Consumer Reports No Longer Recommends Tesla Model S

Little known fact...the more you spend on something...the more likely you are to bitch about it when it doesn't work the way you "think" it should. Again...rich people problems. It isn't a problem I wouldn't mind having though. :D
 
ManofGod said:
Where the heck did you come up with that number? That is beyond extremely unlikely, do you have proof to back that up?
Click to expand...

According to Wikipedia, Consumer Reports has 7.3 subscribers( 4.3 million people read the magazine, and 2.8 million people subscribed to the website). At $29 a year for a subscription that's almost $212 Million a year
 
My opinion of Consumer Reports has not changed. They are a biased publication.
I remember back in the 80s and 90s they panned Much of the American brand electronics and gave absolute low end JUNK their "BEST BUY" seal.
This is because they always equate cheaper with better. In what world does that really apply?
I remember a TV set made by EMERSON (Chinese or Korean at the time) was a BEST BUY and we saw a lot of them in the repair shop. After a couple a year or two the picture tube would start going bad and the picture looked like crap. But in the better American made sets you got a good 8-10 years out of the pix tube.
 
ManofGod said:
So, someone tell me, if they do not get money from the companies for the products they test and they do not have advertisements, where do they get the money from then?
Click to expand...

From Wikipedia.
The magazine accepts no advertising, pays for all the products it tests, and, as a not-for-profit organization, has no shareholders. It also publishes cleaning and general buying guides. It has approximately 7.3 million subscribers[3] and an annual testing budget of approximately US$21 million.[4]
Click to expand...
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
The fact that they have to put specific holes in the car for putting out fires after an accident should be a pretty clear warning that the people who designed it pretty much know it's gonna go all SpaceX and turn into a giant fire hazard. If that's not a huge warning, IDK what else would be. :eek:
Click to expand...

The fire holes are incase of a catastrophic even (which has happened less than 10 times, and they show the results on their site) to put the fire out safely.

However the car you are driving now, you can see that gas tank from the road that is less than 1/8" thick stamped steel, and what provisions did your manufacture provide in case you ran over a tire iron?

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/mission-tesla
 
ManofGod said:
WTH? What is wrong, you have one bad experience back in the Mercedes owned Chrysler and now you think you can speak for them?
Click to expand...

No, I've never owned one, and never will, as reliability is one of my top criteria.
I only buy cars that are high on the consumer reports reliability ratings, and Fiat is at the bottom.

My last car (Toyota) was 11 years old when I sold it, and it had never been in the shop other than routine maintenance like oil changes and tires.
 
Dr. Righteous said:
My opinion of Consumer Reports has not changed. They are a biased publication.
I remember back in the 80s and 90s they panned Much of the American brand electronics and gave absolute low end JUNK their "BEST BUY" seal.
This is because they always equate cheaper with better. In what world does that really apply?
I remember a TV set made by EMERSON (Chinese or Korean at the time) was a BEST BUY and we saw a lot of them in the repair shop. After a couple a year or two the picture tube would start going bad and the picture looked like crap. But in the better American made sets you got a good 8-10 years out of the pix tube.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't call the bias, just the result of them not doing long term tests for reliability on the TV's.

Years ago I bought a refrigerator that was made by an appliance company that had a high reliability rating. A few years later, the company's refrigerator's reliability rating (in Consumer Reports) was lowered to the bottom, and I've had several problems with it (lucky they where problems I was able to cheaply repair on my own on by just buying the parts). If I wasn't handy, I would have likely had replaced it after a couple expensive service calls. Instead, I spent less than $50 and it's still working after 16 years.

Looks like the same has happens with Tesla. Initial high ratings, but longer term reliability issues.
 
ManofGod said:
This is worthy of a like button. :) Yeah, you definitely paid for it so, you deserve that kind of service when needed.
Click to expand...

What about my 911 that was well over 100K, why can't I get that kind of service? Or people who buy cars right in the same price range. Tesla's model (not the car, business wise) is damn awesome, and I wish other manufacturers did things like that. Dealerships suck ass too...
 
ManofGod said:
This is worthy of a like button. :) Yeah, you definitely paid for it so, you deserve that kind of service when needed.
Click to expand...

At the sales volume they can afford to do that and because of the lack of places to service such a vehicle they need to do that. If they continue to sell more cars you can believe that type of service will disappear.
 
Silentbob343 said:
At the sales volume they can afford to do that and because of the lack of places to service such a vehicle they need to do that. If they continue to sell more cars you can believe that type of service will disappear.
Click to expand...

