0 to 60: 2013 Ford Mustang GT Gets Burned by Electric Car

Tesla Motors (NASDAQ: TSLA  ) set out to kill the image of electric cars as golf carts. And it succeeded -- at least in the eyes of anyone who's taken a Roadster or a Model S test drive. Both cars will pull you back in your seat. But how do they stack up against their gas-guzzling peers? After a visit to Zero to 60 Times, some of the results are a bit surprising.

Tesla Roadster

Source: Tesla Motors.

Tesla's first electric car, the 2008 Tesla Roadster, set a pretty high standard: zero to 60 in 4.6 seconds -- not bad.

The 2011 Tesla Roadster 2.5 S hit 60 in just 3.7 seconds.

Tesla Model S Performance

Source: Tesla Motors.

The large body on the Model S doesn't slow down Tesla's performance much. The 2013 Model S Performance hit 60 in 3.9 seconds. The company's slowest version of the Model S, the 60 kWh, hits 60 in 5.9 seconds.

2013 Ford Mustang GT 5.0

Source: AutoWeek.

Zero to 60 in 4.5 seconds -- slower than both the Roadster and the Model S Performance.

2013 BMW M550d xDrive

Source: Car and Driver.

Zero to 60 in 4.8 seconds -- again, slower than both the Roadster and the Model S Performance.

2013 Chevrolet Camaro Convertible ZL1

Source: AutoBlog.

Zero to 60 in 4 seconds. You guessed it: slower than both the Roadster and the Model S Performance.

2013 Mercedes-Benz CL65 AMG

Source: AutoBlog.

A handcrafted 6.0-liter bi-turbo V12 with 621 horsepower, the 2013 Mercedes-Benz is equipped with some serious muscle. Still, at zero to 60 in 4.3 seconds, it loses to both the Roadster and the Model S Performance. Not to mention you'll be paying more, too.

2014 Porsche 911 GT3

Source: Porsche.

Luxury sports-car maker Porsche is tough competition for anyone. Its 2014 911 GT3 gets to 60 in an impressive 3.3 seconds. But for a large sedan, the Model S Performance trails remarkably close behind at 3.9 seconds.

Green or not, Tesla's electric cars can perform
There's been a lot of debate about whether electric cars really are better for the environment. Fool contributor Katie Spence makes a great case against battery-electric vehicles as "green cars." But is Tesla's "green" image the only factor propelling the company to success?

As the debate rages on, Tesla continues to rack up noteworthy accolades. Motor Trend named the Model S its 2013 Motor Trend Car of the Year by a unanimous vote. Consumer Reports gave the car a 99 points out of a possible 100, the highest rating it has ever given. And now the car has received the highest safety rating ever among sedans, minivans, and SUVs in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's history.

Whatever people believe is the greenest option, there's no denying the Tesla's recent success. If it can continue to deliver top-notch technology on wheels like the Model S and the Roadster, Tesla may continue surprising the world -- green enough or not.

Tesla isn't the only growth stock stunning investors. This incredible tech stock is growing twice as fast as Google and Facebook, and more than three times as fast as and Apple. Watch our jaw-dropping investor alert video today to find out why The Motley Fool's chief technology officer is putting $117,238 of his own money on the table, and why he's so confident this will be a huge winner in 2013 and beyond. Just click here to watch!


Read/Post Comments (70) | Recommend This Article (18)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 9:57 AM, southernshark wrote:

    Most people know that electric cars produce maximum torque at zero speed. Meaning that they don't have to rev up like a traditional engine. This gives them quite an edge in the zero to 60 category.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 10:07 AM, AlaaSadek wrote:

    Who in his right mind would pay for the Porsche to go from 0 to 60 in a 0.6 faster than the Tesla? Forget the price, I am 6'3" how will I fit in this German tiny car? In the Tesla I can take my family in it and the shoping too and still have room for more! And on top of that I can charge it for life for free. If I chose the chepeast Tesla Model S that unfortunatly is much slower than the Porsche by a second or two I can get TWO Teslas for the price of one Porcshe!

