Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Model X in Edmunds long-term test fleet

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Funny example as Americans have been complaining about the lack of cup holder in German cars for a long time.
I still don't understand why it's such a big deal as I pretty much only use them for my phone and use a bottle for long trips, but for some reason you Americans seem to care a lot about them.

Maybe it is because traffic is so bad here that it is natural to drive to work with a cup of coffee. Besides, a "long" trip here could be only 10 miles that takes 45 minutes.
 
You complained that there was a failure "to criticize the others for having too much noise, smell, vibration"

I asked which $140k cars you test drove that have too much noise, smell and vibration.

Don't take this response too seriously (not a sedan), but: Acura NSX 2017 | Acura.com

160k. There won't be much smell, as Honda makes pretty clean burning engines, but noise and vibration? You bet! VTEC kicks in A LOT!
 
You are moving the goalposts.

You complained that there was a failure "to criticize the others for having too much noise, smell, vibration"

I asked which $140k cars you test drove that have too much noise, smell and vibration.

The reason people aren't criticing other luxury cars for "too much noise, smell and vibration" is that it isn't a valid criticism. Go test drive a LS460 or S550 or 7 Series and tell me that the press missed the boat for not criticising them for "too much noise, smell, vibration". I'll wait.

That is no more valid than criticizing a car that gets 35 MPG just because other cars may exist that get 40 MPG.

Not moving any goalposts, I just have no interest in playing on the field where you've set yours up. I never claimed to have driven $140k cars - what I said was that combustion cars have "too much noise, smell, vibration, etc." I could have added "when compared to an EV", but I thought that was readily apparent. And I wasn't literally demanding criticism of ICEs - it was a way to phrase a request for a more balanced picture instead of the blind conclusion in the review that a car in a certain price range requires a certain level of luxury.

I sure hope that the $140k combustion cars are doing their best to hide the fact that there are constant explosions of flammable liquid occurring under the hood. Despite their efforts, due to the physical properties of the universe, a combustion car will always have a noisier drivetrain with more vibration than an EV. I'll concede the smell issue may only occur when refueling.

Those were really just the first ICE drawbacks that came to mind - I could have just as easily mentioned some of the other ones like the inherent acceleration lag, lack of home refueling, oil changes, etc. My point was simply that one can't compare two cars at a given price and knock one of them for being deficient in what the other one specializes in.

Analogy: A pitcher and a clean-up hitter both have $40 million contracts. A sportswriter criticizes the hitter for not being able to throw strikes as well as the pitcher, even though they're making the same amount of money, while ignoring all the home runs that the hitter hits that the pitcher can't.
 
Don't take this response too seriously (not a sedan), but: Acura NSX 2017 | Acura.com

160k. There won't be much smell, as Honda makes pretty clean burning engines, but noise and vibration? You bet! VTEC kicks in A LOT!

And the NSX also doesn't have nearly as much luxury as a car in its price range should have. /sarcasm

Oh, the NSX doesn't claim to be a luxury car? Neither does the Model X.
 
But one should expect luxury when they spend over $100k on a car

I haven't had a chance to sit inside a Model X yet, so my only frame of reference is a loaded Model S P90D. My impression of the S P90D's interior was that it was pleasant and minimalist, or sort of Apple-like in design. The materials were of decent quality, but they did not scream opulence and richness.

Is the Model X a step up from Model S, or about the same?

I wonder if the difference in perception of interior quality between a Tesla and German competitors has to do with the design, materials, or a combination of both.
 
I hate that Tesla gets extra scrutiny. I wish they'd go the other way and say that the technology implementation is crap in cars that cost more than a Model X and S but no, they never do.

I hope that no one seriously accuses Edmunds of having an anti-Tesla bias.
Edmunds' Model S was a very unreliable car. It left them stranded, received - how many? - I believe four(!) new drivetrains, a new battery pack, a new sunroof, a new central screen etc. etc etc.
Any new ICE with such a record would have been called a disaster, a lemon, yet they reported quite positively on the Model S. They also didn't bang on about the car's limitations on long range trips- limitations that still exist to some degree today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: newtman
One of the Edmunds editors took the X on a road trip with a trailer (including some off road time). The first part of the review is up. Generally, they were very positive on the trailer and some aspects of using an X to tow it, but the preview of part 2 of the review, which is not yet up, strongly hints that there were serious issues with range while towing...

