I'm a total gear head, and I love the sound of a V8. I drive an S65 (4.0L V8 with an 8,300 RPM redline) powered M3 because I love the sound of its engine at 7,000+ RPM.

I also cannot wait for super-performance electrics, and I'm a huge Tesla fan. I even dedicated a portion of my investment portfolio to TSLA, in spite of all the analysts warnings that it's overpriced. I believe electric is the future, and I can't wait.

I like anything with four wheels that goes fast! I don't care if its powered by a petrol engine, a diesel engine, or an electric motor.

However, the parent poster has mischaracterized the current circumstances in a pretty bad way:

> Or you save yourself the effort for all these widgets, use a proper battery and purebred electric motors and get the fastest sedan in the world pretty much effortlessly.

There is a difference between fastest and quickest. The Model S P85D is crazy fast to 60 MPH, but if you're interested in the whole truth, you don't stop looking at 60 MPH. You also ask why the P85D is so fast to 60. First, it has a ton of torque available at a full stop, and secondly, it has AWD, which is just about the only way you move a car this weight to 60 MPH that quickly.

Once you go beyond 60 MPH, the P85D doesn't shine nearly as brightly. I'll use Motor Trend's numbers for comparison here, in an effort to be consistent. Quarter-mile elapsed-time and trap speed are great indicators of a cars overall acceleration and speed performance, because you have to accelerate quickly and continue to generate power in order to achieve a high trap speed..

Model S P85D: 11.6s @ 115 MPH [1]

Mercedes E63 AMG: 11.6s @ 121.8 MPH [2]

BMW M5: 11.9s @ 122.2 MPH [2]

It's worth noting that the Mercedes is AWD, but the BMW is not. The P85D is extremely quick, but by the time it reaches the 1/4 mile mark, it is losing ground to both of its petrol powered competitors in a big way. A difference of 7 MPH in trap speed is a really big difference.

So, if we look at the super-sedan market, we can see that there's more to it than 0-60 times. Yes, theres a very sound argument that none of this matters for the street, because you'd be a lunatic to unleash any of these cars' capabilities on a public roadway. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the current state of performance, and electric still has a ways to go if you're talking about the entire performance spectrum, not just 0-60 (which is a very limited metric).

I do believe that all-electric is the ultimate destination, but I'm not certain chemical batteries will be with us for the long haul. I also believe the good ol' ICE (internal combustion engine) still has some legs. Turbocharging small displacement ICEs is a very effective way to generate lots of power without adding a lot of weight (batteries are extremely heavy, btw).

The problem with turbocharging a small ICE with insane levels of boost is that they're not very tractable. To generate lots of boost, you need a big turbo. A big turbo takes a lot of exhaust energy to spin up, and that means you get poor low-RPM power and responsiveness. Electric superchargers are a great way to solve this problem... As is a smallish battery and a supplementary electric motor (vis a vis BMW i8, Porsche 918, McLaren P1, etc). And round and round we go.

1: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/1411_2015_te...
2: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1311_2014_mercede...