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 10:11 AM, sagebrush52 wrote:

    Why didn;'t you choose the Shelby GT500? Because it also does 0-60 @3.7 plus 202 top speed. If geared for dragging who knows. Can smoke your Tesla any time anyday. Not just fresh off the charger with new batteries and the right temperature. This Motley fool guy is a complete joke. Been bragging up these POS Teslas everyday. We know you have stock in the company or bout off by Musk.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 10:13 AM, southernshark wrote:

    Most people don't buy sports cars for the zero to 60 action, but rather for the overall driving performance, ability to make turns at high speed, for example, at which the Porsche will far exceed the ability of the Tesla.

    Of course most people don't buy Porsche's for that either, but rather as a status symbol, much like gold chains or such.

    If I really believed that a Tesla would last my lifetime, I'd be more interested. As it is, I wonder just how well these electric cars hold up. Time will tell. We already know the batteries have to be replaced every few years. How much expense that adds to ownership, I am uncertain of.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 10:18 AM, vet212 wrote:

    it may take off like a rocket but like a rocket it soon runs out of go bet in a road race the Mustang or any Gas powered car will wax its doors and go further down the road AND be quicker to "refuel"

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 10:26 AM, redfox435cat wrote:

    Um, didn't Top Gear already show this 7 years ago when it kicked a diablos @$$ on a short track. and the Tesla had a 200 lb passenger

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 10:27 AM, govreg wrote:


    100% agree. The fool is comparing the top performance Tesla with a lower performing Mustang that is 1/3 the price. Even the top performing Mustang is 1/2 the price of a top performing Model S. I'll take a Mustang (or 2).

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 10:42 AM, DS527 wrote:

    As a certified gearhead, I welcome the new technology. Electric motors produce instant power and are awesome for acceleration. The BIG drawbacks are: weight and efficiency of batteries, recharging times, and the fact that all electrics are not have simply moved the pollution source from the tail pipe to the smokestack. Until we are producing electricity from non fossil fuels, electric cars will never be a solution for the masses.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Carfan79 wrote:

    The thing is, the Tesla Model S can smoke many cars that go to 60 in 3.5 seconds or more simply for one reason. These "tests" for gasoline cars are done at sea level with perfect conditions, and with a professional driver, to get a gasoline car to do the advertised 0-60 times, you have to shift like a madman and be perfectly timed. In the model S, you just floor it at any elevation, at any time, without any shifting, and you will get between 3.9-4.2 seconds, while those gasoline cars that are advertise to go to 60 in 3.5 seconds would do it in 4.5 seconds or even slower.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 11:05 AM, normgarry wrote:

    What none of these TESLA hypsters wants to talk about is that you have to spend between $85,000 and $100,000 to get a Model S that outperforms a $55,000 Chrysler SRT, Mustang GT or Camaro that are packing over 450 Horsepower.

    Look at my youtube: bigtruckseriesreview

    I just bought a BRAND NEW fully loaded Chrysler 300SRT with a Hemi 440 and a Supercharger.

    All of that cost LESS than $70,000 (which is the entry of a new Tesla with Navigation)

    Even if gas and maintenance cost me $5000 a year (which it doesn't), I still can drive for 10 years without hitting the $110,000 mark - the cost of a Model S Performance fully loaded with taxes.

    My car came with features the Model S doesn't even offer. Front/Rear park sensors, adaptive cruise control, heated/ventilated seats, heated/cooled cup holders...


    And I also bought a new JEEP SRT 2014 with my woman for $70,000 recently.

    I will NEVER have range anxiety.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 11:07 AM, guitarz17 wrote:

    I'm a bit old school, and own a few fire-breathing gas-burners. First thing, 0-60 really does not mean a whole heck of a lot. Who cares? Yes, it used to mean a lot to me, but that was when I was young and thought the magazine article writers were always right and knew more than me. What I have learned over the years of driving my fire-breathers is that you are never the fastest, nor are you the slowest. There is always somebody faster, and certainly somebody slower. For me, what matters is the whole package of the car. The look, the feel, and equally as important, the sound. I'm sorry, but this is where Tesla fails miserably. Who flippin cares about 0-60? IT MEANS NOTHING! They could be giving the Teslas away, and I would still not really care to own one. I think of electric cars much like I do a conventional oven vs. a microwave oven. Yes, you can cook a pizza really quickly in a microwave, but the experience of eating it sucks compared to a pizza cooked using heat from a conventional oven. Faster is not always better. I like electricity for certain things. For a car, not so much. Sorry Tesla.....nice try. If I were you, I would consider building refrigerators instead of cars. Yawwwwn.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 11:10 AM, Lotus49 wrote:

    Umm so your telling me your $100,000 electric car will go 0-60 faster than a 30K Mustang wow... This whole article is a joke... Why do you compare the cars on a race track? The pig that is the Model S would be killed... The 911 is not a drag car so who cares 0-60 its about handling.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 11:15 AM, BayCountry wrote:

    What's going on with all the Tesla pumping?

