$35,000 Tesla Model III Is Coming In 2017

Page 38 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
26,074
592
126
But, in reality, most people don't drive hours & hours & hours a day, so it's mostly a non-issue.
Right now, it makes a lot of sense for most families to have an electric "town" car & then an ICE "trip" car.
in a previous post, i mentioned the new prius goes 25miles on battery then rest on gas engine.
but thats waaaaay too short of a range.

what other hybrids go on electric then gas when the batteries are used up?
and how many miles?
also, do the batteries recharge when running on gas?
 

drnickriviera

Platinum Member
Jan 30, 2001
2,177
35
91
running the A/C kills them,
I've seen this mentioned a few times in the tesla threads. Does Tesla list power consumption for climate control, 12v stuff, etc? My leaf does and A/C doesn't really use that much power. It takes a good bit for the initial cool down, but after that it's using like 2-400 watts. The range guess o meter says about 2-5 miles range loss. I wonder if they are using the electric heater more to blend the temperature
 

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
26,074
592
126
Tesla ranks dead last in annual quality survey

The Initial Quality Study, now in its 34th year, measures vehicle quality for the first 90 days of ownership and found that Teslas suffered 250 problems per 100 vehicles reported by buyers
 

ViviTheMage

Lifer
Dec 12, 2002
36,080
33
91
madgenius.com
Dang @Aikouka , you have weird problems, haha. I have had my model 3 LR RWD for a little over a year now, no major issues. If I had any, it was a bug in the software that they fixed. Regarding range, I get about what is listed. If I go on a 200 mile drive, I use about 230~ miles of range. Too be fair, I get about 210 wh/m. If you go above 65/70MPH, you really use up some juice. For reference, my rav4 hybrid does the same thing, this phenomenon is not just for EV's. You go faster then 65~ you end up getting worse MPG on the rav4 too. It'll start out with 400 miles on a tank, but quickly it will only go about 330 miles on a full tank driving this way.


I have EAP, and am considering paying the $3,000 to upgrade to FSD, so I can get the HW3 computer and whatever new features come out as part of FSD. But oddly enough, I rarely use TACC, NoA, or any of the other EAP features. I figured it would be better to have HW3 if I decide to sell it, then to have HW2.5 and no FSD.
 

ondma

Golden Member
Mar 18, 2018
1,191
297
106
I think 400 is important number. You need electric cars with 400, 500, and 600 mile ranges since there are ICE vehicles with those ranges. If you want to convince everyone to switch, you have to give them reasons to switch. Range is important for lot of people.
It is not just range. It is the speed of re-fueling and the availability of locations at which to do it. 300 mile range would be fine if you could pull off almost anywhere and fill up in a few minutes, like you can do with ICE vehicles.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
29,270
399
126
Dang @Aikouka , you have weird problems, haha. I have had my model 3 LR RWD for a little over a year now, no major issues.
That's sort of the hard part. I don't know if what I'm dealing with is normal or if I just drew the short straw. Although, it may be worth noting that I've seen some others remark about getting end-of-quarter cars and having what seems like a higher than normal amount of quality issues.

Regarding range, I get about what is listed. If I go on a 200 mile drive, I use about 230~ miles of range. Too be fair, I get about 210 wh/m. If you go above 65/70MPH, you really use up some juice. For reference, my rav4 hybrid does the same thing, this phenomenon is not just for EV's. You go faster then 65~ you end up getting worse MPG on the rav4 too. It'll start out with 400 miles on a tank, but quickly it will only go about 330 miles on a full tank driving this way.
I think the issue is just that the realistic range on higher speed roads just isn't high enough. For example, I talked about my ~115 mile (per direction) trip that required a refill stop on the way back, which ended up involving me having to go the wrong direction due to a Supercharger being out of service. Even if I spend the majority of my trip on 65-70 MPH interstates, I should be able to handle a ~230-mile round trip. That's a possibility in an ICE-powered vehicle barring poor efficiency and/or a paltry gas tank. It probably doesn't help that's generally recommended to keep charge around 80% if possible (it's even far faster to charge to about that state compared to charging beyond that). Charging up to 100% will remove regenerative braking until you have enough available battery capacity for the system to kick in again. That's why I usually go to 95% on long trips.

Ultimately, I'd just prefer a realistic higher speed 300 mile range on the car, and with that, I'm talking some hills, maybe a hot or cold day at 75 MPH.

I have EAP, and am considering paying the $3,000 to upgrade to FSD, so I can get the HW3 computer and whatever new features come out as part of FSD. But oddly enough, I rarely use TACC, NoA, or any of the other EAP features. I figured it would be better to have HW3 if I decide to sell it, then to have HW2.5 and no FSD.
Unless you're planning on using it, I don't think I'd waste the money. There have been talks of Tesla removing post-purchase upgrades from the second-hand buyer because the upgrades were tied to the previous owner (who performed the post-purchase upgrade) and not the new owner. Plus, upgrades are rarely worth the money unless they add some inherent value to the car that it may not have normally, and given that FSD is a such a common upgrade that it can be literally ordered from your phone or inside the car, I don't think this makes it unique in any way. It's sort of like the old adage "don't expect to get out of it what you put in it", and I think the $3000 for FSD would count.

