2021 Tesla Model Y Long Range on 2040-cars

Auto blog

J.D. Power 2020 Initial Quality Study puts Dodge and Kia in first place

For the first time ever, an American automaker is ranked at the top of J.D. Power's yearly Initial Quality Study as Dodge tied with Kia for the top spot. Kia landed in first from second place last year — though it's Kia's sixth consecutive year as the top-ranked "mass market" brand — while Dodge jumped an impressive seven spots to move into a tied first from eighth in the 2019 edition of the study. Dodge is one of seven domestic automakers that find themselves in the top half of J.D. Powers' 34th consecutive IQS study. Dodge and Kia's score of 136 problems experienced per 100 vehicles (PP100) puts them ahead of Chevrolet and Ram (141 PP100), Genesis (142 PP100), Mitsubishi (148 PP100) and Buick (150 PP100), which make up the top five after accounting for tied scores. GMC, Volkswagen, Hyundai, Jeep and Lexus round out the top 10. As you probably noticed, Mitsubishi and Lexus are the only Japanese brands to make it into the first 10 spots, and Genesis took home the award as the top-ranked premium brand. This is the first year that J.D. Power released data on the survey results from Tesla owners, and it's not good news for the California-based electric vehicle manufacturer. With an adjusted score of 250 PP100, Tesla is in dead last place on the 2020 IQS Study, just behind Land Rover's score of 228 PP100. It's worth noting that Tesla's score isn't an official entry into the IQS study because surveys were only available in 35 states as the company is the only automaker that has not granted J.D. Power permission to survey Tesla owners in the 15 other required states. According to J.D. Power, about a third of all problems reported by owners of 2020 model-year vehicles within the first three months of ownership relate to issues with infotainment and technology. In many cases, the high-tech systems aren't broken, but are difficult for owners to use or don't work as well as they should. Those issues are "just as severe as other problems," according to Dave Sargent, vice president of automotive quality at J.D. Power, especially since a "customer is stuck with this [issue] for the rest of the time they own the vehicle." J.D. Power surveys the owners of new cars with a questionnaire that covers 223 problems organized into nine categories: climate, driving assistance, driving experience, exterior, features/controls/displays, infotainment, interior, powertrain and seats.

Tesla takes New York Times to task for damning Model S review

The social media tête-à-tête between the New York Times and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, stemming from a defamatory review by John Broder of the Model S and Tesla's new "Supercharger" network on the East Coast, is heating up in a major way. Just yesterday we summarized the Twitter spat, and now Musk has expanded upon the data recorded during Broder's test drive - adding major credence to the criticism of the NYT writer.
The smoking gun in this case is the information that was captured by the data recorder in Broder's loaned Model S. The data recording function is one that is only activated for consumers when permission has been expressly granted, says Musk, but is always turned on in the case of media vehicles. Thusly equipped, Broder's vehicle was keeping track of speed, charging data, map data and more, presumably without the writer's foreknowledge.
The evidence recorded by the in-car systems happens to contravene Broder's most damning claims of the Tesla, says Musk in his article titled A Most Peculiar Test Drive. First, and perhaps most shockingly, the Model S "State of Charge" log shows that Broder's test car "never ran out of energy at any time." Broder's reporting indicated that the car ran completely out of juice at one point and had to be evacuated on a flatbed truck. The data log also points out that the trip was made at speeds ranging from 65 to 81 miles per hour, where the writer claimed to have set the cruise control at 54 mph, with periods of driving as slowly as 45 mph.

More speculation about Tesla Gigafactory announcement

Should we all be laying our chips down on Nevada for Tesla's proposed Gigafactory? At least a few news sources are saying yes, though another says there's a remote chance of a San Francisco Bay Area site getting the nod. Real remote. The frontrunner appears to be the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center, which is about 20 miles east of Reno proper and includes warehousing sites for Walmart, Dell and Petsmart, Transport Evolved says. Compared to other states in the running, Nevada has the advantages of lower taxes, lots of cheap real estate and some lithium-mining capabilities, while the specific site has very good highway and rail access. There's also already a li-ion company there, Dragonfly Energy. Feeding that belief is the sight of about 50 earthmoving trucks recently spotted at that site, says ValueWalk, Greentech Media and Jalopnik, in addition to Transport Evolved. But then we heard that the site had been shut down. Nobody involved is giving any clues, but the site is plenty big enough for a $5 billion, 10-million-square-foot plant that would support about 6,500 jobs. Meanwhile, Tesla may also be considering the former Concord Naval Weapons Station about 35 miles northeast of San Francisco and 45 miles north of Tesla's Fremont headquarters, says KTVU, the NBC affiliate for the San Francisco Bay Area. The problem is that's a Superfund site in need of some remediation. But that sort of cleaning project could be a good fit for a company focused on "clean" energy. Tesla is, of course, declining to comment. Tesla CEO Elon Musk said early last month that it was in "quite advanced" stages of planning for the plant, or perhaps two plants, and that the company was meeting on a daily basis with partner and battery-supplier Panasonic. The company is expected to officially announce the location of the Gigafactory later this year, and it could be up and running by the end of 2016.