×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

366 comments

Why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37745122)

The 80's called, they want their crappy car back.

Re:Why? (2)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745176)

I think that's the point of the article. In your rush to be 'first', you probably failed to notice that the car doesn't run on fossil fuels. Given that the 80's had no such car that was fully electric and ran at 125 MPH, then it's unlikely we'd find such a car unless we went to the future. Say, somewhere around 2013 to find it, no?

Re:Why? (-1, Troll)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745244)

Given that the 80's had no such car that was fully electric and ran at 125 MPH

That's because in the 80s we knew that electric cars sucked.

then it's unlikely we'd find such a car unless we went to the future.

More like the past; I'm not sure about 125mph, but I believe electric cars were doing over 100mph in the 19th century. But then people realised they sucked and switched to gasoline instead.

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745296)

But then people realised they sucked and switched to gasoline instead.

Gasoline: Lousy Engine, incredibly great energy storage
Electric: Great Engine, incredibly lousy energy storage

There's nothing wrong with electric cars that a battery that costs half as much for twice the life(range and longevity) wouldn't fix.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

ghjm (8918) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745420)

Sure there is. Charge time.

Re:Why? (1)

steveg (55825) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745478)

Oh, for a mod point.

In the 70s there was some speculation on flywheels for energy storage. High energy density, even higher power density (charge and discharge can be *very* fast) and some designs (called "superflywheels" and made with carbon fiber) were claimed to fail gracefully without big chunks breaking through their containment vessels. Not sure what ever happened to those plans.

You did have to engineer around some "interesting" gyroscopic effects if you planned to put them in a vehicle though.

Re:Why? (1)

ghjm (8918) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745532)

Set them up for bank stability. Who needs all four wheels to touch the ground in a corner?

Re:Why? (1)

skids (119237) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745680)

Just use two parallel counter-rotating flywheels. The precession force will cancel out.

Though really what we don't need is to store the entire fuel capacity of a vehicle in a form that can be released almost instantaneously. A small bank of flywheel, ultracap, or LiFePO4 backed by a high energy density storage with a rated for a non-degrading C of about 1 what is needed.

Flywheels (1)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745588)

I remember reading about a company working on them back in the '90s. Carbon fiber, vacuum housing, the works.

Failing 'gracefully' was relative - it was more that the carbon fiber used for the wheel would basically disintigrate at the velocities it'd spin at, such that it wouldn't penetrate the heavy housing used to maintain the near-vacuum. Might pop it so it's no longer air tight though.

Last I'd heard they'd backed completely off the car angle(which they hit discover magazine for), and were making specialty industrial UPS systems.

Re:Why? (2)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745506)

"Thank you for your empty battery. Here's a full one. That'll be x-dollars. Thank you and have a nice day"

Doesn't seem all that long to me.

Re:Why? (0)

ghjm (8918) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745540)

Got one for an older Hyundai? No, the GLS. No, the 2012 GLS. You sure it's eighteen volts? I'm not gonna blow up a mile from here, am I?

Battary swaps... (1)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745626)

The idea is that you end up with a standardized battery pack, perhaps a couple of them. With a little custom wiring, you can even make the same battery put out a couple different voltages.

Or, to handle a range of sizes, you have the 'standard' EV1 battery. The future electric Civic takes 2, the Escape takes 3, my light truck 4, etc...

That leaves the legacy Tesla Roadster types out in the cold, but it's still not that bad.

Even if they end up with a dozen types, outages should be fairly rare, given that they get the old battery as trade in and it shouldn't take them more than a couple hours to charge it back up(using industrial sized chargers).

Then figure that, sure, it might only take you five minutes once a week to fill up at the gas pump, but with an EV it only takes you five seconds to hook up the charger at home for the night.

Re:Battary swaps... (1)

mrxak (727974) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745742)

Might bring back full service gas stations, in that case. Lugging those heavy batteries into the convenience shop would get old fast.

Re:Battary swaps... (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745758)

Yeah, we might have to even go to the lengths of employing real people to do it. Completely impractical. I prefer the old "storing thousands of gallons of highly flammable fluids of several different sorts in an underground bunker" technique after all.

Re:Battary swaps... (3, Interesting)

TheJediGeek (903350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745762)

A standard battery pack would mean they become very common and very cheap. How will the auto makers make any money if they can't charge a ridiculous price for a SLIGHTLY different part that is only on 2 models?

