Model S First Drive Reviews

[Zextraterrestrial]

How high off the ground is the Audi A7 CG?
is it better than the 16" of the S? maybe I should get one of those instead :tongue:

(and where did that 16 # come from, sorry I don't have the reference and can't find Audi's #)

 

[spatterso911]

Not very informative as an article...I agree with the commenters of the article, his politics seemed to weigh in more than the actual story about the car.

 

[mnx]

Not very informative as an article...I agree with the commenters of the article, his politics seemed to weigh in more than the actual story about the car.

The automobile magazine review was almost as good as the jalopnik one. lol

 

[dtich]

i've been worried it's too wide for my garage! it's like 6" wider than my X5!! i keep checking the dims on the specs page to see if they change!!! LOL.

 

[dtich]

what an obnoxious tone he has in that article... unwarranted i'd say. brat.

 

[vfx]

2013 Tesla Model S - Status Update - Automobile Magazine

So much hate before even arriving at the factory.

heavily subsidized Tesla Motors

the nattily dressed design chief Franz von Holzhausen said

So if anyone does have the heebie-jeebies, it's not over styling but the the half-billion dollars in federal loans, state tax breaks, and bargain-priced factory space that Tesla has obtained. This is particularly true given the fact that Solyndra, the bankrupt solar-energy company that got even more DOE money, is found just two miles away.

what Tesla is doing is very expensive as well as being slightly impudent,

a retail strategy that lands somewhere between the Hare Krishnas' panhandling in airports and the Snap-on ​

truck

heading for a bachelor party.

Starry-eyed at the prospect of being the first Model S owners in their chapters of the Sierra Club,

Will the Model S do anything to change the perception that electric cars are playthings for slimousine liberals

A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool," William Shakespeare wrote. On which side would Musk place himself?​

The nothing to do with cars and everything about Ronald's politics. Why would Automobile magazine allow this?

​

But further impressions of this formidable ​

automobile

can only be returned after a longer test.

​

Good luck with that...

​

 

[bonnie]

Contact the editor: Contact Automobile Magazine - Customer Service for Automobile Magazine


(They are in Ann Arbor, Michigan ... a stone's throw from Detroit. Just sayin'.)

 

[vfx]

Contact the editor: Contact Automobile Magazine - Customer Service for Automobile Magazine...

Done!

 

[Arnold Panz]

Another review
2012 Tesla Model S First Drive and Video

This Edmunds review is tough but fair. I might disagree with him on the looks of the car and the use of Mercedes parts in the interior, but those are obviously subjective measures. Unlike Automobile magazine, which clearly had an agenda to hate the car, Edmunds' reviewer says he has to reserve judgment until they get to drive it at length, but first impressions are overall quite favorable.

 

[medved]

So much hate before even arriving at the factory.

The nothing to do with cars and everything about Ronald's politics. Why would Automobile magazine allow this?




Good luck with that...

​

It would be interesting to know who owns and funds the magazine. Or who paid the writer for the article.

 

[Tommy]

This Edmunds review is tough but fair. I might disagree with him on the looks of the car and the use of Mercedes parts in the interior, but those are obviously subjective measures. Unlike Automobile magazine, which clearly had an agenda to hate the car, Edmunds' reviewer says he has to reserve judgment until they get to drive it at length, but first impressions are overall quite favorable.

I thought it well balanced also; got some facts wrong in the article but nothing glaring. I read two articles now about a small but perceptible wind noise coming from the pillar area. I can't help but wonder if it is not from the mini camera the reporters have mounted on the outside front of the car and not from the car itself. I am confident Tesla is reading the reviews as well and will address any legitimate criticisms.

 

[Trnsl8r]

This Edmunds review is tough but fair. I might disagree with him on the looks of the car and the use of Mercedes parts in the interior, but those are obviously subjective measures. Unlike Automobile magazine, which clearly had an agenda to hate the car, Edmunds' reviewer says he has to reserve judgment until they get to drive it at length, but first impressions are overall quite favorable.

Agree with that, seemed fair and balanced without an agenda to me.

 

[Zextraterrestrial]

It would be interesting to know who owns and funds the magazine. Or who paid the writer for the article.

