Elon Musk Promises 100,000 Electric Cars Per Year 122
Dave Knott sends this news from the CBC:
Tesla stock was up five per cent on Friday morning after CEO Elon Musk said the electric-car company would deliver 100,000 vehicles next year. Its earnings report released Thursday shows Tesla continues to operate at a loss as it spends on engineering and setting up an assembly line for its Model X SUV, which is scheduled to go into production early next year. But investors were cheered by the news that the company would deliver 100,000 vehicles next year, up from 22,000 in 2013 and a projected 35,000 this year. Tesla reported a loss of $61.9 million in its second quarter, compared with a loss of $30.5 million in the same quarter a year ago. Revenue nearly doubled to $769.3 million, missing Wall Street's forecast of $801.9 million, but expenses were also up as Tesla prepares some ambitious projects, spending $93 million in the quarter on research and development alone. While the Model X is in development, the longer-term plan is for a cheaper, mass-market car, the Model 3, to be launched in 2017. The biggest investment Tesla will make is in its large lithium-ion production plant, to be built at an as-yet-unnamed U.S. location in a $5-billion partnership with Panasonic.
Re: (Score:2)
Officially they have "broken ground" at Reno, though they have not yet confirmed that they are actually going to put the gigafactory there. I have also been thinking for a few months that it is going to be built there.
http://jalopnik.com/tesla-basi... [jalopnik.com]
Re:gigafactory location (Score:5, Interesting)
Speculation is that the Reno groundbreaking might simply be a ploy to cause some other states to provide a greater incentive for them to relocate -- and that lacking that, Reno is their fallback.
Re: (Score:2)
Headline is wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
He said that by the end of 2015 they would be producing cars at a rate > 100,000 cars/yr (2000 cars/wk). They will enter 2015 producing cars at slightly more than 50,000 cars/yr (1000 cars/wk). The actual number of cars (Model S & Model X) made in 2015 will be between 50,000 and 100,000. Elon went on to say it would be greater than 60,000. Elon speaks very precisely. It is not confusing.
Headline is wrong. (Score:3)
Somebody mod this guy up. He's right. It's a critical distinction.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, the number I heard on CNBC was Tesla saying they would deliver 60K while the production rate would reach 100K* at the end of the year.
* Slightly below 100K, since the number quoted was 1,900 per week, which for the 52 weeks comes to 98.8K. This presumes no down time (weeks) or other unexpected production delays / stoppage due to unexpected causes.
Re: (Score:2)
Compare that to say porsche. Last year, they sold 165K cars. 2 of these are similar to what Tesla has/will have: the Cayennes, which is similar to Model X and their panamera which is similar to Model S.
While the Cayennes has grown each year to just under 20K unit, the Panermera grew eac
Re:Headline is wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
The headline is fine, the summary is wrong. If you want to be precise.
He is stating there will be a rate of 100,000 cars per year. That is what the headline said and what he said. Neither the headline, nor Musk said it would be 100,000 cars for 2015.
The summary, however, did put the line in that says: CEO Elon Musk said the electric-car company would deliver 100,000 vehicles next year.
That is what is incorrect.
Although a production rate of 100,000 cars per year will eventually create an actual 100,000 cars in a year, it will only do so once the rate reaches that level and sustains or exceeds that rate for an entire year. In this case, the last of the 100,000 cars actually produced in a single year at that rate would be finished sometime in 2016.
Re:Market will bubble will pop before then (Score:5, Insightful)
If they slashed their R&D budget as documented in TFA they could be profitable. I'd argue that their aggressive R&D spend predicts steep revenue growth over the next several years.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that a correction WILL occur, but it will probably never drop to 50. In fact, I am betting that it will hit 150 again (without a split) but no lower.
And it is not just R*D that is costing them. It is building out showrooms and supercharger network. That is huge.
Re: (Score:2)
Other than the impracticality of a cross country drive, which we rarely do, what are the many limitations of an all electric car?
Re:We losing money on every sale (Score:5, Insightful)
I get that you think you're being funny, but lest somebody actually think that's going on here:
It doesn't say they lose money per sale. I strongly suspect they make a profit on each sale, though the summary doesn't say (and I haven't read TFA yet). What the summary says is that they're losing money overall, due to things like R&D costs and expanding production. In other words, investment costs are greater than profit.