    Not to mention I can buy two Mustang GTs for the cost of the Model S and three for the cost of the roadster. And I can fill up the Mustang anywhere in the country in 5 minutes. No "range anxiety."

    They're planning on selling 40,000 cars in 2014, which I'm sure is optimistic, but at a market cap of $20 billion, that's $500,000 per car. Tesla's market cap puts them at 1/3 the size of Ford and 2/5 the size of GM. If that isn't a classic bubble I don't know what is. Tulips anyone?

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 11:18 AM, osuintx wrote:

    Once again, pretty sure someone at MF has some investment in Tesla. Not a day goes by that at least one article is not published touting how great this car is. Know what? Yeah, it is fast and innovative. But it is expensive and not as ecologically sound as you tout it to be. Getting sick of hearing about it. It is becoming the Miley Cyrus of the automotive world.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 11:22 AM, BayCountry wrote:

    Mustang Shelby GT500, 0-60: 3.5 seconds, cost: $55,000.

    Tesla S Performance, 0-60: 3.9 seconds, cost: $95,000

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 11:44 AM, CraigW24 wrote:

    As a 60kWh Tesla owner, I am as biased as the gearheads, but I can add information.

    I have 7000 miles on my car and it is not only extremely fast, but corners like a go-cart, has very quick steering, and the quiet is fantastic - like I can really listen to complex music and hear all of it while driving. All this in a 4600lb car that holds 5 and - with the rear seats down - holds more than many SUVs. All this with an engine with one moving part and no oil or water...hummm!

    Oh, and the 17" touchscreen pretty much eliminates the need for buttons and dials on the dash - as well as being able to update many functions in the car over the internet.

    The looks also draw 'thumbs up' from a surprising number of people.

    At least us owners are happy with this alternative.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 11:51 AM, Deming1328 wrote:

    Consumer Reports gave the TESLA highest ratings ever given a car. A few weeks later the new 2014 Chevrolet Impala gets rated and lo and behold ratings are again very high. Think about the agenda being pushed........we need to get off of oil and use alternative fuels AND General Motors needs to be perceived as making great cars. Just makes me think.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Ryan117 wrote:

    BOTH Tesla Models have a range that is half of the mustang Gt and it cost less to fuel the mustang than it does to recharge the tesla. Oh and the mustang is better looking, Sounding, and has a higher top speed. Is more comfortable and MUCH cheaper. The Tesla will never be a real competitor. Its just not gonna happen

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 12:09 PM, viking2265 wrote:

    To AlaaSadek......You can recharge your car for life for free? Free? I don't think so. Someone, somewhere is paying for that electricity. And if you want to race for pink slips, I'll gladly race you from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. Your 6 figure Tesla against my 2011 $25k Kia Sorento. I'll get there in 8 hours on one tank. You'll leave Friday and might make it by Sunday......if you can find a place to charge up...for free.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 12:09 PM, OldDragRacer wrote:

    Zero 2 Sixty not important to me, what does it do in Zero 2 Eighty...lmao

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 12:10 PM, LungsOfSteel wrote:

    The editor must own a lot of Tesla stock.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 12:11 PM, coastalcordage wrote:

    I've dealt with renewable energy long enough to call...."BS". In modified circumstances I'm sure the Tesla out accelerated the others but at what cost to it's storage capacity? Remember to give me a call Tesla while your charging your toy and I'll give you a ride to the store in my F150. Oh yeah enjoy that second job you'll have to get to pay for the outrageous electrical bill your fixing to receive from recharging that beauty.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 12:16 PM, setsunauchiha wrote:

    Gotta love how they didn't bother to compare it to a Corvette. C7 is faster, better looking, and costs less. Plus what was up with comparing it to the ZL1 convertible and not the Coupe? Were they just picking out the versions it could actually beat or what?

