New Tesla Model S comparison test in the Feb. 2014 Car and Driver

[ToddRLockwood]

I am pretty sure that any of the major car magazines could get a fully loaded P85+ for a full test and review. I would love to see a typical "comparo" where they tested the Model S, the Porsche Panamera, the BMW M5, and an Audi S6. That would be quite interesting. The problem with the car-enthusiast magazines is that they will acknowledge some of the good points about the Tesla from a performance perspective, but then they seem to feel a need to bring up many of the tired anti-Tesla talking points that are typically flogged in the media (range anxiety, charging times, lack of charging infrastructure, high cost, etc.). They still don't seem to get it.

Its not just implied pressure from advertisers, but many readers don't seem to like positive stories about Tesla. Automobile magazine got pretty beat up by their readers for naming the Model S the Car of the Year. There seemed to be a sense of betrayal...

I totally concur with this. Tesla would be better served by encouraging non-automotive magazines to review the Model S. At the end of the day, though, I think Tesla is more interested in what owners think than what journalists think—notwithstanding Automobile and Consumer Reports. Word of mouth is how most Teslas get sold.

 

[rcc]

Tesla is selling all the cars they can make.

They don't *need* any more reviews or press or advertising until they get their production way up.

Right now, they're better off selling every car they make to customers and having loaners on hand so the customer service experience is good.

 

[SebastianR]

Tesla is selling all the cars they can make.

They don't *need* any more reviews or press or advertising until they get their production way up.

Right now, they're better off selling every car they make to customers and having loaners on hand so the customer service experience is good.

Yep, I think that's a relevant point. Also, later I see them approach the whole advertising/product comparison topic similar to what Apple used to do: in the early days the iPod was ripped into pieces by "traditional" computer magazines as it would offer often times smaller MB/USD numbers. People loved them anyways and started to buy them since they were integrated and you didn't need to be an expert to use the product.

 

[evme]

They finally published the story online:

2013 Tesla Model S vs. 1915 Ford Model T: Race of the Centuries Car and Driver

 

[Mayhemm]

Their final observation is correct; considering the 100+ years of technological innovation separating the two vehicles, the race was surprisingly close.

However, the Model T benefits from 100+ years if ICE-friendly infrastructure development. Limit the available refueling stops to those that existed 100+ years ago and that closeness evaporates in a hurry. Technically, the T was also not "stock". :tongue:

 

[chickensevil]

This article was so fantastically written. Such a great read!

 

[Grendal]

This article was so fantastically written. Such a great read!

I completely agree. At first I was a little nervous that it would try and paint the Model S in a bad light, highlighting one of the cars few weaknesses over an ICE. The author was aware of that and actually commented on it in the article. Instead the article was really about how the Model S is the harbinger of a new age in motoring just as the Model T once did. Bravo.

 

[brianman]

Teaser:

Ford advertised a top speed of 40 mph ....

Later, we get a radio message from our chase truck that we hit 62 mph on a downhill grade. I holler over the wind to Liepelt,

You didn’t tell me this thing could do 62 mph!

His reply:

I didn’t know it could do 62 mph.

Instrumented testing later confirms Liepelt’s car to have a level-ground top speed of 55 mph.

Mistake:

Since my 251-mile stint includes Allegheny and Appalachian foothills, I have to drop below 60 mph to appease the battery gods. While you’re pitying the T crew, racing in the dead of a starless, chilly night in an open touring car from the Wilson administration, consider our plight. We have to accelerate with all the swiftness of erosion and cruise at less than half the Tesla’s 134-mph top speed as a train of semis whistles past.

"Use the semis, Luke."

 

[chickensevil]

Teaser:



Mistake:

"Use the semis, Luke."

See I keep seeing this, but I thought this was disproven by mythbusters. Where in order for you to get a significant enough of a draft on the trucks to help you, you would have to drive unreasonably close to them (which beyond being unsafe would also upset the truck driver as well).

 

[callmesam]

See I keep seeing this, but I thought this was disproven by mythbusters. Where in order for you to get a significant enough of a draft on the trucks to help you, you would have to drive unreasonably close to them (which beyond being unsafe would also upset the truck driver as well).

Mythbusters shows it's not "worth it" to save 20% fuel economy with a gas car where you need to get 2 car lengths from the rear bumper of the truck. But at 1 second following, you end up saving 10% on your range. Doesn't hurt that trucks usually go 5-15 mph slower than other traffic.

 

[ggr]

Mythbusters shows it's not "worth it" to save 20% fuel economy with a gas car where you need to get 2 car lengths from the rear bumper of the truck. But at 1 second following, you end up saving 10% on your range. Doesn't hurt that trucks usually go 5-15 mph slower than other traffic.

Yeah. In my experience on the relatively flat San Diego to LAX drive, I get better mileage doing 75 at a perfectly reasonable distance behind a big SUV, than I do with cruise control at 65. So I wait until an Escalade or Navigator or Armada (love those names) passes me, then slot in behind them.

 

[jerry33]

Mythbusters shows it's not "worth it" to save 20% fuel economy with a gas car where you need to get 2 car lengths from the rear bumper of the truck. But at 1 second following, you end up saving 10% on your range. Doesn't hurt that trucks usually go 5-15 mph slower than other traffic.

The problem I have with this particular Mythbuster episode is that one of the Prius group members mounted an anemometer on his car and drove at various distances behind trucks. Even at 250 feet (2.8 seconds) there was a significant reduction in the air speed compared to no truck. I'm guessing that Mythbusters had a side wind during their test.

 

[chickensevil]

Well that's disappointing because they are usually pretty good from most of the things I have seen. There have been a couple episodes I have disagreed with some of their testing methods, I guess I will chalk this one up to that.

 

[brianman]

See I keep seeing this, but I thought this was disproven by mythbusters. Where in order for you to get a significant enough of a draft on the trucks to help you, you would have to drive unreasonably close to them (which beyond being unsafe would also upset the truck driver as well).

Truck drafting definitely helps you extend your range. It comes at a cost of being behind said trucks -- which can be bad for your paint job, etc. It also comes at a cost of safety if you do it too closely. But...

If you're in cold weather and/or hill climbing OR if trucks are passing you below your speed limit, you're better off following them by a few car lengths than watching them pass by and making your own wake.



To give you an example, in 30-33F weather with somewhat hilly terrain on the way to Ellensburg (from Centralia) truck drafting at 50-60 mph cost me ~250 Wh/mi for ~45 miles.

 

[chickensevil]

Truck drafting definitely helps you extend your range. It comes at a cost of being behind said trucks -- which can be bad for your paint job, etc. It also comes at a cost of safety if you do it too closely. But...

If you're in cold weather and/or hill climbing OR if trucks are passing you below your speed limit, you're better off following them by a few car lengths than watching them pass by and making your own wake.



To give you an example, in 30-33F weather with somewhat hilly terrain on the way to Ellensburg (from Centralia) truck drafting at 50-60 mph cost me ~250 Wh/mi for ~45 miles.

well that is one really useful thing about the power usage gauge. You can actually see how much draw you are pulling versus normal. So it should be something that anyone could test and see immediately if it helps or not!