In case it isn't yet obvious to you, this is the *EXACT* scenario where it's possible to "make it up in volume". Even leaving aside economies of scale, if they sell more cars (at a small profit on each) their overall income will exceed their expenses and they will be, overall, profitable.
Re:We losing money on every sale (Score:4, Insightful)
Same reasoning exists in the people complaining about the F-35 and F-22 cost-- it's approximately the same price as a new F-16/18 in actual current cost of production; but people lump the cost of the development into the cost of the sale to make it look like it's $350m not $110m / per or whatever the actual number is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
a stupid argument made by shills
Because Lockheed Martin would rather sell low margin F-16s than high margin F-35s, amirite?
Re: (Score:2)
the cost is the same. why would you buy 40 year old aircraft (f-16) for the same price as 20 year old aircraft (F-22/35)?
(yes, 20 years old. go look when they started development)
Re: (Score:2)
the cost is the same. why would you buy 40 year old aircraft (f-16) for the same price as 20 year old aircraft (F-22/35)?
So we agree that the F-16 is a lower margin plane than the F-22/35 planes? That pretty much rules out any incentive to hype the F-16.
So who are these alleged F-16 shills shilling for?
Re: (Score:1)
Tesla gets huge subsidies per car sold...to the tune of $7500 per car or much much more depending on who you ask Your tax dollars at work so rich people can feel good about themselves. I don't see how an electric car is a "green" car when the electricity generated comes from dirty dirty coal.,
Re:We losing money on every sale (Score:4, Informative)
Those subsidies apply to all BEVs, not just Tesla, which is a startup. You can get the same discount on a Leaf which is 1/2 - 1/3 the price of a Model S and is made by one of the biggest automakers in the world.
And the "dirty coal" argument is a load of horseshit. Come out from behind your cloak of cowardly anonymity & we'll debate.
Re: (Score:1)
And the "dirty coal" argument is a load of horseshit. Come out from behind your cloak of cowardly anonymity & we'll debate.
Not the ACless likely to die in a fire in a Tesla than a gas powered car. Therefore, the Tesla is not really a green car.
*I miss cars that are the actual color green. It's really hard to find luxury cars these days in anything but neutral colors (when times are tough, people choose attention-diverting instead of attention-getting colors for expensive stuff). That's a shame, I love colorful cars. The Model S has a great red available though - good for Tesla!
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, way to go Slashcode! OK, here's the same post hopefully without the mangling:
And the "dirty coal" argument is a load of horseshit. Come out from behind your cloak of cowardly anonymity & we'll debate.
Not the AC, but here's an argument for you. If you care whether a car is green* in the first place, you're probably a hipster, and thus should die in a fire. Despite sensational news stories, you're probably less likely to die in a fire in a Tesla than a gas powered car. Therefore, the Tesla is not really a green car.
*I miss cars that are the actual color green. It's really hard to find luxury cars these days in anything b
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! At least you KNOW which Slashdot commenter actually made the statement. And you could dig through all my comments of the past several years to see whether I've changed opinions or contradicted myself.
Which AC are you? Are you the Original Dumbass or just one of his asslickers?
Re: (Score:2)
Now which AC is that? Asslicker #1, #5 or a wannabe original fuckwad?
Are you smart enough to figure out who's posting this?
Re: (Score:2)
No. It's not besides the point.
His point was that Tesla get a huge subsidy on every car but it's only about 10% of the average selling price of a Model S, maybe not even that.
If you're buying one of the other popular EVs, your rebate could be as much at 30%.
Making any car is going to have a certain environmental impact and EVs are not exempt but lithium isn't one of the problem materials as it's not particularly toxic and it's not typically mined but produced from brine salts or, increasingly, from geotherm
Re: (Score:1)
No, they make it up by selling green energy credits to the other auto manufacturers. That apparently nets them about $30k per car, so they would be losing heaps more without the cronyism from the state of California.
Re:so... (Score:5, Informative)
but the vast majority of electricity is produced from coal.
