As someone who's driven both a 2011 M3 GTS and a 2012 Model S Performance around a track, they may be in the same class, and the around same speed on paper, but they feel very different. I'd classify both as brutal, but the Model S accelerates more explosively without seeming like it's even trying. I'm sure the relative silence has a lot to do with it but the car absolutely feels faster. It's difficult to explain, you've got to drive it to understand.

Even if fuel economy, maintenance, reliability, etc. were not factors I would go with the Model S every day of the week.

> I'm sure the relative silence has a lot to do with it but the car absolutely feels faster. It's difficult to explain, you've got to drive it to understand.

See my earlier post in this thread with a series wound electric motor has infinite torque at stall (not yet rotating). So, standing still or moving slowly, an electric car, with a lot of power, can feel like it has instant, effortless, and amazing acceleration compared with an internal combustion engine that has to use gears and a clutch or torque converter.

> fuel economy, maintenance, reliability,

Yup, a Tesla could have some advantages especially since its engine really has only one moving part, the armature of the electric motor, or two for the D model. That's a long way from the number of parts in an internal combustion engine with camshaft, push rods, rocker arms, valve springs, valves, pistons, connecting rods, ....

But, for a Tesla, there's a chance that in time the battery will need to be replaced.

Long ago a Ford executive said, "You build me a good battery, and I will build you a good electric car.". Apparently Tesla has made a lot of progress on the battery, but it remains an issue, for cost, weight, charging time, and lifetime.

But, no joke, an engine with just one moving part, and no transmission, has one heck of an advantage in maintenance and reliability.

> But, no joke, an engine with just one moving part, and no transmission, has one heck of an advantage in maintenance and reliability.

I guess you could say the same thing about the Wankel engine as well.

The problem is that a traditional engine is tuned to work well enough within the life time of a car these days, so it isn't really a problem.

Fuel economy wise though, the traditional piston engine outperforms the Wankel engine.

The Wankel was asking a lot of the seals at the edges of its special rotor; apparently it was asking too much.

> Fuel economy wise though, the traditional piston engine outperforms the Wankel engine.

Yes, piston rings work a lot better than the seals Wankel needs. And, now with pistons, we can use high compression ratios; the Wankel seals have problems which get much worse at higher compression ratios.

Why high compression ratios? Simple, classic Carnot cycle physics: The higher the compression ratio, the more get out of the fuel.

Why higher compression ratios now? Because now we can have direct fuel injection, directly into the combustion chamber, much as in a Diesel. So, then can do all the turbo charging and supercharging want, for still higher total compression ratios because don't have to worry about pre-ignition from the air being too hot from the compression it got before entering the cylinder. So, don't have to use an intercooler to cool the compressed air.

Why supercharging or turbocharging? Because get more power out of the same basic engine of pistons, cylinders, etc., that is, more power without more friction from larger pistons. So save on friction. So two savings for fuel economy: Higher compression ratios and less friction. That's what Volvo and others are doing: Small engine, lots of boost, good power and good fuel economy.

I suspect a good way to get both range and fuel economy with an electric car is to have a hybrid: So, have an internal combustion engine drive a generator to charge the batteries.

Here can have an advantage: The engine need run at only one power setting, its most efficient. Then for such an engine? Sure, use a gas turbine so that we are back to basically just one moving part. Yes, in an axial flow gas turbine, the part that rotates, at, say, 30,000 RPM or so, is darned expensive, but that part is also designed for the engine to have some ability to have a throttle. If give up the idea of a throttle and have only one power setting, then we can return to centrifugal force for both the compressor and the turbine. Then the metal for the high temperatures is expensive, so can use some ceramic.

Now we're talking: Just one major moving part, cheap ceramic, centrifugal force, single power setting (where the aerodynamics for the compressor and turbine work best). Might get 200 HP in a small package. Then run it only when charging the battery.

Then never bother plugging the car to charge the batteries. When driving around town, nearly never run the turbine. On the highway at 65 MPH, occasionally run the turbine. Blasting across, say, Nevada at 110 MPH, run the turbine a lot. At top speed of 150 MPH or so, sure, run the turbine 100% of the time and still have the battery run down.

Sure, get some losses when generate the electric power, when stuff it into the battery, when draw it out of the battery, and when drive the electric motor. Yup, several losses.

> I suspect a good way to get both range and fuel economy with an electric car is to have a hybrid: So, have an internal combustion engine drive a generator to charge the batteries.

Isn't that how the Chevy Volt/Opel Ampera is operating?

I suspect so, and for some other hybrids as well, but I don't think anyone is using a gas turbine yet except maybe in a hybrid for, say, a city bus.

Well, there's always the Tesla P85D, which they briefly mention in the article. That's the real performance version. It's quite a bit faster at 0-60 mph than the M3, roughly 3.2 seconds vs 3.9 seconds.

And the Tesla is quiet. Here's a great video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QERGldfZA5A

I don't know how well a Tesla corners compared to German or Italian competition.

It feels pretty great in corners because the suspension keeps the car level. I don't have experience driving many other higher end cars to compare it to, though.

It will never hold up on the track. The battery can only handle the max load for a short amount of time, before the computer limits the engine and make the car more of a sunday driver. That's not a problem for every day driving, it just isn't comparable to other supercars on the track. It however means that for normal usage, it means you have the efficiency of an EV and the "burst" ability of a supercar.

Cornering on the P85D is pretty amazing due to the low centre of mass. I got to drive it on public roads rather than the track, so I didn't get to push too hard, but even then I was surprised how quickly I could hustle it through bends (for comparison my usual drive is a BMW Z3M Coupe, and I've been lucky enough to drive most of the present M cars on the Spartanburg track).

Agreed, 0-60 in 5 seconds isn't slow, but it's not brutally fast by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm less interested in the speed and more interested in the handling. I am a BMW guy through and through because they are just so much fun to drive and just feel right. How would you compare taking a Model S through the twisties to say an M3 or even a regular 3 series?

Model S is a heavy car - with something over 2 tonnes, it is in weight category of 7er.

3er/M3 are different league in handling. Those extra 700 kg you simply cannot hide.

it's 3 seconds, not 5.

No, the review was the non-P version which is the slower model.

That's the P version rated at 700hp or so, not the one reviewed. But I would absolute rate 0-60 in 3 seconds as brutally fast. That's Porsche and Ferrari territory.