I want to know who owns and funds all of the crap that is anti Tesla or anti EV for that matter... pretty interesting. Once they begin to jump ship maybe the 'Joe Plumber' will change his tune about the EV

this article sounds pretty negative with all of the word choices. It sound to me they drove it pretty weak too : <
how can you comment on that? Regen was weak unless you going pretty slow FYI

 

[Jason S]

This Edmunds review is tough but fair. I might disagree with him on the looks of the car and the use of Mercedes parts in the interior, but those are obviously subjective measures. Unlike Automobile magazine, which clearly had an agenda to hate the car, Edmunds' reviewer says he has to reserve judgment until they get to drive it at length, but first impressions are overall quite favorable.

The little asides the author puts in show a complete lack of understanding about how electric cars work. Here's some samples:

"A 60-kWh version arrives this fall and has a projected range of 230 miles, while the flagship 85 kWh has a range of 300 miles in the same conditions. These are Tesla's own figures based on an average speed of 55 mph. The official EPA range for the 85-kWh car — the only one tested thus far — is 265 miles."

"Top speed is electronically limited to 125 mph in the standard car and 130 mph in the Performance version to conserve the motor. Intriguingly, Tesla quotes an identical range for both."

After the second quoted section he includes a quote from a Tesla person explaining why the range is identical, and includes more editorializing after the quote. People not knowing might think there is some scam being perpetuated. Disappointing 'reporting' from a supposed expert.

I also find it absolutely hilarious that the people who are roughest on the car are the same ones who appear to be begging for a long term loaner.

 

[pete8314]

The Automobile article, and one of the comments from "ramon123" are frustrating, but I suppose to be expected, we live in a very cynical, negative world, which is amplified when biased media get hold of a story. If I didn't have to register with them (and give them the benefit of another registered account) I'd have responded there.

Ron asks "Will the Model S do anything to change the perception that electric cars are playthings for slimousine liberals who want access to the HOV lane and preferred parking spots?" well, yes, but no thanks to xenophobic articles such as this one.

The nature of this forum is also, obviously, biased towards Tesla, or, at the very least, being constructive about things when there's an issue. In fairness, Tesla appears to take notice, so this is a very unique environment. I hope it can continue as Tesla inevitably grows.

One of the more annoying comments that comes up time and time again is the DoE loan provided to Tesla. it was a paltry $465M. Compare that to the GM bailout of $50Bn. The US is struggling to lead the world in anything these days, so I do not understand why anyone would object to the Government providing funds (and, again, it's a loan!) to kick start some new industries. Some will fail, some will not, but as long as there's a net increase in jobs as a result of the investments, it has to be a Good Thing. I'm not an American, but would love for the US to be able to take a genuine lead in a manufacturing industry, it's that kind of stuff that built America in the first place.

As for the cost of batteries, and the amazing new, cheap technology coming down the line, well, sure. The only way those improvement will happen is when the market drives the demand. They will not happen over night, but the more of us that own EVs, the more demanding the market becomes. Nothing new ever enters the consumer market at rock-bottom prices that the masses can afford - drugs, computers, TVs, cars etc etc. It's the nature of the beast, and we all know it.

finally, The Model S is not just for rich people. For me to buy one, it's a real stretch, and I'll need every cent of the $7.5k tax credit. I'm not rich by any means. I'm buying it because I love the design, I love the strategy that Tesla has, and I genuinely want them to succeed. The fact I don't have to gas-up is a happy bonus.

I'm all for unbiased, genuine reporting (Edmunds being the best example of that so far), but I get really annoyed with cheap, suedo-political journalism.

Rant over.

 

[brianman]

One of the more annoying comments that comes up time and time again is the DoE loan provided to Tesla. it was a paltry $465M.

There's a simple solution to this. Note I said simple, not easy.
Pay off the loan. As quickly as can be done responsibly.

Once that's "off the table," it's very easy to end that part of the conversation -- and with a positive ending.

While it may be frustrating, that's par for the course for any new company as it gets its footing. It's just a bit more... frictional... in the current political and economic climate.

Edit: No number is "paltry" when you're in the red. Personal opinion.

 

[Arnold Panz]

The little asides the author puts in show a complete lack of understanding about how electric cars work. Here's some samples:

"A 60-kWh version arrives this fall and has a projected range of 230 miles, while the flagship 85 kWh has a range of 300 miles in the same conditions. These are Tesla's own figures based on an average speed of 55 mph. The official EPA range for the 85-kWh car — the only one tested thus far — is 265 miles."

