2022 Tesla Model Y Long Range Awd on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Tesla exec calls rival EVs 'little more than appliances'

Tesla's Vice President of Business Development Diarmuid O'Connell called the company's competition "little more than appliances" at the Center for Automotive Research's Management Briefing Seminars in Traverse City, MI yesterday. "In essence, [mainstream automakers] delivered little more than appliances," O' Connell said. "Now, appliances are useful. But they tend to be white. They tend to be unemotional." According to Automotive News, O'Connell's main critique is that vehicles like the Nissan Leaf and BMW i3 don't deliver enough performance or range to draw the attention of consumers outside of a small group. The solution, in O'Connell's mind, is more power, more range, more excitement and a lower price – that last point is particularly rich coming from an automaker whose cheapest current offering, the Model S 60, costs $66,000 – although the cheaper Model 3 is on the horizon, way out there, somewhere. But some EVs are better than none, O'Connell added. "On balance, I'm happier that [traditional automakers are] doing these cars than not," O'Connell said. "I just wish they would do them better and faster." O'Connell also used his appearance at the Management Briefing Seminars to launch a volley at the Michigan legislature, blaming its opposition to Tesla's direct-sales model for the lack of available EVs in the Wolverine State. "I think if the Michigan Legislature would allow Tesla to sell cars in Michigan, we could probably address [the lack of available electric cars]," O'Connell said. Related Video:

Tesla says Model S fire started in battery pack; share prices falling

Yesterday's fire that engulfed a Tesla Model S, the first blaze involving the critically acclaimed electric sedan, was caused when a piece of road debris impacted the front of the car, damaging the battery pack and starting a fire, according to an email sent to AutoblogGreen by Tesla. Now, The New York Times has learned that the fire was indeed caused by debris that made "a direct impact ... to one of the 16 modules within the Model S battery pack," according to Tesla spokesperson Elizabeth Jarvis-Shean.
Despite the blaze, Tesla maintains that the battery packs did their job by isolating the fire, with Jarvis-Shean saying, "Because each module within the battery pack is, by design, isolated by fire barriers to limit any potential damage, the fire in the battery pack was contained to a small section in the front of the vehicle."
The nature of the fire, though, seemed to catch the Kent Fire Department Regional Fire Authority off guard. The department's report, which was obtained by the International Business Times and partially published on Jalopnik, claims that water used to put out the blaze seemed to intensify the fire, forcing the firefighters to use a dry chemical. Later, they found the battery pack still burning inside the front end. The report claims firefighters, "had to puncture multiple holes in the pack to apply water to the burning material in the battery," and also had to cut into the frame to douse the burning pack.

Tesla staring down California dealer ad probe request

Months after the confusing announcement of Tesla's lease-like financing program, the electric vehicle maker could face an advertisement probe that has been requested by the California New Car Dealers Association, Automotive News reports, which claims that consumers are being mislead by advertised monthly payments that are lower than what most people would experience.
The ordeal can be traced back to April 2, when Tesla made an announcement specifying tiered monthly payments for the three versions of the Model S assuming a 66-month term. But then Tesla revised the numbers upward overnight because, it claimed, it meant to say it offered a 63-month finance term, not a 66-month term. The automaker also claimed that factoring in the "true cost of ownership" of a Model S compared to a conventional fuel-burning car could drive monthly costs to below $500.
In May, it added an available finance term of 72 months, which, factoring in only gasoline savings, the company said could lower monthly payments to $580. But the underlying issue at hand is that the means which can potentially lower monthly payments from $1,000+ dollars (depending on the model) to under $600 can't be realized by the majority of Americans, the CNCDA says.