Is Tesla's Model S truly the best car in the world?

[russ_watters]

Or, just almost perfect? 99 out of 100? I know this isn't a claim by Tesla, just a review, but (The review itself isn't available without a subscription.):

Consumer Reports, self-promoted as the largest independent consumer-testing organization in the world, recently subjected Tesla's all-electric vehicle to its standard gamut of automotive tests. The results were nothing short of extraordinary, as the model came just one point short of acing the 50-test evaluation regimen. Its final score of 99 out of 100 meant the Model S "performed better than any other car we've ever tested," said Jake Fisher, director of auto testing at the publication (Lexus owners will correctly argue that the 2007 Lexus LS 460L also earned a score of 99 in a Consumer Reports comparison years ago).

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/15/opinion/harley-tesla-best/index.html

A synopses is here: http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/09/autos/tesla-model-s-consumer-reports/index.html

1. Obvious: If it is only tied for highest score, why say it was the best and give it an almost perfect score? Sounds like something a used car salesman would say to you.
2. Best/perfect versus what/with what criteria? This is the bigger issue:

I don't doubt that the Model S is an awesome car, but to be just short of perfect, I can't see how it is being measured against anything but itself. Because different types of cars have different purposes, I would think it should probably be versus other cars in its type. Because clearly the Model S doesn't have the best - much less perfect - towing capacity, acceleration, range, cornering or kitchen.

If you rank it against other sedans, it has some clear and serious flaws; the normal flaws that all electric cars have: range, charging time, charging station availability, cost (value), performance in adverse weather, etc.

I suppose you could rank it soley against other electrics and call it the best, but near perfect? I think it has a little ways to go just in terms of usability due to the lack of charging stations and time it take to charge -- and I think that should matter.

And these are just the obvious/inherent flaws of electrics. I have a hard time believing everything else about it is perfect -- but as said I haven't seen the review itself yet.

Moreover, since it is a new car, there is no data on reliability/longevity/service cost, nor has it been crash tested (!). At best it should get an incomplete on that score.

More from the USA Today opinion:

No car currently manufactured deserves the coveted best car trophy, and that includes Consumer Reports' 99-point Tesla Model S. Personal transportation needs are uniquely individual, based on occupation, regional location, household size, income and, of course, taste. Giving a vehicle a near-perfect score is acceptable — and there will undoubtedly be others just as impressive — but assuming that one vehicle trumps others and satisfies all equally is misguided and presumptuous.

To those who consider the Model S the world's best car, I throw out this question: What's the world's best shoe?

What are they thinking? Is this a publicity ploy by Consumer Reports? They are supposed to be above those types of games.

 

[Algr]

I've lost some respect for Consumer Reports after the antenagate 'scandal'. They are ranking the Tesla in comparison to other luxury sports cars. People that rich fly planes, rather then driving cross country, so the range issue is likely not a concern for them.

Im surprised that they don't make gas generator trailers for electric cars. If you decide you are going to drive 300 miles somewhere, you'd just rent one and let it charge your battery while you drive. You wouldn't need it for ordinary city driving, so most people would use one once or twice a year at most. This would make the car more efficient then a hybrid because you wouldn't be carrying the weight of a gas engine and fuel unless you needed them.

 

[jim hardy]

I've lost some respect for Consumer Reports after the antenagate 'scandal'. They are ranking the Tesla in comparison to other luxury sports cars. People that rich fly planes, rather then driving cross country, so the range issue is likely not a concern for them.

Im surprised that they don't make gas generator trailers for electric cars. If you decide you are going to drive 300 miles somewhere, you'd just rent one and let it charge your battery while you drive. You wouldn't need it for ordinary city driving, so most people would use one once or twice a year at most. This would make the car more efficient then a hybrid because you wouldn't be carrying the weight of a gas engine and fuel unless you needed them.

I'm waiting for cheap mass produced fuel cells to replace those awful pyrotechnic batteries.

Military Applications
The development work on metal-air fuel cells in general and the aluminum-air system in particular dates back some 25 years. The driving force was the need for reliable, lightweight power sources for military and space applications, where the weight or limited shelf life of traditional batteries would be unacceptable. Aluminum was a desirable choice for the metal "fuel" since it was lightweight, has a very high energy density, and is recyclable. As a result, successful although expensive fuel cells were designed and constructed. Power system for underwater exploration were developed which delivered ten times more power than the nickel-cadmium batteries it replaced, and also substantially reduced the time taken to recharge a vehicle. Another high performance application was for the Special Forces, in which the battery with a shelf life of greater than 10 years is wrapped in a watertight wrap for shipment and storage, and then activated by the addition of water when the power is required. A company called Fuel Cell Technologies Ltd. in Canada supplied these applications.

