Thursday, 21 August 2014

Review: Kawasaki Ninja ZX-10R

Review: Kawasaki Ninja ZX-10R
You know the party in the litre class segment has been in full swing for almost five years now. The madness started with Yamaha giving us a taste of the YZF-R1 superbike. Jumping on the me-too brigade, Yamaha was soon joined in by Honda and Suzuki with their respective 1000cc bikes. The litre class party must have started last decade but with the launch of the Kawasaki Ninja ZX-10R we can finally say – it's now in full swing.

What makes this bike special is the fact that it is a derivative of the ZX-10R used by the Kawasaki racing team, for their Superbike FIM World Championship, which gives it all the ingredients to make it one hell of a bike.

In true Henry Ford fashion, you can have the ZX-10R in any colour as long as it is lime green, and honestly, we would not like it in any other colour. From the front, the bike looks menacing, with its twin headlight and that big gaping ram-air-duct sitting right in the middle. While the sharply raked front fork, steeply raked visor and the exhaust give the bike a sporty stance in profile, the rear has a neat design element with the brake light and turn indicators all a part of a single assembly. The brake-light unit is compact and sits right below the pillion seat. This by far give the ZX-10R a unique back-end that is instantly recognisable as a Kawasaki.

Coming to the crowning jewel – the heart of the ZX-10R. The in-line 4 cylinder, 998cc motor, makes around 197bhp and 112Nm, and has a smooth power delivery all though the rev range. The engine can be revved all the way to 13000rpm and that shows you have a huge power band to play with. As in the case of most of these bikes today, power to the wheel can be sent in three different settings – low, medium and full. The traction control also comes with three stages, depending on riding conditions and riding skill.

But there is only so much you can get by looking at the specs sheet, and staring at the bike. Swing your leg over the saddle and things start falling into perspective. The riding position is extreme, as you would expect from a bike of this calibre.

As this was our first stint with the ZX-10R we decide to keep the power setting low and the traction control high. Learning how the bike behaves is a fairly quick process. The front forks give the right feedback and bike feels nimble enough to be thrown into a series of corners. Thanks to the electronic steering damper, they automatically adjust to the riders speed making the ZX-10R more useable in city traffic. With the compact engine and the 10kg weight saving over the previous model, you get a feeling that you are riding a 600cc motorcycle, rather than a full blown 1000cc bike.

Sure, once you get a hang of it, it's time to move the adrenalin rush up a few notches. Skip over the medium setting – as it feels very... medium. Jump for the full experience instead, where the acceleration is quick and it climbs the rev range faster.

Obviously you will love the bike in this state, as it sounds angrier and responds faster. The higher setting on Kawasaki’s race derived S-KTRC traction control sees to it that power is sent to the rear wheel in acceptable fashion. Don’t worry about those unexpected power wheelies to pop up when you twist that wrist, S-KTRC will manage it for you. Sure, if you want them to happen, then there is always an option of lowering the electronic nanny by a notch or two.

With such precise cornering ability and a top speed close to 300kph mark, there are a few trade-offs. The bike’s horizontal back-link rear suspension sees to it that the bike feels great around corners, but is stiffer to cope with at higher speeds. If our roads were like race tracks, we wouldn’t have even brought this up. Sadly they aren’t, and it can be quite a pain riding the ZX-10R over a bad road, which will happen every now and then.

By now you might be having that untamed desire to find out exactly how much the ZX-10R does to a litre? Sure, the Rs 15.7 lakh (ex-showroom, Pune) bike is not known for its fuel efficiency, and we did not treat it in that manner either. If you still insist, between top-ups the ZX-10R did return a figure of 13.99kpl. Efficiency can be stretched further if you go easy on the throttle; but once you are seated on that saddle, we are pretty sure you won’t.

The numbers
Inline 998cc engine, 198bhp, 112Nm, top speed: 300kph (approx), 0-100kph: 2.93sec, mileage: 13.99kpl, weight: 210kg, Rs 15.7 lakh (ex-Pune)

The verdict
The ZX-10R is as extreme as a litre class bike gets. With 197bhp on tap, the performance is exhilarating. But with all the electronic safety system on board, rest assured the Ninja is forgiving as well. A sticker price of Rs 15.7 lakh is not exactly cheap. But it's money well spent.

First Ride: 2014 Honda Fireblade SP

Poised and ready to pounce ... the 2014 Honda Fireblade SP
HONDA'S Fireblade needs no introduction but I’ll give it a small one anyway. In its 21st year, while its capacity, styling and performance have changed to keep it competitive, the continuation of the name and its focus on giving the rider 'total control’ have remained the same.

It defines the word superbike and although this word is used far too often, the Fireblade is a motorcycling icon. Since 1992, one-in-three superbikes sold over 750cc are Fireblades. One in three.
The 2014 CBR1000RR Fireblade SP is the first track-focused Fireblade Honda have produced in its 21-year history. You could argue that the TT100 Evolution Fireblade was the first track-special but although it was commissioned by Honda, it wasn’t built by the factory.

On the surface, the 2014 Fireblade SP looks like it’s just a Fireblade with a few exotic parts bolted on. I say ‘just’ and I don’t mean that like it’s a bad thing, it really isn’t but in typically understated Honda fashion, the level of effort, workmanship and detail that’s gone into the SP remain largely unmentioned in the bike’s brochure and press kit, it’s only when you press the engineers behind the project that you realise this is far from a standard Fireblade with a few bits bolted on.

Honda’s press kit states the top-line additions that make the 2014 Fireblade SP: Öhlins suspension front and rear, Brembo front brake calipers, Pirelli Supercorsa SP tyres, a forged top yoke, ‘selected’ pistons, a lighter subframe, a firmer grippier seat and C-ABS with unique-to-the-SP settings.
Not a bad offering at all but what you have to really squeeze Honda for is the fact that the Öhlins suspension - while it is labelled at NIX30 and TTX36 - both of which are available off the shelf, have been heavily re-worked and are unique to the SP.

The front NIX30 forks feature an outer tube 1mm larger than standard to help give the SP more stability under braking. The front axle shaft is lighter while the steering stem is made from steel not aluminium as the development team felt it offered better feedback. The top yoke has been revised too and is now forged for greater rigidity. The bolts used in the bars, yokes and front axle are lighter than standard too. At the rear, the TTX36 rear shock has been modified to suit the SP; the preload adjuster has been moved to make it easier to reach on the SP. The connecting-rod has been lengthened and the swinging-arm pivot point changed too, giving the rear slightly more flex with the aim of giving the rider more feel.

That, I think you’ll agree, is more than just bolting on top quality suspension.
The wheels remain the same as the standard 2014 Fireblade but the Brembo M4 monobloc front brakes are different. Such is Honda’s attention to detail that the Brembo calipers on the SP were developed for that model. Instead of featuring two pistons of the same diameter in each caliper, the SP’s calipers feature a 30mm piston and 32mm piston, as this was the combination the SP test team felt worked the best. Would you and I notice the difference? I dare say, we wouldn’t but this level of detail is what makes the SP special. Sintered pads are the icing on the cake.

