Model X First Reviews

[ohmman]

What they miss is that there are no comparable vehicles for those who require an EV powertrain and a nationwide fast charging network (or even just one of those). In general, I don't disagree with their assessment of the windshield, doors, and reliability.

Give me an alternative, CR, and I'll consider it.

 

[Electroman]

I think what CR is trying to say is Tesla did make a great SUV with EV power train and supporting fast charging infrastructure, but screwed it up with those dumbo doors and other 'features' making it less reliable, practical and desirable.

 

[Ormond]

The Tesla is a bit showy with the doors, but that's why I wanted one. Their assessment is fairly accurate.

 

[rainforest]

Do existing owners agree with the CR review that said the following:

1) the ride is firm and choppy
2) rear doors are prone to stopping and pausing
3) excessive wind noise

Would like to hear comments. My car is coming January 2017.

 

[Daniel 74]

Do existing owners agree with the CR review that said the following:

1) the ride is firm and choppy
2) rear doors are prone to stopping and pausing
3) excessive wind noise

Would like to hear comments. My car is coming January 2017.

1). No
2). No. By the way, we find the FWD most usefull with our 3 year old (and twins expected in January)
3). Our X certainly is more noisy than our S, but we don't find the noise excessive.

 

[ohmman]

Do existing owners agree with the CR review that said the following:

1) the ride is firm and choppy
2) rear doors are prone to stopping and pausing
3) excessive wind noise

Would like to hear comments. My car is coming January 2017.

The statement by CR about #1 was interesting. The "agile Tesla corners more like a sports sedan.." generally implies a tighter ride to me. So yeah, it has a tight ride. I get the feeling that supporting a 5300 lb vehicle and still achieving sporty cornering performance begins to be a physics limitation.

The rear doors are better. They were prone to stopping and pausing a LOT early on. These days they're quite a bit more reliable on my early VIN.

Excessive wind noise exists. It was really bad for a bunch of us with Q1 deliveries (I believe CRs car was also a Q1). They've gotten mine to be more acceptable, but it still can be pretty loud at times - specifically with a crosswind. The tech at my Service Center suggested that much of it has to do with turbulent flow across the mirrors and brightwork, as well as across windows that may not be in perfect alignment with the body. My understanding, anecdotally, is that it's much improved for deliveries today.

I think CR's review is really echoing what a lot of us have gone through in the same timeframe that they had their car. CR expects to get their money's worth. They definitely aren't early adopters nor are they motivated by environmental externalities in their reviews. They're trying to give the consumer the best representation of what they get for their money. As I mentioned before, I don't disagree with them, given my experience. I'm guessing their ratings will improve on the X for next year and beyond, based on customer reports.

 

[Merrill]

I also agree with what has been said, the ride is tight and on my country road somewhat harsher than my Model S but based on what the Model X is not a problem for me. My FWD have not stopped mid way, so far they open and close like they are supposed to. More wind noise than the Model S depending how fast you are going and the wind direction, it is probably and combination of what has been said. Less aerodynamic, more places for the wind to travel over that could generate noise like all the sections of the roof and certainly the side windows and trim. Just turn the music up.

 

[HerrJones]

What they miss is that there are no comparable vehicles for those who require an EV powertrain and a nationwide fast charging network (or even just one of those). In general, I don't disagree with their assessment of the windshield, doors, and reliability.

Give me an alternative, CR, and I'll consider it.

Exactly my thinking! I was in the market for a 100% ELECTRIC car that can comfortably carry a family of five. Not A car that can comfortably carry a family of five.

Among friends I often have to emphasize this too. Some of them just don't realize the EV factor is that important, at the top of the list in fact. "Have you also considered the Renault Espace?" -"No I haven't! It's not an electric car!"

 

[Porfiry]

What they miss is that there are no comparable vehicles for those who require an EV powertrain and a nationwide fast charging network (or even just one of those). In general, I don't disagree with their assessment of the windshield, doors, and reliability.

Give me an alternative, CR, and I'll consider it.

Consumer Reports's review does list "the only electric SUV", "ability to use Tesla's supercharging network", and "doesn't consume a drop of fuel" as "Pros". They haven't missed that point.

They conclude "it’s a car for early adopters". That could be either a criticism or an endorsement, depending on who you are.

 

[ecarfan]

Consumer Reports's review does list "the only electric SUV", "ability to use Tesla's supercharging network", and "doesn't consume a drop of fuel" as "Pros". They haven't missed that point. They conclude "it’s a car for early adopters". That could be either a criticism or an endorsement, depending on who you are.

