Slashdot Mirror
Consumer Reports Says Tesla Model S Is Best Overall Vehicle
cartechboy writes "When one thinks of Consumer Reports, refrigerator ratings and car seat reviews usually come to mind, but the organization actually reviews cars too. In fact, it just released a new round of top vehicle picks and it said the Tesla Model S is is the Best Overall Car you can buy. It's unusual, to say the least, for an outlet that typically names a Toyota or Lexus to choose an electric car that costs nearly $100,000 in most popular configurations from a Silicon Valley upstart. Interestingly, the Toyota Prius was named the Best Green Car. Isn't the Model S green? But I digress. A company that many thought would be bankrupt and closed by now has produced a brand-new electric car from scratch that Consumer Reports feels is the best car it's actually tested since 2007."
$100K car is better than a bunch of $20-30K cars.
"f you wanna live, you'd better step on the gas! Oh wait, is this a Tesla? Shit! Well press on the prissy pedal!" - Cartman
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
keep it to ourselves? people will talk, always happens
Le Car, anyone?
And for that matter, Nobel Peace Prize, anyone?
This was a big deal when it was announced, almost a year ago.
And the submitter isn't
"choose an electric car that costs nearly $100,000"
$89,500 is nearly $100,000.
Hybrid cars are actually greener than electric ones. It has to do with manufacturing costs and the fact that electric cars are no greener than what the energy company uses to generate and transport electricity.
Wow, we haven't had one of those since yesterday. It's great that Slashdot has car stories, but when most of them are slashvertising the same car over and over, and the rest ignore anything that isn't EV / Hybrid / Autonomous it gets pretty boring and repetitive.
Interestingly, the Toyota Prius was named the Best Green Car. Isn't the Model S green? But I digress
Because the Prius is completely ordinary (or even sub par) in every aspect EXCEPT for it's "green" profile.
The Tesla S is a genuinely great car. From power to handling to in vehicle infotainment systems, everything in the Model S is top notch.
That might be related to the price tag of a Model S being about triple that of the Prius, but hey, you get what you pay for.
This signature is false.
for doing nothing.
I remember with considerable sourness how the Reagans' social life and state dinners were described by the media and derided by the left.
"Arrogantly rubbing the noses of the poor in their flashy profligacy" and such. Why, Nancy Reagan wore _designer dresses_. She bought new china for the state dinners!
Now the country is experiencing an economy that makes the Reagan economy at its most dire early 1981 nadir look pretty damned good by comparison.
While alongside those crummy economic prospects for ordinary Joes and Janes, we have a level of flashy profligacy in the White House that has literally never been equalled in the entire history of the country. You never saw the Reagans' pets eating off of that White House china the way that the Obamas show theirs doing.
Suddenly the left have completely lost their voices when it comes to "speaking truth to power" about the differential between how people on Main Street live versus how those at 1600 Pennsylvania are living.
It's almost as though the left never really believed any of that crap and were just mouthing it for temporary tactical political purposes. But we know that can't possibly be the case.
Tesla vehicles are not green. The fact that it costs close to $100k should indicate that it is a very resource intensive product. Some things that cost a lot are not necessarily resource intensive (e.g., legal services or software), but for a manufactured good, price is generally a good indication of how many physical resources went into making it. The Prius is cheaper, and that reflects a lower relative resource cost to manufacture.
now our media is 100% bi-polar with fear of change features
So, the best car overall is a $100,000 luxury vehicle that can drive, at most, 4 hours and then needs to recharge for 5 hours??? Obviously Consumer Reports has a different set of standards than 99% of people who live in North America. Most of us are lucky if we afford one car worth $30K, let alone two (Tesla for city driving and another one for long distance).
I thought that the Consumer Reports mission was to test and report on consumer items not luxury goods...
"Consumer Reports Says Tesla Model S Is Best Overall Vehicle"
OK, so I guess they are recommending that that the army sell its jets, and planes, and boats, and cars, and tanks to replace them with this electric consumer grade car, as it is the "best" vehicle; Clearing better than 747s and apache attack helicopters.
