Tesla!! when it is going to stop??

[MacherAWD]

Problem is:
1) Not every OEM use the 2 cycle test, some do use the 5 cycle test.
2) Tesla was one of the first EV and is the largest EV builder in the US. They chose the 5 cycle test option before most other OEMs. So now it's up to them to change? This is similar to the NACs charging standard. It's usually up to everyone else to conform to the best selling brand.

You are right Tesla is not wrong, it would hold up in court. What Tesla is is a company that knowingly deceives it's customers and the general public. Exaggerating numbers, NCAS has standard in the name but is not the standard. Lies about auto pilot, FSD.

So yes not wrong just a lying sh$ty company that people should be aware of.

Sponsored

 

[MachTee]

My very first post here was also to complain about Tesla. I had a model 3 dual motor at the time. The very next day I traded it for a MME SR AWD Premium. The SR AWD was rated for 210 miles, yet it more or less matched the model 3 in my typical driving conditions. I sold the MME last August with ~19K miles and the average was 3.7 miles/kWh (it did reset itself at 10K miles so technically it was a 9000 miles average). Only reason I sold it was to take advantage of the insane value it had last year. I bought a Genesis GV60 Performance for basically $5000 after selling the MME and claiming another $7500 tax credit so I had to do it. Otherwise I probably would still have the MME.

Fast forward to earlier this year, when Tesla dropped the base model 3 to $38K and again qualified for the $7500 tax credit, it got me intrigued and I took another look. I had some major changes to my driving routine and will be putting on many many miles, and I wouldn't have enjoyed constantly having to stop at a gas station in the PHEV (it has a tiny 10gal tank), and I don't want to put the miles on the Genesis even though I have 3yrs of free charging at Electrify America. The stars were aligned once again as Carvana bought my Hyundai Tucson PHEV for $4K under what I paid, before accounting for the $6500 tax credit I received on it, so I went ahead and bought the base model 3. My ~15K miles average on the base model 3 is 4.78MPK (209Wh/mile displayed in the car). It was 204Wh/mile a month ago. It started creeping up since the weather is getting cold. Back in spring/summer it was under 200, and I definitely can get the rated range of 272 miles or better. Never thought it'd ever be possible on a Tesla. As to the rest of the car, meh. It's a slight improvement over the 2018 I had. The paint is as crappy as ever, just looking at it too hard it'll chip the paint.

I like to tell it like it is, good or bad, which is what you'll find on this forum here. I hang out on many car forums and usually no longer hang around after selling the car, but I enjoy it here and have continued to visit. No I have not visited the echo chambers of Tesla forums lol. Enjoy your MME GT.

 

[Womps]

inside EV did this testing a while ago. Tested at 70 mph at same conditions.

 

[George Knighton]

it must be the PE is way less efficient than GT

I have been able to get 3.3 mi/kWh on occasion.

That gives me hope of an occasional 300 miles with a GT PE.

 

[Ghost Ryder]

You are right Tesla is not wrong, it would hold up in court. What Tesla is is a company that knowingly deceives it's customers and the general public. Exaggerating numbers, NCAS has standard in the name but is not the standard. Lies about auto pilot, FSD.

So yes not wrong just a lying sh$ty company that people should be aware of.

That would apply to most of the other ev makers too since most idon’t meet their epa range when tested.

 

[Gloff]

For sure agree they should standardize things.

But I don’t think the tax loophole analogy applies.

Because most of the large companies didn’t decide to utilize this EPA “loophole.”

That tells you something.

Ford and Hyundai/Kia have been bitten in the ass on mileage ratings before, so I would understand why they wouldn't utilize that method.

I agree, In the interest of consumer clarity, Tesla should use the lower values, but we're talking about a company that routinely plays in the loophole sandbox.

 

[Ghost Ryder]

I have been able to get 3.3 mi/kWh on occasion.

That gives me hope of an occasional 300 miles with a GT PE.

It really depends on your commute and how you drive. If my drive is mostly hwy, then I get about 2.6. But if I stick to city driving I can easily get 3.5+.

 

[Ghost Ryder]

Ford and Hyundai/Kia have been bitten in the ass on mileage ratings before, so I would understand why they wouldn't utilize that method.

I agree, In the interest of consumer clarity, Tesla should use the lower values, but we're talking about a company that routinely plays in the loophole sandbox.

There is no loophole. There are two methods to getting an EPA rating. They chose one of them. There is nothing nefarious about it.

Look at the Ford lightning or Rivian on the above chart. It vastly under perform it's EPA rating. Did for lie and try to scam its customers too? They "over report" even more than Tesla.

 

[Gloff]

There is no loophole. There are two methods to getting an EPA rating. They chose one of them. There is nothing nefarious about it.

Look at the Ford lightning or Rivian on the above chart. It vastly under perform it's EPA rating. Did for lie and try to scam its customers too? They "over report" even more than Tesla.

Loopholes are not intrinsically nefarious. I agree they should use the more realistic method. I can speak to the Lightning 9r Rivian because I haven't looked at the EPA testing for either, though I suspect the adjustment factor isn't adequate enough considering the CoD of those two bricks is significantly higher than any of the Teslas.

 

[Guss-E 2021]

I am so, so thankful my range needs are SO minimal. I started a spreadsheet when I got my MME in July 2022. In ~23,000 miles of driving I'm averaging precisely 44 miles a day with the ability to charge every night. Not a BEV alive today that could not meet those needs, even in winter. So my extended range battery which easily does 250+ @70mph in the summer is more than enough for me. The longest road is trip I take annually is 171 miles one way with DCFC about 7 miles from my destination.

