It still absolutely rocks if acceleration speed is your most important metric (which I personally find quite compelling), but in pretty much every other aspect they're janky cars compared to similar vehicles in the same price range and even some cheaper ones. Very fun to drive though.

THIS. "Extremely powerful & fast, fun to drive, and the company making 'em is run by an alpha macho guy who also builds space rockets"...yeah, that has huge emotional appeal to a large number of well-to-do males - who would not want to be seen in a Nissan Leaf, Toyota Prius, etc.

So, what other car (that I can buy now) gives me the same range?

Tesla Model 3 - 374 miles

BMW i4 - 365 miles

Ford Mustang Mach-E - 379 miles

BMW iX - 380 miles

Mercedes EQE - 384 miles

First impression: those ranges are well within manufacturing tolerances / testing quirks / etc. of each other.

Apologies in advance because I don't know much about cars, but how can there be a 100km difference just from testing quirks?

(My reply was to cjrp's comment - where the largest difference was only 19 miles.)

That's interesting. I don't own a car and I'm not looking for one, but I still had the impression Tesla was leading on range. However, they're beaten at both price levels, potentially with a significant price discount.

  Mercedes EQS 450+,   640km, €106,307
  Tesla Model S Plaid, 540km, €140,995
  Mercedes EQE 350+,   525km, € 79,850
  Tesla Model 3 LR DM, 485km, € 60,995 
  BMW i4 eDrive40,     470km, € 60,630
  VW ID.3 Pro S 5Seats 450km, € 43,720

https://ev-database.org/#sort:path~type~order=.erange_real~n...

There's a third issue besides price and range in the EV market right now. Wait time. e.g. that VW ID.3 has a wait time of over a year for delivery. That crosses it off my shopping list, unfortunately.

In Europe where I live - VW, BMW and Mercedes do not have a reliable system of recharging for longer trips. Why they are not working to create that is beyond me.

Ironically, the US has a head start on a nationwide EV charging network specifically because VW was a bad faith actor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrify_America#History

VW only did this because they were forced to. It's no mystery why traditional ICE manufacturers would be dragging their feet to modernize.

Ionity is owned exactly by those actors, and seems pretty developed (and developing) to me https://ionity.eu/en/network/network-status

You don't seem to be across what's happening in Europe. All of the companies you mentioned are invested in Ionity which provides 350 kW chargers at over 400 locations:

https://ionity.eu/en/ionity/who-we-are

Europe has standardized on CCS Type 2 Combo for charging. Any CCS EV can charge on any CCS charging network. Teslas can charge on Ionity, BMWs can charge on Tesla chargers, charging networks like FastNed, BP, GridServe, EnBW, Circle K and friends can charge all brands, etc.:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y33AArvMUQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TVohXHjLro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yra3AsicSRY

It is still not that great in the USA. In the Pacific Northwest, if I want to goto Spokane, I have to hope the the Electrify America charging stations in Ellensburg aren't down again. One point of failure doesn't make me feel very comfortable, especially since EA is so flaky (if Tesla opens up there supercharger network, I'll be the first to buy an adapter).

If I want to go down to John Day national monument in eastern Oregon, things are even worse. Things will get better (oh, and we want to do a trip to Anchorage someday...).

Real world range tests for highway driving:

https://insideevs.com/reviews/443791/ev-range-test-results/

That is one of the best tests out there, IMO. I do wish they'd add their charge curve details to it somehow. Something like the estimated time to completely a 600 mile trip would be an interesting detail, as range isn't the only thing that matters.

marketing claims or real mileage? because european manufacturers making up numbers is a thing as proven in court.

Aren't all EV ranges measured based on the latest EU measurement standard? Which means cars are incredibly prepped for those tests, but the results are not made up and they are more or less comparable between models and brands.

The i4 is overrated there. I think the 70mph test was only ~240 miles. The 3 LR does ~300 on the same test. The 3 also wins on charge speeds.

The Mach-E and ix are both a little better than they look though. The ix actually does amazingly well on range tests.

make sure to researched tested vs claimed range, Teslas have good range but fall short from claimed range by large %, there are cars that end up having the same or better range like the Taycan even though the claimed range from Porsche is less! do your own research, correlation is not your coin, etc

Yes, its complicated. Most people are more concerned with highway miles in the real world, but the big number that gets printed is combined milage.

A Mercedes EQS has more range than even the best Tesla S Dual Motor. A Lucid Air too.

> huge emotional appeal to a large number of well-to-do males

and yet I know more female Tesla owners than male

Sounds more like cargo-culting boys rather than adult males... I've personally know noone who decides car buys based on this, and this counts also 2 tesla owners. Car sale tax discounts, free charging, plenty of charging spots were the actual reasons for those 2 (myself I am still happily on petrol for next decade at least, thank you)

I can't agree with that. They are certainly not janky compared to the Leaf or Bolt and up until fairly recently the 3 was price competitive with the Bolt.

