0-60 in 4 seconds. Say goodbye to the good 'ol days...

[What'saCobra?]

Good question.

Unfortunately, only a fusion/fission/positron anihilation heat source will provide enough cheap & clean electricity for the hydrogen cycle to work efficiently, particularly in fuel cells, which require particularly clean hydrogen.

As much as i appreciate W's courage and plain common sense about many things, he is not yet about to give his oil pals and father's oil pals and the Saudis the heebee-jeebees about replacing our oil economy big time and soon.

But sooner or later we need to tell the arabs to go pound that sand...

[mj_duell]

Originally Posted by 4pipes

Ask your wife if the energy required to produce the hydrogen is a justifiable amount, given that hydrocarbons were probably burned to generate the electricity to separate the hydrogen gases. Some kind of ratio would be helpful to understanding this quandry.

She was right next to me when I got the email notification for this post. She works on the fuel cell membrane research not hydrogen production, however this is her answer:

Hydrogen is the most abundant gas in nature and has many sources. Burning hydrocarbons such as natural gas or coal to produce hydrogen is only one source. She does not know the ratio off hand. Hydrogen is also a byproduct of some manufacturing processes in certain industries today and could be harnessed as fuel instead of waste. Solar energy and Nuclear energy can also be used to produce the gas. There are also many other viable sources. Basically, no country that had a hydrogen infrastructer for fuel cell cars would need to import hydrogen, especially the U.S..

She suggests this web site: www.hydrogen.gov



--Mike & Sue / Turn Ten Racing, Inc.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by mj_duell

Hydrogen is the most abundant gas in nature and has many sources.
--Mike & Sue / Turn Ten Racing, Inc.

Titanium is actually one of the most abundant minerals on (in the) earth, so why is it so expensive?

[Excaliber]

Fuel cells may be the answer, but they to are fraught with 'infrastructure' problems.

[r1duley]

The 0 - 60 time is impressive but I wonder what the rolling time is.
Say 50mph to 80mph. How about the passing acceleration?
You only go 0-60mph once then you have to pass cars on the road.

If my memories of electric remote control cars holds true - low speed acceleration would be incredible but acceleration at speed would be less dramatic.
It mentions a 2 speed transmission maybe they have figured out a way to get the torque in the powerband at speed.

Does the WSJ article mention anything about how it drives on the highway?

[Don]

Tesla performance, reference their web site:

http://www.teslamotors.com/performan...p?js_enabled=1

[stuartb]

the range of the batteries is not enough yet for most people to fully replace their gas vehicles. their going to have to bring it up to at least 350. and how long does it take to charge? What happens if you loose charge on the side of the road?

[nblumberg]

good info on their site, including power band, etc. - if memory serves...

batteries are supposed to have a life of 100k miles.
3.5 hours to charge

[nblumberg]

good info on their site, including power band, etc. - if memory serves...

batteries are supposed to have a life of 100k miles.
3.5 hours to charge

[RNT]

George Clooney's daily driver. Top speed 150 MPH. 0-60 in 4.0.

Take a look..

www.commutercars.com

[jerry w]

I don't question the claims of the electric car's performance specs. I am skeptical of the test conditions. 150 miles on a single charge. Ok, Any hills in that 150 miles? How about wind? What was the temperature during the test? The capacity of a battery to produce electrical energy is the function of a chemical reaction, which is dependent upon temperature. Also no battery fully recharges. Our car batteries only have to charge up enough to turn a starter motor for a short time.
If you read the current articles on fuel cell technology and the hope of hydrogen, there is one more obstacle besides fueling stations. The size of the fuel tank. Hydrogen fuel tanks for cars will have to be enormous to produce a range of 300 miles like contemporary cars.

regards

[mj_duell]

Originally Posted by jerry w

I Hydrogen fuel tanks for cars will have to be enormous to produce a range of 300 miles like contemporary cars.

regards

Not to start a tizzy, but this is not true and is one of the reasons I have a hard time with the bias media. They seem intent on bringing down U.S. automakers so the uninformed will keep buying Toyotas and keep us shackled to giant oil companies. Hybrids are a stop gap; you still are dependant on oil. Plug-ins will eventually lead to a massive strain on electric grids that are already stretched to capacity. I have told many before who my wife is. She is one of the senior research scientists for GM's fuel cell program in New York. Current fuel cell technology yields a 107 mpg range when compared to gasoline. The truth is you will need much less space for fuel storage. Also, I don't know if any of you caught the future cars show on Discovery, but this is a very viable solution. The problems of production and supply have been pretty much solved by electrolysis via sunlight and other means by the Norwegians. The Japanese seem to be stealing all of the lime light, but rest assured GM has a program that is in step, if not ahead of them. I have been in the prototypes and I have seen the numbers. The performance of fuel cell powered electric vehicles is amazing and the solution works very well as a replacement for gasoline. Just my .02



--Mike

[Sales]

Hello from Michigan!

