After the terrible treatment I received as a Volkswagen TDI customer, I will never buy another VW. Period. They fraudulently sold me a car, then managed to finangle their way out of any financial restitution by putting up not only extensive hurdles for customers who wanted to opt for restitution instead of return, they then penalized customers who experienced delays due to their internal system faults by simply rejecting applications for restitution that were even a little bit out of spec.
not sure what your problem was, i had two TDI's and did buybacks for both and, though it took a while, the experience was pleasant and the offer was generous.
The problem was I couldn't do a buyback due to my life situation - I was not in a place, at the time, where I could just give up the car and go get another one without major disruption. Think days off work. So I opted for restitution.
Yeah, they really screwed you if you opted to keep the car. My dad has a TDI and wanted to keep it but the number of hoops to jump through was ridiculous. Plus they wouldn't have the fix for a year and he couldn't get a sticker for the car without it. Ended up doing the buyback instead.
Owned a 2001 Jetta. The number of parts I had to replace became more than the cars worth. I will never own a VW anything because of the terrible reliability.
The Bora was good, we had one as well, sold it and bought a Civic that had its share of issues. However I would not buy a VW electric, not after Dieselgate. They're cheaters and cheaters need to be punushed.
Who would you buy from? VW got the most attention, but it seems like every automaker has been caught cheating emissions tests going back to the 70s. Daimler just got caught last month.
Mainly from Japan. Honda, Toyota, Mazda, Suzuki, Subaru. Not Nissan since it's an overpriced Renault now, not Mitsubishi since they're expensive and plagued with issues.
I've owned many VWs and Audis, and the 2008 Jetta I bought (albeit with a manual transmission) is still going strong. Not a single service issue, to date. It must have almost 200K miles.
Tough... I agree with pedal placement. I was probably more prone to occasionally stalling in intersections, but then I took the car to SF and drove there and got the feel dialed-in real quick.
I've since bought newer cars and gave this one to a relative. It's still on the original clutch/transmission, so I guess I didn't do too bad.
Before I gave up owning a car all together a year ago, I used to take my car to an independent car mechanic. He is also the singer in one of Norways most popular rock band, The Dum Dum Boys. Compared to the car mechanics working for the car brands, he does not seems to hold any dirty details back. He claims that new german cars needs to have a lot more parts replaced more often now than they used to do 20 years ago. The cars have not become more expensive either. Wires, cables, casks, everything breaks faster than it used to not that many years ago. If you thought the car industry have become more disruptive and automated, you probably have to think again.
Heh, yeah people complain about that generation of cars from VAG quite a bit.
I had a MK4 Golf with the 1.8T that I raced every month for a few years and also drove to work. It broke a couple times, but wasn't unreliable. I think this was partly because I did preventative maintenance.
I think - the motors were fine for the MK4s, but everything around them had one problem or another.
That was a different 1.8T. But yes it seems every manufacturer has had a misadventure with coil packs. Not sure why.
The 1.8Ts in the Passats gave the transverse 1.8T a bad name. The one in the Passat is mounted lontudinally, like your classic American v8. To do that with the Passat (for the AWD system) they had to move the engine down and a crossmember was in the way.
So they wisely made the oil pan smaller. On a turbocharged engine. Doh! To add insult to injury lots of dealers used cheap oil. So engine failures happened.
Fun fact - you can take the engine from the Passat - turn it 90 degress - and bolt it in pretty much any VW from 1979-~1999. Even the waterpump housing was unchanged for like 20 years. These engines are commonly used as power upgrades for older cars (which is what I am doing with mine).
The 1.8T that was in the GTIs was a complete redesign and had less problems. Forged internals etc. But VW decided to use a timing belt instead of a chain and when owners forgot to replace the belt at 80k miles and the engines went kablooey it didn't exactly help customer relations. A great engine destroyed by one consumable component. Luckily VW isn't using belts anymore.
In addition to the fine reply by another commentator, I'd like to point out that the amount of paperwork I had to do was enormous. I spent several days in aggregate working to get it done. It was more complex than most, since I had moved states with the car. That's time out of my life, time stolen from work and from my family. And due to internal faults in their system their acceptance of my work was delayed and I ended up getting the car to the dealer 2 days after the deadline.
Butthurt? Call it that if you want. But after that, I'm voting with my wallet and never buying another one.
Buying a product when told it has X features and specifications then receiving said product with Y features and specifications and then becoming upset over it as a consumer isn't "entitlement".