You think that 39% is a "vast majority"? The US is rapidly moving from coal to natural gas because the price of natural gas is falling as domestic production increases. All in all, an electric car creates slightly less pollution than a Prius.
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3
Re: (Score:2)
We started doing that here in Canada, and then companies started turning off the pipes to drive up the price. So yeah, lot of places are now looking at building coal power plants again. Hell there was a 40% increase in the price of NG in many parts of the country this year, because it was unusually cold and in turn burning through all the stocked gas.
Re: (Score:3)
Canada is a big, varied place. Ontario has been using very little coal for about 5 yrs, if memory serves.
When has Quebec last relied on coal or any fossil fuel for electricity generation?
Together those two are far & away the VAST majority of "Canada" and if it weren't for Alberta and its tar sands, they probably could have hit their Kyoto targets long ago.
Re:Bad Math (Score:5, Insightful)
That's pretty much a worst case scenario. If your electricity happens to be generated from nuclear or hydroelectric, your electric car will be a lot cleaner.
Upgrading our car fleet to electric and upgrading our power generation to renewable sources are multi-decade efforts that have to be done in parallel.
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much it. I don't have much faith in the future of chemical-battery-powered cars, but regardless it will eventually be something that starts with electricity. Meanwhile, gradually moving off of coal power seems a no-brainer. Rushing to do so would be foolish, causing needless economic disruption, but over decades as existing power stations hit normal replacement cycles? Coal needs to go.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
but the vast majority of electricity is produced from coal.
You think that 39% is a "vast majority"? The US is rapidly moving from coal to natural gas because the price of natural gas is falling as domestic production increases. All in all, an electric car creates slightly less pollution than a Prius.
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3
Coal 39%
Natural Gas 27%
Nuclear 19%
Hydropower 7%
In comparison with anything else? I do. An 11% spread would be a landslide in an election. I suppose I could have used better phrasing on that line, fine: "Coal is the biggest source of electricity in this country by a wide margin" Is that better?
But lets assume the whole country was on natural gas. That makes a difference how? It's still a fossil fuel, and after transmission and charging losses it's still probably less efficient than Gasoline. You put less CO2
Re: (Score:2)
The only way electric cars make sense is if the power plant isn't producing CO2.
What a ridiculously high, and arbitrary, bar you've set.
Re: (Score:2)
You think that 39% is a "vast majority"? The US is rapidly moving from coal to natural gas because the price of natural gas is falling as domestic production increases.
Which requires fracking, because we're otherwise at peak production. Natural gas is going to be a tragedy worse than gasoline. Say goodbye to free clean drinking water. It will exist nowhere.
Re:so... (Score:5, Informative)
Go ahead and enjoy your Hummer.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:so... (Score:4, Interesting)
My Tesla runs on solar power.
Re: (Score:3)
This nonsense again?
1st off, the "30% eff." is pretty much the peak for gas vehicles, not the average or the median. It can get as low at 14%, if not lower for the really terrible ones.
There are some factors you're not considering, or are deliberately ignoring while shilling for nukes.
If most of your vehicles are EVs, then you have much lower emissions in heavily populated areas, you know, where people live.
If you're pushing your emissions back to the plants, you get huge efficiencies of scale for controlli
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Yet, your electric vehicle could have 0 emissions if you let a nuclear plant get built near you.
Which is my point.
Your fear of a tried and tested technology is destroying this planet. And you try to paint me like I'm some redneck that doesn't understand science?
You sit there and defend Coal and Natural Gas... Electric cars are so trendy, you're sounding like a damned republican.
I intentionally used the strait, top efficiency of an combustion engine, which is not the efficiency of the actual car. Put that en
Re: (Score:2)
Your fear of a tried and tested technology is destroying this planet.
So far, absolutely no one on the planet has shown themselves to be responsible with their nuclear waste. France, often held up here as an example of the system working correctly, has been caught by just good ol' Greenpeace dumping waste in Russia. So far, no one with the funding to run a reactor is also sufficiently responsible. There are no signs that humanity is improving as a whole, so there is no reason to believe that nuclear power should ever be a safely viable option.
You may want to want to just slap lipstick on that pig and be done with it, but I actually want to fix the problem.
That is a gross misrepresentation
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not defending coal or natgas. I'm pointing out the flaw in your binary statement - ie only coal or nuclear.
