Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

World's Fastest Hybrid OK'd For Production

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the probably-can't-use-the-hov-lanes-though dept.

Transportation 208

thecarchik writes "The Porsche 918 Spyder hybrid supercar, first shown as a concept at this spring's Geneva Motor Show, got official approval as a production model today from the company's board of directors. Just consider the specs: a 500-horsepower, 3.6-liter V-8 engine with a 9200-rpm redline, 0-to-62-mph acceleration of 3.2 seconds, and top speed of 198 miles per hour. Oh, and did we mention it gets 78 miles per gallon on the European cycle? The astounding fuel efficiency comes courtesy of an E-Drive mode that lets the 918 Spyder drive up to 16 miles on pure electric power, though [ahem] not at 198 mph."

cancel ×

208 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Tesla (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33077858)

Tesla, nice to have known ya! By the way: Hugh Pickens is the new Roland Piquepaille

Re:Tesla (2, Informative)

pieisgood (841871) | more than 4 years ago | (#33077998)

Re:Tesla (1, Insightful)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078238)

Comparing a 155K car to a 61K car isn't exactly fair...

Re:Tesla (2, Informative)

WalksOnDirt (704461) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078712)

The Spyder was $72.5k. But it won.

Re:Tesla (3, Interesting)

NoPantsJim (1149003) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078368)

Wow, did they really need to have an auto-playing video ad with obnoxious music at the bottom of the page? I'm pissed that I gave them even that one pageview. I won't be reading the article.

Re:Tesla (2, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078716)

It's called flashblock, use it.

Re:Tesla (5, Informative)

photogchris (1847394) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078488)

Sorry, but different Poreche. the hybrid is a 918 spyder, your linking to a Boxster spyder. Basically the Boxster has a 320hp flat 6 while the hybrid 918 has a 500hp V8 plus 2 109hp electric motors. Also it looks to be 4 times more expensive then the Tesla at about $650,000!

http://nexus404.com/Blog/2010/07/29/porsche-918-spyder-goes-to-production-kind-of-confirmed-back-in-march-the-green-light-on-the-porsche-918-spyder-is-now-officially-on/ [nexus404.com]

Re:Tesla (1)

rrossman2 (844318) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078688)

Hybid... I do believe Tesla Roadster is all electric...

How about some apples to apples? (1, Informative)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 4 years ago | (#33079180)

Yes, and I strongly suspect that -- don't know, but think about it -- the Tesla, with 288 hp, running against the Porsche at 218 hp... would kick its ass. That's about a 25% difference in power in favor of the Tesla; also the Tesla weighs 2690 lbs, and the Porsche weighs 3300 lbs... another 18% win for the Tesla.

Yeah, I think the Tesla is a better car all around. Gasoline... LOL.

Huh? (3, Informative)

spineboy (22918) | more than 4 years ago | (#33079558)

They compared a Porsche Boxster variation (320 HP, $70,000, 2900 pounds) to the Tesla (288HP $155,000 , 2800 pounds), and the Porsche won.
There is no Porsche made in the last 20 years that had only 220 HP

Now for $150,000 you can get a new Porsche 911 Turbo 0-60 3.2 seconds, 3400 pounds, and that will trounce the tesla a bit more than the Boxster.

Re:Huh? (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 4 years ago | (#33080134)

Whoosh, and I don't mean the car.

By comparing apples to apples, I meant, electric to electric. Which I would have thought the numbers made obvious, but you managed to surprise me.

Now read my post again. :)

over klocking ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33077870)

allready overklocking electric cars. cool.

And this one pays for itself... (3, Funny)

paulsnx2 (453081) | more than 4 years ago | (#33077896)

And in only 150 years, the gas you save pays for the car!

--Assuming you drive an earth mover to work today.

Re:And this one pays for itself... (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#33077950)

They aren't paying that much to save gas money.
They're paying that much to feel better about themselves for "helping" the environment.

Re:And this one pays for itself... (4, Insightful)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078742)

How do you know they aren't paying to get the superior performance and power delivery afforded by the torque characteristics of electric motors in the drivetrain?

