

Tesla gets top marks in Consumer Reports satisfaction survey - felixbraun
http://www.4-traders.com/TESLA-MOTORS-INC-6344549/news/Tesla-Motors-Inc--Tesla-gets-top-marks-in-Consumer-Reports-satisfaction-survey-17483950/

======
Shivetya
Surveys where you have very enthusiastic first adopters tend to report well.
Car purchases driven by emotion rate very different than do those based on
need. Hence buyers of V8 Chargers feel much better about their cars than those
who buy Versas. When you have financial freedom to buy what you want you tend
to overlook issues.

Top that off with the general positive response of hybrid and TDI owners and
honesty I was surprised the S didn't get 100.

Not saying that it doesn't deserve its high score, but lets be honest, unless
it was just Fisker dreadful how could overly enthusiastic early adopters rate
it anything short of perfect?

~~~
smackfu
Just look at the other top cars:

>After the Model S, the Porsche Boxster sports car came in second place with a
score of 95. The Porsche 911 sports car and Chevrolet Volt, made by General
Motors Co, both got a 91.

------
calinet6
The market is really killing them for their current earnings report, and for
the statistically insignificant fires. The market doesn't appear to be
correct. Tesla has a long way to go, but they seem to be doing it very right.

~~~
alan_cx
I suppose one could point out that terrorism is also statistically
insignificant, but fear of it very much is significant.

So, I can well imagine that the fear of being in side a burning new fangled
electric car, which has the batteries making up the entire area of the floor
and are the scary chemical burny things, probably makes people think twice.
Especially when for what ever reason they is a safer alternative.

Now, given that marketing is usually about manipulating emotional response in
a positive way for a product, we can see that emotional response is a real and
serious issue. Simply quoting statistics simply fails because statistics have
little to do with emotional response. There for it is missing the point hugely
to bang on about such events being statically insignificant. Such events are
negative PR and marketing and have a huge negative emotional response.

Or, to ram the point home in a hard, emotional way... Imagine trying to tell a
parent whose child burned to death in a burning Tesla that its all very sad,
but comfort yourselves in the sure knowledge that their child's cindered
corpse is statistically insignificant. I'll park out side for you, and keep
the engine running, and hope the Mum is a poor shot.....

~~~
alex_c
You seem to have a bone to pick with Tesla - this is not the first emotionally
charged, negative comment I've read from you in a Tesla discussion. Is there a
reason?

The part that makes me wonder is your example of having to tell a parent their
child burned to death in a Tesla. Who is this example aimed at? It's one thing
to argue that safety perceptions can harm sales, it's another to argue... I'm
not sure what that example is actually arguing, other than FUD.

------
smackfu
Not surprising. The knocks against Tesla are generally reasons why people
don't want to buy them (price, range). A survey of people who already bought
them avoids those issues.

~~~
arethuza
On the subject of range, I was surprised to see recent ads for the
Vauxhall/Opel Insignia with a range of just under 1200 miles - which is pretty
impressive.

------
kirk21
Anyone interested in a meetup in Berlin? [http://www.meetup.com/Tesla-Motors-
Berlin/](http://www.meetup.com/Tesla-Motors-Berlin/)

------
embro
I wish I could afford one!

------
amerika_blog
I'm glad Tesla's doing so well, but a cautionary word about Consumer Reports:
they're often wrong. Some of their recommendations in fact turn out to be
total disasters.

~~~
neuralk
They have also increasingly had more of a Green agenda, which (although I am
sympathetic with) is troubling because it jeopardizes their credibility.
Specifically, I have seen them rate worse quality products higher than others
merely for being green.

~~~
dublinben
If "green" is a significant part of their score, then they're actually rating
the better product higher.

------
mcv
> The survey will be published in its January issue, which comes out next week

These people sound utterly confused.

Also, the article seems to present the fires as a bad thing, ignoring the fact
that the model S has less fires, and much less deaths than other cars.

~~~
robmcm
That sounds about right, magazines are always published way early.

~~~
mcv
I can fully understand publishing the January issue in late December, or even
half December (though that's already pushing it).

But right now it's still November. Next week it'll still be November. At what
point does the month associated with the issue stop meaning anything? Will we
get the Winter issue in the summer?

~~~
grecy
I've been saying the same thing for a long time.

I love how US car manufacturers bring out the "next year" model half way
through the current year.

The best example I've ever seen is in Q1 2014 Jeep will be bringing out the
2015 Grand Cherokee.

I'm looking forward to mid 2018 when I can buy the 2020 edition :)

~~~
Amadou
There may be a tax-savings angle to that. Some states, like Nevada and
Massachusetts, charge vehicle property tax based on the year of the car and
buying a car "one year ahead" can result in a reduced rate for that year
compared to same-year tax rate. That might short-term make leasing cheaper. I
only noticed it in passing when I leased a vehicle there.

