skierpage
skierpage
skierpage

but for "technical reasons" the power output has to be limited to somewhere in the region of 60 % ... during our test drive. Maximum speed [has] been restricted to 75 MPH. Hard acceleration is also out of the question, as that may upset the batteries and cause all sorts of problems. Problems like fire.

@Flathead Smith: Nice math, but it's simpler to just look at actual solar-powered cars, which are invariably an enormous flat panel on wheels with a tiny hole for the driver's head to poke out. It's much more efficient and cost-effective to site solar panels on your roof.

Caparo T1runs 575 HP and 550kg, "giving the car a power-to-weight ratio of 1,045 horsepower per tonne (779.3 kW/t)"

@FromaBuick6: Quit whining, man up, and respond to @MplsCarPunk's challenge above by offering your better alternative.

DoE has funded car programs throughout the Clinton and Bush years. This is a continuation.

Explanations of the situation with no registration required at Forbes and some blog.

@dragon951: Wow. I see where you're coming from, but where does it end? If every car purchase turns into what you could have done with the money instead, we wind up with fake "I drive this clunker but I spent the cost of an Insight on solar cookers for Somalians, so suck it!" bumper stickers.

The concept carefully hid the louvers by making them matching gray.

I thought Lutz was very good, in admitting failure all over for old Detroit, and his point about gas prices determining the kinds of cars people want to buy came straight out of Jalopnik. You didn't mention him pointing out the decent MPG of the Equinox.

@Flathead Smith: What exactly is the "toxic nightmare" of lithium ion battery manufacture, then possible reuse, and then recycling? How does it compare that with the pollution from other materials that go into the car?

@KenFry: I get most of your analysis except this

@GV_Goat: 45mpg? ... Hardly seems worth the effort.