The Slick Magazines

[tonybelding]

Today I picked up my copies of. . .

• Automobile
• Car and Driver
• Road & Track

R&T has the briefest Tesla coverage, only two pages. It's pretty much a no-nonsense article heavy on facts, light on opinions and analysis.

C&D has five pages, though the first two are little more than a photo spread. They have a few gripes, citing: "Expensive for performance, iffy shifter, unknown reliability and life cycle," and calling it "not quite practical". But they also have a scattering of good things to say, calling it "proof that an electric car can work" (that's sort of faint praise, isn't it?) and citing the: "Intoxicating midrange powertrain response, user-friendly operation, realistic range."

Hmm. . . It has more range than any previous BEV -- by far -- and the best they can admit is that it's "realistic". Oh well. . . If you know of C&D's past comments disparaging electric cars, this article represents at least a 90-degree turn. I'm sure 180 degrees would have been too much to hope for. They're a hard-nosed bunch over there.

And then there's Automobile. . . They have a blue Roadster on the cover, headlining the issue. It starts with a 3-1/2 page photo spread and continues to a whopping nine total pages of Tesla coverage. And it's highly positive.

Here's a sample: "The experience made a believer out of me. And I'm convinced that it'll do the same for any car enthusiast who gets a chance to drive one." That pretty well sums up the tone of the article.

 

[stopcrazypp]

"Expensive for performance, iffy shifter, unknown reliability and life cycle," and calling it "not quite practical".

That kind of reflects the views of most performance car reviewers (and online commenters). They always look for the most performance for your money, and they don't care much for the EV part of it, so you can't really expect too much enthusiasm.
The shifter was pretty crappy by most accounts so I don't doubt that either.
You basically can't really all out praise it or hate it since it's not finalized.

I might go out and pick up some of those magazines and see for myself. Seems like there's decent coverage on most of the magazines.

 

[vfx]

I have not picked up the Automobile yet but be sure to get Motor Trend with a tiny cover pic and Kim's praise for the car. Two page spread and two more pages of copy and pics.

Quote: "There's no shutter, jutter,, smoke whiff, cowl shake, nothing. I'm being eerily teleported down the barel of a rail gun, head pulled back by a hard steady acceleration. Bizzare."

They all seemed to justify the coverage of the car by grouping it with other major manafacturer's (psydo) green cars even though the Smart car coverage they did last month might have been a better pairing than say the GMC Yukon Hybrid.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I have not picked up the Automobile yet but be sure to get Motor Trend with a tiny cover pic and Kim's praise for the car. Two page spread and two more pages of copy and pics.

I just read through 4 of them: Automobile, Car & Driver, Motor Trend, and Road & Track. I personally just went to the library and took pictures of all of the Tesla articles so I can read them in my own leisure.

Automobile by far had the most coverage. The Roadster taking up the whole cover, with 9 sides devoted to the Roadster. With 4 sides of the 9 being large pictures of the roadster. So I would get that if you are planning on getting one of the magazines.
Car & Driver had 5 sides for the Roadster, but no front cover picture. 2 sides of the 5 was a large picture also.
Motor Trend had the Roadster on the cover, and had 4 sides. 2 of the 4, again was a large picture of the roadster.
Road & Track had only two sides for the roadster. No cover or large picture.

Both Motor Trend and Road & Track had their stories avaliable online, and the stories in the magazines are the same ones, so keep that in mind if you are planning to pick them up.

Interesting point to note is the Car&Driver said that "standard mode" in the roadster gives only 165 miles of range. "Maximum range mode" is what gives the 220 miles. I haven't heard that before; have any of you heard that?
As someone mentioned before, the 30-50mph and 50-70mph was impressive, both just 2.3 for a total of 4.6 besting the fastest ever tested in the CLK63 AMG Black series, $138,000, 500hp, 30 to 50 mph in 2.0 seconds and from 50 to 70 mph in 2.7 seconds, (total 4.7 seconds, off by 0.1 seconds from the roadster).