My personal opinion is that Tesla has moved beyond the early adopter phase and has become a car brand that anyone considering purchasing a full size sedan or SUV in the Tesla price range should seriously consider.

I think that is true in my geographic area and some others but I also acknowledge that in many places Tesla sells it sadly is not the case. Too many people simply aren't aware of Tesla or still consider the idea of owning an EV as strange concept that they haven't come to grips with yet or their head is full of misconceptions and untruths about EVs (quite common in my experience). So in that sense CR is correct.

 

[ohmman]

Consumer Reports's review does list "the only electric SUV", "ability to use Tesla's supercharging network", and "doesn't consume a drop of fuel" as "Pros". They haven't missed that point.

They conclude "it’s a car for early adopters". That could be either a criticism or an endorsement, depending on who you are.

Sorry, I didn't see that because I'm not a subscriber. I was only able to read their summary. If they did acknowledge those things, I think their conclusion that it's for early adopters to "one-up their peers" is misguided, despite agreeing with many of their complaints. The last thing I care to do with my car is one-up anyone.

 

[N5329K]

Teslarati asks, in response to Consumer Reports' tepid to negative review of the Model X, "Does Consumer Reports Still Matter?"
I imagine they were expecting a resounding NO for an answer.
But I think, Yes.
Robin

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Sorry, I didn't see that because I'm not a subscriber. I was only able to read their summary. If they did acknowledge those things, I think their conclusion that it's for early adopters to "one-up their peers" is misguided, despite agreeing with many of their complaints. The last thing I care to do with my car is one-up anyone.

While I too don't care about one-upping anyone, the falcon wings definitely have a certain tech-head novelty to them that I can see appealing to an early adopter audience - and similarly turning off more cautious, conservative mainstream. I like them for their tech edge, but really they are quite silly doors from a practical standpoint.

Let's face it: Model X simply lacks the class-winning practicality of Model S and most of the advancements unique to the Model X do not appeal to the same everyday-this-just-makes-sense audience that Model S does. No roofracks, folding options limited so far due to C pillars not for seatbelts, very limited head room in second row middle due to the door mechanism, trouble sensing this in tight spaces, hitting people on the head, not to mention all the quality woes, the windshield has heat and ghosting issues etc.

Even you'd want regular doors if I recall...

The only practical advantage the falcon wings in the end solved was child seat installation and disappointingly marginal improvement in third row access, while introducing a long list of practicality negatives.

And yet, for me as an early adopter tech-head kind of person, the doors are the most important thing in the car. I think Consumer Reports got it pretty much right in that early adopter mentality.

Falcon Wings - Must have them, will absolutely hate them

 

[aesculus]

Excessive wind noise exists. It was really bad for a bunch of us with Q1 deliveries (I believe CRs car was also a Q1). They've gotten mine to be more acceptable, but it still can be pretty loud at times - specifically with a crosswind. The tech at my Service Center suggested that much of it has to do with turbulent flow across the mirrors and brightwork, as well as across windows that may not be in perfect alignment with the body. My understanding, anecdotally, is that it's much improved for deliveries today.

Not in my car. For me it's definitely coming from the rear part of the front door glass near the base. I have pulled on the gasket to 'plump it up' as well as make sure the gasket material is not tucked under the other gasket, but it does not completely seal when there are cross winds. In fact I think the differential pressure may be increasing the gap, hence why we see it more with cross winds and a why it cannot be detected in a static environment. I think the gasket needs to be redesigned and made more 'puffy'.

 

[PeterK]

Do existing owners agree with the CR review that said the following:

1) the ride is firm and choppy
2) rear doors are prone to stopping and pausing
3) excessive wind noise

Would like to hear comments. My car is coming January 2017.

I've had my car for nearly 8 months, one of the first quarter early production models. It had some cosmetic issues and wind noise that was addressed by fixing/replacing some door and window seals.

1) I don't find it firmer or choppier than the 2013 Model S85 I had until recently. And the acceleration - and handling - is very effective for such a large, higher-riding vehicle. Yesterday evening I was picking up my son, who watched me turn onto the street a good block away in the dark. He said from the smoothness and tight turning of the car, he expected it to be something like a Mercedes C class and was surprised to see it was my car when I got close.

2) The only time my rear doors stop is when a newbie operator stands too close to them, or steps in front of them. Once people understand how to operate them they work fine, and I find them very useful for loading kids and dog in and out, especially in the rain when they act as an umbrella.