http://aluminum.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=15793

That's almost as cool as Doc Brown's "Mr Fusion" on back of his Delorean.

pic courtesy of http://www.popcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/mrfusion-500x375.jpg

 

[mheslep]

...
2. Best/perfect versus what/with what criteria? This is the bigger issue:

I don't doubt that the Model S is an awesome car, but to be just short of perfect, I can't see how it is being measured against anything but itself. Because different types of cars have different purposes, I would think it should probably be versus other cars in its type. Because clearly the Model S doesn't have the best - much less perfect - towing capacity, acceleration, range, cornering or kitchen.

If you rank it against other sedans, it has some clear and serious flaws; the normal flaws that all electric cars have: range, charging time, charging station availability, cost (value), performance in adverse weather, etc.

Based on the last time I signed up for CR reviews for cars, yes they rank against other vehicles in class. This time I think they throw the Tesla S in luxury sedans. The near perfect score means only that it scores very, very well on the list of items CR has traditionally chose to rank against - not everything imaginable. From the sample page available the standard set includes items like

• Owner Satisfaction
• Crash protection with side air bag
• Fuel economy
• Acceleration
• Ride
• Front seat comfort

etc. I could easily see the vehicle out performing the competition in those areas, with some attention. Nothing in the luxury sedan class is going to beat an electric drive train for acceleration off the line.

Moreover, since it is a new car, there is no data on reliability/longevity/service cost,

True, that's the case for all first year models CR rates, and IIRC they simply "N/A" the reliability category for all first year models. I'll speculate that the Model S reliability eventually comes in extremely high compared to its combustion engine based brethren with their vastly larger number of moving parts - belts, exhaust system, oil/air/fuel filters, fluid replacement, friction brakes, etc, etc.

nor has it been crash tested (!). ...

Yes it has - all road vehicles sold in the US require crash tests at independent labs, or so I gathered from my brief stent in testing some gear at one lab so certified. To my knowledge CR never does its own.

 

[jtbell]

Moreover, since it is a new car, there is no data on reliability/longevity/service cost, nor has it been crash tested (!). At best it should get an incomplete on that score.

CR's numerical scores do not take reliablilty into account. They do that by applying a "Recommended" tag (with a checkmark in their ratings tables) to cars that both score high and have demonstrated good reliability. I think they wait until they have at least a year's worth of repair data, based on their annual surveys.

I can't lay my hands on the issue that has the Tesla report, but I remember them saying for other cars in the past, in effect: "this car scores well, but we're not recommending it yet because it's too new and we don't have repair data."

 

[Redbelly98]

I'll just make a general comment about calling it "near perfect". A 99 or 100 does not indicate something is (near) perfect, it indicates that the test was designed to rate substantially lesser cars.

 

[AlephZero]

I'll speculate that the Model S reliability eventually comes in extremely high compared to its combustion engine based brethren with their vastly larger number of moving parts - belts, exhaust system, oil/air/fuel filters, fluid replacement, friction brakes, etc, etc.

They had product recalls in both 2009 and 2010. (But hey, they only recalled a few hundred vehicles, cmpared with millions from other car makers, so they are obviously doing better than average )

But I don't really see the purpose of a review in a mass-market consumer publication, except as "free" brand awareness advertising for Tesla.

I would guess some of their 2,600 sales last year were to people who have no interest in using them to meet their transporation needs, any more than people buy $10,000 mechanical watches so they can know what time it is.

But if GM and Nissan are trying to market electric cars as transportation devices, and Tesla are marketing them as status symbols, that might explain why Tesla outsold both GM and Nissan in the first quarter of 2013.

 

[mheslep]

They had product recalls in both 2009 and 2010. (But hey, they only recalled a few hundred vehicles, cmpared with millions from other car makers, so they are obviously doing better than average )

Not of the Model S. Those were the Roadsters, the first vehicle they ever made - in quantities of hundreds back then. Also, though recalls are important, they are more about systematic design defects, which is really not the same thing as reliability issues.

But I don't really see the purpose of a review in a mass-market consumer publication, except as "free" brand awareness advertising for Tesla.

CR reviews all kinds of luxury vehicles with relatively low sales, has for years. The Model S is currently outselling some of them.

I would guess some of their 2,600 sales last year were to people who have no interest in using them to meet their transportation needs, any more than people buy $10,000 mechanical watches so they can know what time it is.

But if GM and Nissan are trying to market electric cars as transportation devices, and Tesla are marketing them as status symbols, that might explain why Tesla outsold both GM and Nissan in the first quarter of 2013.

