Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tesla Model X the First SUV Ever To Achieve 5-Star Crash Rating in Every Category (tesla.com)

Posted by msmash on from the going-forward dept.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has awarded the 2017 Tesla Model X five-star crash safety ratings in every category. From the company's blog: More than just resulting in a 5-star rating, the data from NHTSA's testing shows that Model X has the lowest probability of injury of any SUV it has ever tested. In fact, of all the cars NHTSA has ever tested, Model X's overall probability of injury was second only to Model S. Model X performs so much better in a crash than gas-powered SUVs because of its all-electric architecture and powertrain design. The rigid, fortified battery pack that powers Model X is mounted beneath the floor of the vehicle creating a center of gravity so low that Model X has the lowest rollover probability of any SUV on the road. No other SUV has ever come close to meeting and exceeding this rollover requirement.

103 comments

  1. car analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can anyone explain this in car analogy?

    1. Re:car analogy by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 4, Funny

      Error: recursive car analogy exception

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    2. Re: car analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's as if Ford made a car that no one would buy unless the government paid you $30k in rebates to buy it, and Ford's factories got billions of dollars in carbon credits, and Henry Ford owned a rocket company.

    3. Re: car analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well thank god it's not ford then.

    4. Re: car analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least it's not like Tesla supported the Nazi's in the extermination of millions of people and then went on to make millions (billions in today's dollars) from the US government taxpayers to help fight the very same Nazi's they helped create in the first place, and also get a bunch of new manufacturing plants in the process on the back of taxpayers...

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm
      http://www.historynet.com/henry-ford-helped-lead-american-world-war-ii-production-efforts.htm
      http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/what-henry-fords-deep-hatred-o/

      History.. It's good for you.

  2. Asterisk missing by fisted · · Score: 0

    lowest probability of injury(*) of any SUV it has ever tested

    (*) of the person inside the SUV. People in the other vehicle are SOL.

    --
    CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
    1. Re:Asterisk missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually not. When you're bouncing into the hood of an X or S it automagically raises to cushion the blow.

    2. Re:Asterisk missing by chispito · · Score: 1

      lowest probability of injury(*) of any SUV it has ever tested

      (*) of the person inside the SUV. People in the other vehicle are SOL.

      What is the point of this comment? There is always a smaller or larger vehicle on the road. The smaller vehicle loses. A Honda Fit can tear up a Smart Car pretty badly.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    3. Re: Asterisk missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It creates a very large electrostatic field which provides a soft cushion for anything impacting the car.

    4. Re:Asterisk missing by Flicker · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually not true. In fact, your statement is the opposite of true because other vehicles / pedestrians / bicycles involved in a collision with a Model X have a better chance of survival than they would with an alternative vehicle, not worse. Unlike most SUVs the Model X does not achieve improved results from high mass or high body rigidity that can overwhelm another vehicle or obstacle but rather because it has larger and better designed crumple zones which allow longer and smoother deceleration in a collision. This is possible because the entire drive train is down below the collision height. For pedestrian and cyclist collisions the front hood additionally is designed to crush under impact and soften the blow. They can do this with the X better than most ICE vehicles because there's no rigid engine under the front hood.

      --
      this is not a sig
    5. Re:Asterisk missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Elon mentionned a few times that what matters is the total crumple zone of both cars (at least in collision where crumple zone matters). Meaning that it's safer to be hit by a tesla with a bigger crumple zone then by an equivalent ICE vehicule with half the crumble zone. If a normal ICE car has a crumble of 1, when they hit each other they split a total of 2 in 2, 1 each. If a tesla has a crumple zone of 2 it means that the total crumple zone is 3 and each car get 1.5 the crumple zone and both cars are safer due to the tesla (or another car with the equivalent crumple zone).

    6. Re:Asterisk missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as a cyclist, i can tell you that the majority of the collisions between people on bikes and cars is not head on where a human being would hit the hood. The majority are side impacts,both direct and glancing blows and being doored.