I'd hope not, that's a really enticing feature. To be on that 'personal care' type of level with a car manufacturer probably adds to the want of the car.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
The fact that they have to put specific holes in the car for putting out fires after an accident should be a pretty clear warning that the people who designed it pretty much know it's gonna go all SpaceX and turn into a giant fire hazard. If that's not a huge warning, IDK what else would be. :eek:
Click to expand...

Google.... I am not a huge fan of Tesla, but there are plenty of fires in ICE automobiles. I think you might be barking up the wrong tree on the fire issues.

Trepidati0n said:
Little known fact...the more you spend on something...the more likely you are to bitch about it when it doesn't work the way you "think" it should. Again...rich people problems. It isn't a problem I wouldn't mind having though. :D
Click to expand...

Holy shit, this is very true. While I understand it to a certain extent, if I pay a ton of money for something I want it to work as I was led to believe it would. Some well to do folks don't adjust their expectations accordingly and thus have unrealistic expectations on lower cost items. Very annoying to deal with these kinds of people.
 
BiH115 said:
I'd hope not, that's a really enticing feature. To be on that 'personal care' type of level with a car manufacturer probably adds to the want of the car.
Click to expand...

ehh, perhaps on their higher end vehicles, but if they truly want to create the $30k every-man vehicle, I don't see how it would be feasible.
 
Silentbob343 said:
ehh, perhaps on their higher end vehicles, but if they truly want to create the $30k every-man vehicle, I don't see how it would be feasible.
Click to expand...

At this point this is where quality of the design is gonna become an issue, because it'll directly lead to major headaches, so it's fine for Tesla to have a few issues right now with the low volume they have because they back it up with excellent service.

Moving forward, one would hope they're taking notes and streamlining their operation in preparation for that day. Hyundai was not great pre-2001, but with time and experience they're become Toyota's main rival.
 
Wierdo said:
At this point this is where quality of the design is gonna become an issue, because it'll directly lead to major headaches, so it's fine for Tesla to have a few issues right now with the low volume they have because they back it up with excellent service.

Moving forward, one would hope they're taking notes and streamlining their operation in preparation for that day. Hyundai was not great pre-2001, but with time and experience they're become Toyota's main rival.
Click to expand...

edit typo: at that point*
 
Silentbob343 said:
Google.... I am not a huge fan of Tesla, but there are plenty of fires in ICE automobiles. I think you might be barking up the wrong tree on the fire issues.
Click to expand...

First of all, I've never seen a car run on ice, but just because those kinds also catch on fire doesn't mean it's okay for some other company to also make a piece of junk that does too. That'd be like saying, "Because Paul Newman caught on fire when he rode with his hormone-fueled weirdo friend unsafely on the street to endanger the public and died in a car fire, it's now okay for everyone with an ice car to have the same problem when they have stupid friends."
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
First of all, I've never seen a car run on ice, but just because those kinds also catch on fire doesn't mean it's okay for some other company to also make a piece of junk that does too. That'd be like saying, "Because Paul Newman caught on fire when he rode with his hormone-fueled weirdo friend unsafely on the street to endanger the public and died in a car fire, it's now okay for everyone with an ice car to have the same problem when they have stupid friends."
Click to expand...

Internal Combustion Engine meaning every other car on the road that isn't a pure electric vehicle.
 
Sufu said:
I've had my Model S since March, put just over 10k miles on it. The worst issue I've had? Moisture in tail lights. I've had less issues on this car than on my Audi S4 that was at the stealership every other month.

I've read on the Tesla forums how some early people had drivetrain issues and such, but Tesla tends sends a Ranger to pick up your car, drops off a loaner and then hauls your car to the service center. I'd like to see other mfgs do that!
Click to expand...
Condensation in the tail light lenses seems to actually be a common problem these days on a lot of cars...

Silentbob343 said:
Google.... I am not a huge fan of Tesla, but there are plenty of fires in ICE automobiles. I think you might be barking up the wrong tree on the fire issues.
Exactly. The reason the Tesla needs that access is because the parts that can cause a fire are tucked away. With ICE cars nearly everything that can be a source of fire is easily accessible.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
The fact that they have to put specific holes in the car for putting out fires after an accident should be a pretty clear warning that the people who designed it pretty much know it's gonna go all SpaceX and turn into a giant fire hazard. If that's not a huge warning, IDK what else would be. :eek:
Click to expand...

