Why do you think there's a longer interval between inspections for Teslas? The interval for Hauptuntersuchung in Germany (which this article is about) is 2 years (except for the first one which happens after 3 years), regardless of car brand.

And a windshield wiper needing replacement wouldn't count as a "significant fault" that they force you to come back for before getting certified.

Inspection interval is the same, but maintenance interval is different.

And this is about inspection interval.

And my claim is that during a yearly maintenance any faults are found and corrected before the HU inspection. If you don't have a yearly maintenance then you have a longer time period for faults to develop. Or for items to expire, like a first aid kit.

Not German, but I do wonder if it's common to schedule your oil change and other maintenance just before your state inspection. I would certainly do that; get the dealer to fix all pending issues and get the car into tip-top shape just before a mandatory inspection. If this is the case, you would expect more problems with Tesla, as there isn't a dealer mechanic minimizing issues just before inspection.

It’s not uncommon to ask a garage to take care of the whole TÜV inspection process - they’ll do a pre-inspection, correct any issues they find, take the car to the TÜV, and then also fix any issues in the (unlikely) event that it fails.

This likely wouldn’t be the process with a Tesla, given there are no brick-and-mortar Tesla mechanics, and it’s less likely (given the absence of servicing) you’d have an ongoing relationship with a traditional garage for the car.

Yeah, that's going to significantly suppress the number of issues for non-Tesla cars. Interesting.

In the UK, “service and MOT” was standard practice.

I think it specifies in the article that the interval is longer because Teslas don’t need oil

Yeah, it's a bit odd. Combustion cars have less registered failures... because they're serviced more often? So more servicing = fewer failures at the time of this test. Duh. That doesn't say anything about the robustness of the car yet.

> This is faults found during a scheduled inspection

This implies we need an inspection regime in America. We’ve counted on servicing to catch unsafe cars. I hadn’t thought of that as something that changed.

> This implies we need an inspection regime in America.

Many states require yearly inspections already.

> Fifteen states have a periodic (annual or biennial) safety inspection program, while Maryland requires a safety inspection and Alabama requires a VIN inspection on sale or transfer of vehicles which were previously registered in another state. An additional 16 states require periodic emissions inspections.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_inspection_in_the_Unit...

Many states (or all the ones I have lived in anyway) have regular, mandatory inspections.

A lot are only checking emissions and lights.

States that do safety inspections are generally more thorough.

Virginia: https://vsp.virginia.gov/safety-and-enforcement/vehicle-safe...

Massachusetts: https://www.mavehiclecheck.com/motorists-basicinfo#Safety

Those are the only two states I've lived in. I don't get why so much of the country doesn't do these; it seems the Northeast of the US almost all require periodic safety inspections and the western US does not.

Missouri's inspection is on par with CT and VA from my experience. But that's the only midwest state I have lived in.

If I had a hunch, income plays a part. Flyover states are poor, that means older and more beat up cars. Older cars (out of warranty let's say) are more costly to fix. States have to balance "people need a car to make money" with "people need money to drive safe cars".

At least where I have lived if there is an emissions check it is a separate test. I think the inspections I have had to do involve brakes, lights, steering/tie rod, windows (no cracks/chips), exhaust, and I think in VA the engine light could only be on for frivolous things.

This year Tesla is ranked middle of the pack by CR but '21 and '22 it was bottom 5 for reliability, not to mention that whole Rueters article from last week.

Like this isn't the data point.

CR is biased garbage

There are also faults and faults. A defective oxygen sensor on an ICE vehicle is easily diagnosed and replaced within minutes. Squeaking interior and misaligned doors from the factory - not so much.

Squeaking interiors and misaligned doors are not “significant faults” at TUV.

Of course NVH aren't "significant faults" to a firm who specializes in safety feature auditing.

NVH are most assuredly THE most significant faults to sales operations analysts and finance auditors who see lack of return buyers, or literal returns of the vehicles.

Just because a manufacturer passed safety audits that KEEP ME ALIVE does not mean they automatically get to keep my 60 grand for doing so at the absolute bare minimum.

Yeah the presence of Dacia at the bottom leads one to suspect correlation with other factors, given that Dacia are quite reliable by design (they literally take the most reliable parts from the Renaults of 10+ years ago and repackage them as new models)

As you say, I suspect the lack of scheduled maintenance significantly impacts the ratings here

Dacias are definitely not reliable.

But also there's no bitter taste in your mouth if something is broken. Also you can buy new Dacia every 2-3 years and not be financially ruined

Dacia Logan is one of the cheapest, probably frequently the cheapest car that can be bought in Germany.

So a low reliability in exchange for a very low purchase price is to be expected.

For the price of a Tesla, you could buy a large number of Dacia Logan, to use another one whenever one breaks down.

So Tesla should better improve their quality, to no longer be comparable to the cheapest existing cars.

How is this not an indication of quality? They're not inspecting cars for kicks and giggles, they're inspecting them to make sure you're not hurtling a death device that will kill you and fellow drivers on the autobahn.

Because faults can include items such as the first aid kit expired, tyre inflator expired, headlights out of alignment, a crack in the windshield wiper, worn tyres, worn brakes, or low washer fluid.

These are not initial build quality issues.

All that is a defect, not all of which fail the inspection. Tesla Model 3s fail, among other things, tires, suspension and brakes, aka the stuff that holds a car on the road.

All of these fail an inspection. If you are at a mechanic they may fix these issues during a pre-inspection if they have parts available.

Expired First Aid kit? Common enough all inspection places I know sell them. Windshield cracks? There is hardly anythinh more obvious, and in Germany repaired / replaced for close to nothing. Unalligned headlights are a hard fail, true, as are worn / too old tires and brakes.

I got notices for worn wipers and too low wiper liquid, but never a hard fail. Unless there were other hard fails on the list, then they got added. That happened once so far, the most serious issue being the not properly working headlights (still have to track down the wiring issue). Never failed for tire inflators, never saw those being checked or asked for.

But again, Teslas Model 3's issues are mainly suspension, brakes and steering it seems. Together with constantly worn tires on one side only, I'd guess the whole suspension design, geometry and load distribution is bad by default. Most of the time this tire wear patterns are user errors, aka bad tuning attempts and tire choices, bad tire pressure...

Worn tyres is ofent an alignment issue. Worn brakes is ofent rust problems.

But ye it is an indirect measurement.

These are not « Significant Faults ».