Perhaps, but now CR has provided rationale beyond that of status symbol. They rank many basic functions of any vehicle (e.g. the ride, front seat comfort, etc), and according to CR the Model S excels in them, at least more so than other vehicles in class (luxury sedan). A superior ranking in such classes might be easier to obtain in EVs, given the engineering opportunities opened up by elimination of the drive train forcing functions of combustion vehicles: tyranny of the long drive shaft, greater volume of the combustion engine (per unit power) plus all of its peripheral heat rejection items which eat into passenger space, vibration and noise (important in luxury vehicles), etc.

So to address the OP: the CR review of Model S does nothing to eliminate the well know drawbacks of electric vehicles, but does provide more advantages to weigh against them in the case of the Model S.

 

[russ_watters]

I'll just make a general comment about calling it "near perfect". A 99 or 100 does not indicate something is (near) perfect, it indicates that the test was designed to rate substantially lesser cars.

Setting aside a minor quibble about the definition of "perfect", I think I agree with you and that's my main complaint: That's "substantially lesser cars" as scored by their rating system, which does not take into account many attributes I think most people would consider important to making the determination. Ie, my "substantially lesser car" goes about twice as far without refueling and refuels in a fraction of the time. For my car, that's average, for the Model S, I think a lot of people would consider that a substantial shortcoming.

Just to make sure I'm not misunderstood here, I want to make sure people are aware that I'm not saying the Model S is a bad car. In fact, if it is even 3/4 as good as they say it is, it is a truly astounding achievement. My criticism here is for Consumer Reports only.

 

[OmCheeto]

... My criticism here is for Consumer Reports only.

Shall we criticize the people buying them too?

Although my posts might indicate I'm an electric purist, I can assure you, that I am far from it.

But the people who can afford these cars, I'm sure, can afford long range gassies*.

ps. My criteria for a new car were that it ran, had 4 tires and a trailer hitch.

------------------------
* Yes, I did just make up that word...
I was just trying to imagine what pejorative term people 50 years from now will call ICE powered vehicles. :tongue2:

 

[russ_watters]

Shall we criticize the people buying them too?

No, why would I? It isn't surprising that the initial sales are brisk. We'll have to wait and see what sales will be like after the novelty expires though.

gassies*.

------------------------
* Yes, I did just make up that word...
I was just trying to imagine what pejorative term people 50 years from now will call ICE powered vehicles. :tongue2:

I like it.

 

[OmCheeto]

No, why would I? It isn't surprising that the initial sales are brisk. We'll have to wait and see what sales will be like after the novelty expires though.
I like it.

Don't try and get on my good side.

I'm older.

 

[Redbelly98]

If you're single and a single-car owner, it's likely you need that one car to have the range for long trips.

If you or your family have two or more cars, one of them can be highly efficient at the expense of a shorter range. Meanwhile you also have a standard gas-powered car for the longer drives.

 

[jim hardy]

Tesla was brilliant to enter this into luxury car market.

I drive $2000 cars because they last me half as long as $20,000 cars.
An electric that's only good for local use and needs a $5,000 battery every few years doesn't make sense to me.
But a lot of people will pay $70,000 for one as a status symbol or curio.
If I had that kind of disposable income I'd buy electric utility stock .

 

[collinsmark]

If you're single and a single-car owner, it's likely you need that one car to have the range for long trips.

Or one could get an extended range electric such as the Chevy Volt or Cadillac ELR.
http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car.html
http://www.cadillac.com/future-cars/elr-electric-car.html

But those who can afford a Tesla likely can likely also afford airplane tickets. Long range driving isn't the primary concern for a Tesla driver. That said, Tesla has set up a network of fast, DC charging stations that allow road trips from Los Angeles to San Francisco. A fast, DC charge gives about 150 miles per half hour of charging.
http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger
[Edit: Oh, and charges are free, too.]

City driving is where the advantages of electric cars really shine through. The instantaneous, high torque (equates to terrific acceleration at lower speeds) and ultra quiet are an incredible experience. You have to drive a modern electric to really appreciate it. I imagine that with the Tesla Model S, it's like a Rolls Royce packaged up like a sports car. That's probably what the Consumer Reports article was getting at.

I know a couple of people who own Tesla Model S cars. And they do have some unmentioned disadvantages even for electrics. Based on some anecdotal observations, the Tesla Model S doesn't seem to be as electrically efficient (km per kWh) as my Volt. The Tesla has a bigger battery to haul, but my Volt has an internal combustion engine it's lugging around, so I don't think weight/mass is the only reason. Maybe it's the Tesla Model S's 317 to 443 lb·ft (430 - 600 N·m) of torque, and their driving styles. If I had that much torque I bet I'd drive pretty heavy-footed too.

