You could fare plenty worse than Model S

imageThe January 2016 issue puts Model S reliability into some context. Here are the reliability ratings for any vehicles that could be construed as Tesla competitors (a stretch in some cases, but just go with it, dammit). Any conspicuously absent models were simply not rated, for lack of data.

Of course, looking beyond this one metric, Tesla’s customer satisfaction could not be rosier despite the hiccups.

Much better than average:
Audi A4
Audi Q3
BMW 2 Series
Lexus (anything)
Toyota (anything)

Better than average
Audi A5
Audi A6
Audi A7
Porsche 911
Porsche Cayenne
Porsche Boxster

Audi A3
Cadillac CTS
Hyundai Genesis sedan
Infiniti Q70
Mercedes E-Class
Mercedes GLE-Class

Worse than average:
BMW 5 Series
BMW i3
Cadillac XTS
Tesla Model S
Porsche Cayman
Porsche Macan

Much worse than average:
Acura RLX
Cadillac ATX
Cadillac Escalade
Chevy Corvette
Chevy Suburban
Chevy Tahoe/GMC Yukon
Chrysler 300
Dodge Challenger
Infiniti Q50
Infiniti QX60
Jeep Grand Cherokee
Mercedes CLA
Mercedes C-Class
Mercedes GL-Class
Mercedes S-Class


7 thoughts on “You could fare plenty worse than Model S

  1. Dave B says:

    Furthermore, if any of those other models on any of the lists, above or below, if they develop a fault, then good luck to you getting it resolved! At least with Tesla there’s no discussion and to date, at least for me, no charge – including many things that aren’t covered by any warranty – like balancing, fitting and aligning after-market rims with my winter tyres, for free? Imagine…


  2. Tesla, despite their (relatively) high failure rates succeed in customer care, much like Apple do.


  3. nea_caisa says:

    How the hell is BMW 2 Series on the list since it’s less than one year old…


  4. […] *Editor’s Note: This post appears on Check it (and other stories of interest) out here. […]


  5. […] You Could Fare Plenty Worse Than Model S […]


  6. Transformative technology will improve automotive reliability. Touch screens have been transformative as were LED illuminations. Robotic assembly, electric drive, these improvements continue to be transformative in their aggregation. It’s the more or less ordinary mechanical things that are getting Tesla in trouble and these must also become transformed. The process must be revolutionary rather than evolutionary, as Tesla does not have thirty years to get every prosaic mechanism to perfection from process. Dealing with regulation should be prospective but regulation thrives on retrospection, so government as well as suppliers must be taken into the collaboration as far as practicable. For customers and would-be’s, there isn’t much to do except watch the whole thing unfold.

    Novel mechanical devices are prone to failure. The troublesome door handles could be eliminated by a car that recognizes the driver and opens appropriately via well established, reliable, off the shelf devices. I like the handles, but those are holes that should be plugged. Falcon doors aren’t going to work, either. The X model should be abandoned as too complicated. There are diminishing returns on needless complexity. Sometimes diminishment nosedives. Eject.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s