Jaguar and Audi SUVs Fail to Dent Tesla’s Electric-Car Dominance
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
1) It's only about the US.
2) Tesla's big seller is the Model 3 which isn't a competitor for the Audi e-tron and I-Pace. And given the size difference probably isn't a competitor for the Model X either.
3) No one is claiming to be a Tesla killer since no one really has direct 3, X, S, Y competitors. The existing car companies are all off doing their own thing e.g. VW ID.3 (hatchback), Hyundai Kona (mini-SUV), Renault Zoe / Chevy Bolt / Nissan Leaf / BMW i3 (small-car) etc.
Several of them are targeting Tesla owners with discounts, ads at superchargers, etc... The companies clearly think they are competing with Tesla, especially since they don't want to compete with themselves (ICE models).
As for doing their own thing, most have a battery shortage and are confined to small cars with relatively small battery packs for now until more batteries are available (none of whom are vertically integrating production).
The number of Nissan Leafs sold so far are close to twice the number of Tesla model Ss sold.
Tesla has sold 1.6x the number of Model 3's in the past 2 years than Nissan has sold Leaf's... ever.
Sources (US):
* 136K Leafs: http://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-data/nissan/nissan-leaf...
* 223K Model 3s: http://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-data/tesla/tesla-model-...
So Nissan beat Tesla with a model not only in time to market but also with it's superior price, which resulted so far in selling twice as many cars as Tesla's direct competitors to the Nissan Leaf.
> It is not a Tesla killer
Nothing will ever be if the goalpost is kept moving like that.
The Nissan Leaf and Leaf Plus doesn't come into consideration for me because of its pitiful range, the ChADeMO connector and lack of active cooling for the battery pack.
>> Tesla Model S
Not comparable cars.
Not comparable, but look at the post that was the origin of that response, it was only about "electric cars" in general.
Meanwhile a hatchback and a lift back are hardly not competing in the same market segment.
For example it was recently reported that the Jaguar I-pace requires that you drive 17 MPH with the climate control off to achieve the manufacture specified range per charge. [0] They have 6 months worth of unsold inventory sitting on dealer lots in the US.
Tesla's strength is in getting market share from buyers who first and foremost want a great car. Everyone else is targeting suckers willing to make decisions contrary to their economic interest to show they care about the environment.
[0] https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/13/jaguar-i-pace-sales-hav...
This.
I never understood why car manufacturers all make such weird wacky electric cars. When the Model S came out it was such a relief that finally there was a _normal_ looking electric car.
What I want is an electric 5-series, not the wacky i3. Don't change the appearance, just the drive train.
It turns out there's a very good reason to do that: these early models appeal to early adopters. The range kinda sucked. And yet I was happy to be an early adopter because of my nerdiness—and the financial incentives made it hard to refuse. But it definitely required planing insofar as range was concerned. At the same time, knowing that I'm putting up with these inconveniences for benefit of having some new early tech that few others have... that was worth it to me. It was also worth it to some of my friends but definitely not to most of them, who wanted first and foremost a car that didn't come with a peculiar usage pattern.
Now the 2019 Nissan Leaf has twice the range as those older models, it looks "normal", doesn't require much forethought in terms of destination distances, and is marketed to a broader audience. At the same time, the tax incentives have almost all disappeared (the $5k Georgia one is gone) and that is the normal course of action because these cars don't carry the inconvenience that they used to.
Other makers are trying to make cars to compete with Tesla, without competing with their own non-electric cars.
Currently, it is probably impossible to achieve a good profit margin on a mass-market electric car. Battery costs are too high this early in the manufacturing process. Tesla is willing to operate at the bare edge of fiscal viability while they scale… maybe even below viability. Other makers would have to take a gigantic drop in profit to compete with that.
Tesla operates at no profit, but not because they couldn't with the hardware, but rather because they still need to scale. The old manufacturers wouldn't even need to do much of that.
Let’s get some more variety.
Other automakers have to play by more sane financial rules.
Whereas Tesla does indeed have some systemic financial issues.
In other words Amazon could have been "profitable" on a GAAP accounting basis fairly early on, but Tesla would struggle to do that.
There are more people wanting to buy Tesla's than they can currently produce[1].
Telsa needs to spend more money to increase production. They make money on each car sold and they can sell a lot more than they currently do. Tesla being in the red in order to increase production is the same scenario that Amazon was in.
[0] https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/07/26/tesla-management-t...
[1] https://electrek.co/2018/07/03/tesla-model-3-long-backlog-re...
Tesla annual net income, in millions:
Year 1: -$78
Year 2: -$82
Year 3: -$56
Year 4: -$154
Year 5: -$254
Year 6: -$396
Year 7: -$74
Year 8: -$294
Year 9: -$889
Year 10: -$675
Year 11: -$1,961
Year 12: -$976
Q1+Q2 Year 13: -$1110
Amazon annual net income, in millions (rounded):
Year 1: $0
Year 2: -$100
Year 3: -$700
Year 4: -$1400
Year 5: -$600
Year 6: -$100
Year 7: $0
Year 8: $600
Year 9: $400
Year 10: $200
Year 11: $500
Year 12: $600
Year 13: $900
I don’t think that’s something that could be said about Amazon.
BMW electric Mini is due to go on the market in spring 2020 - they’re manufacturing them now in Oxford. I guess that counts as a 'real electric car'. Whether it’s a great one remains to be seen.
Range is not as great as the 3 (150 vs 210 miles IIRC?) but it’s a smaller car, so doesn’t have as much room for batteries as the 3 or S do.
That’s why I compared the Mini with the range of the ordinary Model 3 & not the LR version. The price difference between the stock models is wide enough already - it seems completely unreasonable to compare a £25k electric vehicle with a £45k one!
Normal European city driving then.
The Model 3 is basically an upscale take on a page out of the FCA playbook. It's a straight line rocket with a middle of the road interior crowned by a massive touchscreen.
Don't get me wrong, there's definitively something to be said for that but Tesla does not make good all around vehicles.
Tesla make vehicles that excel at a few things and are mediocre in most other regards. If they were great all around vehicles upper class suburbanites would be buying them as general daily drivers instead of task specific cars (commuting in this case), a market segment currently filled by the station wagon/crossover/small suv spectrum. For reasons that are outside the scope of this comment, I think Tesla is wise to build sedans for upscale buyers rather than enter the crossover and compact car free-for all.
As an owner of a Model 3, I will say that it isn't just a really great car, it's the best car I've ever owned or driven. There are SO MANY different elements of the car-owning experience Tesla redesigned to make dramatically better for the user, not to mention the incredible performance of the car.
This is likely due to pent up demand, but it does show that Tesla's absolute domination of the US market hasn't played out in Europe.
If you're interested in widespread EV adoption, this is probably ideal. It's concerning to me that Tesla may have so much mind share that even genuine competitors once they arrive will struggle to sell enough to be profitable.
In which case, the steady state will be legacy auto makers doing the bare minimum as required under emissions legislation. In the EU that's probably ok, but not in the US.
Norway 2019 sales for reference:
Model 3: 10976 VW Golf: 6533 Leaf: 5441 BMW i3: 3671 E-Tron: 3114 I-Pace: 2372 IONIQ: 2168 Zoe: 1775 Model X: 1344 Model S: 969
Now, add to that the model 3 outselling the Model S by a factor of 11 to 1 this year, that is amazing.
But it's more than a little disingenuous to compare cars from different segments.
Most Tesla fans only count positive things for the 3 though, and so consider the i-Pace and the model 3 direct competition.
The I-Pace has 8% less length, 8% less height, and 12% less weight than the Model X 90D. The widths are comparable.
The I-Pace has 9% more width, 9% more height, and 15% more weight than the Model 3 Range AWD. The lengths are comparable.
I would say this puts the I-Pace half way between the Model X and the Model 3 in terms of size. In terms of class, I'd say the I-Pace is closer to the Model X, both being luxury crossover SUVs.
