> General Motors first unveiled the Chevy Bolt as a concept car in January 2015...
> As Pam Fletcher, GM’s executive chief engineer for electric vehicles, recently put it to me with a confident grin: “Who wants to be second?”
Yah but... it's a GM.
I own the finest luxury automobile GM makes, the Cadillac Escalade. It is a chrome lined bucket of bolts. If they can't do this right how can they do a $25k car right? As I type this my GM is in the shop RN with a hard to reproduce transmission issue. Oh and it cost as much as a Model S. o_O
OTOH the Model S is the most well manufactured anything I've ever sat in. It boggles my mind why anyone would buy a second GM. They've had enough time to get it right. Instead they've a consistent track record of mediocrity with an epic failure about every decade.
Tesla tho...
All I can say is, the people baffled by Tesla's success can't have spent much time behind the wheel of a Model S. I didn't realize how much cars suck, even luxury cars, till I spent a day driving an S up and down the PCH.
> OTOH the Model S is the most well manufactured anything I've ever sat in
That is one anecdotal. A much more interesting one is that Tesla is so bad at QC that even the most die-hard Tesla fans are now building checklists to do the quality control that the factory skimped on [1].
It is also rather silly to compare Tesla interior/exterior design or reliability with the big three - it is well known that they are good at neither. Pick a Lexus or a Honda/Acura or an Audi or a Mercedes and see what you get for your money there...
"It is also rather silly to compare Tesla interior/exterior design or reliability with the big three - it is well known that they are good at neither. Pick a Lexus or a Honda/Acura or an Audi or a Mercedes and see what you get for your money there..."
I'll save you some time ...
The interior of the lowest end BMW/Merc/Audi cars (3series/C-Class/A4) are so much nicer than the interior of a model S so as to be stupefying.
When it comes to the car hardware (besides the battery-thing) the Model S is a rather meager bang-for-buck deal.
I hope for Tesla that they can iterate on that hardware aspect as well as they do on the software part. The quality and looks as well as the manufacturing process are still the bread and butter of old giants.
What I'd like: Put a tesla engine in a car with quality interior (european/asian brands) and quality exterior (european brands/mazda), maybe their software too least for its "evergreen" update scheme - but keep the touchpad away from me unless it dims out in the dark and offers me haptic response.
While I can't say I've sat within a Tesla, I do know they began by making sports cars not luxury cars.
Personally, I've always felt sports car companies---Porsche, Ferrari, and Mazda for a low-end comparison---all have interiors that feel far less luxurious than any luxury car available for 1/3rd the price, and many family cars of 1/2 the price.
Porsche didn't have cup holders until their 2001 editions, and as an unfortunate owner of one, I can attest those are the flimsiest cupholders ever to grace the face of the earth, and the entire interior is filled with so much fiddly plastic that's just waiting to break and often does. Any Mercedes, even one from 10 years previous, would have a nicer interior.
Did that prevent me from buying another Porsche? Well, no it didn't. I like the way the cars drive, and eschew luxury features if their weight is going to do anything to the handling or performance of the car.
Excellent point: Tesla is still making sports cars -- sports sedans and sports SUVs. Anyone who's complaining about the interior without being interested in the performance isn't really in the target market.
You probably don't like how Model S handles (it's pretty heavy), but maybe you'll like the eventual 2-seater built on the Model 3 platform.
> The interior of the lowest end BMW/Merc/Audi cars (3series/C-Class/A4) are so much nicer than the interior of a model S so as to be stupefying.
You can choose a drive train that has been more-or-less unchanged for many decades, with all the money spent on the interior, or you can choose a revolutionary drive train, with a basic interior.
> You can choose a drive train that has been more-or-less unchanged for many decades
You can, for some models, but often not any more. Modern drivetrains include dual-clutch transmissions, which have only appeared in the last 10 years (despite actually being invented before WWII).
>with all the money spent on the interior,
Not really. A lot has been spent on combustion engine efficiency, for instance. I drive a twelve-year-old Renault Megane, not a wasteful car at all at its time, but new ones consume at least 30 % less gasoline.
You seem to be unaware of exactly how much weird stuff is in the advanced car brands (think Mercedes and Volvo). An alumni of my university line made a program for Mercedes that would compensate for side winds (such as when you meet a truck or drive over a bridge) so that the driver wouldn't notice. That's pure and delicious overengineering.
I feel like you are implying that "unchanged for many decades" is a downside. When you are talking about a drive train, it's a positive. They know what works, how to build it, and everyone knows how to fix it. Now if you want to talk about environmental impact, then yes I agree there is much to be said for Tesla.
Not wanting to put words into GP's mouth but I think the implication was that a bigger slice of the R&D budget goes on the interior of these cars because the drivetrain is a solved problem.
That seems really dubious. The entire price of an S80 is less than half a base Model S and aside from a dated computer has a far nicer interior in every way.
Of course I'm biased. Owned six Volvos. Always thought you couldn't buy a better interior. Simple tactile controls. Best seats in the business. And I loved the waterfall console in the three that had it.
I think I'm over cars for the most part, but if anything could tempt me it'd be the new S90. Makes a Model S interior look like cheap junk at half the price.
> Now if you want to talk about environmental impact, then yes I agree there is much to be said for Tesla.
Can you share more evidence to justify that claim? Not that I have any reason specifically to doubt it, but this seems like it warrants a lifetime analysis of the expected manufacturing and repair costs of Teslas.
If in the past years manufacturers had to cheat on emissions in order to present improvements to performance numbers, then there doesn't seem to be much innovation or the tech has stagnated.
On the other hand, there seems to be lots of room for improvement/innovation on the electric side.
> If in the past years manufacturers had to cheat on emissions in order to present improvements to performance numbers
The cheating is rather insignificant when compared to the actual decline in emissions over couple past decades.
Internal combustion engines have become more efficient all the time; there is a lot that has been developed there over the years.
Many of those things, such as the material technology, probably benefit also electric vehicles. Tesla as we know it wouldn't be possible without the pile of innovations done with combustion engine cars.
The Tesla apologist rhetoric is getting a little hard to follow. Which is it? Are Teslas the best-manufactured anything? Or are they lacking because they're so revolutionary?
This article alone turns most Tesla enthusiasts into apologists immediately. Its a revolutionary drive train, no one has done this before, that's why its having issues. Or we can expect Tesla to fix the issues, or whatever.
Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that Tesla is performing awfully in practical long-term tests. IE: apologists, as opposed to enthusiasts.
You make it sound like the Edmonds people were like "holy shit, we're freaked out by a sound, replace the drive unit." But what actually happened is they heard a sound, took it to an authorized maintainer, and the maintainer was like, "Oh, you need a new drive unit."
What does it have to do to count as not preemptive? Burst into flames at 70mph?
> If you're keeping score, our Model S is now on its third drive unit: the one that came with the car, the one that was replaced in November, and this latest one. And that wasn't the only thing that was replaced on this service visit.
This is when Edmunds replaced the drive unit twice. Look at the date, Feb 2014.
Yet another drive unit replacement. Their Tesla S went through four drive trains (the first one came with the car, and then three replacements) in two years.
-----------
Consumer Reports also had an issue with their long-term test.
Consumer Reports is a survey methodology, as opposed to a single data-point like Edmunds. But the fact that reliability concerns are hitting the major, reputable, reviewers is worrisome to me.
This isn't JUST an Edmunds issue. Everyone is reporting reliability concerns. In part, its somewhat okay because Tesla the company stands behind their warranty and fixed the problems without issue. So as a consumer, you get excellent service.
On the other hand, dying in the middle of a highway and being forced to call a tow-truck is not an experience that should be common on a high-end luxury vehicle. The question is if Tesla has solved these issues in time for the Model 3 / mass market.
> On the other hand, dying in the middle of a highway and being forced to call a tow-truck is not an experience that should be common on a high-end luxury vehicle.
I had a model S on order but canceled due to this single issue. This will not be as much an issue for the model 3 because due to price the expectations are (or should be) much lower. For 105k for an S I'd kind of like to compare it to an S-class or 7 series or A8. They all crush the S for the interior.
I find Lexus is a reasonable middle between Tesla's "less is more" interior strategy and Mercedes' "button or knob for every function". I've flown planes with simpler controls than Mercedes sedans' panel.
Is this the spot in the conversation where I daydream out loud about the people responsible for the diesel scandal at VW/Audi being sacked and replaced with people interested in electric drive trains?
I have no idea what people are talking about. I have never been impressed in the slightest with the interior of any car except the Tesla. The controls just scream 80s or worse.
> That is one anecdotal. A much more interesting one is that Tesla is so bad at QC that even the most die-hard Tesla fans are now building checklists to do the quality control that the factory skimped on.
Yet a staggering 98% of the Mode S owners said they would buy the car again [1]. Can you name a single product that has that kind of loyalty? I've never driven a tesla, but clearly something very different is happening in the automotive industry other than Fanboism.
I don't know shit about cars and have never driven a Tesla. But 98% of people willing to buy it again might very well be fanboism, or wanting to have the coolest car currently, or wanting to have the only[1] fully electric luxury car. I'm not sure why you think it must be a superb quality of manufacturing to some extent.
[1] I don't know if there are others. But I count on others not knowing either.
FWIW: I went through a few cars already: with every one, after 3-4 years, I wanted to have nothing with the brand, because there were always so many things that sucked (in-car UI, service etc.)
I drive Model S. I don’t want to drive anything else ever, because the quality (of driving, of UI, the way service treats you) is superb. I’m damn motivated to earn enough to afford it, or at least Model 3, because my experience is that no other manufacturer gets it or is capable of making a decent driver UI — and yes, that includes Audis or BMWs.
I love my '03 Toyota 4 Runner. Very well made product. You're right other companies make great stuff. Obviously my assessment of how well made the Tesla's are is holistic and subjective.
Based on the reliability statistics that organizations like Consumer Reports have collected, the Model S isn't that reliable - lots of drivetrain issues, mechanical issues with stuff like door handles, etc. Its owners just don't mind them because they're really enthusiastic about Tesla.
The consumer reports on my Cadillac weren't indicative either.
I'll give Tesla a pass on door handles because I've replaced them on my Cadillac 3 times. Also body panels jiggle, buttons stick, fluids leak, electrical problems, should I keep going? Is there any equivalence here?
It amazes me that we can put an SUV sized robot on Mars but Cadillac can't make a car the bumper doesn't fall off of.
>It amazes me that we can put an SUV sized robot on Mars but Cadillac can't make a car the bumper doesn't fall off of.
