• Tyrone Posted: 4/4/2011 1:09pm PDT

    In support of Eric. In the reality of today and the next 20 -30 years the Tesla would best be classified a Pollution Transfer Vehicle, since the emissions to move the car are conveninently (at least in California) emitted someplace downwind like a Nevada coal burning plant. So it is not cleaner by virtue of using battery power, and power density / kg still favors ICE's.
    The path to the future maybe electric, and GM's adaption of railroad engine technology to cars in the Volt is likely to be favored by normal 1 - 2 car families, since there is no range limitation on operating the vehicle.
    Yes Tesla is saavy / wise to focus on the very wealthy in their business case, but I think Morgan Stanley is just pumping this stock to create short term pay-offs for the current shareholders.

  • Pete Posted: 4/4/2011 6:38am PDT

    Actually, electric cars make sense when you research hydrogen cars, which are essentially electric motors powered by hydrogen. I think Tesla will eventually have to go this route since battery tech is limited and the elements to build any battery are VERY finite.

  • Efrain Posted: 4/4/2011 5:50am PDT

    When gasoline hits 10 to 15 dollars a gallon, Eric will be the first on line to buy a Tesla third generation priced at 30K. Don't be fooled, the buckets of oil around the world will eventually run out and we won't have much of a choice but to go electric. Any way you look at it, it will be the future, like it or not!

  • fb_702041630 avatar Andy Posted: 4/4/2011 5:29am PDT

    Very well said Dee, and as Kent said some never will never get the SIMPLE truth. Of course they lost millions in 2010, they are bringing a breakthrough product through expensive R&D and hopefully to mass market. The fact they only "lost" that amount in my humble opinion is remarkable. Sadly the world is full of cynical people, some willing innovation and progress for the common good to fail.

  • dee Posted: 4/4/2011 4:29am PDT

    In what respect are they worse for the environment, are overpriced, and in your choice of words 'blow'. They cycle energy of the grid at a fraction the pollution, have better acceleration, are comparable in range, and are priced well with in the high end market.

  • Eric Posted: 4/3/2011 10:25pm PDT

    ^ This post is so obviously a plug for Tesla. Their cars blow, are overpriced, and in most respects are much worse for the environment then many fuel efficient internal combustion engine cars. Auto mags realize the truth, that Tesla lost 154 MILLION dollars in 2010 and they have no future.

  • fb_100003895554030 avatar Samuel Posted: 2/15/2013 8:52am PST

    Tesla still exists, and they are thriving. As far as the car itself, it has been awarded top honors by numerous agencies. The Tesla is nowhere near overpriced like a Maserati Quattroporte is. Your environmental argument has been debunked in detail many times so I'm no going to repeat it.

  • fb_100000005296979 avatar John Posted: 4/2/2011 6:12pm PDT

    Elon Muck of Tesla seems to be the only one in the auto business with any sense when it comes to electrics. He realizes that the price of batteries necessitates building EVs at teh upper price ranges, where EVs can compete economcally. That's what he's done with his Model S, which has better performance (and MUCH better looks) than the high end BMW 5 series.
    With 300 miles of driving range and a mere 45 minute Level 3 recharge time, the Model S can easily
    do trips, a first for electric cars. And its space and operating cost efficiencies are miles ahead of its competitors from BMW, Mercedes, Cadillac and Audi. For the fist time in history an electric is effortlessly besting the best of the gas powered vehicles out there, in every respect. I wonder how long before the gas powered auto mags realize this simple truth? Some never will.