There are other established options and no one option will do it for all.
As a counter to your hybrid argument, we could go back to burning oil on a wider scale, which used to be far more common than coal prior to the 70s.
We would still have to refine out the sulphur or treat the exhaust from burning oil but there would still be energy input savings from not having to refine all the way to gasoline
What about a coal powered Tesla? (Score:5, Insightful)
So... not to stir up a hornets nest... but everyones aware that electric cars produce more pollution than gas right?
Let's look at some facts here. First off, the efficiency of a thermal power plant [wikipedia.org] is somewhere around 33% to 48%, at least according to wikipedia. Let's split the difference and say 41% for a thermal plant. The typical thermal efficiency of a a gasoline engine [wikipedia.org] is about 18% to 20%. Let's split the difference and say 19%. Thus, a thermal power plant is more than twice as efficient as a gasoline engine in terms of changing chemical potential energy to useful output.
But there are some caveats. Firstly, the electricity needs to be transmitted. High voltage power lines are extremely efficient, about 94% according to this article [nema.org]. That means that the chemical energy (lets assume from coal) reaching the charging station is 41% x 94% = 38.5%. And then there is the charging process. According to this article [batteryuniversity.com], the charge efficiency of a Li-Ion battery is about 97%, which makes sense to me, as batteries usually don't run too hot. The charging devices however probably are responsible for some loss. Let's assume they are 80% efficient. That gives us 38.5% x 80.0% x 97% = 30%. Thus, according to this, 30% of the coal chemical potential energy makes it to the engine.
But what about engine efficiency? Well electric motors run very cool, and have very high efficiencies, typically [engineeringtoolbox.com] around 90%. I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla's motor is better. This means that if a coal power plant powered a Tesla, 30% x 90% = 27% of the energy would reach the wheels of the car, compared with a gasoline powered car, where 19% of the gasoline's potential energy comes out of the engine, never mind the losses in the transmission lines. Thus, a coal powered Tesla is 40% more energy efficient than a gasoline powered car.
However, there is one problem. Generating energy by coal produces more CO2 than generating it by gasoline. According to this article [eia.gov], coal generates about 215 pounds CO2 per btu of energy, while gasoline generates 157 pounds CO2 per btu. However, even with this, by my calculations, an equivalent gas powered car still emits 3.8% more CO2 than our coal powered Tesla.
Elon Musk made this claim in an interview, that even if a coal power plant generates the electricity, a Tesla still emits less CO2. My referenced back of a napkin calculations above support this assertion.
Re: (Score:1)
Cool, you put more effort into it than I did. At best electrics are a tad better... But what if we moved to Gas generator powered electrics?
But that's silly of course... My point is: With Nuclear, emissions are 0.
So why the hell not? Because a 50yr old plant that got hit by one of the largest earthquakes in history, then one of the largest tidal waves in history had a problem that could never happen to a more modern plant even after such insane disasters? Really?
Save the earth, go nuclear.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
1) Your analysis accounts for losses in transmitting the electricity but does not account for getting the gasoline to the consumer. Gasoline is heavy and in the final leg is distributed in trucks that burn a lot of fuel.
2) Your guess at 80% efficiency of the charging devices is low. Tesla claims 90%+ depending on the voltage and Tesla charging stations can charge the cars with DC at 120kW with presumably much lower losses. (If they were losing 20% of that to heat they'd all be on fire :) )
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the processing and distribution costs associated with liquid fuels... including the ethanol.
Yes. I think my calculations are conservative. Especially if we are relying on fuel from the tar sands, which are MASSIVELY inefficient in terms of CO2 emissions. They have to melt the tar in order to separate from the sand and refine it. They use natural gas and a large amount of fresh water. Think about that water, Californians. Now much of that wonderful fresh water is languishing in huge pools, mixed with a toxic slew of organic chemicals and heavy metals.
The tar sands are madness. When I think
Re: (Score:2)
The tar sands are an ecological disaster and will probably only get worse.
But they are still only a very small part of oil production. Truth is we don't yet need them and the amount currently extracted could easily be offset by improved efficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
So... not to stir up a hornets nest...