 

[mheslep]

...needs a $5,000 battery every few years ...

That's the certainly part of the negative hype. Can you point to any data to firm up that assertion?

 

[dlgoff]

“The battery pack could be used during a quite reasonable period of time ranging from 5 to 20 years depending on many factors,” said Mikael G. Cugnet, Ph.D., who spoke on the topic. “That’s good news when you consider that some estimates put the average life expectancy of a new car at about eight years.”

"...Presented at a meeting of the American Chemical Society."

http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_ARTICLEMAIN&node_id=222&content_id=CNBP_032579&use_sec=true&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=da7ef387-505e-4a40-9803-1339fb490d47

 

[mheslep]

...

I know a couple of people who own Tesla Model S cars. And they do have some unmentioned disadvantages even for electrics. Based on some anecdotal observations, the Tesla Model S doesn't seem to be as electrically efficient (km per kWh) as my Volt.

Interestingly the EPA lists the Volt and Model S 60kWh as having the same electrical efficiency: 2.86 kWh per mile; the 80 kWh model is slightly lower.

The reported specs from Tesla are http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric/efficiency. Maybe that number assumes optimal temperature and driving style.

The Tesla has a bigger battery to haul, but my Volt has an internal combustion engine it's lugging around, so I don't think weight/mass is the only reason. ...

The Model S battery chemistry has a little higher energy density. The Model S curb weight is 23% higher than the Volt, but then Model S is a larger vehicle: 11% longer, 10% wider.

 

[mheslep]

"...Presented at a meeting of the American Chemical Society."

http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_ARTICLEMAIN&node_id=222&content_id=CNBP_032579&use_sec=true&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=da7ef387-505e-4a40-9803-1339fb490d47

Specifically:

Cugnet explained that the lifespan depends mainly on the battery’s temperature, state of charge and charge protocol.

That's always been my understanding. So EVs with little or no battery thermal management, like the Nissan Leaf, may be expected to be on the low side of the above estimate. Tesla and the Volt both to temperature management of the battery. The Volt specifically limits the amount of charge depletion allowed in its relatively small 16 kWh battery.

 

[OmCheeto]

Specifically:


That's always been my understanding. So EVs with little or no battery thermal management, like the Nissan Leaf, may be expected to be on the low side of the above estimate. Tesla and the Volt both to temperature management of the battery. The Volt specifically limits the amount of charge depletion allowed in its relatively small 16 kWh battery.

Temperature management is one of the items they discuss at ChargeCar.

From my data:

Note: This data is obtained from our electric car power model and based on a capacitor of 50 Wh in a naive buffer system.
Battery Duty Savings With Capacitor: 28.3%
Heat Savings With Capacitor: 24.39%
Peak Battery Temperature Without Capacitor: 64° F
Peak Battery Temperature With Capacitor: 58° F

...

Outside Temperature: 38° F

Though I believe ChargeCar bases everything on Lead batteries, it would be interesting to see if this can be done with the Lithium batteries.

From dlgoff's link:

Battery performance begins to suffer as soon as the temperature climbs above 86 degrees Fahrenheit. “The higher the temperature, the lower the battery service life,” he said. “A temperature above 86 degrees F affects the battery pack performance instantly and even permanently if it lasts many months like in Middle East countries.”

 

[cjl]

Shall we criticize the people buying them too?

Although my posts might indicate I'm an electric purist, I can assure you, that I am far from it.

But the people who can afford these cars, I'm sure, can afford long range gassies*.

ps. My criteria for a new car were that it ran, had 4 tires and a trailer hitch.

------------------------
* Yes, I did just make up that word...
I was just trying to imagine what pejorative term people 50 years from now will call ICE powered vehicles. :tongue2:

Why compare it to the 7 series and the A8? I'd say that by size (and price point), the 5 series and the A6/S6 are a more valid comparison (and would probably be a bit less favorable to the Tesla)

 

[OmCheeto]

Why compare it to the 7 series and the A8? I'd say that by size (and price point), the 5 series and the A6/S6 are a more valid comparison (and would probably be a bit less favorable to the Tesla)

I drive a truck. A gas truck. I didn't generate the graph. CNN generated the graph. Ask them. Ask the people who bought Tesla S's.

And to Maya's quote, I can only add; "When it makes economic sense".

-------------------
I'm still broke. Gainfully employed, but completely broke.

 

[jim hardy]

That's the certainly part of the negative hype. Can you point to any data to firm up that assertion?

sorry i didnt notice sooner...