The SP isn’t just suspension and chassis changes, the engine has been worked on as well. While the headline is that Honda have selected pistons and con-rods that are closer to the designed weight, therefore offering improve performance, especially at high revs, there are other changes too. The pistons are +/- 1g of the 177g designed weight, as opposed to +/- 3g in the standard Fireblade. Each bike’s four pistons are also picked so that they closely match each other.

The standard Fireblade and the SP feature a revised cylinder head for 2014. The inlet and exhaust ports have been re-shaped and polished to improve gas flow. The intakes now copy the design used on the WSB Fireblade and are now slash-cut. The cylinder walls are coated with nickel-silicone carbide to further reduce friction and increase reliability, while the exhaust pipe diameters have been reduced by 3mm in size and a connecting pipe added between cylinders two and three to improve torque output.
Honda claim the changes result in a 6.5% increase in gas flow, enabling the SP to produce a couple more horsepower (178bhp @ 12,250rpm) and a couple more foot-pounds of torque (85lbft @ 10,500rpm) at peak. The torque and power curves look very similar to the previous model, despite the previous model’s torque peaking much lower down the rev-range at 8,500rpm.

Honda’s Combined-ABS is a £600 option on the Fireblade SP. The brake-by-wire system is very similar to that fitted to other models like the CBR600RR. The difference is that the ‘map’ used on the SP is unique and designed with subtle changes to improve track performance.
The SP is fitted with Pirelli Supercorsa SP tyres as standard, the rear subframe has been made lighter as there’s no provision for pillions and the seat is firmer and grippier.

It’s surprising that Honda barely mention the slipper clutch fitted in the SP. For track riding, slipper clutches make life a whole lot easier, helping you lap faster, smoother and safer. Another thing that doesn’t get much air time is the riding position; the bars are 34mm wider and set 5-degrees further away from the rider and the foot-pegs are set 10mm further back. The double-bubble screen is there to help push more air over the rider.
Funny then that while thousands of hours have gone into the SP, the one thing that immediately makes it feel different to the standard ‘Blade is a no-cost option; the wider-set bars. Wide and set much flatter, they feel more like you’re grasping onto an oar of a rowing boat.

We rode for two sessions on the Pirelli Supercorsa SP tyres that come as standard on the Fireblade SP and then two sessions on stickier Pirelli Supercorsa SC2 tyres. The bikes were setup with Honda’s track settings that are printed in the owner’s manual, essentially a couple of clicks firmer front and rear.
Losail circuit is wide, flat, featureless and deceptively fast. A few of the corners look identical and with 170bhp to play with, it’s easy to lunge into a corner carrying more speed than is healthy.

After a couple of sighting laps, I turn things up a notch. The SP is showing north of 170mph as I approach my braking marker for Turn 1. There’s plenty of power in those Brembo M4s, hauling us down to 60mph a good 10-metres ahead of where I thought I’d be. I’m confident I can brake a few metres later on the next lap and carry the brakes in closer to the apex. The next time around I brake a touch later, 3-metres at most and the moment I hit the brakes I think: ‘nope, that’s not going to work’ but keeping the lever squeezed tight while I tip in, we scrub off the excess and get somewhere close to the apex. A lot closer than I thought I’d get, anyway.

The SP feels composed under brakes and only gets flustered when you grab a handful and on a couple of occasions, when I was trying to brake that bit later and therefore grabbing, rather than forcefully applying the brakes, the C-ABS chipped in and the moment the brakes let off, I aborted the corner and sat up.
The ‘Brake-by-Wire’ setup on the Fireblade takes a small amount of getting used to. You’re not directly connected to the brakes like you would be on a conventional setup, instead your braking pressure is passed to an ECU, which activates a servo. While the brakes are very, very good - and I have thought about this long and hard - I’m not convinced you get the same amount of feel that you get from a ‘standard’ setup.
Does that mean that I am better than the C-ABS system? No. However, I do think the C-ABS system requires you to recalibrate your brain a tiny fraction in order to get used to it. Applying the front brake will always apply the rear, however you can apply small amounts of rear without activating the front.

This is all too complicated for anyone’s brain to work out, especially if you’re scrubbing off 100mph in the space of 100 metres with a tight corner fast approaching. What you do and what the system actually does are slightly different and that, I reckon, results in my brain thinking ‘we did something, and I witnessed the result but I didn't quite feel it’.
Aside from my perception of the C-ABS feel, there's no getting away from its weight; it adds a hefty 11kg to the kerb weight of the SP, meaning it tips the scales at 210kg.

The motor is a peach. At one point on the circuit you drive out of a hairpin in 1st gear winding it all the way up to the top of 4th. It takes some bravery to wind open a cranked-over Fireblade in 1st but such is the precision of the throttle and smoothness of the power delivery that after a couple of laps, I had every confidence I wasn’t going to launch myself over the border into Dubai.

You might wonder when the Fireblade’s going to get traction control. I am too. OK, so it doesn’t need it, no-one needs it, but it would be a nice thing to have. There is a lot of feel in this chassis and a lot of confidence to be had from that. I always felt like I knew where I was at when I was tapping on the power but that’s all very well when you don’t fall off. If you do fall off, you’ll probably wish you had a tiny bit of electronics to stop you blowing a 170bhp load all over the rear tyre at precisely the wrong time. It's easy to get greedy with the throttle, especially with a 1,000cc superbike underneath you. If the SP is about getting around a lap as fast as possible, with the utmost amount of control, it needs traction control.

I suppose the lack of traction control is Honda saying ‘this is total control’ but that doesn’t sit very well with the Brake-by-Wire system which involves a computer making some of your decisions for you. Personally speaking, I have never lost the front on the brakes, I have, however, lost the rear many times under power.
During this launch, Leon Haslam said: “You either add lean or you add power but you don’t add both”, he is obviously correct but when you’re not as talented as him, with 170bhp at your disposal, it is easy to add both and you won’t always get away with it.

While the tyres are good, once we picked up speed I didn’t have 100% trust in them through a couple of the fast, I mean really fast, right handers. I had moments where the front felt like it was pushing winder than I wanted it to and at the same time I didn’t feel I could lean on it much more. No doubt a touch more rebound on the front would have kept the front suspension from lifting slightly under power and when I think about those corners and what you expect from a tyre, well, it was doing a solid job. Losail hides speed because it’s so flat and featureless. I have ridden on the Supercorsa SP tyres at the tight and twisty Cartagena circuit and trusted them with my life. Cartagena is tight and twisty but not that fast. Losail has some tight corners that are also scary-fast, top of 3rd gear, peg on the deck. Even a trackday tyre has a limit.

On SC2s
When we switched to the Supercorsa SC2 tyres, the whole bike took a leap forward in terms of feel and performance. You can really lean on them and - as Randy Mamola would say - ride with some aggressive Body English.

