Economies of scale + improving battery tech will bring the cost down without affecting quality.

Even with this kind of rating it's too rich to make a personal argument for, but it's easier to work on reducing the cost from this position than attempting to bring the cost down AND improve quality.

Teslas aren't right for everyone, yet. But working from a solid foundation of quality is the right place to start.

The headline is misleading. I read it expecting that the range penalty would be felt at "lower speeds" than expected. Happy to hear that the reverse is true!

The nature of "compliance designs" is ridiculous. Either CA needs to set a minimum volume along with the design stipulation, or drop the pretense. Nothing is gained by anyone by going through these gyrations.

I wonder if natural gas wouldn't be more energy dense for this purpose, and cleaner burning.

I would have thought so too. Was it parked out of the sun, in lower levels perhaps?

How long before long term airport parking has charge terminals? I would settle for 120V, just enough to maintain the batteries. But long term parking in such a lot is a concern.

I'll believe a $35K BMW EV when I see it.

I believe the EPA rating for mileage is with the battery only charged to 80%.

At least, the Volt's battery management system won't allow a charge of more than 90% for that reason, I assume that the published range takes that into account.

I'm with Red Baron. These claims are hardly believable from a company's whose website consists of exactly 4 pages.

I look forward to more updates from them, but won't hold my breath.

Except I would expect (employers that own their own parking) to begin to offer plug-ins also. That is another extended period (~8 hrs) of stationary parked time that it would be useful to charge.

It will effectively double your commute distance on battery, too.