The logs show again that our Model S never had a chance with John Broder. In the case with Top Gear, their legal defense was that they never actually said it broke down, they just implied that it could and then filmed themselves pushing what viewers did not realize was a perfectly functional car. In Mr. Broder’s case, he simply did not accurately capture what happened and worked very hard to force our car to stop running.

Here is a summary of the key facts:

As the State of Charge log shows, the Model S battery never ran out of energy at any time, including when Broder called the flatbed truck.
The final leg of his trip was 61 miles and yet he disconnected the charge cable when the range display stated 32 miles. He did so expressly against the advice of Tesla personnel and in obvious violation of common sense.
In his article, Broder claims that “the car fell short of its projected range on the final leg.” Then he bizarrely states that the screen showed “Est. remaining range: 32 miles” and the car traveled “51 miles," contradicting his own statement (see images below). The car actually did an admirable job exceeding its projected range. Had he not insisted on doing a nonstop 61-mile trip while staring at a screen that estimated half that range, all would have been well. He constructed a no-win scenario for any vehicle, electric or gasoline.
On that leg, he drove right past a public charge station while the car repeatedly warned him that it was very low on range.
Cruise control was never set to 54 mph as claimed in the article, nor did he limp along at 45 mph. Broder in fact drove at speeds from 65 mph to 81 mph for a majority of the trip and at an average cabin temperature setting of 72 F.
At the point in time that he claims to have turned the temperature down, he in fact turned the temperature up to 74 F.
The charge time on his second stop was 47 mins, going from -5 miles (reserve power) to 209 miles of Ideal or 185 miles of EPA Rated Range, not 58 mins as stated in the graphic attached to his article. Had Broder not deliberately turned off the Supercharger at 47 mins and actually spent 58 mins Supercharging, it would have been virtually impossible to run out of energy for the remainder of his stated journey.
For his first recharge, he charged the car to 90%. During the second Supercharge, despite almost running out of energy on the prior leg, he deliberately stopped charging at 72%. On the third leg, where he claimed the car ran out of energy, he stopped charging at 28%. Despite narrowly making each leg, he charged less and less each time. Why would anyone do that?
The above helps explain a unique peculiarity at the end of the second leg of Broder’s trip. When he first reached our Milford, Connecticut Supercharger, having driven the car hard and after taking an unplanned detour through downtown Manhattan to give his brother a ride, the display said "0 miles remaining." Instead of plugging in the car, he drove in circles for over half a mile in a tiny, 100-space parking lot. When the Model S valiantly refused to die, he eventually plugged it in. On the later legs, it is clear Broder was determined not to be foiled again.
When Tesla first approached The New York Times about doing this story, it was supposed to be focused on future advancements in our Supercharger technology. There was no need to write a story about existing Superchargers on the East Coast, as that had already been done by Consumer Reports with no problems! We assumed that the reporter would be fair and impartial, as has been our experience with The New York Times, an organization that prides itself on journalistic integrity. As a result, we did not think to read his past articles and were unaware of his outright disdain for electric cars. We were played for a fool and as a result, let down the cause of electric vehicles. For that, I am deeply sorry.

When I first heard about what could at best be described as irregularities in Broder’s behavior during the test drive, I called to apologize for any inconvenience that he may have suffered and sought to put my concerns to rest, hoping that he had simply made honest mistakes. That was not the case.

In his own words in an article published last year, this is how Broder felt about electric cars before even seeing the Model S:

"Yet the state of the electric car is dismal, the victim of hyped expectations, technological flops, high costs and a hostile political climate.”

When the facts didn’t suit his opinion, he simply changed the facts. Our request of The New York Times is simple and fair: please investigate this article and determine the truth. You are a news organization where that principle is of paramount importance and what is at stake for sustainable transport is simply too important to the world to ignore.

Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk claims an unfavorable review published by the New York Times may have cost the company as much as $100 million.