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...n-leafs-need-costly-battery-replacements-soon

Could the lithium-ion battery pack in the Nissan Leaf suffer old age before you’re ready to dispose of your electric vehicle? Reports suggest high-mileage Leafs can experience a noticeable drop in battery capacity in the first year or so of ownership, which means decreased driving range — and owner satisfaction — in following years

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304432704577350052534072994

One of the auto industry's most closely guarded secrets—the enormous cost of batteries for electric cars—has spilled out.

Speaking at a forum on green technology on Monday, Ford Motor Co. f +0.81% Chief Executive Alan Mulally indicated battery packs for the company's Focus electric car costs between $12,000 and $15,000

http://www.plugincars.com/replacing-ev-batteries-your-costs-will-vary-122261.html

And how much will the LEAF pack cost to replace, if the whole thing does go bad? We’ve seen company cost estimates of between $9,000 and $18,000, but that’s for very early packs. Technical improvements and economies of scale should bring that down.

 

[mheslep]

Yes I'm aware of those aspects. The Leaf in particular has reports of short battery life as it has no serious temp control. Yes when these EVs came out 25 kWh or 100 min worth of battery cost some $12k.

But this thread (and your comment?) is about the S. I don't think $5k every few yrs holds up.

 

[jim hardy]

But this thread (and your comment?) is about the S. I don't think $5k every few yrs holds up.

mea culpa, my estimate of battery life came from a Ford dealer shortly after hybrid Escapes hit the market.

I guess time will tell. I see Tesla offers an eight year battery warranty... do you know of anyone who's driven an electric for more than a couple years? How's it doing?

http://www.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/real-long-term-cost-vs-battery-life

Real Long Term Cost vs. Battery life
dortor | February 12, 2013

let me start by saying two things:

a) I am very very excited to received my Tesla Model S
b) despite the questions below - I have placed my own money on this car…

Question and thoughts center around the longevity of the battery (a question no one can answer) and cost of replacement

1. we know the cost to replace an 85 kwh battery is ~$12,000
2. we know the warranty is 8 years/unlimited mileage
3. we know batteries maximum charge degrade over time
4. eventually it will be worth while to replace the battery to get back to the vehicle's original capabilities

therefore I believe we have the consider the cost of the battery replacement in the annual cost to "fuel" the vehicle and if you do this the cost to run the car per-mile vs. an ICE car by tesla's own numbers is not very favorable

Assumptions: 15,000 miles year, ICE 22 MPG, gas = $3.80 gallon, kwh's = $0.11/kwh

by Tesla's own numbers @ http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric#savings
ICE Car = $2591 year in fuel cost $0.17 per-mile in fuel
Model S = $467 year in fuel cost $0.03 per-mile in fuel

that is until you figure in the cost of replacing the fuel tank at the end of an 8 year life span (the battery) - for which you have to budget $1500 year - making the cost of the Tesla's fuel system $1967/year or $0.13 per-mile in fuel…

now I know there are other costs the ICE car has - but for purposes of this thought exercise let's focus on the "fuel" system cost and treat the battery as the moral equivalent of the "fuel tank". Which in an ICE car doesn't shrink, or need to be replaced in 8 years.

Even a 16 year replacement is $750/year in "fuel" cost to the battery…that still seems to be far less of an advantage than most people would initially consider?

Are there estimates of what the maximum charge of an 85 kwh battery will be in 8 years? What % a year will we as customer lose? How much will my fuel tank shrink each year?

I'm thinking I would replace the battery after it loses 20-25% (300 miles - 75 miles of loss = 225 miles of range - time to swap batteries) of it's maximum range, and if that happens in less than 8 years my fuel-system costs now approach the cost of driving an ICE vehicle…

I'm still excited to get my car, and I'm committed to the success of EV's - but I'm still having trouble with the actual economic benefits when the total life cycle cost is considered - in this case the full costs given the battery replacement cost amortized into the car seem to dramatically change the cost curves.

thoughts, comments, if it takes 20 years to lose 10% capacity then we're good, however if it's more like 20% in 6 years I think the battery cost make the car more expensive to drive.

Battery costs should come down with economy of scale.

 

[mheslep]

Battery costs should come down with economy of scale.

We're about to see. Tesla is now officially going to build that $5B battery factory they've been talking about for so long, which will double the world production of Li Ion batteries. The idea is to supply their planned cheap(er) EV in 2017 w/ a 200 mi range (~67 kWh), to sell for $35K. The current battery price is supposedly $500/kWh ($34K), a non-starter, but Tesla claims they can achieve $200/kWH ($13K) which makes the target all-in vehicle price plausible.