Tesla unveils $35,000-Model 3 with range of 215 miles

[Checkerboard Strangler]

And fyi google has a crapload of information on electric cars, I will give you one final chance to do your own research on easily findable facts before I make you look like a complete moron, If 5 seconds on google is too much for you, you are doomed.

Five seconds on Google?? You haven't even spent five microseconds because you would know that modern electric cars don't use lead acid batteries.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/off-t...odel-3-range-215-miles-16.html#post1065740231

And my all time favorite: (from the same post)

"dual over head cam engines, dropped due to ohv engines"

A mechanic who doesn't understand why dual overhead cams are superior to overhead valves?

 

[beerftw]

Heh heh heh heh, there's a dozen reasons why a diesel won't start so let's do away with that one.
Most speed sensors are tied to the vacuum system somewhere so right off the top of my head I would suspect a vacuum leak possibly, and no I didn't even bother with Google.
So go ahead, attempt to make me look like a moron on electric cars, please, I want you to.

Speed sensors use a magnetic pulse to generate an alternating current read by the computer, they do not use vacuum. so try again.

 

[beerftw]

Seeing as diesels don't have ignition systems, first place you look is the fuel system and the fuel management system.
Next, glow plugs, next, if it's a modern diesel, most of them that use DEF won't start if the reservoir is empty.

Well on an 03 6.0 powerstroke, the range sensor which tells the computer which gear it is in runs on alternating current, and if while cranking the alternator leaks static it will not read park or neutral and prevent it from cranking. The other major possibility is the fan clutch failing, which on those trucks is tied to the range sensor, which will cause a no start.

Fyi dieselds have advanced past mechanical fuel injection systems with no safeties on them. Oh and the speed sensor thing, that happens on chryslers because the alternator goes bad, they leak ac current which feeds into the speed sensor signals and overloads the signal.

 

[beerftw]

Stop, please...the term digital has nothing to do with analog value readings. The term digital refers to DATA STREAMS.
Saying that "analog can actually be digital" means you don't understand the meaning of the word at ALL.
As you said, you're not the greatest with electronics...just leave it at that.

You said digital had to do with digits, problem was you were too vague in your own definition. Digital uses a linear reading, which is 0 or 1, analog uses dynamic readings and is not limited by 0 or 1.

Basically if a sensor sends 15 pulses, a digital computer translates that into binary, processes it, and sends it back out as analog. An analog computer would just read 15, and directly calculate it.

 

[beerftw]

Five seconds on Google?? You haven't even spent five microseconds because you would know that modern electric cars don't use lead acid batteries.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/off-t...odel-3-range-215-miles-16.html#post1065740231

And my all time favorite: (from the same post)



A mechanic who doesn't understand why dual overhead cams are superior to overhead valves?

View attachment 67199950View attachment 67199951View attachment 67199952

I never once said modern electric cars used lead acid batteries, I said the old ones did, and they used alot of them.


And yes dual overhead cam engines were inferior for the longest time, they predate the modern ohv engine, but get worse gas mileage weigh more and are more prone to failure than ohv. The reason ohc made a comeback was because they produced better power for small displacement engines. Europe japan etc started putting displacement limits due to their emissions rules, and ohc engines allowed them to have decent power.

Ohv small displacement engines actually get better gas mileage than ohc, most american compacts had them in the 70's through the 80's, and they got dropped not because of mpg, but because people griped that their economy car was slow. The fact we boast 30 mpg today as fuel sipping and 40 mpg on a prius as good, yet economy cars in the 80's could reach 50 and 60 mpg pretty much proves ohc is inferior unless the only thing you rate is small displacement power.

 

[upsideguy]

A lot of these cars come with standard outlet plugs.
$35k is too much, imo.

Except that you never pay a dollar for gas and have virtually no maintenance. Its really a very good all-in price.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I never once said modern electric cars used lead acid batteries, I said the old ones did, and they used alot of them.


And yes dual overhead cam engines were inferior for the longest time, they predate the modern ohv engine, but get worse gas mileage weigh more and are more prone to failure than ohv. The reason ohc made a comeback was because they produced better power for small displacement engines. Europe japan etc started putting displacement limits due to their emissions rules, and ohc engines allowed them to have decent power.

Ohv small displacement engines actually get better gas mileage than ohc, most american compacts had them in the 70's through the 80's, and they got dropped not because of mpg, but because people griped that their economy car was slow. The fact we boast 30 mpg today as fuel sipping and 40 mpg on a prius as good, yet economy cars in the 80's could reach 50 and 60 mpg pretty much proves ohc is inferior unless the only thing you rate is small displacement power.

Name specific overhead cam engines which were inferior to overhead valve engines, either in performance or fuel economy, please.
I'd like to know which engines were considered inferior.
Because in any comparison between older engines from decades ago, not only does one take relative fuel costs into consideration one also has to recognize that the USA
produced at most, ONE or TWO overhead cam engines back then.
The Pontiac OHC inline six and the notorious Ford 427 "Cammer", which should never be confused with an engine built for economy, come to mind.
By all means, enlighten me as to the inferior overhead cam engines that were outdone by ohv equivalents.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

yet economy cars in the 80's could reach 50 and 60 mpg pretty much proves ohc is inferior unless the only thing you rate is small displacement power.

