Tesla S rated UK's most unreliable car
- Thread starter Chris Wilson
- Start date
So quite a bit cheaper then my car and I imagine a lot of bmw/merc/audi cars. Let alone anything more fancy.
Servicing cost are just one of the things you except when you buy certain cars along with road tax and insurance costs.
Servicing cost are just one of the things you except when you buy certain cars along with road tax and insurance costs.
More expensive than my porsche.
This is an interesting point as I'm the opposite being more aware of the mileage I do and how much charge/range I have. It also helps to promote better driving techniques like being more predictive with traffic to maximise the regen. I do agree that it's very tempting to simply hop in the car and whizz round the corner shop as there's no fuss or warming up and a lot less guilt
The instant torque is also very addictive but range draining so I now like to drive in ECO PRO all the time in my i3 as it dulls the performance so those few times I use the full power brings that smirk back again.
I know it has been said before, but once the big manufacturers properly start concentrating on electric cars... Tesla will be in the history books. In terms of the cars themselves they are hardly that advanced.... sure the motors + batteries are OK but the self driving tech isn't the best on the market, the interiors are complete crap for the price they ask and the build quality is seemingly poor as well
The issue is battery manufacturing capacity. Tesla have gone all in on battery factories with Panasonic with a huge capacity to make batteries for their cars and powerwalls.
When you look at the other long range EV competitors - Jaguar I-Pace, Hyundai Kona etc they’re hugely constrained by battery supply for the next few years.
Nissan-Renault alliance have a fair supply but there’s still a long lead time for their cars and they’re a lot shorter range for now.
I disagree, there is space in the market for both IMO and there are several things wrong in your post.
Their self driving tech is clearly is the best you can get in a car you can buy today.
Their drive train is the best on the market (for an EV). Their old tech in the Model S/X is still better than what Mercedes are putting in the EQC which isn't launching until 2019. The drive train in the Model 3 is next level in terms of both price and performance.
The one thing you are correct on is their interior isn't up to snuff on the S/X. The Model 3 on the other hand is very comparable to other cars in its class.
While cars like the EQC have better interiors they have also some shortcomings as an EV. Its designed to be manufactured on an ICE manufacturing line which compromises the drive train. The front motor is mounted really high up, as is the cooling system. This means it has a huge draggy front grill, huge bonnet and no frunk which is killing its efficiency. It's rumoured to only get 200 miles range (EPA) from an 80KW battery pack which is very poor. Its also a bit sluggish compared to the competition, 110mph max speed and 5 seconds 0-60.
Pretty much everyone is 5 years behind Tesla when it comes to high speed charging infrastructure and the way customers interact with it.
Last edited:
As a counterpoint, if tesla cannot mass produce them/3 and make a profit, then the patience of the investors, purchasers, and US states giving tax breaks will be tried.
If Mercedes can introduce a product, especially into europe, in 2019, that addresses this, it will succeed even if not bleeding edge technologically.
[can't be original, but is there a comparison to make between tesla and delorean?]
If Mercedes can introduce a product, especially into europe, in 2019, that addresses this, it will succeed even if not bleeding edge technologically.
[can't be original, but is there a comparison to make between tesla and delorean?]
While I disagree as well that Tesla will go kaput, their self driving tech is not much better than that seen in BMW, Audi, Volvo and to an extent Nissan - most of who are backed by Mobileye, who Tesla used to use before going in house. Their current in house production is only now getting to the functionality stage available with the Mobileye tech they used a few years ago. There's a lot of talk, but in reality there's really not much in it. Audi for example have Level 3 tech on the market, Tesla are currently only level 2.
The ECQ is predicted to have a 220 mile EPA range (the 200 mile range was from a MB US press release, which was rescinded, Mercedes Germany say is range is 450km NEDC, which is actually more than the Model X), which is pretty much in line with the 237mile Model X 75D, so really not that much in it. This whole "frunk" thing is really pointless as most are only big enough to store a charging cable, it's certainly not something to decide on a car over, unless you're the type of person that would buy an XC40 because you can fit a laptop in the doors...
Top speed is electronically limited, and besides, what's the point unless you use German autobahns regularly? As long as it can accelerate to 90 easily it's not an issue for most drivers. 0-60 is 4.9 seconds, which coincidentally is the same as the 75D - both are slower than the I Pace. Presumably you're not comparing an SUV with a saloon?
That's not to say it's not more inefficient than the Tesla, it appears to be so, but it's not that far off. It would be interesting to see how much the aerodynamics are actually affecting that. Tesla have essentially forsaken design for aerodynamics and thus range, while the other manufacturers appear to be forsaking a little range for design - usually keeping their standard design cues. It's up to customers to decide which they prefer.
Honestly not sure what you mean by an "ICE manufacturing line". There retooling a factory yes, but it's not like the design is based on the factory it's being built in. The chassis and panels are different so tooling will be designed from scratch anyway, like any other vehicle. As far as I'm aware the platform itself is built specifically for BEVs.
