Ouch!
Based on cost, I am getting around 135mpg. We are moving within a year and that will change to about 270mpg.
If they haven't already, I would suggest to your friend to check to see if their utility has an off peak or time of use billing rate.
Although 38mpg isn't bad I suppose. Much better than average.
Agreed, a 38 mpg 'fuel' cost equivalency doesn't sound right. Zathras, for clarity, could you break out your cost #'s? Your miles per kWh, your kWh cost, and gasoline $/G figure.
Related to that, what kind of phantom/vampire costs are you seeing now, after the software updates? Do you have a total power in for the car (IOW, is that charger socket metered separately, so you know the total kWh that were 'fed' to the car, not just what the car draws from the battery)?
...
Prior to this, I don't believe anyone has managed to increase both efficiency and performance in a vehicle. ...
I think your fascination with EVs and Musk is clouding your thinking. There's a long list of developments that do exactly that. Of course, any efficiency improvement can be weighted by the engineer - do we use this efficiency to improve mpg, total power available, or some of both?
Turbocharging, over-head valves, multi-stage carburetors, fuel injection, direct fuel injection, electronic ignition, multiple valves per cylinder, variable valve timing, variable displacement (shutting down some cylinders when not needed for acceleration), electronic engine controls, multi-weight oils, synthetic oils, .... to name a few.
One of the motors in the Performance model is a smaller motor and each is geared differently.
Because the electric motor is relatively small, the added weight is overcome by the efficiency.
Have you found any good technical links on this, I'd be interested to read more detail? I'm curious as to why the 2nd motor would be smaller and geared differently - I would think ~ 50/50 would be the best?
And generally, two smaller units would have poorer power/weight ratio than one large one - economy of scale almost always wins. So I'm curious about that as well.
The possibilities with EVs are much much greater than most people appreciate.
I think it is just the opposite. I think many people (most? I don't know) think that EVs will develop along the lines of computers, but that is not the case. As we've discussed, motors and batteries are already ~ 90% efficient - there just isn't much meaningful improvement available there. Yes, they can be made smaller, lighter and cheaper - but they have a long way to go to reach an ICE or ICE/hybrid value for a more median buyer. ICE/Hybrid technology is not standing still either.
Here is a family sedan that has the performance of a McLaren supercar for a fraction of the cost (although still a ton of money).
Yes, but the catch is 'still a ton of money' - and to get back to
Chuckanut's question, you need that much battery capacity to get the range. If Tesla were to scale down the performance to more typical family sedan levels, they could save some $ with smaller motors and drive train, lower performance suspension and tires - but you would still need most of that battery pack to get that range, and therefore still a very $$$ vehicle.
But yes, compared to other performance vehicles, it's a pretty wild ride.
-ERD50