      They usually happen when pulling out of driveways or parallel parking spots in the city, but also including people making right hand turns with out checking their mirrors or blind spots for cyclists. The safety tests take none of this into account and quite frankly cars will never be safer for cyclists or human impacts as most of those impacts are due to driver error in the first place.

      Plus as a pedestrian im more worried about mustangs than teslas.

    7. Re:Asterisk missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never understood how you Tesla asshats always talk about these theoretical vehicles made of ice. If you're going to talk about that, at least speculate bout Pikrete.

  3. Even more unprecedented! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Tesla Model X has recieved the first ever 6 star rating for over-ratedness.

  4. SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Looks like a freaking sedan to me.

  5. Re:Until the battery blows by sunderland56 · · Score: 0

    Exactly. There is no star rating for "chance of injury due to fire".

  6. Sure but by Anubis350 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sure, but that's true if you get hit by a semi too, or honestly if you're in a car of any kind and get ploughed by an F-350 or above even. it's not like they mounted guns on the thing and told the NHTSA "go mad max on any vehicle coming towards you" to game the test and make it safer at the cost of being lethal to others

    --
    "goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
    1. Re: Sure but by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      I would totally buy that, electric or not. No more gridlock traffic for me!

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:Sure but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not like they mounted guns on the thing and told the NHTSA "go mad max on any vehicle coming towards you"

      That's an optional feature you have to specify when ordering. Then enable 'Ludicrous Gibs' mode if you want the max ROF.
      They don't offer energy weapons so I can only give it a 3/5 unless you have tons of ammo laying around.

    3. Re: Sure but by lgw · · Score: 3, Funny

      Killing the driver in front of you will not improve traffic or shorten your commute that day. Trust me on this.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re: Sure but by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You don't have to kill them. Just a couple warning shots should get everyone out of your way pretty quick. No need to resort to violence

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    5. Re: Sure but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No reason to resort to violence"

      LOL letting a couple warning shots off is a violent act. You are saying if you don't heed this warning, the next bullet is for you" that is literally the definition of a warning shot.

    6. Re: Sure but by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Killing the driver in front of you will not improve traffic or shorten your commute that day. Trust me on this.

      But all your future commutes & housing will be provided by the government.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    7. Re:Sure but by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's a classic arms race. People see cars around them getting bigger and more menacing, and the drivers of those cars driving less defensively due to their height and size derived confidence, so decide to get a bigger car themselves.

      The UK has reached the backlash phase now, where people in SUVs and crossovers get treated less generously. People are less likely to make way for them etc. We call them "Chelsea tractors" because while designed for off-road use they are most often seen driving around posh urban areas like Chelsea.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re: Sure but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be a blast at parties.

    9. Re: Sure but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must also be a blast at parties.

  7. How is this even a SUV? by Zobeid · · Score: 2

    It's like they took a Model S and then stretched it vertically a bit and called it a SUV. (And added FALCON DOORS!!) To most normal people that's not a SUV.

    I love Tesla, but the rationale of the Model X has always been a mystery to me.

    1. Re:How is this even a SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's marketed toward women, not for utility use

    2. Re:How is this even a SUV? by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      So you mean it's like most SUVs, that exist only to transport people to/from the mall, little league games, and work, and have never once done any offroading?

    3. Re:How is this even a SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Umm. Because they did not want to call it a minivan.

    4. Re:How is this even a SUV? by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      if it doesn't roll over to/from the mall, little league games, and work it's not an SUV!

    5. Re:How is this even a SUV? by tempo36 · · Score: 1

      I agree, as an X owner, that it's more of a CUV. I also, though, agree that the vast majority of SUVs don't do much "sport" and seem mostly to be vehicles to 1) make people feel safe because "big" = "safe" and 2) carry a lot of stuff without being a minivan. In that regard, the line between SUV and CUV is pretty blurry.

      The X is certainly not a sedan. I think CUV or crossover is a perfect description. It's sure as heck nothing like a minivan.