Re:And this one pays for itself... (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#33079492)

Because a 500bhp V8 already has more torque then the tires can handle.

Re:And this one pays for itself... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078944)

They're paying that much to get a vehicle certified as 'green' so they can drive alone in HOV lanes. It beats having to hire a limo driver.

Re:And this one pays for itself... (2, Insightful)

Anarki2004 (1652007) | more than 4 years ago | (#33079690)

No, the limo driver would cost less.

Re:And this one pays for itself... (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#33079952)

At the proposed price of roughly half a million US$, that shouldn't be modded "+1 Funny" but "+1 Insightfull"

Re:And this one pays for itself... (0)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 4 years ago | (#33079064)

They aren't paying that much to save gas money.
They're paying that much to feel better about themselves for "helping" the environment.

No, they are paying that much so they can have 3-ways with 19-yr old hippie chicks. Wish I could afford to do that.

Re:And this one pays for itself... (1)

zonky (1153039) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078184)

Problem is, if you're out driving on the autobahn, all this achieves is wasting fuel to haul around a whole lot of pointless & heavy batteries.

Re:And this one pays for itself... (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078876)

Problem is, if you're out driving on the autobahn, all this achieves is wasting fuel to haul around a whole lot of pointless & heavy batteries.

At some stage you have to exit the autobahn, and that is when fuel consumption goes up and the hybrid advantage kicks in. Just because you have decided to focus on the one section of road that doesn't see a great improvement doesn't mean that it is not worth bothering with electric motors or that overall consumption will not go down.

Re:And this one pays for itself... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#33080272)

Until you run into a traffic jam, that is.

Re:And this one pays for itself... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33079726)

Sounds like the usual silly feelgood gimmick for people who have more money than they know what to do with and are bored.

Typical waste of capital instead of investing in something really usefull.

Ho hum (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#33077926)

Will it even do 120, or a 12 second quarter mile [commutercars.com] on the electric motor?

Re:Ho hum (1)

sleeping143 (1523137) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078606)

I'd be more concerned with handling in corners, with the extra battery weight. Going fast in a straight line is a simple trick, anyone can do it. It takes a lot of engineering effort to make a car turn well.

Re:Ho hum (4, Funny)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078728)

I think I heard Porsche has a couple okay engineers on staff.

Re:Ho hum (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 4 years ago | (#33079270)

Then why can't they make the cars any cheaper?

Re:Ho hum (1)

monkeySauce (562927) | more than 4 years ago | (#33079902)

More engineers/fewer managers and accountants?

Re:Ho hum (3, Funny)

haruharaharu (443975) | more than 4 years ago | (#33080166)

Because then it would be a volkswagen.

Re:Ho hum (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078792)

I wouldn't be concerned with that, the batteries are generally placed low in the car, meaning that they don't move the center of mass upwards. Placed correctly they should have no impact on the ability take a hard turn.

Re:Ho hum (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078914)

Yeah they'll pimping the thing, but:

What about rollover potential?
Rollover is a great danger for many vehicles and the Tango, being so narrow, would look to the layman's eye to be unstable. However, because of the batteries and sometimes additional ballast just 4" off of the ground, the Tango has achieved a NHTSA 5-star equivalent static rollover threshold rating. This is approximately 56% - or as an example, about the same as a 911 Porsche. In fact, the Tango has stability that exceeds that of most sport cars.

I would like to verify that personally.

Re:Ho hum (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078924)

Yeah they'll pimping the thing, but...

*sigh* Don't ask...

Re:Ho hum (1)

h7 (1855514) | more than 4 years ago | (#33079894)

Cars have been turning well for decades now. It isn't rocket science anymore. The real improvements in cars have come in the field of safety, nothing much has changes elsewhere.. And electric cars aren't exactly new, they're just popular now cause we have this environment/oil problem.

Re:Ho hum (1)

El_Oscuro (1022477) | more than 4 years ago | (#33079072)

One of these [nedra.com] might.

Re:Ho hum (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#33079486)

Very impressive.. Thanks for the link... And with open sources controllers also... What the hell... free plug [sourceforge.net] ...

