Policymakers Experience 0-60-MPH Acceleration In Tesla Model 3

Tesla Model 3 Performance


Atlantic City event shows off EVs to elected officials and pushes back against reduced clean-car standards.

The Environment New Jersey Research and Policy Center hosted a recent ride and drive event to let policymakers experience electric cars. The purpose of the event was not only to excite the officials with these impressive electric cars, but also to put emphasis on the necessity to fight the proposed rollback of vehicles emissions policy. The event showcased two Tesla Model 3 vehicles, a Tesla Model X, and a Chevrolet Bolt EV.

Democrat Assemblyman John Armato (who is also an experienced drag racer) was in the driver’s seat of the Model 3 Performance, while a Tesla rep and a reporter were also in the vehicle. The story begins:

It felt more like an airplane taking off than a car accelerating, as the Tesla Model 3 performance vehicle hit 60 mph in 3.3 seconds on the old Bader Field runway Monday.

Environment New Jersey invited the government officials hoping that they might be able to be convinced to convert public fleets to electric. Atlantic City is a very popular destination, so a transition like this could have an impressive and positive impact. Mayor Frank Gilliam believes it’s the government’s job to promote electric cars by example. The New Jersey Senate Environment and Energy Committee recently pushed a bill to add charging infrastructure in the state and push EV adoption. The state also doesn’t charge sales tax on electric vehicle purchases.

Mayor Gilliam had an opportunity to test drive a Chevrolet Bolt EV that belongs to ChargEVC CEO Pam Frank. In fact, he raced it against a Tesla driven by Assemblyman Vince Mazzeo. Though the 0-to-60-mph time in the Chevrolet is more than double that of the Model 3, at 7 seconds, it’s still a peppy car with plenty of torque. It also costs about half as much as the Model 3 Performance. Frank shared:

This beats most cars at a traffic light. And there are no tune ups. All those things you do to service a gas vehicle are gone.

It’s events like these and support from the government that can rally to promote electric cars. Let’s hope other states will take notice and move things in the right direction.

Source: PressofAtlanticCity


Tesla Model 3 Performance - Dual Motor Badge
10 photos
Tesla Model 3 Performance Tesla Model 3 Performance Tesla Model 3 Performance Tesla Model 3 Performance - Midnight Silver Tarmac Motion (wallpaper 2,560x – click to enlarge) Tesla Model 3 Performance - White Interior - Wide Tesla Model 3 Performance - White Interior - Touchscreen


Chevrolet Bolt EVs - finding more US driveways every month!
10 photos
The introduction (and US reception) of the Chevy Bolt EV has pulled forward GM's 200,000th sale by at least a year (now expected in Q2 2018) Chevrolet Bolt at the recent GM Official autocross event near Detroit. Chevrolet Bolt EV (wallpaper 2,560x) Chevrolet Bolt EV Chevrolet Bolt EV (wallpaper 2,560x) Chevrolet Bolt EV (wallpaper 2,560x)

Categories: Chevrolet, Tesla

Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

30 Comments on "Policymakers Experience 0-60-MPH Acceleration In Tesla Model 3"

newest oldest most voted

I didn’t know New Jersey does not charge sales tax on electric vehicles. That’s a great incentive. Better than the $2500 in California.

Not charging sales tax is a great approach.

The best things local government can do is streamline the permitting process for new solar installs and EV charging infrastructure.

Also having a more encompassing gas guzzler tax on consumer vehicles. We need an exponential gas guzzler tax which scales with a vehicles MPG. People that are buying cars like MB S65 AMG should be paying considerably more in gas guzzler tax. Also would be awesome if it applied to used cars.

Pretty sure the existing state and federal gas tax system already punishes cars with low mpg ratings. And it applies to used gas guzzlers as well. 😁

Unfortunately, people take such indirect costs less seriously… Plus gas taxes in the US are way too low to properly reflect the damage done by gas guzzlers.

True. In California, there’s a rebate, but it’s far less than people are likely to spend in sales tax. So the state benefits when a person buys an EV, by getting revenues. They also benefit because of the environmental improvement. So overall, they are better off with it than without it. People act as if the state is subsidizing buyers, when people are buying cars that they wouldn’t have otherwise bought, spending more money on them, and possibly still paying the state more than they would have if they bought a cheaper ICE less frequently.

Well, per $ in Tax Revenue, if they paid rebates on $150,000 worth of Smart Electric Cars (about 10 of them), they would give out about $25,000 in Rebates; but on $150,000 woth of Model X’s, only about $2,500 in Rebates are paid out!

So, basically, a Cheaper EV costs them more $ in credits or rebates, proportionately to the $ of Tax Revenue taken in!

Pretty smart actually. 81% of every dollar spent on gasoline leaves the locality in which the car is used. This means that if you switch to electric you get to keep that 81% inside your area. That spending IS taxed and recirculates in the community.

In California with a 9% +/- sales tax this amounts to $500 per year in new sales tax collections to the State and about $350/year to the local county.

Getting someone into an EV Pays off to the State and County pretty quick.

It would be far more productive to tax the emissions (i.e. tax gasoline and diesel) and feed the tax revenue back into EV credits/rebates and green energy R&D tax credits.
Drop the fuel economy standards all together and let the market fix itself.

That would be the ideal approach, it would result in a very fair system. You emit more emissions you pay more.

but I don’t think in the current government environment something like that is possible. I would like to see more states not charging sales tax like NJ is doing.

Of course that’s the best system — and every policymaker knows it.

But as “always”, politics is the problem. Do you think proposing such a tax is the surest way to win re-election? Even if a majority of the public supports such a tax (and that may not be the case), politicians know those who are for won’t reward them as surely as those who are angered by such a change will punish them.