More broadly, Jaguar is a historically British company, and Britain's roads and parking spaces are narrower than those in the US, so the truck and full-size SUV classes are much less popular.
Edit: that’s a bit too glib. I’m sure it’ll do just fine as a niche product for a certain group of buyers, which is what Jaguar is all about. It’s just not really competing with Tesla, which is trying hard to go after the mass market.
EDIT- Forgot about Honda and the Korean car makers too.
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/01/28/tesla-model-3-1-best-se...
That's certainly not a drop in the bucket, and I think it's a stretch to call it niche as well. Will be interesting to see how 2019 as a whole turns out; with this ASP, they would dominate by revenue if their delivery numbers were anywhere close to the competition.
Nokia used to sell way more phones than anyone else too.
Your comment might also be why the model 3 is selling like hot-cakes at the moment. The model 3 is also very efficient compared to the i-pace and charges faster. One sentiment that might be true regarding what you value in your car is that the model 3 is a better EV and the i-pace is a better car.
As for size, I recently got to compare my model x to my cousins i-pace and the internal size difference is quite substantial. The i-pace is however a very fun car to drive and it doesn't require that you go full 17" screen and strip the physical buttons. Some people value that too.
I'm not sure those are the strongest examples, as you can defend most of them (maybe not the BMW i3) as perfectly legitimate cars in the current market and maybe more than Tesla's counterparts:
* The S and 3 are almost retro in how much they resemble a traditional sedan, and supposedly that's not what Americans want in the current marketplace. (Enough so that both Ford and GM saw boosts on the stock market for abandoning the entire class of vehicles [admittedly, to imports and the S and 3].)
* The X looks like "soccer mom" minivan more than SUV, and I've seen Americans look down their nose at it as "uncool", very cool falcon doors aside.
Meanwhile:
* VW ID.3 looks like a modern reinvention of the classic VW Golf, a tried and true decades-spanning form factor. The VW Golf itself being something of the grand-papa of the modern hatchback trend and influencing almost everything else on the market (the Prius, the Tesla Model Y, everyone owes at least a little something to the Golf).
* The Hyundai Kona is in a class of SUV that is very popular in American and abroad. (Look at uglier ICE relatives like the Nissan Cube and the Honda Element, both of which have been relatively high sellers, despite their boxy, not-quite-a-full-SUV thing.)
* The Renault Zoe is in a somewhat common form factor space for European cars. Compare the Mini and the SMART.
* Chevy's Bolt is trying to be a normal "cross-over", and that's again where GM and Ford are almost entirely focused outside of trucks.
* Early versions of the Nissan Leaf were hatchbacks of a Prius (or Tesla Model Y) sort, and recent versions look like tradition sedans.
All of that is of course my opinion, but claiming that the existing car companies are doing their own thing and Tesla is somehow the only one doing "proper" cars seems to be the inverse of reality: Tesla is doing their own thing, and everybody else is trying to do what they think the market will best support (and it is not traditional looking sedans).
(Plus, the VW ID family is already gearing up to eat the rest of VW's lineup as they drop the diesel lineup like its hot. BMW is doing the same. We're about to the tipping point where EVs are beyond early adopter-focused, one-off models, and manufacturers are about to hit every form factor with an EV or two.)
It presupposes that Tesla has chosen to target the right market segments with the right type of products, and all you have to do to win is make better versions of those products.
I'm not saying that Tesla hasn't chosen correctly. Maybe their product lineup is optimal or maybe it isn't. I'm just saying that your criticism of the article is based on this assumption.
People do cross comparisons and generally prefer the Model 3 for a variety of reasons. And it's cheaper.
Unfortunately Elon is set on robotic Uber being the cheaper option.
I don't think there will be a singular Tesla killer, but rather, Tesla is increasingly going to be attacked by all sides: Hyundai/Nissan/GM on the mass market side, Jaguar/Audi/Mercedes/BMW on the luxury side, and Porsche on the ultra luxury high end. The Model 3/Y is currently positioned in the premium segment between mass market and luxury. That's sorta Honda/Toyota territory; I think they'll need to bring out EVs for Tesla to be in serious trouble.
