Tesla gets top marks in Consumer Reports satisfaction survey | Hacker News Reader

Tesla gets top marks in Consumer Reports satisfaction survey

4-traders.com

88 pointsfelixbraun33 comments

Surveys where you have very enthusiastic first adopters tend to report well. Car purchases driven by emotion rate very different than do those based on need. Hence buyers of V8 Chargers feel much better about their cars than those who buy Versas. When you have financial freedom to buy what you want you tend to overlook issues.

Top that off with the general positive response of hybrid and TDI owners and honesty I was surprised the S didn't get 100.

Not saying that it doesn't deserve its high score, but lets be honest, unless it was just Fisker dreadful how could overly enthusiastic early adopters rate it anything short of perfect?

along the same lines - seems to me that the # of cars, number of buyers - is too low relative to other models to really have an apples-to-apples comparison.

the car fires are an interesting wrinkle. i like how people are arguing over the statistics of the number of incidents, fatalities, etc.

from one perspective - the entire underside of tesla is a battery pack, which would seem to make it incredibly vulnerable to punctures, scrapes etc.

in contrast, gas tanks in modern gas cars are usually buried inside the frame, outside crumple zones, in front of the rear axle. and you know why they are there? hundreds of lawsuits, car fires, fatalities, etc. basically, 40+ years of trial-and-error. (gas tank placement is one of the reasons why the ford pinto is a legendary car.)

so - if tesla is able to proceed with the model S batteries exactly as they are ... that would make tesla "miles" ... decades ahead of how the auto industry has traditionally engineered cars. will be interesting to watch for sure.

Just look at the other top cars:

>After the Model S, the Porsche Boxster sports car came in second place with a score of 95. The Porsche 911 sports car and Chevrolet Volt, made by General Motors Co, both got a 91.

The market is really killing them for their current earnings report, and for the statistically insignificant fires. The market doesn't appear to be correct. Tesla has a long way to go, but they seem to be doing it very right.

So they're underpriced!

> he market is really killing them for their current earnings report, and for the statistically insignificant fires.

To be honest I think we are actually seeing more capital gain realization( selling for a profit) than the other two items you mention.

You have to remember that the stock has had a huge run up from $20 in Feb to a peakof $180. Alot of people have made some large non realized gains.

Selling at a time like this is to be expected. Especially near year end for tax purposes.

Musk is not the best person to listen to on the statistical significance of fires: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6768021.

Sounds like time to buy.

I suppose one could point out that terrorism is also statistically insignificant, but fear of it very much is significant.

So, I can well imagine that the fear of being in side a burning new fangled electric car, which has the batteries making up the entire area of the floor and are the scary chemical burny things, probably makes people think twice. Especially when for what ever reason they is a safer alternative.

Now, given that marketing is usually about manipulating emotional response in a positive way for a product, we can see that emotional response is a real and serious issue. Simply quoting statistics simply fails because statistics have little to do with emotional response. There for it is missing the point hugely to bang on about such events being statically insignificant. Such events are negative PR and marketing and have a huge negative emotional response.

Or, to ram the point home in a hard, emotional way... Imagine trying to tell a parent whose child burned to death in a burning Tesla that its all very sad, but comfort yourselves in the sure knowledge that their child's cindered corpse is statistically insignificant. I'll park out side for you, and keep the engine running, and hope the Mum is a poor shot.....

You seem to have a bone to pick with Tesla - this is not the first emotionally charged, negative comment I've read from you in a Tesla discussion. Is there a reason?

The part that makes me wonder is your example of having to tell a parent their child burned to death in a Tesla. Who is this example aimed at? It's one thing to argue that safety perceptions can harm sales, it's another to argue... I'm not sure what that example is actually arguing, other than FUD.

> I suppose one could point out that terrorism is also statistically insignificant, but fear of it very much is significant.

Indeed, both reactions are irrational. And both have wasted opportunity and other costs. Society/world would be better off if people paid attention to actual risks and opportunities. Thinking more about electric cars in general not specifically Tesla. Although, they seem to be crest of wave so are decent proxy. Whether they're riding it or created it is debatable.

Eh, I bought TSLA back at $32 a share a year ago thinking that it was undervalued and that it would end up as a serious carmaker in the future. I was expecting the price to go up to $60 or so. A valuation of $200, which it was at recently, means that you expect it to become the largest carmaker in the world. I don't think it's unreasonable for the market to think that Tesla will end up Honda or BMW sized instead of Toyota or GM sized. Becoming the next BMW totally counts as a success!

The market is responding to the market. Additional negative news for Tesla of just about any type will affect investor confidence even more, and if as an investor you would prefer to invest in something less volatile, it makes sense to pull out.