Like ICE cars don't catch on fire all the time? Tesla has had what, two reports? Both times, the driver got plenty of warning to exit the car. I don't know what this giant fire hazard is. After these issues, they retrofitted steel plates to all of the cars at no cost to the owners, no questions asked. Yet to hear of another Tesla fire since then.
 
c@Nc3r said:
Internal Combustion Engine meaning every other car on the road that isn't a pure electric vehicle.
Click to expand...

Oooh! Is that seriously an actual name or are you just messing with me?

Sufu said:
Like ICE cars don't catch on fire all the time? Tesla has had what, two reports? Both times, the driver got plenty of warning to exit the car. I don't know what this giant fire hazard is. After these issues, they retrofitted steel plates to all of the cars at no cost to the owners, no questions asked. Yet to hear of another Tesla fire since then.
Click to expand...

They put in metal plates probably to avoid the bad press of a mandatory recall. It's nice to see them doing something, but I can a million percent promise that it's all about bad press and profits and not about designing something that actually works and doesn't turn into a puddle of burning plastic.
 
CR is as bad as video game reviews these days. They are very biased and more so with their car reports than anything. I would not rely on their research for a vehicle by no means. They also rate American made vehicles higher all the time.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Oooh! Is that seriously an actual name or are you just messing with me?
Click to expand...

Not sure if serious.

CreepyUncleGoogle said:
They put in metal plates probably to avoid the bad press of a mandatory recall. It's nice to see them doing something, but I can a million percent promise that it's all about bad press and profits and not about designing something that actually works and doesn't turn into a puddle of burning plastic.
Click to expand...

Isn't everything about PR and profits? At least they voluntarily did this, unlike say the GM ignition flaw that was concealed, and cost a few hundred lives before they got sued and were forced to issue a recall.

Tesla is not perfect, but they are far better than other manufacturers by a long shot.
 
I think CR screwed their credibility by recommending the car before having any user feedback. They were practically tripping over their dicks to give the Model S the "highest rating ever" and were seemingly oblivious the the issues happening to a lot of other owners of the newly manufactured car.
 
Sufu said:
Not sure if serious.
Click to expand...

Whatever, you guys and your car junk think everyone else on the planet also pays attention every little thing about cars too. Some of us don't care and we totally pay like whoever to just fix stuff for us because it just doesn't matter at all if we know an obscure abbreviation thing for a type of car. I've got more important things to do that care about a wiggy-whats-it or a giggle-goo inside a meaningless appliance that I sit in for a few minutes each day to go to work. :rolleyes:

Isn't everything about PR and profits? At least they voluntarily did this, unlike say the GM ignition flaw that was concealed, and cost a few hundred lives before they got sued and were forced to issue a recall.

Tesla is not perfect, but they are far better than other manufacturers by a long shot.
Click to expand...

They have to pretend to be far better because the company totally doesn't make as much money and if they like aren't proactive about that, they'll fail before they ever make any profit or pay down debt. If the company doesn't burst into flames like all their products have, they'll get big and fat and do the same stuff any other car company does and everyone who's infatuated with them will find a different tiny company to wave their pom-poms and high kick for while they cheer.
 
undercoverDrunk said:
Agreed. I've always found it suspicious that every luxury brand is utterly unreliable when compared to the budget brands. Self selection bias and expectations hurt the standings. I use cr between classes of cars to narrow down options. It's as if everyone with a 2005 car broke down already if they paid over 40k. Kia is not the greatest car company of all time. Every s class Mercedes-Benz isn't in the scrap heap after 6 years either. If the tesla was 20k they'd have to create new stars for reliability. Expectations matter and self report skews resilts.

Edmunds long term results are far more "damning"
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but my sister-in-law had Mercedes for years, and every time I visited them it was in the shop or going into the shop. They don't go into the junk yard, but they require a lot of maintenance, which is why they receive lower scores.
 
nilepez said:
Maybe not, but my sister-in-law had Mercedes for years, and every time I visited them it was in the shop or going into the shop. They don't go into the junk yard, but they require a lot of maintenance, which is why they receive lower scores.
Click to expand...

I think by now, anyone with half a brain (not an insult to anyone on here, just pointing things out) that the more you pay for a car, generally, that car will require more upkeep and maintenance because it has more complicated systems (ex. The S-Class Mercedes has night vision cameras, body roll mechanisms, collision detection systems, etc.).

Anyone going out there purchasing a $25,000 car that was once $130,000, then complaining it's unreliable due to: A. Doing nothing to maintain it, or B. Having not stored enough reserve funds for the expensive, complex systems WHEN they break, is a massive moron.