They aren't building on a scale never seen before, this is relatively small scale for the traditional manufacturers. Yet you hear stories about how 3's in particular seem to be in some cases thrown out the door out of sheer will.
Tesla is just kind of fascinating this way- pushing the envelope in so many places, but just floundering to get the basics right in so many others. I really hope they succeed, and may even buy a model 3 when I am next in the market for a new car, but I feel they are still selling to "early adopters" when they really should have been out of these growing pains years ago. I would never recommend one to my less tech enthused family members.
Plus, there was a guy rebuilding a crashed model S and had issues sourcing some components, then Tesla gave him issues activating the car.
I personally would have already leased/bought a Model 3 if I didn't have serious concerns about their supply chain and repair issues brought to light by people like Rich Rebuilds and others. I am waiting it out to see if it improves, or if Tesla goes bankrupt/forced merged and their IP lives on elsewhere.
A kid in my office said the same thing and I have no idea where people are getting this from. A brand new Model 3 costs about as much as an Audi A4, BMW 3-Series, or Mercedes-Benz C-Class.
The Model 3 is a compact executive car, and competes directly in that category. It is for the mass affluent. Not the mass market.
But if we're talking about actually sitting in the car, Tesla is definitely in Honda/Toyota territory.
And not sure why people are so obsessed with range. It's the megapixels/megahertz spec nonsense again. People don't buy ICE cars based purely on MPG but also for exterior/interior design, quality, comfort, brand, support, seating capacity etc and most importantly what the car says about you as a person.
The situation will hopefully resolve itself unquestionably in the next 2-3 years.
Feel free to tell me that I'm being overly pessimistic, but that's how our consumer-hostile marketing culture (in general and not specifically the EV industry) has taught me to be. Rapid battery degradation in typical consumer devices also influences my impression.
Perhaps regularly replacing/refurbishing batteries would help with this. How would this affect the TCO when compared to a gasoline car? I don't know. What's the resale value of an old EV likely to be given the rapid development in the newest models, and how will that affect the TCO? Again, I don't know.
Yes, winter will reduce range. I had a worst-case trip this year, it was around -18 C outside and I had not had a chance to pre-heat the batteries. Car was 99% charged, showing 200 km range initially. After some 135 km the car showed about 10 km range left, when I finally got to a charger. This was with two passengers, both front seat heaters on, as well as the cabin heater working hard.
If we assume the estimated range left is somewhat accurate, that's about 63% the typical summer range of about 230 km. Had I preheated the batteries it would have been better, though I don't have any numbers.
Resale value is something I worry about too. That's part of the reason I went with an i3 rather than a more expensive Model 3. Though at least here in Norway, I expect EVs to be dominating soon, and with the price of gas I expect ICE resale value will take a hit.
> Leaf is not so great, but far from 50% at 5 years unless you mistreat it AFAIK.
I got to 50% by combining reduced range from an old battery with reduced range from winter use.
> about 63%
So 80% (your battery warranty minimum) of 63% is 50.4%, so was my 50% guess spot on then, or have I missed something?
Yeah I misread your text slightly.
You can’t compare with cheap electronic gadgets. Those push their batteries hard and do nothing to manage their temperature. Some EVs are similarly stupid; the Leaf, for example, is notorious for losing capacity fast. But good EVs will last much longer.
Edit: Also it's notably cheaper than the one you linked, generally below $0.20/kWh according to https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-supercharger-tiered-pricing-... compared with $0.35/kWh
The Supercharger network will be used - and is currently used - to bridge longer commutes fast. Not for intra-city deployment; at least not at the moment.
That's my experience anyway, maybe you can provide a source that says otherwise?
EVs need about 400-500 miles range in order to have mass adoption. Anything less is delusional.
On top of that you can buy ICE cars with 600+ mile range in merely Okish conditions (80-100 litre fuel tank) today as an option. EVs just can't compete with that.
