Have you guys seen this nightmare? It comes with only a drivers seat because having more seats involves having passengers and that would slow the car down. 840HP, 1.3 second 0-30 mph, 2.3 second 0-60, 9.65 second quarter mile off the showroom floor. I'm guessing gas mileage is what 8.0 city, 12 highway? http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/11/autos/dodge-challenger-demon/index.html
They're both kind of ridiculous. But FCA is giving ( a few ) people what they want. And since they can't really compete on fuel efficiency or reliability , they get attention any way they can.
I'd easily take a Tesla Model S over the Demon. Which is just as quick, seats 5 (or 7) and is much more efficient than the Prius.
But which will impress 15-year-old teenage boys more ? Kinda tells you something about FCA/Mopar performance car buyers. And yes, Model S for me , too , please.
There are a few stories out on the 2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk. That's right up there in crazy horsepower land. I'm not sure I'd accept the Tesla Model S as a representation of "efficiency"... to me it is a bit of an electric FSP. Hopefully, the Model 3 will be more efficient on a miles per kWh basis. There's nothing wrong with liking the Model S of course, and I do like it as well, but as a luxury electric vehicle.
Yeah, the Model S is possibly the LEAST efficient EV sold today, but it is far better than the best fossil fueled car, nonetheless.
Now you can buy a 1000 plus HP Pontiac Trans-Am built on the Camaro chassis. http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2017/04/14/firebird-trans-am-doppelganger-is-dodge-demon-destroyer.html
The Demon is strictly a "Halo" car. There are likely going to be very few of them made and sold, they will be extremely expensive, and will also not be driven very many miles at all. This is a drag racer that can be licensed to drive on the street. The amount of fuel that will be consumed by all of these cars over their lifetimes will be equivalent to a quart of water over Niagara falls. Some of them will be raced, while the majority will be snapped up by rich "collectors" who will stick them in storage as an "investment". I wouldn't be too concerned about their potential fuel consumption. I think one sales day worth of F150 will consume more fuel than all of the Demons likely to be sold. As to the Tesla comparison, the Demon is simply faster., and for some, that's the only thing that matters. The Tesla is miles for practical while only being slightly"slower". The pricing equivalence remains to be seen, as the Tesla P100D with ludicrous+ is $135K
Hi Neil: Not really. The grid is not as efficient as you may believe vs the hyper efficient hybrids available nowadays. On a performance basis, the Tesla S' are killer BEVs however. Wayne
Depending on where you are in the US, driving a typical EV is at least as efficient as a typical ICE, and often much more efficient than any ICE. Here is UCS's map:
Hi Neil: Not really. Approximately 2/3 of the energy to create a kWh of energy is wasted at the plant vs < 50 percent for a gallon of gasoline. If the infographic took care of that problem, the Prius/Ioniq is a better choice in more than 50 percent of the country. The non-BEV provides more range, no real range anxiety, no real refueling time, better reliability and mostly a much lower TCO. Wayne
Wayne and Neil, you both made some good points and it would behoove anyone contemplating greenhouse gas reductions using PHEVs or BEVs to learn where their electricity comes from. Here's a rather dated reference article but I think the explanation of the factors affecting the issue still holds true. Good luck and may we all make good choices. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/pdfs/argonne_phev_evaluation_report.pdf
Union of Concerned scientists include all generation and grid losses for the electricity. I am NOT sure if they include the energy overhead of the gasoline, though. Over time, as we get more renewable energy on our grid, the better EV's will get. Because with renewable energy, there is ZERO generation loss, and grid loss is not really relevant, either. Wasted energy in a gallon of gas is far greater than 50% - the latest Prius wastes at least 60% AFTER it is fully warmed up and running in ideal conditions. Plus, gasoline doesn't appear out of thin air. Oil has to be found, and then extracted. It has to be transported, refined, transported again. There is at least 6kWh of electricity used for each gallon produced - and that electricity has the same overhead as what would be used in an EV. So, an EV can drive ~24 miles on just the electricity - and the oil would stay in the ground.
Hi Neil: Gasoline is far less than 50 percent losses well to tank. Grid electricity is in the 60 to 70 percent loss range to the charger plus another 10 to 15 percent though the charging processes. This is where EV advocates wave their hands and say infinite mpg. It is not even close. Adding the TD from tank to wheels or pack to wheels, the ICE is a 60 to 70 percent percent loss whereas the BEV is 20 - 30 percent loss. Back of the envelope calcs look like this. BEV -- 0.40 (Grid electricity)* 0.93 (line losses)* 0.85 (charging Losses) * 0.75 (car losses) = 23 percent efficient ICE -- 0.70 (well to tank gasoline) * 0.35 (car losses) = 24 percent efficient The grid is not renewable and it could be centuries before it entirely is. Wayne
Wayne, the UCS data already includes the generation and grid losses - and the charging process, too. So, their numbers are the WORST case for EV's; because of possibly missing factors for gasoline. As far as I have seen, the wall-to-wheel efficiency of EV's is ~85% at least. That includes charging and car losses. As we increase our renewable energy generation, the generation loss gets lower and lower. EV's are the only way we can stop using fossil fuels, at a reasonable cost. I have not seen good calculations of the energy overhead for each gallon of gas. As time goes on, it is getting significantly higher: deep water drilling, fracking - including super-heated steam extraction, tar sand bitumen, are all much more energy intensive than what Saudi Arabia has to do. Another massive overhead for oil - is our military.
I think the Demon is kind of baller, even if I'd pick the Hellcat over it as a more roadable car, or one of the Shelby Mustangs over either. Or in that vein, maybe a 6-speed 2.0 turbo Cad ATS... Or if I'm going to keep sliding down the horsepower curve, my realistic money would go either to a base Elantra with its handsome redesign and six speed, sans the idiotic touchscreen, or a Fiesta 1.0 EB. Possibly a Mirage would play into that too, but for the $10-15k range I'd rather have a Used Fiesta ST or Fiat 500 Abarth.
An old thread talking about a Dodge Demon: B-buuu-tttttt, someone even chose an Elantra, just like the base, manual 6-speed we have (hey, it don't matter if its a 2016 or 2017)! Gosh, I must be on the CleanMPG website! An even better choice back then in 2016 or 2017 would have been a new (not used) 2016 manual Elantra for under $12,800
I don't think they sell an MT Elantra for 2020 , which is a shame. A Civic with 6MT is a LOT more $$$. A 6MT Fit is still a good fit , though.
