What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
95 Comments
- bluehouse, on 07/20/2009, -0/+33It will also cost $42,563,094, they will only make 3, and you will never get one
- camaroz06, on 07/20/2009, -0/+13CONFIRMED!: I cannot afford this car!
- SMELLtheGluv, on 07/20/2009, -1/+10I really, really hope you are trolling.
- Headinawheel, on 07/20/2009, -0/+9No, a prius is a LOW EMISSION VEHICLE. Not ZERO. There's still a gas engine in it.
- chronopublish, on 07/20/2009, -0/+9Daimler, Mercedes' parent company, owns a 6% stake in Tesla Motors and is using Tesla batteries in their upcoming electric Smart car fleet. I think they intend to use their relationship with Tesla to take an early lead in the market for EVs.
- anexanhume, on 07/20/2009, -0/+8This means nothing without range info.
- Joest23, on 07/20/2009, -0/+8There will never ever be a zero emissions car because you have to mine aluminum, iron and titanium to make the car's chassis (Even if you recycle it emissions are produced when you process the recycled material) . Cows produce massive amounts of emissions from their flatulence for your leather seats. Don't even get me started with the battery. Lithium, nickel and copper mining is incredibly polluting and causes acid rain.
Don't complain. You can NEVER have a zero emissions. All you can do is bring emissions as low as possible. - chadsmith729, on 07/20/2009, -0/+8Hmm ... I thought it was going for $42,563,094.94 not including tax/title/license. I could be wrong though.
- beersk, on 07/20/2009, -0/+7super car != muscle car
- papashawn, on 07/20/2009, -3/+10emissions are created when you generate electricity.
- ecoscott, on 07/20/2009, -1/+70-62 with zero emissions? That's amazing.
- oep4, on 07/20/2009, -0/+6yeah, ***** electric cars. lets just keep making traditional combustion engines...maybe we should use more clean coal!
/s - Ecochick, on 07/20/2009, -3/+9That car is totally delicious- if you're going to have an over-the-top sportscar, which isn't really 'necessary' then it should have as low an impact as possible, no?
- ZenMojo, on 07/20/2009, -1/+6Even if the energy comes from coal and oil, it only requires a fraction of the energy input.
- strangewill, on 07/20/2009, -1/+6Even from old sources, the energy conversion efficiency is like 10x better in a power plant.
- Fratz, on 07/20/2009, -1/+6My company is planning a car that will get a bazillion horsepower and go from 0 to 8 million in 1 second. Like Mercedes, I am not announcing price or availability.
- perfectdozen, on 07/20/2009, -0/+54 seconds?! But I wanted it nooooooooowwwww...
- serif69, on 07/20/2009, -0/+4My company is announcing that it plans to sue your company on behalf of the imaginary customers who will be liquified by the acceleration generated by your vapormobile.
- Zarimus, on 07/20/2009, -0/+4I promise you, every single amp of current comes from environmentally safe nuclear power plants. We track all the electrons to ensure they're fully green.
- burketo, on 07/20/2009, -0/+4I can't wait to see how fast the stig can put it round the track! :)
- californicator, on 07/20/2009, -0/+3"The AWD car will have separate transmissions for both axles and electric motors at each wheel."
That sounds redundant to me. If you have electric motors at each wheel, then why would you need a transmission for each axle? It makes no sense to spin-up a heavy axle if you're providing power via a motor at the wheel.
True, an axle doesn't necessarily need to be a "drive axle", but what is the point of having a transmission on something that doesn't move?
Perhaps the transmission is for regenerative braking... but that can be done via the motor at each wheel. It still doesn't make sense! Is something missing in this story? - 1uk34dd0, on 07/20/2009, -0/+3Fair enough - I wasn't aware of that so +1
- osteor10, on 07/20/2009, -0/+3....annnddd thats why you want an American car.
- Bukowsky, on 07/20/2009, -2/+5that's a pretty sweet looking ride!
- inactive, on 07/21/2009, -0/+3Can always use solar to charge it. The C02 from that will be far less than running a hydrocarbon fueled vehicle.
- makkaveli19, on 07/21/2009, -0/+3does that even make sense? 0-62 with zero emissions? if you had said 0-62 in 4 seconds with zero emissions maybe it would make sense.
- eanbowman, on 07/20/2009, -0/+3LOL
Hello again syntaxgs!
Gathering negative diggs for your collection again? - MeLikeyTacos, on 07/20/2009, -1/+4Freakin' awesome. Good to see more manufacturers jumping in on the bandwagon. Obviously it's not marketed for average people; but hopefully the R&D technology will trickle-down to practical, consumer level vehicles in the near future.
- FordSVT1, on 07/20/2009, -0/+3The only performance statistic that Tesla flaunts is the 0-60 time because that's the ONLY statistic that is impressive. At the quarter mile it's about as fast as a Mustang and by 100 mph it's steadily loosing ground to your mom's V6 Camry. The Tesla Roadster's top speed is about 130 mph. For $100,000+? No thanks.
The Benz looks to have the same kind of performance as a traditional gas powered AMG, though I doubt it will have the range..... - manacit2, on 07/20/2009, -7/+9No.