But seriously folks, the auto manufacturers would fight tooth and nail to NOT use standardized parts so they can have a huge markup on THEIR brand of part.

Re:Battary swaps... (0)

m2shariy (1194621) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745780)

So you trade in your brand new battery for a charged old one which dies on you in half an hour. That would be two grand and better luck next time!

Re:Why? (2)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745308)

Actually the top speed for the first electric cars was about 60 MPH. Even at the time they recognized that electric cars were cleaner, pronounced less noise, and more economical. Their downside was the battery, which was primitive and prone to failure.

As in all things, it lost out to gasoline and diesel as those became cheaper to operate and easier to fuel as opposed to swapping out batteries. That didn't necessarily mean that electric sucked, but rather it couldn't compete at the time as fossil fuels were much more abundant and the infrastructure was easier to provide for.

Re:Why? (1)

fredmosby (545378) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745322)

I can't tell if you realise that the 19th century is 1800 to 1899. I seriously doubt they had 100mph cars in 1899.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37745340)

Yes, but there's this little thing called fuel prices -- whenever they go up, gasoline cars suck a bit more, and electric cars suck a bit less in comparison -- it's only a matter of time till they win. And don't underestimate the enhancements in battery tech meanwhile -- modern electrics often have comparable range to old electrics, but on a battery pack weighing half as much, so better handling, and they often support faster charging.

Though IMO it's more like 20 years than 2 years till electrics win in general, they're already viable for certain niches.

Re:Why? (1)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745354)

Citations and explanations would be awesome. As a wise man once said: "Saying something sucks isn't a take."

Someone made a rocket version of an electric car to get to 100mph... but still wildly dangerous back then. Funny thing, check out the wikipedia article on the electric car from 1911 talking about the various advantages of electric over gas back then...

How about this: Electric cars fill a particular market very well. There are plenty of drivers who need a commuter car, and saving a couple gallons a day getting to and from work can probably save that person about $800 in fuel costs per year. Yes, the cars are expensive and that's only about $4,000 in fuel savings over the use of a car in 5 years, but not worrying about where to find a pump isn't so bad. I say run with it if you like it, and let's see if we can reduce our dependence on a particular region of the world that doesn't really like us.

Re:Why? (1)

pwizard2 (920421) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745628)

but not worrying about where to find a pump isn't so bad.

Maybe I’m missing something, but where do you live? In the US, many large intersections in cities and even rural areas have at least one gas station. Even if there's not, chances are you can find one in less than a mile radius. You almost never have to go out of your way to find a place to fill up unless you're waaaaaay out in the sticks and you just went past the last station for 20 miles. (I've only seen one of those and it was clearly marked that there were no other stations on that road for that distance... I watched the odometer and it turns out the sign was telling the truth)

Re:Why? (3, Interesting)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745706)

uhh until we're not burning petroleum to generate electricity, using electric cars INCREASES our dependence due to their inefficiency.

gasoline car
pump out of ground -> ship -> crack/process -> ship to station / pump into tank -> burn -> kinetic energy.

electric car
pump out of ground -> ship -> crack/process -> ship to power plant -> burn -> phase change water -> kinetic energy -> electrical energy AC -> multiple step up and step down transformers -> AC to DC and voltage stepdown conversion -> chemical change in battery -> second chemical change -> electricity -> kinetic energy.

The greens need to accept something like ubiquitous nuclear energy before electric cars become feasible and more environmentally friendly than ICE based cars.

Re:Why? (4, Informative)

Rei (128717) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745400)

The fastest electric car (and fastest vehicle, period) in 1899 was La Jamais Contente, which hit 62mph on a straightaway. And wasn't exactly a 4-seat crash-rated vehicle with modern accessories, to put it lightly ;)

Rechargeable batteries have been doubling in energy density about once every 8 years, have maintained such a pattern since the 80s, and show no signs of slowing down. Don't think today's ranges are good enough? What about in a decade? Two decades? Three decades? If your car can go 800 miles per day (a whole day's drive), what need to you have for frequent fast-charge stations? You just need to be able to get your 800-miles of range charged while you settle in for the evening/eat/go to bed/wake up/get ready/eat/leave. 250Wh/mi and, say, 10 hours charge time requires 20kW (~83A). Modern houses are generally built with 200A panels nowadays (most of that being little utilized at night), and hotels far larger.

So at some point, all of those other issues just go by the wayside. 800 miles not good enough for you? Then wait for 1000. Or 1200. But at some point, you hit your mark. And low current distribution panels are increasingly a thing of the past.