3) After replacing my seals it is much better, though I would of course like it to be quieter still. But it doesn't get in the way of conversation or music, and from what I've heard recent cars are much improved over my <1000 production VIN.

You will love it.

 

[PeterK]

The statement by CR about #1 was interesting. The "agile Tesla corners more like a sports sedan.." generally implies a tighter ride to me. So yeah, it has a tight ride. I get the feeling that supporting a 5300 lb vehicle and still achieving sporty cornering performance begins to be a physics limitation.

The rear doors are better. They were prone to stopping and pausing a LOT early on. These days they're quite a bit more reliable on my early VIN.

Excessive wind noise exists. It was really bad for a bunch of us with Q1 deliveries (I believe CRs car was also a Q1). They've gotten mine to be more acceptable, but it still can be pretty loud at times - specifically with a crosswind. The tech at my Service Center suggested that much of it has to do with turbulent flow across the mirrors and brightwork, as well as across windows that may not be in perfect alignment with the body. My understanding, anecdotally, is that it's much improved for deliveries today.

I think CR's review is really echoing what a lot of us have gone through in the same timeframe that they had their car. CR expects to get their money's worth. They definitely aren't early adopters nor are they motivated by environmental externalities in their reviews. They're trying to give the consumer the best representation of what they get for their money. As I mentioned before, I don't disagree with them, given my experience. I'm guessing their ratings will improve on the X for next year and beyond, based on customer reports.

The CR review rightly points to some flaws but their tone is clearly biased - it reads to me like they didn't want to like this car from the start. They definitely slant their comments, e.g. the touchscreen definitely is commented on more negatively than they did for the identical screen in the Model S. They fail to mention any counterbalancing info such as that they had an early car and more recent ones should have better build quality. They also point out negatives that are at least in part due to a lack of familiarity with new functions of the car.

But most surprising to me is they say absolutely nothing about safety. Considering that SUVs are used to carry precious cargo of children from place to place, and that safety is likely one of the top decision criteria for parents purchasing such vehicles, this is a glaring omission. Doubly so for the Model X, because SUVs are much more likely to roll over than Model S's sedan competitors.

 

[vandacca]

The CR review rightly points to some flaws but their tone is clearly biased - it reads to me like they didn't want to like this car from the start. They definitely slant their comments, e.g. the touchscreen definitely is commented on more negatively than they did for the identical screen in the Model S. They fail to mention any counterbalancing info such as that they had an early car and more recent ones should have better build quality. They also point out negatives that are at least in part due to a lack of familiarity with new functions of the car.

But most surprising to me is they say absolutely nothing about safety. Considering that SUVs are used to carry precious cargo of children from place to place, and that safety is likely one of the top decision criteria for parents purchasing such vehicles, this is a glaring omission. Doubly so for the Model X, because SUVs are much more likely to roll over than Model S's sedan competitors.

Almost sounds like they are trying to appease the legacy auto industry...

 

[Porfiry]

But most surprising to me is they say absolutely nothing about safety. Considering that SUVs are used to carry precious cargo of children from place to place, and that safety is likely one of the top decision criteria for parents purchasing such vehicles, this is a glaring omission. Doubly so for the Model X, because SUVs are much more likely to roll over than Model S's sedan competitors.

I'd urge you to subscribe to CR first and read their actual review. Of course they mention safety, it's part of their standard scoring system. The X is rated from "very good" to "excellent".

Almost sounds like they are trying to appease the legacy auto industry...

So how do you explain their extremely positive review of the Model S?

 

[vandacca]

So how do you explain their extremely positive review of the Model S?

I'm not saying it happened this way but...
CR's original review of the Model-S was extremely positive, and possible very genuine.

Shortly after that, they reversed that review, possibly due to pressure from the "old boys". They seem to be continuing that trend with the Model-X review.

I have not read the full review, but the analysis I've seen thus far seems to indicate that there were some very valid points, but they managed to focus on the negatives and avoid any positive points. In fact, they also seem to have insulted Model-X owners, painting them as individuals who are trying to one-up their neighbours.

How the hell is that relevant in a car review??? Sounds very fishy to me. Excuse me now while I go put on my tin-foil hat...

 

[PeterK]

I'd urge you to subscribe to CR first and read their actual review. Of course they mention safety, it's part of their standard scoring system. The X is rated from "very good" to "excellent".

I am a subscriber and have read the review. But the article on the review, which is quoted and viewed by far more people than the review's detailed ratings, makes no mention of safety in the text, nor in the highs/lows bullets. Even in the full road test the primary text about safety is the warning about Autopilot.