    They can keep there Tesla. I'll keep my bowties.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 12:22 PM, capt26thga wrote:

    Dont beat up the Telsa, it will have its niche following and so will all the other car brands. I still like the sound of a V8. That doesnt make its the best or the most powerful engine but I like it. Sooner or later someone is going to come up with the next great thing in automobiles. Maybe electric is not it. My concern is recharging times. Great for around town or going to work but not a long trip. Then of course the replacement of batteries is very expensive, but then so is replacing an engine. When will we get George Jetsons car? Now that would be great. Folds up into a briefcase, flys, holds the whole family....awsome. If only some super brain would invent that.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 12:34 PM, Fiat500S wrote:

    Not impressed with 0-60 and 1/4 mile times any more. Big deal, I pass every one of these cars in a Fiat 500 Sport in traffic every day. Driver doesn't look any cooler than I do going stop light to stop light and having to stop and idle at 0 mph.

    Do a 3.7 second 0-60 and you're a maniac and police/highway patrol will label you an aggressive driver. And don't get me started on replacing high performance tires that cost $ 400 a copy. Wait until you hit another car or pedestrian/cyclist showing off like that ? You will need a lawyer that day to keep you out of jail, that's if you ever drive a car with a license ever again. And the victim's family is going to want 100's of thousands if not millions in restitution as part of the deal. Read up on what a vehicular manslaughter prison term is before you mash the accelerator pedal like that.

    Wreck a Tesla or any of them and they are no better than the $ 20K car for drive-ability.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 12:42 PM, flakeyfish wrote:

    It takes a pretty small person to brag about a 100,000 dollar Tesla whipping a 35-40,000 Mustang. If we want to see which is better how about they swap the GT for a Boss 302 and take the race to Leguna Seca, Sebring, or Road Atlanta then we'll see who whips who's ass. Same story with the ZL1. Another complaint....why couldn't this blogger be a man and compare the Tesla S the the BMW M5? The Beemer is a tad bit pricier but it post the same 0-60 time and will absolutely rape the Tesla on a race track or winding mountain road. The most comical comparison though is a the Porsche GT3. Apparently .6 seconds quicker than a Mustang is a blow out but .6 seconds slower than the Porsche and it's a remarkably close race. Guess what's also a remarkably close race: The previously mentioned M5, Jag XFR, Audi RS 6, Mercedes AMG E63, and Caddie CTS-V. None of those want any part of a GT3 in it's natural habitat either. Finally, I get to the CL65 Merc....I guess all the grand tourers that aren't for little old ladies were busy that day. Aston Martin DB9? Vanquish? Why didn't this clown go balls deep and call out the Ferrari F12 Berlinetta or Nissan GT-R?

    The Tesla S is a fine machine but MF needs to quit touting the thing as the be all/end all baddest ass car of all time.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 12:55 PM, Spj1294 wrote:

    I work for a Porsche dealership and just came back from a training event which included the Tesla as a comparison vehicle. I had the opportunity to drive the Tesla S with the performance package.We were comparing the new Panamera S E-hybrid. Yes, the Tesla is fast in a straight line, but a lot of cars that cost 100k go fast in a straight line. The car is okay around corners, certainly not a GoKart... CraigW24 has obviously never driven a Porsche. What really got me about the Tesla was how incredibly cheap the materials are in the interior. My sons Audi A4 has a much nicer interior...For 100k the plastic is cheap and the leather is even cheaper...If your considering a Tesla, compare interiors of any of the German auto makers, especially the A8 or Panamera and see what a 100k should look like. If your looking to blow a 100k to save money on fuel then I guess this is the car for you.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 1:02 PM, jroc734 wrote:

    Just when I think the internetz can't get any more stupid, and full of BS I see this thread. Who gives a flying fuhuk what a car will do 0-60? OP you are stupid. Get over your fanboy point-a-views. Telsa doesn't make a better performance car than most of these other cars regardless of it's 0-60 time. Electric motors are broad and responsive and 0-60 has a lot to do with hooking up. A GTR for example would rape these cars off the line. Not too many people race 0-60, and the Telsa would be hard pressed to beat any of these cars in any real race. In reality the Telsa's aren't on a real legit performance cars level in most performance categories.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 1:03 PM, VoxDeus wrote:

    People who hate electric cars are starting to sound desparate.