With the SC2s fitted, the technical team dialled in a slightly firmer setup making the SP feel like a race bike. Ron Haslam told me to brake all the way into the apex, get my knee on the floor and squeeze the brakes on harder. There’s no way I would have win the battle in my head to do that on the Supercorsa SP tyres as the front felt like it was under duress with my regular braking but on the SC2, I could do it. Ron was doing it with the Supercorsa SPs and he says he does it with the T30 tyres fitted on his school’s CBR600s. He puts it all down to the C-ABS which he says allows you to practice without being punished for making a mistake.
It took a huge leap of faith but carrying the front brake all the way into the apex and through the apex, with my finger squeezed tight against the bar, the front end felt more planted than ever. I only let off the brakes as I thought I wouldn’t have the engine response to pick the bike up out of the corner. I have never experienced anything like it. Brake as hard as you can going into the apex, then brake even harder. The bike wants to turn back on itself. Incredible.

The additional grip from the SC2s meant I could start to dig in to what the bike had to offer. I could hold a tighter line and pick up the throttle earlier. Carry more brake into corners and relax on the bike a lot more, knowing it would go exactly where I wanted it to.
While I can live without traction control - it’s hard to adjust to a superbike without it when you’ve been used to riding with it for two years - Honda have missed a trick by not supplying the SP with a quick-shifter. You’ll definitely fit one if you buy an SP for track work.

The whole bike feels so refined except for gear changes, especially when you’re cranked over and winding the bike on three gears out of Turn 10 to Turn 12. With every gear change the bike jolts and feels cumbersome. Honda claim the SP will pull five metres on the standard bike along Losail’s 1km-long straight, a tiny gain, but with a quick-shifter you’d gain another 10 metres. That’s worth having.
This is, without doubt, the best Fireblade I’ve ridden and you’d have to come up with a really good set of reasons to convince me this isn’t the best Fireblade Honda have produced. While you can tour and commute on a Fireblade, we all know they’re designed to go as fast as possible around in circles and that’s what this SP does brilliantly.

The top-notch suspension offers infinite adjustability and just the small changes we made to our bikes between sessions showed how much you can get out of an SP once you have it dialled in to suit your riding. At £14,999 and £15,599 with ABS, the Fireblade SP faces some stiff competition but the Fireblade has always been a bike with a hardcore faithful. Over the past 21 years it’s always been near the top of the sales charts. Other models offers flahes of brilliance but the Fireblade doesn’t need to fight the latest fads to sell well.

If you don’t see yourself as a superbike rider and more a Fireblade rider, then this is the ultimate and it’s easy to see why most of the 170 machines that are coming to the UK are already spoken for.

Model tested: Honda CBR1000RR-SP Fireblade
Price: £14,999 and £15,5999 with C-ABS
Availability: Feb 2014

The Richard Hammond test ride: BMW S1000RR HP4 is a cruise missile

BMW S1000RR HP4
 
My new BMW S1000RR HP4 is so clever it could probably write its own road test.
It's the most amazing machine I've ever owned and even though I've only had it a few weeks I've already asked it to marry me.

This is how clever the wonderful HP4 is: all modern superbikes (and most bikes in general) have multi-adjustable suspension.

You can twiddle with pre-load, damping and something called rebound until you've either turned it into a TT winner or upset it so much that it will tie itself into a granny knot when you're riding down to the chippy.
There's no need to risk messing up the HP4's suspension settings because this bike has semi-active suspension that does its own working out.

When you turn the engine on the suspension is so soggy you can bounce the bike up and down, but when you start moving, little motors in the left front fork leg, and another in the rear shock, start adjusting the settings for you.

Information on wheel speed, throttle position, gyroscopic forces and rear shock movement are fed to a computer that controls the motors. It's uncanny. The ride is super smooth but the handling is also pin sharp.
BMW S1000RR HP4
BMW S1000RR HP4
 Cars have had semi-active suspension for years but I've never driven a car on which it is as successful as this. Normally stiffens on a bike when you accelerate hard the rear suspension compresses as the rear of the bike squats.

The steering then goes a bit light and if the road is bumpy you get a wriggle through the bars.
This is often not good for the laundry bill. But on the HP4, the rear suspension stiffens as you accelerate and the steering remains perfect.

This isn't possible with conventional suspension because unless you could train a mouse to use spanners it would be impossible to adjust shock absorber settings on the move.

The HP4 has several other goodies you don't get on the standard S1000RR; Brembo monobloc brake calipers with amazing stopping power, lighter wheels which improve the ride still further, and lots of carbon bits.

I can't ride my new BMW anywhere near its potential because with almost 200bhp it is like a missile. But owning something so clever is exciting.

It was only a few years ago that BMW was known for building worthy but dull bikes. Anyone who thinks that's still the case should sling a leg over an S1000RR HP4.

Suzuki GSX-R1000 review - The Suzuki GSX-R1000 gets a facelift but is still no match for the best European bikes.

Suzuki GSX-R1000 review
There’s no sense of urgency from the Japanese, it seems, to do anything about the technological lead and sales growth being established by European manufacturers. Only a few years ago it was unthinkable that the benchmark superbike would be a BMW, yet not only is the S1000RR excellent, it has already been upgraded with a package of improvements after only two years on sale.
Suzuki’s GSX-R1000 had none of the features making headlines on the latest bikes, such as traction control, race ABS, anti-wheelie programs or electronic suspension adjustment, while its performance also put it among the also-rans. Yet the new 2012 GSX-R is only a facelift model, confirmation that the Japanese response to the freefall of motorcycle sales has been to try to weather the storm.
One thing that hasn’t changed is the bodywork, which is almost identical to that of the 2011 version, with some minor changes to the graphics. The main visual differences are the brakes and exhaust – the 2012 model has a single silencer instead of its predecessor’s pair.
The front brakes are distinctive, champagne-coloured Brembo monobloc units, completing a state-of-the-art front end, because the GSX-R was already fitted with the excellent Showa big piston forks. That’s about it for chassis changes (the rest are details such as a different seat material, although these are claimed to have reduced the overall weight by 4.4lb).

The engine has received revisions similar to those which transformed the smaller capacity GSX-R600 last year. New pistons are 11 per cent lighter, improved inter-cylinder ventilation reduces pumping losses and milder cam profiles boost the mid-range power. Normally this would be at the cost of top-end horsepower but the other changes have raised efficiency enough for the 183bhp maximum to be maintained. The pistons and new, lighter valve buckets also improve durability at high revs, which seems wise considering the 13,500rpm ceiling. Reliability is a given with Japanese superbike engines, however, and Suzuki’s are considered especially strong. 

It’s a familiar feeling, then, when you get astride the bike, the riding position spacious and the ergonomics suited equally to road riding and track work. The engine revs eagerly with an aggressive snarl, the clutch bites predictably and the flagship Suzuki charges away in its tall first gear – good for 100mph – with shocking force.