    6. Re:How is this even a SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are the qualifications of a SUV in your eyes?

      anon because I'm in the field.

    7. Re:How is this even a SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think some of us are old fashioned enough to expect SUV (or even CUV) to have high clearance and off-road capability as its main distinguishing characteristic from regular cars. The ideal SUVs were trucks without the truck bed, and we can imagine them getting better engineered without losing that core concept even if they get a unibody.

      At this point, it seems that SUV means anything that is not a sedan. The name seems to be applied to minivans-without-sliding-door, hatchbacks, station wagons, and even "coupe" styled sedans at this point. Some of these seem to be just slightly rounded or otherwise plumped up, perhaps with some useless plastic glued around the wheel arches. But they have about the same ground clearance and lower profile tires from the factory than a typical station wagon or sedan from the 1990s.

    8. Re:How is this even a SUV? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      It is a 'Sports Utility Vehicle' not an offroader. OTOH, if you want, you CAN offroad with it, just like you would a toyota highlander or Ford explorer. Of course, neither of those were intended to be offroad either.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re:How is this even a SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fair enough - that sounds pretty reasonable. I don't know that's where the market's gone, but I get it.

    10. Re:How is this even a SUV? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2

      As an aside, it used to be that SUVs were essentially cars built on truck bodies. They were good and sturdy--the sort of thing you wanted when you were off-roading. Of course, they weren't necessarily that safe--trucks don't have to worry about the same safety-standards as passenger cars because they're generally not used that way. Of course, they also handle and ride differently.

      CUVs/crossovers are built on car bodies so they handle and ride more like cars.

    11. Re:How is this even a SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So instead of a sport-ute, it's a cutie?

    12. Re: How is this even a SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think if another car company had thought there would be a large market for a 5 star safety rated $100k+ SUV, they probably could have built one. Tesla doesn't care if the market is large.

    13. Re:How is this even a SUV? by AlanObject · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To most normal people that's not a SUV.

      It isn't an SUV and it isn't a cross-over. It is a mini-van pure and simple.

      • No Offroad capability,
      • No way to carry a load on the top (Kayak, skis, surfboard, etc.)
      • Probably not good for extreme weather.

      OK for soccer moms and stuff but not an SUV.

    14. Re:How is this even a SUV? by DogDude · · Score: 1

      An SUV today is simply a tall sedan. That's exactly what an SUV is. What magic "SUV" criteria do you think "most normal people" are looking for?

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    15. Re:How is this even a SUV? by will_die · · Score: 1

      Tesla does this for other cars of theirs. For instance the Tesla S is sold as a full size luxury sedan. If you compare it to other full size luxury sedans it is not even close to features, size or comfort-ability. However they claim that they are the best selling full sized luxury sedans, which they are. If you take the sedan and do a feature comparison it is a good mid-sized luxury sedan however in the sales in that segment they are not in any top sales.

    16. Re:How is this even a SUV? by will_die · · Score: 1

      In some ways, but compare
      https://services.edmunds-media...
      to
      http://o.aolcdn.com/commerce/a...
      they have a somewhat comparable look but people would not say the first is the same type of car as the second. The Tesla X looks almost the same as the first.

    17. Re: How is this even a SUV? by tempo36 · · Score: 1

      You think Land Rover just didn't make a 5-star safety rated $100k Range Rover because they didn't feel like people wanted the safety rating? They already make the $100k SUV...you think they thought "Hmm. I bet 5-star safety rating would make this a less marketable SUV..."

      Pretty sure they designed the safest car they thought they could while making a car they thought people wanted to buy...and they didn't get the 5-stars. Pretty sure that's the same for every other SUV manufacturer.

    18. Re:How is this even a SUV? by tempo36 · · Score: 1

      It can handle offroad better than most sedans, but not as well as some SUVs. It's in between.

      The top mounted stuff is annoying, I'll grant you that one. But it's also not necessary for people that don't need to haul sports items that are that size.