You realize that your Escalade would cost millions of dollars if it were produced to the same standard as Curiosity, right? It really is amazing that we can put an SUV sized robot on Mars, but aside from approximate volume, Mars rovers really have nothing at all to do with consumer vehicles.
To be fair, he/she is not really over-analyzing. You just made a pretty blatant logical fallacy to argue your point. Comparing a GM to a rover designed for space is apples to oranges.
Since we are all sharing our own localized subjective experiences of a single instance of vehicle ownership, I have a 2015 GMC Sierra 1500 and have been nothing but pleased.
That's just not true. The Escalade gets a score 258% lower than the average.
That's abysmal. And from your story, it sounds like you could've done a lot worse than to pick up a subscription no?
Look, I'm not a CR fanboy. I only signed up to check out ratings on induction cooktops. Turns out, there doesn't appear to be any (they basically just rate the spec-sheet, no actual reviews AFAIK).
So this discussion is the first time I've used it it's been good for anything. While they may not be perfect, they buy a vehicle, test it, run surveys. I'm not aware of any recent scandals. You're going to have to try harder to discredit them since you're not actually offering an alternative.
No, you shouldn't. We get it, your current car is a lemon and you consider the Tesla, a car which you don't even own but drove for one day, to be of superior quality.
The reliability reports seem to stem from them being the first year or two that the model s was being produced. There were a handful of big issues (the motor winding issue being the main one I can think of) and a handful of smaller ones, but at this point they seem to have worked out most of the kinks.
Time will tell tell if they have long term reliability.
I've had several friends who have owned and sold their Model S rather quickly (less than 2 years) because of problems they had with cold weather - they lived in North Dakota and Minnesota. One of my friends remarked, "It's like they didn't bother to test this in an even mildly cold region of the country."
Everything from greatly diminished range (which is already well documented) to the drivers screen not working, or working intermittently and other weird stuff my friends attributed to cold weather.
Eh, I mean sort of, but Oslo is no colder than Chicago and it's warmer than Buffalo, hell NYC's average lows are only 7-10 degrees warmer than Oslo. Calgary makes all of them look like a joke.
Not sure which parts of MN and ND your friend lives in, but north-central MN like Bemidji or Grand Forks, ND are actually some of the coldest parts of the country.
It still could be a reasonable comment. 30F is mildly cold. Mildly cold regions will sometimes be 30F. It's possible that these problems manifest at 30F.
ND and MN also sometimes reach -20F, but the problems may (or may not) require so much cold to reproduce.
I only have anecdotal evidence; a friend who owns a Tesla. He said the fit and finish issues on his Tesla are real but that he plans to trade it for a newer model and his wife's Lexus will be replaced be a Tesla as well.
He's basing that on his perception that Tesla is working out the quality control issues. I'm not in the market for a Chevy or a Tesla - key switch recalls come to mind for one and fit, finish versus price for the other.
It's true the interior of the Tesla is spare, but you could also call it clean. The Mercedes S550 has higher quality materials, but the interior is pretty busy/glitzy I think. BMW is also quite high quality materials, and cleaner design than the Mercedes. Tesla materials are not as nice, I have to say.
However:
1. Both the BMW and Mercedes infotainment systems are _profoundly_ clunky compared to the Tesla. Tesla is far, far ahead - not only with the 17" screen, but also UI. Cannot overemphasize this. The Tesla is a pleasure to use & they are clearly working to minimize # of clicks to get a task done - when will BMW get a clue about this??
2. When you press the pedal, the Model S accelerates _right now_. It is like piloting a UFO: car was there; now car is here. This makes the driving experience totally different in traffic. You see an opening in traffic, and pow, you can take it. It's frustrating to drive a gas car after getting used to this. Likewise handling is excellent - the weight of the battery placed so low in the car makes it stick to the road like a go cart. I used to have a BMW M3... so much noise and fuss to accelerate! In the Tesla, it's silent, you just pull away from people effortlessly. I think Tesla is actually under-marketing the driveability. It is not even the 0-60 time that matters: it's the very low latency.
Wow, OK, good to know I'm not the only one who feels this way about German cars. I don't understand why they're so bad at software. My BMW takes that long to boot up the nav too! One of my biggest reasons to get a Tesla 3 is that they seem to be much better at software and seems to understand general computing and the flexibility that comes with it.
It's horrible UX and as a German software engineer I am deeply ashamed of the bad practices in the local car industry.
During university there were always these huge talks about the engineering excellence needed for all the fancy embedded systems, but once you get in touch with these systems it leaves a bad taste.
For example with current Audi, if you put it into reverse, the camera pops up and then picture freezes for ~2 seconds.
In every talk with salesmen from the three large German brands I ask about the software issues, but they don't even notice it.
I really feel a lack of focus on UX.
(You could replace "embedded systems" with "human-computer interaction" - car industry was always the big example but once you get more experienced you see they are all hustling, and badly..)
I can tell you the reason at Daimler (Mercedes -- did some work with them in Sindelfingen): They care about the car and the driving experience (sound and reliability of the motor, doors etc). The radio and such? Not mission critical, so they just write a spec and outsource it. You don't get any advancement for worrying about those things.
I've owned a bunch of mercedeses over the year and they've generally been pretty good, though expensive to fix when something does go wrong.
My mini, by contrast, has a "sport" button. The documentation says "makes the car more sporty". The current "S" models have a turbocharger not a supercharger. 40% of the manual is on the entertainment system. I think these are all great.
(Of course at the end of the day that mini is a BMW so has all the fit and finish problems I experienced with BMWs before I gave up on them. Fun to drive but never again!)
Thanks, that's interesting. Every time I see someone with iPhone earplugs driving their car I am thinking about the "experience" ;-)
I did some IT forensics on Mercedes models a couple of years ago, and you could retrace the bad guys' routes by looking at the exception log of their Windows CE navigation software. It had an exception ~5 minutes, and always dumping the stack including the filename of the currently played audio file that told the current road to the driver.
The horrible thing I have learned from car shopping during the past year is that all manufaturers are just repackaging the components delivered by continental. If you buy the premium options at Audi or Volvo, you basically get the same component from a third party. There is no secret sauce in the car apart from the engine and the navigation software, and they screwed up both big time.
The extreme case of this was the Boxter which was completely outsourced and just badged Porsche. Well that was the extreme case, now it's increasingly common (e.g. Lexus SUV).
The good news is this increases commoditization of the car business.
> Of course at the end of the day that mini is a BMW so has all the fit and finish problems I experienced with BMWs before I gave up on them. Fun to drive but never again!
It's getting a little OT but I'm generally curious about what those problems might be in Mini's case. A close friend wants to buy a second-hand Mini One, I've heard they've got issues, I was curious what those issues might be. I've also heard they're very entertaining to drive, too.
It is fun to drive but make sure you get a blower. A normally aspirated engine will not have enough power.
"fit and finish" -- the interior trim on one side pillars didn't match (on the other it butted cleanly). Button finish wore off after a short time. And the brakes, timing belt, high pressure fuel pump all wore out rapidly. You could argue that the brakes could be user failure (riding the brakes) except no other car I had had the same problem, and my clutch didn't show the same problem (which is a correlated "naive driver" failure). Rear inside trim (from the back doors -- I have a clubman) keeps falling off.
I only owned two BMWs, though they both had similar problems. Then I picked my dad up at the airport -- turned out he had the same car with all the identical problems. That was the end of it for me.
I don't know anything about software engineering in Germany or at BMW, but knowing German culture, I imagine it is due to some combination of waterfall processes, top down management, fixed specifications, and every engineer being required to have a master's or phd.
I know some BMWs have Navigation systems that begin to boot as soon as you unlock the car. It's a clever solution -- although my dad ran into battery discharge issues because of it; if you don't drive much (retired) so the car sits a lot, and then all of your trips are short trips... sooner or later you might kill the battery.
Well, it boots (and runs) in the background. I don't think any modern nav system can be truly switched off, even if the display to the radio/nav/etc system is switched off. Again, because of boot times, it makes sense to have it begin booting as soon as the car is unlocked, and to run in the background the entire time the car is running.
> Apart from the actual software running on the cars, I think German manufacturers still have very high quality interior in their flagship models.
Motor Trend's Chevy Camaro SS vs. BMW M4 review is pretty telling. They rated the $46,000 Camaro better than the $81,000 M4 in almost every category, including interior features.
I actually meant that I think with 80k BMW is overcharging for the M4 by a huge margin. As you said, you can get the same or even more for way less money spent :)
The M4 is basically an M3 - they've been around that price range for quite a while. What else can you obtain with similar performance numbers and fit and finish for "way less money spent"?
Re: software... So the first time you get in it the A8 has a zero to 60 of 20.4 seconds? That sounds about right.
I drove an A4 for a while and the gas response was absolutely terrible. You had to press it gently if you wanted it to respond immediately. If you gunned it or even just pressed a little quick to get across oncoming lanes -- expect about a half second delay. One of the worst cars I have driven. Taking it to the dealer the response was -- "that's normal". My boring ass accord responds to the gas pedal better than the A4. Maybe their higher end cars are better, but I wouldn't get another audi.
Let me guess, your boring ass-accord does not have a turbocharger and the A4 did? Turbo lag is hard to avoid if you want the good power/weight of the turbocharged engine.
Yup. It was a turbo. I thought that turbo issues had been resolved in the early 2000s with proper transmission tuning and turbo-on. Apparently audi did a piss poor job of it until the the last 2-3 years (according to other posters).
I'll take a few less horsepower with better responsiveness any day. I'm not trying to beat anyone in a 1/4 mile -- i'd much rather the car be enjoyable and responsive. Half a second can easily mean the difference between getting out of the way of someone coming up on you not paying attention and getting rear ended. Hopefully they got their shit together.
A turbo is a better driving experience on the highway. So, it's really just about buying the right car for your driving tastes.
There is no way to "solve" turbo lag. The compressor needs torque before it can produce boost. At the high end you can do a twin turbo. Not in an a4. And you could say something similar about having necessary power on the highway to avoid a collision.
A turbo is a better driving experience on the highway.
How so? I would perceive no difference between a turbo'd engine and a Naturally Aspirated one while driving on the highway at a constant speed. Engine responsiveness as per the parent poster would be the same within the city vs. on the highway.
There is no way to "solve" turbo lag.
I'd suggest researching variable vein turbos. BMW has done it very successfully in their e92 335s. Even resulting in a flat torque curve at very low RPM. It's impressive engineering.