SI units (4, Informative)

SensiMillia (217366) | more than 4 years ago | (#33077934)

78 miles per gallon is about 3 liter for 100 km.

198 miles = 319 kilometers

Re:SI units (1)

Atmchicago (555403) | more than 4 years ago | (#33077980)

I just wish we would move away from miles / gallon and towards miles / joule or km / joule. Imperial or American gallons? etc. etc. This is particularly important when more cars run on electricity only, or if you want to compare gasoline with diesel and ethanol.

Re:SI units (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33078032)

Agree. Plus I wish it wasn't too expensive to justify load cells in tanks so I could get a real mass number for what is in my fuel tank- and when I fuel up - rather than some lame float gauge for an approximate tank level / volume. Temperature, angle compared to gravity etc etc.

Re:SI units (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078204)

It might be handy to do that through the suspension. That way you could at least measure increase in weight while filling. Sensors for that purpose could be used for traction control (force on each wheel).

Re:SI units (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33079904)

With the added 'benefit' of allowing you to measure how fat your passengers are...

Re:SI units (2, Insightful)

trentblase (717954) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078136)

How many Joules are in a gallon of gasoline? Is it the amount of energy generated by internal combustion? The amount of energy generated during "ideal" combustion? Maybe it's the amount of energy released during fusion or fission?

\ How many Joules are used by an electric car? Which losses are we including (transmission, storage, motor efficiency)?

I'm seriously asking, because I'm not sure a Joules to Joules comparison would necessarily be any more helpful.

Re:SI units (1)

Atmchicago (555403) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078406)

You run some tests. Take Car X. Give it Y gallons of gasoline. Run it Z miles. You know the energy stored in Y gallons (simple chemical formulas and calorimetry experiments). It doesn't matter that it's not 100% efficient, as you can still calculate how many joules were "used up" to move the car over the distance. You can do the same with electric cars, except you're measuring Kwh or some similar unit of energy consumption.

African or European (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33078870)

It depends upon the temperature too, since petrol expands when it is hotter. Maybe we should be paying per Kg instead of by the litre.

Re:African or European (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33079236)

Or maybe it doesn't matter, since the fuel is stored in underground tanks where the temperature doesn't change much

Re:SI units (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078208)

If it is the european cycle that is being quoted, then it will be British gallons, not American ones. They are bigger, so you get more miles out of them.

Re:SI units (2, Interesting)

moreati (119629) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078466)

The standards to which the EU are trying to move are litres/100 km or kWh/km

Re:SI units (2, Interesting)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078516)

If/when more cars start using lots of electricity to run, you'd probably want distance/kWh since most electricity rates are by kilowatt hour (whether they are taking money from you, or crediting you :) ).

FWIW there are about 34 megajoules in a litre of petrol. So that's about 9.5kWh/litre. BUT that's not so useful if your fuel supplier doesn't charge you in kWh. After all what most people would want to know is how much it would cost them. For a hybrid car the fuel may be converted to electricity, but it also may not be.

So what you'd want is a "100% liquid fuel" only distance/litre rate, and a "100% electric" distance/kWh rate, then you can get the distance/$$ for both, so that you can better decide on whether you want to fill up at the fuel station, or charge at home.

You don't want some marketing bullshit MPG rate, with fine print stating lots of assumptions about electricity cost (which varies a fair bit) and how much you drive on "electric only".

Deceiving. (5, Insightful)

pwnies (1034518) | more than 4 years ago | (#33077966)

"78 miles per gallon on the European cycle"

Sure, and my plug in golf car gets mpg on any test thrown at it. Really that's poor and deceitful advertising. This car is a plug in car - it doesn't generate it's own electricity. It's not like a prius where you just fill it and forget about it, you're supplying another form of energy yourself. Saying what MPG it gets is redundant unless you also show how many Joules of electricity it used in the process as well.

Re:Deceiving. (1)

MBCook (132727) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078274)

This car is a plug in car - it doesn't generate it's own electricity.

