Ask Me Anything -- Motor Trend's Jonny Lieberman Defends Picking the Benz

[ggr]

Hmm. Well, let me tell you about the week I had. We had the car at the test track. Sure, no one ever goes to the test track. But let's just call it an unexpected trip. Anyhow, I got in the car with an indicated 75-mile range and I had a 45-mile commute home in 90-degree weather. Of course, going three miles to the freeway ate up 6 miles of range. Getting on the freeway hurt the range, running AC, turn signals, etc. I sat there moving at 63-degrees with the cruise control set, sweating and miserable. I made it home with 18 miles of range left. To me this is worse than what you described about the gas gauge being on a quarter tank. Los Angeles is, after all, littered with gas stations. I plugged the car in at 3:00 pm to 110 volts (I don't own an electric car -- I should, but don't have a charger at my house) and the next morning at 8:00 am I was SHOCKED to discover that I'd gained 27-miles of range. I had an appointment at 11:00 am. But I needed range. So, I decided to go down to the Supercharger station (25-miles from my house) and fill'er up. Leaving the station, I hit traffic and missed my appointment.

I suppose my point is that if your life isn't regimented, range anxiety is pretty real. That said, I know it's going to get better.

This is, I think, a sign that you are not "in the groove" with an electric vehicle yet. If you treat it like a gas car, where you have to go somewhere to "refuel", I agree that range anxiety might be real. But day to day life with an EV is different... "It's always full in the morning!". If you had had even a rudimentary charger (like a clothes dryer outlet) instead of just 110, you'd have had no problem the next day. Oh, and the 18 miles of rated range is actually a really accurate measure of something; admittedly it isn't "range" per se, but you can get really accurate with it, not at all like a gas gauge.

 

[StephenM]

Depends on how the car is designed. If you're talking about a 1959 Cadillac, the engine makes the car more dangerous because no one thought about crash safety back then, at least not in terms of engineering. The story is completely different with modern cars. Engines can be part of the crash structure, just like wheels and tires can. It's all in the design. If you're claiming that the S550 is unsafe because it has an engine, that's simply ludicrous.

Again, the Model S will handle a front collision better than any ICE car, because there is no engine to engineer around. I'm sure the S550 is engineered as safe as a modern ICE can be, but it's comparing apples to oranges here. You can argue the point about the active safety systems (or lack thereof), but when it comes to safety in an actual collision there is no better vehicle to be in than the Tesla. None.
And we haven't even started on the risk of being immolated in a gasoline fire after the impact.

 

[WarpedOne]

Engines can be part of the crash structure

They can be 'part of' but they need to remain being engines. Therefore they can't be a good 'crash structure'.
Q: What prevented Porsche mounting a dummy engine in front of a modern 911 just to make it more 'crash-proof'?
A: Crush structure without a motor is way better then crash structure with a motor.

This "Engines can be part of the crash structure" is just downplaying all the problems engine represents in a car layout and design.
Huge hunk of metal over and high above front axis does not have a single positive aspect. It can only be a big or a bit smaller problem.

Regarding OP' credibility - it started good and then all fell downhill.

 

[Tasdevil]

I think us Tesla enthusiasts should be proud that a modelS is even being compared to the S550.
I wouldn't try an argue that the modelS is the best car, but to say its the car that makes the future of automotive exciting.

 

[JRP3]

It's the motor that gets too hot first. I believe the problem is that there's no easy way to cool the inner spool of an induction motor.

I'm fairly sure the S motor has a liquid cooled rotor, it does have a hollow rotor shaft which would allow liquid cooling. I keep waiting for someone to attach a CO2 chiller to the Model S heat exchangers to see if that makes a difference. Should be an easy experiment to do.

 

[arondaniel]

Crash safety means safe deceleration

Depends on how the car is designed. If you're talking about a 1959 Cadillac, the engine makes the car more dangerous because no one thought about crash safety back then, at least not in terms of engineering. The story is completely different with modern cars. Engines can be part of the crash structure, just like wheels and tires can. It's all in the design. If you're claiming that the S550 is unsafe because it has an engine, that's simply ludicrous.

I think Elon's analogy was something like this. Suppose you jump into a lake. You need to decelerate safely to avoid injury. If there is a large rock under the waters' surface, you're going to have a bad time. You can try to mitigate the rock, but it will always be worse than deep water.