I'm not sure how you drive on the highway, but I don't usually drive at a constant speed. Instead, when I need overtaking power, I have fast throttle response with a turbo that is already spinning.
I'm not familiar with what BMW did for a 335, but I do know that the 335 is quite a bit more expensive than an A4.
Even at idle the turbo is spinning. Engine RPM at highway speeds isn't vastly different than engine RPM at city speeds (perhaps a few hundred RPM in the average car). Therefore turbo lag also isn't vastly different.
Variable vein enables turbos to match engine speeds more quickly. Greatly reducing turbo lag.
Come on; it's not producing boost at idle which is clearly the point. Excuse the slang term "spinning".
And I call bs. You're being argumentative. The debate wasn't highway vs "city speeds" it was highway vs cold stop.
A more advanced turbo solves the problem in a car that is $15k+ more, and I believe you that it can reduce turbo lag. For that price range a twin turbo can as well. But there is still physics that cannot be overcome.
Which cars don't have a delay? If you have a gas (i.e. relatively low torque) car with automatic transmission, it needs to shift in a lower gear if you want to accelerate rapidly, so that's where the delay comes from.
I love my 2014 Mazda 3's Sport Mode. When I hit that button, the engine goes from being more than adequate to chomping at the bit. It just flies. Love that thing. Paddle shifters so I can downshift without even moving my hands.
Test drive one someday, Mazda isn't kidding around with the "zoom zoom".
As a six pot aspirated driver, screw turbos, automatic gearbox and mileage. I'd either drive this car till it dies or until a volta makes landfall in my country at a reasonable markup.
That's an interesting observation. Obviously it doesn't take 20 sec for an A8, but you really need to pay a lot of money for it to have a reasonable acceleration of ~5 sec. And I think this is the most striking thing about Tesla's cars, because right now, every potential Audi buyer knows that every single Tesla car will beat the 5 seconds 0 to 60 you bought with a lot of money (speaking of mainstream models).
That is what I meant. And if we count turbo lag it's zero to 1 mph in 15.5 seconds, unless you're on a hill. :) I would like to drive a tesla. That low end immediate torque is probably a lot of fun.
Guesses as I don't know which specific models you're referring to:
The parent's lack of throttle response is most likely due to turbo lag. Modern cars are getting better with variable vein turbos.
If your Mom's Mercedes suffers from poor throttle response I'd guess it's because she purchased one with a small engine relative to the size of the vehicle. A C230, for example, isn't the sportiest of cars. A C63, however, does not suffer from poor throttle response.
Or the transmission settings. Most luxury cars default in a "comfort" mode which introduces some lag in the down shift until revs build up more, so that the shift is smoother. A C63 is usually left in the sport transmission setting, of which the whole purpose is to jolt you as hard as possible every time you mash the pedal, to remind you what you're paying for :) Also, 4 or 5 speed cars this lag is much more ponounced than say a 7 or 8 speed, especially the newer ones with double clutch.
Turbo lag is a real issue too, although newer cars deal much better with it. Many newer model Audi's for example, it's hard to even identify the lag (not so true 10 or even 5 years ago).
C63's default to comfort mode. They don't introduce any lag in comfort modes, they simply select a higher gear than what would be ideal and up-shift at lower RPMs (1,800RPM in a C63).
Source: I own a C63 and my startup procedure includes completely turning off traction control and putting the transmission into S+ every time I get in the car.
Wonder if you'd still think the same if someone who is doing the same as you ends up crashing into your car because they think they're too good and disable the stability control systems.
HN Is a lot more combative with posters making broad assumptions than I remember.
In that hypothetical situation I might wish that they had taken some high performance driving courses from me or my colleagues/friends. And spent time behind the wheel of cars at the limit, as I have, so that they had better skills to potentially avoid the accident they caused (with or without ESC).
ESC doesn't save people from bad driving, it masks some of their errors.
There is nothing wrong with disabling traction control. Please don't use the ESC in your car as a crutch. It won't save you.
Even if you did take driving courses, the roads are for transportation, and are to be used with as many safety features as possible. Stability control is another thing to add to the list of safety behavior. Disabling it on public roads is even careless behavior. Yes, it does not save from bad driving, but it plays a very big role in mitigating or preventing certain accidents, which even the best human drivers are not able to react in time.
Sorry, you're misinformed on what ESC and traction control do, it seems, and the rhetoric makes for a difficult conversation.
I didn't take them, I taught them.
We call the driver aids "nannies" in motorsports because they fix some driver errors. They limit control and input. They don't react for the driver. Interesting fact: A driver can out-brake ABS. The vast majority of motorsports competitors do regularly.
I'm not sure why I'm engaging in this, I should probably have more coffee... :)
No, it's a CLK430 convertible from ~2003. It's got plenty of power, it just feels like it purposefully retards the throttle when starting from stop for a short while to keep it from jerking off the line. In my trying to compensate for that, I give it more throttle, which seems to trigger it to stop the retarding action, and the it accelerates faster than expected. It feels like if I just let it do its thing it would be fine, but it feels slow to me when starting, which causes the whole problem. This isn't a developed problem, it was like this from the beginning, so I assume it's on purpose.
The CLK430 has a 275 HP V8 and the car weighs nearly 4,000lbs. That's not a lot of power for a vehicle of that size and non-AMG models aren't geared for acceleration. The surge you experience is probably the transmission down-shifting. On typical city driving the Mercedes transmissions seem to select gears 2 higher than what would be optimal for acceleration. In the AMG models they don't even use 1st gear unless the transmission is in Sport mode.
Glib solution: Buy an AMG and smile when you put your right foot down, but cry when you go to the bank...
> The CLK430 has a 275 HP V8 and the car weighs nearly 4,000lbs. That's not a lot of power for a vehicle of that size and non-AMG models aren't geared for acceleration.
I alternate driving a Honda Odyssey and a recent base level Hyundai Elantra as a commuter every day. I'll tell you flat out this is not a problem with too little horsepower or torque. I've also recently driven one of the AMG Mercedes variants for a few days, and seemed to notice the same issue in that vehicle, but much less pronounced.
> The surge you experience is probably the transmission down-shifting.
What I'm experiencing seems to be slightly different than what the original commentor started out with. I'm referring to starting moving forward from stop, such as a stoplight.
> Glib solution: Buy an AMG and smile when you put your right foot down, but cry when you go to the bank...
Naw, I still have my 240z sitting out back. It was fairly tricked out prior to it becoming basically useless most the time when I had multiple children. I get most of my jonesing for fast cars satisfied by the fantasy that I'll one day fix it up again. I think it was way more fun to drive than most the modern fast cars, because it's not so much about how fast you go, but how fast if feels like you are going. Driving a small early 70's sports car serves that up pretty well even without actually going all that fast. :)
We're veering off topic a bit but I've come to learn Mercedes pretty well now. I'd put money on your feeling with the Mercedes being two-fold:
1) The gearing: They're long gears and it defaults to selecting a very tall gear. I have 500hp on tap and doing 50mph in 7th gear isn't fun, but that's what it selects as a default in comfort mode.
2) Traction control: It might not be as much of a problem in non-AMGs but the traction control is surprisingly intrusive and very good at hiding that it's engaging because there isn't a mechanical coupling to the drive wheels. It uses the brakes and I assume some throttle limiting. Even in the sport handling modes it's quite intrusive.
I never drive with traction control or in comfort mode - not even in winter. It's a completely different car with them off - if you get another chance to drive one I'd suggest turning it all off. Unfortunately the throttle isn't linear but any more than 20% will spin the tires.
I also have an S2000. It has half the horsepower and weights 1,000lbs less but it's a blast.
high end german cars (like the really high end stuff, the AMGs, Ms, RSs, turbo S's of the world) are all nicer than model S's. tesla just attracts the attention of non-car people who don't have much experience with six figure cars.
It you are right - that Telsa buyers buy their near 100k cars without knowing about OR looking at the competition - then you might as well be long on them since their sales & marketing is way more efficient. Your dig is actually a win for Tesla and a bad sign for the ones you mentioned.
I'm not challenging that, in general, Tesla attracts "non-car people" but the suggestion that people that buy AMGs, RSs and 911s are "car people" is nonsense. I'll give you M though.
Regardless of who buys what, because who cares.. let's compare the acceleration performance of a few (0-60 and 1/4 mi):
Tesla Model S P90D - 2.8s / 10.9s
Audi RS - 3.3s / 11.5s
2016 Mercedes AMG GT S - 3.1 / 11.2
2017 Porsche 911 Turbo S - 2.8 / 11.1
These cars aren't even in the same retail category and Tesla is outperforming those that cost a lot more.
Very few 4-door cars offer what the Tesla Model S offers. It's a new brand and seen as anti-establishment, there's not many of them yet, they sell direct and they seem to communicate very well with their customers. Their software and in-car technology is great. People are reacting to many things that Tesla is doing right.
It will be interesting to see how they do as they move downward. It hasn't seemed to hurt Mercedes.
the funniest thing about tesla is it has spawned all these brand new carguy fanboys who are oblivious to the fact that they are literally engaging in the same inane fanboy arguments that rabid fanboys have been having on the internet for decades now.
the more things change, the more things stay the same.
One aspect that is interesting to me is how Tesla will change the performance category.
The Model S is a nice looking car but it's a rather pedestrian looking car if you compare it to other cars that cost the same or more.
Yet it can beat way more expensive cars and absolutely destroy all the much less expensive tuner cars that fanboys love.
So when soccer moms and boomers everywhere can (and do) smoke these other performance cars, it becomes a rather sad reality for them. Until Tesla makes one they can afford. :)
AMG (base price of 130,000 USD) and S are not in the same price league, no matter how much you trick the latter out. Sure, extra 40-50k usd can buy you nice leather trim..
LOL, the software on the 2016 Cadillacs, absolutely shameful. I'd be so embarrassed if I worked on that team. Apple Car Play is the only good thing about the software in those cars.
I haven't actually used a Tesla, but based on just screenshots... they really need a designer for their software. I mean, it had gradients.
That's why I'm kinda hoping Apple ups their game and makes car navigation work. No reason why they couldn't use smartphone hardware and just keep it in low power standby.
Well, I have two (2012 & 2014) and let me tell you: the UI is great; all important touch screen buttons are near one edge of the frame, allowing blind muscle memory to actually work. I really don't care one iota what the color or gradient is. I also have many iDevices and frankly the Tesla UI wouldn't be improved by iOS/CarPlay-style UI.