Beyond that, comparisons get more complicated, but there are still perks to the 3/Y. For example, the Ioniq 5 and EV6 charge faster but have less real world range at highway speeds. In practice, this negates most of their charging advantage.

If you want the best EV sedan for road tripping in the US right now, there is nothing lower price and also better than the 3 LR.

Only if we look at the only competition of Tesla being other electric cars, which has never been the case. It was just its most distinguishing feature, but ultimately it's an implementation detail.

> ultimately it's an implementation detail

Impressive engineering is always about details.

If you want to argue that there is really nothing superior about Tesla's engineering that's fine, but you can't shove implementation details under the rug when it suits you. For there to be nothing superior in their engineering there must also be no implementation detail that is superior.

My "implementation detail" comment above does not refer to the quality of engineering overall, but specifically in the context of competition. Yes, when comparing electric cars, the quality of the electric engine is a very large element; but it is much smaller if we're comparing all the elements that matter to someone buying a car (quality of body construction, interior finishing, steering etc).

The gap was worse with fossil vehicles. None of the competition in that price class had a chance racing model S off a traffic light.

That's just due to how the different engine types (internal combustion vs electric) works. The first needs a ramp-up time when starting...

Sure. Perhaps Audi, Benz and the gang should of thought of that before Tesla.

Why should they bother? They can go into electrics at their own pace, when the infrastructure and demand is better, and still eat Tesla's lunch.

Heck, even Audi A.G. that you've mentioned (not close to being the biggest car company) is comparable to Tesla numbers-wise.

In many industries it's not the first movers that get the market, it's the big mature market-friendly solutions (sort of how the iPod wasn't the first commercial mp3 player).

It's not like people want them to optimize for acceleration anyway...

It is comparable now, but was not even on radar back in 2012. My original point was about hindsight.

Ten years ago Tesla was much better ride than any other premium segment car.

That said, even today Tesla EV sales dwarf Audi, so the figurative Tesla lunch remains uneaten. That's what you have for playing catch-up.

They can't enter a new market at their own pace when it is eating demand for their existing market. If competitors wait another 10 years to bring a serious EV to market, they won't have the revenue to cover their expenses on their existing ICE business lines, much less fund the capex needed to get into EVs. And most car companies have a lot of debt, so the problem will be even worse.

Right now EVs make up such a minimal percentage of the car market that they aren't making a meaningful dent in ICE demand, but once they hit 10% or more, car companies that don't have a slice of that segment are going to be feeling it financially. I expect there will be major casualties in the car business because of failure to get into the EV market fast enough.

>Why should they bother? They can go into electrics at their own pace, when the infrastructure and demand is better, and still eat Tesla's lunch.

I had a lecture about electric mobility last semester where a tech lead (don't want to dox them) from Daimler's electric truck program and a tech lead from Daimler's electric car program were invited. In regards to electric trucks things seem to be going great but the electric car program had massive problems with Tesla. The person in question was very hyped about the competition but admitted they got beat with the previous gen cars and that they had to completely redesign their processes to be quicker since Tesla is constantly updating their models. They were hoping to be slightly better than Tesla this gen and to get ahead next gen. So in summary I'd say that didn't turn out great for them.

>It's not like people want them to optimize for acceleration anyway...

The many YouTube views of teslas beating sports cars would beg to differ. If people didn't want acceleration everyone would be driving an 80HP hatchback or a 120-160HP SUV.

So, being on par (on even a tad ahead) of the biggest competitor in the current gen, and being ahead of the competition in the next gen, is bad? Sounds fairly good to me, especially when you have trucks, ICE and EV, and ICE cars that provide a lot of cash to finance all of that development.

That's kind of the issue. Daimler's EV car project is considered a flop because it's only alive due to Daimler being able to lose money from it.

If they started earlier they would have been able to earn some of that money that went to Tesla, could have ironed out the issues while EVs were still considered in something like an open beta where owners had a lot more tolerance for issues and their processes would have become more agile naturally due to the competition with Tesla. Not to mention they could have improved their image as a luxury EV manufacturer by being one of the first.

You can even see the panic about being late to the game on Daimler's part. Their first gen EVs was made using ICE chassis which logically could not compete with cars designed from the ground up to be electric.

Benz is a little behind, but Porsche and Audi are doing just fine, in general. The Taycan and etron gt are both fantastic vehicles that compare well with the Model S. The larger etron SUV is about to get a revision that will make it very competitive as well.

The only one that I dislike within Audi is the Q4 etron. Its too close to the id4, IMO.