You are giving people way too much credit here. No-one is going through all of the specifications of their car and buying it for those reasons. Plus, you don't buy a diesel vehicle to be eco-friendly, you buy it to get better gas mileage. Car came with X features, which is high MPG. VW got in trouble for X features so they had to flash the computer with Y features, which is lower MPG. This particular customer didn't want to give his vehicle up, but wanted a check. For what reason? To receive money. There is no other reason, if this person was upset about the scandal, they would get rid of the VW fast. Do you not see how this is entitlement? They didn't care about the fact that their car is polluting the planet, they just want money.
Yes, because as I understand it there was a second option offered: restitution, which the owner/OP selected. If you have a point, it is not clear to me.
I have a 2015 Jetta TDI and opted to keep it and get the payout and modifications. I had no issues at all, I got paid the specified amount at the specified milestones and got a rental paid for by VW for the days the car was at the dealer. I've currently got ~110,000 miles on the car and other than a few minor cosmetic interior issues its been good car.
I expect to keep it for another 100K at least and my next car I expect will be electric.
For context my previous car was 2002 Subaru WRX that I put 340,000 miles on, with a top end engine rebuild at ~180k, after a "friend" who borrowed it continued to drive it after the radiator return hose burst and it overheated.
I sent my initial reply in fairly quickly, and got a restitution offer letter back. However, that was only the beginning.
First, they offered to pay half before the modification, then half after the modification. After I got the final final approved offer, it was only all after the modification.
The modification wasn't possible right away, because they hadn't decided what to do yet. Eventually they decided to offer a fix for these engines, and the EPA eventually agreed to allow that fix for my engine. But that was the better part of a year. When the fixes were begun to be rolled out, the initial reports were dismal, with reports of engines running rough and bad performance. The message began to be "don't let them touch your car." I decided to wait until at least the second half of the window for modifications to be performed so that the bugs could get thoroughly worked out.
Meanwhile, life got more complicated. I started moving from one state to another, and that meant three homes in two years. Since I couldn't register the car in the new state until after the repair was done, I needed to extend my registration in the old state.
After the second move, I was able to complete the process, and the approved modification was available. I went to complete the process, but due to moving to the new state I needed to re-do all of the original paperwork, and I needed to send a letter stating what I had done.
They restarted my application process twice.
There was a fault in their system that left my application in an inconsistent state, resulting in errors in the court settlement web site. I spent time on the phone working through that, with multiple people.
At one point I needed to print out a dozen sheets and mail them in. While not a big deal, I don't normally print stuff, so getting a printer located and working is just another hurdle.
After another set of failures in getting the system sorted, they actually requested that I fax in documents.
FAX.
And after all that, I missed the deadline for the dealer work by 2 days.
My appeal to their 3-member appeal review board was filed within the 15-day window, but it was denied.
Interesting (and great that the bigger manufacturers are starting to come through with their electric offerings) but the price:range ratio doesn't seem great compared to the Tesla model 3?
It's hard to be objective with all of the strongly pro- and anti-Tesla nonsense flying around, but I've had a sneaking suspicion for a while that once the market matures a little (with eg Audi, VW, Porsche all offering their first-gen EVs) Tesla's offerings will be seen as more revolutionary (or at least, taken less for granted) than they currently are...
The least expensive Model 3 in Germany is 57.900 EUR with 540km (wltp cycle) of range – part of this is that they've only been exporting the high margin long-range AWD models. The more expensive "First Edition" id.3 will have approx 425km of range for 35.000 > x < 40.000EUR. Even taking the top end of that range, it seems the $:km ratio is in favour of the VW. If the First Edition battery is equal in size to the yet-to-be-released 58kWh battery, it seems the efficiency is at least comparable to the M3 as well.
Plus, you probably get a better interior. Certainly a better built one…
Looking at Tesla Germany, Standard Range Plus is 44.5k euros, which includes partial premium interior and autopilot. The SR+ Model 3 is price competitive with Kia/Hyundai, so I'm skeptical that VW will be able to pull some rabbit out of a hat and change that.
Note there are Skoda and SEAT cars based on the same platform also coming soon, which are in many ways more obvious competitors for Kia/Hyundai. I would not expect the Volkswagen Group's VW product to be the low end of their pricing.
If the interior is anything like my Tiguan... I would greatly prefer my Model 3 any day. I don't think the ID3 is going to come with a premium interior... haven't seen any photos of it so I could be wrong.
I dont get people keep complaining about Tesla interior. I love the interior on my model 3 much better than any car I have been in. Can you list some of the things you dont like
Though much improved since the early days, both the 3 and the S have considerably worse fit and finish and material quality than competitively priced vehicles. Whether for weight, cost, or complexity savings, they also eschew a lot of sound deadening material.
