I understand that and agree with you, but the wording of OP implied a gasoline engine is so heavy it would have a significant impact on the equation - with current technology that's really not true. You can find inline-4 engines in modern vehicles that weigh under 300 pounds, whereas the motor and inverter pack in the Model 3 weigh 350 pounds.
Even so, this is all trumped by the fact that the battery pack by itself weighs about 1,000 pounds more than the motor.
Those 300lb engines would be a poor replacement in a model 3 competitor. Plug in hybrids can get away with it, but at that point all 300lb could be used for larger battery packs.
> Those 300lb engines would be a poor replacement for a model 3 competitor.
Are you saying a 300lb engine can't compete with a Model 3 in terms of driving performance? Here's a 5+ year old engine that weighs 290 pounds, makes just under 300 hp and lb-ft of torque in a stock vehicle.
With a mild tune (software upgrade, about $1000) you can turn a Golf R into a 11 second 1/4 mile car (you can do the same with a GTI, but it's a lot more work because it's FWD). It will literally run laps around a Tesla at a racetrack because the Tesla will overheat.
Anyway, back to my original point - OP made a comment that seemed to me like the weight of gasoline engines was really important in comparing efficiencies - it's not. Right now gasoline vehicles are lighter, have longer range, and for many people are more convenient. I look forward to the day electric vehicles have improved enough that they are lighter, have longer range, and for many people are more convenient. But right now battery storage density is a real limiting factor in making that a reality, and the weight of the gasoline engine is nothing more than a second order effect.
If you feel I am wrong, please provide numbers/calculations in your rebuttal - it will make for a much more data-driven discussion.
Your article is reviewing a feature that hadn't been released to the public yet (your article is also from 2018) and strikes me as a bit of a PR piece. It does mention an impressive lap time scored by the Tesla - which is great - but I don't see anything that says the Tesla can drive multiple laps in a row without overheating.
So far nobody has posted an impressive time for any Tesla on the Nurburgring - the track considered the gold standard for performance lap times for decades - and that seems to be because nobody can make it a single lap without the car overheating. I am aware that in the past month Tesla has been making a significant effort to post a good time, and they still haven't done so even with a custom vehicle.
If you can show me a video or article of a Tesla racing 10+ laps in a row at any track without issue, or even doing 2+ fast laps in a row of the Nurburgring let me know. I just googled and couldn't find anything, other than anecdata of Teslas overheating and going into limp mode.
Your suggestion would be a horrific fit for a mainstream car in the model 3’s category. Fuel economy, emissions, and long term reliability are why they don’t put an engine like that in a Honda Accord.
In terms of real world preference, EV’s and plug in hybrids low speed handling characteristics are vastly more useful than top speed. So the 200hp Honda Engine is arguably undersized even in a lighter car.
A Tesla Model 3 usually sells for something like $50,000, I'd guess - it's not competing with a Honda Accord. This article is a year old so it's outdated, but it suggests an average sale price of $60,000 for the Model 3. This clearly puts it in the luxury/performance price bracket.
The engine is considered highly fuel efficient, rated well above 30mpg for most variants and many people report >40mpg in real world usage (obviously this data will be biased towards higher numbers).
The emissions, however, are supposedly great but I don't trust VW at all on this front so I'll just assume they're doing something shady. They are being legally sold in California though, which is really the highest emissions bar there is, so I'm not sure what you'd expect from them (again, assuming they aren't doing shady shit).
And unusually for VW, this is considered a reliable engine. It's been around and iterated upon for much longer than any Tesla.
There is no apples-to-apples comparison between electric and gasoline vehicles, but claiming one of the most highly awarded engines in recent history is lacking in performance is like claiming Teslas are worthless in cold climates - it's more rumor than fact.
I personally know people considering a mid tier Honda Accord vs the base model 3. The numbers they have run provide similar lifetime costs, though clearly many early adopters are less price conscious. Historically, Tesla was not going to make a base model when their was more profit from manufacturing a more expensive car.
Back to that IC engine “With a mild tune” is an issue. You can get reasonable performance on a tiny hatchback with the stock 149 bhp EA888 but that’s not going to cut it on a midsized sedan. Want more performance from the same basic hardware and you will make some real sacrifices, weight, fuel economy, engine life, etc one or more things need to give.
Pretending otherwise is to suggest vast numbers of automotive designers are idiots.
I feel like you just ignore all the numbers I write and invent new ones. A stock Golf R with an EA888 engine makes 292 hp and 280 lb-ft of torque - significantly more than any Accord you can buy new. A Golf R with a mild tune (just software) will generate closer to 350 hp, and moderate-serious tunes start around 400 hp. They also use this engine in their Passat, which is a mid-size sedan which competes directly with the Accord and weighs about the same.
You need to be making an apples or apples comparison for different numbers to be meaningful.
The base golf gets 25 city / 34 highway a Golf R gets 22 city / 29 highway. With a mid tune that golf R gets even worse mileage. These numbers drop further when you talk about a larger car with more wind resistance or weight. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=noform...
Taking a 25+% cut to fuel economy to use a lighter engine is a really bad tradeoff for most people. Especially when the point of this discussion was talking about fuel density comparisons.
On top of this IC’s also need a much larger and more complex transmission among other things which should be included in the weight comparison.
Yup. I drive a lot and don't care much about performance as long as I can get up to highway speed on the on-ramp. Fuel economy, maintenance, longevity all matter a great deal.
Could they not have meant all that is included with gasoline engine cars? I didn’t interpret their statement as to be taken literally to strictly including the weight of engine alone.
Even so, this is all trumped by the fact that the battery pack by itself weighs about 1,000 pounds more than the motor.