3 ms·

> While not quick as fast as the P100DL's 2.4 second 0-60 time, it still does it in 3.2 seconds Not impressive. My $10,500 KTM 790 Duke does 3.1s 0-60mph. Now

> While not quick as fast as the P100DL's 2.4 second 0-60 time, it still does it in 3.2 seconds Not impressive. My $10,500 KTM 790 Duke does 3.1s 0-60mph. Nowhere close to the fastest bike, at only 100ish horsepower. Literbikes with 200+ horsepower do low 2's, all at around $20k. > Everyone else rolls their eyes, especially when it's some sub-200 horsepower shitbox that isn't even flooring it Sure. Everyone thinks the honda lawnmower drivers are lame, including most every other car guy. But who was talking about shitboxes? I was talking about real performance cars (e.g. Shelby GT350R, Camaro ZL1, Corvette ZR1, BMW M cars (M4 not included - doesn't sound good), AMGs, Porsche 911, etc.) > . I considered a Nissan GT-R for my next car, but I'm only going to own 1 car, and I don't want to have something that gets 20 mpg as my daily driver. 1. If you can afford a GT-R, why's fuel economy a sticking point? Fuel cost is miniscule compared to the cost of the car/insurance. I get not having to fuel up as often, but filling up a gas tank is an order of magnitude (or 2) faster than charging an EV. Seems like a moot point. 2. Performance EV? Soooo, a Tesla S/X P100D? There aren't even any other worthwhile EV competitors. Audi e-Tron isn't fast. Jaguar i-Pace isn't fast. Chevy Bolt and Hyundia Kona - Same slow story.

Sohcahtoa82 7y ago
> Not impressive. My $10,500 KTM 790 Duke does 3.1s 0-60mph. Nowhere close to the fastest bike, at only 100ish horsepower. Literbikes with 200+ horsepower do low 2's, all at around $20k. Not a fair comparison. You're talking about motorcycles. > If you can afford a GT-R, why's fuel economy a sticking point? Environment. Also, getting such low economy simply feels bad. I admit it doesn't make logical sense. > Performance EV? Soooo, a Tesla S/X P100D? I consider the Model 3 Performance to be a performance EV, and not just because it has the name "Performance" in it. As mentioned previously, 0-60 in 3.2 seconds puts it into the realm of supercars. Top speed is low for sure, but I don't really plan on taking it to a track, so I can't use top speed, but I can use the acceleration. > There aren't even any other worthwhile EV competitors. Audi e-Tron isn't fast. Jaguar i-Pace isn't fast. Chevy Bolt and Hyundia Kona - Same slow story. I know, and it saddens me. I'd feel much better buying a performance EV from a manufacturer with a long track record for build quality and reliability like Toyota or Honda, but none of them have announced plans. I'd be open to the idea of a plug-in hybrid sports car, but those don't exist at a reasonable price, AFAIK.
- wcarron 7y ago
  > Not a fair comparison. You're talking about motorcycles. Well, I did say, "as a motorcycle rider... it's mundane". But fine. There's the C7 Corvette ZR1 with a 2.9-3.1s 0-60, depending on driver. Top speed of 212mph. Hell of a lot faster than the 155mph top speed of the P100. The dodge hellcat with 3.6s. Dodge demon, too. Porsche Turbo S at around 2.6s. Admittedly, the Porsche is essentially a super car, and the ZR1 could be argued is one, too. Shelby GT350R at 3.9s. Slower, but again, ALL of those cars have a soundtrack, and you can work on them. > I'd be open to the idea of a plug-in hybrid sports car, but those don't exist at a reasonable price, AFAIK. I'd be open to that, too. I'm not against hybrids. I'm against purely electric vehicles. Performance cars deserve an ICE. There is literally nothing on earth or in space that will ever change my mind on this.

Sohcahtoa82 7y ago

> Not impressive. My $10,500 KTM 790 Duke does 3.1s 0-60mph. Nowhere close to the fastest bike, at only 100ish horsepower. Literbikes with 200+ horsepower do low 2's, all at around $20k. Not a fair comparison. You're talking about motorcycles. > If you can afford a GT-R, why's fuel economy a sticking point? Environment. Also, getting such low economy simply feels bad. I admit it doesn't make logical sense. > Performance EV? Soooo, a Tesla S/X P100D? I consider the Model 3 Performance to be a performance EV, and not just because it has the name "Performance" in it. As mentioned previously, 0-60 in 3.2 seconds puts it into the realm of supercars. Top speed is low for sure, but I don't really plan on taking it to a track, so I can't use top speed, but I can use the acceleration. > There aren't even any other worthwhile EV competitors. Audi e-Tron isn't fast. Jaguar i-Pace isn't fast. Chevy Bolt and Hyundia Kona - Same slow story. I know, and it saddens me. I'd feel much better buying a performance EV from a manufacturer with a long track record for build quality and reliability like Toyota or Honda, but none of them have announced plans. I'd be open to the idea of a plug-in hybrid sports car, but those don't exist at a reasonable price, AFAIK.

wcarron 7y ago
> Not a fair comparison. You're talking about motorcycles. Well, I did say, "as a motorcycle rider... it's mundane". But fine. There's the C7 Corvette ZR1 with a 2.9-3.1s 0-60, depending on driver. Top speed of 212mph. Hell of a lot faster than the 155mph top speed of the P100. The dodge hellcat with 3.6s. Dodge demon, too. Porsche Turbo S at around 2.6s. Admittedly, the Porsche is essentially a super car, and the ZR1 could be argued is one, too. Shelby GT350R at 3.9s. Slower, but again, ALL of those cars have a soundtrack, and you can work on them. > I'd be open to the idea of a plug-in hybrid sports car, but those don't exist at a reasonable price, AFAIK. I'd be open to that, too. I'm not against hybrids. I'm against purely electric vehicles. Performance cars deserve an ICE. There is literally nothing on earth or in space that will ever change my mind on this.