I guess that's for some kind of efficiency or to make the manufacture of the gearbox / differentials. It's kind of too bad. With an engine that large, it should have some spare capacity under normal driving to keep the battery charged. If there was someone I expected to make a car that really used the electric motors to make the car really take off and be able to recharge that ability, it's someone like Porche. I wonder if they at least use something like regenerative braking to help lighten the load a little on the brake discs.

Their customers are willing to pay the premium and understand the idea of a hybrid that doesn't get incredible mileage, but uses that ability to boost performance. That's not really a strategy I'd ever expect to see from Toyota/Honda/Ford/GM.

Re:Deceiving. (5, Insightful)

billcopc (196330) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078662)

Or, for the idiotic mass public:

"Miles per buck"

Really, that's all people care about. Multiply by the average cost of a gallon of fuel, or kwh of charge, and spit out a number any cousin-fucking retard can understand. Maybe then people will become a tiny bit more conscious about efficiency, and/or take arms against the energy cartels (a nerd can dream, can't he ?)

Re:Deceiving. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078740)

bucks per 100km would be much better, even bucks per 100miles would be better.

Re:Deceiving. (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078844)

I never understood why people are so pedantic about the $/100km metric. It's not better, it's different. I'm assessing how far my money can take me.

If a car gets 10 miles per buck, and I have to drive 20 miles to work every day, I know that commute is costing me $2 each way. If it were instead "10 bucks per 100 miles", the math is simply inverted: I can travel to or from work 5 times for 10 bucks. One is more intuitive for short trips, the other for long ones, but it's the same damned thing.

Frankly if people lack the mental capacity to invert a fraction, what are we doing putting them in control of a 3000lb killing machine ?

Re:Deceiving. (2, Insightful)

hardburn (141468) | more than 4 years ago | (#33079612)

Subtraction is just addition using negative numbers. Why not skip subtraction altogether and just do addition? And hey, multiplication is just addition done over and over, and division is just subtraction done over and over, so we could simplify all those operators down to just one.

We don't do that, not because we're too stupid, but because it's terribly inconvenient to work everything out in terms of addition alone. We pick the notation that's most convenient for the given purpose.

Doing the faction in terms of volume-over-distance is better in comparing fuel efficiency because it makes it obvious where to focus efforts in efficiency increases.

Full writeup on the subject [greencarreports.com] .

Re:Deceiving. (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078890)

Or, for the idiotic mass public:

"Miles per buck"


For the idiotic mass public? That measurement (distance per dollar) is the most important, and is about the only way to correctly analyze the efficiency of hybrid cars (consuming both gallons of gas and KwH of electricity). If that's for the 'idiotic mass public', than they've got the right notion.

Re:Deceiving. (2, Informative)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078862)

Sure, and my plug in golf car gets mpg on any test thrown at it. Really that's poor and deceitful advertising.

It is accurate if you remember that the "G" in "MPG" stands for "Gallon", as in, gasoline. Yes, additional energy is required, but energy isn't the main problem - gasoline is. If you live in France, for example, most of that extra energy comes from a nuclear power plant, doesn't contribute to global warming, and doesn't sponsor terrorism.

MPGe (1)

ISoldat53 (977164) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078964)

Miles per gallon equivalent is the term the X-car people are using.

Re:Deceiving. (0)

Cowboy Deejay (414387) | more than 4 years ago | (#33079188)

This car is a plug in car - it doesn't generate it's own electricity.

The summary and article that I read talked about a hybrid vehicle with a gas engine.

I think that's the point. (1)

crhylove (205956) | more than 4 years ago | (#33080038)

It being a plug in car, you may get to town and back without every burning any fuel. If you're close enough to town (less than 8 miles, if I understand it does in fact go 16 miles on a charge without using fuel). If you only go back and forth to work, you might never buy gas. If you live close enough to work. Which, if you own that kind of car, you can probably arrange.

I want one. Let me just start shuffling through the couch cushions.....

Hybrids great for track cars (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#33077978)

Hybrids seem particularly well suited to a racing car, since you get the amazing torque of the electric engine combined with the range of a gasoline car... I just wonder if the weight of the batteries offsets all that torque or what specific compromises (like a smaller battery pack) you would make for a performance specific hybrid (beyond even the Telsa since that is still targeted primarily at normal use on the highways).