Even such a thing as a best consumer grade car is a rather suspect title, expanding that to best vehicle is beyond absurd.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
The Consumer Reports article plus solid financial news and analyst forecasts for Tesla today and widely circulating speculation about their planned Gigafactory to be announced in a couple weeks with an aim of cutting battery costs by at least 50%, all lead to a surge in the stock today (2/25).
Even the confirmation that the Model X would indeed not surface until 2015 seemed to have no effect.
The stock was up as high as 17%, and closed up just under 14% (+$30 on the day to $248). With Morgan Stanley estimating a $320 price there is probably significant growth left, It seems they will have no problem funding that 5 to 7 Billion dollar battery plant. The "giga" refers to Tesla's need to build the equivalent of all of the world’s current production of lithium ion batteries under one factory roof. May be time to invest in on Lithium stocks as well.
Of course, the next drunk that crashes his car and lives to watch it burn will provide a stock dip, but that just sounds like importunity knocking.
Still, I predict Haters going to Hate. They should be arriving in about 3 seconds.....
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
I have yet to meet anybody who thought Tesla "would be bankrupt and closed by now" who wasn't actively scheming toward that end. And yes, FUD counts as actively scheming.
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
Is Tesla and their cars great because they have to be -- selling a new kind of car at a high price to a customer base that demands to be catered to, in small enough quantities to care?
Or are they great because they're doing it better and even if some magic happens to the basic technology and they can sell a mid-sized sedan with model S specs in the mid-$40s will they still be great, or will they just devolve into yet another car company with all the car company shenanigans?
Or, to put it another way is the Tesla S a really great car with a great ownership experience and can owning any future Tesla aimed at the larger marketplace remain this way?
I haven't driven one but played around with the interior at the mall. The human/car interface is by far the best one I've used. The multitouch screen is responsive and intuitive. The material quality is top of the line. I totally would buy one if I had the money.
... and that even includes surveys from pretending-to-be-non-profit-organisations, as recently exposed about the ADAC "Car of the Year" survey.
A fully loaded Fusion Hybrid Energi Titanium is about $35K.
And from 50 feet away it's nearly indistinguishable from a Tesla.
It also has a gasoline engine that'll get me home when the batteries are depleted.
I've seen 'em, sat in them. I think it'd be a tough sell convincing me it's $55K better.
The reason they gave the Prius "most green" is that is green in many areas - city, country, and for long commutes.
In the True West (BC, WA, OR, CA) the Tesla S would be greener, in that we have cheaper electricity that is anywhere from 2/3 to 99.8 percent green (hydro, wind, solar) and we have the highway infrastructure of Tesla charging stations to allow long drives (say from Vancouver BC to San Diego CA) on all electric without more stops than a gas powered car would use.
Different measures. If you lived in a place where your electricity for most of your trips came from coal or natural gas, you'd want to buy a Prius.
Note: a 60 mpg car (they do exist in Canada) that you own for 10 years is greener than a full electric car that you power with coal-based electricity.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
And it starts at $50,000 (take-home price for most people.) Still well in to "luxury" territory for most people, but it's disingenuous to always refer to it as a $100K vehicle.
Also, the "recharge for 5 hours" is *ALSO* disingenuous. There are plenty of quick chargers now.
Almost nobody buys two new cars at once for two separate purposes. Almost nobody goes from zero cars to two cars. Anyone buying a Tesla is almost guaranteed to already have another vehicle that would be their "road trip" vehicle. When we bought our last new car, we kept BOTH of our prior vehicles - I used the new sedan for commute, my wife used the old compact car for commute, we kept the SUV for "fun" (camping, trips to the mountain for skiing, etc.) A couple years later, we inherited a Subaru Forester from my wife's mom, so we were able to replace both older cars with it. Yeah, my wife's commute got a little more expensive, but it's not like we went "Oh, we don't want to keep both the compact and the SUV - let's buy both a sedan AND a new SUV..."