Until they can (and charging infrastructure is such that noone will worry about being able to charge overnight literally anywhere they might choose to go), they'll be competing in a much smaller market.
Because people like doing road trips, staying away from home for a few days at a time
Having recently bought an EV, range is one of the primary limitations of EVs and one of the parameters which varies greatly between manufacturers and models.
When you're out of juice you need to be near a charger, and you need to wait a fair bit to recharge compared to an ICE. So naturally you want to buy an EV which has sufficient range that you can do almost all of your driving without thinking about the range.
Tesla's getting into the "good enough" territory for most people but until most EVs are there, range will be one of the key metrics for EVs.
Because range typically isn't a problem with ICE cars.
I really like the Honda e. It looks good and has good features:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEKq8jmckz0
But its number one problem is lack of range. Solid-state batteries with better energy density will solve that problem, but those batteries aren't here yet.
so for newer/more expensive car with a 200+mile range? yeah, that's probably enough for most people, with enough reserve to get you to a supercharger. I mean, it is a pain, 'cause a lot of people like to park at the supercharger and it gets to be a problem, but geting gas is a pain, too... so sure, if your range is comfortably over 200 miles, for many people, maybe even most Americans, that should be plenty.
but that's the high end. and if they lose 20% range after 5 years, only the 'extended range' variants of the high end cars seem to have more than 200 miles.
As a more typical auto-buyer, (well, more typical than the 200 mile plus new car buyers) I'm looking to buy a car right now, as uber/lyft seem to be about 30% more expensive than they were pre-IPO, once you count the difference in special offers given to me. I've always regarded it as a luxury, but it slowly is getting too expensive for me.
One of the cars under consideration is a used leaf: a 2012 model year or thereabouts. It's an all around reasonable car, it's gone through most of it's depreciation curve, etc.. it's newer than the average car your average American is driving. It's got a usable range around 50 miles. (that's only down like 20% from what it advertised new)
this is... probably fine for me. I don't have charging facilities at home, and installing those in the shared garage would be iffy... would require HOA approval. but I do have (free!) charging facilities at work, 10 miles away.
But I am a bit unusual. I don't particularly like driving, not for daily, utilitarian purposes anyhow. If I buy the thing, as I'll be stepping down from taking uber/lyft everywhere, so I'm already all setup to use trains or airplanes for anything over 20 miles or so, and for that matter, I live with someone that owns a petrol car, so it's all just kinda extra.
but I work with a lot of people (a lot of very highly paid people, the sort who buy nice luxury cars) who have commutes that are more than 50 miles each way - and you usually want enough power that you can go a day without charging.
Now, I also have a bunch of co-workers who have Teslas with extended range packages, and there is some overlap with the long commutes. But... without those extended range packages, that would be pretty iffy. And these are people who have the luxury of replacing their car often; they really don't have to worry about things like battery degradation.
The average American is going to find a 50 mile range unacceptable; the average American would find the 150 mile range of the new base model nissan leaf to be pretty confining, for that matter. I'm gonna go ahead and say that 200 and change is gonna be the minimum for most people, and then only if they can install a charger (I.E. they don't live in an apartment.) or can charge at work.
(my work does tell me not to rely on work charging as my only charge... but eh, if the chargers are full/down one day a week or what have you, uber/lyft probably still has some legs.)
The I-Pace is a great car however they can't produce enough of them for demand (the waiting list was around 8 months when I left and was growing). The tooling in most of the factories is still configured for ICE and they are now repurposing some of the car factories in the midlands to be dedicated to electric vehicles.
EVs are still luxury market focussed, even with my salary I couldn't afford an E-Golf, unless I leased it.
> there is at least a six month supply of i-paces at US dealers now
Both of those could have been true at different times: dealers ordered large allocations of them thinking they'd dent Tesla's market, then the ex-Jaguar employee left, and as the i-Paces arrived, they simply didn't sell. That sounds logical with my own experiences with those - the early reviews sounded like Jag had really nailed it, but when I saw my first i-Pace in person, man, no way was I gonna buy one. It's just flat out not attractive, which is a shocker for Jag.
