Tesla Roadster Sport gets taken for a test drive, photo shoot
By Donald Melanson 
posted Oct 8th 2009 3:54PM
posted Oct 8th 2009 3:54PM
Like the Tesla Roadster but think it's just not expensive enough for you? Then fear not, person we'd like to get to know, 'cause the Tesla Roadster Sport is here complete with a $19,500 premium over its less sporty counterpart. Thankfully, according to the lucky folks at Autoblog Green, you will get quite a few bonuses for that extra cash, including an improved 0-60 time of 3.7 seconds, a new suspension that can be set to one of ten different settings and, perhaps most importantly, a new set of black-finish forged wheels (paired with some Yokohama ADVAN A048 tires) that'll ensure no one mistakes it for a "low end" Tesla. Be sure to hit up the read link below for Autoblog Green's full report, not to mention plenty of pics inside and out.
nice ride
ƒ yeah, that looks nice. :)
@ Gimboa: The only car in your list that the Tesla can out-accelerate, is the Elise.
I respectfully disagree. Marketting hype is one thing... real consistent performance is another. The Tesla is a great great car. I hope it succeeds financially. But it's unproven, and it's not consistent in performance, and acceleration might be amazing, but with that transmission, it's not likely to be the best example for this amazing car.
And when you start looking at things other than acceleration, this car suffers even on paper.
Still, a great car to desire.
@ Gimboa: I appreciate your civil reply, but you're disagreeing with facts, not opinion. The Tesla Roadster Sport is slower than every car on your list, except the Elise.
2009 Porsche 911 turbo: 0-60mph – 3.5s
http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/911/
2009 Corvette ZR-1: 0-60 mph – 3.3s
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0810_2009_chevrolet_corvette_zr1_first_test/index.html
2009 Lotus Elise: 0-60mph – 4.9s
2009 Nissan GTR: 0-60mph – 3.2s (other tests have it at 3.4s)
===
Tesla Roadster Sport: 0-60mph 3.7s
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/10/08/first-drive-2010-tesla-roadster-sport-improves-on-original-kee/
(Can only enter 3 URLs here, but you can use Google...)
I'll be burning that 94 octane till the day i die.
E85 ftw!
you do know that the tesla roadster can do 0-60 in less than 4 seconds right?
And it handles better than most other cars...
You do know that E85 isn't actually any better for the environment. And causes food prices to go up, harming the poorest people.
California Gas sux now with a shelf life of 2months what the hell California!
94, pfft, why not run 98? or av-gas????!?!!
Hey, I'm all for the Tesla, but saying it handles better than most other cares is pretty unfair. Most other cars are far more reliable, far cheaper, and have a dramatically better range... augmented by their ability to recharge their gas tanks in 2 minutes anywhere they go.
the Tesla should be compared to the Porsche 911, Corvette, Elise, and GT-R.
It is inferior to them on the track. It may out accelerate some of those, a couple of times, but there are much faster accelerating cars too.
What makes the Tesla cool is that it's an emerging technology that is fairly good on performance. It's no performance star. I'm cool with that, but I also am cool with gasoline powered cars.
It's not just for business. I use it at home too. I didn't care much for MobileMe so cancelled it and switched to a hosted Exchange provider for a similar amount of money. Working very nicely with email/calendar/contacts synced between my home computers and iPhone, and it works with my own email address which for some bizarre reason I couldn't configure with MobileMe (on iPhone at least). Plus Exchange has server side filters too. Anyhow, with Exchange now on Mac as standard I expect these hosted Exchange providers to have a surge of new customers. And it wont just be purely business either - MobileMe has shown regular users are willing to pay for Exchange-like features already.
I wouldn't say it's the best handling car. All those batteries make it way less nimble around corners than the Elise, and practically all other cars for that matter. It's fast in a straight line, that's all.
Sorry about the MobileMe/Exchange comment. I signed in using 1password and it filled in the comment and submitted automatically before i could cancel it. Then I can't delete the comment afterwards either. Yea, very clever.
Avgas is usually leaded.
Photos look shopped...
Riding with the top open will increase drag and decrease efficiency. This will cause you to use more electricity to go the same distance.
How dare you try to help nature and actually enjoy doing it? Put some solar panels up there, Mr. Environment Killer!
shocking
I read the first sentence as "Like the Tesla Roadster but think it's just too expensive for you?" and at first glance thought that the $19,500 was the cost. *Sigh* Wishful thinking.
Ditto
probably getting a little redundant here but I experienced the same jolt of excitement...
Where's the nuclear power plants we need to support electric transportation? Can't wait for that engadget post. I'd rather have a comfortable climate in my house and mercury free lighting than this unaffordable electric car causing brown outs on my grid.
Word.
People seem to forget that we manufacture electricity using coal power plants, mostly. If everyone had a dedicated bank of solar panels on their roof to charge said electric cars, then they'd be green. Doing this, in fact, just reduces the use of gasoline, but causes pollution of a different kind, indirectly.
Word.
Actually an electric motor is far more efficient than a gasoline engine, which means even though you are still using coal powered plants to charge your car, you are still producing far less pollution.