Here's my contribution to this thread:

http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/future/volta.html

Another 0-60 in 4 seconds. No sound, no shifting, and no need for side pipes!

[NJBIGBLOCK]

What do you think of this time? I remember this road test from years ago.No one could believe how quick this giant boat could move.(not my text below)

Comments: Catalina 2+2 sales increased 44% for 1965 as the model sported a new body riding on a new, slightly longer chassis, with a 121 inch wheelbase. The 2+2 standard engine was now the 421 V8 with a single four barrel carb rated at 338 bhp. Two other 421 engines were available, including a Tri-Power (3x2 bbl) version producing 356 bhp and the 421 HO rated at 376 bhp. Standard features of the 2+2 included heavy-duty springs and shock absorbers, a three-speed transmission with a Hurst shifter, dual exhausts, and a performance axle ratio. There were also special interior and exterior trim treatments, including bucket seats, seat belts, full carpeting, custom pinstriping, and vertical louvers on the front fenders, all standard. A new Turbo Hydramatic automatic transmission replaced the old Hydra-matic and improved performance. Car and Driver tested a Catalina 2+2 and recorded a top speed of over 130 mph and a 0-60 time of just 3.9 seconds.

[fastraxsg]

The Tesla is a neat little car with a great pedigree from it's base as it is built on a modified Lotus Elise. As with all things electric, the price is slowly coming down on batteries as technology advances.
If you are interested in Hydrogen cars, check out BMW's new V-12 car that is being tested in various places.
If you are looking for 0-60 in 2.8 seconds, 300 hp, 250 lb. of torque, 1 g. cornering grip, 1325 lbs wet, two seats, 4 wheels, at about $ 40,000, check out a Made in America Ariel Atom...Brammo Motorsports of Ashland, Oregon, however, registration might be a bit of a problem in some states. Plenty of attitude and the whole 9 yards of driving "in your face"

[WildBill3]

what ever gas you save,Ill use it up for you!

[Commodore]

NJBigBlock,
That Pontiac 2+2 you refer to was "professionally warmed over" by Royal Pontiac in Royal Oaks, Mich. (kind of an extreme Royal Bobcat project). It took a staff of about six "factory folks" to get those numbers but it sure ate the Ferrari 2+2's lunch in that show down at Bridgehampton. The test equipment of the day was not as accurate as what is used today so the numbers quoted are probably a little optimistic, but not by much. I think the tested 2+2 was Jim Wangers (Royal Pontiac) personal ride. Wangers new a few things about quick trips down the quarter mile. Royal built a very quick '62 Pontiac Ventura Tri Power for me back then that I wish I still had.
RB

[marcocsx3121]

That was in the same era as the "stock" '64 GTO that ran 12 second quarters at 106 mph plus. Amazing what a massaged 421 inch motor can do for a goat.

Shelby pulled a similar trick with the 260 Cobra that was made available to the mags for testing. That engine somehow grew about 50 extra horsepower before it found its way into the car.

[Commodore]

Open headers (Hooker), a high numerical rear (4:56 to 1), M+H 7" cheater slicks on a well tuned 389 Tri Power four speed would get the '64 GTO sedan into the high 12's fairly easily. Felt like 200 with those 5" drum brakes!
RB

[What'saCobra?]

Absolutely correct. Had one, did that. Nice cruiser, dark blue with white interior and top. Hurst shifter was just fine and the motor was a serious stump-puller.

But, i used to run against other GTO's my other car, a nicely powered 1964 289 (CSX 24XX) with standard 3.77's. The shift points were 60, 80 & 100 at 7000 rpm. She had pretty decent Firestone Indy rain tires on the street that lasted about 5 or 6000 wonderful miles if i was just a little considerate. Very predictable break-away, even in the rain. Plenty of throttle-steering was available.

Sooo... when the other guy's GTO was in 4th gear, just about to come apart with excess rpm's (at about 100-105 mph), your's truly, already about two or three car lengths or more ahead, speed shifted into 4th and went into the sunset, far away... heh, heh, heh!

Pretty surprising for some GTO pilot that thought he could wipe out the little BRGreen Austin-Healey next to him at the light, with the noisey muffler.

Must have done it at least a dozen times... always fun to remember. But, i frequently would pull over when he was seriously far back, with heavy breaking. The poor fellow nearly always went past with all his wheels locked-up or at least with the nose seriously downward. He would come to a stop a ways down the road, slam it into reverse, come tearing back to my stop point and find me standing there waiting with my arms crossed.

Never failed to have a friend afterwards. They were, of course, not at all happy when the saw what they ran, but most didn't even have ANY idea wtf it was, even when clued. They just kept shaking their heads back and forth, trying to explain to themselves why it wasn't a fair run, 'cause the little green car was way too small...