In sports cars, electronics are often criticised for interfering with the fun, but a bike with 1,000bhp per ton and unforgiving behaviour is a different proposition. As I set out to relearn the Florida Homestead circuit, the Suzuki proves a great help, feeling almost as natural as a Honda Fireblade. Where it slides and loses grip in extremes it does so predictably and controllably, while driving out of corners it’s easy to feel where grip is beginning to run out and hold the power at that point.

Approaching a corner on full throttle then grabbing the brakes and banging down through the gears, the Suzuki is especially stable, although the reduced amount of dive makes the steering heavier when you try to lean into the bend. But the Brembos are excellent at progressively releasing their grip as the angle increases, and the feeling of control the front end imparts is exceptional.

Of course, it’s also extremely fast, although it’s still not a match for the latest Europeans (Ducati now, as well as BMW and Aprilia). But the extra mid-range boost shows up usefully on public roads as well as driving out of turns on the track, and because of the excellent ergonomics the GSX‑R works well in day-to-day use. The suspension feels firm, as it should, but its quality shows in a surprising amount of compliance on poor surfaces.

There is a blight, however, and that is vibration. Whatever the cause, there’s a tingling vibration at higher road speeds. At the track, some riders complained of numbing fingers, and I suspect over longer journeys this will also happen on the road, which is a shame because it spoils the otherwise smooth power delivery.

This doesn’t help with a bigger problem: while the GSX‑R is otherwise a fine bike, there’s no particular hook, no USP, to attract buyers. It does everything very well and is fun to ride, but so are other superbikes for similar money which have additional points or characters. This forces me to suspect that Suzuki will have to resort to something it has been trying to put behind it: discounting. Give it time and dealers will offer some chunky price cuts on the latest GSX-R.

THE FACTS
Suzuki GSX-R1000
Price/on sale: £10,999/now
Power/torque: 183bhp @ 11,500rpm/86lb ft @ 10,000rpm
Top speed: 180mph
Fuel tank/range: 3.85 gallons/160 miles (est)
Verdict: As ever, the big GSX-R is easy to ride, fast and good on the road, but performs below the benchmark. The tingling vibration is troublesome
Telegraph rating: Three out of five stars
 
RIVALS
 
BMW S1000RR, £12,295
Updated for 2012 with a smoother power delivery and more mid-range torque, it would still have been the benchmark without these. The price is significantly higher than the Suzuki’s, even for the base model without ABS and traction control, which makes the Suzuki appear good value, but in performance terms it falls well short.
 
Honda Fireblade, £11,175
Despite falling shy of the performance levels of the class leaders, the Fireblade can still best them on the track because it’s so easy to ride very fast, even for less experienced riders. On the road it’s arguably the best superbike, and for £500 you can specify the excellent ABS combined braking system. Looks good and it’s well built.
 
Kawasaki Ninja ZX-10R, £11,999
The fastest and wildest of the Japanese superbikes, and with the most character. It’s the only one to compete on spec terms with the Europeans too, with the best and most advanced traction control (a further £1,000, however) as well as the latest Showa forks. It makes a convincing case to find the extra £1,000 over the Suzuki.

2015 Cadillac ATS Coupe Review : More Than a Two-Door ATS







2015 Cadillac ATS Coupe Review

The company is slowly making progress toward being America’s world-class luxury brand once again. To continue that trend, Cadillac is bringing a compact luxury two-door to market: the ATS Coupe. Aimed at attracting a younger buyer – a familiar message from the company – the ATS Coupe promises to be more than just a two-door version of the ATS sedan. Cadillac says this is a full-fledged sports coupe bordering on sports car territory.

Wider, Lower, Meaner

This isn’t just the manufacturer waxing poetic either; it made serious strides to differentiate the coupe from the sedan even if they seem similar at first glance. For starters, the coupe rides on a wider track than the sedan by nearly one inch in the front and one and a half inches in the rear. Coupled with a roofline one inch below the sedan, the ATS coupe only shares one body panel with its more conservative sibling: the hood.


2015 Cadillac ATS Coupe 05
The wider stance leads to an expanded front and rear fascia that is most noticeable in the grille and twin tailpipe surround treatment. All coupes come standard with 18-inch wheels that are unique to the two-door model to further set it apart from its sedan siblings. The difference can be seen when coupe and sedan are parked side-by-side where it does indeed look wider and more athletic. On its own, I still find it generally looks long and narrow like the sedan.

Two Powerful Choices

2015 Cadillac ATS Coupe 08
Under the hood things are fairly familiar. The 2.5-liter naturally aspirated four-cylinder engine found in the sedan is gone, underscoring that the coupe is a sportier choice. That makes the base engine a revised version of the 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder unit that now makes 272 HP and 295 lb-ft of torque in all versions of the ATS. That’s more torque than the optional 3.6-liter V6, which produces 275 lb-ft. The six-banger does make quite a few more ponies though, with 321 hp on tap. Both engines are available with rear-wheel or all-wheel drive configurations and a six-speed automatic transmission.

2015 Cadillac ATS Coupe 13
With two engines so close in output, it should come as no surprise that performance is similar. Official 0-60 MPH times for the two engines are separated by a tenth of a second. With power always on the ready, the 2.0-liter has no trouble motivating the ATS coupe and features specifications that embarrass the Audi A5 2.0T, BMW 428i and outgoing Mercedes-Benz C 250. In fact, torque and power from the revised turbocharged four makes the V6 now feel a little less impressive.

That’s not to say the six is obsolete because it still offers smoother, more linear power delivery than the inline four. Despite turbo lag being minimal in the smaller engine, power is still peaky and it can’t match the V6’s throaty and aggressive melody at full throttle either.

Manual to Prove it’s Sporty

2015 Cadillac ATS Coupe 06
Unique to the rear-wheel drive four cylinder ATS is an optional six-speed manual transmission that comes equipped with a limited slip differential. When the manual was first offered with the ATS sedan, I wasn’t a fan of its clunky operation. The transmission has since been revised and is now better, but there’s still space for improvement. Gear engagement is rough and unrefined leaving the gearbox feeling cheaper than it should in something like an ATS.
That still doesn’t stop the 2.0T with the manual transmission from being an entertaining combination. With plenty of torque on tap, it exploits the turbo four-cylinder’s power band and is a blast to drive on twisting roads.

Fuel economy for the four-cylinder automatic is pegged at 21 MPG in the city and 31 MPG on the highway. The heavier V6 automatic is officially rated at 18 MPG city and 28 MPG highway, but it’s important to note that the turbocharged engine needs premium gas while the V6 runs on regular fuel.