      Not sure what extreme weather you're thinking of. Yes, range goes down in cold weather...but depends on the range you need.

    19. Re:How is this even a SUV? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      It's like they took a Model S and then stretched it vertically a bit and called it a SUV. (And added FALCON DOORS!!) To most normal people that's not a SUV.

      I love Tesla, but the rationale of the Model X has always been a mystery to me.

      Because SUV is a word without a definition. Most SUV's are just jacked up hatchbacks or wagons with body kits. Almost none of them are suitable to go offroad and most don't even have greater ground clearance than their hatch/wagon counterparts. You can pretty much call anything an SUV as long as you've made it look slightly bigger and a lot uglier.

      There are good reasons us motoring enthusiasts go to great lengths to avoid having proper 4x4's thrown in with SUV's. A 4x4 like a Hilux or Patrol can be taken pretty far off road where as a Mum-Tank SUV like a Kuga or X5 will struggle with a gentle grassy slope.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    20. Re:How is this even a SUV? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Yes - they're mostly marketed towards men though. Men don't want to drive "a minivan", so this entire industry of macho-looking (and less functional!) minivans was created.

      But the Model X is not an SUV, it's a "crossover". Which is just a macho-looking station wagon, of course.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    21. Re:How is this even a SUV? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      An SUV today is simply a tall sedan. That's exactly what an SUV is.

      Actually, it isn't. A tall sedan is merely a crossover utility vehicle. They are actually calling them CUVs now; not just the press, but the automakers' media flacks as well. I don't know that a real body-on-frame design is the cutoff between a CUV and an SUV, but I do know that the model X is only a crossover by at least everyone's definition but Tesla's.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re: How is this even a SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Total nonsense of course. Compared to other full size luxury sedans the model s:
      Is faster
      Seats more people
      Has better user interface
      Costs less to run
      Is quieter
      Has the most advanced autonomous features
      Has the most cargo room (ok I didn't verify this one but with frunk I believe it's true)

      No wonder it's the top seller.

    23. Re:How is this even a SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they have about the same ground clearance and lower profile tires from the factory than a typical station wagon or sedan from the 1990s.

      This was inevitable, IMO. The whole reason the car companies created SUVs in the first place was to get around CAFE standards by changing their station wagons just enough to be classified as 'light trucks' and then re-branding them for marketing, because they'd be damned before they invested a penny more than they absolutely had to in actually improving fleet efficiency in good faith. Decades later, fuel efficiency technology has improved despite their best efforts and now there's no more point to maintaining the charade.

    24. Re: How is this even a SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of what you wrote you is correct. The most glaring ones.

      It has a the Tesla has a lower top speed and worse handling.
      Has the industry's worst autonomous system.
      Has the industry's worst reliability meaning you spend a shit ton of money getting it repaired.

    25. Re:How is this even a SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      came here to say this thankyou. Its got no more ground clearance than the model s, and the same chassi. so why are we supprised its just as hard to roll over?

    26. Re:How is this even a SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My first thought was "Wow, an SUV that isn't an SUV anyway got a five star rollover rating. Yawn."

    27. Re: How is this even a SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're totally missing the point. I just bought a Forester, so I'm well aware of what happened here. My forester if 5 star in everything but rollover, where it gets a 4 star. The Model X, which really isn't even an SUV IMO got the 5 star in rollover too. Not quite so impressive when you put it in blunt terms.

    28. Re:How is this even a SUV? by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 1

      It's like they took a Model S and then stretched it vertically a bit and called it a SUV. (And added FALCON DOORS!!) To most normal people that's not a SUV.

      I love Tesla, but the rationale of the Model X has always been a mystery to me.

      So true. But gota admit I still want it.

      0-60 3.3 sec.

      * drinks more koolaid

      ...

      in a sippy cup b/c it's gona spill at those g's! ... and the kids have sippy cups lying around anyway

      ...

      God I'm old.