    They should.

    If you hate electric vehicles - don't buy one.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 1:04 PM, rito33 wrote:

    People don't necessarily buy a Porsche for the performance. They also buy it for the status, quality, and the overall feel. Just because its capable of great acceleration doesn't mean you have to blast down the local street at 80 mph unless you have no self control. If you have no self control then you should not own a sport's car.

    Ditto for other sports/luxury cars. Ask most any owner over the age of 40. Quarter mile times may not mean much to the avg driver, but it is still the benchmark for acceleration and will most likely continue to be for a long time.

    If you are happy with your Fiat 500 Sport then that is fine. You are entitled to your opinion. This is not an article on sensible cars or how to drive safely. If you don't know by now how and where to drive your sports car safely you never will.

    So enjoy your Fiat 500S just know there are people who have the means to buy and enjoy something flashier classier.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 1:05 PM, mfool21 wrote:

    I'm sure there are some good aspects to Tesla cars but I hate how yahoo keeps showing links to Motley Fools overhyping of these cars. Considering no longer using yahoo so I'm not tempted to click on the links and keep reading overhyped up Elon Musk and Tesla articles.

    These Motley Fool crew must have given Musk a B-J or two, or vice versa.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 1:20 PM, speculawyer wrote:

    But wait . . . there's more! Electric cars are . . . very quiet, low vibration, extremely cheap to fuel, almost zero maintenance, pennies per mile, can fuel from a PV system on your roof, no oil changes, etc.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Knickerbocker26 wrote:

    After running a car show for 6 years I can honestly say that most "car guys" are dinosaurs, and dinosaurs get upset when you drain their swamp.

    A few years ago electric cars were little more than golf carts. Tesla is a game changer. Is it for everybody, no. But the tech is pretty amazing.

    It's only gonna get better. University of Illinois and Oak Ridge labs have made battery advances recently that may increase energy density by a factor of 4 to 8 and cut recharging times to minutes instead of hours.

    Imagine an electric car with an 800 mile range that could be charged in 20 minutes. When this happens the IC engine will be on the way out. CAFE standards will continue to climb, emmisions will get tighter.

    Evolve or go extinct.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 1:46 PM, bcweir wrote:

    What person in their right mind purchases a car solely on their acceleration? I think of at least a dozen things more important to me than acceleration! How about things like appearance (OK, the Tesla DOES look better than many of the cars on the road, but that's not sufficient to influence a purchase decision either), value for the money, the brand, depreciation, features, interior and cargo space, comfort, performance (not just acceleration), and hey here's an important one -- where to refuel it? That last one is the nail in the Tesla's coffin: you still can't go cross country in it yet. Til then, the Tesla is an expensive TOY, and not a very useful one at that. Tesla, call me back when you can recharge it ANYWHERE.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 1:49 PM, caviar4thought wrote:

    I'd buy a Tesla just outta common sense. Most of us are so primitive as to drive cars based on the last millennium technology. I don't really care about the 0 to 60 thingy (that's just for insecure dudes to show off), but I DO care about everything else ..

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 1:49 PM, SteveG55 wrote:

    Did anyone read the opening line? Setting out the kill the image of an electric car being a golf cart? The cars they compared it to are known as fast cars to put things into perspective. Clearly there are faster cars out there but most are 2 seaters the model S could technically fit 7 along with trunk space. I live in Fairfield, CT and there is Starbucks that have hook ups to charge your car. It seems everyone is focused on the price tag vs price tag, but look at total cost of ownership; fuel, maintenance, insurance, etc.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 1:49 PM, kca124cain wrote:

    Zero to 60 is not an offical race. In drag racing, it is the 1/4 mile and the $28,000 Mustang GT smokes the $88,000 Tesla in the 1/4 mile. Plus, with the Mustang GT, you have a real warranty and the car can be serviced at any Ford dealer.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 1:53 PM, kca124cain wrote:

    I would buy the Mustang.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 2:00 PM, HunterofWarrior7 wrote:

    The fastest car in the world has been an electric car since 1971.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 2:00 PM, TechGuy6554 wrote:

