Tesla Model S Reliability

With the Prius, Toyota has demonstrated that hybrids (and, by extension, electric cars) can be highly reliable. And at first the Chevrolet Volt and Nissan Leaf required few repairs. With the 2013s, though, both suffer from new common problems, the Volt with its charge port and the Leaf with its battery charging system.

Tesla Model S front quarter showroomThe Tesla Model S has scored reasonably well on at least one prominent reliability survey. In TrueDelta’s latest stats, though, it has the worst score of any 2013 by a wide margin, 109 repair trips per 100 cars per year, about four times the average. The sample size was a few cars below the usual minimum, but this score is so high that even a sample size twice as large could not have yielded a satisfactory score. In Tesla’s defense, nearly all of the reported problems were minor–wind noise, rattles, a click in the steering–and owners report outstanding service quality. For these reasons it is not surprising that the car has scored much better on surveys that ask owners to only report “problems you considered serious.”

These problems with the Model S could only affect early cars, and even these only during the first year of ownership. With prompt, quarterly updates, TrueDelta’s Car Reliability Survey will track the Model S and other car models closely as they age. When a car company reacts quickly, the reliability of its products can improve dramatically in well under a year.

Repairs reported for the Model S

Charts and Graphs

TrueDelta has perhaps been a bit heavy on numbers. Aside from being pretty to look at, charts and graphs can effectively convey more information at a glance than a page full of stats can. So we’ve been adding these to our key pages.

We now have charts or graphs on the repair-odds pages, car problem description pages, and real-world fuel economy pages.

Odds chartsOur “nada odds” and “lemon odds” stats provide the car reliability information many car buyers are seeking, yet get far less attention than our more conventional “repair trips per 100 cars” stats. These charts, which illustrate the percentage of cars that have required no repairs in the past year and the percentage that have required three or more repair trips, should help. Bar charts are also available.

CX-5 problem pieMercedes v Honda Repair CostsWe originally added TrueDelta’s car problem description pages so people could see the specific problems behind the numbers in our reliability stats. But they’ve become the most visited pages on the site!

With so much text these pages can be overwhelming. So Gayla added a new pie chart displaying the percentage of repairs by problem area, for a quick, colorful snapshot.

More recently, Gayla added pie charts of repair trip costs to the car problem descriptions pages. After all, it’s not just the number of repair trips. It’s also how much each one hurts. In this particular comparison, the Mercedes hurts far more than the Honda.

MPG graphWe’ve also added bar charts to the real-world fuel economy pages.

These are just the start. Have another chart or graph you’d like to see? Send us a suggestion!

How long should a car last?

VW_adOf the car ads in the 2014 Superbowl, VW’s ad was among the biggest crowd-pleasers. In it, a German engineer sprouted wings every time a VW somewhere in the world passed 100,000 miles. Apparently, VW has more cars on the road with over 100,000 miles than any other auto maker.

But is this much of a testament to their reliability? Back when I was a kid it was a big deal when the odometer rolled over from 99,999 to all zeros. But even in the 1970s and 1980s the great majority of cars made it to this mark. Today, virtually all of them do (unless totaled in a traffic accident). Instead, people expect no significant repairs for the first 100,000 miles, or even the first 120,000 miles.

How long should a car last? TrueDelta conducted a special survey a few years ago and found that the average car lasted about 160,000 miles, with over 200,000 not uncommon. If VW could claim the most vehicles on the road with over 200,000 miles, this would be far more meaningful.

2015 Chrysler 200

Chrysler-200-interiorA month after the North American International Auto Show (Detroit auto show), the car that seems most significant to me is the Chrysler 200. While the 2013 Dodge Dart and 2014 Jeep Cherokee were the first joint products of Chrysler and Fiat, the 2015 200 must compete in the critical midsize sedan segment. Will it be able to?

Though I haven’t yet driven the car, some strengths and weaknesses are readily apparent. The exterior is attractively sleek, if perhaps similar to the increasing number of midsize sedans with sweeping, coupe-like roof lines. A highly styled, well-finished interior separates the new 200 more from the herd. Unlike with the Ford Fusion, the top trim level is offered in a color other than black. Interior space is much less impressive. There’s a decent amount of it up front, but the rear seat would be average at best among current compact sedans. Hiproom is a bit tight, and headroom is in short supply.

Two engines will be offered, a 184-horsepower four-cylinder and a 295-horsepower V6, the latter the strongest in the segment. Both will be paired with the nine-speed automatic transmission introduced n the Cherokee. An all-wheel-drive system capable of shunting up to 60 percent of the engine’s torque to the rear wheels will be standard with the V6. So the V6-powered car should be quick, even with the heftiest curb weight in the segment (3,473 lbs. with the base powertrain, and over 3,700 with the V6). A handling and ride evaluation will require some time on the road. The related Dodge Dart is good but not great in these areas.

