I actually revel in wildcard comparisons that demonstrate just how remarkable the Model S is.

And let's not overlook the obvious: they are both upscale sedans with a penchant for spirited driving. This isn't a sedan vs coupe or sedan vs pickup truck comparison. It is actually conceivable that a Rapide buyer would cross-shop a Model S because of the unique cache of the Model S, and much less conceivable they would cross-shop a Mustang.

Now, when Tesla starts slogging it out in the 30 to 40k range write me, until then they are just skimming off the crowd that with excess money who expect the same in their cars.

Hats off to their accomplishment, but maintaining quality and luxury at that price range is baked into the price.

[1] http://www.teslamotors.com/roadster [2] http://www.teslamotors.com/models [3] http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx [4] http://green.autoblog.com/2013/08/07/tesla-sold-5150-models-...

Operating costs of these cars are meaningless to people who can afford them, so until there's a Tesla in the $20,000--$30,000 range I don't see that as something that's going to factor into a purchase decision for most people.

I personally would never spend more than $10,000 on a car, and I'd have to be having a really weak moment to even spend that. I still find Tesla to be interesting to read about, they are quite clearly the best effort yet at an electric vehicle, but for me they will likely always be just a curiosity, sort of like a Cray supercomputer. Amazing, but really special-purpose.

I also wouldn't write off operating costs as a reason — certainly, those who can afford them can likely afford the operating costs of similarly priced ICE cars, but my experience is those with a greater amount of money tend to be more frugal than those with slightly above average income. There's also the difference between wealth and income — purchase power for something like a car may well be done on the basis of wealth, while maintaining it done on income.

Good luck finding a home in the UK for the same price as a Tesla S.

Finding a house here in Sweden in that price range is easy, as long as you're willing to live where no one else wants to.

http://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/houses/liverpool-city-centr...

If you buy second-hand you can also easily pick up an Aston for cheaper than a new Tesla S, so say the classifieds. I wouldn't recommend leaving it unattended outside your £40k Liverpool house though. Probably best not to drive it into the estate at all.

Couldn't care less. Couldn't.

Homes in London? Not even close.

I don't think it's fair to compare the Model S with the M3. The M3 (well, the M4) aims to be a compact executive. In terms of wheelbase, the Model S is much closer to the M5 and the Rapide.

What I really want is the Tesla S4/S5 or 335is-equivalent, though.

Sorry, I don't think the tech is there. Either the range would suffer (due to more compact frame allowing for fewer cells safely) or the power would be gimped (to allow for lower overall battery capacity).

Electric cars are competing with the entire petroleum-fuel supply chain, and as such, are fighting a david vs. goliath battle.

That Tesla does this, has won consistently, and wins with style is why their stock is up 500% over the past year.

Of course, they've picked their battles, and fighting the S4 or 3 series isn't one of those they're ready to fight (yet). Maybe, like Apple, they never will (Apple ceded the enthusiast/gaming desktop market years ago).

I'd also take a car which had the same general size and chassis as the Model S but with a larger, more-secure trunk at the cost of seating capacity. My dream car is a 2-seat coupe with a trunk the size of a compact pickup truck bed.

Of course here in the Seattle area there are tesla model S cars on every other street so the curb appeal story is a little different.

You are comparing cars that don't really compete, yet the Tesla matches or outperforms them. I personally like to know that it's faster than X or better equipped than Y or drives better than Z.

Maybe putting the Aston into 1st would be more fair, but that's not a realistic real-world test. You don't mill around town in 1st gear. It's a surprising result because having full-torque at all times still helps when you are milling around at local-town speeds. It's not just an electric-car pony trick.

I wouldn't buy an AM because I need a 4 door sedan for my lifestyle. Yet, isn't it useful to know that it is as refined as a high-end sports car?

Fine. So you'd be interested to see the Tesla compared to a WRC car, and you would find it useful to hear that the Tesla can pull higher g's on an asphalt skidpad and has a nicer interior?

isn't it useful to know that it is as refined as a high-end sports car

You got that out of this video? They barely even mention fit-and-finish. The main focus between the two is the acceleration comparison, which says zilch about refinement.

Sure, I'd read that article. Throw the Tesla onto a dirt track too, I'd read that as well. Hell, I want to know if it can go upside-down in a sewer tunnel. I don't see the problem here.

Oh, the Tesla has a nicer interior than the stripped Subaru racing shell? Count me impressed! (said no one)

The Rapide is no slouch, to be sure, but acceleration falls somewhere in the middle of a larger spectrum of goals for that car.

Unfortunately I would be very surprised if Top Gear touches a Tesla car again with a 10-foot pole (and I can't say I blame them).

I think they both had wildly different expectations of what was appropriate in that situation. Neither came out looking very good, IMHO.

But engaging the press in a press release war creates the wrong image for the company. Who will hear about it? Viewers of Top Gear and the NY Times. And they won't be likely to guess their beloved news source is in the wrong. You can't win that kind of fight and he should have known better than to try. I can't believe it has been good for Tesla on balance.