What am I missing? (2, Insightful)

Just_Say_Duhhh (1318603) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078018)

OK, in the "e-drive" mode, you're on pure electric (for 16 miles), and the "78 miles/gallon" figure that they've stamped on it comes from the fuel used to charge up the batteries using a 500-horsepower, 3.6-liter V-8? Let's just say I'm skeptical.

The other modes (Hybrid, Sport Hybrid, and Race Hybrid) sound interesting, but consider:
  • You're not getting 78 MPG in any of those modes
  • If you've got a 500-horsepower, 3.6-liter V-8 under the hood, do you really need a "push to pass" button?

Ahhh, who cares - just park one in my driveway, and let me do an in-depth product test!

0 to 62? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33078038)

Zero to sixty-two? Why sixty two? Since when did we start measuring 0 to 62 instead of to 60? Did it just go instantly from 59 to 62, skipping all other speeds in an instant? What's the deal?

Too fast (4, Funny)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078078)

It accelerates so fast they can't even stop the timer before it reaches 62.

Re:0 to 62? (4, Informative)

Simulant (528590) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078096)

Europe is on the metric system. 62miles is about 100km.

Re:0 to 62? (0, Troll)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078764)

Every planet on the country besides one is on the metric system. 62miles is about 100km.

FTFY

Re:0 to 62? (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 4 years ago | (#33080374)

Europe is a big diverse place, My car is European and shows mph.....

Which side to drive on, which side the steering wheel is on is also an option ....

Re:0 to 62? (2, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078754)

It was to 100kph. It is a German car.

Signs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33078060)

This is another sign that the Fapture is coming!

Sounds nice, but... (1)

mrflash818 (226638) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078158)

Will it be FlexFuel? :)

Fitting since Porsche made the first hybrid (1)

netsavior (627338) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078360)

in 1899!!!
[wikipedia.org]

Re:Fitting since Porsche made the first hybrid (4, Interesting)

netsavior (627338) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078366)

d'oh broked link
Sorry about that [wikipedia.org]

16 whole miles on battery? wow. (5, Funny)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078370)

If I put a couple of extra batteries in my old Chevy I think I could get that far on the starter.

Re:16 whole miles on battery? wow. (1)

istartedi (132515) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078624)

That's nothing. My Honda gets infinite miles per gallon, and in heavy traffic. How? Well, there's a very popular route over the hills to the beach here. Sometimes I shut off the engine when it's backed up on the downhill. You just have to be aware of the fact that you don't have ps/pb anymore. It's harder on the brakes too, so there's always some cost. Of course, divide by zero is undefined, but it approaches infinite so let's say I burn a token molecule at the top of the hill. Quick, somebody calculate the mileage from the top of Hwy 92 to the flat, and divide by a molecule of gasoline.

Big deal (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078826)

My Nissan can do the same. Even better, I can go really fast and get the same mileage! Oh did I mention this only works when the car is traveling straight down from very high up, like when I drop it from an airplane.

Re:16 whole miles on battery? wow. (2, Informative)

nxtw (866177) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078878)

Plenty of modern electronic fuel injected vehicles get infinite MPG for periods of time, without having to employ dangerous shenanigans like shutting off the engine (and consequently shutting off safety systems and power control). They simply stop injecting fuel when the vehicle is moving sufficiently fast while in gear and without any accelerator input.

Re:16 whole miles on battery? wow. (1)

EETech1 (1179269) | more than 4 years ago | (#33079336)

Unfortunately they do not stop injecting fuel unless it's a true hybrid and it shuts off, because the catalytic converter needs to be kept "lit" so there is always a fairly constant A/F ratio being delivered to prevent the emissions from spiking every time you "restarted" from coasting as the cats warmed back up to operating temperature.

Re:16 whole miles on battery? wow. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33079848)

Unfortunately they do not stop injecting fuel unless it's a true hybrid and it shuts off, because the catalytic converter needs to be kept "lit" so there is always a fairly constant A/F ratio being delivered to prevent the emissions from spiking every time you "restarted" from coasting as the cats warmed back up to operating temperature.

