Blaze876

iTrader: (1)

Find it strange you want the customer to read but when Toyota advertise their hybrids / PHEVS as electrified vehicles you think Toyota is deceiving customers with false advertising. When you go on toyota website to build it states gas/electric.

So it's fine when Tesla does this type of advertising because the customer should read and realize it's not ready yet but when Toyota does it, you find it to be a huge issue. Come on you must see the hypocrisy lol.


Toyota should start advertising their PHEVs as Full Electric Vehicles then put a disclaimer it's fully electric for 40 miles then uses gas. I can just imagine the uproar that would get here lol.

Blaze876

iTrader: (1)

Imo it's not just someone who bought FSD. I believe many people bought a Tesla without FSD, but believing their Tesla will be FSD capable once it's complete then they can just purchase FSD after. Remember Musk said something along the lines of Teslas will be appreciating assets because of FSD. I'm sure some got tricked into believing these statements.

AMIRZA786

Tesla offered FSD in 2016 (as an upgrade) and beta testing started in 2020. So any cars 2016 and newer should support FSD. For your second question, I assume all cars from 2016 on will support FSD. A friend of mine who has a 2018 Model 3, v12 seemed to work fine on his.

Honestly, I don't think most people really care about FSD. I'm around a lot of Tesla owners, and most I know didn't pay for it. Could be wrong, but that's what I think

AMIRZA786

I don't know where you got that. I personally don't care if Toyota calls them EV or not. I think the marketing is smart on their part, if they call them EV's or not makes no difference to me

AMIRZA786

Again, from my understanding, most Tesla owners today didn't buy for FSD and can care less about it. When Tesla was a niche product, this may have been important to those early adopters, but as far as I'm concerned, not important. I personally would never pay $12k or $15k for a beta product, and I would never pay that for a working version of it either

swajames

Tesla's 2023 impact report is out.

Some snippets pertinent to prior FUD we've seen here on the forum:

- Data is showing that at 200,000 miles you can expect only a 15% reduction in capacity in a 3/Y, and only 12% in an S/X.

- In 2023 alone, Tesla supported the recovery of enough battery materials to produce 43,000 rear drive Model Y vehicles

- Teslas (and by extension, EVs in general) catch fire at a rate eight times lower than the US average.

- Tesla solar generated more than three times the electricity consumed by every Tesla facility, including all factories.

- After 3 years, a Tesla (and broadly, other EVs) has emitted less entire lifecycle CO2 than a comparable ICE vehicle, including manufacturing

Most of the key highlights are in the summary, more detail and data are in the full report.

https://www.tesla.com/impact

swajames

Another interesting snippet is that Tesla's own data shows that it did not have a Supercharger uptime problem, basically confirming that Musk's supercharger "pivot" was indeed horse****. The "we're spending $500m" he talked about would actually see a 77% decline in growth, and the focus on "uptime" is a complete red herring.

DaveGS4

iTrader: (2)

Tesla in the past has taken a liberal marketing massage of their ICE vs EV safety stats like this and I suspect they are with this fire claim as well.

Most EVs in the US market are much newer compared to the average US ICE vehicle. So that average US fire stat includes all the crappy old cars and trucks with less safety design and features, plus poor maintenance as they age. Googling the average ICE vehicle looks like 12.6 years old, EV average age is 3.5.

If they want to legitimately make this claim, they need to be comparing to ICE vehicles with an average age of 3.5 years.

I looked at the report and didn’t see the methodology for this fire stat spelled out as being apples to apples, they should leave out all the old Ford Pintos and such from the comparison.

swajames

The fire risk metric appears to be using normalized data based on current year per million miles driven, so by definition it should already exclude anything not on the road. It doesn't seem to me to be an unreasonable way of looking at the data. And in the interests of balance, those looking to paint EVs as having higher risk of fires etc - and we have had a fair few on the forum - aren't exactly bringing much if ANY data to the table.

The methodology is here:

https://www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport

Margate330

Much work needs to be done in this area of study, IMO

DaveGS4

iTrader: (2)

Looked at that as well, so it’s apples to oranges again.

You would think if Tesla and EV evangelists want to really address those ‘FUD’ points that are regularly brought up, they need to truly compare like for like.

I find their approach in regularly doing stats the way they do both disingenuous and misleading marketing.

swajames

I don’t see it that way. There’s nothing particularly egregious in Tesla’s claim, they are transparent about the basis for comparison, and they are consistent in its application. They also show data for five years, so already more than the 3.5 year average mentioned earlier. The EV fire FUD claims we’re talking about on the forum and other places are, on the other hand, generally presented entirely without evidence. If it were not for the existence and prevalence of FUD, Tesla probably wouldn’t have felt it necessary to call it out in the report.

FrankReynoldsCPA

I find it so hard to believe Tesla produced stats and figures when we have people in this same subforum excusing outright lies by Elon about their product as "normal puffery that's expected in business."

DaveGS4

iTrader: (2)

I’m not excusing the FUD statements on this forum and elsewhere at all.

I am calling out Tesla for sponsoring and continually advertising misleading marketing statistics, and also calling attention to that fact for those that like to use those statements to condemn the FUD. Doesn’t matter if they are consistent in their highly touted statements saying “ look we are so much safer” and “we catch on fire less”. They are building those claims on a dataset that is not remotely comparable to their vehicles or EV vehicles in general.

if EVangelists and EV manufacturers want to get out of the business of defending broadly held concerns that are considered unfounded, you’d think studies and statistics that show true apples to apples comparisons between EV and their modern counterpart ICE vehicles would be used. Maybe they would still be superior but the fact that that comparison isn’t done makes me suspicious the results would show a very different result.

The 5 years they have done this study have nothing to do with the average age of EV vehicles being 3.5 years. It’s simply 5 years that they have been making this bogus comparison.

swajames

Again, that's just opinion and interpretation. There's no new data, nor anything new to support a different perspective. Tesla provided numbers, sources and explained its methodology. You don't have to agree with Tesla's approach or conclusions, but they aren't unreasonable and they are appropriately supported.

And as for "not excusing FUD", that it's out there is the entire point. If it were not out there, it wouldn't have been mentioned in the report.