Yes, they are more efficient. However, what I'm saying is that electricity is not "emission free" as some people are purporting. It's just emissions in a different manner. Which is worse, combustion emissions or those from a power plant?
When a larger number of people go all electric, we will have to open more plants to offset the draw on the grid. This will bring those emissions up, and, as an added bonus, the price of a kWh of electricity will start to climb for everyone.
See, it's not the perfect solution. That's all I'm saying.
It is the amount of emissions that matters, and with an electric, your total emissions are lower. It doesn't matter which pipe or smoke stack it is coming out of as long as the total pollution is less, which in this case it is.
Not the perfect solution, but one of a few inevitable choices. You can try to put an alternative energy power plant in the car itself, or you can solve the problem in two parts. Part one is getting the energy generation outside of the car. Part two is developing large-scale, efficient alternative power generation to supply electricity for the car. Also, a lot of renewable energy sources can't work in a car, like hydroelectric or tidal power.
If we take the time to solve part one now, we can resolve all of the energy issues at once down the road by replacing fossil fuels in power plants.
it's not about emissions. It's about capacity.
electric motors may be more efficient, but electric transmission from the power plant to my car is not.
plus, there is not enough electricity produced to recharge these cars on top of demands, unless we intend to not use any electricity at home for things like refrigerators, hot water, etc.
also, although there would still be emissions at the power plant, a city of all-electric cars would eliminate most of that city's air pollution, a very positive benefit for the community. think LA.
I can't wait for nuclear batteries! 100k miles (yeah, i can dream).
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091007124723.htm
200 new nuclear reactors = 35 % less greenhouse emissions.
We need more nuclear reactors to power these types of devices and the ones we already use. There's nothing wrong with nuclear power. Coal power, what we use now, kills people every day with cancer... it's filthy even when we try hard to clean it up.
We avoid new nuclear power because of the potential risk... and in doing so, we accept a greater and more certain risk.
"plus, there is not enough electricity produced to recharge these cars on top of demands"
That has been debunked. Watch the recent "Dale Vince" episode on Carpool.
http://www.llewtube.com
@JakeMG
People NEVER forget power comes from powerplants when it comes to BEVs. It ALWAYS gets brought up by someone every time there is an article on BEVs. The "zero emissions" refers to tailpipe emissions when looking at the car as a system (which is typically how we look at cars). This has obvious benefits to cities where local pollution is a problem (like LA).
BEVs are still cleaner than conventional cars even running on 100% coal mainly because of higher efficiency. The US runs on slightly less than 50% coal, but there are plenty of states that use even less. In California (where most Roadsters are sold), I calculated the pollution numbers (accounting for transmission loss too, which actually aren't too much, around 10% by older estimates, probably less than that nowadays) and its about the same as a 100mpg car. On US numbers, it is about that of a 50mpg car. Plenty of people run on their own solar panels at home, so it is true zero emissions well to wheel, and some are in states with almost all hydro generation.
I just wish we would invest more in making solar power more efficient. Then everyone could just have some very efficient (I'm talking 80% efficiency or higher) solar panels on their roof, and supply their own power. We could even use super efficient solar panels to set up big solar plants in the deserts and make up the difference. The whole world would truly be capable of 100% emission free power and transportation. Will it happen? Probably not in our lifetime, unfortunately. But it would be cooler if it did...
@ What a surprise
An electric engine is alot more efficient than a petrol engine but the power being sent along a national grid then stored in a battery is even more inefficient than a petrol engine.
Better luck next time.
Lets get this out of the way...we know it wont go 1000 miles on a charge, that the average family cant fit in it, or afford it. They cant afford or use a Ferrari either. 3.7 seconds, 0-60, for an electric car, is what this is about.
Kind of. This particular model is sort of about this. But what its really about in the bigger picture is that the company who makes this is using profits from this car to develope and produce a car that the average American family will be able to afford, can go a decent ammount of miles on a single charge, and will eventually be ported to different styles of vehicles (a minivan or a crossover hybrid, maybe a small truck). So yes, this particular model in itself is about 2 things, money and fun. But the money part leads to something much more practical.
It's too heavy and it handles like a van.
Sorry. It's fast in a straight line for a short time. It is a very cool piece of technology that I hope makes tons of cash, too. It's really not that expensive, either.
Ferrari should buy Tesla Motors (or license its technology) and make the Ferarri Teslarossa (in red, of course).
You do understand what "rosso" means in Italian, right?
You do understand what "testa" means in Italian, right?
You really think Ferrari needs Tesla to build them an electic engine, they won plently of F1 championships buy buiding the best petrol engines in the world, electric isn't too hard for a talented engineer.
Why doesn't Tesla try building their own chassis and suspension first instead of getting Lotus to do it for them.
Man I'd love one. Those things are ridiculously fun. Cheap to operate is only a bonus. That is, if someone were to GIVE one to me.
Get different wheels then.
Whops. I down ranked myself on that one.
No you didn't we did.....
Sorry, but those wheels are *ugly*.
Get different wheels then. It isn't a mac, you can change things on a car you don't like really easily...