It is not just range. It is the speed of re-fueling and the availability of locations at which to do it. 300 mile range would be fine if you could pull off almost anywhere and fill up in a few minutes, like you can do with ICE vehicles.
Sort of like I talked about above, I think what would be preferred is a realistic 300 miles, or maybe, as a more realistic stop-gap to that, a standard 300 miles at 80% charge. So.. around a 400 mile range at 100%. That's part of the reason why I think the upcoming Tri-Motor Cybertruck is the best option as it has 500 miles of range, which when you consider the heavier workload of a truck (power tools, hauling, etc.) combined with inherent EV losses and recommended charge states, that 500 miles may end up being an effective 300-350 miles in the end.
 

ViviTheMage

Lifer
Dec 12, 2002
36,080
33
91
madgenius.com
Isn't the model s long range plus supposed to be 400 mile range? That'll get you 300 miles at 80mph easily.

Yeah, I am leaning towards skipping on the 3k upgrade. The only reason was to get HW3, I have heard it's a bit better and more effecient then HW2.5, but not sure if 3k is worth it. If only they just let FSD stay with the owner as a license so I could get a Y and not feel too bent over, haha.

Note: I just went on a 250~ mile trip with the family in the rav4. Model 3 couldn't cut it for the gear we needed to take camping, and I didn't really want the kids tracking sand in the model 3, haha. I would have loved AP (not necessarily EAP or FSD functionality). We also stopped about 6 times for bathroom breaks, food, etc. I would have loved to have hit the super chargers on the way, that trip has like 3 in between a 150 miles haha. East coast is getting littered with super chargers. I have not had to use a super charger since August of last year though as most of my drive is well within 100 miles, I kind of miss it, haha.
 

bigi

Platinum Member
Aug 8, 2001
2,227
74
91
Tesla ranks dead last in annual quality survey

The Initial Quality Study, now in its 34th year, measures vehicle quality for the first 90 days of ownership and found that Teslas suffered 250 problems per 100 vehicles reported by buyers
JD Power is a paid shill of a entity used by stock bears to spew out when they wanna manipulate the stock.

JD Power is paid by companies to do "surveys" for them = the crap they write. That simply explains it all.



Even Cramer who had recently turned colors says it is stupid
https://www.thestreet.com/video/jim-cramer-ignore-j-d-power-survey-teslas-great

Laura Kolodny had contibuted to the article, who is known to be a blind tool used by Tesla bears for years.

Finally, jd power ranks Chevy Sonic as highest of any car in the world on initial quality.

Now, this actually has not been publicized too widely:

BrandQ1 2020Q1 2019Change
Tesla52,80030,60072.5
Lincoln25,56224,8742.8
Ram140,486137,0132.5
Kia137,945136,5961.0
Maserati000.0
Mercedes-Benz75,26578,667-4.3
Mazda67,67070,831-4.5
Chevrolet429,529451,742-4.9
Chrysler29,94531,591-5.2
GMC118,718125,579-5.5
Genesis3,9554,203-5.9
Toyota439,402476,925-7.9
Hyundai130,875147,585-11.3
Volvo19,48522,058-11.7
Ford489,051557,884-12.3
Volkswagen75,06585,872-12.6
Alfa Romeo3,7024,286-13.6
Audi41,37148,115-14.0
Jeep182,667212,804-14.2
Mitsubishi35,56342,070-15.5
Lexus56,34566,791-15.6
Cadillac30,32335,996-15.8
BMW62,15273,888-15.9
Subaru130,591156,754-16.7
Honda270,253333,402-18.9
Dodge88,656110,517-19.8
Porsche11,98415,024-20.2
Acura28,53136,385-21.6
Infiniti25,55634,315-25.5
Nissan232,048331,536-30.0
Buick33,87051,865-34.7
Mini5,2368,905-41.2
Fiat1,1282,214-49.1
Jaguar010,222-100.0
Land Rover025,028-100.0
Smart0231-100.0

Source:

and the good part is that this is just the beginning of the change.

Feel free to quote this in death of ice vehicle thread too.
 

ondma

Golden Member
Mar 18, 2018
1,191
297
106
There is other data showing that Tesla reliability is average at best. For instance, Consumer Reports rates 2 models as average, one model as worse than ave and one model much worse. One should expect more in what is usually a 50k+ vehicle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heymrdj

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
15,767
1,752
126
JD Power is a paid shill of a entity used by stock bears to spew out when they wanna manipulate the stock.

JD Power is paid by companies to do "surveys" for them = the crap they write. That simply explains it all.



Even Cramer who had recently turned colors says it is stupid
https://www.thestreet.com/video/jim-cramer-ignore-j-d-power-survey-teslas-great

Laura Kolodny had contibuted to the article, who is known to be a blind tool used by Tesla bears for years.

