This is not obvious to a casual viewer of the show. I've watched a few episodes from time to time and it seemed like a show about reviewing cars to me.
According to the NYT themselves they were imprecise and made mistakes[1]. Considering that I don't know why a flawed review from 2013 would be a good indicator of anything.
[1] http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/18/problems-wi...
It is the classical "let me nitpit tiny details and then claim your entire point is wrong" arguing technique. Go look at the original NYT article, then read this rebuttal, and tell me that most of the major complaints in the NYT article don't stand.
There's a huge difference between 60,70 and 80 mph when it comes to efficiency. I can drop from 60-70 and see a 30% increase in my range due to v^2.
Yes, and the rebuttal, and the follow up. Have you?
> They flat out lied about a ton of things(which is why Tesla added logging after the TopGear incident).
I suggest you go back and look at it. It isn't as black and white as you seem to believe. Tesla muddied the water, in particular as few read the rebuttal or follow up, but ultimately the original article is still an interesting look at what owning a Tesla was like in 2013.
Plus the Top Gear thing was OBVIOUSLY comical. Since Top Gear is a comedy show after all. Tesla just had an incredibly thin skin about it or didn't understand what Top Gear was, the segment was entirely predictable.