The great thing about teslas is that they can instantly roll out features like user themes or "flat design". Every time my Audi is at the garage they take ~15 minutes and a special-purpose Laptop to update some arcane piece of software in the car (fixing bugs).
It's such a huge shift in mindset and operations for the incumbents they won't be able to make it. Recent models still come with a sim car slot so you can get real-time updates on the map.
There was some stuff floating around a while back saying that the repair & software update agreement that some mfgrs have would contractually prevent them from even being able to do OTAs.
I've been saying a while Tesla's competitive advantage isn't batteries or electric motors(these are pretty well understood) but in software. They can aggregate statistics across 100k+ cars and determine how people really use cars as opposed to guesses or surveys which are not nearly as accurate. Combine that with monthly/bi-monthly OTAs and you've got a good chance for disruption.
>OTOH the Model S is the most well manufactured anything I've ever sat in.
I'm not sure I'd agree. The much of the interior and door handles felt very low quality to me. Theres just too much creaking/give on a light touch.
The central console is also pretty underwhelming. It's UI is gaudy and slow. The maps stutters and lags like a cheap ass Android phone from 2010 and the display isn't particularly bright or high contrast.
I think BMW is doing the best right now. Their UI is a bit gaudy too but at least it's responsive.
The interior of the Model S feels much cheaper than any other $100k car I've been in, and also worse than most $50k cars I've been in. There's no possible way I'd rank the Model S as the best manufactured car based on the interior.
What's even sadder is what the other manufacturers put in theirs. A prominent OEM I recently worked with was planning to put a significantly worse SOC than the Tegra3 in their 2017 head units to save a few bucks.
Yup, the few $$$ are usually not worth it from a customer perspective.
Even worse in the case of Tesla as they need to drive a 1920x1200 panel which is quite a strain on the Tegra3, I'm honestly surprised it's as fluid as it is.
> I own the finest luxury automobile GM makes, the Cadillac Escalade.
It may be the most expensive and grant you the most prestige among a certain cohort, but it's not the "finest". Putting a Cadillac badge and some extra features on a truck doesn't change the fact that it's a shiny wrapper on a pickup truck chassis.
It's an unsubstantiated myth, just like the Tesla is the safest and fastest car on the road. The fact is, we don't know much about the maintenance record of these cars, because there aren't that many and they haven't been on the road long.
Even if they aren't 5 stars in reliability they make 50,000 a year and are fairly young. I'm sure they'll figure it out. GM has had more than enough time to get it right.
But everyone's always known the Escalade as an overpriced truck. The quality of a (cheaper!) Cadillac sedan is going to be vastly better.
I wouldn't call the Model S the most well-manufactured ANYTHING. I love the car (and have money down on a 3), but, in particular, it was glaring how cheap the plastic panel on the floor between the front seats (with the rubber strips you can push out the bottom) and the flat hard plastic panel with USB sockets behind it were.
I own the highest customer satisfaction Auto GM makes Chevy Volt. The instant torque and a very practical AER, and they do it for 33K (without tax credit) for a car available right now.
I have 2014 Volt am extremely happy, and do recommend the 2017 Volt which is a much better version retaining its original identity.
But TSLA is the darling of the press, rightfully or other wise. But at a Pound for Pound level, Gen2 Volt is an excellent choice. Unfortunately now those 250K people who reserved a Model 3 could be driving a EV right now and making an impact instead of waiting for 3 more years.
One thing is sure, Cars are not like Phones, you see People with Phones but you see People in the Cars, so once there is a bit of saturation of Model 3 on west coast, people will look around and "discover" Bolt EV or who knows may be Volt.
> Unfortunately now those 250K people who reserved a Model 3 could be driving a EV right now and making an impact instead of waiting for 3 more years.
This is a false dichotomy. As an anecdote, I started a 3 year lease on an EV two weeks before the Model 3 was announced and still put in a reservation.
Who cares if I can get a Volt for 33k right now? It still burns dinosaurs and has a terrible electric range.
Tesla is the press "darling" because it's doing something that the other manufactures aren't: Good looking, All Electric, High Range, Affordable Price. These are things people clearly want.
Every other vehicle sacrifices at least one of those.
I do realize that the Silicon Valley types don't care about this issue, with iPhones behind walled gardens and all that jazz (or at least, SV doesn't seem to care about it anymore... what ever happened to the vision of open source and true ownership?)... but I know plenty of people who are still interested in vehicle with open standards.
Or hell, just a vehicle that can be taken from a junkyard and then repaired in a garage. You're not allowed to take a Tesla from a junkyard and salvage it, not unless you take it to a dealership and have it "reactivated" by Tesla.
I have to disagree, I have evaluated the option of throwing my hat in the Model 3 ring, but its not in my DNA to buy a Car without test drive and given that I follow green car news pretty closely, I know too well that the market in 2019 and 2020 is going to be exciting with more choices both in PHEV and BEV world. Audi, BMW, Volvo, Mistu, Honda etc. many traditional automakers are racing to the market.
The Volt isn't really an EV, it's a hybrid. The Volt battery's estimated range is less than my daily commute, so I'd end up using a mix of battery and gas, just like my Prius does.
Not in the traditional hybrid sense though. It's electric until the battery runs out and then uses a gas generator to create electricity. The generator is really just a range extender which is why they generally call it an Extended Range Electric Vehicle.
It's less than 40 miles because most people drive 35 or less in a day. Then its range at 37mpg is about 280 between fill ups. I probably put gas in every 3-4 months when I had mine.
At one point when I was driving the engine came on and ran simply for maintenance because it hadn't been used for so long.
The only time I ever used gas was if I needed to drive out of state or across the state for holidays with the family. I could have bought a Leaf to go 80 miles...and then stop for the day.
The difference in cost will more than pay for a rental car a couple times a year. You sound like an SUV owner who pays for more vehicle than they need 99% of the time, because they might need to drive on a dirt track some time.
I leased a Volt for 3 years and 100% agree. That car was EXCELLENT and I still miss it. My father in law bought one after driving mine and hasn't stopped grinning.
Flip it into "sport" mode and you'll get a speeding ticket. Such a great car.
Unless you can afford a dedicated "commute only with no need to take on long trips" vehicle, I do not understand the appeal of fully electrics aside from status symbols.
> Unless you can afford a dedicated "commute only with no need to take on long trips" vehicle, I do not understand the appeal of fully electrics aside from status symbols.
Compared to a plug-in hybrid like the Volt, you have: more interior space, less maintenance, cheaper per-mile cost, convenience of not having to stop at gas stations, quieter, safer, etc. Sure, the Volt is a great car, and there are plenty of people I would recommend it to. But EVs are certainly not just "status symbols"; for some people they are legitimately better cars.
Speaking from experience, the Supercharger network really does make road trips a non-issue as well. I'd honestly rather stop at a Supercharger station and get a free charge while I relax and eat lunch for 20 minutes than find a smelly, expensive gas station and stand outside pumping fuel.
I count TWO Superchargers in all of South Carolina, and SEVEN Superchargers in all of North Carolina. That's... pretty awful selection.
Seriously? I'm not buying a vehicle to pretend to be an elitist and superior over my fellow citizens and neighbors.
The fact of the matter is, being forced to stop at extremely limited locations to act high-and-mighty over the "poor gas users" (who are really the typical American's who can't afford a $30k+ vehicle so get off your damn high horse) is the biggest brand of elitism I've seen this week.
There's nothing wrong with stopping at gas stations. They're common, they are convenient, they're cheap and they're close to where the action is.
If you're happy to sit on a high-horse and pretend that TWO locations in some states is sufficient for a good long-driving experience (or even if Tesla DOUBLES the amount to FOUR locations by 2020)... suit yourself. But this sounds like an utterly awful road-trip experience in my opinion.
One interesting thing to watch will be the resale value of the Bolts.
If you haven't looked lately, look up the price of a 2014 Volt with up to 40,000 miles on it. You can get one for around $15,000 USD. If after 2 years you can get a Bolt for ~half MSRP, like you can a Volt, I'm not sure how I can resist a deal like that.
Considering that you can fill up the Volt with gasoline for long-term trips, that's a major plus for me.
You get the battery for daily usage, and the electric generator for long trips. That's a lot more practical than waiting 30 minutes every ~200 miles on the supercharger network. GM has utterly solved the "range anxiety" problem entirely, with only a 40-mile electric battery.
You could just as well say the Ford Mustang solves the range anxiety problem by relying on gas. Making a gas-powered vehicle isn't solving range anxiety, because the range anxiety problem relates to electric vehicles. The Volt is a hybrid, like the Prius. Hybrids never had range anxiety associated with them.
The Volt is a hybrid that is in 100% electric mode for the vast, vast majority of the time.
There's a big difference between an electric-assist Prius and an electric-first plus Gasoline Generator Volt. The Prius is always burning gasoline, while the Volt only starts burning gas when it runs low on charge.
There's a newer model Prius (ie: Prius Prime) that has 20-miles of pure electric range, but that's not even enough to get me from home to work and back. In practice, I'd have to keep the Prius in gasoline / hybrid mode even for a daily commute.
In contrast, the Volt's 40-mile pure electric range is a big deal changer. Again, the Volt is a pure electric vehicle with a generator. The Prius is a hybrid engine (and the Prius Prime is a hybrid engine that can shut off the gasoline feed, but is still a hybrid engine nonetheless).
I'd say the standard Prius is closer to the Malibu Hybrid, or other hybrids. But the plug-in pure electric mode of the Volt (and the recent Prius Prime) almost demands a new category.
It's pretty strange to go from casually dismissing Tesla's 280-mile range as being too short in your last post, to calling the Volt's 40-mile range "a big deal changer" here.
It's only in 100% electric mode the "vast, vast majority of the time" if you hardly drive at all. A 40-mile range is positively anemic, not even enough for my average commute. That's much closer to the Prius' 20-mile range than it is to the Nissan Leaf's 80-mile range, which in turn is drastically shorter than the Tesla Model S's 280-mile range.
The Leaf doesn't have an alternative source of energy.
Run out of the 80-mile range on the Leaf, and you're stranded. Call up a tow-truck because you're stuck.
The Tesla Model S 280 miles requires a 30-minute stop when you go cross country. In contrast, the Volt has a 400-mile electric generator on top of a 40-mile pure electric battery.
Sure, and my friend's Mustang can also go a pretty long distance on gas, as can every other gas-burning car. That's my point — the Volt should not be grouped in with cars like the Model S or the Bolt, because it is not the same thing — heck, that's why Chevy is making the Bolt when they already have the Volt, because they are different. If you like the Volt, that's fine, but you're burning gasoline just like an ICE car if you ever drive more than 40 miles.