The charging infrastructure is right, but I think considering the huge amount of money being put in by the established manufacturers the supercharger network is going to look sub par in just a few years. Obviously not something to put significant weight into buying an EV now, but certainly something to think about.*
* VW and Ionity plan to have 400 locations in Europe by 2020, and VW through Electrify America are investing billions (in part because of dieselgate) into chargers in the US where they are planning on installing close to 1000 charging locations a year (with multiple chargers at each) - a significant amount of those being 350kw. They've already installed about 40, and are working on several hundred more, with around 900 done by the middle of next year. To put that into perspective Tesla have around 900 supercharging locations in the US. They're also doing a much smaller rollout in Canada, but will likely equal the number of superchargers by 2020ish (I.e. 18 months). All the systems are using CCS which means that just about eve EV except Tesla can use them. Hopefully the Ionity and Electrify Canada systems will expand faster as time goes on.
The timing could be interesting. The EQC may well come onto the market in Europe prior to the launch of the Model 3. Although the EV market is broadening now so there may not be direct comparisons between the two considering they are in different segments. That said it's unlikely to affect sales of the Model 3 as at max MB will probably only be building low 10s of thousands in 2019.
At a guess the combined sales (constrained by production) of the I Pace, EQC and E-Tron next year may well eclipse that of the Model X (although they might not as at least two will only have half a years sales max). It'll be interesting to see how much a dent in sales of the X and S they cause too. The market may be big enough for all, especially if the established manufacturers just convert their existing manufacturers from their ICE models to the EV models, but considering the segments they sit in and the price points they're expected to be in (around £10-20k less than the X) there may be some issues.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,085
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
the EQC is clearly a tactical car due to IPACE and e-tron. You can see that how it fits to existing platform in a very similar manner to an engine and takes no benefit of EV potential proportions to the design. They are playing it relatively safe to allow flexibility in the mix of ICE or BEV.
Amp, not sure what you mean about comparing 0-60 for the SUV to a saloon. All are SUV.
Amp, not sure what you mean about comparing 0-60 for the SUV to a saloon. All are SUV.
saw this on the telegraph, seemed stupid. aside from the 28/18000 as mentioned, the report said Tesla scored 51% fails and the Evoque 71%, so i don't get how the Tesla is the worst. But, it's a bit immaterial as i think the whole survey, based on those kind of returns, is a waste of reading.
Jonnycoupe is spot on here, it's as much as a 'us too' car to take on Tesla as it is Jaguar, Audi and Porsche. But lets be realistic, its going to be pretty low volume.
Again Jonnycoupe is spot on about my point on the design of the car, the front motor drops in exactly like an engine and so it can be manufactured using an ICE line (Mercedes said this in their launch, much like the way the Leaf, Kona and Nero are made). You can really tell its a modified ICE chassis because it still has a transmission tunnel down the middle of the cabin. The main problem with doing this is you compromise the design of the car which makes it a worse EV. You lose the 'cab forward' design that Tesla and the Ipace uses which make the car much more efficient, the huge air intake on the front of the car creates a huge amount of drag. You can get away with it in a small car like the Leaf or Kona but not on a big SUV.
You say the efficiency is not that much worse than the Tesla, but it really is. Even at 220 miles from 80kw puts it about 15% less efficient than the larger 7 seat Tesla. That's pretty significant and will really play out at motorway speeds which will tank its efficiency further, as we know air resistance squares with speed. If the Model X had an 80kw pack it would be good for 252.8 miles. There is a reason they are quoting NEDC range, when the car is released it can only get a WLTP rating in Europe, I suspect its to flatter its below par efficiency in real world driving. I also believe that quoted 200 figure is an accurate real world figure, it sounds about right if the NEDC range is 280 miles. Why else would it have been there?
Don't get me wrong, it will be a good car and a far nicer place to be than a Model X but it clearly has some shortcomings as an EV compared to its competitors and it isn't launching until last 2019/2020. The Model S/X refresh is dropping around the same time, it will be interesting times for sure.
as you remind us, it is an SUV, and will also appeal to a different market than Tesla too - families ??
Re-using the existing chassis line you have a validated technology(glues etc) with economy of scale, and Mercedes will be able to make a bigger margin than tesla.
In the predominately urban environment the aerodynamics will matter less too.
I could not find the regulation (thought it involved 50cm) , but thought that the front profiles were driven by passive pedestrian collision requirements, and in that respect isn't the more wedgey tesla shape less sympathetic ? (taking their legs away)
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,085
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
Mercedes are all over the place with their range claims presently.
Also to the nose stuff, There’s a lot to do with pedestrian which doesn’t apply to American markets, currently the flex pli leg is used so you have to play all sorts of games to introduce leg rotation to minimise lower leg bending, knee shear and even predicted ACL strain in the knee. Of course the height of the car makes a big difference in terms of where pedestrians strike and where they “wrap” over the bonnet for head impact.
