Consumer Reports reports diaper rash

The magazine has written a follow-up article pointing out that Tesla’s retroactive expansion of its drive-unit warranty — a radical move totally alien to Big Auto — is irrelevant to the “body hardware” issues in the CR test car. You may recall it was Edmunds.com, not CR, that had drive unit failures. This follow-up action by CR invites questions, but this time the questions are about CR, not Tesla.

1. Are you pouting because Tesla seemed to respond to the Edmunds experience, but not CR’s?
2. Should every automaker extend its warranty on every problem experienced by CR, even if those issues were covered under the original warranty and might never recur?
3. If not, what’s the point of the follow-up article?

Tagged ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s