    Okay, let's say you're going to drive your family from L.A. to Seattle (last minute plane tickets are pretty expensive). Which car will get there fastest, keeping in mind refill times for gas vs. electric? Electric cars still need development time.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 2:03 PM, HunterofWarrior7 wrote:

    1971 Datsun electric vehicle beat all cars in the 1/4 mile drag races. That is why we have "engine" only races now, not "motor" races anymore. Motor races allow electric motors whereas engine is for oil based motors only.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 2:03 PM, guitarz17 wrote:

    Was talking to a friend last week who is an EMT about the Tesla. One interesting thing he noted is that if you crash in a Tesla and are trapped afterwards, the "Jaws of Life" are off-limits. He said his department received a Federal Notice on the subject of the dangers of cutting into a car with super high voltage lines running through it. They have been instructed to use alternate methods in freeing the trapped passengers......whatever that is. Next.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 2:03 PM, HunterofWarrior7 wrote:

    Not true regarding the Jaws of Life

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 2:04 PM, HunterofWarrior7 wrote:

    The Tesla is a much safer car than anything on the road today. In fact it broke the machines when tested for safety.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 2:07 PM, kca124cain wrote:

    So, 0.6 seconds between the Tesla S and Mustang is "getting Burned" but a .6 second difference between Porsche and Tesla S, with the Porsche being faster is "remarkably close"

    The writer has accidentally stuck his head up his ***.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 2:07 PM, lemkete wrote:

    Twenty percent slower 0-60 than a 911 is not "remarkably close".

    Also, promoting and using electric cars is not called evolving. It's called a pipe dream. While technology may eventually(aka decades at best) bring us to the ability for an electric car to perform similarly to a gasoline car, the cost for the average car buyer will never be affordable. Then there is the while environmental issue with the batteries that no one seems to want to discuss.

    The true evolution of vehicles at this point would be cng. Cleaner fuel, low cost, fast fill ups, never ending fuel supply, and technology that is available now.

    Electric might be viable in century or two but it's not the next logical stepping stone for vehicle evolution.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 2:08 PM, HunterofWarrior7 wrote:

    No matter what we do in life, there are always folks who prefer the old over innovation, whether it came to the car, the airplane, the wheel, etc. We have become a stagnant and backward society afraid of the future, innovation, and forward thinking. This is what almost bankrupted Apple before Steve Jobs returned. It may bankrupt the USA

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 2:09 PM, guitarz17 wrote:

    HunterofWarrior7...True, regarding the jaws of life.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 2:11 PM, kca124cain wrote:

    HunterWarrior, the comment by Musk about "almost breaking the machines" was Musk joking around. From there, the BS got twisted into "breaking the machines" which is absurd. Also, the NHTSA has admonished them for their false claims of the Tesla S beng the safest car ever. There is no long term analysis to support this.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 2:12 PM, HunterofWarrior7 wrote:

    The EV-1 did 0-60 in 3.4 seconds, just .2 seconds faster than my the Porsche Carrera at the time. That was in 1996... the patents and the cars were purchased by one of our local oil companies (well, I guess they are no longer local since they are around the world now), but we still use the EV-1 technology in our working stations around the plant and in some vehicles, they just can't leave the oil company land.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 2:13 PM, HunterofWarrior7 wrote:

    Kca124cain go to the NHTSA sight, Motor Trend and Consumer Reports sites as well. Look at their results.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 2:16 PM, HunterofWarrior7 wrote:

    Don't get me wrong, I like making money and I get a lot of money from oil, but I moved because of the devastation to the communities in the San Joaquin Valley (in California). Now even the produce that is sown there has high quantities of lead, oil, etc. I think its time to protect our communities, and I'm trying to be respectful, as I know you are too. I wish you could see the levels of Autism now in the San Joaquin Valley. I still go there on business... I read how the air scars people's lungs, etc. We need to move on. As a nation, we need to continue to innovate.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 2:24 PM, ImtheBaldEagle wrote:

    So I'm wondering why going so fast is so important when its illegal to drive like that. What people don't understand is that if Obama continues to destroy the coal industry the cost of electricity will go up so much your electric car will be to costly to charge.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 2:31 PM, kca124cain wrote:

