That is not quite true - you’re right that it is not Tesla specific but many current EVs are far less efficient: https://insideevs.com/news/567087/bev-epa-efficiency-compari...

Particularly German made ones, for some reason.

For US models :-)

Compare the mpge of different cars. Tesla tends to win even between EVs.

Engineering first results.

Engineering first? From the company with 1 inch gaps between panels? From the company that had no mechanical handles in the back, so if the electrical stuff stopped working (say, because the battery was on fire), passengers in the back had to finish a puzzle to find out how to get out of the car?

My panels look great. i also never look at the outside, because I am inside enjoying it.

I guess if you care about panels gap and not performance, go ahead and get a Brokeswagon?

> I guess if you care about panels gap and not performance, go ahead and get a Brokeswagon?

I will, and "Brokeswagon" marks you as a Tesla-Musk tech-bro from a mile away...

I would use something other than mpge. Tesla advertises numbers you won't see in the real world, more so than some other manufacturers (Porsche is an example that goes the opposite direction and under-promises). The EPA test isn't anywhere close to as objective as many people believe, there are ways to game it.

I do wish my Model 3 LR would actually go 358 miles on a charge, that's for sure, but it would have to get even lower Wh/mi than Tesla claims on the Monroney sticker. I suppose that's not the most egregious lie on Tesla's web site, however.

In real world tests, most EVs are far from Tesla’s efficiency. Some are very far, a few are as good.

Any reason why non-EVs couldn't get the same aero improvements as EVs?

Physically, no, but practically there is little incentive. ICEVs are so inefficient to begin with that small improvements don't really move the needle much on fueling cost like they do with EVs. Combined with the fact that you necessarily have to carry a great deal more energy with you in an ICEV anyway.