it be FlexFuel? :)
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
in 1899!!!
If I put a couple of extra batteries in my old Chevy I think I could get that far on the starter.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
If I'm going to blow a ton of money on a car, I either want a car that goes really fast (no heavy batteries) or gets ungodly fuel mileage (pure electric). I'm not a fan of in-between solutions.
That's nothing. My Honda gets infinite miles per gallon, and in heavy traffic. How? Well, there's a very popular route over the hills to the beach here. Sometimes I shut off the engine when it's backed up on the downhill. You just have to be aware of the fact that you don't have ps/pb anymore. It's harder on the brakes too, so there's always some cost. Of course, divide by zero is undefined, but it approaches infinite so let's say I burn a token molecule at the top of the hill. Quick, somebody calculate the mileage from the top of Hwy 92 to the flat, and divide by a molecule of gasoline.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I've heard that electric powered engines provide more torque than internal combustion. This added torque on the wheels means you lay tire instead of fully accelerate. Why hasn't someone made an electric car with very wide tires. The additional surface area could mean less spinning and more acceleration. A high speed car is a novelty in countries with a speed limit, but acceleration limits are something not really enforced. So it'd be really cool to have a car that shoved you into the back of your seat because it had the best acceleration of any car. Would having wider tires really help a situation like this? I'm talking anything from an additional couple centimeters to a solid tire that goes the whole way across your car and looks like a steamroller. This steamroller back tire could mean the car is rear wheel drive because I don't want to get into thinking how do you drive with it. This is just an idea I had recently. How feasible would it be?
God spoke to me.
Did anyone else notice that in order to save gas money with this car, you need to be rich to buy it.
My Nissan can do the same. Even better, I can go really fast and get the same mileage! Oh did I mention this only works when the car is traveling straight down from very high up, like when I drop it from an airplane.
It depends upon the temperature too, since petrol expands when it is hotter. Maybe we should be paying per Kg instead of by the litre.
Plenty of modern electronic fuel injected vehicles get infinite MPG for periods of time, without having to employ dangerous shenanigans like shutting off the engine (and consequently shutting off safety systems and power control). They simply stop injecting fuel when the vehicle is moving sufficiently fast while in gear and without any accelerator input.
Miles per gallon equivalent is the term the X-car people are using.
...but remember that the concept car always looks much better than the actually production car.
...but remember that the concept car always looks much better than the actually production car.
Porche's production models are often very close or exactly like the concept cars.
They're not a mass-market manufacturer like Honda or Chrysler
Putting moderation advice in your
Yes, and I strongly suspect that -- don't know, but think about it -- the Tesla, with 288 hp, running against the Porsche at 218 hp... would kick its ass. That's about a 25% difference in power in favor of the Tesla; also the Tesla weighs 2690 lbs, and the Porsche weighs 3300 lbs... another 18% win for the Tesla.
Yeah, I think the Tesla is a better car all around. Gasoline... LOL.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Unfortunately they do not stop injecting fuel unless it's a true hybrid and it shuts off, because the catalytic converter needs to be kept "lit" so there is always a fairly constant A/F ratio being delivered to prevent the emissions from spiking every time you "restarted" from coasting as the cats warmed back up to operating temperature.
Which is another reason you should change over to litres/100km.
My European car says "0.0" when coasting.
-- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
They compared a Porsche Boxster variation (320 HP, $70,000, 2900 pounds) to the Tesla (288HP $155,000 , 2800 pounds), and the Porsche won.
There is no Porsche made in the last 20 years that had only 220 HP
Now for $150,000 you can get a new Porsche 911 Turbo 0-60 3.2 seconds, 3400 pounds, and that will trounce the tesla a bit more than the Boxster.
..........FULL STOP.
As for Tesla? Screw 'em. We're paying them (government subsidy??) to develop a car they will sell us back at a ridiculous price.
It's a loan you twat, not a subsidy
http://www.google.com/search?q=doe+loans+electric+vehicles
Hell, Nissan got $1.4 billion+, Fisker got around $500 million, GM got $14.4 billion and Chrysler got $8.5 billion. You know who has a solid, proven drivetrain and energy management system? Tesla. There should be some sort of test before you're allowed to post here.
Infinite MPG for "periods of time"!? My foot does that, by not applying pressure to the gas pedal. Hills do that as well, if facing the correct direction. All we need now are special Escher roadways that don't go uphill.