    Hunter, the fastest car in the world is jet powered. where do you come up with your nonsense.

    world land speed record 763 mph

    electric record is 204 mph

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 2:40 PM, kca124cain wrote:

    What is faster 60 to 100. The Tesla S, or the Mustang at 1/3 the price? The Mustang.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 2:41 PM, kca124cain wrote:

    Electricity is not free. If Tesla owners are plugging in for a free charge, the rest of us are paying for it. More welfare for the rich, paid by everyone else.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 2:46 PM, jeangodard wrote:

    Let me see...I'm gonna win the lottery next tuesday and I'll buy one of those Tesla plus build a awesome house with all solar panels so my ride will run for free...I got a plan !

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 2:54 PM, kca124cain wrote:

    Prior to the mid 1970's, Detroit Edison gave away free light bulbs to their customers on an exchange basis. In the mid 70's, there was legal action taken by a hardware store owner. Detroit Edison was ordered to cease the practice because it restricted fair trade.

    If Tesla or others setup free charge stations, how long will it take for gas station owners to file suits? Also, funds for roads are collected out of gasoline taxes. How are Tesla owners going to pay their fair share for using the roads?

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 3:15 PM, nevadabil wrote:

    100 years ago the steam car could blow the doors off of the gas autos of the time. A Stanley Steamer reached the speed of 127 mph in 1906. The thing that did in the steam car was the wait to get the water to boil to make steam, the need for adding water often, and that the fast speeds could not be sustained for very long. By WW1 steam cars were no longer being produced.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 3:35 PM, DeaneCO wrote:

    Try this in your Dino-Cars: 0-60 in 5 utterly smooth, quiet seconds using solar electricity. I did that this morning in my Tesla. The only way you could do that is by pushing your gas guzzlers off a cliff. Which will seem like a good alternative once you test drive a Tesla. Welcome to the future guys.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 3:44 PM, BatteryWaste wrote:

    Everyday the same thing form this crew, Telsa is the bomb. Well I say NOT, Telsa can't play by the same rules every other manufacturer does world wide to sell cars in America. I for one say play by the rules or get out of the game!

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 4:03 PM, ckgod wrote:

    Mustang is a piece of cr@p no matter how fast it can go anyway, even though it's fit and finish is still a little ahead of its Chevy and Dodge counterparts.

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 4:22 PM, DmosleyBoy wrote:

    the S starts 70K+ while the roaster starts at 100K+......and there are more expensive versions of both?

    and ur comparing it to a 5.0, a camaro.....

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 7:02 PM, RobertCLang wrote:

    Well, the difference between the Porsche 3.3 secs to 60 and the Tesla 3.9 is not particularly "close". But having said that, getting back to 0 can be even more of a test. I would bet a cup of coffee that the Tesla could equal or better the Porsche times from 0 to 60 back to 0 due to the inherent braking characteristics of the electric motor, especially if a nonprofessional is behind the wheel.

    Robert C. Lang

  • Report this Comment On August 25, 2013, at 11:30 PM, KGerbil1 wrote:

    There are so many people posting here that seem to know nothing about this car or technology.

    I drive a Lexus LS 460 and also have a Mercedes SL55 for speed. The point of this article is that not only is the Tesla a luxury car on par with the luxury of the Lexus, but that it goes amazingly fast to.

    I would never own a Mustang or Corvette, a Lexus, Mercedes, Porsche, yes, and the Tesla also yes. It is a different class of automobile.

    Now for straightening out the facts:

    A. The electricity at the super charging stations is generated by solar panels, not an electric plant, duh, Elon owns Solar City.

    And YES, the charge at those station is FREE for the life of the car. And by 2015 they will be ALL over the country, duh, duh.

    B. The battery is under warranty for 8 YEARS......

    The same technology is used in the Prius, and those cars have been in use for years with no battery problems.

    C. It cost MUCH less to charge the Tesla at home than to fill up my Lexus with gas, duh.

    D. The Tesla has won every award possible, Motor Trend and Automotive Magazines car of the year, Consumer Report's highest rating, and now the highest safety rating. Don't no what else the complainers here want them to win, but I'm sure they will win it.

    Does it corner like a Porsche, NO, but I've been there and done that.