A $50,000 C class or A4 has a far nicer cabin than anything Tesla has produced, and when you start moving up into E or F segment vehicles the difference is even more pronounced. My 2010 B8 wagon with 115k on it has fewer creaks and rattles than a coworker's 2016 S with a third of that.
Infotainment wise, I find Audi's Virtual Cockpit to be incredibly well done and quite like MMI as a whole. I've not used the latest BMW or MB product that's just been released recently, but both seem to be garnering quite good reviews.
Definitely it has come long way, the model 3 i have has not creeks or anything like that and with infotainment sure Tesla needs bit more features to be added on bluetooth integration but, I love the simplicity of the car is hard to describe and cockpit on the car almost feels like a spaceship. I almost feel I am outside the car and not inside.
Unless it comes with Elon's Reality Distortion Generator(tm) these days, no, it doesn't.
Unless your goal is getting an EV for the sake of getting an EV (Tesla's are certainly best here so far), thew only thing that spending more than a day in a Tesla changes is that I want to go kick Elon's behind even harder.
All you really have to do is look at the current e-Tron and iPace efficiency numbers-- the Model X, which is a heavier vehicle with a smaller battery, goes farther.
Model 3 is safest production car to the date, as most of the car components are integrated problems can be fixed remotely but still when you have to get to Service Center Tesla is notably improving it. Quality of Tesla drive train, battery, efficiency, supercharger network, software ecosystem, Autopilot (which is best driver assist system available now) .
For example, as to the claim it is the safest production car ever made, you could cite NHTSA finding the Tesla Model 3 had the best combined VSS (Vehicle Safety Score) ever tested. [1]
Regarding remote maintenance, the latest firmware does add the capability to notify the operator of an issue and pre-orders parts to your home service center. [2]
I can't speak to drive train specifically, although Tesla has stated they design and build to a 1,000,000 mile standard. Longevity and low maintenance cost is a huge factor for Tesla buyers. A Model S driven for Tesloop logged over 400,000 miles and ended up with just a $0.05/mile maintenance cost. [3]
Battery reliability is much higher than everyone expected, and owner surveys of older Model S batteries show 90%+ capacity after 160,000 miles. [4]
Efficiency is easy to demonstrate that Tesla is way ahead of the pack. In my Tesla Model 3 AWD with 19" rims I get ~220Wh/mile, and the RWD version with 18" rims is more efficient than that. The only more efficient EV I know of is the Ionic, which has a 28kWh battery and 3,100 lbs curb weight allows it to beat the Tesla Model 3 at 50kWh battery and 3,552 lbs by 4% in terms of mpge, but has 100 miles less range.
The Tesla Supercharger network is one of a kind. The V3 Supercharger update brings the fastest production charging in the world.
The software ecosystem, presumably meaning OTA updates, have brought innumerable software features, and even hardware performance upgrades (braking and acceleration) in the last several months. My son also really appreciates the new Atari games that keep coming out.
You can debate whether you think AutoPilot is the best driver assistance package available, but it is far from "blatantly false". AutoPilot takes me to work and back every day with very little manual input. It makes a heavy traffic commute totally stress free. I do look out the window while I have it engaged though, not watching a movie on my phone or tablet.
I thought that the claim that Tesla is the safest car has been thoroughly debunked long ago. It's safer than an average car on the road, but not than a car of the same age and price. Not to mention that your average car does not try to actively kill you by driving into large, stationary objects.
Besides, I have no qualms with claims about the drivetrain, Superchargers, and other things that might well make Tesla the best EV out there.
It's the claims that Tesla compares with.. well, with anything, really, in build quality, that it has better interior or ergonomics , or that "Autopilot" is the best driver assistance system that really raise eyebrows. I can't comprehend what kind of thinking makes one say that a touchscreen interface in a moving vehicle could possibly be either more convenient or safer than dedicated buttons. And specifically in TM3, what could possibly make them put all output (mind you, in a car that you still have to drive yourself) off to the side?!
Passenger EVs by nature of their bigger forward crumple zones, should be safer than an ICE passenger vehicle. Tesla Model 3 is particularly safe when it comes to forward collision and rollover. They've also done as good a job as anyone with side-impact and things like partially overlapping front impact [1]. So it adds up to substantiating the "safest" claim in terms of protecting you during an accident.