Yes they do. I believe the EFI pros call it 'Fuel Cutoff'. On many manual transmission cars you can feel it very clearly. On BMW motorcycles it's downright annoying before you get used to it (they being mapped such that holding a low speed means hovering right at the limit of FC). Anyway, the cat is a pretty big lump of plated ceramic, it won't cool down that quickly. A normal FC interval will in general last a few seconds. Unless you're coasting down a mountain like the GP...!

Re:16 whole miles on battery? wow. (1)

sincewhen (640526) | more than 4 years ago | (#33079378)

Which is another reason you should change over to litres/100km.

My European car says "0.0" when coasting.

Re:16 whole miles on battery? wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33079802)

Infinite MPG for "periods of time"!? My foot does that, by not applying pressure to the gas pedal. Hills do that as well, if facing the correct direction. All we need now are special Escher roadways that don't go uphill.

Hybrid - Worst of both worlds. (0, Flamebait)

Tailor (1858412) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078416)

If I'm going to blow a ton of money on a car, I either want a car that goes really fast (no heavy batteries) or gets ungodly fuel mileage (pure electric). I'm not a fan of in-between solutions.

Re:Hybrid - Worst of both worlds. (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078578)

Yeah horseless carriages and space planes never really worked out. But they do help people with their thought processes during the transition.

Re:Hybrid - Worst of both worlds. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33078584)

Yeah, cause you definitely wouldn't want a hot car with relatively light batteries (note maximum electric range of 16 miles) added to give you that extra bit of power coming off the line, out of a curve, or accelerating to pass.

If you want a little extra power under certain conditions, I guess you'll just go all FF3: Tokyo Dash and stick a ginormous chunk of "All-American" cast iron under the hood, completely wrecking its handling all the time?

Re:Hybrid - Worst of both worlds. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33078682)

Because, YOU TWIT, 198 mph and 0-62 in 3.2 seconds isn't really fast.

Sheesh.

Question for car engineers (1)

CrazyJim1 (809850) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078772)

I've heard that electric powered engines provide more torque than internal combustion. This added torque on the wheels means you lay tire instead of fully accelerate. Why hasn't someone made an electric car with very wide tires. The additional surface area could mean less spinning and more acceleration. A high speed car is a novelty in countries with a speed limit, but acceleration limits are something not really enforced. So it'd be really cool to have a car that shoved you into the back of your seat because it had the best acceleration of any car. Would having wider tires really help a situation like this? I'm talking anything from an additional couple centimeters to a solid tire that goes the whole way across your car and looks like a steamroller. This steamroller back tire could mean the car is rear wheel drive because I don't want to get into thinking how do you drive with it. This is just an idea I had recently. How feasible would it be?

Re:Question for car engineers (1)

Aczlan (636310) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078882)

The problems you run into with fatter tires are dispersing water (not hydroplaning when you hit a mud puddle) and not having the middle of the tire bulge out (or in) when driving on non-flat roads.
Aaron Z

Re:Question for car engineers (4, Informative)

Just_Say_Duhhh (1318603) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078902)

I'm an engineer...and a race car driver. You can decide if that qualifies me to answer.

Electric motors can produce torque at all RPMs, so you don't have to mess around with complex gearing to keep the engine in the "power band."

Sure, if you wanted to burn rubber, an electric motor would be happy to comply, but if you want a car that is easy to control, you only supply as much torque as the tires can handle (even ICE-powered cars do this). You don't want super-wide tires, because you increase rolling resistance, making the car less efficient. Tire contact patches are optimized for traction and resistance (and then the owner screws that up because he thinks 22" wheels on a sub-compact looks "gnarly!").

Re:Question for car engineers (1)

internettoughguy (1478741) | more than 4 years ago | (#33079018)

Seems pretty feasible, especially for a drag car, but I think in a turn the outside of the tire would want to go a different speed to the inside; making it handle like shit.
But what about making it 4WD?, or even 6WD if your going crazy, perhaps they could give each wheel its own motor and do away with complex drive trains, LSDs, clutches etc.
IAMNAE :)

Re:Question for car engineers (1)

HBoar (1642149) | more than 4 years ago | (#33079330)

No, wider tyres only increase traction significantly up to a point. You still want to have an optimum force/area (pressure) loading on the tyre surface. Additionally, wider tyres lead to higher rolling resistance. With four wheel drive systems, there are already road cars that can get to 100km/h in around 2.5 seconds -- a much faster acceleration rate than any normally powered car could achieve, and also much faster than most people would be able to handle.