You are obviously either a troll or an idiot if you fail to take into account the number of efficiency advantages in EVs, e.g. regenerative braking. So yes, you did it just to stir up a hornet's nest, even if you're not smart (and self-aware) enough to know that.
All the cars... (Score:1)
...and none of the affordability. Go Elon go!
Musk brilliant engineer, marketing dumbass (Score:1)
Musk is a brilliant engineer and if he really wanted more people to experience this technology. He would have sold it to a auto maker or licensed its technology to several. Not only to reduce price to consumers and in turn offer more affordable cars. But also he would have reached people in lower income brackets who could benefit more from a all electric vehicle. Instead he builds cars that are outstanding but not affordable for the majority. Your barely staying alive by selling carbon credits
and you snub y
Re: (Score:2)
The other auto makers already have this technology and are doing practically nothing with it. Elon thought the biggest risk to his company was other companies joining the race and pushing Tesla out of business. The opposite has happened, none of the big auto companies is really interested.
The problem is that, right now, electric cars are incredibly expensive to develop and produce. Lots of new technology is needed to make them efficient enough to have a practical range, and batteries are very expensive. The
Re: (Score:2)
And he didn't even make a secret of it.
Today is the 8th anniversary of his post about the "Tesla Master Plan, just between you & me"
http://www.teslamotors.com/blo... [teslamotors.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, for fuck's sake. Go read the "Tesla Master Plan, just between you & me" that Elon posted on the Tesla forums EIGHT FUCKING YEARS ago TODAY.
http://www.teslamotors.com/blo... [teslamotors.com]
He's only a few years & 1 model behind schedule; not bad for the 1st real auto startup in America in decades.
50M loss on an almost 1B revenue (Score:4, Insightful)
That is basically breaking even especially given the backers and what they're investing in. I'm surprised the losses weren't larger.
Lame... Electric (Score:2)
I was looking at a Tesla or another electric and the Toyota said they'll ship Hydrogen Fuel Cell next year. So, I will drive my car another year.
I have a Prius now and am driving into the ground. Tesla was the next intelligent step... While waiting for fuel cell. But now fuel cell seems to be here, so why would I buy that?
Re: (Score:2)
I was looking at a Tesla or another electric and the Toyota said they'll ship Hydrogen Fuel Cell next year. So, I will drive my car another year.
Interestingly, Toyota has been claiming that they would deliver a Fuel Cell car within x years (x being highly variable) for about twenty years now. Ditto Honda.
Tesla was the next intelligent step... While waiting for fuel cell. But now fuel cell seems to be here, so why would I buy that?
Because automotive fuel cells are a completely unproven technology, and only people with too much money buy the new tech. They can afford to eat it if it fails.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
You honestly think the auto industry is a free market?
There are tons of morons around here who like to throw around that term but don't seem to have any idea what it means.
I fail to think of a single industry with any real pull in the American market place that isn't run through at least a few government regulatory entities.
Re:Invisible Hand of the Market (Score:5, Insightful)
I fail to think of a single industry with any real pull in the American market place that isn't run through at least a few government regulatory entities.
Good, I can't think of a single industry that wouldn't fsck things all up if they weren't being watched.
Re: (Score:2)
If the commodities exchanges aren't "free markets", the term is meaningless. "Free market" does not mean unregulated - never has except in strawmen - it means the government isn't mucking with pricing, nor giving preference to some buyers or sellers.
"Capitalism" only means that you can aquire the means of production by spending money, instead of by political influence, military adventure, or the like.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, regulation intended to pick the honest quite commonly does exactly the opposite. Those with the connections to get away with being dishonest can do so while those playing by the rules get screwed.
Re: Invisible Hand of the Market (Score:1)
Preventing F-ups is not the role of regulation. That is propoganda. Congress delegates regulatory powers to regulators so they can make up rules without political consequences, as well as make rulings without the inconvience of courts with their rules, and most importantly fine deep pockets without recourse as a non- legislated tax
Case in point. The recent liquidity crisis was caused by government fiscal and monetary policy, but because there is no recourse against government with sovereign immunity, they b
Re: (Score:1)
You honestly think the auto industry is a free market? There are tons of morons around here who like to throw around that term but don't seem to have any idea what it means. I fail to think of a single industry with any real pull in the American market place that isn't run through at least a few government regulatory entities.
