Future electric cars you want to see come to market.

File: 020a12_8e195f9a784f4ee6847903f792d08061-mv2_d_3413_2235_s_2.jpg (4MB, 3413x2235px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3413x2235px

>>16450131

File: 020a12_43c4d2b457c04f00b714e519dbcaf64d-mv2_d_4200_1750_s_2.jpg (3MB, 3000x1250px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x1250px

>>16450134

a new day, a new concept pulled out of the ass

>>16450134
>>16450137

looks like they come t-bone damaged from factory

>>16450158
Kek, true they could do a better job there. Still, I'm really digging the overall look and shape for some reason. It just seems like a handsome car and relatively restrained.

>electric
so its going to be heavy, go 60 miles, and a technological dead end?

Faraday Future keeps on showing stuff but I know nothing about them. I know vw is gonna be releasing a bunch of electrics as per their agreement with dieselgate. Also, when people argue you're shifting the burning process from your car to a plant. A car is only 20% efficient at producing power from gas whereas a power plant can be as efficient at 50 to 60% efficient. So even if it was coal which alot of plants are not burning anyways due to it not being economic anymore, it's still more efficient than a ICE

>>16450816
But it's not the energy a power plant is using, it's the materials you have to use. Those batteries are horrible for the environment and you'll never compensate that, at least not with our current battery tech.

>>16450780
Agree on the heavy part and the range/charging limits but what makes you think it's a technological dead end?

>>16450828
I don't think anyone except for the biggest green retards actually believe that electric cars are good for the environment or without negative externalities. All manufacturing is environmentally destructive. And of course the batteries are bad for the environment.

But so is fossil fuel extraction. And lithium mining is probably a bit less impactful than mining the metals that go into an ICE engine. Again, not to mention the process of getting unrefined petroleum into your gas tank.

>>16450828
>Those batteries are horrible for the environment and you'll never compensate that
I think you slightly over-estimate the impact those batteries have.

They're bad but the differences are flattened out fairly quickly if you're using primarily green energy sources.

>>16453037
I've read that even with a relatively dirty coal powered grid the overall effects aren't as bad as ICE due to the much greater efficiency. We obviously don't have the grid infrastructure necessary at this point to switch to a primarily electric fleet in the US yet.

>>16450131
The front looks great. They went pants on head retarded for those rear bucket seats though.

>>16450828
Yeah but those batteries can be recycled, and electric cars are way more easy to refurbish with new batteries than putting a new engine in a normal car.

You can't ever capture CO2 emissions from an ICE vehicle, that's permanent damage that can't be mitigated.