Handles Even Better Than Before

2015 Cadillac ATS Coupe 01
A strong point for the ATS sedan has always been its chassis dynamics and with the coupe, things have improved. With a wider track and revised offset for the wheels, the ATS coupe is more planted than the sedan. Without a back-to-back comparison drive, it’s hard to say how much, but the 2.0T coupe I drove with the FE3 magnetic ride suspension is one of the most engaging small luxury coupes I’ve driven in a while. Yes, more responsive than even the BMW 428i.
2015 Cadillac ATS Coupe 07
Standard with staggered 225/40R18 tires up front and 255/35R18 tires in the rear, the ATS hugged the back roads of upstate New York during our test drive. V6 cars are noticeably heavier on the road, especially ones with all-wheel drive, as the turbo four cars really exploit their near perfect 51/49 weight distribution and light 3,418 lbs. curb weight. All cars feature standard Brembo brakes and a sport mode that alters steering feel, throttle response and shift mapping with the transmission. Even the base FE2 suspension handles well but is tuned to offer a balance between comfort and sport whereas the FE3 magnetic ride suspension can be set in either mode. As a bonus, FE3 cars also receive a limited slip rear differential and a quicker steering ratio.

Familiar Inside

2015 Cadillac ATS Coupe 17
Inside the ATS coupe is similar in layout and design to the sedan, aside from a thicker steering and a smaller, two-person rear seat.  For a small coupe though, rear seat space is livable. At 33.5-inches, legroom is not an issue, but headroom can be. Shorter adults or teenagers will fit back there, but anyone over 5’10” will probably feel cramped.  The rear seat itself is comfortable, but there is no center armrest and that seems like a strange omission.
Up front, the seats proved comfortable over long distance driving, but I find the adjustable side bolsters are too shallow and don’t provide enough support. Sightlines inside the car are very good for a coupe as the C-pillar is set in such a way that it does not impede rearward visibility or the three quarter blind spot. Of course the car is equipped with the latest technology like a wireless charging mat, Siri eyes free text to speech and 4G Internet connectivity.

2015 Cadillac ATS Coupe 04

The Verdict

With a starting price of $38,990 after destination charges for 2.0T models and $46,145 for V6 models, the ATS is well-positioned power and value wise against the BMW 4 Series and Audi A5. Now it’s Cadillac’s job to convince younger drivers to cross-shop the ATS with German sport coupes.
LOVE IT
  • Handling
  • 2.0-liter torque
  • Styling
LEAVE IT
  • Six-speed manual
  • Engines too close in power



Wednesday, 13 August 2014

The Race of the Centuries: 2013 Tesla Model S vs. 1915 Ford Model T







A century from now, let no man or robot or digital personal companion embedded in the cerebellum at birth say that Car and Driver didn’t look at this thing from every possible angle.
Thus, we proceed with yet another trial of the Model S. This time we compare the electric car to its direct predecessor, the hydrocarbon-burning automobile, much as our forebears must have compared the first motorcar to the trusty nag, which was soon to be advertised with hefty cash rebates and complimentary oat bags.

So as not to be seen as blithely unappreciative of a new technology’s inevitable teething issues, namely the Tesla’s limited driving range and the nation’s inadequate charging infrastructure, we developed a kind of handicap for the Model S. The Tesla would not go up against a new car, which would enjoy a de facto head start thanks to more than a century of development. Instead, it would compete against a car more in line with an electric vehicle’s limitations. Hence, we looked back over automotive history for a suitable candidate. Way back, in fact. Actually, a bit further, and further still, and keep it going, just a ­little ways more . . . until we pretty much bumped into the horse again. 


How would the car that’s heralded as the savior of humanity stack up against the humble Tin Lizzie? 

Now, racing a 99-year-old Ford Model T against a new Tesla Model S across one-fifth of America is, really, in no way fair to either car. Neither was designed to be a continent crosser. At the time of our race, the number of Tesla’s high-power, quick-charge Supercharger stations in our area of the country was zero. And the number of people who could re-babbitt a Model T’s bearings probably rounded to zilch. While the Model T was undoubtedly the single greatest catalyst for the motor-vehicle infrastructure we now take for granted, it is also woefully, dangerously obsolete. Even the flow of suburban or country main streets is too fast for this 40-mph buggy. Every new car is endowed with a level of power and braking ability that leaves the T, which would prefer to just putter into town with this season’s prize-winning pumpkin in back, terrifyingly out of step.  

Would there be blood? With any luck, no. But there might be chaos, and almost certainly frostbite.
We would start at the Model T Automotive Heritage Complex on Detroit’s Piquette Street, where the T was designed and first built. The red-brick, New England mill–style building erected in 1904 survives as a museum staffed by knowledgeable mavens who know the correct ways to apply lapping compound and petcock sealant.

With Tesla’s Fremont, California, assembly plant being much too far away, the finish line would instead be electrical pioneer Nikola Tesla’s old Wardenclyffe laboratory in Shoreham, New York, on Long Island. The lab, which opened in 1902, is itself in the process of becoming a museum. Depending on the route each team chose, the race course could be as short as 682 miles but long enough that the Tesla would need to charge several times. The T drivers would most likely have to apply at least some petcock sealant. 


Each team determined its own route, using the same start and finish lines. Both cars would have to be driven the entire distance, and each team was assigned a chase truck for spares and the haul home. But there weren’t any other rules because Tesla team leader Don Sherman would just cheat anyway. The first car to Wardenclyffe would win immortality in this magazine, copies of which do, after all, go into the Library of Congress, where they’re left in the restrooms for anyone to read. 

6 WEEKS prior to race
MODEL S TEAM: Crack mathematician Jessica Glomb of Battle Creek, Michigan, sits down at her kitchen table to predict a winner. Factoring in everything she knows (or can find on Wikipedia) about the Ford Model T and everything she knows about her father’s Tesla Model S, she concludes the following: The T will beat the S by one hour.
4 WEEKS UNTIL THE START
MODEL T TEAM: Given that few presently on staff at Car and Driver have ever driven a Model T, the Ford team needs help. It needs a ringer if it is going to make it through the 765 miles of two-laners from Detroit to Long Island. It also needs a Model T. David Liepelt, a 40-year-old man who is perpetually coated in a layer of motor oil, grease, and gasoline, is the best ringer one could hope for. Three T experts in three different states all independently direct us to Liepelt and the red 1915 T he’s owned for half his life. He was, for almost a decade, tasked with keeping a fleet of Ts running for the tourists at Henry Ford’s paean to the past, Greenfield Village in Dearborn, Michigan. Liepelt now works on steam locomotives. He is a man of the Industrial Age. He doesn’t own a television. He, along with his friend and fellow T owner Chris Paulsen, will be the core of the driving team. Our man, Daniel Pund, will perform the role of ballast and liability.


3 WEEKS TO GRID
MODEL S TEAM: Our strategy hinges on two simple data points, the 211-mile range C/D recorded during our road test of the Model S and the 682 MapQuest miles separating the start from the finish. Jessica’s father, Fred Glomb, 50, a man of the Information Age and owner of a technology-consulting firm, has volunteered his chocolate-brown Model S after seeing our petition for assistance on a Tesla owners message board. His car is ideal because he purchased it with the P85 Performance equipment, which includes the largest-available 85-kWh battery and the dual onboard chargers that would give us a chance at beating the T back to the Brass Era. 