Musk revealed in a interview with Bloomberg that a recent New York Times article that suggested the company's Model S electric sedan doesn't live up to its stated range zapped $100 million from Tesla's overall value.

“It probably affected us to the tune of tens of millions, to the order of $100 million,” Musk said. “So it’s not trivial.”

Since the article ran on February 8, Tesla's shares have fallen about 12 percent. During that same period, Tesla's market capitalization dipped by $553 million.

In addition to reducing Tesla's market value, Musk says the NYT's review resulting in the cancelation of a “few hundred” Model S orders.

But despite the sizable hit, Musk doesn't sound as if he's holding a grudge against the article's author, John Broder. "I don't think it should be the end of his career. I don't even think necessarily he should be fired, but I do think he fudged an article,” Musk said of Broder.

In a surprise announcement late Sunday, Tesla Motors says it turned a profit for the first quarter of 2013, delivering more than 4,750 all-electric Model S sedans and beating its own forecasts. It's a major milestone for the start-up automaker, which also revealed a few last-minute Easter eggs for those waiting for their cars to be delivered — and a play to improve the value of its cars when those owners decide to sell.


Tesla had said it expected to break even on a cash basis this quarter during the ramp-up of Model S output at the factory in Fremont, Calif., with a goal of delivering 4,500 cars to owners. Since Tesla doesn't sell its cars through dealers and puts the key fob of the Model S directly in an owner's hand, it can't count the money from sold vehicles until that swap; traditional automakers mark a car as sold for accounting purposes when it leaves the factory.

Tesla also revealed it was eliminating the lowest-cost planned variant of the Model S, the 40-kWh edition that had been slated to cost $52,400, or $10,000 less than the 60 kWh model. Tesla says only 4 percent of its customers had placed reservations for the 40 kWh car, which had an advertised range of 160 miles. Those customers who signed up for a 40 kWh car will get a 60 kWh car instead — but one whose software will only allow the car to access 40 kWh of energy.

Future owners — including those who buy such a capped Model S second-hand — can pay Tesla that $10,000 difference to have the software reset to use all 60 kWh of battery energy.

Those customers who signed up for a 40 kWh car will get a 60 kWh car instead — but one whose software will only allow the car to access 40 kWh of energy.

Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk says he would consider locating a second automotive assembly plant in Texas.

Musk, who is fighting for legislation to allow Tesla to sell its electric vehicles directly to consumers in Texas, told Automotive News Wednesday that the company will invest more in the state if it wins the exemption.

The Texas Automobile Dealers Association is opposing Tesla's bid to amend current state law, which generally requires new vehicles to be sold by franchised dealers.

In addition to investing "tens of millions of dollars" in more stores and service centers, Tesla could start looking at a plant location in Texas as soon as three years from now, Musk said.

"When we do establish a manufacturing plant outside of California, Texas would be a leading candidate for that," Musk said.

While additional stores and service centers would mean several hundred new jobs for Texans, a new assembly plant would mean thousands of jobs, Musk said.

Tesla currently has two store locations and two service locations in Texas. But the staffers at the stores, located in high-end shopping districts in Houston and Austin, are prevented by current law from engaging in any sales activity. They can't share pricing or offer test drives. The service centers can't evaluate vehicles for warranty work.

If released from those current operating restrictions, Texas likely would become Tesla's second-largest market, Musk said. He projected that Tesla could sell 1,500 to 2,000 vehicles in Texas in 2014 if the exemption is granted.

"If we were allowed to go direct, I think we would make Texas on par with California in terms of emphasis," Musk said.

Musk said he's a believer in localizing production to minimize logistics cost. A second plant could also make additional models. He floated the idea of making a pickup truck in Texas.

"I have this idea for a really advanced electric truck that has the performance of a sports car but actually more towing power and more carrying capacity than a gasoline or diesel truck of comparable size," Musk said. "That could be really cool, and I think that would probably make sense to do that at a new plant."