"Top speed is electronically limited to 125 mph in the standard car and 130 mph in the Performance version to conserve the motor. Intriguingly, Tesla quotes an identical range for both."

After the second quoted section he includes a quote from a Tesla person explaining why the range is identical, and includes more editorializing after the quote. People not knowing might think there is some scam being perpetuated. Disappointing 'reporting' from a supposed expert.

I also find it absolutely hilarious that the people who are roughest on the car are the same ones who appear to be begging for a long term loaner.

What is untrue about the 300 v. 265 miles of range? We don't yet know what the "official" range of the 60 kWh car will be, but I'm assuming it'll be less than 230 (and same for the 40 kWh and 160), and that's the point the writer was making, that Tesla numbers are a bit higher than the "official" US gov't numbers.

As to the second point, I actually thought that was a very fair point to bring up. I'm a complete non-technie and couldn't understand when Tesla first announced the Performance version how it could get the same (or better?!) range than the regular 85 kWh pack. ICEs with more powerful engines almost always get worse fuel mileage, so this was not intuitive at all, and I thought using JB to explain this, without being able to independently verify the range of either car, was as good a way as possible for a reporter to hit the issue and a reasonable explanation without drawing conclusions that he couldn't verify.

 

[jomo25]

As for the cost of batteries, and the amazing new, cheap technology coming down the line, well, sure. The only way those improvement will happen is when the market drives the demand. They will not happen over night, but the more of us that own EVs, the more demanding the market becomes. Nothing new ever enters the consumer market at rock-bottom prices that the masses can afford - drugs, computers, TVs, cars etc etc. It's the nature of the beast, and we all know it.

Exactly. If there's no market for improved technology, then it won't improve. The counter argument is simply stupid. You can't have "next-gen" battery tech without current/old gen tech. It's not like we instantly had LED TVs. Over the course of long time, and clear demand for better/lighter/etc. do we move from CRT to LCD to LED to OLED etc. And the cost of each new gen is high in the beginning and the increased production and adoption of the new tech brings the cost (and thus prices) down.

And part of it is learning what the demands are. Only having real world usage will we know the real impacts of different use cases like: hot/cold weather climates, daily charging, infrequent charging, etc. to know how the batteries can be optimized to better suit the application in a car. You can't just say we need "better" batteries. You need real world experience to shape what "better" really means.

So short sighted are the people who think we shouldnt make/sell products unless they are already capable of meeting the full needs of everyone. Even a megahit product like the iPhone followed this. The original iPhone was a good, not great product (it didn't have MMS, was limited to 2G when 3G was available, no 3rd party apps, etc.) But each year, fueled by the earlier products foundation, it kept layering in new features. You can't go from birth to running directly. You need to crawl-walk-run. It takes time to go zero-to-60. Your time can improve, but you gotta start somewhere. And the Roadster and Model S are great places for that somewhere.

 

[Jason S]

Perhaps I have too high of expectations for "experts" or "reporters".

Re: 300 vs 265 number -- the 300 number was based on the at the time current EPA 2-cycle test. The 265 number is based on the now current EPA 5-cycle test. BOTH numbers are accurate and the article makes it look like Tesla was 'fibbing'.

The article could've made it clear that electric is different when explaining the perf versus regular 85Kwh difference. It could've done it is less words even. The writer used more words to play it as 'he said, she said' rather than just explain the facts.

Oh, and re: "drawing conclusions that he couldn't verify. "... it is PHYSICS. Jees, I expect a high school grad to understand that 85Kwh = 85Kwh and that the same speed = same energy used.

 

[jomo25]

As to the second point, I actually thought that was a very fair point to bring up. I'm a complete non-technie and couldn't understand when Tesla first announced the Performance version how it could get the same (or better?!) range than the regular 85 kWh pack. ICEs with more powerful engines almost always get worse fuel mileage, so this was not intuitive at all, and I thought using JB to explain this, without being able to independently verify the range of either car, was as good a way as possible for a reporter to hit the issue and a reasonable explanation without drawing conclusions that he couldn't verify.

My explanation is that the capable range of both is the same because the perf model just ups the "available" HP and torque. If you drive it to draw upon that incremental power, then yes the range will be less, all other things being equal. But if you drive the perf and non-perf exactly the same, then the difference in range will be negligible since they have the same size battery. Similarly, you can't expect to get 265 miles from either if you drive them at full "throttle" constantly.