We must find two recharging stops both near our direct route and spaced every 230 or so miles between Detroit and Shoreham. Further, they must deliver 240 volts at 80 amps of charging power, like the Tesla High Power Wall Connector (HPWC) that Glomb has in his own garage. Simple. None of the existing Tesla Supercharger stations, which offer 75-minute recharges, are close to our route. So we start investigating potential charging locations, both commercial and private. We use PlugShare, a website and app that lists kindred spirits willing to share their electricity [see sidebar], but not all chargers are created equal. Finding a high-voltage unit with the necessary amperage is challenging.
With preparation time dwindling, we still haven’t nailed down a suitable second charging stop. We find Tesla Roadster owners and solar enthusiasts Mark Doncheski and Mary Hermann in Danville, Pennsylvania, but their existing charger isn’t compatible with the Model S. After cajoling the couple for access to their 100-amp utility pole, we hire electrician David Hayes to install the $1200 HPWC that we have shipped in. Later, we’ll figure out how to bury it in the ol’ expense account.



2 WEEKS TO ENGINE START
VOICE MAIL OF MODEL T TEAM LEADER DANIEL PUND: Daniel Pund is out of the office at the moment. If you’d like to leave a message, please press 1.
10 DAYS UNTIL GREEN
MODEL S TEAM: To avoid surprises and check on our handyman work, we reconnoiter two-thirds of the route. On this pre-run, we fine-tune our speed-versus-range variables, finding that the ideal cruising speed depends on terrain. We verify that both charge points can replenish a sapped battery pack in about five hours. This preparation also raises our familiarity with the route, diminishing the chance of a time- and energy-wasting off-course deviation. It is either this or force the Model S team members to catheterize themselves to eliminate the affront to efficiency that is the human waste system.
6 DAYS AND COUNTING
MODEL S TEAM: After consultations with Tire Rack for a low-rolling-resistance-tire recommendation, we mount a set of Michelin Primacy MXM4 radials with the tread rubber shaved to diminish energy-consuming squirm. Inflating the tires to 50 psi raises sidewall stiffness into the Cascade range. Wheel alignment is set to specs supplied by Tesla chassis experts. Everything nonessential—floor mats, gum wrappers, center-console lint—is swept from the Model S’s interior. We tape the front body seams to shave aerodynamic drag. We consider removing or folding the exterior mirrors but ultimately leave them deployed for safety’s sake. 


The Tesla team taped the front seams to lower drag.
24 HOURS REMAINING
MODEL T TEAM LEADER PUND: It seems prudent, at this point, to get some seat time in a T, so I set out to learn how to drive the thing with Liepelt, in the countryside near his house. It goes well, meaning that I return from the experience only slightly more terrified of what we are about to embark on than I was before having actually driven the contraption I had incorrectly assumed was actually something resembling a car.
If you ask any surviving geezer what he thinks of the Ford Model T, he will likely have fond memories of it. Such is the appreciation for this icon of Yankee ingenuity, this wide-eyed, old-timey charmer. This is because the people who would have bad things to say about it all died in or under or within the general vicinity of a T. 

Model Ts are simple devices. But then, so are machetes. When describing what sounds like minor mechanical mishaps in Model Ts, Liepelt is fond of saying things like, “By all rights, that guy should have lost a foot.” Lost a foot?! Who loses feet anymore? 


9:17 A.M., TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15
MODEL T TEAM: We roar off on this chilly, gray October morning. Us and the non-roaring Model S. Actually, we don’t roar, either. It couldn’t have looked much like a race to the 10 or so bystanders, mostly Piquette museum volunteers and a couple of perplexed passersby. Okay, fine. With a subdued whine and a clatter, we roll off. Le Mans, this ain’t.

9:19 A.M., TUESDAY
MODEL S TEAM: Detroit races by in a blur as electrons spew from the Tesla’s batteries and go sluicing into the motor. We are winning already! Probably.
9:32 A.M., TUESDAY
MODEL T TEAM: Before the race, Liepelt assured us that a Model T doesn’t have the beans for expressway travel, so we planned to take less-speedy and much less direct roads to New York. Ford advertised a top speed of 40 mph for the 22-hp Model T. Our prohibition against expressways lasts all of 15 minutes before Liepelt wrestles the T onto the suburban Southfield Freeway and proceeds to crank along at a rate that, while sitting atop the high-mounted park bench of a seat with no belts and a gas tank directly underneath, feels entirely too fast. Later, we get a radio message from our chase truck that we hit 62 mph on a downhill grade. I holler over the wind to Liepelt, “You didn’t tell me this thing could do 62 mph!” His reply: “I didn’t know it could do 62 mph.” Instrumented testing later confirms Liepelt’s car to have a level-ground top speed of 55 mph.
1:10 P.M., TUESDAY
MODEL S TEAM: Car owner Glomb, at the wheel, breezes us out of Michigan and into Ohio flatlands at a steady 68 mph, ­arriving in Poland, Ohio, with 24 miles of range remaining.
1:12 P.M., TUESDAY
MODEL T TEAM: We are topping out at rates nearly 40 percent higher than the car’s supposed top speed, thanks largely to an aftermarket two-speed rear axle that somehow wasn’t mentioned in the pre-race meeting. This device adds a tall lever to the mix of the T’s already foreign controls. Model Ts have a two-speed planetary transmission operated by the left-most of three foot ­pedals. Reverse gear is engaged with the center foot pedal, and some minimal braking force is applied through the right pedal. The throttle is operated by a lever mounted on the right side of the steering column. Spark advance is controlled by a lever on the left-hand side of the column. I choose to ignore that one. 


1:27 P.M., TUESDAY
MODEL S TEAM: Our first charging stop is at Lawless Industries, a shop only 10 miles off our ideal route. Tesla Motors had introduced us to Shawn Lawless, a member of the EV faithful whose enterprise builds state-of-the-art parade floats. Besides hot-rodding his own Model S, he constructs ­various electrically powered vehicles ranging from commercial lawn mowers to 177-mph drag bikes. 

1:48 P.M., TUESDAY
MODEL T TEAM: Watching Liepelt or Paulsen get the T up to speed is like watching Willy Wonka operate a fantastical machine. It is a thing of studied beauty, a sequence of crazy motions accompanied by all manner of crunching, popping, and rumbling. I am less adept, and, once up to speed, simply hope to not have to stop. Despite the upgraded mechanical drum brakes Liepelt added to the rear years ago in a fit of sanity, the T doesn’t really brake so much as coast to an eventual standstill. In a stand­ard T, the only thing that happens when you press the brake pedal is that a cotton-lined band in the transmission feebly squeezes a drum attached to the output shaft until you collide with whatever you were braking for.
2:02 P.M., TUESDAY
MODEL S TEAM: While our Model S sucks up 205 volts at 78 amps, our host whisks us to a nearby quarter-mile strip to see his ­electric dragster do a nearly silent disappearing act, turning in an 8.5-second, 145-mph run. Afterward, we have a relaxing lunch and take a short nap. 