Musk said he has a design in mind for the truck, but it probably wouldn't come to market for another four or five years.

There is no doubt that Tesla Motors is one of the largest success stories in recent times. Getting $35,000 in environmental credits from the state of California – for each Tesla Model S it sells – sure does sweeten the pot. Especially when the electric car manufacturer is on board for selling 20,000 models this year. That puts the earnings, just from zero emission credits from California up to around $250 million. Pretty nice bank for a startup. The controversy comes into play in the fact there are others who are claiming that California is trying to strong arm, bribe and control the automakers into doing it their way and not all the automakers want to play in that playground, even if tons of cash is being thrown their way to do it.

Tesla doesn’t seem to mind though, they are lapping up the incentives and credits to the point they are getting around $45,000 per each Tesla Model S that is sold. No other automaker in the United States gets to cash in on that kind of advantage. Tesla refuses to comment about all of this and that leaves the other automakers a bit up in arms about the whole situation.

Thilo Koslowski, an analyst at Gartner Inc., commented that, “At the end of the day, other carmakers are subsidizing Tesla.”

Ford and General Motors are both hard at work trying to build smaller and more affordable i.e. practical electric cars, but the price to build them is so high that it is a challenge for them when the bulk of their customers really aren’t that excited about “plug and go” mobiles. Chrysler is doing its best as well and still losing about $10,000 on every sale of the Fiat 500.

Chrysler Chief Executive Sergio Marchionne, in a speech to automotive engineers last month in Detroit, said the transactions were, “Masochism to the extreme.” Speaking on behalf of the rest of the automakers, he went on to say, “I believe that we could continue to explore the potential of electricity, but without being strong-armed by regulators.”

Tesla : Consumer Reports' best car ever tested

Consumer Reports is calling the Tesla Model S the best car it has ever tested. The Model S, an all-electric plug-in car, earned a score of 99 out of a possible 100 in the magazine's tests.
The score would have been higher but for the fact that the all-electric car does need to stop and recharge during extremely long-distance drives.

"If it could recharge in any gas station in three minutes, this car would score about 110," said Jake Fisher, head of auto testing for Consumer Reports. Fisher called the car's performance in the magazine's performance tests "off the charts."
Depending on price, the Model S has driving range of between 208 and 265 miles. A full charge takes about six hours from an ordinary 240 volt outlet, according to Tesla.
The Model S has already won awards from car magazines like Motor Trend and Automobile, but Consumer Reports is widely regarded as being the most influential magazine among car shoppers. Consumer Reports, published by the non-profit group Consumer's Union, purchases all the cars it tests and does not accept paid ads.
The score of 99 means the Tesla (TSLA) Model S, a sedan that can seat as many as seven people, performed as well or better than any automobile the magazine has ever tested. The score is not unprecedented -- most recently, it was earned by the Lexus LS460 in 2009 -- but no car at any price has ever scored higher.
Prices for the Model S start at about $70,000, not including federal and state tax incentives for electric cars.
The Model S tied for the quietest vehicle the magazine has ever tested, was among the most energy-efficient and had excellent scores for acceleration, braking and ride quality.
Gallery - 6 greenest cars in America
"We don't get all excited about many vehicles, and with this car we really did," Fisher said.
The magazine's raves for the Model S stand in sharp contrast to the treatment received by the competing Fisker Karma that the magazine pilloried, calling it "plagued with flaws." Fisker is now in dire financial trouble.

Tesla sales beating Mercedes, BMW and Audi

You know the Tesla Model S, the $70,000 (and-up) electric car that "nobody can afford"? Well, evidently, more than a few people can afford it.
In fact, in the first quarter of this year, more people bought a Tesla Model S than bought any of the similarly priced gasoline-powered cars from the top three German luxury brands, according to data from LMC Automotive. About 4,750 buyers bought a Model S while just over 3,000 people bought Mercedes' top-level sedan.