A Tesla owner says he got a $14,000 repair bill one day after buying a Model Y
businessinsider.com
businessinsider.com
The ridiculous cost to repair and the waiting time (insurance covers a rental car for up to 1 month) are things no one talks about when it comes to Teslas.
Ironically turning moot any environmental aspect of owning an EV.
I was driving a two year old Honda S2000. I span out on a roundabout and rear ended a road sign pole, via a flower bed - it smashed a tail light cover, slightly crushed one of the two tail pipes/exhausts and the rear number plate and its holder fell out.
The car from new was something like £35,000. I had it on contract hire, which means I rented it. The insurance was quite expensive because it is a sports car, and I had a lot of no claims bonus etc, so I decided to get it fixed outside the insurance but they were notified as were Honda etc. I got a quote from the local Honda garage and it was roughly £3,500. A friend's dad owns a garage. He sourced original Honda parts and fixed it for around £1,600.
So we march forward 17 years and things are badly wrong.
Is it expensive because it is Tesla?
Or there isn’t many repair shops available? Or knowledge for repairing is well hidden and combined with the previous.
Then on top of it, they are very customer hostile if you are doing anything other than buying or praising their cars. So it'll break on you, and they'll make you foot the bill.
Edit: This did not happen in the US.
Regardless, England has similar enough laws to America in this regard, such as the Consumer Rights Act of 2015.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-mu...
which states that:
Jain, an electronics engineer in Cambridge, England.
The problem here isn't "believing businessinsider" just missing various cues.
If we exchange details the next time I make it to your part of the world I could visit and click the link for you.
Let's start with "suspension broke" - how did that happen? Then why did Jain continue to drive until "the suspension issue caused portions of the vehicle to come in contact with the road"
More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_US_dealership_disputes#U...
You can see more about the dispute here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_US_dealership_disputes
Most (all other?) car manufacturers sell in the US via independently owned dealerships. Tesla sells directly to customers (where I am, at least) and they've had problems in some states because they have laws that prohibit direct sales by manufacturers.
I like Teslas but parts availability is something that isn't talked about.
They are factually reporting that everything is sourced from Reuters.
If you want to take issue with what you see as "poor reporting" then take issue with the source:
Tesla blamed drivers for failures of parts it long knew were defective
Wheels falling off cars at speed.
Suspensions collapsing on brand-new vehicles. Axles breaking under acceleration.
Tens of thousands of customers told Tesla about a host of part failures on low-mileage cars.
The automaker sought to blame drivers for vehicle ‘abuse,’ but Tesla documents show it had tracked the chronic ‘flaws’ and ‘failures’ for years.
It sounds as though there is more than "one guy" and that the claims made are backed by documents.
But that being said: the facts on the ground seem to be solid. We can discuss the Reuter's article instead and try to elevate the discussion here.
So blogspam without adding anything or checking authenticity is great reporting now?
> If you want to take issue with what you see as "poor reporting" then take issue with the source:
Reporting from a source means you take responsibility for it. If a publication keeps reposting poor reporting as fact while posting sources, it's a bad publication, and people should definitely take issue with it. It doesn't absolve BI if Reuters is doing poor reporting.
Not to mention a publication just reposting content from another source without fact checking of their own is just content-stealing blogspam with clickbait titles.
Reuters did the in-depth fact-chasing. Maybe this story should point to the original article instead?
It looks like this $14,000+ repair bill is real, confirmed by Reuters.
But even worse is that they didn't ask him for the claim report from the insurance company.
Reuters cites official documents reviewed by Reuters staff, 20+ interviews with customers and 9+ interviews with managers or service technicians.
That... seems quite comprehensive to me? They've got customer-side, they've got insurance side, they've even got Tesla's side here. How much more evidence or citations do you want from a story like this?
The BI piece doesn’t really contextualise it well, and I’d agree that linking to the Reuters piece would better, but it doesn’t seem that egregious.
(I suspect that the reason the BI piece exists and is linked to in the first place is that the Reuters piece is _very long_, and a lot of people won’t have the patience to read it.)
Yes, that would be a good thing to do.
Here's some quotes from the article:
> A Tesla owner received a $14,000 repair bill for a day-one issue with his Model Y, Reuters reported.
> Reuters found that Tesla had faced thousands of complaints over suspension and steering issues.
> Jain told Reuters ...
> The Reuters investigation — which cited interviews with more than 20 customers and 9 Tesla workers, as well as thousands of internal documents
I guess it'd have been possible for them to explain more that Reuters had done the investigation.
Or Tesla being very weird about fixing failures in their vehicles.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/tesla-mu...
Maybe you should read the story and not just the headline.
Most states in the US have implied warranties for such defects and you should 100% talk to an attorney (or, more likely, your insurance will) if such a defect occurs to you. Here is the California "lemon law" summarized:
https://www.severson.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/The-Cali...
But, essentially, if it's within one year of purchase (inside the state) the manufacturer is responsible for any defects, damage or loss attributed to the vehicle outside the owner/operator's responsibility (e.g. an accident with another vehicle, neglect, etc).