2:02 P.M., TUESDAY
MODEL T TEAM: On a farm road in Ohio we are passed by a scooter. I look over at Liepelt and say, “Dude, we just got passed by a scooter.” Liepelt, looking straight ahead, sighs, “Yep.” 

2:14 P.M., TUESDAY
MODEL T TEAM: Driving a T is a distinctly outdoor experience. If it is cold outside, you will be cold. And you will remain so until you get into a building. The only heater is the drivetrain’s wasted BTUs, drifting up through the holes in the floor cut for the pedals. And we’re running with the two-piece windshield folded because our faces provide less wind resistance than a tall, flat piece of glass. But both the speed and the turn-of-the-century disregard for the softness of human flesh eventually are blown from my consciousness as we ramble through Ohio farmland.
It is during the long bucolic splendor and mercifully flat landscape of Ohio that we first check in on Sherman’s crew. A fortuitously placed brother-in-law who happens to be driving through Ohio confirms for us that the Tesla is not drafting behind some cobbled-up wind fairing mounted to its chase vehicle. Our spy also reports the Tesla’s speed to be about 65 mph. But alas, we already know that. The night before the start, our chase-truck driver, David Beard, a man whose great-grandmother was killed by a T, surreptitiously fastened a GPS tracker to the underside of the Tesla’s chase truck. This handy device, monitored on our smartphones, also serves to blunt what we assume is a text-message misinformation campaign being waged by the Tesla team.


Top: Driving a Model T at night is extra terrifying. Bottom: Not so in the Model S, which has the luxury of properly functioning lights.
4:32 P.M., TUESDAY
MODEL T TEAM: We are barely across the Pennsylvania border before the T begins to sputter, backfire, and struggle going up hills. This is not as easy to recognize as you might imagine, because a T always struggles going up hills. Liepelt figures there must be dirt in the fuel system. He empties the cast-iron sediment bowl below the gas tank and pops the top off the aftermarket Rayfield carb. There is no obvious contamination, but without another solution, we decide this stop must have cured the problem and gamely pull back onto the road.
5:00 P.M., TUESDAY
MODEL T TEAM: Bang! Bang! Sputter. Turns out, wishful thinking is no substitute for a repair. Liepelt screws a new condenser onto his T’s Pinto-spec distributor (hey, at least it’s from a Ford), and we again choose to believe this will cure the T’s weak heart.
6:20 P.M., TUESDAY
MODEL T TEAM: Naturally, the fresh condenser doesn’t cure the problem. We roll to a stop at a Sheetz gas station in Kittanning, Pennsylvania. The name of the gas station roughly matches the words Liepelt is muttering from under the Model T. While he’s taking the carb completely apart, a gasket breaks. We have no replacement, and the car is now leaking fuel. We run across the street to the improbably named Dollar Horn (“Your Favorite Store!”) and wander around looking for something to seal the leak. We end up with a roll of cork and an assortment of rubber O-rings, profoundly confusing a couple of store employees. Since the carb has already been cobbled back together, we don’t want to risk taking it back apart. So we decide that one drip per second is maybe a safe leakage rate, and we fill up the tank. Beard eats a ham sandwich.

David Liepelt gets a ground's-eye view of his T.
6:25 p.m., tuesday
MODEL S TEAM LEADER SHERMAN: Charging complete, I take over the Model S’s sumptuous driver’s seat for the second leg. The dash shows 270 miles of range available. Driving alone to limit ballast and, having disallowed the use of the climate-control system to save electrons, I am content to let the miles slip by peacefully.
7:45 P.m., tuesday
MODEL T TEAM: According to our GPS data, the Tesla has passed us somewhere around Clarion, Pennsylvania. This is not good news. The Model S has finished its first charge, and we have done a lot of standing around. Enthusiasm flags. Also, our battery is dead. It’s barely powerful enough to push light through the thick glass of the headlight lenses. Other drivers, our real nemeses throughout the trip, are charging up on us in the dark at a closing speed that spells certain dismemberment. We pull off and swap in a fresh battery that Liepelt has brought along. He’d feared that the car wouldn’t be able to keep the battery charged. We carry on, expecting to run out of electrical power in another hour. Beard comes up with the idea of charging the battery in the Ram chase truck for what we assume will be another short-order battery swap. We are aware of the painful irony: The Model T needs a battery swap, but the electric car does not.

Sadly, they had no Yosemite Sam mudflaps to fit the T.
7:51 p.m., tuesday
MODEL S TEAM: Since my 251-mile stint includes Allegheny and Appalachian foothills, I have to drop below 60 mph to appease the battery gods. While you’re pitying the T crew, racing in the dead of a starless, chilly night in an open touring car from the Wilson administration, consider our plight. We have to accelerate with all the swiftness of erosion and cruise at less than half the Tesla’s 134-mph top speed as a train of semis whistles past.
8:29 p.m., tuesday
MODEL T TEAM: We stop at an Ebensburg, Pennsylvania, auto-parts shop and ask for the longest jumper cables they have. The guys behind the counter ask us what we’re up to. When we tell them, they ask us the same question again. Beard hefts the dead battery into the driver’s-side RamBox and tapes the jumper cables up over the cabin. We clip and tape one end to the Ram’s battery and the other to the battery out back. Voilà, a mobile charging station. An employee pops his head out the door and asks if we need anything before they close. “Probably” is the only response we can muster.


Top: Our Model S owner, Fred Glomb, celebrates the successful end of his relationship with Don Sherman.
10:40 p.m., tuesday
MODEL S TEAM: The Doncheski-Hermann homestead is deep-space dark by the time we roll in with 25 miles of range remaining. While the Tesla draws 236 volts at 79 amps, Glomb and I sleep soundly in a warm motorhome.
middle of the night, tuesday, or maybe wednesday
MODEL T TEAM: Everything starts to blur together. Pennsylvania is an off-white smear of row houses sited close to the road, punctuated occasionally by glaring gas-station lights. Behind us, Beard can barely see out of the Ram’s windshield because it is coated in three quarts of 15/40 diesel motor oil that the T has been spitting since the start. It’s losing fluids quicker than we are.
Improbably, our battery holds strong and never needs another swap. And, more shocking, our sputtering problem evaporates. Liepelt reckons that it was caused by low fuel pressure and that keeping the tank as full as possible keeps the gravity-fed engine humming. We short-stint through the night, stopping every 60 or so miles to top off the tank. We have only the cold to contend with now. Well, that and fatigue, which is taking over from the face-blistering cold as our most immediate concern. I briefly fall asleep in the passenger seat of the T and awake with a start, realizing there is nothing to prevent me from falling out.