The bigger question is cost. Battery cost per watt have generally declined, but not followed a very predictable path. A given tech (say, PbA, NiMH, Li-ion, etc) generally shows a predictable price decline over time, but at random intervals, a new tech comes along to continue the aforementioned energy density increase. Usually (but not always) it starts out pretty expensive, but then declines over time. In short, though, it's really hard to say how expensive those 800-mile packs of 20 years from now will be -- only that no matter what their initial price, it will drop over time.

As for history: "Fuel" powered engines have a much longer history than "electricity" powered engines. The early brushed DC motors and lead-acid batteries are the electric-car equivalent of the steam engine. The modern synchronous AC drivetrain and lithium-ion batteries are the electric car equivalent of early internal combustion engines. It's a game of catchup. There was one point where electric vehicles briefly took the lead, but only due to extreme deficiencies of the gasoline vehicles of their day (the lack of a starter, nonstandardized fuels, horrible reliability, etc). Speaking of "nonstandardized fuels" -- electric cars are just now having to get over a related problem (nonstandardized connectors).

It's simply an industry that needs time to mature.

Faster vehicle before 1900 (1)

ChrisMaple (607946) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745546)

145 kph (90mph) LNWR No. 790 Hardwicke Steam United Kingdom 22–23 August 1895 (wikipedia)

Steam rail vehicles were the fastest vehicles in the last half of the 19th century.

Re:Why? (2)

ThorGod (456163) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745438)

Twice you used "sucked" and twice you didn't substantiate your claim.

Point not made.

It's all about what's the cheapest (at the time) form of energy. Unfortunately, that only means dollars and cents TODAY; it doesn't mean dollars and cents TODAY plus whatever today's use makes unavailable in the future. The artificially cheaper oil prices enjoyed in the US make alternate forms of transportation almost non-existent (in the US). Batteries, until very recently, have been much heavier and required payment up front. (Gas tanks are much cheaper than batteries.) In short, it isn't electrical cars that 'suck'; the ('unfair') competitive prices of gas power engines 'suck'.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37745580)

Given that the 80's had no such car that was fully electric and ran at 125 MPH, then it's unlikely we'd find such a car unless we went back to the future.

Hello, McFly? Fixed that for you.

Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37745140)

While it doesn't run on fusion power (yet)

... yes, but does it run Linux?

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37745328)

Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of these?

And do they blend?

Damn, is it April 1 already? (1)

Radical Moderate (563286) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745142)

n/t

Re:Damn, is it April 1 already? (1)

justin12345 (846440) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745490)

I'm a child of the 80s, but I have to agree. What is so exciting about DeLoreans? Is it the gall-wings? Other than that they look like oversized, over-priced Toyota hatchbacks. I know they are made of stainless steel, but that couldn't really seem like a feature, even back then. Stainless steel at sheet metal thickness is basically just nickel.

Were those cars actually popular before Back to the Future? I don't remember seeing any on the road.

Re:Damn, is it April 1 already? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37745548)

Nickel, SS, whatever. It doesn't rust. It doesn't chip. It doesn't fade. Hell yeah it's a feature (vs. ordinary paint-over-low-carbon-steel cars, not the handful of aluminium cars) -- just not necessarily a big enough one to overcome their underperforming little engine.

Re:Damn, is it April 1 already? (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745614)

It doesn't rust but it dents and scratches just fine. Get into a minor fender bender and you need to replace panels. If you fix a dent in brushed stainless steel you will always see it. Add to that the fact that welding stainless isn't easy. What about weight; stainless isn't very light.

Re:Damn, is it April 1 already? (1)

scottbomb (1290580) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745668)

I highly doubt this car will be made out of stainless steel. The article mentions SS models but it doesn't explicitly say this one will be. It will therefore be a cheap knock-off that nobody will want.

Re:Damn, is it April 1 already? (1)

YouDieAtTheEnd (2471718) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745688)

It's the frikkin time machine from Back to the Future! Everybody that saw that movie as a kid wanted one and probably still does. The gull wing doors just add to the high tech appeal as do the sharp lines and stainless steel body.

Stainless steel at sheet metal thickness is basically just nickel.

Maybe you're thinking of a stainless steel finish? I'm pretty sure that nickel content in stainless doesn't usually go above 10%

Re:Damn, is it April 1 already? (1)

mikael (484) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745768)

Yes, the gull-wings, plus the futuristic white with black speed-stripes, sports-car look with the large rear light indicators made it distinctive. At least from the estate-cars with the adhesive wood-panel veneer look, the three-wheeled Reliant robins, Rover Minis, and Volkeswagon Beetles (aka Herbie).

