- May 31, 2005
For me to look at one I would need 350 REAL miles. That means even in -20F weather.
in a previous post, i mentioned the new prius goes 25miles on battery then rest on gas engine.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.
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 temperaturerunning the A/C kills them,
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
JD Power is a paid shill of a entity used by stock bears to spew out when they wanna manipulate the stock.
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
|Brand||Q1 2020||Q1 2019||Change|
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.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
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:
Brand Q1 2020 Q1 2019 Change Tesla 52,800 30,600 72.5 Lincoln 25,562 24,874 2.8 Ram 140,486 137,013 2.5 Kia 137,945 136,596 1.0 Maserati 0 0 0.0 Mercedes-Benz 75,265 78,667 -4.3 Mazda 67,670 70,831 -4.5 Chevrolet 429,529 451,742 -4.9 Chrysler 29,945 31,591 -5.2 GMC 118,718 125,579 -5.5 Genesis 3,955 4,203 -5.9 Toyota 439,402 476,925 -7.9 Hyundai 130,875 147,585 -11.3 Volvo 19,485 22,058 -11.7 Ford 489,051 557,884 -12.3 Volkswagen 75,065 85,872 -12.6 Alfa Romeo 3,702 4,286 -13.6 Audi 41,371 48,115 -14.0 Jeep 182,667 212,804 -14.2 Mitsubishi 35,563 42,070 -15.5 Lexus 56,345 66,791 -15.6 Cadillac 30,323 35,996 -15.8 BMW 62,152 73,888 -15.9 Subaru 130,591 156,754 -16.7 Honda 270,253 333,402 -18.9 Dodge 88,656 110,517 -19.8 Porsche 11,984 15,024 -20.2 Acura 28,531 36,385 -21.6 Infiniti 25,556 34,315 -25.5 Nissan 232,048 331,536 -30.0 Buick 33,870 51,865 -34.7 Mini 5,236 8,905 -41.2 Fiat 1,128 2,214 -49.1 Jaguar 0 10,222 -100.0 Land Rover 0 25,028 -100.0 Smart 0 231 -100.0
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.
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..."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.
Yea, Tesla is certainly an objective analyst talking about somebody that rates their cars poorly.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.
Consumer Reports reverses itself again, no longer recommends Tesla Model 3. I give CR an unreliable rating as they seem to be more twitchy, finicky, and coming loose than the supposed issues they claim Model 3 has. https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/21/18234740/consumer-reports-tesla-model...forums.tesla.com
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.