Porsche wants 50% of its sales to be fully electric or electrified by 2025

[JeffKeryk]

Originally Posted by KrisZ


California is already forcing all new houses to have solar panels installed. They may even try to force old homes to be retrofitted.

Yes, in many areas of CA solar panels are required in new housing divisions.
Cost goes way down due to mass installation instead of 1 at a time, like mine.
A friend's folks just moved into a new development near Sac.
Owners love their solar because of the very low cost of energy.
PGE likes them because owners generate more energy than they use.
And electricity prices in CA are some of the highest in the nation.
Why would you not do it; not take advantage of all the CA sun and solar technology?

It is all good.

 

[Food Scientist]

Sounds to me the electric distribution lines in California are maxed out and the state legislature is passing the cost onto new home construction in the form of solar panels.

 

[Alfred_B]

It's stupid not to take advantage of the sun in sunny locations.

 

[Bjornviken]

Originally Posted by 4WD
Hope they don't force anything … seems capitalism is moving the EV and alternative energy progress at a decent pace already …

Well they are trying in EU

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted by SVTCobra
Sounds to me the electric distribution lines in California are maxed out and the state legislature is passing the cost onto new home construction in the form of solar panels.


It has nothing to do with capacity. It's about reducing the growth in power plant emissions. Their bankrupt utility (PG&E) could easily build out more capacity.

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Yes, in many areas of CA solar panels are required in new housing divisions.
Cost goes way down due to mass installation instead of 1 at a time, like mine.
A friend's folks just moved into a new development near Sac.
Owners love their solar because of the very low cost of energy.
PGE likes them because owners generate more energy than they use.
And electricity prices in CA are some of the highest in the nation.
Why would you not do it; not take advantage of all the CA sun and solar technology?

It is all good.

You got some circular logic going on in there. The electricity prices are high because of all the green projects that are being passed on to the final rate payers. Where do you think the money comes from to pay wind or solar 2x or 3x per kwh than the normal market value? So now, higher electricity prices are the reason to install more solar and wind, all under heavy subsidies of course. Round and round we go LOL.

If you're good with it, then as you say, it's all good. Some of us see though this charade though.

 

[Alfred_B]

Renewables cost less than coal electricity.

 

[Dave9]

Technically it makes sense to put solar panels on every home, to reduce transmission losses and to make use of the real-estate rather than fields of panels under control of the power company.

However it should not be forced upon people. Let them choose based upon their own needs and power costs.

I always find it funny how people who want to choose for us, make assumptions that everyone is wasteful. I don't use nearly as much power, or gasoline, as the consumer averages so it makes less sense for me to invest in a way to use less of either.

Supply and demand should set energy prices then everyone has their own choices to make in a FREE market, BUT, a government that can't keep up with electrical infrastructure, should be the last entity to tell others what to do. Yeah, let's add more EVs to the grid. Brilliant.

 

[JeffKeryk]

In almost all areas of Silicon Valley, PGE is the only choice. I hate PGE.
There is no free market; only on or off.
And they keep burning down our state. Who do you think is gonna pay for that?
The cost to add solar to a new housing development is only a few thousand dollars per home at most.
In the sweltering Central Valley, many people spend $500 per month for AC.

Baseline Tier 1 rate is about 12 cents per KwH; Tier 5 is almost 50 cents.
I pay $15 per month to be on the grid.

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted by SVTCobra
Sounds to me the electric distribution lines in California are maxed out and the state legislature is passing the cost onto new home construction in the form of solar panels.

New construction should pay for their burden on the areas they develop.

 

[E365]

Do most here not know a Tesla Model S does 0-60 in 2.28 seconds? A large family sedan. The Plaid model will be about 2.0 seconds and the upcoming Roadster will be under 1.9 seconds.

BMW and Mercedes have been making cars for 100 years and are STILL baffled on how to make a sedan that fast.

They are doing it because gas cars are slow, have pathetic torque curves and have poor throttle response. Porsche PDK transmissions are also super slow compared to the throttle response of an electric system with no gear changes.

 

[d00df00d]

If the reasons for those quick 0-60 times are comprehensible to people like us, how on earth can you argue that they have eluded the big automakers?

No one's baffled. There's no mystery. The big automakers haven't played that game yet because they are cautious and slow-moving, because they want to end up with cars that meet reasonable standards of build quality, and because 0-60 times are an utterly ridiculous metric for a sedan -- especially when you can only do it within a narrow range of operating conditions, which you will easily exceed after a few attempts.

Also, they have no shortage of "slow" gas cars with "pathetic" torque curves that will demolish even the quickest Teslas above 60-80 MPH.

The Porsche Taycan will play in that league easily, and it'll crank out those acceleration times over and over until the driver quits or the battery runs out. And it'll have an interior and build quality commensurate with a premium car, which Tesla does not have and shows no signs of being able to achieve in the near future. Expect the same from other automakers.

 

[Andrew1972]

Originally Posted by E365
Do most here not know a Tesla Model S does 0-60 in 2.28 seconds? A large family sedan. The Plaid model will be about 2.0 seconds and the upcoming Roadster will be under 1.9 seconds.