They're still around?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37745152)

I thought they were busted for cocaine smuggling?

Re:They're still around?? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37745204)

It was entrapment... he was found not guilty.

At any rate, there's a place in Texas that's been sitting on a huge stock of parts for years. They've been producing the cars in small amounts (think a dozen or two) a year for about the last five years or so. I'd be interested in one if I had the money and they are putting in better engines. The DMC-12 had a damn lawnmower engine in it.

http://www.delorean.com

260 horsepower... (3, Funny)

johnthorensen (539527) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745158)

...can someone give that to me in jiggawatts?

It's gigawatts pronounced oddly... (2)

rwade (131726) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745226)

260 horsepower...can someone give that to me in jiggawatts?

Anyway, here is, from google [google.com].

Re:It's gigawatts pronounced oddly... (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745272)

260 horsepower = 0.000193881967 gigawatts

So, I just carry a rug around and wipe it to get a static charge into the car every once in a while?

Re:It's gigawatts pronounced oddly... (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745392)

Considering that's still nearly 200 kilowatts (or about the consumption of the UNIVAC I), I think you're going to need a lot more rug.

Re:It's gigawatts pronounced oddly... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37745740)

Speaking only for myself, I like a woman with a nice rug. Not an unkempt jungle, but at least something so I know she's a woman.

Re:260 horsepower... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37745260)

260 hp = 1.94e-4 GW

"jigga" is an accepted pronunctiation of the "giga" prefix.

Re:260 horsepower... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37745338)

That wasn't cool. You made the voice in my head say "jigga-bytes". Disturbing.

Re:260 horsepower... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37745670)

And you just made the voice in my head say "jibi-bytes." Deeply disturbing.

Re:260 horsepower... (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745504)

"jigga" is an accepted pronunctiation of the "giga" prefix.

No. No, it's not. Only in english (possibly in a few other languages) could you possibly pronounce the two g's differently, and even then it's relatively uncommon and usually derives from combining roots from two different original languages, or from a deliberate construction for the purpose of creating distinctness.

Re:260 horsepower... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37745552)

"Only in English"

Yes, this is English.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/giga

"combining roots from two different original languages"

Languages such as Greek and English?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giga-

Re:260 horsepower... (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745610)

"Only in english could you possibly pronounce the two g's differently,"

How do you pronounce "gigantic," which is from the same Greek root?

Re:260 horsepower... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37745558)

Actually "jiga" is the correct pronounciation, seeing that it derives from a greek word that is pronounced like that. And in other languages I speak, it is pronounced as "jiga" in all of them.

Re:260 horsepower... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37745426)

It was gigawatts. What's funny is that he pronounced it jiggawatts because the prefix "giga" was not in common use at the time. How many jiggabytes does your hard drive have?

Re:260 horsepower... (1)

ChrisMaple (607946) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745616)

"jigga" was the preferred pronunciation when the prefix was devised. Ignorant usage made giga (hard g, long i) common, and by the usual progression of language, giga has become the default.

Vox populi, vox dei.

88mph (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37745200)

...is your speed limit, despite what they claim (125mph), coz, you know, if you exceed that, you'll be back in 1885...

What extras does it come with? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37745206)

"There’s no announcement on the vehicle’s range, but cost is projected to be in the $90-100K range

Read more: All-Electric DeLorean Car To Hit the Streets in 2013! | Inhabitat - Green Design Will Save the World "

At that price does it come with a briefcase of cocaine?

DMC? (1)

scarboni888 (1122993) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745220)

How can that outfit even still exist?

Re:DMC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37745310)

maintenance for the first model

Re:DMC? (2)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745398)

This is not the DeLorean Motor Company that we knew in the 1980s. This is a resurrection of the name, by a . Which is how they are able to take the original car, put whatever they want into it, and still call it the DMC-12. [wikipedia.org]

And since they have a number of original 1980s chassis, they can sell them as "reconstructed" 1980s cars, and they don't need to worry about modern safety and environmental requirements.

Smacks of silly publicity stunt (1)

Bertie (87778) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745254)

I mean, making an electric car out of heavy stainless steel is rather missing the point.

I wonder will they remember to design in windows that open this time?

Electric DMC... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37745256)

Electric DeLorean + iPhone dock + http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/flux-capacitor/id391862376?mt=8 = awesome.

