a gray prius,

Thanks.

From the article:

'...Top speed is electronically limited to 200 km/hr (124 mph) to
maximize battery range. Audi says making the e-Tron capable of
anything faster would suck the battery dry in no time.

'Speaking of, the e-Tron gets its juice from a 42.4-kilowatt-hour, liquid-
cooled lithium-ion battery with a range of 154 miles...'

I wonder what the price tag is on this little jewel.

I wonder what the "payback" period is too.

Sounds like it will leave skid marks on more than just the road.

That is pretty impressive but a torque figure without context is almost meaningless - the Prius has about 1300 ft-lbs of torque at the wheels and that's pretty wimpy compared to most cars.

The Abrams may have "only" 2750 ft-lbs but it probably gets multiplied by a factor of 5 or so before it gets to the wheels/tread.

The Gen 3 Prius electric motor only has 150 ft-lb but the gen 2 had 295 ft-lb. Does that mean the gen 2 has more performance? No, because the gen3 has an additional gearing stage to multiply the torque so it actually has more at the wheels.

Even wheel torque does not tell the whole story because the tractive effort also depends on wheel size.

kevin

Well, this surely is not designed to compete with a Prius on price, but it could possible compete with the Tesla for its type of buyer.

Everyone always likes to point out the problems. In the real world it is easy to point out flaws, because everyone and everything has them. Just because something has a few flaws does not mean it is a bad idea. It is whether the whole package makes sense. ie, one of the Prius big flaws is the premium price for the hybrid system. However, in the end the whole package makes sense.

To add to the context theme, the 3300 ft-lb of torque is most likely the "locked rotor" torque. Locked rotor means ZERO rpm. So from a standstill, you will easily smoke the tires but as soon as the rotor begins to turn, the torque drops to more normal levels. The M1 Tank produces 2750 ft-lbs @ 3000 rpm. The comparison is apples to oranges.

Wow. Buzzkill factor in this thread is super high. It's just a concept car guys...

What . . . does that work out to about $100 per foot pound of torque?



.

Yes, it is a concept car. But why the spin? More torque than an M1 tank, but it can only manage 4.7 sec in 0-60? Gimme a break. Don't you think it is a bit misleading?

You'd think that the 2 guys in the picture have enough money to get decent fitting suits.

I hope this vehicle inspires consumers, and inspires other automakers to begin experimenting with similar type cars. Much as most of the 2000s was characterized by a horsepower race amongst auto manufactures, an electric horsepower race could be sparked. I would more than welcome that...because it would also require those manufacturers to figure out how to increase the range-per-charge of the vehicles as well. Why not let BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Ferrari, and so forth pour money into battery research and electric-powertrain efficiency research? I'm all for it! :welcome:

As I said on the VW thread, it's the same old FUD from the usual suspects. 'Hey, we're making progress to no-consumption cars, plz buy our guzzler to support it rather than buying something that actually reduces consumption.' 'You don't want to buy a Prius, that will be obsolete within a few years' - except that few years gets ever further away. It's always jam tomorrow with these people.

Look, the Wired article made the whole "more torque than a tank" point as what I assume to be an attempt to be humorous (as opposed to OMG they're trying to TRICK me into buying it!). The car or any derivative of it will likely never see the light of day - it's not like they're trying to sell the thing to you.