13 ms·

""They have an interesting rating system. It ends up representing the fact that all this performance and fuel efficiency comes out of a car that can seat 7 peop

• FireBeyond 11y ago
  I'm going to guess that it doesn't get that performance or fuel efficiency when hauling seven people, though.
  • nitrogen 11y ago
    Once a car is at cruising speed on mostly level ground, weight doesn't matter nearly as much as aerodynamics.
  • mikeash 11y ago
    I assume that by "it" you mean the Model S? Keep in mind that when you have 7 people in it, at least two must be relatively small (77lbs or under) children. So the added weight isn't quite as much as it sounds. The P85D weighs just under 5,000lbs empty. Say your 7 passengers add 1,000lbs of weight, that's a 20% penalty on acceleration. Might be noticeable, but performance will still be extremely good. As for range, aerodynamic drag dominates at highway speeds, which is where you'll be spending most of your time on a trip. The efficiency hit from extra passengers will be down in the noise. You could probably recoup it by driving 2MPH slower. I haven't done a long trip with 7, but I did do a reasonably long road trip with 6 in my Model S, and the extra weight was not noticeable. You don't want to be flooring it in a powerful car with small kids most of the time anyway, and the energy use predictions were still spot on.
• zippergz 11y ago
  Having driven both a 7 Series and a Model S, I'll take the BMW any day. More comfortable, better handling, looks better, doesn't have a huge iPad in the dashboard, and allows road trips with far less planning needed. It's nice that the tesla has insane acceleration, but in practice that's not super useful. And gas is a small enough part of my budget that it's not material so that isn't really a factor.
  • eclipxe 11y ago
    "doesn't have a huge iPad in the dashboard" Why is this a bad thing?
    • mikeash 11y ago
      I think people who haven't actually driven one (or haven't driven one beyond a test drive, anyway) think that it's too distracting, too hard to control things while driving, or something along those lines. I had the same concerns initially, but they disappeared after trying it out. It's really well done and not a problem in practice.
      • Nadya 11y ago
        If I want to press the fourth button from the left while driving - with a tactile button I can reach, count over the three buttons as my finger slides across them, and press the fourth button. Without removing my eyes from the road. With touch buttons I need to look at the screen which takes my eyes off the road. Even if it's for 1/2 a second. 1/2 a second is the cause of many accidents. I'd prefer having physical buttons. Ironically, you lose your sense of touch on a touch screen.
        • mikeash 11y ago
          I understand the objections. I just don't find them to actually apply in the real world. First, what functions do you actually need to manipulate while driving? Most of that can be done from the steering wheel. Second, when positions on a touchscreen are consistent you can learn to touch them without staring at them. I often adjust the interior temperature on the touchscreen even though it can be done on the steering wheel, just because I find it to be easier. It can be done out of the corner of my eye with practice.
• tptacek 11y ago
  Just an aside that raw 0-60 time is probably not the kind of driving performance you're buying a BMW for.
  • vvanders 11y ago
    Which is why I'll take the Tesla every single time.
    • tptacek 11y ago
      I mean, there are also tons of shitty American cars you could have bought to get better 0-60 times for the dollar. The point is there are other metrics than 0-60, and in fact 0-60 is --- at least within a given bracket of cars --- a pretty cheap metric to optimize.
      • dragontamer 11y ago
        I'm a fan of "fastest Laguna Seca Lap". But I know a bunch of "American Muscle" guys who only care about 0-60. But I prefer statistics that include a combination of good turns, tight handling, AND strong acceleration. Tesla performs horribly on Laguna Lap, but so do all the American Muscle cars. You basically need a low-weight car with high acceleration to do well. Other raceway times are also interesting. But that's what I look for in high-performance cars.
        • bri3d 11y ago
          The problem with lap times is that they're really an OEM tire shootout and not a car comparison. Plus, most factory touring cars are aligned for even tire wear and understeer. With most cars you could probably manipulate lap times by several percent just by adding front camber.