Obviously it's better to avoid an accident entirely. As of last year Tesla drivers had traveled more than 1 billion miles under AutoPilot. Miles driven by AutoPilot continue to be significantly safer than non-AutoPilot miles [2] but the miles are not directly comparable (e.g. highway vs non-highway). An increasing number of my non-highway miles are driven on AutoPilot now though, as the system continues to improve. Tesla recently (as in two weeks ago) introduced additional active safety measures for accident avoidance [3], and there is even a recent video of AutoPilot avoiding a bunny in the road [4].
As far as the screen, maybe it's personal taste. I can tell you I love the touch-screen and I love how it is located in the car. I particularly enjoy that there's no screen right in front of me behind the steering wheel. I commented upthread that the feeling of driving, particular at night, with nothing but the road directly in front of you is almost surreal.
All the most common functions (blinker, wiper, volume, cruise speed, skip track, voice command) are hard-wired, so there's never a need to take your hand off the wheel. To make more fine-grained adjustments (which I find you practically never need to do) the touch screen is so responsive I can do as fast as with a button or dial.
Maybe it should be safer, but just because Tesla or a Tesla fan site says so does not mean that it is. Given Elon's rather strained relationship with truth it might even mean quite the opposite.
Really, looking at the official testing spreadsheet you've linked in your previous comment, TM3 certainly does not look like a safest car on the road. Not terrible, but will pulverize your femurs just fine, and does not get scores significantly higher than much cheaper cars.
Avoiding an accident is, indeed, better. But here Tesla's harping on their "Autopilot" does not come out as good either. There were links posted here from IIHS showing that Tesla on Autopilot does not fare particularly well. Of the 9 models with 0 highway deaths (and those are not some exotic cars of which there just are very few, some are your typical soccer mom minivans) none was a Tesla. [0] does not look very good either.
I am also not aware of any other driver assistance system that actively tries to kill you in not particularly challenging circumstances. Now, I am not going to say that it is necessarily Tesla's technical fault that somne of their customers are... let's say not particularly astute and believe that "Autopilot" will actually autopilot them down the road, but at least their marketing claims are outright evil.
If the screen works for you, great, but I am afraid it is the case where it only works for you until the unfortunate moment when you keep looking at it adjusting A/C while the car accelerates into the nearest fire truck. Sure, you can do wityh it, but no, it cannot possibly even equally safe (or convenient) to a system with a dedicated button that can be operated by touch without looking.
Can you adjust temperature, airflow direction, seat temperature (oh, you can't even cool them, sorry /s ) without even having to look at anything? I can, and it's an 8 years old car (it also doesn't have uneven gaps or rattles, but let's ignore that for now). Sure, nice of them to have kept blinkers in the standard position (I wonder if they would have been even allowed on the road otherwise) but that's not exactly a glowing praise...
Jaguar's old supplier of electric parts was known as "the prince of darkness"...
I'll take laggy infotainment over a system where you have to use touchscreen to adjust temperature any day, though. Nothing says "a responsible car maker" like having autopilot drive you into a firetruck while you're fiddling with the touchscreen.
Also i would assume that the non-Tesla offerings will be cheaper.
What i saw about the automobile industry ist that they are very good in building factories/supply chain's where they can produce as cheap as possible. The setup of such a supply chain takes years but when it's there i assume that the prices will be lower than Tesla's. (Also so far i know Tesla need's still a relativ big amout of work hours per car, 60h compare to 30h industry standard)
I think Tesla was smart to appeal initially to the European automotive fans. I've bought German all my life but my next car will be a Tesla.
Think I think the made-in-America customers will come around.
I think the Asian car fans will be a little trickier because of the price/quality proposition. Although it seems like the Prius fans are already coming over.
Might want to look into the service situation before buying a Tesla.
Seems to be an area that never gets properly talked about and we've seen examples posted of people waiting up to a year for repairs. That's completely unacceptable.
My opinion is that the best way to cut through all the opinionating is to actually buy an EV. For most people, buying an EV is still a far-away, abstract notion so I wouldn't put much stock in their opinions until they spend the money.
This is great news and now we need them to deliver (and not delay/back out). I hope they sell a ton. We really need an entrenched player to fully commit to selling EVs. If VW goes all-in, everyone else will have to follow suit. Tesla needs to keep the pressure on.