The market doesn't appear to be correct

The problem is that it's very, very hard to know why large disparate groups of people are doing what they are doing, even when they tell you (because people don't know many of the real reasons). The market may be correcting perfectly fine, but your assumptions about the relevant variables are incorrect.

Not surprising. The knocks against Tesla are generally reasons why people don't want to buy them (price, range). A survey of people who already bought them avoids those issues.

On the subject of range, I was surprised to see recent ads for the Vauxhall/Opel Insignia with a range of just under 1200 miles - which is pretty impressive.

Anyone interested in a meetup in Berlin? http://www.meetup.com/Tesla-Motors-Berlin/

I wish I could afford one!

I'm glad Tesla's doing so well, but a cautionary word about Consumer Reports: they're often wrong. Some of their recommendations in fact turn out to be total disasters.

I am not trying to say you are wrong but some examples would be nice

Not the gp, but their unprofessional, pre-biased behavior around the Suzuki Samurai. Not quite as bad as NBC strapping a model rocket engine to a GMC Truck fuel tank, but they wanted a result before testing.

Wikipedia summary of the Suzuki testing is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_v._Consumers_Union

One piece of missing context is whether the rate of rollover injuries is higher than average for the small-suv market segment. Following the link to the original source for those numbers reveals a lot more about suzuki and GM internal memos (but nothing about whether or not the rates of injury are out of the ordinary).

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/press/date/19970422/press...

You probably should read the talk page to get the info on the video that they argue over sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Suzuki_v._Consumers_Union

Also, quoting a CU press release is a bit much. Every car built has memos that talk about safety. I would bet Tesla probably would not want some internal memos and e-mail revealed because it will be taken out of context.

CU's own statement from the settlement had the quote ""never intended to state or imply that the Samurai easily rolls over in routine driving conditions".

The video of Consumer Reports testing and the driver logs discovered in the lawsuit proves they did it wrong and had something to prove. They tested 4 SUVs that day and the Suzuki performed the best, but was the one singled out.

Basically, CU has an agenda.

You probably should read the talk page to get the info on the video that they argue over source

Full length version of the suzuki produced video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2Bv9WL3vpY

Basically, CU has an agenda.

Worst case, CU had an agenda in this specific case. CU does not have a history of bias on anything even approaching a regular basis. Given the disproportionate amount of money available to CU versus what most big manufacturing corporations have available for litigation if CU did have an agenda of untruthfulness, it would have been sued into oblivion long ago.

"Worst case, CU had an agenda in this specific case."

Given all the extra testing to make it fail, they had an agenda. People with agenda's don't stop with one thing, and most auto manufactures will let is slide due to the difficulty of suing the press. It was so blatant in the Suzuki case that they went for it.

CU is pretty useless for testing autos. Heck, they did their oil test wrong (cabs - 24x7 so the oil was hot) ignoring the more dangerous times for oil (cold starts). It sounded good and I guess that's what counts.

They have also increasingly had more of a Green agenda, which (although I am sympathetic with) is troubling because it jeopardizes their credibility. Specifically, I have seen them rate worse quality products higher than others merely for being green.

If "green" is a significant part of their score, then they're actually rating the better product higher.

> The survey will be published in its January issue, which comes out next week

These people sound utterly confused.

Also, the article seems to present the fires as a bad thing, ignoring the fact that the model S has less fires, and much less deaths than other cars.

That sounds about right, magazines are always published way early.

I can fully understand publishing the January issue in late December, or even half December (though that's already pushing it).

But right now it's still November. Next week it'll still be November. At what point does the month associated with the issue stop meaning anything? Will we get the Winter issue in the summer?

I think it makes sense for publications that get a significant chunk of sales from magazine stands as they will appear "fresh" longer that way. Not sure what the breakdown of sales for Consumer Reports is like but I'd assume they're subscription heavy.

Additionally, magazines are typically published with the date they should be removed from the newsstand, not the date they should be sold. This is different from newspapers which typically publish with the date they are first available.

Side-Note: this is why the current issue of Time, which is a magazine, will have a cover date a few days in the future while The Economist, which considers itself a weekly newspaper not a magazine, will have a cover date of the previous Tuesday.

I've been saying the same thing for a long time.

I love how US car manufacturers bring out the "next year" model half way through the current year.

The best example I've ever seen is in Q1 2014 Jeep will be bringing out the 2015 Grand Cherokee.

I'm looking forward to mid 2018 when I can buy the 2020 edition :)

There may be a tax-savings angle to that. Some states, like Nevada and Massachusetts, charge vehicle property tax based on the year of the car and buying a car "one year ahead" can result in a reduced rate for that year compared to same-year tax rate. That might short-term make leasing cheaper. I only noticed it in passing when I leased a vehicle there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com