And is there anything wrong with a small battery that's enough (or nearly enough) for the daily commute, and a gas engine to take you where you can't go?
As stated: the other "electric-mode / gas assist" vehicle is the Prius Prime, which only has 20-mile range. So the Volt is the highest-capacity pure-electric mode vehicle with an on board generator.
From the "Compare with Model 3", these are both electric vehicles that cost somewhere between $30,000 and $40,000 that overall have more than 300-mile range. One uses the common gas station to get there (40-mile all-electric + 400 mile gas generator), the other uses much larger battery packs and is therefore stuck on the supercharger network.
I mean, at the end of the day, they're basically cars. So... yeah. Cars should be compared against each other. There's a ton of options, and the Model 3 is finally at a price range where it can be reasonably compared against these options.
> And is there anything wrong with a small battery that's enough (or nearly enough) for the daily commute, and a gas engine to take you where you can't go?
Wrong? No. But it's not the same thing as a large battery that can do both. You could drive a Tesla from the Mexican border to Disneyland and back without needing to charge. That is not bad range. The Volt could do that too, but it would spend about 80% of the trip burning gas. If you care about that, it's worse. If you don't care, then I guess you could say they're equivalent, but I don't quite understand why you're bothering with EVs in that case.
Basically, I don't have anything against people driving Volts. I don't drive an EV either — I have an old Prius. I am just annoyed by the rhetorical games people are playing here to draw false equivalences that favor of their favorite car.
When it supports the Volt, you'll compare cars in hyper-specific categories like "highest-capacity pure-electric mode vehicle with an on board generator." But when I suggest that there's a substantive difference between a pure electric car and a car whose rated range comes 90% from gasoline and that somebody might care about that difference, that's unreasonable because "at the end of the day, they're basically cars."
Nowhere in this thread have I criticized anyone for owning a Volt. I've just said there's a difference between a car with a 16 kWh battery and a car with a 90 kWh battery, and equating them with each other makes about as much sense as equating them with a Mustang (which costs about the same and can also drive about the same distance between fill-ups).
You are oversimplifying things, PHEVs are not for every one, but to say they are not different from serial hybrids and regular ICE is being dramatically dishonest.
There is a role for plugin hybrids for people who have structured needs. If your commute and daily chores are fixed and do not have much variations and they fit within the AER(all electric range), PHEVs give you the best bang for the buck.
None of us have to defend a Car with excellent track record and is available against a not ready for pre-prod vehicle with evolving specs and likely delivered 3 years from now.
You are missing the point and missing it intentionally.
No, I'm not. I just feel it's disingenuous to refer to a gas-burning car as an electric vehicle comparable a Tesla or a Leaf or a Bolt.
If we want to treat the Volt as an EV, we should talk about it as only being able to go 40 miles. On the other hand, if we want to talk about the Volt having a 400-mile range, we are talking about burning gas most of the time.
I'm not saying you need to defend your car. I'm glad you enjoy it. My friend with a Mustang also enjoys her car, but she doesn't try to tell people it's the same thing as a Tesla. That's all I'm saying — a gas-powered car that can go short distances on battery power might be the best bang for your buck, but it just isn't the same thing as a long-range EV.
@chc, having rolled over 20,000 miles on Electric motor, I get to say it is Electric. It is classified PHEV. Splitting semantics is useless, I drive 30+ electric miles daily on it. It burns gas but rarely. If you have interest, go check voltstats.net, there is every kind of use case there.
More than 80% of my miles are Electric. EV enthusiasts from times unknown consider PHEV as a subcategory of EV, but different from BEV. But BEVs and PHEVs are compared against each other. This is not the first time and this will not be the last time.
Bought my 2014 Volt for 25K with credits and rebate, and I would certainly buy a Volt in 2019 for comparable net payment, given than Volt improved its AER from 34 to 53.
I like comparing the Volt to A10-warthog and Model S to F-22. I have to see Model 3 and test drive before passing judgement, I hope it is not F-35.
> I own the finest luxury automobile GM makes, the Cadillac Escalade.
It's been a long time since Cadillac has been the Cadillac of cars …
I honestly don't think I'll ever buy an American car again, although I have heard from friends that Fords are pretty decent nowadays. I'm all about the Japanese cars for the foreseeable future.
Escalade is a bad comparison. Few have ever accused it of being a good car. I agree with you, but to be fair to GM they have gotten better as of late. Cadillac ATS and Camaro SS are truly great cars as of this year. As good as they are they will never be quite the same as a Tesla because Tesla has a unique aura that only the most elite manufacturers can really match. A Mercedes s-class doesnt feel special, a Tesla does. Owning a Tesla is like owning a McLaren or Ferrari and that is what sets them apart at the moment......in my opinion anyway.
People are baffled by Tesla's success? I don't really follow cars, but I do know that Tesla gets high marks from a lot of different independent organizations.
Besides the whole electric car thing, there seemed to be a general opportunity in the auto industry for an upstart firm. It looks like a classic oligopoly where the incumbents got lazy.
Tesla is doing to everyone what the Japanese did to the Americans in the 70s and 80s. Outcompeting the complacent incumbents.
I leased a Volt for 3 years and loved it. I still don't understand why anybody would want a Tesla over a Volt for anything other than a fashion statement.
The Volt was excellent and really just needed some refinement on the interior consoles. Drove well. Had great pickup. Unlimited range via gas generator that gets 37 mpg if you need to take it more than the battery's 40 miles.
> I own the finest luxury automobile GM makes, the Cadillac Escalade. It is a chrome lined bucket of bolts.
I feel the same way. Thought briefly about getting a new Corvette. Have had several 911's and other Porsches. Just can't wrap my head around buying a Chevy. When I was a kid it was all the rage (long long time ago). So was Porsche for that matter and Mercedes had just broken into the luxury market here (mid 70's).
The C7 is the first 'vette ever that made me say, "I'd like to own one of those" when I first saw it. Then my Mom bought one. She just bought it a few months back, so I can't vouch for long-term reliability, but $50K buys one hell of a sports car. Currently the best go-fast value out there, IMO.
(And just like every other car out there, the in-dash software sucks, but that's mitigated by it having Car Play.)
The new C7 'vette is leaps and bounds ahead of the previous generations. It's not the same as you might expect from other performance vehicles in terms of fit and finish but it is quite a bit better than what they used to produce and you'd be hard pressed to find a better bang for your buck.
With that said, I personally chose to spend more for a very boisterous German muscle car...
>I didn't realize how much cars suck, even luxury cars, till I spent a day driving an S up and down the PCH.
No comment on how much other roads suck, after a day driving up and down the PCH? More seriously, do you think spending the day on the PCH colored your perception of the Tesla?
Yes the PCH could bias, obvi. I also sat in traffic too though. I had to get there from SF first. Everything about the car was just right. I was impressed at every turn (pun unintended).
I test drove a Model S last month too, on mundane roads. I was also mightily impressed. But not enough to place an order -- the car still felt too big to be comfortable, especially in parking lots.
If you had Autopilot, then sitting in traffic is going to bias you even more! That's really where it shines. I mean, traffic sucks no matter what, but the ability to just tell the car to handle and sit back and relax is pretty amazing.
Of course, I don't know if that really counts as bias, since sitting in traffic is actually a representative task.
OTOH I've had a 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee snap the left driver axle and needed the transfer case, the differential, the axle obviously, etc replaced a couple month into ownership. It was in the shop 74 days total. Didn't lemon it. Should have. But it was reliable after that.
I drove a 2013 Nissan Leaf that I took into the shop because the main 12V fuse (seat heaters and dash lights, but not the instrument cluster) blew reliably every time I remotely warmed the car up with front and rear seat heaters enabled while plugged into my 240v charger. 4 times. It was obviously a short somewhere but they'd just replace the fuse and tell me they couldn't reproduce it. I did lemon that vehicle.
I had a 2015 Mazda 3 for a few months but meh. Nice car, but after the cavernous cargo space of the leaf I really grew to resent the sloped roofline and limited cargo of the Mazda 3. Reliable for the short time I had it though.
Now I drive a 2015 GMC Sierra 2500 Denali. The EGR valve disintegrated in the first month and left debris in the #1 cylinder. I made them replace the engine and extend the powertrain warranty. They also threw in an under-the-rear-seat organizer I didn't feel like paying $500 as a dealer installed option previously. "I bought a new truck with a new engine. Not a new truck with a rebuilt engine."
For the scope of that job I walked away impressed with how quickly they resolved it, (two weeks total; I think 4 days after ordering the engine, which had to be shipped by rail from Michigan) and with such little arguing/hassle compared to Chrysler or Nissan.
I think that mostly comes down to the dealership in that case.
Point is, all vehicles can have issues. I've been more unlucky than most. But I take comfort in the fact that the issues I've encountered are abnormal. My wife happily drives her Nissan Quest with no issues. My dad and my sister-in-law both had/have Chevy Cobalts with no issues that they paid very little for compared to a Corolla or Civic.
The Escalade has a reputation for having issues. I don't see why Tesla should get a pass on poor reliability (as someone who's had to replace door handles and power window motors and switches in used cars it's completely insane to me you'd want a motorized door handle) but an individual experience with a particular vehicle should sour you on an entire brand.
That's just not very rational.
Yes I was pissed at Chrysler (and with their ratings I'd probably be more justified than most). Yes I was pissed at Nissan.
If you're upset about your Escalade, I'd suggest it's probably more of a dealership issue than anything else. I'd be surprised if after one bad repair experience Sewell didn't make it right. They did for me. Which is a lot more than I can say for some of my experiences.
Which on the one hand might endear Tesla more (not having dealership franchises). Or not if you'd have to drive 150 miles each way just to drop off your vehicle to get a door handle motor replaced.
The Model S has a lower than average reliability rating.
Just because I, individually, might buy a lemon MacBook doesn't make Apple an unreliable brand.
The Cadillac CTS for example has a much better reliability rating than Tesla (from Consumer Reports, which if you actually read the article on downgrading the Model S comes off as a bit fawning).
So should I judge Cadillac on a vehicle known to have way below average reliability? By that standard, sure, a Model S might look pretty good.
It's no Audi or Lexus though.
EDIT:
Also, this is what bothers me about fawning over Tesla. I pay what, a 20% maybe premium for Apple products MSRP? A decently equipped Model S costs 4X the price of a Leaf.