I love my Volkswagen but I'm instantly put off the id3. I'll wait for an electric Jetta or more likely run what I have into the ground to avoid the new cockpit nonsense everything has now
Which hovers around 5000-6000 / week. The "2018" bloomberg model 3 tracker stays pretty up to date, and also still falls right inline with numbers they release at the ends of their fiscal quarters:
Also the EU mandate to have a fleet average of 95g of CO2/km by 2021 (or, alternatively, large fines). We're seeing all the European manufacturers, including those that don't sell much/at all in the US and therefore CA, doubling down on EVs because they're an easy way to have a big affect on the average.
i agree the comptetion between established players is required and hopefully leads to solutions to the main problem keeping many people in ICE over EV: range
That's a bit disingenuous. Without those mandates there would be a lot less auto manufacturers with EV models. CA has jump started the EV industry with those mandates. Could there be more EV owners? Sure, but this is still a huge improvement.
The only regret with pre-ordering a Nissan Leaf before release was that the company Nissan hired to run the pre-orders fucked it up. People who ordered up to six months after we did got their cars months before we did.
But when we were finally given a hard date, it showed up on that date, and we've been happy with it since. The only reason I don't jump in line for the ID is because my wife and I are really hoping they build that concept van to replace the '81 VW Westfalia we've got now. They announce that for pre-order, and it's "shut and take my money" time.
If you pre-order a bad game, you're maybe out $60 if your store doesn't let you refund the product. If you pre-order a bad car, the out of pocket cost is many times higher than that.
Very true, and the first generation of anything with mechanical components generally faces more issues compared to later generations and revisions. Getting a first generation car seems like a bad idea.
I'm completely clueless about electric engines so I was wondering if, besides range, there are other attributes one should look for in an electric car like HP and that kind of stuff? In other words, are all electric motors so similar that range is the only differentiator?
Good question, and the answer is a resounding "consider more attributes".
You should take into consideration the (sustained) top speed, and acceleration (for electrics, that tends to range from great to decent for 0...60, but fall off rather quickly beyond that). Those two are limited by on-board power electronics, by battery & engine cooling capacity (which is the main limiting factor in all electrics I've seen so far), and by the motor power rating.
Unlike the typical ICEs, for a short while you can over-load electric motors by quite a bit beyond the continuous rated power - say, for quick & safe over-taking - but the sustained top speed of electric vehicles isn't all that great.
The other important factors are: how quickly you can re-charge the vehicle, and how long will the battery pack last (or conversely, how quickly will it degrade), including the manufaturer's warranty, if any.
As the electric motors are also used for regenerative braking, the efficiency of energy recovery is a moderately important consideration, especially for start-stop city style traffic. Sadly I haven't yet seen that information published for any car.
Charging plug compatibility and charging station availability - for fastest charging you want to be able to use the car's native standard.
Lastly, as with any car, safety ratings (battery pack protection is a big item here) and towing capacity.
Range
Battery Cooling technology, steer clear of air cooled
Charging rates
Weight
Cd
From my view weight is the big limiting factor in EV efficiency at lower speeds and Cd becomes more important as you increase your speed to highway numbers and higher.
Engines are important as the company Munro pointed out during their tear downs. They stated that Tesla had by far the most impressive EV motor they have seen based around how they implemented the magnets and their inverter work finally coupled to a battery solution that proved naysayers wrong.
That out of the way, I would not fret over motor differences. It all comes down to, if it passes the initial three features I listed about then concern yourself with, do you like how it looks, how it drives, and does it fit in your lifestyle. In no shape or form think you will save money parting with your current vehicle for a new one however if you already were decided to change cars and EV may fit your lifestyle.
There is a good possibility many EVs will be rear drive which will greatly improve driving dynamics, the ease of packaging opens up many options
No. Electrical engines are even more dissimilar between them than diesel and gas engines. They can have different geometries, one can put them in wheels or power any or all of the axles. Traction designs all have very good starting torque, which translates to good 0-60 acceleration. The most wonderful thing about them is that you don't need a gearbox. The limiting factor is the battery. The power electronics and the motor are pretty much a solved problem.
The amount and rate of energy that can be delivered from the battery to the wheels probably depends more on the power electronics than the motor. Obviously the motor will overheat at some point, but I would bet the power converters and interconnects would fail much earlier except on very high performance models.
so I worked in the automobile industry in a prominent company working with all prominent car manifacturers, and I was one of the PMM experts there (the dynamic electrical motors).
By far the best PMM's worldwide are made by Kessler, Germany. They are way ahead of everyone else, but they can only manifacture about 200 units per year. Hand-made, like a Ferrari. Many of these PMM's for Formula 1. All the good german carmakers know about these very well, the prices, principles and tricks. They are far ahead of most others, including Tesla.
What Tesla did well was bringing parts of this technology to market. In record time.
I like that electric cars are starting to have smaller hoods. With the battery located at the bottom of the car and the electric motors at or in the wheels, there is no need for a long hood.