3:21 a.m., wednesday, october 16
MODEL S TEAM: With the car recharged, Glomb hustles the Tesla down the driveway, at least until we encounter two deer, which we shoo from our path.
5:38 a.m., wednesday
MODEL T TEAM: A dude walking out of a gas station in Dover, New Jersey, yells “Chitty, chitty, bang, bang! Where’d you find that thing? In a barn?” To this, Liepelt is gracious, noting that the T has been active in collector-car club events since the 1950s. The man responds, “Did you find it in a barn?”
6:06 a.m., wednesday
MODEL S TEAM: When we ask what part of the George Washington Bridge we just bought after paying $15 per axle in tolls for our six-axle convoy, the toll taker answers, “One light bulb.” During the sprint across Long Island, we scan side roads for the T. Satisfied we’re leading, Glomb indulges the accelerator.

The sassy team shirts were the Tesla group's secret to success.
6:41 a.m., wednesday
MODEL T TEAM: We cross the George Washington Bridge at the beginning of rush hour. The toll attendant shows no reaction to our vehicle. Paulsen makes a masterful run through city traffic. The GPS transmitter on the enemy car is dead. It ran out of power sometime in the night. We know that Sherman’s team stopped for their second charge, and we know where. Beyond that, we know nothing.
A text from the Tesla team’s photographer notes that they are six miles from the end. We tell them that we are two miles from finishing in a last-ditch hope that they’ll blast through their range trying to catch us. But mostly just to make Sherman tense.
7:25 a.m., wednesday
MODEL S TEAM: After 22 hours and eight minutes on the road, we wheel the Model S up to the Tesla Science Center, our finish line. There are no brass bands, no curious media, and, most important, no crowing Model T troglodytes to greet us. The gate is padlocked, the birds are at peace, and for all we know, our rivals have thrown a petcock in Pennsylvania. The Tesla’s average speed for the trip is 32 mph or 58 mph minus the 10 hours of charging time.

8:35 a.m., wednesday
MODEL T TEAM: We pull into the Science Center windburned, red-eyed and packed with Fritos, Cajun-flavored peanuts, and beef jerky; we are in the state of calm that comes after being intensely tired for an absurdly long time. The tough old buggy made it, running nearly flat-out for 765 miles. We shake hands with the S team and head to a group breakfast in the T. The S sits charging on its electrical umbilical cord.
9:10 a.m., wednesday
MODEL S TEAM: Well, she might not have correctly predicted which team would win, but give Jessica Glomb credit for at least getting the winning margin right. Sadly, she’s absent for the high fives at Nikola’s old stomping grounds. Considering that a century of intensive development separates the Model S from the Model T, our winning margin is astoundingly small. But then, so is all human achievement when measured against the boundless infinity of the cosmos. Which is a lot bigger than the number of restroom stalls in the Library of Congress, so hurry it up, pal.


Vehicle Ford Model T
Click here to view test sheet.
Tesla Model S
Click here to view test sheet.
Base Price $440 (in 1915) $94,570
Price as Tested $440 (in 1915) $105,470
Dimensions
Length 134.5 inches 196.0 inches
Width 66.0 inches 77.3 inches
Height 82.0 inches 56.5 inches
Wheelbase 100.0 inches 116.5 inches
Curb Weight 1802 lbs 4785 lbs

Powertrain
Engine/Motor flathead 8-valve inline-4, iron block and head, 1x1 bbl carburetor
AC permanent-magnet synchronous
Power HP @ RPM 22 @ 1600 416 @ 8600
Torque LB-FT @ RPM 83 @ 900 443 @ 0
Driveline
Transmission 2-speed pedal-shifted 1-speed direct drive

C/D Test
Results*
Acceleration
0–50 MPH 26.3 sec 3.6 sec
0–60 MPH - 4.6 sec
0–100 MPH yeah, right 12.1 sec
¼-Mile @ MPH 25.3 sec @ 49 13.3 sec @ 104
Top Speed 55 mph (drag ltd) 134 mph (gov ltd)
Braking 227 feet (50–0 mph) 160 feet (70–0 mph)

*Tesla Model S Test Results from Instrumented Test published in our January 2013 issue

The Slow Fuel Movement
Driving from San Diego to San Francisco in an electric Fiat 500e is like using a Norelco to cut your lawn. An 85-mile range and a four-hour charging time make the 500-mile trip a near impossibility if you’re depending on public infrastructure. But there is another way: Download the PlugShare app, which maps charging stations, including those in the garages of your fellow Americans. More than 5800 people have added their homes to the nationwide database, inviting strangers to use their electricity and their toilets.
Many are in California. We found 65 in San Diego, including one at a bayfront beach house owned by Lew Mills, a clinical psychotherapist. When we called to invite ourselves over, he replied: “I’m having a party. I’ll put you on the guest list.”
Stopping to purchase a $28 bottle of rye, we were obeying not just party-going politesse, but also a convention of PlugSharing. This would-be utopian collective operates on a barter economy, such that private charging often ends up costing magnitudes more than the $2 you’d pay to charge at a commercial station. It’s designed to be used in emergencies, when there are no public stations available. Or for when you’re desperately lonely.
Mills barefooted out to hook up the Fiat in his garage and then invited us to revel. He said he shares his plug to help combat range anxiety, the electric car’s most pernicious foe.
The next day, 75 miles north in San Juan Capistrano, Judy Soroudi also invited us inside after plugging us in. “You shouldn’t have come to a Jewish mother’s house,” she said, “if you didn’t want chicken soup.”
After feeding us, she told a wistful story of giving a sea captain a ride to his regatta while his vehicle was charging. Chauffeuring visitors is commonplace among PlugSharers, out of kindness but also because it’s easier to drive someone 10 minutes down the road than to entertain them for hours while their car recharges. Soroudi said she had no qualms about inviting strangers into her house because “people who care about the environment are nice.”
Not that all PlugSharers are peaceniks or reek of patchouli. Dan Flaherty’s Annapolis ring glinted from the sunlight streaming into his Malibu home, where he offered coffee and bacon while the Fiat juiced up. The former fighter pilot and Harvard Business School–educated CFO told us that he signed up for PlugShare to usher in the future.
Eighty-five miles north in Santa Barbara, Jay Hennigan said that yes, his plug was available, but he pointed us to exactly that future in the form of a public charging station at a nearby bank. After experiencing the camaraderie of PlugSharing, charging there felt like being a fisherman eating canned tuna at sea.
Steve Scholpp’s house in Cambria was indispensable, as topping off the battery at his carport is the only way to make the 75 mountainous miles to Big Sur. Hypermiling through the Santa Lucia Mountains was like riding a very slow roller coaster. We chugged up the peaks at a range-maximizing pace slow enough to anger Winnebagos, and then regenerated into the valleys as if riding a one-car Space Mountain.
Farther up the coast, while we were charging at Will and Jill Beckett’s house in Santa Cruz, Jill made an observation about the world of EVs, which she described as “inhabited by nerds who only like to talk to each other about cars.” In their own way, EV drivers are every bit as enthusiastic as the guy who shows up at the Porsche Club dinner flying Martini colors. It is a tight cohort, implicitly trusting and almost tribal.
But the conditions that make this possible will not exist forever. As the public infrastructure gets built and electric cars become more widespread, the community will undoubtedly become diluted. This is PlugSharing’s summer of love.