SUV's are terrible.
So yes, for practical reasons station wagons are great. I love mine.
One of the big car makers actually had a full psychological workup on different SUV driver cohorts, and small females make up a disproportionate cohort for exactly this reason.
The perception is that the higher vantage makes things safer in spite of the reality that the SUV is less safe because it takes more physical strength to actually handle the car in emergency situations.
Almost no driver you describe would be able to handle a 2000kg+ car (any type) without power steering and brake assistance which is why they all have this and this is no longer a problem.
The higher vantage point in combination with a bigger car also causes more low speed bumps and low speed pedestrian hits, but then again "you" are safe.
Elevation is a classic status symbol think castle locations. Upper class started driving elevated cars SUVs and middle class want to move up in status.
Actually, many upper class cars have height adaptable dampers. I know of one wealthy forest owner who bought the (at that time) super luxury Mercedes 500CL (W215) because the adaptable dampers also made it a great offroad car.
Much of the US is a truck culture. You can drive more places and carry more cargo than anything else. In this case, status becomes proudly declaring yourself as blue collar as opposed to being high status. And have you ever seen a station wagon with a gun rack? SUV's are simply trucks for which the cargo is the family rather than a lawnmower.
What are the manufacturers going to do when trucks and SUV's are so popular and have a higher profit margin? Make more SUV's. Maybe car manufacturers even make ridiculous looking compacts as sacrificial models to sell more SUV's. You can have this ridiculous looking golf cart, or you can drive this magnificent tank.
Outside the US, SUV's are even popular in SE Asia. Which again I think is part culture (maybe US car culture transmitted through Hollywood) and manufacturer incentive. One of the few dealerships in the fast growing city I live in (Philippines) is loaded with SUV's. If that's all you see on the floor and everyone else is driving one, then that's probably what you are going to drive also.
In this discussion something should be pointed out: in the US there is a whole segment of SUV that is basically a truch chassis with a passenger compartment. This whole segment of car is more or less unknown outside the US. In the rest of the world the big SUV is the X5/Q7 segment, and below that there are smaller types of SUVs and crossovers. Some americans even argue that the term "SUV" should be reserved for that segment (truck SUV's) while regular "car SUV's" like an X5 are in fact crossovers. I'm from europe and think an SUV is any car similar to the X5 because using the term SUV for a segment that doesn't exist here makes no sense.
> What are the manufacturers going to do when trucks and SUV's are so popular and have a higher profit margin? Make more SUV's
I realize manufacturers can sell more expensive cars with higher margins if they sell SUV's, but as a consumer I seriously don't understand why I'd want to pay a large premium for an SUV over a good 4WD station wagon.
E.g. why would I pay a hefty premium for the Volvo XC60 (suv/crossover) over the V60XC? They aren't that different, but one is called a SUV/Crossover, and the other is a jacked up station wagon. I think the latter is actually better looking! https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a26135531/2020-volvo-v6...
Oddly enough, in the US body-on-frame SUVs are basically dying. They're only viable in the full-size segment, which is nonexistent in Europe. And we only have four companies that make them in that segment. We have the GM triplets (Chevy Tahoe/Suburban, GMC Yukon family, Cadillac Escalade family), the Ford twins (Ford Expedition/Lincoln Navigator), the Nissan twins (Nissan Armada/Infiniti QX80), and some offerings from Toyota (the Toyota Sequoia and the Toyota Land Cruiser/Lexus LX twins). And the only reason these still exist is because there are some upper-middle-class people who want to tow a boat or an RV trailer while hauling the whole family, and that's hard to do with a unibody (tho I'd love to see how the new Ford Explorer handles that, being RWD and all).
Smaller body-on-frame SUVs died here a long time ago, with the remaining stragglers being the Jeep Wrangler and Toyota 4Runner/Lexus GX twins... and both of those are also sold in Europe (with the latter being called the Toyota Land Cruiser in Europe, while Toyota in the US uses the Land Cruiser name for a larger SUV).
