But electric cars are new, we’re still understanding some of the problems with them, and we’re still understanding how people are using them. It’s not unreasonable for Tesla to have a high rate for these repairs given how unique their product is.
Let’s say the rate is high because of how unique their product is, how does that change anything? The repairs should still be recorded correctly (not goodwill) and laws followed accordingly?
A defunct battery can be swapped. A bad electric motor can be swapped. Sensors can be changed. These are trivial to do on an electric car.
There’s an incredible labour cost to do this kind of swapping on a combusting engine. An engine swap? That takes a highly experienced mechanic for an ICU. Transmission issues are also write offs.
The bar for an electric lemon is much higher.
Personally, I think lemon laws are overall very good for car manufacturers: they give people a sense of comfort regarding the worst-case scenario in purchasing a new car. And that's especially important for cars based on new technologies. But I'd love to see whether there's any empirical support for this.
The article alleges that Tesla wrongly handles most warranty cases as goodwill repairs. This hits a lot of possible legal issues.
* They can avoid legislation dealing with chronic defects in cars.
* They can sidestep reporting requirements for road safety issues.
* They can fudge the books when they report repair costs.
* They can avoid labeling cars they had to buy back appropriately.