So, we have a car that looks good and should perform well, but that isn’t quite a midsize sedan in terms of interior space. Will the former outweigh the latter for enough buyers? We’ll find out later this year.

What happened with this 1.6T engine?

Hyundai one-six turbo engineEvery once in a while an engine comes around that’s promising on paper, but underwhelming in reality. It’s looking like the turbocharged 1.6-liter four-cylinder introduced in the 2013 Hyundai Veloster and now available in the 2014 Kia Forte could be such an engine.

On paper, the smallish turbo four is good for 201 horsepower at 6,000 rpm and 195 lb-ft of torque all the way from 1,750 rpm to 4,500. In practice, the Kia Forte SX managed only a 7.5-second 0-60 time in Car and Driver’s testing. And that’s with a hard, rubber-shredding launch. Drive the car like you’ll be personally paying to replace the tires and it takes 8.3 seconds to get to 60.

With an automatic transmission (a manual isn’t yet available), the 184-horsepower Mazda3 s gets to 60 mph in 7.2 seconds with wheelspin, and 7.6 seconds without it. Even more of a surprise, a Kia Forte with the 173-horsepower base engine and an automatic transmission is also a little quicker than the turbocharged SX, with a 7.4 second 0-60 and an 8.0 second “street start” in Car and Driver’s testing.

To be fair, the Forte SX was tested with a manual transmission. Because it requires one fewer shift and is geared better, the automatic should be a few tenths quicker. But this engine needs more than a few tenths to justify its existence.

Then there’s fuel economy. The Mazda manages an impressive 27 mpg city, 37 mph highway in the EPA’s tests. (Add another mpg to each with the Technology Package’s capacitor-based regenerative braking system.) My personal experience supported these estimates. The Kia Forte SX doesn’t come close: 21/29.

So we’ve got a more complicated engine that isn’t any quicker, while also being far less economical. How does this make sense?

Updated car reliability stats covering through September 30, 2013

We’ve got some good news and some bad news. Which do you want first? We’ll start with the bad. Not long ago it seemed as if the red unhappy faces in our reliability stats might be on the way to extinction, at least among recent cars. Well, with the latest Car Reliability Survey stats, which cover through the end of September 2013, they’re back. While last year not a single 2012 or 2013 model received the dreaded red mark, this time around five did, the most since 2009.

The five: 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee, 2013 Dodge Dart, 2013 Ford Fusion, and 2013 Nissan Altima and Pathfinder

Chrysler cannot seem to tweak the Jeep Grand Cherokee without introducing some new bugs. When this model was last fully redesigned, for 2011, it had a glitchy first year. The new Dart was okay initially, but has gotten worse and worse in recent quarterly updates. The situation could have been worse for Ford, but the C-MAX and Escape ducked back into the yellow zone, where you’ll also find the Focus ST. The Escape and Fusion suffer from poor panel fits, while the Escape and C-MAX have a tailgate latch prone to failure. The Focus ST’s original motor mount didn’t sufficiently restrain the engine during hard launches and shifts.

1349420999-Nissan-Altima-sideThe biggest story could be the Nissans. Three months ago the Altima was already faring poorly, but the Pathfinder was among the happy faces. The latter isn’t hard to explain. We initially grouped the Pathfinder with the related Infiniti JX. But the Pathfinder, like the new Maxima, received a new, more efficient CVT (continuously variable transmission), and this transmission has been misbehaving, with many owners reporting a shudder at low speeds. The JX received this transmission late in the 2013 model year. All 2014 Infiniti QX60s have it, so we probably can again group the two models for this model year.

Notably, three updated Hyundais, the Elantra GT, Genesis Coupe, and Santa Fe, now have scores in the yellow zone. It could be worse: last quarter the Santa Fe was in the red. Still, it’s easy to see why some Korean executives recently resigned due to product quality shortfalls.

Will anyone similarly accept responsibility for quality slips at Ford and Nissan?

Bad news now out of the way, plenty of updated models have been highly reliable. First year glitches might still happen, but they don’t always happen. Among early 2014s, the Forester and Mazda6 have had a great start. Among updated 2013s, the Audi A4 (and related models), Honda Accord, Honda Civic, Lexus RX, and Toyota RAV4 are in the green.

To check out the latest stats:

Car Reliability Survey results

Is Hyundai struggling with mpg?