Honestly, I'm expecting full-size body-on-frame SUVs to eventually start dying off here as crossovers get larger and more powerful. Big crossovers like the Chevy Traverse can replace the Tahoe for most purposes that don't involve towing. And I'm definitely expecting the new Ford Explorer to cannibalize Expedition sales... it's almost as big now, and it's actually RWD. If Ford ever decides to make a second-generation Flex on a stretched Explorer platform, that could put the Expedition in a world of hurt (and I'm convinced the reason Ford has let the Flex die on the vine on purpose to keep it from torpedoing the Expedition). I don't think the big ones will go away entirely, because... well, because boats, but it's definitely going to become a much more niche segment.
Anyway: the point was: some US consumers would call the X5/Q7 family "crossovers" because of their body style, whereas I'd call that "full size SUV", and that sometimes leads to confusion in the discussion.
Marketing does a great job into making you think that SUVs are for hip young people with active urban lifestyles but in reality it’s mainly old folks and parents who buy them.
From what I can tell most people who go for the SUV for practical reasons do it for the safety or the assumption that a bulkier car will have more room. A factor rarely considered is that big wheels and bulkier axles will eat some of the interior space. This being said most of the people I know (or know of) more or less drive those SUVs alone every day. I guess they get 2 birds with one stone: practical car that's also a status symbol, with the popular interpretation that bigger is better.
To put it in context, a VW Golf Combi or Peugeot 308 SW have 10+% more cargo space in a package that's slightly longer and narrower than equivalent CUVs like Skoda Karoq or Peugeot 3008 (2 of the roomiest CUVs out there). Whether you find width to be a bigger problem than length when navigating depends on where you live and how you drive. But the choice combi vs. CUV mostly comes mostly to image.
As you can see the Karoq offers marginally more space only with the seats folded. But that to me feels like an exceptional usage scenario rather than the rule. With the seats up the difference is pretty massive (the SW has ~30% more cargo space) and I think this is the more useful number if you're interested in cargo space. If you want a higher driving position, or better ground clearance, etc. a SW won't really do it.
This applies to practically every American designed car before ~2010
The US had a long history of very nice looking cars up until the 1980s through 2010s...
Yes, there's Ford Focus SW ans Škoda Octavia, er, Scout(?), but that's about it, and you'll probably get the same amount of boot space if you buy their crossover SUV instead.
Well-intentioned regulation going bad. A story as old as America, really.
[0]: https://jalopnik.com/how-the-government-killed-fuel-efficien...
Handling: There is no way the Tesla will handle similarly to a Porsche. Steering feel, cornering, road feel. Porsche is the king of handling for a reason, and I'm anxious to see what they can accomplish with the low CG of an electric vehicle.
Consistency: The Porsche can keep doing pulls from 100% down to 10% charge consistently with no performance degradation. This was actually Porsche's main focus, an actual electric track car.
Fit and Finish: Again, anybody who's seen both a Porsche and a Tesla up close will know it's not even a competition.
Charge Time: The Porsche will charge twice as fast as a Tesla, which (assuming you can find a fast enough charger) is pretty cool for quick recharges.
I'll admit that the Taycan will be very nice looking, but it will also be about twice the price, if going for the same performance.
>> price is not that ridiculous
This seems like an insanely unlikely combination.
So where the Taycan as a range places within that is quite relevant. All the signs at the moment are that it will price similar to the 911 ie probably starting at £65-70kish. But we only have one data point which is the £130k for the Turbo trim level.
Yes, a product that you can't currently buy is a good competitor for products you can.
And in fact will soon have more 350kw chargers than Tesla.
Ionity is installing 350kw chargers in Europe: https://ionity.eu/en/design-and-tech.html
And so is Fastned: https://fastnedcharging.com/en/blog/post/fastned-opens-its-f...
Anyways, it's a good thing for the whole electric vehicle ecosystem that multiple charging options become available. That multiple companies are competing on charging infrastructure is excellent!