Some of the specs don't agree on the magazines, but I might as well post the specs, with discrepancies having magazine name in quotes:

Base Price: $98,000 (C&D & R&T), $98,950 (Automobile & Motor Trend),
248bhp @ 8200 rpm
211 lb-ft @ 0 rpm (200 lb-ft @ 0 rpm C&D, probably misreported)
2 speed Dual-Clutch (DSG style), three-shaft, automatic (manual shift) 1st Gear 4.20:1, 2nd 2.17:1, final drive 3.41:1, wet clutches servo operated & computer controlled- CANCELLED for now.
Unassisted rack-and-pinion steering
Control arms, coil springs f/r suspension
Vented discs, ABS
Yokohama Advan Neova Tires F/R: 175/55WR-16, 225/45WR-17

Wheelbase: 92.6in
Length: 155.4in
Width: 69.0in (C&D) 68.6 or 73.7? (Automobile) 67.8? (R&T)
Height: 44.4in
Track f/r: 57.6/59.0in
Weight: 2690lbs Distribution f/r: 35%/65%
Range: 220 miles (mfr) 80 miles, 40% remaining, "Standard mode" with expected 165miles range (C&D), 93 miles, 95%-7% charge, back up to 21% charge in "Conservation mode", same as "maximum range mode"? (Autoweek online, didn't read magazine)

C&D Test Results:
0-30 mph: 1.7 sec
40 2.4
50 3.6
60 5.0 (C&D back summary), 4.4 (C&D article text, shift at 62mph), 6.0 (C&D 1speed), 3.9 (mfr), 4.0 (Motor Trend), 4.7 (Automobile)
70 6.2
80 7.7
90 9.8
100 11.7, 12.7 (Automobile)
110 15.2
Street start, 30-50 mph: 2.3 sec, 50-70 2.3 sec
Standing 1/4 mile: 13.3 sec @ 104mph (C&D shift at 45mph), 13.6 @103mph (Automobile), 14.3 (C&D 1speed)
Top speed: 125mph

Additional Automobile specs:
Peak Accel: 0.74g
Braking, 70-0 mph: 213ft
Peak Braking: 0.83g
MPH Gears: 1) 65 2) 125

All specs listed were for the VP9 two speed unless otherwise noted (one speed was VP10 locked into second gear). Keep in mind none of the specs were on production vehicles, and all in non-ideal damp or wet conditions.

 

[TEG]

Width: 69.0in (C&D) 68.6 or 73.7? (Automobile) 67.8? (R&T)

There are different ways to measure width. Mirror to mirror... Door handle to door handle, etc.

Here, Tesla says "Overall width - incl. mirrors (in. / mm) 73.7 / 1873" so the main difference is if they include the mirrors or not.

I ran into similar discrepancies when looking at "turning circle" vs "turning radius" vs "turning diameter" published for various vehicles.
(I don't think I have seen any of those values ever published for the Roadster)

 

[tonybelding]

Best case scenario?

Actually, that glowing article in Automobile also had one somewhat noteworthy flub. . .

"Tesla claims an anticipated range of 220 miles. But that is very much a best-case scenario."

Best case? 220 is the EPA rating; it's far from the worst case, but it's not the best either. Tesla claim they've gotten over 260 miles under more ideal driving conditions.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Actually, that glowing article in Automobile also had one somewhat noteworthy flub. . .

"Tesla claims an anticipated range of 220 miles. But that is very much a best-case scenario."

Best case? 220 is the EPA rating; it's far from the worst case, but it's not the best either. Tesla claim they've gotten over 260 miles under more ideal driving conditions.

That kind of goes along with the "standard" mode and "maximum range" mode question I was asking about. Seems that in "standard" mode you can only expect 165 miles. In "maximum range" mode you can expect 220. I have a feeling "maximum range" mode is the mode that was mentioned in autoweek, where the torque was reduced to half. That's just more flack for Tesla haters.
As much as these articles try to cover the roadster, it is still not the final production specs, so we can't really say anything too surely. Seeing as most of the magazines got far under 200 miles in their drive (keeping in mind it was spirited driving) they probably feel 220 is a best case scenario.
Of course siry touched on this point before, how in a gasoline car you don't really bother to measure range in such test drives, but in an EV you would as it's on the information screen anyways.