Most American's define reliability as "I want to keep it for 10 years, and I want to change the oil on it, and maybe the tires once or twice all around, and that's it". That's generally what I hear, 9 times out of 10 when I discuss cars with people.
 
BiH115 said:
I think by now, anyone with half a brain (not an insult to anyone on here, just pointing things out) that the more you pay for a car, generally, that car will require more upkeep and maintenance because it has more complicated systems (ex. The S-Class Mercedes has night vision cameras, body roll mechanisms, collision detection systems, etc.).

Anyone going out there purchasing a $25,000 car that was once $130,000, then complaining it's unreliable due to: A. Doing nothing to maintain it, or B. Having not stored enough reserve funds for the expensive, complex systems WHEN they break, is a massive moron.

Most American's define reliability as "I want to keep it for 10 years, and I want to change the oil on it, and maybe the tires once or twice all around, and that's it". That's generally what I hear, 9 times out of 10 when I discuss cars with people.
Click to expand...

This wasn't night vision. It was general issues that could have gone wrong with any car. What's more, I'd expect those things to work on a $100,000 car. I'm also not sure that people buying these cars keep them for 10 years, but I don't know enough people driving 100k cars to know.
 
nilepez said:
This wasn't night vision. It was general issues that could have gone wrong with any car. What's more, I'd expect those things to work on a $100,000 car. I'm also not sure that people buying these cars keep them for 10 years, but I don't know enough people driving 100k cars to know.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I hear you, but with ever increasing tech, it's just not the reality. For the most part, everyone I know drives at least a $60k+ car (including myself), and most of us are VERY handy when it comes to messing with engines, suspension bits, even some electronics fiddling. But none of us are wild enough to fuck with current generation vehicle systems, hence, leasing. The way I see it, there are two types of people that buy higher-end cars: 1. Those that can afford to lease continually and never worry about shit, and 2. Those that can buy the car finance wise (maybe even buy it outright in this case), and the repair costs don't make a lick of difference. Expecting a car that costs north of $100k to work flawlessly at all times is something that the general public would LIKE to think happens, but the reality is that it doesn't. There are always little gremlins and issues at work. Opposite side of the coin though, lower end cars have issues too at times.

Just my two cents though.
 
BiH115 said:
Don't get me wrong, I hear you, but with ever increasing tech, it's just not the reality. For the most part, everyone I know drives at least a $60k+ car (including myself), and most of us are VERY handy when it comes to messing with engines, suspension bits, even some electronics fiddling. But none of us are wild enough to fuck with current generation vehicle systems, hence, leasing. The way I see it, there are two types of people that buy higher-end cars: 1. Those that can afford to lease continually and never worry about shit, and 2. Those that can buy the car finance wise (maybe even buy it outright in this case), and the repair costs don't make a lick of difference. Expecting a car that costs north of $100k to work flawlessly at all times is something that the general public would LIKE to think happens, but the reality is that it doesn't. There are always little gremlins and issues at work. Opposite side of the coin though, lower end cars have issues too at times.

Just my two cents though.
Click to expand...

Yes they can, but the fact is that cars like Lexus don't have as many issues and they're definitely in that price range. I worked for a woman who traded out of several expensive cars because they had so many problems. Honestly, if you can afford a 120k for a car, your time is precious and you don't want to deal with your car. Comfort and tech gadgets good. Broken car/tech gadgets bad.

FWIW, I believe the Tesla issues are mostly with the most recent model year. Perhaps is that Tesla is having problems ramping up production.
 
nilepez said:
Yes they can, but the fact is that cars like Lexus don't have as many issues and they're definitely in that price range. I worked for a woman who traded out of several expensive cars because they had so many problems. Honestly, if you can afford a 120k for a car, your time is precious and you don't want to deal with your car. Comfort and tech gadgets good. Broken car/tech gadgets bad.

FWIW, I believe the Tesla issues are mostly with the most recent model year. Perhaps is that Tesla is having problems ramping up production.
Click to expand...

Well, barring Lexus, I agree.
 
Dr. Righteous said:
My opinion of Consumer Reports has not changed. They are a biased publication.
This is because they always equate cheaper with better.
Click to expand...

To be fair one of the major points of the publication is to report readership opinions. Self selection of those readers are a set of people who generally trend to value cheap the prestige perfection. One of their strengths is that they don't fly off and editorialize without "consumer reports" to back it up.

The problem is that as in any self report study results skew from lack of hard double blind data. The same methology says everyone is a better than average lover, driver, parent, and amazing person. There are better, though expensive methodolgies, out there. It's the sample size that gives cu the ability to find trends over the local mechanic with a feeling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top