Be willing to spend $120K on a Leaf and I'm sure you'll see bigger motors and double or triple the range. You'll get LTE for free for life. You'll get free DC quick-charging for life (while there are a handful or NRG evGo stations in DFW, there are ZERO superchargers, unless you count the one in Denton 46 miles and right at an hour away from anywhere). You'll get a bigger central display, better ergonomics, much better reliability and more utility (unless you actually plan to load up a 5th adult I suppose).
Tesla isn't doing you some kind of a favor letting you spend over $100K on a vehicle with high depreciation. And there's no way you spent that much on your Escalade.
They're nice cars. Nice for the price? Your Escalade will have lost much less value. We've got a few years yet before battery warranties expire. How big of a hit are you going to take when the market is flooded with off-warranty Model S's selling in the mid 20's to mid 30's range?
That table of "U.S. Sales of Large Luxury Vehicles" is pretty uhh selective. When I search for "Large Luxury Vehicles" on Google it lists other four door models and even manufacturers that don't appear in this table.
Their claim that the reason for the selection is "comparably priced four-door sedans" is also inaccurate. They've skipped similarly priced "large luxury vehicles" while including some on the list which are much more expensive (almost $100K).
Obviously this was created to wow Tesla's investors. But I think you'll find it was designed to create a picture that Tesla owns 50% of the "large luxury vehicle" market with the highest growth and to accomplish that they had to selectively include and exclude vehicles that didn't fit that narrative.
I thought the same thing. The Model S (196"L) is closer in size to a A6 (194"), E-Class (192"), or 5-Series (194") than a A8, S-Class, or 7-Series (all 207"). I consider the "big boys" to be saloon cars, which the Model S is not.
Granted, all are less expensive ($45k-$55k base). But they also sold better: 23k, 53k, and 44k for Audi, Mercedes, and BMW respectively.
Don't get me wrong, Tesla's success is incredible, and their forays into the mid-market with with Model 3 is going to be insane. (The A3/4, C-Class, and 3-Series being the highest-selling models in their respective lineups.)
Agreed. I think the real news/exciting point here is that they've been able to sell at a premium over comparable (size-wise) luxury cars (E-class, 5-series, A6) at quantities that are still impressive and growing.
yeah there are no luxry SUV's on that list, no real sports cars, no discussion of sales by price point, no higher end cars...etc. Those higher cost vehicles are the ones that have seen the highest yoy growth in recent times[1].
Add in that I would imagine (can someone confirm) that Tesla is still scaling manufacturing of the Model S which likely contributes to the growth...when where those orders placed, when were they filled, and in what Q/FY did they get classed as revenue and as sales for that chart?
BMW 5 series sells more than 40k per year in the US alone (and of course way more in Europe and Asia).
Audi A6 sells about the same as the Tesla S in the US (and of course way better in Europe and Asia).
> So according to your research, which comparable large luxury vehicle sells more than the Model S?
That wasn't a claim I made.
I said the table was set up in such a way as to read like Tesla controlled 50% of the large luxury vehicle market. If you include more vehicles, even if they sell worse, then Tesla's proportional market share drops.
But since you brought it up, if you wish to tell us which comparable large luxury vehicle outsells the Model S then I invite you to do so?
Yes, but what are the other comparable vehicles you found? Are you considering near-luxury vehicles like Cadillac and Lincoln? Because that's not in the same class as a Model S. The closest competitors were all in that list as far as I'm aware.
Well there is the rub. There is no set definition of what should or should not appear in that list. They're including vehicles (e.g. S class) which are $25-30K more than the Model S, so what is stopping us from including vehicles which are $25-30K cheaper than the Model S? What is the standard to appear on this list?
Just to give an example, if I search for "Large Luxury Vehicles" and click the first link here is the list of vehicles:
- Tesla Model S
- Porsche Panamera
- Audi A7
- Cadillac CT6
- Mercedes-Benz CLS-Class
- Kia K900
- Infiniti Q70
- Cadillac XTS
- Hyundai Equus
- Acura RLX
- Lincoln MKS
Now there are two interesting things about this list: We see a lot new vehicles not on Tesla's list, and the price of these vehicles are a lot tighter than Tesla's list. For example no $96K S-Class listed here.
It is hard to justify why some of these wouldn't be in Tesla's list, they're in the same ballpark price wise, they claim to offer luxury, and even the fit & finish seems to be as nice. So I'd argue Tesla's list is very arbitrary, there's no rhyme or reason, no set standard. Just a list that makes Tesla look good.
The absence of Lexus from the list is deafening. It is the highest quality brand in this group (not an opinion, a fact - please check a couple of rankings, most notably JD Powers Initial Quality survey, etc.)
Just posted above: I think the A6/5-Series/E-Class are closer to the Model S than A8/7-Series/S-Class.
(The A7, 6-Series, and CLS are probably the best "direct" comparisons, but are also the "in-between" models in their lineups, where the Model S stands alone.)
Lithium Ion battery prices have come down 40% since 2010 (see third graph[1]), and that is /caused/ by the increasing demand (it's called a manufacturing learning curve[2] of which Moore's law is just an example).
Tesla's strategy is to drive volumes with gradually more affordable cars to bring down battery costs until there is a crossover where gasoline cars are impractical. That also explains the Gigafactory and the wall battery. So far, it's working.
Tesla is expected to have $200/KWh batteries once the Gigactory starts making batteries. Bolt is already said to use $145/KWh batteries, but I figure that's mainly because they're using cheaper batteries with much shorter life (kind of how Tesla's 10KWh PowerWall was cheaper than its 7KWh PowerWall).
Tesla had to first build the market for their electric vehicles by proving that they were powerful enough to satisfy the "petrolheads". Even starting at the high end, they had trouble breaking through the public perception [1], but nowhere near as much as if they had started at the low-end (IMO).
"And yes, Tesla has a history of delivering cars late and with a higher price than expected."
The article closes with a similar sentiment. I see this a lot, and I wonder where it comes from. Late, no question, but higher price? I think the Roadster may have had a price increase, but both the Model S and Model X hit their price targets. I think there's a lot of confusion because prices are sometimes quoted with the Federal tax credit (and even state credits in some cases) and sometimes without, and because the Model S 40 was discontinued pretty much immediately due to low demand.
I won't be at all shocked if the Model 3 ends up being late. But I think it's a safe bet that it will cost $35,000 as announced.
Partly this is to do with the $50,000 Model S that everyone has forgotten about now. Tesla said the base price of Model S would be $50,000. They did actually make such a car available, but it only had a 40KWH battery pack and so very few people ordered it. Consequently they gave up selling it and made the base model the 60KWH one instead. People that had ordered a 40KWH Tesla actually got a software-limited 60KWH one instead because it wasn't worth it for Tesla to make a different battery.
Yep. The $50K model felt like it was hitting a price point rather than it being the car that people would actually want. Even if most travel would fit in that 40KWH range, no one at that point wanted to risk it.
I'm curious what will be included in the $35K Model 3 and what will differentiate it from the higher speced models. I think that will indicate if this is "really" a $35K car.
Well he's outlined the baseline: 215 mile range for $35k. And it looks like it'll have the touchscreen and the safety features from autopilot. It probably wont have free supercharging. In the unveil he said even the basic model will be a 'really good car'.
Yep, sorry. Meant to say that's the first thing I looked at from the announcement. 215 mile range is probably good enough. I think the definition of "really good car" will be the question. I think it could easily be argued that the smaller battery model S was a "good car" but the market spoke differently.
Most Model S's sell for waaaaay more than the list price, because they're bought by wealthy people that pile on the options. It's a safe bet that most $35k Model 3's will sell for $45k+ for the same reason.
Elon Musk posted a guess that the average Model 3 configuration will cost about that much. There is no average price from the bookings, as the bookings are just a $1,000 option to purchase, and no options pricing or configurations have been made available yet.
When I purchased my last car in 2014, the order from mom was safety above all else. It had to have 5 stars in the 3 major categories.
Dad had to give up performance. The car is jumpy, very loud and sluggish when accelerating 50-60 mph and the stereo is just bad.
Tesla has satisfied both mom and dad by achieving both the safest and highest performance car ever mass produced, and, the total cost of ownership, factoring in depreciation, fuel, maintenance, insurance, is 1/2 an equivalently priced gasoline car over 10 years.
That is why they have >300,000 pre-orders for the Model 3.
Environmentally friendly, never have to smell gasoline again, drive in the car pool lanes, these are all icing on the cake.
> It had to have 5 stars in the 3 major categories.
Every vehicle I care about seems to have 5 stars in all categories. Safety of modern vehicles is exceptionally better than even just 10 years ago. You can achieve 5-stars in the original three categories with a $15k Honda Fit (Moderate front, side, and roof)
Take a look at Leguna Seca lap times. Model S isn't doing as well as "high performance" cars.
EDIT: Focus on the 1:48 laptime, the best one. It looks like it was a casual race for the most part. The 1:48 time however is a record not only for Tesla Model S, but for electric vehicles in general and should be taken as the "serious" indicator of the Model S's overall performance.
5-stars in every safety category with performance and cheap is like... Subaru WRX. Fords are a bit easier to maintain though, so I'd go with Ford Focus ST or Focus RS (and switch out the tires, because stock tires on that suck apparently)
> Take a look at Leguna Seca lap times. Model S isn't doing very well.
It all depends on how you like to 'measure' performance. The model S dominates when it comes to acceleration, pedal response and road (!= track) handling due to the low center of gravity. However, the S does very poor on a circuit because the motor/inverter tends to get hot and the software will reduce the maximum output power accordingly.
You have to keep in minds that the model S is a 4 door, 2 trunk luxury sedan, not a race car.
> The model S dominates when it comes to acceleration
There are multiple Model S here. The P85D which "dominates" acceleration has a curb weight of 5000lbs and likely handles like a boat. (The typical F150 truck actually weighs less than the Model S P85D).
The older, more typical Model S, have Zero-to-Sixty scores in the 5-seconds to 6-seconds range, which is easily bested by the Subaru WRX STI.
The Model S probably wins on rolling-start 5-to-sixty, as the ICE engines won't be able to rev-high and drop the clutch.
Only Model S P85D "dominates" in acceleration, and that car comes with its own compromises.
> road (!= track) handling due to the low center of gravity
Model S measures .87g for road holding according to Car and Driver (http://www.caranddriver.com/tesla/model-s), while the other cars I was talking about are all easily above .9+g. I'm unsure which model it is, I can only assume that's a more typical Model S as opposed to the heavier-than-a-Toyota-Sienna swagger-wagon P85D.