Agree, but tax the EV based on the electricity use and the source. I’m having that debate in ND with some lawmakers right now trying to figure out how to tax me for road taxes. I said absolutely, and while we are at it let us tax the pollution uniformly so that those who operate cleanly aren’t paying for those who pollute more via healthcare/lost wages/etc. Just like how road tax is per gallon since you are using more and typically the more fuel efficient the lighter the car is (not necessarily true with EVs).

Do Not Read Between The Lines

Problem is that people use electricity for lots of other things, so it’s hard to determine what’s what.
If you want to pay by distance and weight, probably the best you can do is something using odometer and a VIN lookup.

What you say is true! A Home, on its own, is using enough energy to drive an EV from 50 Miles (I use a variable 10-15 kWh per day, and EV’s drive about 3-5 Miles per kWh), to as much a 200 Miles per day, for a home with 40-50 kWh daily use; BUT – that is ongoing, no matter what you drive!

Taxing gasoline disproportionately affects lower income citizens that choose a vehicle based on what is available in the used market. This will have little effect on the rich who buy expensive new vehicles and pay for gasoline without even thinking .
Better to apply gas guzzler sales tax based on emissions to change the buying habits of new car buyers.

Raising the gas tax will move the used car market into more efficient vehicles. — Economic Incentives.

Problem is that trying to introduce a gas tax large enough to provide meaningful incentives is political suicide in most places…

States and municipalities across the world should adopt evs for their fleets. It really is a no brainer for so many reasons, Not the least of which is they are cheaper to operate. Also cleaner air, or less polluted air if you prefer. If your city is a tourist destination this will give the appearance of a progressive, with it place to live, or visit.
Atlanta, as opposed to Detroit for instance. Do tourists actually go to Detroit. Maybe to see how not to do things. Or what the results of being the legacy auto, whipping boy for years, will do to a city. It’s not pretty.

I’m sure Detroit is an interesting tourist destination, for Soul or Techno music enthusiasts…

I’m not sure if I should laugh or cry. Acceleration hopefully doesn’t feature high on the priority list of policymakers.

On the other hand, making sure they get aquainted with EVs may well be necessary. There are probably many lazy policymakers who haven’t bothered to learn about EVs first-hand. I hope they are tempted to “convert”. As we all know, few who drive electric has any desire to regress.

I’m sure many of those legislators are baby boomers and older, most of whom probably viewed EVs as nothing more than glorified golf carts for hippies. When they are shown that EVs are real, fun, excellent cars, they will realize that EVs are the future and perhaps adjust policy accordingly.

That comment reminds me of teenagers who think that their parents never had sex more than the number of times needed to have children. Legislators are people, and enjoy cars as much as anybody else. When they drive a car, realize that they’d like to have one, and that it’s something that benefits their state and their citizens, then it’s worth impressing them.

Honestly, the question of tax/incentives to promote EV adoption reminds of the move to legally mandate the phase-out of incandescent bulbs. Led’s are a clearly superior product by most metrics any consumer could wish for, with an exponentially declining price-point – the law was completely redunant to it’s purpose, except for the few exceptions that it inconvenienced to little good effect. Likewise, it’s clear at this point that by 2025 if not sooner, EVs will likely offer a clearly superior combination of range and performance, at a lower const of ownership than IC counterparts. Metro areas would benefit in terms of air quality for reasons that have jack to do with CO2, and even for ICs, advanced drop-in replacement fuels have reached price parity with <70 dollar/barrel oil, with 'wet' feedstock( i.e. seaweed, algae, etc.) a half-decade behind, rendering question of land area moot. The only thing I've seen the federal tax rebate do is incentivise sub-production limit compliance cars while 'big outo' waited for 'first-mover' Tesla to prove the market, before leveraging tax-credit expiration to move forward with larger, still sub-limit national rollouts to cumulatively steal Tesla's market away again. Not really fair of much of an incentive to… Read more »

There is no doubt that the phase-out of the federal tax credit is poorly designed. But that doesn’t make the whole thing useless. It’s proven time and again that a financial incentive of a few thousand dollars more than doubles EV sales in a short time span.

Regarding incandescent light bulbs, I don’t know the situation in the US: but here in Europe, the laws were originally created to promote compact fluorescent lights, which have a lot of downsides, and thus didn’t get much traction before the incandescent bans… Though I personally think that outright bans such as this one are a bad idea, as opposed to financial incentives.

“Legislators are people, and enjoy cars as much as anybody else.”

Thank you! How strange that anyone would think that elected officials stopped being human the moment they were elected.

I think Tesla should donate a few Model Ss to the governors of Texas and Michigan as their official cars. It’s a long shot for them to revert laws against Tesla but who knows ? Ludicrous acceleration may straighten up their brains.

“Democrat Assemblyman John Armato …”

That’s Democratic Assemblyman John Armato. You are Inside EVs, not Fox News. Get it right.

When did the Democrat party change their name? I’ve seen many people misuse the term so much lately that it must be recent. A person can be democratic regardless of political affiliation. How can they be a democratic?

Seems it is you that got the title wrong, based on miss placed assumtions! He can actually be a Democrat, without being Democratic! (Which is about a fancy name for Mob Rule, anyway, and has shown much of that, visually, lately!)

“Democratic! …a fancy name for Mob Rule, anyway…”

Hmmm, isn’t that what the Royalists supporting King George said during the American Revolution? I realize the Big Cheeto wants to be king, or more precisely dictator, and sadly some of his low-information supporters seem to think he should be. But, thank goodness, American political institutions are too strong for him to follow in the footsteps of Adolf Hitler and seize total power.

Please check your mindless partisan political talking points at the door as you enter.


And this quote:

“This beats most cars at a traffic light. And there are no tune ups. All those things you do to service a gas vehicle are gone.”

is exactly why dealerships are against EVs.