I guess it depends on the definition of "ridiculous." Toyota has been making cars for >50 years, Tesla for maybe 6 years (roadsters were made by Lotus and they had beta car problems too).
Lotus delivered gliders to Tesla which had no powertrain and no battery pack.
There's a bunch of info on how close a Roadster was to the Elise and what work Tesla did vs. Lotus, like the below:
Mythbusters Part 2: The Tesla Roadster is not a Converted Lotus Elise
Lotus Position
Lotus Engineering Newsletter Q&A with Tesla's Car Guy
(I don't have all the background info as I don't personally care much.)
So Prius C was most reliable in 2012. What about all the other models Toyota made that year?
Usually there's only one "most reliable". I suppose there could be ties.
If you look at Consumer Reports reliability ratings over via annual April auto issues or anything published in between for the last decade or more and look at Toyota/Lexus/Scion reliability ratings, you'll see the overwhelming majority across every model year will have at least average reliability, and most will be between better than average to much better than average.
There are plenty of publications/bodies that do long term (not just 3 year or "initial quality") surveys that will tell you similar stories.
It took Toyota over 50 years to get it right, which is ridiculous, but you expect Tesla to get it right the first couple thousand of a new production after only 6 years which is ridiculous?
No. It would be a miracle if Tesla delivered a vehicle that was deemed most reliable on the market within the 1st model year of a brand new car. My point of including the Prius c is to the 1st model year of a new car can be extremely reliable.
Given Tesla's track record (e.g. Model S door handles, Model S drive units (with some folks on their 8th DU), Model S MCUs, Model X FWDs and front doors, drive units in general, half shafts on the Model S and esp. on the X, etc.), one really has to wonder about their parts validation and long-term durability testing. If all their test vehicles pass w/flying colors and have standards that meet or exceed known reliable automakers, perhaps there are issues w/manufacturing consistency or not properly/fully validating running changes?
It's not been the industry norm to ship cars that are feature incomplete. And,
Tesla replaces Model 3 headlights, battery, seats, and more while going through ‘production hell’ isn't the norm either. Bob Lutz (yeah, yeah I know) asserted those "production" Model 3's sold to employees would be called "production-intent prototypes not for sale".
Quote below from
Tesla's Model 3 'production hell' is testing Elon Musk's fix-as-you-go carmaking model:
Tesla turned the first 30 Model 3s over to paying customers — all Tesla employees – at the July event. The company said regular customers will begin receiving Model 3s by the end of October.
It's common practice for carmakers to let employees try out fresh cars as the assembly line is being tweaked before production begins in earnest. But those cars don't generate revenue for the company.
“At GM or Ford or Toyota, they call those vehicles ‘production-intent prototypes not for sale,’” said Bob Lutz, a legendary car executive whose career spanned BMW, Ford, Chrysler and General Motors. By selling cars when the factory remains in “production hell,” Lutz said, “you’ve got an increased risk of having problems with the vehicles. You’re putting quality at risk for the sake of a PR event.”
