You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They were really shiny
I'm glad they do not actually. It's a car magazine, not a climatology review magazine. Tesla needs to make the best cars, period. That means they drive the best, look the best, are priced fairly, etc. If you have to rely on "being green" to sell cars you've lost. If you want to "be green" you should buy a 30-year old Geo Metro as the environmental impact of that is way less than all the batteries, aluminum, and electronics in a Model S. Or you should ride a bicycle
I agree the reviewer was weirdly swayed by the interior and I encounter people all the time who are in the "if it doesn't make lots of noise it isn't fast" camp and the only way to sway those people is to blow their doors off w/ the performance of the car, not making eco arguments.
I feel it's a double-edged sword. You may well turn off as many people as you turn on with talk of climate change. It's just too polarizing of an issue. I didn't buy Tesla's because I wanted to save the earth. I bought them because nothing can compare to the driving experience and total package. It's just a better way to drive - gobs of torque, no shifting, low CG (for Model S anyway), rear-facing seats and frunk due to EV packaging, etc.Whilst I agree with you up to a point about MT being a car magazine as opposed to an environmental journal, I have to side with artsci on this matter...the fact is, the MB is a socially (environmental) irresponsible choice...If we continue to let car magazines off the hook on this issue, it will slow down the adoption of EV's in general...
I feel it's a double-edged sword. You may well turn off as many people as you turn on with talk of climate change. It's just too polarizing of an issue. I didn't buy Tesla's because I wanted to save the earth. I bought them because nothing can compare to the driving experience and total package. It's just a better way to drive - gobs of torque, no shifting, low CG (for Model S anyway), rear-facing seats and frunk due to EV packaging, etc.
You also can't get into the green aspects because it's so dependent on where you live and where your power comes from. You live in Canada and you all have lots of hydro power. That's some super clean power although you're murdering or preventing the spawning of millions of fish every year with your dams (I say that with tongue in cheek but do you see how the topic has quickly left the realm of cars and now goes down the rat hole of fish ladders and other things that have nothing to do with cars?). But for someone in a heavy coal area the math flips and a modern diesel is arguably cleaner than an EV. Then what about nuclear? Great for CO2 but we still don't have a good plan for dealing with the waste. So which is "more green" then?
And you have to re-visit the role of "trusted advisor" where you ascribe some kind of expert status to the person doing the reviewing and so can trust their judgements. Would you take advice on what TV to buy from Bon Appetite? It's the same thing. Auto journalists have no credibility when talking about the environment.
All that to say, I firmly believe that issues of the environment will never win over an auto enthusiast. EVs will have to be better cars if they want to win (or wait for the oil to run out).
I feel it's a double-edged sword. You may well turn off as many people as you turn on with talk of climate change. It's just too polarizing of an issue.
All that to say, I firmly believe that issues of the environment will never win over an auto enthusiast. EVs will have to be better cars if they want to win (or wait for the oil to run out).
While I understand the argument that people will be turned off by talk about climate change, people had better learn soon to change their behavior and choices or the planet will make us all irrelevant. It doesn't care about the politics or whether people are turned on off by the bad news of climate change. It just follows the laws of physics, which right now are not on humanity's side. Strider is right. Given that ICE's are a major source of the problem, we can't continue to let car magazines off the hook on this issue, especially when they give adoring praise to gas guzzlers like the MB.
a Tesla Model S P85 and a MB S550 pull into a parking lot. Who get's the girl (or guy as the case might be)?? Got to concede that point dontcha?! Cheers!
Agree with Robert. I don't care how nice the interior if it cost $12,600 a year to fuel (200 miles a day times 5 days a week for 48 weeks with $4.20 a gallon). He said he drove 250-300 miles so discounting some miles there. If those daily long drives were along Supercharger routes then you're talking about extra time each day but significant savings a year. Over 5 years you're talking about a $50,000 savings. That buys a custom leather interior upgrade to the Model S and you'd still come out ahead.
Oh pleaseYou betcha! Buttons galore and disco lights rule.
They even mentioned you could buy a GT and another base Mustang for the price of the M3. Guess what they picked....
Motortrend is very anti American cars. I remember in 2011 when they compared the M3 to the Mustang GT. Mustang out accelerated, out braked and pulled more g's then the M3. They even mentioned you could buy a GT and another base Mustang for the price of the M3. Guess what they picked....