Also to the nose stuff, There’s a lot to do with pedestrian which doesn’t apply to American markets, currently the flex pli leg is used so you have to play all sorts of games to introduce leg rotation to minimise lower leg bending, knee shear and even predicted ACL strain in the knee. Of course the height of the car makes a big difference in terms of where pedestrians strike and where they “wrap” over the bonnet for head impact.
I now see regulation - tesla S does poorer on the blackly named pedetsrian ncap head score - pop-ups
so not an ultruistic purchase ?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,247
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
Based on other surveys weightings are given to the collected data, with a large weighting applied to cost to repair, a Tesla costs a fortune to fix therefore offers poor reliability, a Kia which may go wrong twice as much costs 10p to fix therefore is better.
Based on family experience of two Model S's they have been mechanically excellent and the dealer service has been top notch.
- Aside -
maybe others said this .. but who reads the Telegraph behind its targetted advertising/social-media membership wall ?
if the innumerate Telegraph cannot evaluate the statistical significance of surveys then shame on them - the proverbial fake-news,
maybe they wil be able to spot when their circulation numbers admit them to the annals of history.
[ BTW why do they pay Boris for his junk ... let him post it on his twitter thread like Trump ]
maybe others said this .. but who reads the Telegraph behind its targetted advertising/social-media membership wall ?
if the innumerate Telegraph cannot evaluate the statistical significance of surveys then shame on them - the proverbial fake-news,
maybe they wil be able to spot when their circulation numbers admit them to the annals of history.
[ BTW why do they pay Boris for his junk ... let him post it on his twitter thread like Trump ]
I agree, it's meant to compete directly with the I Pace and E-Tron, probably the Model Y when it's released in a few years too. The closest competitor in Teslas armoury now however is the X.
As far as I'm aware the EQ platform is a new platform, however perhaps the EQC isn't on the complete new platform? They may well be using a more modular platform for this one though to save money, it's not a bad idea for their first proper EV, outside of the Smart line.
And regarding the saloon/SUV comment. I mentioned that because he mentions it being a bit sluggish compared to the competition - it's a comment I've seen in a few locations over the last few days, with most comparing it to the Model S - which obviously, being a saloon is faster and more efficient. Compared to the X it's got the same acceleration, same with the E-Tron. The I Pace is 0.4 seconds slower, so "sluggish" really isn't a term I'd use.
I think the jury is still out on the specific locations of components and which design is better. It's been 100 years and some ICE manufacturers still use different engine placements. Yes, Tesla have gone for the skateboard model, allowing the cab to push forward, with a very defined knock on effect to the exterior design, BUT that's not to say that's actually the most efficient way of doing it. The most efficient EV saloon is actually the Hyundai IONIQ, which has the more traditional components in the "engine" compartment - it doesn't seem to have an issue with efficiency because of it. If you want a more traditional looking vehicle then you're going to have the cab further back anyway, meaning you've got space in the front...
I'm sure over the next 10-20 years there will be lots of combinations and designs for where to put powertrains, motors and batteries, as well as design ideas with the greater freedom removing a large single component from the mix can give. Perhaps they'll all end up like the Tesla designs, with more cab forward designs, perhaps it'll depend on the specific style of vehicle the manufacturer is going for.
Putting efficiency into ICE terms thats 35mpg instead of 40mpg. I may be the only one here but I wouldn't pick a car based on just those figures if the overall range was very similar. With the price of electricity being even cheaper than Petrol it's even less of a cost issue. That's no to say it shouldn't be more efficient.
To get back to the point I was making with that observation however - that the "inefficient" aerodynamic design (to fit in with the rest of their range, which is what is needed to sell EV's to consumers, not just early adopters - it's also a much more traditional SUV shape, rather than the revised hatchback/saloon styles of the I Pace and the X) is probably causing a significant amount of that efficiency loss, so the underlying drivetrain may not be far off the Teslas. We don't know as you can't really separate the two losses without a significant amount of maths. As I said before, Tesla are ahead, but not as much as you think IMO. They're in the same ballpark, which is all that's really needed to allow people to decide on a vehicle based on other more subjective features (like the interior you mention).
As for range, you could be right, you could be wrong. All we know so far is that the 200 mile range was in a press release by Mercedes US, and almost immediately rescinded. The only official range is 450km NEDC. To put that into perspective the I Pace has an NEDC range of 480km (240 miles eat EPA) and the Model X 75D has an NEDC range of 417km (237). Until it's actually tested we won't know much more that that.
The biggest issue to me is actually something we haven't mentioned yet - charging speed. It's a bit slow, especially compared to the 150kWh E-Tron and even more so compared to the Taycan with it's 350kWh charging capacity. Perhaps that's something they can work on for the mid life refresh presumably some time in 2022/23, just in time to update from the Model Y (if/when it's released).
Last edited: