Tesla Slashes Prices

[Auto Motive]

I think all his numbers are off. There is no fricking way a GT PE gets 3.5 mi/kWh. I think I saw 3.0 mi/kWh ONCE. My running average was 2.5 mi/kWh with 80% highway at ~70mph.

MYLR isn't getting 4.0-4.5mi/kWh... that's Model 3 efficiency. It's closer to 3.6-3.8 mi/kWh at 70mph.

Bull. Will get a screen shot tonite on running under 50mph 30 miles. Its all stop and go. Just because you dont get the same it must be how you drive.

Sponsored

 

[Auto Motive]

Ok, now you just sound like a Tesla hater.

If they were made of tinfoil, they would not have the highest crash ratings score of every location (USA, EU, and China) of any car in their class.

And actual tests pre and post heat-pump show that in cold weather when the resistive heater would be on, the heat pump makes a marked improvement. Mild (70s F) weather, not much.

We GTPE and Tesla Y AWD long range. The Tesla really is a nice ev, lots of power and efficieny of 5.okwh under 50 mph. Same route the GTPE runs 3.5kwh.

 

[SWO]

Ok, now you just sound like a Tesla hater.

If they were made of tinfoil, they would not have the highest crash ratings score of every location (USA, EU, and China) of any car in their class.

And actual tests pre and post heat-pump show that in cold weather when the resistive heater would be on, the heat pump makes a marked improvement. Mild (70s F) weather, not much.

The crash structure is fine, but the body panels are quite thin and crumple like aluminum foil in accidents.

My buddy with a M3 is afraid to take his through and automatic car wash because the manual warns about even the wash chemicals damaging the exterior. Teslas have notoriously thin paint.

Personally I have nothing against Musk, but I dislike Tesla because the cars are cheap/disposable, they use misleading marketing, and 90% of the owners act like they're in a MLM cult.

 

[Mach1E]

Tesla will achieve its EPA rated range under EPA range testing conditions. Tesla has never said "if you drive way different than the EPA test cycle, such as 70 mph on the interstate in cold weather, you will get the EPA rated range in those conditions too." Tesla has never made such a claim. You want Tesla to achieve the EPA rated range under different conditions, and are angry that they don't. It doesn't matter want kind of totally different test conditions you want Tesla to be able to match their EPA rated range. Bjorn Nyland got 400 miles out of a M3 when driving 50 mph. This is false advertising from Tesla as they only advertise 335 miles of range. They should really be honest with their advertising and be clear that the car will get 400 miles of range. See how stupid this argument is? It's literally your argument.

It’s a pretty straightforward concept.

We want manufacturers to use the SAME testing criteria when making comparisons.

Again, science 101.

When you use different variables, you get a C- on your 5th grade science fair project……….. and it’s dishonest.

 

[theduke]

The crash structure is fine, but the body panels are quite thin and crumple like aluminum foil in accidents.

My buddy with a M3 is afraid to take his through and automatic car wash because the manual warns about even the wash chemicals damaging the exterior. Teslas have notoriously thin paint.

Personally I have nothing against Musk, but I dislike Tesla because the cars are cheap/disposable, they use misleading marketing, and 90% of the owners act like they're in a MLM cult.

What an absolute load of . . . .

Tesla uses the same body panel stamping presses as everyone else (IDRA is the company, FYI), to make their body panels. They are no more thick or thin than any other company.

And on the S and X, the panels are aluminum. They are HIGHLY resistant to door dings (Ford even advertises this on their F150 when they moved the bed to aluminum).

You seriously seem to just be reaching for something to "hate on Tesla".

 

[theduke]

It’s a pretty straightforward concept.

We want manufacturers to use the SAME testing criteria when making comparisons.

Again, science 101.

When you use different variables, you get a C- on your 5th grade science fair project……….. and it’s dishonest.

This isn't entirely accurate. For anyone that actually wants a deep dive, there is a great article here:
https://insideevs.com/news/586646/how-tesla-wins-on-epa-estimated-range/

Basically, these two paragraph sum it up:
"Dykes opens the video explaining that this topic comes up very often since some Tesla vehicles' range estimates seem to be a bit more unrealistic than the competition. He also says it's not Tesla's fault, and they're not "gaming the system," since all automakers could follow the same rules and processes. Dykes believes the problem here is that there's not a single standard for EPA testing, which really doesn't make much sense.


Tesla elects to run the EPA's full five test cycles. Many other automakers only use the two primary test cycles for city and highway driving. This means Tesla has to do more testing, but it also helps the EV maker benefit from its cars' exceptional efficiency, especially at lower speeds."

 

[Mach1E]

This isn't entirely accurate. For anyone that actually wants a deep dive, there is a great article here:
https://insideevs.com/news/586646/how-tesla-wins-on-epa-estimated-range/

Basically, these two paragraph sum it up:
"Dykes opens the video explaining that this topic comes up very often since some Tesla vehicles' range estimates seem to be a bit more unrealistic than the competition. He also says it's not Tesla's fault, and they're not "gaming the system," since all automakers could follow the same rules and processes. Dykes believes the problem here is that there's not a single standard for EPA testing, which really doesn't make much sense.


Tesla elects to run the EPA's full five test cycles. Many other automakers only use the two primary test cycles for city and highway driving. This means Tesla has to do more testing, but it also helps the EV maker benefit from its cars' exceptional efficiency, especially at lower speeds."

So it’s not Tesla’s fault that they CHOOSE to use the testing method that no one else uses and it results in unrealistic high range estimates for them?

?

You and I will clearly disagree about some fundamental moral concepts.

Some people believe that “as long as it’s legal, it’s acceptable.”

I don’t. I believe that the right thing is the “best” thing.

And in this case, the best thing would be to use the same test everyone else does so that consumers can make an INFORMED buying decision.

Instead Tesla chose to use the testing cycle that tricks consumers into thinking the model Y has more range than the Mach E, when in reality they’re nearly identical.

 

[theduke]

So it’s not Tesla’s fault that they CHOOSE to use the testing method that no one else uses and it results in unrealistic high range estimates for them?

?

You and I will clearly disagree about some fundamental moral concepts.

Some people believe that “as long as it’s legal, it’s acceptable.”

I don’t. I believe that the right thing is the “best” thing.

And in this case, the best thing would be to use the same test everyone else does so that consumers can make an INFORMED buying decision.

Instead Tesla chose to use the testing cycle that tricks consumers into thinking the model Y has more range than the Mach E, when in reality they’re nearly identical.

Moral? That's quite the stretch.

Tesla is given a CHOICE, and chose the one that benefits them. They didn't set the rules, the Gov did, and the gov gives a CHOICE. They didn't CHEAT on the cycles they picked. This isn't VW or Chrysler and diesel emissions.

 

[Mach1E]

Moral? That's quite the stretch.

Tesla is given a CHOICE, and chose the one that benefits them. They didn't set the rules, the Gov did, and the gov gives a CHOICE. They didn't CHEAT on the cycles they picked. This isn't VW or Chrysler and diesel emissions.

See?

I knew we would disagree from a moral standpoint.

I didn’t say they cheated. Just that they’re choosing to make an unfair comparison and benefiting from it. That’s dishonest and immoral in my opinion.

Business ethics. I get the feeling you would be fine using the line, “it’s business, not personal,” or “I’m just following the rules,” when screwing a friend or co-worker over.

 

[theduke]

See?

I knew we would disagree from a moral standpoint.

I didn’t say they cheated. Just that they’re choosing to make an unfair comparison and benefiting from it. That’s dishonest and immoral in my opinion.

Business ethics. I get the feeling you would be fine using the line, “it’s business, not personal,” or “I’m just following the rules,” when screwing a friend or co-worker over.

Objectively, Tesla had the first EVs, and has been using this testing method provided by the EPA from the get-go, and didn't switch cycles. They didn't pick the 5 cycle test to make an "unfair comparison" - there were no EVs to compare to back in 2012 through 2015.

That other manuf's picked the 2 cycle test, great for them, happy that they did that. But your argument that Tesla did it to make an "unfair comparison" is bogus, there were no EVs to compare to.

EDIT - and you can back off the add-hominem personal attacks. That speaks volumes about YOUR character.

 

[SWO]

Objectively, Tesla had the first EVs, and has been using this testing method provided by the EPA from the get-go, and didn't switch cycles. They didn't pick the 5 cycle test to make an "unfair comparison" - there were no EVs to compare to back in 2012 through 2015.

That other manuf's picked the 2 cycle test, great for them, happy that they did that. But your argument that Tesla did it to make an "unfair comparison" is bogus, there were no EVs to compare to.

EDIT - and you can back off the add-hominem personal attacks. That speaks volumes about YOUR character.

Leaf was out a year before Tesla.

 

[theduke]

Leaf was out a year before Tesla.

2 years, actually. 19 were delivered in Dec 2010. But volume was so low, even a single month of S production in 2012 out-paced the Leaf full-year in 2011.

Heck, even the Original Tesla Roadster out-paced the first 2 years of the Leaf, and came out before it.

 

[SWO]

2 years, actually. 19 were delivered in Dec 2010. But volume was so low, even a single month of S production in 2012 out-paced the Leaf full-year in 2011.

Heck, even the Original Tesla Roadster out-paced the first 2 years of the Leaf, and came out before it.

Sure, but there's an asterisk there because the Roadster was a low production, converted Elise chassis.

 

[theduke]

Sure, but there's an asterisk there because the Roadster was a low production, converted Elise chassis.

And even then, it was pacing better than the Leaf in production for the first 2 years. Once the focus became getting the S to market, production rates dropped.

 

[MacherAWD]

Objectively, Tesla had the first EVs, and has been using this testing method provided by the EPA from the get-go, and didn't switch cycles. They didn't pick the 5 cycle test to make an "unfair comparison" - there were no EVs to compare to back in 2012 through 2015.

That other manuf's picked the 2 cycle test, great for them, happy that they did that. But your argument that Tesla did it to make an "unfair comparison" is bogus, there were no EVs to compare to.

EDIT - and you can back off the add-hominem personal attacks. That speaks volumes about YOUR character.

I agree with you on the HP claims, and the GT 5 sec limit. I will ding Ford on that the way I ding Tesla on the range. So both companies choose to be deceptive in certain areas, and we would be best to have full transparency on all topics.

Sponsored