Just switching to electric will not solve our mobility problems. Cars need to get smaller and lighter and we need fewer of them, not more.
I'm looking forward to what's on the horizon in the european L7e category (up to 450kg w/out battery), for example the Microlino. DLR is also doing some interesting research in this area with their NGC Safe Light Regional Vehicle (SLRV). They recently did some crash tests with promising results:
https://www.dlr.de/dlr/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10122/333_r...
Is there a reason to start this new model name vs simply calling it the 2020 "eGolf"? Is the eGolf basically a hack design and the ID3 a true, ground-up electric design?
That would be my interpretation. That the traditional Golfs and Tiguans will continue to be delivered with ICE/Hybrid drivetrains but that any pure EV model of an ICE car would always be a compromised design because of how radically different they can be built. So even if they make the ID look like a golf in the body it’s a radically different car, and if they still make the golf they shouldn’t be selling this under the same name. As the article says, the interior will have much more space for example. Calling it eGolf might be confusing, and might be underselling it.
From the article:
"The ID.3 will be the first car built on the Volkswagen Group’s “modular electric toolkit” or “MEB” — a technological platform for EVs that includes the battery pack and motor."
That, and this not the only planned vehicle based on this platform, so "eGolf" would be a bit restrictive.
I would say a lot of it comes from it being a completely different platform. Most likely there will have a line of cars with similar names kind of like BMW's i series that will encompass all the electric vehicles made on the platform.
Volkswagen is positioning this as the 3rd era of the company. They started with the beetle, then the golf has been the backbone of the company for 40 years, and now the ID.3 is going to be their core identity.
> buyers will get up to 2,000kWh of charging for free during the first year.
That's about £250 worth of electricity - if you charge solely at home. From fast chargers, that's about £750 - £1,000.
Not a bad incentive if you do lots of long journeys and need to charge at a motorway service station. But perhaps not as generous as it sounds for more typical use.
Seeing as how that would ring up to around $160 here it makes me wonder how much cost different going EV would be for me personally. Unfortunately fuel is also cheap here at $2.28/gal on average the last month or two and I average around 37 to 46mpg in a non-hybrid turbo car.
Maybe details are not visible but overall body shape can be figured out and... unless it's full placeholder then for me it's completely disappointing. I'm aware that design was decided, created, analyzed and discussed by teams of highly competent people but for some reason it's against my "common sense".
Tesla and this ID.3 are in similar price range [1] and Tesla just looks way better, customers who are buying EV are not traditionalists and I'm pretty sure that modern look is something as important as modern vehicle features. ID.3 aesthetics are just like old boring ICE cars (same thing can be said about audi etron)
I've seen a few e-golf's charging on the streets in the past few weeks in Berlin. I assume these are pre-production models. Looks like a normal Golf aside from the charging port.
From my understanding, this is a big step for VW. However, short term, they will likely have range and production capacity issues, just like Tesla did not exactly hit the ground running. I would not be surprised if this is merely a stop gap solution until they get cheaper/better models out. Short term, Tesla could really make VW hurt by ramping up production and dropping price and competing with both their ICE and non ICE offerings.
>Short term, Tesla could really make VW hurt by ramping up production and dropping price and competing with both their ICE and non ICE offerings.
That's a very big could. Tesla have an advantage in terms of battery availability, but they simply don't have the expertise and the experience to build cars at real scale. Tesla are literally building cars as fast as they can, but they've still got a multi-year backlog of orders. Their defect rate is the worst in the industry by some margin and they have a huge amount of catching up to do.
VW have been planning this for years, they have decades of experience in auto manufacturing, they have a proven record of quality and efficiency, and they can scale up very quickly. If they can get a reliable supply of batteries, they aren't bottlenecked by production capacity in any meaningful way. The real challenge for VW is almost certainly marketing - they have a very large dealer base that needs to be retrained in how to sell EVs and they don't have the viral cachet of Tesla.
VW also has years of fooling themselves by prioritorizing the diesel technology over electric development and running an enormous fraud in the process. This will have held them back. I don't think VW can ramp up as fast as they will want.
The point is that by running the fraud they reduced their own ability to actually develop the necessary technology for the future market. The fraud affected their own prioritization decisions, and teams were assigned to continue diesel development based on a lie they were telling themselves, which is that diesel is great and could be economically made to comply with tighter emissions requirements. Development of electric was underfunded and late, and now they are rushing to catch up.
Maybe they'll get it. But they stacked the deck against themselves, and I wager they haven't worked out the kinks in their suppliers.