Jump back a few years, and Hyundai seemed to have moved from worst to first in fuel economy. Their new cars were managing EPA highway ratings near 40, and they were on track to meet future fuel economy standards ahead of everyone else.

Then the news broke that they had made some iffy assumptions when calculating their EPA figures. The figures were dialed back and previous buyers were compensated.

Tucson-engineFor the 2014 model year, the Hyundai Tucson, one of the smallest crossovers you can buy, gets two new direct injected four-cylinder engines. Direct injection costs more, and is more prone to carbon build-up inside the engine, but manufacturers have been transitioning to it because it usually boosts both performance and fuel economy. But the new 2.0-liter engine (slated to make its way into a number of other Hyundai and Kia models, starting with the new Soul), actually makes one fewer horsepower than the engine it replaces, 164 vs. 165. Torque is up a bit, but not by enough to justify DI’s downsides.

And fuel economy? It improves by a single mpg in city driving, and not at all on the highway. EPA ratings of 23/29 continue to rank near the bottom of the segment. The larger Mazda CX-5 manages 25/32 even with its 2.5-liter engine. Add all-wheel-drive, newly available with the smaller engine, and the Tucson’s EPA ratings fall to 21/25, vs. the Mazda’s 24/30.

Continue reading “Is Hyundai struggling with mpg?”

Explaining the Cadillac ELR’s $75,995 starting price

CadillacELRMontauk30.jpgCadillac has announced that its ELR electric + range extender coupe will start at $75,995. The most common reaction: what are they smoking?

Personally, I had expected the ELR to have a starting price of $49,995 if they were smart, $59,995 tops. After all, the related Chevrolet Volt has a $34,995 base price. The ELR is more stylish than the Volt, has a much nicer interior, and includes some additional high-tech features. But the same can be said of the Cadillac XTS compared to the Chevrolet Impala. The XTS lists for about $15,000 more base-to-base, and about $10,000 more when comparably equipped.

How can Cadillac possibly justify a $41,000 premium? One possibility: they’ve determined that the car isn’t going to sell. At least not in significant numbers. A few people of sufficient means will want one badly. Most others wouldn’t have bought the car even at $49,995. Also, unlike the Volt, the ELR is a coupe, meaning that after any initial frenzy sales are likely to fall off a cliff regardless. Buyers of stylish coupes tend to be only interested when the car in question is the new new thing.

Punch these factors into the formula to maximize profits (or at least minimize losses), and it’ll spit out a very high price. They’ll earn high margins from the few people who’ll buy an ELR no matter what. And people who think the price is too high? They probably wouldn’t have bought one anyway.

(Another line of argument others have suggested: the MSRP is irrelevant. Like the German manufacturers, Cadillac can subsidize leases to reach a number people will find attractive.)

Can anyone help me with Jaguar math?

Jaguar-XK-2

In my rush to enter as much 2014 pricing and features data before we begin another round of the survey (139 models entered so far), I took a moment to ponder Jaguar math.

On the XKR, Jaguar offers a few overlapping special packages:

Black Pack $2,400

Performance Pack: $3,400

Dynamic Pack: $5,500

Because these overlap, if you order two or all three you’ll save a few dollars.

Black + Performance = $4,900, a $900 savings

Black + Dynamic = $6,800, an $1,100 savings

Performance + Dynamic = $7,500, a $1,400 savings

All well and good so far. But then we have…

Black + Performance + Dynamic = $9,500

So, get the Black Pack with either of the others, and you save $900 or $1,100. But get it with BOTH of the others, and you save only $400.

($9,500-$7,500=$2,000, vs. full price of $2,400)

I had to get creative to bring our site’s logic in line with Jaguar’s logic 🙂

Is GM asking too much for the 2014 Cadillac CTS?

2014 Cadillac CTS

I hope to drive the all-new, third generation Cadillac CTS before the end of the month. My expectations are high, both because of the related ATS and because of how they’ve priced it.

Even after a price increase to open up room for the smaller ATS, the 2013 CTS started at $39,990. The 2014 starts at $46,025, a $6,035 bump. Only about $700 of the increase is justified by the new car’s additional content. This is without adjusting for the engine change: last year’s 270-horsepower V6 has been replaced by a 272-horsepower turbocharged four.

Price both cars with 3.6-liter V6s, and the new one lists for over $10,000 more, $54,625 vs. $44,235. But additional content required to get the big V6 justifies about $4,000 of this difference, so the net remains about $6,000.

(This is also without factoring in discounts, likely higher on the 2013.)

So, is the 2014 CTS $6,000 more car than the old one?

Continue reading “Is GM asking too much for the 2014 Cadillac CTS?”