Still wouldn’t buy one
Given Elon’s shenanigans, and the continued lack of Android Auto / CarPlay, I’m eyeing the EV6, Ionic, or the smaller Volvo ex30. Although, I’ll be honest, the Model Y does a really good job of nailing price, size, and range.
It’ll need to be ionic for us. We’re not people who can throw that much cash at a car.
Why not the Volvo then? It’s like $8-10k cheaper than the Y, Ionic, and EV6.
Although it is a smaller EUV.
I ended up buying a Y in 2022 (worst time unfortunately but needed a car). Kia/Hyundai wanted $7500 over MSRP and the Ford dealer was even worse with markups ($12k over MSRP).
I got an older generation of this MagSafe mount so I could use different mapping apps.
I had an order for a Rivian R1S but it was more expensive and has the same anti-carplay/Android Auto nonsense so I just got my deposit back. I’m going to stick with the Y until it dies then I hope Porsche Macan EV isn’t too unreasonable.
I have to allow an onboard camera. Fuck off Tesla.
I guess this is good considering that national data shows they get in a disproportionate amount of car accidents.
No it doesn’t. That data was seriously flawed and even had an added disclaimer from the company saying it is solely the author’s opinion.
Looks like they used the same data that they use to provide insurance quotes, and then the article got popular, and they didn’t want to fight pissed off car manufacturers, so they chucked a disclaimer on the article.
Using it to provide insurance quotes would be appropriate. Using it to determine which vehicles crash the most is not.
Using their ‘formula,’ if I drive a Honda Civic and get rear-ended, insurance totals the car, and I use that money to go buy a Model 3, they will count me as a “Tesla crash statistic” because I’m getting a quote for a Tesla with an accident on my record. This is idiotic because A) I wasn’t driving a Tesla during the crash, and B) I wasn’t even at fault for the accident, yet they still count it as a Tesla crash.
Not to mention other issues with the article like Pontiac, Saturn, and Oldsmobile being some of the “safest” cars on the road even though those companies built shitty cars and went out of business 10-15 years ago.
The company put the disclaimer on the article because it’s junk data and misleading conclusions.
Have a Y and pay $677.00 per 6-months for pretty good coverage.
That’s just because these drivers actually have insurance report their crashes. Unlike all the Nissan Altimas driving around town with temporary tags and no insurance
Interesting concept, kinda a psudo suvivors bias. The same trends should hold for other high end vehicles as well right?
https://insurify.com/car-insurance/insights/car-models-with-the-most-accidents-2023/
Article mentions Subaru has several turbocharged models on list. Higher Tesla crashes maybe related to EV’s higher acceleration?
Edit: Added link and text
I feel personally attacked
Removed by mod
That doesn’t explain why Telsa leads all brands, including brands with similar price points.
A buddy of mine got an EV but had the cash and tested like 30. Kia, Hyundai, ToyotaHonda, BMW, Mercedes, Audi - everything! - and Tesla. Took him 3 months almost.
In his words: there are three main classes of EV: the consumer range from Kia to Honda, the sport range from Audi to BMW, … And Tesla.
Tesla has all these problems like Musk, and a boring UI and all, but its assistance is still head, shoulders and belt ahead of anything else on the planet. The BeeMercAudis are neat, but, still … no. Not even close.
And he was a Tesla hater! Hates their boring same-ness and ipaddery shit UI and lack of knobs, etc.
His arrives in May.
Based on a single article using junk science.
Another user right above you posted a different article and it doesn’t even list a single Tesla in the top 10.
That report listed stuff like “bicyclist collides with stationary parked and shut-off car” because they were super harsh on the assisted driving potential.
It’s crap.
Really? Every study I’ve seen shows the opposite
Editorial Note: The content of this article is based on the author’s opinions and recommendations alone.
That tells you all you need to know about this article.
The difference is this is the data for human driving only, teslas just being fast vehicles alone is gonna push the rates of unsafe drivers up.
Probably because you can’t see out of the fucking thing.
You could hide an entire city behind those A pillars
Hope so. Those doors and roofs keep flying off while the self-driving fails, they better perform real well on those crash tests.
/
Yeah, I hear they crash real good.
lol with the eye of elon focused on the cybertruck and twitter it looks like tesla putting good work into something. Not going to buy one while that lunatic is captaining that ship though.
Without some proof the build quality has improved I’m still skeptical. Steering wheels shouldn’t be falling off and when they do they should insist on fixing it not that the driver broke it.
Removed by mod
So what are the odds that Tesla specially ordered and cherry picked the specific vehicles tested? With such loose part tolerances and god-awful welds spotted in the wild, I expect they made damn sure the test samples were built “right” without providing an accurate example of normal build quality.
deleted by creator
Not really an allegation, more an opinion and supposition. Tesla build quality is widely recognized to be inconsistent at best, and frequently just bad, and Tesla has acted in bad faith often enough that there’s no reason to flatly assume they’re going to act in good faith now. The question is whether or not safety tests are conducted with vehicles selected and provided by Tesla for the specific purpose of safety testing, or if they are acquired anonymously with no stated purpose.
It might be a safe car, that’s entirely possible, but with so bloody many problems with build quality, a “near perfect score” deserves to be examined more closely. If they can’t even keep their construction consistent, I don’t have any faith that the crash performance would somehow be consistently near perfect. The question is whether the car is “near perfect” when it’s built Right, or whether the one you get will be up to the same level.
deleted by creator
I haven’t really made any secret of not liking Tesla, any more than you have of liking them. Bias is integral to the human experience. Welcome to the Internet, you’re gonna hate it here.
deleted by creator
I have not, and am not saying that the cars are not safe. I’m also not saying that the tests didn’t find what the tests found. I am questioning the scope of those results. I am questioning the methodology of the tests and their vulnerability to tampering, on the grounds that it is both not inconceivable that Tesla would tamper with the test sample, and that evidence shows the build quality of Tesla vehicles is itself inconsistent. Panel gaps are sloppy, but probably not going to seriously hamper the safety of the vehicles. However, shoddy, amateurish welds are another matter. It’s not difficult to imagine shitty welding of the frame changing crash performance.
I would be satisfied with explanations of how the tests acquire their sample vehicles and how their methods prevent Tesla from carefully ensuring those specific vehicles were actually made correctly instead of to a more typical quality. I would be similarly concerned of any auto manufacturer that had such a widely documented recent history of inconsistent and poor build quality, but to my knowledge that has not been a concern in any other modern auto maker.
Sure but where do you draw the line on just accepting data multiple independent testing agencies put out?
I draw the line at NOT just blindly accepting those results until inconsistencies are addressed. Until then, the most those tests really say is that some instances of the Model Y, at least the most ideal candidates, are safe vehicles. There is still value in that result, but it doesn’t mean the vehicle a consumer goes out and buys today is reasonably guaranteed to have the same “near perfect” safety rating as demonstrated in those tests.
Removed by mod