 

[Pilot_51]

I think Elon's analogy was something like this. Suppose you jump into a lake. You need to decelerate safely to avoid injury. If there is a large rock under the waters' surface, you're going to have a bad time. You can try to mitigate the rock, but it will always be worse than deep water.

Precisely. Nearly the entire purpose of a crumple zone is to make the sudden stop a little less sudden, to reduce the harmful G-forces on the body. It's pretty hard to do that when you have a large engine block that doesn't crumple or pulverize between the impact and the occupants.

 

[rage_777]

Depends on how the car is designed. If you're talking about a 1959 Cadillac, the engine makes the car more dangerous because no one thought about crash safety back then, at least not in terms of engineering. The story is completely different with modern cars. Engines can be part of the crash structure, just like wheels and tires can. It's all in the design. If you're claiming that the S550 is unsafe because it has an engine, that's simply ludicrous.

I don't review cars for a living, so this is truly just a question. I remember manufacturers use to drop the engine out of the car before impact because they didn't want the engines to end up in the passenger compartment in a head on collision, do they not do this anymore?

Also, I was fine with the review because it was your opinion. What bothers me through this thread and the video is that you claim that you like to drive fast, but then you claim that performance isn't that big a deal. You claim that you don't care about gas mileage, but then compare the environmental impact of the coal power plants (which California, the state that you live in, doesn't use much coal).

I'm glad you answered the question about the S550 vs MS for COTY, because that was the question I had when reading this thread.

When I buy a car, I usually look at the long term ownership because I drive them until they can't be driven anymore. So I factor in how much it is going to cost me 10 years down the line. Which is also why I don't usually look at European cars. They aren't all bad, but the ones that I have seen go bad really go bad, so do I want to risk being that one.

 

[Skotty]

You know, I think I will never understand why so many people are willing to trust a computer over themselves for safety. All it does for me is give me control anxiety ... wondering how long it will be until it glitches out and does stupid things due to faulty sensors, programming bugs, or most notably, ambiguous sensor readings. I've never been in an accident. Do I need a computer to take over my driving for me? Sure doesn't look like it.

Personally, I feel the advances of the Model S far outweigh the ridiculous gimmicks and luxury of the Mercedes. But then, I'm not the kind of guy who uses only 2 fingers to avoid touching the goblet of the servant who served me my drink.

 

[gnelson]

I think it is valid. This is different from having a chime go off if your seatbelt isn't belted. This is just a nudge. It might only save a handful of lives, but so what? Lives are lives the way I see it.

And yes, if you have a totally regimented life and a relatively short commute, electric cars make a tons of sense. If you don't...

That is totally ignorant. I could have a 100 mi commute one way and not charge until I return home. I could do that 200 mi round trip for less than $2.50. I hardly live a regimented life. Blaming a car because you don't have a level 2 charger is your fault not the fault of the car. I would rather have a 17 in display that I find totally useful than fancy led lighting that thrills you. I traded a Mercedes for a Cadillac because there was nothing intuitive in the Mercedes. I had to read the manual to accomplish simple things. The ride quality was far inferior to the Cadillas. Bear in mind that I didn't have an S Class Mercedes.

 

[Zythryn]

Hmm. Well, let me tell you about the week I had. We had the car at the test track. Sure, no one ever goes to the test track. But let's just call it an unexpected trip. Anyhow, I got in the car with an indicated 75-mile range and I had a 45-mile commute home in 90-degree weather. Of course, going three miles to the freeway ate up 6 miles of range. Getting on the freeway hurt the range, running AC, turn signals, etc. I sat there moving at 63-degrees with the cruise control set, sweating and miserable. I made it home with 18 miles of range left. To me this is worse than what you described about the gas gauge being on a quarter tank. Los Angeles is, after all, littered with gas stations. I plugged the car in at 3:00 pm to 110 volts (I don't own an electric car -- I should, but don't have a charger at my house) and the next morning at 8:00 am I was SHOCKED to discover that I'd gained 27-miles of range. I had an appointment at 11:00 am. But I needed range. So, I decided to go down to the Supercharger station (25-miles from my house) and fill'er up. Leaving the station, I hit traffic and missed my appointment.