Lastly, according to multiple studies, 98% of trips taken by car are under 50 miles in length. That means that even the lowest-capacity Tesla can handle 98% of trips. Yes, there are people who need more range in their primary vehicle - this vehicle isn't for them any more than the Tesla Roadster was for general contractors. Or a Ford F-450 is appropriate for an urban pizza delivery person. I have a mid-length commute: 11 miles each way. The LOWER capacity Model S would last me nearly two weeks between charges. I wouldn't buy a Hummer to replace my sedan for daily commuting, just as I wouldn't buy a Miata for camping!
My Porsche with PASM, PDCC, PSM, PTM and PTV Plus all working together, so I don't drive right into a tree, seems more technologically advanced. Oh, and it's riding on PCCBs.
And now CR Best Overall? Tesla's on fire!
*ducks*
I am Audience.
I would have figured some kind of pickup truck to be the best overall vehicle, that or some kind of tractor.
Besides how much the car costs how much does it cost to get your electrical installation in your house upgraded to support charging the car? (My house was built in the 50s and it can barely handle the load of a modern house. I'm thinking I'd need to upgrade it if I want to have a tesla. I know I have to upgrade it if I wanted to add central air.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
and Juli-et 40,000 Disgust, 0r been
"When one thinks of Consumer Reports, refrigerator ratings and car seat reviews usually come to mind"
...wait, they review car seats too?
Actually i bought my subscription to Consumer Reports specifically because of the car reviews, and if i were to name the top two things that come to my mind when i think of them it would probably be cars and TVs.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
They always have been biased, and their metrics for determining the "best" have always been "because we say so". Then they always fall for politically correct bullshit because this organization has always been a mouthpiece for left wing political causes. So this month's propaganda is that the Tesla S is the best overall car even though it cost a minimum of 60,000 dollars and at the best possible scenario it can only go 300 miles @ 55 mph without multiple hours of downtime for charging. Sure if your a rich liberal you can afford this and buy the second internal combustion engine powered car car you need if you want to travel very far, but political correctness demands that we don't consider those two facts to be limitations. For the bulk of the population those two facts will kill the deal hence why electric cars are sales flops. But Consumers Reports has to be name the Tesla S the best overall vehicle because political correctness demands it, not on any technical or practical merits.
You know, that if you commute 20 minutes 5 times a week, that you have in fact driven your commuter car for an hour and 40 minutes.
Consumer Reports has been reviewing cars forever, and I relied on them for my first two car purchases. Then I zeroed in on a Jeep (needed to get into the back country) and CR went out of its way to expressly say "DO NOT BUY THIS VEHICLE". I bought it anyway, and it was the best I've ever owned. Repair record was not perfect but still better than all those previously highly recommended vehicles, and the ergonomics were superior to anything I've have before or since. If that same model were still made today I'd buy another.
If you are looking to buy a new vehicle, ignore CR.
"names a Toyota or Lexus"
Could it be cause Toyota is the likely buyer of Telsa if they do sell out? And we all know how Toyota and CR go hand in hand much like Toyota and JD power did back in the day (and considering Hyundai has enough cash for JD).
The good news is that Tesla S ranked in the top of it's class. The bad news it was in the article reviewing charcoal briquettes, not cars. Consumers reports should come up with recommendations for a top rated fire extinguisher just in case someone decides to buy a Tesla.
Clean burning coal.
Not to mention the electricity for the Tesla (tada!) isn't free.
24 cents per mile.
Nice try. They measured a drag race up to 111 miles per hour.
Actual representative cost per mile is available here and note that the cost per mile column is in CENTS, not dollars. (That chart largely agrees with Tesla's calculator on their official site.
Its a lot closer to 2.14 cents per mile in my state.
Even in California, where your cherry was picked from the real cost is 3.82 cents per mile.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Jake Fisher, CR's head of auto testing, put even that drawback in context when he enthused: "If it could recharge in any gas station in three minutes, this car would score about 110."
In a nutshell make the batteries themselves removable and generic, but what do I know. Like everything that requires a standard it ain't gonna happen any time soon until some level of extreme public input makes it happen. The oil companies would crap if all of a sudden there was a simple way to store huge amounts of solar power in local automobile service stations. UNTIL WE GET TOGETHER and stop sucking on the teat of big oil and the industry of wars we will not mature as a civilization deserving of this planet. This is ET is calling and if you don't hear the call you will be left in the dust.