        • sp332 11y ago
          The list, if anyone's looking for it http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/laguna_seca.html http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/laguna_seca.html
• gutnor 11y ago
  Maybe, people buying a Series 7 are wealthy people that want a family car. And for the raw performance, they need enough to boast, but what they really need is a luxurious interior. Wealthy people looking for performance look at sports car. Anyway, they will change their car in 4 years. There is no reason for them to suffer through the early adopter problems (not good enough charging network, only in the silicon valley you don't look stupid if you tell your friend you can go in the south of France buying wine this we because there is not charging station on the way), they will simply buy when the future is there.
• stephencanon 11y ago
  The driving dynamics of both cars are "sufficient", so those factors won't come into play at all for many buyers; the interior fit and finish (i.e. the factors that actually effect your life every day) of the Tesla leave a lot to be desired compared to the 7 series. Is it so unbelievable that other people may value different factors from you?
  • gnoway 11y ago
    This is a strange comment. On the one hand you're chiding the parent for not considering other viewpoints, but on the other you're making assertions about driving dynamics and 'the factors that actually effect [sic] your life every day' that imply they value the wrong things.
• johnward 11y ago
  I'm a Tesla fan but the 7 series still wins in "recharge" time.
  • mikeash 11y ago
    Well, that depends. Are you counting the sum of all of the time you spend waiting for the car to recharge/refill? If so, and if you're a typical driver, then the Tesla wins. In an average month, you might spend a total of 15 minutes gassing up your car, and zero minutes charging your Tesla (because it's charging while you sleep). On road trips, it will depend on how well charging stops coincide with bathroom/meal/coffee stops. A supercharger stop is both longer and more frequent than a gas stop, no dispute there, but if you time it to coincide with a break that outlasts the charging stop (easy to do) then the time penalty is zero. It's not practical to overlap gas filling with other stuff, so you can even lose out there. Now, if you're the sort who drives five hours at a time without stopping then the gas car can win big on charging time. But even if you do that, unless you take those trips pretty frequently, the Tesla can still win on total time spent filling up.
    • johnward 11y ago
      I understand that argument and the stats suggest most people don't need to charge on the road aside from road trips. By the time the Model S would need charged I'd be ready for a 30 minute break anyway. I still have range anxiety when my commute (before going remote) was a minimum of 120 miles per day. I'm not sure how accurate the 200 mile number is to know if it would be enough.
      • mikeash 11y ago
        Real-world range can vary based on temperature, elevation, speed, etc. Without knowing the details of that 120 miles, it's hard to say. But you can calculate what you'll actually use with the car's navigation system or a third-party site like EVTripPlanner, and that's pretty accurate. I'd probably be comfortable with a 10% buffer for getting home. Your 120 miles might take 150 "miles" of range, which would still leave you with plenty of margin. Note that the lowest-range model they sell currently is the 70 at 230 miles official range. The maximum is the 90D with about 290 miles official range. Exterior 120V outlets are pretty common, so another option would be to plug into one of those while at work. That makes for slow charging, but you could add another 40 miles or so of range while you're there. (Understanding this is a hypothetical for you at this point.)
• Shivetya 11y ago
  All I see is that early adopters who made a purchase are happy with it. That out of the way, if anything a 100k car with 250 odd mile range if you drive nicely simply proves the technology is not ready for the everyday driver. Get to the point you can deliver 300 to 500 miles per charge at the same price point the average car purchase is at and call me. Its a rich man toy that you have to adapt to live with and don't even get me started on trip planning. I am not routing around my car's limitations.
  • jlgaddis 11y ago
    Geez, I can go more than 250 miles on my Harley that only has a six-gallon tank.
  • butwhy 11y ago
    p90D is 300 miles. You drive more than 300 miles in a row without needing to piss, eat or stretch your legs, do ya, buddy?
• Spooky23 11y ago
  Consumer Reports scoring system is always weird, and tailored to the preferences of whomever creates it. Declaring a car perfect that has some pretty severe limitations in terms of range, etc is pretty ridiculous, but that's pretty standard fare for them. Or touting 85 equivalent MPG when you can purchase a similar gasoline vehicle at a significant discount vs. Tesla that performs as good or better. In ye olden times with CR, you essentially lost 10 points for not being Honda.