    29. Re:How is this even a SUV? by B1700 · · Score: 2

      Can you put a lift kit on it? Noooo. Big gnarly tires? Nooooo. A brush guard? Noooo. Throw a dead deer in the back? Well maybe. It's still not an SUV.

    30. Re:How is this even a SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So interesting. Especially your yawn.

      And what was your second thought? We're all dying to know.

    31. Re:How is this even a SUV? by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

      It's not even a small station wagon, picture looks like a larger hatch back. Looks more like it has a trunk more than it has anything else.

    32. Re:How is this even a SUV? by lgw · · Score: 1

      It's bigger than you think. The model S has the same legroom/interior space as a long wheelbase car, despite its overall length, because the motor takes up so much less room (you can even get a rumple seat). The model X is a reasonably-sized station wagon - like other crossovers, the space in the back is taller vertically and shorter along the central axis than the 70s station wagons.

      If it weren't festooned with silliness like the hawk-wing doors, it would be a very practical car. But sadly, it just silly as is - the doors especially are horrific on a windy, rainy day.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    33. Re:How is this even a SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was called the "X" because "X" is sometimes read as "cross", as in crossover.

    34. Re: How is this even a SUV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Top speed is not what people mean when they say faster, since for driving on the roads, you're not legally allowed to go a car's top speed. He means faster acceleration.

      Granted there have been more repairs than most cars, but they've been building a new brand and kinks need to be worked out. This is exactly why they're covered under warranty for the most part, so it's not actually costing a "shit ton" of money to get these repairs. Usually they come by your house or work, pick up the car, bring it to the service station, repair it, then return it, all before you need it again.

      And your claim to having the worst autonomous system is patently false. It's THE system that the competitors are working towards beating.

    35. Re: How is this even a SUV? by tempo36 · · Score: 1

      How am I missing the point? You think Subaru had a fix that would have moved them from a 4 to 5 star rollover category and just chose to not implement it? The post above said "if another car company had thought there would be [sic] they would have done it." Some SUV got "mostly 5 star" but the X got "all 5 stars." I recognize it's not massively better, but it's still a true statement to say that it's the first to get all 5 stars in all categories. There's no evidence for the implication that another company was able to achieve the same and "just chose not to"

      Nor is the X alone in the category of "SUV that aren't really great Sports Utility Vehicles." Just look at BMWs entire "SAV" lineup...those aren't even rated though I suppose.

  8. Re:Until the battery blows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or the gas tank catches fire.

    The risk of fire isn't ever going to be trivial when you are storing that much potential energy chemically whether in a battery or a fuel

  9. Typical Slashdot Comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No jumped up four wheeled iron doohickey will ever be better than my horse, gadnammit.

  10. Re:Until the battery blows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Electric vehicles in a crash are less fire prone than thin gas hoses/hard lines near hot exhaust headers ...

  11. Why not??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So all the global warming deniers are hating on Tesla. WTF? It's a slick safe car!

    1. Re:Why not??? by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 2

      I'd wager it has something to do with the fact that Teslas are not the boring/slow tree-hugging econoboxes that electric cars are "supposed" to be. Teslas are sexy, fast, luxurious, and prone to turn heads. They prove that you can indeed make a competitive electric vehicle that people want, and will pay for - and they therefore represent a threat to several of the reasons why internal combustion engines currently dominate the market (and most of the remaining ones are potentially in view as well).

      As for myself, despite my love for fast/classic cars, I say great - if I can get speed and performance, then that's what matters to me, not whether I'm using a turbo V6, a naturally aspirated V8, a rotary, or if it's nothing but batteries all the way down. There's also something of an argument that electric/hybrid is actually better even for high end perforance (Seriously, go look at the Porsche 918, the McLaren P1, or the Ferrari The Ferrari). The future isn't something to be scared of - at least as I see it.

    2. Re: Why not??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bingo.
      And when they sell one for under $30k which can go 300 miles on a charge and refuel in 5 minutes, I'll buy one.