I suppose my point is that if your life isn't regimented, range anxiety is pretty real. That said, I know it's going to get better.

Johnny, thank you for your reviews, and viewpoints. As well as coming here!

I very much agree with most of the specifics, especially about the superior accident avoidance technology in the Mercedes.

However, I think you are quite unfair with this range anxiety issue.

Would you call a car bad because the owner didn't know how to operate the locking gas cap?

Range anxiety, as you put it, doesn't exist for most people who live with the car.

Most owners start every day with a full charge. I can certainly understand having range anxiety if you unexpectedly had low range in the morning. Likewise, if someone's gas was siphoned out of their tank overnight, they would also have range anxiety in an ice car.

I don't drive conservatively, never pay attention to using or not using the HVAC, or similar issues. I have never had range anxiety in either our 85, or 60 (42,000 miles between them).

Yes, driving electric is different. Once you get used to it though, it really is much more convenient for most people.

As a side note, I haven't been late for an appointment since driving electric. I frequently used to be because I was poor at timing my gasoline fuel ups. Starting every day with a full tank is wonderful

 

[Skotty]

And why are you all so insistent on trying to save lives that don't want to be saved? It's a free country (in the U.S. anyway). If someone wants to risk an express ride through the front windshield and up to heaven or down to hell, go for it! Me? I'll put on my seat belt, but bossy cars and neighbors looking over my shoulder every time I get into my car is extremely annoying and unnecessary.

And don't cite insurance rates. The only thing more annoying than telling me to buckle up for my safety is telling me to buckle up because it might save you money.

 

[AudubonB]

Now that this thread has moved back to discussing safety, I'm going to repeat something from my earlier post:

What are the real-life data regarding accidents in the S550? How do they compare to what has happened to occupants of Model Ss that have been in accidents? NHTSA results and discussions over how crumple zones were engineered or seat belt dingdongs have been created are mostly irrelevant if you can do real-incident comparisons.

 

[dsm363]

There does appear to be some evidence that ACC with breaking reduce insurance costs by the IIHS. Once Tesla adds this then people will have to fall back on Autobahn speeds and 'range anxiety' on why it is such an inferior car.
News releases


I do want Tesla to add this (and it appears they are already working on this) since people want it in a car this expensive and the IIHS will require it for top safety rating anyway and I'm sure Tesla knows this.

I've looked and looked and can't see where anyone has tested the S class in a crash test in at least the last 5 years. The NTHSA and the European equivalent don't test them because they are too expensive and it appears Mercedes doesn't want to pay to have them tested.
Mercedes Benz | Euro NCAP - For safer cars crash test safety rating


That doesn't make it an unsafe car as all of the other expensive Mercedes seem to get at least 4 stars. Come to think of it didn't the Model S stop 6 feet shorter or so in the video? I'll have to watch it again. I would think that is also an important safety feature.

I have found this whole exchange interesting. This comparison reminds me of that DirecTV commercial where the billionaire says 'opulence, I has it. I like the best. But I also like savings the money.'
Opulence, I has it - DirecTV commercial - YouTube

The S class is no doubt the pinnacle of luxury and tech gadgets in the ICE world and the product of 50+ years of development on the part of Mercedes. But it still runs on an ICE and gets horrendous gas mileage in order to still lose to the Model S P85+ by half a second to 60mph. Now that's impressive. Combine that with the 17" screen, software and map updates while your car sits in the garage, likely superior crash safety, instant torque and low fuel costs and I'd pick that obviously over really nice leather. The S class may has opulence but the P85+ has power, control and out of this world fuel efficiency for such a large performance sedan. Get the S550 up to 89mpg and keep the 0-60mph time at least the same and now we're talking.

When Tesla has a few years of refinement in the interior, software and battery pack under its belt, this whole comparison might seem a little unfair against the Mercedes.

- - - Updated - - -

Now that this thread has moved back to discussing safety, I'm going to repeat something from my earlier post:

What are the real-life data regarding accidents in the S550? How do they compare to what has happened to occupants of Model Ss that have been in accidents? NHTSA results and discussions over how crumple zones were engineered or seat belt dingdongs have been created are mostly irrelevant if you can do real-incident comparisons.