Unfortunately they do not stop injecting fuel unless it's a true hybrid and it shuts off, because the catalytic converter needs to be kept "lit" so there is always a fairly constant A/F ratio being delivered to prevent the emissions from spiking every time you "restarted" from coasting as the cats warmed back up to operating temperature.
Yes they do. I believe the EFI pros call it 'Fuel Cutoff'. On many manual transmission cars you can feel it very clearly. On BMW motorcycles it's downright annoying before you get used to it (they being mapped such that holding a low speed means hovering right at the limit of FC). Anyway, the cat is a pretty big lump of plated ceramic, it won't cool down that quickly. A normal FC interval will in general last a few seconds. Unless you're coasting down a mountain like the GP...!
It being a plug in car, you may get to town and back without every burning any fuel. If you're close enough to town (less than 8 miles, if I understand it does in fact go 16 miles on a charge without using fuel). If you only go back and forth to work, you might never buy gas. If you live close enough to work. Which, if you own that kind of car, you can probably arrange.
I want one. Let me just start shuffling through the couch cushions.....
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Does it burn fuel on the highway?
If yes, does it mean I can drive in the car pool lane with it in California?
Come on now, give them credit where they're trying. Some of the most gas guzzling vehicles n the roads in the last few years have been changed to at least be slightly nicer to the environment... just the start of big things to come. vcp @ university in thailand
A lot of comments here miss the point of this car.
It recovers some of the braking energy before a corner to charge the batteries, and then use the electric motors to exit the corner faster. The point of this car is to go fast, not save fuel/money (seriously guys a $500,000 car to save money?)
The fact that you can use it as a hybrid and get good mileage in some (very rare) circumstances is no more than a funny side effect.
I imagine this thing's going to be astronomically expensive. Because the truth is they don't really want people to buy it. It exists so that they can meet the EU requirements for average fuel efficiency across the range. This car's so much more economical than all the others that it pulls their range up to the required level.
It's a problem all niche manufacturers are facing. Aston Martin are getting round it by reskinning the tiny Toyota iQ and calling it the Cygnet. It's only for sale to those who already own an Aston, because again, they don't really want anybody to buy one, it's just a way round the regulations.
The silence of the electric motor is a very good add-on to make carmageddon style pedestian kills. Unless that feature is negated by downloadable car sounds when the car is in electric mode.
Diesels do, at least modern ones. I've seen the instantaneous consumption drop to zero when rolling downhill in gear. Depressing the clutch causes it causes it to rise slightly, since the engine now needs to turn itself, rather than being driven by gravity.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Flower power?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The loan Is a subsidy. If it wasn't, they'd have to get the loan on their own, and they'd be paying more for the money (e.g. interest). Otherwise they wouldn't have bothered getting it from the government.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Some newer automatic transmission vehicles are also programmed to shift in such a way to maximize the fuel cutoff.
Subtraction is just addition using negative numbers. Why not skip subtraction altogether and just do addition? And hey, multiplication is just addition done over and over, and division is just subtraction done over and over, so we could simplify all those operators down to just one.
Someone paid attention in assembly class. ;)
Reply to That ||
You're absolutely right, so far as you go.
But if you want to talk about economic rationality, you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick here. The question isn't whether Tesla could have got the loan from the private sector. The question is whether the government could have made a better return on the capital tied up in that loan. That includes (in fact is primarily a question of) externalities arising from what Tesla planned to do with that loan.
Yes, the government could have loaned that money on the normal credit market at a higher risk-adjusted rate, but the reason the government can make such a loan where the private sector would not is that governments have to calculate returns differently than a private entity would. Governments have to include the benefits shared by the entire nation. Unless you discount such public benefits 100% (as a private lender would and should), getting our principle back with a modest return makes such a loan a safer investment than dumping money into projects with entirely external benefits. Many highway projects, for example, have dubious public value. From a financial standpoint we'd be far better off putting that capital expended on such projects into a loan of equally dubious (or less dubious) public value.
I realize that there is a serious philosophical position that says that it is morally wrong for government to take money from private individuals and invest it on their behalf. Even if you hold that belief, it does not follow that the investment is financially irrational -- only immoral.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
eat cake.
I'm inclined to agree with you. I too have heard that modern engines use no fuel when moving and being given no accelerator. In my world, "no fuel" means zero. They may use negligible fuel compared to powered driving, but negligible is greater than zero, and so is not "no fuel".
I hadn't thought about this in terms of the catalytic converter, I had thought about it more in terms of engine temperature, and hence wear. Obviously whilst the engine is moving, because the car is moving, the oil pump will be going, as will the water pump, and air will be flowing through the radiator. Going down a very long hill you really do stand a good chance of cooling the engine significantly if there is no source of heat in the engine, and this will do the engine no good at all. Or would the friction in the engine be enough to keep the temperature up, and stop the engine damaging itself?