Re:Question for car engineers (0, Flamebait)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 4 years ago | (#33079682)

Rolling resistance and cost, you idiot.

Need $ to save $ (1)

Haxx (314221) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078816)

  Did anyone else notice that in order to save gas money with this car, you need to be rich to buy it.

Re:Need $ to save $ (1)

internettoughguy (1478741) | more than 4 years ago | (#33079068)

I don't think people buy Porsches to save money, and I don't think people buy hybrid Porsches to save gas money.
They buy a hybrid Porsche for the pu-tang, and perhaps the snob value, more power to them I say :).

mbt (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33078920)

Don't hesitate and hurry up to buy the Action Adventure [undvdsale.com] with reasonable price that with the high quality,and we will let your dream come true,a bloody cool boy is born with our mbt boots [unbootssale.com] in the crowd.So don't hesitate,just come to our online shop to catch the opportunity once in the blue moon,to pick up and buy our workout dvd [undvdsale.com] ,a wide range from mbt boots [unbootssale.com] , sport shoes [unbootssale.com] and wholesale mbt [unbootssale.com] to p90x fitness [undvdsale.com] .Of course we are sure you will not miss our fantasy cheap video [undvdsale.com] .
Men MBT M.Walk shoes [unbootssale.com] , cheap MBT M.Walk shoes [unbootssale.com] , cheap Women MBT M.Walk shoes [unbootssale.com] , cheap Men MBT M.Walk shoes [unbootssale.com] , MBT Lami shoes [unbootssale.com] , cheap MBT Lami shoes [unbootssale.com] , MBT Lami shoes sale [unbootssale.com] , MBT Lami shoes for sale [unbootssale.com] , cheap MBT Lami shoes sale [unbootssale.com] , MBT Sport Shoes [unbootssale.com] , cheap MBT Sport Shoes [unbootssale.com] , MBT Sport Shoes sale [unbootssale.com] , mens MBT Sport shoes [unbootssale.com] , cheap MBT Sport Shoes sale [unbootssale.com] , cheap mens MBT Sport shoes [unbootssale.com] , Nike Shoes [unbootssale.com] , cheap Nike Shoes [unbootssale.com] , Nike Shoes sale [unbootssale.com] , cheap nike running shoes [unbootssale.com] , cheap nike shox [unbootssale.com] , Vibram Five Fingers [unbootssale.com] , vibram five fingers sale [unbootssale.com] , vibram five fingers running [unbootssale.com] , vibram five fingers surge [unbootssale.com] , Vibram Five Fingers boots [unbootssale.com] , cheap Vibram Five Fingers [unbootssale.com] , cheap vibram five fingers sale [unbootssale.com] , cheap vibram five fingers running [unbootssale.com] , cheap vibram five fingers surge [unbootssale.com] , Sci-Fi Fantasy DVD [undvdsale.com] , Sci-Fi Fantasy dvds [undvdsale.com] , cheap Sci-Fi Fantasy DVD [undvdsale.com] , cheap Sci-Fi Fantasy dvds [undvdsale.com] , Television Shows DVD [undvdsale.com] , classic television shows dvd [undvdsale.com] , television movies dvd [undvdsale.com] , television shows movies [undvdsale.com] , television shows dvd [undvdsale.com] , television show dvd [undvdsale.com] , television series dvd [undvdsale.com] , dvd seinfeld [undvdsale.com] , shows friends [undvdsale.com] , cheap Television Shows DVD [undvdsale.com] , cheap classic television shows dvd [undvdsale.com] , cheap television movies dvd [undvdsale.com] , cheap television shows movies [undvdsale.com] , cheap television shows dvd [undvdsale.com] , cheap television show dvd [undvdsale.com] , cheap television series dvd [undvdsale.com] , Thrillers/Crime/Myst DVDs [undvdsale.com] , cheap Thrillers/Crime/Myst DVDs [undvdsale.com] , P90X Workout DVD [undvdsale.com] , p90x torrent dvd [undvdsale.com] , p90x workout schedule classic [undvdsale.com] , power 90 workout dvd [undvdsale.com] , px90 workout [undvdsale.com] , p90x workout plan [undvdsale.com] , p90x 13 dvd [undvdsale.com] , cheap p90x [undvdsale.com] , p90x workout dvds [undvdsale.com] , p90x sale [undvdsale.com] , p90x on sale [undvdsale.com] , p90x fitness [undvdsale.com] , p90x for sale [undvdsale.com] , buy p90x [undvdsale.com] , p90x video [undvdsale.com] , p90x fitness dvd [undvdsale.com] , cheap P90X Workout DVD [undvdsale.com] , cheap p90x workout dvds [undvdsale.com] , cheap p90x sale [undvdsale.com] , cheap p90x on sale [undvdsale.com] , cheap p90x video [undvdsale.com] , cheap p90x fitness dvd [undvdsale.com]

