Diesel engine-charged Tesla Model S covers 3500 miles with 76 gallons of fuel

[Richard S]

What's so impressive? Basic non hybrid four bangers get 40 ish mpg easily. That's only 5 mpg less than what they are bragging about? This hybrid thing in general is a bit silly if you ask me.

[D8Mach]

I too will pretend there isn't a good sized piece of iron and steel behind my head and upper torso in this otherworldly quick car.
 Sudden stoppage and all

[Eddie Borden]

Could have just bought a Toyota crown hybrid and got the same mpg and traveled in comfort,style and no stinky, diesel motor in the trunk that has to run all night to charge battery. Cheaper to plug in and charge. Defeats the purpose of electric cars.

That is kinda the point... Why EV?

[FredK]

Not impressed.

I have a Peugeot 308SW with a 1.5 lt clean diesel.   I get around 60 mpg in 60/40 highway/city driving.  This strikes me as an overengineered, inelegant approach.

[Lawrence Rhodes]

That is one third the normal fuel efficiency.  Negates the point of driving electric.

[NikoB]

It just shows the ignorance of human nature. Get rid of the xtra ton of dead weight from the battery pack, then you're able to install a smaller diesel engine with a transmission and drive the same amount of miles but on even much less diesel. To you all that are able to read and understand, there is nothing that compares to the Reliability and Affordability of the Dense Energy that comes from Gasoline and Diesel fuels that will get you there, back, and beyond. That is why it is used as the main source of energy. Do not let your corrupt government dictate to you what you should drive or anything else for that matter if you want to still remain a free society.

In fact, electric cars have a clear advantage in dense buildings with a larger number of vehicles - there are no dirty exhausts and smog, and "euro" standards and attempts to clean up the exhaust, as the "Dieselgate" scandal showed, are not feasible for car manufacturers.

Therefore, from the point of view of residents of cities and their suburbs (those same city "hamsters"), for whom everything comes down to a trip from the suburbs to work in the city and back in 99% of cases (and quite often 1(one) "fat a**" travels in a car for 4-5 seats, which should also be declared immoral behavior in countries supposedly pursuing "green" goals, but this does not exist even at the level of social condemnation, which directly speaks of duplicity or endless stupidity, greed of such societies), electric cars free them from dirty air and soil and plantations around cities/suburbs. But the price for this is the general inevitable increase in pollution of the planet, because the total environmental footprint of electric cars from obtaining raw materials/production and infrastructure support is significantly higher than that of cars with internal combustion engines. Thus, rich "elloi" in rich countries (by the way, "rich" they are already essentially fake - due to the monstrous accumulated debts of "developed" countries over the past 45 years, their real wealth remained in the 50-60s of the 20th century and before that) donate the general ecology of the planet for the sake of their private local benefits, increasing the damage to the air and the environment as a whole on the planet. That is why these trends are a priori immoral at the current level of technology. But residents of "developed" countries (the majority) always didn't care about this, because the so-called "greens" have stuck their tongues in a** when it comes to criticizing the electric car industry, because for the most part, they are pursuing the hidden private, vested interests of some circles and pushing their agenda. Everyone who is independent actually says directly that the electric car industry causes more damage to the planet's ecology than the ICE car industry.

[NikoB]

In general, in all countries where the number of cars with internal combustion engines exceeds the threshold of 25 per 100 people, air quality drops sharply in any area where there is dense construction and a concentration of people inefficiently using private transport, but on the whole the air on the planet was cleaner. With the advent of electric cars, it will a priori become dirtier everywhere, and it will be decades before the overall level of environmental improvement becomes lower than when using a car with an internal combustion engine.

This is the key problem - selfish city dwellers in "developed" countries, who suffer from poor ecology and smog in cities and suburbs due to hundreds of millions of cars with internal combustion engines, for the sake of improving the local ecology, are ready to sacrifice worse air for everyone for decades (because for city residents, the air will become many times cleaner, but not for rural residents!), without the consent of residents living outside cities and suburbs, whose air was cleaner, but will now obviously become dirtier with the massive spread of electric cars, therefore the overall impact on the ecology of the industry in general, it will increase until technology improves several times and the impact of battery production and distribution of electrical energy decreases, its accumulation is several times the current technological capabilities.

And again the rich (more like pseudo-rich, until someone finally shouts that kings are naked) dictate the agenda to the residents of third countries (even supposedly "independent" Russia agreed to pay a tax on "environmental damage", which in itself is nonsense, which, obviously, goes in favor of the "developed" countries and strengthens their dominance) of the day, and with deliberate damage to the latter.