Not yet. The Porsche Taycan is launching with 250 kw charging (with 350 kw charging to come in future) but I haven't seen any information on its charge curve. The Tesla Model 3 can charge at 250kw to about 20% state of charge and then it progressively drops off.
The EQC has more sophisticated headlights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZMNkMadYTQ
And the EQC has voice control (although they really need a better triggering phrase than "Mercedes"): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JTew1D5Tk8
I think Tesla's main problem now is that the major car companies will be releasing multiple EVs across multiple brands year after year. It's going to be difficult for Tesla to keep up.
Also... who complains about how loud a Tesla is?
Tons of road noise, tons of wind noise. Although the Teslas had worse tires on them.
Given that Tesla isn't even trying to make nice cars the bad tires seem far less surprising.
If you try to do the same in a Model S you'll just overheat it.
People who have driven in a Mercedes EQC.
Compare UK prices for the EQC: https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/mercedes-benz/eqc/specs
And the Model X: https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/modelx/design?redirect=no#batter...
I love my fancy $10k headlights, they're a huge improvement when speeding through euro highways in the middle of the night. There's just nowhere for the cops (or anything else) to hide.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Tesla does a lot of shit wrong, but Musk is ahead of people RE: batteries and energy storage importance.
I am reminded of Bezos saying that their headstart in AWS with no viable competitor for years and years on end is what catapulted Amazon to what it is today. Tesla has a shot of making that true with regard to batteries.
2. Audi had to scale back 2019 production of etron due to battery apply supply issues. It calls into question Volkswagen group's ability to make millions of EVs in 2022 as planned if they can't make 50,000 etrons in 2019. https://www.electrive.com/2019/04/23/audi-revises-production...
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-7137701/Bes...
https://whatcar.com/news/what-car-real-range-which-electric-...
What Car? claims its test cycle is more realistic and more representative of actual range. The best Tesla finishes fourth. The Kia e-Niro is equal second with the Jaguar I-Pace and the Hyundai Kona is first.
If they had chosen one of the other Model 3 variants it would have likely been #1 by some margin, yet still with significantly higher performance than the other top contenders.
On the plus side, the fact there is competition at all is utterly wonderful. In the same test a few years ago it would've been all Teslas at the top.
Maybe, maybe not. On the EPA test cycle the Model 3 Long Range and the Model 3 Performance all wheel drive models both claim a range of 310 miles. But on the WLTP test cycle the Long Range gets 348 miles and the Performance gets 329 miles. The rear wheel drive Model 3 Long Range was discontinued.
It'd be interesting to see the comparison under What Car?'s test cycle but they might end up pretty similar to each other.
How far can the best Tesla go in 24 hours? The Porsche Taycan can do 3,425 KMs:
https://electrek.co/2019/08/19/porsche-taycan-electric-car-2...
AFAICT, the value of Tesla’s battery packs is that they’re cheaper, have better longevity and charge rate than the competition, and that this is due to the vertical integration of the whole design & manufacturing process. So, many small details slightly better than the competition, at lower cost. Also, Tesla’s drivetrain & pack integration is more efficient than competition due to many tiny improvements, leading to fewer kWh & hence dollars of cost per mile of range.
On the other hand, despite the Prius, Toyota seem to be laggards in this area.
But then, I just honestly do not see how anyone in good conscience could give even a red cent to Elon.
No one reasonably expected the old car companies to leapfrog Tesla in a year or two. This is going to be a long battle for market share. It'll take a while for the "newcomers" to get the consumer trust in their electric cars that Tesla already enjoys.
seems like they're aiming for Model S level pticing, too.
I work tangentially to that field and the problem is that the competition is fierce. Every old roofing company is now a solar installation company and a new solar panel company (reselling the same Chinese panels with thinner and thinner margins) is popping up every week. The only place I can see any margins is specializing in designing and setting up large industrial scale setups.
They go bankrupt left and right, just like solar manufacturers, because it's a race to the bottom. Race to bankruptcy it almost seems. I think it's a horrible market to be in right now.