Slashdot Mirror
Consumer Reports Withdraws Its Tesla Model S Recommendation (consumerreports.org)
An anonymous reader sends news that Consumer Reports, after earlier giving the Tesla Model S a perfect road test score, has now withdrawn its recommendation for the electric car after investigating its reliability. As part of our Annual Auto Reliability Survey, we received about 1,400 survey responses from Model S owners who chronicled an array of detailed and complicated maladies. From that data we forecast that owning that Tesla is likely to involve a worse-than-average overall problem rate. ... The main problem areas involved the drivetrain, power equipment, charging equipment, giant iPad-like center console, and body and sunroof squeaks, rattles, and leaks. ... Overall, squeaks and rattles appear to be the most prevalent complaint. But as one respondent commented, "The car is so very silent when driving that minor squeaks and rattles that you wouldn't be able to hear in a gasoline engine car become very annoying." The list of issues also includes more significant problems, which could be pricey to fix once out of warranty. Based on survey responses, Tesla has made a habit of replacing the car’s electric motors. The brake rotors tend to warp. And the door handles often fail to “present” themselves as drivers approach their cars.
They deliberately rigged the Suzuki Sidekick to tip, by strapping weights on the side, then used an altered photo to make it look like it would tip without the weights, which never happened.
Consumer reports is not ethical, and I don't listen to anything they have to say.
If you want proof that their methods don't work, go look at their reports on dual-badged cars. Ford/Mazda co-ventures, Mitsubishi/Chrysler co-ventures. The cars will score very differently based on who sold them, unrelated to who made them. It proves an inconsistent subjectivity to the whole process, and the worthlessness of their polling methods and results.
Learn to love Alaska
That's pretty much what the article says - the summary only cited the bad:
The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
When rotors warp there is a single answer as to why. They were not designed/manufactured thick enough. Don't blame driving styles or any bullshit like that. Brake rotors should be able to glow red and still not warp.
But weight. But cost. But didn't think. But, driving style. These are all lame excuses for bad design. And when I pay $100,000 for a car, I expect proven technologies like disc brakes to be flawless!
What this Consumer Reports article is telling me is that, most unfortunately, my plan to buy a used Tesla at a "reasonable" price is a very bad idea. Perhaps worse than buying a used British sports car. As in both cases, the problems will be frequent and the repair cost will be extremely high.
Yeah sorry. No. History doesn't actually bear out your story.
[quote]It sued Consumer Reports the following year, and although they would settle out of court eight years later, Suzuki probably came out looking worse. The problem was that a Suzuki internal memo from 1985 surfaced, saying "It is imperative that we develop a crisis plan that will primarily deal with the "roll" factor. Because of the narrow wheelbase, similar to the Jeep, the car is bound to turn over." The Pinto-like paper trail would have surely been even more damaging if Suzuki hadn't already pulled the vehicle out of North America. Suzuki would eventually admit to having knowledge of 213 deaths and 8,200 injuries as the result of rollover, and would settle some 200 lawsuits.[/quote]
http://www.carbuzz.com/news/20...