Which economy cars in the 80's were getting 50 and 60 mpg? Over here or across the pond?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

And yes dual overhead cam engines were inferior for the longest time, they predate the modern ohv engine

In between early ohc designs and ohv there were side valve engines and f head engines, that's several decades before ohv.
You're confused again.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Except that you never pay a dollar for gas and have virtually no maintenance. Its really a very good all-in price.

No transmission repairs, cooling system repairs, ignition system problems, fuel system issues, no differential to wear out, no serpentine belts, no pumps, no air filters, no engine oil, no coolant, and NO GASOLINE.

But we're being snookered at $35K....yeah, right."
And by the way, the range on all electric cars, even ones made today, is only going to increase.
Charging solutions like the SuperCharger already give you 65% total range in 20 minutes, which is like an extra long stop at the gas station where you check fluids, fill up on snacks and use the restroom. That will get you where your final destination is where you can do a full overnight charge.
And that's only going to keep getting better.

Yeah, like I said before, most of you sound like the old codgers yelling "GET A HORSE!!".
Even more convinced of it now, after debating a so called "master mechanic" who just told me that overhead valve engines are superior in quality, performance and efficiency to overhead CAM engines.

There's your so called "expert"....beerftw.

 

[upsideguy]

No transmission repairs, cooling system repairs, ignition system problems, fuel system issues, no differential to wear out, no serpentine belts, no pumps, no air filters, no engine oil, no coolant, and NO GASOLINE.

But we're being snookered at $35K....yeah, right."
And by the way, the range on all electric cars, even ones made today, is only going to increase.
Charging solutions like the SuperCharger already give you 65% total range in 20 minutes, which is like an extra long stop at the gas station where you check fluids, fill up on snacks and use the restroom. That will get you where your final destination is where you can do a full overnight charge.
And that's only going to keep getting better.

Yeah, like I said before, most of you sound like the old codgers yelling "GET A HORSE!!".
Even more convinced of it now, after debating a so called "master mechanic" who just told me that overhead valve engines are superior in quality, performance and efficiency to overhead CAM engines.

There's your so called "expert"....beerftw.

My son has had the "S" for two years.... the car is beautiful; well-appointed; largely trouble free; if you use the Telsa supercharger, you pay nothing for energy; and the Tesla customer service is incredible. I haven't anted up on this yet, but I am giving it a ton of thought.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

My son has had the "S" for two years.... the car is beautiful; well-appointed; largely trouble free; if you use the Telsa supercharger, you pay nothing for energy; and the Tesla customer service is incredible. I haven't anted up on this yet, but I am giving it a ton of thought.

Yes, the Model S is ridiculously expensive, everyone agrees. The first VCR was 3500 bucks, the first DVD players were 1800, first DVD burners were five THOUSAND bucks and the funniest part is, most of the early DVD PLAYERS could not recognize burned discs, only commercially pressed ones.

So the Model S is one of those very early overpriced gadgets, except unlike early VCR's it performs flawlessly. We were just amazed we record a show.
This car is incredible.
And now the Model 3 is like a more affordable VCR with four heads and HiFi audio.
The next one coming down the pike will be the equivalent of a DVD player.

Thing is, I still maintain that as electric cars become more affordable and better performing, they will also start to cut ties with gasoline cars that we know today.
A lot of them will become more like appliances, and maybe that's a good thing for the older crowd, because a lot of people will miss things about their fossil fuel buggies
that an electric can't give them no matter how well it runs. Some of them will hang onto their gas vehicles for sentimental reasons but rely on the electric for everyday use.

So the classic favorite guzzlers will sit in garages, sometimes under a cover, and they will be taken out on cruises, and spared the ravages of the daily commutes.
That will start to become the province of the electric, many of which will be semi-autonomous or fully self driving.

Sure, it will take another few years, but I bet that in five years electrics will be popping up like mushrooms after a cool spring rain in the forest.
I don't know if we should count the early Tesla Roadster as Gen 1 but if we do, you have to admit that it's remarkable that a Gen 3 concept has taken us this far.

Since the tech is now open source, we might even see some resourceful companies try to convert certain gas vehicles to a kind of retro-electric.
I couldn't say if the idea is good, or if it will be successful but I expect to see a few companies try.
If they hit on the right secret sauce with favorite candidate donor models, it will take off and become an even easier entry for first time electric owners, and it would be a marvelous job creator.

My guess is that certain minivans and route delivery vehicles would be ideal first candidates.

 

[poweRob]

Which economy cars in the 80's were getting 50 and 60 mpg? Over here or across the pond?