Top Gear is the Daily Show of automobile journalism. Although it's entertainment, a surprising number of its viewers would cite it as their primary source of auto news.

Just as with the Daily Show audience, the Top Gear audience isn't thinking very critically about every subject presented. With that kind of audience, it's all about appearances. Merely having heard that there has been a kerfuffle over their prior coverage of Tesla is sufficient for viewers to think, "well, perhaps what I saw about Tesla on Top Gear wasn't quite accurate." In other words, since loud and silly is all that this audience can perceive, I think Musk did the right thing.

I was skeptical of Musk's reaction to the Times, but in net, I think Tesla came out of that looking seriously intolerant of journalistic hijinks. And many people respect that.

I was also on the side of it being a slight misstep for Tesla to make as much of an issue of the NYT and Top Gear problems, but in hindsight I think it's paid off for them. There's been so much good press now that people thinking back on the events may have a different opinion than when they first heard about it, and Tesla was less well known.

Jesus, is there some bad blood between HN and Top Gear? Or is this the bad blood, the Tesla thing?

On second thought, I could see that being it. HN pretty much idolizes Musk after all.

But, whether you and I see it as entertainment is somewhat moot when, like the Daily Show, much of its audience actually gleans the totality of their auto news intake from this entertainment show. Because, frankly, many are not interested in watching the serious news shows, automotive or otherwise.

I think a suitable segment to parody would be the (rocket assisted) Mini Cooper Ski-Jump[1] from the Top Gear Winter Olympics Special[2].

For the low low price of a single Model S, a Merlin engine, and some quality time bodging one onto the other[3], he'd have a guaranteed viral hit in which to make his appeal to the public, as well as, almost certainly, the credibility of producing either a much better jump, or a much larger fireball.

As the saying (sorta) goes: "Never get into a rocket fight with a rocket scientist who owns his own rocket making company."

[1] http://www.bbcamerica.com/top-gear/videos/mini-ski-jump/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear_Winter_Olympics

[3] plus somewhere with a ski-jump they don't really like that much, and whose authorities don't have a problem with a mostly-horizontal rocket flight-plan, which might be tricky.

It doesn't really matter if their beloved news source is right or wrong, it still paints Tesla as litigious. The only time such suits over reviews expressly supported by the manufacturer go over well is when the reviewer committed gross fabrications or other inaccuracies.

The omissions in their suit speak quite loudly to me. For example, I just went back and rewatched the Top Gear review. They mention the engine overheated in one Tesla, and in the other the brakes failed while it was charging. I notice Tesla only made a big deal about the race track range estimate, which if I recall they didn't even claim was wrong- just misleading. That leaves an especially bad taste in my mouth- it's almost like Tesla is trying to discredit the apparently real failures by nitpicking unrelated minor details.

It all looks even more shady when you consider how few of these sorts of scuffles come up with Top Gear & other car companies.

(This is part of why Top Gear America is but a shadow of Top Gear UK)

Top Gear lied. Tesla wasn't expecting special treatment for sponsorship, they were expecting a modicum of honesty. You don't get to put this down to "culture clash" unless you're defining "ethical" and "unethical" as cultures.

Sometimes they fabricate things to make an awesome car look awful, sometimes they fabricate to make a mediocre car look awesome.

The common denominator is that they fabricate for the sake of entertainment. Anybody who actually watches the show would know and embrace that.

Judges aren't arbiters of truth, they're arbiters of law. If your standard for truth is "a judge didn't say it was legally defamatory", I hope nobody ever trusts anything you say.

Oh no! They showed a dramatization of running out of power while driving it on their track! How dare they!

(while driving around the track, cornering) "This car then really was shaping up to something wonderful. But then..."

(cut to Jeremy in the Roadster, a musical cue cutting off the soundtrack, signalling a problem. Jeremy pumps his foot, looks down at his foot and back up with a perplexed look on his face, and says "Oh", with backround noise of the Tesla decelerating.

Jump to outside view of the Roadster rolling to a stop in the middle of the track, with Jeremy narrating "Although Tesla say it will do two hundred miles, we worked out that on our track it would run out after just 55 miles." During this the scene changes to men pushing the Roadster in a hanger.

More narration from Jeremy, "And if it does run out, it's not a quick job to charge it up again."

Make of that what you will, I don't think words do it justice, which is why I included the video[0]. The narration is accurate, but the portrayal clearly implies something more than the narration, making it very to misconstrue what the facts are. The facts are, by the way, that the Roadster never ran out of power, they ran it for a few hours, decided they didn't want to wait for it to run out, and staged that portion.

Now, Top Gear is clearly an entertainment and comedy program, but to act like that's the end of it is also clearly ignoring the reality of the situation. Top Gear is less like SNL than The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. Viewers expect it to not be too serious, but right or wrong, they also expect to be able to get some information from the show, knowing that they'll need to sort through the context to determine whether it was a joke or not.

Keeping all that in mind, to me Top Gear seems to have overstepped slightly here. Then Tesla overreacted with a lawsuit. That's why I said neither seems to have come off well.

[1]: http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/electric-shocker, start at 4:17 for the relevant scene.