I think the Air is sort of the exception that proves the rule. Though it's also early and independent verification on production vehicles is still in the future. They're only barely shipping right now.
I didn't say the Mach-E was more efficient. I said you get more battery for your money.
In the end what's going to matter to most people is how far they can drive for the money they spent.
You should also watch the video. Tesla's EPA range figures are inflated. You need to do range tests in the real world (like in the video) to see more practical results.
> I didn't say the Mach-E was more efficient. I said you get more battery for your money.
In response to my point that Teslas were more efficient than other cars, though. I guess I don't understand "battery for your money" as an advantage. If you buy a pickup instead of a sedan, do you usually claim that it has "more fuel tank for your money" when people complain about gas mileage? Ford ships a slightly cheaper car with a significantly more expensive part. That's bad for Ford and at best a wash for the consumer (though it does cost more for electricity, that's a small pert of operating an EV). That's a disadvantage, right?
> I don't understand "battery for your money" as an advantage.
Why would I spend more money for less battery when I can spend less money for more battery? More driving range is an advantage.
> do you usually claim that it has "more fuel tank for your money" when people complain about gas mileage?
These are EVs, not ICEs. Live in the real world, not a rhetorical one.
In any case, for EV pickups you absolutely want more battery for your money. You want it for range, you especially want it for towing range, and you also want it for vehicle to load applications:
This is getting very Gishy. I'll just repeat the original point upthread and depart: Teslas (and the model Y in particular) have poor rearward visibility because of a tapered afterbody, and this was done as a deliberate design decision (one of many) that makes them the most aerodynamic cars on the market. None of that has to do with towing or V2L.
Mercedes got one good test from Edmunds that looks a little better in terms of km/kWh than a Model S (but not the Y or 3), and one duck from Nyland that showed them way behind. If you're trying to claim that car is clearly better then the only thing you can possibly be citing is... advertising materials. Practical realities say the production EQS fell way short of where it claimed it was going to be last spring.
Again, the only car out there with a realistic claim (i.e. in independent testing) to be significantly better than a competing Tesla is the Lucid. And not by a lot, but it looks real.
You claimed Tesla had superior aerodynamics to any other car on the market. That's factually not the case.
I always find it funny that people get so bought in to something as trivial as a car brand that they're unable to differentiate fact from fiction any more.
That's the power of advertising I suppose. They've advertised at you and it worked.