Finally, jd power ranks Chevy Sonic as highest of any car in the world on initial quality.

Now, this actually has not been publicized too widely:

BrandQ1 2020Q1 2019Change
Tesla52,80030,60072.5
Lincoln25,56224,8742.8
Ram140,486137,0132.5
Kia137,945136,5961.0
Maserati000.0
Mercedes-Benz75,26578,667-4.3
Mazda67,67070,831-4.5
Chevrolet429,529451,742-4.9
Chrysler29,94531,591-5.2
GMC118,718125,579-5.5
Genesis3,9554,203-5.9
Toyota439,402476,925-7.9
Hyundai130,875147,585-11.3
Volvo19,48522,058-11.7
Ford489,051557,884-12.3
Volkswagen75,06585,872-12.6
Alfa Romeo3,7024,286-13.6
Audi41,37148,115-14.0
Jeep182,667212,804-14.2
Mitsubishi35,56342,070-15.5
Lexus56,34566,791-15.6
Cadillac30,32335,996-15.8
BMW62,15273,888-15.9
Subaru130,591156,754-16.7
Honda270,253333,402-18.9
Dodge88,656110,517-19.8
Porsche11,98415,024-20.2
Acura28,53136,385-21.6
Infiniti25,55634,315-25.5
Nissan232,048331,536-30.0
Buick33,87051,865-34.7
Mini5,2368,905-41.2
Fiat1,1282,214-49.1
Jaguar010,222-100.0
Land Rover025,028-100.0
Smart0231-100.0

Source:

and the good part is that this is just the beginning of the change.

Feel free to quote this in death of ice vehicle thread too.
Interesting chart, and though it looks good for Tesla, their entire 2019 units shipped was less than the 12 points Ford slipped. Tesla is doing well, but they're still a very minor player in the industry.
What Tesla has done is blaze the trail. They've proven that electrics work and are a viable alternative to ICE's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigi

bigi

Platinum Member
Aug 8, 2001
2,227
74
91
There is other data showing that Tesla reliability is average at best. For instance, Consumer Reports rates 2 models as average, one model as worse than ave and one model much worse. One should expect more in what is usually a 50k+ vehicle.
Consumer Reports has fallen into similar category as JBP, according to many, many people who have a clue and don't read anything blindly because "there is..."

Do your own research, if you really care about the actual truth what Tesla cars bring to the table.

Meanwhile, I find this interesting, how reliable others think CR is.

One of the posts from there is quite intersting:
"
Fortytwo | February 21, 2019
CR includes things like fit and finish in their definition of “reliability.” CR admits use of “brand history and the reliability of similar models that may share major components in calculating our predictions.” Furthermore, data is based on surveys of CR members, so reporting bias and sampling biases are significant shortcomings of their methodology. It is not clear that they verified the respondents actually own the cars for which they are answering survey questions; and, if so, that model 3 owners were responding to questions based on experience with earlier vs later software versions, predominantly early VIN #s, etc., and what proportion of reported negatives actually impact drivability & safety. It’s a leap of faith to think 500 survey respondents represent the experiences of >200K (Bloomberg VIN tracker) model 3 owners (0.25%). I’d select a car that is otherwise reliable in the strict sense but might have greater likelihood of trim alignment off by 0.1 mm :) and a paint blemish or annoying software quirks that can be fixed with software updates over a car model that might have issues with timing belts or potential for leaky fuel injection systems or such.


Do read the others too. So, while "there is" such a survey all points out to it being rigged.


"
 

ondma

Golden Member
Mar 18, 2018
1,191
297
106
Consumer Reports has fallen into similar category as JBP, according to many, many people who have a clue and don't read anything blindly because "there is..."

Do your own research, if you really care about the actual truth what Tesla cars bring to the table.

Meanwhile, I find this interesting, how reliable others think CR is.

One of the posts from there is quite intersting:
"
Fortytwo | February 21, 2019
CR includes things like fit and finish in their definition of “reliability.” CR admits use of “brand history and the reliability of similar models that may share major components in calculating our predictions.” Furthermore, data is based on surveys of CR members, so reporting bias and sampling biases are significant shortcomings of their methodology. It is not clear that they verified the respondents actually own the cars for which they are answering survey questions; and, if so, that model 3 owners were responding to questions based on experience with earlier vs later software versions, predominantly early VIN #s, etc., and what proportion of reported negatives actually impact drivability & safety. It’s a leap of faith to think 500 survey respondents represent the experiences of >200K (Bloomberg VIN tracker) model 3 owners (0.25%). I’d select a car that is otherwise reliable in the strict sense but might have greater likelihood of trim alignment off by 0.1 mm :) and a paint blemish or annoying software quirks that can be fixed with software updates over a car model that might have issues with timing belts or potential for leaky fuel injection systems or such.


Do read the others too. So, while "there is" such a survey all points out to it being rigged.


"
Yea, Tesla is certainly an objective analyst talking about somebody that rates their cars poorly.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY