I'm Spanish and I've seen many friends dismiss Tesla because of this notion of their cars being cheaply made and because most people here live in flats, and the shared garages don't have sockets for charging them. Many people are leaning towards hybrid vehicles with autonomous features like Hyundai. The suscription model for a car also plays a big role.

If you can't charge an electric car, you shouldn't take a hybrid either, it's the same problem. If you only charge the battery when braking the overall CO2 footprint over the lifecycle of the car is higher than if you had a thermal vehicle.

The reason is a combination of markedly higher CO2-equivalent emissions for manufacturing (two motors instead of one + big battery), increased weight for the same reason which causes an increase in fuel consumption + elevated tire/brakes degradation + decommissioning of the car causes more emissions. And this doesn't include the other negative externalities such as the ecological impact of the additional metal and rare earth extraction.

Hybrid cars only make sense from a CO2 perspective if you charge them and drive exclusively on electricity inside cities, with only an occasional fuel refill before long distance trips.

> only charge the battery when braking

No, good hybrid drivetrains charge the battery during normal driving not just breaking. It saves gas by avoiding the least efficient RPM ranges of the engine.

~80%(battery & conversion losses) of 35% fuel efficiency easily beats 100% of 10% fuel efficiency. Using a 200HP engine to creep around a flat parking lot or run the AC while waiting etc is simply inherently inefficient so they turn the engine off. As a bonus you get that quick EV acceleration without an oversized engine that’s rarely operating efficiently.

As to emissions from car manufacturing, don’t ignore emissions from gasoline manufacturing. People get these comparisons wildly wrong by only looking at tailpipe emissions and ignoring upstream extraction, refining, and transportation emissions over the 25+ lifetime of an average car.

You're confusing hybrids with plugin-hybrids. In either case, these cars are far more efficient than standard ICE cars even if you never plug them in (e.g. your garden variety older Prius doesn't support plug-in but is far more efficient than e.g. a Camry).

> Hybrid cars only make sense from a CO2 perspective if you charge them and drive exclusively on electricity inside cities, with only an occasional fuel refill before long distance trips.

For many people the local fiscal perspective outweighs the CO2 perspective. Hybrids are often financially speaking more interesting than thermal due to tax incentives.

> two motors instead of one + big battery ... elevated brakes degradation

You might be simplifying a bit too much here. The most successful hybrid powertrains are built from the ground up as hybrids and the "hybridized" parts actually replace ICE parts that aren't needed anymore. For example, the HSD system in a Toyota hybrid replaces the clutch, gearbox, starter and alternator, and the result is much more robust.

Also the brakes on a hybrid usually degrade slower, because of recuperation.

An important factor for choosing hybrid is that it must have the same benefits as an EV.

In Denmark there has been a trial in Copenhagen, where fossil fueled cars AND hybrids were not allowed on a particular road, only EVs were allowed.

Yes, a bit tangential, but I feel hybrids were discarded too quickly (the 2030/35 ban on new petrol cars includes hybrids) when they should have probably been encouraged as a stepping stone and because indeed in many European areas charging at home is a challenge.

Hybrids weren't making a dent in the ICE car market, whereas EVs are:

https://ti-insight.com/briefs/have-internal-combustion-engin...

It's just that we don't see it in the geopolitical west, as it's all happening in China, which is currently by far the single largest passenger vehicle market in the world.

Personally I drive a hybrid because that was the most electrified car I could afford back in 2017.

Hybrids are just awful cars compared to EVs. Literally worst of both worlds - not performing, costing more and breaking more. Only Toyota can push something this stupid.

The usual problems with this approach are 1) the roof is not big enough for solar panels to power multiple chargers and 2) the power is generated when people are not at home (and probably using their car to go to work).

Then the obvious solution is to put solar panels over parking spots at work. Doesn't need to be that much power, 1-2kW is enough if the car sits there all day (for typical distances people commute with cars)

The most common estimate of the average payback period for solar panels is five to fifteen years. Seems more like a sloppy investment not "free money"

Then you'd have to charge during the day and drive during the night.

Tesla was always going to face a harder time at some point (leaving politics aside).

They had a good time because they had this 'cool' image and had no real competition for a time, although their quality and realiability issues (in addition to American cars' reputation) were known.

But now you have alternatives both on price and quality as all the European and Japanese incombents have an EV lineup and Chinese are pushing hard. So they are becoming one brand among many in a cut-throat market and don't really shine in any aspect.

And on top of that - there is a lot of good competent competition now, gone are the times were the Model 3 was pretty much undisputed king of cheap-ish EVs. The only thing they really still have going for them is the Supercharger network, but honestly fewer people seem to care than you'd think.

Yes there’s competition for basic cars. But they still lack so many features at same cost. I.e. heatpump, hepa filters, seat heating, power seats, power lift gate, app, autopilot, etc. you literally would pay double to get all same features and it would still suck in software.

Sure, maybe - but a LOT of car buyers don't look at it this way. They don't compare specs or value for money. They just go "I have £30k, what can I get for that money" - and more often than not, they decide on the looks or immediate availability or finance deals, not on things like heatpumps or hepa filters. I know a lot of people whose criteria are "my dad drives a KIA so I'm also buying a KIA" or "it has to be a volkswagen, I'm not interested in any other brand", or "I like how Alfas look, can you help me pick one". You can argue whatever you want about features or drivetrains, but they will go and pick their preferred thing anyway. When I bought my Volvo the guy there said maybe 1 out of 50 people actually read the specs, they just pick the model they like the look of and pick a spec they can afford. Maybe 1 in 10 actually test drives the car before buying.

All of that is shocking to me - but I guess for a lot of people cars are appliances, no different than a fridge(but then again I do a lot of research before buying a fridge too, but maybe that's just me).

But back to my original point - those people I describe above, few years ago if they were dead set on buying a Volkswagen and also wanted an EV for whatever reason....there really wasn't anything to pick from, if the eUp/eGolf didn't work for them. So someone dead set on an EV would eventually gravitate towards Tesla because that's what was available. Now the same buyer walks into a VW dealership and walks out with keys to an ID.3/4/5/6, never even looking at Tesla and whether it's a better deal or not.

Bingo. In fact KIA hacked this recently by introducing even more stripped down car with more range because range sells (not that you need it).

I'm surprised they're still not much worse than other, long established companies. Modern EVs are newish tech, TESLA is a newish company and the Model 3 is built to be "cheap".

And the TÜV's HU is a very thorough checkup. Failing it is easily caused by neglecting regular maintenance or careless driving. If you absolutely need to pass your test, befriend your local DEKRA guy, let him have a short look, and get your HU done early.

agreed, I made money on tsla but even I would have avoided the product like the plague, it is tat, and now that Toyota no longer helps with the design it's likely even worse.

To say nothing of the CEO.

> It's as if all these news articles are useless...

But the news article linked in the post is based on the official ranking of TÜV in Germany. TÜV does a thorough inspection of each car registered in Germany, every 24 months. Roughly 20% of the cars fail that test, and the ranking is simply based on these numbers. Corresponding agencies in other countries had very similar rankings.

And Tesla only failed at 12%? So it's almost twice as good as average?

What did they fail on is the next question? Brake discs not being used because regen is a thing it seems

The 20% are over cars of all ages. 14.2% of 2-3-year old Tesla Model 3s failed the inspection. This is - by a considerable margin - worse than for any other EV of the same age. For the age group of 4-5 years, it was nearly 20%.

> What did they fail on is the next question?

From the article:

> [...] primarily due to problems with its lights, brakes and suspension. The TÜV notes that the last two are often a problem with EVs due to their weight compared with equivalent combustion-powered cars and the fact that much of the braking force is generated through energy recuperation, meaning the brakes don’t get enough of a workout to keep them in good order. “The high mileage cannot disguise the poor performance of the Model 3,” said Joachim Bühler, Managing Director of the TÜV Association. “In addition to defects in the brakes and axles, the Tesla also has a particularly high number of lighting defects. This indicates deficiencies in service and maintenance.”

So brakes not being used, isn't that a problem with all EVs?

Road worthiness is not reliability. Headlight off by 1% doesn’t mean car is totalled.

Stop spreading misinformation.

Interesting stats. I notice cheaper cars start to dominate in later years.

One obvious conclusion is that they are cheaply made but I wonder how much is the possibly sensible decision of owners of low cost cars to skip expensive regular maintenance and wait for something to fail a legally required test before getting it fixed?

Now that I think about it, I think the last time these stats were shared there was some chatter about these faults being caught and fixed by service mechanics before the test in other brands. Can't quite remember the mechanism by which such fixes wouldn't be counted in these stats though. Possibly just Tesla fan copium, there's a lot of that about.

I dropped my car to dealership and asked them to do MOT for me as service. They will first check everything and likely call me for approval to fix it. Or if under warranty do the repairs under warranty without prompt. Thus clear visible issues will be handled even before car arrives in inspection. This covers things like tires, lights, but also suspension components or if OBH tells something is wrong.

In general the inspection is not even attempted if there is something to fix.

People who skip the regular maintenance either don't understand the outsized impact it will have on long term reliability and the eventual costs, or they do but they have more pressing matters to address with that money.

> In general the inspection is not even attempted if there is something to fix.

Where I live in Central/Western Europe the sheer number of cars which can't possibly drive in legal conditions (rolling chimney stack exhaust or stadium light headlights) astonishes me. They get the "all green" at the inspection regardless of what needs to be fixed.

Well because you can remove all of this for the inspection and then put it back on after, even if we ignore straight up bribery to pass the test, which still exists in places. It should be the job of the road enforcement teams to find these people, stop them and impound the car until it's brought back to a road worthy condition. And there are some European countries which are very good at this and if you drive with some wonky car that is clearly not compliant you will be stopped, and some where such enforcement is almost non existent.

> Well because you can remove all of this for the inspection and then put it back on after, even if we ignore straight up bribery to pass the test

I'm not talking (only) about after market modding, rolling coal, or xenon upgrades but about plain old unmaintained clunkers. This is deep in "bribery to pass the test" territory. and law enforcement isn't willing to do anything about it on the road even if spotting these cars is trivial. Look out for a smoke plume during the day, or for the rolling artificial sun at night.

And this is in the country which is the source of clunkers for everyone else, not the destination.

Many cars in the belt from Lithuania through Poland down to Romania are cars imported from Germany and USA with status "totaled". The reincarnation procedure includes deactivating and cutting off ad blue, DPF and other sorcery.

There should be no scheduled maintenance the first two or three years, other than maybe tires and oil change, but skipping those don't "cause defects".

Typical faults that cause failure are; uneven brake force, badly aligned headlights, uneven tire wear, play and wear in suspension components, and so on.

Cheaper cars have less things to break and are more mass produced. In Teslas case they are also later generation.