- MrMongoose, on 07/21/2009, -0/+2Zero emissions - from the car itself. Environmental damage caused when mining the toxic metals for the batteries, as well as emissions from the coal and gas fired power plants that provide electricity to the socket for the car will still be there.
- robEstyles, on 07/20/2009, -2/+4psssh why not 527 hp?
- philoponia, on 07/21/2009, -0/+2HYBRID means that it has at least 2 sources (one of which is likely gasoline - emissions)
ELECTRIC (without the word hybrid attached) could have 0 emissions - inactive, on 07/20/2009, -0/+2You could mine with electric mining equipment that uses a nuclear grid. Also, you don't breed cows for leather. You breed them for meat so either way the cows are there.
I know it's a little ridiculous but it's still possible - Rtibbitts07, on 07/20/2009, -0/+2This is a Merc, thats a BMW.
- marinist, on 07/20/2009, -0/+2Nice specs and cool rendering, but what's the intended use--racing?
I'd be far more impressed if Daimler-Benz unveiled an electric/hybrid destined for practical use. - inactive, on 07/21/2009, -0/+2Oh winge will ya? Here have a tissue!
- syntaxgs, on 07/21/2009, -0/+2UH why Would it have a gas engine if it zero emission,,, it an electric car =P
- stanstevey, on 07/20/2009, -0/+2"The motors will be fueled by a 400-volt liquid cooled, high-voltage lithium-ion battery pack delivering 40 Ah of current."
If this statement is true and the battery capacity is only 40Ah (amp hours), then it will be drained in less than 3minutes at the full 392KW. The 392KW motor will take 980Amps of current! - makkaveli19, on 07/21/2009, -0/+2umm, more like car enthusiast. muscle cars=bulky over weight car that can't go around turns.
- inactive, on 07/20/2009, -0/+1Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Tesla do 0-60 in at least that time as well?
- eanbowman, on 07/20/2009, -0/+1I want the blue ones. They're purdy. :D
- Ultomato, on 07/22/2009, -0/+1 thanks captain obvious, nothing is emissions free but the total emissions it takes to build and operate a electric car is a lot lower compared to a gas car. even lower if it is charged by renewable energy.
the car itself doesn't emit any emissions compared to a gas car, so yes it would be zero emissions. - swordedge, on 07/20/2009, -0/+1Range? Did you notice that they don't mention that? The article said 400 volt battery pack delivering 40 Ah of current. This translates to 16,0000 Watt hours or so. This will take it all of 40 miles if you keep your foot off the accelerator. For your reference, the Tesla battery pack is more like 53 KWh.
Now that 16 KWh battery pack is perfect for a hybrid and is roughly the same size as the one in the Chevy Volt. Put a decent charging motor under the hood and you have a serious performance car that can get 50 mpg or better.
Oh, and the quarter for the Tesla... this is why they tried to put in a transmission. The Tesla motor keeps its power up to about 6000 RPM, which is only about 55 or so MPH. To get that power at 100 MPH, they need to gear it higher but if you do that, then the gear ratio is too tall for quick starts. So electric motors will not remove the need for transmissions. Put a good two or three speed transmission in the Tesla and it will do much much better on the quarter. - strangewill, on 07/21/2009, -0/+1^Should I be taking advice about efficiencies from someone who can't do basic math? Locomotives get way better efficiency per pound moved than cars (equivalent efficiency is about 230mpg), a power plant does MUCH better than that.
- f0dder, on 07/20/2009, -0/+1WTF they left out the MPG rating. Its tradition for any article discussing electric cars to include this bovine fecal factoid. (I would expect no less than 3000 mpg). What does it matter if the max range per charge is roughly 40 miles @ 40 mph on a flat road w/strong backwind.
- EricAnderton, on 07/20/2009, -0/+1I'm waiting for "KPK" myself: Kilometers per Kilowatt.
- FordSVT1, on 07/20/2009, -0/+1^I'd say the fact that it has almost 600 horsepower says a lot. The Tesla has about 250, less than a Toyota Camry. It's that fast to 60 because it has a ridiculously flat torque curve and two gear ratios.
There is no waaaay that Mercedes is going to make ANY version of the SLS perform at a sub-par level. - eanbowman, on 07/20/2009, -0/+1Regular petrol cars look like old tech to me and I like travelling on foot or by transit.
This might be the only thing to get me to want to own a vehicle.
Everything else seems... boring.
Actually, I've had this idea in mind for a long time of remaking the body style of a 69 Chevelle SS into an EV or hybrid. Heavy-assed muscle meets modern techniques. That'd be sweet.
Curb weight: 3260 lbs (1482 kg) for 1970 SS 454
I wonder how much of that is engine? :D
D:
Also, the original Mercedes 300 SL's curb weight: 1093 kg (2351 lb)
I wonder what the mass of the new car is? - zoeysdown, on 07/20/2009, -0/+1I think people are missing the point. The "no emissions" part means that the car itself doesn't emit anything. So you get into your petrol-based car and you're probably causing more emissions than you would through charging your car. It also costs less to charge a car than to fill it up with gas. Not to mention that your own country profits off of you charging your car, so no outsourcing.
I don't know how old the estimation is, but I've heard that about $1 in charging your car will get you about 40 miles.
Don't take my word for that. It's just an estimate. -
Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is