Silly AC - The corporation IS the Government. And unless you crawled out from under Atlas' rock. Corporations will not tolerate the free market.
Re: (Score:2)
Silly AC - The corporation IS the Government. And unless you crawled out from under Atlas' rock. Corporations will not tolerate the free market.
Oops, I must have stepped on some Ayn Rand acolytes toes.
Fresh meat. Tell me how in a market sans regulation i.e. "free" will a corporation that becomes so large that Politicians have no choice but to vote in a mannr that will benefit their company and to the detreminat of all other competition - that company is not the defacto government? Even to the point of passing "regulations".
Whoever marked me as "troll simply hates when the truth gets in the way of their ideology.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
free market may not be so free nor easy
What "free" market?
We construct a nation of endless laws and millions of government lawyers to regulate huge oligopolies that use these same ever willing lawyers and their laws to insulate themselves from competition, chalk all of this nasty, influence peddling bullshit to "the free market" and disparage it when it fails.
What, exactly, are you thinking of when you say "free?"
Re: (Score:2)
free market may not be so free nor easy
What "free" market?
We construct a nation of endless laws and millions of government lawyers to regulate huge oligopolies that...
Okay, hold it right there. Here, this only took a second to find: "According to the American Bar Association there are currently 1,116,967 lawyers practicing in the U.S." - from a recent posting.
So, you baldly assert that more than twice the number lawyers practicing in the U.S. work for the government. How in the world do you expect anyone to take ANYTHING you say seriously?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And when a ham-handed attempt at humor is the sole content of your snippy post... well again, see my comment.
Better luck next time.
Re:Invisible Hand of the Market (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
That depends on what you mean by a "free" market, which is even more complicated than the "free as in speech or free as in beer" of software. One meaning is as the opposite to a controlled market - one where participants and/or prices are regulated and you don't have a natural supply and demand. Obviously the car industry doesn't have that (but it did in the past, like the development of the Volkswagen in Germany), so in that sense it's free.
A second idea of a free market is a functional, competitive market
Re: (Score:2)
One meaning is as the opposite to a controlled market - one where participants and/or prices are regulated and you don't have a natural supply and demand.
Well, that is what we have. The participants are regulated through deciding who gets a bailout, and what terms they receive it under, even if they don't want the bailout (e.g. Ford.) And the prices are kept artificially high through these means as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Methinks your definition of "cheap" and mine are very different creatures indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't mind so much if Musk and Tesla didn't lie about the price. Musk states $500/month in an official video, and their site states £450/month. Read the fine print and that includes an equal saving in fuel, maintenance and tax. So the real price is £900/month.
The price is fine, I can't afford it, just don't lie about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Oddly, for the price, it's got almost nothing on the Leaf other than the letters BMW on the side of it.
The Ford Fusion electric only gets about 90% the miles/kWh that the Leaf does (with the same size battery) with considerably greater style*.
Depending on your driving habits, the Fusion Energi and it's 7kWh battery (and 20+ mile range before cutting over to 40+ mpg gas) might make more sense.
*Style subject to opinion. YMMV.
Re: (Score:2)
Except, it doesn't.
Canvas seats and plastic trim, plus the same $650 "programming fee" to upgrade to satellite radio as on their other new cars. Every other "feature" is available in the Leaf (e.g. nav with range "bubble" superimposed).
Re: (Score:2)
BMW is only marginally a luxury car. You get less luxury at a given price than most other car companies, as their focus is on performance and that means reducing weight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably it's got a crapload of luxury-car features. You don't go BMW if fuel economy is your foremost desire, after all.
That's right, you go BMW if your first goal is to have a driver's car, with good overall performance. You go to Mercedes, Maserati, Aston or Jag for luxury. And you go Audi for a car that just works... for a few years anyway
Re: (Score:2)
I think the BMW is ugly but it is revolutionary because its frame and body are carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised that the electric-only range on the i8 is so low given that it costs as much a Model S & Chevy Volt combined.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't afford one either.
Well, I'll have to content myself with watching Chris Harris put one through its paces in Malibu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]