I know of no cars in the 80's getting 60 mpg. I do recall two getting around 50 and that was the Datsun B210 and the diesel VW rabbit.

Electric is on the way. All manufacturers know this which is why pretty much all major manufacturers have one in their fleet for sale. We've turned the corner. They don't want to be left behind when it starts steam-rolling.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Except that you never pay a dollar for gas and have virtually no maintenance. Its really a very good all-in price.

$35k is still too much.
Cars whether they're , electric, gasoline, NG, etc are depreciating assets.
They "ok I'll get one" point is around $15k, maybe $20k, for me.

 

[beerftw]

In between early ohc designs and ohv there were side valve engines and f head engines, that's several decades before ohv.
You're confused again.

You do realize flat head and side valve engines are not ohv right? Actually flat head engines are newer than ohc anyways, and became popular because they performed better with early technology, and was later dropped for the modern ohv engines, which were first used in the 40's and was mass produced in the 50's starting with gm introducing their smallblock engine.


And to your other post, I can not think of any sohc or dohc engine that gets better mpg than a similiar displacement ohv engine. look at dodge trucks for example, they switched from ohv v8 emginmes to sohc engines except for the hemi which stayed ohv, and mpg dropped across the board.Their base model v8 trucks would get 21-25 mpg highway, and after switching to ohv, the same trucks would get around 16-17 mpg highway. Ford trucks took a massive mpg loss when they went to the 4.6 over the 5.0, And most american economy cars dropped mpg as well after switching to ohc, to the point beating 30 mpg is difficult.

 

[beerftw]

Which economy cars in the 80's were getting 50 and 60 mpg? Over here or across the pond?

The dodge omni high output, chevy sprint, older geo metros ( the later ones dropped to about 30) Alot of the older honda base models,etc. The chevy sprint and the older geo metros were technically the only ones hitting 60 they were rated around 54, but always got 58-60 in actual use with their little 3 cylinder engines.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You do realize flat head and side valve engines are not ohv right? Actually flat head engines are newer than ohc anyways, and became popular because they performed better with early technology, and was later dropped for the modern ohv engines, which were first used in the 40's and was mass produced in the 50's starting with gm introducing their smallblock engine.

You have a rather painful reading comprehension problem which makes any debate with you turn into a comedy of errors.
READ AGAIN CAREFULLY:

Originally Posted by Checkerboard Strangler:
In between early ohc designs and ohv there were side valve engines and f head engines, that's several decades before ohv.
You're confused again.

I feel like I am dealing with Emily Letella, the lady who used to read editorials about "violins on television".

https://video.yahoo.com/gilda-radner-snl-skits/weekend-emily-litella-violins-tv-000000080.html

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

The dodge omni high output, chevy sprint, older geo metros ( the later ones dropped to about 30) Alot of the older honda base models,etc. The chevy sprint and the older geo metros were technically the only ones hitting 60 they were rated around 54, but always got 58-60 in actual use with their little 3 cylinder engines.

Don't forget the CRX HF which I believe had the highest EPA rating

Of course it was much easier for it then todays cars. It weighed less then 2000 lb. It would be seen as unacceptably slow and dangerous in the US with todays market, much like the Smart car is which has worse EPA rated fuel economy.

Of course the EPA has changed the way it rates fuel economy since then

 

[beerftw]

Don't forget the CRX HF which I believe had the highest EPA rating

Of course it was much easier for it then todays cars. It weighed less then 2000 lb. It would be seen as unacceptably slow and dangerous in the US with todays market, much like the Smart car is which has worse EPA rated fuel economy.

Of course the EPA has changed the way it rates fuel economy since then

The epa has changed how it rates them, but I am going off experience driving them vs just the mpg ratings.

And the slow part is why they died out, People absolutely demanded the highest mpg back then, now they gripe about it and turn around and buy an suv. It is nearly impossible to get safety, high mpg, affordability, and performance all at the same time.

Oh and I thought the honda hf was the mid 90's not the 80's

 

[beerftw]

You have a rather painful reading comprehension problem which makes any debate with you turn into a comedy of errors.
READ AGAIN CAREFULLY:



I feel like I am dealing with Emily Letella, the lady who used to read editorials about "violins on television".

https://video.yahoo.com/gilda-radner-snl-skits/weekend-emily-litella-violins-tv-000000080.html

View attachment 67200062

You do realize early ohv engines are almost nothing like modern ohv engines, which is why i keep stating modern when I mention ohv. Those early ohv engines often had 2 cams for inline engines and 4 for v engines, and the cams and valvetrain for most were completely exposed.

They would use one cam for intake and one for exhaust, with exposed cams, rocker arms, lifters etc. Modern ohv uses a single cam inside the block, with sealed lifters, pushrods rockers etc. There is a reason almost no one used early ohv, they were complex unreliable and expensive, and were mostly used for performance cars, and to top it off almost nothing like the modern ohv setup. Early ohv is about as similiar to modern ohv from the 40's on as a flathead engine is to a dohc engine.