BMW and Mercedes have been making cars for 100 years and are STILL baffled on how to make a sedan that fast.

They are doing it because gas cars are slow, have pathetic torque curves and have poor throttle response. Porsche PDK transmissions are also super slow compared to the throttle response of an electric system with no gear changes.



Porsche has repeatable 0-60 in 3 seconds without any damage to drivetrain or batteries.

Tesla gets a lower time coupled to warnings related to damaging batteries, longevity of batteries and driveline wear as are you sure you want to do this. I am unclear the performance is repeatable in in Tesla in a drive period. Porsche did not go this direction of one hit wonder.

Not knocking Tesla with the feat. It's just not consistent experience.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Anybody seen a late model Porsche lately? I have a pilot buddy who has bought two in the last two years. One is a beautiful little red Boxster and the other a Cayman S. Both were expensive, and both will pass even the most stringent inspection.

Fit, finish, material quality? All perfection. I cannot believe the paint. Then factor in the amazing balanced performance. Not just quick.

The point is, for an enthusiast, the Porsche folks are delivering an experience that few automakers can match. Seems the quality is also higher than most.

Nicer than a Tesla, IMO. Each of us gets to choose....

 

[Cujet]

The EV thing really is interesting. Expensive. Amazing performance and response. Limited range, terrible long trip performance and absolutely abysmal towing range.

It will, unfortunately, force a lifestyle change for many owners.

 

[4WD]

Originally Posted by Cujet
The EV thing really is interesting. Expensive. Amazing performance and response. Limited range, terrible long trip performance and absolutely abysmal towing range.

It will, unfortunately, force a lifestyle change for many owners.


It will have amazing torque in 4WD ... but not get far in deep sand. And can't imagine I'll find a charger sitting on the beach at 5 mile cut

 

[JeffKeryk]

The Model S and Taycan are ground breaking vehicles, but out of reach for most.
Of course the Taycan is a much newer car, but is behind in technology; for example no AP, lower range, etc.
For me, the Model 3 is the amazing car because it is technology for the masses.
Well, maybe not the masses, but $50K gets you a piece of the future, today.

Drive one. The numbers don't lie.
Model 3 Norway Sales

 

[4WD]

And model 3 also makes more sense when you own, insure, PM, and pay for more than one vehicle …
Only the extremely wealthy own a fleet of six figure cars …
but many folks can own two or more at $30k to $60k

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Of course the Taycan is a much newer car, but is behind in technology; for example no AP, lower range, etc.

Less kitsch and lower numbers don't mean "behind in technology." Or if it does, you probably don't want to play that game. The Taycan has an 800V electrical system, vastly better heat management, vastly better interior tech, vastly better chassis tech (rear wheel steer, PDCC, etc.), better brakes....

"Autopilot" is a disingenuous name for a genuinely impressive but incomplete technology. Range is important but AFAIK Tesla owes its advantage largely to running smaller (though still significant) safety margins than the big vendors are comfortable with.

Tesla deserves credit for its innovations, but the fact is that they owe a great deal to the soundness of their cars' fundamentals, which come down to nothing more than the most common-sense way to build an EV. When the car's floor is made of battery, the powertrain is silent, and the engineering team isn't made up of complete idiots, then yeah, the car's going to drive pretty [censored] well. It's nothing another company couldn't achieve.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Originally Posted by d00df00d
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
Of course the Taycan is a much newer car, but is behind in technology; for example no AP, lower range, etc.

Less kitsch and lower numbers don't mean "behind in technology." Or if it does, you probably don't want to play that game. The Taycan has an 800V electrical system, vastly better heat management, vastly better interior tech, vastly better chassis tech (rear wheel steer, PDCC, etc.), better brakes....

"Autopilot" is a disingenuous name for a genuinely impressive but incomplete technology. Range is important but AFAIK Tesla owes its advantage largely to running smaller (though still significant) safety margins than the big vendors are comfortable with.

Tesla deserves credit for its innovations, but the fact is that they owe a great deal to the soundness of their cars' fundamentals, which come down to nothing more than the most common-sense way to build an EV. When the car's floor is made of battery, the powertrain is silent, and the engineering team isn't made up of complete idiots, then yeah, the car's going to drive pretty [censored] well. It's nothing another company couldn't achieve.

Disagree. The Taycan is a much newer car. During development, it promised more range than the Model S; it missed its goal significantly.
No other auto company has matched Tesla range. Not even close. Tesla is years ahead of any other maker.
Regarding AP, Tesla has billions of miles of AP driving data. Yes, AP is evolving with Tesla at the technology forefront.
The Taycan electrical system is different and amazing, but how is it superior?
Slower, less range, charging availability; all behind the older car.
Taycan fit and finish will be stellar to be sure.
But from a technological standpoint, the older Tesla numbers are simply better.

I salute incredible EVs like the Taycan. But at $180K it is hardly a car many will own.
Same for the $100K Model S.
These cars are the foundation for the future.

With the Model 3, the future is here now.
One of the safest cars on the road. Faster than any comparably priced car.
And expected to be very cost effective. Fun as heck