Well, nothing I can find on the S class but there is no reason to believe Mercedes did anything other than what Elon has said in the past (designed to pass the test). On the 2012 C class at least it got a poor rating on the off-set frontal collision which was a new test at the time and something I bet Mercedes didn't have time to design for until the newer Models.

New, more stringent crash test: 8 of 11 luxury cars perform poorly [Videos] | New and Used Car Reviews, Research & Automotive-Industry News & LeftLaneNews

- - - Updated - - -

This is 9 years old so no longer applies probably but interesting anyway (and the steel walls of the parking deck seemed to be the problem so not applicable to outside on the highway)
Mercedes test

 

[Electroman]

And yes, if you have a totally regimented life and a relatively short commute, electric cars make a tons of sense. If you don't..

I am reading this line and I am shaking my head with dis-belief that an auto journalist from a respected magazine would say this. I hope by this time after 200+ replies Jonny would have got the message:

- On the interior luxuries, he is spot on.
- On the safety and green credentials, there is always going to be some dispute and I can see how one could argue both ways

- But on the issue of range for a daily commute, implying it is a golf cart on steroids is totally disingenuous. That kind of comment from Jonny plays well into the hands of all EV nay-sayers and is so far removed from truth and reality. Thousands of owners have now driven tens of thousands of miles and not one them have remotely suggested they have range anxiety on their daily commutes. Do you think all of them are lying to justify their 100K purchase ?

 

[SlyWombat]

Your review was perfectly balanced, highlighted each vehicle and I have test drove those vehicles myself and get my Tesla P85+ next week, but your summary is more, if you want to be a fat cat, no different than the last 20 years, get the S-Class, if you want the cool tech and performance, get the Tesla. I got the Tesla, I have not retired yet to be in an S-Class

 

[mnx]

Thanks for dropping by Johnny! Started reading your stuff back in the autoblog days, I'm definitely a fan.

I haven't watched the video yet, but am going to now. (I'm sure coming here has gotten you a lot of views!)

I think we should start a fundraising campaign for auto journalists to have a 14-50 or EVSE installed in their garage prior to reviewing an EV...

(edit): watched the video

The merc has a nice interior for sure, but I prefer the spartan/minimalist interior of the Model S. The LED lighting in the Merc is kinda tacky, who wants to drive around in a nightclub (unless they're 20 years old)?

 

[Canuck]

why are you all so insistent on trying to save lives that don't want to be saved?

Agreed. It's natural selection at work.

 

[ToddRLockwood]

Jonny, I'm curious to know how long you had the Model S in your possession. I'm thinking in particular about your comment about range anxiety. I know there have been other examples of journalists who had the car for perhaps two days, but did not have a proper 240V outlet to charge the car at home the way we owners do. So they started feeling anxious when they got into day two, after a lot of aggressive driving on day one.

When one owns a Model S, the whole ritual of fueling the car becomes quite different than what we're used to. You don't wait for a Model S to get down to the last 10% before plugging it in. Instead, you plug it in every night—whether it needs it or not. So you start every day with somewhere north of 220 miles (depending on your charge settings). That changes everything. For most drivers, this is more than enough range for a typical day of driving. It's enough range that public charging stations (the generic ones) become irrelevant. For longer trips, Tesla's superchargers come into play, but in typical daily daily driving they shouldn't be needed unless you're away from home.

As for the Tesla's interior, your reaction is not unusual. The design aesthetic is quite different than the German one we've grown accustomed to. I think many people had a similar reaction to the New Beetle when it went on sale in 1998. It's classic Bauhaus—luxury defined more by design than by opulence. When I got my Model S, I was sure that I would miss the door pockets and other storage places for my "stuff." Turns out I didn't need any of that crap in the Tesla. Who needs a map pocket when you have Google navigation? I don't miss the array of buttons and knobs that were in my Audi. Putting all those controls on the touchscreen makes much more sense, and as you pointed out, it's endlessly upgradable. Bottom line: Tesla has reinvented the automobile, and it's just taking time for us to get used to the new normal.

 

[Zextraterrestrial]

and to add another odd nitpick, the 17" screen comment, about it being there and always on, you can turn it off if you want to BTW. completely black. can you do that in the S550, turn off all the lights on the center crap?