    3. Re: Why not??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      refuel in 5 minutes? What a ridiculous requirement. That's 5 minutes that you have to sit next to your gas powered car while it's refilling. The EVs? Sure they take longer to charge up, but you aren't stuck there next to your car the whole time. It's 20 seconds to plug it in, then later, 20 seconds to unplug it.

      In your 5 minutes of filling of gas, you're actually spending more of your own time waiting for it to fill up than you would charging an EV.

  12. Bah, silly toy cars by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    Back in the 1980s, I had a 1973 Mercury Marquis. My brother was driving it once and rear-ended a Honda Accord at about 5 miles an hour - the Marquis had no damage, while the Honda's back end was completely destroyed.

    That Marquis probably could've crushed a Tesla Model X to a singularity without even slowing down.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Bah, silly toy cars by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      I had a '73 LTD, that thing was a tank. Power everything and heated seats... So big, the corners had rubber bumpers because you just couldn't see them.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Bah, silly toy cars by Guspaz · · Score: 2, Informative

      What do you prefer, damage to your car, or damage to yourself? Cars have crumple zones for a reason, and if the car is totally rigid and the frame remains in the same shape after a crash, that means that all of the energy was transferred directly to the passengers.

    3. Re:Bah, silly toy cars by by+(1706743) · · Score: 1

      The real question, then, is what would happen if two Marquis got into a crash...

    4. Re:Bah, silly toy cars by mrun4982 · · Score: 1

      I'd rather my car get totaled while I live to tell the tale. Those old tanks don't do you any good if you die from all that trauma your body experiences because your car doesn't act like a shock absorber.

    5. Re:Bah, silly toy cars by Socguy · · Score: 1

      A car surviving a crash intact is a very bad thing. Crumple zones are there to absorb energy. If a vehicle doesn't crumple, that means it's sending all the energy through to the soft, meaty passengers.

    6. Re:Bah, silly toy cars by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      I had a '73 LTD, that thing was a tank. Power everything and heated seats... So big, the corners had rubber bumpers because you just couldn't see them.

      My Dad swore by and at his LTD station wagons. He loved those things. I'm pretty sure he cried when they stopped making them. They could haul the family, a boat, and even lumber without missing a beat. Fortunately parts were cheap because there was always something breaking down. I definitely learned a lot about car maintenance as a kid.

      I also learned to drive and took my driving test using the LTD. If you could park a LTD station wagon in a city, you could park just about anything.

      They were definitely built like tanks. I once drove my Dad's off the road due to black ice. It took out a small tree and hit a boulder. It took two tow trucks to get it out. All it had was a dent in the car door and the oil pan. Replaced both and it was like nothing had ever happened.

      That being said, I would put it up against my Jeep Grand Cherokee any day....

    7. Re:Bah, silly toy cars by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      With the Marquis, it had so much mass that all the energy got transferred to the other car. ;-)

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    8. Re:Bah, silly toy cars by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      The real question, then, is what would happen if two Marquis got into a crash...

      It would compress reality and destroy the 1/3 of the galaxy around it.

    9. Re:Bah, silly toy cars by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Beginning in 1973 and until 1982, all cars sold in the American market had massive & weird bumpers due to attempts to comply with the "5-mph-no-damage" rule.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    10. Re:Bah, silly toy cars by haruchai · · Score: 1

      The real question, then, is what would happen if two Marquis got into a crash...

      A new universe would be created

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    11. Re:Bah, silly toy cars by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Then surely carrying around 120 kilowatt hours of batteries adds a decent chunk of mass to the vehicle :)

    12. Re:Bah, silly toy cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless the other car is another Marquis, that's it.

    13. Re:Bah, silly toy cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not entirely true.

      Otherwise, if you drove a tank and got hit by a car, according to your reasoning, you would have damage to yourself, since a tank is very rigid and quite sturdy. This is not the case, however.