Did you notice that that businessinsider article is from August, 2018? Do you think that's an accurate representation of Tesla's current Model 3 production issues?
They may have been planning for years but they also have been in denial for years. This is not more of the same for them: they have to change. Most of their existing production capacity is a liability rather than an asset. It's something they are going to have to get rid off/shut down (and that's not cheap) and it is starting to look like they'll be doing that years/decades ahead of what they hoped would be the timeline. Tesla is forcing their hands here by shipping in volume before everyone thought/hoped that was possible.
Their distribution network is a source of extra cost. Tesla eliminated that from the equation. There are no third party dealers. Dealers take a margin cut. With VW, that margin comes out of VWs pocket. Tesla doesn't have this.
The drive train VW has developed has to now prove itself in the real world. Early indications are that it is a combination of more expensive to make and not as performant as what Tesla has. Tesla has done well here and VW is catching up.
That's a really big if, and there is strong evidence against it. If they don't have enough batteries to build 50,000 e-trons in 2019, what are the chances they'll have enough batteries to build a lot more e-trons and ID.3's in 2020?
It's a "compliance car" intended to meet California EV sales minimums. So yes, you see more of them on 280 than you might expect from the total US sales.
CleanTechnica reports that VW sold 10.000 eGolfs in EU in 2018 Q1 + Q2, so that claim of "1400" sounds very very wrong.
According to Wiki they sold 30k vehicles at minimum before 2018. Nowhere near Tesla 3 numbers, but claiming that it only sold 1400 vehicles is just wrong.
They sold approximately 4000 in each of the three years prior to 2018, in the USA. I didn't say they sold 1400 through 2018, I said 1400 in 2018. These numbers come from InsideEVs.
Last year they sold about 7200 to Norway alone[1]. They apparently had low production capacity but is ramping up and expects to sell over 10k in Norway this year.
With the newer 350kW charging stations you can charge up to 80% in about 15 minutes (ie. for a Model S battery). So not much more than filling up with gas. Granted cars which support this will be available at the earliest next year.
I think you are underestimating just how much energy is in a gallon of gas.
In terms of miles per hour of charging or adding gas, gas is still massively faster. Tesla says the new charging stations are 1000 miles per hour.
A gasoline car that gets 25 miles/gallon, at a gas station with pumps that go at 10 gallons per minutes, "charges" at 15000 miles per hour. (10 gallons per minute is the maximum allowed in the US due to EPA rules).
A lot of real world pumps don't achieve that maximum, but usually achieve at least at least 1/3 of that, which would be 5000 miles per hour, still 5 times faster than the upcoming faster Tesla charging option.
One advantage for the EV, though, is that it might be safer to step away from the vehicle while charging? When filling up at a gas station I want to stay with the car because a gas spill can be dangerous. That means any trips to the station's convenience store or bathroom cannot be overlapped with fueling.
I'm guessing that there isn't much that can go dangerously wrong if you step away from a charging EV, and so you can overlap your convenience store and bathroom visits with the charging time. That might be enough to make the total stop time comparable or less for the EV in many cases, even though the actual charging is 5 to 15 times slower on the EV.
The fill ups with gas where speed matters to me is around town driving. EVs eliminate this type of stop since you simply charge in the evening or while parked at work. For daily errands and commuting there should never be a need to stop for charge. It didn't take my parents long at all to get in the habit of plugging their volt in before going inside.
On long drives there is a diminishing return on the speed of charging since stops generally include a lot more than simply filling up the tank. There are trips to the bathroom, snack refills, and often a little walking around to stretch out. If you have more then a couple passengers these stops can drag out (or even need to occur more frequently than empty tank). I've been thinking about this a lot and decided for me the diminish point is 250-300 miles in 15 minutes. Anything beyond that is really just gravy and it's likely the stop is longer than the charge time required.
I travel around 1000 miles round trip to visit family a few times a year and the only really viable option is by car since it's so rural. If I can make progress 250-300 miles at a time with a 15-20 minute break I'm pretty comfortable with that. With a 35 mpg ICE car I can stop a little less if it's just me, but when I make this journey with passengers (or part of a convoy) stopping every 2-3 hours for 15-20 minutes is the best I can expect.
Tesla owner, the car does exactly what you expect in the second half of your comment. The idea is to plug in and then just leave the car do some stuff, then get a notification on your phone the charge is finishing soon. You throw out your half eaten taco Bell and go pick up the car.