Do the spark plugs not fire too during these alleged no fuel periods? Because if there is no fuel to burn, might as well save the wear on the plugs too. Though I could imagine that charge in the coil has to be disposed of, so not sparking might not be an option. Unless there was some mechanism to disengage the coil or alternator, but functionality like that would severely jeopardise the reliability of an engine otherwise.
I am not denying the engine uses minimal fuel in certain situations, I take advantage of this in my driving and routinely get over 50mpg out of a car the manufacturer says will get 48.5mpg. I just want to know if the minimal means zero, or if it means close to zero.
Oh yeah, I have tried some of the riskier hypermiling techniques (turning the engine off), and have gotten over 75mpg on a journey I do frequently (with a change in altitude of about 100m, downhill). Without the dangerous techniques, the best I can do is about 55, so I am very much inclined to say that the alleged zero is greater than zero.
What I have tested isn't a proper experiment. Obviously the car is more retarded (no laughing at the back) with the engine running and engaged to the wheels, and not being accelerated, than a car with the engine off and in neutral (well, really I leave it in 3rd or 4th (depending on the speed) and have my foot on the clutch. That way I can bump start the car at a moments notice, minimising the danger of driving with the engine off). With the engine off, the car's momentum carries you much further than if some of the momentum is being used to keep the engine turning, so I cannot say exactly how much of the 20mpg difference is due to engine friction, or due to the alleged zero not being zero.
Car analogies break down.
A subsidy is something you *don't* have to pay back. A loan is something you *do* have to pay back. See the difference?
Loans are a normal method for individual companies to get the capital needed to do projects with a large up-front investment which can only be recouped over time.
Subsidies are a method for a government (or other agency) to ensure that a company remains 'profitable' even when they should actually be losing money hand over fist.
>The loan Is a subsidy.
By definition, a subsidy does not need to be payed back, whereas a loan does. jav1231 used the wrong word; get over it.
It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.
At 0 throttle coasting in gear, you're wasting energy spinning the motor; my car doesn't have power assisted brakes or steering; most cars with power assist are pretty drivable with the motor off if you pay attention :)
proven drivetrain
I wouldn't exactly call it proven. Let's see how it performs after a year up in Alaska and then another in the desert.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Fair enough. I think there are what, 300 or so roadsters out in the field at the moment? I have no concerns about anything except the battery pack (electric motors are fairly simple to make reliable, transmissions a bit less so, due to the physical stresses involved). The battery pack *should* last as long as they say it will due to testing and how they baby the pack with charges/discharges. It also helps they have microcontrollers monitoring each individual cell. So, if you disagree with "proven", lets go with "fairly far ahead compared to the competition". The only other company with enough "in the field" electric drivetrain components would be Toyota with their hybrid system (yes, I know it uses an ICE too, but the electrical side has two electric motors, MG1 & MG2, as well as a fairly decent sized NiMH battery pack), and they're partners with Tesla now (since Tesla "paid" $48 million for the California plant GM used to share with Toyota, and Toyota bought $50 million of TSLA stock when they went IPO).
Not if the ECU cuts off fuel, as I mentioned.
I'm sorry to hear that.
that's fine for old or cheap vehicles, but I mentioned more than just power steering and braking. There's also ABS and ESC and possibly other safety features that only operate as intended while the vehicle is on.
Local news? What is a gallon?
Maybe I missed it, but has anyone else commented on the car's design/looks? I think it looks amazing! Maybe the Boxster can steal a few design cues from it...
Porsche undoubtedly made an amazing piece of engineering here, but honestly they could probably sell it with a lawnmower engine. It looks that good!
So then the interest is the subsidy. That makes it about 5% of the original bitching point.
Even if you're using no fuel, the motor breaking is wasting momentum (energy). Just paying attention while you're driving is more important than safety features imo.
but not fuel, which is what we are discussing.
that doesn't even make sense. Many safety features exist to provide better control of the vehicle - they are meaningless if the driver isn't controlling the vehicle.
I thought about this for a while. To reiterate, the *only* situation I shut off the engine is in a downhill traffic jam. Driving that road at full speed without ps/pb is indeed too dangerous. In a traffic jam, you would be consuming power with the engine running, since you're idling most of the time. The engine has to be consuming power when idling because the cycle has negative torque below idle.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?