Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Fins 2992 days ago
And how many EVs would Tesla be selling without heavy subsidies and a Musk effect?

Besides, selling a car of Tesla's quality would be embarassing to every company on your list. Well, maybe not Suzuki, but probably to them, too.

2 comments

All automakers receive EV subsidies. Why are non-Tesla automakers so bad at building EVs if they receive the same subsidy Tesla does?
Tesla's are the largest, though, since they have largest batteries.

Tesla builds EVs, that's the only thing they sort of can do (of course they can't actually build them at profit, but that's a problem for Tesla's shareholders). Others will build EVs when they can be profitably sold, because it isn't their only business.

> Others will build EVs when they can be profitably sold, because it isn't their only business.

Tesla's margins are the highest in the industry for their vehicles. Legacy automakers don't want to innovate and cannablize their own business, which is why they cannot succeed.

If you want to sell like Tesla does, and get the level of subsidies they do, sell vehicles that people want and will pay for. There's a reason people would rather wait years for a Model 3 then buy a Bolt, i3, or other half-attempt at an EV by a legacy automaker.

If their margins are so high, why are they losing money hand over fist?

People want to buy a Tesla for the same reason many want to buy an Apple or Bose product -- great marketing, not any kind of intrinsic value. And besides, "legacy" automakers (you know, those guys who actually were first to make an electric vehicle, hybrid, fuel cell, hydrogen etc., ones who have driver assistance systems that do not try to actively kill their users, etc. etc.)already have cars people want to buy. Unless you're talking about some edge cases (doesn't Norway tax regular cars so much that Tesla is actually a good value?) making EVs for them isn't currently a very profitable strategy. Not that it were profitable for Tesla either, of course.

It would also be interesting to learn what is it that Tesla actually innovated, apart from marketing (and even there, Apple or Bose has been selling flash over substance for years and years before Tesla)? Batteries? No, they are completely off the shelf. Do they have some magical mystery motors? No... Some exotic body construction maybe? Nope, aluminum cars have been around for quite a while, too. Some incredible self-driving software? No, better not even go there.

It will be interesting to see what happens in a couple of years when VWs electric factory comes online.

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-reliability-owner-satisf...

Tesla in fact ranks with Acura on quality, above Volvo, and just below Volkswagen and Ford.

The low rating on Mercedes should be pretty embarrassing for them, they're merely one quality notch above Tesla and comparable to Ford.

Those rankings are pretty fishy. Acura is just a rebadged Honda and they rate completely different. Also Kia and Hyundai rate higher than Mercedes, Porsche and Volkswagen, which is completely against my experience with those brands.

FWIW it has Tesla scoring near the bottom of the pack with 37 points out of a possible 100, with the lowest entrant scoring 26 points.

Volvo is surprisingly low on that ranking, I know they are now owned by Geely but their brand still has 'super reliable' as an image here in Europe which again contradicts the ratings.

I'm not sure what the inputs were and what definition of reliability they have but I'm definitely interested in finding out more.

The FAQ is here:

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-reliability-owner-satisf...

And I suspect that one reason more expensive vehicles drop like a stone on the report is because they are more complex and so there is simply more that can break, on top of that a person that pays $100K for their car is more likely to be dissatisfied when something isn't working perfectly.

You'll never hear a Kia owner complain about some detailing, but if you paid $85K for a Tesla then you would expect a certain level of quality and you'd be more likely to go back to the dealer for that reason alone if what was delivered wasn't perfect. So this report is as much about expectations and brands as it is about actual reliability.

My own - super simple - method of determining vehicle reliability is to look at second hand car website and to sort by descending mileage in yearly cohorts. That very quickly shows which cars are solid and which aren't. Yes, it is 'survivorship bias', but you can discount for that by weighing by the original number of vehicles sold of a particular model.

So to put it another words, every large automotive conglomerate has multiple brands that are greatly more reliable than Tesla.

Not sure about Kia, but their parents at Hyundai definitely do have better build quality than Tesla. I would imagine that someone buying a new one would complain to the dealership if they tried to shove a car with body gaps as bad as Tesla's ton them... And on a Hyundai less than half the price of Model S you get stuff like cooled seats that Tesla doesn't even offer currently (luxury car, right!) and that didn't work worth crap when they did offer them...

That is owner satisfaction, which means nothing. It is common for that list to have a car to have a significantly different rating depending on what the logo on the hood it. If the car has the GM brand it will be rated lower than if it has the Toyota brand, even though the car is EXACTLY the some other than the brand.
That explains the Honda/Acura difference. I could not make sense of that.