> Also this survey reflects initial impressions, not long term reliability. I also find that a very weird measure, especially when you want to report on the qu

> Also this survey reflects initial impressions, not long term reliability. I also find that a very weird measure, especially when you want to report on the quality of said vehicles. It'd also be interesting to know what kind of problems customers face. A not perfect paint job is annoying, but its certainly not as bad as motor problems in the early beginning. I cannot prove this with numbers from the study, but I'd also assume that, depending on the car the customer buys, he usually has a diffferent idea of what can be considered good quality or not. I know people who were annoyed because the stitches of their drivers seat were off by a bit. On the other hand I know Ford owners that lost buttons on their infotainment unit and just hot-glued them back in. But as you said, just reflecting on the initial impressions of a vehicle doesn't say anything about more important measures like long term reliability, TCO etc. Having a study evaluate the problems a vehicle sees within the first 75.000km would be a lot more interesting and would also allow better conclusions. However, this study proves the several reports of automotive journalists around the world. Most people considered the Tesla vehicles decently good, but not matching the price tag Tesla puts on them quality wise. During the Model 3 production hell the quality problems became especially apparent with completely misplaced side-panels, the worst paint jobs I've seen on a mass produced vehicle among several other issues.