[mschild]

Adding another source: TÜV Report 2025 (in German) In Germany you have to get your car checked every 24 months for its road worthiness (think general doctor checkup but for your car). If it fails, you are not allowed to use it until it's fixed.

At the first general inspection after purchase 2-3 years out, 14.2% of all checked Tesla Model 3s had issues. Comparing that to other models that are on record in sufficient numbers, its a high rate of failure. VW ID.3, for example, had 5%.

https://www.adac.de/news/tuev-report-2025/

[seanmcdirmid]

It seems that they fail the TUV for two reasons: bad suspensions and rusted brakes. The first one is on Tesla, but the second one has to do with regenerative braking vs real braking. You are supposed to slam your brakes one or two times a year so they don't get rusty, but a lot of users aren't following this and can go a long time without using their brakes because regen braking is so convenient.

[kalleboo]

PHEVs will run their gas engines after they have not been used in a while in order to keep the gas in them from going stale, it seems odd that the braking system on EVs doesn't do the same for the brakes

[seanmcdirmid]

It makes total sense: consumers don't like it when EVs automatically slam on the brakes to get rid of rust :).

Unfortunately, you can't generate enough friction to do this without the car moving, which is why it has to be done manually.

[Sammi]

The car doesn't have to SLAM the brakes. It just has to use them a bit like a regular car.

[seanmcdirmid]

If the user just uses regen braking, they are never hitting their brake when they are moving. You would have to work it somehow into the regen, but the stopping curves are completely different for the two, so you would probably wind up surprising the driver if you decided to arbitrarily engage the brake rather than use regen.

Your assumption is that regen and braking have the same behavior and are interchangeable, but I don't think that's the case beyond both of them being used to stop.

[starbugs]

> https://www.adac.de/news/tuev-report-2025/

This is about what cars made it through the German TÜV. Not about reliability.

[wesselbindt]

To me it seems like a perfectly sound proxy measure of reliability. Why do you believe otherwise?

[dzhiurgis]

It's not. It assesses road-worthiness (aka safety), not reliability.

That article is often quoted in sensationalist media to smear Tesla. Look for actual mileage data and they are one of the, if not THE most reliable vehicle.

[starbugs]

Have you ever brought a car through the German TÜV?

[bayindirh]

Our car inspections are handled by German TÜV, and they do not inspect superficially. If, ~14% of a single brand of car which is ridden with LEDs (which should live forever when compared to halogens), advanced drive systems and other stuff are failing, and has to be re-inspected because of they can't meet the standards, that's pretty bad to be honest.

Failing TÜV means your safety critical systems have problems. This means brakes, suspensions, lighting (front and rear), screen wipers, etc.

So they check for pretty basic, but crucial stuff, and they're tested in a pretty detailed way (brake fade, stopping power, etc.). If your car is failing in just two years in these areas, you're not reliable, and your car will not age well, period.

My 25 year old car aces the test all the time, and the biggest complaint I got on my report is "Your wipers leave streaks, LOL!".

[starbugs]

> My 25 year old car aces the test all the time

You wouldn't do a regular service right before the TÜV appointment, would you?

Also, this doesn't sound environmentally friendly to me.

[bayindirh]

Nope, I don't. I only do its normal interval services. I don't like the cheat the system.

> Also, this doesn't sound environmentally friendly to me.

I'm planning to buy a new hybrid. On the other hand, it has a cat, is our family car since the beginning, so it's in a very good shape emissions-wise (it's tested regularly). Newer cars are better, of course, but it's not an oil burning, smoking, smelling smoke-stack. Its exhaust isn't covered in carbon even.

[dzhiurgis]

So it's not reliability assessment but safety check.

[mschild]

It's safety, yes. To fail this test there can be any number of causes but for Tesla they specifically mention light, axle, and breaks as failure points.

The 14.2% was for cars receiving their first Hauptuntersuchung (main inspection) done every 24 months (so 2-3 years old cars). If a car model has that many problems while competitors in a similar price range and use model don't, that could point to an issue with part quality.

[wesselbindt]

I haven't. Could we fast forward to the part where you explain why you think it's not a good proxy measure?

[starbugs]

If you translate the article and read it, you will find that there are a lot of reported issues with the headlights. It is hard to find exact information on the actual issue in detail, but I'd suspect it's about the calibration of the headlights in most cases. That's a minor issue and calling it a reliability problem doesn't seem accurate. Also quite conveniently, they don't really mention that Teslas have significantly more mileage on average than other electric cars when they have their first TÜV visit. It's common for the German press to blow things like these out of proportion when they don't like a brand.

Also there's things like these which are way too common for my taste: https://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/adac-skandal-gelber-enge...

I think the German car industry and the press around it as a whole have a serious corruption issue.

I am sure HN has made up their mind already and this discussion wouldn't have an effect on your opinion anyway, so please feel free to continue downvoting.

[mschild]

> you will find that there are a lot of reported issues with the headlights.

Correct, but you just happen to leave out the mentioned issues with the brakes and axles as clearly stated in the article.

> In addition to defects in the brakes and axles, the Tesla also has a particularly high number of lighting defects.

If you want to point out issues, which is absolutely fair, please don't cherry-pick.

> but I'd suspect it's about the calibration of the headlights in most cases

So its a guess on your part. Lightning defects can mean any number of things.

>Defects in the lighting such as defective bulbs, broken or blind lenses or incorrect adjustment are significant defects.

Incorrect adjustments are part of it, yes, but if that's the case I would argue something with the construction of Tesla's lamps is not done correctly. Other manufacturers seem to have fewer problems. That or Tesla owners don't service their cars often enough. Regardless, it guessing on our part unless we have access to detailed data.

-----

You linked to an article that is over 10 years old. Besides that, ADAC, which that particular piece is about, is not the company responsible for doing the TÜV inspection, nor is it the one to actually publish the report.

> I think the German car industry and the press around it as a whole have a serious corruption issue.

The car industry I can agree on. The emissions scandal is a particularly shady example. As for the press, I'd take a more neutral stance. There are absolutely a large amount of low quality news papers and magazines pumping out hot garbage. Others do offer much higher quality writing and research.

[zoover2020]

Thanks for bringing this to light. The days of objective discussions are over unfortunately, even on HN. Too much political stuff.