Electric vehicles are heavy, and that negatively plays into its performance characteristics.
> You have to keep in minds that the model S is a 4 door, 2 trunk luxury sedan, not a race car.
Indeed. But if you want to step into the arena of "high performance", what better comparison is there than a standardized track?
As for the apples-to-apples comparison, try 1:40 for the Cadillac CTS-V Sedan on the Leguna Seca, while 1:48 seems to be the best time for the Model S. Luxury sports sedan vs Luxury sports sedan, both are $85,000+ large cars claiming awesome performance after all.
Yeah, but the WRX is a huge penalty box compared to the Model S. In real-world performance, the S is going to outrun the WRX. You cite a 5000lb curb weight and it 'probably' handles like a boat; I've driven 4500lb P85s that handle exceedingly well. Again, will a WRX beat it around an autocross course? Maybe. But instant torque and no gearchanges will win out in the real world.
I don't know why you think the RS has crappy tires; it comes with PSS stock, which is what I put on my Golf R. But then again, the RS isn't even out yet.
Rumor is that Ford is giving the RS all-season tires as stock, but I'm having difficulty finding that story. I seem to see a winter-tire option, so maybe the rumor I read is wrong.
> I've driven 4500lb P85s that handle exceedingly well
Numbers just don't match your claim. I realize the low-center of gravity can give you confidence on a corner, but the best skidpad numbers I'm finding are all 0.87-ish g for the Model S.
Performance cars are all 0.95g or so on the skidpad, including the "luxury sedan" Cadillac CTS-V (Car and Driver reports a skidpad 0.98g)
I can't help but think the 500lbs to 1000lbs difference between the CTS-V and Model S is tilting the odds in favor of the lighter car when it comes to handling.
I wonder if transient response would be better with the low COG, although of course I'd expect it to be penalized even more heavily by the added mass.
I've not driven a recent CTS-V although I've spent a bit of time behind the wheel of a 660+HP ~2011 CTS-V wagon. My experiences with the Model S are back to back with E92 M3s with the dual-clutch transmission, and of course you feel the added mass, but in terms of performance, I find the sheer size to be the biggest obstacle on a narrow course.
The performance that matters to me personally is getting off the dime and passing on the highway. Too many tentative drivers in California these days... I don't drive on race tracks, though I am sure that would be a blast.
The 1:48 Lap time was a record for electric vehicles and the Model S in general. Focus on that time, and notice how much faster actual "performance" cars are than that.
FastestLaps.com has the P85D (aka: Ludicrous mode) explicitly in its Autozeitung test track database in case you want another data-point.
Note: I can only speak to the DC/MD/VA region but HOV lane privileges for hybrids and all-electrics aren't being granted anymore. The HOV lane on I-66 in VA was always clogged because so many folks bought Priuses that it defeated the purpose.
We have money down on a Model 3; my wife has the longer commute. If carpool lane privileges are set to expire (SF Bay Area) before it comes out, and something else (like the Bolt) looks compelling at the time, we may jump to that.
Not at all; people camped out/stood in line to buy Windows 95.
Tesla popularity is a pop culture fad/novelty. Not to say the car isn't a great technical achievement, but these kind of responses have been seen before.
where was this line? I was around when 95 came out and don't remember that much excitement. Also in this case people are parting with a $1k for years just to save a place in line. Has that happened for any car before? that's what's unprecedented.
Thats pretty standard in the upper-end of car purchasing, Ferrari, new models from BMW or Mercedes. All dealers hold waitlists -- its just likely you've never purchased a model that has one.
It was fantastic. I was living just south of Redmond at the time. There was news coverage about it. Ballmer and Gates were driving around town in a Ballmer's Porsche blasting "start me up" (the theme for the Win95 launch), congratulating shoppers.
People didn't pay $1000 for Windows 95. Or for an iPhone. Putting down $1000 deposit for a $35k product years before you might receive it takes it out of the region of fad/novelty, I would argue.
Actually the way the Innovator's Dilemma" uses the word disruption is very specific and doesn't match your explanation or the article's for that matter. Christensen doesn't use disruption to mean "making something better than others for a lower price". Disruption, as he defines it, is specifically about making a product that is actually inferior on the metrics valued by the existing market.
The canonical example from his book is about hard drive manufacturers increasing the storage space of their hard drives for mainframes (something the market asked for). They got disrupted by manufacturers making hard drives that had much less storage space (so considered inferior by the existing market), but were physically smaller allowing them to be used in minicomputers, a new market.
Now, it might still be possible to apply disruption as Christensen defines it to the market for cars, though arguably it might be stretching it. It seems to me that Tesla sacrificed some of the metrics used by current buyers of luxury cars, but appealed to a previously ignored segment of "green" or "techie" buyers. Compare for instance the interior of a Tesla model S against a Mercedes S class and the Tesla would lose. However, Tesla correctly identified that there appears to be a market for electric cars where customers are willing to pay a premium.
The examples in the original Christensen book are a bit different from that scenario. As far as I remember, they're all about products in a lower market segment gradually moving up into a higher segment: 5" hard drives become good enough to eat the expensive 8" drives' market, initially weak hydraulic excavators gain enough power to compete with cable excavators, etc.
So in the car example, this interpretation of "innovator's dilemma" would mean that something like electric Smart cars would gradually encroach on Mercedes' luxury market. Clearly it hasn't worked that way -- so that suggests that consumer cars are fundamentally different from excavators bought by businesses.
(I know that Smart is actually a Mercedes brand. I have a suspicion that the huge investments that Mercedes made in Smart around the turn of the millennium were motivated by Christensen's theory so much in vogue at the time...)
> it is typical market disruption: "make something better than others for lower price"
That is the opposite of a disruptive technology, as defined by Christensen. Disruptive technologies are making something worse and typically more expensive but which has a key advantage which can't be replicated in the old paradigm. The newcomer establishes themselves in the niche for whom that key advantage is most important, and over time achieves cost and feature parity with the incumbent, at which point the new technology is better and cheaper in every way and they become the new incumbent.
OP's article describes "obsoletive" technology as the counterpart to "disruptive" technology, and defines it as technology which is simply better or cheaper than the old generation, rendering it obsolete. That's a closer fit to what you're describing.
The author shows a poor understanding of car making business.
He tackles the whole topic from the demand side (how to have people liking and buying the product), but the real issue with the model 3 will be: can they PRODUCE it right?.
All the comparisons with Apple the iphone clearly show he's approaching this business as it was just consumer tech, which is really not.
Just think about the effects that shifting from a low volume-high margin business to a high volume-low margin one can have on return on capital...
And that's happening in a very capital intensive business, so tons of money re/invested at low ROE..
I wish Tesla can really make it happen but if I was a shareholder I would be quite reasonably scared.
You show a poor understanding of Musk's track record.
I just don't get people who hold this opinion. What exactly do you think is going to happen?
Do you envision Tesla admitting, say Q2 2018, "Serious supply shortages continue to prevent us delivering on the Model 3, we now hope for Q1 2019 delivery," and ultimately just go out of business, meanwhile competitors suddenly come up with incredibly compelling cars that they've somehow never managed to create before? Is that really the outcome you anticipate??
This is the same guy who's now successfully landed rockets . . . but you think manufacturing cars will be unachievable for him, even after Tesla has continually demonstrated rapidly climbing production and sales of the S and X?????
It actually seems like a pretty good understanding of Musk's track record to me.
They're obviously not going to go out of business as a result. But considering Tesla has already had earnings calls pretty much exactly like that with respect to slower than expected Model S production, yes I would expect Tesla in 2018 to admit that most people on the pre-order list are going to be waiting a very long time.
That leaves Tesla in the awkward position of either needing to massively ramp up every aspect of its production pipeline now (which is a HUGE undertaking) at the cost of not producing Model S and Model X on schedule, or facing a significant number of pre-order people giving up on waiting, and a constrained production capacity well into 2020.
The OP's comment was with respect to shareholder confidence, which is currently propping up the stock price based on future expectations. I believe the point was that if Tesla can't come even close to meeting the market demand for its vehicles, that's a signal of weakness on several fronts that would need to be priced into the stock.
I'm also not sure what landing rockets has to do with mass-producing cars. SpaceX's achievements are indeed amazing and I watch all of their launches, but figuring out how to land a first stage is an engineering challenge. Figuring out how to produce 300,000 cars in a short time is a logistics challenge. Not to mention no one yet knows how Tesla's model will scale to the larger market with respect to service, support, parts replacement, etc. Scale in the automotive market just brings with it a huge number of issues to tackle that don't exist in smaller volumes.
Most of your post there is valid. But for the record, if they meet their goal of delivering ~85,000 cars this year and can sustain the previous growth from 25k->50k->85k, then 2017 would see deliveries of ~100-110k and 2018 would see ~130k-150k, and 2019 ~160k-185k, which puts them very on track.
That's assuming continued linear growth of adding 20-30k per year. Musk has said repeatedly he is aiming for 500k by 2020. While I don't doubt that will be missed, it implies we'll see more than linear growth.
I understand there will be challenges -- I just have strong faith in their ability to surmount them.
Good point. However, Tesla also missed its 2015 production target because retooling the factory to produce Model X and to produce more Model S took longer than expected and impacted the existing production line at the same time. I think the exact same thing will happen with Model 3, only moreso given the huge ramp-up needed. Rather than linear growth it's probably going to be more like big staggered increases.
I love your counter-argument: "this guy landed rockets, so he will make happen whatever" :D
Oook...look I'm cheering for this but then there is this thing called "reality".
And I'm not even say it won't happen, but I'm doubting whether it will be sustainable in terms of the obligation a company has with its shareholders.
Producing so many cars requires crazy amount of capital and that capital will yield very little on this model...and yes on top of it competition will come...can Tesla be a sustainably profitable company pursuing this strategy? That's my question.
When you put it that way it sounds fairly reasonable.
Nonetheless I firmly believe the answer is yes, since the alternative means Musk has failed in his mission to move the world over to electric transport, and I have a hard time picturing him failing in that fashion.
I just find it incredibly hard to picture Musk in 2025 during an interview "Yes, we failed with Tesla because...etc etc, achieved an incredible amount of progress in 12 years but ultimately were unable to etc etc"
Like, he'd rather be homeless on the street than let the company fail. He'll give up his last penny for it. I know you consider this irrelevant, but I simply don't. His track record is too strong to ignore.