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
Right, someone submit a high end car story. Make one up. Veyron versus Vespa. McLaren vs Mustang. Ferrari vs Firefly.
That "prissy pedal" makes the Model S go from 0 to 60 in 4 seconds and do a quarter mile in 12.5s. That's faster than a Porsche 911.
And that's much of why Tesla beats the competition.
Electrtic cars inherently COULD accelerate as much as possible given the coefficient of friction of tires on pavement. Electric motors generally have max torque at stall. All you need is a big enough motor and power supply. (What matters is being able to apply the necesary power during accelleration, which is a whole separate issue from cruising mileage.)
Unfortunately, other electric car manufacturers have been thinking "eco freeks in their underpowered compact and mini cars" and building underpowered electric powertrains. Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning, along with the engineering team they assembled, did not make that mistake. Instead they designed a vehicle with the horsepower to have high performance.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Toyota or Lexus to choose an electric car that costs nearly $100,000 in most popular configurations from a Silicon Valley upstart. Interestingly, the Toyota Prius was named the Best Green Car.
No how much CO2 and other contaminants are emitted from a power plant? Does the Tesla recharge itself? Of course it also depends on what fuel the plant uses.
Compare that to the pollutants the Toyota Prius puts off!!
Even the author of the story doesn't seem to get that, and yes there has been a continuing argument over how much pollutants are emitted while charging an electric car over gas efficient vehicles.
I didn't see anything from jxander that bad mouths the Tesla, and it seems you have a high opinion of the Tesla and when anyone comments about it not being a 'perfect ego friendly car' as expected Tesla nerds fly off the handle, instead of realizing the car despite its outstanding crash and safety rating is still flawed.
Sure, you can soup it up and pay more, but the Model S starts at 30% lower than this article blurb indicates.
That's roughly in the same ballpark as an Escalade. Both are 2-3x what I could afford to pay for a car, but it's not like they're asking for the moon, especially when you consider the long-term cost of fueling.
So, the best car overall is a $100,000 luxury vehicle that can drive, at most, 4 hours and then needs to recharge for 5 hours??? Obviously Consumer Reports has a different set of standards than 99% of people who live in North America. Most of us are lucky if we afford one car worth $30K, let alone two (Tesla for city driving and another one for long distance).
If you have 70k to drop on a Model S, you'll get a tax rebate back because it's electric and it will save you money over the long run in "fuel" costs. Though, if you have that kind of disposable income, the cost of gas probably isn't stopping you from taking that vacation to Disney World. If you're like me and you cringe every time you stick your credit card into the pump, you probably view the Tesla as just another way that being rich helps the rich stay rich (okay, a game of Monopoly teaches that, too).
In the grand scheme of things, if you care absolutely nothing about being "green" and just want to drop a few grand on something that'll give you a return on your investment, a few computers stuffed with high end ATI video cards mining the crypto currency du jour (probably Dogecoin for the moment) will probably line your pockets way better than the fuel savings of a Tesla Model S. Which leads me to believe people are buying these cars not because of the fuel savings, but because it's a smug status symbol and a decent enough car for its price.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
As far as altitude and internal combustion engines, that require a steady stream of air for cooling, goes air "density" goes down as altitude rises, hence the engine performance is sub-par one example is when the weather is hot (low density) a car which is turbo-charged losses the extra power.
What rock have some of you been living under? CR has been doing vehicle reviews for decades and has included higher-end ones like BMWs on their Recommended list, even as it also recommends ones as Best Buys for their overall value. Too many people confuse price and value, equating cheapest price as best value.
From the power to the handling to the vehicle infotainment systems to the warm loved feeling as tesla rams its cock straight up your financial ass over and over and over.
It is silly to take a consumer report seriously. Every initial report that they have made on cars for the last 45 years in my observed experience have been dead wrong. I would run away from their best rating and look at there worst with some interest.