Nice car... (1)

SwampChicken (1383905) | more than 4 years ago | (#33078974)

...but remember that the concept car always looks much better than the actually production car.

Porsche's designers have more control (1)

name_already_taken (540581) | more than 4 years ago | (#33079160)

...but remember that the concept car always looks much better than the actually production car.

Porche's production models are often very close or exactly like the concept cars.

They're not a mass-market manufacturer like Honda or Chrysler

fail (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#33079314)

I hate hybrids. they aren't as efficent as a good diesel and shit loads slower.

there aren't many situations this car will get 78m/g. no one buying this will use it to potter to and from work, it'll be petal to the metal and that 3.6L engine is going to be smashing down the petrol while the person driving jerks off over how they are better then all of us evil polluters.

carrying around 2 motors has been proven time and time again to be fail. please stop singing it's praises because it's a false economy.

Wow! (-1, Troll)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 4 years ago | (#33079490)

16 whole miles on electric! I'm amazed! I mean, that's really gonna satisfy my tree-hugging jones. Think I'll buy a Volt. Wait, it's also overpriced and will only go 40miles emissions free.

People, this is simple. Hybrids suck. This hybrid doesn't suck because it's mated to a kick-ass V-8. Kick-ass V-8's make most cars not suck. As for Tesla? Screw 'em. We're paying them (government subsidy??) to develop a car they will sell us back at a ridiculous price.

Re:Wow! (5, Informative)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#33079700)

As for Tesla? Screw 'em. We're paying them (government subsidy??) to develop a car they will sell us back at a ridiculous price.

It's a loan you twat, not a subsidy

http://www.google.com/search?q=doe+loans+electric+vehicles [google.com]

Hell, Nissan got $1.4 billion+, Fisker got around $500 million, GM got $14.4 billion and Chrysler got $8.5 billion. You know who has a solid, proven drivetrain and energy management system? Tesla. There should be some sort of test before you're allowed to post here.

Does it burn fuel on the highway? (1)

agw (6387) | more than 4 years ago | (#33080214)

Does it burn fuel on the highway?
If yes, does it mean I can drive in the car pool lane with it in California?

Give them credit (2, Insightful)

vcp webster thailand (1867462) | more than 4 years ago | (#33080246)

Come on now, give them credit where they're trying. Some of the most gas guzzling vehicles n the roads in the last few years have been changed to at least be slightly nicer to the environment... just the start of big things to come. vcp @ university in thailand

Missing the point (2, Insightful)

chocapix (1595613) | more than 4 years ago | (#33080274)

A lot of comments here miss the point of this car.

It recovers some of the braking energy before a corner to charge the batteries, and then use the electric motors to exit the corner faster. The point of this car is to go fast, not save fuel/money (seriously guys a $500,000 car to save money?)

The fact that you can use it as a hybrid and get good mileage in some (very rare) circumstances is no more than a funny side effect.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>