It would only require running out of cashflow and willing investors. I agree, it's hard to imagine, but Tesla doesn't exactly have a great bond rating...
I admit I don't understand the full consequences, but it's very easy to imagine them being on the verge of launching a product but being unable to raise more money given their at-the-time dilution, valuation, etc etc etc etc.
>an astounding 115,000 of them sent in their deposit before they even knew what the car looked like.
Talk to Porsche enthusiasts who buy GT cars from their motorsport division. They'll view such an ideal as not only normal, but required. The common phrase is, "This is how the game is played."
Want the next GT3 RS (991.2)? Too bad, but you're already too late. Yes, the car will probably not be announced for another 2-3 years, but Porsche dealers/OPCs probably have enough deposits in hands TODAY in which 95% of them are likely spoken for. Second hand at massive premium is your only real chance at one. Hell, add the GT4 (and GT3, of course) to that as well.
Want the RS of 991.2's successor? That you have a chance at. Just get your deposit in today. In five years you'll know what the car is, and you'll have bought yourself right of first refusal. Porsche doesn't care if you don't want it and want your money, because there's already a few people in line behind you.
What is different is this isn't a low-volume enthusiast car. This is a volume seller. This is targeting the 3-series, which moves over 100K units/year in the US alone. As a result, that's what is impressive. It's the game normally played by people wanting hard-edged Porsches, Ferraris, Lamborghinis, McLarens, etc., but for a volume seller.
Oddly I'm in the market for a "neighbourhood electric vehicle" - a cheap, limited, electric car that can get two people to the station and back daily (a distance of around 4 miles).
There are really no good options. The closest is probably the Renault Twizy, essentially an enclosed electric bike with 4 wheels. It's very expensive, and more worryingly there are lots and lots of them available on the second hand market, almost new, at greatly reduced prices.
I would make the case for either a volt or if you are a motorcycle person check out the Zero line. I am electric only on my volt probably 29 days a month. 30-50 miles of battery is enough for 99% of what I do, but having the option to go much further and not be limited by having to wait for charging is a huge plus to me. On the rare times I do need to go further it usually turns into a several hundred mile trip, at which point a Tesla isn't a whole lot of help. Additionally, I have no concerns with where or how I can get maintenance done...Chevy dealers are everywhere. It is my only vehicle and I am a happy camper (literally, I have taken it camping).
The Volt is far from perfect, but my friends with Tesla S's seem to report a similar number and type of issues. Having sat in and driven their cars I would say that the fit and finish on the Tesla is marginally better but at 3x the cost...and that margin is not enough for price jump. Every person I know with a model S owns a second car, I don't...that money goes into an investment account.
Have you ever ridden a Zero motorcycle? I've been on their mailing list for a couple of years now and they have been improving the specs on their bikes constantly. They look pretty cool, but I'd love to hear a first person report.
yes, it is like... a motorcycle, but with as much torque as you could ever want. the app that lets you adjust torque curve and regen settings is wonderful if a bit wonky (I wish the volt had this!). The mileage is what it is, its not stellar but you can do >125mi if you are gentle on the throttle or <50 if you gun it. The only hiccup is the damn cost...I just can't justify the cost for a toy with such limited range.
Rural, and we'd expect snow/ice in a normal winter, but this year we didn't get any at all. I was thinking more about a covered vehicle. The Twizy is (to a degree) covered, although the basic models lack side doors.
The cost is really mostly for range and safety features.
Electric bikes are road legal and cheap, but not that safe. On a private trail without cars you can use two cheap options.
You can get an electric golf cart new for as low as 4k, with 5-10k being the average.
At the ultra low end you can buy an electric gokart for under 1k. Which is not that safe, sit's one person, and requires you to get really low to the ground.
PS: I think an unexplored option for a gated community is to include a custom track for electric cars to a community pool, restaurants, metro stop, etc. You would need tunnels / bridges to get around the car issue, but I think it would be cheaper than most Personal Rapid transit approaches.
The Renault Twizy is the one with a really expensive upfront price, plus a really expensive fixed-term battery rental on top that has both a monthly and mileage component, right?
That's the one :-) In the UK the up front cost is £8K for a reasonable spec'd one, then there's a £50/month cost for the battery. I currently spend less than £50/month on petrol (about half of that in fact), and my brand new car cost £9K. The economics of the Twizy just don't work out at all.
The 500e is pretty cheap in California due to federal and state income tax credits and the oddities of the CARB emission credit systems. Their website lists the starting price in CA accounting for all the incentives as ~$18k, and there have been $99/month leases popping up every so often.
My dad owned a GM dealership. I was in high school when the 1973 oil embargo happened. Around the same time, the 1973 issue of Scientific American showed how bicycles where 46x more efficient that cars. (I think this was the issue where Steve Jobs got the inspiration for "Bicycle of the Mind") So, I gave up cars. But then, my Dad started to carry Citicars.
It had a couple issues: First, it had a 40-mile range. Second, the body was ABS Plastic. Because there was so little mass, drivers would stomp down on the accelerator, rear-end the car in front, and do $500 damage to the body. So, after the first shipment, the dealership stopped carrying them.
[EDIT] 40 not 20 miles, though the last 20 didn't go up hills very well.
I for one am still waiting for an actually useful electric car.
For reference, I currently have two vehicles: a 2008 Jeep Liberty and a motorcycle. The motorcycle is the commute machine.
The Jeep is family travel and hauling machine. The latter is the killer use case for a car for me. Recently cleaned out old furniture from my garage, simply opened the backdoor of the car, folded the rear seats over and loaded all the crap in. The car is dented, scratched, I don't care. A workhorse, at my disposal. Ski trips, bike trips, shit weather commute.
I think the author refers to "It's a duesy", which refers to the brand Duesenberg [0], once the builder of the most luxurious cars on the planet, now very rare and very valuable collectables.
Moreover, given the fact that Tesla only delivered just over 50,000 cars last year, no matter how quickly Tesla scales it will almost certainly be years before this first week of reservations is fulfilled
Yes, because there's no such thing as production scaling
Apple's iPhone SE may have already flopped in India. The Friday launch of the company's latest device had the weakest demand for a new iPhone on day one, with barely 2,000 units
Only 30% of electrical generation in the US is coal (this number decreases yearly). All new generators coming online this year are solar, wind or natural gas.
Yes, natural gas still emits CO2 compared to a coal fired power plant. But, those natural gas emissions are much cleaner, and those combined cycle plants can be throttled much faster on demand from the ISO authority, which helps solar and wind generation.
Electric cars get cleaner every year because of this. Gas cars will always burn gas their entire life.
"Electric cars get cleaner every year because of this. Gas cars will always burn gas their entire life."
This might be true in the future but we aren't there yet unfortunately. This is due to the incorrect assumption that natural gas is a clean bridge fuel. Once you take into account the methane emissions/leaks from natural gas you end up with a fuel just as bad as coal and oil from a global warming perspective. This is due to methane being very dangerous greenhouse gas in the sort term (now - 100yr time period). This plus the emissions required to produce any consumer product like a car probably means for now electric cars not much better than a traditional gas car.
The only way to make these cars truly emissions free is to remove ALL carbon based energy from the chain. That includes car and battery production, charging, maintenance, and disposal. Until you do that your just switching the source of emissions around. The climate system doesn't care if the greenhouse gas comes from a car or a power plant.
The best thing we could do in the short term until we have a 100% green grid is to hold off on buying the car and walk/ride a bike :)
My math, extrapolating out current install velocity of utility/distributed solar, as well as utility scale wind, shows a complete replacement of fossil fuel generation in the US in 12-15 years (Congress finally did something right extended the production tax credit for 6 years for renewables).
I agree natural gas isn't perfect, but we won't need it for very long.
I wish I could share this outlook but I see a few things slowing the installation velocity of zero emission energy generation. These are a mix of technological and political. What we are seeing currently in the install velocity is probably the low hanging/small scale projects in politically favorable states (in the US anyway).
On the technological side as projects get bigger they are running into issues. Take the large solar plant in California for example:
Naturally, these are typical issues that we see when scaling any new technology up for the first time. They will be resolved, but how soon?
Secondly, and this is probably the bigger issue, without a Manhattan like project for zero emissions energy production the political drive to switch will be painfully slow. Remember how much MONEY there is in fossil fuels and these companies are not going to go silently into the night. There are large states where significant numbers of americans live (think Texas, Arizona, Florida) where the politicians won't even acknowledge global warming! (IE see who funds the campaigns). Homeowners in Oklahoma face a fee for using solar.
US electricity is about 1/3rd coal, 1/3rd gas, and 1/3rd non-fossil, according to your second link. If we take the figures from your first link and total up 1/3rd of the electric coal emissions and 1/3rd of the electric gas emissions, you get about 140, which is a lot better than any of the non-EV options. Never mind that the grid is getting cleaner all the time.
"Never mind that the grid is getting cleaner all the time."
Ah yes, the typical Tesla rationalization that attempts to excuse present-day behavior.
Clinging to this rationalization is the equivalent of murdering someone and then saying "don't worry about it, in the future homicide will be legal". No, homicide is illegal today and you're going to jail, and no, the electrical grid is made up of about 70% fossil fuels and you're heavily contributing to air pollution.
Not only is the amount of pollution from the electric grid important but also the basic economics that come with it. Any adult with half a brain can understand that as the usage on the electric grid increases, the incumbents gain more profits (coal, gas), which they can then reinvest into their infrastructure, in effect reinforcing their current entrenchment and preventing progress to a cleaner grid.
You seem to have misunderstood what I said as "it sucks, but it's getting cleaner." What I actually said was, it's much better than normal cars already, and still getting cleaner.
> As Pam Fletcher, GM’s executive chief engineer for electric vehicles, recently put it to me with a confident grin: “Who wants to be second?”
Yah but... it's a GM.
I own the finest luxury automobile GM makes, the Cadillac Escalade. It is a chrome lined bucket of bolts. If they can't do this right how can they do a $25k car right? As I type this my GM is in the shop RN with a hard to reproduce transmission issue. Oh and it cost as much as a Model S. o_O
OTOH the Model S is the most well manufactured anything I've ever sat in. It boggles my mind why anyone would buy a second GM. They've had enough time to get it right. Instead they've a consistent track record of mediocrity with an epic failure about every decade.
Tesla tho...
All I can say is, the people baffled by Tesla's success can't have spent much time behind the wheel of a Model S. I didn't realize how much cars suck, even luxury cars, till I spent a day driving an S up and down the PCH.