Next year, with a NACS adapter I'll have a bunch more options. Like I said, I'm fortunate and grateful how well suited I am for BEV ownership. I know that is not the case for everyone.

 

[George Knighton]

It really depends on your commute and how you drive. If my drive is mostly hwy, then I get about 2.6. But if I stick to city driving I can easily get 3.5+.

This was a focus with my previous car, a tiny economy EV with a lifetime average of 4.5 mi/kWh.

I'm leaning toward hanging it up with the GT PE and not thinking about it too much.

 

[Mach1E]

There is no loophole. There are two methods to getting an EPA rating. They chose one of them. There is nothing nefarious about it.

Look at the Ford lightning or Rivian on the above chart. It vastly under perform it's EPA rating. Did for lie and try to scam its customers too? They "over report" even more than Tesla.

Loopholes are legal.

No surprise that trucks are going to underperform on the highway test. That’s a drag issue.

If they chose the test Tesla uses, it would be much worse.

Could you at least admit it would be better for the consumer if Tesla chose the other test? Sure they can stick with the 5 cycle test. But wouldn’t it be nice if they changed?

It reminds me of when I bought my last boat. Did you know there’s actually NO standard way to measure the length of a boat (LOA)?

The more honest manufacturer tell you exactly how they measure.

Others…… cheat and include swim platforms, bow anchor extensions, etc.

Consumers end up confused.

I literally had to go to a dealer, get out a measuring tape, and learn for myself that the boat that was advertised as 23’8” LOA was actually almost a foot longer than one advertised as 24’5” LOA because the latter one included swim platforms in the measurements.

It matters a lot because an extra 2 feet can cost $50,000 in a boat.

Nothing illegal measuring including the swim platforms. But it sure is dishonest not telling the consumers how you measure and then using the measurements in advertisements and sending those stats to reviewers for comparison tests……..when you KNOW it’s not an even comparison.

 

[Ghost Ryder]

Loopholes are legal.

No surprise that trucks are going to underperform on the highway test. That’s a drag issue.

If they chose the test Tesla uses, it would be much worse.

Could you at least admit it would be better for the consumer if Tesla chose the other test? Sure they can stick with the 5 cycle test. But wouldn’t it be nice if they changed?

It reminds me of when I bought my last boat. Did you know there’s actually NO standard way to measure the length of a boat (LOA)?

The more honest manufacturer tell you exactly how they measure.

Others…… cheat and include swim platforms, bow anchor extensions, etc.

Consumers end up confused.

I literally had to go to a dealer, get out a measuring tape, and learn for myself that the boat that was advertised as 23’8” LOA was actually almost a foot longer than one advertised as 24’5” LOA because the latter one included swim platforms in the measurements.

It matters a lot because an extra 2 feet can cost $50,000 in a boat.

Nothing illegal measuring including the swim platforms. But it sure is dishonest not telling the consumers how you measure and then using the measurements in advertisements and sending those stats to reviewers for comparison tests……..when you KNOW it’s not an even comparison.

"loop hole" has a negative connotation. It implies sneaking through the back door.

An example would be if the teacher gave you an option of writing a term paper or taking a test for your grade. If most people decided to take the test, but you decide to write the paper, did you earn your grade through a loop hole?

Also, how do you know if other OEM would of done better or worst on the 5 cycle test?

All we know is that the 5 cycle test does not correlate as well as the 2 cycle test to a constant 70mph drive.

Once again, you can't say that tesla or any other OEMs doesn't correlate to "real world use" because there is no defined agreed upon real world use metric. Someone that lives in Los angles will have a vastly different commute/usage as compared to someone in rural North Dakota.

 

[Mach1E]

"loop hole" has a negative connotation. It implies sneaking through the back door.

An example would be if the teacher gave you an option of writing a term paper or taking a test for your grade. If most people decided to take the test, but you decide to write the paper, did you earn your grade through a loop hole?

Also, how do you know if other OEM would of done better or worst on the 5 cycle test?

All we know is that the 5 cycle test does not correlate as well as the 2 cycle test to a constant 70mph drive.

Once again, you can't say that tesla or any other OEMs doesn't correlate to "real world use" because there is no defined agreed upon real world use metric. Someone that lives in Los angles will have a vastly different commute/usage as compared to someone in rural North Dakota.

Yes loophole has a negative connotation.

For good reason- there are negative consequences when people take advantage of loopholes.

No harm in writing a term paper vs taking a test.

We already mentioned the harm and consequences of Tesla using the 5 cycle test.

Ever hear of “no harm no foul?” Well in this case there is harm.

 

[Ghost Ryder]

Yes loophole has a negative connotation.

For good reason- there are negative consequences when people take advantage of loopholes.

No harm in writing a term paper vs taking a test.

We already mentioned the harm and consequences of Tesla using the 5 cycle test.

Ever hear of “no harm no foul?” Well in this case there is harm.

My point about calling tesla use of the 5cycle test as a loophole is that it's not a loophole. It's a valid standard put out by the sanction regulatory agency.

From webster dictionary:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole
1
: a means of escape
especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded


And once again, you're comparing Tesla EPA numbers to an arbitrary test (driving at 70mph) from a youtuber.
I'm sure if you drove the car at a constant speed of 35mph which is actually faster than the average speed of the average commute. you will likely find that tesla's range will meet or exceed the EPA reported range.

https://nhts.ornl.gov/briefs/commuting for life.pdf

Sponsored