      A massive, totally rigid and unbendable vehicle is actually very good for the passenger inside, since almost all the energy gets transferred to the OTHER vehicle (and it's passengers), provided it's less massive and less rigid. That's why in a collision between a car and a truck, the truck and its passenger is always better of, nomatter how much crumple zones the car has.

    14. Re:Bah, silly toy cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but if it's a massive, rigid vehicle, it's sending all the energy to the OTHER soft, meaty passengers of the OTHER car.

  13. great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is it for off-road driving?

    1. Re:great by AaronW · · Score: 1

      It's probably pretty good with the right tires. The weight is all down low and it has a massive amount of low-end torque, not to mention very good traction control. It also has a very stiff body. While it may not have as high of clearance as some other cars (though with active suspension it can raise itself), other than that it should do quite well. http://insideevs.com/tesla-mod...

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  14. Re:Until the battery blows by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    True.
    Of course, if you want to lower your chances of fires and explosions when driving, then you go electric. As it is, diesel and esp gasoline are much higher risk of either blowing up, or worse, putting you on fire and just burning you alive.
    With tesla, no explosions, and when the battery catches fire, the car will pull over and tell you to get out.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  15. Here's what I came for by AlanObject · · Score: 0

    So are we going to get a post in this thread about Musk's unworkable technology wet dreams and delusional business model?

    That's what I come for whenever a Tesla article comes up. Makes my day.

    1. Re: Here's what I came for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      50 comments so far and no mention of the
      Criticism you talk about.

      How big of an asshole are you? Seeing as your comment is the last one,'I'm assuming its comment #49. Meaning you saw all the comments and didn't find what you were looking for. So you posted a comment trying to bait people into that convo. That makes you a huge asshole.

      Go sit on a muffler and twirl until your knees get sore you piece of shit.

  16. Re:Until the battery blows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Tell that to Richard Hammond.

  17. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  18. A Press Release???? by Luthair · · Score: 2

    Fucking really?

    1. Re:A Press Release???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least is bast in reality. Testing, not just perception.

    2. Re:A Press Release???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to say "Welcome to Slashdot" but "Welcome to News in America" is probably a better response.

  19. Telsa + SUV = Oxymoron WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    5-star crash rating is lovely for the people inside the SUV but a smaller car hit by that monster is toast. "Telsla" + "SUV" = Oxymoron error: "Reconfigure your CEO and resubmit"

  20. SUVs are stupid by SimonInOz · · Score: 2

    Just last week, I was driving home (in suburban Sydney) when an SUV collided with another vehicle (he jumped a red light, but really wasn't going terribly fast, I doubt he was going over 50kph).

    Result - it rolled. (And slid along the road upside down towards me, but that's another underwear changing story).

    I think everybody should stop driving these huge and dangerous vehicles altogether. Electric or otherwise. Mind you, had it bee a Tesla, with a huge battery set low in the car, it might not have rolled, and instead wiped out the small car it hit.

    --
    "Cats like plain crisps"
    1. Re:SUVs are stupid by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Some families (like mine) don't fit in anything less than a minivan. It is safer for us to risk the "rollover" rather than "lapping it" .

      That said, we usually just rent an minivan for long drives and risk lapping in the city it even though we are more likely to be in an accident in the city. Gas + cost of SUV is just to damn high.

    2. Re: SUVs are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe your family is a bit too big?

  21. That's NOT an SUV by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    I don't care what you say. This is not an SUV. There's nothing utilitarian about it. Until it looks like a pickup truck, can haul 1000-2000 lbs, and go off-road without destroying itself, it's just a car.

    1. Re:That's NOT an SUV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can haul up to 5000 lbs

  22. Re:Until the battery blows by queazocotal · · Score: 1

    Who got out safely, of a supercar, which was designed for lightness, not to be actually safe. If you remove the safety (structural, cooling, crash mitigation) features from the battery, it gets lighter, and your supercar goes faster.

  23. US NCAP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do note that this is the US NCAP, though, which is much less stringent.