I just took a look at the editor's twitter feed from his trip and it looks like the range issue is that even with a relatively light load (the trailer weighed about 1200 lbs), the X was using between 700 and 900Wh/mi.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Dr ValueSeeker
Aren't there serious issues with any vehicles range when towing?

I assume that they are taking their experience with other vehicles into account. And it's important to distinguish range from mpg (or equivalents). I just towed a much heavier load in my F150 from SF to Reno and back and while my mileage dropped from the usual 19 mpg to about 13 mpg, because I have a 36 gallon fuel tank I had no problem with range. It's 210 miles each way and I was able to make the round trip on one tank of gas. So range is definitely not an issue with my truck when towing, even though MPG takes a hit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: newtman
I just took a look at the editor's twitter feed from his trip and it looks like the range issue is that even with a relatively light load (the trailer weighed about 1200 lbs), the X was using between 700 and 900Wh/mi.

So that's a range of like 100 miles max; 75 miles if we include some safety buffer and detour consideration for super chargers.
Even if there were superchargers at every 75 miles with no waiting, the hassle of removing the trailer at those SCs to charge and spending 30-60 minutes every 1 hour pretty much rules out long distance towing.
Mind you, Edmunds' tests are in sunny & warm southern California. What happens in colder regions, especially in winter, is anyone's guess.
 
So that's a range of like 100 miles max; 75 miles if we include some safety buffer and detour consideration for super chargers.
Even if there were superchargers at every 75 miles with no waiting, the hassle of removing the trailer at those SCs to charge and spending 30-60 minutes every 1 hour pretty much rules out long distance towing.
Mind you, Edmunds' tests are in sunny & warm southern California. What happens in colder regions, especially in winter, is anyone's guess.

Those numbers aren't in line with others who have towed heavier loads. According to the tweet that usage was uphill with a headwind. I'd like to see their average over the entire trip.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JohnSnowNW
I was told by a TM sales rep to expect about 150 miles of range (versus 250 rated) if I was towing something with a trailer of about 3,000 lbs. Like it or not, the fact is range is significantly reduced in the X if you are towing. Not comparable/correlated to ICE vehicles, as noted above.

Adjusting for real conditions, I'd say assume you lose 50% of range. Again, other real world tests show better results, but if you're getting the X to tow, expect 50% and you shouldn't be disappointed.
 
Those numbers aren't in line with others who have towed heavier loads. According to the tweet that usage was uphill with a headwind. I'd like to see their average over the entire trip.

Their trip was in the empty parts of eastern California and Arizona with little traffic and high speed limits, and motor journalists tend to like to use the Go pedal.

I suspect an 80+ mph average speed has more to do with the efficiency numbers than the trailer weight - but that's just a guess at the moment.
 
I suspect an 80+ mph average speed has more to do with the efficiency numbers than the trailer weight - but that's just a guess at the moment.

Read the article. The driver scrupulously observed CA's 55mph trailer speed limit and rarely took advantage of AZ's higher limit due to range anxiety. There were occasions he drove 53mph with A/C off when worried about range. He was overcautious about topping off the battery so some of the supercharge stops were longer than they needed to be. But the conclusion of the article was fair: taking 2 days to drive from SoCal to Flagstaff because of speed/charging time means using a BEV for towing is not competitive with ICE vehicles.

I'm a delighted new Model S90D owner and I believe BEV's should receive widespread acceptance over time for most consumer driving applications. But towing a trailer for any significant road trip distance is not yet an application for which a BEV is practical IMHO. Those 600-900Wh/mi power consumption numbers are crazy, and of course it doesn't help that the X is a heavier vehicle with worse aerodynamics than the S. We drive our S90D at 80+ routinely on road trips and average 355wH/mi.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: e-FTW and Eclectic