Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Won't work efficiently or practically because I'd have one. Steam engines themselves are not very efficient, setting that aside there is no way to turn your fuel source on or off. Perhaps you could turn the coal to powder, use some kind of injection system similar to fuel injection and then ignite it in the combustion chamber. That combustion chamber would still need to be for heating water. There is going to be a lot of ash and it would quickly ruin any mechanical parts like cylinders.
The efficiency would still be lacking because you would have brought a lot of water up to high temperature, driving down to the corner would take a lot of energy to heat up and when you get home it's lost. Steam engines have their purposes where you need constant power like electric generation, using it for a car isn't one of them.
Actually you could use coal for combustion engine. Only a different type of engine.
Conversion Efficiency The theoretical efficiency η of the Stirling engine is given by Carnot's Law thus:
[CENTER]η = (Th - Tc)/Th or η = 1 - Tc/Th[/CENTER] Where Tc is the temperature of the gas when it is cold and Th is the temperature of the gas when it is hot. Practical engines with efficiencies of 50% have been produced. This is double the typical efficiency of an internal combustion engine which has greater pumping and air flow losses in the engine and heat losses through the exhaust gases and cooling system.
And a 2016 Camry starts 23k for the most stripped down model you can get.
84 month loans...
A quick Googling puts the average price at a bit over 34k. All those SUVs and giant pickup trucks are not cheap.
That does not make them affordable, right? I am not referring to sheeple stupidity, allowing them to live beyond their means. I am referring to truly affordable car. That crowd is brainwashed into belief that "it is OK to have 84 months loan" does not change the point - it is not affordable by vast majority of population.
I think one of the benefits of this whole pre-order marketing effort is that it allows the company to start collecting feedback far earlier than a company typically would. With all this lead time, there's still time to address concerns (like the styling of the front end) and gauge the volume of serious interest in different regional markets. Are there a lot of pre-orders in an area with little service or super-charger support? Now they have the lead time to do something about it.
Tesla is a pretty agile company, and I think people overlook that what they see today is probably not going to be what they will see in a year or two from now.
how many of those pre-orders end up in actual sales is going to depend on how much Tesla is willing to subsidize the lease rates. Something like more than 2/3 of 3-series, A4's and C-class sedans are leased, not purchased out right. And the main reason is that the financial arms of these luxury manufacturers inflate the residual values to keep the monthly lease payments affordable.
Personally i don't know how many homeowners (yes, actual ppl who live in homes, not apartments, lofts or townhomes) are willing to shell out thousands to run a 220 line to their garage, not to mention panel upgrades if needed. We're talking about a $40k "near" luxury vehicle, not the Panamera, E-class crowd who have extra thousands to remodel on a whim.
how many of those pre-orders end up in actual sales is going to depend on how much Tesla is willing to subsidize the lease rates. Something like more than 2/3 of 3-series, A4's and C-class sedans are leased, not purchased out right. And the main reason is that the financial arms of these luxury manufacturers inflate the residual values to keep the monthly lease payments affordable.
Personally i don't know how many homeowners (yes, actual ppl who live in homes, not apartments, lofts or townhomes) are willing to shell out thousands to run a 220 line to their garage, not to mention panel upgrades if needed. We're talking about a $40k "near" luxury vehicle, not the Panamera, E-class crowd who have extra thousands to remodel on a whim.
You aren't required to get the 220 line. You can charge the car on a 110 outlet, it will just take longer.
My garage already has a 240 receptacle in my garage which is where my circuit breaker is located... If I wanted a 220 line, I would add one that is literally a feet away... The cost for me is about as cheap as it can get... So I guess it's not a big deal for me... I laugh when I hear complaints about lines cause I see the cost minuscule compared to putting on solar panels on the house...
It sounds like the Model 3 is going to be a curse for Tesla. At first glance they are giving away far too much for $35k. Far too much to make a profit anyway. Initially everybody was assuming free supercharging and autopilot. Now it's apparent that it's merely "capable" of those things, incinuating they'll be an up charge to actually use them. Between that and the fact $27k after rebates just isn't going to happen is going to drive away some orders. We're probably actually talking $50k or so.
If Tesla over judges this data and builds too many batteries and service centers, they may end up stuck with over production. They're in the hole already. They need 500,000 sales a year just to survive.
Given their delay history and poor reliability record, it ain't looking good.
Tesla not like Apple? Fooled me - here in the SF Bay Area where Tesla is based - Elan Musk is the new Steve Jobs. Thousands waited in lines to plunk down $1,000 deposit for the new Model S. Yes, I saw lines at two separate Tesla dealerships that were blocks long. The car could be pre-ordered online, but like the Apple aficionados, people wanted to "feel" the experience in person.
I see many more Teslas (the higher-priced models) on the highways than BMWs and Prius. With the excess money and high-paid tech jobs in this area, the Tesla will be the most common car on the local freeways... until the next great thing comes along.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Steam engines themselves are not very efficient, setting that aside there is no way to turn your fuel source on or off. Perhaps you could turn the coal to powder, use some kind of injection system similar to fuel injection and then ignite it in the combustion chamber. That combustion chamber would still need to be for heating water. There is going to be a lot of ash and it would quickly ruin any mechanical parts like cylinders.