    And yes, I may get to Vegas 30 minutes behind you, since I have to stop to top off in Barstow, but if you have to make a stop for your gal to take a piss, we get there at the same time.

    I am still hopeful for natural gas cars, but Elon has made the perfect electric car, get over it.

  • Report this Comment On August 27, 2013, at 5:07 PM, CraigW24 wrote:

    As I said above, I drive a 60kWh Tesla. That means I automatically am not the fastest Tesla on the block, nor do I drive the farthest before I have to recharge.

    I put a small deposit down in 2009, waited for it to be produced, and saved up my money to pay for it. It cost several times what any other car I ever bought cost. All that means is that I am not really the target audience for the Tesla.

    That said, the car is absolutely wonderful. Is it perfect - no! However, it is such a welcome change that I am very proud to drive it. The total package is so different it is bound to make changes all other car makers have to react to. It is beautiful, fast, quiet, safe, and I get to charge it with my solar panels every night. For me and for now, this car is the answer to driving around Los Angeles. Maybe it doesn't fit Cheyenne, Wyoming, but that is not where I live.

    I am not trying to convert the rest of you, but you seem to want to take any opportunity, with any shortcoming, to completely write off this car. Do so at your own risk - it is a great piece of machinery.

  • Report this Comment On August 28, 2013, at 9:12 AM, dannystrong wrote:

    Tesla is a "growth stock" by dint of accounting tricks and hucksterism. Beware the man who announces he has paid off a government loan -- by borrowing yet more money, just from somebody else.

    Oh, and let's try a Ford GT versus a Tesla from New York to L.A. Let's see, the Ford will make it in, what, 92 hours -- presuming three days driving (under the speed limit), 8 hours sleeping between days for the driver, and 4 hours for the 10 refuelings it requires.

    The Tesla? Let's assume the driver sleeps in between the 11 (yes, 11) rechargings needed -- and let's assume you can find recharging stations just when you need them -- it'll take 9 hours each (according to Tesla) to charge it back up, presuming you can find a 240v connection. Otherwise 14 hours each.

    So, 11 rechargings, 9 hours each. Plus travel time? A week. About twice as long. If you can't find 240v chargers? Nine and a half days. Three times as long.

    I would not expect to see a Tesla in the Gumball Rally anytime soon...

  • Report this Comment On August 29, 2013, at 2:34 PM, CraigW24 wrote:


    No the Tesla cannot cross the U.S.A. today, but neither could a gas car in 1911. Meanwhile, if gas gets to $4.50 in California soon - it is coming, my friend - let me know how much you have to cut back your driving, because I will not be cutting back mine.

    The Tesla is not just one thing - it is several very good things. Is it right for everyone? No. Is it right for a lot of people? Absolutely, and that is enough to allow the company to prosper.

  • Report this Comment On August 31, 2013, at 4:11 PM, gigglehertz wrote:

    So much hate on the right. The author is trying to point out how far electric vehicles have come from the golf cart image days. By comparing the model S to typical hot rods. Not the best, not the absolute fastest in the world, but typical. You didn't just "win" the argument against electric vehicle technology by pointing out some supercar that could beat it 0-60, or point out any range limitations. The point of the article is that EV's are evolving very fast, and when the next battery breakthrough happens (when not if) then it will be game over for your dinosaur cars, which is the reason for Tesla's valuation. ICE was fine for it's day, it works, sure. But it's not getting any better, and soon will be eclipsed by the next big thing. The model S is a luxury sedan, and if you can't afford it so what? There are others that exist or will soon come out that you can. Tesla itself is planning a $35k affordable car around 2017. So if you like smoke and noise and supporting middle east dictators then keep filling up for $4/gallon.

  • Report this Comment On April 10, 2014, at 5:50 AM, titoseven wrote:

    I would definitely support and purchase Tesla vs gas vehicles. I was blown away when I notice fastest Tesla from 0-60 3.9/sec here of course if is is true.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2608589, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/29/2016 1:01:44 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated 3 hours ago Sponsored by:
DOW 18,339.24 110.94 0.61%
S&P 500 2,171.37 11.44 0.53%
NASD 5,318.55 12.84 0.24%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

9/28/2016 4:00 PM
TSLA $206.27 Up +0.46 +0.22%
Tesla Motors CAPS Rating: **