Tesla Whitestar to be offered as both an EV and a REV
Tesla Motors has been getting a lot of press in recent months, be it from First Drives or the shifts in the company's hierarchy. However, even with increasing oil prices, the all electric market remains a small niche. The limited vehicle range, long charging time and lack of charging infrastructure for those who park on the street have left a sizable chunk of potential customers out of reach. Now it seems that Tesla Motors will no longer alienate the general market with their product lineup. They have announced that the Whitestar Sedan, in development for release sometime around the end of 2009, will be offered with two powertrain options. One choice will be the familiar all electric version with an expected range somewhere between 150 and 200 miles and the other choice will be an extended-range vehicle aka REV.
The REV Whitestar will have the ability to go 40 to 50 miles off a fully charged battery pack. It will also feature a small gasoline engine that will have the task of recharging the batteries while the vehicle is in use. With a full tank of fuel the REV should see a range of 400 miles before it needs a trip to the gas station. Obviously, this is a similar setup to GM's Chevrolet Volt concept. The Whitestar Sedan will be aimed at a different market than the Volt though. Luxury manufactures, such as BMW and Lexus, are the intended competition and fittingly, the REV Whitestar's price will fall somewhere between $50,000 and $70,000 depending on the size of the battery pack.
[Source: CNET News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Snark 8:44AM (2/04/2008)
I still get this sinking feeling that Tesla, sometime in the next six months, will be wholly acquired by GM and either will become a GM brand or will simply be absorbed into the e-Flex program. I'd love to be wrong...
Reply
psarhjinian 9:19AM (2/04/2008)
I really think Telsa should concentrate _wholly_ on getting one product out the door, without flaws or shortcomings, and keep said product in reliable production for at least two years before they start diverting resouces.
Porsche had it's best years when it was "the 911 company". Lotus makes one car and does well for it. With their sole product unproven and their company still shakey, this lack of focus isn't reassuring.
Reply
Jared 9:21AM (2/04/2008)
ROFLMA0.
More vapor from Tesla. They've proven that they can't deliver their roadster and now they're talking about delivering a sedan in less than two years with two different powertrains, neither of which exist right now.
What Tesla should do is just shut up, fix the roadster, deliver it, make sure that it is reliable, and only THEN start thinking about other products. This is a complete distraction to their team that clearly needs to focus on the roadster, not get whipsawed by whatever pipedream the CEO had last night.
Reply
Andrew Tanasescu 11:07AM (2/04/2008)
Sorry tesla hater, but the first roadster has already been delivered. Cant use that one anymore...
psarhjinian 11:22AM (2/04/2008)
That first roadster has a temporary transmission. Can they sustain production? Will the car hold up?
Being able to deliver one car, and without a fully functioning transmission, is not what I would call a ringing endorsement of Tesla's long-term viability.
Get the roadster's production "normalized" (and by normal I mean the standards of Lotus or Ferrari at least--normalized by Toyota standards is a pipe dream) and then we'll talk about other products.
Benfolio 9:59AM (2/04/2008)
Heh, sinking feeling, Whitestar. :P
Reply
Proscriptus 10:11AM (2/04/2008)
What they need to do is hook up with Ford, and develop a Shelby version called...wait for it...Whitesnake. Or at least a David Coverdale edition.
Reply
John 11:08AM (2/04/2008)
Is Tesla run by Malcolm Bricklin? We always hear about the great new products being developed while the previous great new product was never delivered.
Reply
alex 11:18AM (2/04/2008)
@andrew t
yes they have been delivered.... with temporary transmissions
Reply
Jared 11:46AM (2/04/2008)
Andrew: I'm not a Tesla hater. Really, I'm not. I hope they succeed. Unfortunately, they keep making the same mistake. They keep taking their eyes off the ball. If they stop having their delusions of grandeur and focus on the roadster, they might actually succeed. They still don't have the roadster design complete and now they're talking about Whitestar again.
As for them having actually "delivered a car", that's bushwa and you know it. That car does not have the final motor or transmission. Tesla hasn't even finished designing the new cooling system for the motor.
Reply
chrisdavis 11:56AM (2/04/2008)
It seems far fetched for someone to plunk down that kind of money for a sedan, which is a far more rational purchase than a roadster. Expectations are far greater when you go up against BMW, Mercedes et. al. To do so as an unproven start up is asking a lot of the customers. However, I'm sure their limited production won't result in too many new sedans sitting around.
I'm not to sure who would want to acquire the company given that they are essentially sourcing all of their components and assembly. What established car manufacturer can't do that? Tesla will establish a market, but they will need to continue to stay ahead of the game once direct competition starts coming from the rest of the industry.
Reply
asdf asdfds sd 11:58AM (2/04/2008)
GM simply doesn't have the cash.
they'd have to finance it w/ high yield bonds (i.e. junk bonds).
Reply
why not the LS2/LS7? 12:11PM (2/04/2008)
"REV"?
It's a PHEV.
Sorry Tesla, you can't backtrack and make a hybrid and then pretend you aren't. I'm sure you'll come to this realization too when trying to determine on which side to put the filler neck.
Reply
siry 12:19PM (2/04/2008)
@chrisdavis - we don't source any of our drivetrain components (they are all original Tesla designs) and do all of our vehicle integration including control systems and firmware in house. That's the hard stuff that others are after.
Reply
chrisdavis 7:11PM (2/21/2008)
Cool. I stand corrected. From articles I had read it seemed as though the components were sourced from various places rather than just manufactured there. The similarity to the Elise helps that perception. Teslas are cool cars so I hope they are successful.
Ed 1:06PM (2/04/2008)
Sweet. I guess the petrol engine can be a very efficient one, since it can run at constant rpm and stuff. Maybe they could use a turbine engine.
I'd be more excited to hear they were making some ultimate electric supercar, but a car for everyday people to drive around in efficiently is big news. I look forward to seeing how this all pans out.
I wonder if a flywheel type KERS device like they'll be trying in F1 is more suitable for this kind of vehicle than an electric battery.
Reply
Dad 5:03PM (2/04/2008)
"Obviously, this is a similar setup to GM's Chevrolet Volt concept. "
Similar??? sounds like the exact same concept. Not simlilar, but exactly the same concept.
Reply
Dustin 2:48PM (2/04/2008)
400 miles on a tank of gas is special how?
Reply
Drew 4:26PM (2/04/2008)
it would be special if the tank only holds 5 gallons.
Reply
jake 1:55AM (2/05/2008)
@Ed
"I'd be more excited to hear they were making some ultimate electric supercar, but a car for everyday people to drive around in efficiently is big news. I look forward to seeing how this all pans out."
Yeah, I hope in the future they will make a Veyron class electric car as it's entirely possible with extra motors making it 4WD (look at the 5291lb eliica which got to 230 mph), but I think they should focus more on their core business for now.
@psarhjinian
Temporary transmission is only temporary in the sense it can be swapped out later, but you could keep it if you want. There is no sacrifice of durability and it is fully functioning; you are sacrificing some acceleration performance, but not durability because it would be unsafe to drive with a transmission that will fail in a couple thousand miles. I don't think Tesla is dumb enough not to realize the amount of law suits that will follow if that is the case.
Reply