2015 Nissan Versa 1.6 Sv on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Weekly Recap: The cost of Tesla's ambitious plans for growth

Tesla has ambitious plans for growth, and they won't come cheap. The electric-car maker said this week it plans to spend $1.5 billion in 2015 to expand production capacity, launch the Model X crossover and continue work on its Gigafactory, which is being built outside of Reno, NV. The company is also investing in its stores, service centers and charging network, which is expected to grow by more than 50 percent this year. Plus, it's still working on the Model 3, which is scheduled to arrive in 2017. "We're going to spend staggering amounts of money on [capital expenditures]," Tesla chairman and CEO Elon Musk said on an investor call. He then added: "For a good reason. And with a great ROI [return on investment]." They're bold plans, and Musk is clearly willing to put Tesla's money where his mouth is. That's why the company is projecting a whopping 70-percent increase in deliveries this year, for a total of 55,000 cars. A large chunk of that growth will come from the addition of the Model X crossover to Tesla's portfolio, and the company already has nearly 20,000 reservations for it. More than 30 Model X prototypes have been built, and it is expected to begin shipping to customers this summer. Musk said he's "highly confident" the vehicle, which has experienced delays, will arrive on time. The company also had more than 10,000 orders for the Model S at the start of the year. The big spending plans caused a stir, even though Tesla spent $369 million on capital expenditures in the fourth quarter alone. In a note to investors, Morgan Stanley analysts called the costs required to keep pace with Tesla's demand "eye-wateringly high," and said the $1.5-billion figure was nearly double their expectations. Still, Musk is not thinking small and suggested that his company could be as big in 10 years as Apple is now if Tesla's growth continues. His optimism comes as the company actually reported a $294-million net loss in 2014, more than its $74-million loss in 2013. The money, however, continues to roll in, and total revenues increased to $3.2 billion in 2014, up from $2 billion in 2013 and a dramatic surge from $413 million in 2012. More of the same is expected this year, and the company could reach $6 billion in revenue. As Morgan Stanley noted, it "seems Tesla is preparing to be a much larger company than we have forecasted." It's certainly spending that way.

The Nissan Ariya was nearly the new Murano

NEW YORK — In addition to providing thoughts on a future Xterra while at the New York International Auto Show, Nissan Americas Senior Vice President and Chief Planning Officer Ponz Pandikuthira also talked with us a bit about EVs, and more specifically model lines and nameplates. We've seen a few strategies ranging from almost completely new and parallel model lines (such as Hyundai's Ioniqs and Kia's EV#s), to reusing old names on still similarly parallel models (such as Chevy's Equinox, Blazer and Silverado EVs), and of course blends of the two. So far, Nissan has gone with the separate model route with Leaf and Ariya, but that may not be as much the case in the future. Pandikuthira noted that now, consumers don't have as much interest in their EVs being some completely unique, statement piece. As such, both Nissan and Infiniti will be adding EVs to existing nameplates more so than totally new model lines. He didn't say whether they would simply be electric variants of existing internal combustion models, or something like Chevy's model, though. But he did note that the Nissan Ariya was, at one point, considered as a possible Murano successor. It certainly would make sense to us. The Ariya is a distinct-looking crossover, and one with a very upscale interior, both key tenets of the Murano from that model's introduction in the early 2000s. Plus, the Murano is in pretty dire need of a replacement, as the current generation dates back nearly a decade ago to the 2015 model year. The reason Pandikuthira gave for the Ariya decision was that the crossover represented enough of a change in Nissan's EV technology and capabilities that the brand wanted to highlight that with a unique nameplate. Nissan won't be ruling out the possibility of new EV-only models, though. Just like with Ariya, Pandikuthira told us that if a planned car is unique enough, the company will still be open to a new line. But expect more, say, electric Rogues and Altimas than totally new names. Related video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.

Why it's difficult to accurately test the efficiency of a plug-in car

When it comes to electric vehicles and plug-ins in general, the Environmental Protection Agency-certified range is a hugely important number. While actual range anxiety is largely psychological, the magic number does provide a point of comparison of buyers considering one EV over another. The driving distance is also often touted by automakers when marketing their models. Unfortunately, as Green Car Reports finds in a recent deep dive, the way the EPA calculates the figure is a convoluted mess, and discovering the reasons why is definitely worth the read. The issue isn't about bad science but instead comes down to vague wording. The EPA's accepted range test is sourced from an evaluation called J-1634 from the Society of Automotive Engineers, and it seems to provide balanced results for vehicles that automatically reach a single state of charge when plugged in. However for models with multiple charge settings, the situation gets complicated very quickly. Of course, these modes are often created in the software, meaning that a car's certified driving distance can change with just a few taps of the keyboard without the real world results owners might experience actually changing. By showing the test's effects on the certified range for the Tesla Model S, Nissan Leaf and Mercedes-Benz B-Class Electric Drive over the last few years, Green Car Reports makes a compelling argument that it's the evaluation that needs to change. Thankfully, it appears that the solution is a very simple one. Get the details here.