There is very little evidence for “fire risk to charging”. Anecdotally most people at Superchargers sit in their car. The charge rate does slow as the battery gets full. But it’s rarely necessary to charge fully. The optimal plan is to arrive at the Supercharger almost empty and charge only enough to get to the next one. That way most charging is at higher rates.
Is 15 minutes really "not much more than filling up with gas"?
You can fill my car up to 100% from empty in 100 seconds. The entire process, including payment, takes less than 2.5 minutes, and usually (I rarely let it run to empty) more like 2 minutes, from switching off the engine at the pump to switching it back on and driving off.
My car's fuel tank is 60 litres (15.8 US gallons). 35 miles per Imperial gallon in miles per 60 litres = ~460 miles. 6060/90460 = 18,400 miles'-worth of charge per hour (in principle).
You can get more fuel-efficient cars than mine, and you can also get cars with larger fuel tanks.
This is only meaningful if you happen to live at a gas station. My electric car takes me only ten seconds to charge as I plug it in when I get home on my way inside.
The claim is that 15 minutes at a supercharger to fill your Tesla to 80% charge capacity is "not much more" than the time it takes to fill up with petrol.
I have a car with 30 litres and I don't think I ever filled up that quick in my entire life and I honestly couldn't care less because simply driving to the gas station and back takes me 5 minutes.
The fuel pump doesn't mind whether you care or not - it delivers fuel at a fixed rate. I bet the actual process of filling your car takes less than 2 minutes, too.
Anyway, the point of my comparison is not so much that you should care, or not, because that's up to you - but rather, to be vaguely data-driven about comparing Tesla charge times with how long it takes to fill a petrol or diesel car. Because we're often breezily assured that the two times are comparable, and it takes 15 minutes to charge a Tesla, and that this is "near enough" (or similar handwavy term) to how long it takes to fill up a petrol car, but people never provide hard figures for the petrol case. So here's me, doing my bit.
Recharging with fast chargers, e.g. superchargers, should take between 30-40 minutes. And ranges over 300 miles are available too, so a lot of use cases are already covered, and things are getting better still. So the reasonable audience for electric cars is already much larger than the current market share.
It seems like where we are right now with the Model 3 LR is
"fill-ups" occur about twice as often and take perhaps 45 minutes. Doable for sure, but it's still at the point where you really benefit from adjusting your schedule to mitigate the timing. E.g. try to plan a meal stop, etc.
But that's just for road tripping. For an everyday car, nearly everyone can use a 200+ mile EV without ever charging anywhere but home. Assuming they can charge at home. If you have to use a supercharger for everything, you could still do it with the LR but it would take more coordination and commitment.
Based on th emissions scandal, I'm unlikely to ever consider a VW vehicle, period. Even though most of the auto industry is also full of dirty money grubbing scum.
Not sure what the best move is, until giving it more thought I'm avoiding purchasing another vehicle.
No, just somewhat irrelevant. The defeat device was installed on ICE engines to meet emissions and economy standards, standards which don't apply to electric cars. Since Telsa doesn't make any ICE cars, it's as easy to compare a bicycle to Volkswagen versus a Tesla. They're just in completely different conversations when it comes to emissions cheating, since they don't have any regulated emissions.
That was in 2018, for 700+K vehicles (Mercedes C-Class, Vito and GLC) .
They were caught again this April, with the same defeat device hidden in the GLK models.
>The country's vehicle regulator has begun a formal investigation after discovering a new device in the company's Mercedes-Benz model GLK 220 CDI, the Bild am Sonntag newspaper reported.
Isn't the reason obvious? They don't want to give you a good look at the car just yet, and would much rather make your eyes bleed till proper PR shots are done and dusted.
Plus it looks cool as, when you spot the most jarring car on the road!
As a German - this is really embarrassing.
Old managers, old technology, old dealer infrastructure - painted in freaking childish colors.
Really guys? That’s the best we can do...?
What's really embarrassing is that German authorities and engineering bodies did not nail to the wall the VW execs that pushed the 'Dieselgate' fraud.
The reputation of German engineering was worth billions - those crooks took some millions to the bank uncontested, and now "cheats and liars" is the word.
> What's really embarrassing is that German authorities and engineering bodies did not nail to the wall the VW execs that pushed the 'Dieselgate' fraud.
They literally investigated and brought criminal charges. Those people are likely to get punished to the full extend of the law, which in a lot of those cases will mean prison time. What more do you want? Death penalty without a court case?
I don't know how we're trusting a company that lied about emissions to create the next generation of electric cars. After the TDI and TSI scandals, I know many people who hope this brand does not survive.
I will never buy a VW, Porsche, or Audi if my life depended on it.
Never. Again.