Now we know where Doc got the conversions done... (1)

Chas (5144) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745278)

They were factory mods!

This is heavy!

Electric Car with Some Style (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37745344)

I guess the way they see it, "If you're gonna build an electric car, why not do it with some style?"

There. I said it.

Alright! (-1, Troll)

amightywind (691887) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745374)

Alright! I'll bet it'll go at least 20 miles before needing a recharge. That's pretty good performance for Obama's green cronies. I imagine it will be expensive, but the bay area millionaires who will buy this thing will undoubtedly receive a subsidy from the rest of us stuck with gas power.

Never ran on fusion power (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37745376)

The car never ran on fusion power ... only the time machine add-on did! The car itself ran on gas.

Re:Never ran on fusion power (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745648)

The car never ran on fusion power ... only the time machine add-on did! The car itself ran on gas.

It also ran on Being Pushed by a Steam Locomotive.

Top Speed (2)

skine (1524819) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745428)

"it still has a top speed of 125 mph"

That's purely theoretical, though, since I've never seen one go over 88.

Re:Top Speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37745644)

I have driven my Delorean (yes, really) up to around 110 mph before I remembered I was driving on a 25 year old suspension and slowed to more sane speeds.

They did have their problems and they were certainly underpowered, but they're not the crapfest a lot of people believe. I love mine.

DeLorean Motor Company? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37745472)

What DeLorean Motor Company? He died about 10 years ago...

How much? (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745498)

How many Kilos of coke does one cost?

Re:How much? (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745664)

How many Kilos of coke does one cost?

Good one. I remember a political cartoon of that era of the car using its gull-wings to flap its way over the border inspection station. One guard says to the other: I think we'd better check that one next.

Safe driving (1)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745556)

For better safety while driving an electric car, I recommend humming your music instead of listening to the radio, getting manual controlled windows instead of electric and only drive in daytime to avoid having to turn on headlights. It might sound silly, but the last thing you want to have happen is to die in an accident - at night in the summertime because your car stalled trying to roll down the window since it was too hot and turning the radio to hear your latest hits of Mozzart CD.

http://www.delorean.com is DOA (1)

iroll (717924) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745568)

Apparently their website is also running on refurbished 1980s technology.

LOL, FAIL! (1)

p51d007 (656414) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745570)

And the only ones to afford it, will be collectors. Until/if they make one for under 30K, range of 500 miles the electric car will fail.

I love this part (1)

Colven (515018) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745578)

FTA #2:

“A lot of people consider the styling of the DeLorean timeless,” said Toby Peterson, who operates a DMC franchise in Seattle, Wa. and has personally owned a DeLorean for 20 years. “It was state of the art 30 years ago, and it looks state of the art now. It’s a style that has transcended the decades.”

State of the art 30 years ago? 80's Ferrari, yes. 80's Corvette, yes. 80's hatch-box with alien ejector doors, no. I never did get the appeal of this car.

260 HP: (1)

PowerCyclist (2058868) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745600)

So the electric version will be stronger and have better performance than the gasoline version? -original US version had only 130 HP. Must have a $200k price tag.

Mr. Fusion only powers the time circuits (1)

AmericanBlarney (1098141) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745620)

"and the flux capacitor, but the internal combustion engine runs on ordinary gasoline; it always has."

Can someone give a car analogy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37745654)

I'm not good with automobiles, if someone can give a car based analog, would be appreciated.

Wait, the DeLorean car company still exists? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37745692)

If so, that's the big story.

All they ever had going for them anyway was that well known shape and the gull wing doors. I mean, it's not like anyone knew or cared how good they were to actually drive.

why (1)

eyenot (102141) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745728)

The DeLorean failed because it was too expensive and quickly earned a bad safety reputation for shearing in half during collisions. People didn't buy them when they were offered at 60%. Why would people go back and buy one, now?

Oddly enough... (1)

sottitron (923868) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745800)

I realize there is no reason to believe me on this, but I saw a Delorean in Fairfax, Virginia just last weekend. My wife found it hysterical that it had antique tags. My comment at the time was that I thought that GMC could sell that car as new again - maybe ditching the stainless steel.

Slashdot needs to be proofread more carefully! (1)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 2 years ago | (#37745804)

I checked the math, and there must be a mistake in the summary: 260 horsepower isn't anywhere near 1.21 gigawatts. Seriously guys, could you proofread these things a little better before releasing them?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...